Engineering Services SelectionMemorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
CC: Mike Mornson, City Manager
From: John R. Bradford, City Engineer6#r�7
Date: June 12, 2012
Re: Engineering Services Selection
This memo discusses the selection process for engineering services on our street and
utility reconstruction projects.
There are a number of factors that go into picking a consultant for our main project
every year. They can be categorized into two broad categories; policy
considerations and factors that are specific to the project/consultant.
Policy
From a policy perspective, our number one goal is to provide excellent service to our
residents who are facing expensive assessments. This is achieved through technical
design elements, cost efficiencies, and communication, especially during
construction. This goal is dampened by our equally important goal of maximizing
the value of the fees we pay engineering consultants.
Through 13 years as a consulting engineer and 7 years here at Hopkins, I have made
a few observations when it comes to consultants and services.
First, every large engineering firm in the area has the technical expertise to design
our reconstruction projects. And all of these firms have teams within them that work
on projects together. Some of the teams are great, some are less adept. Basically,
it's less about hiring a firm, and more about getting a great team from that firm.
Second, the fees charged by engineering firms are all generally the same. Small
projects are generally 16% - 18% of construction cost (from feasibility through
June 12, 2012
construction). Large projects are usually 14% to 16%. Our projects are generally
$1.7 Million (large), so we expect total fees to be between $230,000 and $270,000.
Some firms will low ball the price in an effort to get work. It has been my
experience that these projects are not as successful because shortcuts are taken to
stay profitable and it ends up costing the City in change orders and extra staff time.
Project/Consultant
The street reconstruction program is very important and represents the largest annual
expenditure in our construction budget. While the projects are critical and have
many technical challenges, they are not unique projects that require a unique
expertise. These are "meat and potato" projects.
Consequently, when we look at which firms to solicit a proposal from, we really
look at the non-technical qualifications.
• Communication with residents, Council and staff
• Project Management for on time and budget projects
• Local Knowledge of standards and expectations
• Fee for Services
The importance of the first two is clear, but the local knowledge is equally critical.
Local knowledge includes understanding that the inspector is expected to coordinate
a handicapped person's entry and exit from the construction zone. It also includes
knowing that driveways are 24' wide; no steps are to be installed in manholes; and
that there are a dozen other standards that may be different in other communities.
Finally, it includes institutional memory and knowing what can be improved from
the previous years' projects.
The coordination efforts keep assessment paying residents feeling like they are
getting the special attention they deserve, while knowing the standards eliminates
tens of hours of staff time checking and re -checking plan sets.
The local knowledge is the highest hurdle to get over when trying to get hired as a
new consultant in a community. It is very similar to hiring a new high level staff
member. There are bumps and hiccups and things are not as efficient.
Fees for Services are not the highest priority because they are all generally the same.
The low bid may save the City $10,000 on the front end, but may cost the City 10
times that amount in a single change order. Let alone the possible damage of poor
resident communication to the whole reconstruction program.
2
June 12, 2012
Checks and Balances
All the foregoing presents why it is beneficial to keep a consulting team coming
back from year to year. But that is not an indication that the consultant shouldn't be
held accountable.
All of the local knowledge is meaningless without excellent service to our residents,
Council and Staff. It is also unhelpful if the fees charged are not in line with other
firms.
The current legislative policy is to solicit proposals from several firms every 3 years.
This is in place to ensure that we keep firms accountable. We have not always
successfully followed this policy. Our last solicitation was in 2008 for the 5t Street
South reconstruction. We selected SRF Engineering for that project based on their
proposal.
Staff recommends changing the policy regarding solicitation of firms to every 5
years. We recommend this because both staff and Council hold engineering firms
accountable through our day to day interactions and input from residents. It also
costs firms $10,000 to $20,000 to prepare for an RFP. In the end, this cost is passed
along to clients such as Hopkins.
We look forward to discussing these issues with you on Tuesday night.
3