Laserfiche WebLink
rental rate of $1.20 per square foot". Yet the county's budgetary <br />~ assumption for Courthouse Square is $1.30 a square foot; (3) a disparity in the most recent <br />proforma in documenting spending for soil remediation. <br />The committee in its interim report Mazch 13 made two recommendations that we repeat here: <br />1. No work should be undertaken without written contracts in place. <br />2. Both the county and the transit district should adopt policies the prohibit boazd <br />members and staff from doing business with the political entity for one year after a <br />person leaves. <br />If the transit board and the county commissioners decide to approve design development of <br />Courthouse Square, the Special Project Oversight Committee (SPOC) makes the following <br />recommendations: <br />1. The two boards should establish a~( new independent citizens committee, sl~e~~ <br />be-es~a~~ishe~ perhaps including some members of SPOC, to work with the <br />project team through construction. This coinmittee should have a clear formal <br />charge, be established with direct links to the board, should include persons with <br />technical expertise in public constructions and firumce, and should conduct a <br />continuing review process aimed at making the project credible and its sponsors <br />accountable. <br />2. Before beginning work on construction documents, the county and the district <br />should ' conduct a <br />~ documented formal ~-'~~~ =~ ~°"~-' -- "value engineering exercise". This would <br />determine whether design changes can lead to better values or lower spending. <br />3. When the final design is completed, the county and the district also should l~~e-~ <br />~„ conduct a"constructability analysis" to identify <br />problems that a contractor would encounter in following an architect's design. <br />The process should be repeated with the winning bidder. <br />4• After the final design is completed, the project team and the elected leadership, <br />' should conduct and document <br />a cost-e~g review e~e~s}se-to determine ~ if the design ~~-should be <br />refined to reduce expenses. Depending on the construction climate, items can be <br />added back or bid as alternatives. <br />5. Construction documents should be based on the results of the value engineering <br />exercise, the constructability analysis, and the cost-s~g review session. <br />6. The project should be bid in the traditional low-bid format. <br />8. If the bids exceed the budget, the transit board and the county with advice by the <br />review team should be prepazed <br />to consider other alternatives, including redesign,-~~eget~err, and cancellation. <br />9. The ~s~-be~-a~~ county should retain professional financial advisors to update <br />the financial assumptions and costs and to examine ' <br />~ <br />3 <br />