2014_0811_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The proposals were scored based on the following categories: 29 CATEGORY WEIGHT Fees 40% Project Scope Understanding 30% Background and Qualifications 20% Past Performance Survey 10% The proposals were reviewed by three staff members. The individual scores were collected and 30 averaged to reach a final total score for each firm. The results of that scoring were as follows: 31 32 Firm Total Average Total Proposed Price Proposal Score (including estimated reimbursables) Kimley-Horn & Associates 86 $336,660 SEH, Inc. 84 $319,500 SRF Consulting Group 93 $297,500 Based on the proposal scores and a follow up clarification interview with the highest scoring firm, 33 staff is recommending awarding an engineering services contract to SRF Consulting Group. 34 All three proposals identified items that were not in the original scope of the RFP, as interpreted by 35 the respondents. One of those items was the potential use of a roundabout as an intersection control 36 technique at this location versus the originally proposed traffic signal. All new intersection projects 37 on State Aid and/or Trunk Highway facilities are required to perform an “Intersection Control 38 Evaluation” (ICE) to determine the best intersection control type given operational considerations, 39 estimated cost and physical impacts to the surrounding area (such as wetlands, right-of-way, etc.). 40 While the proposed scope by SRF, as well as the other two respondents, included the ICE report, if 41 the roundabout option was selected there would be an added cost to the scope of this contract for the 42 design of the roundabout. That additional cost could be as high as $20,000. A more detailed cost 43 proposal will be prepared if the reports indicate we should consider a roundabout option. 44 Staff has had some discussions about the merits of a roundabout at this intersection. There could be 45 operational benefits, especially in the non-peak hours, and there would certainly be aesthetic benefits 46 to the use of a roundabout versus a traffic signal. Finally, there could actually be less impervious 47 surface with the use of a roundabout versus the currently proposed traffic signal. 48 If the ICE recommends a roundabout as the best alternative and Ramsey County concurs, staff would 49 present the information to Council, including the benefits and risks of switching to a roundabout, in 50 order to make a decision as to how to proceed. This would likely occur in September. 51 Finally, staff is recommending adding one optional task to the scope as suggested by SRF. In order 52 to ensure that the existing storm water trunk system, as constructed during Phase I of the Twin Lakes 53 Parkway project, has the capacity to carry storm water from the expanded intersection, SRF will 54 conduct a full review of the in place system using the City’s and watershed’s updated storm water 55 standards. This optional task will add $3,540 to the cost of the engineering services contract for a 56 Page 2 of 3