ADDENDUM NO. 2. Request for Proposal No

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ADDENDUM NO. 2. Request for Proposal No"

Octavia Simpson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Michael Pacholok Director Purchasing and Materials Management Division City Hall, 18 th Floor, West Tower 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 Joanne Kehoe Manager, Construction Services February 12, 2016 Via Website Posting - 5 Pages ADDENDUM NO. 2 Request for Proposal No Re: Professional Services for Engineering Design Services and Services during Construction for King-Liberty Pedestrian Bridge over CN/CP/Metrolinx Closing: 12:00 NOON (LOCAL TIME), February 24, 2016 Please refer to the above Request for Proposal (RFP) document in your possession and be advised of the following: 1. Questions and Answers: The followings are the answers to the questions put forward by the potential bidders: Question 1: In the mandatory requirements, RFP states that the prime consultant must have experience with 2 pedestrian projects with a minimum value of $2 million. Would the City consider lowering this threshold? Answer1: No. City will not lower this threshold. Question 2: Is the project budget of $2M in present value; would the City accept applying reasonable escalation factor to previous projects? Answer 2: City will not lower the mandatory requirements. Mandatory Experience Requirements remain the same. We require consulting engineering firms with comparable bridge experiences. Question 3: The minimum mandatory requirement states that the prime consultant must have experience with 2 pedestrian bridge projects as prime. Would the City accept experience as a sub-consultant? Answer 3: City will only deal with the prime consultant. You can include your sub-consultant(s) in your project team. 1 of 5

2 - 2 Question 4: Would the City accept other experience such as vehicular bridges or other transit/transportation projects as equivalent to the mandatory experience currently listed? Answer 4: City will accept other bridge experiences with high level aesthetic consideration and with architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical designs. These projects must also meet Ontario Building Code (OBC), Ontario Fire Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Question 5: The RFP request to list projects done for the City, Metrolinx or other similar jurisdictions. Do privately funded projects or projects funded by Public Corporation such as Waterfront be acceptable? Answer 5: Yes. It's acceptable for privately funded projects and projects funded by Public Corporation such as Waterfront. Question 6: Would you consider extending the time period for relevant projects from 10 years to 25 years? Answer 6: No. City will not extend the time period. Question 7: Could the City please clarify at what point the responsibility of the Public Consultation and Communications (PCC) Plan transfers from the City to the Consultant, and at which phase of the project the PCC Plan needs to be completed and submitted by the Consultant? On p22 of the RFP, it states in Clause j) that the City would: Review and provide input to the PCC Plan prepared by the Consultant.. On the same page, it then states in Clause a): In the preliminary preparation/development of the PCC Plan by the City, the consultant is to provide documentation of all formal public consultation activities involving the public, including meeting notes. Answer 7: The first public information meeting will be after the Pre-Design Report submission with the preliminary design of the bridge. The second public information meeting will be after 60% design submission and before 90% design submission. Question 8: Would it be acceptable to the City if we included the org chart within an appendix, perhaps with the project team resumes, for easier cross reference? Answer 8: Yes. It's acceptable to include the org chart within an appendix, perhaps with the project team resumes for easier cross reference. 2 of 5

3 - 3 Question 9: To expand upon earlier inquiries, would it be acceptable to the City if we included the time task, Gantt chart and work plan in appendices, and provided a comprehensive summary within the proposal text? Answer 9: Yes. It will be acceptable to include the time task, Gantt chart and work plan in appendices, and provided a comprehensive summary within the proposal text? Question 10: Would it be acceptable to the City if we presented the team availability table (Section 6) on an 11 X 17 page, and could this be counted as one page? Answer 10: Yes. City will accept the table o an 11X17 page. This will be accounted as one page. Question 11: Section of the RFP provides for six (6) sets of contract drawings and specifications each at 50%, 75% and 95% completion which does not match the major project submissions 60%, 90% and 100% found in table of Section Please clarify. Answer 11: See Q&A 1 in Addendum No. 1 Question 12: On the Upset Limit Cost breakdown, could we elaborate on the tasks/deliverables for the Prestart Health and Safety Review during Design for Elevators? Answer 12: The costs are for Pre-Start H&S Review for moving machinery as per H&S Act. It's consultant's responsibility to recommend City if the review needed or not. Question 13: Under Scope of Work, Section (u) 2, suggests undertaking site assessment including Geotechnical (at least 2 boreholes at CN/CP/Metrolink area). Is this necessary to include cost for this? Could these boreholes be provisional in the rail corridor? Answer 13: Yes. See Q&A 15&16 in this Addendum. Question 14: Could the City please expand on the requirements for the legal survey, including limits of survey and scope of work? Do we just identify the owners or do a full boundary survey with plan deposit in registry office? The only information given in the RFP is on page 10 in Clause f): identify lands and provide legal survey drawings identifying acquisition of land/easements required as part of the construction of the new bridge. Answer 14: Legal survey will be provided by City. Proponent will need to do topography survey/engineering survey for the project. 3 of 5

4 - 4 Question 15: URS 2011 report recommended a bridge option over railway corridor (no pier and abutments in the railway corridor). However, RFP asks for minimum two boreholes in the CP/MX area with flagging. Please clarify this requirement. Answer 15: The recommendations in URS 2011 Report were not final. The final bridge layout will be determined in the preliminary and detailed design stages. RFP asked all proponents to price in two boreholes in the CP/MX area with flagging. There will be no extra work/change order for this issue. Question 16: If we don t drill any borehole within the railway corridor, do we still need CN/MX entrance permit, railway flagging and railway utility clearance? Answer 16: Please price in two boreholes in the CP/MX area with flagging. There will be no extra work/change order for this issue. Question 17: For a fair cost comparison, can the City provide a minimum geotechnical investigation scope (number of boreholes and depth) Answer 17: Please assume 10 boreholes with the depth of 20 m/borehole Question 18: RFP Section states that the proponent is to engage a geotechnical sub-consultant to carry out soil, hydrogeology and geo-environmental investigations. Is it acceptable for the proponent to complete these investigations using internal resources? Answer 18: Yes. It's acceptable for the proponent to complete the investigation using internal resources. Question 19: Do we need to provide cost estimate for services during construction (geotechnical inspection and testing)? If yes, please provide us some guidance for costing. Answer 19: See Q&A 3 in Addendum No. 1 Question 20: Can the City please provide the limits of the Railway Right of Way on the drawing? Answer 20: The limits of Railway Right of Way drawings will be provided to successful consultant. Question 21: Bridge south abutment boreholes may be drilled within the City park (Bill Johnston Park-limits are not clear). Do we need city park permit for our investigation? Answer 21: Yes. You need City Park's permit to do investigation. 4 of 5

5 5 of 5

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) for Feasibility Study Borough of Kennett Square New Municipal Office and Police Station Joint Facility

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) for Feasibility Study Borough of Kennett Square New Municipal Office and Police Station Joint Facility 1 Borough of Kennett Square Request for Proposals (RFP) Feasibility Study