A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. concerning architectural and engineering design services related to the concourse expansion project at Denver International Airport. Approves a five-year contract with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., in the amount of $65 million for professional architectural design and engineering services for gate expansion projects on Concourse A, Concourse B, and Concourse C, including new aircraft gates, hold rooms, a full basement, aircraft rated pavement, and other projects required to support the 39 new aircraft gates at Denver International Airport (201733061). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-4-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 11-1-17.
Under. Yes. And Councilman Gilmore has also called out Resolution 1219 for a vote. Is that all correct, everyone? Okay, great. Under bills for introduction, we have nothing called out. Under bills for final consideration. We have nothing called out and under pending. We have nothing caught out. Madam Secretary, please put your 16, 17, 18 on the screen. Councilman Espinosa. Why don't you put the 16, 17, 18 on the floor? Okay. I move that resolutions 12, 16, 12, 17 and 1218 be adopted in a block. Right. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember as a council councilman. ESPINOSA Actually, originally, I just was going to call it out to explain why I was going to abstain. But I do now have a couple of questions if the airport is here. Yep, I think we have a representative from the airport here. Not that representative, but there you go back there. Aaron Barraza and Aaron. Sorry to do this to you, but I did get a very thorough reply from an email from the airport. And of course, that just tickles my my brain on these matters. So the. This is going to be a cost savings. I mean, it'll come at risk. All the contracts are come at risk, correct? Sure. Yes. What mean? How much of the fee is the at risk fee? Answer. Good question. I'm going to bring up our senior vice president of airport infrastructure management. Mark Baker. He knows this stuff in more detail than I will. Know, colleagues, if this came up in committee. I apologize. I won't go very long into this. Good evening, Councilmembers and Councilman Espinosa. Thank you for that question. We have worked very diligently with all our contract partners in preparation for this resolution and all of agreed to take a 3% as a part of the work out at the airport to assist us in delivering the gates that are so badly needed by the airlines. I assume that the contracts have the normal costs, the contract, the seating law. That's what's confusing me. And the normal cost savings, not just the at risk component, but the normal cost savings. If the construction sort of comes in early and below budget, below the GMP, I should say. Sure. The normal cost savings structures are there that we would normally see in a GMP contract. Is that correct? That's correct. So in in this arrangement, does the CRM or the GC or do both share in the cost savings? Let me yeah. Let me turn to our director or senior director for infrastructure. And he's been working the intimate details. He'd be able to kind of address that more thoroughly. Mr. Adam. Thank you for bringing Evan. I'm glad I'm asking, because then you guys were just sitting there in vain. I'm Mark Adams, the senior director of development at the airport. And so in the construction manager's contracts, we have. A contingency. Built in for them to use. At the end of that project, that's an 8020 split. 80% of that comes back to the airport, 20% goes to the contractors. The rest of the contingencies and other costs that are built into the overall program all go back to the airport. If it doesn't get spent. The contingencies but so the at risk fee is is preserve to always correct but the actual contingencies are split this way or 100% to the airport. But you said the contractors is that so that 20% is that just to the GC or the CRM? So the CRM is the GC is correct. Great. Because the reason why I'm asking is if we're on time and below budget or early and below budget, that does not happen by accident. But it's not also just a glorious CRM that made that happen. There are a lot of subs involved. Is there some sort of cost sharing structure that I should know about related to the subs that are working on these projects? We don't because our relationship is just with the CMG C, we don't have a look into those relationships, so I don't have an answer. I did want to bring this up just more sort of mindful to my colleague Wayne New, who's working on other sort of contracts, measures related more towards those subs, less towards the primes and the people on top that we deal with directly. So thank you very much. All right. So my rest is just comments. So I, I, I'm a I really just called this out so I could abstain mostly because I wasn't quite I didn't get myself up to speed on the inventive ideas that were brought by by this these groups on these contracts to adequately wrap my head around the request, as you can see, I'm sort of asking sort of normal, fundamental questions for me at this late hour. So I'm just going to be abstaining. Thanks, colleagues. Okay. Councilor Flynn, you still want it? Yes, sir. Got. Thank you, Mr. President. Do you see that I rhyme there? I don't know if you saw that. No. Sorry, sir. Thank you. I this is the first contract I've seen come through here and as well in my experience covering large infrastructure projects to use this delivery method. And so I was skeptical at first and I wanted to thank the airport staff for providing great additional detail on how the procurement went down, because you don't like to be the first to try something here in this market because there's always a risk. But I was very much persuaded by the information that through Aaron was was provided to me. And I look forward to keeping an eye on this project as it moves forward and adds these much needed gates to the airport in and particularly in seeing how this this delivery method works and whether it might be applicable to other projects, maybe as the bond comes forward. So thank you very much, Mr. President. That's all. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Aaron. I'm going to follow up with a question that I raised earlier. I think it's important to know who the subs are and what the percentage that each of those subs will be getting on both of these two contracts. Can you share that with us? Sure. So first, I can let you know that the Division of Small Business Opportunity assigned a 24% goal to each of the construction contracts and 18% going to each of the design contracts. The right now, since the gate, the gates aren't designed yet. There are no. Maybe we be commitments just yet. Construction on the construction projects with any companies in particular. Once we get a little bit further down the road, then that's when those companies will be coming into play. But the SBA has approved the compliance plan that the contractors have submitted. But we do have some that have been selected, right? Yes. So once again, I'll call Mark Big or Mark Adams. So I just think it's helpful to know I mean, I asked this question often on many of our contracts. I like to know what the goals commitment are that we're setting for the the minority and women businesses that are in our community that try to take advantage of work just like many of our primes do with with these big projects that the city is doing. So can you share that with us? Absolutely. So, you know, we're happy with both of the CMG C firms in that they both did joint ventures with with, you know, from larger firms that have these experiences to local firms. I mean, turners with flat irons holders with FCA, the Turner Flat Irons team also has an associate partner to it with Gilmore Construction. I believe that's the only commitment that's been made. They helped in the process of putting together the response to the RFP or excuse me, to the RFQ, and they were part of the team during the selection process. I believe that's the only commitment. And that's just on the Turner contract. What about on the Holder? They are. Correct. They do not have any commitments at this point. Again, because we haven't designed anything. We haven't built out anything. They don't have any commitments. So the 24, 24% on each will come once the design is finished and you get ready to move forward with the the actual construction. So one of the things I think would be important because once we approve this, you know, we won't know who those folks are. So I think having an update brought back to committee would be important so that we know who the local firms are. They get to benefit from this work. Absolutely. I believe we're committed to doing a quarterly update on this program as it goes for the next three years. So we'll definitely do that. Great. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. We're going to put all three of these on. Madam Secretary, they are on 16, 17, 18. It's already been moved to the second it roll call. Please. Espinosa abstain. Flynn I. Gilmore, I. Herndon Cashman can. Lopez. I knew. Ortega I. Susman. Lark. Clark. I. Mr. President. I please I was wondering as the results. To advise one abstention. 12 eyes one abstention. Resolution 1617 eight 1216 2017 1218 have been adopted. All right. We're going on to 1219. Will you please put that up, Madam Secretary? Councilman Espinosa, will you put Resolution 1219 on the floor for adoption?