Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSynopsisARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING SERVICES —ORANGE BOWL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. B-30153B RFQ NO. 05-06-089 SYNOPSIS OF EVALUATION COMMITTEE FINDINGS The following is a synopsis of the findings of the Evaluation Committee: Ellerbe Becket, Inc. and Snillls Candela DM.IM The Ellerbe Becket and Spillis Candela presentation identified structural compliance and upgrades as the immediate issues to be addressed. They performed the Orange Bowl assessment for the University of Miami and concluded that life safety and ADA compliance needed immediate attention. The Committee felt that the team relied too heavily on their prior work at the Orange Bowl as their best feature. The committee thought Ellerbe Becket had a strong understanding of the project and a qualified team of professionals, but were missing significant collegiate experience. Ewing Cole, Inc. and Arquitectonica,Inc. The Committee felt that Ewing Cole as an Architectural and Engineering ("A/E") firm would provide sufficient technical expertise and Arquitectonica would provide local. knowledge of the neighborhood and permitting process. The committee had a concern about the team not having vast collegiate experience to draw from for this project. During the presentation it appeared as if the A/E firm and the design firm did not have shared perspectives. Each firm has strengths in their respective areas but the delicate balance between their respective roles might be difficult for both the City and the team to manage. HNTB, Inc. and Bermello Ajamil & Partners, Inc. The Committee agreed that the proposal had a good narrative and was less generic in comparison to others. They were impressed by the team's collegiate experience. HNTB provides extensive sports (and particularly collegiate) expertise and Bermello Ajamil brings both local knowledge and extensive large scale project experience at an international level. The presentation clearly identified the main issues to be addressed and how they would work together respecting the existing structure and history. The team members exuded confidence and professionalism without raising any concern by the Committee of a potential struggle for positive collaboration. It was clear to the Committee that the team had worked together previously and that this would benefit the project. The committee thought it was an outstanding presentation, with forthright answers, a well reasoned approach to the project and genuine excitement from the members assembled for the team. They clearly understood the need to balance requirements with public amenities. ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING SERVICES -ORANGE BOWL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. B-30153E / RFa NO. 05-06-089 SYNOPSIS OF EVALUATION COMMITTEE FINDINGS HOK Sport The committee was concerned that HOK, based in Kansas City, does not have a local component as part of their team. HOK stated that this was a conscious decision and, if they are selected, an association with a local designer would be formed. The Committee did not gain any comfort from this rationale. While the Committee acknowledged that HOK has an extensive portfolio of professional and collegiate sports facilities, the Committee had reservations that their work might become formulaic and would not let them look at the Orange Bowl redevelopment with the uniqueness the City is looking for. The committee was concerned that HOK would view this simply as another project. Leo A. Dalv, Inc. joint venture with HEERY , Inc. The committee agreed that the Leo Daly and HEERY team had good collegiate experience and good team chemistry. It was clear that the team understands the project scope and is very familiar with the issues, needs, and goals for this project. The design approach recognized the history of the stadium, the community involvement and a balanced communication line with the city and .ILL. The Committee requested clarification from the team regarding the individual responsibilities of the firms. The team responded that HEERY will provide the expertise and design while Leo A. Daly will do the production documents. Even with this answer the Committee remained uncertain if the relationship would work seamlessly in daily practice. After their presentation, the committee agreed that the role to be played by both offices was unclear. Rodriguez & Quiroga Architects Chartered, Inc. with RTKL & Associates, Inc The Committee felt that RTKL as an A/E firm would provide sufficient technical expertise and Rodriguez & Quiroga would provide local knowledge of the neighborhood and permitting process. RTKL presented a design approach focused on urban master planning. They were mainly looking at how the Orange Bowl could better fit into and revitalize the surrounding community. They strongly recommended a multi -use for the site to maximize land value and revenue. Immediate issues like ADA compliance, sight lines, concourse and a flexible stadium were addressed by their presentation, but did not leave the Committee confident that the team would be able to fit into the City's timeframes and immediate goals. The Committee was very concerned the prime proposer has limited sports -related experience and the sports experience RTKL possesses is derived from a newly formed sports specialty design group.