Loading...
11/26/2007 Regular MeetingMinutes Architectural/Engineering Review Board Meetin 26 November 2007 - 5:15 pm r ~, - ~: KIB Conference Room A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 5:31 pm. 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 School District was Bob Tucker. Also present was Brenda Friend, CHC. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department were Woody Koning, Ken Smith and Sharon Lea Adinolfi. C. Approval of Minutes 9, 30 and 31 July 2007 [previously distributed] and for review 1 August and 5 September 2007 Motion was made and seconded to approve all Minutes presented. There was a unanimous affirmative vote. D. Review CHC Construction Bid/Alternates W. Koning cited an Alaska State Statute and a portion of the KIB Code relevant to participating in an official action whereby either a direct or indirect financial interest could be gained. He noted that the selection of any particular combination of alternates for the CHC Project could determine the contractor. The selection process must be clean, fair and protect all concerned. He suggested that any ARB Members who had submitted bids to general contractors bidding on the CHC Project provide that information to the Chair for a determination resulting in possible abstention from participating in discussions or votes. J. Johnston indicated that he had submitted bids to all general contractors bidding on the Project. The same numbers were given to each general contractor; it would make no difference to him [financially] which contractor or alternates were selected. J. Johnston continued, expressing confusion over the ARB reviewing the bids/alternates and made a motion that discussions/decisions be referred to staff. J. Friend seconded the motion. B. Watkins called for a point of order, stating the conflict of interest issue should be resolved first. J. Friend agreed and said the Chair needed to make a determination before going forward. He said his personal opinion was that since J. Johnston had given the same bid to all the general contractors involved, there would be no gain and therefore no conflict. B. Watkins said J. Johnston's position was a moot point, but the declaration still needed to be made. G. Hacker agreed, noting that J. Johnston had nothing to gain. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\071126 Minutes.doc Page 1 of 6 C. Jerling said all his bids were the same for the Pool Project, but he had submitted a bid to only one of the general contractors for the CHC Project. He wished to remain neutral and withdrew from discussions regarding the CHC Project. The Chair, with the concurrence of the Board, ruled that J. Johnston had no vested interest in the discussions and thus there was no conflict. Discussion on motion made earlier. J. Johnston said, having reread all his previous notes on the Project, that although the alternates or deducts in question may not have been specifically discussed by the ARB, all issues [design specs] had been discussed by the Board with an eye to financial impact or improving quality and now staff and the Assembly should be making the final decisions. J. Friend agreed, noting the Board could discuss and evaluate, but at this point would not be making any recommendations. B. Watkins said he felt the Board could look over what was presented but was not here to spend money. S. Arndt said this meeting was strictly for review and to potentially assist staff. G. Hacker said he was interested in discussing some of the alternates. He reviewed the bid tabulation spreadsheet prepared by K. Smith. He questioned if the selected alternates were staffs recommendations. K. Smith indicated that the selected alternates were his recommendation. J. Johnston reiterated he felt the Board had passed on its insight through the review process and did not feel the Board making recommendations now was appropriate. A roll call vote was taken and the motion failed 4 to 2. Continued review of bids/alternates. W. Koning asked the Board to review the Supplemental Notice to Bidders. K. Smith explained a two phased approach which would entail going back to all the bidders, requesting cost saving suggestions for changes in the scope which would allow the bids to approach the estimated budget in place. Suggestions received would be combined with suggestions from Prochaska and evaluated. The proposed changes would have a dollar amount attached, would be held in strict confidence and be analyzed to develop a new scope of work. K. Smith told the Board that initially his preference had been to negotiate with the lowest bidder, but given the KIB Code requires negotiations be conducted with "two or more", he then thought that more [cost saving] ideas would come from four bidders rather than just two. W. Koning said that one of the biggest challenges will be the site work. He is hoping for cost saving ideas on the parking lot. He went on to say that selection of any of the alternates needed to be completely justifiable in a court of law. There could be no bias and the only way a contractor could be 'deselected' would be if they were determined to be non responsive. C. Jerling suggested that contractors' names be hidden in Phase 1. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\071126 Minutes.doc Page 2 of 6 B. Watkins questioned if Phase 1 would be getting the "shopping lists" -along with dollar amounts and then moving to Phase 2. K. Smith responded that was correct and in Phase 2 each contractor would be bidding on the same scope. J. Friend asked if Prochaska had talked about any additional costs for rewriting. K. Smith said that Prochaska had not said anything about additional costs. He said that they would not be asked to completely redraw everything and that Prochaska was interested in getting the job awarded. J. Friend asked if there would be an accurate set of plans when the project was completed. W. Koning asked what the price would be for a fully conformed set of construction drawings. K. Smith said he did not know what the cost would be, but noted with the pool project he had requested ECI/Hyer put together fully conformed construction drawings/specs -including all the changes from addendums. This would certainly benefit the project. Hyer indicated that doing new drawings/specs, incorporating all the changes since the Invitation to Bid went out would be an additional cost. They are however required to provide record drawings at the conclusion of the project. B. Friend told the Board that there is a line of credit available for the Project, but would prefer not to take on debt or take monies from patient revenue and that is why finding cost saving alternates is important to the CHC. S. Arndt said the-process looked straightforward and open to everyone and he encouraged staff to go forward with what was being proposed. J. Johnston asked if the over budget figure would be given to the bidders so they would know what they were shooting for -some might decide not to spend the time if they felt they could not get their bid down enough. K. Smith will change language in the Supplemental Notice so that cost savings becomes the issue rather than possibly "deal breaking" dollar figures. K. Smith said he would reword -make it a simple list of cost saving suggestions. G. Hacker cautioned against eliminating anything that would end up costing more money two years after construction -example -drainage -would not want to eliminate and then dig up new paving to install drains after construction. E. Review Pool Construction Bid/Alternates K. Smith reviewed the alternates on the pool bid. Alts. 1 and 2 -Upper Mill Bay Road Driveway Reconfiguration and Additional Paving in Service Alley. Given the area around the proposed driveway is torn up due to reclamation work and that there have been discussions over the years regarding adding parking in that area, it might make sense to hold off on that part of the Project, combine it with the additional paving in the service alley and put out for competitive bid as a separate project. K. Smith reminded the Board that this is an $18M bond issue and the construction budget was based on $9.65M which has now been raised. He suggested delaying additive Alternates 1 and 2 would allow funds to be held and as construction moved forward there would be a better sense of where construction and costs were. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\071126 Minutes.doc Page 3 of 6 Alt. 3 -Substitute Concrete Gutters with Stainless Steel Gutters. K. Smith's recommendation, based on Counsilman Hunsacker's preference, would be concrete gutters. Alt. 4 -Furnish and Install all Tile Pool Finish. K. Smith's recommended including based on Counsilman Hunsacker's recommendation. The inclusion of Alt 4 eliminates Alt 5. K. Smith noted that W. M. Smith recommends using all the and to eliminate as many dissimilar products as possible. Alt. 6 -Furnish and Install 'Epic Span'... K. Smith recommended using the higher quality sound deadening material. Ded. Alts 1, 2 and 3. K. Smith recommended not accepting the deductive alternatives citing maintaining the quality of the Project. He added that the deducts had been included as possible cost savings if bids came in over budget. S. Arndt said that it made sense to do the paving in the alley way because paving would already be going on from Powell to the top of the hill. He agreed that Alt. 1 should be held at this time. G. Hacker said the alley way needs to be done as part of the Project. J. Johnston suggested that staff take a 'hard look' at the square footage of both areas and evaluate. He noted that this was an area that would be easily quantifiable. K. Smith recommended including Alternates 2, 4 and 6. J. Friend and J. Johnston both suggested looking at Alternate 2 carefully, noting that it was work that could be done later. F. Update Bayside Addition/RIM Architects K. Smith reported to the Board. RIM proposed $266K for A/E services and estimated construction costs at $2.3M. These amounts are more than the FPA budget. K. Smith said he requested RIM offer information on possible cost reductions. RIM had not replied. K. Smith continued saying RIM had prepared a Program Draft which was a good document and provided the basis for the Project. He said RIM had made a trip down to meet with the FPA and E/F. RIM has now presented an invoice for $11,530.42 for the work done this far. Note there is no contract in place. K. Smith said the topic [of paying the invoice] had come up as an action item at a FPA#1 Meeting, but there was no record of any action in the Minutes of that meeting. A subsequent FPA #1 Meeting was held and the Board did vote to request staff negotiate the invoice down and to terminate the relationship with RIM Architects, moving to negotiations with the ARB's 2°d choice recommendation for this project -Jensen Yorba Lott. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\071126 Minutes.doc Page 4 of 6 S. Arndt said he felt the invoice was a fair amount and also RIM was a viable bidder. He would not want to see the relationship permanently damaged. K. Smith said the Draft Program would be a valuable document to provide Yorba, but did not feel it would be proper to pass it to another architect without having paid for it. J. Johnston questioned ownership of the document. K. Smith responded that it would be a document that was bought, but could not be used with RIM's stamp. W. Koning asked if RIM had been advised of the FPA's budget from the beginning. S. Arndt advised that RIM had been given a budget of approximately $1.2M. G. Public Comments None. H. Board Comments J. Johnston suggested an ARB Meeting be scheduled to discuss the role of the Board. He said he would like to be able to address whatever issues the Assembly may have. W. Koning said the Assembly was concerned regarding communication between Board, staff and architects. He said technical specs should be received no later than 65% -want to make it very clear to the architects what the Board expects when 35%, 65%, etc. are presented. He noted the Board had gone beyond responsibilities in the Code, but having done that, had brought worth to the projects. S. Arndt suggested planning on a work session in January. K. Smith gave an update to the Board on projects in process. He said T. Yorba would provide scope for KMS Phase 2 Project in January, also the Ouzinkie Gym Addition. The seismic remodel drawings for Ouzinkie would be ready for ARB review in January. Yorba is continuing to work on the design for Peterson Elementary and will have that ready in January. He noted work is being done on the Library Wing -there is a grant in place for that work. There is also an HMGP grant in place to replace the East Elementary Windows, for which the design work has been done. K. Smith told the Board that a final walk through of the KMS Seismic Upgrade Project -Phase 1 had been accomplished and the Project had gone extremely well. There were no further comments. S. Arndt thanked everyone for their time and assistance \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\071126 Minutes.doc Page 5 of 6 I. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the meeting, a motion was made and seconded to adjourn and there was a unanimous affirmative voice vote. The meeting. was adjourned at 7:10 pm. ~~~y ~~~~~~~~u. Date: Lea Adinol i, roject Assistant KIB Engineering/Facilities Department Scott Arndt, Chair ArchitecturaUEngineering Review Board Date:~008' \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\071126 Minutes.doc Page6of6