Title
Architectural and Engineering Services for GRU's Technology Center (NB)
The City Commission authorize the Interim General Manager to negotiate and execute a contract for architectural and engineering services for the Utilities Technology Center project.
Explanation
The GRU Administration building was completed in 1991, and since that time the utility has taken advantage of the modular design characteristics to reconfigure many times to meet changing space needs. We have also moved many employees to Springhills, scheduled some employees to work four days per week when we can do so and still meet customer needs, and allowed some employees to telework when their jobs permit. Nonetheless, the building began to seriously exceed capacity in 2003, at which time the utility leased 4000 square feet in the GTECH building because the City was actively seeking tenants. When the utility goes live with the new billing system in January, 2007, several conference rooms in the Administration building will have to be closed for months in order to house necessary support staff. There is absolutely no remaining space in the Administration Building to accommodate the projected staff growth in the coming year for new Demand Side Management programs.
The hub for all of the Utility's business (billing, purchasing, accounting, inventory, e-mail, GIS, budgeting, etc.) computer and phone systems currently occupies a footprint of 1250 square feet on the ground floor in the Administration Building. We follow strict back-up protocols and have some limited redundancy at System Control, but a serious failure at the Administration Bldg could interrupt normal business operations for up to 30 days. Initially the computer center was a much smaller operation and has grown beyond that which anyone predicted at the time. It has serious limitations, some of which are solvable and some of which are not. It will cost more than $150,000 to address the identified and solvable problems in the computer center such as building a redundant air conditioning system and bricking the present window access. These amounts will not solve potential flooding concerns as the administration building atrium is built to withstand wind loading of a maximum of 95 MPH, the code at the time the building was built but seemingly insufficient now given more recent history. This same factor makes it inadvisable for employees to stay in the building to monitor the computer system during storm events because of the possibility that they would have to leave during a storm if severe flooding should occur, both leaving the system unmonitored and putting themselves in danger. At the present time it is also impossible to do a redundant power feed to the computer room fuse panel without shutting down the Administration Building for approximately four days and costing tens of thousands of additional dollars.
Additionally, the current location is susceptible to damage and operations failure in the event of an external blast detonated in the North Customer Parking area or from the limited access service drive on the East side of the building. Further, the room location on a major service hallway adjacent to the central mail and package receiving department makes it vulnerable. Given the level of security concerns that must be considered in 2006, it would not be prudent to put the computer room in a building that has public access. Finally, at the time that the administration building was designed, GRU did not have a 24/7 presence in the administrative areas. Now because of our dependence on computers for all aspects of our work, an around the clock presence is required. For both energy efficiency and security reasons, it is necessary to have a facility that can be isolated and secured for the twenty-four hour presence.
GTECH has requested that utility staff completely vacate the GTECH building no later than December, 2007 so that the facility may be used for its primary purpose of assisting incubator tenants. The utility could spend considerable sums of money on the Administration Building to reduce vulnerability to disasters and security concerns without really solving the problems. The utility continues to work closely with the CRA in the redevelopment of the Depot area property, but the CRA does not expect to have even a draft redevelopment plan until at least the second quarter of 2007. Utility staff do not believe that it is prudent to delay taking steps to solve the problems described above until the Depot Area Plan is completed.
GRU owns a separate parcel on the East side of the administration building parking lot along SE 4th Avenue, but to the West of the creek. We would like to put the design of a hardened computer center, a safe place for a few employees to stay during storms, office space for our IT and GRUCom technical staff, and our 24/7 computer/network operation on this parcel on a concurrent parallel track with the Depot Area Plan. We have spoken with General Government staff and they have expressed an interest in potentially putting computer equipment in this facility as well, thus freeing up space in the City Hall complex and resolving similar vulnerability issues.
In talking with Planning staff, we understand that this kind of use would be consistent with the probable uses contemplated in redevelopment. It would be very possible to put the office portion of this facility on the street consistent with traditional city overlay guidelines. The hardened computer facility would be at the back of the lot. Neither of these uses would require general public access to the building nor significant vehicle access, essential conditions for maintaining security. By moving ahead with this design as opposed to waiting until the Depot Plan is completed and redevelopment partners are identified, we would also shorten the amount of time that GRU would have to use modular offices by a minimum of 2-3 years. It is also possible that we would forego much of the expense of redundant air conditioning in the administration building which is not needed for other than the computer facility. We would recapture the productivity gains of having our IT staff reunited and closer to their customers. Perhaps most importantly we would have our mission critical business systems in a truly safe computer facility 2-3 years earlier.
Utilities Purchasing issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) for Architectural and Engineering services for the new Technology Center to nine architectural firms. The RFSQ was advertised in the Florida Times Union, Orlando Sentinel and Tampa Tribune, and was posted on the GRU website. Three firms submitted Statements of Qualifications, which were ranked after evaluation of the submittals and discussions with the firms in accordance with the criteria established in the RFSQ and the CCNA.
The three firms are listed below in the order of ranking. The highest ranked firm has extensive experience with data centers, hardened facilities, and public buildings. Their proposed project team includes several local participants as well as noted experts in the design of hardened data centers. 1) Architects Design Group, Inc.; 2) Brame Architects; and 3) Skinner Vignola McLean, Inc.
In accordance with the CCNA, staff is recommending initiating contract negotiations with the top ranked firm. If staff is unable to negotiate an acceptable contract with the top ranked firm, it may initiate negotiations with the other firms in order of ranking.
Recommendations
The City Commission: 1) approve the final ranking of the qualified firms in the given order of preference for the provision of Architectural and Engineering Services for the Utilities Technology Center project; 2) authorize the Interim General Manager, or her designee, to initiate contract negotiations in accordance with the Consultants' Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA); and 3) authorize the Interim General Manager or her designee, upon successful negotiations, to execute a contract subject to approval of the City Attorney as to form and legality, in an amount not to exceed budgeted amounts for the project.
Fiscal Note
Funds for these services have been included in the Utility's five year capital budget plan.
Drafter
Prepared by: Ruth H. Davis, Utilities Administrative Services Director
Submitted by: Karen Johnson, Interim General Manager