The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-6-24 City Hall _ Park Design CompetitionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. S- 33 June 24, 26'0-8 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager 949 -644 -3002 or dkiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: SELECTION OF FIVE FINALISTS FOR CITY HALL AND PARK DESIGN COMPETITION ISSUE: What firms or teams shall the City select as finalists for the Design Competition for City Hall and the Park? RECOMMENDED ACTION: Ratify the recommendations of the City Hall and Park Master Plan Design Committee by selecting the following firms to go forward in the Design Competition for the City Hall and Park Master Plan project and authorize the City Manager to enter into stipend agreements with these firms: • Bohlin Cywinski Jackson • Gonzales Goodale Architecture • Johnson Fain • LPA • Rosetti Architecture BACKGROUND: The City Council, guided by the City Hall Design Committee, issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the design of the new City Hall and Park (and other related facilities, including a parking facility) on April 11, 2008. The Design Committee, consisting of the following persons: • Lary Tucker, Chairman (non- voting) • Andy Bowden, Landscape Architect • Rush Hill, Architect • Walt Richardson, Architect • Linda Taylor, Architect • Stephen Sandland, Architect ... met six times in open, noticed, and public meetings at the Friends Room at the Newport Beach Public Library since April 7, 2008, to: • Assist City staff in preparation of the RFQ, • Develop a Judging Procedure and Criteria for responses (see Exhibit A, Part 1); • Assist in the Council's development of General Design Parameters for the City Hall and Park Master Plan; City Hall and Park Master Plan Team Selection June 24, 2008 Page 2 • Propose answers to questions that various firms raised as the firms reviewed the RFQ; • Receive and review the RFQ responses (there were 51 firms /teams /individuals that submitted responses by the May 19, 2008 deadline); • Rank the responses consistent with the attached Scoring Sheet (see Exhibit B), selecting thirteen (13) firms to "short list' and to have City staff make reference checks on each firm to the extent possible; and • Forward the names of five (5) firms or teams to the City Council for the Council's formal consideration to complete in the Design Competition. All of the 51 submittals were made available at the City Clerk's Office in City Hall and at the Central Library. The Design Committee's review took place both independently and in public sessions on June 2 and June 16. At the June 2nd meeting, after a detailed individual review that took dozens of hours by each Committee member over the Memorial Day weekend and other free time during that period, the Committee narrowed the field of 51 firms down to thirteen. The "short list" of thirteen firms was (in alphabetical order): • Arquitechtonica • Bauer and Wiley • Bohlin Cywinski Jackson • Carrier Johnson • DMJM Design • Dougherty and Dougherty • Gensler • Gonzales Goodale Architects • Johnson Fain • LPA • NBBJ • Rosetti Architecture • Studios Architecture At the June 16th meeting, the Design Committee recommended that the following five firms (shown in alphabetical order) be selected by the City Council to participate in the next phase of the competition. The committee also selected Dougherty and Dougherty as an alternate in the event one of the firms declines to proceed. The next phase involves a $50,000 stipend for each firm to work over Summer 2008 on a "Concept Plan" for the City Hall and Park Master Plan and to return in September 2008 for detailed public review and discussion about each of the five Concept Plans. Five Firms Recommended for Consideration • Bohlin Cywinski Jackson • Gonzales Goodale Architecture • Johnson Fain • LPA • Rosetti Architecture City Hall and Pad* Master Plan Team Selection June 24, 2008 Page 3 The Committee stressed that the selection of these five firms was very challenging after winnowing the list to thirteen. Each of the thirteen firms, they noted, could do the job well — but they believed that the five firms identified here were the "best of the best" that submitted responses to the RFQ, and they unanimously endorsed forwarding the five firms to the City Council. Their 5 -0 recommendation on Monday, June 16t", 2008 urged the Council to enter each of the five firms into the Competition by granting them each the $50,000 stipend and contracting with them for the Concept Plan work. Each of the firms' submittals (all fifty -one, in fact) remains available in the City Clerk's Office and the Central Library for public review. What's Next? As noted, the design teams, if they are selected by the Council on June 24th, 2008 and if they agree to go forward, will work over the summer to prepare Concept Plans for the City Hall, Park, and related facilities. On or about September 22nd, 2008, the Design Committee envisions meeting in a public setting to receive presentations from each of the five firms. By late October or early November 2008, the Committee hopes to have completed its review of the Concept Plans and to put forth a ranking (based on the attached criteria — see Exhibit A, Part 2) to the City Council. The Council's tentative calendar shows the Council considering the plans on November 25t", 2008. A Word of Thanks The time donated to the community by each of the six Design Committee members has, to date, been extraordinary. Their work will continue in the fall, and may be equally time - consuming at that point. The City offers its sincere thanks to the Committee members for their generosity. Prepared & Submitted by: ave Kiff, Assi ant City Manager Exhibits: A — The Committee's Judging Procedure and Criteria for Part I and 2 of the Competition B — Blank Scoring Sheet Committee members used to score the 51 submittals City Hall and Park Master Plan Team Selection June 24, 2008 Page 4 Exhibit A Newport Beach City Hall & Park Master Plan Judging Procedure & Criteria Part 1 - Ranking the RFQ Responses Judging Procedure In Part 1 (recommending up to five firms from the RFQ submittals), the Design Committee will consider all submittals except those that have been disqualified for providing less information than is required in Section V of the RFQ or for not meeting the minimum experience qualifications or showing appropriate financial stability in the RFQ. The Committee will rank the submittals according, generally, to a point score based on the following: 1. Experience and References (50 %). • Does the quality of the team's expertise and design work as submitted (including "at least three recent large scale projects of similar scope, preferably with a public agency for a public building ") meet the Committee's expectations for functionality, timelessness of design, and overall design vision? (25 %) • Does the proposing team have appropriate expertise and experience working successfully together in architecture, landscape architecture, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, civil engineering and other related engineering services, project scheduling, cost - benefit analysis, value engineering, LEED and sustainable design, and general administration of all design and construction components of the project? (10%) • How is the team's track record of completing functional project goals on time and on budget? Are the end users satisfied that the project met all their objectives? (15 %) 2. Project Approach (30 %). Is the team's philosophy and approach to the Project - including program requirements, vision, and expectation of the Project's functionality appropriate? Does the team's Project Approach statement satisfactorily address specific methods or processes they would use to ensure a successful collaboration with all of the Project stakeholders, Including City officials, staff, and community members? 3. Design Management Approach (20 %). Is the stated design management approach (including managing the intended scope of work and related professional services to assure the timely and cost effective completion of the Project, working with the City's team, Quality Assurance /Quality Control, and the incorporation of LEED and other sustainable elements) appropriate? Are there unique qualifications of the team in terms of design management? The Committee will recommend teams to the City Council as Part 1 concludes. The City Council will use similar criteria to review, modify, or accept the Committee's recommendations. City Halt and Park Master Plan Team Selection June 24, 2008 Page 5 Newport Beach City Hall & Park Master Plan Judging Procedure & Criteria Part 2 — Ranking the Five Firms' Concept Plans In Part 2 (ranking criteria for the up to five firms /teams' concept plans), the Committee and the City Council will review and rank the up to five (5) teams' submittals generally as follows: 1. Functionality of Design (30%). Does the Concept Plan show an entire Project (City Hall, park, and parking structure) that meets or exceeds all program parameters, that will be functional for the community and that will promote an effective municipal organization? • Integration. Does the Concept Plan successfully integrate the park, City Hall and the existing library? • Building. Does the Concept Plan show an efficient use of the building that limits square footage and maintenance costs but that still maintains an open, airy, and expansive feel? Will the public feel welcome without compromising the any of the building's intended efficiency, security, or staff amenities? • Park. Does the park design meet the desires of the community for a natural park with appropriate recreational amenities? • Space. Is the amount of space taken up by each element appropriate, balancing building and parking needs with natural park space? 2. Creativity and Timelessness of Design (25 %). Does the Concept Plan show a unique, exciting design that will remain appropriate, interesting, original and substantial into the long -term future? As a public space, will the design solution make a valuable and lasting contribution to both the social and physical environment of the City? 3. Practicality, Efficiency and Constructability (25 %). Does the Concept Plan reflect a resource expenditure by the City that is appropriate for a large municipal facility in this community? Is the design responsive to budget constraints? Does the Concept Plan and its supportive documentation fully reflect the requests of the Committee and the Council made to the design team? 4. Sustainability (20 %). Does the Concept Plan show sufficient elements of sustainability, including at least the minimum appropriate level of LEED certification (silver), energy efficiency, water quality protection, water conservation, and more? City Hall and Park Master Plan Team Selection June 24, 2008 Page 6 Exhibit B Scoring Sheet Used to Evaluate RFQ Submittals Newport Beach City Hall & Park Master Plan FlrmlTeam Name: Rater Name: Daie: LEx fence and References '50% (Aj Does he quW4 of' the team's expertise and design work as submitted including "at #east three recent large soale projects of similar scope, . prehuably with a Ipubfic agency for a pr Mcbuiidinp') maei the Camanittee s expecEations fornsraionality, timelessness of design, and overall des' vision? Value: 29, DtS (6) Does the proposing team haw appropriate expertise and experience working wacesstvlhy together M are>1 teciure, landscape ardhteaWre : -. struciurag engi ring, mecharfical trgreeairxg, eie :al. cmgineeft, civil engire ng and other related ernglneefing services, prefect scheduling, cost- hene:5t aro-aiysis, vake engineering, LEED and susWr 'e des;p, and gemh ral administration, of all design and construction .. mmponeras of dhe project? value: tQ (C; Hors is the team's track record c€ cDmoeimg fim,-`ionat project goals an Mane and on tndget7,,4re des e,, s! uses.,,LSf�ec thac the project met alf their ohject4es? vaara: 1v Serb#stat EXperiavve & Referemces = L.2 Prajject Rpproanh (30%) Is the teams philosophy and approach to the Project — including program nequffernsmts. Vision, and expectan', of €.;_ Ptojec<s functionality apprropriate? Does 'tlhe teams Project Approach s atemem sa6sfac" address specFiic; methods or processes used sa ensure a mocessSW caliaboraticnwsdt all of the Project stakeltr lders„ indiudkyg Chy officials, staff, am community members? Value: 3 Design Management : ach. Is the stated design managamens. approach {including managing the landed sccpe of ma's and related prcfess4cna sar4ioss to assure the timely and cost Oecdve camp+kticn of the Project, workaoi;I with the Ci'ys team„ QAiQG, and the inoxporaiion of LEED.and other susainabia elemamsj appropriate? Are t3here unique quadificatims of the team in erms of assign martagernerV Val e: 2fl ...... ... ...._. .. .u„ ......_.tl :� t rut it .:_.. Total Score, Afl'Sectians =