2010/03/31 Council Agenda Packet

9 MEMORANDUM March 17, 2010 Page 3 The Design Team, during a meeting with R. W. Beck, also rated each alternative with respect to these criteria,as shown in Table 2. Table 2 Design Team Rating of Project Delivery Options (+=Positive,0=Neutral, -=Negative) Criteria DBB GCICM DB Continuous Operation as + + - required to Meet Regulatory Requirements Reliability/Redundancy/ 0 + - Flexibility Owner Involvement in 0 + - Design and Construction Best Value(Cost and 0 + - Quality) Ease/Safety of 0 + - Operations and Maintenance Risk in Construction - + 0 Quality of As-builts - + 0 Note: these ratings were prepared by Design Team and were greatly influenced by the desire for having early contractor involvement the desire to have ongoing operations involvement. Additional R. W. Beck Analysis R.W. Beck evaluated each of the delivery options and identified strengths and weaknesses for each relative to the evaluation criteria. Attachment 1 summarizes this information. The information in Attachment 1 is R. W. Beck's evaluation and is less specifically geared for the EWPCF. As a result,there may be some inconsistencies between Table 2 and Attachment 1. Conclusions Design Team Preferred Delivery Approach The Design Team stated a clear preference for the GC/CM delivery approach. Key factors in their preference were (1) the ability to obtain early contractor involvement that is not found in the DBB approach, and(2)the ability for ongoing operations involvement that is not found in the DB approach. These two factors strongly influenced the ratings shown in Table 2 above.•There was also considerable discussion among Design Team members regarding the perceived and actual differences in cost and value among the alternatives. Although DBB may result in a lower initial bid than the maximum allowable construction cost that is part of the GC/CM contract, the 0015811 11-01351-10000\2100 110