My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/06/2011 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2011
>
06/06/2011 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2014 12:40:21 PM
Creation date
1/29/2014 11:03:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
06/06/2011
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
199
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
WS — Item 5 <br />WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT <br />Work Session Item 5 <br />Date: Council Work Session, June 6, 2011 <br />To: City Council <br />From: Michael Grochala <br />Re: Engineering RFP's <br />Background <br />Interviews for the three engineering firm finalists, SEH, TKDA, and WSB were held on April 18, <br />2011. Following discussion the council requested a more direct comparison between the fees <br />included in the respective proposals. Accordingly each firm was presented with a supplemental <br />information request. <br />The request included a detailed list of tasks, general hours worked based on past experience, and the <br />minimum position requirements expected to complete the assigned tasks. Each firm was asked to list <br />the personnel assigned to perform these tasks and the hourly rate charged for each of the personnel <br />assigned. The responses received from each firm were provided to the City Council at the May 23, <br />2011 work session. Staff was directed to place discussion of the proposals on the June 6, 2011 work <br />session. <br />Analysis <br />Each of the three finalists are well qualified to serve as City Engineer for Lino Lakes. Each of the <br />firms provide a wide array of services that can meet the challenging day to day needs of the <br />community. <br />The firms have provided the city with proposed rates for performing City Engineering services. Two <br />firms proposed standard hourly rates for services and one provided a proposed retainer fee. Based on <br />standard hourly rates presented in the supplemental questionnaire the firms are very competitive from <br />a cost standpoint. However, the proposed retainer system provided a substantially lower fixed cost <br />for services. <br />The council should note that, as pointed out in the supplemental proposals, changes in personnel, <br />shifting of work to lower pay scales and other efficiencies can provide additional value to the city. <br />Many of the ideas are valid approaches that will need to be reviewed regardless of the selected firm. <br />Council Direction <br />Staff is requesting council direction to place selection of City Engineering Services on the June 13, <br />2011 agenda. <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.