Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-1997 Meeting I I I SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING SPACE ALLO~~TION Committee Room May 12, 1997 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: B. Commissione~si Johnson, Clerk of Commission. Kuhlke, Chairman; M. Todd, J. Brigham, L. Beard, R. Oliver, Administrator, D. Goins, Engineering; E. of Superior Court; Judge Flemin9.; Lena Bonner, Clerk " Also Present: Sylvia Cooper, Augusta Chronicle; Rosemary Forrest,/"o Metro Spirit; Donnie Porter, Channel 12; Gale Minor, WBBQ. . Mr. Kuhlke: The purpose is this meeting is for us to come up with a recommendation back to the Commission for a consultant to begin to look at our space needs, both from an Administrative standpoint and a Judicial standpoint. Friday a week ago, we interviewed three firms, CGA, Columbia, Harry International, Atlanta, and Duckett and Associates, Atlanta. They all made what I thought what was a very good presentation. We got proposals from all three, these are lump sum proposals. Harry International, was low at $49,945, second was CGA, at $96,800, and Duckett and Associates was at $122,961. All three can meet our schedule to basically, have the final report the first of November 97, with an interim report sometime in August. Mr. Oliver: looking at trying because there was about doing that. One of the things we discussed earlier was to make the long and short range go together, some discussion when those proposals were made Mr. Kuhlke: Judge Fleming, Mr. Beard, Mr. Todd, and myself were in on the interviews, along with Mr. Oliver, and Mr. Goins, and I don't know that unless we have some differences of opinion all three are reputable firms. Harry's is an international firm, they appear to be able to provide us with the study we need. I think that there may be some things Mr. Todd, that Mr. Oliver may want to talk to them about from the standpoint of how they would finally structure their report back to us, maybe incorporating some of the ideas that we got from one of the other firms. Unless there is a great deal of discussion I'd entertain a motion from one of the members of the Special Allocation.Committee. Mr. Todd: I think that when you go out for request for proposals you don't necessarily use the same procedure as for bids, you are not held by the same criteria. In that vain, I also understand that it's common practice where you go out for request for proposals to bring your party in, if your party is out of the dollar range and negotiate, versus a bid situation where you can't. It seems to me that Duckett brings to the table more of what we are looking for and want. I know they had a real estate component there, they had all the other components that we needed as far as space allocation studies go. I think quite frankly, there is one that is so low that I would question whether they would even give full consideration to what we need, or what we went out for proposals for. I don't know how the other members feel about it, " " but, I'd like to go with the one that was highest, and talk to them I in reference to which components we don't need, that are there. If it's real estate that they have and everybody else doesn't have, - then certainly deal with them on that level in bringing the fee down some, but I think there is more in that package of what we need. Mr. Oliver: I would like to make this comment, regardless of the firm that we select, Drew and I have discussed this. It's pretty evident to me that CGA's scope of services is clearly the best, and the most detailed, and that would be what I would want to use as it relates to including in a contract document, so we would be using that as our negotiating point, that I think is one of the good things about this type of process, you can use the best components of all three of them. Mr. Todd: How do you feel about Duckett? Mr. Kuhlke: Did you read the follow-up letter we got from Duckett? The1wrote us with some ideas and some ways to minimize their cost. But even with that, I think they are still last as far as cost goes or the highest. My personal feeling was that CGA probably made the best proposal to us. But on the other hand, knowing some background on Harry International, and knowing that they are a reputable good firm, and even if we are getting the benefit of their hopes that down the road, they will get some more work, I don't know how we can from a standpoint of cost over look that. I Mr. Oliver: I believe you're right. I think that they are buying it in anticipation of potential work. Mr. Kuhlke: But we are not making any commit to that. From a standpoint of the real estate, Mr. Todd, to me I see the potential of some conflict by bringing one real estate firm into the picture with Duckett and Associates, even though it's a very reputable real estate firm, I just think that that can be isolated and the kind of information that one realtor can bring to a firm is available to that firm from a number of different area in this community. So, I don't see that fitting into the picture. That's my personal feeling. Mr. Beard: I'm kind of concerned about the low cost of the first one. When you look at the other two, they are more inline with each other than the first one, and you have to wonder, although I know we are trying to same money, but I think that you have to wonder about that first bid. The next two, I would lean a little more toward Duckett, simply because they were including some people from the local area, and I think that's what we are trying to get involved with local people. And if the latter two could give you the same amount of service, I would probably lean toward them, because of their involvement with local people. If the real I estate firm is going to be a problem, then I think that we all understand that. It is my understanding that they can be removed I from the picture completely, and I think that would probably satisfy a lot of people if they were. In summing this up, my point would be the latter two that we talked about. Mr. Todd: I agree ~I. Chairman, that we need to tell them that we don't want the real estate opponent there and that would certainly help cut' the cost there. And I think that we need to give some direction as far as the Courts go on going out here and doing a lane, and if we just go out for a request for proposals to go and bring us something back, without giving any direction, then certainly the sky is the limit. But, when we give some direction as to what we would like to see accomplished as far as right here in this building. On one of the other wings, and I believe that there is only one wing that we could do something on, then that certainly takes care of the biggest component, as far as I am concerned of the space allocation needs and that's the Courts, and the most urgent, even though we are planning long range. I certainly feel that we have a best proposal. in the sense that we have local participation outside of the real estate entity that there is three other areas of local participation in the Duckett proposal. I Judge Fleming: I was impressed with the low bidder. I thought they brought a lot of expertise as far as the Courts are.concerned. I think the person that works with them has a great deal of experience, I was impressed with him. Apparently they have a complete team, and some of these others seem to say, well we are in this business but we have to go out and hire some people, then we'll put a team together to come in and do this work. I think they are, even though they are an international group. I think it's a matter of your contract, I think you'll put in your contract what you will expect them to do. ., c.....:.: ',. Mr. Kuhlke: I think you can get into some detail as far as what sort of presentation you want brought back to us. But, my sense was that, while Duckett brought in three local consulting engineers in the electrical, civil and mechanical engineering part of it. I don't know at this point, I don't know how much is going, other than developing cost, I don't know how much they will be getting into that phase of the work at this point. I think that the study that's coming back to us is to tell us long term what we need to do for our space needs. Even some cost information they give to us will be in a range, it wouldn't be specific. I have a real hangup putting Harry Int., and those aside, even though they, and if you look at it they are $40,000 lower than anybody else. But if they take a contract, and if we write the contract specific, they have to perform. And I hate to spend $40,000 of tax payers money going to somebody else, when I'm not sure we're going to get $40,000 more in service. And I'm all for giving as much as we can to local people, but I'm just looking at the hard numbers here. , :"1 Mr. Beard: I know we can put into the contract and specify what we want. But it's also been my experience that, these people come back, and when they end up, either you have gotten what you wanted, or it's an added cost. I Mr. Kuhlke: In your opinion, Drew and Randy, in reviewing the proposals, does Harry, Int., are they proposing the services that we are asking for in the request for proposals? Mr. Oliver: Yes, they are. Mr. Goins: Yes. Mr. Todd: I'm not saying that they are not a reputable company, I think they also participated in the proposals on reprogramming the jail project. And I think initially, originally on the jail project we went with the lowest proposals and construction management, and when we ended up pulling out of that we had a jail project that was going to cost us forty five million dollars and we finally got it down to thirty two million. I think you get what you pay for sometime. And I think that when we're talking professional ser,ices and proposals, we have that latitude so we can get the best situation and I don't necessarily believe that in all cases the cheapest situation is the best situation. I can support whatever the majority of the Commission supports, concerning the forty two thousand dollars. Certainly, I think that we are legal in going with the best proposal, versus the least expensive, and that's where I am on this. I want to get the best quality output as possible for the space allocation needs immediately and long range, and I know that the immediate needs are I the additional Courtrooms and the mechanics of this building. Then if we are talking long range, ten years down the road, then I think that this company is capable of giving us that. I'm not so sure that we are capable of financing that down the road, but we have our immediate needs financed. Mr. J. Brigham: I haven't seen any of them. My tendencies are to go with the lowest bidder, unless there is a reason that Randy would recommend we not go with that bidder, I think that's what we should do. Mr. Oliver: Harry Int., as you mentioned Commissioner Todd, is primarily a construction management firm, they have ventured out into the space allocation arena, because they have seen that space allocation is the forerunner to construction management and as I mentioned previously I think that they would hope to do us a good job here and I think that they knowingly, intentionally and in good conscience, put a price on the table that they thought was very attractive. And I think that they intend to do what they said, but I think they intend to do a good job and with the hope that they could possibly be rewarded on the back end. Mr. Todd: I haven't figured out why Mr. Oliver yet, but it's something about construction management companies just scare me. 1- Mr. Kuhlke: But we are not talking about construction management, and I agree with you with the experience that we had, I but, if you'll look back, when we hired Precision Planning to do the planning process on the jail as it is now, they did a good job, we ultimately hired them to do the architectural work on it, and they have done an excellent job on the jail. They gave us the lowest proposal in that particular instance, and we are saving two million dollars. I don't know any of these people, I'm just looking at it from a performance standpoint, and from a cost standpoint. I think we, as a Committee have a fiduciary responsibility from a standpoint of thinking that we will get the right kind of job done and to get it done as cheaply as we possibly can. But, I don't know if we need to talk anymore. But we, as a Committee need to go back to the Commission next week and make a recommendation to them, and we need to come up with something. Mr. Beard: What we have seems like a split between Harry, Int., and Duckett. Why don't we just present both of them to the full Commission and let the body make a decision on this with the information that Randy will have. Mr. Oliver: Commission at a opportunity to see I think the only problem is that it puts the disadvantage in that they didn't have an the three proposals or read the proposals. .1 Mr. Kuhlke: back to them with interviews, I get act on. I think that we are a Committee, we need to go a recommendation. The three of us sat in on the tired of the Committees bringing things to us to Mr. Todd: I would like to nominate Duckett and Associates as being the best qualified proposal. Mr. Beard: Second. I would like to add to that, with this letter they are saying they can get down to $87,000, which will be the second lowest. Motion passed with Mr. Kuhlke voting no. Mr. Kuhlke: If that is acceptable to the Commission. Does anyone have any objections that when we make this presentation to the Commission, that we make them fully aware of what we are doing, and of the other three proposals. Mr. Todd: I totally agree, including their proposal to refine their numbers, and also our suggestion that they drop the real estate opponent of this proposal. 1 Mr. Oliver: Clearly they will need a person to do some real estate market analysis for them. I think it's better however, not to use a local person to do that analysis. But what we will do, if it's ok with you, I plan to use the scope of services from CGA's and basically send it to them, saying that this is it, this is what we will put in the contract, this is what we expect you to sign and then negotiate the price. bjb With no other business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission 1- I..... 1-