
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8e Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: November 14, 2023
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
The alternatives presented are specific to the replacement of the employee and visitor parking
lot surface membrane on the 5th floor of the RCF.
Alternative 1 – Do not replace the employee and visitor parking membrane.
Cost Implications: $210,000
Pros:
(1) Reduces capital investment.
Cons:
(1) Not supported by the rental car tenants.
(2) Not consistent with the tenant lease agreement to protect the tenant improvements on
the floors below.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Continue with original methyl methacrylate membrane installation.
Cost Implications: $11,500,000
Pros:
(1) Completes the membrane installation with the original construction effort.
(2) Consistent with the tenant lease agreement.
(3) Meets the requirements for the product warranty.
Cons:
(1) Significantly higher capital investment.
(2) Not supported by the rental car tenants.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Proceed with a second phase of the project to install a compatible membrane
product.
Cost Implications: $9,300,000
Pros:
(1) Lower capital investment.
(2) Consistent with the tenant lease agreement.
(3) Ensures a product warranty.
(4) Supported by the rental car tenants.
Cons:
(1) Delays membrane replacement by up to three years from the original schedule.
This is the recommended alternative.