sr-022211-8dDate: February 22, 2011
Agenda Item: ~`
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works
Subject: Capital Improvement Projects -Municipal Design Consultant Selection
Processes
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Review and discuss options regarding .municipal design consultant selection
processes.
2) Approve the design consultant selection model in which staff reviews proposals and
qualifications, conducts interviews, and makes a recommendation to City Council for
approval
3) Approve exceptions to-the recommended model to include the option of involving
professional jury members in the selection process. when warranted by project
complexity or priority.
Executive Summary
In July 2010, a comprehensive survey of a number of California cities, as well as other
US cities, was conducted to determine the procedures that other municipalities use to
select design consultants for their Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs). A total of 25
cities responded to direct phone call inquiries or to a survey submitted through the
Municipal Management Association of Southern California and League of California
Cities. City staff members were asked to reply to specific questions concerning
protocols and procedures for selection of consultants. A majority of the cities
responded with a "typical selection model" in which staff: issues the Request for
Qualifications/Proposals; reviews all of the proposals; shortlists the qualified applicants
to a smaller group and then interviews them; recommends a design consultant as the
most highly qualified for the project; and then forwards to the City Council for approval.
Variations to this model are also discussed in this report when a project involves private
funds and partners. Staff recommends the typical selection model for the City's design
consultant selection process,. with exceptions depending on project complexity or
priority.
1
Background
local law establishes .certain requirements applicable to awarding public contracts,
including contracts for professional services. The City's Charter Section 608 requires
that contracts be awarded according to a procedure established by ordinance that,
among other things, preserves public confidence in the integrity and openness of the
City contracting process. In addition, the Municipal Code Section 2.24.073 establishes
the criteria for selecting a professional services contractor: The criteria include price,
experience, demonstrated competence, capacity, sufficiency of financial resources,
reputation, and the ability to provide any future services. that may be needed. That
section also authorizes Council to reject proposed professional services contracts, and
authorizes the City Manager to solicit proposals or proceed in such other manner as
he/she determines will fully serve the City's interest. Of course, this authority may only
be exercised in a manner consistent with other principles of law, including the
requirements of the City Charter. Council could modify the standards and procedures
established by the code; however, an amendment to the City Charter would require a
municipal election.
Historically in Santa Monica, once the need for a new building or facility has been
identified, Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funding is requested for inclusion in the
City's multi-year CIP program. As part of the CIP review process, the Department of
Public Works, with input from the requesting or partnering department, establishes an
initial project scope and budget and identifies possible sources of funding. If the CIP
request is approved by the City Manager for inclusion in the Proposed City Budget, and
by City Council upon budget adoption, the project is assigned to a project manager for
implementation.
To begin the design consultant selection process, and. in consultation with the
partnering department, Public Works staff issues either a Request for Qualifications
(RFQ), which solicits the firm's qualifications, references, similar and relevant project
2
experience, and professional staff resumes, or a Request for Proposals (RFP) which
solicits all of the RFQ requirements as well as a proposed fee for services. In the case
of design-build .projects, a Request for Bids (RFB) is issued which requests the
contractor's and designer's qualifications, references, relevant project experience,
resumes, fee for preconstruction services, and an overhead and profit percentage.
The design team Selection .Panel consists of staff from Public Works (architects,
engineers, designers) and staff from the partnering and other relevant stakeholder
departments. Using specific selection criteria outlined in the RFQ or RFP, the Selection
Panel reviews proposals and qualifications, and selects a list of firms to be interviewed
by the same group of reviewers.
The selection criteria are composed of project specific requirements, as well as the
general criteria cited in the Santa Monica Municipal Code for professional services
contracts. The most highly rated firm is then recommended to the City Council for
selection: The goal was to assure both the professional community and the public that
that the selection vvould be merit-based. Upon award and execution of the Council-
approved contract, the design. process begins. Examples of completed CIPs using this
process include:
• Airport Park
• Beach Improvement Group Project (B.I.G.) (Palisades Park and South Beach
Improvements)
• Big Blue Bus Fuel and Wash Facility
• Big Blue Bus Maintenance Building and Site Improvements
• Big Blue Bus Transit Store
• Civic Center Parking Structure (and Tenant Improvements)
• Euclid Park
• Pier Central Restrooms
• Public Safety Facility
• Santa Monica Main Library
• Santa Monica Swim Center
3
• Virginia Avenue Park Expansion
Projects that are currently in various stages of design and construction that have
followed this process include:
• Beach Restroom Facilities Replacement
• Big Blue Bus. Shelters
• CityTV Facility Tenant Improvements
• Parking Structure 6
• Pico Branch Library
• Reed Park Improvements
• Resource Recovery Center
• Woodlawn Cemetery Improvement projects
Two recent exceptions to this process include the Annenberg Community Beach House
and Palisades Garden Walk & Town Square:
Annenberg Community Beach House - In 2004, the City Council authorized staff to
enter into agreements to accept a grant from a private funding source, the Annenberg
Foundation, for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of 415 Pacific Coast Highway. In
February 2005 staff issued an RFB for design-build services. Included in the RFB was
a request for an integrated team of architects, landscape architects and construction
general contractors. The City received four design-build bids. A Selection Committee
composed of staff from Public Works and Community and Cultural Services reviewed
the qualifications and bids and narrowed the field to two design-build teams, which were
then interviewed by a Panel that also included several members of the Annenberg
Foundation. One recommendation was made (Pankow Special Projects) and City
Council was asked to authorize the City Manager to conclude negotiations and execute
a design-build contracfi with Pankow for preconstruction services. Staff visited the City
Council on one other occasion, to present Schematic Design drawings for input.
4
Funding for the project was provided almost entirely (80%) from a grant from the
Annenberg Foundation.
Palisades Garden. Walk & Town Square -City Council adopted the Civic Center
Specific Plan in 1993, updated in 2005, which called for a six acre park across from City.
Hall and the one acre Town Square directly in front of City Hall. Redevelopment
Agency funding priorities were approved. for the park on June 9; 2009. City Council was
cognizant of the rare opportunity presented by this park at the heart of the Civic Center
and suggested that staff pursue a design consultant selection process that would attract
accomplished designers. Staff issued an Information Item on September 21, 2009,
describing a consultant selection process that included three outside professional
experts in architectural design to sit on the Selection Panel. The goal was to assure the
professional community that the selection would be merit-based. A RFQ was issued on
October 12, 2009. A total of 24 teams responded. The Selection Panel, along with City
staff from Community and Cultural Services, Planning and Community Development,
and Public Works reviewed the qualifications, shortlisted the firms to six, and then
interviewed those six firms. A unanimous recommendation of James Corner Field
Operations was made to Council on April 13; 2010.
Discussion
A matrix of all 25 cities surveyed is included as Attachment A. The matrix displays a
breakdown of specific consultant selection tasks, and the responsible parties for each
task after staff issues the initial RFQ/RFP. The majority of responding cities follow a
typical selection model in which City staff brings one recommended design consultant to
the City Council for final approval. A few cities deviate from this typical model by either
giving final selection authority to City staff or to a combination of City staff and outside
professionals. Staff recommends the typical selection model, with exceptions to include
the option of having professional jury members in the selection process when warranted
by project complexity or priority. The following provides descriptions on a variety of CIP
consultant selection processes identified as a result of the survey of other cities.
5
Baltimore, Maryland
In the City of Baltimore, City staff issues and evaluates RFQs/RFPs and makes one
recommendation to the Board of Estimates for approval. The Board of Estimates
consists of five members: three elected officials (Mayor, City Controller, and President
of the City Council) and two appointed :officials (City Solicitor and Director of Public
Works). Members of the Board of Estimates do not participate in the evaluation and
selection process.
Berkeley, California
In the City of Berkeley, City staff solicits and reviews qualifications/proposals/bids and
provides one recommendation to City Council for approval. If a project is of interest to
the City Council, staff will provide a brief report (similar to an Information Item) to
Council members to update them on the project's progress.
Chicago, Illinois
The City of Chicago typically selects its design consultants first through the
Department of Procurement Services, which develops a list of pre-qualified design
consultants through an RFQ process. The General Services Department, consisting of
Architecture, Engineering and Construction Management, will issue RFQs/RFPs to the
list of pre-qualified consultants, review and shortlist firms, conduct interviews and select
a consultant for a particular project. This process does not vary with the size of the
project or budget. The final selection is presented to the Chief Procurement Officer
(Department of Procurement Services) for concurrence and that office has the power to
make arid- cancel decisions made by staff from the General Services Department. The
Department of Procurement Services has full authority to make the final design
consultant selection.
6
New York City. New York
The City of New York's Departments of Design & Construction (DDC) and Parks &
Recreation (Parks Department) procure design consultants without the review and
approval of City Council and then proceed to manage the design and construction of
those projects. These two agencies have final authority on consultant selections.
For parks and recreation projects, the City's Parks Department has apre-qualified list of
consultants selected by meeting quality-based criteria and fee schedules. For more
complex projects involving budgets greater than $10 million, a RFP is typically issued.
To establish the pre-qualified list, a Selection Panel reviews the proposals received from
a RFQ process, shortlists the firms, and conducts interviews with the short-listed firms.
The Selection Panel would consist of multidisciplinary groups from among City staff
(architects, engineers, etc.) and a Peer Evaluator, who is a private individual chosen
from a list generated by the Mayor's Office. On occasion a design charette is used and
this same Selection Panel will serve as jury in the selection of design consultant. The
design charette is not open to the public.
A typical consultant evaluation committee for a project going through the DDC (bridges,
highways, fire department buildings, libraries, etc.) would include an independent design
professional, as well as DDC staff and Partnering department personnel. The DDC is
composed of multiple divisions including the Architecture and Engineering Division. The
DDC utilizes a numerical rating system to evaluate proposals on the basis of technical
merit. The top-ranked firms .are shortlisted and then interviewed. A final consultant.
selection is forwarded to ah Executive Consultant Selection Committee (which includes
staff from the City's Controller's Office and the Mayor's Office of Management and.
Budget) which will certify and approve the results and authorize price negotiations to
commence with the selected firm. The Mayor's Office monitors, but does not directly
participate in, the consultant selection process.
7
Both the DDC and. the Parks Department are regulated by the Policy and Procurement
Board Rules and the Design Excellence Initiative. The City Council is not formally
informed of these selections; however, the Mayor's Office of Management and Budget
and the Mayor's Office of Contracts bring these projects to their attention.
Portland, Oregon
The City of Portland has a model where the Selection Panel is comprised of City staff
and at least one outside professional. An RFQ/RFP is issued by staff, the Selection
Panel reviews proposals, prepares a shortlist, conducts interviews, and recommends
the most highly rated firm to the City Council.
San Francisco, California
The City of San Francisco's Bureau of Architecture (BOA) in the Department of Public
Works (DPW) procures design services in conformance with the State of California's
contract code. Because San Francisco has a large architecture department composed
of a 65-person staff, much of its architectural work is performed in-house. Only very
large, high-profile projects are out-sourced. In these instances, staff issues RFOs and
RFPs through public notice and invitation. Then a Selection Panel composed of BOA
staff, Partnering department staff and related department staff review the proposals and
shortlist the firms. Interviews are conducted by the Selection Panel and the firms are
given numerical scores. The selection is made by the Selection Panel as the DPW has
contracting authority. Any visit to a relevant commission is informational only and
provides opportunity for input. DPW then executes the contract.
San Jose. California
The City of San Jose also uses a model where consultants' qualifications are reviewed
and shortlisted by a Selection Committee comprised of City staff and outside
professionals. Interviews are held with the same Selection Committee, which
recommends one firm with whom to begin contract negotiations. Once all details have
8
been worked out for consultant services, the agreement is presented to the City Council
for approval.
Santa Rosa..California
In the City of Santa Rosa, City. staff forms a Review Board for service contracts over
$100,000 to evaluate qualifications/proposals, interview shortlisted firms, and make a
recommendation to the City Council for approval. The Review Board can consist of all
City staff or a combination of City staff and an outside professional, an official City
Board/Commission member, or a City Council member.
Seattle, Washington
In the City of Seattle, City staff issues and evaluates RFQs/RFPs, interviews
shortlisted firms, and makes one recommendation to the City Council for any service
contracts over $750,000. For service contracts up to $750,000, the initiating
department has the authority to execute a contract with the overall best firm.
West Hollywood, California
The City of West Hollywood forms a Selection Committee made up of City staff and
representatives from relevant City commissions, depending on building type. The
committee reviews qualifications and develops a shortlist for interviews. The Selection
Committee makes a final recommendation to the City Council for approval.
Exceptions
Variations from the more typical selection processes do occur when a project involves
private funds and partners or coordination with: state or federal agencies. The following
describes four projects with such exceptions, all of which are public/private
partnerships:
9
Central Waterfront (Seattle, Washington) - In June 2010, staff from the City of
Seattle's Department of Transportation issued an RFQ to find the design team (urban
design and engineering) to design a new urban park in the downtown area of the city.
The proposed $600 million design and construction budget is aimed at the removal of a
two-level freeway near the water's edge, which will free the land for a linear park in the
center of Seattle and a new surface street.
Thirty responses for Track A (urban design) were received and reviewed by staff from
the City's Planning and Development, Parks, and Transportation Departments, as well
as members of the Central Waterfront Advisory Committee, composed of civic and
community members. The Selection Panel consisted of City staff from the Department
of Transportation, Parks and Planning and Development, two outside peer professionals
and members of the Central Waterfront Advisory Committee. Evaluative criteria were
developed by City staff (Planning ahd Development, Parks, and Transportation). The
initial thirty were reduced to four design. teams, who were then asked to present their
design approaches at a public presentation sponsored by the Seattle- Parks Foundation,
at which 1,300 people attended. The public's role was to ask challenging questions of
the design teams, they did not have any direct role in consultant selection. Consultant
selection was made by a committee made up of participants from the Departments of
Transportation, Planning and Development, and Parks, two outside peer professionals,
one member from the City's Design Commission, one from the City's Art and Cultural
Affairs Commission, and a participant from the University of Washington.
The City + The Arch + The River (St. Louis, Missouri) - In December 2009, the U.S.
National Park Service (leading agency), in conjunction with the City of St. Louis,
launched an international design competition to select a design team to create a new
design for the Arch grounds, Gateway Arch, and connections to the Mississippi River,
including the east bank in Illinois. The project site is owned and managed by the U.S.
National Park Service. The competition was sponsored` and organized by the
CityArchRiver 2015 Foundation (Governance Group), which includes National Park
10
Superintendent Tom Bradley, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, and design industry leaders
from both Missouri and Illinois. Financial contributions to the project were handled by
the Greater St. Louis Community Foundation, a public charity representing over 350
private funds. The Governance Group appointed. eight jurors to participate in the
selection of the design team, and provided the jurors with a group of experts from
different governmental agencies to serve as technical advisors. The jurors included a
Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic, humanities and urban design professors, a
former Deputy Director of the National Park Service, a museum curator, ah -urban
designer, and renowned landscape architect and architect. The competition comprised
of three stages:
• Stage I -Portfolio submission, including description of lead designer and
statement of design intent.
• Stage II -Team qualifications submission, including jury interviews.
• Stage III -Team design philosophy submission, including presentation of past
work and design concepts at public events and meetings.
In September 2010, the jurors forwarded their final ranking and recommendations. to the
Governance Group and on September 24, 2010, the .selection of Michael Van
Valkenburgh Associates was announced for the project.
The High Line Park (New York City, New York) - In 2004, a private funding
organization ("Friends of the High Line") was formed and, partnering with the City of
New York, began their process of finding a design consultant for the High Line project.
The process ran for six months and 52 teams responded to the RFQ issued by the
partnership. Seven teams were shortlisted and the list of seven was narrowed to four
finalist teams who were then asked to participate in a design competition. In October
2004, a Steering Committee made up of representatives from the City of New York and
Friends of the High Line made their decision to select the design team. The jury was
composed of members from the City's staff as well as from the private funding
11
organization. The composition of the design jury was not publically released at the time.
The breakdown of participants was the following:
• 4 Friends of the High Line (Private Donors)
1 City Council member who had had a previous involvement in the "Campaign to
Save the High Line" track from demolition. He-did not act on behalf of the City
Council in his capacity as jury member.
• 5 City Staff (Economic Development Corporation, Planning, Mayor's Office of
Economic Development, Parks & Recreation, Cultural Affairs)
Because the High Line .project was a public/private partnership, was a design
competition, and involved a large percentage of private funding, the City's typical
selection process was not utilized in the consultant selection process.
Millennium Park (Chicago, Illinois) - As with the. High Line in New York, Chicago's
Millennium Park project was a partnership between the City of Chicago and the
private/not-for-profit "blue-ribbon" committee named "Millennium Park, Inc." Funding.
amounts for the park were divided nearly equally between private and public funding
sources.
The initial Millennium Park master plan was the work of a design firm appointed by the
City from a list of pre-qualified, on-call design consultants, which the Transportation
Department assembled from a previous RFQ process. Their work provided the
framework and background for the selection of architects, landscape architects, and
artists to design the parts and pieces of the park. The design firm worked closely with
City staff and private donor teams to organize competitions for the other consultants to
design pieces of the park. The City of Chicago's. Transportation Department was
replaced as the original Partnering group "overseer" of the project by the Public Building
Commission (PBC) due to the predominantly private sources of funding. The PBC is a
private management company that was formed to oversee the construction of public
projects: The City of Chicago is a client of the PBC.
12
Gehry Partners, LLP was initially invited by the lead design firm, without a formal
selection process, to participate by designing the bandshell at the park. Through the
combined efforts of private and public sources, Gehry took the commission.
The other artists and landscape architects who contributed designs to the park were
selected through various design competitions, which were juried and selected by panels
comprised of local architects, donors, civic and business leaders, and the Mayor. The
City Council (Aldermen) was not involved in the selection of the design consultants.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There are no financial impacts or budget actions as a result of this report.
Prepared by: Miriam Mulder, Architecture Services Manager
Approved:
c
Martin Pastucha
Director of Public Works
Forwarded to Council:
Rod Gould
City Manager
Attachment A - Matrix of Municipal Design Consultant Selection Processes
13
~6-b
Attachment A
Matrix of Municipal Design Consultant Selection Processes
City Review/Shortlisting/Intefview FinafConsultant Selection
Austin, Texas <x +~*~s
Baltimore, Maryland ~ ~'a-°
Berkeley, California V
V
A' ~~+
Campbell, California T ~
~
Chicago, Illinois v
/~® v
/~
Culver City, California x~ ~~
Daly City, Califomia x
Fresno, California v
h ~~
Glendora, California ~ ~~"
Inglewootl, California ''x ~.+
Laguna Niguel, California
New York, New York x® x
O
Portland, Oregon xO r
ss n
ia'b+
San Carlos, California -x ~~
San Francisco, California x x
San JOSe, Califomia x® ~~
Santa Cruz, California x x
Santa Monica, California x °.s:~
Santa ROSa, California ~~''**
x83 rxgO~a
~~..
Seattle, Washington - x
St. Louis, Missouri `n x
Stockton, California /~ ~~ '
Suisun, California x ~"~°
Turlock, California y
x ~~°
West Hollywood, California ~~ ~'
Woodland, California 'X x
X = by Staff
O = by an Outside Professional
B = by a Board or Commission Representative
~' = isy a CoLlnciP bomber
GC = ~'f City CotanciE based on S.ai# recommefsdaiioil