The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9.a. City of Rosemount Consulting Pool ContractsI:\City Clerk\Agenda Items\Approved Items\9.a. City of Rosemount Consulting Pool Contracts.docx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council Regular Meeting: June 21, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: City of Rosemount Consulting Pool Contracts AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Patrick Wrase, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer AGENDA NO. 9.a. ATTACHMENTS: Sample SOQ Ranking Form, Scoring Summary, Resolution APPROVED BY: ddj RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Resolution directing the City Attorney to develop Contracts for the Rosemount Consulting Pool BACKGROUND Engineering Department staff has collaborated with the Cities of Lakeville, Apple Valley and Mendota Height 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 Friday, February 19, 2016. The SOQ requested proposals for qualifications for 15 technical specialty service areas. SOQ submittals were required to be delivered to the City of Rosemount by March 31, 2016. 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 specialty areas. The proposals were reviewed by a selection committee consisting of Council Member Weisensel, Council Member Nelson, the Parks and Recreation Director, the Community Development Director, and the Public Works Director/City Engineer. 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 is attached for reference. The selection committee met on June 7, 2016 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 2 Special Inspections/Studies – TKDA, Barr Structural – TKDA, Barr Traffic & Transportation – SEH, TKDA, SRF Water Storage Facilities – SEH, KLM The consulting pool firms were presented to the Council in detail at the June 13, 2016 Work Session. It is recommended that the City Attorney develop a contract with each firm for a minimum term of two years, with Rosemount’s option to extend the term out to a maximum of five years. This will give the 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 recommends that the City Council Approve the Resolution directing the City Attorney to develop contracts with each of the firms selected for the City of Rosemount Consulting Pool. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2016 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACTS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTING POOL WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount has determined that the development of a Professional Services Consulting Pool will enable the City to utilize a variety of municipal services experts to expediently contract for various professional services vital to the planning, development and ongoing maintenance and operations of the City of Rosemount; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount has directed the development of a Professional Services Consulting Pool and prepared a request for submittal of Statements of Qualifications by qualified professional service firms; and WHEREAS, a Selection Committee consisting of Rosemount City Council Members and City Department Directors has reviewed the submitted Statements of Qualifications on the basis of performance, capacity, qualifications, experience, approach, location and fees, and has ranked the submitted Statements of Qualifications accordingly; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota: 1. Approves of the development of Contracts with the following firms for the stated professional services: a. Architectural – ISG, Oertel b. Communications - Black and Veatch, TKDA, Barr c. Electrical & Mechanical – Barr, TKDA, Stantec, Donahue d. General Municipal – TKDA, SRF, Bolton and Menk, WSB e. GIS – Houston, Bolton and Menk f. Land Survey – Sunde, Bolton and Menk g. Landscape Architecture – ISG, SRF, Barr h. Municipal Utility – TKDA, SEH, ISG, AE2S i. Natural & Water Resources – Barr, EOR, SRF j. Relocation & Benefit Analysis - Evergreen k. Soils & Materials – Braun, AET l. Special Inspections/Studies – TKDA, Barr m. Structural – TKDA, Barr n. Traffic & Transportation – SEH, TKDA, SRF o. Water Storage Facilities – SEH, KLM 2. Authorizes the City Attorney to develop a standard contract with each of the aforementioned professional services firms for a minimum period of two years, but not to exceed five years. ADOPTED this 21st day of June, 2016. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk G:\CONDAC\2016 Consulting Pool\Submittals\r1 SOQ Ranking Form Engineering Firm: Category Scoring Criteria Scale Score Weighting Weighted Score Past Performance Average evaluation score from Reference projects, clients and personnel. select one score Reference projects, clients and personnel are highly correlated.1 20 0 enter in green box Reference projects, clients and personnel are adequately correlated.0 Reference projects, clients and personnel are not correlated/irrelevant.-1 Capacity of Team to do Work Evaluation of the team's personnel and equipment to perform the project on time. select one score Availability of more than adequate capacity that results in added value.1 10 0 enter in green box Adequate capacity to meet the schedules.0 Insufficient available capacity to meet the schedules.-1 Team's Demonstrated Qualifications Technical expertise: Unique Resources that yield a relevant added value or efficiency to the deliverable. Demonstrated outstanding expertise and resources identified for required services for value added benefit.2 10 0 select one score Demonstrated high level of expertise and resources identified for required services for value added benefit.1 enter in green box Expertise and resources at appropriate level.0 Insufficient expertise and/or resources.-3 Project Manager(s)Predicted ability to manage the project, based on: experience in size, complexity, type, subs, documentation skills. Demonstrated outstanding experience in similar type and complexity.2 10 0 select one score Demonstrated high level of experience in similar type and complexity.1 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 Projects Project Understanding and Innovation that provides cost and/or time savings. High level of understanding and viable innovative ideas proposed.2 10 0 select one score High level of understanding of potential project needs.1 enter in green box Basic understanding of potential project needs.0 Lack of understanding of potential project needs.-3 Location Location of assigned staff office relative to project. Within 50 mi.1 10 0 select one score 51 to 150 mi.0 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.1 10 0 select one score Schedule of fees is average 0 enter in green box Schedule of fees is slightly higher.-1 Schedule of fees is significantly higher.-2 Weighted Sub Total 0 Signature: Print Name: Title: Date: _________________________________ SOQ RANKING FORM _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ Evaluation Criteria to be Rated by Scorers ____________________________________________________ Archetectural Communications Electrical & Mechanical General Municipal GIS Land Survey Landscape Architecture Municipal Utility Natural & Water Resources Relocation & Benefit Analysis Soils & Materials Special Inspections/Studi Structural Traffic & Transportation Water Storage Facilities AE2S 20 40 80 230 30 AET Inc 370 Alliant 250 260 Anderson 110 -10 -130 Barr -120 170 350 230 270 130 250 130 360 -100 130 170 290 -300 70 Black & Veatch -70 280 210 120 60 Bolten & Menk 310 300 300 Braun Intertec 390 Burns McDonnell 70 0 90 130 60 180 140 CDM Smith 120 80 200 90 Comm Wireless -210 Donohue 60 270 EOR Inc 70 50 340 Evergreen 270 Foth 180 220 Geo Tech 110 Houston 330 280 250 HTPO 210 210 210 -60 90 ISG 320 230 190 270 240 190 Kimley-Horn -220 300 -150 -20 -60 90 170 240 KLM -130 280 LHB 230 -70 200 110 -60 80 250 MSA Prof Svc 110 180 180 -70 -20 130 100 North Point Geo 0 Northern Tech 260 60 Ortel 320 Pro West 220 Progressive 220 Resource Data 200 RESPEC 240 180 S.E.H.190 60 230 290 180 240 220 270 240 90 260 330 290 Solved -350 SRF 0 160 200 330 230 240 260 310 210 280 280 Stantec 110 150 240 220 150 160 160 180 130 90 150 170 -40 Stonebrook 140 130 Summit 30 Sunde 320 TKDA 280 230 290 340 200 190 290 220 210 290 290 Wentz 40 Widseth -10 110 180 -210 100 10 0 -130 70 WSB -260 310 260 150 220 190 240 210 140 160 210 190