ADDENDUM #1 RFP: 500 16 Design Build Maintenance & Operations Complex The following changes to the Request for Proposal and clarifications are provided based on questions received and must be added/considered when completing your submittal. Acknowledgement of receipt of this ADDENDUM is required in the Statement of Proposal cover page. Please clearly note the addendum date and number. Clarifications 1) Closing Date: July 31, 2015 at 3:00 PM in Business & Contract Services, Room A 10 2) Timeline: All elements required by the RFP shall be submitted at the same time. The proposals will be reviewed, ranked and a short list developed for interviews. The second phase of the RFP will be the interview of the shortlisted firms. 3) The split in shared savings for General Conditions if the project is finished ahead of schedule has been changed to a 50/50 split between the D/B team and the District. Corrected Form: Revised Attachment 7B Cost Proposal Distribution Exhibits A1 and A2 Attached RFIs 1. RFI CWD 01 01: Schedule Questions: RFP section 2.1.5 notes the following time frames: Design NTP: October 2015 Design time frame: 365 Calendar days which includes a 6 month DSA review time Construction NTP: October 2016 Construction substantial completion: 3/31/2017 These requirements would dictate the following timelines: Design: October 2015 to March 2016 (6 months) DSA Approval: April 2016 to September 2016 (6 months) Construction: October 2016 to March 2017 (6 months) Question: Please confirm these are the time frames intended. Response: The construction duration for the project is 14 months from October 2016 to December 2017. The construction substantial completion date is 12/31/2017. 2. RFI CWD 01 02: Construction duration In conjunction with the presumed 6 month construction time frame noted in question CWD 01 01 above: RFP 2.1.5 notes that the construction time frame shall not exceed 14 months Design Build Contract (Attachment 1) 3.3.2 notes that construction time frame shall not exceed 14 months 1
Specific Design Build Proposal Requirements (Attachment 7) II.B.2 notes that respondents are to assume a 14 month construction duration and provide staffing for this 14 month time frame. Question: Please clarify the construction time frame. Response: See answer to RFI #1 above. 3. RFI CWD 01 03: Attachment 7a In attachment 7A, GC Breakdown excel sheet there are 2 tabs: One tab sheet1 (2) has a header named Exhibit xx. The other tab named sheet1 has a header named Exhibit 7A. Question: We assume we are to use the tab that has the sheet titled Exhibit 7A. Response: Proposers shall use the tab which has the sheet titled as Exhibit 7A. 4. RFI CWD 01 04: FFE There are several references in the RFP documents that we are to include design fees for FFE Question: Could you please clarify the scope and budget for FFE and if the we are to purchase and install the FFE as part of our services. Also will the D/B team be responsible for moving existing equipment/ffe from existing facilities? Response: The District shall select, purchase, install and move existing FF&E items. The scope of work for the D/B team shall be limited to showing the layout of FF&E on the floor plans and recommendations on colors/finishes. 5. RFI CWD 01 05: LCP Question: Will PCC engage an outside LCP service to monitor prevailing wage documentation? Response: Yes, the District will have School Construction Compliance perform the LCP service for the project at District expense. 6. RFI CWD 01 06: Commissioning Question: Will PCC engage an outside commissioning agent or will this be provided by the D/B team? Response: An outside, third party commissioning agent will be hired by the District to perform project commissioning. The D/B team shall work with the independent commissioning agent as required to develop and implement a commissioning plan for the project. The D/B team needs to include air and hydronic testing and balancing within the construction GMP when it is established. 7. RFI CWD 01 07: Liquidated Damages PCC to D/B RFP 2.1.6 notes that the design builder is to include a proposed Liquidated Damages (LD) amount payable by PCC to the Design builder for compensable delays and include that proposed amount in their proposal 2
Attachment 7B, Exhibit A 1 proposal form: In section 4 of this form which addresses LD rate payable from PCC to D/B, the amount of $2,500 is inserted. Question: Is it the intent that respondents include a proposed LD amount payable by PCC to D/B entity for excusable delays or is the $2,500 amount noted on the bid form the amount that will be used? Response: Article2.1.6 of the RFP states the LD amount the D/B entity will pay the District for delays to Substantial Completion as adjusted by the Contract. Attachment 7B, Exhibit A 1, Section 4 was inadvertently filled in with the same $2500 amount. The D/B entity shall submit their proposed LD rate payable by the District to the D/B entity for Compensable delays in lieu of the $2500 amount currently on the form. (Note: Revised Attachment 7B Cost Proposal Distribution attached) 8. Question: RNL is an architecture firm located in Los Angeles. We have extensive experience in designing M&O Facilities for Higher Education, Transit Agencies, and Public Works. We are not able to make it to the mandatory meeting today. Will that disqualify us from submitting? Response: Only the contracting entity that will sign the contract with the District to perform the scope of work for the M&O project must be in attendance at the Mandatory Pre Bid meeting. 9. We have reached out to several contractors, but so far we have not found a D/B partner. Will you be posting the sign in sheet from today s pre proposal? Response: Yes, the sign in sheet is currently available at: http://www.palomar.edu/businessservices/bids.html 10. Please reference the RFP 2.1.5 Contract Time. Note that there appears to be a discrepancy in the milestone dates. The section indicates: a. Substantial completion of the work March 31, 2017 b. NTP with Design October 2015 Duration: 18 Months The section further states c. Design (including DSA approval) 12 months (starting Oct 2015) d. NTP Construction October 2016 e. Substantial completion (14 months) December 2017 f. Final Completion (1 month) January 2018 Duration: 27 Months Question: Please confirm the milestone dates for the project. Response: Substantial completion of construction shall be December 31, 2017 (See response to RFI #1). 11. Please reference the prequalification questionnaire. Note that for the general contractor, electrical subcontractor, mechanical subcontractor, and other subcontractors, the document requests EMR rates and LWR for the most recent three years, yet the documents identifies years 2011, 2010, & 2009 in the document. 3
Question: Please confirm the years required for the EMR and LWR data. Response: Provide the EMR and LWR for the three most recent years available, i.e. 2014, 2013 and 2012. 12. Please confirm if we need to fill out a separate prequalification questionnaire for each service a firm will be providing. Example: Our architectural firm will also be providing other services such as interior design, fire life safety, signage, vertical transportation and FF&E services. Would the architect be required to complete a Principal Engineer questionnaire for each one of these? Similarly, would a subcontractor who is providing both multiple trades (i.e. structural concrete and site concrete services need to fill out the Other Subcontractor Questionnaire twice? Response: Each firm only needs to provide one (1) prequalification form. However, on the one completed form they shall list all of the principal Architects and/or Engineers for the various disciplines they will provide on the project. Applicants may provide a separate attachment to include more names if necessary. This same requirement would hold true for listed trade contractors as well. 13. RFI CWD 02 01: RFP Submission time. The RFP reflects a 3PM RFP submission and in the preproposal conference a 2PM was noted. Question: Please confirm the proposal due time. Response: The proposal due time is 3:00 PM. 14. RFI CWD 02 02: Local Business Participation Question: Please elaborate on the geographical area to be considered for Local Business Participation. Could the District provide geographical boundaries and/or zip codes that are to be considered for Local Business Participation? Response: The Palomar Community College District considers local contractors to be those that have a business office/address within District boundaries. This consists of Poway north to the County line, inland to Borrego Springs and west to the border with MiraCosta Community College District. The official District boundary includes parts of both Vista and Oceanside so firms with businesses in either of those 2 communities will be considered local for this RFP. A map of the District can be found at the following link: http://cccgis.org/cccdistrictboundaries/tabid/626/default.aspx 15. RFI CWD 02 03: Interview format Question: Please elaborate on the format for the short list interviews. Length of interview, agenda, PCC selection panel members, etc. Response: The interview format and additional information will be provided in a later Addendum. The only information that will be provided regarding the selection panel members is that Dennis Astl Manager, Construction and Facilities Planning is a panel member. 4
16. RFI CWD 03 01: LDs: Calendar Days or Working days Question: Please confirm if the LDs (both from PCC to D/B Entity and from D/B Entity to PCC) are per calendar day or per working day? Response: Liquidated Damages will be calculated upon Work Days. 17. RFI CWD 03 02: There are existing power lines that run along the front of the site adjacent to Comet Circle (see inserted picture below). Question: Is there any intent to have these lines relocated either as part of the M&O project or other project? If these lines are to stay, please conform they will not interfere with any large equipment PCC owns and will be brought onto the M&O site. Perhaps provide a minimum clearance height we are to maintain. Response: The existing overhead power lines are SDG&E lines and there is no intent to relocate these lines as part of the M & O or any other project. There is no known equipment or material that is to be relocated from the existing facilities office area to the new project that would be impacted by the existing overhead power lines. 18. Article 7.2.4 requires that Subcontractors who are not Design Build Entity Members be procured through a publicly advertised process using one of the three methodologies listed. We interpret that Design Build Entity does not refer to the specific entity that will contract with Palomar College, but instead to the general design build team (including trade partners and design partners) that will work under the prime contract between Palomar College and the actual Design Build Entity. It is our intent to propose key trade partners as members of our design build team. Some may deliver their trade scope in a design build delivery, and others may assist the design team as appropriate. Their preconstruction costs shall be included in the design build proposal form calculations. The cost of their work shall be provided at GMP time in an open book, transparent format. Question: Please confirm that this is consistent with the intent of the RFP. Response: The first part (paragraph) of the question above is a correct interpretation of the statement referenced in Article 7.2.4. The intent of the RFP is to provide the proposers with several options as to how they may procure or select their subcontractor team. It is strongly encouraged that proposers explain why or how their proposed method benefits the District. If the proposer lists proposed trade partners as part of their Design/Build team in the RFP they would be considered team members if they submit and pass the Pre qualification questionnaire included in the RFP. Those trades would then not need to be awarded by one of the three options listed in Article 7.2.4. 19. Please provide information on the staff size to be accommodated at the future M&O building/ site. Staff counts by shift would be helpful. 5
Response: This information is not required for the purposes of the RFP however ultimate staff size is anticipated to be 100 125 total, XXX day and XXX night shift. 20. Please identify total parking requirements for the future M&O site. This would include required number of spaces for Staff Parking, Visitor Parking, Fleet Parking and Cart Parking. Response: This information is not required for the purposes of the RFP. Attachment No. 2C does note the majority of the District maintenance carts and which department they are associated with. Final parking requirements will be determined during the preliminary design process once a successful D/B team has been determined and a contract awarded. 21. Will the scope including the relocation of existing trees to the new nursery location on the east side of the campus fall under the jurisdiction of DSA? Response: Relocation of the existing trees in the nursery will be done by Palomar College. Moving of the trees should not be under the jurisdiction of DSA. The District will rely on the expertise of the D/B entity to determine whether or not the Nursery scope of work falls under the jurisdiction of DSA. NOTE: Relocation of the nursery CAN now be done concurrently with construction of the new M & O building and will NOT be required to be completed by the end of April 2016. 22. Professional Liability / General Liability: Please confirm required limits of coverage for both, including deductible limits for this project. Response: Minimum coverage: $2,000,000 combined single limit general liability coverage, and $1,000,000 automobile liability coverage, Endorsements to the above policies naming Palomar Community College District as an additional insured. Proof of Workers Compensation coverage (or proof the coverage is not required / applicable). Builders Risk Insurance: Builder s Risk (or Course of Construction Coverage), Applicable Fire Insurance. Project Replacement Value at.100% (One Hundred Percent). 23. CWD RFI 04 01: Total page count limit RFI Attachment 7: Specific Design Build Proposal Requirements: The RFP states a 50 page limit. Would the District consider extending the page limit to 75 pages? Similar RFP s by other Districts have a total page count of 75. Question: Would the District consider extending the page limit to 75 pages? RESPONSE: No, the maximum page count shall stay at 50 pages maximum. 24. CWD RFI 04 01: Page limit skilled labor force RFI Attachment 7: Skilled Labor Force 6
The RFP requirements regarding skilled labor force / apprenticeship agreements will require numerous pages to satisfy the RFP. Question: Would the District consider not counting the apprenticeship agreements required in the Skilled Labor Force section against the total page count? RESPONSE: The apprenticeship agreements provided in the RFP response WILL NOT be counted against the 50 page maximum page count. 25. Electronic Version. Per Attachment #7, you have requested 1 original, 6 copies and one electronic version of our design build proposal. Would you prefer a CD ROM or a flash drive for the electronic version? RESPONSE: The District has no preference, either method is fine. 26. Proposal Organization. Per Attachment #7, you have requested only 3 copies of the questionnaire. How would you like this presented? Would you like the questionnaire to be bound separately from the Price Factors, Non Price Factors, Agreement, Non Collusion Affidavit and Reports? RESPONSE: Yes, the 3 copies of the questionnaire should be bound separately. 27. Firm Experience. Per Attachment #7, Section C, # 1 Firm Experience, c, you refer to Other Projects being Complex Projects. Are you referring to other complexes like this Maintenance and Operation Complex, or complex meaning the level of complexity this project has? RESPONSE: Complex projects refers to both similar Maintenance and Operations facilities and level of complexity of the District s M & O project. 28. Team Member Experience. Per Attachment #7, Section C, # 1 Team Member Experience, No organizational chart was requested. Would you like us to provide one? RESPONSE: The District would like an Organizational chart to be provided with the RFP response. 29. Apprenticeship Programs. Per Attachment #7, Section C, #4 Skilled Labor Force, you are stating that each proposer must have an agreement with a registered apprenticeship program. Does this qualification only refer to proposers that self perform work, or every proposer? RESPONSE: Every proposer pursuant to Education Code Section 81703 (2) (F). End of Addendum #1 Date Issued: July 20, 2015 Bernard M. Sena, Manger, Contracts and Procurement Business & Contract Services Palomar Community College District 7
8