dude thinks rg has a vote...sheesh...noob.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Facilities Plans...
- Thread starter BlackNGold
- Start date
dude thinks rg has a vote...sheesh...noob.
fatbuff
Member
I thought you were insinuating that he was a shill for Icon.
hmmmm...good point.
i should have considered the roof leakage potential before I posted.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
The screening committee has chosen the short list.
Hensel Phelps w/Milender White Construction
J.E. Dunn w/ ZGF w/ AECOM
Mortenson w/ Populous
PTS3 PCL-Turner Joint Venture
Hensel Phelps/White is a very strong team. In my mind it likely comes down to them and Mortenson/Populous.
Populous is a specialized architecture firm that designs stadiums/arenas all over the world. Recent projects Kyle Field Texas A&M, McLane Stadium Baylor, TCF Stadium Minnesota
Hensel Phelps w/Milender White Construction
J.E. Dunn w/ ZGF w/ AECOM
Mortenson w/ Populous
PTS3 PCL-Turner Joint Venture
Hensel Phelps/White is a very strong team. In my mind it likely comes down to them and Mortenson/Populous.
Populous is a specialized architecture firm that designs stadiums/arenas all over the world. Recent projects Kyle Field Texas A&M, McLane Stadium Baylor, TCF Stadium Minnesota
Last edited:
The principals at Populous were with HOK Sport that designed Coors Field as well. They also are involved in the Cubs new spring training facility in Mesa AZ... I like the shortlist a lot...
Last edited:
Yes that would be impossible. I have had software contracts take 6 months to get through legal and they were for less than $500k. I can't image how complex a $100+ million construction contract would be.
Not sure what experience your legal team has in dealing with software companies? But my contract experience with software companies has been fairly straight forward. You agree to their T&C's or you don't get their product. Many software company's have very similar T&C verbiage in their contracts and are unwilling to change any of it. EPC "Engineer Procure & Construct" contracts are a completely different animal. Also known as Design/Build
To answer El Gringo's question, yes, there are boiler plate contracts for the government. Typically in the Public Sector just about any company that has the resources & right qualifications can bid on a city, state, or federal project. Women owned & minority owned businesses can sometimes have an advantage. However, large Private Sector engineering companies have their own boilerplate contracts too. They also have preferred contractors, sub cons, and suppliers that they regularly send there RFP's to, which is probably one of many policy & procedure differences in how CU operates and will make the final award. My best guess here is that the contract T&C's were sent out to "GC" General Contractor companies sometime ago that CU has used in the past and to other companies who would also qualify and submit sealed competitive bids. Those companies would then agree "at least in principle" to the contract terms and the winning bidder would work out the details prior to the award announcement. The schedule requirements, insurance, performance bonds, permits, safety, environmental & materials requirements, etc are always spelled out in the contract. All of this and more would come on the heels of any required impact studies. Then as DBT mentioned, comes the NTP. To expedite the award for projects of this size and scope, the submitted proposals would have to be narrowed down to say 4-6 companies, maybe less as it takes a long time to accurately evaluate each and every proposal. Since it was noted that the winning GC will be announced on the 12th, it's fair to say that the other GC's who lost out will receive their Thank-you letters by the 10th.
Pulling for Mortenson/Populous. Lots of experience in doing these kinds of projects and doing them well. Very solid list though. The screening committee did a very good job.
You are rooting for a design firm? Why? this hurts my brain.
Wouldnt you want the firm that produces the best, most forward thinking and usable design? One that can be executed cost effectively and quickly, without regard to who it maybe with in the short list?
I like their past designs for their forward thinking, usability, and sustainability. I like their design tendencies. I also trust Mortenson as a G/C as projects of this size and scope are their specialty. They are also run by a CU alum and they hire lots of CU grads.
Originally Posted by tante
Not sure what experience your legal team has in dealing with software companies? But my contract experience with software companies has been fairly straight forward. You agree to their T&C's or you don't get their product. Many software company's have very similar T&C verbiage in their contracts and are unwilling to change any of it. EPC "Engineer Procure & Construct" contracts are a completely different animal. Also known as Design/Build
maybe the stakes are just higher in my line of work so the indemnification clause is always a fun one. I fully admit it is the legal team on our side that causes the delay. We recently just did a project that started last September 2012. We narrowed four vendors to two and did on site POC's. Selection was December 5th 2012 and we sent the contract to legal. We finally got a signed agreement in May of 2013. The vendor had a one page T&C. (we have a 40 page BAA).
All lovely things but every firm on the shortlist is a field leader they may not have the CU connections but what we want here is the best bid without regard to connections we are not the government.
True, but I don't think its unreasonable for me to have a favorite of the four. I like the work that both Mortenson and Populous have done in the past and trust their experience with projects like this.
Ahhh yes, Indemnification articles are always sore points with just about any contract. These days 40 pages is really nothing out of the ordinary. When small companies see them, they run away. I would bet your legal team eventually caved to the software company's T&C's.
I believe that we accepted their T&C's but made some modification to our BAA to counter some things, just to make it a huge legal mess if it comes to it and provide job security for lawyers everywhere. All I have experience with are software/computer hardware contracts, so I know it would take a miracle to get a contract signed in 5 days. 5 weeks would probably be a record.
There are no simple questions. Just simple people.
What's their star rating? What at do their offer lists look like? I mean are we competing against targets and walmarts or dunkin donuts and dairy queens.
For construction contracts, most of the legal stuff is included in the RFP boilerplate and has been pretty fully vetted. So legal review is just to make sure no shenanigans went on in the selection process which could lead to a protest. We don't like shenanigans.
The lead architect was only a 2 star coming out of architecture school. Stars are overrated IMO.
The VA is awful. Usually.
Originally Posted by tante
Yes that would be impossible. I have had software contracts take 6 months to get through legal and they were for less than $500k. I can't image how complex a $100+ million construction contract would be.
Not sure what experience your legal team has in dealing with software companies? But my contract experience with software companies has been fairly straight forward. You agree to their T&C's or you don't get their product. Many software company's have very similar T&C verbiage in their contracts and are unwilling to change any of it. EPC "Engineer Procure & Construct" contracts are a completely different animal. Also known as Design/Build
To answer El Gringo's question, yes, there are boiler plate contracts for the government. Typically in the Public Sector just about any company that has the resources & right qualifications can bid on a city, state, or federal project. Women owned & minority owned businesses can sometimes have an advantage. However, large Private Sector engineering companies have their own boilerplate contracts too. They also have preferred contractors, sub cons, and suppliers that they regularly send there RFP's to, which is probably one of many policy & procedure differences in how CU operates and will make the final award. My best guess here is that the contract T&C's were sent out to "GC" General Contractor companies sometime ago that CU has used in the past and to other companies who would also qualify and submit sealed competitive bids. Those companies would then agree "at least in principle" to the contract terms and the winning bidder would work out the details prior to the award announcement. The schedule requirements, insurance, performance bonds, permits, safety, environmental & materials requirements, etc are always spelled out in the contract. All of this and more would come on the heels of any required impact studies. Then as DBT mentioned, comes the NTP. To expedite the award for projects of this size and scope, the submitted proposals would have to be narrowed down to say 4-6 companies, maybe less as it takes a long time to accurately evaluate each and every proposal. Since it was noted that the winning GC will be announced on the 12th, it's fair to say that the other GC's who lost out will receive their Thank-you letters by the 10th.
Thanks Huge. My experience has only been in the private sector representing owners. As DBT points out, we would attach our list of modifications to the AIA forms to shift all the risk over to contractor. If a bidding contractor made too many changes to swing the risk back to us, they knew they would be at risk of losing the bid. The best was post-2008 RE bust. Contractors were desperate for work, so the contracts often came back with few changes.
I'm not sure what your point of reference is. Are you talking about a construction project? Our projects, the ones I'm used to, are usually small, less than $10 million. But even the bigger ones ($20 million +), follow the same procedures. I don't know much about the VA, but they follow the same rules we do. Maybe their contracting people do things a bit differently. One thing about government, if an office gets burned, they add more procedural stuff to avoid getting burned again. That's how bureaucracy gets cumbersome. As for CU, I assume they follow state rules and regs. But construction contract law is pretty universal, I think.
from what I know, it was a napkin deal that is over-budget and behind schedule. The post had a huge article about it, I'm surprised you missed it.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_23612599/aurora-va-hospital-plans-are-199-million-over