CC_Minutes_2008_0421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, Apri121, 2008 Page 15 Staff noted that, up to Filter 3, names of contractors are not known, taking any prejudices out of the process; with Filter 2 determining quality, cost and time, will it be built well, within our budget, and will it meet our needs, identifying risks not in the contractor's control, and if not identified, the problem of the con- tractor, not through a change order. Staff further noted that, with the reporting, the City would affect their survey in- formation, so the contractor gains by doing a good job for the City. Mr. Brokke noted that all three of the participants, Duane, Jay and Jeff, were at the top of the class, all went through a complicated testing process, and had each been certified. Mr. Brokke advised that the U of M had been learning to use the ASU Best Value Program since 2005 (3 years) for pilot projects; and that results had shown sig- nificant improvements in overall performance; with the City hoping in the future to work further with the U of M on this process as well. Mr. Brokke advised that the Skating Center project was at approximately Filter 3 right now, with the feasibility study and engineering report completed. Mr. Brokke further advised that proposals were received last Friday and were substan- tially higher than both the feasibility study and engineer's estimates. Mr. Brokke noted that staff was in the process of sorting out the information, meeting with contractors and engineers, and would bring information to the City Council upon completion of their analysis. Additional discussion included part of the analysis including "why" the higher costs; opportunities to lower the cost; whether the uniqueness of a project and limited number of bidders impacted a project (i.e., the geothermal conversion); critical timing of the skating center project and contractors identifying any and all potential risks to the best of their ability that may have added to costs; and com- parisons of this type of process with that of a Request for Proposals process. Mr. Schwartz advised that, while there was lots of interest in best-value contract- ing, there wasn't a lot of knowledge about the process yet; noting that he'd given a presentation to a Public Works Association last week, that also included a pres- entation by MnDOT on the bridge project and subsequent litigation and learning curves yet to be completed. Mr. Schwartz advised that there appeared to be suffi- cient interest in adapting the process to road projects; and there was substantial in- terest in developing a performance history on the set of contractors most used in the State of MN. Councilmember Pust thanked staff for the good and informative presentation.