CC_Minutes_2008_0421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, Apri121, 2008 Page 14 ers; warranties only as good as the companies behind them; and a high incidence of low owner satisfaction of project outcomes. Mr. Schwartz advised that con- tracting in a best value environment included: the contractor bids to make a rea- sonable profit; the contractor is required to control risk to minimize the chance of change orders; contractors typically put their most skilled and technically compe- tent staff on projects when required to control risk; high performing contractors prefer to work in a negotiated or best value environment; final cost in best value environment has proven through case studies to be as low, or lower, than low bid projects; and it produces a higher satisfaction of outcomes for owners. Park Project Coordinator Jeff Evenson reviewed objectives of best value pro- curement by outsourcing construction to an expert and allowing the expert to minimize risks: creating a true "win-win" relationship with the owner "win" de- termined by a project completed on time; project completed without cost in- creases; high quality/customer satisfaction; and no complaints (owner and public). Contractor "wins" were indicated with a low performer not having the advantage; competition based on the value and expertise; and profits maximized through pre- planning and being efficient (not charging more). Presenters reviewed the six process filters for best value procurement: 1) Past performance information; 2) Proposal & RAVA (risk assessment/value added) similar to design build proposal but no review of pricing information at this point, contractor re- view of plans for how a project is proposed to be built, and they identify any risks they see and provide realistic solutions of any risks; 3) Interview highest performers, with interviews performed of the people proposed to be on site (i.e., foreman, site supervisor, etc. who will actually be doing the project) rather than the owner of the company, which allows for technical information coming out in process; 4) Prioritize (identify best value) all information from the first three filters; at which time this is the first that the price comes in, with a spreadsheet for comparisons; identifying the potential best value contractor, and another series of activities that could throw them out as well; 5) Pre-award phase (pre-plan); and 6) Weekly report and post-rating. Discussion among presenters and Councilmembers included lower long-term costs for best value contracting cost versus low-bid projects; how the initial pool of contractors was determined, with the City teaming up with the University of Minnesota and their survey of a pool of contractors used for past projects and past performance information (up to 25 surveys), similar to design/bid/build, but a more hybrid system; identification of financial risks and/or non-technical infor- mation from their best clients; and making the contractors (experts) provide cost- saving options and rationale for the process and cost implications of proposed changes.