One of the conceptual drawings by REGAfter a mis-communication on how to fill out a matrix, that was resolved in one-half hour. The Commission came up with their top 6 choices out of 13 presentations that were given on February 13. Some residents were confused, as these architects responded to a Request for Qualifications. The choice was not based on any conceptual drawing that they had originally presented, only their qualifications to do the job under our criteria--similar projects, historical significance on a coastal environment, economic viability and sustainability, and commercial experience.
All 6 firms will now come back to the Commission sometime in April--date to be determined. At that meeting, they will make a presentation and the architectural firm will be chosen for our Casino building. The Commission will give them a set criteria to follow. Hopefully, that means comparing apples to apples as to the vision.
Song & Associates did lobby the merchants at the beach. Commissioner Maxwell, after my public commentary, had Mike McManaman, Purchasing Manager, explain that it is only an ethics violation if a firm had communicated with Staff or the Commission. It is apparent that public input is important to Commissioner Maxwell. He said that it should be "what the citizens want; we should have a Charette process and leave egos at the door; it should be the will of the people." Therefore, a firm up for consideration that lobbies any resident or merchant is not appropriate. We, the citizens, will or may have direct influence on the Commission's decision. This was the only firm that resorted to that practice. Also, the fact that they low-balled the cost estimate, puts them under scrutiny.
In order of rank:
1. REG 307 Evernia Street, WPB, FL
2. Song & Associates
3. Beilinson-Gomez
Three firms tied for 4th rank
4. BRPH
4. Slattery & Associates
4. Living Designs
No comments:
Post a Comment