high performance: no decisions playgrounds @ city of roseville, mn

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”

folder

7

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)

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

Comments / Questions

15

Jake SmithwickJake.Smithwick@asu.edu