Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee FindingsARCHITECTURALIENGINEERING SERVICES —WATERFRONT DISTRICT PROJECTS RFQ NO. 05-06-119 EVALUATION COMMITTEE FINDINGS The following is a synopsis of the comments and discussion during the April 10, 2007 Evaluation Committee meeting. Cooper, Robertson, & Partners The Committee feels that Cooper, Robertson & Partners has a thorough, comprehensive and insightful understanding of the scope of work associated with both projects. Their presentation clearly identified, both verbally and visually, the key challenges related to completing both projects and provided a clear, salient approach to resolving them. The Committee is pleased by the firm's decision to form two distinct project teams and views this approach as particularly appropriate and indicative of a successful methodology. The Committee is impressed by the relevancy of the information prepared and the manner presented. Overall, the committee thought the presentation was outstanding, with forthright answers, and a well reasoned approach. The high level of similarity in many of the firm's completed and ongoing projects, their familiarity with the project sites and stakeholder's interests and their proven commitment to the Museum Park project thus far all factored in the Committee's decision to rank the firm as most qualified. It is clear to the Committee that the firm's emphasis on the public perspective can benefit the project and that the traits of confidence, professionalism and cohesiveness exhibited will enable it. Kimlev-Horn & Associates, Inc. The Committee feels that Kimley-Horn & Associates understands the scope of work, goals, and issues related to each project. The Committee is highly impressed by the team's thorough analysis of the existing Master Plan for the Museum Park project and feels the insights of the civil engineer to be particularly well -reasoned. The preparation and analysis related to the Baywalk project was not as thorough as that done for the Museum Park project. Kimley-Horn's vast level of national and local experience and their proposed team of consultants are clear strengths. However, the Committee is concerned that the array of firms and individuals envisioned as the project team might become overbearing and ultimately detract from the cohesion essential for success on complicated projects. Although many projects were presented as illustrative of similar project experience, no single project was convincingly comparable. Overall, the Committee is confident that Kimley-Horn could complete the projects if hired but does not feel their team is necessarily the best suited for the role. Arquitectonica GEO, Inc. The Committee feels that Arquitectonica GEO exudes creativity and enthusiasm. The team presented strong, exciting design concepts however they are not sufficiently relevant for the projects at this point in time based. However, the committee is concerned that the limited understanding of the projects scope of work and related issues would be problematic. The Committee felt that the team was ill -prepared, with only one presenter displaying a more than surface understanding of the existing Master Plan for Museum Park. The Committee is not confident that the team assembled is sufficient to resolve the technical complications of the projects.