Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-80-03034/24/80 o eo*�. RESOLUTION NO. 8 0` 3 0 3 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MOST QUALIFIED CONSULTING FIRMS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC STUDIES, FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF PROPOSED PARKING PROJECTS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRMS ON A ROTATING NON -CONTINGENT BASIS FOR PROPOSED PROJECTS, PROJECT BY PROJECT, TO ARRIVE AT CONTRACTS WHICH ARE FAIR, COMPETITIVE AND REASONABLE; ALLOCATING $30,000 FROM THE PARKING CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND TO COVER THL COST OF SAID CONTRACTS AND ANY NECESSARY ANCILLARY SERVICE CONTRACTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT CENTER; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT THE PROPOSED CONTRACTS TO THE CITY COMMISSION PT THE EARLIEST SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE COMMISSION AFTER NEGOTIATION SAID CONTRACTS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION PRIOR S L!F) PC)— -7 EXECUTION THEREOF; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE STUDIES -r--N R THE GOVERNMENT CENTER BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE SUPER- �.'�.1�N1� : ! OSION OF THE OFF-STREET PARKING AUTHORITY. FOLLOW WHEREAS, the Commission of the City of Miami, by Resolution No. 80-49, dated January 24, 1980, temporarily designated parking structure projects as Category B projects with respect to the planning and design thereof, in accordance with Section 16-17 of the City Code, which section established procedures in contracting for said professional services and also established competitive negotiation requirements with regard to the furnishing of such services; and WHEREAS, in the implementation of the said construction program, the City Manager solicited expressions of interest from qualified consultants and evaluated the qualifications of those firms which responded to his inquiry, then selected the most qualified firms for providing professional architectural/ engineering services for the design and construction of parking projects, all in accordance with the State of Florida Consultants, Competitive Negotiations Act, enacted by the Florida Legislature, 1 July 1973; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of Miami to begin the development of parking projects in the Government Center as soon as possible in order to reduce costs; and WHEREAS, funding for the cost of contracting for professional architectural/engineering services to begin the development of parking projects is available in Capital Projects Fund; I1ANCUMENT INDEX ' ITEM NO " tKMaCONISSION MEETING OF APR^ 4 1960 1180UM + No......�. 0 ............................. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City Commission hereby approves the selection by the City Manager of the following firms as the most qualified to provide professional architectural/ engineering services in the specialized field of traffic studies that may be required in the development process for the design and construction of proposed parking projects, in the rank order listed: Firm No. 1: Wilbur Smith & Associates Firm No. 2: Greenleaf-Telesca Planners & Architects "SUPPORT1�IFirm No. 3: Russell, Martinez & Holt -� _ (,Firm No. 4: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas DOCUMENT-('% FOLLOW y, "Firm No. 5: Simpson & Curtin l,J W Firm No. 6: Barton-Aschman Associates Section 2. The City Commission hereby approves the selection by the City Manager of the following firms as the most qualified to provide professional architectural/engineering services in the specialized field of feasibility studies that may be required in the development process for the design and construction of proposed parking projects, in the rank order listed: Firm No. 1: Wilbur Smith & Associates Firm No. 2: Barton-Aschman Associates Firm No. 3: Greenleaf-Telesca Planners & Architects Firm No. 4: Simpson & Curtin Firm No. 5: Russell, Martinez & Holt Firm No. 6: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas Section 3. The City Commission hereby approves the selection by the City Manager of the following firms as the most qualified to provide professional architectural/engineering services for design and construction phases of proposed parking projects, in the rank order listed: �A 80-303 Firm No. 1: Wilbur Smith & Associates Firm No. 2: Greenleaf-Telesca Planners & Architects Firm No. 3: Simpson & Curtin Firm No. 4: Russell, Martinez & Holt Firm No. 5: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas Firm No. 6: Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff Section 4. The City Commission hereby authorizes the City Manager or his designee to negotiate professional services agreements on behalf of the City of Miami with the rank ordered firms, listed in Sections 1, 2 and 3 hereinabove, on a rotating 1/, non -contingent 3/ basis for proposed parking projects, beginning with the first rank ordered firm, on a project by project basis, for such professional architectural/ engineering services as may be required for an individual project. During the negotiations procedure, in the event that the City Manager cannot negotiate an agreement which, in his opinion, is fair, competitive and reasonable, with any one of the first rank ordered firms, then he is hereby authorized to terminate such L' "f_U negotiations and to proceed to negotiate with the second most „0 J qualified firm. In the event that he fails to negotiate a _J U U satisfactory contract with the second firm, then he is authorized to undertake negotiations with the third through the sixth most v qualified firm in rank order until a fair, competitive and reasonable agreement is reached. Should the City Manager or his designee be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the above selected firms, additional firms shall be negotiated with in rank order of competence and qualifications until a fair, competitive and reasonable agreement is reached. 1/ "Rotating" means that the City Manager may negotiate with any firm in rank order sequence for any of the three types of services indicated in Sections 1, 2 and 3 herein, as may be required by a particular project and where the non - contingent criterion is met. 2/ "Non -contingent" means a) that any firm selected to provide traffic studies services (Section 1) will not be eligible to provide feasibility studies services (Section 2) for the same project, and b) that any firm selected to provide feasibili; studies services (Section 2) will not be eligible to provide design and construction services (Section 3) for the same project. 3 80-3 03 Section 5. The City Manager is directed to present to the City Commission the negotiated contracts at the earliest scheduled meeting of the City Commission immediately following the negotiation of the said contracts, for approval by the City Commission prior to execution. Section 6. The amount of $30,000 is hereby allocated from the account entitled, "Parking Capital Projects Fund," to cover the cost of said contracts and any necessary ancillary service contracts for the Government Center.1/ PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24 ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: City Attorney day of April , 1980. Maurice A. Ferre M A Y O R "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/ The contracts for the Government Center are to be performed under the supervision of the Off -Street Parking Authority. 4 80-3 03 CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM tat Joseph R. Grassie OATS: April 24, 1980 FILE: City Manager sueJECT: Agenda Item • City Commission Meeting 4/24/80 Amendment to Ordinance 9019 FpOMs Jim Reid, Director REFERENCES: Planning Department ENCLcsUR M The purpose of this agenda item is to amend Ordinance 9019, the Capital improvement Appropriations Ordinance, for the following reasons: 1. To increase the appropriation for North 59th Street Improvements (8017) 2. To establish Miami Springs Golf Course Renovation of Greens 3. To establish Feasibility and Design Studies for Parking Structures in the Government Center On March 31, 1980, the City of Miami Public Works Department received bids on the North 59th Street improvements project. The lowest responsible bid was $129,300 requiring an additional $41,300 to be appropriated from the Storm Sewer General Obligation Bond Fund Balance. The City of Miami Department of Leisure Services has determined that the first ten greens at the Miami Springs Golf Course need to be renovated. The project, estimated to cost $50,000, is to be funded from the Golf Course Enterprise Fund. On January 24, 1980, the City Commission passed Resolution 80-49 stating the City's intent to acquire professional services for the design and construction of parking structures in the near future. This proposed amendment to Ordinance 9019 establishes a Parking Capital Projects Fund with a $30,000 loan from available funds in the Capital Improvement Fund for feasibility and design studies for parking structures in the Government Center. This loan would ultimately be repaid from retained earnings from the Parking Structures, once in operation. JR:CF:bf cc: Law Department Management and Budget Department Department of Leisure Services Morris Kaufmann, City Manager's Office Public Works Department SO-3 03 "SUPf'O?�'�e rr APRIL 10, 1980 DOVU EN1 FOLLOW PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION OF FIRMS �FOR PARKING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE I INTRODUCTION 1 II METHODS 1 III FINDINGS 3 APPENDIX A - Advertisement, December 3, 1979 APPENDIX B - Parking Construction Projects, Guidelines for Selection of Consulting Firms APPENDIX C - Preliminary Selection APPENDIX D - Letter, dated March 3, 1980, Inviting Selected Firms to Make a Presentation. APPENDIX E - Advertisement, March 14, 1980 APPENDIX F - Final Selection APPENDIX G - List of Most Qualified Firms YOU, i�r; �. 4 , t'��i k�. t PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION OF FIRMS FOR PARKING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS I. INTRODUCTION In early November 1979, the City Manager directed Morris Kaufmann, Assistant to the City Manager, to investigate the status of parking requirements in the City of Miami and to develop a plan for constructing parking facilities where a public need existed, with the objective of integrating mixed use developments into such projects where possible. As an outgrowth of this effort it was determined that outside consulting firms which specialize in parking facilities ought to be engaged in assisting the City to undertake such project developments. The City Manager authorized :Morris Kaufmann to proceed with the necessary procedures, as provided for under Section 16-17 (Ordinance No. 8965), to select the most qualified firms that could provide professional consulting services for such projects. Accordingly, the City advertised on December 3, 1979, for expression of interest from firms especially qualified in the fields of traffic studies, feasibility studies and design of parking facilities (See Appendix A). In addition, the City mailed copies of the advertisement to over 400 local. architectural and engineering firms and to some 20 nationally recognized firms in order to obtain the widest range of response. The closing date was set at December 23, 1979. The following sections describe the methods used to evaluate the qualifications of interested firms and the results of the evaluation procedures. II. METHODS OF EVALUATING INTERESTED FIRMS In general, the evaluation procedure was divided into two major steps. The first step, the preliminary selection, consisted of establishing a priori criteria guidelines for evaluating information submitted by the interested firms with the objective of selecting at least three of the most qualified firms for further consideration. The second step, the find selection, consisted of establishing a priori criteria guidelines for evaluating the presentation information given by the most qualified firms to a Competitive Selection Committee. -1- F 0 L L v / t Initially an ad hoc Competitive Selection Committee was formed for the purpose of preparing the a priori criteria guidelines. This committee was composed of Morris Kaufmann; Donald Cather, Director of Public Works; James Connolly, Assistant to the City Manager; James Gunderson, Director of Finance; Richard Lalaaw, Director of the Off -Street Parking Authority; and Gerardo Salman, Director of Building and Zoning. The committee met several times during December 1979 and early - January 1980 and approved the document, entitled "Parking Construction Projects, Guidelines for Selection of Consulting Firms," attached hereto as Appendix B. On January 24, 1980, the City Commission passed Resolution No. 80-49, which designated all parking structure projects as Category B projects unless otherwise ordered by the Commission and which appointed Morris Kaufmann as Chairman of the Competitive Selection Committee. Thereafter, on January 28, 1980, the City Manager appointed the ad hoc committee members, listed above, and Roy Kenzie, Director of the Downtown Development Authority, to the Competitive Selection Committee. This committee met several times thereafter and adopted the "Guidelines" previously developed, with minor changes, as the operative document for conducting the selection procedures. On December 28, 1979, 34 firms had submitted expressions of interest in providing professional consulting services for the parking projects. During February 1980, each member of the Competitive Selection Committee reviewed the submitted information and evaluated each firm, using Forms A and B to record his findings. All. ratings were tabulated and averaged. The Committee decided to use a "weighted average" method in selecting the most qualified firms for presentation. The procedure was as follows: For each firm, the four highest ratings of the seven rating were added to give a "weighted total." This numher was divided by 4 to give a "weighted average." Firms with a "weiylited average" of 80 or more were considered to be among the most qualified and eligible for further evaluation. Of the 34 firms, 17 firms qualified under the "weighted average" method. See Appendix C. On March 3, 1980, the Chairman sent a letter to each of the 17 firms an,i set a date and time for a presentation. Included with the letter was a document of instructions and criteria for evaluating the presentation. See Appendix D. Of the 17 firms invited to make a presentation, 14 firms responded favorably and 3 firms declined. On IMarch 14, 19;30, the City advertised in The Miami Herald advising the general public of the presentation and inviting anyone to attend the proceedings. See Appendix E. -2- O The 14 firms made their presentations to the Competitive Selection Committee on March 24, 25 and 26 and April 2, 1980. Members of the Committee evaluated the presentation using Forms C and D. It was agreed by the Committee that Item 6, Investigation, rating value of 10, would be eliminated and that all ratings would first be determined to a base of 90, then adjusted or "weighted" to a base of 100. Before making its presentation, each firm was requested to express its interest in providing services for any or all of the three categories of work --traffic studies, feasibility studies and design. Of the 14 firms, one group of 11 firms expressed interest in providing traffic studies services, all 14 expressed interest in providing feasibility studies services and another group of 11 firms expressed interest in providing design services. After all presentations were completed, the ratings of each committee member were recorded and the "weighted averages" were determined. See Appendix F. III. FINDINGS In seeking the most qualified professional consulting firms to provide services in connection with the development of parking structures in Miami, the City solicited expressions of interest from more than 400 local and national firms. Of these, 34 firms responded, nearly all of them combinations of recognized national experts and local firms as joint ventures or professional associations. The Competitive Selection Committee evaluated the qualifications of each of the 34 firms and determines; that 17 firms were the most qualified for further consideration. Of the 17 invited firms, 14 firms made presentations. These firms were evaluated and classified into three categories of services --traffic studies, feasibility studies and design. Six firms rnaked among the first six most qualified in the catojoriew of service_; for traffic studies and feasibility studies in a scattered distribution. Five of the same six firms also ranked among the first six most qualified in the category of service for design in another distribution pattern. Tn total, seven firms were deemed most qualified in all categories, in rank order from one to six. Of the 14 firms, seven firms were selected as the most qualified distributed among the three categories of services and rank ordered from one to six. This distribution is shown in Appendix G. With the possibility that at least two or perhaps three projects may be undertaken in the near future and with the desirability of having non -contingent contractual arrangements for each of the: three categories of services required for each project, a rangy: ordering of the six most qualified firms seems reasonable. This array of consulting expertise gives the City the most flexibility in contracting for services when needed. -3 ►80-303 Olt APPENDIX A Qlifp of Miami, lar"ib t 12-A *see THE MIAATT TIE RALD Monday. Dec. 3.1979 The City of Miami is seeking professional consulting firms to assist the City and to provide services for the development of parking facilities to be constructed within the City limits. Initially, selected firms will prepare feasibility studies and design concepts for poten• tial project developments for facilities including parking for up to 1,500 spaces and with estimated construction costs up to $15 million. Upon the approval of proposed project developments, the selected firms may provide additional professional services for the design or construction of the facilities. The City selection procedure for contracting for professional services will follow Section 16-17 of the City Code (Ordinance No. 8965). Firms which are especially qualified and experienced in (1) traffic studies and investigations and (2) parking structures feasibility studios and drsign wo invited to send a letter of interest and back• ground information on or before Docember 28, 1979, to: hir. Donald W. Catlser Director, Public Works Departntont 3322 Fun American Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 579-6856 'a "SUPPORTIfV DO C U M h FOLLOW APPENDIX 8 FOR SELECTION OF CONSULTING FIRMS "SUPPORTIVE MI E �1 T DOCU FOLLOW ly 1 1 • • f PARKING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Selection Committee It. Criteria Guidelines - Initial Selection 1 A. Traffic Studies and Investigations l B. Feasibility Studies and Design 2 C. Selection Procedures - Initial Selection 3 111, Criteria Guidelines - Final Selection 4 A. Traffic Studies and Investigations 4 B. Feasibility Studies and Design 5 C. Selection Procedures - Final Selection 5 IV. Schedule 6 Forms A, B, C, D and Check Sheet E i i "SUPPOP Ft-/E DOCUMENro FOLLOW" PARKING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF CONSULTING FIRMS I. SELECTION COMMITTEE A Selection Committee has been appointed to review the qualifications of interested consulting firms for parking construction projects. The Committee will meet as a body and review all submitted information from interested consulting firms, with the objective of evaluating the applicants and making an initial selection of the ten or so most qualified firms. These firms will then be invited to meet with the Committee for an interview and presentation. The Committee will then rank order the firms and make a recommendation to the City Manager as to which firms should be considered for future work on the parking construction projects. II. CRITERIA GUIDELINES - INITIAL SELECTION A. Traffic Studies and Investigations The City is interested in selecting several firms which are experienced in the field of urban traffic. These firms will be assigned specific areas to investigate. The objectives of such investigations will be to determine present and anticipated traffic conditions, including vehicular, rapid transit and people mover modes of travel, impact on parking demands and environmental impacts and to recommend actions regarding construction potential of parking structures, street improvements, signalization and any other measures that would mitigate unfavorable impacts. The firms will be required to conduct field studies as well as to work closely with the City, the Countv and other authorities and organizations which may have jurisdiction or special. interest in the investigations. In the initial selection procedure, the Committee will rate interested applicants, using Form A, entitled "Traffic Engineering Initial Selection Criteria," attached hereto, following these guidelines: Item 1: Previous professional experience. Rating value: 45 To rate 45, the applicant should have an experience record indicating as a minimum: a. Five years in this special field, maximum value = 25 b. Twenty projects in the past three years, maximum value = 5 C. At least three projects in Florida in past three years, maximum value = 5 d. Five projects for one or more public agencies, maximum value = 5 e. Two projects which required preparation of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) study, maximum value = 5 i�S 11 P1 `.' 'Tleir�� F 0 L L (D t;------------ `>� Item 2: Organization and staff. Rating value: 50 To rate 50, the applicant should indicate that the firm is adequately organized and staffed to serve the City in an efficient and timely manner. Organization and staff are generally related to the amount of fees generated by the firm. A firm of specialists probably has a higher ratio of fees to number of employees than a firm that has a general practice. This ratio varies widely, of course, but a firm with earnings upward of $50,000 per employee is most likely doing the right things. If the applicant is a team, consisting of several firms in association as a joint venture or as a lead firm with consultants, then the team members should each be evaluated individually and the team as an entity should be evaluated along the following guidelines: a. Organizational structure, maximum value = 25 b. Professional experience of principals, if applicant is a single entity, maximum value = 25; or professional experience of associated firms as a team, maximum value = 25. Item 3: Affirmative action plan and capability to meet the City's requirements. This item is self-evident. Item 4: Location. Rating value: 5. Under Section 16-17 of the City Code, firms within the City should be given first preference and firms within Dade County, second preference, if all other factors are equal. Therefore a sliding scale of values as indicated in Form A appears appropriate in weighing a firm's location. B. Feasibility Studies and Design The City is interested in selecting several consultants which are experienced in the field of preparing feasibility studio's and in the design of parking facilities. The principle use of the feasibility studies would be their credibility by the bond underwriting firms that would assist the City in financing the construction of the parking facilities. Equally important will be the consultant's ability to design practical and economical parking facilities which may tie in to abutting or air right type of development. In the initial selection procedure, the Committee will rate interested applicants, using Form B, entitled "Feasibility and Design Initial Selection Criteria," attached hereto, following these guidelines: -2- 0 A A Item 1: Previous professional experience: Rating value: 45 To rate 45, the applicant should have an experience record indicating as a minimum: a. Five years in the field, maximum value = 15. b. Ten parking facilities of at least 200 parking spaces designed and built within the past five years, maximum value = 10. c. Three feasibility studies that were used by municipalities or other governmental agencies as basis of underwriting bond issues, maximum value = 15. d. Two projects, parking or otherwise, which required preparation of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) study, maximum value = 5. Item 2: Organization and staff. Maximum value: 50 a. Organizational structure, maximum value = 25 Same as paragraph A, Item 2 a. above. b. Professional experience. Maximum value = 25 If the applicant provides full architectural and engineering services, then to rate 25, the experience record should indicate that the firm has designed projects reflecting sensitivity to the clients' needs of program, budget and time. If the applicant proposes to join forces with one or more firms which will become a full -service architectural and engineering team,then to rate 25, the team members should have a long standing and successful relationship, as evidenced by its participation in the projects described in para- graph B, Item I, above. Item 3: Affirmative action plan and capability to meet the City's requirements. This item is self-evident. Item, 4: Location. Rating value: 5 Same as paragraph A, Item 4 above. C. Selection Procedures - Initial Selection. 1. At the first meeting of the Selection Committee, the above guidelines will be reviewed, discussed and modified as determined by a majority of the Committee. Any modifications will be incorporated into a final document which will then serve as the basis for the selection process. "SLpr,' �;� _ ���E - 3- FO L L 2. After all expressions of interest are received from the applicants, each package will be identified by number. Each Committee member, at a scheduled meeting, will be required to review and evaluate each package and to record his findings on either corm A or Form B, as applicable. After all members have completed the forms, the Committee will tally all totals to determine the average rating of each firm. Firms receiving an averar,e r,atinct of 80 or above will be considered most qualified for further evaluation in the final selection process. The most qualified firms will be contacted and asked to make a presentation to the Committee. III. CRITERIA GUIDELINES - FINAL SELECTION A. Traffic Studies and Investigations In this procedure, each invited applicant will first be sent a package of instructions regarding the forthcoming presentation and interview. Secondly, each applicant, responding to the invitation, will make a presentation and participate in an interview with the Committee. The Committee will then evaluate each applicant on Form C, entitled "Traffic Engineering Final Selection," attached hereto, following these guidelines: Item 1: Method of approach. Rating value: 60. Under this item, the applicant will be required to describe how his firm will carry out his assignment. It should be kept in mind that the applicant is not required to solve any specific problem or to provide the Committee with consulting services, but he should convince the Connittee of his competency and unique qualifications to undertake the work to be contracted for. In this regard, the applicant will advise the Committee about the following matters: a. Organization. Rating value = 15 b. Professional staff that will be assigned to a City project. Rating value = 10 C. Support capabilities. Rating value = 10 d. Activities an(_I schedules. Rating value = 10 e. Procedures and methods. Rating value = 15 Item 2: Previous experience. Rating value: 20. Under this item, the applicant will be required to describe at least three recent projects involving municipalities of which at least one of the projects required the preparation of a DRI. Item 3. Capability to meet City's requirements. Rating value: 10. Under this item, the applicant will be required to comment on the City's proposed contract terns and conditions, to discuss any exceptions and to prepare any special provisions for incorporation into a final document. -4- Item 4: Affirmative action plan. The applicant will describe his firm's affirmative action plan. Item 5: Fees. The applicant will discuss fees in general, giving the Committee his views on the proposed contract provisions regarding fees and payments and on method of contracting for his services. Item 6: Investigation. Rating value: 10 The Committee will contact at least three of the applicant's references to determine his firm's performance. B. Feasibility Studies and Design. Items 1 through 6 are similar to those in paragraph A above, with emphasis on the applicant's accomplishments and experience in designing projects on time and within clients' budgets. Form D, entitled "Feasibility and Design Final Selection," will be used by the Committee to record its evaluation of each applicant. C. Selection Procedures - Final Selection. Each member of the Committee will evaluate each applicant on Forms C and D, as applicable. The average rating value for each firm will be used to rank order the firms, with the number one rank having the highest average, with a cut-off at an average of 85. Firms whose average rating falls below 85 will not be considered among the "most qualified" firms for the parking construction projects in this round of selection. Upon completion of the selection, the Chairman of the Committee will submit a report to the City Manager, describing the selection procedures and listing all selected firms in rank order and file a copy of the report with the City Clerk. � ' T IV. SCHEDULE 3 Dec. 79 Advertise for consultants t ` 24 Jan. 80 Commission approves selection process 3 Mar. 80 Chairman invites consultants for presentation 25 26 27 Mar. 80 Consultants make presentation 2 April 80 3 April 80 Selection Committee completes evaluation of consultants' qualifications 24 Apr. 80 Commission approves: a. Parking Capital Projects Funds b. Selection of consulting firms C. Initiation of negotiations 25 Apr. 80 Begin negotiations 8 May 80 Commission approves professional services agreements 9 May 80 Issue letters to proceed for traffic studies and feasibility studies 12 May 80 Consultants begin traffic studies and feasibility studies 1 August 80 Consultants submit reports 14 August 80 Present reports to Commission for further action i TRAFFIC ENGINEERING - INITIAL SELECTION CRITERIA ' APPLICANT'S NUMBER ITEM CRITERIA RATING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 Previous professional experience: 45 a. Years in special field 25 b. Number of projects 5 c. Number in Florida 5 d. Public projects 5 e. DRI experience 5 2 Organization and staff 50 a. Team experience 25 b. Organization and staff integrated team; or 25 individual firm 25 3 Affirmative action plan and capability to meet City's Yes No requirements 4 Location: (Rate once only) 5 a. City of Miami: 5 b. Dade County: 4 C. Florida: 3 d. Outside Florida: 2. TOTAL 1 100 Committee Member Date Sheet of FORM A FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN - INITIAL SELECTION CRITERIA ' APPLICANT'S NUMBER ITEM CRITERIA RATING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 Previous professional experience 45 a. Years in field 15 b. Parking facilities 10 c. Feasibility studies 15 d. DRI experience 5 2 Organization and staff 50 a. Organizational structure 25 b. Professional experience* 25 3 Affirmative action plan and capability to meet City's Yes requirements No 4 Location: (Rate once only) a. City of Miami: 5 b. Dade County: 4 c. Florida: 3 d. Outside Florida: 2 TOTAL 100 Committee Member Date Sheet of *Use check sheets as a guide. FORM B 1 In TRAFFIC ENGINEERING - FINAL SELECTION APPLICANT'S NUMBER 7ITEM CRITERIA RATING 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Method of approach a. Organization b. Professional staff C. Support capabilities d. Activities and schedules e. Procedures and methods 60 15 10 10 10 15 2 Previous experience 20 3 Capability to meet City's requirements 10 4 Affirmative action plan Yes/No 5 Discussion of fees 6 Investigation 10 TOTAL 100 Committee Member Date FORM C Sheet of FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN - FINAL SELECTION APPLICANT'S NUMBER ITEM CRITERIA RATING 1 2 3 4 5 6 Method of approach: 60 a. Organization 15 b. Professional staff 10 c. Support capabilities 10 d. Activities and schedules 10 e. Procedures and methods 15 2 Previous experience 20 3 Capability to meet City's requirements 10 4 Affirmative action plan Yes/No 5 Discussion of fees 6 Investigation 10 TOTAL 100 Committee Member Date Sheet of FORM 0 CHECK SHEET Use as an aid in evaluating Organization and Staff. Fes No A. Capability of Team 1. Lead firm represents various design disciplines: • architecture/engineering --- . architecture w/engineering component . engineering w/architectural component . other 2. Member firms include following principals: • registered architect . registered engineer • registered landscape architect . other 3. Member firms represent complete array of design disciplines: architecture . traffic engineering curl engineering structural engineering mechanical engineering electrical engineering landscape architecture other 4. Integrated team offers services which are mutually complimentary. B. Adequacy of Staff 1. Team has sufficient and competent personnel to undertake assignment 2. Recent, current and projected work loads of team allow sufficient personnel capacity to undertake and accomplish assignment 3. Member firms demonstrate ability to work within budget 4. Member firms demonstrate ability to meet schedules Oft APPENDIX C LIST OF INTERESTED FIRMS FIRM Antoniadis Associates 3326 Mary Street Coconut Grove, Fla. 33133 Yiannis B. Antoniadis Barton-Aschman Associates 1730 K Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Harvey R. Joyner, V.P. Biscayne Engineering P.O. Box 011164 Miami, Fla. 33101 R.L. Robayna Herman Blum, Earle Rader, Inc. 640 Alfred I. Dupont Bldg. 169 E. Flagler St. Miami, Fla. 33101 Earle M. Rader The Bugdal Group 7227 N.W. 7th St. Miami, Fla. 33126 Richard H. Bugdal, Pres. Ralph Burke Associates 1550 Northwest Highway, Suite 400 Park Ridge, I11. 60068 J. L. Donoghue, Pres. Clough Associates Gables One Tower 1320 South Dixie - Suite 241 Miami, Fla. 33146 Ronald J. Clough, Partner Conrad Associates East 189 W. Madison St. Chicago, Ill. 60602 Howard R. May, Pres. APPLICANT NUMBER 25 23 29 2 27 16 22 . f E Craven Thompson & Associates 26 5901 N.W. 31st Ave. Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 33309 . Warren S. Craven, Partner -in -Charge Herbert L. Gopman & Associates 12 717 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Coral Gables, Fla. 33134 Herbert L. Gopman Greenleaf-Telesca Planners & Architects 4 2650 S.t•?. 27th Ave. Miami, Fla. 33133 Francis E. Telesca, Pres. Howard Needles Tammen & Sergendoff 1 1150 N.W. 72nd Ave. Miami, Fla. 33126 H. C. Lamberton, Jr., Partner -in -Charge James Madison Hunnicutt & Associates 32 7315 Wisconsin Ave. Washington, U.C. 20014 James hi, Hunnicutt, Pres. Johnson Associates 19 888 Brickell Ave., Suite 300 Miami, Fla. 33131 Richard K. Johnson Kunde, Driver, Simpson & Associates 18 9765 S.W. 184th St. Miami, Fla. 33157 Robert C. Sprecher, V.P. " Jack E. Leisch & Associates ],5 State National Bank Plaza 1603 Orrington - Suite 1290 Evanston, Ill. 60201 Jack L. Leisch, Pros. Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc. 13 2400 Michelson Dr. Irvine, Calif. 92715 P.M. Linscott, Pres. Metric Engineering, Inc. 17 11531 So. Dixie Miami, Fla. 33156 Victor Benitez, Pres. 2 1. w ,1 Mid South Engineering 34 7211 S.W. 62nd Ave. South Miami, Fla. 33143 Arnold Ramos, Pres. M. Noble & Associates 31 7801 Coral Way - Suite 113 Miami, Fla. 33155 Maurice Noble, P.E. O'Kon and Company 14 34 Peachtree St. Atlanta, Ga. 30303 James A. O'Kon, Pres, Pace, Inc. 28 207 Santillane Coral Gables, Fla. 33134 Cali Valle Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas 30 25 S.E. 1st Ave. - Suite 333 Miami, Fla. 33131 Kyaw Myint, Manager, Miami Office Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. 33 1000 Brickell Ave. Miami, Fla. 33131 Dale J. Maschino, Prin. Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. 5 7500 N.W. 52nd St. Miami, Fla. 33166 William W. Randolph, V.P. John Ross Associates $ 121 Majorca Ave. Coral Gables, Fla. 33134 John Ross Russell, Martinez & Holt 11 1800 Coral Way, Suite 204 Miami, Fla. 33145 Walter B. Martinez Schimpeler-Corradino Associates 7 300 Palermo Ave. Coral Gables, Fla. 33134 Douglas R. Campion, Senior V.P. Simpson & Curtin 36 1346 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 Michael G. Ferreri, Pres. 3 0 Smith, Korach, Hayet, Haynie Partnership 175 Fontainebleu Blvd., Suite 18 Miami, Fla. 33172 Irvin Korach, AIA, Partner Wilbur Smith & Associates 8675 Executive Center Dr. - Suite 210 Miami, Fla. 33166 Robert E. Whiteside A. Taquechel Associates 61 Merrick Way Coral Gables, Fla. 33134 A. Taquechel, Partner -in -Charge Vickrey, Ovresat/Awsumb Siddiq Khan & Assoc. 500 South Magnolia Ave. Orlando, Fla. 32801 R.S. Rokicki, Exec. V.P. 10 NOTE: All firms submitting the requested information were given an Applicant Number in order of receipt of such information. Upon examination of all information, it was determined that Applicants No. 20 and 24 were in association with other firms. Therefore these two numbers do not appear on the above list and are blank in all the rating sheets. 4 0 (01ft, APPENDIX C LIST OF FIRMS SELECTED TO MAKE PRESENTATION FIRM NO. FIRM PRESENTATION DATE AND TIME 1 Barton-Aschman Associates 24 Mar. 9:00 a.m. 3 Conrad Associates East 10:30 a.m. 4 Greenleaf-Telesca 11:15 a.m. 5 Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff 1:30 p.m. 6 Mid South Engineering 3:00 p.m. 7 M. Noble & Associates 25 Mar. 2:15 p.m. 8 Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas 3:00 p.m. 9 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. 3:45 p.m. 10 Wilbur Smith & Associates 26 Mar. 10:30 a.m. 11 Schimpeler-Corradino Associates 1:30 p.m. 12 Simpson & Curtin 2:15 p.m. 13 Smith, Korach, Hayet, Haynie Partnership 3:00 p.m. 14 Russell, Martinez & Holt 3:45 p.m. 15 Jack E. Leisch & Associates 2 Apr. 10:00 a.m. NOTE: The following firms were also selected to make a presentation: Ralph Burke Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc. Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. however these firms declines, the invitation. Ralph Burke's letter of regret was received on March 24, 1980, too late to change the firm \umber, therefore Firm Number 2 does not appear in the above list. f TALLY SITEET FEASIBILITY t%ND DESIGN - INITIAL SELECTION CRITERIA ADJUSTED 32 33 34 35 36 *\•/�Tp T'..a 0....4 _� .ter:. .. � �.7 L.. A ,� mil- 1 T.-. a-�� 1.-7 �`.a �nrl• C``, .. -. ..._.._.... _.. __.........,.�.:..n.-,�c_., .,nv..K,-..m...nr � �•K,�pie..nl:a•.. , ..,-.uv.>e+vsw«s�n.: :rvc:.,-an:wrta.an�n+-sn�nn .._. TALLY SITEET TRAFFIC ENGINEERING -_INITIAL SELECTION CRITERIA ADJUSTED 1 2 3 4 5 6 771 / 11 [ Y , • ,: •, '�-.- APPENDIX D March 3, 1990 I am pleased to advise you that the Selection Committee has selected your firm for further consideration in providing professional consulting services to the City of Miami for the proposed parking construction projects. You are invited to make a presentation to the Selection Cor'.iittee at 150 S.E. 2nd Avenue, 12th floor, regarding your firm's capabilities and to exchange information in an interview period thereafter. Enclosed please find Instructions regarding the meeting. If your firm is interested in providing both traffic and investigations services and feasibility studies and design services, please prepare your presentation so that the Selection Committee may evaluate each of the proposed services independently. We are looking forward to meeting you. If you have any further questions, please call me at (305) 579-3396. Sincerely, Morris I. Kaufmann Assistant to the City Manager Enclosure OP,APPENDIX D 0. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING FIRMS REGARDING PRESENTATION AND INTERVIEW GENERAL The procedures described herein conform to the provisions under Section 16-17 (Ordinance No. 8965) of the City Code for the acquisition of professional services. Specifically, the City of Miami is seeking the most qualified professional consulting firms to provide architectural and engineer.inq services in the near future in connection with the planning, design and construction of parking garage facilities. The City has advertised for expressions of interest from consultants who were especially qualified.in providing services for (1) traffic studies and investigations and (2) feasibility studies and design of parking facilities. A Selection Committee examined the information provided by all respondents to the advertisement and determined that your firm was among the most qualified to provide any or all of the above services. Accordingly, the Selection Committee invited you to make a presentation to it in accordance with these instructions so that the Selection Committee may complete its evaluation of the most qualified firms. Upon cor.,.pletion of its evaluation, the Selection Committee will preparc a report, including its findings and recommendations, and submit it to the City Manac;cr. IIe will then submit a resolution to the City Commission which will approve the list of the most qualified firms and will also authorize him to enter into negotiations with those firms in order of their ranking. TI IE FOR AND INTERVIFW The time and place of your presentation and interview are noted in the cover letter. The total time allotted to your firm will be limited to 45 minutes, allowing for about 25 minutes for your presentation and 20 minutes for the interview. SLIDES If you desire to show slides please bring your own projector and a 20-foot extension cord. The City will provide a screen. WRITTEN MAT- P.TAL No written material should be presented to the Selection Committee in the presentation and interview. PUBLIC NOTICE In accordance with Section 16-17, your presentation will be open to the general public. COSTS It is understood and agreed that by accepting the City's invitation to make a presentation and to participate in an interview with the 1 ' � 7 Selection Committee, your firm will bear all costs associated with the presentation and interview and that the City will have no obligation to recompense your firm in any way for such costs. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The criteria for evaluating your firm's qualifications are described below, one set of criteria pertains to traffic studies and investigations only and the other set to feasibility and design services. If your firm desires to be considered for both kinds of services, the Selection Committee will evaluate your presentation and interview for each set of criteria. It is highly desirable that the individuals who will be actually assigned to a project and who will be responsible for fulfilling the contractual services be among those making the presenta- tion or be available for questioning during the interview. A. TP.AFFIC STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS Scope of Services. It is intended that the consultant will study and investi6-Hte traffic conditions in and around an influence area of a size to be determined by the nature of a particular project. The consultant would be expected to make independent field investigations and to obtain and review available information from other agencies and organizations that may have an interest in the project. From these efforts the consultants will prepare a report and other documents, as may be required, describing existing and future conditions and analyzing the economical and environmental impacts that would arise from the construction of the project. The report and related documents would be used as the groundwork for determining the feasibility of the project and for developing plans that would mitigate unfavorable impacts. Method of Approach Based. on the above, your presentation should be a factual disserta- tion on your firm's organizational structure; the identification and qualifications of professional staff that will be assigned to a City project; support capabilities; an outline of activities that will be undertaken by the professional and support staffs; time schedules for accomplishin,j the activities; and a summary of procedures and methods developed and used by the firm to deliver the finished work products. It is not intended that your firm solve any specific problem or provide consulting services, but rather that you acquaint the Selection Committee with information about how your firm would work on a City project. Previous Experience Having given the Selection Committee an overview of your firm's method of approach, you should then describe at least three recent project: which involved municipalities. You should also indicate your experience in preparing documents for a Development of Regional Impact report among the recent projects. 2 or 000, Meeting the City's Requirements You are requested to comment upon the typical agreement between City and Consultant and to advise the Selection Committee of any proposed changes, omissions or additions that you deem necessary in order to enter into a contract. Affirmative Action Plan You are requested to describe your firm's affirmative action plan. - Fees The purpose of the presentation and interview does not include negotiating fees. however, the City's policy is to arrive at lump sum contracts when the scope of services can be defined within reasonable limits or, as an alternative, to arrive at a retaining fee type of contract with an upset amount when the scope of services cannot be defined. You are requested to comment on these concepts. B. FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND DESIGN Scope of Services. It is intended that one consultant will be engaged to prepare the feasibility studies and design concepts for a project and that a second consultant will be engaged to develop the design concepts into the contract documents in cases where there is a requirement for an indc� 7�mC:ent feasibility study. Otherwise, one consultant will be engaged with provisions in the agreement for phasing the work. In the first phase, the consultant would be required to review all applicable information, such as the traffic study reports, investigate the site conditions and program requirements as may be developed by the City or other entities, and then develop one or more design concepts. Each design concept will require an analysis of its financial feasi- bility, including estimates of development, construction and operational costs, as well as projections of qross and net revenues. The consultant will also be required to recommend alternative financing plans and to consult with the financial and legal advisors of the City in assisting the City in its efforts to package the project. In the second phase, the consultant would be required to complete the design concept into contract documents and also assist the City in the bidding and construction portions of the project. Method of Approach Based on the above, your presentation should be a factual disserta- tion on your firm's organization, including any joint venture or association; your consultants' or(lanizations; the identification and qualif.ication3 of all professional staff, including that of your consultants, that will be assigned to a City ;project; support capabilities; and outline of activities that willix-2 undertaken by the professional and support staffs; time schedules for accomplishing the activities; and a 3 summary of procedures and methods developed and used by your firm to coordinate and control projects and assure delivery of the finished work product on time and on budget. It is not intended that your firm solve any specific problem or provide consulting services, but rather that you acquaint the Selection Committee with information about how your firm and your consultants would function on a City project. Previous Experience Having given the Selection Committe an overview of your firm's method of approach, you should then describe at least three recent projects which your team has completed. The examples should include feasibility reports and design services for municipal parking structures. You should also indicate your experience in preparing such documents as a Development of Regional Impact report, an Evironmental Impact Assessment or an Environmental Impact Study and other permitting documents. In addition, you shoula discuss the projects' schedules and budgets and your team's method of their control. Meeting the City's Requirements You are requested to comment upon the typical agreement between City and Consultant and to advise the Selection Committe of any proposed changes, ommissions or additions that you deem necessary in order to enter into a contract. Affirmative Action Plan You are requested to describe your firm's and your consultants' affirmative action plan. Fees The purpose of the presentation and interview does not include negotiating fees. However, the City's policy is to contract for feasi- bility studies and design services, where the scope of work can generally be defined within reasonable limits, on a lump sum basis. You are requested to comment on this concept. 000 APPENDIX D �e March 13, 1990 Por your information the following firms have been invited to make a presentation to the Selection Committee for the proposed parking construction projects for the City of Miami: Barton-Aschman Associates Ralph Burke Associates Conrad Associates East Greenleaf-Tolesca Planners & Architects Howard Neadles Tarnmen & Bergendoff Jack E. Leisch & Associates Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc. Mid South Engineerincj M. Noble & Associates Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quads & Douglas Peat, Marwick' Mitchell & Co. Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. Russell, Mart:inuz & Elolt Schi:nE cler-Corry 3ino Associates Simi :.on & Curtin Smith, Korach, Fiayet, Haynie Partnership Wilbur Smith & Associates Presentations will be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, March 24, 25 and 2G, 1980. Sincerely, Morris I. Kaufmann Assistant to the City Manager APPENDIX E Miami Herald March 14, 1980 U3L3���3� The City of Miami will review the qualifications of consultants for professional services with regard to the design and construc- tion of parking structures. All interested parties are invited to attend the presentations. Thee will be held at 150 SE 2 Ave., 12th Floor, Monday, March 24, 1980, 9 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., TuMsday, March 25, 1980, 2:15 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. and Wednesday, March 26, 1980, 10:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Any questions should be directed to: Morris I. Kaufmann, Assistant to the i l City Manager, (305) 579-3396. APPENDIX F PARKING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ' FINAL SELECTION PROCEDURE LIST OF CANDIDATE FIRMS PIRM NO. FIRM NAME AND ADDRESS 1 Barton-Aschman Associates Mr. Harvey R. Joyner, V.P. 1730 K Street N.W. (202) 466-8230 Washington, D.C. 20006 2 Conrad Associates East Mr. Howard R. May, Pres, 189 W. Madison St. (312) 263-3139 Chicago, I11. 60602 rK i 3 Greenleaf-Telesca Planners & Architects Mr. Francis E. Telesca, Pre: 2650 S.W. 27th Ave. 444-8411 Miami, Fla. 33133 4 Howard Needles Tammen & Bergencloff Mr. H. C. Lamberton, Jr. 1150 N.W. 72nd Ave. Partner -in -Charge Miami 33126 592-5930 5 Mid South Engineering Mr. Arnold Ramos, Pres. 7211 S.W. 62nd Ave. 661-4045 South Miami, Fla. 33143 6 M. Noble & Associates Mr. Maurice Noble 7801 Coral Way - Suite 113 261-58G6 Miami, Fla. 33155 Richard C. Rich & Associates Mr. Richard C. Rich 25240 Lahcer Rd. (313) 353-5080 Southfield, Mich. 48034 7 Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas Mr. Kyaw Myint, Manager, 25 S.E. lit Ave., Suite 333 Miami Office Miami, Fla. 33131 358-1797 8 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Mr. Dale J. Maschino, Prin. 1000 Brickell Ave. 358-2300 Miami, Fla. 33131 9 Wilbur Smith & Associates Mr. Robert E. Whiteside 8G75 Executive Center Dr. - Suite 210 592-0637 Miami 331GG 10 Russell, Martinez & Holt Mr. Walter B. Martinez 1800 Coral Way, Suite 204 856-4941 Miami 33145 l , t FIRM N0. FIRM NAME AND ADDRESS 11 Schimpeler-Corradino Associates Mr. Douglas R. Campion 3000 Palermo Ave. Senior Vice President Coral Gables, Fla. 33134 447-9873 12 Simpson & Curtin Mr. Michael G. Ferreri, 1346 Chestnut St. Pres. Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 (215) 545-8000 13 Smith, Korach, Hayet, Haynie Partnership Mr. Irvin Korach - 175 Fontainebleu Blvd., Suite 18 552-5200 Miami, Fla. 33172 14 Jack E. Leisch & Associates Mr. Jack E. Leiseh, Pres. State National Bank Plaza, Suite 1290 (312) 866-9490 1603 Orrington Evanston, Illinois 60201 c d cI" PARKING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FINAL SELECTION PROCEDURE SUMMARY SHEET TRAFFIC STUDIES 2 APRIL 1980 FIRM NO• (A) SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBER RATING TOTAL SCORE (B) AVERAGE (C) WEIGHTED AVERAGE (D) RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 55 90 83 81 78 - 85 472 78.67 87.41 6 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - 75 88 83 90 83 80 499 83.17 92.41 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 5 70 71 72 78 75 - 75 441 73.5 81.67 9 6 - - - - - - - - - - - 7 77 87 77 73 90 86 - 490 81.67 90.74 4 e 79 70 74 45 60 - - 328 54.67 60.74 11 9 90 90 81 84 90 75 - 510 84.00 .94.44 1 10 78 85 87 72 88 85 - 495 82.50 91.67 3 11 78 85 70 75 75 80 - 463 77.17 85.75 8 12 83 87 84 73 76 78 - 481 80.17 89.07 5 13 - 69 75 60 62 70 - 336 67.20 1 74.67 10 14 73 88 1 82 67 77 83 - 470 78.33 1 87.04 7 NOTES (A) See Attached List of Firms (B) Summation of ratings in columns numbered 1 through 7 (C) Column (B) divided by number of members who rated the firm (D) Column (C) X 100 90 f PARKING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FINAL SELECTION PROCEDURE SUMMARY SHEET FEASIBILITY STUDIES 2 APRIL 1980 FIRM NO. (A) SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBER RATING TOTAL SCORE (B) AVERAGE (C) WEIGHTED AVERAGE (D) RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 80 - 86 76 85 85 85 497 82.83 92.04 2 2 - 80 90 65 50 70 70 425 70.83 78.70 13 3 - 83 89 79 85 78 80 494 82.33 91.48 3 4 80 75 80 76 87 80 70 548 72.28 86.98 7 5 73 80 71 65 84 74 75 522 74.57 82.86 10 6 69 - 80 81 80 73 - 382 76.60 85.11 9 7 79 80 79 72 90 75 - 475 79.16 87.96 6 8 66 - 74 50 79 78 - 347 69.40 77.11 14 9 90 75 82 79 90 90 - 506 84.33 93.70 1 10 70 85 87 82 85 77 - 476 79.33 88.15 5 11 73 75 69 75 75 80 - 447 74.50 72.78 11 12 75 80 83 77 90 82 - 487 81.16 90.18 4 13 - 75 77 60 74 73 - 359 71.80 79.78 12 14 73 1 79 85 66 82 82 - 467 77.83 86.48 8 NOTES (A) See Attached List of Firms (B) Summation of ratings in columns numbered 1 through 7 (C) Column (B) divided by number of members who rated the firm (D) Column (C) X 100 90 t t• ( 0- PARKING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FINAL SELECTION PROCEDURE SUMMARY SHEET DESIGN 2 APRIL 1980 FIRM SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBER TOTAL WEIGHTED NO. RATING SCORE AVERAGE AVERAGE RANK (A) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) (C) (D) 1 _ 2 - 80 90 65 50 70 70 425 70.83 70.83 11 3 - 83 89 79 85 78 80 494 82.33 91.48 2 4 80 75 80 76 87 80 70 548 78.29 86.98 6 5 73 - 71 65 84 74 75 442 73.67 81.85 9 6 69 - 80 81 80 73 - 383 76.60 85.11 7 7 79 80 79 72 90 75 - 475 79.16 87.96 5 8 9 90 75 82 79 90 90 - 506 84.33 93.70 1 10 70 85 87 72 85 77 - 476 79.33 88.14 4 11 73 75 69 75 75 80 - 447 74.50 82.77 8 12 75 80 83 77 90 82 - 487 81.16 90.18 3 13 _ 75 77 60 74 73 - 359 71.80 79.78 10 14 NOTES (A) See Attached List of Firms (B) Summation of ratings in columns numbered 1 through 7 (C) Column (B) divided by number of members who rated the firm (D) Column (C) X 100 90 r < APPENDIX G LIST OF MOST QUALIFIED FIRMS TRAFFIC STUDIES 1. Wilbur Smith & Associates 2. Greenleaf-Telesca Planners & Architects 3. Russell, Martinez & Holt € 4. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas f" S. Simpson & Curtin 6. Barton-Aschman Associates FEASIBILITY STUDIES 1. Wilbur Smith & Associates 2. Barton-Aschman Associates 3. Greenleaf-Telesca Planners & Architects 4. Simpson & Curtin f' S. Russell, Martinez & Holt a 6. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas ji 1 DESIGN SERVICES 1. Wilbur Smith & Associates 2. Greenleaf-Telesca Planners & Architects 3. Simpson & Curtin 4. Russell, Martinez & Holt 5. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas 6. Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff TO! Mr. Joseph R. Grassie City Manager FROM' Morris I. Kauf ann Assistant to t e City Manager �) 41L- April 10, 1980 !-- 5U'lI'-Proposed Resolution Regarding Selection of Consultants for Parking Projects I r;-E"C!rC 9: JCLCbUnr.,. �W (/�„- It is recommended that the attached resolution be adopted by City Commission in its meeting of April 24, 1980, t (�� approving the most qualified consulting firms to provide rf architectural/engineering services; authorizinq the City Manager to negotiate and enter into contracts on a rotating, non -contingent basis; authorizing the City Manager to negotiate contracts with the selected firms in rank order; directing the (/ City Manager to present executed contracts to the City Commission v for its ratification and approval; and allocating $175,000 from the Parking Capital Projects Fund account to cover cost of such contracts. Following the adoption of Resolution No. 80-49, dated January 24, 1980, whereby parking structure projects were designated as Category B projects, a Competitive Selection Cocrunittee, appointed by the City Manager in his Memorandum, dated January 28, 1980, proceeded with the selection of the six most qualified firms to provide architectural/engineering services in each of three fields, with regard to the development and construction of such projects. The Competitive Selection Committee followed the procedures as provided for in Section 16-17 of the City Code. On the assumption that the City may desire to undertake the development of at least two parking structures in the near future, it was felt that six firms ought to be chosen in each of the three fields of specialized services. All firms selected by the Committee have national recognition in their fields and are listed below: RANK TRAFFIC FEASIBILITY DESIGN 1. Wilbur Smith & Associates (WS) WS WS 2. Greenleaf-Telesca Planners & Architects (GT) BA GT 3. Russell, Martinez & Holt (RMH) GT SC 4. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas (PBQD) SC RMH 5. Simpson & Curtin (SC) RMH PBQD 6. Barton-Aschman Associates (BA) PBQD Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff 80-3 Mr. Joseph R. Grassie -a- April 10, 1980 In the proposed resolution the City Commission will approve the City Manager's selection of the consulting firms in each of the three specialized fields; will also authorize the City Manager to negotiate with these firms on a rotating, non -contingent basis, project by project, for such professional services as may be required and provide for negotiation procedures in accordance with Section 16-17; will direct the City Manager to present the executed contracts to the City Commission at a later date for its ratification and approval; and will allocate $175,000 from the Parking Capital Projects Fund to cover the cost of said contracts and related service contracts. i ct 1 Y CF MIAMI. FL OMDA ' r I -NI A —OFFICE PA�'A0�2A.t1^iUM tat Mr. Joseph R. Grassie UA*5: April 10, 1980 FILE: City Manager 8UgJCC*: Report, entitled "Procedures for Selection of Firms for Parking Construction Projects" paou: Morris I. Kaufmann AEFER6NCE9: Assistant tj the City Manager ENCL03UAC9: The attached report, referenced above, describes the methods and findings of the Competitive Selection Committee appointed by you in your Memorandum, dated January 28, 1980, for the purpose of evaluating the qualifications of interested firms and of selecting the most qualified among them to provide professional consulting services with regard to future parking construction projects. The procedures were followed in conformance with the provisions of Section 16-17 of the City Code (Ordinance No. 8965) and the report complies with the requirements of paragraph (5) (g) therein.