HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.e. City of Rosemount Consulting Pool SelectionsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Work Session: June 13, 2016
AGENDA ITEM: Cityof RosemountConsultingPool AGENDA SECTION:
SelectionsDiscussion
PREPARED BY: Patrick Wrase, PE, Director of Public
AGENDA NO. 2.e.
Works/City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Sample SOQ Ranking Form, Scoring
APPROVED BY: ddj
Summary
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion
BACKGROUND
Engineering Department staff has collaborated with the cities of Lakeville, Apple Valley and Mendota
Heights to develop a Request for Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) for engineering related professional
services. Each of the aforementioned cities posted their independent SOQ to their City websites on
th
Friday, February 19. The SOQ requested proposals for qualifications for 15technical specialty service
st
areas. SOQ submittals were required to be delivered to the City of Rosemount on March 31.
A total of 41 firms submitted SOQ’s in response to the Rosemount request. Many of the firms submitted
proposals to provide services in multiple technical specialty areas. In all, 187 proposals were received from
the 41 firms for the 15 various specialty areas. The proposals were reviewed by aselection committee
consisting of Council Member Weisensel, Council Member Nelson, Parks and Recreation Director
Schultz, Community Development Director Lindquist and Public Works Director/City Engineer Wrase.
The proposals were examined and scored by the selection committee on criteria consisting of; past project
performance, capacity of the team to complete work assignments, demonstrated qualifications, project
manager experience, project approach, office location and fee schedule. A sample of the ranking sheet has
been attached for reference.
The selection committee met on June 7 to make the final selections for the Rosemount consulting pool.
The committee has selected the following firms for the pool:
Architectural – ISG, Oertel
Communications - Black and Veatch, TKDA, Barr
Electrical & Mechanical – Barr, TKDA, Stantec, Donahue
General Municipal – TKDA, SRF, Bolton and Menk, WSB
GIS – Houston, Bolton and Menk
Land Survey – Sunde, Bolton and Menk
Landscape Architecture – ISG, SRF, Barr
Municipal Utility – TKDA, SEH, ISG, AE2S
Natural & Water Resources – Barr, EOR, SRF
Relocation & Benefit Analysis - Evergreen
Soils & Materials – Braun, AET
G:\\CONDAC\\2016 Consulting Pool\\Council Items\\20160613 CWS Consulting Pool Selection.docx
Special Inspections/Studies – TKDA, Barr
Structural – TKDA, Barr
Traffic & Transportation – SEH, TKDA, SRF
Water Storage Facilities – SEH, KLM
st
The consulting pool firms will be presented at the June 21 Council Meeting with a recommendation that
the City Attorney develop a contract with eachfirm for a period with a minimum term of two years, with
Rosemount’s option to extend the term out to a maximum of 5 years. This will give city staff the ability to
stagger the renewal of the service areas in the future rather than re-selecting for all services at one time.
SUMMARY
Staff is updating the City Council on the selection of the firms the City’s Consultant Pool. The selected
st
firms will be presented at the June 21 City Council Meeting with a recommendation to direct the City
Attorney to develop contracts with each of the selected firms.
2
SOQ RANKING FORM
Engineering Firm: ____________________________________________________
Evaluation Criteria to be Rated by Scorers
Weighted
Score
CategoryScoring Criteria ScaleScoreWeighting
Past Performance
Average evaluation score from Reference projects, clients and personnel.
select one score1200
Reference projects, clients and personnel are highly correlated.
enter in green box Reference projects, clients and personnel are adequately correlated.0
-1
Reference projects, clients and personnel are not correlated/irrelevant.
Capacity of Team
Evaluation of the team's personnel and equipment to perform the project on time.
to do Work
select one score1100
Availability of more than adequate capacity that results in added value.
enter in green box0
Adequate capacity to meet the schedules.
-1
Insufficient available capacity to meet the schedules.
Team's
Technical expertise: Unique Resources that yield a relevant added value or efficiency
Demonstrated
to the deliverable.
Qualifications
Demonstrated outstanding expertise and resources identified for required services
2100
for value added benefit.
Demonstrated high level of expertise and resources identified for required services
select one score1
for value added benefit.
enter in green box0
Expertise and resources at appropriate level.
-3
Insufficient expertise and/or resources.
Predicted ability to manage the project, based on: experience in size, complexity,
Project Manager(s)
type, subs, documentation skills.
Demonstrated outstanding experience in similar type and complexity.2100
Demonstrated high level of experience in similar type and complexity.
select one score1
enter in green box Experience in similar type and complexity shown in resume.0
Experience in different type or lower complexity.
-1
Insufficient experience.-3
Approach to
Project Understanding and Innovation that provides cost and/or time savings.
Projects
High level of understanding and viable innovative ideas proposed.
2100
select one score High level of understanding of potential project needs.1
Basic understanding of potential project needs.
enter in green box0
Lack of understanding of potential project needs.-3
Location of assigned staff office relative to project.
Location
Within 50 mi.1100
51 to 150 mi.
select one score0
enter in green box 151 to 500 mi.-1
Greater than 500 mi.
-2
Fee Schedule
Level of compensation is appropriate and similar to industry averages.
Schedule of fees is generally lower than submittal peer average.1100
select one score0
Schedule of fees is average
enter in green box-1
Schedule of fees is slightly higher.
-2
Schedule of fees is significantly higher.
Weighted Sub Total 0
Signature:_________________________________
Print Name:_________________________________
Title:_________________________________
Date: _________________________________
C:\\Users\\cgh\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.Outlook\\TE5ZLX2G\\r1 SOQ Ranking Form
m
ov
o
v'
3 LL
0
ab
o
r`
r`
m
O
a
a
o
m n
'v
�
m o
�
oro
o
0
0
o
� Y
v
0
0
0
0
0
ab
'o
ab �,
Q
'v
o
�
o
v c
o: m
m
v
O
p
o
ti
0 o
m N
p p
m m
o
a
o p
o p
o
�o
0
m
0
ro
0
c
0 0
0
0
o c
�m
°C
Z
7
Al
v �
O
a
ti
r
m
a a0+
u v
v y
r Q
O
p
O
O O
O
r
O
o 0
m
O
v
NO
v
O
O
Op
Om O
O
a
o 0
0
O Op
Op O
v
v
oil m
dN
O
O
O
O O
p
O O
O O
O
O O
O
L
O
O O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
V
d
N
O O
Om
O
Q
o
o
-ao
a� c
+a'
.N
3
E
m m
y o
o
a
s
a
m
o°~
N Y
Y Y
o 0
0 'Wa^
W
°„
o
-ao o
Y
m m
m° m`
m'
u° o°
w-
(s
s
-
z°
z° o`
a a
s
3 3 3