Approval of Minutes:

Mr. Thrasher moved for approval of the minutes of the October 25, 2007, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mary Jo Klempa.  All voted in favor and the minutes were approved and adopted.

Old Business:

Ms. Lipscomb advised the board as to the contents of their packets.  The documentation includes e-mails from Lloyd Miller and scoring information from the technical review committee on the Morgantown project.  The technical review committee met yesterday and Mr. Miller and Scott Mason are here to discuss the process utilized.  The packets also include minutes from the Yeager Airport project and a request to proceed with the design-build process with only two bidders.  The scoring of the technical review committee for that project is also included.  Mr. Miller will also be the representative on that project today as well as the Morgantown project.   Ms. Lipscomb advised that the only other documentation in the packet is in regard to the proposed web site she is getting set up. 

«                 City of Morgantown Event Center

Mr.  Miller advised the Board that the technical review committee met yesterday and spent six hours reviewing the responses to the proposals. They were blind proposals only known as A and B.  Mr. Miller stated that the technical review committee followed the procedures prescribed in the legislative rules and seek approval to move forward with the opening of the cost proposals. The final evaluation scores were presented to the Board.  Acting Chairman Smith questioned Mr. Mason regarding the process that was followed by the technical review committee.  Mr. Mason felt that it was obvious that the committee members did their homework and he does not have any exceptions to anything that took place.  Mr. Smith asked if the committee members are reliable.  Mr. Mason stated that the review was very through and the members are very qualified.

Mr. Miller advised the board that there was one problem with the evaluation that he needs to point out to the committee. One of the responses to the RFP included the costs and revealed who the proposal was from. Mr. Miller stated that this issue did not affect the evaluation process  because they still do not know the cost for the other proposal.  Mr. Miller assured the board that the cost was ignored because they did not know the other proposal’s cost.  Mr. Thrasher questioned why the responses from the two proposals were not more consistent. Mr. Miller explained that they reviewed and scored each of them separately as blind proposals.

Mr. Thrasher asked what the request was before the board.  He inquired whether the board had to approve the project moving forward or whether they were just to be informed of the status of the project.  Mr. Smith questioned Ms. Lipscomb what the Chairman’s intent was with regard to the proposals on this project.  Ms. Lipscomb stated that she could not speak for the Chairman but she believes that he wants to assure that the process is followed properly and done fairly before they move forward. Ms. Lipscomb does not know whether the Chairman wanted the board to look at the details or just the process. Mr. Thrasher inquired as to whether the primary concern is because there were only two responses. Mr. Smith stated that some of the concern is due to issues about the Department of Administration not being included in the  structuring of the proposal. The Department of Administration is supposed to be included from day one going forward and the Chairman stressed the fact that this board wants to ensure that the integrity of the law is maintained.  Mr. Thrasher questioned whether this was resolved at the last meeting.  Mr. Smith stated that it was resolved at the last meeting as to how things would move forward on this project as Mr. Mason and the Department of Administration was requested to be the “eyes and ears” of the Board and to assure the Board the laws, rules and process is followed. 

Mr. Smith questioned Mr. Mason about the details of the process since the last meeting and asked if the laws and rules have been followed and if the Department of Administration has been involved in every step.  Mr. Mason advised that he has read the law and the rules and took a considerable amount of time and studied both proposals.  Mr. Mason feels the letter of the law was followed since the last meeting.  At the beginning of the technical review committee meeting Mr. Miller gave them the pros and cons of both proposals and Mr. Mason felt it was very fairly done based upon his review of the proposals.  The scoring was very close.  Mr. Smith asked if the two proposals were dramatically different.  Mr. Mason stated there were places where both proposals were dramatically different and also places where they were very similar.  One proposal had more of an emphasis on the theater aspect and the other proposal ignored that part of it.  Catering was also vastly different in the way they responded. The heating,  ventilating  and air conditioning portions were also vastly different.  Mr. Mason stated that the similarities were  the footprint layout of the building and the foundation design. 

Mr. Spradling moved to approve the City of Morgantown to proceed with the event center project to the next step.  Motion seconded by Tom Winter.  Motion passed. 

Mr. Mason advised the Board that he would be out of state next week when they plan to open the cost proposals for the Morgantown project. Mr. Miller stated that they are on a very tight time schedule as they must have a contract for the funds by the end of the year.  The Board insisted that since Mr. Mason can not  be present that either Bob Krause or Donna Lipscomb be present for the opening of the cost proposals or they may not be opened.  Mr. Thrasher questioned whether he has already received the cost proposals.  Mr. Miller advised that they were in the hands of Terry Huff, the City Engineer for the City of Morgantown.  Mr. Smith advised Mr. Miller that the sealed cost proposals should remain sealed and not opened until the technical review committee members are present, especially the Department of Administration representative.  Mr. Miller advised the board that the costs proposals would not be open and remain sealed until the meeting.   

«                 Yeager Airport Parking Facility

Mr. Miller reported on the Yeager Airport parking garage project.  Mr. Miller advised the Board that they received three responses to the request for quotation on the project.  However, after scoring of the RFQ, one of the participants decided not to proceed with the proposal phase due to the fact that they scored relatively low compared to the other two.  Their RFQ was insufficient with some of the information submitted and that was the reason they were scored accordingly.  Mr. Miller stated that he talked to Mr. Strickland at MGM Construction at great length about it to try to encourage him to continue to participate but he advised it was a business decision on their part not to proceed. 

Mr. Miller advised the Board that they have two very good teams assembled that are currently putting proposals together.  They are BBL Carlton with Associated Architects and Carl Walker  with Indovina architects.  Mr. Miller requested that the Board give them the approval to proceed with the project with only two participants. 

Mr. Smith stated to the Board that this also occurred with the Morgantown project and he is not sure what to make of it because you would think there would be more interest in the project.  Mr. Smith asked Bob Krause, the Department of Administration’s representative on the project if he has participated. Mr. Krause advised that he has participated as much as he can but was unable to be present when they did the scoring. Mr. Krause stated that he was to participate in the scoring by telephone and provided the number that he was to be contacted at but they did not call him. Additionally, Mr. Krause did provide Mr. Miller with his recommended score prior to the meeting. 

Mr. Thrasher questioned Mr. Smith about his concerns with the lack of bidders.  Mr. Smith stated that this is twice in a row that this has occurred and the statute says you need a minimum of three bidders and a maximum of five bidders.  Mr. Thrasher also expressed concerns.  He indicated that they have done a lot of parking garages and does not understand the lack of interest now.  Mr. Miller could not explain the lack of interest in the project other than perhaps the other contractors are busy now.  Mr. Miller advised the Board that he advertised in all the information centers throughout the state, the Pittsburgh Building Exchange, the state engineering associations and state contractor’s association.  Mr. Thrasher questioned whether the proposal for this project was substantially different from the proposals for other garages where there was a lot of interest.  He also questioned whether there was some language that may have been a problem.  Mr. Miller stated that this proposal does not have any substantial changes from the prior proposals he has prepared.  However, there has been a change in the law and the prior garages he handled was not required to have an RFQ process. That is the only difference he is aware of that may have an impact. 

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Krause whether his scoring ended up the same as the final scores by the evaluation committee.  Mr. Krause advised that the order of the scores were the same  but they scored the last place bidder lower than he scored them.  Mr. Krause’s recommendation to Mr. Miller prior to the scoring was that they should accept all three proposals.  Although Maynard Smith did not follow the format requested, they were very well qualified.