Agenda Packets - 2001/03/12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No: 10A Meeting Date: March 12, 2001 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 5537, a Resolution Awarding and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for the Highway 10 Reconstruction and Revitalization Corridor Study Date of Report: March 7, 2001 Background: As staff had reported at the Council’s March 5 worksession, the City received six proposals in response to the Highway 10 Revitalization and Reconstruction RFP sent out December 14, 2001. Of the six, we chose to interview three firms—SEH, Bonestroo and URS/BRW. Discussion: Staff reviewed the proposals in the context of how closely the firms were able to address the issues outlined in the RFP, their understanding of the work to be performed for the City, their relevant experience, the competence of the team, and their level of detail. For the interview and presentation, we judged the firms based on their ability to articulate their proposals and gave further consideration to their extent of relevant work experience and assessed the project teams’ ability to coordinate activity among a diverse set of stakeholders. From the interviews, it was clear that one firm stood out among the others. The Council is being provided with the proposal submitted by URS/BRW, the firm we felt best suited to perform the work as outlined in the RFP. They anticipate project completion by February 2002 at a base-cost of $75,000. (Simply for sake of reference, the costs attributed to the other proposals were $79,800, $93,500, $105,115 $108,900 and $133,202.) URS/BRW was involved with the County and the City of Shoreview concerning the reconstruction and aesthetic improvements on Highway 96. In addition to the proposed base fee, there will be an additional costs involved for providing electronic communication via website linkage and maintenance and an additional fee for assistance in locating and obtaining funding sources to implement the project. While staff did not have an exact estimate of the cost of the additional work expected, we could probably anticipate something closer to $90,000 altogether. Last, the level of detail contained in the final plans would not be sufficient for use as preconstruction drawings to be put out for bids. (Only one firm offered to provide that level of detail, the cost for which was reflected in their $133,202 fee.) Thus, the City can