Sunday, May 27, 2018
1900 Kanawha Boulevard,
East Charleston, WV 25305
Phone: (304) 558-4331
Fax: (304) 558-2999
Office hours:
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Design Build
Board of Director's Meeting
December 6, 2007

Members Present:       
Roy Smith, Acting Chairman
Rodney W. Clay
Tom Winter
Mary Jo Klempa
Ron Spradling
H. Wood "Woody" Thrasher
Dept. of Administration:
Donna L. Lipscomb, Executive Coordinator
Others Present:
Lloyd W. Miller, AIA - Visions Architects
Amy Clendenin, WV Association of Architects & Engineers
Mike Clowser, Contractors Association of West Virginia
Robert Krause, General Services Division
Scott Mason, General Services Division
Members Absent:       
Marc A. Monteleone, Chairman
Glendon "Bud" Sprouse

The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Smith.  A silent roll call was taken and it was determined that a quorum was present.

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.

Mr. Smith advised Mr. Miller that if the Department of Administration representative could not be available then the technical review committee should not proceed without them in scoring the proposals on this project.  Mr. Smith requested assurance from Mr. Miller that nothing would be done without the involvement and participation of the Department of Administration in every step on this project.  Mr. Smith stated that it is not in the best interest of the Board to have a meeting and call the wrong phone number and not reach the representative so you proceed without them.  This is not acceptable as it is too important for them to be involved,  particularly following the lengthy discussion over that very issue at the last Board meeting.  Mr. Miller stated that he would try to abide by that but there are a lot of people whose schedules must be compared. He can not hold up a project because of one person’s schedule. Mr. Smith stated that it is critical that they participate and he was told at the last meeting not to proceed without their participation.  The Department of Administration’s representatives must be involved or the project can not move forward.  It is not fair to the Board, the State or to the contractors. Mr. Miller stated that this may not be in the best interest of the owner.  Mr. Smith stated that the Department of Administration representative is what the Board depends upon to assure the process was fair and the law is followed. It is imperative that their representative be present. Mr. Miller assured the Board that the representative would be present.

Mr. Spradling moved to approve the Yeager Airport parking garage project proceeding to the next step with only two bidders as long as the Department of Administration representative in involved at every step.  Motion seconded by Mary Jo Klempa. Motion passed. 

New Business:                  

«    Ms. Lipscomb advised the Board that she has received complaints that Design-Build projects are proceeding without first being approved by the Board. Each time she receives a complaint she follows up on them.  Just this month she received two complaints.  One of the projects was a federal design-build project and not a State project.  The other one was a State project but the entity was unaware of the existence of the Design-Build Procurement Act.  Since  being advised of the law, they decided not to proceed with the Design-Build method of construction.  In light of this, Secretary Ferguson would like to send out a letter to all Mayors and County Commissioners to make them aware of the existence of the Act and to encourage them to utilize the process.  The Board reviewed the letter drafted by Ms. Lipscomb on behalf of Secretary Ferguson and approved it being mailed out.

«     Ms. Lipscomb also advised the Board that since the last meeting she has been working on getting an internet site established for the Board.  She distributed the material to be included on the web site and gave an example of how it would appear.  Ms. Lipscomb indicated that individuals would be able to pull up forms and print them out as well as print out the Statute and legislative rules.  Ms. Lipscomb questioned the Board members as to whether they wanted their phone numbers and e-mail address included or would prefer not to have contact information on the internet.  The Board voted to include their contact information.

Old Business:

 «   There was not old business to come before the Board. 

Other Business: 

«   There was not other business to come before the Board.


There being no other business to come before the Board and the meeting was adjourned.