My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.8. SR 03-19-2012
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2012
>
03-19-2012
>
4.8. SR 03-19-2012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2012 9:33:42 AM
Creation date
3/16/2012 9:33:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/19/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
REQUEST FOR ACTION <br />TO ITEM NUMBER <br />Ma or and Ci Council 4.8 <br />AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY <br />Consent March 19, 2012 ustin Femrite, P.E., Ci En ' eer <br />ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By <br />Approve Engineering Services for Preparation of a Facility Plan Gary Leirmoe, Chief Operator & Matt <br />and Permit Application for the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Stevens, Lead O erator <br /> REVIEWED BY <br /> Cal Portner, Ci Administrator <br />ACTION REQUESTED <br />Approve $25,000 in professional services from Bolton &Menk, Inc. to prepare a facility plan and permit <br />application for the Wastewater Treatment Facility. <br />BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION <br />As authorized at the February 6, 2012, City Council meeting, staff solicited proposals for the completion <br />of a Facility Plan and MPCA permit application. Proposals were due by February 24, 2012. <br />Understanding this is a specialized project, we solicited proposals from four firms with demonstrated <br />success in previous completion of this type of work. <br />Staff reviewed and evaluated all of the proposals based on the following criteria: <br />• Qualifications and experience of proposed team; <br />• Project approach; <br />• Comparable projects successfully completed by the team; <br />• References, and; <br />• Total project budget. <br />The proposals received were detailed with not to exceed costs as follows: <br />Proposing Firm Cost <br />SEH, Inc. $46,000 <br />Foth Infrastructure and Environment $35,000 <br />Stantec, Inc. $29,000 <br />Bolton &Menk, Inc. $25,000 <br />A staff committee consisting of Matt Stevens, Gary Leirmoe, and myself reviewed the proposals. After <br />review of all proposals, the committee selected the highest two scoring proposals for further <br />consideration. The top two ranked proposals were submitted by Bolton &Menk and Foth Infrastructure <br />and Environment. Having recent positive experience with Foth, staff was comfortable with their <br />proposal without need to further interview them. We interviewed representatives from Bolton &Menk <br />r~x~ate ~r <br />AU <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.