RBRC Combo Project Request for Qualifications Additional Information and Clarifications #1. RFQ No Issued: March 9, 2011

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "RBRC Combo Project Request for Qualifications Additional Information and Clarifications #1. RFQ No. 1708.057. Issued: March 9, 2011"

Linette Lang
8 years ago
Views:

1 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ROBERTS BANK RAIL CORRIDOR PROGRAM 192 ND STREET, 54 TH AVE., 196 TH STREET COMBO PROJECT RFQ No ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATIONS NO. 1 Issued: March 9, 2011 The following clarifications are in response to questions from Interested Parties posed during the webcast on February 28, The webcast has been posted to the Data Room for review by Interested Parties. The following clarifications are supplemental to that webcast. Interested Parties are reminded that, as set out in Section 4.7 of the Request for Qualifications, Addenda are the only way that the RFQ may be amended, and accordingly all other information that may be given by the City, including the information given in the webcast and given in these clarifications, is provided as general information but is expressly not part of the RFQ, and is not intended to be referred to in any way to interpret any provision of the RFQ. Question # 1 Will there be any financial incentives if substantial completion is reached prior to the target completion date? The City will be setting out the evaluation criteria in the RFP. The City anticipates that in addition to technical compliance, the evaluation will be largely based on contract price, but there will be some other considerations. Question #2. Can you provide any insight into construction scheduling; for example, will it be satisfactory to have all 3 structures under construction at the same time? The Project is to be completed over a period of approximately two and a half years. It will likely be necessary to construct the three structures concurrently. It is anticipated that Shortlisted Proponents will be requested to submit a sequencing plan with their Proposals. Question #3. Is there a desire to have any one of the Project components completed earlier than others? There is no particular need to have any one of the components completed early. March 9, 2011 Page 1

The webcast has been posted to the Data Room for review by Interested Parties. The following clarifications are supplemental to that webcast.

2 Question #4. Is there an expectation that the final design will be very similar to the reference concept? Shortlisted Proponents will be expected to meet the functional requirements and performance specifications set out in the Request for Proposals. The design may vary from the reference concept. It is anticipated that details concerning structural design or geotechnical methodology will largely be determined by the Design-Builder. Right-of-way acquisition is proceeding based on the reference concept. The environmental assessment submission is also based on the reference concept design. If the Design-Builder varies from the reference concept, it is anticipated that the Design-Builder would be responsible for the cost and schedule implications of any additional property acquisition and would be responsible for obtaining an amended CEAA approval. Question #5. Why are Prime Members restricted to one Respondent team? The City considered the likely composition of the various teams. Those team members that may contribute materially to innovation are designated as Prime Members and must be exclusive to just one team. For example, the Structural Engineer is designated as a Prime Member in Appendix 1 Glossary of Terms. By restricting the Structural Engineer from participation on more than one Proponent Team, the City is endeavouring to maximize development of innovative solutions. Question #6. If we decide that we want to change a Prime Member or even a Team Member after the RFQ has been submitted, are we able to do so? Respondents may not change their team composition after the Closing Time and before shortlisting. Once a team is shortlisted, changes to Team Members will be considered in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Request for Qualifications. Question #7. Can you please confirm that the Respondent can identify various nonexclusive Team Members such as subcontractors that may contribute to the Prime Member work, such as in structural construction, but they re non-exclusive to the Prime Member? Prime Members such as the Structural Engineer and the Structural Contractor are Prime Members and must be exclusive to one Respondent. However, sub-consultants and subcontractors such as structural sub-consultants and structural sub-contractors are not considered Prime Members and may be on multiple teams. March 9, 2011 Page 2

It is anticipated that details concerning structural design or geotechnical methodology will largely be determined by the Design-Builder.

3 Question #8. Specifically, is the Electrical Engineering subconsultant a Prime Member? The Electrical Engineering consultant is not a Prime Member and could be on more than one team. Question #9. Is the Environmental Engineer a Prime Member for this Project? The Environmental Engineer is not a Prime Member and could be on more than one team. Question #10. Regarding joint venture teams, what happens when companies come together in a joint venture and submit on that basis, but they may not be fully established as joint venture? The requirements regarding joint ventures are as set out in the Request for Qualifications as amended by Addendum No. 1. Interested Parties do not have to provide joint venture documentation, but should provide the requested information, including confirmation of required insurance and bonding. Question #11. The RFQ mentions only a $40 million surety for performance and labour and material bonds. With the Project budgeted at $120 million, is it the City s intent to award three separate contracts to the Proponents? If not, what financial strategy is the City using to protect itself for the entire cost of the Project? The Project budget includes project development, property acquisition, design, construction and project management. The City has not disclosed the allocations for design and construction. The amount of $40 million dollars for each of the performance and the labour and materials bonds was chosen as a reasonable indication of the Respondent s ability to obtain bonding for a project of this size. It is anticipated that the City will enter into a single design-build contract for the Combo Project. It is anticipated that the Design-Builder will be required to provide performance and labour and material bonds each in the amount of 50% of its actual Design-Build Contract Price. Question #12. Will the Design-Builder be the principal contractor for WorkSafe BC purposes and be required to coordinate 3 rd party contractors which are on site? Yes, the Design-Builder will be responsible for site safety and will be acting as the principal contractor for all works. March 9, 2011 Page 3

Regarding joint venture teams, what happens when companies come together in a joint venture and submit on that basis, but they may not be fully established as joint venture?

4 Question #13. Assuming that there will be a need for some land acquisition from local businesses, have any agreements been reached or will the Design- Builder need to obtain these and any easements that could be required? The City has identified property takings and working easements based on the reference concept. The City is responsible for these property purchases. If the Design-Builder presents a concept that requires additional properties or different properties from those required for the reference concept, the Design Builder will be responsible for the additional costs. However, it is anticipated that the City would handle the negotiations with the affected landowners. Question #14. If a DFO authorization is required, will the Design-Builder be responsible for negotiations with DFO and if so, will the Design-Builder be given responsibility and authority for compensation? The City is responsible for obtaining CEAA approval for the reference concept. Designs will likely differ from the reference concept, and the Design-Builder will be responsible for applying for and obtaining any required amendments to the CEAA approval. The Design-Builder is also responsible for obtaining all other permits and approvals that are necessary to complete the Project. If DFO authorization is required, the Design-Builder will be responsible for permits and compensation. Note that compensation may not be achievable within the Project site. Further information will be included in the Request for Proposals. Question #15. The RFQ references settlement criteria for all three portions of the Project. Is it possible to elaborate on these criteria at this stage? Are the settlement criteria specific to the bridge approaches only, or to the adjacent roadwork? Also, is it constrained by these settlement criteria? It is anticipated that details of the settlement criteria and the performance criteria will be provided at the RFP stage. Long-term maintenance and clearance envelope implications are of particular importance. Accordingly, there may be a greater level of tolerance for road construction not related to the bridge approaches. Settlement can lead to extensive owner costs for long term maintenance, and that concern will be addressed in the RFP. Webcast Files Added To the Data Room The following materials have been posted to the Data Room: Updated RFQ Data Room Contents list (Revised March 7, 2011) Webcast PowerPoint Presentation (dated February 28, 2011) Webcast Video File (dated February 28, 2011) Instructions for accessing the Data Room are only provided to parties who have returned the Interested Parties Registration Form. March 9, 2011 Page 4

required? The City has identified property takings and working easements based on the reference concept. The City is responsible for these property purchases.

5 All material provided in the Data Room is for information purposes only, and does not form part of the RFQ or the RFP for the RBRC Combo Project. The City does not guarantee or warrant the relevancy, sufficiency, accuracy, appropriateness or completeness of any of the documents, data or information provided in the Data Room. Interested Parties are advised that reference concepts, scope definition and other project information have progressed and changed since the completion of the reports posted in the Data Room. The contents of the Data Room will be updated at the RFP stage END OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATIONS # March 9, 2011 Page 5

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ROBERTS BANK RAIL CORRIDOR PROGRAM 192 ND STREET, 54 TH AVE., 196 TH STREET COMBO PROJECT CITY OF SURREY

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ROBERTS BANK RAIL CORRIDOR PROGRAM 192 ND STREET, 54 TH AVE., 196 TH STREET COMBO PROJECT Issued: February 16, 2011 This project is being undertaken by: CITY OF SURREY ON BEHALF