Loading...
8. Consultant Selection for Meridian RoadiheClryof Kalispell Incorporated 1892 Telephone (406) 758-7700 - Douglas Rauthe FAX (406) 758-7758 Mayor Post Office Box 1997 Zip 59903-1997 Bruce Williams City Manager TO: Bruce Williams, City Manager City council Members: FROM: Robert H. Babb, City Engineer Gary W. Nystul Ward I DATE: July 27, 1995 Cliff Collins Ward I SUBJECT: Consultant Selection for Meridian Road Redesign Project Barbara Moses Ward If For over a year, I have been working with the MDOT people in the Consultant Dale Haarr selection for the Meridian Road Redesign Project from Idaho Street to U.S. HWY 93. Ward 11 The process required by the MDOT was followed and Fred Zavodny, John Wilson Jim Atkinson and myself were evaluator of the Consultant for the City. Initially five firms submitted Ward III RFD's and three firms were selected to submit final proposals. The final 3 firms were: Lauren Granmo Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc., Robert Peccia & Associates and Carter and Burgess. Ward III Pamela B. Kennedy All firms submitted proposals with cost estimates. The three City Evaluators have Ward IV ranked these three and unanimously agree that the firm of Robert Peccia & Associates M. Duane Larson should be recommended to the MDOT as the "Preferred Consultant". Ward IV I am requesting that the Council and the Mayor authorize me to submit this recommendation to the MDOT who will negotiate a contract. t ' jllO �Jll�l Incorporated 1892 Telephone (406) 752-6600 Douglas Rauthe FAX (406) 752-6639 Mayor Post Office Box 1997 Zip 59903-1997 Bruce Williams TO: Robert H. Babb, City Engineer City Manager City Council FROM: Fred Zavodny, Project Manager Members. Gary W. Nystul DATE: August 7, 1995 Ward I Cliff Collins SUBJECT: Design Engineer Selection/North Meridian Road Ward I Barbara Moses Ward II Carter Burgess, Robert Peccia & Associates and Thomas, Dean & Hoskins were Dale Haarr invited to submit final proposals on the North Meridian Road Project. Robert Peccia Ward 11 & Associates scored 15 points higher than the second highest firm on my review. Jim Atkinson Peccia's understanding of the overall project requirements was, in my opinion, Ward III superior to the other firms. I was able to understand their approach to the project on Lauren Granmo the first reading of the proposal. My decision was influenced by the content of Ward III Peccia's bar chart project schedule. It is well organized, easy to follow and Pamela B. Kennedy categorizes the time frame for the various subdivisions of the project at a glance. Ward Iv Based on Peccia's final proposal I believe they are the most qualified firm for this M. Duane Larson project. ward w ' 1010 isl Incorporated 1892 Telephone (406) 752-6600 Douglas Rauthe FAX (406) 752-6639 Mayor Post Office Box 1997 Zip 59903-1997 Bruce Williams City Manager TO: Bruce Williams, City Manager City Council FROM: Robert H. Babb, City Engineer Members: Gary W. Nystul DATE: August 7, 1995 Ward I Cliff Collins SUBJECT: Consultant selection for Meridian. Road design Ward 1 Barbara Moses Ward II I have included the tally sheets from Fred Zavodny, John Wilson and myself as we Dale Haarr individually and separately evaluated the Final Proposals as submitted by the firms on Ward II our short list. Each of us spent over five hours on this evaluation and it was Jim Atkinson unanimous as to the firm we felt had submitted the best and most complete proposal. ward III I have also submitted a copy of the cover letters from both TD&H and Robert Peccia Lauren Granmo & Associates that I feel in their own way sums up these companys' proposals. All Ward III three final firms asked for an informal face to face meeting which I granted the week Pamela B. Kennedy of June 26 - 30. Each firm extolled the strong points of their companies at these Ward IV meetings. M. Duane Larson Ward IV After the three of us met with our evaluations, I let Fred and John see the cost estimates. This only reinforced our previous rankings. One point of interest is that TD&H left five items of engineering that would amount to additional costs to the City. I am including separate comments from Fred & John as to why they made their selection. If I can be of further assistance please let me know. W cll� nV I� Incorporated 1892 Telephone (406) 752-6600 Douglas Rauthe FAX (406) 752-6639 Mayor Post Office Box 1997 Zip 59903-1997 Bruce Williams City Manager Memorandum City Council Members: Date: August 7, 1995 Gary W. Nystul To: Bruce Williams, City Manager Ward I /,' ` From: John Wilson, Assistant City Engineer LC..1 Cliff Collins Re: Meridian Road Reconstruction Ward I Recommendation for Engineering Consultant Barbara Moses Ward II As you know, we have considered a short list of consultants for the Meridian Road Dale Haarr Reconstruction project with the review of final proposals. The final ranking was ward 11 unanimous with Peccia and Associates as our first choice. Jim Atkinson Ward III In my opinion, Peccia gave the clearest and most complete explanation of their Lauren Granmo understanding and approach to the project. Their proposal included a reasonable and Ward III well considered work plan, with thorough consideration of data collection, analysis, Pamela B. Kennedy design and public involvement. ward IV M. Duane Larson Peccia will use Smith Surveying, a local firm, for field survey work. With offices in Ward IV Helena, they are well positioned to coordinate administrative and design issues with MDOT. Meetings will typically be scheduled in advance, but Peccia can also be on site the following day, which is more than adequate through the design phase. ROBERT R P A PECCIA cat ASSOCIATES June 28, 1995 Civil, Transportation & Environmental Engineers Mr. Robert Babb, P. E City Engineer City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 Subject: STPU 5701(5) North Meridian Road - Kalispell, Montana Control No. 2950 Dear Bob: Robert Peccia and Associates is very pleased to submit this Final Proposal for North Meridian Road. We appreciate being considered for the final selection. As you know, we are very interested in providing engineering services to the City of Kalispell for completion of the design and plans for this project. The attached Final Proposal contains a detailed description of our understanding of the project, a detailed description of our approach to the project, our proposed organization/work plan, a person -hour breakdown of our proposed services, and the additional information requested in the RFP relative to right-of-way acquisition, public involvement, and our methods of keeping the City Engineering staff involved and informed. Our cost proposal is included in a separate envelope. We trust that all of this will meet with your approval. We have an excellent understanding of this project, and of the services needed to complete it and get it ready for letting. Based on our reviews and discussions, along with our experience on other projects, we believe this project is a relatively straightforward urban design, although with some complexities related to drainage, intersections, and provision of an appropriate grade line. We believe that a good common-sense approach, with the application of some practical design measures, are what is needed on this project. Our initial goal will be to complete the right-of-way and utility plans as early as possible so that right-of-way acquisition can be started, and utility agreements prepared. We will complete the right-of-way plans for this project ii: time for acquisition to begin by February, 1996, and the construction plans by December 9, 1996 as requested in the final RFP. We will also complete the utility pans about the same time as the right-of-way plans so negotiations with utility companies and preparations of the agreements can be started. We have the staff and the experience to meet these deadlines and maintain our proposed schedule. P.O. Box 5653 825 Custer Helena, Montana 59604 t406) 442.8160 FAX (406) 443-6324 Mr. Robert Babb, P.E. June 28, 1995 Page 2 The enclosed person -hour estimate is our best estimate, based on our understanding of the project, of the hours we believe will be required to complete this project, and to provide a quality set of plans. As you will note, a significant part of the person -hours are for subconsultants. Several subs were included with the assumption that the decision as to whether or not to use them would be made at a later date. Also, the right-of-way phase of the project is difficult to estimate at this point, and that person -hour estimate may be high. Elimination of some subs and other changes as design progresses could result in significant reductions in overall person hours for the project. All of this is subject to negotiation and discussion following selection, and we believe a mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached. Our overhead rates for 1994 have been audited in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations, and have been submitted to MDT. It is our understanding that the rates have been approved; therefore, we used them to prepare our cost proposal for this project. We are proposing to use three DBE firms as subconsultants on this project. They are Burdick and Company, GCM Services, and Fischer and Associates. These three firms exceed the five percent (5 %) DBE participation required. As requested, each firm's DBE Certification is included in the proposal. I will serve as the Project Manager for this project. Your favorable consideration of this proposal will be appreciated. We look forward to working with the City of Kalispell on this project. Sincerely, ROBERT PECCIA & ASSOCIATES Gordon L. Larson, P.E. GLL/rmb Enclosure F:\PROPOSLS\HIGHWAYS%MERIDIAN\FINAL\0628RB. LTR THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 00 T:,ienty-Fifth Street c , n • Great Fails. Montana 59405. 1406) 761-3010 • FAX (406) 727-2872 June 28, 1995 RE: Request for Final Proposals - STPU 6701(5) - North Meridian Road - Kalispell, CN 2950 Robert Babb, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 TD&H's design team is pleased to submit this final proposal for your consideration. The following information conforms to your request for proposals of June 8, 1995. a. Understanding of project b. Approach to the special project C. Organization/work plan d. Manhour Estimate e. Overhead Rate f. Cost Estimate (in separate envelope) g. Additional Information - h. Other Information i. DBE certification letters With our office in Kalispell, which is located on North Meridian Drive, and our experienced design team, TD&H can provide the City of Kalispell quality, timely and efficient service. Our record with the MDT, in maintaining tight project schedules, demonstrates the ability to complete your project in the proposed time frame and produce a quality design to upgrade Kalispell's transportation network. OFFICES IN GREAT FALLS. BOZEMAN. KALISPELL AND SPOKANE Robert Babb, P.E. June 28, 1995 Page 2 We would welcome an opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, THOMAS. EAN=SKINS, INC. VV xJUJ W. Fraser, V.P., R. Fisher, P.E. jeb Enc. Ex-+ Ix zz U) W M t^t1 co H O F O i M S �✓ J _ a J 1 � 4 m �V( C Z a 4 a r r Z f\ v N Z O v U r co I-- m¢ V) L cc C3 d ud M F- Z U r m U C¢O i V \ V F f C7 Z r N OC W Ua N c N N 0 r r o r � J U cU N N a U U Vs �J ra July , 1995 CONSULTANT SELECTION NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION RATING FORM FIRM NAME C k',R-T, - R. a-k� f� r'Zzn -15 LOCATION M L<' 5r-, u, — +X RATER Z, A -I 0 � ►J DATE --la—ASS 1. UNDERSTANDING_OF_AND QUALITY OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - 100 POINTS MAXIMUM a) Clarity of consultant's response and understanding of the Department's project requirements.......... .................................30 Points Maximum __2S b) Consultant's ability to communicate the firm's approach to project issues ....... 30 Points Maximum 2 c) Organization of Consultant's work plan............ .................................20 Points Maximum _117 d) Responses to request for additional information .. .................................20 Points Maximum LQ TOTAL = -1 -!�;- 593-4.sgc July , 1995 CONSULTANT SELECTION NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION RATING FORM FIRM NAME T -k �4 LOCATION L_ RATER DATE 1. UNDERSTANDING OF AND QUALITY OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - 100 POINTS MAXIMUM a) Clarity of consultant's response and understanding of the Department's project requirements.......... .................................30 Points Maximum ZC' b) Consultant's ability to communicate the firm's approach to project issues ....... 30 Points Maximum _3 c c) Organization of Consultant's work plan............ .................................20 Points Maximum ___4� d) Responses to request for additional information .. .................................20 Points Maximum TOTAL = sS 593-4.sgc July , 1995 CONSULTANT SELECTION NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION RATING FORM FIRM NAME aGG i LOCATION j�EL Wit., RATER 0,w DATE 1. UNDERSTANDING OF AND QUALITY OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - 100 POINTS MAXIMUM a) Clarity of consultant's response and understanding of the Department's project requirements.......... ..30 Points Maximum o b) Consultant's ability to communicate the firm's approach to project issues ....... 30 Points Maximum Q c) Organization of Consultant's work plan............ ............................ ....20 Points Maximum d) Responses to request for additional information .. .................................20 Points Maximum Zo TOTAL = too 593-4.sgc July , 1995 CONSULTANT SELECTION NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION RATING FORM FIRM NAME ;9ECG�!-� LOCATION f1EZ- 4WIf RATERy4�0 DATE-7113f9J 1. UNDERSTANDING OF AND QUALITY OF RESPONSE TO_REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - 100 POINTS MAXIMUM a) Clarity of consultant's response and understanding of the Department's project requirements.......... ........................... Z�...30 Points Maximum b) Consultant's ability to communicate the firm's approach to project issues..?? ... 30 Points Maximum c) Organization of Consultant's work plan............ ............................1�....20 Points Maximum d) Responses to request for additional information .. ............................'?....20 Points Maximum TOTAL = 69 593-4.sgc b i sCv ss ScH�Dv� July , 1995 CONSULTANT SELECTION NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION RATING FORM FIRM NAME 7".S/Aww: d 15�4LJ e /{os --1,15 LOCATION IM16 OElL RATER VCLto DATE f�95 1. UNDERSTANDING OF AND QUALITY OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - 100 POINTS MAXIMUM a) Clarity of consultant's response and understanding of the Department's project requirements.......... ............................ ....30 Points Maximum b) Consultant's ability to communicate the firm's approach to project issues.?7.... 30 Points Maximum c) Organization of Consultant's work plan............ ...........................:&....20 Points Maximum d) Responses to request for additional information .. ............................'.....20 Points Maximum TOTAL = 87 593-4.sgc July , 1995 CONSULTANT SELECTION NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION RATING FORM FIRM NAME G`�I�TPy('G ASS LOCATION RATER DATE 1. UNDERSTANDING OF AND QUALITY OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - 100 POINTS MAXIMUM a) Clarity of consultant's response and understanding of the Department's project requirements.......... ............................. ...30 Points Maximum b) Consultant's ability to communicate the firm's approach to project issues..? ..30 Points Maximum c) Organization of Consultant's work plan............ ............................. I":..20 Points Maximum d) Responses to request for additional information .. .............................S ..20 Points Maximum TOTAL = 8.6' 593-4.sgc July 5, 1995 CONSULTANT SELECTION NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION RATING FORM FIRM NAME R©dER.T �E(:!GIR AS50CIAJ-F-s LOCATION 4ai..c0 A i M 1 RATER �aE��RT DATE 1. UNDERSTANDING_ OF AND OUALITY OF RESPONSE TO_REOUEST FOR PROPOSAL - 100 POINTS MAXIMUM a) Clarity of consultant's response and understanding Z,6 of the Department's project requirements.......... .................................30 Points Maximum b) Consultant's ability to communicate the firm's 28 approach to project issues ....... 30 Points Maximum c) Organization of Consultant's work plan.........:.'. <j .................................20 Points Maximumf d) Responses to request for additional information u.,m Z,0 .................................20 Points Maxi/ TOTAL = 593-4.sgc July 5, 1995 CONSULTANT SELECTION NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION RATING FORM FIRM NAME 1140MAS Di;A-l� 4 t4o5 y t IJs , loc. RATER A is is �y D• 1. UNDERSTANDING OF AND QUALITY OF RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PROPOSAL - 100 POINTS MAXIMUM a) Clarity of consultant's response and understanding of the Department's project requirements .......... L-% .................................30 Points Maximum b) Consultant's ability to communicate the firm's approach to project issues ....... 30 Points Maximum Z 7 c) Organization of Consultant's work plan............ .................................20 Points Maximum 15 d) Responses to request for additional information .. 145 .................................20 Points MaXW TOTAL = 593-4.sgc July 5, 1995 CONSULTANT SELECTION NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION RATING FORM FIRM NAME ag.- E(Z. 17t&6 �-S 5 LOCATION M j STS 00 �At RATER ID DATE J l.) L -4 r. 119 5 1. UNDERSTANDING OF AND _QUALITY OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - 100 POINTS MAXIMUM a) Clarity of consultant's response and understanding of the Department's project requirements........... ................. ...............30 Points Maximum b) Consultant's ability to communicate the firm's 2 S approach to project issues ....... 30 Points Maximum c) Organization of Consultant's work plan............ 10 .................................20 Points Maximum d) Responses to request for additional information .. /� .................................20 Points Maxi TOTAL = 593-4.sgc