2006-09-07 Regular Meeting
,.-O'. ~_(G lE U ~J [E.. ...rn~
, j~r---""---:j 111
I n ~ i ' J AN - ! 2007 i i !.j)
U L; . I~
~_~_h__~_---J
BOROUGH CLEFlWS OFFICE
Minutes
ArchitecturalJEngineering Review Board
Regular Meeting
Interviews of AlE Firms for New ADF&G Facility
7 September 2006 - Noon
KIB Assembly Chambers
Meeting reconvened at 12:03 pm
Present: ARB Members Scott Arndt, Jerro1 Friend, Gregg Racker, Charlie Jerling, Jay
Johnston, Reed Oswalt, Brent Watkins. Representing the ElF Department were Bud
Cassidy, Ken Smith and Sharon Lea Adinolfi.
The Chair reiterated John White's [ADF&G] advisory vote from the previous evening's
meeting 1. RIM Architects
2. USKH
3. ECI/Ryer
4. Porath/Tatom
and then requested votes from Bud and Ken as advisory participants.
B. Cassidy: 1. USKH
2. ECI/Ryer
3. RIM Architects
A Tll_ ___..1_/~_.._
'to roraUl/ 1 amm
K. Smith:
1. ECI/Ryer
2. USKH
3. RIM Architects
4. Porath/Tatom
Member Votes:
S. Arndt:
1. ECI/Hyer
2. RIM Architects
3. USKH
4. Porath/Tatom
J. Friend:
1. RIM Architects
2. ECI/Ryer
3. USKH
4. Porath/Tatom
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2006\Minutes ARB 060907.doc
Page 1 of3
G. Hacker: 1. ECVHyer
2. RIM Architects
3. USKH
4. Porath/Tatom
C. Jerling: 1. ECVHyer
2. RIM Architects
3. USKH
4. Porath/Tatom
J . Johnston: 1. USKH
2. RIM Architects
3. ECVHyer
4. Porath/Tatom
R. Oswalt: 1. RIM Architects
2. USKH
3. ECVHyer
4. Porath/Tatom
B. Watkins: 1. RIM Architects
2. ECVHyer
3. USKH
4. Porath/Tatom
Because the vote was close, it was suggested that the top two proposers be voted on.
J. Friend, R. Oswalt, B. Watkins voted for RIM Architects as their first choice and
ECVHyer as their second choice.
S. Arndt, G. Hacker, C. Jerling and J. Johnston voted for ECI/Hyer as their first choice
and RIM Architects as their second choice.
It was moved, seconded and there was a unanimous voice vote to select ECVHyer as the
primary A&E firm for recommendation to the Assembly for the new ADF&G Facility,
with RIM Architects being the secondary selection.
J. Johnston suggested a regular [not an interview meeting] meeting of the ARB be
considered where the group could corne together and discuss other business - such as
reviewing the Board's role.
S. Arndt said he was anticipating a meeting in October.
C. J erling suggested that the next group of RFP proposers be asked to present a pie chart
indicating the percentages of work their firms do in the public sector, government,
commercial, etc.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2006\Minutes ARB 060907.doc
Page 2 of3
K. Smith requested the Board's direction on whether or not to interview the next set of
proposers to RFP #2. There had been discussion about reviewing only the proposals
because it is anticipated the same firms will respond to RFP #2 as responded to RFP #1,
and those firms have already been interviewed - B. Cassidy suggested that the proposers
be advised that there "may" be interviews.
There were no further discussions. A motion was made, seconded and there was a
unanimous voice vote to adjourn the meeting at 12:37 pm.
Respectfully submitted:
Date: cP ~ t:fJ ~
;l
J~-&i ~
~t" a /(/ ~. r ""
Scott Arndt, Chair
Architectural/Engineering Review Board
Date: /-;2 - ;2.00 7
Cy placed in ADF&G File
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2006\Minutes ARB 060907.doc
Page 3 of3