header-left
File #: 2021-0652    Version: 0 Name: Tinley Creek Stabilization - Consultant Recommendation for Design Engineering Services
Type: MOTION Status: PASSED
File created: 9/2/2021 In control: Board of Trustees
On agenda: 9/7/2021 Final action: 9/7/2021
Title: Tinley Creek Stabilization - Consultant Recommendation for Design Engineering Services
Attachments: 1. Signed Contract, 2. V3 - Scope and Fee Proposal, 3. V3 - Proposal, 4. HRGreen - Professional Fee, 5. HRGreen - Proposal, 6. ERA - Cost Proposal, 7. ERA - Proposal, 8. ERA - Detailed Fees, 9. ERA - Scope of Services, 10. Cardno - Price Proposal, 11. Cardno - Technical Proposal, 12. Cardno -Scope of Services & Budget Clairficaton, 13. BLA - Proposal, 14. BLA - Fee Proposal, 15. BLA - Scope of Services, 16. Farnsworth Group - Fee Proposal, 17. HRGreen - Professional Fee Proposal, 18. HRGreen - Scope of Services, 19. LWC - Scope of Work - Itemized Costs, 20. Michael Baker - Scope and Fee, 21. Michael Baker - Proposal, 22. Michael Baker - Professional Fee Proposal, 23. Signed- V3 Addendum No. 1, 24. V3 Companies, LTD - Signed Contract - Addendum #2 for Tinely Creek Stabilization, 25. V3 Companies, LTD - Signed Contract - Change Order to Tinley Creek Streambank Stabilization
Title
Tinley Creek Stabilization - Consultant Recommendation for Design Engineering Services

History
A request for proposals (RFP) for Design Engineering Services for the Tinley Creek Streambank Stabilization (RFP #21-015) was issued on February 22, 2021. Proposals were opened on March 29, 2021. The RFP was posted on BidNet. A total of eight (8) responses were received by the Village.

Staff evaluated all responses against the required scope of services and the following evaluation criteria established in the RFP:

-Total Professional Fee 40%
-Firm’s and PM’s experience and example projects 20%
-Overall proposal completeness and project understanding 20%
-Design schedule 10%
-Selection team’s discretion 10%

Proposal Evaluation Scores

The following are the evaluation scores for all responses received by the Village:

Consultant Name Proposed Fee Total Score Comments

-V3 Companies $366,955 95 Met RFP Specifications
-HR Green $383,490 92 Met RFP Specifications
-Engineering Resource Associates, Inc. $419,652 81 Met RFP Specifications
-Farnworth Group, Inc. $464,100 76 Met RFP Specifications
-Michael Baker, International, Inc. $649,460 60 Met RFP Specifications
-Cardno, Inc. $785,000 58 Met RFP Specifications
-BLA, Inc. $176,662 53 Did Not Meet Specifications
-Living Water Consultants, Inc. $276,550 43 Did Not Meet Specifications


Based on the information submitted by BLA, Inc. and Living Waters Consultants, Inc., the staff concluded that these two (2) responses do not meet the minimum project requirements and they will not be able to deliver the required deliverables for the project.

Reasons for Rejecting BLA, Inc. Response:

-The consultant’s proposed scope of services does not include obtaining required permits, which would be a significant and time consuming effort for this project. The Village’s RFP required that the consultants will be ...

Click here for full text