New Search
AUG -26 -1999 15:56 SD4J FACILITIES MANAGMENT 15416873686 P.03/05 <br /> Facilities Management <br /> Eugene School District 41 <br /> 715 West Fourth Avenue <br /> Eugene, OR 97402 <br /> August 26, 1999 <br /> Jon Rebmann, Principal <br /> WRG Design, Inc. <br /> 10450 SW Nimbus Ave. <br /> Portland, OR 97223 <br /> Dear Mr. Reimann: <br /> The District is in receipt of your protest letter of 8/25/99. <br /> OAR 137 - 035 -0070 (2) and (3), adopted by the District, address the process for submitting and <br /> resolving protests. <br /> The Superintendent, or designee, is authorized to resolve all protests in a prompt manner. I have <br /> been designated by the Superintendent to respond to your protest. I have reviewed your <br /> comments, and the facts pertaining to the events you describe, and make the following findings: <br /> 1. OAR 137 - 035 -0070 (2) states, to be successful with a protest, the protester must claim <br /> that all higher ranked consultants were ineligible for selection because their proposals were <br /> non - responsive or the consultants nonresponsible. Your state that you do not believe that <br /> WBGS understands the time frame nor has sufficient experience for synthetic field design. <br /> Bill Seider says that the comments attributed to him with regard to "no experience with <br /> synthetic fields and no time to do the work" are inaccurate. They have, in fact, clone a <br /> major synthetic field project (the Moshofshy Center at the University of Oregon). We <br /> were in error when we said that WBGS did not bring a detailed schedule to the interview. <br /> They did, in fact, have a large poster board, with a detailed schedule, at the interview. It <br /> was not discussed, and hence, our oversight. The schedule prepared by WBGS meets all <br /> the dates outlined in RFP, whereas that prepared by WRG compresses bidding and <br /> permitting to allow for more design time. <br /> My finding is that WBGS does have synthetic field experience and understands and is <br /> committed to meeting our schedule, Further, based on their proposal, reference checks, <br /> and interviews, my finding is that the proposal submitted by WBGS was responsive to the <br /> RFP, and that the firm is responsible and capable of doing the project. <br /> 2. You state that the fee negotiated with WBGS is approximately $600,000, or $75,700 <br /> more than that of WRG. The final NTE limit fee negotiated for WBGS is $547,111. <br />