St. Jerome s University Responses to Pre-Submittal Questions

Transcription

1 St. Jerome s University Responses to Pre-Submittal Questions Questions have been assembled and placed in a consecutive numerical order for ease of referencing questions and responses. Identity of firm submitting the question is not provided. 1) Please confirm if the scope of interior renovations to J.R. Finn Residence to achieve single occupancy of existing rooms is to be included in the scope of work for this RFP? Response: No. The transition from double to single will not be a part of the scope. 2) Is the design of the kitchen equipment part of these of services? Response: At this point in time, our food service provider, Compass Canada (Chartwells), has undertaken this work. However, their report and suggestions will have to be incorporated into the larger scope by the team. 3) Will the invested cost savings developed during DD phase (should that be exercised by the Owner) be reflected in a bias in the ICL adjustment to target cost after design validation? Response: While the question is not entirely clear, the basic concept is described in Section of the RFP. If SJU elects to use design phase cost savings to incorporate additional scope into the Project, then the Incentive Compensation Layer (ICL) will be increased by the agreed additional profit for that added scope. Also, note that the question wrongly assumes that the ICL is included within the Target Cost; the ICL is outside the Target Cost. The details of the risk/reward compensation will be addressed in the IPD Agreement negotiated with the selected IPD Team. 4) Exhibit 2- Defined Architects Chargeable Costs: Please define what will be considered 'costs' in the defined chargeable cost for Design services and what background information to provide substantiation will be required? Response: The architect s Chargeable Costs are defined in Exhibit 2 of the RFP, and will be addressed in greater detail in the IPD Agreement negotiated with the selected IPD Team. SJU has not yet finally determined whether to require a formal audit of rates and multipliers. 5) Financial Information for Design Team: please confirm St. Jerome s will sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement before release of any company financial information: ie. (Dun & Bradstreet), and YE Financial Statements. Response: Yes. 6) Please confirm Financials provided are to be for the parent company (corporation) or the local design practice involved, or both? Response: Both. 1

2 7) What is the expected ICL value range within the target cost of $47M? Response: SJU does not have an expected range. This will be determined based on the proposal from the successful IPD Team and the negotiation of the IPD Agreement. 8) Will St. Jerome's University consider extending the submission due date by two weeks (from April 19th to May 3rd)? This will provide sufficient time for the team to incorporate information from the April 9th Pre-Submittal Conference in the submission. Response: Not at this time. 9) Discussions with the University of Waterloo regarding the easement agreement for parking and roadway access on University of Waterloo land have been initiated. This easement agreement will require updating as a result of expanded driveway and parking layout north of the Multi-Purpose Building and Food Service area. Who is responsible for pursuing this easement agreement? Response: St. Jerome s University has had discussions with UWaterloo regarding this matter. UWaterloo has indicated that it is not a problem and that we will need to meet again once design parameters have been finalized. St. Jerome s University will lead these discussions and secure the appropriate agreements. 10) In the 2015 Master Plan Proposal the Site-Plan Approval has designated a Set-back encroachment for the Multi-Purpose Building. Who is responsible for pursing resolution with the City of Waterloo in regards to encroachment on set back? Response: The selected team, on behalf of St. Jerome s University, will resolve this matter. 11) The "Schematic Design Report" describes some requirements that are typical of LEED credits, but no designation of LEED Certification. Is the client pursuing LEED Certification for this project? Response: The St. Jerome s University has decided NOT to pursue LEED Certification but has committed to incorporating a wide range of elements typical of LEED credits. Sustainability and energy efficiency are a priority. 12) What type of BIM model does the Owner require? Are they expecting the model in REVIT, the industry standard in North America? Response: SJU does not have detailed expectations for use of BIM at this time and expects to have a BIM workshop with the selected IPD Team early in the design phase to collaboratively determine the best uses and protocols for BIM to make this a successful Project. Also, note that SJU does not have any preset plans for use of BIM in facilities management or furniture procurement, but is open to discussing the value this may have for SJU and the Project. 13) Does the Owner intend on using the BIM model for Facilities Management or Furniture Procurement? Response: See response to #12. 2

3 14) Is there a specific BIM standard the Owner requires? This IPD Team's architect follows BIM standards that are based around the AlA document E and/ or the AlA document E Response: See response to #12. The E202 is a useful resource, but insufficient by itself for a robust BIM execution plan 15) Does the Owner have a Lean Design system they wish to follow? There are several different methods in the States. (Sutter Health's Integrated Form Agreement or others). Response: SJU expects to collaboratively determine the best way to implement Lean principles and methods with the selected IPD Team, and will expect the team to show significant leadership and initiative in helping SJU and the team to implement Lean during both design and construction. 16) The chart in section of the RFP shows a slope for "ICL Loss at Final Completion." Could the Owner please clarify how the over target ICL Loss slope is calculated? Response: See the narrative in Section 4.4.2, which explains the general concept that ICL is used dollar for dollar for cost overruns over the Target Cost. The line in the figure is not intended to be a slope, but an arrow pointing to the outcome if the actual cost is above the Target Cost. The same applies for the arrow pointing to the ICL Gain outcome. 17) Could the Owner please provide the Owner form of the Contract, complete with any supplementaries so the IPD Team can conduct a legal contract review? Response: This is a request for proposals based primarily on qualifications, not an invitation to bid. SJU is not requiring (or entertaining) contract comments as part of an IPD Team s proposal. After selection, SJU will provide its proposed form of IPD Agreement to the selected team for subsequent negotiation. The RFP describes the essential characteristics of the IPD Agreement intended for the Project. SJU does not intend to use one of the standard industry IPD agreement forms. 18) Can you clarify exactly what you require for Section with regards to providing a current Dun & Bradstreet business information report? From our experience, this is an American term and may not be applicable or available to all Team Members. If so, is there other documentation that we can provide which would be sufficient? Response: It is our understanding that Dun & Bradstreet can provide data for Canadian companies ( but in the absence of D & B data firms may submit relevant data that demonstrates financial health, capacity, and the ability to undertake the project as defined. 19) Can you confirm that Financial Statements only need to be provided for the Team Members selected by SJU after the RFP stage and therefore do not need to be included in the RFP submission which is due April 19th, 2013? Response: Yes, as stated in the preamble to Section

4 20) Page 6, 3.3 asks that submission be submitted in Word or Excel Format. It makes sense to us that you would submit in PDF so that the submission cannot be altered. Please clarify. Response: Yes. PDF submissions are fine. 21) Exhibit Flatwork. What is flatwork? Does this refer to drawing and specification reproduction? Response: Printing and reproduction of design documents. 22) 2015 and Beyond document - pages 1,2 and 3 are missing from the document. Will they be distributed? Response: The 2015 and Beyond Report originally included several master plan design options. Those original pages were the table of contents that were no longer relevant as plan C is the concept the University has approved and adopted. 23) Has there been any indication from the City or UW as to acceptance of encroachments. This potentially has an impact on the schedule if the City or UWaterloo are not supportive. Please advise. Response: During the master planning process, the University and its consultant met with the City of Waterloo to discuss the plan. The City had indicated that they had no preliminary objections to our plan. The University of Waterloo has agreed to the encroachments outlined in the plan. 24) Is the "Dorm Style" of residence a given? Will SJU entertain other models of student residence living? Response: The dorm style residence accommodations were carefully selected based on the existing residence community, the programmatic focus on the residence operations, and substantive feedback from students and residence staff. The University would be willing to entertain other options and improvements and this of course would be undertaken after the team is selected and a full review of the project is completed. 25) From the 2015 and Beyond document it would appear that the existing parking will be reduced from 194 spaces to 115 spaces. Is this the correct amount of parking and does it satisfy SJU needs and the City requirements? Response: Yes. 26) The IPD Team is made up of risk/reward and non-risk/reward consultants and consultants. Please clarify which members of the IPD Team need to provide financial and past project dispute information as part of the proposal submission. Is it only the architect and contractor who will sign the IPD Agreement with the Owner or does it include other risk/reward participants? Not all of the IPD Team members will be able to be identified at this stage of the project. Response: As noted in Section 4.3 of the RFP, Owner does not require all members of the IPD Team to be identified in the proposal, but encourages proposing teams to strategically include 4

5 key member firms. The information required by the RFP is for all those IPD Team members (whether or not risk/reward participants) that are identified in the proposal. The IPD Agreement will include a process for the team to vet and bring on new IPD Team members that are selected at a later time. 27) With respect to the direct salary expense and multiplier information requested, is this to be provided for specific team members only or does it include position categories ie. an intermediate engineer that might be contributing to the project but cannot be specifically named at this stage? Response: Each design firm should have one multiplier that applies to all of its personnel and should not vary based on the individuals working for that firm, but the direct salary expense and resulting billing rates may be based on position categories rather than specifically named individuals. 28) Is St. Jerome's looking to utilize the BIM model information at the completion of construction or is it intended for design and construction purposes only? Response: See response to #12. 29) Is St. Jerome's looking to have specific suppliers identified at the proposal stage? This will be difficult since the current schematic design is to be revisited. Response: See response to #26. Teams are welcome to include as team members specific suppliers that would add value during the design phase, but are not required to do so. 30) Are the items identified as Miscellaneous Expenses in the RFP document included as Owner's costs in the project budget or are they attributable to the IPD Team? Response: The Miscellaneous Expenses and Miscellaneous Costs sections of Exhibits 2 and 3 are part of the team s Chargeable Costs that are reimbursable by Owner and which must be covered by the Target Cost. 31) Please clarify how the salaries and compensation for employees not stationed at the site office but working on the project are considered Excluded Costs. Not all individuals working on the project will be stationed at the site office. Can they be billed as per the Chargeable Cost definition? Response: This resulted from unintentional omissions in both Exhibits 2 and 3. Section 3.1 of Exhibit 2 should read as follows: Salaries and other compensation of personnel stationed at any principal office or offices other than the site office, except as specifically included in Section 1.1. Section 5.1 of Exhibit 3 should read as follows: Salaries and other compensation of the Contractor s personnel stationed at any principal office or offices other than the site office, except as specifically included in Section

6 32) Further to the question above, item 5.1 conflicts with some of the disciplines noted in 1.2. Our Project managers, Pre-construction staff, safety, purchasing, estimating, IT, accounting and administrative are all based off-site at our head office. According to 1.2 they are chargeable, but according to 5.1 they are not. Please clarify whether these roles can remain as chargeable. Also please clarify if the intent behind the 4.11 overhead costs percentage is to exclude any personnel costs. Response: See response to #31. Also, there is no intent to exclude home office personnel from the overhead percentage, but personnel costs should not be covered in both the overhead percentage and in another Chargeable Cost category. 33) Would it be possible to elaborate further on the $47M overall project budget, identifying hard construction costs, soft costs, and costs outside of the IPD team's scope of work? Response: The $47M budget is the University s total project costs and is based on a detailed estimate of the scope of the work. 34) Considering this project will be executed over several years, will IPD teams be allowed yearly inflationary increases to their basic (without mark-up) personnel costs stated in their billing rate schedule? Response: Yes, with agreement by the Project Management Team (PMT), but those increases would not result in any adjustment to the Target Cost. 35) For billing rates for personnel, considering that the staff are generally compensated with some degree of variability between each individual within a particular discipline, how shall we account for this in the proposal? Shall we give an average rate (or a range, high to low) for a particular discipline in the proposal with the understanding that the final, specific, auditable hourly rates will be agreed upon with the owner anyway as per section 1.2? Response: The billing rates may be based on position categories rather than specifically named individuals. 36) Section 3.3 states proponents are to submit one bound hard copy and one electronic copy in Word or Excel format(s). Can we submit our electronic copy in PDF? Response: See the response to #20. 37) Given the innovative form of proposed multi-party contract, and in order to arrive at surety, liability, and other insurance costs and provisions as they affect proposed billing rates and multipliers, all parties will need to work closely with their legal, surety and insurance providers. Has the University any objection to proponents forwarding the RFP and background documents to our insurers and sureties? Can the University provide any thinking to date or further information regarding limitations of liability and waivers that are anticipated in the Multi-party agreement? Response: The question makes some faulty assumptions. SJU will not be requiring surety bonds for the Project, so surety costs are not relevant. Insurance costs should not be covered within billing rates or multipliers, but as separate Chargeable Costs based on the premiums allocable to this Project for required insurance. Since this is not an invitation to bid, the amount of insurance costs are not required for purposes of a team s proposal. Issues relating to insurance 6

7 will be addressed with the selected IPD Team as part of negotiating the IPD Agreement. As far as liability, see Section 4.5 of the RFP. Details will be addressed in the IPD Agreement with the selected IPD Team. 38) Exhibit 2, Item 3.1 and 3.3, and Exhibit 3, Item 5.1 and 5.2, appears to indicate that only salaries and expenses for personnel working at the "site office" and not the consultants' principal office or offices are chargeable. In effect, is this a confirmation that there will be a dedicated office set up for the duration of the design and construction process, with Contractor and Consultant providing personnel to this office location, and the expenses of this dedicated location, and that all costs for compensation must be for this office only. If this is the case, we question this approach, given that our normal places of business operation form a principal and integral cost of business for the firms involved. Can the University please clarify this item? Response: See response to #31. 39) The request is for the proposal to be submitted in Word or Excel. Our norm is to use other publishing and presentation software to develop the proposal, and this software does not translate into these Microsoft formats. May the proposal be submitted in a PDF format? Response: Yes. 40) There does not appear to be a specific requirement in the RFP that IPD Team members and/or proponents disclose any conflict of interest or insider knowledge that may provide unfair advantage to a particular team. Does the University wish, in general accordance with public procurement policies, that teams specifically disclose such conflicts of interest, as part of the submission? Response: See Section of the RFP. 41) The RFP makes reference to background information for this project that will be provided to the successful team, upon selection. As the University has been working with a particular consultant through the early stages of this project that may have access to pertinent background information at this stage, and this consultant may respond to this RFP, can this information be provided to all potential proponent teams? Response: This is a request for proposals based primarily on qualifications, not an invitation to bid. There is no additional background information possessed by a consultant that is required for an IPD Team to make a strong proposal and be selected by SJU. To be clear, this RFP process is not a compliance exercise by SJU to be completed prior to selecting a favored consultant s team. SJU will select the team that best demonstrates its ability to succeed with SJU in this new project delivery approach based on the evaluation criteria in Section 6.1 of the RFP. 42) Has the Project Budget of $47 million been developed from a detailed costing of the present proposed design, or using broader "order of magnitude" costs applied to likely square footages? Response: See #33. 7

8 43) Is the Project Budget in 2013 dollars, or is it a figure that already includes for escalation for the various components of construction and project cost, in accordance with your preferred construction schedule? Is there a cost estimate, to which some potential respondents may have access or have authored, that can be made available to interested proponents, in order to assist with our evaluation of the work to date and preparation of a submission? Response: The project budget is in 2012 dollars and represents the University s commitment to the total project. The University undertook a budgeting exercise to arrive at the project budget, define the scope, and build its financing plan. This is not being shared. 44) Is the University's relationship with the City of Waterloo similar to the University of Waterloo relationship, i.e. that the project will not undergo the City's Site Plan Approval process since the University, as a provincially-mandated body, need not conform to this municipal process or its requirements for storm water management or other site plan requirement? Similarly, will a building permit be applied for, and form part of the project cost? Will there be Development Charges to City and Region and are those included in the Project Budget? Response: Yes, the City of Waterloo considers St. Jerome s University similar to UWaterloo. Permits, development charges, and other associated costs are incorporated into the total project cost. 45) Will the project be responding to certification or other goals from LEED or other benchmarking programs for sustainability or independent cost analysis or peer review? Are there specific requirements in this regard for IPD Teams? Response: See response to #11. 46) The University has requested separate submission of the basis of compensation for the Consultant, and Contractor. In order to evaluate relative size of roles among Project Owner, Contractor, and Consultant, can the University provide clarification of whom it would prefer to perform the administrative services related to the Multi-party agreement? Will the University administer the online electronic facilities, paperwork and reporting related to the agreement itself, and expense of a dedicated site office if envisioned, or is the preference that this be done by the Consultant element, or the Contractor? Response: SJU is looking to the proposing IPD Teams to identify the processes they feel will result in the best outcome for the Project. SJU will collaboratively decide these matters with the selected IPD Team. 47) Has the University undertaken a project, or is presently involved in a project, that uses the IPD format envisaged for this Project? Response: No. 48) The background paper on IPD identifies various levels of collaboration, and several model contracts for multi-party and collaborative enhancement single party contract forms. From the appendix to the discussion paper provided as reference document, does the University have a preference for one of the forms of contract identified in Appendix C: Standard Form Agreements? Response: See response to #17. The background paper was just background. 8

9 49) In arriving at an agreed target cost after design validation, is it envisaged that the parties will make reference to the services of an independent cost consultant, hired by the parties collectively, or will this cost estimating be part of either the Consultant or Contractor or Owner scope of work? Similarly, at various stages throughout the project prior to final arrival at construction and project cost, how will the construction costs be estimated? Does the University have preferences in this regard? Response: While SJU is open to the possibility of having an independent cost consultant provide confirmation of the team s cost estimates, the IPD Agreement will require the contractors on the IPD Team to provide robust cost estimating as part of a Target Value Design (TVD) effort by the team. While the PMT will determine intervals for formal cost estimates, the process of cost estimating will be ongoing throughout design as part of the collaborative involvement of the contractors in the TVD process. 50) Does the University have preference or experience for a particular BIM software that it wishes used on this project? Response: No. Also, see response to #12. 51) Referencing the RFP document, item 3.3: Will it be acceptable to submit a PDF copy of our proposal for the one (1) electronic copy instead of a Word or Excel format file? Response: Yes. 52) Referencing the RFP document, item (a): We understand that detailed project information is required for up to five projects. Do you want this information for a total of "up to five projects" for the entire IPD Team? Or do you want this information for "up to five projects" for each member of our IPD Team? Response: For each member of the IPD Team included in the proposal. 53) Referencing the RFP document, item 5.3.2: We have the same question as question 2 above, as it applies to this section please. Response: For each member of the IPD Team included in the proposal. 54) Referencing the RFP document, item 5.3.3: Do you want us to provide project descriptions for a total of three projects for the entire IPD Team? Or for three projects for each member of our IPD Team? Response: For each member of the IPD Team included in the proposal. 55) Referencing the RFP document, items (b) and (c): These sections request that "design company" and "contractor" references be provided. a. Are Design Team members of our IPD Team required to provide references from other design firms? Response: Yes. For example, an architect would provide a reference from a structural engineer it worked with. 9

10 b. Are Construction Team members of our IPD Team required to provide references from other contractors? Response: Yes. For example, a mechanical trade would provide a reference from a general contractor it worked with. c. It is possible that some references provided may be on competing teams for this RFP, which could create an interesting situation when checking references. Can you please describe how these references might be contacted by SJU during the RFP evaluation stage? Response: SJU reserves the right to contact any reference a proposing team member provides. If the reference works for a firm participating on another proposing team, SJU will take that fact into account in evaluating the reference s comments. 56) I am wondering why the salary billing for the architect's work seems to be not taking into consideration that salary cost is not only the direct salary? There are other costs that are directly related to the salary such as; payroll taxes, sick days, vacation, training, health benefits, etc. as well as costs such as licensing, professional insurance, software and hardware. These costs are directly related to providing architectural services on a specific project. Cost incurred by the architects and sub-consultants should include all the above items plus overhead costs of running and keeping the office. Also, should be noted that the process proposed actually, will likely, increase the administrative work related to this project from the norm. Response: The question has some faulty assumptions. Exhibit 2 addresses how other nondirect salary costs are handled. Most of the referenced items would be addressed through the multiplier on direct salary expense that is factored into the billing rates or through the architect s ICL amount. However, professional liability insurance would be handled outside of billable rates per Section 2.5 of Exhibit 2. 57) Are the sub-consultants expected to be included in the IDP-Type3 format and work based on a profit sharing basis? (RFP is not definite on this) If yes, then should they be included in the management team leading the project? Response: The question and the following one are not entirely clear. As a general proposition, key sub-consultants and subcontractors who have significant ability to influence Project outcome or who would add significant value during the design phase should be included as risk/reward participants. Other sub-consultants and subcontractors would not participate in the risk/reward structure, but would be engaged on a standard basis. Since IPD projects are led and managed on a collaborative basis, all risk/reward participants participate in project leadership and decisionmaking to some degree, though not all are part of the PMT. For the formal decision-making processes, see Section 4.6 of the RFP. More details on project management will be addressed in the IPD Agreement with the selected IPD Team. 10

11 58) Same question re sub-contractors, are they to work within the IDP-Tyep3 profit sharing format? (RFP seems to suggest yes, but not definite) And if yes, then should they be included in the management team leading the project? It only makes sense to participate in decision making, if participating in the profit sharing. If some will and others will not be part of the proposed profit sharing, then how the lines will be drawn? Response: See response to #57. 59) While the Contractor, Architect and Owner together are proposed to form the project management team, the owner is given the right to override any decisions made by the majority despite the conflict resolution process. How is it possible to ensure that the owner will not be making decisions to increase costs by adding elements or increasing expectations or quality, and resulting in diminished profits? Response: The question has some faulty assumptions. The PMT must act on a unanimous basis. If they cannot achieve unanimity, then the matter is referred to the SMT per Section 4.6 of the RFP. If SJU issues an Owner s Directive overriding the SMT s majority decision, and it impacts cost or time, then a team member may seek to resolve its claim through the dispute resolution process. Also, since SJU is paying all risk/reward participants Chargeable Costs even if the Target Cost is overrun, SJU is at risk for any actions it takes that increase team members Chargeable Costs. 11