HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/1998, C3 - CONSULTANT DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION council ,27= - Te
j acenaa uepout ".`` 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works Yy
Prepared By: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager
SUBJECT: CONSULTANT DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE MARSH STREET
GARAGE EXPANSION
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1) Approve contract with the architectural firm of Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore and Walker
Parking Consultants in the amount of $330,000 for design services for the Marsh Street
Garage expansion project and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract.
2) Appropriate $80,710 from the unreserved parking fund working capital in order.to fully fund
the design services portion of the contract.
3) Authorize the CAO to approve the construction administration portion of the contract with
the design consultant at the time of the construction bid.
DISCUSSION
On April 7, 1998, the Council approved the Request for Proposals (RFP) for design services for
the Marsh Street Garage Expansion and authorized soliciting of proposals from qualified design
firms. As a result, the RFP process was initiated in late April with five consultants responding to
the City's request. Given the number of proposals that were received, all five consultant teams
were invited to formal interviews by a four-member selection committee of staff personnel.
The interviews were conducted on June 10 and 12 with all members of the design team from each
consultant. The presentations were professional and informative with one firm clearly standing
out from the others. This particular team excelled in presenting the best understanding of the
unique problems associated with this project along with the most innovative approach to design
and garage operation issues. Thus, it was the unanimous choice by the selection committee
(Exhibit A) to award the design contract to the team of Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore
Architects and Walker Parking Consultants. Overall, the committee felt that this combination of
architects and parking consultant (Walker is the industry's largest parking design consultant)
represented the best design team to fulfill the needs of the City for this vital community project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fee proposal from the recommended consultant is $374,085 (see fee summary for
consultants-Exhibit B) for all phases of the project including construction administration. The
design only portion of this fee (up to the point of a construction bid) is $330,000 including
reimbursable expenses plus contingencies. The current approved budget and engineer's estimate
for this project are $250,000 for design services and $200,000 for construction management. The
engineer's estimate of$250,000 for design services was based upon a 6% arctatectural fee for a
Council Agenda Report—Design Services Consultant
Page 2
$4,000,000 construction project. However, given their expertise, the majority of consultants
have estimated this project to cost between $4.5 to $5,000,000 to build. In addition, most
consultants used a 7%fee as a basis for their cost estimates, which is reflected in the fee proposals
clustering at the $350-385,000 range. Since the precise design and subsequent construction costs
are still to be determined, it is more appropriate to award only the design services component at
this stage of the project. The construction administration fee would be negotiated prior to the
award of the construction contract. Therefore, we only need to increase the design phase funding
at this time. The current unappropriated parking fund working capital balance is $2,590,600,
which can adequately fund the additional money.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The selected consultant team represents the committee's recommendation for best meeting the
needs of the City for this particular project. However, the City Council could direct staff to
consider other design teams if so desired.
2. Direct staff to re-advertise the RFP and hope for more proposals.
ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A—Selection Committee Summary
Exhibit B—Fee Proposal Summary
I:councilagendareport/cardesignaward
c-3 -�
MARSH STREET GARAGE DESIGN CONSULTANT TEAM SELECTION
Selection Committee Members
Wayne Peterson City Engineer
John Mandaville Long range Planning Manager
Al Cablay Public Works Manager
Keith Opalewski Parking Manager
Based on a point system of 5 points for first and 1 point for fifth place the consultants
were ranked as follows by the selection committee:
.................................
: ...
PMSM PMSM PMSM PMSM First Choice
Watry Design BFGC BFGC Watry Design Second Choice
BFGC Watry Design IPD IPD Third Choice
IPD IPD Watry Design BFGC Fourth Choice
Barasch Barasch Barasch Barasch Fifth Choice
Ranking Results
Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore Architects (PMSM) 20 points (unanimous)
Watry Design Group 13 points
BFGC Architects Planners 13 points
International Parking Design (IPD) 10 points
Barasch Architects 4 points
The above rankings were based on the following rfp criteria:
Understanding of work required by City
Quality and clarity of proposal
Proposed approach to design and overall project
Overall presentation and interview
Exhibit A
C3-3
Fee Proposal Summary
Watry Design Group $385,239
Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore $374,085 (recommended consultant)
BFGC $348,093
IPD $240,000
Barasch Architects $215,000
Exhibit B
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this day
Of , by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as City,and Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore Architects, hereinafter referred to
as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on April 24, 1998, City requested proposals for Design Services of the Marsh Street Garage
Expansion per Specification No. 510.9684.521.552.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal which was accepted by City for
said services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants hereinafter
contained,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered,
as first written above,until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 510.9684.521.552 and
Contractor's proposal dated May 22, 1998,are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay
and Contractor shall receive therefor compensation not to exceed $40,400 for completion of conceptual design.
Compensation not to exceed $289,600 which includes $10,000 of reimbursablcs, for construction/bid documents
and compensation by hourly rate specified in Contractor's accepted proposal for bid assistance. The construction
administration portion of the project will be negotiated prior to the award of the construction contract.
4. SPECIFICATION CHANGES. Page 10 and 13 shall be replaced by pages in Attachment 1 and
2 to this agreement.
5. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements
hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do everything required
by this Agreement and the-said specification.
�-3-5
6. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification,or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Administrative Officer of the City.
7. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral
agreement,understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of
any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement,understanding,or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto.
8. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage
prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City Public Works Department
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contractor Atm: Fred L. Sweeney, AIA
Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore Architects
2020 Alameda Padre Serra, Suite 220
Santa Barbara, CA 93103
9. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that
each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to
execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal Corporation
By:
City Clerk Mayor Allen K. Settle
APP VED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
J '
By:-
City Attorney Je y G. Jorgensen
i
XXIV. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and
acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the
Contractor (Net 30). Contractor may bill on a time and materials basis once a month. City will
not pay for more than 90%of the value of document in a particular phase until the final documents
for that specific phase is submitted.
XXV. Inspection. The Contractor shall famish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the
requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any,
shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve
Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
3CM. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Contractor.
XXVII.Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not
acquire any interest direct or indirect or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree
with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed.
The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this
work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance
of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and
not an agent or employee of the City.
XXVIII.Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and
hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from and against claims asserted or liability
established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Contractor's
employees,agents or officers which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be
caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees,
in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against
same; provided, however, that the Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not
include any claims or liability arising from the active or sole negligence or willful misconduct of
the City, its officers or employees.
XXIX. Contract Assignment. Neither the Contractor nor the City shall assign, transfer, convey or
otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a
contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the
other.
XXX. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in
writing of such defect or failure to perform; which notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
-10-
Attachment 1
A. Understanding of the work required by the City.
B. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully
performing the work required by the City.
D. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
E. Proposed approach in completing the work.
F. References.
G. Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project.
Phase 2—Oral Presentations/Intervieivs and Consultant Selection
Finalist candidates will make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions
about their proposal. The purpose of this second phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any
outstanding questions or issues about the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer's ability to clearly
and concisely present information orally. As part of this second phase of the selection process,
finalist candidates will submit proposed compensation costs for the work, including a proposed
payment schedule tied to accomplishing key project milestones or tasks. After evaluating the
proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the
City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed workscope and/or method and amount of
compensation.
Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for
completing the workscope as determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria
described above; results of background and reference checks; results from the interviews and
presentations phase; and proposed compensation.
V. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule
for proposal review and contract award:
A. Issue RFP 4/22
B. Receive proposals 5/22
C. Complete proposal evaluation 5/29
D. Conduct finalist interviews 6/5
E. Finalize staff recommendation 6/12
F. Award contract 6/29
G. Execute contract 7/6
H. Start work 7/13
VI. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by
or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. The
City shall not make any changes to the original drawings, plan documents and other materials
without knowledge or consent of the Contractor. These documents shall not be used for another
project that does not fall within the scope of this contract.
VII.- Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to,
prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these
specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or
organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City.
13
Attachment 2
MEETING AGENDA
DATE—7,17�ITEM #_. C_3__
city clerk memorandum
Date: July 1, 1998
To: City Council p/
From: Kim Condon,Acting City Cler V
Subject: Item C-3 -July 7, 1998 Agenda
Please note that the recommendation for Item C-3, Marsh Garage Expansion Design Services,
contains an error. Subsequent to placing this item on the agenda but prior to printing, the staff
report was amended and the amount of the appropriation from the unreserved parking fund was
changed from$68,685 to $80,710. The correct amount is reflected in the agenda report. So, the
recommendation should read:
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute contract; 2)
appropriate$80,710 from the unreserved parking fund working capital in order to fully fund the
design services portion; and, 3) authorize the CAO to approve the construction administration
portion of the contract with the design consultant.
pt6Unca D coc olt►
0 FIN DCHIEF
❑v'GMT
Di
Q -
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
.. a
June 30, 1998 _
TO: City Council LL
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer J111
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Directo 41A
SUBJECT: Marsh Street Parking Structure
Councilman Romero has often stated a preference for a solid structural engineer to be a part of
the consultant team selected in the design process for the Marsh Street Structure Expansion
Project.
The major partner in the selected design team is Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc.
This firm is one of the major giants in the parking structure field, having designed 15 structures
last year alone, and have structural engineers as part of their staff. Attached are resumes of the
structural team that will be working on the City project. The primary structural engineer will be
Lee Szromba who has 34 years of structural engineering experience.
If you have any questions regarding the firm or Mr. Szromba, please contact Keith Opalewski at
781-7234.
ETT60UNCIL O CDD DIR
t7C 0 0 FIN DIR
O?CAO 0 PRE CHIEF
KHODRNEY L'1'yy DIR
LERWORIG ❑POLICE CHF
❑!! T - 0 REC DIR
0 UTIL DIR
�O O PERS DIR
KENNETH E. NAPIOR, S.E.,P.E., Chief Structural Engineer
Mr.Napior is Chief Structural Engineer in the San Francisco office of WALKER Parking
Consultants/Engineers,Inc. He has over 22 years of experience in the design of concrete structures and is one
of the leading experts in the design of concrete structures using ductile frames to satisfy California's stringent
seismic requirements.
Mr.Napior is a former chairman of the concrete committee for the Structural Engineers Association of
Northern California. He is also a member of several American Concrete Institute committees,dealing
specifically with post tension structures and the response of concrete buildings to earthquake forces. Mr.
Napior has written many technical papers dealing with seismic response of concrete buildings and co-
authored publications dealing with performance of concrete buildings throughout the San Francisco Bay Area
during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.
Registration: Registered Structural Engineer in California,Nevada,Oregon
Registered Professional Engineer in 15 States
Professional Affiliations: Structural Engineers Association of Northern California
Chairman,Concrete Sub-Committee of Codes Committee
American Concrete Institute
Education: BS in Architectural Engineering,California Polytechnic State University, 1972
Representative Projects:
One Pacifc Place Hilton Garden Inn
Fremon CAMateo,CA
12-Story Tower 6-Story Tower
Daniel Burnham Court City of Santa Rosa
San Francisco,CA Santa Rosa,CA
12&15 Story Towers 830 Spaces
Trinity Plaza Stanford Parking Structures#1,
San Francisco,CA Stanford CA
12-Story Tower 1100 Spaces
Webster Towers Stanford Parking Structure#2
San Francisco,CA Stanford, CA
14-Story Tower 750 Spaces
Fillmore Center El Dorado Hotel Parking Structure
San Francisco,CA Reno NV
Three 19-Story Towers over parking 950 Spaces
St.Francis Place Bart El Cerrito Station
San Francisco,CA El Cerrito,CA
Five 12-Story Towers over parking 1350 Spaces
Chambord North University of California,Irvine
San Francisco,CA Irvine,CA
14-Story Tower over parking 1400 Spaces
Skyview Towers McCarran In -
Mt View CA Las Vegas,
14-.Story il'ower over parking 8000 Spaces
Holiday Inn Select, Parking Consul[anw
Fostcr City,CA Engineers,Inc.
7-Story Tower j
Kenneth E.Napior.S.E. IIS
Chief Strucctts]Engineer
WafkerParlangConsultants/Engineers,Inc.
150 Executive Park Boulevard Suite 3750.San FrancLsco.CA 94134
Tek(415)3301895 Far(415)330-1898
LEE SZROMBA Project Manager
Experience:
As Project Manager in Walker's Newport Beach Office,Mr. Szromba is responsible for coordinating
and managing projects from inception to final completion working with clients to develop their needs
into viable buildings, within their budget. Duties include design of all aspects of projects. Mr.
Szromba will maintain a proactive role with all the consultants, the client and the selected contractor
to insure a project being completed on time and within the client's budget.
Mr. Szromba has forty years of experience in planning, design and construction of office buildings,
industrial buildings and parking facilities for municipalities, private developers, universities, hospitals .
and shopping centers.
Senior Architectural Project Manager,International Parking Design,Inc.,Oakland,California. 1984- 1996.
i
i
Architectural Project Manager,Conrad Associates,Inc.,Los Angeles&Oakland,California 1968- 1984.
Education:
Architectural Design, University of Illinois, 1956
Projects Serving as Supervisor for the Design of Office and Industrial Buildings:
Safeway Stores
Sears Roebuck and Co. -'Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit
Allstate Insurance Co. - Chicago and New Jersey
The Pillsbury Co.
Projects Serving as Supervisor for the Design of Parking Facilities:
World Trade Center-Los Angeles
City of Los Angeles-Department of Airports;
City of Burbank-Department of Airports
City of Pasadena
City of Glendale
University of California-Irvine
City of Santa Ana
Lake Arrowhead Village Limited
City of San Francisco
City of Oakland Parking Consultants/ ,
Kaiser Permanente Hospitals Engineers,Inc. I
Lee Szromba IIIS
Project Manager
Walker Parking ConsullanwEngineers,Inc. 4700 Von Karntan,Suite 100. Newport Beach CA 92660
TeL•(714)553-1450 Fax(714)553-9419