Cabrillo Unified School District Response Document 1 for Pilarcitos/ Hatch RFP for Lease-Lease Back Services

Transcription

1 Cabrillo Unified School District Response Document 1 for Pilarcitos/ Hatch RFP for Lease-Lease Back Services 1. With a target construction start of 6/2015 we would like to know the current status or phase of the Plans, or if they are merely as they appear in the RFP (schematic). When does the District estimate the plans will be DSA approved (this info is left bank in the RFP, pg 74)? The RFP includes our pre-con service participation through various milestone design phases. These milestones are listed as Design Development, 50% Construction Documents, 100% Construction Documents, and, of course, the development of the final GMP for LLB award. In addition to the anticipated DSA approval date, we would like to know the DD/CD milestone dates from the Design Team if available. Please provide this info for each campuses, so we may develop a DSA and preconstruction schedule. Plans are nearing the end of the conceptual design phase. Plans will not be submitted to DSA until after the Builder has been selected so the Builder has the opportunity to assist us through value engineering. Page 74 is part of the eventual contractual language that will be finalized with the selected Builder. We have been unable to pin down the design teams milestone dates in time to publish this document. Please proceed with the information provided and develop our timelines based on what you believe is reasonable coming into the projects at this time. 2. The schedule in the RFP indicates interviews will be 2/11 (pg 15), and notification of the selected builder(s) on 2/16. It is our understanding award of pre-con services (PSA) would go to the Board for approval. The nearest Board date appears to be 3/12/2015 (the prior meeting is 2/12/2015). Is the intention to place the PSA on the agenda for the 3/12/2015 Board meeting, or could the award be made sooner? If sooner, when? Our hope is to enter into an MOU as soon as final selection is determined that states the District intends to enter into a formal contract with the Builder and that the District is responsible for all charges incurred by the Builder between the time the MOU is signed and the formal contract is approved by the Board. The formal contract would not go to the Board prior to 3/12/ We would target the start of construction following the last student/staff day. Based on the academic calendar on-line, this would make 6/15/2015 the start of construction. The nearest Board date for GMP approval for LLB would be 6/4/2015 (the prior meeting is 5/14/2015). We would like to estimate our GMP due date to the District. We assume there is a lead-time for placement of an item on the Board agenda from the point you are able to recommend the GMP for LLB award of the Board. We have found lead-times vary from District to District, but are commonly 1-2 weeks. In order to help us develop our preconstruction schedule, what is the lead-time for your District?

2 Our lead time is generally 9 days, but can adjust that down to 7 days in certain circumstances, such as waiting for a single document to be finalized. 4. The RFP says the new road for Hatch will begin 6/2015, take 2 months, and run concurrent w/ other improvements (pg 34). However, the RFP also says prior to the start of ANY campus improvement the 20 temporary portables must be established. In the construction schedule (pg 36), it says the preparation for the portables will begin 6/2015 and will take 4 weeks, and their installation will start 7/2015 and take 3 months, and be ready for occupancy beginning 9/2015. If the portables must be established prior to the start of any campus improvement as stated (including the new road), then these schedules are in conflict. Please confirm the temporary portable work and the road can run concurrently, both starting in 6/2015? We also note the 1 st day of student instruction is 8/20/2015, so is the true intention for the portables to be established in advance of 9/2015? The attached schedule shows work concurrent, and the temporary (20) portables completing by 8/9/2015 for District move-in. Is this OK? Work on the road and the placement of temporary housing are both critical components and need to be ready by the start of the school year. Therefore, work must occur concurrently. Though the first day of instruction is 8/20/15, we will want to have moved into these portables by 8/17/15. Therefore the date of readiness for move-in would need to be determined based on those dates. 5. Like item #4, at Hatch a similar schedule issue exists between the temporary (20) portables and the parking lot/drive aisle and the new kindergarten modulars. In the construction schedule (pg 37), it says the site preparation for the kindergarten modulars will begin 6/2015, and last approximately 4 weeks. Installation of the new modular kindergarten buildings is expected to begin 7/2015 and last 3 months. Again, working from a 6/15/2015 start, with a 60 day duration this would place completion of the parking lot/drive aisle by 8/13/2015, and kindergarten would complete some time well into the school year. The attached schedule shows work concurrent, and the kindergarten modulars completing before month end 9/2015. At this point, we are not familiar w/ your program to understand kindergarten will otherwise will accommodated elsewhere for about 1.5 months, or if it needs interim housing. Is this OK? We are rethinking the phasing of the Kindergarten modulars to have theses classes remain in their current rooms until after other rooms are completed and teachers have move back from temporary housing. This would enable us to trim down the number of temporary classrooms required. Scheduling will be a discussion point we want input from the selected Builder prior to finalization. 6. At Hatch the modernization of Buildings A, B, and C is stated to take 10 months and occur only after interim portables and kindergarten modulars are complete

3 (pg 37). Another component of scope listed is the removal of existing Building D and Portable Classroom. It does not state a duration for this work, or when it would occur. We are assuming this removal would occur in summer 2016? Is this correct? Please take note with the temporary (20) portables placed immediately south of Building D and the Portable Classroom (pg 36), it does not appear access will be available to remove Building D and the Portable Classroom while the temporary (20) portables are in place. Due to these access constraints, it would like be best to remove these sequentially as shown in the attached schedule. Is this OK? As note above, we are open to discussing scheduling of all aspects of these projects. 7. At Hatch, the Kindergarten modulars Option B appears to be placed in the location of the existing Building D and Portable Classrooms, and in the location of the temporary (20) portables. The logistics of this option is unclear since all appear to be scheduled for summer Because of this we are assuming Kindergarten modulars Option A is more viable at this point. Is this assumption OK at this point in time? Again, scheduling is open for discussion with the selected Builder. Which option for the K buildings has not yet been determined. 8. The RFP does not state so, but we assume the removal of the 20 interim portables will be part of the work, especially due to access constraints per item #6. Is this correct? Correct, removal will be part of the overall scope. 9. Will the District be leasing the temporary (20) portables for the necessary term from the vendor, or is that an expectation of the LLB contractor? We will review which option, leasing directly of through the Builder is most efficient and results in overall savings. 10. There is work listed for play/field areas, and potentially work at Coastside Children s portable classroom (pg 36). We assume this work can take place in summer Is this OK? Scheduling of any component will be finalized once the Builder has been selected and has given their input. 11. The construction schedule for Pilacitos is partially conflicting (pg 21). It says the removal of existing portables will begin 6/2015, and take 2 weeks. Then the new modular buildings are stated to occur in 7/2015 and take 3 months and be completed BY 9/2015. If we work from a start date of 6/15/2015, this would place overall completion of construction at month end 9/2015. Rather than move

4 students and staff during the academic 3 rd quarter (unless you wish to), we would propose they start in the space the 1 st day of the academic 4 th quarter (10/19/2015). This would allow the District time of move into the new spaces. Is this OK? It is likely that we will place two portables for temporary housing for Pilarcitos, though this is not included in the RFP. This would give us adequate space for the program and relieve timeline pressure. 12. There is some redundancy in the request for info between the RFQ and the RFP. In these cases, and given the page count limit (20), in our RFP response may be merely respond stating to refer to the RFQ for the info? This is acceptable as long as the statement to refer to RFQ specifies where in the RFQ it may be found. 13. The RFP says to comply w/ the design team s collaborative software, but the space intended to disclosure that software is left blank (pg 71). What is the name of the intended software? This is to be determined with input from the selected Builder 14. The RFP says to provide a rough schedule in Microsoft PROJECT (pg 70). Is Oracle Primavera P6 an acceptable alternative? This alternate is acceptable as long as the selected Builder collaborates with the District and Architect to ensure smooth communication both electronically and orally. 15. We are asked to provide a price range for the proposed construction scope of services (pg 5). The information in the RFP is somewhat limiting (including scale) to be able to quantify a range, other than a broad range. Are more detailed plans available to help quantify the scope, or will a broad range be acceptable? At this time, we can only expect a broad range estimate. 16. What is the current status of design and the DSA approval process for each scope of work including the modular scopes? The projects are under design and we will wait until we have selected a Builder for their input before sending to DSA. 17. Do you have a current soils report and hazardous material report that you can share with us? These will be sent to each firm selected to respond to the RFP.

5 18. On page 5 of the RFP, you ask for a price range for the proposed construction scope of services. However, I do not see where you want us to put this price range for construction in the submittal format. Please confirm that you do want a price range for the construction services and where this should be located in our proposal. Also, if we need to include this price range, can you please include a scalable site plan with buildings so that we can get square footages for site work, new construction, and modernization scopes. We do want a pricing range, however the requested documents are not finalized and therefore unavailable. Please do your best based on provided information. The range can be listed as desired. 19. Per my walk on Friday, the High School Gym project was to be included in this RFP but currently is not. Will there be a separate RFP for the new High School Gym? If not, and RFP 01-15A is to include the High School Gym, will the due date be extended? 20. Has the District already contracted with the Modular Building Contractor for Hatch, Pilarcitos or both? If so, who is the Modular Contractor? We have signed a letter of intent with J.L Modular, but not the contract which will be finalized once the we get DSA approval. 21. We previously asked if the 20 temporary portables for Hatch are to be provided by the District or the LLB Entity? Has this been determined and has the Portable supplier been identified/engaged in any way? If so, who is the Portable supplier? Not yet known, but likely to be Mobile Modular. 22. We previously asked if the temporary portables at Hatch were to be removed in Summer Per my walk that appears to be correct as they are to remain for the duration of the Interim Housing period. Can we assume that the installation of the new Kindergarten Classrooms would begin in July 2016 and be complete in Sept 2016 (including the new Soccer Fields to the south? Schedule will be finalized once the Builder selection is finalized. 23. Hatch: Please confirm that Option B has been chosen for the New Kindergarten Classrooms. That is the option currently being designed. 24. How many firms are participating in the RFP? Five firms were sent the RFP.

6 25. What is the status of the project drawings? What is the anticipated DSA schedule including review time? Project drawings are nearing the finalization of he conceptualization stage. We will wait until we select the Builder before getting too deep in actual DSA level drawings. We want to get into DSA as soon as possible and then it will be up to their timeline. 26. What is the status of the permit approvals with agencies listed in Table 1 on page 38? Only the CEQA issue is completed. All other approvals are pending. 27. Listing subcontractors: Page 6 of the RFP (Section V.E.) states Builder shall identify in its proposal any subcontractors it intends to use. Page 12 of the RFP (Section XI.B.8.) lists preconstruction services to be provided prior to the start of construction including, Trade Contractors: Provide the name(s) and scope(s) of work of each trade contractor for the following trades that the Builder proposes to use on the Project: Our preference would be to provide such names during preconstruction, rather than in our proposal. This is because subcontractors/trade contractors will not be finalized until the project is fully designed and put out to bid. Please confirm if we are or are not required to list in our proposal the subcontractors that we intend to use. We agree that naming subcontractors can occur during the preconstruction phase. 28. Placement of fees: Page 5 of the RFP (Section V.B.) states that Proposers shall include several items including a proposed fee for preconstruction services, an estimate of the general conditions, and other add-on fees. This section also states that Proposals must include a price range for the proposed construction scope of services. Page 11 (Section XI.B.5. ) and page 12 (Section XI.B.7.) both relate costs. Should our cost information be located in Section 5 or Section 7 of our proposal? Please provide this under Section If fee proposals are to be located in Section 5 of the proposal, what is the intent of Section 7? N/A, see above.

7