Town of Dewey Beach Minutes of the February 27, 2010 Meeting Of The Infrastructure Committee

Transcription

1 Town of Dewey Beach Minutes of the February 27, 2010 Meeting Of The Infrastructure Committee Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Rick Judge, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call. All IC members were present, including Albert Genemans, Mike Harmer (Vice Chair), David King (Secretary)and Mark Nordquist. Ratify minutes from prior meetings Draft minutes of the January 23, 2010 meeting were considered. A motion was made to approve these minutes as written. This motion was seconded, and passed by unanimous voice vote. 1. Discuss and Vote: Discuss proposals received in response to the Town's RFP for engineering design services for the Bayard Ave. Project, tabulate individual Committee-Member scores and rankings, and vote on a firm to recommend for the contract to the Town Commissioners. If there is no clear superior proposal, the Committee reserves the right to interview the lead candidates at a subsequent Committee Meeting. Rick started the discussion by stating the purpose of the meeting: to decide on the six proposals submitted to the Town in response to the Bayard Ave. RFP. The proposals were each very different. The members all read each proposal and came prepared with each proposal individually scored against the advertised evaluation criteria (draft ratings) using a spreadsheet prepared by Mike. Proceeding forward, each member read their individual scores for each criteria for each proposing firm. The criteria were read into the record, the totals for each firm were tabulated and recorded on the meeting room whiteboard. Some comments and questions that arose during the scoring section of this meeting included: The value assigned to pricing was set so high (60 possible points) relative to other engineering design requests, because it was felt that the committee had a good enough project scope that the proposers should have been able to provide accurate pricing estimates Mike commented about his approach; that he viewed his initial scores as draft scores, and was reserving the right to modify these draft scores during the discussion, as new information might come to light. David commented that in determining his scores, he reviewed all the proposals, established in his mind what a quality proposal might look like, and assigned a score for this a total of 80 points and average price of $54,000. In the pricing category, he increased the bid prices to adjust for extra required elements and/or decreased the bid prices to adjust for extra, unrequired elements. Rick took a similar approach. In evaluating Greenstone he noted specifically that he adjusted the bid price up significantly because the firm failed to include the most expensive required item, the pumping station. Albert noted at the outset that he was strongly in favor of hiring a small firm because, from prior professional experience, he has seen small firms be more responsive to the client s need. Greenstone did not include pumping station design, or help with funding and permitting three items that other firms included. There was a consensus that bids failing to explicitly include a task related to design of a storage vault and pumping station had a serious deficiency. This was an expensive component in the two proposals that listed accost for this item ($18,000 and $28,000). More important, it was felt that 1

2 without this required element the bid was incomplete, and that the Town could not go back to the individual respondent and renegotiate their application, without renegotiating with all other applicants. And that the Town did not have time to do this due to the time constraints on potential external funding opportunities. Alternatively, the possibility of making two awards, one for the pumping station design and another for the rest of the work, but there was a consensus that this would not result in a quality solution, and that the Town needed to select the one response that best meets all advertised criteria to get the right firm to get the project done. There was ambiguity in the Van Cleef proposal, as to whether or not the cost of design of the pumping station was included in the price; some members scored the proposal as if it were and others as if it wasn t. KCI did not include the pumping station (see above comments re: incomplete proposals). After scoring and discussion, there was a consensus to make the engineering design award to ECI. ECI was the highest rated company, at a total of 443 (the next highest score was 426 for GMB), and ECI was the highest rated firm by four of the five committee members; the fifth member ranked ECI number 2. Pluses noted for the ECI proposal included; it was a high quality and complete bid package clearly addressing all required elements, it included many meetings for outreach to the public on what will be a very important issue; it is a local firm with strong expertise in the design of wastewater treatment and living walls; its proposal explicitly included help with preparing and evaluating the resulting construction bid packages. The draft scores are summarized in the attached spreadsheet: Motion. A motion was made to recommend to the Town Commissioners that the Town accept the proposal from ECI, as the highest ranking applicant, for the requested Bayard Ave. engineering design services, negotiate the contract to remove the permitting task, and look carefully at the schedule of service delivery. This motion was properly seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote. The rationale to remove the permitting task was that it would duplicate work just approved by the Town Commissioners at the last Town Meeting. Motion. A motion was made to authorize Chair Judge to work with the Town Manager to prepare a contract acceptable to ECI for presentation to the Town Commissioners ASAP at a special meeting, or by the March 13 th Town Meeting at the latest. This motion was properly seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote. Rick noted that there is a PLUS meeting scheduled for March 25, 2010 at which all the relevant governmental and permitting bodies will meet to review the Town s plans related to Bayard Ave., and that there is a need for a definitive survey to ascertain land ownership. Once that is done, and the Town has firm guidance from ECI on the best location for the catch basins etc., the Town will need to sit down with the owners of Cajun Cove to work out a win-win agreement for the Town, Cajun Cove, DNREC and the other stakeholders in this area. 2. Public Comment Commissoner Zeke Prysgocki stated he reviewed all the proposals and found, as a layperson, the ECI proposal the highest quality proposal received. Mark Allen (Cajun Cove) noted that there is a hole in the timber flood wall that became visible during the recent freeze at low tide, that he thought could be repaired at a nominal cost as a temporary measure to 2

3 reduce Bayard Ave. tidal flooding. While this might require DNREC approval, Rick will bring this to the Town s attention. Adjournment. A motion to adjourn was made, seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote. 3

4 TOWN OF DEWEY BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING To be held Saturday February 27, 2010 at 4:00 PM At the Dewey Beach Lifesaving Museum 1 Dagsworthy Ave., Dewey Beach, DE PURPOSE: To evaluate engineering design proposals for the Bayard Ave. Project. AGENDA 1. Opening (4:00 PM) a. Pledge to the Flag b. Roll Call c. Discuss and Vote: Approval of the minutes of the January 23, 2010 Infrastructure Committee Meeting 2. New Business (4:10 PM) a. Discuss and Vote: Discuss proposals received in response to the Town's RFP for engineering design services for the Bayard Ave. Project, tabulate individual Committee-Member scores and rankings, and vote on a firm to recommend for the contract to the Town Commissioners. If there is no clear superior proposal, the Committee reserves the right to interview the lead candidates at a subsequent Committee Meeting. 3. Closing (5:00 PM) a. Comments from Committee Members and Chair. (5 min.) b. Public Forum Each person will be allowed three (3) minutes. (15 min.) c. Date and Time of Next Meeting. (5 min.) d. Adjournment Time 5:30 PM The Agenda items listed above may be considered in a different sequence if scheduling so dictates. This Agenda is also subject to change, by the addition of items or the modification or deletion of listed items, at any time. Public comment on any Agenda item may be submitted in writing by mail (Dewey Beach Town Hall, 105 Rodney Ave., Dewey Beach, DE 19971) or (see comment form at provided such comments are received by Town Hall two business days prior to the scheduled meeting. Persons with disabilities requiring special accommodation should contact Town Hall at (302) seventy-two (72) hours in advance. 4

5 1. EXP 2. EXPERT3. CAP 4. SPEED 5. RECRD 6. GOV 7. DIST 8. PRIC 9. GRNTS 10.SPEC TOTAL at meeting MIKE HARMER DAVID KING RICK JUDGE GREEN 84 ALBERT MARK MIKE HARMER DAVID KING RICK JUDGE GMB 95 ALBERT MARK MIKE HARMER DAVID KING RICK JUDGE VAN 72 ALBERT MARK MIKE HARMER DAVID KING RICK JUDGE KCI 81 ALBERT MARK MIKE HARMER DAVID KING RICK JUDGE ECI 97 ALBERT MARK MIKE HARMER DAVID KING RICK JUDGE REM 75 ALBERT MARK Notes: 1. The "total" column lists the correct addition of each member's scores for each criteria. 2. The "at meeting" column lists the totals indicated at the meeting and used in the tally to select the highest scoring applicant