R-09-07-23-10D2 - 7/23/2009RESOLUTION NO. R -09-07-23-10D2
WHEREAS, the City of Round Rock has duly advertised its
Request for Qualifications to obtain engineering services for the
Little Oaks Subdivision Improvements Project, and
WHEREAS, City Staff has evaluated said proposals in
accordance with the attached criteria and has determined that the
top three offerors are: Freese & Nichols, Kasberg, Patrick &
Associates, and Bucher, Willis & Ratliff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to approve said ranking, Now
Therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK,
TEXAS,
That the ranking of the top three offerors' proposals for the
Little Oaks Subdivision Improvements Project is as follows:
1. Freese & Nichols
2. Kasberg, Patrick & Associates
3. Bucher, Willis & Ratliff
The City Council hereby finds and declares that written notice
of the date, hour, place and subject of the meeting at which this
Resolution was adopted was posted and that such meeting was open to
the public as required by law at all times during which this
Resolution and the subject matter hereof were discussed, considered
and formally acted upon, all as required by the Open Meetings Act,
Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended.
0:\wdox\SCCInts\0112\0905\MUNICIPAL\A90"/23D2.DOC/rmc
RESOLVED this 23rd day of July, 2009.
ALAN MCGRAW, Mayor
City of Round Rock, Texas
ATTEST:
`4:526vvi, (101Akt
SARA L. WHITE, City Secretary
Little Oaks Subdivision Improvements
Qualifications and Interest
Evaluation Criteria
Address
City, State Zi
EXHIBIT
$ "An
Criteria
Maximum
Score
Screeners
Score
The maximum score for sub-group(s) is the bold number
The maximum criteria score is the non -bolded number
100.0
I. Technical Expertise & Qualifications:
75.0
A. Preliminary Engineering Planning and Construction Design Experience
50.0
1. Water
5.0
2. Wastewater
5.0
3. Pavement Design/Geotechnical
5.0
4. Drainage/Hydrology and Hydraulics
5.0
5. Environmental (erosion control, SWPPP, etc.)
5.0
6. Surveying
5.0
7. Rights -of -Way and/or Easement Documents
5.0
8. ADA Requirements
5.0
9. Dry Utility Coordination
5.0
10. Project budget sensitivity
5.0
B. Contract/Construction Management
20.0
1. Bidding Process
5.0
2. Review of Submittals and Pay Estimates
5.0
3. Project Close Out (as built plans, substantial completion, etc.)
5.0
4. Scheduling of project
5.0
C. Experience with projects requiring Public Involvement
5.0
II. References
5.0
1. Are there local Clients listed?
1.0
2. Are there Governmental Clients Listed?
1.0
3. Are the projects presented equal or greater in complexity when compared with
the proposed projects listed in scope dollar value?
3.0
IV. Key Personnel:
10.0
1. Is the Consult's Project Manager a registered Professional Engineer in the
State of Texas with a minimum of ten post graduate years experience in
managing projects of a similar size, type, and complexity?
5.0
2. Do the subconsultants have a minimum of five years experience with projects
of a similar size, type, and complexity?
5.0
V. Reviewers experience with firm: (Score One)
10.0
1. Good
10.0
2. OK
5.0
3. Has not worked with
0.0
4. Poor
-5.0
5. Very Poor
-10.0
Little Oaks Subdivision Improvements
RFQ - Average Scoring
Scoring
Average
Reviewer#1
Reviewer#2
Reviewer#3
4 Freese and Nichols
10 Kasberg, Patrick, & Associates
7 Bucher, Willis, Ratliff
8 Haiff Associates
6 Waeltz and Prete
9 The Wallace Group
1 Huggins/Seiler and Associates
11 Baker Aicklen
13 Dannenbaum Engineering
12 PBS&J
16 LNV Engineering
2 Lockwood Andrews & Newnam
17 Bury and Partners
15 Pate Engineers, Inc.
18 Binkley & Barfield, Inc.
19 Longaro and Clarke
3 Boyer & Associates
5 Coulter Engineering
14 Randall Jones
74.9
74.14
83
78
62
80
81
76
Reviewer#4
63.5
68.7
Reviewer#5
73.1
87
77
84
71.6
75
74
85
42.5
48
68.72
86
61
66
64.6
68.66
78
71
80
50.3
68.6
70
77
77
47
67.5
69
68
78
55.5
66.9
81
68
80
66.16
81
63
78
65.32
77
68
73
50.5
43.8
48.6
65.1
84
70
71
64.8
73
67
67
45.5
50
63.6
83
61
72
45
54.2
72
41
62
59
50.9
69
56
60
47.3
67
40
53
44.7
63
28
48
41.9
65
37
47
37.5
43.5
51.5
19.5
85
68
75
76
66
64
72
67
55
65
60
55
67
57
37
32
33
33
41
Total
375
371
366
358
344
343
343
338
335
331
327
326
324
318
271
255
237
224
210
DATE: July 16, 2009
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting — July 23, 2009
ITEM: 10D2. Consider a resolution ranking the top three proposals for engineering services
for the Little Oaks Subdivision Improvements Project.
Department:
Staff Person:
Justification:
Engineering and Development Services
Danny Halden, P.E., City Engineer
Engineering and Development Services Department (E&DS) previously conducted a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) process to identify an appropriate consultant to provide the necessary engineering
services for the Little Oaks Subdivision Improvements project. This resolution will rank the top three
consultants identified by E&DS. This ranking will establish the order by which the consultants will be
contacted in negotiating a professional services contract.
Funding:
Cost: N/A
Source of funds: N/A
Outside Resources: N/A
Background Information:
The Engineering and Development Services Department (E&DS) was assigned the Little Oaks Subdivision
Improvements project in November 2008. The project will consist of street, drainage and possibly
water and wastewater improvements. The current budget for the entire project is approximately $1
million from the City's self -financed construction funds.
In December 2008, E&DS received nineteen (19) responses to a RFQ issued by E&DS. A team of five (5)
City employees read each response and evaluated each response according to the attached criteria. The
individual and combined scoring of the responses is shown on the attached scoring summary table.
Subsequently, the response reviewers as a group conducted face-to-face interviews with the three
consultant firms that scored the highest on the RFQ response reviews.
Upon completion of the interviews, City reviewers proposed that the rank order be Kasberg, Patrick &
Associates (KPA), Freese & Nichols (FN), and Bucher, Willis & Ratliff (BWR).
- CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE -
During the response reviews and interviews, it became apparent to E&DS that it would be prudent to
investigate the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) stance on the proposed project
with respect to rules governing construction over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (EARZ).
Therefore, subsequent to the interviews, E&DS submitted a request to the TCEQ for an exception to
following the EARZ rules. Basically E&DS was informed in May, 2009 by TCEQ that the exception request
was unacceptable until formal construction plans for the improvements were developed. However,
there was enough indication from the TCEQ that if the streets in the subdivision were constructed to a
typical urban residential subdivision section, water quality controls would very likely be required. Based
on all the information available to E&DS at this time, it appears that the City only has funds available to
provide improvements for rural -type cross-sections in the streets of the subdivision, and not typical
urban residential sections.
Furthermore, because of this information, E&DS thought it prudent to re-evaluate its previous stance on
the ranking of the consultants. Now that the scope of the project appears to involve rural type sections
as opposed to urban type sections, innovative drainage design will be a large concern.
Therefore, at this time based on the re-evaluation, E&DS would give a slight edge to Freese & Nichols,
followed closely by Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, and Bucher, Willis & Ratliff. However, all three firms
appear suitably qualified to provide the professional services needed.
Public Comment:
A public meeting was held with the Little Oaks Subdivision owners/residents on June 30, 2009.