Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3/22/2007 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />A single consultant is often used for engineering services in cities where there is no staff engineer. <br />This single consultant would develop a history with the City, as URS has over the years with Arden <br />Hills. Since the same people work on projects from year to year, this option provides consistency and <br />continuity, allowing them to gain an understanding of specifics the City desires to see in projects. <br /> <br />If we designate a pool of qualified consulting engineers, we would not be limiting ourselves to one <br />consulting firm. Instead we would have the ability to select a consultant to perform work based on <br />their special expertise. While most firms are well-rounded in civil engineering disciplines, different <br />firms excel in one or more of the various disciplines. Also, a pool can be more competitive. As <br />projects are identified for outside consulting work, we can request that the firms provide us proposals <br />for engineering services. Depending on workloads, the costs for project engineering can be more <br />competitive with a pool. <br /> <br />With Roseville serving as the City Engineer for Arden Hills and providing a staff engineer, the need <br />for a single consultant to provide continuity is not as critical; the Civil Engineer is able to provide <br />that consistency. As a result we are recommending that we put together the RFQ with the intent to <br />develop a consultant pool. The pool would consist of three to five engineering firms that we could <br />draw on to assist us with projects as they are identified. <br /> <br />If this process is approved by Council, staff will post the RFQ for approximately 30 days. Upon <br />review of the submittals, staff may choose to hear presentations by a selected group of candidates. <br />With an early April posting, staff would anticipate that a selected consultant pool could be presented <br />to Council for approval in June. <br /> <br />To move fOlWard with this solicitation process, staff recommends that the City terminate its current <br />contract with URS. The contract was revised last year; however, most of the conditions are not <br />consistent with the proposed terms of the RFQ. We feel that terminating the existing contract will <br />provide a level playing field for URS and other consultants responding to the RFQ. The contract <br />states that it can be terminated by either party with a 30-day written notice. <br /> <br />We still anticipate working with URS on the closure of past Pavement Management Program <br />projects, the CSAH 96 Landscaping Improvements, and moving fOlWard with the CP Rail Bridge <br />improvements, as identified in the 2007 CIP. We also foresee relying on URS for historical <br />information as new staff continues to gain knowledge about Arden Hills. We are considering using <br />URS' services for environmental review for TCAAP on behalf of the City. These services would be <br />contracted with URS in a similar manner to how our "Miscellaneous Engineering Services" were <br />administered, on a time and materials basis, as opposed to a lump sum contract amount. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION <br />At this time, staff is recommending the following actions: <br />. Motion to Approve the Request for Qualification Process for Engineering Services <br />. Motion to Approve the Termination of the Agreement between the City and URS, Inc. for <br />Professional Engineering Services <br />