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.



Board of Directors Meeting
July 23, 2003

Members Present:    Marc A. Monteleone, Chairman
                                    Roy Smith 
                                    Tom Winter
                                    Rodney Clay
                                    Ronald Spradling
                                    Mary Jo Thompson [via telephone]

Department of
Administration:          Donna Lipscomb, Executive Coordinator
                                    Jim Burgess, Deputy Director of General Services

Others Present:        Don Godbey, Department of Motor Vehicles
                                   Glenn Pauley,Department of Motor Vehicles
                                   Robin Sloan, Department of General Services
                                   Floyd Clingenpeal, CMA Engineering
                                   Keith McClanahan, BBL Carlton
                                   Jim Cerra, KVBA
                                   Aric Margolis, Associated Architects

Members Absent:    Tom Susman
                                   Glendon Sprouse
                                    H. Wood Thrasher


The meeting was called to order by Chairman Monteleone. Mary Jo Thompson present via telephone conference. It was determined that a quorum was present.

Approval of Minutes:

A motion was made by Roy Smith to approve the minutes of the May 16, 2002, meeting and seconded by Rodney Clay. There was no discussion relative to the minutes and they were approved by an unanimous vote.

Old Business:

An outline of all Design-Build Project was presented by Donna Lipscomb and reviewed by the committee. The outline showed every project and their status. Chairman Monteleone stated that there were three projects on the list that did not get their funding and a letter would be sent to each of these stating that the approval that was given was based upon certain circumstances and since the circumstances have changed they will be required to come back to the board and get approval again. The committee reviewed the project outline.

There was a brief discussion regarding to the Huntington Project, although it was slow getting started it was built within 16 months and it is agreed that it was a great project. The delay in starting the project was due to environmental rules that was out of everyone=s control.

New Business:

i Jim Burgess with the Department of Administration presented a project on behalf of the WV Department of Highways. He stated that it would be a Department of Motor Vehicles satellite building in Summersville with approximately 6,000 to 7,000 square feet. It is a relatively small building and is very simple. They are suggesting a metal type building with a brick facade on the front. The walls inside would be dry wall with a concrete slab. He estimates a three to four month construction time. The property is relatively flat and they feel this would be a perfect building for Design-Build. The building company would not be the contractor. They believe that Design-Build would be the quickest way to get the project done.

The land is owned by the Department of Highways and would be transferred to the Department of Administration. The property is 1.8 acres. There was questions as to who would be the contractor. Jim Burgess stated that it would be put out to bid. Donna Lipscomb stated that she has been informed by Frank Drobot, the Department of Administration Architect, that he has began work on the RFP with geotechnical and mapping work to be bid in early July.

The property is located at Northside Plaza. It is adjacent to the Work for WV Center and the DMV temporary offices in Summersville. The budget for the project is $90.00 to $95.00 per square foot. Mr. Burgess stated that it would be a waste and much more expensive to hire an architect on this project since it is so simple.

There was questions about the supplier of the metal building. Mr. Burgess stated that there was several building suppliers and he would be involved to assure that they got the best one.

They have 7 current employees and anticipate hiring 6 new employees to work at the facility. Ms. Thompson asked if this would be available for all contractors to bid on throughout the state. Mr. Burgess stated that it would be put out to bid to everyone. Mr. Burgess stated that he would be involved in the RFP process to specify the gage of metal he wants and that typ of thing but the contractor would oversee the construction of the building. Mr. Burgess will not tell the contractor what particular company to use.

Roy Smith asked Mr. Burgess if he had read the Design-Build statute and rules as he is not sure how the process he described fits into Design-Build. Mr. Burgess felt that it fit in because it would be quicker and less expensive without hiring an architect.

Chairman Monteleone stated that there are three things you must prove to this board in order to be approved for the Design-Build method. One is the close coordination between the designers and contractors. Another is time line and you must prove that the project must go faster than a normal project. The third thing is that you must show a significant cost savings for one method versus the other. Chairman Monteleone believes that he is describing the cost saving part but what he is really saying is that the architectural and design fees on the project would be lower under this process versus the other process. He does not believe that the other two areas have been explained so that it meets the criteria.

Mr. Burgess stated that the time line would be quicker due to the fact that you skip a step without having to hire an architect. The design on this is so simple that a lot of the contractors would want to do this in-house.

Chairman Monteleone went over the rules and statue with Mr. Burgess. Mr. Godby of the Department of Motor Vehicles stated that when they do a project it is usually a 6 to 7 month window once you solicit a bid to the contractor. With Design-Build this time line would be reduced to 3 to 4 months. Chairman Monteleone asked if there was any reason why they could not wait the 6 to 7 months and they need to have it done sooner. Mr. Godby stated that from the agency standpoint this project was started years ago but due to certain circumstances it has been put on the back burner. The Commissioner would like to get this project done as soon as possible. The person who is going to be the manager at this facility has been working out of town and they want to get him back home as soon as they can.

Additionally, the building of this building will complete their regional plan concept

Roy Smith asked what the source of funding would be on the project and is it currently available. Mr. Godby stated that the funding was approved in the budget several years ago for them to lease the building from the Department of Administration. Mr. Burgess stated that when the property was transferred the Department of Administration would do a bond deal to fund it. It is estimated that the project would cost approximately $650,000.

Mr. Winter asked questions about thMr. Godby stated that this facility would be used as a full service motor vehicle office which would also be a regional office. This building would be part of their master plan. They want to be within an hours drive of any Department of Motor Vehicles office so the public would have easy access to get their license, etc taken care of.

Mr. Monteleone asked who would be the performance criteria developer on the project. It is assumed that Frank Drobot would serve in that capacity.

Roy Smith stated that they need to take the rules and statue with them and come back at a later date after they have the appropriate information. He believes that this project is premature as they do not have the scope of the project in writing and the information they provided does not meet the criteria. Mr. Smith stated that with the information provided he does not have the ability to weigh out what it is they are proposing and how it is going to flow. Mr. Burgess stated that he is unprepared to give them the required information and has no problem with coming back to the board at the next meeting.

Chairman Monteleone moved to table the project and the motion was seconded by Rodney Clay. Motion approved.

i There was a discussion regarding the Legislative Audit. A copy of the audit is included in the package. The Legislature recommended that the Board be continued and that the board members be allowed to be paid for their expenses. Donna Lipscomb described the process of the audit and the presentation of their report at the interim meetings. Chairman Monteleone stated that during the meetings it was pointed out that the board has no policing authority and this has been a concern of the Board. He also stated that the board has tried to get updates on projects to assure they are doing what they are suppose to. Chairman Monteleone did convey to the audit group, although it did not get into their findings, that this lack of power or authority to look at projects after approved is a concern. No recommendations were made in the audit in regard to that issue. Chairman stated that if a project does not meet the criteria then the board turns them down. If they approve the project and it does not go according to plan then the board does not know.

There was a discussion among the board regarding the projects that were approved but did not go forward. A motion was made by Roy Smith to send letters to those

projects withdrawing their authority. Motion was seconded by Tom Winter. Motion passed.

i There was an open discussion regarding the Design-Build Procurement Act among the board members and the individuals present.

Floyd Clingenpeal stated that the Architects, Engineers and Contractor=s committee which helped draft the legislation originally has reconvened and are taking a look at the legislation. They are in support of continuing Design-Build but are revisiting some adjustments that they feel may need made. They have only had one meeting at this time. He stated that their group wants to have an open dialog. Chairman Monteleone offered to be available at any time to meet with them. If they are going to look at rule modifications then Donna Lipscomb should be included in those meetings as well.

Mr. McClanahan stated that they have been very successful with the Design-Build process. He stated that they did the Huntington Office building, the Marshall University building and are doing the Department of Environmental Protection building in Charleston. From a contractor=s point of view they are very very pleased with the process. He also stated that from the Contractor=s stand point they like the process and it has huge benefits to the taxpayers.

Ron Spradling asked questions about the time line and how critical this was for the project. Mr. McClanahan stated that absolutely the time line was a very critical part of Design-Build.

Eric Margolis stated that he agrees that Design-Build is a good process and states that when you work as a team you work out all the nuances. He fears that this may be a way for some people to go around the system. Chairman Monteleone stated that their fear that everyone would use this system and get around the system is not the case. He stated that they have only looked at approximately 15 projects over the past three years and they have turned some of them away because they did not meet the criteria. If the board does not sunset and the Design-Build Procurement Act continues they need to do a better job on the State=s side to get the word out to people. He does not believe that people understand the process. He stated that the State needed to send out letters about the system and how it can help deliver a better project.

It was stated by an individual in attendance that Design-Build is a wonderful thing and he is glad that the State got on the cutting edge of Design-Build. This process helps as you do not want to get something fully designed and then find out you do not have the funding. The process works. It helps not only the State but also the private sector.

Jim Cerra stated that he supported the Act whole heartedly as it works. He has been in the industry for 25 years and this process is very cost effective and they support it 100%.

Chairman Monteleone stated that the concept that Design-Build only works on simple projects is not true. It works on very complicated projects also. He also stated that their board would love to participate in the committee that has been put together to improve this Act. He agrees that they need to Afine tune@ the system.

Roy Smith stated that the public bidding process is very cumbersome. He also stated that he does not like what happened on the Parkersburg project and we do need to be able to police the projects. He would like to see legislation driven by the committee to fix that problem.

An individual in the audience stated that a survey was sent out by the Contractor=s Association on behalf of Architects, Engineers, and Contractors as to what people thought about Design-Build. There are still some contractors who do not like it at all and would like it to sunset but them as a committee do not agree with that. Their committee supports Design-Build. The Architects, Engineers and Contractors would like to take the lead on legislative changes.

There was a discuss about the Parkersburg Project and it is the perception that the project was the biggest problem and the Agood old boys@ played into it. Bids were opened that should not have been opened and their were people coached on how to improve their bid. There were discussions with everyone and everyone agrees that this should not have happened. They want to make changes that will prevent this from happening again. The protest process was discussed.

Chairman Monteleone agrees with their concerns but the board does not have the authority to do anything about it. He would like to see some authority to police the projects. Roy Smith stated that the methodology for the process might be better for a project to come back to the board for final certification. These issues will need to be addressed.

The board again expressed their interest in being involved in the meetings to address legislative changes.


There was also discussion about having quarterly meetings even if they have no projects to be approved. This was agreed that the board would try to meet on a quarterly basis.

Other Business:

There was no other business to come before the board.

Roy Smtih made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Chairman Monteleone. All voted in favor and there being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned.