Request for Proposals Architectural Services Re: Fremont High School (RFP No. 13158 date advertised July 17, 2014) ADDENDUM No. 2 (AUGUST 7, 2014) The following changes, additions, modifications and corrections hereinafter set forth shall apply to the Proposal and shall be made a part thereof and subject to all the requirements thereof, as if originally specified and/or shown. A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION #1: At the July 23, 2014 pre-proposal meeting, the additional information was provided: 1. The Community Schools Strategic Site Plan (CSSSP) and Asset Management & Facilities Master Plan mentioned in the meeting can be found on the District s website: ousd.k12.ca.us > Strategic Plan> 2. It is expected that the Pre-Design Phase will be 6 to 12 months in duration. Community participation has been limited to date and therefore further neighborhood engagement, stakeholders and city involvement will be extensive. 3. At this time, this high school s student capacity has not been determined. It is expected that the grade levels will remain at 9 thru 12. 4. Keeping the high school in operation is not a given but a scheme that does, will have traction with the District s decision makers. 5. Keeping the historic old library should not be assumed but would be considered in light of CEQA requirements. 6. The District has no plans for off-site improvements other than those typically required by the city and utility companies for a project of this size and scope. 7. The District is committed to CHPS and will require the Project to be designed to the CHPS Verified plus HPI Incentive with OPSC Eligibility Track. See the District s standard agreement and exhibits for specific requirements: ousd.k12.ca.us > Departments, Offices & Services Directory > Facilities Planning & Management Department > Bids and Requests for Proposals > Agreement for Architectural Services > 8. The Architect shall produce a Building Information Model (BIM). The Building Information Model shall be created in accordance with Autodesk BIM 360 Building Information Modeling software and file format. The Architect shall utilize the Building Information Model to minimize costs of Services under this Agreement. Model Requirements. The Architect shall make the Building Information Model in accordance to the current version of the National BIM Standard United States ( NBIMS ) of the National Institute of Building Sciences. The Architect shall develop each BIM Element to the Level of Development in accordance with generally accepted industry practice by the end of each Project phase. 955 High Street Oakland, CA 94601 Page 1 510 535 2728 w 510 535 7040 f
Model Management and Coordination. The Architect shall manage the Model and coordinate efforts with Consultants to detect and resolve all Clashes. The Architect must require all applicable Consultants engage in Clash detection. In management of the Model, the Architect is responsible for facilitating and establishing the following: the Model coordinate system and units; file storage locations; processes for transferring and accessing Model files; Clash detection procedures; and Model access rights. Furthermore, the Architect is responsible for the following: maintaining record copies of each file received for the Building Information Model; aggregating Building Information Model files; performing Clash detection in accordance with established procedures; maintain Building Information Model Archive and backups; manage Building Information Model access rights; and any additional responsibilities set forth in NBIMS. In the event a Clash is detected, the Architect shall timely resolve the Clash in the Building Information Model, and the Architect shall timely make corresponding corrections to any plan, specification, drawing, model, analysis, estimate, file, document, or item produced under the Services of this Agreement. Building Information Model Archive. At the end of each Project phase, the Architect is responsible for and shall produce a Building Information Model Archive that cannot be altered for any reason. Each Building Information Model Archive shall consist of two sets of files. The first set shall be a collection of all files the Architect received for the Building Information Model during that Project phase, in both the file format received and all converted file formats. The second set shall consist of the Building Information Model as developed at the end of that Project phase. In the event this Agreement is terminated, the Architect shall create a Building Information Model Archive for the current Project phase up to the date of termination. 9. The RFP indicated that the selected design team will work in close collaboration with PG&E s Zero Net Energy (ZNE) Technical Assistance Team. At this time, PG&E has not announced its future program. However, the District is interested in any experience the proposing team has on this program. 10. The construction budget of eighty-eight million dollars ($88,000,000.00) indicated in the RFP is the Project s allocation based on current bond funds. 11. The District is requesting a full service fee amount for professional services but will consider an alternative submittal provided the methodology for fee calculation is clearly stated. As stated in the RFP, once the District has selected a firm for the project, fees will be negotiated based on the final agreed upon Scope of Work which is based on the requirements and complexity of the Project. 12. At this time, the District has not decided on interviewing firms. Interview guidelines will be provided to short-listed firms well in advance should interviews take place. 13. The District will accept only Local and Small Local Business Enterprise certifications by the City of Oakland in implementing its mandatory L/SLBE/SLRBE participation program. Submit the attached L/SLBE/SLRBE worksheet Attachment 2 below. 14. As indicated in the pre-proposal meeting, please find Attachment 3 below - Proposal Scorecard which will be used by the Proposal Reviewers. 955 High Street Oakland, CA 94601 Page 2 510 535 2728 w 510 535 7040 f
B. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION #2: In providing information for Section 2.4.2 of the RFP, the District is specifically interested in the Proposer s experience with high school projects. C. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION #3: All A/E team members will be required to have a copy of Bluebeam Revu CAD for collaboration with Project Team members throughout the project. D. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION #4: Revise the project schedule as follow: PRE-DESIGN PHASE October 2014 thru April 2015 DESIGN PHASE May 2015 thru January 2016 DSA APPROVAL PHASE February 2016 thru October 2016 CONSTRUCTION PHASE November 2016 thru August 2019 E. PROPOSERS QUESTIONS AND DISTRICT RESPONSES: 1. Question: What construction delivery method is the District intending to use on this project? Lease-Leaseback pursuant to the provisions of California Education Code 17406. 2. Question: The preliminary date for interviews is set on the second day after the RFP submittal deadline. When will the District notify the teams selected for interview of their interview time? Is an extension of the time between the RFP submittal date and interview date possible? See Addendum 1 for revised RFP schedule. If the District decides to interview, selected consultants will be notified by August 29, 2014 with interviews tentatively scheduled for September 2, 2014. 3. Question: What is the anticipated format of the interview process? The total time for each interview will be 40 minutes; this includes 5 minutes for set-up and 15 955 High Street Oakland, CA 94601 Page 3 510 535 2728 w 510 535 7040 f
minutes for each firm s presentation with an additional 20 minutes for questions and answers. At the interview, be prepared to discuss the following: Introduction of proposed key project team members Possible issues that could affect site development Attributes of the site General development approach The firms being interviewed are requested to provide a PDF version of their presentation on a flash drive and a minimum of two (2) 30 x 40 boards. 4. Question: Does the 50 page proposal limit include covers and dividers? Revise section 1.3 to read as follows: Proposals must contain all requested information about the firm and must be on single sided 8-1/2 x 11 paper and no more than fifty (50) printed pages in length, inclusive of resumes, requested forms and project examples (but exclusive of the cover, the cover letter, the table of contents and any dividers). Proposals should be complete and prepared to provide an insightful, straightforward, and concise overview of the capabilities of firm. 5. Question: Is there a means for authorizing conditions, limitations or provisions to the fee proposal? You may include such items in your proposal for the District s consideration. 6. Question: The intent of qualifications based selection is to allow for selection of the design firm based upon qualifications, and then to provide an opportunity for the scope of services and resulting fee proposal to be defined collaboratively between the District and design team. Would the District be open to removing the requirement for the fee proposal? If not, can the fee proposal be submitted in a separate package? No. 7. Question: Is a copy of the Fremont High School Master Plan Report and Zero Net Energy Pilot Program Stage 1B Report available for review? 955 High Street Oakland, CA 94601 Page 4 510 535 2728 w 510 535 7040 f
Fremont High School Master Plan Report and Zero Net Energy Pilot Program Stage 1B Report can be found on the District s website: ousd.k12.ca.us > Departments, Offices & Services Directory > Facilities Planning & Management Department > Bids and Requests for Proposals > RFP- ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES ZERO NET ENERGY - FREMONT HS CAMPUS > 8. Question: Will the proposer be expected to provide full OPSC engagement services for state funding, or will the District engage a separate consultant? The District is using School Facilities Consultants in Sacramento to identify, analyze and determine eligibility under the State s School Facility Program. In accordance with the District s Agreement for Architectural Services, the A/E team will assist the District with these efforts. 9. Question: What is the selection criteria for the project? How does the local business utilization policy play into that as well as the preference points? See Attachment 3 below for the Proposal Scorecard. 10. Question: Per the requirement of Article 2.4.9 L/SL/SLRBE a detailed description of the teams composition is required. It was stated during the pre-proposal meeting that the $88m construction costs and scope of work needs to be reviewed/evaluated as part of the planning phase. In order to allow for an equal comparison between submitting teams can OUSD/SGI provide a breakdown of construction costs by CSI division that can be used to establish consultant fees/% of work? It is not possible for the District to provide a breakdown of construction cost by CSI division. The Proposer is required to submit Attachment 2 as noted above. 11. Question: Will the District consider any changes in the wording of the indemnification clause? No. 12. Question: What is the site area of the campus? 8.6 acres. 955 High Street Oakland, CA 94601 Page 5 510 535 2728 w 510 535 7040 f
13. Question: Will the District be responsible for any geotechnical or hazardous materials investigations? The District will provide third party geotechnical and hazardous materials investigations. 14. Question: Will the District handle any CEQA issues? The District will hire a CEQA consultant and require the Architectural Team to provide the services as outlined in Section 2.11 of the District s Agreement for Architectural Services. 15. Question: The RFP states under 2.6. Professional Fees that the District requires a "full service fee and current hourly fee schedules". Please clarify if you require a comprehensive fee proposal OR an approach (methodology) accompanied with hourly rate schedules for all team members - as stated at the pre-proposal meeting. The RFP requires the Proposer to submit a full service fee and provide current hourly fee schedules. Or, as stated in the pre-proposal meeting, the Proposer may submit fee methodology for how the fee for full services will be determined as an alternative to providing a lump sum full service fee. For example, if the methodology for the proposed fee is based on percentage(s) of construction cost(s), provide specific percentage(s). In addition, the District is requesting that the fee related to Pre-Design Services be clearly identified as a separate item. 16. Question: The schedule outlined in the RFP indicates the design phase will take place from October 2014 through October 2015. Please confirm that the District anticipates a pre-planning phase that will take 6-9 months prior to start of design as stated at the pre-proposal meeting. Confirmed. 17. Question: With the interview only 2 days after the written qualifications are submitted, can you provide details about the interview, such as format, requirements, and duration, ahead of time. See District s Response to Question 3. 955 High Street Oakland, CA 94601 Page 6 510 535 2728 w 510 535 7040 f
18. Question: When will you provide details about the interview? See District s Response to Question 3. 19. Question: The RFP states the construction budget is $88M (current allocation). Does the District plan to change this number, as suggested by the term "current allocation," at a later date. If so, could you please clarify further. At this point, the District does not intend to modify the stated budget. 20. Question: Could you please further clarify your expectations for 2.6. Are you expecting us to submit a fixed fee to deliver the entire project, or can we submit hourly rate schedules and estimated fee ranges based on a percentage of construction. See District s Response to Question 15. 21. Question: It was mentioned during the pre-proposal conference that the first six to nine months will be reviewing the District educational philosophy/pedagogy. Please clarify that the current project schedule has made provision for this review period. Please clarify the project schedule. See Additional Information #4 above to clarify the project schedule. 22. Question: Please clarify that BIM is required for all disciplines or only architecture and structural are required. Please refer to Agreement for Architectural Services found on the District s website: ousd.k12.ca.us > Departments, Offices & Services Directory > Facilities Planning & Management Department > Bids and Requests for Proposals > Agreement for Architectural Services > 23. Question: The goal of the project is Zero Net Energy. Being that this is a historic building, how much of the structure, roof, site, etc. will be able to be modified to achieve Zero Net Energy? 955 High Street Oakland, CA 94601 Page 7 510 535 2728 w 510 535 7040 f
The consideration of cultural resources may be assessed as part of the CEQA process. The potential retention of, or replacement of single building on the entire campus will need to be incorporated into the Campus ZNE program. 24. Question: Being that the area of the project is unknown, this could alter the mandatory design review documents for Mechanical and Electrical Title 24. If the area is more than 50,000 square feet, a 3rd party design reviewer is needed for both Mechanical and Electrical. Will the design team need to submit a secondary team to peer review the project, or will a potential 3rd party design review of the design be taken as a future RFP? The District will be hiring a third party design engineer to provide Commissioning Services. 25. Question: Does the $88,000,000 budget include any potential rebates from PG&E or the state? The budget is inclusive of any potential rebates. 26. Question: Can you clarify section 1.3 of the RFP regarding the paper size, noted as 8.5X12, and the printed pages amount? Can we use 8.5 X 11 paper? Can the 50 printed pages be printed on both sides front and back for a total of 25 pages? See response to question #4. PROPOSERS MUST ACKNOWLEDGE IN THE PROPOSAL HAVING READ AND REVIEWED THE LATEST VERSION OF THE DISTRICT S AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOUND ON THE DISTRICT S WEBSITE. RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM TO THE RFP MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE PROPOSAL. 955 High Street Oakland, CA 94601 Page 8 510 535 2728 w 510 535 7040 f
ATTACHMENT 2 LOCAL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION WORKSHEET Prime Consultant: Project: OUSD Architectural Services Fremont High School RFP Date: Team Member Prime Company: Company: Company: Company: Company: Company: TOTAL PARTICIPATION Projected Percent of Total Fee Per Team Member LBE% SLBB% SLBR% City of Oakland Certification Number Approval LBU Compliance Officer 955 High Street Oakland, CA 94601 Page 9 510 535 2728 w 510 535 7040 f
ATTACHMENT 3 Fremont High School (RFP No. 13158) - Proposal Scorecard Date: Firm: Evaluator: Criteria Points Notes/Exceptions Firm History and Technical Expertise (Section 2.4.1 of Request for Proposals (RFP)) (Max 5 Points) Experience in working with District Staff and Master Planning of High School Sites (Section 2.4.2 of RFP) (Max 15 Points) Experience in working within a political environment (Section 2.4.3 of RFP) (Max 5 Points) Experience in CHPS projects, sustainable design, green design, energy saving design (Section 2.4.4 of RFP) (Max 10 Points) Experience in Value Engineering, Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Bid Alternate(s) (Section 2.4.5 of RFP) (Max 5 Points) Experience in meeting Project Budgets and prioritizing project design to meet established budgets (Section 2.4.6 of RFP) (Max 10 Points) Experience in working with Project Schedules and successfully handling potential agency approval delays (Section 2.4.7 of RFP) (Max 10 points) Experience in working with Agencies: DSA, CDE, OPSA, etc. (Section 2.4.8 of RFP) (Max 5 points) Local Business Participation and Local Hiring Work plan (Section 2.4.9 of RFP and LBU Policy Sheet) 25% LBU max w/25% SLBE/SLRBE min (22 pts) 25% LBU max w/35% SLBE/SLRBE min (23 pts) 25% LBU max w/45% SLBE/SLRBE min (24 pts) 25% LBU max w/55% or more SLBE/SLRBE min (25 pts) (Max 25 points) Proposed Fee (Section 2.6 of RFP) (Max 10 points) TOTAL POINTS ACHIEVED 955 High Street Oakland, CA 94601 Page 10 510 535 2728 w 510 535 7040 f