Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 09-13-2004 Special , I , AGE DA SPECIAL MEETING - MON ICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday Septe ber 13, 2004 5:00 .m. INTERVIEWS FOR ENGINEERING FIRM - WATER TOWER DESIGN Mayor: Bruce Thielen Council Members: Roger Carlson, Glen Posusta, Robbie Smith and Brian Stumpf 1. Cal] to Order 2. Interviews with engineering firms 3. Adjourn , I , Council Agenda ~ 09/13/2004 2. Interviews for the ur ose of selectin a Tower Proiect #2004-30C. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Thc City Council reviewed the Request for Propos' I document prepared by City Staff at the Council Meeting of August 9,2004. The request for propo 'als was sent to five firms who have a significant amount of experience in the field of water systems and water towers. The five firms selected were Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. of St. Paul, MN, onestroo Rosene Andcrlik & Associates of St. Paul, MN, Progressive Consulting Engineers, In . of Minneapolis, MN, WSB & Associates of Minneapolis, MN, and Howard R. Green Company ofSt. Paul, MN. All five firms sent in a proposal by the due date of August 25, 2004. Over the past two weeks City Staff, consisting ofth City Administrator, Public Works Director and Water Superintendent, examined the proposals indi idually and collectively, requested clarifications from the proposers where needed, and developed a preadsheet which summarizes the work of each firm in selected areas, and also outlines the work at would be provided by subcontractors of the engineering firm. As indicated in our original req; est for proposals, City StafTwas to release two firms from the interview process. Short Elliott lIe drickson, Inc. was released as stafT did not feel their proposal reflected the actual amount needed n this project. Their total man hours were 38% of the average project man hours for the selected thli e firms, while their fees represented 63% of the average price of the other proposals. It appeared th t the hours dedicated to preliminary design and on site inspection were far less than the other firms nd much less than the City felt appropriate. The other firm released from interview was the Howar R. Green Company as their proposal was the highest received yet represented 200 man hours Ie- s than the next lowest proposal. The SElf and HRG proposals are available from Dawn at City H 11 if you wish to review them. All three of the remaining firms have proposed to se KLM Engineering, Inc. to perform all of the wclding, priming and painting inspection, to inclu e the shop primer at the factory if selected over total blast in the field. KLM will be asked to give presentation at the beginning of the interviews to give you a feel for what their inspection services consist of. Straws were drawn for the order of interviews fCJr t e three firms. The first firm to be interviewed will be Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc., the second will be Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, and the third will be WSB & Associat s. The following is an anticipated interview schedule: PROPOSED INTERV EW SCHEDULE 1. 5:00 - 5: 15 P.M. PRESENT A TION B KLM ENGINEERING, INe. KLM is the subcontr tor perf()fming the engineering and inspection services (i.e., erectio , fitting, welding and blasting, priming and painting, including s op prime, if selected over total ficld blast). KLM is to provide se vices fCJr all three consultants interviewed. Questions/Answers 5:15 - 5:20 P.M. , I , Council Agenda - 09/13!2004 FIVE MINUTE SETUP F R NEXT PRESENTATION II. 5:25 - 5:40 P.M. 5:40 - 5:45 P.M. PRESENTATION I3 PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Questions! Answers FIVE MINUTE SETUP F R NEXT PRESENTATION III. 5:50 - 6:05 P.M. 6:05 - 6: 1 0 P.M. PRESENT A TION B BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK & ASSOC. Questions! Answers FIVE MINUTE SETUP F R NEXT PRESENTATION IV. 6: 15 - 6:30 P.M. 6:30 - 6:35 P.M. PRESENTATION B WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. Questions! Answers The enclosed summary sheet will help you as you 0 through the proposals in determining the amount of work in each category compared to the other pro osals. You will note differences in the proposals in regard to the number of hours spent on each task an the total man hours dedicated to the project arc also shown. By dividing the fee you can also see the a erage cost per hour. We have included a rating sheet for each 1irm to be sed during your review of their proposal and during the interview process. The selection criteria are the ame as the ones sent to each consultant in the request for proposals. It is suggested that this form be used y each ofthe Council, Mayor and Staff to determine their individual rating so each one can determinehich firm they feel would do the best job at the best value for the City. At the end of the interview proee s, it is suggested that City Staff: Council and Mayor discuss the pros and cons of each one of the propo als, and that the actual selection can be made at the regular Council Meeting to follow. I have also included a set of questions to be used du ing the interview process if you so choose and a set of questions previously generated by the consultan s and City Staff answers. B. SUPPORTING DATA: Breakdown of proposals for selection ofprojeet eng'neer spreadsheet; letters to SEH and HRG regarding release from interview process; e-mail from Progre sive Consulting Engineers regm-ding not to exceed guarantee; questions from consultants dated Aug st 20, 2004; Suggested Interview Questions; and Selection Criteria Rating Sheets, . ( , , I I ,', J ~ ~@~~ MONTICELLO September 3,2004 Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 Attn. Mr. Jay C. Murzyn, PE Senior Project Manager Re: Proposal for Water Tower Improvement Proje t 2004-30C for the City of Monticello . This is to inform you, that based upon your proposal sub itted to the City of Monticello for our water tower project, your firm has not been selected to continue to t e interview process. While your proposal was well laid out and concise, it was much lower in cost and the time allocated to the project represented only 38% of the average project man hours of the 3 firms selecte for an interview while your fees represented 63% of the average price of the proposals. The amount of hours dedicated to preliminary design and on site inspection were far less than those allocated by the oth r firms. Dear Mr. Murzyn: Although you have not been selected for the interview rocess your proposal will be passed on to the City Council for their review. We would like to thank you for your time and efforts in making your proposal. If you have any questions regarding our review, please contact me. Respectfully, CITY OF MONTICELLO John E. Simola Public Works Director JES/jkh cc: File . Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Matt Theisen, Water Superintendent 7</;ly,.;iJtf,;,fim(", iCffiee (((i!l))I/i~ (Wr,dM. ()()(J ',,,1/'7<1:,,,,,)<< (iYl~a,1. i)ff,:;,lk,/(,', i'41f)~),5/j(/:! }!l,7#"r1~' (7(;,/) gr},)_/J /7() ,:]1;;"., (76J) rJ7 1- /1:!72 . ( , , I ~ ~(Q)[?)~ MONTICELLO September 3, 2004 Howard R. Green Company Court Intemation Building 2550 University Avenue W. Suite 400 N S1. Paul, MN 55114 Attn. Mr. Chris L. Catlin, PE Project Manager Re: Proposal for Water Tower Improvement Proje t 2004-30C for the City of Monticello Dear Mr. Catlin: . This is to inform you that your firm has not been selecte to continue on with the interview process for our water tower project. Your proposal was well laid out a d well thought out and complete. It did, however, represent the highest cost of all 5 proposals we received It also represented 200 man hours less work than the next lowest cost proposal. We would like to thank you for your time and efforts i~ preparing your proposal. We realize these are not easily or cheaply put together. Although you were n :t selected for an interview, your proposal will be passed on to the City Council. If you have any further uestions, please contact me. Respectfully, CITY OF MONTICELLO John E. Sirnola Public Works Director JES/jkh cc: File Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator . Matt Theisen, Water Superintendent (if:.ilf ,/,(}jk~lIkd/", CJjiee ,:/{ij!ii.IJ~ (:}fr'd,), 909 (j"Cd'J",,,., {iY?{~,d, /)f!;;,IM/,., .')fff:'!V7;/J,J62 ,'JJ;1'J'!>"'''' (76.J) 2(M 3170 {y;;;," (7Id) 271-/N72 Page 1 of 1 ~@~V Naeem Qureshi [naeemqureshi@pce.com] John Simola Sent:Fri 9/3/2004 9:02 AM . John Simola From: To: Cc: Subject: Fees Attachments: The fees contained in our proposal for design and construction p riod services are not to exceed for both phases. Thank you for your considerations. Naeem Qureshi, P.E. Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone: (763) 560-9133 Fax: (763) 560-0333 . . http://mail.ci.monticello.mn.us/exchange/ John. Simol lnbox/F ees.EML ?Cmd=open 9/3/04 ~ . . . @@(P)~ City of Mo ticello Water Tower Project Q estions and Answers August 2 , 2004 Following are some questions and answers concern ng the project. 1. What are the reasons the City is doing the P oject? See R.F.P.; Growth and adequate water pr sure andflows. 2. What are the important aspects of the proje t? The water tower and site work. 3. What is the basis of the new tower size of 1 0 MG? What is the existing average demand? See Table 5 from Water Study. 4. What are the demands in the water system a d how are these demands liable to change in the future - next 2 years? See Table 5 from Water Study. 5. What is the situation with availability of Ian for the water tower? What are some of the site concerns - drainage - future building? 2.28 acres is available. Drainage, grading, screening from north and part of sides, preserving building pad if possible. 6. When was the watermain map last updated. When will a disk be available and what program is used? July 2004. Disc not available, study provid d to selected engineer. Water Cad was used for the model. 7. What additions to the water distribution sys em were completed in 2004 after the study was completed? None 8. How confident is the City about the results f existing water system model? Plan was reviewed and accepted by City St (f and Council. "'- . . . 9. What project schedule does the City want 18 - 24 months from engineer selection to operational. I O. Describe the existing control system. Old Autocon with space for (1) additional tower and useable old tower switches. 11. What provisions does the City want for fu ure communication equipment? Space for cellular or radio equipment and necessary SCADA equipment. 12. How much involvement will the staff wan to have during the course of the project? Who will be the main City contact? John Simola will be prime contact, Buildin Official will be involved. Construction inspector could jill in on emergency. City dministrator will take care of jinancial end. 13. What communication has occurred with re idents? What kind of public relations effort does the City expect? How many meeting ? Sign ordered, front page article in paper. ne Public information meeting upon preliminary design then council meetings a approvals. 14. What is the budget for the project? $2,150,000.00 Engineering, site and tower. 15. What are some of the qualities in consultan s that are important for the City Staff? Attention to detail, well thought out design, ability to communicate, ability to complete project as designed on budget and on time. Ability to work through problems. 16. Is the Engineer required to plat the 2.28 acr water tower site? No. 17. What is a DNR permit required for? Not Needed. Patti/j ohn/W atertowcrproj ectquesti ons-answers @@r~))f . SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR WATER TOWER CONSULTANT INTERVIEWS City of Monticello roject #2004-30C 1. What is your opinion or recommendation on c thodic protection for a new tank with state of the art paint? 2. Based upon your current information about 0 system, do you think we will require mixing in one or both of the water towers during the win er months to keep them from freezing? 3. What kind of concerns do you have in allowin antennas to be placed on the new water tower? 4. How does your firm handle change orders on ater tower projects? 5. How would your firm best determine the cost f a composite water tower versus a steel water tower? . 6. How does your firm assure that the paperwork eeps up with the project? 7. Is the price quoted in your proposal a not to ex eed price as requested in the RFP? 8. What can your firm do, if anything, to make sur that only a qualified capable painter is used on the job? 9. What type of paint warranties are acceptable in he industry without paying extremely high costs? 10. What can your firm do to speed the shop drawi g approval process along so as not to delay the contractor? . 11. Do you believe pre-bid conferences are import . t to achieving a better understanding between prospective contractors and the engineer and cit ? F;\PattIPIJohn S\Prolect2004-30C\$UGGE$TED-INTERVIEW.QUE$TIONS.wpd; 09/09/2004 . . . .- CITY OF MO NTICELLO @@ WATER TOWER IMPROVEMI ENT PROJECT #2004-30C Engineering Selec ion Firm Rating Engineering Firm Name: Progressive COD suIting Engineers, Inc. .----- --...-. .- .--....".-...".- Individual D( ing Rating: ____ .....--.....-----.-........ SE.L.ECTION CRIT~RI~R~..IJN.G___ ____n__..', ._ ............ RATING___ SUCCESSFUL FIRM EXPERIENCE: Design Administration Construction of municipal water system proj ~cts (At least one (1) million gallon water tower 25 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL EXPERIENCE OF PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO PROJECT: Assigned personnel Back up personnel Qualification of sub-consultants 40 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL INTERVIEW: Clear/Concise work plan Understands project & ability to successfully complete within expected time limits Presented their approach in professional mE nner, easily understood by Council, staff and general pu )Iic 25 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL REFERENCES: Similar projects 10 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL 100 POSSIBLE POINTS 3RAND TOTAL F:IPA TTIPIJOHNSIPROJECT2004.30CIRA TINGFORM: 09/0912004 ----.. - ~~ . . . ----.-........- CITY OF Mor ~TICELLO @@ WATER TOWER IMPROVEMI NT PROJECT #2004-30C Engineering Select ! on Firm Rating Engineering Firm Name: Bonestroo, Ros ene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. -.--,.. ..n..."...._ .-- .. ..---.,.. ..--.''''.". --.... ...---..----..-."'. Individual Do ng Rating: _ .____n.' __._____..."'......_. . _n_.__._._. ... _SEL.ECII.QN C_RllERIA RATING .__u___._-.RATING_ -- ---- SUCCESSFUL FIRM EXPERIENCE: Design Administration Construction of municipal water system projE cts (At least one (1) million gallon water tower 25 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL EXPERIENCE OF PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO DROJECT: Assigned personnel Back up personnel Qualification of sub-consultants 40 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL INTERVIEW: Clear/Concise work plan Understands project & ability to successfully complete within expected time limits Presented their approach in professional me: nner, easily understood by Council, staff and general pu )Iic 25 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL REFERENCES: Similar projects 10 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL 100 POSSIBLE POINTS GRAND TOTAL F:IP A TTlPIJOHNSIPROJECT2004-30CIRA TINGFO RM: 09109/2004 I L9~ . . . CITY OF MOl NTICELLO @O WATER TOWER IMPROVEMI ENT PROJECT #2004-30C Engineering Selec, ion Firm Rating Engineering Firm Name: WSB & Associ ates~ Inc. u._."... Individual Dc ing Rating: _...".__n_ SELECTION CRITERIA RATING ._-".. RATING SUCCESSFUL FIRM EXPERIENCE: Design Administration Construction of municipal water system proj ~cts (At least one (1) million gallon water tower 25 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL EXPERIENCE OF PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO PROJECT: Assigned personnel Back up personnel Qualification of sub-consultants 40 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL INTERVIEW: Clear/Concise work plan Understands project & ability to successfully complete within expected time limits Presented their approach in professional me nner, easily understood by Council, staff and general pu )Iic 25 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL REFERENCES: Similar projects 10 POSSIBLE POINTS SUBTOTAL 100 POSSIBLE POINTS 3RAND TOTAL F :IPA TTIPIJOH NSIPROJ ECT2004-30ClRA TINGFQRM: 091091200. --.---- -- -. ._,. ...- -- -.... ..-- . ...- -- -.....- -. ~w . "::;1/$1 ~~~ .); " q..) ',\ ~F, , ...... ).)! ....:I.!!t~,,~. . . .