August 22, 2013

    The meeting was called to order and a silent roll call was taken and it was determined that a quorum was present.

    Mr. Smith moved for approval of the May 22, 2013 minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. Goetz. All voted in favor and the minutes were approved.　

    Craig Baker advised the board that the technical evaluation team for the Harrison County Schools project met on June 27, 2013, and reviewed the responses to the Invitation for Qualifications. Six responses were received. Three of the teams scored above seventy points. Harrison County Schools accepted all three of them. The three teams that will be sent the RFP’s are City Construction, BBL Carlton and Lombardi.

    Chairman Monteleone questioned Ms. Lipscomb as to whether she was present during the evaluation process. Ms. Lipscomb advised that she was present and all proposals were evaluated in accordance with the Design-Build Act.

    Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the process and allow Harrison County Schools to proceed as a design-build project. Motion seconded by Mr. Goetz. Mr. Thrasher abstained. The remaining members voted in favor and the motion passed.

    Mr. Baker advised the board that the IFP is due in September and they have scheduled interviews with the teams for September 18, 2013. They are hopeful that they can get the technical scoring approved by the Design-Build Board during their regularly scheduled meeting on September 19, 2013.

    Mr. Baker stated that they have an alternate bid for cross laminated timbers and questioned the board as to how they should score the alternate. Mr. Raines indicated that the cross laminated timbers is a new product that screws together which they believe will help speed up the project. He stated that they did not tell the bidders they had to use this but it was sent out as an alternate. The School Building Authority wants to look at whether they have the money to use the alternate.

    Chairman Monteleone advised that they can not do what they want, they must open the base bid and score that and then score the alternate. He questioned how many alternates they had. Mr. Raines advised that Pendleton County has eleven alternates and Harrison County has only the one. Chairman Monteleone stated that all alternates must be scored separately. Mr. Womack advised that the costs are all on one sheet so the review committee will see all costs when opened. They wanted to add or lower the base bid with each alternate. They felt the base number would change and get either a deduct or an add on.

    Chairman Monteleone expressed concerns that if you open the costs they can pick alternates like a combination lock so they can make choices based on what they want. Ms. Klempa agreed and stated that you can’t do it since there are so many ways they can change out costs to select who they want. Mr. Thrasher advised that they needed to remove things that lets subjectivity play into the outcome.

    Mr. Smith stated that he understood the alternates but the low bidder is the low bidder based upon the base. You then pick alternates with the apparent winner. Mr. Raines gave an example of where a low bidder wouldn’t have won if alternates was considered in cost scoring. Mr. Raines would like to put the alternates in Pendleton County in priority order and score the alternates. Chairman Monteleone advised that they could not do what they want through the Design-Build Act.

    Chairman Monteleone advised that Harrison County could score the base bid and then score the alternate and combine the two. Mr. Raines believes that Pendleton County can score only the base bid and the one alternate and then negotiate the rest. Mr. Smith indicated that they need to decide what they want and the alternates should not come into play. The criteria developer should have included the alternate in the package. He further stated that the alternate stuff does not look good. It is this board’s duty is to assure things are done fairly and the fair way is to score based upon the base bid. You can not manipulate the outcome based upon alternates. Ms. Lipscomb expressed concerns that they could decide not to accept an alternate if they didn’t like the team whose alternate was cheaper.

    Mr. Smith advised that they must score based upon the base bid only. The criteria developer should have everything they want in the specifications and it should have been included in that base bid. Mr. Raines indicated that you can not compare apples to apples. Chairman Monteleone stated that this is the way design-build works. You score technical on the best product and then combine with cost score. Chairman Monteleone indicated that no projects have been done with bids based upon alternates.

    Mr. Smith stated that what the School Building Authority wants with the alternate is for the contractors to compare costs. Mr. Raines stated they have to because they don’t know the markup and the installation costs of the alternate. Mr. Smith advised that this must be done in the two-step process. They must go back and include the alternate in the specification and have it included in the base costs and score like it has always been done. Chairman Monteleone agreed and advised the board would not let them score the alternates separately. He further advised that they need to send out an amendment to include it.

    Mr. Smith moved that the board deny the requests of Pendleton and Harrison Counties to use alternates in the selection of their design-build teams for their projects. Motion seconded by Mr. Goetz. Mr. Thrasher abstained. The remaining members voted in favor and the motion passed.

    Mr. Raines suggested that the board look at changing the law as this issue is not clear in current laws. Chairman Monteleone stated he would put together a small committee to look at it. Mr. Thrasher stated that all projects done by design-build must compromise. As you go into more complicated projects you have to make more compromises.

    Mr. Raines questioned whether they can get a base cost and then request a line item cost for specific items so the School Building Authority can determine what they can do with budgets. Chairman Monteleone stated they must get a winner based upon the technical and base cost. Mr. Raines indicated that Pendleton County has a basketball league and the School Building Authority won’t pay for bleachers and things of that nature so they need to know costs of those things. Chairman Monteleone indicated they could request a line item cost for each.

Mr. Snyder advised the board that Pendleton County received nine responses to the request for qualifications. One of the firms mailed their response to the wrong address and it was not received timely so they had to throw it out. The evaluation committee met and narrowed the teams down to the top three. Chairman Monteleone questioned why there were two scores on their score sheets and they flipped the winner. Mr. Womack explained that they had two people adding the scores and their totals were different. They then had a third person check the scores to confirm winners. The bottom number on the score sheet is the actual number.

Chairman Monteleone questioned Ms. Lipscomb whether she was present during the evaluation and scoring. Ms. Lipscomb advised that she was present and everything was done correctly in accordance with the Act.

Mr. Smith moved to approved the project moving forward. Mr. Goetz seconded. All voted in favor and the motion passed.

Chairman Monteleone encouraged the two criteria developers on these projects to work together to put out an amendment to the IFP that are similar to one another. Mr. Smith questioned whether they are certain that the two counties will agree to include the alternate in their base bid. Mr. Womack believes they will accept it.

Mr. Womack questioned the proposed scoring of the technical scoring as it includes giving points to the teams who got short listed based upon their ranking. Ms. Lipscomb indicated that Dr. Manchin felt that giving additional points to the best qualified should be included in the next step. Chairman Monteleone advised that this should be removed as its own section and consideration for that be included in the other sections. Mr. Baker advised that they would redistribute the points and break it down somewhere else in order to be in compliance with the Act.

Ms. Lipscomb advised that she is scheduled to go to Morgantown to oversee the evaluation of proposals from design-build teams in order to short list the teams next week on the baseball stadium project.

No other business

There being no other business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned.