CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT RFP NO DETENTION CENTER INTAKE AREA

Transcription

1 CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Department of Fiscal and Administrative Services Purchasing Division Telephone: August 26, 2016 RFP NO DETENTION CENTER INTAKE AREA ADDENDUM NUMBER FIVE TO: All Offerors Please be advised of the following modification(s) & information related to Request for Proposal (RFP) These modifications, comments, and attachments are hereby made a part of the solicitation documents to the same extent as if bound therein. The due dates for questions and proposals remains the same, as stated in Addendum #4. I. Changes, Additions, Modifications, and Attachments to the RFP A. Changes: 1. Part I, Section 8.0 Cost Proposal Form (page I-18) Delete the Cost Proposal Form in its entirety and replace with the Revised Cost Proposal Form (d. 8/26/2016) in Attachment C. 2. Addendum #1 Part Appendix 2 PLANS, REPORTS, AND SPECIFICATIONS. a) Item i. Delete the first bullet in its entirety and replace with the bold and italicized text below: RFP APPENDIX 2 PLANS REPORTS SPECIFICATIONS pdf NOTE: A revised document has been posted to the FTP site. The previous document is no longer valid. B. Attachments: Attachment A Attendance Roster Pre-Proposal Meeting Attachment B Attendance Roster Site Visit Meeting Attachment C Revised Cost Proposal Form (d. 8/26/2016) 1

2 II. Pre-Proposal Meeting Notes A. Introduction Good morning, and welcome to the pre-proposal meeting for RFP 17-06, DETENTION CENTER INTAKE AREA. My name is Yaffa Seiden, Acting Assistant Chief of Purchasing for Charles County Government. Also with us today are: Mr. Charles Strawberry, Ms. Alicia Afroilan, and Ms. Debbie Bays for the Department of Public Works, Capital Services Division. The County intends to contract with a Contractor to provide design services for the design of an addition to the existing Charles County Detention Center, on-site improvements, and a prefabricated pedestrian bridge. This meeting will be conducted in two parts. I will first review selected portions of the Request for Proposals within the RFP. Items not reviewed should not be construed as being less important than those reviewed. No information will be presented that is not already contained within the RFP. The meeting will then be turned over to the Department of Public Works, Capital Services Division staff who will discuss technical aspects of the project. B. Procurement Discussion All solicitation documents may be found on the County Bid Board and the County FTP site. Ensure all required forms and any other information required is complete and in your proposal package. A complete proposal package is explained on pages I-1 and I-2. Incomplete proposals may be rejected. Questions concerning the RFP should be directed to me in writing via the contact information provided in the RFP on page I-4. No information obtained from any source other than the solicitation documents found on the County Bid Board and on the County FTP site, or from myself or the Department of Public Works, Capital Services Division staff may be considered to be accurate. Please refer to the County Bid Board for all posted addendums. Two addendums have been posted. Addendum One contains a revised Appendix 2 document. Addendum Two contains clarification that the solicitation is for design services. NOTE: This Addendum also contains a revised Appendix 2. Proposals must be valid for 120 days from the proposal due date (page I-3). The term of this contract shall be for two hundred twenty (220) consecutive calendar days of the date issued in the Notice to Proceed. There is an aspirational 25% MBE goal for this solicitation. This RFP is subject to the County s Small Local Business Enterprise (SLBE) program. If you firm is a Charles County registered SLBE and you want to take advantage of the SLBE preference, please complete the SLBE program forms located on page I-26 to I-28 of the solicitation. All Charles County small businesses are encouraged to apply. The protest policy is on page I-8. The County may reject any and all proposals for any reason it deems necessary, and may waive any irregularities and/or informalities, and make award in any manner that is in the best interest of the County. 2

3 By submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation, the offeror certifies that their firm is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible for participation in government procurement by the federal government, the State of Maryland, or any other state, county, or municipal government. C. Technical Discussion Charles Strawberry, Program Manager for the Department of Public Works, Capital Services Division, provided a brief background on the project. Originally, it was going to be let as a design-build to expedite the schedule. 30% design documents were developed and are attached to the RFP. Since there is not necessarily a rush to complete the project at this time, it was decided to go the traditional design-then-build route to save on the construction costs. The 30% design documents are a result of close coordination with the Sheriff s Department. Any feedback and preferences on design, layout, materials, equipment, etc. have been incorporated into the drawings and specifications. The scope of work for this RFP is to take the design from 30% to 100% complete and ready for construction. D. Pre-Proposal Meeting Questions Question 1 Question: On page I-16, can you please explain what that form is used for? Response: This extends the use of the Contract issued as a result of this solicitation to other jurisdictions as long as the other jurisdiction and the Contractor agree. Question 2 Question: Please confirm the number of copies required. Response: The Offeror shall submit six (6) bound copies of the Technical Proposal package. The Offeror shall submit two (2) unbound, so identified, originals of the Original Proposal package. Reminder, the Technical Proposal package does not contain any cost information. Question 3 Question: Would you entertain any changes in the design concept like material using reinforced filled block in lieu of precast walls? Response: Yes. Question 4 Question: The Proposal should be based on what is in the RFP? Response: Correct. Question 5 Question: Do you anticipate any changes by the Sheriff s Department? Response: The County does not foresee any changes; however, we can t say for certain there will not be any changes made by the Sheriff s Department. 3

4 Question 6 Question: Is the design team that did the 30% precluded from proposing on this project? Response: A response shall be provided in an Addendum. Further Clarification: Yes, the design team that did the 30% has been precluded. Question 7 Question: Would it require a Department of Corrections approval on 100% or 90% design? Response: No. Question 8 Question: Is there any State funding involved? Response: Not at this time. Question 9 Question: Would it be possible to split up the hours for the construction administration contingency item by discipline? The hourly rates vary. Response: A response shall be provided in an addendum. Further Clarification: Yes. See Attachment C of this addendum. Question 10 Question: Are you expecting building design submissions and the stormwater management submissions to be separate because there are different numbers of submissions for both packages? Response: Yes. Question 11 Question: The stormwater management and site plans will be submitted to the town and they will approve it? Response: Yes. Town of La Plata approval/permits will be required, not Charles County. Question 12 Question: Will the County review it? Response: The County Capital Services Division will, but not through the County s Permitting Division. Question 13 Question: The comments are going to be coming from the town? Response: Yes. The comments are coming from the town. Question 14 Question: Is there a delay posting when posting documents on the County Bid Board and then on emaryland Marketplace (emm)? Response: Documents are uploaded to the County Bid Board then immediately uploaded to emm. 4

5 Question 15 Question: Will the 30% documents be made available? Response: Yes. The offeror awarded a contract will receive the 30% drawings and specifications. Question 16 Question: Are the 30% documents in CAD or BIM? Response: They are in AutoCAD (dwg format). Question 17 Question: Is the final requirement that we are supposed to submit everything in CAD? Response: We are looking for construction plans approved from the Town of La Plata. Whatever software you want to use is fine with the County. Question 18 Question: If any office is exclusively working with Revit, do you want it translated back to AutoCAD? Response: The County does not typically ask for CAD drawings at the end of a project. We are looking for permitted drawings to go out to do construction. Question 19 Question: Do you still use Mylars? Response: The County Capital Services Division does not specifically. We believe Soil Conservation District (SCD) still uses them. Question 20 Question: On the site plan, it states the pedestrian bridge is by others, obviously that s included in the design? Response: It will be part of this design. III. Written Questions Received through 8/22/2016 Question 21 Question: Could you please let me know what the anticipated size (square feet) for the project? Response: The anticipated size for the addition is 5,600 square feet as shown on the cover sheet G1.0 under code analysis. Question 22 Question: Can you please tell me if the design build team is precluded from the design submission RFP #17-06? Response: Yes. Question 23 Question: Will this project still be required to be in AutoCAD or will it change to REVIT? 5

6 Response: The Offeror awarded a contract will receive the 30% design plans in AutoCAD format. AutoCAD/REVIT files are not a required deliverable for this project. Question 24 Question: Reference Section 4.0 (page I-10), Sub Para. Section 2 The Cost Proposal Form A1 thru A-4 calls for Lump Sum. There is no hourly breakdown column. Will this form be revised by the County? If not, will Section 2 not be applicable then? Response: See Attachment C of this addendum. For Section 2 on page I-10, the County has not provided a form, so the Offeror shall create their own form including a breakdown of proposed tasks with man hours and hourly rates. Question 25 Question: Since GMB (George, Miles & Buhr, LLC) is the part of RFP preparation based on the document we downloaded from the County s web site. Will this firm be precluded from the bidding due to conflict of interest? Response: GMB has been precluded. Question 26 Question: The RFP document does not include any programming except the floor plan layout, elevations, sections, etc. Will there be any scope to prepare programming and followed a floor plan or the given floor plan will be adhered to? Response: The given floor plan will be adhered to. Question 27 Question: Division 16 calls for CCTVs to be provided throughout (Paragraph 2.01.G.3). Please explain the extent of the area to be covered by CCTV system; i.e. whether within the New Addition or includes throughout the existing and new areas. Where will be the control of these Cameras? If there is any existing control, shall the head-end equipment be upgraded or will a stand alone control system be added? Response: Design to include CCTV system within the New Addition Only. The design shall integrate all proposed building systems with the existing detention center systems as applicable. Capacity to integrate the proposed building systems will be determined during the design phase. Question 28 Question: What is the estimated budget for the project? Response: Offerors may obtain this information via the County website in the Capital Improvement Program Budget Monitoring Report. Question 29 Question: The Specification Section calls for fixed windows. Code may require smoke evacuation system in the sleeping areas. Has it been considered in the project budget? Response: Holding times in the intake area cells are not expected to exceed twenty-four (24) hours. The selected contractor/engineer shall include all code requirements as part of the final design package for construction. The final scope of work will be used by the contractor/engineer to develop the construction cost estimate. 6

7 Question 30 Question: What is the estimated range of the construction cost? Response: Offerors may obtain this information via the County website in the Capital Improvement Program Budget Monitoring Report. Question 31 Question: Would it be possible to schedule/arrange another site visit? Response: No. Question 32 Question: Is there a link to a list or a list you can provide of the local businesses, by discipline that have current SLBE status with the County? Response: Yes, the SLBE Directory is available on the County website at Question 33 Question: Div 15 and 16 call for compliance with Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) guidelines. DPSCS guidelines triggers DGS and COMAR regulations and also requires ACS accreditation. Will this project in its entirety require to comply with DPSCS guidelines? Response: This project (including Division 15/16) does not require compliance with the DPSCS guidelines because DPSCS is not providing any funding for the project. Question 34 Question: There is an existing light pole missing on the site plan near the area of the new concrete pathway connecting the parking lot to the new bridge. Is it the intent that this light pole be demolished? Response: The existing light fixture located at existing spot elevation shall be relocated adjacent to the parking area and new sidewalk. Question 35 Question: The new bridge appears to connect two secure areas. Should the bridge be covered or otherwise enclosed to prevent escape? Response: Yes, the bridge will be required to be fenced on the sides and roof along the entire length. Question 36 Question: Should the pedestrian bridge have a paved walk way to access both facilities or just the new addition as the drawings show? Response: A paved walk way should be provided on both ends of the pedestrian bridge. Question 37 Question: Is it intended that new garment conveyor racks be installed in the new property room, should the existing racks be located if possible, or are the racks being eliminated? The provided drawings only show storage cubbies. 7

8 Response: The intent is that the garment conveyor racks will be relocated to the new room in the addition. Question 38 Question: Is there a preferred HVAC system for the new addition? Response: No, but compatibility with the existing systems for ease of maintenance would be preferred. Mechanical Engineer of Record should review existing systems and interview the County for their input in the final design. Question 39 Question: In general, should existing equipment (storage lockers, bullet traps, etc) be relocated or should they be replaced with new equipment? Response: In general, existing equipment will be relocated if in good condition. Question 40 Question: Is the architect expected to provide furniture layouts and design? Have the furniture systems been selected? Is there a preferred vendor or building standard that should be used? Response: The plans contain systems furniture and built-in layouts. Specifications and other furniture layout options to be provided by the design group selected to finish the 100% design documents. Question 41 Question: The provided specifications are in 1995 MasterFormat. Should final specs also be in 1995 format or is 2004 MasterFormat acceptable? Response: Both formats are acceptable. Question 42 Question: What level of survey was performed by the bridging documents contractor and will this information be made available? Was an interior survey performed? Did the survey include MEP? If not, will the contractor be allowed to survey the building? Response: An exterior survey was performed including existing conditions and utilities, spot elevations, edge of pavement and ditch profile for the 30% design. An interior survey was completed for architectural purposes only. No MEP survey was performed as part of the 30% design documentation. Record drawings have been provided in the Appendix 3 of the solicitation document. Any additional information required for 100% design completion will be the responsibility of the selected contractor. The selected contractor will be allowed to survey the building as needed to complete the 100% design documentation. Question 43 Question: Have the bridging drawings and specifications been approved by all stakeholders as the design intent? Response: The 30% bridge design documents have been approved by all stakeholders as the design intent. 8

9 Question 44 Question: Is the contractor expected to perform redesign of the space outside of design coordination and design development of the bridging package? Response: Many iterations of the bridging documentation took place with the County prior to issuing, therefore the design should move forward as shown in the 30% bridging documentation provided unless unfeasible for some reason. The County is open to discuss alternate means and methods of construction with the selected contractor. Question 45 Question: Will AutoCAD drawings of the bridging design be made available? Response: The selected contractor will be provided the 30% bridge design AutoCAD drawings. Question 46 Question: Will the contractor be required to deliver CAD files at the end of design? Response: No. Question 47 Question: Will the development of record drawings or as-builts be part of B-2 Construction Surveillance Services contingency? Response: No, the development of record drawings/as-builts are not part of contingency item B-2 Construction Surveillance Services. Question 48 Question: Is any of the existing roofing being replaced? Response: No. There is a separate project for replacing the existing roof. The new roof for the addition will need to tie-in to the existing roofing system. Question 49 Question: Is it the intent to provide new overflow protection for the existing roof? The design appears to block some of the existing overflow scuppers. Response: The intent of the roof design in the 30% design package was to incorporate the existing roof with the new addition and provide overflow drains as required on the new addition which are more than required. However, additional evaluation of the existing roof drainage by the selected contractor may require the overflow drains shown to be resized or reconfigured as required by code. Question 50 Question: Its noted that approval is needed for the U.S. Army Corps of Contractors, is this project subject to the Unified Facilities Criteria and the Whole Building Design Guide? Response: No, this project is not subject to the Unified Facilities Criteria or Whole Building Design Guide. Question 51 Question: If one of the firms participating in a joint venture is MBE certified will they be able to fulfill half or all of the 25% MBE participation goal? 9

10 Response: MBE participation is prorated based upon the estimated value of participation by the MBE firm. Refer to Part I, Section 2.1 of the solicitation, paragraph 2 regarding joint ventures. Question 52 Question: Do we need to have a Geotech consultant as part of the team? Response: Offerors are expected to include in their proposals any additional design that is necessary to take what is provided (30%) and develop 100% complete drawings/specifications, ready for construction. Question 53 Question: What is the maximum number of representative projects the prime is allowed to submit? Response: There is not a maximum number of representative projects. Question 54 Question: Are there material preferences for the bridge superstructure and deck? Are there any aesthetic requirements for the bridge? Response: Please see the 30% design drawings for the bridge which are included in Part I, Item 2 of this addendum. Question 55 Question: Does the bridge need to be a covered structure? Response: The bridge must be enclosed in fencing for security reasons but does not need to be a covered structure. Question 56 Question: Are there lighting and security requirements for the bridge? Response: The bridge will need to be equipped with light fixtures and security cameras will need to be mounted at both ends. Question 57 Question: Should the bridge and abutments be designed based on the AASHTO LRFD Pedestrian Bridge Design Specification or IBC 2009? Response: The design should be based on whichever is more restrictive. Question 58 Question: Please confirm that there are only three submissions (100% Permit Submission, 100% Resubmission, and Final Plan/Specs Submittal). Response: The three submissions are required for Capital Services review/approval. However, additional submissions will be required through the Town of La Plata. Please refer to the Town s website ( and contact their permit division. Question 59 Question: No borings are shown at the other side of the stormwater management facility. Will any additional soil information be provided for the far bridge abutment? 10

11 Response: All geotechnical/boring information that was conducted for the 30% design has been provided in Part I, Item A.2 of this addendum. Offerors must determine the need for additional borings as part of their proposal submission. Question 60 Question: RFP Drawing Sheet G1.0 indicates 2012 IBC. Charles County s Permit Web page calls for Will it be 2015 then? Response: The Town of La Plata building code requirements shall apply. Please refer to their website for more information. Question 61 Question: Since the 30% Design was finalized, was there any complete code search for the project (both existing and addition)? If so, will it be available to the proposers? Response: The code review included on the coversheet was the only one performed for the 30% design documentation. Question 62 Question: Section 2.4, Page III-5 calls for one CD containing each deliverable. Do you need 5 copies of CD at each phase of design i.e. at 100% Permit Submission and 100% Res- Submission? The final submission calls for 1 CD only. Response: Only one CD is required for each Charles County Capital Services submission, as described in Part III, Section 2.4, Page III-5. Other agencies (Town of La Plata, Soil Conservation District) may require more copies. Question 63 Question: The extent of the Pedestrian Bridge design (a) Does it need to be fenced (side and roof) along the entire length of the bridge for any security reason, (b) Any electrical light fixtures to be provided along the bridge, (c) Any security system (like CCTV) shall be provided along the bridge or at both ends, (d) The drawing C1.1 does not indicate any pavement from the bridge landing to the Annex. Will it be part of this project, if needed? Response: Response: (a) Yes. (b) Yes, the bridge will need to be equipped with light fixtures. (c) Yes, a security camera will need to be mounted at both ends of the bridge. (d) Yes, a paved walk way will be required from the bridge landing to the Annex and design will be part of this project. Question 64 Question: The geotechnical report does not indicate any recommendation for bridge foundation. Will it be available to the proposers? If not, what will be the direction to the proposer? Response: All geotechnical/boring information that is currently available has been provided in Part I, Item A.2 of this addendum. Offerors are expected to include in their proposals any additional design that is necessary to take what is provided (30%) and develop 100% complete drawings/specifications, ready for construction. Please see additional bridge drawings that have been provided in Part I, Item A.2 of this addendum. 11

12 Question 65 Question: Specification Section 15700, 1.01.B: It refers to existing system. What is the existing system? Response: This information will need to be verified in the field by the Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing (MEP) engineer on the selected contractor team. 12

13 ATTACHMENT A 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 RFP ADDENDUM #5 ATTACHMENT B 18

19 RFP ADDENDUM #5 19

20 RFP ADDENDUM #5 20

21 RFP ADDENDUM #5 21

22 RFP ADDENDUM #5 22

23 RFP ADDENDUM #5 ATTACHMENT C 23

24 RFP ADDENDUM #5 Date: Firm s Name and Address: REVISED COST PROPOSAL FORM (d. 8/26/2016) This cost proposal is submitted in accordance with your Notice to Offerors inviting proposals to be received for the work outlined in the Special Provisions attached hereto for RFP No , DETENTION CENTER INTAKE AREA. Having carefully examined the proposal documents, the undersigned herein agrees to furnish all services as outlined in the proposal documents for the amounts specified below. ITEM NO. A. BASE BID ITEMS DESCRIPTION UNIT TOTAL PRICE A-1 Building Design Lump Sum $ A-2 Stormwater Management Design Lump Sum $ A-3 Civil Site Design Lump Sum $ A-4 Pre-Manufactured Bridge Plans Lump Sum $ TOTAL BASE BID PRICE...$ ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION B. CONTINGENCY ITEMS* EST D QTY.* UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE B-1 Bidding Phase Services 30 Hourly $ $ B-2 Construction Surveillance Services 150 Hourly B-2a Structural/Geotechnical 50 Hourly $ $ B-2b Architectural 40 Hourly $ $ B-2c Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing 40 Hourly $ $ 24

25 RFP ADDENDUM #5 B-2d Civil 20 Hourly $ $ TOTAL CONTINGENCY ITEMS...$ *Contingency items may or may not be used. TOTAL PRICE $ The undersigned has caused this Proposal to be executed as of the day and year indicated above. (Printed Name) (Signature) (Title) ( ) (Phone) (Fax) ***END OF ADDENDUM*** 25