09-22-98 vMINUTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION/STORMWATER REVIEW COMMITTEE
WORKSHOP MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT 7:00 PM ON TUESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 22, 1998.
Commission members present were Mayor Shaughnessy and Commissioners Beaver (arrived at 7:45
PM), Borno, Meserve and Mitchelson. Staff members present included City Manager Jarboe, City
Clerk King, and City Attorney Jensen. Stormwater Review Committee (SRC) members present
included Cindy Corey, Lyman Fletcher, Bob Kosoy, William McGee, J.P. Marchioli, Don Phillips,
Albert Rabassa, Sylvia Simmons, Hope Van Nortwick, and Don Wolfson.
The Mayor called the meeting to order and explained that the committee which had been appointed
to help draft an RFP for modifications to be made to the existing plan for stormwater improvements,
had completed their work, and Draft #6 of the RFP had been distributed to the City Commission for
their approval. This meeting was called for the purpose of reviewing Draft #6, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part of this official record.
In response to a question from Mr. Rabassa the rules for the conduct of the meeting were clarified.
Commissioner Mitchelson expressed concern that throughout the RFP, decision making was
frequently relegated to the SRC. It was his opinion that the City Commission would be abdicating
their responsibilities to allow the SRC to make such decisions. Discussion ensued and other
Commission members concurred with Commissioner Mitchelson. Lyman Fletcher, Chairman of the
SRC,responded that it was not the intent of the SRC to make decisions,just recommendations, and
not to impede the authority of the City Commission.
Discussion ensued and it was felt that if the RFP's for the tailwaters and upstream management were
not considered along with the original RFP, this could result in conflicts between the RFP's. Also,
it was felt that the proposed improvements should be permitted as one project.
Michael Schmidt, an engineer with the firm of Camp, Dresser, McKee, and a member of a previous
stormwater committee,was in attendance. Mr. Schmidt had also been given an copy of Draft #6 of
the RFP and the Mayor asked for his comments.
Mr. Schmidt agreed that the related projects should be coupled and presented as one project for
permitting purposes, and in the RFP. He also suggested that the project should address the issue of
wetlands protection and the quality of the water to be discharged from the drainage system.
Mr. Schmidt then reviewed the RFP page by page and made the following comments and suggestions:
Page 1. The consultant who is selected should be made aware of the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) Consent Order, which is a key element of this
project.
Page 2. List the maximum number of the meetings expected;be more specific about what data
is available from England, Thims& Miller(ETM); plans, specifications, computer
Page Two
Minutes of Workshop Meeting
September 22, 1998
models, report,permits, etc., are all available in both digital and hard copy form. Mr.
Schmidt also indicated that his firm would not bid on this project and he said he
would be pleased to help out when he was available, and there would be no cost for
his services. Also, he would make available related data which his firm had produced
for the City of Jacksonville for Sherman Creek, which would help with the coupling
of upstream and downstream areas. He also suggested that the city list the types of
best management practice or storage and treatment methods which would be allowed.
Page 3. List the various alternatives the city wishes to look at, such as baffle boxes, dry
detention, or combinations of these systems. He felt there were some areas in the
system which currently acted as swales and suggested the city may wish to retain
these. He suggested including in the alternatives a pro and con estimate for curb and
gutter vs. other methods; also consider access during construction - construction of
water, sewer and drainage at one time would be less disruptive.
Page 4. Reference that structural geotechnical data may be needed depending upon the
foundation requirements for baffle boxes and piping; 4G - list the number of sheets
in the existing design to give engineer an idea of the number of sheets which would
be expected in his design.
Page 5. Engineer must obtain Environmental Resource Permit, a joint permit with the St.
Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the Corps of Engineers;
include level of service required for homes - suggested simulating a 100 year storm -
five to ten year storm for streets.
Following brief discussion Mr. Schmidt left the meeting.
Commissioner Meserve agreed with the comments expressed earlier in the meeting regarding
relegating decision making to the SRC.
The group then reviewed the RFP page by page.
Page 1. No changes suggested
Page 2. The SRC should not be required to make decisions which would hold up the project.
Keep the SRC in the loop but use language such as"the SRC be invited to attend,"
or"given an opportunity," etc.
Page 3. 3 -Commissioner Mitchelson felt the language in this section would be confusing to
the engineers and they would not know to whom they should report. He felt the
decision briefing"should be for the City commission, not the SRC. He pointed out
that similar language appeared in 3C. Lyman Fletcher indicated the intent was to keep
the SRC informed and in the loop, and not to usurp the responsibilities of the City
Commission or staff Mr. Rabassa pointed out that the footnotes would not appear
in the actual Request for Proposals.
Page Three
Minutes of Workshop Meeting
September 22, 1998
Scriveners error - 3B should be 3C
Page 4. C3 - Commissioner Mitchelson expressed concern regarding the 5-year mitigation
requirement. Also it was felt the language needed to be more specific regarding the
plants to be included in the "vegetation replacement".
Page 5. IV.B -Discussion ensued regarding the role of the SRC, specifically the requirement
of "approval"by the SRC. Again, it was pointed out that the intent was not to usurp
the authority of the City Commission or staff,but to make sure that the SRC was kept
informed as the project progressed. Don Phillips offered alternate language- "The
SRC will be kept informed of all activities and, as a minimum, briefed prior to conduct
of the 30%, 60%, and 90%design approval." Commissioner Meserve, however, felt
that the SRC should be given the "opportunity" to review the 30%, 60%, and 90%
design, but the language should not be such that the job would be held up pending
review by the SRC. Mayor Shaughnessy suggested the word "approval"be deleted
and replaced with the word "comment."
Commissioner Meserve felt that while it was helpful to have Mr. Kosoy, a staff
member, work with the committee, he did not feel that staff should serve on the
committee in a voting capacity. Discussion ensued and several people supported this
position,but some of the committee members preferred that Mr. Kosoy remain on the
committee. No consensus was reached on this issue.
Mayor Shaughnessy referred to footnote three on page two regarding the composition
of the SRC which required the Public Works Director to be a member of the SRC.
She felt that the representation from the other boards and citizens would meet the
Corps of Engineers requirements for public participation.
E. - Following discussion the following changes were suggested: In the first line,
delete the words "a separate" and insert "the tailwater."Amend the last sentence to
read"This should be accounted for in the design of any alternatives that are selected."
Page 6. H. -Following discussion, it was felt that this paragraph was redundant and should
be deleted; however, this item was discussed further later in the meeting and it was
suggested that the following sentence be added: "If action of the SRC would delay
the contractor, Commission approval would be necessary."
I. - Delete last line of this paragraph and substitute "City Commission after review
by the SRC". Commissioner Beaver suggested that all instances of similar language
where action or decision making was relegated to the SRC) should be changed
throughout the RFP to require City Commission action.
Page Four
Minutes of Workshop Meeting
September 22, 1998
Scheduling listed in K, items 1 - 10, were discussed and it was felt that item #6
relative to permit applications,would be more appropriately placed as#3. It was also
pointed out that the suggested schedule was not firm, but was just an estimate.
K 1. - It was suggested this language be clarified to reflect that only one meeting
would be required, not a separate meeting with each board listed.
K3. -Designee of the SRC would be more appropriate.
Page 7. Delete footnote #9 - 60% design should be required.
Page 8. B. - SRC should not be required to select top five firms
F4 - City issues RFP - delete
F5 - City drafts contract - delete
F6 - Proposals, once reviewed by staff, will be submitted to the SRC
F7 - Mayor felt that this item would not change anything regarding the procedure
normally used by staff but would be a second recommendation made to the City
Commission
F9 - The City Manager outlined State of Florida requirements for the selection of
Professional Services
F10 - Delete
A 6. It was felt that the requirement of audited financial statements would add
unnecessary expense to engineering firms. Following discussion it was consensus that
this could be changed to include the most recent "financial statement certified by a
Certified Public Accountant."
A letter dated September 22, 1998, from the City Attorney, outlining some of his concerns, is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Mayor Shaughnessy reported that Col. Terry Rice advised that the tailwater and upstream
management be included in one RFP. By so doing, the city could save money by getting one
engineering firm to design the complete project. Commissioner Mitchelson suggested that the project
could be approached in phases.
Chairman Lyman Fletcher then reported that the sub-committees appointed to draft a tailwater and
upstream management RFP's had completed their work. Mr. Phillips felt that permitting
requirements for tidewater control was different from the rest of this project, and could be undertaken
by staff in house. However, Commissioner Meserve felt that the floodwater control would be very
complicated,including getting agreements with the city of Jacksonville. It was agreed that the SRC
would review this matter as soon as Stephen Kuti returned from vacation
Page Five
Minutes of Workshop Meeting
September 22, 1998
Following further discussion Mr. Fletcher appointed Cynthia Corey, Sylvia Simmons, Don Phillips
and himself to rework and finalize the RFP.
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM.
Maureen King
City Clerk
SEP-15-98 TUE 06 : 17
ExMlair A
t WOR K5 40P 9122-ic/8
D-R-A-F-T #6 E: Final Draft
As of September 13, 1998
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (REP)
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
DESIGN MODIFICATION
CORE CITY UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
STORMWATER COLLECTION
R Day), 1998
I. PURPOSE: The City of Atlantic Beach, henceforth known as the City,
is soliciting for proposals from professional engineering firms to
modify its current design for a new stormwater collection system in
the Core City, provide value engineering on selected components of the
design as specified, and assist the City during the bidding phase for
selecting a firm to construct the system.
II. BACKGROtAND: In 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
mandated that the City develop a plan for stormwater management.
In response to this mandate, along with a growing outcry by citizens
regarding an increased frequency and magnitude of flooding, the City
commissioned CH2MHill to develop a Stormwater Master Plan, Once
the Stormwater Master Plan was completed in 1995, the City
contracted England, Thims, Er Miller, Inc. (ETM) to, among other tasks,design a stormwater collection system for the Core City. This work was
completed in January of 1998. Subsequent to this, it became dear that
there was a strong interest among the citizens that more be done to
uphold the character of the Core Citr with emphasis on minimizing theimpactoftheprojectontheenvironmentandaestheticsofthe
community. In addition, many citizens wanted more scrutiny on cost
effectiveness. After a thorough reviE:w, on May 12, 1998, the Citydecidedtomodifythedesigntominimizetheimpactofconstruction
and operation on both Howell and Prebenjohnasen Parks and attempt
to reduce the cost of construction by performing value engineering onspecificcomponentsoftheproject. It is also important to note that
the City decided to include Upstream Management and Tailwater
Control as two additional components of an effective Stormwater
Management Plan via additional, separate RFP's.1
The City agreed that an effective Stormwater Management Plan includes three
components - Upstream Management and Tailwater Control in addition to
Stormwater Collection. The Commission directed Staff to prepare RFP(s) to ensurethatUpstreamManagementandTailwatercontrolwereadequately,addressed .._ each
1
From: To.Fax#247-5805 Date:9114198 The 2 54:16 PM Nage 1 01b
SEP-14-98 MON 11 :40 P. 01
D-R-A-F-T #6 fr Final Draft
As of September 13, 1998
HI. SERVICES REQUESTED: In providing the following services, the
selected firm must place special emphasis on upholding the character
of the Core City, with emphasis on the environment and aesthetics, and
ensuring cost effectiveness. This character is defined as a pedestrian-
friendly, environmentally-"green" central village in which the streets,
parks, beachfront, and town center area form the social hub of the
community. Specific elements of the Core City to be preserved are: 1)
Existing narrow village streets and lanes which reflect the traditional
coastal-community-town ambiance aF Atlantic Beach,2 2) Pedestrian-
friendly sidewalks, paths, and streets of a recreational nature, which
are currently heavily used by residerts of the City to walk or bicycle to
their destinations, 3) Existing tree anopy and native vegetation that
currently provides both aesthetic ani environmental benefits to the
City, 4) Existing parks and recreational areas, and 5) Areas of historical
significance.
A. Assist the City in creating understanding and building consensus
among its citizens by working hand-in-hand with the City's
Stormwater Review Committee (SRC),3 The SRC will be kept
informed of all activities, briefed prior to all key decisions, and, as a
minimum, conduct public 30%, 60%, and 90% design reviews.
B. In order to avoid or, at least, minimize the impact to existing
natural areas;
1. Provide plans, bill of materials (BOM), specifications, cost
estimate, and construction schedule for the replacement of the
Howell Park stormwater treatment component of the ETM
design with upstream baffle b,,xes, sand traps, swirl
component will have a separate RFP, The firm chosen to modify the Stormwater
Collection system must ensure that interfaces with these other two components are
adequately taken into consideration.
2 Specifically, it has been concluded that thE: majority of the residents want to avoid
altering the existing Core City to that of the vehicular-friendly, artificially-landscaped,
highly-manicured, and other typical characteristics of planned unit developments
designed in the 1980's and 1990's.
The Stormwater Review Committee (SRC; brings together the personnel
representing the Commission,the City Staff, and the different interests and expertise
of the community to assist the City in planning for effective and efficient Stormwater
Management. The SRC consists of at least one commissioner, 2 members of the City
staff(1 must be the Director of Public Works), and 3 citizens of the City. The City
Tree, Parks and Recreation, and Community Development Boards will designate
liaison representatives to the SRC.
2
SEP-15-98 TUE 05 :43 P. 02
D-R-A-I-T #6 ET Final Draft
As of September 13, 1998
concentrators, holding basins, or another concept that
adequately accommodates design flows and meets the
requirements of stormwater treatment,4 Included in this task is
the reengineering and redesign of the conveyance structures and
entry points into Selva Lagoon and/or Howell Park.
2. Provide plans, bill of materials, specifications, cost estimate, and
schedule for the replacement of the Preben Johansen Park
stormwater treatment component of the ETM design with
upstream baffle boxes, sand traps, swirl concentrators, holding
basins, or another concept that adequately accommodates
design flows and meets the requirements of stormwater
treatment.
3. Evaluate the existing benefits of open, undeveloped and
preserved areas of park lands and other public lands, includingbutnotlimitedtoHowellandPrebenjohanasenPark, Prepare a
decision briefing for SRC regarding modifying the design to leave
such areas intact for providing natural stormwater treatment
and maintaining the character of the community.
B. Perform selective value engineering' with the goal of assuring the
City realizes a cost effective stormwater treatment collection system
while not sacrificing the permitability of any component. The firm
is free to bring any ideas to the SRC that it believes can result in
significant savings while maintaining the system effectiveness.
Although not limiting, the firm will specifically address the
following--
1. Reducing the number of conflict manholes,
2. Preserving to the greatest extent practicable recently installed
water mains on Zit, 3rd, Stn, Stn,
and 11th
streets as well as other
water mains that are serviceable and meet the requirements of
the Department of Health,
4
If in the early stages of concept development, the St johns River Water
Management District agrees that improved upstream management of stormwater
such as more and better grassy swates, expanded maintenance, appropriate
ordinances, etc. can preclude or reduce the downstream treatment requirements,this
approach must be brought to the attention of and should be seriously considered bytheCity.
s In an effort to save money and time in the redesign process, selective value
enginoering implies looking only at the prs-je4`t components specified, If there areclearlyothermtdilccationstiiatwillsavesignificantreseurcag,*1.17 should bebroughttotheCityforltSConsiderationandapprovalbeforemakinganychanges.
From: To:Fax#247•5805 Date:9114198 Time:2:54:16 PM Page 2 of 6
SEP-14-98 MON 11 :41 P. 02
D-R-A-F-T #6 fx Final Draft
As of September 13, 1998
3. Increasing the capacity of the east-west streets to transport
surface flows in a way that increases the design flow for whichthesystemprovidesprotec-tio i.
C. With regard to trees, recommend design alternatives that maximize
the preservation of the existing natural vegetation and tree canopyoftheCoreCity. Specifically --
1. Evaluate the impact of the project on trees in- and outside of
the project right-of-way, to include the effects of lowering the
water table, root removal, and other construction impacts. .2. Recommend ways to decrease the number of trees requiringremoval.
3. Once evaluation is complete, recommend ways to reduce the
impact of the project on trees outside of the project right-of- ,
way and provide a mitigation plan for any permanent and long-term damage (up to five years after project completion)
resulting from construction. [f advisable, mitigation plan should
include vegetation replacement for those plants that will
experience long-term, irreparable harm.
4. Recommend controls on and techniques of construction that will
serve to protect all vegetation from the effects of the work.
D. Assess the feasibility and advisability of providing for underground
utilities in conjunction with this construction project, to include
electrical, natural gas, TV, and/or telephone lines/cables. If selected
for inclusion by the city, incorporate the component(s) into thedesign.
E. Collect field data (surveys, soil samples, etc.) to the extent necessarytocompletetheabovetasks ... paragraphs III. A., B., C., and D.
F. Prepare a complete set of plans, BOM, specifications, cost estimate,
schedule, and any other items which will be used to bid and
construct the project by incorporating the modifications requested
above into the ETM plans and supporting work products.
G. Support the City during the bidding phase of the Core Citystormwatercollectionproject. Tasks include:
1. Prepare plans, 8OM's, specifications, etc. for the bidding phase
to be sold to the bidders through the City PurchasingDepartment.
2. Assist City during pre-bid meeting to include providing technical
explanations and answering questions.
3. Prepare bid addendums as appropriate.
4
Front To Fax#247-5805 Date:9114198 Time:2:54:16 PM Page 3 of 6
SEP-14-98 M0N 11 :42 P. 03
D-R-A-F-T #6 Er Final Draft
As of September 13, 1998
4. Evaluate all bids, prepare bid tabulation, and submit comments
as appropriate.
5. As directed by the City, attend up to twenty (20) additional
meetings with appropriate staffs ..,
payment will be made onlyformeetingsattended.
IV. COORDINATING INSTRUCTIONSIINFORMATION:
A, The City's single point of contact for all dialogue and(or questions
with regard to this RIP is Mr. Robert Kosoy, Director of Public
Works, 904-247-5834, or any other representative(s) that the CityManagerdesignates,
B. The City has established a Stormwater Review Committee (SRC) to
ensure effective public input into all decision making regarding •Atlantic Beach stormwater management. All work specified under
this RIP will be coordinated with and reviewed by the SRC before
going to the Commission for deci:>ion. At a minimum, the 30%,
60%, and 90% designs will be specifically reviewed by the SRC ...
other key milestones should be offered to the SRC for coordination
and approval. The SRC will formulate recommendations for the
Commission at each decision point.
C. The ETM design with all supporting documentation is available
through the Director of Public Works.
D. Field information needed for the redesign is available. The City
Director of Public Works is the repository for maps, surveys, and
supporting information. No additional information collected will
duplicate that which already exists.
E. Under a separate initiative, the City is pursuing a project to reduce
the elevation of tidal water during major events. It is expected that
by lowering the water level by twD (2) feet, the ETM design will
handle a ten (1o)year storm. This should be accounted for in the
design of the baffle boxes or wha-cever concept is selected.
F. The redesign must be permittable by the St Johns Water
Management District (SJWMD), the Corps of Engineers (WE), and
any other agency, which must approve the work. All appropriate
agencies must be included right from the start of this effort in
concept development to ensure effective coordination.
G. For consistency and continuity, the selected firm must establish a
dedicated design/bid team and members of this team must
6
Regarding'appropriate staff", see item Is. G. below.
5
From: 1o: -a0241-56th trate:yll4/y Ime:1:59:b t'M rage 4 or 0
SEP-14-98 MON 11 :42 P. 04
D-R-A-F-T #6 f; Final Draft
As of September 13, 1998
represent the firm at all briefings and meetings. This team is
referred to as "appropriate staff' during the conduct of the
requested work.
H. Public input is essential for the success of this project. The SRC
may request comments, written and/or oral, from the public at anytimeitdeemsappropriate. If such action delays the contractor,
adjustments will be made_
1. Per footnote 1, separate RFP's will be issued to address Upstream
Management and Tailwater Control, Any actual(possible conflicts
identified by the selected firm must be resolved or brought to the
SRC for appropriate action.
J. The standard for all designs drawings will be Auto CAD R14.
K. Milestones/Deliverables' - from the day (N Day)a the notice to •
proceed (NTP) is issued, the following tasks will be completed within
the days specified:
1. N+25 days: Present concept(s), to include computer aided design
drawings utilizing Auto CAD R14 and estimated costs, to
accomplish the services reque:;ted in paragraph III, above to the
SRC. This presentation should also be given to the City Tree,
Parks and Recreation, and Community Development Boards to
facilitate their comments to the Commission and/or SRC.
2. N+30 days: Present concept(s), to include sketches and
estimated costs, to accomplish the services requested in
paragraph III, above to the City Commission for approval.
Clearly layout the benefits and costs and other appropriate
information of each to facilitate decision making.
3. N+40 days: With SRC, meet with US Army Corps of Engineers
COE) and the St Johns River Water Management District
SJWMD) to begin permitting process.
4. N+60 days: Present five (5) sets of preliminary plans, to include
calculations, bill of materials, cost estimate, and construction
schedule to the City Commission for approval (30% design
review).
5. N+90 days: Present five (5) sets of plans, to include calculations,
bill of materials, specification;, cost estimate, and construction
schedule to the City Commission for approval (90% design)9.
Each milestone/deliverable requires written acceptance of work by the SRC before
proceeding to the next phase.
See V. F. below.
6
From: To:Fax#247-5805 Dale:9114198 Time:2:54:16 PM Page 5 of 6
SEP-14-98 MON 1143 P. 05
D-R-A-F-T #6 tt Final Draft
As of September 13, 1998
6. N+100 days: Submit permit applications to COE and SJWMD.
Notify the Duval County Public Health Department and City of
Jacksonville Regulatory and Environmental Service Division to
discuss any modifications to the plans that would necessitate a
re-submittal of the potable water and sanitary sewer permit
applications, Prepare and submit the Florida Department of
Transportation and State roadway utility and access permit
applications.
7. N+160 days: COE, SJWMD, and all other necessary permits
received.'0
8. N+180 days: Submit ten (10) sets of final plans (100% design).
9. N+190 days: Have plans and specifications ready for and begin
assisting City in the bidding phase.
10. N+240 days: Best-qualified bidder selected to complete
construction.
V. SELECTION PROCESS:
A. Each firm must submit three (3) copies of their proposal to Mr_
Robert 5. Kosoy, P.E., Director of Public Works, 1200 Sandpiper Lane,
Atlantic Beach FL 32233, not later than 4:30 pm, [R+30), 1998. Firms
responding to this REP should include detailed information in support
of the following selection criteria -
1. Staff Competence (rating weight - 20%) -- include detailed
resumes.
2. Similar Project Experience (30%) - emphasis on creativity in
finding solutions to difficult stormwater management challenges
to include familiarity with such techniques as baffle boxes, sand
traps, and swirl concentrators. Documented experience in
retrofitting older communities to provide the desired level of
service and meet current regulatory standards while maintaining
their character will be given the greatest credit.
3. References (10%) - include teephone numbers.
4. Project Approach (30%) -- include outline for accomplishing
specific tasks along with any improvements recommended and
9 No 60% design required unless SRC determines that this milestone is necessary.10
Regulatory agencies are not required to permit projects in accordance with the
schedule of the City. Every effort must be made to include the permitting agencies in
the process in a meaningful way as early as possible to increase the probability that
the permits will be issued in a timely manncr, If permits are not received as
scheduled, adjustments in the firm's schedule will be necessary.
7
From: To:Fax#2415805 Date:9/14/98 Time:2:54:16 PMNage 6 of 6
SEP-14-98 MON 11 :44 P. 06
D-R-A-F-T #6 f Final Draft
As of September 13, 1998
deviations in the timeframe outlined in IV. K. above,
Mi lestones(Del iverables".
5. Current Workload (5%) - include firm and individual workloads.6. Financial Information (5%) - include most recent audit summaryandcurrentcertificateofinsurance.
B. The SRC will select its top five (5) firms and recommend this list to-
the Commission as the firms which should be selected by theCommissiontomakepresentations.
C. Based on their personal evaluation and the recommendation of the
SRC the City Commission will select the firm to perform the work,
D. Negotiation of fees will commence once the Commission has made
its selection and be accomplished by the City Staff with review bytheSRC.
F. Once the City Commission approves the fees and the contract
instrument and the contract instrument is executed, the NTP will beissuedandallworkspecifiedwillcommence.
F. Summary of RFP Milestones - all dates are riot later than (NITT):1. SRC drafts RFP - R-30
2. SRC recommends RFP to Comvnission - R-8
3. Commission approves RFP - R-1
4. SRC Issues REP - R Day
5. SRC drafts contract - R+10
6. Proposals submitted by firms to SRC - R+30
7. Top-five firms as selected by SRC brief City Commission - R+408. SRC recommends top firm to Commission - R+45
9. Commission selects firm to perform the work - R+46
10. SRC negotiates fees - R+50
11. Commission approves contract to include fees - R+55
12. Contract executed and NTP issued - R+ 60 = N Day
f•
1111111r1
II3,T E,
2z '8
Y.(ORKsr4oP
ALAN C. JENSEN
Attorney at Law
935 North Third Street
Post Office Box 50457
Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32240-0457
Telephone (904)246-2500 Facsimile (904)246-9960
September 22, 1998
VIA FAX
353-8255
Lyman T. Fletcher, Esq.
541 East Monroe Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
RE: Request For Proposals (RFP)
Professional Engineering Services
Core City Improvements
Dear Lyman:
Since you are the chairman of the Stormwater Review Committee(SRC),I would like to express
certain concerns I have with the final draft of the proposed RFP, a copy of which I received at
the City Commission meeting on September 14, 1998. My concerns include the following:
1. ParagraphlIl,A.: The selected firm must work hand-in-hand with the SRC and
keep the SRC informed of all activities, briefed prior to all key decisions, and conduct public
30%, 60% and 90% design reviews. Am Ito assume that this can be done directly with Bob
Kosoy pursuant to paragraph IV.A.?
2. Paragraph III.G.3.: Who will authorize the selected firm to prepare bid
addendums "as appropriate"?
3. Paragraph III.G.5.: Are there as many as twenty (20) additional meetings in
connection with the bidding phase? How many individuals from the selected firm will constitute
their "appropriate staff", and how much will the City be charged for each meeting attended?
4, Paragraph IV.B.: This appears to require all work performed by the selected firm
to be coordinated and reviewed by the SRC, for the 30%, 60% and 90% designs to be reviewed
by the SRC, and for "other key milestones" to be offered to the SRC for coordination and
approval. I question whether the SRC should be allowed to approve anything. Is this paragraph
intended to mean the entire SRC or Bob Kosoy?
5. Paragraph IV.H.; I am not comfortable at all with the last sentence that if action
by the SRC delays the contractor, adjustments will be made.
1 .
Lyman T. Fletcher, Esq.
September 22, 1998
Page 2
6. Paragraph IV.K._ (footnote 7): This apparently requires the SRC to accept in
writing all work of the selected firm before it can proceed to the next phase.
7. Paragraph IV.K.3.: Apparently the entire SRC intends to accompany representa-
tives of the selected firm for meetings with the Corps of Engineers and the St. Johns River
Water Management District to begin permitting process. Perhaps, Bob Kosoy, as the representa-
tive of the SRC, attending these meetings with representatives from the selected firm, would be
more advisable.
8. Paragraphs V.D and F.10.: Is the SRC going to review City staff's negotiation
of fees or is the SRC going to negotiate fees? I do not think either is advisable.
I trust that all members of the SRC are familiar with the provisions of §287.055, Florida
Statutes, and in particular, subparagraphs (4), Competitive Selection, and (5), Competitive
Negotiation.
Hopefully, these concerns will be of some value to the SRC in finalizing the RFP.
Very truly yours,
f/ . /Pi.%`
ALAN NSEN
ACJ/sky
cc; James R. Jarboe, City Manager (via fax)
Robert S. Kosoy, Director, Public Works (via fax)
Maureen King, City Clerk (via fax)