2002-06-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

51 Mr. Cox asked if the City's contractual obligation to the current architect ends now, and Ms. Peacock said yes. Responding to a question fi:om Mr. Toscano, Mr. Letteri said when the original P&P was structured, it included the idea of being able to continue on with the chosen architect for the design work, and that was also included in the contract with the architect. Mr. Toscano said he was struck by the comment made in Anne Hemenway's e-mail that she had never contemplated not having a separate RFP for design work, and asked if any concerns of that nature had been raised. Ms. Peacock said that had not been raised. Mr. Toscano asked if there was ever any indication that the committee would get rid of the architect, and Ms. Peacock said no. Mr. Cox said it is easy in the public's mind to think that the design work is being done when the architect is just doing the foundation. He said if the current architect cannot work to the standard the community wants, the BAR will hold the project to the highest standard and will slow down the process. Mr. Cox said he supports creating competition to guarantee the design team can deliver. He said that at no time did he read in the charge of the negotiating team that they would sign off on the design, and said he would not have agreed to this as it rightfully belongs in Council's court. Mr. Toscano asked about the relationship with this project and the Court Square project and how it aH fits together. Ms. Peacock said architects for both projects met and negotiated parking needs and the desire to maintain access to the jail. Responding to a question fi:om Mr. Toscano, Mr. Letteri said that one of the goals of the citizens committee was to provide more public parking. Responding to a question fi:om Mr. Caravati, Ms. Peacock said the first phase of the contract included space analysis and preliminary design work, following by the design phase once the first phase was approved. Mr. Toscano said the issue is whether Council wants to embrace an RFP and whether the time added will make that much difference. Mr. Caravati asked if staff anticipates having a committee following the project through to completion, and Ms. Peacock said that had not been discussed but it may be advisable. Ms. Richards said she is appreciative of the concerns about the urgent need to move forward and she thinks a delay of 38 weeks is unacceptable. She said she agrees that she did not anticipate that the negotiating committee would be the design committee and agrees that the proposed design is not the fmal design. She said Moseley Architects are professionals with a good record, and she could support moving forward with a steering committee to oversee the existing architect in a redesign of the building itself in a way that incorporates most principles in the RFP which would involve members of the community in a redesign and would reduce the extra time to 18 weeks. Mr. Cox said the basis for the RFP is defined and he does not think it will take 38 weeks; instead, he said he thinks ~ will take four weeks for the RFP, one week for review and one week for interviews, cutting the extra time down to six to eight weeks. He said there are still unresolved issues about how the building relates to the environ that need to be addressed as well as consideration of redesigning the service core. Mr. Cox said Council should tell staff they want the process to be done by a certain date. He said Moseley Architects have not met the community's expectations, but said they could be given the option of collaborating with another firm.