High Performance:No Decisions
Playgrounds @ City of Roseville, MN
Background
• 69% citizens would likely vote for a tax increase to fund program
• Result: $19M citywide park renewal program– Playgrounds: $1.6M (8%)
2
Master Plan
Renewal Program
Citizen Support
3
Project 002-2013 (7-$75,000 play areas, $525,000 total)
Central Park Victoria ballfields 2013Materion Park 2013Tamarack Park 2013Villa Park (upper) 2014Langton Lake Park/C2 2015Mapleview Park 2015Owasso Park 2015
Project 003-2013 (5-$125,000 play areas, $625,000 total)Howard Johnson Park 2014Oasis Park 2014Acorn Park 2015Bruce Russell Park 2015Langton Lake Park (ballfields) 2015
Project 004-2013 (1-$225,000 play area $225,000 total)Central Park Victoria West 2014
Project 005-2013 (1-$225,000 play area $225,000 total)Central Park Lexington 2015
Typical Evaluation Process
4
Best Value Approach• Biggest risk: neighborhood
engagement
• Evaluation factors:– Risk– Value Add– Capability– Interview– Cost
5
Evaluation
6
Download the evals1. Make a table on a sheet of paper:
2. Go to http://bit.do/ouc3. Click on “Playground Submittals”
folder7
Criteria P-002 P-003 P-004
Risk Plan
Capability
Value Add
Submit Answers1. Back to http://bit.do/ouc2. Click on “Playground Eval Form” and
then “Open”
8
Your ratings…
9
Actual ratings…
10
Raw Data
No CriteriaPossible Points P-001 P-002 P-003 P-004 P-005 P-006 P-007
1 Cost 100 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
2 Interview Rating 350 6.0 8.3 3.7 5.0 6.7 6.7 5.0
3 Risk Plan 200 5.2 7.5 5.0 5.0 5.8 7.5 5.8
4 Project Capability Plan 200 5.8 9.2 5.0 5.8 6.7 5.0 5.8
5 Value Added Plan 100 5.2 8.3 5.8 5.0 6.7 7.5 6.7
6 PPI (1-10) 50 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.8
Points P-001 P-002 P-003 P-004 P-005 P-006 P-007
1 Cost 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 Interview Rating 350 252.0 350.0 154.0 210.0 280.0 280.0 210.0
3 Risk Plan 200 137.8 200.0 133.3 133.3 155.6 200.0 155.6
4 Project Capability Plan 200 127.3 200.0 109.1 127.3 145.5 109.1 127.3
5 Value Added Plan 100 62.0 100.0 70.0 60.0 80.0 90.0 80.0
6 PPI (1-10) 50 50.0 50.0 49.8 50.0 49.7 49.2 49.0
729 1,000 616 681 811 828 722
Project Results• 50% ahead of schedule (from
estimate)
• 0% change orders
• 100% city satisfaction
11
Overall program results
12
Performance CriteriaLead
ConsultantNatural
Resources Playgrounds Final PlansOverall change order rate 0% 0% 0% 0% Client 0% 0% 0% 0% Designer 0% 0% 0% 0% Contractor 0% 0% 0% 0% Unforeseen 0% 0% 0% 0% Overall delay rate 10.4% 0% 0% 0% Client 10.4% 0% 0% 0% Designer 0% 0% 0% 0% Contractor 0% 0% 0% 0% Unforeseen 0% 0% 0% 0%
Citizen FeedbackSurvey Question AverageThe PRRP is being efficiently delivered by the City. 8.4The City is acting in the best interest of Roseville citizens. 8.4Level of transparency of City staff and contracted firms (9 = very transparent) 8.4Overall satisfaction with the public engagement process. 8.4Overall satisfaction with the contracted firms. 8.4Overall satisfaction with the PRRP. 8.5
13
121 unique surveys, representing 14 parks
So, what risk is there on the project?
14
Potential Risk Applicable?
Consultants won’t understand how to propose
There will not be enough proposals (competition)
The citizens do not support the program
City (non-experts) cannot accurately describe their needs
Consultants (even with lots of education) will revert
The process will not work in ___________ scope area
There is no construction management firm
The process will take too much time and effort
The vendor proposes a schedule that the City cannot meet
Political risk (city council, naysayers, internal departments)
NONONONO
NONONONOYES
YES