MT. SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) # For Seismic Peer Review for the Temecula Campus Bldg.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "MT. SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) # For Seismic Peer Review for the Temecula Campus Bldg."

Transcription

1 MT. SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) # For Seismic Peer Review for the Temecula Campus Bldg. G & F RFP Issue Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Proposal Submittal Deadline: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. Submit Response to: Tammy Cunningham Mt. San Jacinto Community College District Purchasing Department Building 200, Room N. State Street San Jacinto, CA 92583

2 Page 2 RFP Seismic Peer Review Mt. San Jacinto Community College Temecula Campus Bldg G & F Re: MSJC Temecula Bldg G & F Seismic Peer Review 1. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 1.1 Purpose Mt. San Jacinto Community College District (MSJC) is requesting proposals of qualified individuals or firms to perform a Seismic Peer Review of a non-linear analysis evaluation of two existing buildings (Building G & F) at MSJC Temecula Campus. Seismic peer review services are being requested to satisfy the CBC 2016 requirements when using advance non-linear structural analysis in the evaluation and retrofit of a building. The project is being reviewed by the Division of State Architect (DSA) in San Diego, California. The engineering firm or Individual selected for the peer review of this project should be prepared and equipped to provide the required peer review services as required for final plan review approval by the Division of State Architect (DSA). The services should be provided in an expeditious and timely manner in order to meet the critical deadlines and schedules of the District listed in this RFP. 1.2 Proposal Submission If interested in providing seismic peer review services for the project, proposals must be delivered to the address below, no later than November 29, 2018 by 2:00 pm. Late proposals will not be considered. The District is not responsible for late mail or postal delivery errors. Proposers shall submit one electronic version of the proposal on a flash drive; one (1) printed original proposal including any supporting documentation in a sealed box or package addresses as follows: Attention: Tammy Cunningham Mt. San Jacinto Community College District Purchasing Department Building 200, Room N. State Street San Jacinto, CA Response Format Each Consultant is required to submit a proposal it deems appropriate to this RFP. Submittals shall be brief and concise, but shall provide sufficient clarity to meet the criteria in the evaluation process. The proposals should include the following:

3 Page 3 1. Cover Letter: Briefly describe your qualifications for this project and provide a statement that you have reviewed the schedule listed in the RFP and agree to provide the necessary effort or staff allocation to meet the schedule listed in the RFP. Describe your general approach to the peer review process and how you intend to coordinate and collaborate with the design team and DSA to meet the project schedule. (2 page max) 2. Resumes: of the individual(s) with relevant seismic peer review experience that will be involved in reviewing the project. Clearly identify the individual(s) role(s) in the peer review process. List the main point of contact for technical review questions and resolving technical issues. (1 page max per individual). 3. Relevant Project List: Provide project experience information on the projects that you have peer reviewed. Describing type, size, location, and any unique features or process of the project. (1 page max). 4. Proposal: Lump Sum Fee Proposal clearly listing your peer review services and assumptions. The fee break down should follow the peer review stages as listed in Section 4 of this RFP. Please also include your hourly billing rates. (include number of pages as needed) 1.4 Selection Criteria 1. Timeliness and Completeness: To receive consideration, Consultant s RFP Response must be received by the Response Deadline. In addition, Consultant s RFP Response will be evaluated with respect to organization, clarity, completeness, and responsiveness to this RFP. 2. Technical Qualifications and Competence: This includes Consultant s experience, expertise, and familiarity with providing Seismic Peer Review Services required by the RFP. 3. Approach to Work: This includes your overall peer review approach/methodology and ability to communicate effectively with the District, Design Team, and DSA. 4. Fee: Evaluation of the proposed fee for the requested services. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 The project consists of the seismic evaluation and necessary seismic upgrades of two existing buildings (Building G and F) for the new Mt. San Jacinto College Temecula Campus. The seismic evaluation is being required by the Division of State Architect (DSA) and the California Building Code as these existing buildings will become part of the new MSJC Temecula Campus and will have to meet the seismic standards for community colleges. The original buildings were designed under the 2001 California Building Code. Both Buildings G and F consist of 5-story steel buildings with special concentric braced frame lateral system. 3. BUILDING INFORMATION 3.1 The original buildings were designed under the 2001 California Building Code. Both Buildings G and F consist of 5-story steel buildings with a special concentric braced frame lateral system on conventional spread foundation system. Building G is approximately 189,000 sf and Building F is approximately 184,000 sf.

4 Page A copy of the existing structural building drawings can be downloaded from the following web link for your reference: 4. PEER REVIEW SCOPE 4.1 Provide technical peer review services as required per Section 322 of the 2016 California Existing Building Code using Method B procedure of Section 321 and per DSA requirements for Public Schools and Community Colleges. The peer reviewer shall have the technical expertise required to review the analysis and retrofit design of buildings using non-linear analysis. 4.2 Coordinate and collaborate with the SEOR for the project and DSA Structural Plan Reviewer via conference calls, virtual meetings, or in-person meetings as needed to meet the project schedule listed in Section 4.3 below. SEOR Aldrin J. Orue, S.E. - Principal KPFF Consulting Engineers 700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA (213) DSA Ron W. LaPlante, S.E. Supervising Structural Engineers Division of State Architect San Diego Regional Office Via Frontera, #300 San Diego, California (858) The peer review shall be performed as follows: 1. Review Basis of Design Bldg G and F: a. Review code basis and code exceptions b. Review design criteria and modeling approach c. Review structural analysis procedures, material assumptions and acceptance criteria to be used in the final analysis and design of the buildings. d. Review and Approval Duration: 20 Calendar Days (01/02/19-01/22/19) 2. Review Computer Model and Preliminary Analysis Bldg G: a. Review nonlinear modeling parameters and proposed acceptance criteria b. Review modeling assumptions in computer model c. Review computer model inputs and outputs d. Review preliminary analysis results e. Review selection and scaling of ground motion records. f. Review and Approval Duration: 28 Calendar Days (02/01/19-02/28/19).

5 Page 5 3. Review Final Analysis and Retrofit Design Bldg G: a. Review structural performance checks b. Review final analysis results in relation to design criteria c. Review retrofit details as expressed in drawings d. Review and Approval Duration: 31 Calendar Days (05/01/19-05/31/19). 4. Review Computer Model and Preliminary Analysis Bldg F: a. Review nonlinear modeling parameters and proposed acceptance criteria b. Review modeling assumptions in computer model c. Review computer model inputs and outputs d. Review preliminary analysis results e. Review and Approval Duration: 20 Calendar Days (04/01/19-04/20/19). 5. Review Final Analysis and Retrofit Design Bldg F: a. Review structural performance checks b. Review final analysis results in relation to design criteria c. Review retrofit details as expressed in drawings d. Review and Approval Duration: 31 Calendar Days (07/01/19-07/31/19)

6