Title
RESOLUTION APPROVING AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR RECREATION CENTER ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS DESIGN SERVICES
Body
Summary and Background Information:
As part of the Measure 2K Bond Program, the City plans to renovate portions of the existing recreation center located at 6060 E. Parkway Drive and to construct additions that were identified through prior efforts, including community meetings and consultation with the Capital Improvement Program Citizen Advisory Committee, Parks, Recreation and Golf Advisory Committee, and City Council members. This contract will provide preliminary and final design services for these renovations and additions.
Project Goals:
This project is intended to produce the following:
• Design of additions/renovations to the recreation center including the features described in the Request For Proposal (RFP)
• Completing the project on a fixed schedule, and modifying design and schedule to fixed budget
• Design that incorporates environmentally sustainable design principles and features that can be easily identified, quantified, priced, and measured after construction. No formal certification level of sustainability will be required.
• Design of finish materials and systems considers maintenance costs and component replacement
• Design optimizes continuing use of portions of the recreation center during construction and minimizes the duration of any total closure periods
• Other goals identified in program verification(s) or identified during contract negotiations, as determined by the City.
• Coordination with project phasing, scheduling, and budget while assisting in prioritizing upgrades with selected CMGC.
Bidding and Selection Process:
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Preliminary and Final Design Services for Additions/ Renovations to the Commerce City Recreation Center was published on November 23, 2016. There were 2 addenda issued to the RFP, none of which changed the proposal due date. Three proposals were received on January 11, 2017, the due date established by the RFP.
Proposals were received from the following firms (in alphabetical order):
• Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture (BRS)
• Essenza Architecture
• Ohlson Lavoie Collaborative (OLC)
The Proposal, Interview and Fee Proposal were scored separately based upon the following criteria established in the RFP:
Proposal:
1. Project schedule level of detail and project understanding. 15%
2. Team’s vision of the project, understanding specific site issues, and ability to meet City’s goals. 25%
3. Team’s approach to meeting program and construction budget. 15%
4. Team’s presentation of past specific team experience and its applications to this building program and commitment of key personnel to this project. 20%
5. Quality Control process and coordination description. 10%
6. References and past performance evaluations. 15%
Interview:
1. Verbal and graphic presentation of team’s vision of the project while meeting City goals. 30%
2. Team’s understanding of schedule and the CM/GC process. 20%
3. Team’s approach to balancing construction costs, building materials, and public building image. 20%
4. Team’s ability to present approach, communicate, and discuss project details. 15%
5. Question and answer responses. 15%
Fee Proposal:
1. Correlation between tasks and schedule. 35%
2. Total Fee. 65%
Final Scoring:
1. Proposal - 35%
2. Interview - 40%
3. Fee Proposal - 25%
The selection committee met January 17, 2017, to discuss the responses and submit their proposal scoring based upon the established criteria.
The selection committee consisted of:
• Karen O’Donnell, Recreation Manager
• Chad Redin, Recreation Supervisor
• Matthew Thomason, Facilities Manager
• Stephen Silkworth, Project Architect
• Bob Schenk, Project Consultant
Interviews were held with all three proposers January 25, 2017. The selection comittee submitted their interview scoring based upon the established criteria.
Following the evaluations, fee proposals were opened and reviewed. Fee score was determined by assigning a maximum score of 5 to the lowest fee, calculating a difference for each fee from the lowest fee as a percentage, and then subtracting that percentage from the maximum score of 5.
After final tabulation and weighting for each of the four selection criteria components, Essenza Architecture received the highest cumulative score. They scored highest on both the proposal and evaluation and they provided the lowest fee proposal.
Staff Responsible (Department Head): Michelle Halstead/Danielle Yearsley (CH2M)
Staff Member Presenting: Scott Hergenrader
Financial Impact: Contract Amount $519,650
Design Contingency $180,350
Total Authorization $700,000
Funding Source: 2K
Staff Recommendation: Resolution to Approve a Design Services Agreement with Essenza Architecture
Suggested Motion: I move to approve resolution 2017-05