Building Needs Assessment Work Group Minutes

March 5, 2020 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

SCLS Headquarters

Badger Room



Corey Baumann

Nan Brien                   

Kerrie Goeden            

Mark Ibach                 

Jesse Stewart             

Kristi Williams            

Martha Van Pelt



Vicki Teal


Call to Order: K. Goeden called the meeting to order at 10:03


Approval of previous meeting minutes:  February 6, 2020

a.     Motion by M. Ibach to accept the minutes

b.     Second by  N. Brien

c.      Approved



Attorney input regarding BNAW process - M. Van Pelt, report was sent out as a separate document.  High Points: Do not need to bid for services.  Hiring a design builder is for their services. Have to bid for construction.  It would be best to have the design build NOT submit bids to self-perform work.  Make sure architect is AIA certified.


The work group discussed the report and had questions.

1.     Are the Design Builders still interested in the project if they can’t bid on it?

2.     What is their process if they submit a bid to self –perform?

3.     What assurance can they provide that their specs do not favor their company if they submit work to self-perform


K. Williams opined (after talking with peers in the business) that we should visit buildings done by design builders sooner rather than later.   This will help the group in the decision process.


M. Van Pelt will create a separate document of questions to ask design builders.  It will be found in the shared drive under Z:\Meetings\Building Needs Assessment Workgroup\Reports and Documents



·       Reviewed the matrix updated with the RFI document information. Some highlights from the matrix are as follows.  See matrix for full list of questions and information.

1.     Keller: will take responsibility for errors; very detailed and was uncomfortable giving a budget without all the information.  Speaks to his detailed approach.

2.     Tri-North: Don’t want to take responsibility for errors

3.     Sullivan: will take responsibility for errors

4.     Newcomb (Tilt up construction) more open ended on following up on errors or resolving disputes.  Original budget and presentation budget numbers did not match

5.     Vogel Brothers:  Will take responsibility for errors and resolving disputes.  Quote was for smaller buildings (30K sf & 34K sf) to stay within budget.  2 options new and rehab.  Numbers seemed unrealistically low


·       Develop numerical evaluation scale to use at the April meeting to assess the builder information from presentations and RFIs that has been compiled into the matrix.


Homework for Next Meeting: 

·       Add builder information to the matrix from their on-site presentations.

o   M. Van Pelt - Sullivan

o   C. Baumann/ J. Stewart - Keller

M. Ibach - Tri North

o   K. Goeden - Newcomb

o   V. Teal - Vogel

o   Identify differences from RFI and presentations, conflicting or additional information



Feb – April evaluation of RFIs & information from original presentations and possible follow up with vendors

April assign numerical evaluation with the goal of narrowing down the list of vendors; develop reference questions, then call references before May meeting

May Discuss checked references

June Site visits

July Site visits

August Decide on Design-Build vendor


Next Meeting Date:  4/2/20 at 10:00 a.m.


Adjournment:  11:32 am


Parking Lot: 

            Need to create:

·       Location report

·       Detailed design report

·       Mark and Vicki will look into items listed under Other “Master Building Profile by Zones”

For safety concerns and needed protections. Do we have Material Safety Sheets on these products which include necessary protections and toxicity information?

·       SUN Expansion

·       Collaborative projects – continue to consider options

·       Solar panels

·       Revisit site selection process

·       What if they don’t have an architect on staff?

·       Establish deal breakers for evaluation process