Page 1 of 17 Capital Planning & Development Request for Qualifications for Architectural Services University of Washington Request for Qualifications ARCHITECTURAL PREDESIGN SERVICES FOR Health Sciences (HS) Education Phase I - T-Wing Renovation/Addition Project Number: 205296 Submittal Deadline: Friday, December 4, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. The University of Washington is soliciting Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) from planning and design firms/teams to provide pre-design services for instructional and instructional support spaces that will replace, expand and/or modernize those currently provided in the T-Wing of the Magnuson Health Sciences facility on UW Seattle s South Campus. In order to identify program, site, phasing, and budget that will define the T-Wing project the selected firm/team will define and analyze options by which the UW s established long-term vision for the redevelopment of South Campus could accommodate the T-Wing project, and ways in which the T-Wing project goals can be accomplished while also serving as the first steps in the implementation of the South Campus vision. The study goals envision the creation of a new inter-professional education facility or IPE, characterized by 120K GSF of new education space and renovation of 400K GSF existing space in the T-Wing. The actual size, preferred location and configuration of the T-Wing renovation/addition project is to be determined in the course of this study through a programming phase that defines the building program, identifies siting requirements, analyzes site options and recommends a site or sites, with phasing, and project costs. This project is also the potential first step in achieving the vision of an improved South Campus setting for health sciences education and healthcare delivery at UW. As such it would set the stage for additional steps, including providing parking to facilitate the long term redevelopment of South Campus
Page 2 of 17 parking needs, by replacing the existing S1 facility, and preparing for public realm enhancements, in addition to defining the IPE and classroom future. This effort must produce a pre-design study, to be submitted by July 1, 2016, as required by the Washington State Office of Financial Management in order that funding for design and construction can be requested. The State has provided funding of $623,000 for the pre-design. The pre-design study will be formatted in order to meet state requirements and to serve the UW s decision-making processes. Should the project move forward into design, this study s selected firm/team will be eligible to submit qualifications to provide full design services for the project, regardless of whether a traditional or alternate delivery method is utilized. BACKGROUND The T-Wing, built in 1948, houses UW s Health Sciences Administration (HSA), a centralized resource that coordinates and supports space planning and management and oversees 150,000 of approximately 235,000 assignable square feet of instruction and instructional support spaces in the Magnuson Health Sciences T-Wing. Other space is occupied by the School of Public Health, UW Libraries and the School of Nursing. These spaces, utilized by both students and faculty, are outdated with limited technological capacity and lack the flexibility and technologies required for educating future Health Science professionals. This project will establish the academic heart of the UW Health Sciences complex, provide a shared (renovated and/or new) inter-professional education instructional facility that serves the six schools of Health Sciences (Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health and Social Work) as well as other UW academic disciplines in the Colleges of Engineering, Environment and Arts & Sciences. This effort will define a pre-design with options to meet the immediate need for new and expanded classrooms in the South Campus area. The integration of recent and ongoing planning studies concepts is key to maximizing the outcomes in this complex physical environment for Health Sciences and the campus as a whole. Pre-design options will be explored and tested for program options, site options, phasing and other implementation options including enabling projects and infrastructure (parking, MEP, structural, public realm, etc.).
Page 3 of 17 The University of Washington's Seattle campus reflects over 150 years of thoughtful campus planning, growth and development. UW develops pre-design plans to maximize the limited resource of land, space and funding. The UW continues to expand enrollment, launch new programs and grow new research. Continual change is essential for the university s vitality, and sustaining the university over the long term requires strategic planning and effective fiscal management. Given financial realities it is critical that, in addition to assessing the potential need for greater density in the future, the university makes the best use of existing space and capital investments. This is particularly critical for the South Campus, the most densely-built sub-area, most lacking in public realm investments in spite of its long waterfront which is lacking in identity and expandability. This pre-design study is an opportunity to begin the long process of incremental improvements strategically defined and phased to achieve a particular vision over many years, to best serve the academic and research functions while also providing an attractive waterfront setting, and individual identities for each of the health sciences schools within a well-integrated and navigable building complex. The consultant selected for this project will be familiar with the following in order to make recommendations that are informed by and support the planning goals and recommendations: 2003 Campus Master Plan (CMP) http://pm.uw.edu/cmp/documents The ongoing 2018 Campus Master Plan (2018 CMP) http://pm.uw.edu/cmp/news The 2015 West Campus Development Framework (WCDF) http://opb.washington.edu/sites/default/files/opb/architecture/ac/uwac%202014-06- 23%20West%20Campus%20Development%20Framework.pdf 2014 Campus Landscape Framework (CLF) http://opb.washington.edu/oua/architectural-commission-meeting-june-29-2015 under Meeting Presentations 2015 South Campus Study (SCS) http://opb.washington.edu/sites/default/files/opb/architecture/ac/2015-03- 30/UWAC%202015-03-30%20South%20Campus%20Study%20Phase%20II.pdf 2014 UW Learning Spaces Assessment (LSA) https://opb.washington.edu/sites/default/files/opb/architecture/report_uw%20learning %20Space%20Assessment.pdf,
Page 4 of 17 UW s One Capital Plan http://opb.washington.edu/oua/capital-planning These studies will provide the institutional context for the T-Wing s future new shared instructional space, and will inform and facilitate the phased development strategy, in this region. The mission and academic purposes of the T-Wing renovation/addition will be explored through interviews with academic and administrative leaders. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services involves preparing a predesign study for the project in accordance with the WA State Office of Financial Management (OFM) Predesign Manual. This Manual can be found at: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/instructions/predesign/completedoc.pdf. Working within the parameters of the State pre-design process, and the UW planning studies identified above, this project s scope of services shall include, but is not limited to, the following: 1.Establish Work Plan & Schedule Provide a proposed work plan and schedule for the following actions: a. Consensus goals statement for this project. b. Existing conditions analysis physical, facilities and site, planning principles c. Building program for new instructional and instructional support space plan. Indicate the anticipated deliverables and methodology. Include specific tasks, with milestones, to provide services and generate products, and note expected roles of Capital Planning and Development, Health Sciences Administration and other UW staff. d. Site requirements and options for satisfying the building program and enabling actions (such as the replacement of S1parking) e. Key issues/variables to be addressed by any option/scenario f. Three scenarios, at a minimum, strategically constructed to achieve project goals, program needs, address key issues and variables, initiate long-term redevelopment of South Campus g. Scenarios analysis, costs and benefits h. Recommendations including program, site, enabling projects, phasing, etc.
Page 5 of 17 i. Fulfill State pre-design study submittal requirements and support UW decision- making processes for submitting the final Predesign to the state by July 1, 2016. Clarify roles and responsibilities of the consultant, Executive Committee, Project Committee and Health Sciences Board of Deans. Identify the process for informationgathering and communication such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, data validation, and/or public forums. All should foster transparency, and include opportunities for input from constituencies. Describe how the plan will incorporate relevant existing plans and other, concurrent, planning efforts in a way that fosters continuity and minimizes overlap of tasks. 2. Articulate Vision and Guiding Principles for Instructional Space Development Review and validate the Guiding and Planning Principles from the recent WCDF, SCS and LSA. Facilitate, guide and support the articulation of the College s long-term vision and strategic plan as it relates to space planning, learning spaces and the overall campus masterplan. This may include new directions in teaching and learning, research or service. This vision should reflect programmatic, academic and architectural aspirations, and will reflect what is known about specific facility/infrastructure needs, as well as potential phasing options. Identify and address projected changes in faculty, staff and student FTE, and projected program changes as illustrated in the SCS. Examine, at a minimum, five peer institutions for insights and lessons learned regarding challenges facing parking infrastructure and University instructional spaces. The report will reflect the interplay of functions, program locations, support of HS and other UW units, existing facilities and the need for expanded, or possible reduced, capacity of parking infrastructure in this this region of campus. The final report will include highly illustrated narratives describing the vision and guiding planning principles, important factors in their development, and paths to their realization as identified through this study.
Page 6 of 17 3. Integration and Analysis of Instructional Space Inventory and Functional Use The consultant will use the verified instructional space program and inventory and graphically integrate them into the analysis and narrative regarding the functional use, adjacencies and utilization of space, also identifying efficiencies, restacking and fit to function recommendations. Identify spaces that are under or over-used and suggest how to right-size use. Apply benchmark data of past consultant projects (Odegaard Library, South Campus Center - Active Learning Classrooms and the LSA, etc.). Identify pedagogical and technological trends that will create demand for new kinds of instructional space. This will assist with the key issues that will be addressed in scenario development. Deliverables include verified and integrated inventory (in a format approved by OUA for university data consistency), updated floor plans, and a narrative outlining the qualitative observations and analysis of current and recommended use of instructional and instructional support space. The final report will include summary data in tabular form, in addition to any other tables, marked up floor plans, stacking plans and other graphical reports. 4. Integration and Analysis of Existing Parking Facilities/Site Conditions Consultant will develop a parking infrastructure facilities/site condition report, utilizing information from the recently complete SCS as well as information from UW Transportation and Facilities Services. Information will be analyzed and graphically integrated into the report with a narrative that describes the overall structural/seismic quality, functional suitability and the alignment of assigned parking space needs. In addition, a facilities condition analysis will need to be created for the S1 Parking garage as well as a Geotechnical analysis of lots 45S and E12 that in turn will be integrated into the overall planning study. 5. Identify Issues to Address in Scenario Development Analyze space needs based on programmatic/space needs, and facilities/site conditions outlined in 3 and 4 above. Assess current space versus projected needs
Page 7 of 17 based on instructional trends. Review facilities, infrastructure, open spaces, view corridors and landscape character of site vicinity study area (utilizing the SCS and WCDF) for strengths and weaknesses to the Health Sciences and to the university as a whole. Identify needs for interior and exterior program elements to support the academic enterprise. Project program needs for near-term, mid-term (10 years) and long-term (20 years) in three physical and capital environments: steady-state, modest growth, and significant growth. 6. Create Scenarios for Future Development, Highlighting and Developing Detailed Project Costs, Tradeoffs and Choices and describing how these scenarios will be implemented Create scenarios that develop detailed project costs for each scenario, including site development and schedules, constructability and phasing, demolition, renovations, enabling projects, F&E, escalation, and fees. Identify key cost considerations that will help build and/or differentiate among the scenarios. The executive committee and project committee may advise the consultant on additional solutions to explore. Study scenarios: Scenarios will be constructed to test a full range of possible options for addressing the needs of the Health Sciences and the surrounding facilities and site vicinity. Key variables should be identified and expressed in the scenarios. Analysis of the scenarios should include comparative assessments of their benefits and costs. A hybrid scenario may be developed and recommended to illustrate a recommended course of action that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the costs. Describe a sequence for scenario implementation based on realistic funding and growth/phasing expectations, including near, mid- and longer-term plans. Describe enabling projects, decanting, site considerations such as infrastructure and circulation projects, and related costs. Provide detailed project costs.
Page 8 of 17 Summarize in narratives, graphics and tabular forms. Study scenarios requirements above will address, at a minimum: Alignment of existing space to optimize utilization and meet functional needs. Provide examples of right-sized space and relevant design solutions. Changes to existing space to support greater use efficiency, create flexible room types, eliminate deferred maintenance or improve physical and functional conditions. Construction of new space or major renovation for needs that cannot be addressed in existing space with consideration to building renewal projects to solve facility needs. Factor existing facilities conditions into concepts regarding extent of renovation, decision-making regarding renovation v. replacement (example: T-Wing), and test a range of approaches using the scenarios and phasing to do so. Requirements for both building and parking replacement and the relocation of current occupants should be part of the criteria for constructing and analyzing scenarios. Take site development challenges and opportunities into consideration in constructing and analyzing scenarios. Description of the development capacity for areas where new construction is proposed, and how the scenario makes strategic use of this capacity. (Utilize 2003 CMP, SCS and WCDF) Factor site development considerations into the plan, including architectural and landscape character; height, density, setback and other Campus Master Plan requirements; landscape development; campus connectivity and any regulatory issues and restrictions. Address competing construction needs in this area. Massing studies and longitudinal sections for proposed new construction. Sustainability impact of recommendations, particularly impacts on energy, utilities, parking infrastructure and transportation. Historic preservation impacts of scenarios. Environmental and other regulatory impacts or issues of scenarios.
Page 9 of 17 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA The SOQ must include and will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Each firm s SOQ must include an index and be organized by discrete sections corresponding to the criteria and in the same order as listed below: 1. Cover Letter A cover letter 1-2 pages, addressing, at a minimum, the following: a. Expression of interest in this project. b. A summary of the firm s/team s relevant qualifications. c. The size of the firm/team and its capability to manage a project of this size and scope within the identified time frame. d. Acknowledgement of receipt of any addenda issued to the RFQ, as posted on the University s website. e. The name and contact information of the individual the University should contact with questions about the SOQ and to schedule an interview. The contact information should include the person s name and title (Mr., Ms., etc.), firm name, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address. 2. Team Qualifications a. Team expertise and availability The project is expected to take approximately 6 months from the initiation of the work to its conclusion. This work will require an extremely well-coordinated, strategic, and interdisciplinary team. Identify essential team members by their role on the team, discipline and expertise, availability, and their experience and qualifications relevant to this scope, including projects and the roles they played on relevant projects, and whether they have worked on these or other projects with other key staff/firms. Include resumes for the team s key staff. Narrate a staffing plan for each phase of the project, exploring the rationale for these team members and roles as they address the scope.
Page 10 of 17 In addition to providing the information in the above paragraph, please provide your assessment of any additional disciplinary expertise that could bring value to developing this complex pre-design. b. Experience facilitating, shaping, and defining the development of an academic vision for inter-professional educational instructional space in Health Sciences at a research university. Give examples of your firm s/team s approach to comprehending programmatic and academic needs for growth on geographically restricted sites. Indicate how you have helped users articulate their vision and planning guidelines, with the outcome being an implementation plan that is responsive to the client s and the campus needs. c. Communications and engagement Give examples of your firm s/team s experience in providing strategic communications and engagement services with upper administration, faculty and Deans. Give examples of planning documents you have produced that were strategically developed for strategic results that were achieved. Describe the firm s/team s philosophy regarding communications and engagement in a consensus-based higher education environment. d. Project management Show your firm s/team s successful completion of 3 to 5 relevant projects, in the supervision, coordination, communication, and management of schedule and budget throughout the project phases. Explain key issues the team or key staff successfully addressed to enable each project to address critical schedule, budget and design challenges. e. Coordination with other efforts: The 2003 Campus Master Plan, SCS, WCDF and CLF, will inform this study. Please describe relevant projects that demonstrate the firm s/team s ability to work with parameters established through prior planning efforts. Outline your approach to
Page 11 of 17 fostering collaboration and minimizing overlap of tasks or making contradictory recommendations. f. Components of scenario planning. Provide relevant examples of work that the firm/team has been responsible for that used a scenario-based planning process in the pre-design phase, and familiarity with handling the following components: Planning Goals Statement Existing Conditions - physical and functional characteristics of existing facilities and sites, projected functional and space needs, Building program, site vicinity conditions and capacity, siting options Identification of enabling projects and phasing plans that will allow for the phased implementation of building renovation and/or replacement and growth Costs associated with scenarios for future development, implications and trade-offs, including financing of parking scenarios The character of the campus and the relationship of the Health Sciences and its facilities to the campus character and implications for the campus. Historic preservation planning Sustainability and environmental design Implementation Strategies and Next Steps 3. Past Performance in the Utilization of sbe, dbe and MWBE Provide a summary of your firm s/team s performance in the state of Washington over the last five (5) years on projects of similar size and scope in utilization of small business entities (sbe), disadvantaged business enterprises (dbe), and minority and women-owned enterprises (MWBE). For each project, include the following: Name of the project Date of substantial completion Name of the owner and contact person with email and phone
Page 12 of 17 Final contract value Owner s utilization goals for the project (if any) The overall percentage of the final contract value paid to sbe, dbe, and MWBE. See the Business Equity section near the end of this RFQ for the definitions of sbe, dbe and MWBE. 4. References Provide at least three (3) client references for work completed by the firm/team and by members of the key staff for this project. References should be selected from projects prominent in the SOQ with relevance to this scope of work. Cited references should include project name, reference name, title, project role, and current contact telephone number, and email address. Refer to the Selection Process section of this RFQ for information about how reference checks will be used in the evaluation process. 5. Acceptance of University s Standard Contract The University intends to enter into an agreement with one firm as a result of this RFQ process and to use its standard Agreement for Professional Services for the work. A copy of this Agreement is included as Attachment I to this RFQ. Each firm must affirm in this section of the SOQ that the terms and conditions of the agreement is acceptable, or if the firm takes exception to any of the proposed language in the agreement, the firm must specifically describe the reasons for the exceptions and propose in this section of the SOQ alternative language for review and consideration by the University. The University makes no commitment that it will modify any of the terms of the standard agreement based on the firm s suggestions. Firms should not comment on the terms of Attachment A to the Agreements that include compensation provisions. Failure to respond to this item may result in the University eliminating the firm s SOQ from consideration.
Page 13 of 17 SELECTION PROCESS 1. SOQ Evaluation - Criteria for selecting firms/teams to be interviewed. The SOQ s will be evaluated by a UW staff selection committee. The most qualified firms will be invited by letter to a debrief meeting on December 11, 2015 and then an interview on January 6, 2016. The evaluation process for the SOQ will be based on the following criteria and point values. Points will be awarded based on the Proposer s demonstrated ability to meet the requirements of this RFQ. SOQ EVALUATION CRITERIA Max. Points Available 2. a. Team expertise and availability. 25 2. 20 b. Experience facilitating, shaping and defining the development of a Health Sciences instructional space vision based on updated conditions assessments and guiding a scenario based, phased, strategic implementation plan. c. Communications and engagement. 2. d. Project management 15 2. e. Coordination with other planning 15 2. f. Experience with complex scenario based planning process 15 3. Past Performance in Utilization of sbe, dbe and MWBE 10 Other Documentation References No points GSA Form 330 Part II No points Acceptance of University s Standard Contract No points Total: 100
Page 14 of 17 Submittal Deadline One (1) unbound original, five (5) copies organized in removable, recyclable covers, and one (1) CD/DVD in PDF format of the Statement of Qualifications containing the above-listed information must be received at the University Facilities Building no later than the submittal deadline stated on the first page of this RFQ, or as modified by any subsequent addenda. Submittals sent by mail or courier shall be sent to the address below (use box number for U.S. Postal Service (USPS) delivery only). Faxed or e-mailed submittals will not be accepted. Consultants are responsible for ensuring receipt of the SOQ at the University Facilities Building by the deadline stated above, and should take into account internal UW delivery times once USPS delivers a submittal to the box number indicated, and other delays that may occur when using a delivery service. Submittals received after the deadline will not be considered. University of Washington Capital Projects Office Attention: Lyndsey Cameron University Facilities Building Box 352205 Seattle, WA 98195-2205 Any addenda issued for this RFQ will be published at the following website address: http://f2.washington.edu/cpo/business/consult-opp, within the Current Advertisements box. Consultants are responsible for checking the website for any addenda prior to submission of qualifications. If you are unable to download the addenda, you may contact the individual noted at the end of this RFQ. 2. Interview process Key team members are expected to lead the interview, describing their approach to this study. A fifty-minute interview period will be allocated to each firm/team, as follows: 25 minutes to present, 20 minutes for question and answer, 5 minutes for consultant questions and closing statement. Firms/teams will have five minutes to set up before the interview and five minutes to take down and remove presentation material after the interview. Interviews will be evaluated
Page 15 of 17 based on the criteria below for a total of 43 points, which will be added to the points scored for the SOQ, for a maximum total of 143 points: Max Points INTERVIEW EVALUATION CRITERIA Available Project approach. The team s understanding of and approach to 10 the project Personnel. Demonstrated experience and knowledge relevant to 5 the project. Suitability of project team, including sub-contractors. Communication. Interpersonal communication among team 10 members and with the interview committee; strategically valuable use of communication tools and techniques throughout the planning process and its products and deliverables. Presentation and questions. Clarity of expression and 10 organization in the firm s presentation, and in providing insightful answers to questions asked by the interview committee. Quality of questions asked by the firm. Outreach Plan and approach to the inclusion of sbe, dbe and 8 MWBE. Total 43 The most qualified firms will be invited by e-mail to submit, prior to the interview on January 6, an Outreach Plan for inclusion of sbe, dbe, and MWBE. The letter will inform the firms as to the submittal date for the Outreach Plan. The plan should address the following areas: Discuss the opportunities and challenges you have identified relative to engaging sbe, dbe, and MWBE on this project. Discuss the strategy(ies) you will employ and the approach(es) you will take to optimize those opportunities and mitigate those challenges relative to sbe, dbe, and MWBE engagement;
Page 16 of 17 The most highly qualified firm/team, based on the total points from the evaluation of the SOQs and interviews, will be invited to enter into negotiation with the university. Only one firm (the prime consultant) will be designated as the contracting entity. If the university and that firm cannot agree on fair and reasonable terms, the university may enter into negotiations with the next most highly qualified firm s/team s contracting entity. All sub-consultant team members will be finalized prior to awarding the contract. SCHEDULE SELECTION PROCESS First publication of the RFQ - November 23, 2015 Statement of Qualifications due - 3:00 pm on Friday, December 4, 2015 Notification of firms to be interviewed - December 9, 2015 Shortlisted Consultants Informational Meeting 3:30 pm, December 11, 2015, at UW Tower Magnolia Room Interviews with the Selection Committee - January 6, 2016 Only one pre-design firm/team will be selected at this time. The University expects to work with the selected firm to finalize the sub-consultant team prior to consultant contract award. The university reserves the right to conduct reference checks for the highest scoring firm(s)/team(s) either after qualifications have been evaluated, and/or after interviews have been held. Should information obtained during reference checks reveal concerns about the firm s/team s past performance or its ability to successfully perform he contract to be executed based on the is RFQ the university may, at is sole discretion, determine that the firm/team is not qualified to move forward in the selection process and/or enter into negotiations with the university. In reference checks, the university may include itself as a reference if the firm/team has performed work for the university, even if the firm/team did not identify the university as a reference. Likewise, the university reserves the right to check references for the firm/team from other owners and designers not identified as a reference in the Statement of Qualifications submitted.
Page 17 of 17 BUSINESS EQUITY The University of Washington is committed to providing the maximum practicable opportunity for participation in contracting by sbe, dbe, and MWBE through direct contracts with the University, and sub-consulting or supplier participation. The University has determined that 10% combined sbe/dbe/mwbe participation is practicable and attainable for this project; however no minimum level of sbe/dbe/mwbe participation shall be required as a condition for receiving an award. The University is also an affirmative action-equal opportunity employer. The definitions which follow apply throughout this selection process. 1. Small business entity means an in-state business, including a sole proprietorship, corporation or other legal entity, that: a. certifies, under penalty of perjury that it is owned and operated independently from all other businesses and has either: i. Fifty or fewer employees; or ii. A gross revenue of less than seven million dollars annually as reported on its state and federal tax returns over the previous three consecutive years; or b. is certified with the Office of Minority and Women s Business Enterprises (OMWBE). 2. Disadvantaged business enterprise means any business entity certified with the OMWBE. 3. MWBE means businesses that are more than 50% owned and controlled by minorities or women, including those businesses certified by the OMWBE as women-owned or minorityowned. The term minorities includes persons of Asian, Black, Hispanic and Native American racial or ethnic heritage. QUESTIONS All questions regarding this RFQ should be addressed to Lyndsey Cameron, at 206 616-0201, or Lyndsey2@uw.edu Publication date(s) in the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce: November 23, 2015