Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• <br /> GRANGE °ate 06 <br /> BOARD OF CO2,iyIISSIO'MS" cti.on Agenda. <br /> ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. r'"3 <br /> ,LNG DATE March 28, 1983 <br /> Subject: ARCHITECT--a; .. SSE <br /> De•- <br /> talent: '11'm gi• • ( Publ iC Hea�x ng: Y . <br /> Attachmentis1: - 'ormation Contact: <br /> M.ANAGM'S. OFFICE <br /> Yes <br /> Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 500 <br /> PURPOSE: To consider selecting an architect to prepare restoration plans and <br /> speci f ications. <br /> NEED: When Board al was given February 15, 1983, to paroceed with restor- <br /> ation plans, in keeping with the 1976 Orange County Faccilities Study, it <br /> was also • ected that a technical assistance recamenda.tion be provided <br /> for separatej decision. The questions to be answered in arranging technical <br /> assistance include: <br /> 1) What cbtthination of consultant, architect and engineering services <br /> would best meet the needs of planning where historic, sutural <br /> pragrai matic and desi gn factors are to be. Wei hed; and, <br /> 2) Tbich ixm possessing the required expertise should be selected. <br /> As to the first, it is clear that an architect or engineer will be <br /> necessary as the State Law requires plan certification for any project <br /> where new construction cost is to exceed $45,000. Consultant time <br /> precedent tolan architect beginning work was found to not be as <br /> important as first thought. Each architectural firm which submitted <br /> a proposal response to the County's August 31, 1981, RFP (Request- <br /> for-Proposal did a reconnaissance of the building which covered much <br /> of what a c taut would do. Any additional consultation would partly <br /> overlap this Morevoer, if not tied to the architect's analysis, it <br /> could result in divergent advice. It appears wise to select an <br /> architect and to leave to the firm selected the determination of <br /> arranging ana paying for any consultation deemed necessary. The same <br /> applies to engineering services. <br /> The Board received nine architectural proposals and heard presentations during <br /> November and lDecenber, 1981 and January 1982. (Proposals are an file <br /> in the Manager's office for anyone wanting to review the material. Also <br /> a suury the Minutes is attached.) Each firm lists prior projects. <br /> Five (Design]WWorks, Albert A. Pelornin, City Planning and Architectural <br /> Associates, Brxrnstudio Architects and James Webb) of the nine have been <br /> involved witi restoration/renovation involving historic structures. Of <br /> these the .Ta4es Webb firm referennps pxnpr{ „‘o 4 s- ;c. .,--. - , -L- <br />