HomeMy WebLinkAbout0129.092-
", "
" ~-"-'"-~""---~-""-""" .. -
~-----~ ~
January 23, 1991
HONORABLE CITY COUN eIL
Palo Alto, Califo~ia
OFFER FOR PRO BONO DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERYI~_ES RELATE,!)
TO THE PROPOSED NEW C~LTFORNIA AVE~u~ PARRING STRUCTURE
Members of the council:
REPORT IN BRIEl!'
This is an informational report, no Council action is required.
On December 2, 1991, Counc i 1 considered and approved a
recommendation to proceed with the ~ecessary steps leading to the
design and ccnstn'ction of a single level parking structure and
formation of an assessment district to fund the project, on city
parking Lot 3, Cambridge Avenue, in the California Avenue BUsiness
District. Council also authorized staff to negotiate a design
contract with the consultant team previously utilized for the
planning/feasibility phase (International Parking Design and Wilbur
smith Associates). Relevant background information is provided in
CMR:437:91 \10/3/91).
At the time of the Council discussion, Tig Tarlton, Managing
General Partner of The Lewis a~d Tarlton Company I submitted a
letter to the Council (Atta::r ... ,"nent A) and verbally presented an
offer-to provide (pro bonal design and constructian management
services on a fast track program, in order to minimize time and
costs for completing the design and construction of the project.
council expressed an interest in Mr. Tarlton's proposal and asked
staff to evaluate ~hether the offer would be ~orkable and
beneficial for this particular project.
Staff has r~viewed the proposal made by Mr. Tarlton, as it relates
to the proposed Cal ifornia A·"enue parking structure proj eet, and
has con~luded the follo~in9:
CMR: 129:92
_____ o_-"-'" __ -~
I
l
-.,
a. A means could probably be developed for proceeding along
the lines of ~r. Tarlton's proposal. Ho~ever~ it would
likely include 50roe elements and differences that are net
consistent ",ith the spirit and ir.tent of his proposed
approach~ and lro'ould require several l!IGnths to develop the
necessar1 formal agreernent~
h. Even if such a procedure were follo~ed~ it would likely
need to be with someone other than Mr. Tarlton, due to a
conflict of interest as it relates to his involvement in
t'Wo properties (250 Cambridge and 385/399 Sherma;n) with~n
the assessment district, for which he is Managing General
partner, and
c. Given the nature and current status of this project~ it
is not evident to staff that the ,r:roposed procedure would
result in any significant cost or time. savings.
'I'heretorl::, staff believes that it would be better to proceed with
the project as previously planned and approved by council} and not
pursue further consideration of Mr. Tarlton's gene~ous offer. To
that end, staff 'Will i!",itiate negotiations ..... ith the approved
consul tant team for a design contract for this proj ect, u'r'lless
directed otherwise by the Council.
BACKGROUND
In 1986, the city purchased a private parking lot (Keystone Lot)
adjacent to Lot 3, in the California Avenue Business District, and
converted it to public use, The purchase of the land ~as funded
through the formation of a parking assessment district. The
assessment district also included funding for temporary site
improvements, as well as the preparation of a parking structure
plan to determine r.ow best to provide an additional increment of
public parking with the california Avenue Business District. The
parking structure plan was subsequently prepared and it included a
recommendation to proceed, at the present time, with the
development of a single level above grol.md parking structure, on
the e~isting City parking Lot 3 (Exhibit 1) ~ The ne~t appropriate
steps include: (a) the. development of the detailed design,
construction drawings, bid documents, and a detailed cost estimate
for the project, (b) the fOrl!lation of a new parking assessment
district and the sale of bonds to fund the project, and (c) the
actual construction of the parking deck structure.
The parking structure plan report and an accompanying staff report
{CMR:437:91, 10/10/91) 'Were revie ... 'ed and discussed by the Council's
Finance Committee} at its meeting on October 22, 1991. The Finance
Committ~e vot~d unanimously to reco~~end that Council:.
CMR:129:92
c, i
1/23/92
Page 2
!
---_ ..... ,.,.-....--~.---.... ,;.~
a. Approve, in principle, and direct staff to proceed .. :1th
the necessary steps 1 eading to the design and
construction of a single level parking structure and
formation of an assessment district to fund the p~oject,
on City parking Lot 3, on cambridge Avenue, in the
California Avenue. Business District, and
b. Authorize staff to negotiate a design contract with
consultant team previously utilized for the planning
feasibility ph~se (International Parking Design
Wilbur Smith Associatesj •
the
ond
and
On Dece~r 21 19')1, Council considered and approved the above
recommendations.
CURRENT C~TY PROCESS
The full developmeOlt process for a project of this nature,
inclusive of proj eat financing via the formation of an assessment
district, can be represented in four major stages as illu~trated in
Exhibit 2.
Concept -includes the planning and feasibility work
leading to agreement/approval of a particular
p~oject and location and a means for funding~
Design -includes preparation of a preliminary
design and cost estimate I review and desiqn
modification, and final design including contract
plans, specificatic.lls and detailed cost estimate.
If a project requires a Planned community Zone (PC
Zone), as is the case with this project l that
review and approval process is embedded within the
design development stage.
Assessment pistrict -includes the formal procedures
to form an assessment district (notice,
hearing I and decision) as wall as the
sale of bonds to fund the project.
£_onstrlJ-s:tion -includes the full construction of the
project, including inspection and testing~
Exhibit 3 provides a description of the various steps that comprise
each of these major stages.
For the proposed new California Avenue parking structure, the
concept portion of the process was completed ~ith Council's action
on Decerobe'r 2, 1991, wherebJi it approved, in prinCiple, and
directed staff to proceed with the necessary steps to (a) construct
CMR: 129:92
<",;.-.
1/23/92
Page 3
..
-
a ~ingle level parking structure and (b) form a parking assessment
district to fund the project, on City parking Lot 3, Oil Cawridge
Avenu~, in the Californ~a Avenue BU5iness District.
The desiqn portion of the process includes retaining the services
of an architectural/structural design consultant(s}, f~r which the
team of International parking Design and Wilbur Smith Associates
has already been select€d, as per specified City consultant
selection procedures. The design portion of the process ~ .... ill also
need to include rezoning of the site from a Public Facility (PF) to
a Planned Cocmunity District (PC) designation. While parking is a
permitted use, the current PF zoning imposes severe restrictions,
in terms of setback requirements and allowable building ~rea, that
render the development cf an efficient parking structure on that
site to be iIDpr~ctical~
The assessment district portion of the process is an essential part
of this }.lroj ect, since it wilr be the only source of project
fundinq~ Once the project design and costs are solidly
established, the process leading to the formation of an assessment
district can be started.
The construction ~ortion incl-:.Jdes solicitation of bids and award of
a construction contract based upon competitive bidding proce.dures,
as well as the actual construction and related activities
(inspection, testing, payment, change orders) required to fully
complete, what is anticipated to be, a relatively simple project.
A rough estimate of the elapsed time required to complete each of
these four major stages is as follcws:
concept
Design
Assessment District
Construction
Already
9 to
2 to
10 to
Completed
12 months
4 months
14 months
~IG TARLTON'S PROPOSAL
The ofier by Mr. Tarlton, is to provide pro-bono design and
construction management services on 3 fast track program, so as to
minimize time for design and construction as ~ell as total ccst to
the City, property owners and businesses.
Mr Tarlton's proposed approach is based upon the following premise:
1.
CHR:129:92
~he process of negotiating a fair pric~ with known
and respected consultants/contractors combined with
an open book audit at the end of the job, ~ill
1/23/92
Page 4
, '
2.
3.
result' in lo .... er ~otal costs than the competitive
bid process which can be fraught ~ith a strategy of
low bidding followed later by excessive change
ord'9rs.
The process of including the general contractor,
and possibly one or more ~ajor sub-contractors as
an integral part cf all aspects of the design ~ork,
will result in a more cost effective design as ~ell
as a shortened period for actual construction.
Having a designated person vith the assigned
responsibility for the over<:a;11 I!l.anagement of the
design and construction of a proj ect will ensure
that problems ar~ resolved expeditiously, momentum
is maintained, and the project is completed in the
shortest possible time.
Based upvn Mr. Tarlton's letter and discussion staff has h~d with
Mr4 Tarlton, the gener~l proces3, proposed by Mr4 Tarlton, would
include the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
CMR:129:92
He ... ould pre-select the architect, structural
engineer, general contractor, and possibly one or
:more majo~ sub-contractors capable of doing the
work and negotiate agreed upon fees for the
project. The selection ~ould be based upon
demonstrated qualifications and proven record and
would inClude only firms which ~ere satisfactory to
the CitY4 lIo'Wever, it would not be baSed upon
competitive bidding procedures.
He would use a project team approach (architect,
structural engineer 1 general contractor, major sub
contractor(s») to develop plans and specifications
for the project. Inclusion, in the design process,
of the general contractcr and major sub
contractor~s), who will actu~lly be responsible for
building the structure, is intended to ensure the
most. cost effective design and fast track schedule.
Once the design is established I he would have the
general contractor solicit bids for any remaining
sub-contract ~orK and based thereupon, select sub
contractors to wo~k on the project.
Ht:! w'ould present to the city. for its approval, the
completed design, con~trllction plans and
specifications, and det.ailed cost esti:mate, prior
to the start of construction.
1/23/92
Page 5
•
t
e.
f.
q.
He would monitor and inspect all construction and
materials to ensure tha~ the construction ~nd
ma.terials meet all specifications and requiren,ents.
He would review and approve all progress payments,
before they are submitted to the City, to ensure
that they reflect actual • ... ark complete:!.
He ~ould audit all costs {including direct labor,
materials r and sub-contracts) at the end of the job
~nd issue an audit report to the City.
This type of approach is not unCOnL~on in the private secter, where
time and disruption are often critically important. The typical
cost for this type of ~anagement service is about 5 percent of the
total project cost (5% of $ 1.37 million = $ 68,500). The reason
people are willing to pay this additional S:lIl:l of money is because
of the demonstrated benefits that result.
:ISS OB S AJlD CONCBRlfS
Staff has reviewed and discussed Mr. Tarlton's proPQsal and the
prima~ issues ar.d concerns include the following:
1. PC Zone
2. Assessment District
3. Cost Savings
4. 'rime Savings
5. Cvmpetitive Bidding
6~ Conflict of Interest
7~ Staff Impact
The fact that this proposed proj ect 'lIdll ne-ad to incorporate
a process (and period of tine) to establish a FC Zone does not
appear to create any unique proble-:'f\s that .. 'ould preclude
consideration of such an approach. The design \rI'ark done bJ.'
the project team ~ould incorporate the PC Zone revieW' and
approval process in a manner similar to that shown in Exhibit
2 for the City's cur~ent standard process.
Si!Jlilarly, the fact t:ha't this proposed proj eet .... il1 need to
incorporate a process (and period of time) to establish an
assessment district, logistical1}o' does not appear to preclude
consideration of such an approach. A period of time ~ould
need to be provided by the project team bet~een the design
CMR: 129:92 1/23/92
Page 6
w , •.
"--'.-~ ... ' ..... " ..•. ' . .
. .
.. ..:" .,,:
t
r. ' ,
-
3.
stage end the start of construction, for the Ci~y to es~ablish
an assessment district and sale bonds in the same manner as
that shown in Exhicit 2.
~:Q§~ Sav i:r.gs
Tha concept of having the actual builders work with the
desigi1ers throughout the development of the design of the
p:i.-oject, rClther than having the builders enter the picture
only after the project is fl.,lly designed, offers a real
potential for cost savings. The more complex the st~cture,
the greater the potential for sa.ving costs by avoiding design
features that are difficult and/or cos1:ly to build. In the
case of the pr~posed single level parking deck structure, such
cost saving would be lillli ted by the simple n-3.ture 0"( this
particular project.
The issue of 'Whether or not C03t savings can be achieved,
through an approach based upon a negotiated fair price ~ith a
pre-selected contractor along with an open book audit at the
end of the job versus ai1 approach based upon competitive
bidding procedures with the award going to the lowest
(qualified) contractor, is subject to considerable debate. In
an ideal ycrld~ the two approaches should produce socewhat
similar results. In the real ~orld, there are examples, based
upon both fact and hearsay, that support either side. The
thoroughness of the design work, the integrity of the
contractor, and the nature of any negotiations are important
factors in influencing the outcome of either approach on any
spe~ific project. There is no way to predict with any
certainty that one or the other approach would result in
significant cost savings for this specific project.
4. Time Savings
since both approaches would include many of the same steps and
procedures (design I including PC Zone process; assessment
district and bond sale; and construction), the potential for
significant ti:me savings is limited. The Tarlton approach may
achieve some time savings (a) by nat having to go through the
competitive bid pro:::ed'..lre to a· .. ard a construction contract,
(b) from a shorte!' construction period, due to contractor
aSSisting in the design and project fa:mi1 iarity, and (c) by
having a designated person responsible for expediting all
aspects of the project. However, the Tarlton approach also
'fM"o~ld r-equire t11at the City develop an appropriate: formal
agreement of some sort, before suc~ a process could begin.
Based upon recent experience; this CQuid take up to six months
and delay the start of design process for several months.
CMR:129;92 1/23/92
Page 7
•
-
,""
On the other hand, the standard city proce.ss is rE'_ady to
proceed immediately with negotiations for-the design lJork, but
would require a period of time, in the future, for competitive
bidding Df the construction ~ork and is subject to cODpBtinq
s'taff priorities that could impact the schedule of this
project.
5. Com-.p_~ti~iy_~_ ~.i<t4_j....!")_g
Legal review of this matter has concluded that existing Citi~
ordinances regarding the procurement of design and
construction services requi:n;~ competitive bidding, and those
cases for ~hich an exception might be considered do not apply
to this situation. This is further reinforced by the fact that
regulations regarding the fOr'llation of an assessment district,
set forth in the City Charter, s.pecifically require that
project costs be based upon competitive bidding procedures.
Therefore, the approach proposed by Mr. Tarlton would need to
be modified to include a competitive bidding procedure.
conceivably, this might be in the form of an open solicitation
of bids by the City for a complete team (architect, structural
engineer, qeneral contractor, :major sub-contractor,s))
inclusive of design and ccnstruction management services as
offered by Mr. Tarlton. Practically, it is likely that by the
time appropriate provisions ~ere included to meet the
competitive bid requirements, the resultant process ~ould no
longer resemble the spirit and intent of Mr. Tarlton's
proposal.
Legal review has also established the probability that a
conflict of interest would exist for Mr. Tarlton, ~hich would
likely preclude his participation in this project in any
responsible decision-making manner. Not ... ithstanding his
generous offer t::> provide his management services free of
charge, as Managing General Partner for t. ... o properties ~ithin
the proposed new assessment district, and sone financial
interest he is likely to have in these partnerships, he stands
to gain sot:l.e financial bE:nefi t by having this specific proj ect
completed at a lower cost than pr~sumably might otherwise be
the case. While the prospect of completing ~he project at a
lower cost is certainly meritorious, the fact that he may
personally realize some financial benefit creates a potential
conflict of interest. He would either have to divest himself
of his financial interest in the properties .·i thin :the
proposed assessment district or someone else, without any
simj lar financial :interest, ,-'ould have to fill the role that
Mr. Tarlton has proposed. Neither of these alternatives
appears to be very realistic, as they relate to the proposed
project.
CMR:129:9? 1/23/92
Page 8
' ... utter '.
Cit.y staff in'l:Jlvement in this:. projec:t -would be sOl!lE:'Nhat
different under Mr. Tarlton's proposal, but not significantly
more or less. City staff time would be sssentially the same
for the portions of the process that involve the design review
and approval, PC Zone change, and the assessment district, for
either approach, City staff would very likely also have some
involveJllent in the inspection of the project during its
construction. savings in staff time, that could be expected
from Mr. Ta~lton's management services, would likely be offset
by the consider~ble staff time it ~ill take to develop the
necessary aqree~ent between the Cit}' and Mr. Tarlton (or
someone else) prior to the start of any design work, as ~ell
as the periodic staff involvement that ~ould still be required
for reviews during the design and constr~ction.
Two recent examples in which the City has proceedad 'With a
private/public partnership arrangement for the development of a
specific project are (a) the recently completed addition of two
floors of parking to the Webster-Cowper parking Garage and (b) the
planned Children I s Theater improvement project. Both of these
projects, ho~ever, are fir-anced totally by private funding sources
and neither project involves the formation of an assessment
district or expenditure of public funds. Also: both projects
requi.ced extensive time to develop the appropriate formal
agreements (leases).
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon an understanding and review of the proposal made by Mr.
Tarlton, as it relates to the proposed California Avenue parking
structure project, staff has reached the following conclusions:
a.
b.
CKR:129:92
A means could probably be developed for proceeding
along the lines of Mr. Tarlton's proposal, although
it 'Would likely include some elements and
differences that are not consistent 'With the spirit
and intent of his propo:<>.ed appro4ch and would
require several months to develop the necessary
formal agreement,
Evel1 if such a proced1.!re 'Were iollolt.'ed, .it would
likely need to be lrJith someone other than Mr.
Tarlton, due to the possible conflict of interest
as it relates to his involvement in the two
properties (250 Cambridge and 385/399 Sherman)
within the assessment district for which he is
Managing General Partner, and
1/23/92
Page 9
~1 rl
11
'1
:1
!
j
I
i
1 , ,
I,
I
i
c.
:",.
GiYen the nature ar.d current status of this
project, it is not evident to staff that the
proposed procedure TJould result in any significant
cost or time savings,
Therefore, staff believes that it ~ould be better to proceed with
the project as previously planned and approved by Council. To that
end, staff ~ill initiate negotiations 1j{ith the approved consultant
team, for a design contract for this project, ur,less directed
otherwise by the Council.
Respe~tfully submitted,
MARVIN L. QVERWAY KE!<NETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
chief Trans~~atiOr. Official
~ ~ FLEMING M
sistant city~er
Attachments: A. Tarlton Letter to City council (dated 12/2/91)
81 CMR: 437! 91 10/3/91 (ccpy included only in packets
to Council Members; additional co~ies are
available from the Tt'ansportation Division,
sixth floor, City Hall)
cc: Tig Tarlton, The Le'Wis and Tarlton Company
Califcrnia Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA)
CMR:129:92 1/23/92
Page 10
Exhibit 1
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
~""'T~~~~~~~~= PARK; ING .Lj ... ?TS I I n '"--I ~ ---
4f......--llt;' 1--;---1
"' )---1&
!:::
---;i---i e I--~
-.' .' .:-'~: .'
· -
Exhibit 2
PROCESS OVERVIEW FOR paOPO£ED CALIFORNIA AVENUE P_~..P...KING STRUCTURE
CONCEPT-
( 11
r -PCZo~~
DESIGN
(2,3,4,5,6)
r
I
I
J
ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
(7,8,9)
CONSTRUCTION
'10, ", '2)
~-'-.-'------>~-.-.-----
0.0. lUl
CONCEPT
DESIGN
ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
CONSTRUCTION
1. Cit)! Council (1) 4pp::coval, 111 princ~pl!ol. wltr.
dlr ... ctJol1 to proc .. a4 .. itl'!. n.c ..... ry .t..p. 1 ... dl.,g 'to
th5 ~O".'l:ruc'l:ion ot .... 1ngl. l ... v.t p.rkil'\oCil c1oi;clt
.tNctur •• ~ !'or.al!otlcn ct a ~~rkln .. e ... IIII •• e,..,t
dhtrt.;t to tu"d th. pr-o:j.c;:t a"d ( .. ) al.lthori:latl",,,
tQ :1 ... 01;1 ... t .... }>t, .. ". 11 d .... 1':1'" cont.r.o'!: .. lth ';.h.
co;"..,.Ult ... nt t.llIl or l,..,t.rnlllt~<)TI"l ... rklrtq p.,.I.:I'I .nd
M.i1.:to.r S.ltn U.I.oelat.e.
2. Pr ... plllrol .eo.,. ot •• rvfc: .... n~ .,,, ... ,,tlat. ~".l .. n
=-Cl1tr.c';. w:t.h d" .. lo;-n con .... ltant t •• 11
]. cay CO\HlO.il • .,proVl.1 ot r •• ohtio,.., o! l.,t.,,'I: to
r •• u. ae.,,<I.
a. 11'.1t.~.l ~ •• !\iln .... ork (pl .. n", .pee., coat..1
b. 1": :! """ r"lIl.w .ne:! "pi'rCl'.'lIIl
o a,:;opllc.t.ie., .t<;lr PC Zo.,.
o E:wlro"", ... nt ... ! ......... 1'1'1:
... AA8 pra1.i_lnary r.",h ... or pro~.<..-t
... F1annll1:;-CoRah.lor. co~clllpt.yal ravie ... ot PC
07 M1!J form..l r.v.i .... /.ctlon on Pc:
o P14"n.i,..,.,. C~. find .u .... !. ... /4ctl!!ln on PC
... C:i ty Co(lnc i1 rev 1 .... and approval lOot PC
I:> C:1 t.y Counc 11 :rind IIct i on on PC
e. Fir.al ch •• ign .... ork ip1l1n., .pIlI<":"'. co~t"J
Including ptlriocHc: d .... ~qn reyie .... by ARJ!.
6. CitY' Coun~ll approval or 'pro~tlct.. ". da.igTl"d.. and
e:!irol'Ctlo., to 'pro;:: •• d vi1:!l proo .... to::, t.h. to:r--.ation
o.t .n 4 ••••• _nt dilltrlc:t
.,. C1tl' r:ouncll approval or bond counc.il ~nd rinancial
.. JtvUory eontrl!.O't •• rvic •• as vll11 11.1111 P'..b~ i.e: 'Mora
ir.apectlon a1'>4 .nq1n •• rinq eont:::.ct ... rvi.:: ••
a. ~",par.t.icl\ ot !:"...in .... ='. Raper'!:. Ceuncil
action. ~lti:'lq c;.rtl!.lrl .,nli_inary
d.~.ralnl!.t.l.<'n., rrivln'3' ;;:-r ... L:.dnllory 4 .. ~rov4: o~
th • .!:nqtn"u". Rllpcrt '1rlc1 .attir.q • til!le ro;:
• puh1ic h •• rlnq for prota:lt.
b. Pl.;blie heAd"'1 n<Jticlng prGCeo:.
c. City C01Jnc:!1 public;: h.",ring
d. City Cc:uneU aetion. 1IIo4);.1n9 c ... tal." t!ncHng~
"'"e! d.t.nlnat.io;:ons, oyerrulinq prot ... 'I:.a,
adoO'ting t.h .. E:ngir,eer'. Report end ordering
the ... orll: to to", a~c:o:..plisluld
e. rCnlIltion of 4$SeEUllllent district is; complete
,. 14l1uane ... and .. al. ot b'm:! ... to .h.ne! the parkinq
.tnlet.ura proj"ct ... , ....... ", '. "'" ,",.,,, " .... -, ... ,,' I oonst.n.actlon or pub"g structYre
11. StArt construct! on ot 0' :1rltlnc:j 5~ruotl.lra
1 •• Co.plet. construetion o.t p.arl<.lng .tl"'lctl.l.r<ll
Exhibit 3
-"---" .---~
'.
LE=W-:-=IS~&=-
TARLTON
December 2, 1991
Members of the Palo Alto City Council
Palo Ah.o City F..all
company
Hand Delivered
ATTACHMENT A
Re: Cambridge Avem.!e Parking Structure., Pro-Bono offer of DesigniCoostructian
Management Services.
De:u CoueciJ Members,
You have before you tonight, the question ofwhet. .... er to design arid construct a parking
structure on Cambridge Avenue. A1; Managing Gene.-aI Partner of 2..50 Cambridge (Ave.)
Associates f.lnd also of 385/399 Sherm<1n Avenue, we: are very much ill favor oflhe
lrnmediate construc!:on of this much needed and long studied parking structure.
To underline the support for this proje~t, we herein restate an offer made to the Finance
Sub-<:ommiaee of the CDunciJ, to provide pro-boDo design/construction ~an=",g-::menl
services on a fast track program, so as to minimize time for design ;;.nd construction and
cost to tbe Cit)' cfPalo Alto and it's Property Owners/Taxpayers. & Councll Member
Cobb can attest, we are jus~ now compiering a similar pro-bono design/construction
management service for the FOOlhills Congregational (burch involving a $500,000.00
design and reconstructic1n!rede .... elopment of a Sunday School.and Community Service
Bunding.
Even though this would be: a sigr.ificant pro-bC'Df) ctlmmitrn~nt cn cur pont, we feel
strongly enough about the process, <lnd th::: prcjuct L':Iat it is so despentcly needed for
additiorl<ll parking, that we are willing to undertake this endeavor.
Our process is simple -selet::t a Geaera! Contrador capable of doing the work and
negotiate a fixed fee for the job. AIso select at the same Lime, 2 structural eDgineering
firm to perform design ~rvices with drawings and specificatio[]s. Working with beth
structural engineer p_D..Q the contractor to ensure the most cost effective design and fast
track scheduling, W~ would bid out all sub-c~ntract trades and present to the City staff
for approval, the complete design and costing for this project before starting
construction. All ph~ses of construction and progress paymerH5 are carefully moni!Ored
by the undersigned, along with testing of all concrete, steel and othcr materials for
suitable plncemeIlI and strength. Ai. the end of the job, all costs ~ audited (these
P,eal EstJ te Deve-1opmen:, 'Broi-:erage arid Properly ~!.an3£'!m(,'nt
300Sxond Slr~t, 5uit~ 109· P,.:·<,t Office Box Al • Lo~Alt."Js,C;;lifClrrli" 9·V'?3 • (.tiS: 'i-;S.D:'S
T ':!lewp;, (~l 5) 945-6966
Docember 2, 1991
Page 2
include direct !:ibor, pUfcha..o;ed mat~rials, and all sub-cantrac:ts) and ail audit report is
is~ed to the City Staff.
We recognize that this proposed procedl.!re would be d radical depar1ure from the normal
plan and specification bidding wb;ch mnst municipal agencies follow as a maHer of
habit Howe.ver, we have had 21 years experience of fast track design/constructioo
management and rOlltinely perfolID these services for Pr!ncipal Financial Group and
University National bank & Trus! Company. Fast track, design/constructiDn
management with open book negotialed and audited costs is without question the fastest,
most efficient:md cas! effective way of getting cocstructioa ~rvice:; performed. Even
though this would be 2 significact pro-bono commitment on our part., we feel strongly
enough abou! the process and tht. product that is 50 desperately neeced for additional
parking that we are willing to undertJke this endeavor.
We hcpe you will give our offer serious conside.ration. We would be bappy to discuss
further details jf there i.s inlerest
Best regards~
THE LEWIS & TARLTON cn
-'--~ :'c~'r1~n. Jr.
Managing Genera! Partner
cc: City Manager, Bill Zaner