Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/2018 Construction Management Contract with Camosy ConstructionBoardDocs® Pro Agenda Item Details Meeting Subject Access Type Preferred Date Absolute Date Fiscal Impact Dollar Amount Budgeted Budget Source Recommended Action Public Content Page I of 4 May 15, 2018 - REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE BOARD - 7:00 p.m. 8. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT 8.3 Motion to authorize the Village Manager to negotiate a Construction Management contract with Camosy Construction in an amount not to exceed $72,000. Public Action May 15, 2018 May 15, 2018 Yes 72,000.00 Yes Police Headquarters Capital Budget Authorize the Village Manager to negotiate a Construction Management contract with Camosy Construction, Inc. of Zion, Illinois in the amount of $72,000.00. Information The Village issued a request for proposals (RFP) for Construction Management Services for the new Police Headquarters to be located at 799 Biermann Court on March 7, 2018. A Construction Manager (CM) delivery method allows for the CM to be part of the project team early in the design process, continually pricing and budgeting ideas and concepts to remain on budget throughout the project. This method allows for "value engineering" to happen during the design process, rather than waiting to bid a project out after the design is completed, then having to go back to the drawing board if costs are over budget. The Construction Manager delivery method is designed to save time and money, while providing an accurate budgeting process throughout design. In addition, this method is known as CM at -risk because at some point in the design process, the CM will provide a guaranteed maximum price for the project. This allows the Village to set their budget, remove any risk of cost overruns, and puts all bonding and contractual requirements for subcontractors on the CM. This is the same method that has been used on the Village's other municipal building projects in the past. The RFP was made available on our website through the transparency portal, was advertised in the Daily Herald, and made available at the Community Development counter. The 35 page document is very similar to those RFPs that have recently been completed in neighboring communities, including Arlington Heights and St. Charles. It lays out the specific requirements for qualifications, the evaluation criteria, and a request for a separate cost proposal that would be part of the evaluation process. Additionally, the RFP provided a conceptual layout of the site, including expanded parking areas, a delineation of where the building may be partially demolished, and the inclusion of two new access points onto Kensington Road. Submittals were received by the deadline on March 28, 2018 from Leopardo Construction, MTI Construction, WB Olsen Construction, Riley Construction, Frederick Quinn Construction, Nicholas and Associates, and Camosy Construction. Staff evaluated all seven submittals based on the following categories: 1. Police Building experience 2. Experience constructing complex buildings 3. Preconstruction services 4. Confidence in proposed Project Manager and Superintendent 5. Project Manager experience and current workload 6. Historical and proposed schedule performance 7. Subjective feeling Table 1: CM Rankings Category Max. Points Camosy Leopardo Riley MTI FQC Nicholas & Associates WB Olson Police Experience 10.0 9.1 8.9 9.1 7.7 5.8 3.6 4.1 Complex Buildings 10.0 8.8 9.2 8.7 7.0 6.1 5.8 5.0 ht-t-nFs://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login 6/27/2018 BoardDocs® Pro Page 2 of 4 rre -Construction Services 10.0 8.8 8.0 8.5 6.5 6.2 6.2 5.6 Confidence in Camosy MTI WB Olson FQC Riley Leopardo Criteria PM/Superintendent 10.0 9.5 7.8 7.1 5.6 5.4 5.8 5.2 PM Experience/Workload $537f500.00 $430f000.00 $322f500.00 $591,250.00 Preconstruction Services $0.00 $72f000.00 $49f000.00 Concerns 10.0 9.3 8.0 6.9 5.5 4.9 5.6 5.2 Time/Budget Performance 10.0 9.0 7.5 7.4 6.5 5.8 6.9 6.3 Subjective Feeling 10.0 9.5 8.4 8.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.8 1 Tota1s: 1 70.0 1 64.0 1 57.8 1 56.0 1 44.1 1 39.5 1 39.2 36.2 1 1 The fee proposals were then opened and ranked in order from lowest to highest. Fee proposals were to be based upon a 15 month construction schedule and $21.5 million construction budget, and included four major categories: • CM fee percentage, • preconstruction services cost, • general conditions value, and • bond cost. The CM fee and bond percentages were multiplied by the standard $21.5 million construction value assumed, while the preconstruction services was a flat fee for the CM's participation in the design review and budgeting process. General conditions included the following costs over a 15 month construction period: Project Manager, Superintendent, additional office staff, jobsite trailer, phone, fax, internet, drinking water for jobsite, portable toilets, temporary safety protection, in -progress cleanup, clumpsters, traffic control and flagmen, safety, first aid, and fire extinguishers, survey and layout of the building and site, drawing reproduction costs including for bidding, miscellaneous tools and equipment, temporary signage, temporary project signs, any postage and delivery fees, street cleaning, tree protection, and construction progress photos. Table 2: Cost Proposal Nicholas Camosy MTI WB Olson FQC Riley Leopardo Criteria CM Fee $$ $569,750.00 $376,250.00 $537f500.00 $537f500.00 $430f000.00 $322f500.00 $591,250.00 Preconstruction Services $0.00 $72f000.00 $49f000.00 $18f000.00 $45f000.00 $60f000.00 $60f000.00 General Conditions $464,850.00 $646,651.00 $638,360.00 $784,822.00 $962,100.00 $1f277f589.00 $955f072.00 Bond Cost $161,250.00 $121,905.00 $150,500.00 $129f000.00 $161,250.00 $131,150.00 $215f000.00 Total Fee as submitted l$1,195,850.001$1,216,806.001$1,375,360.001$1,469,322.001$1,598,350.001$1,791,239.001$1,821,32 When combining the fee proposals with the qualifications evaluations, staff narrowed the field to three firms to be interviewed. Riley Construction, Nicholas and Associates, and Camosy Construction were all given an opportunity to interview before the staff evaluation team. These three were selected because they were either top qualified or lowest price, or a combination of both. Each team prepared a 15 minute presentation about their firm, then answered questions from staff for 40 minutes. All three firms were asked the same questions from staff to keep a level playing field. Those questions included: • What do you feel are the unique and challenging conditions with this adaptive reuse project? How would you address them? Have you worked on an adaptive reuse project before? • On your last project with preconstruction services, can describe a time when you brought up a value engineering idea? What does value engineering mean to you? Provide some samples of previous value engineering success. • The team acknowledges that Police Stations are very complicated to construct. What are the three trades you see requiring the most special attention and do you have a recommended subcontractor for each of them? • Lead us through your scheduling process. What makes your schedule something we can believe in? • Discuss your approach to resolving an architectural design issue encountered during construction. Tell us about a previous issue that was encountered and resolved. • What is your current workload for the team assigned to this project? What is the experience for each of the team members specifically with Police Stations? • Do you expect to have design influence on the project because of your previous experience, or are you expecting your input to only be on costs? • What is the current bidding environment? • Can you talk about your safety team? At the conclusion of the interviews, staff was unanimous in their choice of Camosy Construction for the project for the following reasons - e Significant history and experience with building Police Stations o Camosy has successfully completed Bensenville, Palatine, Glendale Heights and Northlake Police Departments in Illinois the last 8 years. Additional Police work has been completed in Wisconsin during this time period as well. References have been very positive as to the quality and success of these stations. o While Riley has several Police projects in recent years as well, two of them are currently under construction and cannot be fully evaluated, while the others were several years ago. This also effects the availability of the project team as St. Charles Police has not yet broken ground. o Leopardo Construction had a more limited Police resume, but has a significant municipal clientele. e Examples of adaptive reuse projects- specifically for Police purposes if possible. ht-t-nVs://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login 6/27/2018 BoardDocs® Pro Page 3 of 4 o Bensenville Police Station was an adaptive reuse of an existing vacant and deteriorated warehouse. This project included a significant amount of site and storm water work, a complete reface of the entire building, and an all new interior layout. This project is the most similar to the needs of the building being purchased by the Village of Mount Prospect. o Library Park Apartments is an adaptive reuse of a 1929 historically registered YMCA building in Kenosha, WI. Retrofitting apartments into a 90 year old building that is on the historic registry is a significant undertaking and proves the ability of Camosy to handle extremely trying construction projects. o The only other significant Police facility in the Northern Illinois market that was an adaptive reuse was the Skokie Police Station. That work was completed by Riley Construction, which is what helped propel them into the top three qualifiers. Leopardo Construction had no adaptive reuse projects that compared to the complexity of the projects listed above. e Qualifications and experience of their entire project team 0 Staff felt confident that the timing of the project team, coupled with their current and future workload, results in Camosy's project team being the strongest of the applicants. Having a staff and project team that has worked together for over twenty years, combined with the multitude of construction certifications that the team hold, is a bonus. Their commitment to keep this experienced team together for the project will serve the Village well. o While Riley has an excellent team for Police construction as well, their team is dedicated to finishing up Arlington Heights Police currently, then moving onto St. Charles from there. With no certainty that we would get their top-rated construction team. Therefore, staff felt Camosy was a better choice. o Leopardo does not have a project team that specializes in Police work. They have qualified staff, but the Village will be better served with an A -list project team that specializes in Police construction. 0 Commitment to soliciting local subcontractor bids o If the Village is to truly benefit from local construction jobs on this project, there has to be a clear and open process to open up bidding to local contractors. Camosy provided several options to do this including using Mount Prospect Digital Communications, notifications in local water bills, local radio ads, a social media presence, and private meetings with local trades and unions. o While other candidates included local bidding as -part of their overall concepts, no firm demonstrated the commitment to inviting local participation the with the level of detail presented by Camosy. e Planned social media presence and focus on transparency o In addition to using social media as part of the bidding process, Camosy was the only contractor to talk about its use for transparency. A coordinated social media blitz was described to our staff and the Village Board on how to keep the public in the loop on the progress and process of construction for this Police project. Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn were all identified, along with links on the Village, Camosy and FGM websites to information on this project. As the public has been requesting more information and transparency on this entire project, this plan will serve the Village residents well. e Additional services offered in the base contract pricing. o Inclusion of a 3D scan of the entire building for the architects to use, which will help avoid delays and conflicts in the field later in construction by Camosy Construction. This service was included in their base fee proposal as it is critical to the success in avoiding surprises down the road, when design turns into construction. Minimization of change orders due to existing conditions is the best way to save unexpected costs. This scanning process will go a long way to minimizing surprises in the long run. o The inclusion of a real-time photography documentation program that documents all mechanical, electric, and plumbing systems within each wall prior to drywall installation for the long term benefit of the Village. If there is ever an issue in the future, or if space needs to be remodeled many years down the road, this program will assist in locating vital mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components within the walls when this generation of employees has moved on. Being able to keep institutional knowledge of the inner working of a building is essential for a building that is supposed to last for the next 50 years plus. Camosy Construction and Nicholas and Associates were invited to make their CM presentations to the Village Board at the May 8, 2018 Special Committee of the Whole - Workshop. Nicholas and Associates withdrew their proposal from consideration prior to the May 8 Workshop; however, Camosy Construction still presented on May 8 and responded to questions from the Village Board. As Nicholas and Associates withdrew their proposal from consideration late in this process, it leaves Camosy Construction as both the lowest bidder and the most qualified bidder according to the staff evaluation and interview process. Nicholas and Associate's withdrawal did not change staff s evaluation process, nor did it change the opinion ofstaff that Camosy Construction was the most qualified bidder. The next most qualified bidder, Riley Construction, is $574,433.00 more expensive than Camosy Construction, which is 47% higher. In addition, there were some staff concerns about Riley's available staff on the project as they are currently working on Police Stations in Arlington Heights and St. Charles. Leopardo Construction would be the third most qualified in line, but again their price is $604, 516.00 more and they do not offer as dedicated and qualified Police construction staff as Camosy can. As such, it is the recommendation of staff to move forward with Camosy Construction as the construction manager of the new Police Headquarters. In order to take the next step in the process, the Village Board would authorize the Village Manager to execute a contract for construction management services in accordance with AIA Document A133-2009, which only authorizes the preconstruction portion of the contract. This value is $72,000 as proposed by Camosy Construction in their fee proposal. Only after a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is set by the project team, and that budget is approved by the Village Board, will Exhibit A be added to the AIA Document A133-2009 to include the CM fee, general conditions, and bond costs that round out the overall fee as submitted in the RFP fee proposal. Alternatives 1. Motion to authorize the Village Manager to negotiate a Construction Management contract with Camosy Construction, Inc. of Zion, Illinois in the amount of $72,000.00 2. Action at discretion of Village Board. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Village Board to authorize the Village Manager to negotiate a Construction Management contract with Camosy Construction, Inc. of Zion, Illinois in the amount of $72,000.00 ht-t-nFs://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login 6/27/2018 BoardDocs® Pro Page 4 of 4 C 11 II::::: e e II Ib u II at ii o u i ii, j,'.) df ( IIS I,,, III i --f 1.) 11, j,'.) df (7 2 8 IIS 1.-3) C aa 7i 7w o s y 11, 1,.) df 9 f gid,. 3 K 1.-3) o-�--r-ii qualificati&i isi,IIAf ('76 KI:.I.-3) i. -r -ii e �i -�i d �i -r-ii e �i -111, it g�i-�"r II. II (1.11.2 1<1-3) 7i 7w III II II f(56.1 1<11.-3) '.1. 3 3 a �i �.3 3' c &i Administrative Content Executive Content Motion & Voting Authorize the Village Manager to negotiate a Construction Management contract with Camosy Construction, Inc. of Zion, Illinois in the amount of $72,000.00. Motion by William Grossi, second by Michael Zadel. https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login 6/27/2018