ST9302-CS 930413 MEMORANDUM
TO: ' Griffin, City Engineer
i
DATE: April 13, 1993
I have reviewed all engineering proposals, and categorized each as positive(by which I felt the
firm addressed my planning concerns), neutral (by which I had somewhat ambivalent feelings),
or negative (by which I felt that something was left out of the proposal--most commonly
notations dealing with the finished product, the final appearance of the total project).
POSITIVE
Weir and Associates-Baldwin has done good landscape work in the past; small staff of
7 means good central control; some inconsistency in median width vs aesthetic
considerations (pg. 2.3-3 of 5) 17 foot medians.
Carter and Burgess--good staff people; use of two landscape architects positive; best
examples of design abilities of all submittals.
Huitt-Zollars--appears to have the most comprehensive approach to the problem;
interesting 1. s. experience; may be giving only "lip service" to the design aspects
as I see no reference to design in the project approach.
NEUTRAL
Shi~nek, Jacobs, et. al.--lots of engineering and water experience, not much streetscape,
design, etc.; Pittman Creek example pretty good; I liked their pointing out
problems with existing utilities (pgs. 20-21); wonder where Gary ....... went?
Lockwood, Andrews--they provide minutes of all meetings! Some good people will
be working on this project (Reagan George, Cliff Taylor); I don't know much
about the Slaney Santana Group responsible for landscape design.
Graham Associates--appears to include only 7 people (one of the smaller staffs);
submitted a very detailed project schedule akin to Huitt-Zollars; the landscape
element was only mentioned once in the submittal (1.a. lip service?)
Kimley-Horn--the fact that a designer will be a primary manager appeals to me, and
HOK has a lot of good experience; 6 primary players; my biggest problem is
the fact that the team leader could be problematic.
Lichliter/Jameson--agreeable to public meeting(s); appears to include a 14 member
team; one of two firms said to utilize Mesa (conflict?); need to clarify the
"quality assurance" team; some concern regarding who the project engineers
are.
Rady and Assoc.--liked their approach regarding landscape scope of services; a 9
member team (3 out of their office); TQM; conflict with Burieson(?); JJR has
historically been good, but I hear quality has suffered of late.
Halff and Assoc.--I liked their "concept conference" plus as many follow-ups as
needed; monthly progress reports a good idea; feel they are weak in the
aesthetic design area, didn't see a lot of planning issues addressed in proposal.
NEGATIVE
Binkley and Barfield--poorly organized; no 1.s. recognition; Quality Assurance Section
nothing more than 26 pages of boiler plate! lots of "filler" in this proposal; not
a lot on methodology behind the proposal.
JBM--no mention of importance of finished project (aesthetics); a lot of Kansas,
Missouri, Iowa experience, not a lot in Texas; made a point of being minority
business oriented.
HNTB--would utilize same firm that did Denton Tap landscaping (negative); partner
in charge (Becker) has solid experience credentials, Guinn also involved(!); I liked
their Quality Control and Design Team approach.
NRS--did not even broach the issue of aesthetics/design/buffering; no 1.s. element.
MSQ--no design or appearance discussion; did some portion of the U.S. Postal
facility; I did like their video analysis proposal.
Turner Collie Braden--will also use Mesa (conflict?); have concern that they suggest a
six-lane, and if it is four-lane do the outside lanes first; photos included which
show examples of their work pretty awful! I like the idea of a local office for
the firm; I question the number of staff they say will work on this project; I
like the fact that the project engineer lives in Coppell (only firm that does).
This one could be categorized with the NEUTRAL group.
Teague, Nall and Perkins--don't understand the inclusion of the blue line prints (only
firm which submitted such an exhibit); no comments addressing the aesthetic
issue; no "i~nage conscious" personnel proposed.
Sverdrup--liked their 20 scale drawings comment (pg. 6 Sec. II); no mention of the
aesthetic result of their endeavors; no land sensitive proposal,
Basically, these are my thoughts on the proposals. I have not attempted to rank-order this
list, and have put a great deal of my evaluation process emphasis on the fact that the
proposal did or did not address the aesthetic and design components of the improvement. I
also tried to evaluate the proposals (in line with my thinking) based on the personnel who
would be assigned to this road improvement project. If I knew them and past experiences
had been positive, I ranked them higher than a firm that I have little knowledge of. (engr)