COURT
FACILITIES AND
JANUARY 26, 2009
** NOT APPROVED **
Others Present: L. Ballengee, D. Burdick, W. Dibble, A.
Finnemore, J. Margeson, T. Miner,
T. Parker, B. Riehle
Call to Order: 11:05 a.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Contract for Design Services for Court Facilities:
A proposal for final design services for the court
facilities project was submitted by LaBella Associates and was distributed to
committee members for review prior to the meeting. Representatives from LaBella will be present
at the next regular meeting of the Court Facilities and County Space Needs
Committee on February 4 to address questions.
Initial reactions and preliminary questions were discussed, as well as
whether to proceed with LaBella’s proposal or issue an RFP.
In response to questions asked by committee members,
County Administrator John Margeson noted that the fee proposal was approximately
seven percent of the total project cost.
For comparison purposes, the engineering cost for the new Public Safety
Facility was between $1.2 and $1.3 million, paid to Kimball Associates, and was
also at seven percent of the total project cost.
The Request for Proposals (RFP) process would take about
90 days. It was questioned if the
Pre-Schematic Design Services, for which $70,000 was already paid to LaBella
and shown as a credit on their proposal, would have to be completed and charged
for again by another engineering firm.
Mr. Margeson noted that LaBella doesn’t own the material, and we could
make it available to another firm. Mr.
Hall suggested that the RFP process may help ensure the charges are legitimate,
and if we did the RFP, other bidders would have access to the pre-design material. Mr. Pullen pointed out that no one else would
be as familiar with our situation or be able to “hit the deck running” as LaBella
could. They put a lot more into this
project than the $70,000 worth in hopes that they would get the contract and continue
on. Mr. Pullen questioned what OCA’s
response would be to moving the project out by three to four months for the
RFP. Mr. Margeson felt that they would
look more favorably on the most expedient action, but if this committee wants
to entertain other proposals and do an RFP, there is not much OCA could
do. We already submitted the plan and
passed the bond resolution, and the Board would just be doing due diligence.
Mr. Fanton asked if the fee for the design services
contract is included in the bond amount of $13.7 million. Mr. Margeson replied that it is
included. Mr. Pullen distributed a list
of questions he had related to LaBella’s proposal:
1.
Is this bid a total
and final figure? LaBella indicated in
the past that some figures are based on estimates and final costs could be
slightly different. Is the fee negotiable?
2.
What is the role of
Bovis Lend Lease as shown on the Organization Chart? They are shown as having a function of cost
estimating in LaBella’s proposal, and they were one of the companies submitting
a proposal for the Construction Manager RFP.
3.
How much thought
has been given to the sequence of work?
What “swing space” arrangements will need to be made? That would be a part of the soft costs. Can those arrangements be reduced by having
the new addition built first before we need to disrupt the existing courthouse? The Surrogate Office and Treasurer are slated
to be moved into the addition. There
would be no place to move them if work on the existing Courthouse is done
first. Are there other adjustments that
need to be made?
4.
Who would be part
of the project team that will be working on this on a daily or weekly
basis? Does that include someone from
the following areas: Court system (preferably
a judge and a court clerk), the Board of Legislators, Department of Public
Works, and Sheriff’s Office? Should
there be a representative from the department heads? Mr. Margeson suggested that if a situation
needs feedback from department heads, it can be obtained at that time, but
there was no need to establish that representation at the beginning. We will need frequent feedback from OCA.
5.
Does the proposal
reflect the fact that
6.
Does the LaBella
proposal include all inspection services that will be needed for the
project? Will the County still need to
hire a Construction Manager (CM) or a “Clerk of the Works?” If so, would Bovis Lend Lease be conflicted
out because of their relationship with LaBella as shown on the Organization
Chart? CM proposals came in at $700,000
to $1.1 million. How will that impact
our soft costs if we have to hire a CM?
7.
Under the
pre-construction and bidding phase, the first item includes touring other
facilities to assist the County in decision making. Hasn’t this already been done? Does LaBella anticipate further tours or
meetings for this function?
8.
The County is
extremely interested in energy efficiency issues. Item 7 of the pre-construction and bidding
phase refers to making application to NYSERDA for possible funding. What possible funding is available? Has the County project already been
registered with NYSERDA? Does LaBella
have the capability to do this work, or should
9.
The construction
phase seems to include ongoing involvement by LaBella. Does this eliminate the need for a Construction
Manager or Clerk of the Works? Exactly
how much involvement will LaBella have during the construction phase? How often will someone from LaBella be on
site during the construction phase?
10.
The timetable and schedule section does not actually
include any timetable. Can LaBella
provide us with an approximate timetable for the different phases and
milestones on this project? What are
those?
11.
Is the final price of $994,000 negotiable, or should
we go with an RFP?
12.
What questions should we have asked that we have not
asked? LaBella’s submission indicated
that we should not have surprises on this project. How likely is that?
Hodgson Russ Contract Regarding Project Labor
Agreement, Update:
Mr. Pullen spoke with Terry Gilbride from Hodgson Russ
about the PLA, and he requested that Mr. Margeson provide him with information
on contacts for the building trades groups we would need to negotiate with. Mr. Gilbride and Peter Godfrey would then
begin that process. The County will need
to have a liaison for details to be included in the PLA.
Chairman Crandall commented that a decision on the PLA
issue will be the answer to Mr. Pullen’s question on whether we need a Construction
Manager or a Clerk of the Works, depending on if we use that structure with a single
General Contractor. That would shift the
entity looking out for the County’s interests from a full-blown Construction Manager
firm to a Clerk of the Works type position, with coordination provided by the sole
prime contractor. Regarding oversight,
that would be a discussion for the Board, but Chairman Crandall felt that once the
project gets to a certain point in construction, legislative oversight should
shift to a building type committee, possibly under Public Works. He cited the example of the jail and specific
issues that came up, and also noted that during the recent court tours, things
like pew type seating versus theater type seating were discussed. Some issues will have more impact on court
staff, and input from them on layout decisions would be beneficial. Chairman Crandall addressed the swing area
and sequencing question by commenting that he spoke with Mark Kukuvka and
understood that since the revision of the bond resolution, the plan is to build
the addition first, shift the Treasurer and others being moved into the
addition, and then renovations to the existing building would be done.
Mr. Fanton questioned the amount of time involved to
formulate the PLA. Mr. Pullen replied
that Mr. Gilbride anticipates they would have something within six weeks, but
they will need to know whether the County will go in that direction. They would contact the trade unions, and the
County would need to have a representative there for input on our issues and
interests.
General Discussion:
Mr. Hopkins asked how the RFP process would affect the
bidding date. The ideal time for bidding
is winter. Chairman Crandall estimated
five to six months for the design and two months for bidding, putting the start
date out nearly nine months.
Chairman Crandall expressed concern and stated that it’s
not that we should give any firm a blank check or not try to get the best deal,
but it’s all the planning and the direction we’re going with a specific “appointment”
and level of building. He felt we should
move forward. Mr. Hall noted that if
someone comes in with a lower bid through an RFP, we could still could go with the
firm we’re comfortable with. Mr. Fanton
commented that the most we would save would be one percent. He would rather approach LaBella first to see
what their lowest price is. Changing
design firms at this point would be risky.
Mr. Parker pointed out that one reason engineering costs may have been
at a lower percentage with the jail project was the “off-the-shelf” design. If the County does an RFP for design services
for the court facility, we will lose half of the construction season, and the
delay may raise costs.
A
motion was made by Mr. Fanton, seconded by Mr. Hopkins and carried unanimously
to approve the contract with LaBella Associates for final design services for
the court facility, subject to Mr. Pullen contacting LaBella with noted
concerns. Referred to Ways and Means;
request pre-file for February 6 Board Resolution.
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk