The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-16-1987 Meeting• LA PORTS AREA C~~ATER AUTHORITY N;INUTES JULY 16, 1987 1. The meeting was called to order at 12:1 P.P9. MEMBERS PRESEAIT: President Cary Burnley, Secretary Rick Matthews, Member Jerry Bramlett. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Claude Graves QTHERS PRESENT: City Manager Bob Herrera, Director of Public Works Steve Gillett, Water/Wastewater Superintendent Buddy Jacobs. 2. Cary Burnley distributed a memorandum from the Final Evaluation Committee regarding the interviews and their final selections (copy attached), he also advise those present that all the ratings were completed individually. Discussion was held on the final selection of civil engineering proposals for the design and construction of a potable water transmission line and distribution system. Bob Herrera commented that the selection process was not very complex and he feels the selection process was fair with the final ratings being close. Cary Burnley stated any of the applicants would have done the job but the committee felt that Espey Houston is the very best selection for this job. Rick Matthews made a motion to accept the Final Evaluation Committee"s recommendation of Espey/Houston. Seconded by Jerry Bramlett. Passed unanimously. Rick Matthews and Jerry Bramlett complimented the committee members for an excellent and very thorough job. Rick Matthews made a motion to create a committee for negotiations with Espey/Houston. Seconded by Jerry Bramlett. Passed unanimously. After discussion it was decided that the committee members for negotiations would be: Bob Herrera as General P4anager, Steve Gillett, Rick Matthews and Jerry Bramlett. Bob Herrera stated he would schedule a meeting with Espey/Houston. Page Two Minutes JULY 16, 1887 Rick Matthews requested that the committee members meet at least one-half hour prior to the meeting with Espey/Houston in order to prepare properly. He would like a note of items to be discussed and important points to prepare for. Cary Burnley stated a letter will be sent out to notify the firms of the final decision. 3. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, atthews, Secretary/Treasurer PASSED AP1D APPROVED: ON THIS THE ~_ DAY OF ~~ ~ , 1 g ~ J ` • ~~4~ ~~!/ Lai'orteAreaWaterAuthority \\ ` ~~ PHONE ( 713 ) 471.5020 • P. O. Box 1 1 15 • Lw PO RTE, TEXAS 77571 July 15, 1987 T0: Board of Directors La Porte Area Water Authority FROM: Final Evaluation Committee SUBJECT: INTERVIEW AND FINAL SELECTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROPOSALS FOR THE DESIGN OF POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM A final evaluation committee, appointed by the Board of Directors of the La Porte Area Water Authority at a meeting held July 2, 1987, was directed to conduct interviews and make recommendations on the selection of an engineering firm to design the above referenced project. The committee is composed of Cary Burnley (LPAWA Board), Claude Graves (LPAWA Board), Robert T. Herrera (LPAWA General Manager), and Steve Gillett (City of La Porte Public Works Director), and Pat 0"Malley (City of La Porte CIP Coordinator). This committee met on July 7, 1987 to discuss the format and procedures to conduct interviews with the four (4) firms selected as finalists by the Initial Evaluation Committee. The four (4) firms selected for interviews were Dannenbaum Engineering, Espey Huston & Associates, CRS Sirrine, and Turner Collie & Braden. The following format was adopted: 1. Brief introduction and opening statement by LPAWA Board President Cary Burnley. 2. Brief introduction and opening statement by a principal of the firm on the firms philosophy. 3. Brief discussion of the firm"s understanding of the project and the proposed methods and scope of work to accomplish the project by the proposed Project Manager. ~4. Question and answer session by committee members on a rotating basis. Questions were individually formulated by each member. 5. Brief closing statement by the firm clarifying and expanding on any perceived area of concern. • • Page Two Interview and Final Selection July 15, 1987 The entire process was limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) hours. Parts 1, 2, and 3 were limited to twenty (20) minutes, Part 4 approximately one (1) hour, and Part 5 approximately five (5) to ten (10) minutes. The interviews were conducted as an executive session of the LPAWA. Copies of the necessary legal certification are attached. In addition, all interviews were taped. Interviews were held on July 9, 1987 with the firms CRS Sirrine (6:00 to 7:30 P.M.) and Turner Collie and Braden (7:30 to 9:00 P.M.). On July 10, 1987, interviews were held with Dannenbaum Engineering (2:00 to 3:30 P.M.) and Espey Huston (3:30 to 5:00 P.M.) After the final interview on July 10, 1987, the committee briefly met, and decided to use the same evaluation and rating system developed and used in the initial selection process. It was agreed to meet again on July 14, 1987, at 6:30 P.M., to tabulate the findings. The committee met on July 1~, 1987, and compiled the results of the individual committee members, and established weighting factors for the three (3) categories used in the evaluation. The results of the combined evaluations are shown on Exhibits A and B, copies of which are attached. Exhibit A shows the determination of weighting factors for each category. Exhibit B shows the ratings by individual committee members, the average rating, the agreed weighting factor, and the final rating for each of the three (3) categories, "Personnel Qualifications", "Experience of Firm", and "Methodology", as well as the final tabulation of all three (3) categories with a ranking of the firms. Based on the interviews and evaluations, the committee submits the following summary and recommendations: A. The final ranking of firms, from highest rated to lowest, are as follows: 1. Espey Huston and Associates 2. Dannenbaum Engineering 3. CRS Sirrine 4. Turner Collie & Braden B. The LPAWA Board appoint a committee to conduct negotiations with Espey Huston and Associates on scope of work and professional compensation. • • Page Three Interview and Final Selection July 15, 1987 C. If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated with that firm, the committee terminate negotiations and initiate negotiations with Dannenbaum Engineering. This procedure is followed until a satisfactory. contract has been negotiated. D. When successful negotiations are completed committee develop, in conjunction with the to be presented to the LPAWA for approval. of the LPAWA will prepare a recommendation to the La Porte City Council, along with t contract, for approval. with a firm, the firm, a contract The President to be presented he proposed The committee feels that the evaluation and recommendation submitted is a fair and impartial selection, and reflects the members" combined and unanimous judgement. It is felt that all four (4) firms interviewed are capable of performing the work. We will be happy to respond to questions from the Board regarding details of the interviews and the final recommendation. Respectfully Submitted, "- Cary rnley Cla a Graves LPAWA Board President LP W Board Member JJ.~~ ..~~ ~ Robert T. Herrera at 0 Malle LPAWA General Manager La Porte C P Coordinator Steve Gil e t La Porte ublic Works Director ., .. ! • EXHIBIT A FINAL EVALUATION WEIGHTING FACTOR PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM METHODOLOGY RATER 1 20 30 50 2 25 35 40 3 33.33 36.67 30 4 33.33 36.67 30 5 35 25 40 TOTAL AVERAGE 29.33 32.67 3$ • EXHIBIT B FINAL EVALUATION PE RSONNEL Q UALIFICATIONS WEIGHTIN G r'AC:'1'UH - 29.33 FIRM RATER 1 RATER 2 RATER 3 RATER RATER 5 AVERAGE FINAL RATING DANNENBAUM g0 95 88 92 80 89 26.10 ESPEY/HUSTON g0 93 90 93 90 91.2 26.75 CRSS 95 88 89 91 80 88.6 25.99 TC&B 85 90 91 90 80 87.2 25.58 EXPERIENC E OF r'iHM WElGH'1'IN G r'A(;'1'UR - 3Z . b'( FIRM RATER 1 RATER 2 RATER 3 RATER RATER 5 AVERAGE FINAL RATING DANNENBAUM 90 95 91 96 90 92.4 30.19 ESPEY/HUSTON 95 95 92 97 90 93.8 30.64 CRSS 95 92 92 94 90 92.6 30.25 TC&B 90 85 90 95 85 89 29.08 MET HODOLOGY WE1GH'1'IN G r'AC'1'UR - Sts FIRM RATER 1 RATER 2 RATER 3 RATER RATER 5 AVERAGE FINAL RATING DANNENBAUM 95 95 90 95 90 93 35.34 ESPEY/HUSTON 88 95 91 95 90 91.8 34.88 CRSS 95 95 88 94 80 90.4 34.35 TC&B 90 95 92 94 80 90.2 34.28 4iTMMARY FIRM PERSONNEL FIRM METHODOLOGY TOTAL RATING RANKING DANNENBAUM 26.10 30.19 35.34 91.63 2 ESPEY/HUSTON 26.75 30.64 34.88 92.27 1 CRSS 25.99 30.25 34.35 90.59 3 TC&B 25.58 29.08 34.28 88.94 4