04/15/1982 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY OOUNCIL MEETING
KAGAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL- 15, 1982.
6:45 P.M.
AGENDA
I. Discussion of Architects..' Proposals
II. Other'
.III. Attend Dikota.County HRA Ptoposa•1.,Meeting
at Apple Valley.City Hal'1.
♦ .h
MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN OSBERG
DATE: APRIL 14, 1982
SUBJECT: CITY HALL ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSALS
I have completed the analysis of the nine architect firms' cost
proposals for the new city hall. Much of the necessary information
is outlined in the three attached tables.
The first table is simply a list of the architect firms' cost pro-
posals as read at the April 9, 1982 bid opening. The second table
is a more complete analysis of the actual cost proposals presented
by the nine architect firms. Each of the architect firms' cost
proposals for phase I and II, plans A and B, and the total costs
for both city hall plans are outlined in this table. The phase
II costs were based on the estimated construction costs of $400,000
for plan A and $747,600 for plan B. Because of the various ways
each architect firm presented their cost proposals, some of the
costs for phase II were based on a percentage of total construction
costs, others were a lump sum and the remainder were based on per-
sonnel expenses incurred by the architect firm. Each of the archi-
tect firms'scost proposals were interpreted to arrive at one number
for each plan. The last two columns indicate the maximum amount
the City would pay for each architect firm's services, assuming
the bond referendum passes. The total cost for plans A and B are
included.
Table three is a ranking system of each of the architect firm's
cost proposals as outlined in table two. The nine architect firms
presented five different cost proposals:
1. Phase I
2. Phase II, Plan A
3. Phase II, Plan B
4. Plan A, Total Cost
5. Plan B, Total Cost
I have taken each architect firm's proposal for the various cost
categories and ranked them from one to nine, from lowest to highest.
An architect firm received nine points if its proposal in the cost
category was the lowest, eight points if it was second lowest,
down to one point if its proposal was the highest in the cost cate-
gory. Once I completed the rankings for each of the five cost
categories, I then completed the scores to get a cumulative ranking
of the architect firms. While this is a rather simplistic ranking
system, I do feel that it provides a better understanding of the
architect firms cost proposal package and I do think it provides
some interesting results. As you can see, Horne Architects had
the highest cumulative point total. However, I feel that the two
most important cost categories are phase I and the Plan B total,
since plan B is the one we hope to pursue, with Boarman Architects
ek- #,.
City Hall Architectural Proposals
April 14, 1982
Page Two
and T.K.D.A. having the highest ranking in the respective cate-
gories.
I feel that the tables will provide a better understanding of the
architect firms' cost proposals. Once again, if there is any addi-
tional work I can do on this or any other aspect of the city hall
project, let me know.
r
TABLE 1
BID OPENING
APRIL 9, 1982
10:00 A.M.
ARCHITECT PROPOSALS
Sealed proposals submitted by the architectural firms listed below
were opened at 10:00 a.m., April 9, 1982:
1.
Design Consortium, Inc.
$12,500
Option A @ 8.57
Option B @ 7.57
2.
Boarman Architects, Inc.
$4,000
Option A @ 97
Option B @ 87
3.
Horne Architects, Inc.
$7,750
77 less phase I
4.
T.K.D.A.
$4,500
Approximately 77
5.
Architectural Alliance
$12,000
$48,000
6.
Kilstofte & Poisson
2.5 x personnel
2.5 x personnel
expenses, not to
expenses, not to
exceed $22,000
exceed $48,000
7.
Suri Architects
2.5 x personnel
6.757
expenses, not to
exceed $7,700
8.
B.W.B.R Architects
$27,780
Phase II A @ $24,640
Phase II B @ $40,180
9.
R. Burow
2.5 x personnel
Option A @ $34,800
expenses, not to
Option B @ $58,500
exceed $9,000
I
«eras 8ss j 00e xro-
I
I FX ti!!(/,i ! kd try I OOS ' I ( Nd -GioB %S I I S�sNsdxa ;
CQo Sg l �ostr�r x I! I �71/H�b'fi
��I � II it lil
096[�a I O�/r CSS I I I CSS/ Ihlg I I I I I j l' I
O/r%ii�� p I 31/fnb6F
SON 8C
8S� i Q7C /SEB p
xylwl j I WOW i I d o 42; s-asuNd�°6sr9� I ex3
' I I ;000 I 1517�1�H��d
F9�s os g
l l l I I� I cP� �uro�Rd as•� I
GVL I � w� I ! l l sasti�dxal 15�sN9dx�
! I S�sN3d7c�' i ISS :K s; I I
i I �NA'o
s�'�I 7PNNosa��d xs �I Nnd I ! n'ossiod:
IS;
vVV 0�$ 10001
o0o Cid I I; I �Nbirry
I j tbrb�nnr.�li/�b
i i i l i
i 7
R*6,ad;
I S`9Os�ss I I oos.'�ossd ; Nosb•��v�
h S MAO
I 1i
� ; ! I I r.Ta'SdNp• .o�C i! I I I ' I i!
9086-3 000'o
O
I j 1808 SS I 00� I I I I y
N6�,
�� X
II
OCO 9s•�' I OooY,f� I ` I d-/oS2� I _I -' (S�srrHd-o/wS8)I- ; t I I I � I I
OCS�h I I o9 M00 Wn�1t�oSNo�
j I I i I I S
6!/Yerd
rKco I 1 sol j I I I ; 'g, Hdrs 9ivioril gl v�� 1so� i I ' wb,�
,L ; Yb1or 1soJ .71�5!!!/dI I II 11507.I19SdNd I I'�Sff/!p/I i if�d'rJl�91/H�6'�
6.
?9R4 -Y. 9A4.
f 9,V
J!
7, .0,9:
4!
NORNE!
, jL
IiES/b v
6.
?9R4 -Y. 9A4.
/.I I; rX4
R
�l
, jL
IiES/b v
SUR!
BOR1001
S
ARAN AU -) ne
!'
> n.
/.I I; rX4
R
�l
3.11
S
ARAN AU -) ne
7,
BMWOW.
ilii iIlIl
is
37.-T
3
33
ao.S*
SPECIAL CITY OOUNCIL MEETING
KAGAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL- 15, 1982.
6:45 P.M.
AGENDA
I. Discussion of Architects..' Proposals
II. Other'
.III. Attend Dikota.County HRA Ptoposa•1.,Meeting
at Apple Valley.City Hal'1.
♦ .h
MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN OSBERG
DATE: APRIL 14, 1982
SUBJECT: CITY HALL ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSALS
I have completed the analysis of the nine architect firms' cost
proposals for the new city hall. Much of the necessary information
is outlined in the three attached tables.
The first table is simply a list of the architect firms' cost pro-
posals as read at the April 9, 1982 bid opening. The second table
is a more complete analysis of the actual cost proposals presented
by the nine architect firms. Each of the architect firms' cost
proposals for phase I and II, plans A and B, and the total costs
for both city hall plans are outlined in this table. The phase
II costs were based on the estimated construction costs of $400,000
for plan A and $747,600 for plan B. Because of the various ways
each architect firm presented their cost proposals, some of the
costs for phase II were based on a percentage of total construction
costs, others were a lump sum and the remainder were based on per-
sonnel expenses incurred by the architect firm. Each of the archi-
tect firms'scost proposals were interpreted to arrive at one number
for each plan. The last two columns indicate the maximum amount
the City would pay for each architect firm's services, assuming
the bond referendum passes. The total cost for plans A and B are
included.
Table three is a ranking system of each of the architect firm's
cost proposals as outlined in table two. The nine architect firms
presented five different cost proposals:
1. Phase I
2. Phase II, Plan A
3. Phase II, Plan B
4. Plan A, Total Cost
5. Plan B, Total Cost
I have taken each architect firm's proposal for the various cost
categories and ranked them from one to nine, from lowest to highest.
An architect firm received nine points if its proposal in the cost
category was the lowest, eight points if it was second lowest,
down to one point if its proposal was the highest in the cost cate-
gory. Once I completed the rankings for each of the five cost
categories, I then completed the scores to get a cumulative ranking
of the architect firms. While this is a rather simplistic ranking
system, I do feel that it provides a better understanding of the
architect firms cost proposal package and I do think it provides
some interesting results. As you can see, Horne Architects had
the highest cumulative point total. However, I feel that the two
most important cost categories are phase I and the Plan B total,
since plan B is the one we hope to pursue, with Boarman Architects
ek- #,.
City Hall Architectural Proposals
April 14, 1982
Page Two
and T.K.D.A. having the highest ranking in the respective cate-
gories.
I feel that the tables will provide a better understanding of the
architect firms' cost proposals. Once again, if there is any addi-
tional work I can do on this or any other aspect of the city hall
project, let me know.
r
TABLE 1
BID OPENING
APRIL 9, 1982
10:00 A.M.
ARCHITECT PROPOSALS
Sealed proposals submitted by the architectural firms listed below
were opened at 10:00 a.m., April 9, 1982:
1.
Design Consortium, Inc.
$12,500
Option A @ 8.57
Option B @ 7.57
2.
Boarman Architects, Inc.
$4,000
Option A @ 97
Option B @ 87
3.
Horne Architects, Inc.
$7,750
77 less phase I
4.
T.K.D.A.
$4,500
Approximately 77
5.
Architectural Alliance
$12,000
$48,000
6.
Kilstofte & Poisson
2.5 x personnel
2.5 x personnel
expenses, not to
expenses, not to
exceed $22,000
exceed $48,000
7.
Suri Architects
2.5 x personnel
6.757
expenses, not to
exceed $7,700
8.
B.W.B.R Architects
$27,780
Phase II A @ $24,640
Phase II B @ $40,180
9.
R. Burow
2.5 x personnel
Option A @ $34,800
expenses, not to
Option B @ $58,500
exceed $9,000
I
«eras 8ss j 00e xro-
I
I FX ti!!(/,i ! kd try I OOS ' I ( Nd -GioB %S I I S�sNsdxa ;
CQo Sg l �ostr�r x I! I �71/H�b'fi
��I � II it lil
096[�a I O�/r CSS I I I CSS/ Ihlg I I I I I j l' I
O/r%ii�� p I 31/fnb6F
SON 8C
8S� i Q7C /SEB p
xylwl j I WOW i I d o 42; s-asuNd�°6sr9� I ex3
' I I ;000 I 1517�1�H��d
F9�s os g
l l l I I� I cP� �uro�Rd as•� I
GVL I � w� I ! l l sasti�dxal 15�sN9dx�
! I S�sN3d7c�' i ISS :K s; I I
i I �NA'o
s�'�I 7PNNosa��d xs �I Nnd I ! n'ossiod:
IS;
vVV 0�$ 10001
o0o Cid I I; I �Nbirry
I j tbrb�nnr.�li/�b
i i i l i
i 7
R*6,ad;
I S`9Os�ss I I oos.'�ossd ; Nosb•��v�
h S MAO
I 1i
� ; ! I I r.Ta'SdNp• .o�C i! I I I ' I i!
9086-3 000'o
O
I j 1808 SS I 00� I I I I y
N6�,
�� X
II
OCO 9s•�' I OooY,f� I ` I d-/oS2� I _I -' (S�srrHd-o/wS8)I- ; t I I I � I I
OCS�h I I o9 M00 Wn�1t�oSNo�
j I I i I I S
6!/Yerd
rKco I 1 sol j I I I ; 'g, Hdrs 9ivioril gl v�� 1so� i I ' wb,�
,L ; Yb1or 1soJ .71�5!!!/dI I II 11507.I19SdNd I I'�Sff/!p/I i if�d'rJl�91/H�6'�
6.
?9R4 -Y. 9A4.
f 9,V
J!
7, .0,9:
4!
NORNE!
, jL
IiES/b v
6.
?9R4 -Y. 9A4.
/.I I; rX4
R
�l
, jL
IiES/b v
SUR!
BOR1001
S
ARAN AU -) ne
!'
> n.
/.I I; rX4
R
�l
3.11
S
ARAN AU -) ne
7,
BMWOW.
ilii iIlIl
is
37.-T
3
33
ao.S*