HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.24.09 Special Council Packet
City of Fannington
430 Third Street
Fannington, MN 55024
Mission Statement
Through teamwork and cooperation,
the City of Farmington provides quality
services that preserve our proud past and
foster a promisingfuture.
AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 24, 2009
6:45 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Action Taken
1. CALL TO ORDER 6:45 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4, APPROVEAGENDA
5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Authorize Bids, Prepare Plans and Specifications Dushane Parkway -
Engineering
b) Award Walnut Street Feasibility Contract - Engineering
Page 1
Page 2
6. ADJOURN
~
City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ()
Kevin Schorzman, P .E., City Engineer
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Approve Plans and Specifications/Authorize Advertisement for Bids - Dushane
Parkway Extension Project
DATE:
August 24, 2009
INTRODUCTION/ DISCUSSION
The developer of Vermillion River Crossings requested that the City prepare plans and
specifications for the Dushane Parkway Extension Project. The developer deposited funds with
the City to cover the costs associated with preparing the plans and specifications.
The plans for the project are substantially complete. The proposed bid date is September 8,
2009, with the potential award of the project to occur at the September 8, 2009, City Council
meeting. The project is anticipated to start as soon as possible after the award of the contract.
BUDGET IMPACT
All costs associated with this project will be funded by the developer through an escrow already
being held on the City's behalf.
ACTION REOUESTED
Adopt the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and authorizing the
advertisement for bids for the Dushane Parkway Extension Project.
Respec7Ubmitled,
~.~ ,
Kevin Schorzman, P.E.,
City Engineer
cc: file
RESOLUTION NO. R-09
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
PROJECT NO. 09-07
DUSHANE PARKWAY EXTENSION
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 24th day of August, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the developers request, and subsequent to the developer providing financing for
the cost of preparation, plans and specifications have been prepared with reference to the following
improvement:
Proi. No.
09-07
Descriotion
Dushane Parkway Extension
Location
Dushane Pkwy from Knutsen Drive to Spruce
Street
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. The plans and specifications for the Dushane Parkway Extension Project are approved.
2. The City Engineer is authorized to insert in the Farmington Independent an advertisement for bids for
the construction of such improvements under the approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall be published at least once in the Farmington Independent no less than ten days
before the last day for submission of bids. The advertisement shall specify the work to be done, shall
state that the bids will be opened for consideration publicly at 10:00 a.m. on the 8th day of September,
2009 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by two or more designated officers or agents of the
municipality and tabulated in advance of the meeting at which they are to be considered by the
Council, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied
by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5% of the
amount of each bid.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 24th day
of August, 2009.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of August, 2009.
City Administrator
SEAL
56
City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.280.6800 . Fax 651.280.6899
www.ciJarmington.mn.us
Mayor, Councilmembers, City AdministratO'(?
Kevin Schorzman, P.E., City Engineer
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Approve Contract-Walnut Street Feasibility Report
DATE:
August 24, 2009
INTRODUCTION I DISCUSSION
At the August 17, 2009 City Council meeting, Council requested additional information
regarding the evaluation of the proposals received for preparation of the feasibility report for the
Walnut Street Reconstruction Project. Attached to this memo are a copy of the original memo,
an evaluation matrix showing points given to in each of the categories, and a copy of the cost
evaluation spreadsheet.
In the evaluation matrix you will see points awarded to each of the companies based on the
content of their proposal. The first item reviewed was the work plan and schedule provided by
each of the companies. Some of the items considered in review of the work plan included:
. Review of the different tasks included in the work plan (review of existing infrastructure,
review of the geotechnical report, surveying needs, preliminary engineering, preparation
of a preliminary cost estimate, etc.)
. Review of the number of hours that each company expected to spend completing these
tasks
. Review of project milestone dates (when could the City expect to receive a draft cost
estimate or draft feasibility report for review)
When reviewing the work plans from the different companies, most of the tasks that staff would
have expected to see were in all of the proposals. The number of hours that each company
indicated they would spend preparing the feasibility report ranged from 98 to 196. When
evaluating the project milestone dates, preference was given to work plans that provided more
time for City review. There were three proposals which included specific dates by which the
City would receive a draft copy of the feasibility report. The other two proposals were silent
with respect to this milestone. The maximum number of points that could be awarded to a
company for this item was 25.
Walnut Street Feasibility Report
August 24, 2009
Page 2 of3
The second item reviewed was the qualifications and experience of the project team that each
company planned to use to complete the feasibility report. Some of the items considered in
review of the personnel qualifications and experience included:
. Experience of key project personnel on projects of similar scope as the Walnut Street
Reconstruction Project (project manager and project engineer)
. Experience of other project personnel on projects of similar scope as the Walnut Street
Reconstruction Project
. Experience of key project personnel in cities similar to Farmington
. Experience of other project personnel in cities similar to Farmington
When reviewing the experience of the personnel assigned to the project, preference was given t6
key project personnel who had more experience on projects of similar scope which occurred in
cities of similar size and makeup as Farmington. For key project personnel, the years of
experience were similar, but where the experience was gained varied from smaller communities
out-state to suburban communities similar to Farmington. The maximum number of points that
could be awarded to a company for this item was 30.
The third item reviewed was the understanding of the project objectives. Some of the items
considered in review ofthe project understanding included:
. Research conducted on existing infrastructure
. Understanding of the project limits
. Understanding of the mixed uses located within the limits ofthe project
. Identifying the role of the feasibility report and cost estimate in the assessment process
. Understanding of the level of detail necessary for the preliminary engineering, survey
work, and cost estimate
. Quality of the proposal
When reviewing the project understanding, preference was given to companies that demonstrated
a clear understanding of the project issues, had the appropriate level of detail proposed for the
work, demonstrated an understanding of the original RFP, and paid attention to the answers that
were given to them when questions were asked. Points were deducted in this item for proposals
that included work that the companies were told would be completed by City staff (coordinating
geotechnical work and compiling the assessment roll), as well as for incomplete proposals (one
companies proposal did not include a work plan). A maximum of 15 points was awarded based
on this item.
Walnut Street Feasibility Report
August 24, 2009
Page 3 013
The fourth item reviewed was the overall qualification and experience of the company
submitting the proposal. When reviewing this item, staff determined that all five companies had
similar company experience and the necessary corporate structure to complete projects of this
nature. Therefore, all five companies received the maximum 10 points for this item.
The final item considered was cost. Prior to reviewing the proposals, a spreadsheet was created
that would evaluate the costs provided and assign points to the cost proposals based on the
difference between the cost proposed and the average of all cost proposals. To do this each
company started with 10 points and then points were added or subtracted based on how many
standard deviations the company's cost proposal was from the average. Using this methodology,
a company that was two or more standard deviations below the average cost would receive the
maximum of 20 points, and a company two or more standard deviations above the average cost
would receive zero points. The points awarded ranged from 4 to 16 for this item.
After evaluating all five companies based on the above-mentioned criteria, staff recommends
that the contract to complete the feasibility report for the Walnut Street Reconstruction Project be
awarded to Bonestroo for the proposed cost of $4,880.00.
BUDGET IMPACT
The cost to complete the feasibility report is $4,880.00, and is included in the 2009 CIP.
ACTION REQUESTED
Award the Walnut Street Reconstruction Project feasibility report consultant contract to
Bonestroo.
Respectfully Submitted,
{t~'
Kevin Schorzman, P.E.,
City Engineer
cc: file
City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.280.6800 . Fax 651.280.6899
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator
FROM: Kevin Schorzman, P.E., City Engineer
SUBJECT: Approve Contract-Walnut Street Feasibility Report
DATE: August 17, 2009
INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION
Funding for the preparation of the feasibility report for the Walnut Street Reconstruction Project
is included in the 2009 portion of the current CIP that was approved by Council in December of
2008. In an attempt to proceed with the project on a schedule that will allow for bidding the
project early next year, Council authorized solicitation of proposals for the preparation of the
feasibility report for this project at the July 6,2009, City Council meeting.
A request for proposals (RFP) was sent to five engineering companies. All five returned
proposals for the feasibility report. On Monday, August 10, 2009, staff reviewed the proposals
based on the criteria discussed with Council and included in the RFP. The criteria used to
evaluate the proposals were:
. Work plan including project schedule 25%
. Qualifications/experience of personnel working on the project 30%
. Expressed understanding ofproject objectives 15%
. Qualifications/experience of company 10%
. Cost Detail 20%
During staff review, the following points were assigned to the respective engineering firms that
proposed on the project based on the above-mentioned criteria:
. Bonestroo 88.5
. Bolton & Menk 66.5
. WSB 64.0
. S.E.H. 60.0
. TKDA 40.0
Staff recommends that the contract to complete the feasibility report for the Walnut Street
Reconstruction Project be awarded to Bonestroo for the proposed cost of $4,880.00.
Walnut Street Feasibility Report
August 17, 2009
Page 2 of2
BUDGET IMPACT
The cost to complete the feasibility report is $4,880.00, and is included in the 2009 CIP.
ACTION REOUESTED
Award the Walnut Street Reconstruction Project feasibility report consultant contract to
Bonestroo.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kevin Schorzman, P.E.,
City Engineer
cc: file
0
e
-
en
G)
c
0
m
E .lIl:
... C
0 G)
LL :E
C ~
0 c
0
.- -
... '0
ns
::s m
-
ca >-
> C
lIS
W Q.
- E
ca 0
rn 0
0
C-
O
...
a..
...
CD
CD
...
...
tn
...
::s
c
-
ns
3=
m
t/)
3:
LO LO ('I) 0 ('I)
C\l ..- ..- LO
LO 0 0> 0 V
..- ..- ('I)
LO LO CD 0 CD
,...: N ..- LO
..- C\l
LO 0 LO 0 LO
,...: ('I) ..- ..- C\l
..- I"'-
0 LO C\l 0 LO
..- N ..- ..- ..t
C\l LO
.. - a;Ui' ~~ Q;:i1 19
.S!~
::s s::: U"E U s::: 0
C .- > .- C.-
'tJ '0 G) 0 .- 0 G) 0 -
G) a. ';: 0- '00. .;: a. ..c
.eLO ::s
G)O G)LO G)O en
UC\l Q.('I) :Q'T""" Q...-
~O >< 0 0.8 >< 0
C- w- w-
lIS 0 -0 -0 00
c:........ ~........ u........
G) c""""
.lIl: 0 'e- 0
... :;:; ~
0 lIS c..
3: U - U
!E 0 !E
"i C) iii
::s .5 ::s
a 'tJ a
a; C >-
lIS C
C - lIS
C e Co
0 G) E
e 'tJ 0
G) C 0
c.. ~
s
C
'0
c..
<C S
c C
~ '0
I- D..
:E:
W
en
s
C
'0
c..
s
C
'0
D..
s
C
'0
c..
..- v
..- CD
CD 0
v
v 0
CD
CD LO
..- cx:i
co
C\l
..-
..- ~
--
I/) I/)
o Q) s:::
U'" '0
Q) 0..
..c:
- 19
s:::
0 0
:e I-
0
a.
e
a.
ci
..c:
.2'
I
ci
C\l
:s:
0
...J
........
In
cO
CD
Cost Evaluation: Walnut Street RFP
Mean $ 11,202.60
Population Standard Deviation $ 4,605.39
Difference Standard Cost
Company Cost From Mean Deviations Points
Bolton & Menk $ 8,514.00 $ 2,688.60 0.58379 1 2 2 12
Bonestroo $ 4,880.00 $ 6,322.60 1.37287 1 6 6 16
S.E.H. $17,800.00 $ (6,597.40) 1.43254 -1 6 -6 4
TKDA $ 14,900.00 $ (3,697.40) 0.80284 -1 4 -4 6
WSB $ 9,919.00 $ 1,283.60 0.27872 1 1 1 11