Approval of Minutes:

Mary Jo Klempa moved for approval of the minutes of the January 10, 2007, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Rodney Clay.  All voted in favor and the minutes were approved and adopted.

Rod Clay questioned why the two other design-build teams dropped out.  Mr. Miller stated that one team, TEDCO Corp.  (contractor) / McKinley & Associates (architect) dropped out because McKinley & Associates had other projects that came up and they did not have the capacity to handle this one.  The other team, Landau Co. (contractor) / MacLachian Cornelius & Filoni (architect) had other things come up that they felt they had a better probability of getting an award than with this bid. They wanted to put their resources into the ones they had a better chance of winning.  

Mr. Miller advised the Board that they have allowed stipends to be issued for the people  submitting proposals who do not win the bid if they score a minimum of 70 points on the qualitative proposal.  Basically this was done for people to be able to pursue the project.  If they have four proposals they will give 3 stipends in the amount of $50,000.  If they get three proposals then they will give 2 stipends of $75,000. If they only get two proposals then they will only give one stipend of $100,000. 

Rod Clay questioned whether the two remaining bidders have the experience and expertise required for this project?  Mr. Miller stated that they both are very qualified. The RFQ required a theater consultant, a cost consultant, and a traffic and parking consultant.  All bidders on the short list met these requirements.  Chairman Monteleone indicated that the statute required a minimum of three bidders to make sure you had enough participation to good fair representation and information back to make a fair proposal. He questioned if they were comfortable with this project with only two bidders.  Mr. Miller feels they do have adequate information based upon the feed back he is getting from the bidders. He would like to see all four bidders submit responses but unfortunately the market place was not supporting them at the time. However, he feels they have two very good teams left with very good credentials. Mr. Miller believes that either one would be more than capable of providing a good quality product.

Mr. Miller advised the board that the project has a time constraint as one of the stipulations on the funding source is that the funds must be committed by the end of the year.  The project is a little behind with the schedule and they can not afford to rebid.  Mr. Miller asked the Board to give them the authority to proceed with the project with only two bidders.  The two teams remaining are excited and very committed to the project.

Roy Smith advised Mr. Miller that the City of Morgantown asked to have the Department of Administration’s participation in the project removed. Mr. Smith questioned why would they not want the Department of Administration involved.  Mr. Miller does not know just how much interest the Department of Administration has in the project.  Mr. Miller also advised that he has given Scott Mason of the General Services Division copies of things that has happened.  He has not received any questions from Mr. Mason.  Mr. Miller wonders if the Department of Administration’s interest level on projects other than State projects is there enough to justify an expenditure of personnel time.  Mr. Smith questioned whether the Department of Administration wanted to put someone on the Criteria Development Committee.  Mr. Miller said that they did assign Mr. Mason to participate. Mr. Smith stated that it is recorded in the minutes that he asked him at the meeting when the project was approved if he was familiar with the code and agreed to follow the code and the rules.  Mr. Smith stated that he specifically asked Mr. Miller if he was willing to follow those rules and the code and he agreed to that prior to approval of the project.  Mr. Smith stated that the actions in this project backs away from the rules.  Mr. Smith asked Mr. Miller if the Department of Administration told him that they were not willing to waive their participation.  Mr. Miller stated that they did not want to waive and they assigned Mr. Mason to the committee. Ms. Lipscomb advised the Board that she told the City of Morgantown and Lloyd Miller that the Department of Administration had no authority to waive participation and they wanted to be involved.  She also advised the Board that Mr. Mason was not involved in the process at all and got copies of everything after the fact.  If the Department of Administration must sign their name on a process they need to be involved in the process.  Mr. Miller stated that there was no intention on behalf of the City of Morgantown to get around the code and keep the Department of Administration out of the process.  Mr. Smith asked Mr. Miller if anyone from Administration refused to come and participate in the meetings and the process.  Mr. Miller stated that he has provided copies of all information but has not gotten much feed back.  Ms. Lipscomb stated that Mr. Mason is in another meeting at this time and unable to attend the meeting but she is confident that if Mr. Mason was invited to attend a meeting he would have been there or asked them to reschedule so that he could participate.  Mr. Smith asked Mr. Miller if there were other rules or code issues that the City of Morgantown did not follow in this project.  Mr. Miller advised the board that they have followed the code and rules.

Chairman Monteleone asked where they were at this point with the project. He asked if  they have only sent the invitations out but have not gotten any responses back?  Mr. Miller stated that is accurate.  The Chairman questioned if Mr. Mason was now actively participating in the process? Mr. Miller advised the Board that Mr. Mason would be involved.  Chairman Monteleone questioned if Mr. Mason was involved in the preparation of the RFQ or RFP.  Mr. Miller stated that he was not involved in the preparation but did get a copy.  Mr. Smith questioned whether Mr. Mason participated in the evaluation of the responses to the RFQ?  Mr. Miller stated he was not involved. Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. Miller that the Board’s job is to protect the integrity of the process. They do not second guess the evaluations but they must  make sure the process and the law is followed. The Board must assure that the Department of Administration is actively participating in the entire process.  Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. Miller that if the Department of Administration representative does not respond or attend a meeting they are to stop the process and the meeting and not move forward until they do fully participate.  Mr. Smith stated that he is bothered by the fact that the City did a formal request to have the Department of Administration waive their participation and then when they refused to waive their participation the City then just went forward without allowing the representative to participate.  This is in violation of the rules and hurts the integrity of the process and the Board is failing in their duties.  Ms. Lipscomb advised the board that she can not speak for Mr. Mason but she knows the individual and he would have participated had he been invited.  Ms. Lipscomb stated that the Department of Administration did not intentionally fail to fulfill the duties placed upon them in the code.

Chairman Monteleone expressed the Board’s concerns and wants to make it clear that a project does not proceed in any step without the participation of the Department of Administration representative being involved.  No meeting is to be held until they can attend. He further stated that picking the teams is very critical and once you pick the teams the dye is cast. You can not change the players and if there is no participation then they have missed the process. It is critical for the representative to be involved in the picking of the teams and that did not happen on this project.  Lloyd Miller stated there was no intent to not follow the code.  Mr. Smith stated that all of the rules must be followed and not just some of them.  He would like to be assured that someone will be a part of the process for the Department of Administration who can advise the board of the process and whether or not they are happy with it on each project.

Roy Smith moved to approve the project moving forward in the process with only two bidders remaining providing that the Department of Administration participates in the process.  Motion seconded by Rod Clay.  Motion passed.

New Business:                  

«        Presentation by the Town of Fayetteville

Bill Lanham, the Superintendent and City Manager for the Town of Fayetteville, gave a presentation regarding a proposed skate park.  He introduced Dan Shorts with Pentree, Inc. and Bill Chouinard with the Fayetteville Skateboard Park Committee. Mr. Shorts is an engineer assisting on the project.  Mr. Chouinard is the individual who brought the idea to the town and has been a catalyst in raising the money.

Mr. Lanham stated that Fayetteville is the extreme sport capitol of West Virginia with bridge day.  Adding a skate park would add another amenity that their area already sends out to the rest of the world that they are a great tourist destination.  The town is giving a piece of property in the town park for the skate park.  They have requested that the Skateboard Park Committee raise $250,000.  They are looking at a 6,000 to 7,000 square foot area.  They believe that the design-build process would be good for this project so that they could get a contractor who was familiar with building a skateboard facility.  Roy Smith questioned if this skate park would be located in Hughes Park.  Mr. Lanham indicated that it would not be in Hughes Park but would be in the town park.

Chairman Monteleone questioned Mr. Lanham whether he was familiar with the Design-Build Procurement Act.  He requested Mr. Lanham to go through the criteria needed as it relates to his project.  Mr. Lanham stated that the biggest reason they need to get this project completed as soon possible in order to get the children off the street and skating in a safe environment. Additionally, there is a need to have the project complete by early spring.

There is a need for close coordination on the skate board project as it is a very labor intensive and highly specialized endeavor. Only professional design builders will be capable of making the on the spot determinations to assure the structure is constructed properly because if it is not constructed correctly the first time then the skaters will be skating over the mistakes for a long time. Mr. Lanham advised the board that they have seen mistakes made in other communities when building a skate park and a design-build method of construction will avoid those mistakes.

Mr. Lanham stated that they have raised the money for the project through grants, community donations and fund raisers.  The project is even more sensitive to keep the costs contained.  The design-build method provides early cost containment and insures a smooth and quick transition from design to construction.  Chairman Monteleone asked how much money has been raised. Mr. Lanham stated that they currently have $190,000 and the Town of Fayetteville has committed to $30,000 in professional services, equipment, labor and the land where the park will be constructed.  The Chairman questioned whether the $190,000 was sufficient.  Mr. Lanham indicated that $190,000 is the current estimates within the industry.  However, the number grows and shrinks on a daily basis.  The estimates are from $30.00 to $35.00 a square foot.  When they started raising the money for the project the cost was significantly less.  The costs for concrete and rebar have gone up. The $190,000 is certainly enough to move forward.  In addition, they have people in the community who are willing to contribute in-kind products and services they need.  The community support has been incredible.

If the project is allowed to proceed as a design-build project it will shorten the schedule  and allow them to be completed sooner.  Mr. Winter asked whether there will be any supervision.  Mr. Lanham indicated that they will have supervision.  They have park employees who will be present most of the time.  Mr. Clay had concerns about the project’s proposed schedule as noted in the application.  He believes the contract award date is a bit ambitious.  He indicated that if they give the Board a schedule they will hold him to it.  Mr. Lanham agrees that the schedule is aggressive but they are working diligently to get the park completed by Spring. 

Roy Smith moved to approve the Town of Fayetteville’s skate park project.  Motion seconded by Rod Clay.  All voted in favor and the motion passed.  Chairman Monteleone advised that Ms. Lipscomb needed to be updated on the status of the project.  Ms. Lipscomb  stated that she would send them a letter and a copy of the required reports.  Mr. Lanham questioned whether they would be better off revamping the timeline and more extended or would they be better with a timeline that gets it completed quicker.  Chairman Monteleone stated that the Board would prefer a realistic timeline because the Board will hold the Town to it. Therefore,  the Town of Fayetteville requested that their timeline be extended.  The Board stated that they would give approval for an extended timeline as long as it did not extend more than six weeks.  Chairman Monteleone requested that the Town of Fayetteville submit an amended application to Ms. Lipscomb with the new timeline.

«                 Presentation by the Central West Virginia Airport Authority

Rick Atkinson, the Director of the airport authority at Yeager Airport, gave a presentation regarding a proposed parking structure for the rental cars.  He reminded the Board that they did a prior design-build project at the airport for a parking structure.  He stated that he sings the praises of design-build process as it offers a lot.  Mr. Atkinson advised the Board that the site for the proposed parking garage is a very tight sight.  It will impact the operations of the rental car industry.  They have 1,200 cars all together between the four companies that they put in the ready lot. They rent about 500 cars everyday. The shorter time that he can impact their operations the better because they will have to move those vehicles. 

Mr. Atkinson advised the board that the airport has taken some risk and put some work into preparing the Request for Proposal ahead of the Board approval due to the time constraints.  There biggest day for rental cars during the whole year is bridge day. From September through October is their biggest time for rental cars due to tourists coming in from all over the world to white water raft.  They need to be finished with the parking structure prior to the rental car’s big season.  This is a private/public partnership with the rental car industry.  Yeager was the third airport in the country to build a consolidated facility for the rental cars. It is publically owned and paid for by a charge they add on to their customers daily.  Yeager’s charge is $1.95 now and it will go to $2.50 to support the bonds for the garage.  The current facility is almost ten years old.  The rental industry needs to know how much the facility will cost as there is only so much they can add on to their customers.  The rental industry charges the fee and they remit it to the airport and the bonds are in the airport’s name. The rental industry wants as many spaces as possible.  The current plans based upon construction costs and the budget, it appears they can purchase 170 spaces.  If the rental industry can purchase another 40 spaces based upon the budget they want to do it.  The rental industry wants it to be as large as possible. They have restraints on how large they can build it due to not being able to get in the air space, as it is close to the runway.   There is also a seven to one slope that goes up.  The four rental car companies also want more lighting than normal.  There is a real need for close coordination on the project. 

Mr. Atkinson stated that there is a fixed amount of funds that are available for the project.  They have $5 million dollars total they can spend on the project.  They want to award the cost of the project based upon the biggest facility they can get on that site for the money available.  Mr. Winter questioned where the parking structure would be located.  Mr. Atkinson stated it would be right beside where you come out at the baggage claim area.  Only rental cars will be parked in the structure, there will be no public parking.  In a retail environment the rental industry does not want a car parked on a slope more than 1% and circulation is an issue.  They had to use a 10% slope and did not get the circulation so they have stairwells and elevators.  They also needed the extra height to get delivery trucks in the structure so it is 16 foot instead of 14 foot. 

Mr. Smith indicated that parking structures have shown to be good projects for the design-build method of construction.  Most of the people who have gone this route have been complimentary of the process or benefitted by using this method.  Mr. Smith moved to approved the application of the Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority.  Motion seconded by Mr. Clay.  All members voted in favor and the motion passed.

Mr. Smith reemphasized the issue of following the rules.  He is aware that there were no complaints about the prior Yeager Airport project but the board must assure that the rules are followed.  Mr. Atkinson advised that they would follow the rules and assure that the Department of Administration is involved in the process.  Ms. Lipscomb questioned what date the board wanted to set for the start of construction. The board established the date of August 31, 2008, for the start of construction.   Chairman Monteleone also requested that the Department of Administration review the RFP on this project prior to it being sent out.  Mr. Miller agreed that the Department of Administration representative would be provided the RFP immediately. 

Old Business:

«        Wheeling Skate Park

Ms. Lipscomb advised the board that the Wheeling Skate Park had a grand opening on Sunday.  Copies of the newspaper articles are included in the packets.  There are also photographs showing the completed skate park.  Ms. Klempa advised that there were approximately 400 people at the opening.

Other Business:

«         Project Status Project

Ms. Lipscomb distributed the list of projects showing their current status to the Board.  She indicated that prior to the approval of the new projects at this meeting  today, the only design-build project that has not been completed is the Morgantown event center.

«   Scott Mason, of the Department of Administration, joined the meeting. Chairman Monteleone requested Mr. Mason and Lloyd Miller to join the board at the table.  Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. Mason of his responsibility and involvement required as the representative of the Department of Administration. Mr. Mason advised the board that he has not had an opportunity to review all the addendums but has looked at the first ones.  He also advised that he did not get an opportunity to comment on the RFP because he received a copy only after it had been issued and distributed.  Mr. Mason has looked at the RFP and has a certain comfort level with it.  He did not see enough issues in the RFP that raised red flags to required comments at that late date.  Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. Mason that he is a voting member of the Technical Review Committee.  Mr. Mason has been told that he is a voting member but thought his participation would be a lot more meaningful after the RFP was prepared.  Mr. Winter questioned whether Mr. Mason attended the pre-site tours in September and October. Mr. Mason did not attend them as he was unaware they were scheduled.  Mr. Winter asked what happened as a result of those tours. Mr. Miller stated that there were some addendums issued and questions raised for clarification.  Mr. Miller also stated that there was requests that the proposals be “blind proposals” so they are going to accommodate the request and make the proposals “blind”.  He also advised that there was requests for stipends and an extension of the proposal period.  Those were also accommodated so that they would get good competition.