Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-17 Water & Sewer NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT BOOK 2 REGULAR MEETING, JANUARY 17, 1995 PAGE 210 ASSEMBLY The District Board of Commissioners of the New Hanover County Water & Sewer District held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, January 17, 1995, at 10:59 A.M. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: District Commissioners William A. Caster; Robert G. Greer; William E. Sisson, Jr.; Vice-Chairman Sandra Barone; Chairman E. L. Mathews, Jr.; County Manager, Allen O'Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the District Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Chairman Mathews called the meeting to order. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Mathews inquired as to whether anyone from the general public would like to present an item not listed on the Regular Agenda. No items were presented. SELECTION OF ENGINEERING CONSULTANT FOR THE OGDEN INTERCEPTOR County Manager O'Neal reported the Project Review Team, composed of Vice-Chairman Sandra Barone; Assistant County Manager, Dave Weaver; County Engineer, Wyatt Blanchard; Project Engineer, George Shaw; and the County Manager, closely analyzed the qualifications and proposals received from seven firms to serve as the engineering consultant on the Ogden Interceptor Project. After several meetings, the number of proposals was narrowed to three firms, Piedmont Olsen Hensley, McKim and Creed Engineering and Century von Oesen/Dawson Engineering. After another review of the three proposals, the Project Review Team narrowed the proposals to two firms, McKim and Creed and Century von Oesen/Dawson. Both firms were well qualified and capable of performing the work; however, Staff was concerned about the wide range of the cost estimate for the project and felt that construction cost would range from $4.5 million to $5.5 million based on current market rates for sewer construction and the project cost for the Monkey Junction Sewer Project. County Manager O'Neal requested the District Board to select one of the two firms as the engineering consultant and authorize Staff to prepare a contract negotiating the final details with the contract being presented to the District Board for approval. District Commissioner Greer inquired as to what would be changed in the final contract? County Engineer Blanchard reported normally the details in the contract are negotiated after the selection of the engineering consultant. The first step is to select the engineering firm. NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT BOOK 2 REGULAR MEETING, JANUARY 17, 1995 PAGE 211 Chairman Mathews inquired as to whether the normal bidding procedure had been followed? County Engineer Blanchard responded that the request for qualifications was the normal bidding procedure. Further discussion was held on the cost and percentage figures presented by the two firms. Assistant County Manager Weaver explained that during the presentations by the firms, agreement was reached on the basic scope of work to be performed and the fees to be charged. The remaining details were to be negotiated after the selection of an engineering firm. District Commissioner Caster informed the District Board that he understood the typical procedure for selecting an engineering consultant was for the Project Review Team to determine the most qualified engineering firm and at that time negotiate a price. If an agreement could not be reached on the price with that firm, then the Review Team would consider the next most qualified firm. In this case, it appears all three engineering firms were very well qualified; however, for some reason a bidding war erupted. Assistant County Manager Weaver reported qualification statements were received from seven different firms with the Project Review Team analyzing the different qualifications based on a number of factors. As mentioned earlier, all three firms were well qualified. Since the interceptor project was not an unusually complicated construction job that would require specific engineering expertise, the Project Review Team felt it would be appropriate to request fee information in order to better determine the most qualified firm. When selecting the engineering firm to design the proposed Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was a complicated project that required extensive engineering expertise, it was much easier to decide on the qualifications and select an engineering firm at a negotiated price. However, in this case it was very difficult to determine the difference in the two firms because they were almost equal in qualifications. District Commissioner Caster inquired as to why there were different conditions submitted in the McKim and Creed proposal? Assistant County Manager Weaver reported there was a small amount of difference between the two proposals submitted by McKim and Creed and Century von Oesen/Dawson Engineering. At that time the Project Review Team requested a second presentation from the two firms in order to clarify some issues. County Manager O'Neal reported the Project Review Committee forwarded a letter to McKim and Creed and Century von Oesen/Dawson Engineering before coming in for a second presentation to clarify particular points in both of the request for qualifications. The firms were aware of the issues that would be discussed. NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT BOOK 2 REGULAR MEETING, JANUARY 17, 1995 PAGE 212 District Commissioner Greer inquired as to whether the letter was forwarded after the initial percentages were known? County Manager O'Neal reported the percentages were known before the second presentation. District Commissioner Greer inquired as to how the District can be fair to all engineering firms if the request for proposals is done one way one time, and another way the next time. On the Northside Wastewater Treatment project, one firm was selected with the price negotiated. In his opinion, this procedure should always be followed. With the different conditions in the two proposals, the District Board has been placed in an awkward situation which makes it very difficult to fairly select a firm. Also, a copy of a rating schedule, just presented to the District Board, shows the highest rating for the Century von Oesen/Dawson Engineering firm, and yet this firm was not selected by the Review Team. Project Engineer Shaw reported every member of the Project Review Team felt the three top firms were well qualified and could perform an excellent job on the interceptor project; therefore, another criteria was used, the "fee information request", to enable the Project Review Team to decide among the firms. Chairman Mathews requested Vice-Chairman Barone to comment on the process since she served on the Project Review Team? Vice-Chairman Barone commented on the importance of the evaluation sheets and stated this form was used by the Project Review Team to determine which firms were the most qualified in local surveying experience because of the poor soils in the County. The Century von Oesen/Dawson Engineering firm ranked the highest on the final tally because of the firm's surveying experience. Three- fourths of the Project Review Team ranked the firm of Century von Oesen/Dawson as #1; Piedmont Olsen Hensley as #2; and McKim and Creed as #3 because the team felt that McKim and Creed was weaker in local surveying experience. From that point on, she became confused with the addition of the fee criteria. District Commissioner Caster inquired as to whether the Piedmont Olsen Hensley and Century von Oesen/Dawson Engineering firms were allowed to re-figure their cost under the same conditions as McKim and Creed? Project Engineer Shaw reported the Century von Oesen/Dawson Engineering firm was allowed to re-figure its cost projection with a difference of only $5,000. By this time, the proposals had been narrowed down to two; therefore, the Piedmont Olsen Hensley firm was not included in this process. County Manager O'Neal reported the purpose of the second interview was to provide an opportunity for the two engineering NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT BOOK 2 REGULAR MEETING, JANUARY 17, 1995 PAGE 213 firms to clarify their proposals. Further discussion was held on the conditions in the proposals not being the same. District Commissioner Greer stated, for example, one proposal was submitted for the south side, which he did not understand. County Manager O'Neal responded that the south or north side could make a difference in the cost because of the number of times the sewer line would have to cross two streams. Assistant County Manager Weaver reported after the final presentation by the firms, both firms agreed to an identical scope of work. The differences between the two proposals were extremely minor. Chairman Greer, again, expressed concern for the second presentation being held after the percentage figures were known. Vice-Chairman Barone reported after the Project Review Team narrowed the proposals to two firms which were almost equal (even though she felt the Century von Oesen/Dawson Engineering firm was stronger in the local surveying experience) there was a definite difference in what each firm felt the project would cost. The Century von Oesen/Dawson Engineering firm estimated the project cost at $3.5 million, and the McKim and Creed firm estimated the project cost at $5 million with Staff feeling that $5 million was more reasonable. This created more of a problem because both firms were almost equal, yet there was a $2 million disparity on the cost of the project based on the scope of service. County Manager O'Neal reported Staff feels the construction cost will be between $4.5 million and $5 million. Based on a purely economic decision, one firm feels the work can be performed for less money. District Commissioner Greer referenced Page 75 of the agenda packet and read the following statement from the Century von Oesen/Dawson Engineering firm and inquired as to whether Staff had given any thought to this recommendation: "Our usual method of contracting for services of this type is to separate the types of services by difficulty and known scope. By so doing, contingency allowances can be kept to a minimum and the most equitable fees can be realized by both the District and the consulting firm. We suggest you also consider the following fee proposal as being more equitable and perhaps more economical for the District." Assistant County Manager Weaver informed the District Board that Staff had considered this idea; however, there was concern NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT BOOK 2 REGULAR MEETING, JANUARY 17, 1995 PAGE 214 about the hourly rate charges because there was no limit on the number of hours. County Manager O'Neal reported this recommendation was added in response to the letter that was forwarded to both firms prior to the interviews. Each firm knew prior to the interview the questions and items that should be clarified before the Project Review Team. Chairman Mathews commented on the proposals and stated one proposal was seven pages and very detailed; whereas, the other was only a two-page proposal. After reviewing the proposals, he was leaning toward the more detailed proposal. District Commissioner Greer reported the difference in the length of the proposals was of concern to him because one firm was willing to perform work for a certain amount of dollars with the other firm placing contingencies in the proposal. Motion: After further discussion, Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by District Commissioner Sisson to award the contract to McKim and Creed. The floor was opened for discussion. District Commissioner Sisson informed the District Board that he did not have a problem with the manner in which the qualifications were presented because there was no difference in the design of the interceptor and pump station. However, the cost differences in the proposals ranging from the least at $7,300 to the largest at $120,000 was significant and, in his opinion, should be a factor considered when selecting the engineering firm. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: District Commissioner Caster District Commissioner Greer District Commissioner Sisson Chairman Mathews Voting Nay: Vice-Chairman Barone ADJOURNMENT Chairman Mathews adjourned the meeting at 11:25 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Lucie F. Harrell Clerk to the Board