MINUTES

May 20, 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 January 31, 2008, minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. Spradling. All voted in favor and the minutes were approved.

Dan Shorts, Engineer for the Town of Fayetteville, advised the board that they made an error and due to a lack of communication between Bill Lanham and himself, they completely left Bob Krause out of the process. The town did receive two good proposals that are within the town’s budget and they seek authority to go forward with the project. He advised that they have not yet scored the proposals.

Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. Shorts that the law requires the board to approve not less than three proposals on a project. The Board could consider allowing a project to go forward with two but in the past they have had problems with this because if there is a problem with one then there would only be one left.

Mr. Smith questioned why they only received two proposals. Mr. Shorts indicated that there are only a few skate park contractors. Another problem is that they are not licensed in West Virginia. There was initially six interested but they combined together. Ms. Lipscomb advised the board that both of the proposals contained the costs in the same envelope with the technical information. Mr. Krause stated that he reviewed the project and none of the rules have been followed.

Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. Shorts that it is the board’s job to make sure the Statute is followed and the Design-Build Procurement Act is carried out to the full intent. The Chairman stated that obviously the Town of Fayetteville has not carried out the Act. The board does not have the ability to allow them to proceed outside the Act. The Chairman stated that he does not believe the board can allow them to proceed. The other board members present agreed. However, Chairman Monteleone advised that they could re-request the project to be approved for design-build or they could construct the skate park through another method of construction.

Mr. Krause questioned whether this is a valid design-build project since it is not a habitat. Mr. Smith stated that parking buildings are not for human habitat. Chairman Monteleone reviewed the code and rules and stated that it is not addressed in the law. Mr. Krause stated that a skate park does not fall under the classification of an architect or engineer. Mr. Mason indicated that the board has already set a precedent as the Wheeling skate park project was approved as a design-build project.

Mr. Smith stated that if this is not a design-build project then they must follow the traditional process. Mr. Smith further stated that it is up to the Town of Fayetteville to decide if they want the design-build method or traditional method of construction. Mr. Smith advised the board that they have already decided that a skate park fits as a design-build project.

Mr. Lanham advised the board that the Town of Fayetteville does want to continue as a design-build project and reissue the Request for Proposal. Mr. Clay advised Mr. Lanham that if he wants to continue as a design-build project it must be under the board’s control. He also stated that the board must classify this park as a building under the definition.

Mr. Smith made a motion to not approve the Town of Fayetteville project in the current status. Motion seconded by Mr. Clay. All voted in favor and the motion passed. Mr. Smith made a motion to certify that the Town of Fayetteville Skate Project is a design-build project and that the Town of Fayetteville be allowed to start over. Motion seconded by Mr. Clay. All voted in favor and the motion passed.

Mr. Winter questioned Mr. Lanham as to whether lack of funding is a problem. Mr. Lanham stated that funding was not a problem. Chairman Monteleone pointed Mr. Winter’s attention to a bank statement with an amount circled. Mr. Lanham advised the board that the town has received more funds since that statement went out and they will meet their goal of $200,000. Mr. Lanham stated that Delegate Perry is getting the project grant funding and the developer is giving $49,000.

Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. Lanham that since the skate project is now starting over they will need time to rewrite their request for proposal. Chairman Monteleone asked what time line they wanted now. Chairman Monteleone questioned Mr. Lanham to assure he understood the requirements of the Statute. The Chairman advised Mr. Lanham that he needed to have the Department of Administration’s representative involved in the process so he could show them how to do the project correctly.

Mr. Smith moved to allow the Town of Fayetteville proceed as a design-build project but must start over. Motion seconded by Mr. Clay. All voted in favor and the motion passed.

Chairman Monteleone strongly cautioned Mr. Lanham that they have more than two proposals or the board may not approve it. He also advised Mr. Lanham that they need to follow the law and if the proposals contain the technical and cost in the same envelope then they would be in violation. The Chairman also advised Mr. Lanham that he needed to provide a new application and a new schedule. Mr. Lanham agreed to get that to the board.

West Virginia University Intermodal Transportation and Parking Facility Project

Lloyd Miller gave the board an update on the West Virginia University transportation and parking facility project. He stated that a pre-proposal meeting was held on March 5 and the proposals were received on March 14, 2008. The Technical Review Committee met on March 19 and scored the proposals. The results of the scoring are included in the meeting packets.

Mr. Miller advised that they received eight proposals and short listed five of them. West Virginia University would like the board’s approval to move forward with the five proposals. Mr. Smith questioned why March Westin is on the list twice. Mr. Miller indicated that they submitted two proposals. Mr. Mason advised the board that he told West Virginia University that March Westin has an A team and a B team and the Technical Review Committee only wants to see their A team.

Chairman Monteleone questioned Mr. Mason as to whether West Virginia University followed the process correctly. Mr. Mason advised that they absolutely followed the letter of the law.

Mr. Spradling moved to approve the process and allow the project to proceed. Motion seconded by Mr. Smith. All voted in favor and the motion passed. Mr. Miller advised the board that the project was two weeks behind but otherwise moving forward with no problems.

Ms. Lipscomb advised the board members that she drafted a "Criteria Developer Selection Form" as instructed by the board. The proposed form was in the packet for review and approval. The members reviewed the draft form and went through the sections of the form. The board requested that additional lines be added on page two of the form and that a box be added to the form which asks for the current West Virginia license number and requests a seal be attached. Ms. Lipscomb agreed to make the requested modifications.

Old Business:

Ms. Lipscomb provided the board members with a draft of the content of materials and information to be on the Design-Build Board’s website. Ms. Lipscomb pulled up the website and walked the board through each section. The members requested that the contact information for them be removed from the website so that all inquiries would come to them through Ms. Lipscomb. The members requested the opportunity to review the content more closely and then get any suggested revisions to Ms. Lipscomb via e-mail. Ms. Lipscomb advised the board that she would let them know once all requested revisions were made and the website was live.

Ms. Lipscomb advised the board that legislation passed last year regarding home rule for municipalities. The cities are now submitting applications to the Municipal Home Rule Board. The City of Charleston submitted an application and one of the things the city requested was that they be exempt from the Design-Build Procurement Act. The Municipal Home Rule Board is meeting on Tuesday at City Hall. Ms. Lipscomb stated that their board asked the Department of Administration to appear at the meeting. Ms. Lipscomb questioned the members as to what they would like the Department of Administration to relay to the Municipal Home Rule Board on behalf of the Design-Build Board. She questioned whether the members opposed the City of Charleston’s request to be exempt or whether they had an opinion.

Chairman Monteleone stated that one concern he has expressed is that most cities and counties are not equipped to do this on their own. They are the ones who have the most questions about the process. He further stated that cities and counties have very little expertise in construction. The Chairman stated it may be troublesome in that once you start doing it for some cities he is not sure where you draw the line as to who qualifies.

Mr. Clay stated that it is his understanding that the City of Charleston is opting out of the Design-Build Procurement Act. Mr. Clay further stated that he does not know whether this is an issue that the Board should take a position on. Chairman Monteleone advised that when this Act was established there was a lot of concern about protecting the public trust. There were concerns about establishing the Act because the design-bid-build method was working fine. There were a lot of federal projects being done by design-build and there was a lot of concentrated effort by the architects, engineers, contractors and trade unions for a couple years to establish the Act. It went through revisions so that the Act was tightened down. The Chairman stated that before a city is allowed to opt out of the Act they should have one set of rules to follow that are clearly understood. A city should not have a number of projects going different ways. Mr. Clay stated that he has found it is easy for a city to say they are spending too much money and they can save all kinds of money by not following the bidding rules. Maybe they can but once they opt out they will be going down a slippery slope.

Ms. Lipscomb advised the board members that the meeting is next Tuesday and the members are welcome to attend and discuss their concerns. Mr. Smith expressed concern about where this goes. He does not know the process they must follow. Ms. Lipscomb advised that cities apply to the Municipal Home Rule Board and provide a list of things they were seeking from the board. The City of Charleston’s application and list is contained in the members’ packets. Ms. Lipscomb advised that the home rule board would allow approximately five cities to do home rule as a pilot. The meeting next week is to review the City of Charleston’s application.

The board members decided not to take a formal opinion as a board.

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