HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-78-0605RESOLUTION NO, 7 8
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MOST QUALIFIED CONSULTING
I'IRMS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE STATIONS
NOS. 4, 9 AND 14; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
UNDERTAKE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRMS TO
ARRIVE AT CONTRACTS WHICH ARE FAIR, COMPETITIVE AND
REASONABLE! AND ALLOCATING $160,000 FROM FIRE FIGHTING,
FIRE PREVENTION AND RESCUE FACILITIES BOND FUNDS TO COVER
COST OF SAID CONTRACTS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
TO PRESENT EXECUTED CONTRACTS TO THE COMMISSION AT THE
EARLIEST SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE COMMISSION AFTER THE
EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS, FOR RATIFICATION AND APPROVAL
OF THE COMMISSION.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCU m EN TS
FOLLOW" WHEREAS the Commission of the City of Miami, by
Resolution No. 77-231, dated March 16, 1977, approved the Official
Statement respecting $28,000,000 General Obligation Improvement
Bodnds, consisting of, among other items, $5,000,000 Fire Fighting.
Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Commission of the City of Miami, by
Resolution No. 77-308, dated April 14, 1977, awarded the sale of,
among other items, $5,000,000 Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and
Rescue Facilities Bonds to the low bidder Bache, Halsey#0-Sk InttfENT IN DE
Inc.: and
wEEREAS, the Commission of the City of Miami, ( b M NO ,.>26-)
Resolution No. 77-937, dated 15 December 1977, approved the Official
Statement respecting $14,040,000 General Obligation Bonds, consisting
of, among other items, $1,000,000 Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention
and Rescue Facilities Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Commission of the City of Miami, by
Resolution No. 78-28, dated January 11, 1978, awarded the sale of,
among other items, $1,000,000 Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and
Rescue Facilities Bonds to the low bidder Bache Halsey Stuart
Shields Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Commission of the City of Miami adopted the
Capital Improvements Program Budget, including, among other items,
allocations from the above -mentioned Bond Funds for the construction
of proposed new Fire Stations Nos. 4, 9 and 14, by Ordinance No.
8716, dated October 26, 1977; and
WHEREAS, in the implementation of the said construction
program, the City Manager solicited expressions of interests 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 Fire Stations Nos. 4,
9 and 14, all in accordance
with the
State of Florida's Consultants'
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
SEP2 8 1978
NOX0 i ).
Cb npetitive Negotiation Act, enacted by the 1egieiature Of
'lorida, 1 July 1973; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of
Miami to begin the design of the Fire Stations as soon as possible
ih order to reduce costs;
NOW, THEREFORE, T3E IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF
E CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Commission of the City of Miami approves
the selection of the City Manager of the following firms as the
most qualified to provide professional architectural/engineering
services for the design and construction of the proposed Fire
Station No. 4, in the rank order listed:
(a) Firm No. l: Bouterse, Perez & Fabregas
(b) Firm No.
SKBB, Inc. Architects
Taquechel & Assoc., Inc. Architects
Section 2. The Commission of the City of Miami approves
the selection of the City Manager of the following firms as the
most qualified to provide professional architectural/engineering
services for the design and construction of the proposed Fire
Station No. 9, in the rank order listed:
(a) Firm No. 1: SKBB, Inc. Architects
S
rl'f ( ��T�-_
(b) Firm No. 2: Bouterse, Perez & Fabregas
�Ji� i�'.�..FO (c) Firm No.
LV Section - 3. The Commission of the City of Miami approves
the selection of the City Manager of the following firms as the
most qualified to provide professional architectural/engineering
services for the design and construction of the proposed Fire
Station No. 14, in the rank order listed:
(a) Firm No. 1: A. Taquechel & Assoc.
. Taquechel & Assoc., Inc. Architects
t` e City
a(Jreeriir_!nts
k o r i''., : t
Firm No.
Bouterse, Perez & Fabregas
nc. Architects
Inc. Architects
ec; .:ion 4, The Commission of the City of Miami authorizes
na9or to negotiate and enter into professional services
on be -half of the City of Miami with each of the first
6 firms, listed in Sections 1., 2 and 3 herei.nabove,
1111111111111111111 11111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 1111111
f'dblJedtiVe1y4 Ih the event that the City Manager cannot negotiate
&11 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 negotiations and to proceed
to negotiate with the second most qualified firm. In the event
that he fails to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the second
firm, then he is hereby authorized to undertake negotiations with
the third most qualified firm.
Section 5. The amount of $160,000 is hereby allocated
from the account entitled, "Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and
-Rescue Facilities Bond Funds", to cover the cost of said contracts.
Section 6. The City Manager is directed to present to
the Commission of the City of Miami, the executed contracts at the
earliest scheduled meeting of the Commission of the City of Miami,
immediately following the execution of the said contracts, for
ratification and approval of the Commission of the City of Miami.
1978.
RAL
CITY
PASED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th day of September
G. ONGIE
CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
elad lie&c
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
GEORGE F. KNOX, JR,
CITY ATTORNEY
Maurice A. Ferre
MAYOR
_
Jr\ tiVC
11/4-/UIVit fq Ts
FOLLOW'?
7 e
FIRE STATIONS NUMBER 4, 9 AND 14,
ARCHITECTURAh SELECTION CRITERIA
ltiibELItiEs FOR RATING ARCIHITECTURAL FIRMS
'RELECTIO4 PROCESS
A Selection Committee has been designated by Edward Prolix Deputy Chie f
to review the qualifications of interested architectural firms: This
Committee will meet as a body and review all submitted information with the
objective of selecting at least three firms for a final selection presentation
and interview. The select -.ion proeeess will be as fair as possible to find
the best qualified firms to undertake the project. Each member of the
Committee will review each firrn's submitted information and rate each firm on
each of seven items. Each firm will be given an identification number.
Upon completion of each member's review, scores will be tallied to give a
consensus rating to each firm. The top three or so firms will be advised
by telegram and letter, thereafter, to meet with the committee for final
presentation and interview. In the event there are any questions concerning
the firms, a staff member will be available to furnish additional technical
information. In the event there are ties among the top rated firms, such
that it is not clear which are the highest ranked firms, then each member
will be asked to rank the tied firms. The new consensus rank score should
break the tied position.
II. CRITERIA GUIDELINES - INITIAL SELECTION
A. Rating Guidelines:
1. Previous professional experience in designing similar projects. Rating
total: 30
While it is unlikely that a particular firm has designed a fire station,
other projects may he similar in scope and complexity and ought to be
viewed as favorable to the firm. Industrial type buildings, such as
Warehouses, manufacturing or processing plants, together with experience
in dormitory type construction, such as nursing homes, dormitories,
hospitals, should indicate a firrn's capability to approach a fire
station project. Other types of governmental facilities could also
qualify as good experience.
Another factor that should indicate a high rating, together with the
experience factor, is repeat business. A firm that has designed a
facility of this type for a client and then is asked to design another
facility, whether similar to this or not, indicates that the firm did
something right.
To rate 30, a firm ought to have an experience record of at least three
similar types of projects, repeat clients and a general variety of
practice.
. Examples of designs indicating creativity and sensitivity to the clients'
requirements. Rating total: 10.
"SUPPORTIVE TRUE
OCUIIE s
FOLLOW"
r 78-605
of imui iii iii m iii i ■ iii
by tiiiy# each firm will submit photographs of completed projects that
ietonstrate its creative capabilities. An esthetic tour de force does
teit necessarily mean that the project was successful. It could have
been costly only. And it could have won professional awards. The test
is whethet the client found the project to his liking. Repeat clients
ate good indicators that the firm satisfies and most likely achieves
what the clients want - in short, is sensitive to the client's
tequi rernents .
TO rate 10, a firm ought to have repeat clients - three or more; to
have won scme professional awards for design or have been given
recognition by some reliable organization for its work. Additionally,
the firm's principals should be out front in the design field, either
by having been elected to high office in professional organizations, by
having written about design and architecture, by having held substantial
posts in the academic world or by being involved in similar activities
which illustrate that the principals are creative and sensitive
practitioners.
Organizational and professional staff. Rating total: 10.
This project will require an organization that can produce a quality
design in a short time and under quite a bit of pressure. Its
organizational make-up will be critical to its success. If a firm is
very large (35 or more), there is a possibility that this project will
be too small for the principals to get very involved. If the firm is
too small (5 or less), there is a possibility that this project is too
big or that the principals will be out looking for additional work after
the contract is signed. These are two extreme possibilities and have
to be weighed carefully. The test is what has the firm done in the past.
If it is small and has had a steady work load, say the equivalent of
four of these projects a year, then smallness is a measure of efficiency.
If the firm is large and handles a good variety of projects, then
largeness is a measure of efficiency. Look for its work load patterns
as well as the size and structure.
To rate 10, the firm ought to have a work load that averages around
the size of this project ($400,000 to $1,500,000) with a staff of about
5 persons (3 - 4 professionals and 1 support) for every three or four
projects of this size worked on per year. Thus, if a firm indicates a
work load of say 12 projects per year, whose average construction cost
is between $400,000 to $1,500,000, the firm should have about 15 people,
of which 3 are support, and the remainder, professionals. As the
average cost of construction of projects go up, so does the number of
people required to do the projects, but at a faster rate. Thus, to
handle projects in the $3 million range, the staff requirements are
about eight to fifteen for every two projects handled per year,
depending upon the scope of services. Unless large firms specialize in
projects of this size, a rating of 10 is not fair to the medium sized
firm. And unless a small firm has a demonstrated experience of stability
and continuing practice with projects of this size, it does not fairly
rate a 10.
•
•
besigh expetience of team which will work on this project Rating
total: 10.
the usual team approach in an architectural firm is to assign a
Principal -in -charge, a project architect (or job captain) and one of
more designers or draftsmen to ,assist the project architect.
Additionally, the firm calls upon specialists, either in-house or as
outside consultants, for matters relating to landscape architecture,
specifications, cost estimates, as well as for the engineering aspects
of the project. This project calls for the equivalent of a 3-person
team working continuously on the design ;and construction documents.
There should be a principal (in a small or medium-sized firm, this
person may also be the job captain) who actively participates in the
design process and several experienced designers and detailers, plus
the specialists. There should be at least one or two support staff
available for interim periods throughout the design period.
Ideally, the firm should indicate that some five or so different
persons will be associated with this project in the architect's office
for architectural matters, with emphasis on having a principal being
active in the design process all through the design period.
. Firm's affirmative action program and capability to meet the Cityis
requirements. Rating total: 10.
This item is self-evident.
b. Firm's experience in other City projects. Rating.totalt
This item is self-evident.
. Firm's proposed engineering consultants. Rating total: 25.
This item is similar to Item 1. Architects usually employ the same
engineers who can work well with them, although larger firms will spread
the work around among a number of engineering consultants. The firms
that deserve the highest ratings will be those that have used good
engineering consultants. Keep in mind that the engineering on a project
of this type will account for about 50 percent of the costs. The
qualifications of the electrical consultants should carry most of the
weight in evaluating the engineering team.
S: Rating Form:
Form A, entitled "Architectural/Engineering Selection Criteria - Initial
Selection Process" will be used on the initial selection. Each member will
rate each firm according to the seven criteria reviewed above. Then all
firms will be rated by consensus to determine rank ordering. The Selection
Committee will then decide how many firms to write for the final selection.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"-
i i i ii IJi II■I■I
ttt: CRITERIA GUIDELINES = FINAL SELTCTION
A; Generat
Each of the firms in the final selection process will have been rjiveh
information about the project in some detail and will have been requested
to prepare a presentation for the Selection Committee, in the same order
as follows. The firm will be allowed about 20 minutes for its presentation
after which the menbers could ask questions. The entire process should
take about 1/2 hour per firm.
8. Rating Guidelines:
1. Capability to complete the design and construction documents Within
90 calendar days. Rating total: 45.
This item is divided into two sections.
The first section deals with the architect's in-house capability: its
professional staff, the support organization, and the method of approach;
each of which rates 10, for a maximum of 30. Please review the Item 3,
above. In addition to describing how the firm is structured, how this
project will fit into the firm's work load pattern and who will actually
perform the work on this project, the firm should convince each member
that the principals have thought about the particulars of this project
and that they have an effective design program. Keep in mind that the
firm will have a tight deadline and that the firm which has a positive
approach to accomplishing the work on schedule ought to rate high. A
firm should be able to cite examples to assure the committee that it
has had such experience in producing good designs in a short time period.
Since the practice of architecture is an art form, each experience has
been one of some mistakes, as well as hits. The firm that has a good
history of learning about its mistakes will be well worth considering
as the top one.
The second section is about the architect's consultants: structural,
electrical, mechanical and civil engineers and landscape architects,
for a total rating of 15. It will be a requirement that these
consultants be at the presentation. The committee should ask them
questions in case only the architect makes the presentation, so that
the committee members will learn about their background. A team that
has worked together before provides an advantage in that the individuals
will not have to go through a learning process at this project's expense.
This project should be designed with a systems approach to yield an end
product that is of good quality, has flexibility in the structural,
electrical and mechanical systems, is easy to maintain, and is low
energy using. The engineering costs of the building will be about 50
percent of the total construction costs so the engineering aspects are
important. There will also be a requirement for attention to the site
work and appearance of the entire project.
MM
in summary, a firm scoring 45 ought to have demonstrated to the committee
that it has good experience in working on this type of project under
tight time constraints, that it has developed a team of consultants in
this experience, and that it has specific ideas about this project. The
consultants should also be convincing that they have the know-how, both
technologically and administratively to deliver the desired product.
Projects completed on time and within the budget. Rating total: 15,
The firm should satisfy the committee members that it has had experience
in meeting deadlines and in keeping designs within budgets. This aspect
is very important. It will be unfair to ask the_ firm for design solutions.
However, it will be in order to ask the principals about measures they
have taken on otter projects that will assure the committee of the firm's
-competency and capability to handle this project and to complete it on
tithe and within the budget. To rate 15, the firm ought to present at
least three case studies of projects that have been completed (not under
Construction) in the past two years demonstrating what the firm did to
overcome escalating construction costs.
• Firm's affirmative action program and capability to meet the City's
requirements. Rating total: 10.
This is self-explanatory.
• Examples of firm's work that indicate creativity and sensitiVitj►to the
project's requirements. Rating total: 10.
Please review Item 2, under Initial Selection, above. The firm ought
to give at least three case studies which demonstrate its creativity
and design capabilities.
. Previous professional experience of firm on similar projects.
Rating total: 10.
• Quality of presentation. Rating total: 10.
This is purely subjective. To some people a good show is a sign of
talent. If you see and hear what pleases you, then rate the firm
accordingly.
. Foe Structure. Rating Total: 5. (OPTIONAL)
The purpose of the interview and presentation is to select the top
qualified firms for the project. Fees can always be negotiated.
However, the architect may not feel comfortable discussing his fees
with consultants present. Therefore the Chairman should give the
architect an opportunity to have his consultants leave or stay, as he
wishes. The principal should be prepared to discuss fees in_yeneral,
giving the committee a range of the cost of his services and preferred
method of contracting. Prior to the interview date the film will be
sent a typical contract and det:ails of the scope of services the City
will expect the firm to perform. Therefore, it would seem appropriate
that the firm be in a position to discuss the matter of fees in the
above context.
IMM
•
Aa ing Foem:
Form b, entitled "Architectural/;ngineering Selection
Criteria - Final Selection Process" will be used ih
the interview and presentation: As in the Initial
Selection Procedure, each member will score each
firm according to the criteria and a consensus will
rank order all firms. The Selection Committee will
then decide on which firms should be recommended to
the City Manager for each of the three Fire Stations.
• Iti: - itbM$UNICATION: TO CONSULTANTS
Attached are the following communications documents that
Will be sent to the consultants during the selection process:
Appendix A - Advertisement, issue date: 3 September'78
Appendix B - Invitation to Selected Consultants,
issue date: 15 September '78
Letter
Telegram
Instructions
Typical Contract
Appendix C - Letter's issue date:
29 September 4.18-
Appendix D - Notice to Proceed, issue date: 17,October, '78
D OF, GUIDELINES,
i,.
FIRE STATIONS NOS. 4, 9 & 14
CONSULTANT SELECTION CRITERIA - INITIAL SELECTION
CRITERIA
Previous -professional experience
in designing similar projects.
2. Examples of designs indicating
creativity and sensitvity to
project requirements.
3. Organization and professional
staff.
4. Design experience of team that
will work on this project.
5. Affirmative action program and
capability to meet City's
requirements.
6.
Experience on other City work.
7. Proposed engineering
consultants.
TOTAL
kComm .ttee Member
■11111111111111
11
1111111111111111•■ 1■ 111111 I I I I
RATING
11■1110 11E1111111111
2 1 3
4
5
Date
6
7
8
111111II•MIIIMIN11111III11I11111III1111
FIRE STATIONS NOS. 4, 9, & 14
CONSULTANT SELECTION CRITERIA - PRESENTATION & INTERVIEW
CONSULTANT
CRITERIA !RATING
1. Capability to complete the design and construction
documents within 90 days.
IN-IIOUSE CAPABILITY
a. Professional Staff
b,. Support organization
c. Method of approach
ENGINLERING CAPABILITY
a. Structural engineer
b. Electrical & mechanical engineers 8
c. Other consultants 2
2. Projects completes on time and within budgets. 15
3. Affirmative action program and capability to
meet City's requirements. 10
4.. Examples of work that indicates creativity and
sensitivity to the project requirements. 10
5. Previous professional experience on similar
projects. 5
Z. Quality of presentation.
Fee 5
TOTAL ' 100
Se3:ection Committee Member
Date Sheet
111111111111
11111111111111111INIII
11111
1111111
IIII■011
III
11
1
11
1111
IIIU
I1
1
1
11111
II
11
11
1111
II
111111111
lull
1111
11
11
1
i
1
i
11
1111111
III•11■
11
1
FIRE STATIONS NOS. 4, 9, & 14
CONSULTANT SELECTION CRITERIA - PRESENTATION & INTERVIEW
CONSULTANT
CRITERIA
;RATING
1 2 3
4
1. Capability to complete the design and construction
documents within 90 days.
IN-hOUSL CAPABILITY
a. Professional Staff
b.. Support organization
c. Method of approach
LENGINL'ERING CAPABILITY
a. Structural engineer
b. Electrical & mechanical
c. Other consultants
10
10
10.
5
engineers 8
2
2. Projects completed on time and within budgets. 15
3. Affirmative action program and capability to
meet City's requirements.
10
4. Examples of work that indicates creativity and
sensitivity to the project requirements. 10
5. Previous professional experience on similar
projects.
5
G. Quality of presentation.
10
7» Fee 5
TOTAL
': 100
Selection Committee Member
Date -Sheet of-
1ii1Iii11II11I11I
11
11
II II1111111111
1111
1111
1111
111111111111
111E1E11111
11
11
11
1111
III
111111
11111101
11
11
11
11
1111111111111111