Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . <br /> Mr. Hamel asked how many Eugene firms were interviewed and who they were. e <br /> Mr. Baumgartner replied that there were seven individual firms and three <br /> joint firms responding, and listed the following local firms: Briscoe Barry; <br /> Childress, Childress, and Ullman; Danielson; Lutes and Sanatel; Moreland, <br /> Unruh, and Smith; John E. Stafford; Unthank, Seder, and Poticha; Balhizer, <br /> Longwood, Smith, Paul, and Anderson; Amundson Associates; and Wegroup. Mr. <br /> Hamel then wondered why those firms were not given more consideration and <br /> how the final three were arrived at. Mr. Baumgartner said five of those <br /> local firms were interviewed by the subcommittee. He said each firm was asked <br /> to respond to a 27-part detailed questionnaire, with a personal interview <br /> consisting of a 15-minute portion for the firm to give supplemental information <br /> that had not been covered in the questionnaire, followed by a 30-minute question <br /> and answer period. Based on those questionnaires and the interviews conducted, <br /> the selection of the three firms was made by the subcommittee. <br /> Mr. Lieuallen explained the problem of reducing the original number of 27 down <br /> to a number more easily handled. He said there was the possibility of design <br /> competition, but that was not accepted too well in the architectural community. <br /> The procedure worked out was to pare down the number and select a smaller number <br /> for interviews. Some firms were not considered because they were too small to <br /> handle the entire project. He noted there were several local and several <br /> national firms who had good qualifications. The interview process was used for <br /> those who were qualified, and all firms presented materials about their profes- <br /> sional accomplishments. Mr. Baumgartner had sent detailed questionnaires to all <br /> firms so all could respond to the same questions and be evaluated in the same <br /> manner. A list of names was sent back to the Commission with the subcommittee's <br /> understanding that the firms could be combined. Mr. Lieuallen noted this was a e <br /> misunderstanding. The subcommittee met again and resubmitted three names to the <br /> Commission, regardless of area of location, those three it felt to be best. <br /> Mr. Lieuallen said he felt confident Amundson Associates could do the job, <br /> noting the amount of money involved and the fact the community would have <br /> to vote for use of tax dollars for this center. He thought it important in <br /> that light to have a local firm do the architectural work. <br /> Mr. Obie said as a member of the Commission, he had the impression the sub- <br /> committee was presenting the three firms in their order of priority in terms of <br /> the subcommittee's feelings. He asked Mr. Lieuallen if that were correct. Mr. <br /> Lieuallen said that was his understanding. However, he said when the three <br /> firms were picked, the subcommittee was unanimous in the Luckman Partnership <br /> and Amundson Associates. He asked Mr. Anderson, Chairperson of the Commission, <br /> whether that was a correct understanding. Mr. Anderson said considerable <br /> time had been spent discussing that issue. He said the fact that one was <br /> considered over another was not important at that time as they moved toward <br /> the final decision. The subcommittee did favor Luckman Partnership. He said <br /> presumably the issue was whether or not the two firms would be compatible in <br /> working together. He did not think that was important in the final decision. <br /> Once the issue of a working relationship between a local and national firm was <br /> decided, the subcommittee was pretty unanimous in its decision. <br /> , <br /> Mr. Delay asked why the contract should not be awarded to a local firm. <br /> He asked in regard to the three firms submitted, whether there was a big e <br /> Council--lljlj77 - 2 <br /> K~ <br />