Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Case #1: <br /> <br />Award Contract for Professional Services for Wetland Mitigation in Ramsey <br />Town Center <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson reviewed the staff report. <br /> <br />Chairperson Dehen stated he was inclined to go with the best value, but if URS did the original <br />work, the argument would be that URS would be the lowest bidder because URS had the original <br />work. He asked why URS was not the lowest bidder. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson noted Hakanson was the lowest in the amount of experience their <br />project team had. He stated this could be a complicated wetland project plan and he was <br />concerned that if the HRA went with best value Hakanson would not have the experience the <br />City needed. <br /> <br />Chairperson Dehen stated if Hakanson underestimated their proposal that was Hakanson's issue <br />and why not let Hakanson try, unless there was some detriment to the City. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson responded there was a risk as to what the TEC panel said and if <br />Hakanson did not have the expertise to follow through properly that would be a detriment. <br /> <br />Commissioner Elvig stated staff had done a good job and from staff's expertise, they have been <br />able to rank everything and he trusted staff's recommendation. <br /> <br />Chairperson Dehen stated he was not an advocate in always taking the lowest bid, but in this case <br />it was a local business that has been around for some time and he did not see an issue in giving <br />this to the lowest bidder. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGlone stated staff had done a lot of due diligence in preparing this and it was <br />the Council's responsibility to take the lowest responsible bidder. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner McGlone, seconded by Commissioner Ramsey, to enter into a contract <br />with URS for the preparation of a revised wetland mitigation replacement plan for RTC. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Commissioner Look asked if the staff could negotiate with URS regarding <br />their bid. Public Works Director Olson asked if staff was not successful in the negotiations with <br />URS, would it be the desire of the HRA to proceed with the Hakanson bid. The HRA's <br />consensus was to go with the Hakanson bid. Commissioner Look asked what level of jeopardy <br />the City would be in using one company over the other. Public Works Director Olson noted <br />Hakanson had recently hired a member of the past TEC panel, but URS was very familiar with <br />this process. He indicated the project URS worked on previously was not the same as it had <br />been and most of the plans would have to be significantly modified. City Administrator Ulrich <br />stated the HRA could make the motion subject to the approval of the City Attorney. The HRA <br />agreed with City Administrator Ulrich's recommendation. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Dehen~ Commissioners McGlone, Ramsey, Elvig, <br />Jeffrey, Look, and Wise. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Housing and Redevelopment Authority / October 27,2009 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />