My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:47:33 AM
Creation date
9/6/2011 10:03:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10302
Title
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
BLDG Date
8/19/1997
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Committee
Project ID
CS9601 Courthouse Square Research
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
430
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
- •, <br />Courthouse Square Design Team <br />5/22/97 MeeNng <br />Present: Ra.ndy Curtis, RG Andersen-Wyckoff, 7ohn Whittington, Leonard Lodder, Alan <br />Costic, Dave Hays, Curt Pence & Dan Berrey <br />STATUS ON PROJECT MANAGER POSITION <br />Randy reported that 12 proposals were received a.nd a short list of five proposals remain. The <br />ne~rt step will be to decide who we will interview and then schedule the appointtnents for early <br />next week with Randy and RG conducting the interviews. The short list coa~sists of Larry <br />Mattson, C&P Systems; JN Hartsock Project Management; Melvin Mark Comp~anies; Milstead <br />& Associates, Inc. and Nielsen Dillingham Building. Discussions focused on design team <br />experience and knowledge of the five companies remaining on the short list. JI'~T Hartsock was <br />involved in a project with Arbuckle Costic about two years ago and Alan reported they had a <br />difficulty in communications and lack of response in trying to get things accompKished with this <br />company. Milstead & Associates experience was good and Alan didn't know anything about <br />Nielson Dillingham. Curt questioned whether Nielson Dillingham was an out of state business <br />and felt the dollars should be spent with Oregon comparues. Melvin Mark Company seems to <br />have a good understanding of what we want to accomplish. <br />The area of strength for Milstead and Mattson lies in the construction management background <br />rather than in project management. RG brought up an unknown with Mattson was he had not <br />~ identified his on-site project manager in his proposal. <br />Curt was going to do some checking with the contractors association on a couple of the <br />individuals listed as key players from the proposals for additional insight from the construction <br />standpoint. The Melvin Mark Company comes from a developers backgrownd rather than <br />construction. <br />Questions to include in the interview process were introduced: <br />1. Does the company have adequate staffing on board to handle this project and who <br />are they? <br />2. Do they have budget eaperience? <br />3. What do or will they bring into the team? <br />4. R'hat type of resources do these firms have access to even though they are not <br />identified in the proposal? <br />5. Focus on the issue of process versus goals in the interview process. <br />6. Need to look at having someone wit6 the ability to recognize potenti~l cost savings <br />in the project and also any potential problems. <br />7. What ezperience does your company have with joint ventures and/or with multiple <br />partners? <br />8. What knowledge & egperience does your company have working on federally <br />~ funded projects? <br />Page 1 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.