Title
Resolution Approving the Coliseum Field House Renovation Project
Body
Department: Coliseum
Council District: 1
Public Hearing: N/A
Advertising Date/By: N/A
Contact 1 and Phone: Mike Perdue 373-7457
Contact 2 and Phone: Colleen Vann 373-7465
PURPOSE:
City Council is requested to (1) approve the use of the Construction Manager at Risk Delivery Method to construct the Coliseum Fieldhouse Renovation Project; (2) approve the ERC’s final rankings of the three finalist to serve as the City’s Construction Manager at Risk for the Coliseum Fieldhouse Renovation Project; and (3) authorize the negotiation of a contract for Pre-Construction Services with the ERC’s top-ranked finalist, Samet Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $20,000.
BACKGROUND:
On October 27, 2015, Charlotte Hornets Sports & Entertainment, in conjunction with the Greensboro Coliseum Complex, held a public news conference in the Coliseum’s Special Events Center lobby to announce that the Hornets selected Greensboro as the location for its new NBA Development League franchise. The team will play all of its home games in the former Coliseum Pavilion, which is to be rebranded and renovated into a basketball Fieldhouse. Renovations will include building new “back of house” support rooms including dressing rooms, coaches offices, medical room, media work room, a new public entrance/box office/lobby and additional restrooms and support closets. Renovations will also include specific scoreboard controls, basketball goals and seating components. Charlotte Hornets Sports & Entertainment and Coliseum Complex management have agreed to a multi-year contract with terms for multiple 5-year renewals.
(1) The Coliseum recommends that the City Council select the CMAR delivery method to construct the Fieldhouse. In the Attachment A to this Agenda Item, City staff has analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of using the CMAR delivery method in lieu of the separate prime, single prime and dual bidding delivery methods authorized by N.C.G.S. 143-128 (a1)(1) through (a1)(3). This analysis is required by N.C.G.S. 143-128.1(e). City staff has concluded that the six advantages to using the CMAR delivery method in this project outweigh its few disadvantages, and City staff is already taking steps to mitigate the impact of these disadvantages. The six advantages are:
1. Reduction in Significant Change Orders
2. Cost Control
3. Fast Tracking
4. The Construction Manager is Selected by Qualifications, Not Price
5. Increased Opportunities for M/WBE Participation
6. The Experience of Other Municipalities.
These advantages are particularly important in this project, because the project must be completed by October 1, 2016, and the CMAR delivery method is the best method to expedite this significant construction project, keep costs within a projected budget, and increase opportunities for M/WBE Participation. The disadvantages are that the CMAR delivery method requires a high level of communication between the City, the project’s designers, and the Construction Manager, and the contracts with the project’s designers were not specifically drafted to address all of the unique communications challenges that can arise in this CMAR project between the CMAR and the project’s designers. The designer for this project, however, Ken Mayer of Moser, Mayer, and Phoenix Associates, P.A., has ample experience working with the CMAR delivery method and has worked with the City on numerous other City projects. City staff will also strive to minimize any such communication issues. City staff concludes that due to the time and cost constraints on this project, the specific advantages of Fast Tracking, Cost Control, Increased Opportunities for M/WBE Participation, and Reduction in Significant Change Orders in using the CMAR delivery method far outweigh the disadvantages of having potential communications issues between the designer and the Construction Manager.
(2) On November 5, 2015, the Coliseum formally issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for firms to serve as the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) to construct the Fieldhouse. The RFQ required all companies submitting proposals to contract with an M/WBE firm as a minority partner for 10% of the Pre-Construction Fee and 10% of the Construction Management Fee. Additionally, all companies submitting proposals had to commit to meeting the City’s goal of obtaining 20% M/WBE sub-contractor participation in the actual construction of the facility. On November 18, 2015, the Coliseum timely received proposals from the following companies who are listed in alphabetical order with their M/WBE minority partners:
1. Frank L. Blum Construction Company / J. S. Mention Corpoation;
2. Rentenbach Constructors, Incorporated / Sterling Construction Services, Inc.;
3. Samet Corporation / SRS, Inc.
4. Synergy Building Group, LLC
Coliseum management assembled a seven-member Evaluation and Ranking Committee (“ERC”) to review each CMAR proposal. The ERC was comprised of the Project’s Designer, Ken Mayer, of Moser, Mayer Phoenix & Associates; Coliseum Complex Managing Director, Matt Brown; City of Greensboro MWBE Coordinator, Gwen Carter; City Building and Inspections Department Director, Kenny McDowell, PE; Juhann Waller, PE, of Waller & Associates; Coliseum Complex Building Superintendent, Mike Perdue, a NC Class A Licensed Electrician; and, James Dickens, Esq., Assistant City Attorney. On November 20, 2015, the ERC met to review, evaluate, and determine the three (3) finalists to be invited to make oral presentations to the ERC using a 100 point scale rating system and blind balloting based on the five (5) criteria defined in the RFQ and listed below.
1. Public Assembly or Athletic Facility Construction Exp. in excess of 2,500 seating capacity- 30 pts.
2. Project success/Pre Construction Services/Post Construction experiences- 30 pts.
3. Project Manager Experience- 10 pts.
4. M/WBE HUB Partnership Arrangement and M/WBE HUB Utilization History - 20 pts.
5. Financial Stability/Legal Status/Insurance/Bonding Capacity - 10%
The following three companies and their M/WBE minority partners received the highest scores:
1. Rentenbach Constructors, Incorporated / Sterling Construction Services, Inc. - 90.86
2. Samet Corporation / SRS Inc - 90.57
3. Frank L. Blum Construction Company / J. S. Mention Corporation;- 87.29
Oral presentations before the ERC were held on Monday, November 30, 2015. The ERC, again using the 100 point scale rating system, conducted blind balloting based on the same five (5) criteria defined in the RFQ and used earlier to determine the three (3) finalists, and voted on the final order of rankings of the three (3) CMAR finalists. The final results were:
1. Samet Corporation / SRS, Inc. - 92.43
2. Frank L. Blum Construction Company / J.S. Mention Corporation - 89.00
3. Rentenbach Constructions, Incorporated / Sterling Construction Services, Inc.- 88.57
As a result of the ERC’s final rankings, the Coliseum respectfully recommends that the City Council approve the selection of Samet Corporation as the firm who is most qualified to serve as the City’s Construction Manager at Risk for the Coliseum Fieldhouse Renovation Project and authorize the negotiation of a contract for Pre-Construction Phase Services with Samet Corporation. As part of this contract, Samet Corporation will be required to enter into a minority partnership arrangement with SRS, Inc. for at least 10% of the Pre-Construction Phase Services.
In this contract, Samet Corporation and SRS, Inc. will work with the Moser, Mayer, and Phoenix Associates, PA, to review constructability issues during the design phase to reduce change orders in the field and manage the projected costs of the project during design to ensure that the project costs are as accurate as possible to prepare a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) to offer the City Council to construct the Fieldhouse. The City Council will have an opportunity to accept or reject the GMP. If the City Council accepts the GMP, the Council will authorize the negotiation of a contract with Samet Corporation to construct the building. This contract would contain a 35% MWBE sub-contracting goal since Samet Corporation committed to this goal in its proposal and its oral presentation, and it would require Samet Corporation to enter into a minority partnership arrangement with SRS, Inc. for at least 10% of the Construction Management Fee. If the City Council rejects Samet Corporation’s GMP, the City Council would then authorize the negotiation of a contract with the second-ranked CMAR firm, Frank L. Blum Construction Company / J.S. Mention Corporation, to develop a new GMP to submit to the City Council. The City Council would then follow the same procedures as it did when Samet Corporation submitted its GMP to the Council. If the City Council rejected the second-ranked firm’s GMP, it would repeat the entire process with the third-ranked firm, and if the third-ranked firm’s GMP was rejected, the City would have to re-issue the RFQ.
BUDGET IMPACT: This project is being funded from Hotel/Motel Tax revenues and thus does not have a negative impact to the Coliseum’s operating budget. Funds for this project are available in account 528-7501-01.5410
RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUESTED: The Coliseum Department is requesting that City Council take the following actions:
1. Approve the use of the Construction Manager at Risk Delivery Method to construct the Coliseum Fieldhouse Renovation Project;
2. Approve the ERC’s final rankings of the three finalists to serve as the City’s Construction Manager at Risk for the Coliseum Fieldhouse Renovation Project; and
3. Authorize the negotiation of a contract for Pre-Construction Services with the ERC’s top-ranked finalist, Samet Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $20,000.
COMMITTEE ACTION: This item was referred to Council by the General Government and Infrastructure Committees.