New Search
HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: ETTER John F <br /> To: LONG Jack E; BJORKLUND Neil H; EVANS Deborah S; ALVERSON Ed R <br /> Cc: WEBER John J; HAMMITT Bob; MEDLIN Johnny R; ARGENTINA Eileen <br /> Subject: Park Wetland Study Proposals <br /> Date: Thursday, May 11, 1995 10:41 AM <br /> FYI: We received 7 proposals (from 29 responses to the RFP). My initial scoring of them was 89, 87, 87, <br /> 87,62, 55, 27 (out of 100 possible). I.E., we've got an approximate 4 way tie for first place. I would <br /> welcome any of you stopping by to look over the proposals and give me your reactions. But assuming you <br /> may not have time, I'm going to share my thought on the first three here, which may help me refine scores <br /> to select a clear winner. If you only have time to respond to my note here, that much would be <br /> appreciated. <br /> Beak Consultants (89): This is a large, multidisciplinary firm. Lots of pertinent experience. The crew <br /> doing the bulk of the field work and interpretation averages over 4 years experience in the field (not equal <br /> to the other firms). This firm claims to be the primary consultant for ODOT over the last 5 years for <br /> highway related wetland work. The strength of their proposal is in their price: $23,335. For an additional <br /> $4,080 they would put the info from their hand -held GPS survey onto an ArcCAD disc. This is above the <br /> specification we asked for, which was just to provide us a hand - rendered copy of the information on our <br /> GIS maps, which City staff would then add to our GIS mapping. The weakness in this proposal is that they <br /> propose to complete the study by the end of September. We allowed the completion date to be June 14, <br /> 1996 so that observations could be made over a full growing season for best determination and delineation <br /> work. If DSL accepts a report completed done in the dry season 1 don't see that we have grounds to <br /> reject. That could be a condition of acceptance. I have a call into DSL to get their opinion about the <br /> probable validity of a report done in the summer. The other downside is that they did not include a "not to <br /> exceed" clause with their price. Some of their costs are for travel and lodging. To balance that, it should <br /> be noted that the hourly rates of the people doing the work are significantly less than the other <br /> consultants. <br /> If we knock them down to third or fourth place on the weakness of the summer -only study, then it's <br /> between two groups, currently scored at 87. The first is headed by Satre Associates (Rick Satre) that <br /> includes Wetland Specialties, Inc. /David Evans and Associates (Jennifer Guard) and Joel Norgren. <br /> Jennifer has been active locally in the West Eugene work. The second group is headed by Bergeson -Boese <br /> and Associates that includes Salix Associates (Bruce, et al) and Ethen Perkins. Both groups submitted <br /> proposals with excellent methodologies and descriptions of the final report. The main difference is that in <br /> being $3000 more, the latter group proposed to go beyond our specification by providing the report with <br /> the mapping completed on disc compatible with our GIS. Both groups also have indicated their prices <br /> ( @$29,950 and $32,974) are "not to exceed" amounts. <br /> The fourth firm, Albiqua Engineering, after further scrutiny, has been relegated to a fourth place 82; after <br /> reading examining the proposals from the two local groups, this one appeared to be noticably outclassed. <br /> I'll make a decision tomorrow, unless I hear that you want to have tomorrow to come over and review the <br /> proposals. - -John <br /> Page 1 <br />