MINUTES

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

Mary Joe Klempa moved for the approval of minutes of the September 1, 2011, meeting. Motion seconded by Ron Spradling. All voted in favor and the motion passed and the minutes were approved.

Lloyd Miller advised that the Grant County Development Authority received the proposals for both the qualitative and costs regarding the broadband project. The qualitative proposals were evaluated and scored last Friday. Ms. Lipscomb provided the results of the scoring to the members earlier this week and they are also contained in the meeting packets today.

Mr. Miller stated that originally they had five proposers lined up but one of them backed out. Harbell Corporation sent a letter stating they did not have enough time to put a proposal together. Mr. Miller advised that the remaining four proposers were evaluated and all scored above seventy. Mr. Miller asked for approval to proceed with the opening of the cost proposals.

Ed Fisher advised that the Grant County Commissioners have decided that a 911 command center needs to be incorporated into the design-build project in order to capitalize on the economies of scale. Mr. Fisher wants to explore what options are available to them in order to move forward with the design-build process with the current bidders. Some of the options they want to put before the board is a change order to include the 911 center or reissue the RFP to include it. Mr. Fisher requested to board to allow them to postpone the opening of the cost proposals so they can change the specifications to include what they need.

Ron Spradling questioned whether they have done any cost analysis to determine how much that would increase the cost. Mr. Fisher stated that the construction is $300.00 per square foot. They are looking at about $270,000. The project is roughly a $3 million dollar project so the additional cost would be slightly less than 10%. Mr. Fisher advised that they received an additional half million dollars in budget allocations for the 911 center from the 911 fees. This will allow them to increase their budget to $3.5 million dollars.

Chairman Monteleone questioned what this does to the scope of the project. He indicated that when they came to the board they were in a big hurry to get the project done. There has already been two delays and now asking for another one. Mr. Fisher stated that they estimate that this would be about an eight week delay to the project. They still anticipate that the project would be complete in June and they previously were predicting a May completion. Chairman Monteleone stated that this makes the assumption that the three bidders will respond.

Chairman Monteleone questioned how much time they would give the bidders to respond to revised RFP. They plan to give them four weeks as they don’t think it would take them long to "tweak" their responses to include the 911 center. Chairman Monteleone asked how long it would take them to get their new RFP done. Mr. Miller advised he could get it done in two weeks.

Rod Clay questioned whether they planned to open up the new RFP to the fifth bidder who pulled out because they didn’t have time to respond. Mr. Miller stated they would not open it up to the fifth bidder. They plan to keep it to the four bidders who originally submitted proposals. Mr. Clay indicated that with an additional six weeks they may have time to respond this time. Mr. Miller only wants to allow the original four because if they open it up to the fifth bidder they will have to start all over again. Mr. Clay stated that the fact that they had to submit in September is irrelevant now as it will be a new RFP. Mr. Miller indicated it is still relevant as it is still the building they want except they want to add another 1,000 square feet to it.

Chairman Monteleone stated that the project is starting over. Mr. Miller stated that they would like to continue with the project and open up the cost scores and award the contract. Then during the process of final design they tell them they need the 911 center and work with the winner by a change order. The other option is to reissue the RFP with modified criteria and have the responding design-builders propose to the revised criteria. They would throw out the qualitative scores and start over at the RFP phase.

Michael Evans stated that they are going under the assumption that the same teams would bid again and they have already gone through this process twice. The third time may not be a charm. The other option assumes that the change order would come in less than 10%. Chairman Monteleone stated that they can not award and then do a change order under the Design-Build Procurement Act. You can not materially change a project. They have a whole new project now and will have to start over and open the RFP up to everyone. Roy Smith stated that they can not start the project over in the middle of the process. He stated that they approved the project in September of last year. One of the major requirements of the "Act" is a need for speed and now we are a year later. How can they meet that requirement of the Act? Mr. Smith stated that they do not have the authority to waive a requirement. The purpose of the Act is to keep people from doing an end-run around the public bidding laws. This committee is intrusted with making sure that all the requirements of the Act are complied with. Changing this whole project is problematic.

Chairman Monteleone advised that this is now a new project as the project that the board approved they no longer want to do. Mr. Fisher asked if they would be required to do a traditional design-bid build project. Mr. Miller requested the opportunity to talk with his client for a few moments. Went off the record.

Mr. Miller and Mr. Fisher returned to the room and the meeting resumed. Mr. Miller advised that what they would like to do is continue the data center and award the contract and then work with the winner to incorporate less than 10% increase in budget and get as much of the things as they need as possible. They could then add additional things later through other procurement procedures. Mr. Clay stated that they must start over and open the bidding up to all bidders as this is not the same project. Mr. Miller stated that they want to keep the project going and not start from scratch.

Roy Smith stated that the flexibility of changes is always interpretive but it is not to change designs, components and things. This is a different project. Mr. Miller and Mr. Fisher gave reasons why they do not believe it is a different project. Chairman Monteleone read the Act wherein it stated that negotiations between the apparent successful bidder and the agency, prior to award of the contract, may not result in a contract amount that would change the outcome of the original bid. Adding an additional $300,000 is running that risk. Mr. Miller stated that he could not predict that.

Ron Spradling stated that they had five that answered the request for qualifications. Being on the contractor side he would feel that since there is a significant change he should be included and be able to bid. There are a lot of different factors now and all five should be allowed to bid. Ms. Lipscomb stated that if they are starting a new project they would be required to allow everybody who is interested be allowed to bid. Chairman Monteleone advised that if this is a new project they have to put out a whole new request for qualifications. There is no other way to do proceed within the Act. You can not try to squeeze the change within the 10%.

Chairman Monteleone advised that the board only has the authority to approve a project and monitor it until completion or terminate a project. They can not change a project. He asked Mr. Miller which one they wanted to do. Mr. Miller asked if they would be required to reapply. Mr. Fisher stated that if the board would reapprove them for a new project today it would allow them to start immediately. Chairman Monteleone told them they would need to complete a new application and give the board a new schedule for consideration. Another brief recess was taken while they completed the new application and timeline.

Ms. Lipscomb suggested that the board make a motion on the old project prior to considering the new project. Mr. Miller stated that they wanted to proceed with the fiber optic portion of the project and just start the building portion over. Ms. Lipscomb advised that the project was never split into two projects and the board did not have the ability for one portion to proceed without the other as it was a change in scope of the original project. Ms. Lipscomb indicated that when they asked for the ability to bid the fiber optic under a different package they wanted to keep it as one project because they needed the close coordination that is required under the Act. Chairman Monteleone stated that under the Act they did not have the authority to do what they want to do. They must start over with both portions as new projects.

There was a discussion as to whether they should reapply with both projects or do the projects through the design-bid-build method. Michael Evans can’t see approving this process all over again and separating the projects. Chairman Monteleone indicated that the projects have to go together and can’t be separated as they require a close coordination under the Act. Mr. Fisher stated that they want to keep on track with their fiber optic project so they can work through the winter. He stated they were not changing the scope. The board disagreed. Roy Smith moved to revoke the previous approval of this project. Motion seconded by Rod Clay. Mr. Smith suggested that Mr. Fisher go back to the Grant County Commission and let them decide if they want to start over with design-build or move forward as a design-bid-build project.

There was no other business to come before the board.