Agenda 09/13/2011 Item #16E13Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
September 13, 2011
CONTINUE ITEM 16E13 TO THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 MEETING:
RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR
USE OF PEER REVIEWS OF DESIGNS FOR MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS.
(STAFF REQUEST)
Continue Item 16A3 to the September 27, 2011 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to grant final
approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Caldecott with
roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained and authorizing release of the
maintenance security (Staff request due to a calculation error in the performance security)
Move Item 16A14 to Item 10J: PMC- PL2011 -872: Heavenly PUD — Notification of staff intent to
approve a minor amendment to the Heavenly PUD in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.13.E.6 and
8 to change location and type of plantings and revise buffer standards to reduce height of trees and
plantings due to site conditions and conflict with FPL lines, and allow payment in lieu of sidewalks
instead of construction of a sidewalk along Myrtle Road from North Trail Boulevard to the project
entrance. property located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire block bounded by Ridge
Drive, West Street, Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East
Collier County, FL (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A16 to Item 1OK: Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for submittal of a
State of Good Repair (SGR) Bus and Bus Facilities grant application, in the amount $11,335,290, to
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for construction of improvements at the Collier Area Transit
Administration and Maintenance Facility at 8300 Radio Road (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A19 to Item 1 OH: Recommendation to accept a Speed Limit Study Report and adopt a
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, authorizing a speed
limit decrease from fifty-five miles per hour (55 mph) to fifty miles per hour (50 mph) on Collier
Boulevard from to Golden Gate Boulevard at a cost of approx.. $500. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Withdraw Item 16A25: Recommendation to advertise an amendment to Ordinance No. 2009 -44,
Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit
(MSTU) Ordinance, to remove a sunset provision of six years and provide the MSTU be dissolved
upon recommendation by the MSTU Advisory Committee and approval by Board of County
Commissioners. (Staff request to coordinate with future MSTU Referendum question)
Move Item 16B2 to 13A: Continued from the May 10, 2011 BCC mtg. Recommendation to approve
a Resolution to petition Governor Scott to extend the "Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern"
designation awarded to Florida's Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative, Inc. for
another 5 -years and keep the Community of Immokalee in the South Central Rural Area of Critical
Economic Concern designation (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Withdraw Item 16C12: Recommendation to approve a requisite Memorandum of Agreement with
FDOT and the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Treasury, to establish an interest
bearing escrow account for funds required to relocate Collier County Water -Sewer District -owned
underground utility lines to accommodate widening State Road 84 between Santa Barbara Boulevard
and Radio Road. (County Attorney's request)
Move Item 16D5 to Item 10I: Recommendation to waive boarding fees in the amount of $16,400
associated with kenneling two declared dangerous dogs, in exchange for dismissal of a pending
dangerous dog appeal, and in order for the dogs to be reunited with the owners, who currently live out -
of- county. (Commissioner Coletta's request)
Move Item 16D8 to Item IOG: This item was continued from the July 26, 2011 BCC Meeting.
Request the Board of County Commissioners review and approve County Attorney's recommendation
to waive any potential ethics conflict for a Code Enforcement Board member based on Ch. 112,
Florida Statutes. (Commissioner Coyle's request)
Move Item 16H3 to Item 9H: Authorize the Chairman to sign a letter of concurrency for the Florida
Department of Children and Families for a State of FL Refugee Services Targeted Assistance Grant
Program and utilize funds in the County through Catholic Charities (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Move Item 16K2 to Item 11A: Request authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration ordinances which repeal or amend certain Collier County ordinances relating to the
regulation of firearms and ammunition in order to comply with recent amendments to Section 790.33,
Florida Statutes which preempts all such regulatory powers to the State of Florida effective October 1
2011, and that following such future public hearing the Board considers referring two Special Acts
dealing with firearms to the Legislative Delegation, with a request the Legislature review them for
possible repeal. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Continue Item 16K6 to the October 11, 2011 BCC Meetinir Recommendation that the Board
consider the withdrawal of the designation of the Stewardship Sending Area known as Half Circle L
Ranch Partnership ( "HCLRP ") SSA #8 and the termination of the Stewardship Sending Area Credit
Agreement and the Stewardship Easement Agreement, and the canceling of the Stewardship credits
generated by the designation of said Stewardship Sending Area. (County Attorney's request)
Note:
Item 8C does not require that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members as stated in the
agenda title. Also, Items 8B and 8C are companion items; Item 8C will be heard before 8B.
Item 16A20 "Recommendation" portion of the Executive Summary should read: That the Board of
County Commissioners accept the Traffic Speed Limit Study and adopt the Resolution decreasing
increasing the speed limit on a designated section of Pine Ridge Road, authorize Chairman to execute
the Resolution, and authorize County Manager to erect and remove appropriate traffic control signs.
(Commissioner Fiala's request)
Item 16A21 requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
f
9/13/2011 Item 16. E.13.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to establish standards and criteria for the use of Peer Reviews of
designs for major .capital projects.
O 3QTIVE: To provide guidance and set criteria for the use of peer reviews as part of the
design phase of major capital projects.
CCQNSli: g TI!QNS. At its June 28, 2011 regular meeting, the BCC directed the County
Manager to research best practices for the use of peer reviews in government agencies and
return with a report and recommendations regarding implementation of peer review of major
capital projects.
Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field
in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field. It is based
on the concept that a larger and more diverse group, of people will usually find more
weaknesses and errors in a work or performance and will be able to make a more impartial
evaluation of it than will just the person or group responsible for creating the work or
performance. (The Linux Information Project, Copyright 02005)
In applying the concept to design and construction projects, ARCOR -Inc, a San Diego based
Architectural and Construction consulting firm; refines that definition "as a comprehensive
review of the design and constructability of ` a construction project by an independent entity,
experienced in the fields of design and construction. Peen Reviews are performed during the
project design phase in order to mitigate or eliminate the potential for construction
defects... Project peer review is an important tool for the construction industry with respect to
Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC /QA) and if properly implemented can have a- positive
effect on a broad range of issues,.."
Collier County currently uses peer review on an as- needed basis, but has not adopted or
formalized a protocol on its use.
In Transportation Engineering, projects are distributed for in -house peer review by Traffic
Operations, Road & Bridge, Right of Way, Stormwater and Public Utilities at the 30 %, 60 % and
$0 %o design stages using on staff licensed professional engineers and registered landscape
architects:. Additionally, a Constructability Review is performed at the 60% Design Stage by the .
Construction Engineering Inspection Firm (CEIF) assigned to projects.
Consultants are utilized to perform structural peer review of bridges with the exception of pre-
engineered structures such as pedestrian bridges or box culverts. All bridge designs require a
Bridge Development Report in accordance with the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual. This
report is subjected to peer review by an independent Structural Engineering Consultant.
FDOT Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction provides for, but does,not mandate, a
Value Engineering Cost Proposal (VECP) process whereby a contractor can propose cost
saving changes (subject to FDOT approval) to the plans and the savings are split between the
owner and the contractor.
The criteria fcr peer review of Public Services projects is the complexity of the project. For this
reason, as part of the North Naples Regional Park project, the design contract included'
Packet Page - 2741
1
9/13/2011 Item 16. E.13.
language requiring the submission of design development documents to a consulting firm with
park design experience for peer review and a constructsbility check by a general contracting
firm to review the plans and comment on the ease of construction and bidding. Additionally, the
selected Contractor was required to review the estimate of probable cost and suggest
modifications to unit costs based upon current construction pricing trends.
In the Public Utilities Division, expensive complex projects undergo a formal "Value
Engineering" process where independent engineers evaluate design plans and specifications in
order to establish the "Best Value" to the end user. Peer Review is typically used on projects
where the values exceed $1 million and where a consiructability review by a third party
engineering consultant is employed. Other, less complex projects undergo an internal review by
on -staff professional engineers, project managers, and the certified operations staff.
Staff was unable to find any published best practices for governmental agencies regarding the
use of peer reviews. Absent formal guidance, Purchasing staff conducted a survey of several
Florida counties as to how (and if) they have a peer review process. ' The results follow. To
summarize, the counties we surveyed generally select projects for peer review based on
complexity, while a few employ the practice for all projects. Most use internal licensed staff but
contract out particularly large or complex projects.
Packet Page -2742-
gm
r
Peer fi ne r of struct#c>n Prot
factors tt��Det+e ir»ine Which Pic►
County
Desgns:Perforined fsy.
to Review..
Eitherstaff or outside Architects and
Depends on workload by staff and on
Miami/Dade -
Engineers when relatively complex projects
special expertise that may not exist in-
Aviation
are managed by staff or business partners
house
Miami /Dade -
All projects undergo peer review of each
General Services_
Internal licensed Architects and Engineers
discipline
All projects undergo peer review by an
Broward
In-house by Construction Mgmt Division
architect or engineer
Staff meets every week to review, evaluate,
Determined on a case -by -case basis. Staff
modify submittals. Outside professionals
expertise or lack of, and the complexity of
Charlotte
review more complex /difficult projects
the project
Large projects are done by registered
professional engineers through competitive
Lee
negotiation process
N/A
Regularly by staff when project designed
externally, External consultants when
Case -by -case in considering complexities or
Manatee
complex, large, high dollar project
sensitivities
No "formal" peer reviews, reviews are done
Palm Beach
by in -house "experts"
N/A
Performed but not mandatory. In -house
Pinellas
certified engineers r iew outside designs
To ensure design works for the application
Dedicated internal staff performs reviews
Hillsborough
for Transportation and Stormwater projects
Every project is reviewed
Internal Construction review committees
(fie. engineers, inspectors, construction
Done at 60%,90% and 1009E design phase
Orange
division personnel, Purchasing)
on all construction pro cts over $34,000
Packet Page -2742-
9/13/20.11 Item 16.E.13.
FISCAL IMPACT: Costs, if any, would be included in individual project budgets. The cost of
outside peer review is estimated at approximately 25% of the original design cost. Additionally, if
changes or modifications are recommended, there could be additional fees for redesign
approximating up to 30% of the design cost.
LEGAL CQMSI2ERATIONS: This Rem has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is legally
sufficient for Board action, and requires majority support for action. -JAK
GROWTH- WWW IMP CT: There is no growth management impact associated with
the Executive Summary.
REC4IM ENQATPN: To minimize cost, staff recommends the use of in -house staff for peer
review whenever possible and practical as follows:
1. In conjunction with and under the same conditions as the BCC's recently adopted value
engineering .guidance (vertical construction in excess of $10 million).
2. When mandated by funding or approving agencies.
3. When deemed appropriate by staff.
4. When directed on a project specific basis by the BCC.
PREPARED &Y: Len Golden Price, ASD Administrator
Packet Page -2743-
9/13/2011 Item .16.E.13.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.E.13.`
Item Summary: Recommendation that the Board adopt criteria for review of conceptual
plans and designs for major capital projects.
Meeting Date: 9/13/2011
Prepared By
Name: pochopinpat
Title: Administrative Assistant Facilities Management
8/26/20113:25 :23,PM
Submitted by
Title: Administrative Assistant,Facilities Management
Name: pochopinpat
8/26/20113:25:24 PM
Approved By
Name: WardKelsey
Title: Manager - Contracts. Administration,Purchasing & Ge
Date: 8/26/20114:18:54 PM
Name. YilmazGeorge
Title: Director - Wastewater,Wastewater
Date: 8/28/2011 10:47006 PM
Name: SmithKristen
Title: Administrative Secretary,Risk Management
Date: 8/29/20118:15:16 AM
Name: Marcella7eanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 8/29/20119:02:24 AM
I
Name: CampSkip
Packet Page - 2744 -
I
9/13/2011 item 16.E.13.
Title: Director Facilities Management,Facilities Manage
Date 8/29/20119:29:58 AM
Name: ChmelikTom
Title: Project Manager, Principal,Public Utilities Engine
Date: 8/29/2011 11:29 :23 AM
Name: FederNorman
Title: Administrator - Growth Management Div,Transportati
Date: 8/30/20117:16:09 AM
Name: CarnellSteve
Title: Director - Purchasing/General Services,Purchasing
Date`. 8/30/201110:17:59 AM
Name: AhmadJay
Title: Director - Transportation Engineering,TransportatioR Engineering & Construction Management
Date: 8/30/20112:08:50 PM
Name: JonesHank
Title: Project Manager, Principal,Facilities Management
Date: 8/31,/2011 10 :06:21 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 8/31/2011 10:14 :10 AM
Name: PriceLen
Title: Administrator - Administrative Services,
Date: 8/31/2011 1:54:36 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 9/l/2011,11:39:09 AM
Name: StanleyTherese
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior,Office of Management & Budget
Date:'9 /2/20112:17:59 PM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 9/2/20114-48:05 PM
Packet Page -2745-
9/13/2011 Item 16.E.13.
EXECUTIVE SUPWARY
Recommendation that the Beard adopt criteria for review of conceptual plans and
designs for major capital projects.
O% EQT_B ; To establish thresholds and criteria under which the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) will review conceptual plans and designs of major capital projects.
COMStERA7tONS At its May 10, 2011 regular meeting, the BCC directed the County
Manager to draft a set of criteria for staff to present design plans and /or concepts to the Board
for review and input.
Within our current processes, there are a number of times at which design plans and conceptual
drawings are presented to the Board. Such instances include requests for re- zoning,
conditional use, or variances. The County uses standard scopes of service within our design
contracts, with deliverables in stages usually conceptual design with a selection of 3 to 6
potential designs, then 30 %, 60 %, 90% and 100% plans. There is usually a presentation of the
conceptual plans in one or several publicly advertised meetings to solicit community input,
followed by a final design selection. There are deliverables at each stage.
At the end of the June 15, 2011 continuation of the Board's regular meeting, a conversation
ensued regarding peer review of design plans. Staff occasionally uses peer review on a case
by case basis, as was the case with the design of the North Collier Regional Park and there are
certain,Transportation projects that require peer review.
Transportation'-Engineering utilizes peer review extensively. The County employs licensed
professional engineers in all disciplines as well as registered landscape architects. Consultants
are utilized to perform structural peer review of bridges with the exception of pre- engineered
structures such as pedestrian bridges or box culverts. All projects, most of which are designed
by external consultants, are distributed for peer review by Traffic Operations, Road & Bridge,
Right of Way, Stormwater and Public Utilities at the 30 %, 60% and 90% design stages. When
smaller projects are designed in- house, the peer review is conducted by staff from another
department to ensure objectivity and independent review.
All bridge designs require a Bridge Development Report in accordance with the FDOT Plans
Preparation Manual. This report is subjected to peer review by an independent structural
engineering consultant. Peer review is performed at the 60% Design Stage by the Construction
Engineering and Inspection (CEI) firm assigned to the project in what is referred to as a
"Co nstructability Review." Additionally, FDOT.,Specifcations for Road and Bridge Construction
provides a Value Engineering Cost Proposal (VECP) process whereby a contractor can propose
cost saving changes to the plans and the savings are split ,between the owner and the
contractor.
The County has also established a procedure for Value Engineering of certain projects. Value
Engineering incorporates the elements of peer review but adds additional review criteria that
evaluate means, methods, and specifications with an eye on best value acid potential cost
reductions.
FIACAL INI.eACT: Additional presentations to the Board and any 'changes or alternates
requested would likely result in additional design fees or potentially increase construction costs.
Packet Page -2746-
A
9/13/2011 Item 16 E 13
This could also impact project schedules, permitting, and grant compliance. The cost of such
changes, which would be effected via change orders, cannot be accurately estimated and would
be highly dependent upon the scope of the change and the type of project. Historically, the
additional cost of redesign represents approximately10% to '30% of the design cost. The cost of
outside peer review /value engineering is estimated at approximately 25% of the original design
cost. Cost for consultant presentations are generally between $1,000 and $2,500.
LEGAL. I_IQM&, NS: This item is legally sufficient for Board action, and requires
majority support for approval. -JAK
GRQ1NH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with
the Executive Summary.
RECtOMMENDATIQN: It is recommended that the Board direct the following actions:
1. The Board shall .review design plans at the 30% completion stage for all vertical
construction; projects with an estimated project cost in excess of $5 million, subsequent
to any public information meetings that may have been held.
2. Vertical construction projects in excess of $10 million will require a value engineering
review as referenced in the attached Appendix 4 to the Procurement Administrative
Procedures.
PREPARED BY: Len Golden Price, ASD Administrator
Packet Page 2747-