Loading...
2006-09-05 Regular Meeting f5)[E~[E~~[Erm ~~N-42~~ BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE Minutes Architectural/Engineering Review Board Regular Meeting and Interviews of AlE Firms for New ADF&G Facility 5 September 2006 - 5 :30 p.m. KFRC Main Conference Room A . Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00pm. B . Roll Call ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Jerrol Friend, Gregg Hacker, Charlie Jerling, Jay Johnston and Brent Watkins. Absent Member was Reed Oswalt. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department were Bud Cassidy, Ken Smith, Sharon Lea Adinolfi and Jessica Kepley. Also in attendance were John White from ADF&G in Juneau and KIB Assembly Member Mel Stephens. c . Approval of Agenda There was an affirmative voice vote to approve the Agenda. D. Approval of Minutes There was a motion made and seconded and an affirmative voice vote to approve the Minutes of 8 August 2006 as written. E . Presentation/Interview of Proposers Bud Cassidy said that this evening would be the first two of four presentations by AlE firms selected to be interviewed in connection with the New ADF&G Facility RFP. He introduced John White from the Juneau ADF&G Office who would be observing. Terry Hyer and Jae Shin of ECI/Hyer were introduced. They gave their presentation and addressed questions from the ARB Members. At 8:00 pm Bill Tatom of Porath/Tatom was introduced. He gave a presentation and addressed questions from the ARB Members. The meeting was recessed at approximately 10:45 pm to be reconvened the next evening. Notes from interviews attached. \\dove\Departments\EF\ArchitecturaJ Review Board\ARB Minutes 2006\Minutes ARB 060905.doc Page 1 of7 ECI/Hyer T. Hyer thanked the Board for the opportunity to interview and introduced Jae Shin, Project Architect. He noted that their main message [for the Board to consider] is continuity. Hyer presented the design team that would assist with the Project. All the firms making up the design team have Kodiak experience: Dowl, BBFM, AMC, HMS and Earthscape. Again for continuity, NBBJ lab planners - this group did the lab planning for KFRC. Project Understanding: This is a Borough owned project, but also a collaborative project including the City, the Borough and F&G. Hyer's firm will offer a complete project _ consensus building, satisfying the Owner, the Tenant and the long term use of the building - interior design and landscaping. Project familiarity began 10 years ago when designing KFRC. KFRC was also a collaborative project - KIB and 4 tenants - shared spaces, agreements w/various entities - this was an example of bringing parties together. ECI/Hyer performed an ADF&G Facility concept design in 2004. In terms of continuity - this is a project that has held their attention for 10 years -very interested in assisting with both the design and scientific research aspects of this facility. ECI/Hyer has the staff and ability to do the project - have the skills and familiarity _ would be very much a team effort. J. Shin spoke about the Management Plan: schedule - allow enough time to make decisions, explore ideas. He reviewed the schedule spelled out in the RFP and suggested that it needs to be revisited. Time has passed since the RFP was first advertised. One of the first things to do is to layout a schedule and set milestones. J. Shin said that both continuity and clear communication are critical. Decision making process - the firm will facilitate work sessions - balancing the needs of the facility against time and money. At every level they will use an objective architect to review plans. They will utilize a design spreadsheet to keep everything organized. Cost control - involves looking at all components - the firm will be proactive when it comes to cost control. T. Hyer also spoke to the issue of cost control. He said it is about managing money _ begins with program verification - balanced to budget - need to do very detailed analysis of cost estimates - also need to do value analysis - exploration of the project needs - look \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2006\Minutes ARB 060905.doc Page 2 of7 at systems within the building - anticipate what is the most cost effective way to go - there is no fixed formula - it's a balance between program, money, site, market constraints. He noted that another alternative - using different ways of approaching the construction - such as working w/contractor from design phase allows for controlling costs. Market volatility - there is a volatility in the global economy - and Alaska is experiencing a construction growth - labor costs are going up - there's a whole host of factors to be dealt with in this economy. Decisions need to be made early to be able to affect the costs - important to organize the project and prioritize - and that needs to happen early in the program and facilitating this will be part of ECVHyer's job. J. Shin noted there are site selection considerations - program fit, access, parking, utilities, topography, views, drainage, cost of development, adjacent/future development plans. Acquisition and availability of the site is important. Design Considerations - quality/durability, functionality, low maintenance, creativity, design for Kodiak and sustainability - use LEED certified personnel. Interior environment - carpets, materials, etc. - can affect health of workers - these are all considerations that ECVHyer will take into account in their design Firm Qualifications: Very familiar with this Project - dedicated to KIB and will work to accommodate the KIB and ADF&G needs. Governmental experience - have worked with many governmental agencies - familiar with government procedures. Kodiak Experience - Kodiak Nat'l Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center. Relevant experience - UAF School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences - offices and lab space. Also worked w/Ship Creek Fisheries Center and ADF&G Mariculture Technical Center and Hatchery - have recognition and trust built in with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. Wrapping up: Why us? Dedication, continuity, program understanding, award winning project manager, sustainable design experts, dedicated to Kodiak, a commitment to excellence in client service, fresh, enthusiastic and creative design team. At 7:00 pm - 3 minute break - the Chair began the Q&A portion of the interview. See attached questionnaire for reference. 1. define program - do costing and balancing - prioritization 2. have website - drawings online, updated routinely - subs can access, so can owners - meeting notes, communications, etc. - collaboration between project manager, F&G and architect - open telephone line - always accessible \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2006\Minutes ARB 060905.doc Page 3 of7 3. all projects have been successful - although there may be bumps in the road - most recent is Homer Library - not just for the building design but the rapport - responsible - available, responsive, exceeded the owner's expectations, respectful, professional 4. open communications 5. communicate w/ICBO - find out the issues - research the code and fix it 6. in house quality control - also have a resource in the construction field who reviews drawings 7. already spoke to this - want to work w/construction season - want to work w/KIB and ADF&G - need to discuss how to proceed re funding 8. no 9. prioritization, organization - balance of cost/skill/technology 10. LEED, sustainability, natural ventilation - use a blend of technologies 11. deleted 12. explore options for design, build, etc. - process of analytically looking at the whole picture and then making the best decisions possible 13. process of developing alternatives for owner to consider - architect gives particulars of options for helping to make a decisions - need to do value analysis - not just a matter of scope reduction - bringing balance - challenge is to explore options. J. Shin - found in the Homer project that when funders found out it was an LEED project - began offering $$$$ - T. Hyer notes that ECVHyer has been working w/another owner for 6-8 years - waiting for funding to be in place - ECVHyer is patient. Question re corrosion of flashing on the KFRC building - T. Hyer doesn't know what the problem is, but will look into it. Strong proponent of listening and not allowing ego to interfere. Jay Johnston suggested that it may be an interaction between concrete and metal flashing - also could have something to do w/boiler being tuned. J. Friend - question re codes. What code will you design to? T. Hyer - it is up to the jurisdiction - will work with building department. T. Hyer thanked the Board for the opportunity to present. He noted that they were up against stiff competition. He said that architecture isn't just about buildings - architecture is about the people relationships - good collaboration w/clients. ECVHyer has a lot of repeat work based on trust built up over time. J. Friend asked what did they see as their role in assisting with funding. T. Hyer said they would work with KIB. The ultimate responsibility is the Borough's, but ECVHyer has established contacts - can give supporting documentation - be a vehicle. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2006\Minutes ARB 060905.doc Page 4 of? P orath/T atom Bill Tatom said that PIT was established in 1982. He emphasized the experience his team will bring to the job. Walt Bullock will be the project manager. They are a small firm 7- 10 people - and have stayed small intentionally. He enjoys architecture - doesn't want to grow too big and be just a manager - he likes the personal relationship. He and the people in his firm are great listeners - responsive to clients' needs. W. Bullock is a meticulous architect - very organized, listens carefully and translates those needs into a real product. Porath/Tatom has done 7 office buildings in the last 7 years about the scope of this project - 18,000-60,000 sf - they've all been completed - space planning done - consider themselves "current". Porath/Tatom developed a building for the Municipality of Anchorage- about 10-12 departments - worked with each department to determine their programmatic needs and with the big picture in mind - designed the building with each entity in mind and then translated the design into a cohesive facility. Always wants to make sure everyone is listened to but at the same time bring the whole design together for the common good. Porath/Tatom did the departmental planning for the Butrovich Building in Fairbanks. There are 25 state agencies housed in the building. This was a good sized master planning project. Porath/Tatom has also done a lot of master planning for various school districts and "custom" buildings. Need to design a good leasable building - if the design is overly customized what do you do if tenant leaves? For this project would want to look at both ADF&G and KIB's needs. B. Tatom presented information about the team for this project. NBA [engineering firm] -very experienced with Kodiak and labs - whole team has worked together for years - BBFM, R&M and HMS. He said that there is no doubt the competitors do excellent work. Porath/Tatom does nice buildings too. Their approach is low keyed - try to respond to owners' requests - try to do exciting architecture - do not have preconceived notions about designing - try to take each site and put that together with programmatic necessities - balance with budget - want owner to feel comfortable. Thinks Kodiak would be a wonderful place to be able to create. Porath/Tatom has good solid architects - tremendous amount of experience - lots of building designs and master planning - get along w/people - respect others' opinions - see the project as a mutual sharing - would provide a wonderful building - affordable and sustainable. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2006\Minutes ARB 060905.doc Page 5 of7 Q&A 1. Mutual understanding between owner and tenant - need to make sure everyone is working together. For F&G - need to meet their needs - labs, spaces, etc. For KIB, has to be affordable, maintainable, service well, energy efficiency - long term durability. 2. Porath/Tatom has been very successful for several years doing long distance collaborative work. Have done a fair number of national projects - very accustomed to long distance communication. Have a website where owners, workers have access. There is travel and that means cost is involved, but in the scheme of the cost of a project - communicating costs become minor. 3. PIT did a project for a school district - had 23 schools - doing ADA upgrades for all - had a number of instances where upfront time exploration wasn't done - the project was on a fast track - in the end B. Tatom said he was not monitoring the project quite as closely as he should have - his project manager and owner were not getting along - miscommunications. This kind of situation needs to be addressed immediately and communicated to the owner if personalities conflict - let it be known so it can be corrected. Success story - designlbuild projects _ really liked teaming with a company - taking a prototype for a school - with/design /build system and came in at 11 the anticipated cost. 4. Combination between W. Bullock and B. Tatom -leaning toward co-managing- working at it together - PIT wants to get to know owner - build a relationship that encourages trust and communication. 5. Take issues and respond in writing, item by item. Will try to get to an understanding - like to head this type of thing off - do a presubmittal interview - sit down with building department - getting a project that is well developed is important. 6. Overall quality control - in the beginning, have consultants meeting wlarchitects weekly - develop action log - this set up follows through the entire project. Require principals to be present - high level people need to be a part of the process. Also, inhouse meetings on a weekly basis - maintaining action logs - have a single person in charge and then delegate authority - a person is responsible for each component - and then all components are checked and double checked. B. Tatom tracks elevations all the way through - cross checks methodology. He and his project manager will do a very extensive, tedious review of redlines - they've developed this system over the years. 7. Would want to sit down wlstakeholders - what is the program? Are you going to grow? Policy change? Then confirm program in a matter of a couple of weeks - and design floorplans w/options in 3-4 weeks w/initial concepts, in 3 months - concepts established, fundamentals - through construction drawings = 6 months. 8. No 9. Want to research everything that is out there - sometimes cutting edge is not necessarily good for longevity and durability - will look for maintainability - strive toward it. 10. There are technical components for energy efficiency - architecturally there are passive ways to use energy efficiently - using proper materials to get maximum \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2006\Minutes ARB 060905.doc Page 60f7 efficiency - look at volume for heating purposes - how can vegetation be used- take advantage of sunscreen - potential buffer - insulation becomes increasingly important - and would want to get mechanical folks involved. 11. Delete 12. Balance needslbudgets - do cost estimates - be cognizant and come into it with a mindset that there is a budget - start w/simplicity and work out from there 13. Life cycle costs - engineers would have to be involved quite closely with the architects - kinds of roofs, durable materials, from a systems standpoint - need a mechanical person to speak to that. Wouldn't move to full blown construction documents until funding is in place - who knows what could happen - would advise take to 35% - then sit and wait for funding - wouldn't push it past 50%. J. Friend - how do you work with codes that may change by the time the building begins? Go with the premise of what is in place - there were some big changes in the code that took place 6 years ago - not anticipating huge changes in the near future- fundamentally things are pretty much the same - but must design to today's code and if years go by and the code does change [before design is completed] then would have to redesign. J. Friend - what is the firm's commitment to helping owner raise funds? B. Tatom said that his firm can help owner realize what the building can be with illustrations/drawings which can be presented to legislators to encourage excitement - help sell - the firm can go to meetings - assist in making presentations. B. Tatom questioned if funding is going to be a stretch. The Chair responded that at this point funding is questionable. B. Tatom asked what the budget is. B. Cassidy responded that it's premature since there isn't a complete grasp of what needs to be done. B. Tatom noted that he would anticipate about $200/sf -just the shell could be 5 million. Tatom concluded saying he loves coming to Kodiak and appreciated the opportunity. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2006\Minutes ARB 060905.doc Page 7 of?