Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />SW -93 -12 <br />4/8/93 <br />Policy objectives* Following existing policy for selecting consultants, <br />we pre - selected three firms. The firms are BNW, RL , . and 0SX. The use <br />of an outside consultant for a project of this nature is . consistent with <br />past practice and our policy for retaining consulting engineers. <br />Because of the size of the project, the complexity, and the need to <br />coordinate with outside agencies, the council should consider the <br />proposed engineering contract which is attached. <br />Financial implication: BRW, the reco=ended consultant, has provided a <br />proposed cost estimate and supplemental letter of agreement to provide <br />necessary services for work tasks to .co3rkplete this project. The overall <br />estimated range for design services is shown on the total budget for <br />engineering services. Using.the high range figure, the total fee will <br />not exceed $122,000 which is approximately of the est3.mated <br />construction project budget. These costs do not include any figures for <br />right -of -way acquisition since it is not yet possible to determine the <br />scope of service necessary for right -of -way acquisition. <br />Although the figures seem somewhat high, they reflect the anticipated <br />difficult public involvement and agency coordination process necessary <br />to successfully complete the project according to the established time <br />schedule and program guidelines. <br />Staff recommendation: Following interviews with three firms, we believer <br />the most qualified firm to complete the work is BRW. All firms have <br />extensive background in landscape airchitecture and pathway planning, but <br />BRW lends special expertise in the-area of agency coordination and <br />working with MnDOT and let Council on complicated transportation <br />projects. This expertise should allow the project to run as smooth as <br />possible using the new federal I TEA funds for f lnanc ing this public <br />improvement. Additional financing information will be provided to the <br />council by staff as the project proceeds. <br />RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACT ION G <br />Adoption of a motion approving engineering services agreement between <br />the City and BRW for project W -93 -1, pathway /bikeway, County Road C, <br />Cleveland to Nice, and Dice Street, Fairview Avenue and Snelling Avenue <br />as outlined in the proposal dated April 2. 1993, and authorization of <br />signature of the agreement by appropriate city officials. <br />