2007_1217_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 Q�estion #2: H�s the city recently r��laced � rooftap unit a� the Roseville 2 Sfcating Ce�ter? 3 � Answer #2: A rooftop unit was replaceci Uctober 2005. It was a unit fihat 4 serves the locker raam hallway and iitness room. From tl�e outsic�e, it is S the one closest to �h� easfi ec�ge of the building to the so�tf� af the banquef 5 �ntry doors: ft was or�ginally insfalled in 1998 during the atldition of th� 7 banquet rooms. It was an ur��sual fiailure and app�ared to be a failure that 8 was �lectrical in natur� (�ossible lighfning stri�Ce). These uni�s ar� nQt 9 compatible wi#h the geathermaf system and wou�d be r�p[aced vtirith the � 0 COi1VEiSft)C!. �� 12 Quesiion #3: Can this project be inc[uded in state banding req�esfi? 1� Answer #3: This is in �iscussio� and research with no �efiniie ar�swer to �4 date 15 16 Q�estion #4: Can we obtain addifiorial information on; campus wid� facility 17 costs, phased a�proach ofi ather buildings anci prc�jected anr�ual energY 18 savings for entire c�mpus? 19 Answer #�4: Prior to selecting Geo-Xergy to conc�uct the original feasibility 20 study, sfiaff sent an RFP tn fi�e firms that we were aware of that 21 specialized in g�c�thermal technology. �f fihase fiv� fiirms, two stood o��. 22 Staff re�uested a proposal from those two whicf� included Geo-�Xergy an� 23 Rosevil[� basecf Karges-Faulcor�bridg�, Inc. (KF'I}. lncluded in your packet 24 is a praposal from K�I io da the additional tfetailecf study. Gea-Xergy (a 2S Canadian firm) st�gges��d thai due to KFYs proximity to Rose�i[!e and their 26 working relationship witFt K�I that tf�ey wot�ld co�traet with K�I to da �his 27 additional wark so staff wenf directfy �o K�'l. The �ropasal is attach�d. 28 �9 Questian #5: RFP and scope of work? 30 Answer #5: li is not the intent c�f staff to issue offrcial RF'P"s for t�e design 31 and cnnstruction management work. Prinr ta selec�ing �eo-X�rgy ta 32 cc�nduct the original f�asibilifiy study, art RFP was sent ta fiv� potential 33 fiirms famiiiar with geothermal technofogy. Five prnposa�s were received 34 wiih eact� firm ext�r�sirrely inferviewed. After ihe intsrviews and evaluation, 35 Gea--Xergy was sefeeted far the original feasi�ilfty stucly based u�on the�r 35 specifie exp�rtise with ice rinks as well as their fees. The two firms that 37 stoc�d ou� in this process were Geo-Xergy and Kar�es-Fa�lcor�bridge, Inc., 38 a Roseville based company. Irt c�[scussians wiih G�o-Xergy, if they were 39 sefected to design the system, fhey would �ub contract ta KFI far much of 40 the defail design wnrk. IncEuded in this �acket is a proposal af from KFI for 4� the desigr� and canstruction management services. As you can see, they 42 er�fist t�e assis�ar�ce ot Geo--Xergy. 43