Loading...
2011-144-1537 - City Hall Bid to Skanska City of Miami Gardens Agenda Cover Memo Council Meeting Date: September 14, 2011 Item Type: Resolution Ordinance Other X Fiscal Impact: Yes No Ordinance Reading: 1st Reading 2nd Reading X Public Hearing: Yes No Yes No Funding Source: Capital Projects Fund Advertising Requirement: Yes No X Contract/P.O. Required: Yes No RFP/RFQ/Bid #: RFP# 1011064 City Hall Municipal Complex GMP Construction Contract X Strategic Plan Related Yes No Strategic Plan Priority Area: Enhance Organizational Bus. & Economic Dev Public Safety Quality of Education Qual. of Life & City Image Communication Strategic Plan Obj./Strategy: (list the specific objective/strategy this item will address) Sponsor Name Dr. Danny O. Crew, City Manager Department: Capital Improvements Short Title: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, FLORIDA, AWARDING A BID TO SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC. (“SKANSKA”), FOR EARTHWORK RELATED TO THE CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS MUNICIPAL COMPLEX (“MUNICIPAL COMPLEX”), IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE MILLION FIVE FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY THREE THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN DOLLARS ($1,563,397.00) WHICH AMOUNT INCLUDES A TEN PERCENT (10%) CONTINGENCY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST, RESPECTIVELY THAT AGREEMENT ATTACHED HERETO IN SUBSTANTIAL FORM AS EXHIBIT “A FOR THIS PURPOSE;” AWARDING A BID TO SKANSKA FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES FOR THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES NOT TO EXCEED FORTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($45,000,000.00); AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST, RESPECTIVELY, AN AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THIS PURPOSE; UPON SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF REPRESENTATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE Staff Summary: ITEM L-1) RESOLUTION City Hall Construction 1515 NW 167 Street, Building 5 Suite 200 Miami Gardens, Florida 33169 Background The Miami Gardens City Hall Municipal Complex project is being developed with a phased approach to expedite the design and construction. The first phase was the relocation of most existing trees onto three nearby Miami Gardens Park sites. The tree relocation is completed. The second phase is the demolition of the former Wachovia Bank building. The demolition of the existing facility was approved by Council on July 13, 2011. The demolition work is scheduled to be complete in September 2011. The next phase consists of the Earthwork Package (Guaranteed Maximum Price #1) to prepare the site for the construction of the Municipal Complex. Then we begin construction of the City Hall building, Police Department building, Mechanical building, Parking Garage and the Off‐Site Roadway Improvements (Guaranteed Maximum Price #2). Current Situation Request for Proposals (RFP# 10‐11‐064) was advertised on July 8, 2011. This RFP included services for Earthwork as well as construction of the Municipal Complex, and it was anticipated that the same firm would provide both services. A broadcast notice was sent to 1,859 vendors. Twenty‐eight proposal packages were purchased. Nine responses were received. The responses were evaluated by staff for compliance with the requirements of the RFP and eight submittals were determined to be responsive to the minimum requirements. The eight responsive proposers were: Skanska USA Building; Stiles Stephenson w/Lawrence Wright & Partners; Suffolk Construction Company Inc.; Coastal/H.A. Contracting Corp.; The Weitz Company; ANF/Link; Arellano Construction/Betancourt Castellon Associates; and James A. Cummings, Inc. The responsive submittals were reviewed by a selection committee consisting of Dr. Danny Crew, City Manager; Brandan DeCaro R.A., CIP Division Director; Jimmie Allen R.A., Special Project Manager and Kevin Lawler, N‐K Ventures. The three most qualified firms were determined by utilizing a predetermined scoring system. The three top ranked firms were: Stiles Stephenson w/Lawrence Wright & Partners Skanska USA Building Inc. Suffolk Construction Company Inc. Each of the three contractors was invited to conduct an oral presentation for the selection committee on August 30, 2011. A predetermined scoring system was used to determine the single, most qualified contractor for the Municipal Project. The average scores included the oral presentations, the GMP #1 prices and the profit percent cost of work; overhead percent; general conditions; contingency and the split savings for GMP #2. The final scoring was as follows: Skanska USA Building, Inc. 166.35 Suffolk Construction Company Inc. 162.45 Stiles Stephenson w/Lawrence Wright & Partners 155.575 The selection Committee determined that the construction firm of Skanska USA Building, Inc., located in Dania Beach, Florida, had the highest overall score. Hence, city staff is recommending award of the earthwork and construction of the Municipal Complex to Skanska USA Building, Inc. 1515 NW 167 Street, Building 5 Suite 200 Miami Gardens, Florida 33169 The cost for GMP #1 that was submitted by Skanska is $1,421,270 plus the ten percent contingency for a total of $1,563,397. Upon City Council approval, the contractor will proceed with the earthwork construction as soon as permit has been approved. Also upon City Council approval, Skanska USA Building, Inc. will be given 85% Construction Documents to prepare sub‐contractor Bid Packages for the Municipal Complex GMP #2 by September 28, 2011. The subcontractor bidding phase for GMP #2 will take place at the same time as the construction documents for the buildings are being reviewed and approved by the Miami Gardens Building Department and all of the County Agencies. Proposed Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution awarding the earthwork contract (GMP #1) in the amount of $1,563,397 and construction contractor services for the Municipal Complex (GMP #2) not to exceed $45 million to Skanska USA Building, Inc.; approving the contract in substantial form and authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney to negotiate and execute the contract. Attachment: Attachment A ‐Tabulation Sheet Memorandum TO: City Council City of Miami Gardens Attn Dr. Danny Crew, Manager FROM: J. Kevin Lawler N‐K Ventures LC SUBJECT: RFP 10‐11‐064 Evaluation and Results DATE: September 8, 2011 Executive Summary The City received nine (9) proposals in response to RFP 10-11-064 (General Contractor and Guaranteed Maximum Price – Municipal Complex). Eight (8) of the proposals meet all the specified “minimum qualifications”. These eight (8) proposals were subsequently evaluated pursuant to the parameters defined in RFP 10-11-064. After completion of the evaluation and scoring of Part “A” (Qualifications, Capability and Experience) of the eight (8) proposals, the three (3) highest scored proposals were processed for continuing evaluation. The three (3) highest ranked proposals in the Part “A” evaluation were: Skanska, Stiles Construction, and Suffolk Construction. The continuing evaluation process consisted of two additional steps. First, one hour Oral Interviews were held with each of the three (3) firms before the Evaluation Committee; after the Oral Interviews, the Evaluation Committee as a whole re-scored the Part “A” scoring. Second, a technical evaluation and scoring of Part “B” (Business Terms, GMP1 Pricing, and Schedule) of the proposer’s submittals was performed by the Committee as a whole. Based on the sum of the two (2) Part “A” evaluations and the Part “B” evaluation, the final scoring of the proposals by rank was: Skanska (166.35 points), Suffolk (162.45 points) and Stiles (155.575 points). The Evaluation Committee conditionally recommends approval of Skanska, subject to negotiation of certain business issues to the City’s satisfaction. Given the narrow spread in scoring points between Skanska and Suffolk and the substantial spread in their respective fee structures, it is the Evaluation Committee’s opinion that it would well serve the City’s interest to reach a negotiated resolution on fees with Skanska. In the Committee’s opinion, all finalists are highly qualified and capable General Contractors. It is the the Evaluation Committee’s view however, that Skanska has certain advantages in advancing the City’s collateral objectives for the Municipal Complex in the areas of Local Preference and LEED certification. Evaluation Protocol RFP 10‐11‐064 specified twelve (12) proposal qualification and seven (7) submission “minimum requirements”. Upon receipt of nine (9) proposals on the August 19th deadline for submissions, the Procurement Manager reviewed each of the proposals for compliance with the “minimum requirements”. Eight (8) of the proposals were found to be in compliance. The proposal from Turner 2 | P a g e Construction did not specifically state Turner would accept the City’s Construction Contract without materials changes; Turner was offered the opportunity to clarify their position and explicitly stated they could not accept certain terms. Therefore, Turner was removed from further consideration. After completion of the compliance review of “minimum requirements”, Part “A” of each proposal was given to the Evaluation Committee members for technical evaluation and scoring. The Evaluation Committee was comprised of four (4) members: Dr. Crew, Brandan Decaro, R.A., and Jimmie Allen, R.A., of Capital Projects and me. Patricia Varney, the City’s Director of Finance, separately performed the evaluation and scoring of the financial statements and capability of the proposers. Prior to the submission deadline for RFP 1‐11‐064, at the City’s request, I prepared technical metrics for scoring each of the elements of Part “A” and Part “B”. The purpose of these metrics was to provide a uniform and consistent approach for the Evaluation Committee to apply in the evaluation of the proposals. RFP 10‐11‐064 contained the specifications for the City’s evaluation of Part “A” and Part “B” of a proposal and the assignment of ‘points’ for each category. The evaluation considerations and associated ‘points’ as set forth in RFP 10‐11‐064 is restated below: Part “A” Part “B” Experience/Capability 20 points Economic Terms 70 points Completed LEED certified projects 10 points Guaranteed Max Price – Earthwork (“GMP1) 10 points LEED AP Staff 5 points Schedule 20 points Acceptance of City Time Frame 20 points Financial Strength/Bonding 10 points Project Management Plan ( 9 areas) 20 points Local Preference 10 points Local School Contributions 5 points Total 100 points 100 points The Evaluation Committee members individually reviewed and scored Part “A” of each proposal. The Evaluation Committee then met as a whole to review individual scoring, clarify issues for consistency of scoring, and then rolled up the individual scoring results. A similar procedure for Part “A” was again conducted after the Oral Interviews. Lastly, the Evaluation Committee as a whole met immediately after 3 | P a g e the Oral Interviews to conduct a joint scoring of Part “B” of the three highest ranked proposals. The scoring results of Part “A” (1 and 2) and Part “B” were then totaled. Summary Evaluation Results Summarized following are the results of the Evaluation Committee’s technical scoring of the three (3) highest ranked proposals: Skanska Stiles Suffolk Part “A” pre Interviews 77.5 77.375 74.5 Part “A” post interviews 75.25 73.375 74.25 Part “B” 91.1 81.9 88.2 Total Score 166.35 155.575 162.45 Skanska achieved the highest overall score. Suffolk, with a score of just less than 4 points of difference, is a strong, 2nd ranked proposer. The small relative difference between Skanska and Suffolk in overall scoring is indicative that either firm could potentially well accomplish the City’s multiple objectives in the construction of the Municipal Complex. Importantly, the modest overall scoring difference between these two firms does not reflect the significant difference in pricing of business of terms. Suffolk’s pricing of fees – profit, overhead and general conditions – is one‐half of the composite fee level proposed by Skanska. The pronounced difference in proposed fees between Skanska and Suffolk merits careful consideration in the final selection and approval. The Evaluation Committee unanimously agreed that Skanska potentially offers the City a superior approach to accomplishing several collateral objectives in the construction of the Municipal Complex; these include their LEED capabilities and commitment to Local Preference. Accordingly, the Evaluation Committee recommends a conditional award to Skanska, and further recommends the award provide for the Manager to enter into final contract negotiations with an emphasis on a downward adjustment of Skanska’s fees.