Laserfiche WebLink
iJUL 111989 <br />DATE: JUNE 30, 1989 <br />TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS <br />THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER <br />COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR oA <br />FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTWO' <br />DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES <br />BooF 77 <br />SUBJECT: COURTHOUSE/JUDICIAL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN CONSULTANT <br />BACKGROUND: <br />On April 14, 1989 approximately sixty County initiated Request For <br />Proposals were mailed for the subject project. There were ten (10) <br />responses received on May 17, 1989. The selection committee was <br />appointed by the.County Administrator which was comprised of: <br />Gary C. Wheeler — County Commissioner <br />James E. Chandler - County Administrator <br />James Davis - Public Works Director <br />Bob Keating - Community Development Director <br />H.T. "Sonny" Dean - General Services Director <br />This committee met on June 14, 1989 to "short list" the consultants <br />sand select a date for presentations. A pre -designed form using <br />'points for qualifications in various areas of importance was the <br />methodology used in this process. Total points from each committee <br />member's form determined ranking of the firms that submitted <br />;proposals. The short list was made up of the firms receiving the <br />highest number of points. These companies were notified and <br />;presentations were scheduled and heard on June 27, 1989. <br />;ANALYSIS: <br />The short listed consultants were judged on their past experience in <br />similar projects, personnel qualifications, what they perceived to be <br />the important aspects of the project, and how well they were prepared <br />to perform the various tasks. The committee ranked the consultants <br />based on the top three vote receivers as follows: <br />1. Herbert/Halback, Inc. <br />2. WRT, Inc. <br />3. Urban Resource Group, Inc. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />Staff respectfully request Board approval to negotiate with <br />Herbert/Halback, Inc., for a contract to perform the subject <br />consulting work. The proposed contract will be brought back to the <br />Board of County Commissioners for their approval. <br />55 <br />