6.4. SR 12-20-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REQUEST FOR ACTION TO ITEM NUMBER Ma ox and Ci Council 6.4. AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY Administration December 20, 2010 Phil Hals, Street Su exintendent ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Consider Architectural Services fox Public Works Facility Lori ohnson, Ci Administrator REVIEWED BY ACTION REQUESTED Determine if the City should engage SEH Inc. for architectural services or do a Request fox Proposals (RFP) from other firms for these services. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Now that the Council has adopted the Public Works facility master plan A-3 as proposed by SEH Architects, Inc., the question is how do we proceed from here? As previously discussed with the Council, there is approximately 2.75 nvllion dollars available for the pxelitninary work such as construction drawings, fuel island relocation, salt shed relocation, compost site relocation and ball field lighting ox relocation. The liquor store funds have been a discussed funding source for a portion of the building for a few years. One of the first considerations will be to secure an architectural Earn. Staff would like a dialog with the Council to decide if the City should continue with SEH Architects, Inc. ox proceed with a request fox proposal from other firms. The pros to doing an RFP axe: It puts all firms in a competitive bidding situation. It offers opportunities to look at what other firms have to offer. The cons to doing an RFP axe: An RFP takes staff time to develop, administrate, and analyze. Staff has not discussed fees with SEH beyond the master site plan, but they have the resources, experience and know-how for a project of this size, plus they have been very professional, helpful, and easy fox staff to work with. FINANCIAL IMPACT To be determined by architectural fee schedule. ATTACHMENTS None N:\PubGc Bodies\City Coundl\Council RCA\Agenda Packet\12-20-2010\12-15-10 Action Reuested Public Works Master Plan.doc