HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-77-0689CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER.OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Joseph R. Grassie
City Manager
FROM:
ity Manager
DATE: SEP 1 197/
SUBJECT:
t#EFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
FILE:
Selection of Architect
Little Havana Community Center
Pursuant to Motion No. 77-669, dated July 28, 1977, authorizing
the City Manager to recommend an architectural firm for professional
services in the design of the Little Havana Community Center, the
following is provided.
The City Manager appointed a selection review committee composed
of: Joseph Paredes, Assistant City Manager, Dena Spillman,
Assistant Director of Planning for Community Development, Morris
Kaufmann, Special Assistant for Construction Management, Sonia Lama,
City Architect, and Art Ross, Dade County HUD Architect.
Advertisements for rendering professional architectural and
engineering services were placed in The Miami Herald, Diario Las
Americas and The Miami Times. Additionally, solicitations of
letters of interest were mailed to over 200 local architectural
firms which have registered with the Department of Public Works.
Thirty-three firms responded by the due date of August 12, 1977.
The criteria established for evaluation included: previous
professional experience in designing similar projects, examples of
design indicating creativity and sensitivity to the project require-
ments, organization and professional staff, design experience of
the team who will work on this project, firm's affirmative action
policy and capability to meet City's requirements, firm's experience
in other government projects, firm's familiarity with the Little
Havana target area, and firm's proposed engineering consultants.
The five firms that were requested to make an oral presentation
after the original review were:
1. Bouterse,Perez & Fabregas
2. SKBB, Incorporated
3. Russell, Martinez & Holt
4. Lee Ramos
5. E. L. Santos
Joseph R. Grassi,
City Manager
6
After careful review following the oral presentations and the
approach the architectural firms would follow in providing
professional services, we recommend that the City Manager be
authorized to negotiate an agreement with the first selecfed
firm, and if it is not successful, that the Manager would then
negotiate with the other two ranked firms, and that this agreement
would be brought back to the City Commission for approval and
ratification.
The recommended ranking of firms is as follows:
1. Bouterse, Perez & Fabregas
2. Lee Ramos
3. Russell, Martinez & Holt
Enclosed you will also find the architectural selection criteria
guidelines for rating architectural firms for the Little Havana
Community Center project.
•
LITTLE HAVANA COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
ARCHITECTURAL SELECTION CRITERIA
dUIDELINES FOR RATING ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS
SELECTION PROCESS
A Selection Committee has been designated by Mr. Joseph Paredes,
Assistant City Manager, to review the qualifications of
interested architectural firms. This committee will meet as
a body and review all firms' submitted information with the
objective of selecting three firms for a final selection
presentation and interview. The idea is to keep the selection
process as fair and as objective as possible, and yet to find
the best qualified firm to undertake the project. Each member
of the committee will review each firm's submitted information
and rate each firm on each of eight items, using the attached
worksheets. Each firm has been given an identification number
and the work sheets should be used accordingly. Upon comple-
tion of each member's review, the work sheets will be tallied
to give a consensus rating to each firm. The top three firms
will be advised by telegram and letter, thereafter, to meet
with the committee for a final presentation and interview. In
the event there are any questions concerning the different
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 three
highest ranked firms, then each member will be asked to rank
the tied firms. The new consensus rank score should break
the tied positions.
II• CAIT ; ! fi._ UIDELINtS .z_.tN,tTIAI, SELECTION
preVious professional experience in designing similar
projects. Rating total: 20.
While it is highly likely that a particular firm has designed
One or more projects of this nature, certain other projects
are similar in concept and ought to be viewed as favorable to
the firm. Schools, religious facilities, governmental facilities
Which have more than one major tenant or complex tenants (say
a courthouse or a city hall), and office buildings which were
designed for a variety of tenants or for a group of departments
under one parent organization, all are good examples of similarity.
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 20, a firm ought to have an experience record of at
least three community type of projects, repeat clients and a
general variety of practice.
2. Examples of designs indicating creativity and sensitivity
to the project requirements. Rating total: 20.
Hopefully, each firm will submit photographs of completed
projects that demonstrate its creative capabilities. An esthetic
tOtAr de force does hot hecessarily Meah that the project was
§bccessful. It could have been costly only. And it could
have won professional awards. The test is whether the client
found the project to his liking. Repeat clients are good
indicators that the firm satisfies and most likely achieves
what the clients want - in short, is sensitive to his clients
requirements.
To rate 20, a firm ought to have repeat clients - three or more;
to have won some 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.
3. Organizational and professional staff. Rating total: 20.
This project will require an organization that can produce
quality 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 ihVolved. If the firm is too small (5 or less), there
a possibility that this project is too big or that the
principals will be out looking for additional work after this
one is completed. 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 20, 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
the $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 to $6 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 20 is not fair to the medium sized firm. And unless a small
flan has a demonstrated experience of stability and continuing
Pfaotice with projects of this size., it does not fairly rate
a 2O
Design experience of teat which will Work oh thit"pro
kating total: 15.
The usual team approach in an architectural firm, is to assign
a principal -in -charge, a project architect (or job captain) and
one or 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 on architectural matters, with emphasis on
having a principal being active in the design process all through
the design period.
i i s affirthatiire actibh prc cram and capability t
the City's requirements. Rating total: 10.
This item is self-evident.
' experience in other City i r 1 i ., total: • .
�. Firm's p
This item is self-evident.
7. Firm's familiarity with Little Havana target area.
total: 5.
This item is self-evident.
8. Firm's proposed engineering consultants. Rating total: 5.
This item is similar in idea as Item 1, but does not need to
carry as much weight at this time as the qualifications of the
architectural firm. Architects generally employ engineers who
can work well with the architect, although larger firms will
spread the work around among a number of engineering consultants.
The firms that get 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.
s
III, CZtfiEEION GUtbELINES =FINAL SELECTION
GENERAL
Each of the candidates in the final selection process halve
been given information
about the project in some detail and
have been requested to prepare a presentation for the
Selection Committee, covering the same items as are on the
rating form. The information and rating form are attached for
your review. As you will note, the candidate will spend about
30 to 40 minutes in making his presentation, after which the
committee members will be given time to ask questions of the
candidate. The entire process should take about an hour.
CRITERION
1. Capability to complete the design and construction
documents within 70 calendar days. Rating total: 45.
This item is divided into two sections.
The first is concerned with the architect's in-house capability:
the professional staff, the support organization, and the
method of approach, each of which rates 10, for a maximum of
30. Please review the comments under Item 3, Criterion
Guidelines - Initial Selection. In addition to how the firm
is structured, how this project will fit into the firm's work
load pattern, and who will actually perform the work for this
project, the firm should convince each member that the principals
have thought about the particulars of this project and that
this§e thoughts will be ttanslated into an effective action,�
itogram. Keep in mind that the firm will have :a :,ti'ghtdeadrinle':
and that the firm which has a positive approach to accomplishing
the work on schedule ought to,ratehigh. The firm should be
able to cite examples of other projects in assuring the
committee that it has had such experience. (In case someone uses
the term "charrette", it is architectural jargon for working
long hours to meet a deadline.) Since the practice of architecture
is an art form, each experience has been one of 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
candidate.
The second section is about the consultants, including structural,
electrical and mechanical, and others, such as landscape
architects, acoustical, and the like, for a total rating of 15.
It will be a requirement for the architect to have his engineering
consultants represented at the presentation. Therefore, these
people will give the members an idea about their capabilities
and experience. A team that has worked together on a number of
projects provides an advantage in that the individuals do not
have to go through a learning process at this project's expense.
The building will be an office building housing a variety of
tenants. This type of facility should be designed with a system
approach to yield an end product that is of good quality, has
MIN
lekibi.lity of structural,
is easy to maintain and is
costs of the building will
costs, so
There will also be a requirement for special consultants, such
as a landscape architect and a civil engineer for the parking
areas.
the
engineering
electrical and mechanical ay
low energy using. The engineerin
be 50 percent or more of the total
inputs will be highly important.
In summary, a firm scoring 45 ought to have demonstrated to the
committee that it has good experience in working on complicated
projects that have a tight time restraint, 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.
2. 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. It would be unfair at this interview to ask for design
solutions from the candidate when he has not been given all of the
problem parameters. However, it would be in order to ask the
candidate about measures he has taken on other projects that
will assure the committee of his competency and capability to
° .°
° P o 00 08 0 c o ia`° eo ° 0: o • j o4
9' 0 0 09 0 o C. °' 0 V a 4 .°
` ° to C°°.0 0 - C.0 !p.p e° .. 10,4"t �.° ^<•�
o.00& 0 G 0 4'9P�G,. i° � cre
0 co o °cPS °p
°.
O
'e tfi s :groj ec.t . and to complete
•budget. .To rate•15, the firm ought to presentat least three..
Case studies of projects that were completed (not presently under•
way) in the past two years and that demonstrates the firth'•s
abilities to control schedules and dollars.
3. 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
sensitivity to the project requirements. Rating total: 10.
ti•
Please review Item 2 under Criterion Guidelines - Initial
Selection. The candidate ought to illustrate his design
capability by discussing at least three projects (hopefully,
the same ones used under Item 2 above).
5. Previous professional experience of firm on similar
projects. Rating total: 5.
Please review Item 1 under Criterion Guidelines - Initial
Selection. The purpose of this item is to assure the
committee that the firm has had experience in this type of
90
6
°0
0 ' O 0
° 9 0•
O °0 q0 ° °
0..0'�0
[: G> 0 °
cloy• P 66% "cop 0 0.0,, o Q Q Q 0
000
P GM O y 0 e 6.
6edistinguished: by .certain individuals who wor1S
other firmsbut are now its this firm.
Familiarity with tittle 11aVana target area. ' tat%ng total:
self-ekilanatory.
Quality of presentation. Rating total: S.
This item is purely subjective in nature. To some people a
good show is indicative of talent. Architects are trained and
should be experts in the art of display. If what you see and
hear please you, rate the firm accordingly.
8. Fee. Rating total: 5.
The purposes of this interview and presentation is to select
one among the top qualified firms for the project. Fees can
always be negotiated. However, the architect may not feel
comfortable discussing fees when his consultants are present.
Therefore, the Chairperson should give the architect an
opportunity to have his consultants leave or stay, as the
architect desires. The candidate, in whichever case he choses,
should discuss fees, giving the committee a range, at least.
Prior to the interview date, each committee member will be
contacted and given more details about the scope of services
•
Wr-
tieCity will require of the candidate andpossible,
d.tructures. At this time, certain details are stilluncertain
With regard to all of the servicesthat the architect will.
have to perform.
ENb O' GUIDELINES