Addendum #02 New County Office Building Responses to RFP Questions

Sam Lin Manager Project Development Unit 1402 Maple Street Redwood City, CA 94063 650-369-4766 September 22, 2017 slin@smcgov.org Addendum #02 New County Office Building Responses to RFP Questions To All Respondents, Please carefully review the responses below and incorporate the information as directed into your proposal that is due to the San Mateo County Project Development Unit on October 16, 2017 at 2:30pm. Respondents submitting proposals that do not reflect the information provided below may be deemed non-responsive and not accepted by the County. ANSWERS TO RESPONDENTS QUESTIONS Question# 1 Question# 2 Please clarify whether each RFP respondent should include a proposed consultant team in their response, as this is a bit confusing in the document. Scope items include consultant tasks, but in 6.02C we are asked only to provide an estimate of the consultant fees required. The consultants fee estimates might be more accurate if they were from specific team proposed members tasked with properly servicing the scope. The proposed consultant team members would then of course be subject to evaluation and possible replacement by the PDU as negotiations proceed with individual teams. There is additional confusing information under 6.04 Compensation, Item C. states Provide Lump Sum fees, by phases described in the Scope of Work, for any sub-consultants you would propose to include with your team. Sections 6.02 & 6.04 both described the County's intent to review the proposed sub-consultants you would like to work with on this Project. The names and proposed fees are recommended to be included to understand your proposed project approach as well as for budgeting purpose. Note that the County may elect to initiate a separate procurement process in collaboration with you to select certain or all sub-consultants. The scope does not mention any A&E services for relocating Lathrop house. Please clarify how this would be handled in the process of project delivery or if we should include these services in our response. Relocation of the Lathrop House is performed under a separate contract with the County. The plan is to relocate the Lathrop House prior to site preparation for construction of this Project. Coordination with the Lathrop House team may be required as appropriate. pg. 1

Question# 3 Key selection criteria does not mention Architecture fees as a consideration for selection. Can you clarify how fees will be evaluated? The County will evaluate proposals based on the selection criteria as stated within Section 7.01. However, as also stated, the County may consider any other criteria it deems relevant, including price, and the Selection Committee is free to make any recommendations it deems to be in the best interest of the County. Question# 4 Question# 5 Question#6 Question# 7 Question# 8 Question# 9 What is the PDU's base Construction Budget for the COB3 Building and does this figure include related Sitework elements (site preparation, building exterior courtyard, public promenade)? The estimated construction cost of the Project (including interior T.I. & sitework) is approx. $65M- $80M based on the estimated building area of 121,000-156,000 GSF. The exact Project budget will be determined with the CM at-risk and Architect in the development of the GMP. What are the PDU's expectations/targets for Project Schedule per Phase? Design is planned to commence in early November this year immediately after contract approval and anticipated to take approximately a year or less to complete design. Construction is anticipated to complete around Q4/2020. Per RFP Section 6.02, Proposers are requested to provide a projected project schedule and further elaborate on the project approach in relationship to the proposed schedule. What is the proposed work phasing/schedule of this COB3 Project in relationship with the new Parking Structure Project? How will be two separate projects relate contractually? The new parking structure project is planned to commence design around the same time as this Project so the two (2) design teams can collaborate closely on related site elements such as the vehicular and pedestrian traffic in/out of the Parking Structure along the Promenade that is part of this Project's scope. The design for the two (2) projects will be contracted separately. However, the responsibility to coordinate with each other is part of the scope in both contracts. Are fees to be included for planning/design of Site Prep/Site Demo services? Yes, site work including demolition of the existing buildings is part of the design scope of this Project. What services are required (if any) regarding related work (i.e. service/department 're-stacking') at the existing COB1, COB2 and Hall of Justice Buildings? No design work required at the existing buildings. Who will be part of the PDU's Core Team for this COB3 Project? How will the County Department of Public Works be involved? What is the proposed involvement of the County Board of Supervisors? The San Mateo County Project Development Unit (PDU) will be managing this Project. The County Board of Supervisors and the County Manager's Office will be actively engaged for input and update. PDU may also collaborate with Department of Public Works on associated project needs where appropriate. pg. 2

Question# 10 Question# 11 Question# 12 Question# 13 Question# 14 Question# 15 Question# 16 Question# 17 Question# 18 What is anticipated to be the role/involvement of the City of Redwood City during the Design Process? The design team will be required to work with Redwood City on off-site permits including site utilities, related City infrastructure provisions, fire life safety, and informational design updates where appropriate. At what level has CEQA work been started for this Project and is there data that can be shared with the competing Design Teams at this point? The County has engaged a consultant to support the CEQA process. NOP was filed on 9/15/17 and traffic study is in progress. EIR is tentatively scheduled to complete around March 2018. The selected A/E may be required to assist as needed in the CEQA process. The A/E shall work concurrently on their design during the EIR process and incorporate any mitigation requirements into their designs. Please confirm that full Furniture/Systems Furniture planning services are to be provided as part of the fee proposal. Yes, include FF&E planning services in the design scope. The County will select a furniture and equipment vendors at a later date. A/E will be required to provide general concept layout drawings to help define the areas for the users, design criteria as well as other MEP requirements needed for a complete interior design. After the furniture and equipment vendors are selected, the A/E will coordinate with the County, CM/GC and the respective vendors throughout the procurement, installation and final acceptance of all furniture and equipment related scope. Please define further the Pre-Design Phase services anticipated to be provided by the Design Team. See RFP Section 5.01 Research, Concept Design and Programming. Please define further Design Team services requested during the Transition Phase. See RFP Section 5.5C. Are Sections 6.04 and 6.05 counted in the page count for the proposal? Yes Will demolition drawings for the First American Title, Lesack, and Traffic Court buildings be part of the scope of services addressed in this proposal? Yes. However, demolition of the Traffic Court building will be confirmed later. Depending upon the decision timing, the inclusion of the portion of the Traffic Court site may be done as a design option. See also response #38 below. Will relocation design, relocation engineering, historic preservation, site identification, site design, or any other related services associated with the Lathrop House be a part of the scope of services addressed in this proposal? No, see response to #2 above. 4.07 please confirm that the City will contract directly with any hazardous materials abatement services if required. The County will hire hazardous materials abatement consultant directly. pg. 3

Question# 19 Question# 20 4.10, 5.02B Please confirm if Net zero energy is a project requirement or a reach goal? Please define Net Zero Energy. We assume you mean that the County may elect to purchase from off-site renewable energy sources to make up the difference (if any) between energy consumption and onsite renewable energy sources. Zero Net Energy (ZNE) design is a project target. The County Sustainability Policy is currently being updated and detailed requirements will be made available at project commencement. Proposers should recommend appropriate approach to attain ZNE. It may be achieved through on-site renewable, power purchase agreement or other means/combinations. 4.10 What level of LEED Certification is required? A minimum level of LEED Certified is required for this Project. Provide budget for all LEED certification levels in the Fee Matrix. Final sustainability goals will be finalized prior to the completion of the Research, Concept Design and Program Verification Phase as stated in Section 5.01. Question# 21 Design approval is currently only described at the end of the DD phase. Please describe the role of the County Council and/or Board of Supervisors in review and approval of the design and at what stages, if any. Approvals from PDU are required at the end of every phase before proceeding. There are different forms of approvals required per the RFP. The presentations during SD and DD are intended to be made to the County Board of Supervisors for input and update. Question# 22 Question# 23 Question# 24 Question# 25 Question# 26 Question# 27 Who is on the selection committee? Will the same committee be attending the shortlisted 3 or more interviews? To be confirmed - There will be representatives from the Board of Supervisors, County Manager's office, County Counsel, and PDU. In response to 6.02.A. Proposed Project Team Resumes, please confirm whether the County is requesting resumes for only the core architectural team members or for all sub-consultants. Include resumes for key team members including sub-consultants if they hold key roles on the Project and were not included in the SOQ. Can you share what architectural firm was selected for the County s new parking structure? The Architect for the new Parking Structure project has not been selected yet. See also response to #6 above. Who is part of the selection committee? See response to #22 above. In response to 6.03.E. Individual Responsibilities, is the County looking for responsibilities for only the core architectural team members or for all sub-consultants? Describe responsibilities for each key team member including sub-consultants if they hold key roles on the Project. Can the 8 ½ x 11 submittal contain any fold-out pages? Fold-out page(s) in 11"x17" can only be allowed for presenting Project schedule as required per Section 6.03F. pg. 4

Question# 28 Question# 29 By answering all of 6.03, we would have covered the scope of questions 6.02 A. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. As such, do we need to answer 6.02 A. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8? See Section 2.05 - Respondents should address every item listed in this RFP even if the item was previously addressed in the other sections of the Proposal. Brevity and clarity are of utmost importance. What is the County looking for in response to 6.02.A.6 projected project schedule that is different than 6.03.F proposed overall project schedule? 6.02 asked Proposers to provide a clear understanding of the Projected Project Schedule while 6.03 asked Proposers to provide an overall Project schedule. Question# 30 What is the County looking for in response to 6.02.A.3 detail on project approach that is different than questions asked in 6.03 Project Approach? 6.02 asked Proposers to provide a clear understanding of the detail on project approach while 6.03 asked specific aspects on project approach. Question# 31 Question# 32 Question# 33 Question# 34 Question# 35 Question# 36 Question# 37 Will the 3rd party cost estimator be under contract to the Architect or the county? Proposers are recommended to include a line item for cost estimation services though the County may elect to hire cost estimator directly under separate contract. See Section 5.04C.4 5.02.B, MEP design: should we provide both a full design fee in addition to a BOD only fee in case the county decides to proceed with the design-build approach? Provide fee for full design of all systems in this Proposal. See Section 6.04G. 5.02.F.3 references presentations, how many presentations does the county anticipate for schematic design? For budgeting purpose, plan three (3) presentations for the Board of Supervisors, user groups and the public. 503.3. Will the county be negotiating with a selected furniture vendor to produce the furniture order? Yes, see response to #12 above. 6.03.H; Can we anticipate that the at-risk CM will provide the strategy for the construction related means and methods types for incorporation into our overall design approach? The Architect shall collaborate closely with the CM/GC throughout all phases to include input regarding constructability, value engineering, system/material selection, scheduling, bidding strategy, cost, GMP, and any other project associated work. 6.03.H; Will the COB3 architect have any scope related to the relocation of the Lathrop House or the temporary parking lot located at the COB3 site. The temporary parking should be planned as part of the phasing strategy per Section 5.1C. See response to #2 above regarding Lathrop House. How many different stakeholder groups does the County anticipate the team to coordinate with? Refer to the Conceptual Program in the Scoping Study dated 1/27/17 and assume each department will be represented by a separate stakeholder group. pg. 5

Question# 38 Question# 39 Question# 40 Question# 41 Question# 42 Question# 43 Question# 44 Question# 45 4.03 states there is a potential for a public plaza on the northern half of the project site, shall the supplier provide a new line under other proposed services in the Fee Matrix for completion of the design and documentation for it? The Public Plaza is considered an integral part of the Public Promenade design. Depending whether the Traffic Court will be demolished or not, the size/extent of the Public Plaza may vary but the proposed fee shall assume a scope for the entirety of the public space together with the new County Office Building. For budgeting purpose, assume design fee to exclude the Traffic Court portion of the site and provide fee allowance for design option that includes the Traffic Court portion of the site in the Fee Matrix (. See also response to #16 above. Can you delineate the area of the new public promenade on a site graphic? Does the public promenade scope of work include the east-west axis to connect from Middlefield Road to Winslow Street? See Pre-proposal meeting presentation slide #6 for general delineation of the extent of the Public Promenade. Exact project boundary will be provided at commencement of design. What is the estimated scope of work associated with the CEQA process? See response to #11 above. What is the expected community outreach process anticipated? Design progress will be presented to the public and all stakeholders at selected County Board of Supervisors meetings. See also RFP for presentations noted for each design phase and response to #11 above regarding EIR process. Should the fees assume offsite improvements as related to the COB3 project scope? The fee should cover the scope as outlined in the RFP. What are the Close Out document requirements for the project? At project completion, the A/E is required to deliver a set of record design documents including hardcopies and electronic files for drawings, specifications and BIM that are updated with all changes made during construction process, based on RFI, marked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by the CM/GC. See also Section 5.05. Where applicable, are all sub-consultants required to use BIM for design, documentation, and delivery? Does this include site utility work by the civil engineer? Yes, BIM should be used for all disciplines where applicable. As stated in Section 5.02, the A/E will work with the selected CM/GC to develop and implement a BIM Execution Plan for all disciplines during all phases of the project to define which disciplines use what kind of design software and associated requirements. Is there a San Mateo County Building Standards and BIM/CAD Standards document for reference? For codes/standards, follow California State statutory requirements. For office design standard and BIM/CAD standard, they will be provided at project commencement. See Section 4.09 & Part 5. pg. 6

Question# 46 Please confirm that the BIM Level of Development (LOD) will be the standard 300 for the A&E deliverable. Will the County require a specific BIM layering format for final issuance for this project? A generalized assumption of "maximum LOD" at 300 is acceptable for budgeting purpose. The LOD requirement will vary for different systems during different phases. The maximum LOD will likely be at 300 for CD and construction support. Exactly LOD requirement will be defined collaboratively with CM/GC at or around SD. The County will provide BIM guideline at project commencement. Question# 47 Question# 48 Question# 49 Question# 50 Question# 51 Although a program requirement for a service yard has not been specified, should we assume there will be a need for an area for trash & recycle collection, transformer, generator enclosure? Is there a loading/unloading or delivery area anticipated for this project? Yes, the building support spaces should be included. Space requirement of these provisions should be developed and confirmed during the Programming phase. Does the scope include parcelization of the site? No The RFP is unclear as to who would provide land surveying services such as topographic, boundary and underground utility surveying. Should we include scope for design level land surveying services, or will the County provide separately? Include design level site survey as allowance in Fee Matrix. Will the building include an atrium connecting more than two stories? The County does not have a preconceived design and is open to any creative, cost effective design solution. Will a separate service elevator be needed? Include in the design any elements/systems that are appropriate for the efficient function and operation of the building. Question# 52 Is the building anticipated to be a high-rise or not? The RFP notes that the building will be between 5 and 7 stories. If the height to the highest occupied floor exceeds 75 feet, then the building will need to comply with the high-rise requirements in California Building Code Section 403. The County does not have a preconceived design and is open to any creative, cost effective design solution. Question# 53 Question# 54 Please confirm that the project will not require a formal planning approval process with the City of Redwood City. See response to #10 above. If available, can you share the geotech report and environmental site assessment for the COB3 site? The County's environmental consultant is currently working through the CEQA process and will advise on specific environment requirements when determined. Geotechnical Engineer will be hired separately by the County to perform site investigation and results will be provided when available. pg. 7

Question# 55 Is the construction budget still $65 million for the new square footage range of 121,000 to 156,000 square feet and the inclusion of the public promenade in the scope? Question# 56 Question# 57 Question# 58 Question# 59 See response to #4 above. The RFP indicates that the new building will be 5-7 stories and 121K 156K sf. Should our lump sum fee also be expressed as a range? Yes if the area difference results in fee difference. 6.04.C states, "Follow the same format as shown in the Architect's Fee Matrix for each subconsultant. Also include mark-ups on sub-consultants." 6.04.D states, "Although engineers and other consultants costs are not a mandatory part of this RFP, provide a budget for the types of engineers and sub-consultants you anticipate will be required to complete the Project. Please clarify if the County prefers to see exact fees from each consultant or simply a budget and are we to provide their hourly rates as well? See response to #1 above. Does the County have more specific schedule milestones it can share such as the date for completion of construction documents and the start of construction? See response to #5 above. Will the construction of the building be done as a single phase? See Pre-proposal meeting presentation slide #7 for reference for your proposed response to RFP 6.03F. Question# 60 Question# 61 Will the public plaza be phased differently than the office building? The Public Plaza may be constructed later than the building. See also response to #59 above. Do you expect to see design concepts as part of the RFP submittal or interview process? See RFP Part 6 for Proposal Requirements. Proposers are welcome to include any information deem relevant to the Project for consideration. Question# 62 Regarding 3D imagery, how many views should be expected for the exterior and for the interior? Provide to meet requirements per RFP, see Part 5. Question# 63 Question# 64 Question# 65 The RFP document indicated the need for site remediation; can you please share any environmental or geotechnical information available relative to the need for remediation? See response to #54 above. Should we include hourly rates for the proposed sub-consultants? Yes, include hourly rates for all personnel Can you please provide more guidance regarding the mentioned phasing that County would like to achieve on the project? There are existing buildings on the site that need to be demolished/relocated before the construction of the Project. Thoughtful phasing will be required to minimize impact on the operations of the buildings around the site. See p.37-40 of the Scoping Study report for reference. pg. 8

Question# 66 Question# 67 Question# 68 Question# 69 Question# 70 Question# 71 Question# 72 Question# 73 Professional estimated fees does not appear to be one of the Key Selection Criteria; is that correct? See response to #3 above. Do we need to provide a forecasted workload for the proposed sub-consultants as well? See response to #23 above. Should engineering sub-consultants budget fee include full design of the renewable resource mentioned in item 4.10, page 6? Yes It appears that the MEP/FLS fees are only to be budgets, however the scope of work is very detailed. The budgets could be very arbitrary, would it be preferred to have actual fee numbers from a proposed consultant or a single ROM range of fees (low - high) for budgeting? See response to #1 above. For the purposes of the sub-consultant budget proposal should we assume that HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical, and Low Voltage Technology and Security System is full design and that Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm is Design Build? Or should we assume that all services are Design-Bid-Build and determine DB elements all later. See response to #32 above. The project has great energy goals, however there is no energy modeling or scope mentioned. With high-performance projects like COB3 we usually see energy modeling and daylight modeling done and submitted through all phases of the project (Concept, SD, DD, CD and final); Should we include these as part of the sub-consultant cost/ budget estimate, as a separate line item? Include any services as appropriate to support the Zero Net Energy and LEED implementation for the County's consideration. Provide details of the proposed energy modeling scope and list the fee as a separate line item. The County may elect to include any scope items not listed in the RFP that add value to the Project. Is there a desire for Measurement and Verification as part of the scope of services to verify that the Zero Net Energy design goal has been achieved in post occupancy? Our Zero Energy projects, usually engage the energy modeling team to conduct 12 months of Measurement and Verification to determine outcome of end uses and renewable energy systems. This would include a measurement and verification plan, monthly energy data gathering by end use, and a calibration of the energy model to the final field tested energy use. M&V will be performed by a third party Commissioning Agent to be hired directly by the County. For fee budgeting purposes, is it fair to assume an LOD 300 for the BIM services? See response to #46 above. END OF DOCUMENT pg. 9