2016-08-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

34 35 Discussion included various sidewalk installations or rationale for not installing 36 certain segments at this time (e.g. Wheaton Woods); and formal and/or typical 37 processes for residents to provide feedback on various city projects before, during 38 and after a project (e.g. Commissioner Trainor with S Owasso Drive project). 39 40 Mr. Culver encouraged any resident on any project to provide their feedback on 41 the project; and reviewed the various methods available (phone, email, personal 42 staff contact at City Hall, etc.) at any time to inform future projects. 43 44 Specific to the S Owasso project, Mr. Culver noted it had been a challenging year, 45 which was both good and bad, with a very aggressive contractor on that particular 46 project that kept things ahead of schedule, but made it difficult if not impossible 47 to provide proper notification for residents, and staff s normal communication 48 methods. However, Mr. Culver noted lessons had been le\way to 49 manage the contractor rand projectNwas and reiterated staff s ing from 50 residents about the process. 51 IAL 52 Member Trainor noted the end reshe contractor bhead of 53 the schedule which had been painful for the residents. Masked Mr. 54 Culver if there was contractual language the city could use to avoid those types of 55 happenings. 56 57 Due to current contractor laws, Mr. Culver responded it was difficult to make a 58 contractor comply unless it was at a financial cost to them, with normal legal 59 channels used to fine a contractor or charge for non-performance unsatisfactory 60 unless additional costs had actually been incurred (e.g. liquidated damages); and 61 the required time and investment for the city to follow-through and ultimate 62 taxpayer cost to do so., -44%V 63 64 r. Culver noted that o usly some contractors were easier to deal with than 65 others. As the city moves more into best value contracting and awarding 66 contracts under that method, which the city had yet to do with its Pavement 67 Management Program (PMP) projects, Mr. Culver advised that a contractor's 68 previous experience on such elements could be used to reduce their score on 69 future projects. Mr. Culver advised this would be accomplished through cities 70 sharing their reviews and scores on contractors and their experiences, with that 71 information used to score contractors accordingly. However, Mr. Culver noted 72 this would require a consistent or standard method for post -project reviews; and 73 there was some momentum in the industry to give cities more control making it in 74 the contractor's best interest to perform above and beyond the norm. 75 76 Member Trainor stated he would submit his comments as a resident to Mr. 77 Culver. 78 79 5. City Campus Solar Page 2 of 19