Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 100386
Printable PDF Format Download Adobe Reader  

File Number: 100386 File Type: Supplement Status: Add-on
Version: 0 Reference: Control: County Commission
File Name: REPORT ON STATUS OF MUSEUM PARK PROJECT Introduced: 2/17/2010
Requester: NONE Cost: Final Action:
Agenda Date: 2/18/2010 Agenda Item Number: 12B1SUPPLEMENT
Notes: Title: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 12B1 - REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE MUSEUM PARK PROJECT PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION R-73-10
Indexes: MUSEUM
Sponsors: NONE
Sunset Provision: No Effective Date: Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist: None Listed


Legislative History

Acting Body Date Agenda Item Action Sent To Due Date Returned Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners 2/18/2010 12B1 SUPPLEMENT Presented

County Manager 2/17/2010 Additions 2/18/2010

County Manager 2/17/2010 Assigned Alex Munoz 2/16/2010

Legislative Text


TITLE
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 12B1 - REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE MUSEUM PARK PROJECT PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION R-73-10

HEADER
Date:

To: Honorable Honorable Dennis C. Moss
and Members, Board of County Commissioners

From: George M. Burgess
County Manager

Subject: Supplemental Report to Agenda Item 12B1- Report on the Status of the Museum Park
Project pursuant to Resolution R-73-10

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
On January 21, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution R-73-10 requesting a report on the design and construction of the Miami Art Museum (www.miamiartmuseum.org) and the Miami Science Museum (www.miamisci.org) and on the status of Building Better Communities General Obligation Bond funding for museum projects.

This memorandum provides detailed information, including an overview of these major community projects and details on each of the following items that the Board specified in the resolution:

* the status and progress of the museums’ design and construction;
* the current and planned use of Community Business Enterprise Program companies (CBEs) and Community Small Business Enterprise Program companies (CSBEs);
* the current and projected allocations of Building Better Communities General Obligation (GOB) bond funds to each museum;
* the status of funding being raised by the museums for capital and future operating costs of the new museums, including the verification of pledges to date and the ratios of cash on hand versus pledges for each museum’s capital costs; and
* an account of the process utilized by the museums to select contractors and consultants, and award contracts.

Overview of Projects

The Museum Park Project

In November 2004, the voters of Miami-Dade County approved the $2.9 billion Building Better Communities General Obligation Bond (GOB) Program. The largest projects included in this program are two new museums: the Miami Art Museum (MAM) – Project No, 296 and the Miami Science Museum (MSM) – Project No. 297, with allocations of $100 million and $175 million respectively of GOB funding support. These two museums will occupy a total of 8 acres (4 acres for each museum) within the approximately 29-acre Bicentennial Park which is owned by the City of Miami. The City of Miami is responsible for developing the 21-acre park designed by Cooper Robertson and Partners (www.cooperrobertson.com) with funding anticipated from the expanded Omni Community Redevelopment Area.
Memorandum of Understanding

On April 22, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners approved a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") that set forth the key business points for the development of the Museum Park Project (Resolution R-435-08). Also approved by the City of Miami and each of the museums, the MOU provides the framework for implementing the project.

Highlights of the terms covered by the MOU include:

* Each of the museums will serve as developer of its capital project and has the right and responsibility to select firms and enter into agreements for design and construction of its building. The City of Miami will serve as developer for the park.
* The City will lease the museum parcels to each museum for a series of automatically renewable terms, totaling 99 years (note: the Miami Sports & Exhibition Authority is not involved in these lease agreements as anticipated at the time of the MOU’s approval).
* Each of the museums will own and operate the improvements built on its designated 4-acre parcel in Bicentennial Park (i.e., the museum facilities).
* Each museum is committing to a Cost Overrun Guaranty that requires the Miami Art Museum and the Miami Science Museum to be solely responsible to pay all costs in excess of the County’s allocation of GOB funds.

Subsequent to the approval of the MOU, the City of Miami and the museums have approved the leases for each museum (December 2008), and a Master Development Agreement and an Environmental Remediation Agreement (May 2009). As contemplated in the MOU, the County is not a party to these agreements.

Status and Progress of the Museums’ Design and Construction

Miami Art Museum (MAM)

As the result of a public process, MAM selected the architectural firm of Herzog & de Meuron as its design architect and Handel Architects (www.handelarchitects.com) as the executive architect, responsible for developing the detailed construction and permit plans. The project management team is being led by Paratus Group (www.paratusgroup.com), a firm specializing in guiding cultural institutions through complex building projects. The project has been registered with the US Green Building Council.

The museum will offer 200,000 square feet of programmable space, including 120,000 square feet of interior space - more than three times the size of the museum's current facility. It will also include approximately 80,000 square feet of exterior program space for the display of works of art, educational activities, relaxation and dining. This expansion will provide room for larger and more varied displays of the Museum's collection and special exhibitions. The building also will house an educational complex with a library, auditorium, classrooms, and workshop space; and a café and store. The new design will stimulate and support collection growth and enable MAM to better fulfill its role as an educational resource for the entire community. The final design has been completed.

The design team commenced work in October 2007 and the project is currently in the construction documents phase, which is approximately 30% complete and scheduled to be completed in September 2010.

Miami Science Museum (MSM)

As the result of a public process, MSM selected the architectural firm of Grimshaw Architects (www.grimshaw-architects.com) as its design architect and Miami-based firm Rodriquez and Quiroga Architects (www.rodriguezquiroga.com) as the executive architect. The project management team is Oppenheim Lewis, a full service project management and cost consulting firm specializing in cultural projects; the aquarium design consultant is Thinc Design (www.thincdesign.com), a leading exhibition design firm specializing in aquarium and science museum design and implementation. In December of 2009, MSM selected Suffolk Construction, with teaming partner Webcor Builders as construction manager for the project. Suffolk is a national company with a strong local presence and Webcor was the Construction Manager for the recently completed California Academy of Science, which similarly incorporates an aquarium and planetarium.

The new MSM will be 250,000 square feet of programmable space, with a mix of indoor and exterior exhibitions and facilities. The green building will house a Planetarium, an Observatory, an Aquarium, interactive exhibitions and a Learning Center. Outdoor areas will include a Wildlife Center and a Science Playground.

MSM is currently in the schematic design documents phase, which is 50% complete. The current plan is to advance the design of the site and parking areas ahead of the building design so that construction bids for a separate package for that work can be sought in October of 2010 and be concurrent with the similar scope of work at the Miami Art Museum (MAM). Design development documents for the museum building are scheduled to begin this spring and be 100% complete at the end of October 2010. Construction documents will follow and are scheduled to be complete in July of 2011.

Current and Planned Use of Community Business Enterprise Program Companies (CBEs) and Community Small Business Enterprise Program Companies (CSBEs)

Each of the museums is committed to utilizing companies associated with the CBE and CSBE programs.

The GOB program does not require recipient non-profit organizations to utilize the County’s Community Business Enterprise Program (CBE) and Community Small Business Enterprise Program (CSBE). The MOU provides the following guidance regarding this issue:

“To the extent feasible and cost effective, the Parties to the Master Development Agreement shall be required to make a positive effort to procure supplies, equipment, construction, and services from minority and women owned businesses and to utilize businesses located in or owned by residents of the areas designated by the City.”

The subsequently-approved Master Development Agreement between the City and the museums states:

"... Museums acknowledge that they will be subject to, and shall use diligent good faith efforts to comply with, the Miami-Dade County Community Small Business Enterprise ("CSBE") and Miami-Dade County Small Business Enterprise ("SBE") goals established by the County or the City Manager for each construction trade package in the construction of the Museums."

On December 2, 2009, representatives from the County Manager’s Office, Small Business Development Department and the Department of Cultural Affairs met with the City Manager and his staff to discuss how the City intends to establish goals and enforce these programs. County staff also outlined the services available from the County to help implement the CBE and CSBE programs.

The following summarizes progress to date for each museum:

Miami Art Museum

On March 3, 2009, the Board approved Resolution R-156-09 that authorized the 2nd grant agreement with MAM while the issue of site control was being finalized between the museums and the City. This resolution reported the following information:

“Selection of the Design Team

In September 2006, MAM selected the firm of Herzog & de Meuron as its design architect. The design architect will be involved primarily in conceptual and preliminary design while the executive architect, Handel Architects, will develop the detailed construction and permit plans. On June 6, 2006, the Board approved Ordinance 06-88 amending Section 2-8.2.10 of the Code of Miami-Dade County which allows municipalities and not-for-profits implementing BBC/GOB-funded projects to use their own procurement procedures. As a result, County procurement procedures do not apply. Nevertheless, MAM has followed the County process and on April 11, 2007, went before the County’s Small Business Department’s Review Committee for the recommendation of Community Business Enterprise (CBE) goals for six relevant design professions. Although not required by the BBC/GOB Administrative Rules, MAM has committed to assign approximately 15% of that design work to CBEs.”

Miami Art Museum’s architecture and engineering selection process resulted in the recommendation by Miami-Dade County’s Small Business Development’s review committee of the following CBE percentages that are being addressed by the firms listed in connection with each trade:

* MEP 14.95% CBE – JALRW Engineering (Johnson, Avedano, Lopez, Rodriguez, & Walewski), Miami, FL, as mechanical engineering subcontractors;
* Structural 16.91% CBE – Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc., Miami, FL, as structural engineers;
* Civil 100% CBE – ADA Engineering, Miami, FL, as civil engineers;
* Geotechnical 100% CBE - Kaderabek Company, Miami, FL, as geotechnical consultants; and 
* Landscape architecture 28.57% CBE – Laura M. Llerena, Miami, FL, landscape architect.

MAM reports the following progress to date:

* For MEP and Structural, CBE partners’ billings account for 12.83% of total billings to date; for landscape architecture CBE partners’ billings account for 6.5% of total billings to date; MAM’s project managers note that CBE participation is greater during the construction documents phase (currently approximately 30% complete) and the later construction administration phase
* The civil and geotechnical contractors are CBE certified; therefore 100% of those fees CBE qualified.

In addition, MAM’s request for qualifications for its construction manager advertised the CSBE goal of 15% of the construction contract.

Miami Science Museum

All RFQs, RFPs and contracts issued by MSM have included clauses integrating the CBE and CSBE requirements. MSM has committed to assign approximately 15% of the project’s design work to CBEs.

The status to date is as follows:

* For architectural design, Rodriguez and Quiroga, the executive architects, are CBE designated. Their contract represents 37.7% of the total architectural fee.
* The total percentage allocated to CBE firms currently is 19.3%. This will change over time, as a number of contracts have not been awarded yet, particularly for exhibition design.

In addition, the MSM’s recently selected Construction Manager contract also has a commitment to fulfilling a goal of 15% for CSBEs.


Current and Projected Allocations of Building Better Communities General Obligation (GOB) Bond Funds to Each Museum

It is important to point out that the approach to allocating GOB funds to the museums’ projects has been to provide sufficient funding to advance architectural and engineering work necessary to demonstrate momentum and thereby, create an environment conducive to the museums’ private fundraising. In addition to moving these important projects forward, this strategy has helped the museums with renderings, cost estimates and demonstrable progress sufficient to help convince donors of the viability of the projects.

Future GOB funding for the museums will be needed for the construction phase of the projects. This funding is contingent upon each museum’s demonstrating sufficient progress on private funding (i.e., to ensure adequate funds secured to complete construction) and the availability of funding from the GOB program.
Miami Art Museum

The $100 million from GOB funds will be used for the design and construction of the museum.

TOTAL MAM BUDGET
Use of Funds GOB Funds Other Funds
Design and construction $100 million $31 million
Operating endowments N/A $69 million
TOTAL $100 million $100 million

To date $12.635 million of the GOB funds (or 12.6% of the total GOB allocation) already have been contracted for, as described below:

MAM GOB FUNDING TO DATE
Grant Agreement Date Amount Use
#1 May 2008 $235,000 project planning costs
#2 March 2009 $8,400,000 architectural, engineering and project management costs
#3 January 2010 $4,000,000 architectural, engineering and project management costs

TOTAL $12,635,000
MAM is currently expecting to receive $1,500,000 as an advance from grant agreement #3. MAM projects that it will need an additional $6,892,000 (approximately) by September of 2010 to complete architectural and engineering work.

The chart below represents MAM’s projected needs for future GOB funding (subject to raising sufficient private funds and the future availability of GOB funds):

MAM PROJECTED GOB FUNDING NEEDS
FY Contracted to date 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
GOB funds $12,635,000 $6,892,000 $40,964,000 $39,509,000 $0
Miami Science Museum

The $175 million from GOB funds will be used for the design and construction of the museum.

TOTAL MSM BUDGET
Use of Funds GOB Funds Other Funds
Design and construction $175 million $11.2 million
Exhibitry N/A $51.3 million
Finishing and pre-opening N/A $14.4 million
Contingency N/A $20.1 million
TOTAL $175 million $ 97 million

To date $12.650 million of the GOB funds (or 7.2% of the total GOB allocation) have already been contracted for, as described below:

MSM GOB FUNDING TO DATE Grant Agreement Date Amount Use #1 June 2008 $3,300,000 concept design and project management, including cost estimating #2 December 2009 $9,350,000 architectural, engineering and project management costs TOTAL $12,650,000
The total project budget is $272 million with $186.2 million in site and building design and construction, approximately $51.3 million in exhibition costs, and $24.5 million in Owner’s costs, which includes contingency, fixtures, furniture, and equipment.

To date, MSM has received $2.33 million from grant agreement #2. MSM projects it will need GOB funds beyond the balance of the existing grant agreement beginning in May of 2010 to continue its work and begin the detailed design phase.

The chart below represents MSM’s projected needs for future GOB funding (subject to raising sufficient private funds and the future availability of GOB funds):

MSM PROJECTED GOB FUNDING NEEDS
FY Contracted to date 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
GOB funds $12,650,000 $6,036,013 $21,019,566 $58,479,800 $61,560,250 $15,254,371

Status of Funding Being Raised by the Museums for Capital and Future Operating Costs of the New Museums

MAM and MSM have explained that fundraising for new museums is related directly to the excitement that begins to build with progress on the projects. Such milestones as the selection of architects, renderings of the designs, architectural and engineering progress towards construction, and groundbreaking and building activity evident on the sites develop confidence in the project, a sense of momentum and an interest in contributing to a successful capital campaign. The County’s strategy continues to be to allocate sufficient GOB funding to move the projects forward and to receive regular updates from the museums on the status of contributions for the projects. It is important to note that the volunteer boards of directors of the museums, composed of some of our community’s most prominent civic leaders, share our perspective on fundraising: each museum must demonstrate that there is sufficient funding available to complete construction before entering into an agreement with a contractor to build its new facility. This is particularly the case since each museum has provided to the County and the City with a Cost Overrun Guarantee for their respective projects and therefore has a major stake in ensuring that its project is completed on time and on budget.
It also must be acknowledged that the economy has affected fundraising for the non-profit community in general. This places an even greater responsibility on both the County and museum boards to confirm verifiable and adequate cash and pledges for construction at the completion of each museum’s design phase. On the positive side, the economy has produced a very competitive environment for construction bidding and if the museum projects are able to stay on schedule, the new MAM and MSM are likely to benefit by this favorable market for construction.

When the Board adopted the Museum Park MOU on April 22, 2008, the accompanying memorandum included the following statements regarding the museums’ operating costs:

“Currently, the County’s contribution totals approximately 35% of the MAM’s operational budget. The operating budget for the new facility is estimated at $12.9 million. Over the next three years, we will work with the MAM to present revised budget proposals reflective of the MAM’s increased operational costs to the Board for consideration. Such proposals will factor in, to the extent possible, expected private operating endowment support, administrative revenues, and grant funds.”

“Currently, the County’s contribution totals approximately 11% of the MSM’s operational budget. The operating budget for the new facility is estimated at $16 million. Over the next three years, we will work with the MSM to present revised budget proposals reflective of the MSM’s increased operational costs to the Board for consideration. Such proposals will factor in, to the extent possible, expected private operating endowment support, administrative revenues, and grant funds.” (Note: based on the FY 2009-2010 budget, the County’s contribution totals approximately 19% of the MSM’s operational budget.)


Miami Art Museum

* Capital Fundraising

The MAM capital campaign goal is $100 million which includes $31 million to complete the building, with the balance for an operating endowment as well as for transitional and operating costs related to the project. To date, we have been informed that MAM has raised in cash and pledges the $31 million necessary for construction of the facility. At present, the ratio of cash to pledges is approximately $1 in cash for every $2 in pledges.

MAM is presently in the silent phase of the capital campaign focusing its fundraising efforts on attaining lead and major gifts. The public phase will begin once MAM has completed the current silent phase of the capital campaign. MAM also has initiated the naming opportunities selection process with its donors.

* Future Operating Costs

The lease agreement with the City requires MAM to operate the facility as a “… first class Accredited Museum, throughout the Term of the lease." As noted above, MAM has included in its fundraising goals sufficient operating endowment funds to operate the new facility. For art museums, endowments are essential to generate interest earnings annually that serve as a key revenue source for operations. This funding source is complemented by earned income (e.g., ticket sales, memberships, special events) and other public and private contributions. MAM has utilized third party experts in cultural facilities to develop detailed expense and revenue forecasts and will continue to update these projections throughout the course of the project.

MAM’s FY 2009-2010 operating budget is approximately $5 million. MAM’s annual operating budget for the new facility remains forecasted as $12.9 million.

Miami Science Museum

* Capital Fundraising

As noted above, MSM has included in its fundraising goals $11.2 million to complete construction, $51.3 for exhibitry, $14.4 million for finishing and pre-opening costs and $20.1 million for a contingency. To date, we have been informed that MSM pledges received total $22.7 million; this exceeds the amount required for the building. Of this, $5.65 million has been received as cash. Consequently, at present, the ratio of cash to pledges is approximately $1 in cash for every $3 in pledges. The Museum also has received two appropriations from the U.S. Department of Energy/National Energy Technology Laboratory, totaling $1,451,625.

It should be noted that MSM has a strong track record for securing major federal grants. In addition, MSM reports that it is typical for science museums to continue to raise funds for building exhibitry during construction of the facility (exhibitry is procured independently from specialized firms and is designed and developed separate from the construction contract). MSM is presently in the silent phase of the capital campaign focusing its fundraising efforts on attaining lead and major gifts. MSM also has initiated the naming opportunities selection process with its donors.

* Future Operating Costs

The MSM’s financial model for operations and the associated business plan were developed with the support of third party experts in cultural facility market analysis, investment banking, and business plan development.  These forecasts are based on an analysis of the new museum’s operating costs and its revenue-generating capacity. They also take into account data from comparable science museums.
This model and the business plan incorporate the following key assumptions:

– Total operating revenue increases from a historic average of $7.5 million to a post opening average of $25.3 million (note: this updated operating forecast reflects costs able to be estimated from progress on the building’s design and the inclusion of such major elements as the aquarium).
– Earned revenue (admissions and fees for service) increases from 30% of total operating revenue to nearly 60%.
– Programmatic government support (including federal and state education grants) will remain stable at approximately $3.0 million/year but total government support (general operations and programmatic) will decrease from a historic average of 57% of total operating revenue to less than 30%.
– Reliance on contributions for operations will decrease from a historic average of 14% of total operating revenue to less than 10%.
– Salaries and benefits remain stable at 44% of total expenses post-opening even with inclusion of annual inflationary adjustments.
– Staffing increases from approximately 60 Full Time Employees (FTEs) to 120 FTEs with additional FTEs projected from the planned outsourcing of security, parking, food and retail staff creating significant new job opportunities for Miami-Dade residents.
– Net cash flow from operations will improve from slightly negative as a historic average to positive with cash surpluses funding a capital reserve fund.

The Process Utilized by the Museums to Select Contractors and Consultants, and Award Contracts

Each of the museums has utilized competitive and publicly advertised processes to solicit and select qualified architectural and engineering consultants and contractors for the work.

Miami Art Museum

* Architectural and Engineering Selection Processes

MAM publicly advertised their Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) (including advertisements in The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, Diario las Americas, Miami Daily Business Review, Miami Times, Haiti en Marche) and publicly noticed the meetings of the Selection Committees, which included County and City representatives. The Selection Committees carefully reviewed all respondents, with close attention paid to firms active in Miami.

* Construction Manager Selection Process

MAM’s RFQ for a construction manager was advertised in The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, Diario las Americas, Miami Daily Business Review, Miami Times, Haiti en Marche, and the Construction Journal website. The ad stated that "CBE and Miami-based firms are strongly encouraged to participate" and the RFQ stated the goal of 15 percent of the construction contract for CBE/CSBE firms.

Advertisements appeared in late January 2008 allowing candidates six weeks to prepare their proposals. A pre-proposal meeting was advertised and held to answer questions and ensure the broad understanding of the RFQ. A considerable number of proposals were received by the March 20, 2008 deadline from local, regional, national and international firms.

The Selection Committee for the Construction Manager RFQ was composed of representatives of the County, the City of Miami, the Miami Art Museum, and their principal consultants. In providing notice of the public meetings of the Selection Committee, MAM mirrored the County process by advertising those meetings on the County web site. Balfour Beatty was the firm selected.
MAM emphasizes that the intent of these processes was to be as transparent as possible and to select the best qualified consultants and contractor for an on-time and on-budget project. Further, in the selection process, it was made clear that the selected construction manager would be required to meet CSBE goals and City’s community benefit goals.

Miami Science Museum

* Architectural and Engineering Selection Processes

The MSM has utilized a full RFQ and RFP selection process, publicly advertising, as well as posting the RFQs and RFPs, on its website. These processes were conducted for the selection of design and executive architects, cost consultant, traffic consultants, landscape architects, cultural consultants for attendance projections, content specialists etc.

The MSM’s Construction Committee, with leadership from the museum’s board and representatives from the City and the County, has led the selection processes for design and executive architects and construction manager.

* Construction Manager Selection Process

The museum went through a two stage selection process for a construction manager that was fair and open to any entity wishing to submit: 1) a request for qualifications (RFQ) stage whereby any firm, team, individual, etc could submit materials; and 2) a request for proposal (RFP) stage in which a select number of firms qualified from the first stage were invited to submit proposals.

In the RFQ phase, notice was given in both local and national media regarding the availability of the RFQ. In addition, with the great public interest in the project, many firms had previously expressed interest in the construction of the project, and all entities that had asked to be notified when the selection process was starting were given notice just prior to the issuance of the RFQ. A cone of silence was established and all communications were handled through a single point of written communication, and all communications were distributed to all participants in the process. There were three sets of written question and answer documents issued to the participants during the RFQ period, and this process was spelled out clearly in the RFQ. The selection committee met on September 18, 2009 and shortlisted firms for the RFP phase. The meeting was publicly noticed. Nine entities submitted qualifications and four entities were shortlisted for the RFP phase.

In the RFP phase, the cone of silence was continued, and again all communications were handled through a single point of written communication, and all communications were distributed to all participants in the process. There were four sets of written question and answer documents issued to the participants during the RFP period, and this process was spelled out clearly in the RFP. The selection committee met on December 16, 2009. The review of proposals and interviews were conducted in a single day and the meeting was publicly noticed.

The selection committee for the RFQ and RFP processes was the same. It was made up of the MSM’s Construction Committee board members, and representatives from the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County; technical representatives from the design team and project management team also attended the interviews and provided input. The selection committee reviewed all the submitted materials and made their decisions in both the RFQ and RFP phase without any knowledge of fee proposals and with no contact with any of the firms involved. A firm from Miami, Suffolk, was ranked number one and negotiations on their agreement are being finalized.

In the selection process, it was made clear that the selected construction manager would be required to meet CSBE goals and City’s community benefit goals.

Construction Process

Both museums have elected to engage contractors using the delivery method of a Construction Manager-at-Risk. The new MAM and MSM facilities are complex buildings designed to accommodate the specialized needs of the museums, ranging from an aquarium and technological exhibitry to lighting and climate controlled systems suitable for the exhibition of valuable works of art. The principal reason that the museums cite in utilizing the construction manager-at-risk method for their projects’ delivery is that this approach provides them with a more informed contractor and ultimately, a better quality product that meets the demanding requirements of these particular building types. While they understand that a “hard bid” has certain advantages in a very competitive construction market, they are committed to achieving both quality and economy in implementing their projects.

The museums’ specific reasoning for choosing this method is outlined below.

* Miami Art Museum

– The design team has direct access to the subcontractors so they can tune their design to local capacities, educate local contractors about desired finishes and understand pricing well before the end of design so the budget can be maintained.
– One key reason that MAM’s project remains on budget at its current stage of approximately 30% completion of construction documents is the construction management process, which has given MAM direct access to actual Florida subcontractors over the last 18 months to discuss proposed design goals, review construction methods and alternatives, and to obtain firm costing.
– In the final bidding, MAM will take advantage of the current market conditions through a thorough bid review.

* Miami Science Museum

– The new MSM is a complex public building, with live animal components, specialized exhibition needs, and popular education programs; this building demands more attention than generally provided through a general contracting approach.
– These are unique economic times where understanding the market place and the capacity of the subcontracting community is key to success in constructing the building.
– Given that there are two other projects ongoing in Museum Park (i.e., MAM and the park), the MSM needs the coordination with those projects now in the design phase (pre-construction) rather than waiting for construction to begin and then discovering issues.
– MSM is sharing the construction and the costs of Museum Plaza, Museum Drive, site utilities, parking, and site remediation with the MAM. While the two museums and their project managers have spent considerable time and effort working on the coordination, it is imperative that there is agreement from both construction managers on schedule and cost prior to beginning construction.
– MSM can get real time input from the construction community through the construction manager on cost, material availability, and constructability.
– This process does not eliminate the option of a fixed bid price at a later stage.

It is important to mention that strong oversight of these projects is continuing to be exercised directly through the Office of the County Manager and the Department of Cultural Affairs. In addition, there continues to be involvement in the project from many County departments, including the Office of Capital Improvements, Department of Small Business Development, Department of Environmental Resources Management, Office of Strategic Business Management, Transit, Water and Sewer Department and the Office of the County Attorney. The City of Miami continues to collaborate closely with the County and the museums.

The Museum Park project is vitally important not only for its central role in completing the constellation of world-class cultural and entertainment facilities in downtown Miami but also for its significance in establishing Miami-Dade County as one of the world’s most dynamic and progressive new cultural capitals. The new Miami Art Museum and new Miami Science Museum will feature cutting edge architecture, will be LEED buildings incorporating the latest in “green” technologies and will be able to develop and present outstanding programming for our community’s families, children and visitors. Great communities have great art and science museums. We are making progress towards achieving this goal.

___________________________
Assistant County Manager





Home  |   Agendas  |   Minutes  |   Legislative Search  |   Lobbyist Registration  |   Legislative Reports
2022 BCC Meeting Calendar  |   Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances   |   ADA Notice  |  

Home  |  Using Our Site  |  About Phone Directory  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer

E-mail your comments, questions and suggestions to Webmaster  

Web Site © 2022 Miami-Dade County.
All rights reserved.