Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR <br /> <br /> COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: <br /> <br />CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: <br /> <br />FEBRUARY 2, 2004 <br /> <br />TITLE: <br />AGREEMENT WITH DOUGHERTY + <br />DOUGHERTY ARCHITECTS FOR <br />ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR <br />V]%RIOUS PARKS <br /> <br />RECOMMENDED ACTION <br /> <br />APPROVED [] As Recommended <br /> [] As Amended <br /> [] Ordinance on Ist Reading <br /> [] Ordinance on 2nd Reading <br /> [] Implementing Resolution <br /> [] Set Public Hearing For <br /> <br />CONTINUED TO <br /> <br />FILE NUMBER <br /> <br />Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and <br />the Clerk of the Council to execute an <br /> <br /> agreement with Dougherty + <br /> Dougherty Architects for architectural services related to the <br /> onstruction of the new Wildlife & Watershed Interpretive Center at <br />antiago Park, the renovation of the E1 Salvador Center and new <br />playground equipment at Centennial Regional Park, for a not to exceed <br />amount of $120,090. <br /> <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> <br />On June 19, 2000 and April 15, 2002, the City Council approved grant <br />applications requesting funding from the California State Department of <br />Parks for the new Wildlife & Watershed Interpretive Center at Santiago <br />Park and the renovation of the E1 Salvador Center, respectively. On <br />April 15, 2002, a grant application was approved requesting funding from <br />the Land and Water Conservation Fund for new playground equipment at <br />Centennial Regional Park. Grants received total approximately <br />$1,180,000. <br /> <br />Design of these facilities will require the services of <br />architect. These services include planning of the <br />preparation of construction documents, and support <br />construction bidding phase. <br /> <br />a qualified <br />facilities, <br />during the <br /> <br /> Staff has solicited proposals for these services. Qualified firms were <br /> contacted and five firms submitted proposals. Staff members from the <br /> Public Works Agency and the Parks, Recreation and Community Services <br />gency evaluated the proposals. Each firm was rated according to its <br />ualifications, past experience and capacity to perform the required <br />work. Based on the proposals submitted, the ratings for the top five <br />firms for each type of service are as follows: <br /> <br />Page 87 25.G. <br /> <br /> <br />