MINUTES

June 26, 2008

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

Mr. Smith moved for the approval of the May 20, 2008, minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. Spradling. All voted in favor and the minutes were approved.

Mr. Rossi Wiles, representative of West Virginia University, appeared before the board regarding the intermodal transportation and parking facility project. Mr. Wiles advised that the Technical Review Committee met and scored the proposals received request authority to proceed with the opening of the cost proposals on the project.

Chairman Monteleone asked the Department of Administrations’s representative on the Technical Review Committee, Scott Mason, if the process was followed correctly. Mr. Mason stated that they received five proposals that were placed on the short list. One of the proposals was bizarre and the university felt they were just trying to get the stipend money. One of the proposals was thrown out by the Technical Review Committee because the cost was contained in the technical portion. Mr. Mason advised the board that there was clearly two proposals that were at the top. Mr. Mason stated that he reviewed the proposals and had some pointed questions that were answered to his satisfaction. Mr. Mason advised the board that he is comfortable with the process and the scoring results and the law was followed during the process.

Mr. Wiles advised the board that the proposal which was thrown out was by Carl Walker Construction and they have a representative present at the meeting today. Mr. Wiles requested the board’s approval of the Technical Review Committee’s decision to disqualify the proposal. Mr. Wiles explained that in section 4 of the qualitative schedule it shows the invoicing schedule and they give a $14 million figure. The university does not know if this is the actual costs, but the university told them absolutely not to have the costs or any dollar amounts anywhere. The committee felt that the costs could influence the Technical Review Committee’s scoring and that is why it was thrown out.

Mr. Chris McElhanley with Carl Walker Construction addressed the board to see if there was any recourse they could take. He explained that a new employee inadvertently put figures in the invoicing schedule. Chairman Monteleone advised that it is a violation of the law for the costs to be in the same envelope with the technical information.

Roy Smith stated that Carl Walker Construction is very qualified but the Technical Review Committee disqualified their response. Mr. Smith moved for approval of the actions taken by the Technical Review Committee in eliminating the proposal. Motion seconded by Mr. Spradling. All voted in favor and the motion passed. Mr. McElhanley stated that the error was a minor oversight on their part but a major oversight for the board. He further stated that the schedule contained in their response in no way represents their costs but they have no excuse. Mr. Smith hopes that Carl Walker Construction understands what the board is doing and they must uphold the law. Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. McElhanley that the board can not change the Statute. Mr. McElhanley advised the board that he understood.

Mr. Wiles questioned the board as to whether WVU had the authority to proceed with the opening of the costs on Monday. The board advised they could proceed with the project as the board approved the Technical Review Committee’s actions.

Berkeley County Fire Service Board Fire Station Project:

Donna Cross and Barry Rude appeared before the board to present the application of the Berkeley County Fire Service Board. Ms. Cross is the Office Manager and Mr. Rude is their Architect. Ms. Cross went through their application and addressed each area. She stated that the existing fire station is over 50 years old and has exceeded its useful life. They need appropriate facilities to house their equipment and firefighters. At the present time they have steel beams in the basement ceiling just to keep it from collapsing.

Ms. Cross advised the board that the project requires close coordination of design and construction expertise because fire stations have very special requirements for site work for architectural, electrical, mechanical, plumbing and communication. She also advised that early cost containment is necessary because it is a public project which is funded partly by fire fees collected and up front monies that are borrowed. Ms. Cross stated that at the present time they have spent over $200,000 in collected fire fees to complete the ground work at the site. They have also been approved for a $1.5 million loan to finish the project.

The project can be completed more quickly by the design-build method of construction. The contract award date would be July 23, 2008. The design-start date would be August of 2008 with construction completion in October of 2008.

Ms. Cross advised the board that the current structure is unsound and not appropriate for housing their large fire trucks. Chairman Monteleone questioned whether there were any photographs or designs available for review by the board. Ms. Lipscomb advised that the Berkeley County Fire Service Board was unaware of the need to get approval of the Design-Build Board in order to do a design-build project. They provided Ms. Lipscomb with the RFP that was sent out prior to learning about the Design-Build Procurement Act. Ms. Lipscomb has the original available for review but did not make individual copies due to the large size of the document. Ms. Lipscomb also advised the board that if this project gets approved, Bob Krause will be assigned as the Department of Administration’s representative on the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Krause was provided a copy of the RFP and has reviewed it. Chairman Monteleone questioned Mr. Krause regarding his review of the RFP. Mr. Krause stated that in it’s present form, the proposal does not follow the design-build rules. However, there is a lot of good information in the proposal and Mr. Krause believes the project is appropriate for a design-build project. Mr. Krause stated that there is a fair amount of architectural requirements that would be applicable for a good design-build project.

Mr. Barry Rude advised the board that he is new to this type project and questioned whether there was a standard format he could be provided. Mr. Krause stated there is not a standard format or core form document available. Ms. Lipscomb advised Mr. Rude that Mr. Krause has been assigned to his project and can assist them through the project and help develop the proposal. Chairman Monteleone questioned what in the proposal does not apply to a design-build project. Mr. Krause advised that they do not have the technical information separate from the pricing. They would also need to increase their requirements from what they want to see on the technical side in order to compare "apples to apples". Mr. Rude expressed concern that there would not be a budget provided in the proposal because there could be a wide range of quality and costs. Mr. Krause indicated that this was a concern of his based upon the documents he reviewed because there needs to be up front specifications in order to have a range of materials. He further advised that the technical documents must specify what they are looking for and establish a level of quality. Mr. Krause advised that they need improved requirements in order to do correct technical scoring. After the technical scoring is complete then they would open the costs.

Mr. Monteleone advised Mr. Rude that he needs to review the design-build laws to assure he is following the process correctly. Mr. Rude questioned whether the seven items shown under letter G in his RFP are correct. Mr. Krause stated that his RFP does not reflect the over all process. Additionally, the first item is incorrect because you do not open the costs until after the technical scoring is complete. The Chairman advised that they must score the teams on the technical merits without knowing the cost so the costs will not influence their scoring. The cost scoring is just a formula they add in at the end to the technical scores.

Roy Smith stated that he is not sure the information in their application meets the criteria to be a design-build project. The one section of the application that causes Mr. Smith the most concern is the time line. They basically say they have no idea what time would be saved by using the design-build method of construction. Chairman Monteleone advised Ms. Cross that their application is not completed properly. Specifically, they do not provide the comparison dates of why the time frame for design-build is critical. The Chairman stated that they need more information under each section as to why their project meets each criterial for design-build. He indicated that there appears to be a need to get it completed quicker because of the safety issue but his is not stated in the application. He also requested more specific information included as to whey there is a need for more close coordination.

Chairman Monteleone advised Ms. Cross and Mr. Rude that they needed to resubmit their application to the board at the next meeting or the board would be required to reject it today. The board will be meeting within the next couple weeks to approve costs on another project and their new application can be considered at that time. They agreed to resubmit their application at the next meeting. Ms. Lipscomb suggested they contact Bob Krause to assist them in the application. Mr. Krause can also assist in the preparation of the proposal once the project is approved by the board. Mr. Krause’s phone number was provided.　

Town of Fayetteville Skate Park Project:

Dan Shorts, Engineer for the Town of Fayetteville, advised the board that they received four technical proposals for the skate park project. The Technical Review Committee met and scored the proposals. The scoring results were distributed to the board members for review.

Chairman Monteleone requested Mr. Krause advise the board of the process and whether the rules were followed. Mr. Krause stated that the process was followed and he had no problems with the scoring mechanism. The costs have remained sealed and are locked in the town’s vault.

Roy Smith moved to approve the technical scoring of the project and allow them to proceed with the opening of the cost proposals. Motion seconded by Bud Sprouse. All members voted in favor of the motion and the motion passed.

Ms. Lipscomb updated the board on the status of the City of Charleston’s home rule request to be exempted from the Design-Build Procurement Act. Ms. Lipscomb also advised the board that the web site is now on line and an official site. She has referred several individuals to the web site who may be interested in doing projects. If the board wants any revisions, Ms. Lipscomb requested they let her know.

Ms. Lipscomb directed the board’s attention to the monthly report received on the Yeager Airport parking garage project. She pointed out that they did not start construction on time and wanted the board to be aware of this so they could take action if they felt necessary. Mr. Krause advised that although the construction did not start on time they have now started construction on the project. Chairman Monteleone stated the board would give them another month and then check the status of the project.

Ms. Lipscomb updated the board on the action taken on the proposed design-build project to build a bridge in Barboursville. She advised that she polled the board members to see if they felt the bridge project was appropriate for design-build, none of the members were of the opinion that it could be done through the design-build procurement act. Therefore, she advised the Mayor of Barboursville that the city would be in violation of the law if they proceeded with the project through the design-build method of construction.

Ms. Lipscomb also advised the board that she received an inquiry from the City of Bluefield about doing locker room renovations through the design-build method of construction. They only wanted to do the sewer work portion of the project through design-build. Ms. Lipscomb consulted with the Chairman and then advised the City of Bluefield that this would not meet the criteria of the Design-Build Procurement Act.

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