Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 - Notice of Awards - Building Plan Review On-Call ServicesBuilding Plan Review RFQ Scoring Sheet Evaluation Criteria: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Experience & Qualifications - 30 Points Respondent's experience & qualifications with projects of similar scope & complexity Erin Ben Scott Point Total - Max 90 Points Background - 20 Points Erin Ben Scott Point Total - Max 60 Points Time & Cost - 20 Points Capabilities to meet time schedule and project budget requirements Erin Ben Scott Point Total - Max 60 Points Workload - 10 Points Present and projected workloads should demonstrate adequate capacity to take on expected volume of contract work Erin Ben Scott Point Total - Max 30 Points Local Experience - 15 Points Past experience working with other MT municipalities (10 points) Past experience working with City of Bozeman (extra 5 points) Erin Ben Scott Point Total - Max 45 Points Office(s) Location - 5 Points Bonus points if have a nearby office, to enable easier interaction with staff & applicants Erin Ben Scott Point Total - Max 15 Points Total Points Awarded (out of 100 possible) Erin Ben Scott Average Score Building Code Solutions 20 20 25 65 Building Code Solutions 15 15 15 45 Building Code Solutions 5 5 5 15 Building Code Solutions 7 7 7 21 Building Code Solutions 0 0 0 0 Building Code Solutions 0 0 0 0 Building Code Solutions 47 47 52 48.6666666666667 Bureau Veritas 25 25 15 65 Bureau Veritas 20 18 20 58 Bureau Veritas 15 15 15 45 Bureau Veritas 8 8 8 24 Bureau Veritas 6 7 7 20 Bureau Veritas 0 0 0 0 Bureau Veritas 74 73 65 70.6666666666667 Jazacc 10 10 5 25 Jazacc 10 10 5 25 Jazacc 20 20 15 55 Jazacc 5 5 5 15 Jazacc 0 0 0 0 Jazacc 0 0 0 0 Jazacc 45 45 30 40 SAFEbuilt 28 25 27 80 SAFEbuilt 20 20 20 60 SAFEbuilt 18 18 18 54 SAFEbuilt 10 10 10 30 SAFEbuilt 15 15 15 45 SAFEbuilt 0 0 1 1 SAFEbuilt 91 88 91 90 Shums Coda 25 25 23 73 Shums Coda 20 18 18 56 Shums Coda 10 10 10 30 Shums Coda 7 8 9 24 Shums Coda 4 5 5 14 Shums Coda 0 0 0 0 Shums Coda 66 66 65 65.6666666666667 Stantec 15 10 10 35 Stantec 15 10 10 35 Stantec 8 10 12 30 Stantec 7 7 7 21 Stantec 0 0 0 0 Stantec 0 0 0 0 Stantec 45 37 39 40.3333333333333 Scorer Notes Favor firms with a bigger stable of expertise (SAFEbuilt, Shums Coda, Bureau Veritas); BCS mentioned they would have a FPE working on the contract, which would be positive; SAFEbuilt has a fire plans reviewer available, they work with MSU Fire Marshall; Informal feedback from other CBOs: Shums Coda has a lot of expertise, they're expensive, sometimes have a hard time meeting deadlines; SAFEbuilt has a history of increasing rates after under contract, some teams are better than others; BV's size means they can turn work around quickly, but may limit ability to provide personal, attentive service; Jazacc did not follow RFQ criteria, very small firm; not impressed by Stantec's submittal, limited experience outside of AZ; BCS relatively new company Scorer Notes BC, SB & SC all large companies with long, respected track record. Stantec also large company but less known for Building Review services. BCS respected as code professionals but only 2 guys and newer company (though longer experience at prior company). Jazacc long experience but only 1 guy. No financial red flags with any company, except BCS being newest is a small concern. Scorer Notes BCS - No fees given & longest review times (though within City standard) / BV - 65% / J - 40%, $70/hr / SB - 45% per fee schedule, $115-165/hr / SC - 65-70%, $140-$150/hr / ST - 48%, $110-$125/hr, but gave no timelines. Slight variations in review times but all within City standard. Scorer Notes BCS only 2 people but fewer clients, BV huge nationwide volume but 5K staff, Jazacc only 1 person, SB has done a great job with Bozeman responsiveness & workload, SC nationwide (200+ clients) & huge staff but have heard timelines are sometimes a challenge, Stantec huge company but fewer volume of reviews Scorer Notes BCS - None / BV - Missoula County 2 yrs / J - None / SB - 7 MT cities, including Bozeman / SC - Polson 2 yrs / ST - None Scorer Notes None have MT office locations. Closest ones are WA, CO or UT. Shums Coda Interview Scoring Would you be able to represent the City of Bozeman’s interests by communicating directly with applicants, such as by answering questions, providing assistance, or building relationships, as if you were in the office? Do you plan to complete the work in house or subcontract with other firms? Is there any specialty your firm lacks which would require a subcontractor? Do you foresee any scenarios where your firm may not have the capacity to handle the volume of work and be required to subcontract? How will you manage workload and ensure for completion of on-time reviews? What qualifications related to fire code and fire reviews do you have on staff? Will you please describe your experience (if any) coordinating between municipal building and fire departments? Do the personnel to be assigned to this project have experience reviewing large, multi-story, mixed use buildings? Has any of that experience covered existing buildings or areas surrounded by existing development, as compared to greenfield development? Please provide an example of a recent project. Do you have a structural engineer on staff? Do you have staff who have familiarity with our region, and if so, will they be consulted or assigned to work on this contract? Are you familiar with Montana statutes (Montana Code Annotated), and how they relate to state administrative rules, municipal code, and the ICC family of codes? How does your company manage disagreements in code interpretation should they arise between the jurisdiction and your team? We have a foundation-only permit process, which falls under a single permit application for the entire project's construction. What is your experience with partial or foundation-only permits? How would you rate the level of service your company provides to jurisdictions, and have you identified any areas for improvement? [INTERNAL] Follow ups about cost or schedule… What questions do you have for us? Other misc notes Scorer Notes Erin Yes - our goal to approve project with least amount of cycles. Have 800 number setup. Yes, capacity to handle quite a large volume. Only ever used sub for really large projects involving fire modeling, i.e. Lucid vehicle facility. Start w/project coordination team. Triage plans to ensure have everything we need before going to plan checkers. Project coord team also tracking all projects to ensure on-time. We have great communication. Ranging in 90th percentile in meeting due dates. The 10% is when we're reaching out to applicants directly to try to avoid another review cycle. Also a lot of PT employees like retired CBOs, can tap into that resource when needed. Barbara - retired CBO & FM. Her team has variety of experience in different industries & communities, high rises, large industrial, rural, etc. Alarms, sprinklers. She manages (AZ regional mgr) but also does some plan review & inspections. Teaches fire codes nationally. So much overlap between codes, prefer to do that as often as we're allowed to. Make sure Bldg & Fire comments are merged together. We coordinate well between the two. Have done multiple large multi-story buildings. One example in AZ - underground parking, 1st floor commercial, 3 floors residential. Mountain View - 8 block redevelopment. UT, CO, CA. High-rise hotels on a mountainside, university housing. Lots of 5/1 podium type buildings. Have 6-8 structural engineers on staff, many with years of design experience. Their comments tend to be more practical due to that. Some have taught at university level, so knowledge of cutting edge technology. Current contract with Polson & Great Falls. Have also done projects in Lewistown, Billings, Blackfeet. Yes would start with staff who are already familiar with MT, ie Jason Pollock (sp?). Yes, familiar with snow load, drift reqs. Recent call from someone wanting help understanding State of MT review comments. With ICC, can pull up MT codes electronically. Have taught classes in MT since 2022. One is multi-family construction. Bozeman's preference on how we interpret the codes is what we're going to enforce. Doesn't happen often but if it does, will try to speak offline about any concern but we'll ultimately defer to you. Have done many of these, doing some now. Also expedited or phased packages, design-build. Give us a good conservative estimate of what the loads are on the foundation so can be assured that's accounted for. Somewhat "at-risk" type of permit, so if something were to change it's on the applicant to address. Customer-focused. Every jurisdiction is equally important, we don't prioritize one over another, or for deadlines. Internal database has a deadline that's 2 days before the jurisdiction's deadline. Barbara experience from being CBO who actually hired SCA in past - SCA customer service/responsiveness is exemplary. When they start w/community, ask for example comment letters and talk w/city about expectations Timing of selection Seem to have plenty of staff & expertise, less in MT but some. A bit of inconsistency in referencing which cities they've worked with. Ben They can work directly to make sure. 800 number set up. onboarding meeting for new and exsisting contracts. In house mostly unless special fire smoke controls Able to track projects, verify they have everything needed, Have part time staff to pool Fire marshal in house / Fire protection engineer Arizona / teaches fire codes national. understand the difference from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. try to provided as often because so much over lap, provide comments that coordinate between the two departments. - State DLI not the Chapter on the educations. Polson work in the relation between fire and building. (missed what i was looking for, on the adoption and the relationship of IFC and IBC works in Montana) They have the exsperence for reviews for mixed use projects. Yes have PE's Teach in the state confrenece, single family in the state. snow load / not as involved as they could be / (they say the have tought classes like they intagrate state adminments) they are working for bozeman, looking to bozeman to direct. communicate before issuing comments. Done many, phased , foundation, design build is now build design. need load path, at risk permits, help customers understand at risk permits. shell core, not uncommon. always room for improvements, customer service and due date are due not one jurisdiction over another. heavy on education. Scott Yes, their preference to reach directly w/applicant, PS completeness, goal AP 1st round, on boarding In house, odd out fire modeling w/very complex systems In house tracking system, project coordination team, great communication, 90% completion of due date,workforce use by PT officials Barbara-past FM, spoke to consistency, she has peer duties, leaves same reviewer if possible, encourage quality of reviews. Very adaptable and expressed that it is a vital coordinating Yes, many experienced engineers for specific noted type of projects-Fountain hill,AZ, Mountain View project in proposal Yes They would initially assign to reviewers that have done work previously. Yes, but willing to adapt as required, knowledgable, familiar but standard answers. They will follow our line and defer to us. They welcome communications for the best and our outcomes. Yes, and ask questions to have a quantified phased review Customer focused, equity across all customers through entire staff,lessons learned model, big on education and up to date, Barbara-exemplary company Rebecca Goal is to complete projects with the least amount of cycles. Their preference is to communicate directly with applicants to ensure they are able to clarify all details early Plan to complete work in house. They have a very large staff to handle large capacity of projects. The only exception may be complex reviews requiring fire modeling. database to track and triage projects on schedule. Great project coordination team, ensuring clear communication with jurisdictions and applicants. At least 90% on time, trying to avoid additional cycles. Database sends reminders to reviewers, allows for easy messaging across the team to share workload. Ensures constant awareness of deadlines approaching. Former CBO and Fire Marshall on staff, team is all ICC certified, years of experience in different types of industries and communities as well as teaching fire code. Fire protection engineer team on call to subcontract, and additional engineer in AZ office available to assist. Barbara also teaches fire code nationally. Have system in place to ensure for consistency of reviews, as well as to check back in with jurisdiction about how they're doing. They are familiar with coordinating with and between CBO and Fire Dept. Prefer to coordinate due to so much overlap in codes. Make sure comments support one another across the codes. They have done lots of multi-family, mixed use reviews. University housing, more commercial-focused mixed use than residential. Several active projects right now. They have a team of 6-8 engineers on staff, some full time and some part time. Some have years of design experience so they understand construction timelines as well as code. Yes, see below. Yes, they have done some reviews and site visits in Montana - Polson, Browning mentioned. They also teach code classes in Montana and are familiar with Montana-specific requirements. Understand some of the differences in how single family residential is reviewed as compared to commercial. Great Falls, Billings also have contracts. They would start with the folks already familiar with Montana from other contracts. Also projects in Lewistown and Red Lodge. "we're working for Bozeman." So they look to the city to lead and advise on anything outside the norm. They will reach out to staff if they have any questions before communicating anything with the applicant. They have done many, several active right now. It's not uncommon. Customer-focused, every jurisdiction is just as important as every other. They believe there is always room for improvement and have drilled that into their reviewers. Constantly looking to learn and stay ahead of the ball. They spend a lot of time trying to customize their service to meet each jurisdiction's needs, that sets them apart from other consultants. Exemplary customer service. Timing Large firm, may have deeper stable than SAFEbuilt especially on fire. Some questions about a few of their answers around how they engage with Montana, MCA, leaned on their experience with education but that's not as relevant to this contract. Unclear how much experience they have with Pdox. Bureau Veritas Interview Scoring Would you be able to represent the City of Bozeman’s interests by communicating directly with applicants, such as by answering questions, providing assistance, or building relationships, as if you were in the office? Do you plan to complete the work in house or subcontract with other firms? Is there any specialty your firm lacks which would require a subcontractor? Do you foresee any scenarios where your firm may not have the capacity to handle the volume of work and be required to subcontract? How will you manage workload and ensure for completion of on-time reviews? What qualifications related to fire code and fire reviews do you have on staff? Will you please describe your experience (if any) coordinating between municipal building and fire departments? Do the personnel to be assigned to this project have experience reviewing large, multi-story, mixed use buildings? Please provide an example of a recent project. Do you have a structural engineer on staff? Do you have staff who have familiarity with our region, and if so, will they be consulted or assigned to work on this contract? Are you familiar with Montana statutes (Montana Code Annotated), and how they relate to state administrative rules, municipal code, and the ICC family of codes? How does your company manage disagreements in code interpretation should they arise between the jurisdiction and your team? We have a foundation-only permit process, which falls under a single permit application for the entire project's construction. What is your experience with partial or foundation-only permits? How would you rate the level of service your company provides to jurisdictions, and have you identified any areas for improvement? [INTERNAL] Follow ups about cost or schedule… What questions do you have for us? Other misc notes Scorer Notes Erin Strive to be extension of the city - if allowed to, put reviewer's contact info in the review letter. Want to approve plans the first go-around as much as possible. All in-house. Identified a core team that would be assigned to Bozeman if selected. Have backup resources we would introduce if needed. Even specialties can be handled in-house including fire, high-rises, structural. Have yet to see anything they've not been able to handle in-house. Use database which logs projects, status & deadlines. Run 97-98% on-time. Highly effective system. Fire Professional Engineer on staff as Director of Fire & Risk. She manages team of 12 that specialize in fire suppression, smoke control, fire plan review. That team has ICC fire certs. Bobbet as Plan Review Supervisor also has a ICC fire review cert. CBO is first point of contact to make them aware of anything that needs discussed for coordination with Fire. Often can get answered by CBO but have spoken directly with Fire on some occasions if necessary. Have found in his experience that Fire usually has its own interpretation of Ch 9 for example. Several projects with Missoula, ie National Museum of Forestry building. Las Vegas - large MU building involving 2 high-rises with R2 above, BM below and adjacent mid-rises. Currently working on Grand Sierra Arena in Reno that is 10,000 seat arena, hotel, casino, restaurants, parking structures. Yes, several. 3 in SW office, 1 will be part of core team for Bozeman (currently does Missoula & Reno). Yes, have people licensed in state already doing work for Missoula. Some national park work as well. Become very familiar with area in last 2 years. Review team is all ICC certified. Familiar with MT ARM, know how to look it up. Important to understand jurisdiction & expectations from CBO & FM. Start with kickoff meeting, and meet again after first couple reviews to make sure they're hitting the mark and aligning with city's interpretations. Not seen a conflict in 10 years Craig has worked for them. Willing to look at pieces separately as needed. Can divide by phasing in software, great way to track all the way through. Have dealt with foundation-only many times - example Maricopa AZ. Customer service is outstanding. We all use the same code books, but how we stand out is how we deliver that service. Communication, honesty, transparency. BV puts themselves in the shoes of the applicant - want to collaborate on a set of plans to get it through. Like to meet quarterly or minimum twice/year with AHJ to check in on how they're doing. Do we now/have we contracted with a 3rd party reviewer before? Is there anything we've been not satisfied with that they could demonstrate they do better? Which software do we use? Didn't come across as enthusiastic to work for Bozeman. 2 of 3 people on call seemed a bit prickly. Not impressed with MT code answer, yeah you can look it up but only involvement seems to relate to Missoula. Have used and like ProjectDox. Ben Yes/ strive to be that extension of the city. second review their team will reach proactively. Complete in house no contract work. try to keep with a core team, do to size the have the reach back within. dependant on the assignment and put to their reviewers. 97 - 98% deadline highly effective. Director of fire / fire protection engineer / team of fire professional aprox. 12 contacts CBO or plans examiner - in relation to IBC/IFC to help coordinate. learning curve for the jurisdiction. projects with Missoula - large mix use in Las Vegas r-2 b/m with high-rise and mid rise. large arena in Reno - yes 3 out of this office, handful registered in MT Yes already in Missoula, national park, plan reviewers are ICC cert. been reviewing with Missoula County and ARM, UPcodes reflected there. unstand the need to check ICC codes with montana MCA / ARM. Understanding the jurisdiction leadership / Communicate to work with and be a partner. phased projects / each one separately but keeping it all unders one / Outstanding / communication / customer service are important. Meet quarterly. Customize to the jurisdiction's needs / outreach to fine-tune. Scott Yes, act as extension of AHJ, willing to communicate through process, trying limit review cycles All in house, core team for constistency w/backup, staff for special/unique projects Use own data base for review, then pushed back out. Comms w/AHJ & Applicant. Qualified staff leader, and team of 12 specific protection system reviewers Willing to coordinate between departments, after they have full understanding of AHJ requirements Symphony Park in Las Vegas, projects in Missoula, yes they have experience. Yes, many and assigned into core team. Yes, some licensed in state as previously noted. All ICC certified in specific trades. Mentioned more recent state code revision. Similar approach, back AHJ and will strive for authorized approval. Yes, use their software for phased permitting. CS is outstanding, education, quality checks, annoymous surveys, solve problems, admitted not perfect, wiiling to exced and grow. Rebecca Yes, they strive to be extension of the city and provide their reviewers contact info to applicant. Want to approve in first cycle if possible. Everything is done in house. They have a core team that is assigned to work on the contract, and they have backup should someone be off/out. Use a database to track timelines, run at 97% on time. Highly effective system in place. Director of risk fire life safety, FPE, former fire captain, on staff who manages a team of about 12 fire professionals. Designated team to handle fire details. Reach out to CBO/plan review manager if they identify that coordination is needed, so a meeting can be arranged. Depends how the jurisdiction is managed, who decides what. Coordination always needed on chapter 9, overlap between IBC and IFC. Several with Missoula that have involved retail, housing, manufacturing. Symphony Park project within city, R2 and BM, multiple mid-rises surround project. Large arena development in NV, with hotels, casino, etc. They do all big reviews for Reno. Yes, several. Three in SW office that can be dedicated to any project. One that will be part of core team who does all that work with Missoula now. Yes, a number of people licensed in the state working for Missoula, some may be doing national park work as well. Plan reviewers all ICC certified, most came from different jurisdictions. Familiar with MCA, ARM from past work. No disagreements they can recall. They will provide guidance but are consulting for the city and will follow jurisdiction's lead. Familiar working with any type of phased project. Able to work on applications separately but look at the big picture as well. Gave several examples of projects that used this type of approach. Excellent customer service. Communication, honesty, transparency with jurisdiction and applicant. Lots of outreach. Always looking to improve, meet regularly with jurisdiction to check in and customize service to what the city wants. Adjust based on anonymous surveys. Gave example of comment that resulted in improvement based on client feedback. Any elements of past contracts that didn't work that they could do better? What software do you currently use? Do you typically have more than one third party working with you? Lack of enthusiasm on the call, but large firm and they would have people to draw on as needed. Unclear how much experience they have with Pdox. SAFEbuilt Interview Scoring Would you be able to represent the City of Bozeman’s interests by communicating directly with applicants, such as by answering questions, providing assistance, or building relationships, as if you were in the office? Do you plan to complete the work in house or subcontract with other firms? Is there any specialty your firm lacks which would require a subcontractor? Do you foresee any scenarios where your firm may not have the capacity to handle the volume of work and be required to subcontract? How will you manage workload and ensure for completion of on-time reviews? What qualifications related to fire code and fire reviews do you have on staff? Will you please describe your experience (if any) coordinating between municipal building and fire departments? Do the personnel to be assigned to this project have experience reviewing large, multi-story, mixed use buildings? Please provide an example of a recent project. Do you have a structural engineer on staff? Do you have staff who have familiarity with our region, and if so, will they be consulted or assigned to work on this contract? Are you familiar with Montana statutes (Montana Code Annotated), and how they relate to state administrative rules, municipal code, and the ICC family of codes? How does your company manage disagreements in code interpretation should they arise between the jurisdiction and your team? We have a foundation-only permit process, which falls under a single permit application for the entire project's construction. What is your experience with partial or foundation-only permits? How would you rate the level of service your company provides to jurisdictions, and have you identified any areas for improvement? [INTERNAL] Follow ups about cost or schedule… What questions do you have for us? Other misc notes Scorer Notes Erin Team is familiar with Pdox for comments; always available for phone calls, questions, Pre-App meetings as needed to help applicant through the process. No plans to subcontract any of the work. Have 11 available staff that can serve Bozeman. Serve 6 other communities in MT we can lean on for resources, should workload increase. No specialty that would necessitate sub-contract. Internal tracking software including due dates. Amber also manages workload for building plans examiners. Also have a dedicated fire review team that includes person located in Bozeman who is primary contact (with others to support as needed). Rob is a CFP specialist, also 2 FTEs and 1 PTE. Bozeman contact (Chris) also a long list of certs; will send us his resume. Get to work on both sides of the coin - most of work is on behalf of an AHJ, but have also worked on behalf of contractors. David Spencer - having been a CBO for 3 WA jurisdictions, he's worked directly with Fire Marshals & staff many times. Important to work collaboratively together. Safebuilt works with both Bldg & Fire Depts all day every day. Yes, multitude of experience on team that will work for Bozeman. Examples - MSU lab building, Bozeman Hotel. Plans examiners have lots of experience in both greenfield and rebuild or surrounded by existing development Yes we have both PEs and SEs. Some projects don't rise to the need for an SE, but if it does they can provide it. Referenced MT requirement to have state license to practice engineering. Internally have a deep bench to reach out to as needed for resources. On Building side, have 2 plans examiners who have experience with MT & Bozeman codes and will continue to work with us if selected to continue. Rob has been contact for Bozeman for 5 yrs - very familiar with MT & Bozeman codes. David - added explanation of MT code structure We realize we're part of your team. You're the AHJ, you're responsible to state as certified Dept and have the ultimate decision. If applicant disagrees with Safebuilt for example, we initiate a conversation and make sure the CBO or FM is included. Yes, familiar with this (Bozeman specifically too). Important to keep notes so we understand what's included and can ensure we're staying on track with phasing of that project. One of SafeBuilt's core values is improvement. Always ask customers for feedback. In MT, have been rated 4.5 out of 5 by customers. One example of feedback in MT was additional communication. In response, we're spot-checking our work and adding additional training as needed. One idea - consider separate check-ins for more complex projects. Value relationship with Bozeman, it has been great. We've done some big projects there - some have been unique/challenging which we find fun. Several well-spoken folks, much more MT experience which they referenced. Could tell they were more familiar with MT codes and of course Bozeman. Extensive experience with ProjectDox. No concerns with anything I heard. Ben the team is familar with Pdox and show the applicant their plans examiner which allow the be in contact how the app perfers. No subcontracted work. all services would be in house. Also serve 6 other montana commucating. deadicated review team to local person in bozeman to provide fire. / they have internal software to track workload / with manager check in daily to ensure deadlines. 2 fire marshals / few fire plans examiner / 2 part time FPE work for the AHJ and best interest. satifies workable solutions / open discussion working together. / relationships yes / hotel bozeman, mixed between r-1 r-2 b / MSU Lab / plans examiners have exspirce in both Yes Both professional and structural engineers state status other internal resources. fire has local reviewer / current reviewers with the city of bozemand / to understand the state arms and how the ICC codes work. part of the team AHJ had the say / communicate the CBO CFO for final determination / working together Keeping the phasing tracking for details. One of SafeBUILT core values is Improvement / Both customer service and employee training tech/service / Seperate check in on big or special project possible foundation only type. Scott Yes, They have demonstrated continual support in all categories No subing out. Provide all services within. six other MT communities Dedicated fire review team-local person. Internal project software managed by Amber/Rob ICC, fire protection specialist, availability to FPE's, CS has ICC Certs/NICET 2 FA Solutions are top priority between departments, Collabrative relationship/discussion-Company mainstay Yes multitude/Hotel Bzn Project, MSU Labs Bldg Yes both pro and structural available Yes as exemplified by past experiences. They offered workflow of codes through service process Discussions allowing for AHJ best decision, they follow our lead Yes, They have demonstrated continual support in all categories Core value is improvement. Bi-yearly surveys. Continuing Ed for employees. Rebecca Familiar with Pdox, always available to help move process along for applicant. They include their reviewer contact information. All services in house, 11 staff that could serve Bozeman, and could lean on other Montana staff should workload increase. Dedicated fire review team, including one person based in Bozeman. Internal plan review tracking software that includes deadlines. Amber actively manages reviewer workload. Plus other staff available to cover if needed so deadlines will be met. 2 certified fire marshalls on staff, 2-3 ICC certified fire plans reviewers, multiple part time FPEs available as needed. Experience working for both building and fire. Try to find common ground and provide the applicant clear direction. Knowledge of the overlap between codes, ability to collaborate. It's about relationships. Hotel Bozeman project example - hotel rooms, condos, ammenity space. MSU lab building with shared office. Experience with buildings that are surrounded by existing development as well as greenfield. Yes. They have PEs and structural engineers specifically. Plans examiners know how to flag complicated issues that need to be elevated to professional or structural engineers for review. Yes. Staff in Bozeman very familiar with local processes. Five years of experience already working for Bozeman. Same staff will continue to be assigned. "We are part of your team, you are the authority having jurisdiction" Always circle back to CBO or fire marshall at the city, have a conversation about the interpretation. They go with the jurisdiction. Experience with it. Keep good notes about what's included, what has been reviewed, and they're on track and consistent across phasing. Improvement is a core value. Use customer surveys to collect feedback about where to improve. As well as regular check in meetings. They QA/QC reviewer work and provide training as needed to improve their work. Additional communication has been an area they're working to improve. Want to consider check-ins for specific complex projects in the future. Value their relationship with Bozeman. Unique and challenging projects, their team enjoys working with the city. Very familiar with Bozeman stuff already, which would be a benefit especially as we have a transition in fire. We've heard that their local fire person has had to cut back his workload recently, unclear how they would work around that. We get complaints from applicants because SAFEbuilt is more thorough than in-house reviewers, not about timeliness or comments provided. Applicants don't reach out directly to them.