HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum 1 - SFQ - 10019 Contractor Services for the Mulberry Water Reclamation Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 1 of 20
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Description of RFP 10003 : Design Services for the New SECC
RFP DUE DATE: 3:00 PM (Our Clock) July 26, 2024
To all prospective Design Professional(s) under the request for proposal documents described
above, the following changes/additions are hereby made and detailed in the following sections of
this addendum:
Exhibit 1- Questions and Answers
Please contact Adam Hill, Senior Buyer, at 970-221-6777 or adhill@fcgov.com with any questions
regarding this addendum.
RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT
ENCLOSED WITH THE RFP STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 2 of 20
Exhibit 1 – Questions and Answers
1. Do resumes count towards the (40) page count?
Response: Yes, resumes are included in the 40-page limit.
2. Does pricing documentation count towards the (40) page count?
Response: No; pricing information should be submitted as a separate file as stated in the
RFP.
3. Define the reference requests for the resumes?
Response: Provide contact information (name, phone number, email address) for us to
check references of these individuals.
4. Can you define what is meant by net zero?
Response: The minimum requirement is to achieve LEED Gold. It is desired we try to
achieve Net-Zero. Net-zero is in relation to the energy usage of the building.
5. Confirm LEED oversight/City has own Sustainability consultant, so what is intent from
Design?
Response: The selected Design Professional will be responsible for coordinating with
the Owner’s contracted LEED consultant.
6. Talk about what Recreation component will be?
Response: This is still being worked through internally and with City Council. The ballot
language has very basic language and we are still working through what that will require.
As stated in the RFP, we have listed an estimated $60M budget and will work with the
selected Design Professional and the eventually selected CM/GC to determine what is
able to be achieved with this budget.
7. Does City have a specific DBE goal for this project?
Response: The Owner’s does not have a specific DBE goal assigned for this project but
does encourage DBE’s to pursue all projects with the Owner’s.
8. Can you define how many public outreach and City Council meeting will be?
Response: This project will need to follow all City development review requirements and
is anticipated to go above and beyond that process in order to have a robust community
engagement process for both the recreation and library components of the project.
Design Professionals shall estimate what they feel will be required for this process and
clearly must identify what they have included in their costs, particularly as it relates to
public outreach.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 3 of 20
9. You mentioned on experience that you want individuals experience and not just the firm,
can you expand?
Response: Since they are the team members with whom we will work with on a daily
basis, it is essential that proposing firms highlight the experience that their individual
team members assigned to this project have; this is more important to demonstrate than
the experience of the overall firm.
10. The Exhibit A spreadsheet format and criteria seem to be more geared towards a
contractor. Breakdown shown is not typical for design services.
Response: While we acknowledge that Exhibit A is not typical for how design team fee
proposals are structured, it is intended to clarify scope responsibilities between the
Owner, Architect, and Contractor, thus allowing for a more accurate understanding of
scope and fees. All responding design teams should provide pricing for each line item
that has an “x” in Part B column H, “By Architect/Engineers”. Pricing should be added to
Part B column E, “Amount”, and will auto total to the “Design Services” and “Printing,
Insurance, Additional Items” line in Part A of the spreadsheet; this will be the total
proposed fee amount by the responding firm.
11. Will contract language changes be considered?
Response: Please review Section III Proposal Submittal, paragraph H. Sample
Agreement. If you have objections to the terms of the Sample Agreement, please list
them and, as stated in this section, provide suggested revisions with your proposal. Any
revisions will be reviewed and considered as part of the proposal assessment.
12. Please confirm that geotechnical services will be by the Owner and report will be
provided to the successful proposer.
Response: Correct.
13. Please confirm that subsurface utility evaluations (SUE) if required will be by Owner and
report will be provided to the successful proposer.
Response: Subsurface utility evaluations may be required once additional site
development is completed. The Owner will hire SUE services.
14. Please confirm that a site survey will be by Owner and survey will be provided to the
successful proposer.
Response: Correct.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 4 of 20
15. Please confirm that traffic engineering services are required for the project or if it will be
provided by the Owner?
Response: The Owner is responsible for hiring a traffic consultant, and the Design
Professional will coordinate with that consultant to ensure the traffic study is
comprehensive and includes that data needed to properly inform the design process.
16. Please confirm the site is void of hazardous materials?
Response: We are not aware of any items, but the Owner is obtaining a Phase I ESA.
Once complete, this will be shared with the selected Design Professional.
17. What are your community engagement expectations?
Response: Refer to question #8.
18. Will the site and updated 2023 master plan be shared?
Response: The City’s 2023 Feasibility Study will be shared with the awarded firm. The
City’s 2021 Recreate Master Plan is available at Parks & Recreation Master Plan - City
of Fort Collins . Also, please refer to question #21 for the site location.
19. Will this design include a cafe or commercial kitchen of any sort?
Response: A cafe or commercial kitchen may be a part of the new facility, but this must
be confirmed as a part of the scope development effort during the design process.
20. You mention that it is expected that the design professional will submit for permit. Is this
just referencing providing plans to the selected general contractor to submit, or is it
anticipated that the selected Architecture firm will submit them?
Response: The A/E is to prepare a package suitable for permit. The submission is
planned to be by others.
21. We understand the selected site is 10 acres near Fossil Ridge High School. Can the
exact site be shared at this point?
Response: The Alta survey information is included at the end of the questions.
22. Will State monies be used for the project?
Response: This project has obtained a State of Colorado Grant related to energy
efficiency. The A/E is expected to assist with answering questions related to the regular
reporting process that the Owner will be responsible for.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 5 of 20
23. Under Section II, Scope of Proposal, D.12: Is the desire to have photo-realistic renders?
Response: The Owner’s expectation is to have photo-realistic renderings which can be shared internally and with the public at various stages of the project. It is also desired that the modeling developed is capable of walk-throughs of certain spaces once the design has reached an appropriate level of completion. In your proposal, please indicate the costs related to both renderings and walk-throughs, and at what stage of development you foresee those deliverables being provided.
24. Under Section I, Construction Administration, "...perform other services as required by the
Owner to complete the project." Please provide additional definition/detail to the
expectations.
Response: Each proposer should include, and clearly identify, what tasks they believe
are necessary to successfully perform CA services for this type of project.
Note: The Professional Services Agreement for this project is a Work Order type
agreement, and the final definition and detail of the scope of each phase will be
contained in each work order.
25. Part I Section A.3 lists a Community Center which includes innovation spaces, flex space,
and creation spaces shared with the Library District. While this list is prefaced by saying
it's not an exhaustive list, there is no mention of fitness focused spaces here. What other
fitness or physically focused recreation spaces are anticipated in the final program?
Response: This is currently not defined. The design process, in combination with the
project’s budget constraints and public input, will help determine what spaces and uses
are included in the new SECC facility.
Also, refer to question #6.
26. Childcare is also listed in this section, is this intended to be a licensed facility?
Response: Yes, this will be licensed facility.
27. How many public outreach meetings are anticipated and what are the desired goals in
terms feedback from these meetings? For example, are they to get input from the public
or more to present information?
Response: Refer to question #8.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 6 of 20
28. The list of deliverables suggests a BIM model at a LOD of 350. Level 300 tends to be
industry standard for developing Construction Documents, while 400 is the fabrication
level of drawings ("shop drawings"). How does the Ownership Team define Level 350 and
are there particular areas/aspects of the project that are intended to be developed to a
greater level of detail?
Response: We understand there continues to be discussion in the industry regarding
LOD’s as currently defined. We anticipate the creation of a progression matrix within the
BIM Execution Plan. Our intent of a level 350 is for enough detail to be in the model to
assist the Contractor with fabrication of shop drawings, clash detection, etc., and have a
model capable of renderings and walk-throughs (refer to response to question #23).
29. Part II of the document jumps from Section M to section B (bottom of page 8), are there
sections missing or is this a formatting inconsistency?
Response: This is a format issue, please see below for corrections.
N. Anticipated Schedule
The following represents the City’s target schedule for the RFP and the project. The City
reserves the right to amend the target schedule at any time.
1. RFP issuance: June 28, 2024
2. Pre-Proposal Meeting: 8:30 AM MT on July 9, 2024
3. Question deadline: 3:00 PM MT on July 12, 2024
4. Final Addendum Issued: July 17, 2024
5. Proposal due date: 3:00 PM MT on July 26, 2024
6. Interviews (tentative): Week of August 12, 2024
7. Award of Contract (tentative): August 21, 2024
8. Contract Negotiation (anticipated) Late-August to mid-September 2024
9. Design Kick-Off (anticipated) Mid-September 2024
10. Completion of project (anticipated): Late 2027
O. Budget
The overall budget for the project has not been set yet, and the Design Professional and
the eventual CM/GC will be integral in providing the Owner team with data to help establish
the budget criteria. Funding will primarily be provided by the project partners, with some
potentially coming from grant and federal sources. For the purpose of the proposal, please
assume a target construction budget of $60 million; soft costs will be in addition to this
amount and will be carried by the Owner team.
P. Interviews
In addition to submitting a written proposal, the top-rated Design Professionals may be
interviewed by the RFP assessment team and asked to participate in an oral presentation
to provide an overview of the company and approach to the project and to address
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 7 of 20
questions. The evaluation criteria for the oral interviews will be the same as the criteria for
the written evaluations and is included in Section IV.
Q. Travel & Expenses
Subject to the terms of the applicable Work Order, reasonable expenses may be
reimbursable per the current rates found at www.gsa.gov. Design Professional will be
required to provide original receipts to the City for all travel expenses.
R. Subcontractors/Subconsultants
Design Professional will be responsible for identifying any subcontractors and/or
subconsultants in their proposal. Please note that the City will contract solely with the
awarded Design Professional; therefore, subcontractors and/or subconsultants will be the
responsibility of the Design Professional.
S. Financial Qualifications (CONFIDENTIAL)
Design Professionals selected as finalists may be required to submit a banking reference
and their most recent financial statement (audited preferred) including balance sheet and
income statement, as well as a statement of cash flows (the “Financial Information”).
T. Current standards
All work and/or materials must meet current standards in force by recognized technical
and professional societies, trade and materials supply associations, institutes and
organizations, bureaus and testing laboratories, and national, federal, state, county, and
local laws, codes and ordinances.
U. Fees, Licenses, Permits
The successful Design Professional shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary
licenses, fees or permits without additional expense to the City. All vehicles and equipment
shall be properly licensed and insured, carry the appropriate permits and be placarded as
required by law.
V. Laws and Regulations
The Design Professional agrees to comply fully with all applicable local, State of Colorado
and Federal laws and regulations and municipal ordinances to include American
Disabilities Act (ADA).
W. Work Orders
The awarded Design Professional will be required to sign the City’s Professional Services
Agreement Work Order Type, a sample of which is attached as Section VI for reference
purposes.
Individual Work assignments will be requested and agreed to utilizing the City’s Work
Order (included in the Sample Agreement). Each Work Order must include a start and
completion date, total cost and a Scope of Work. Subsequent supporting documentation
pages may include a project schedule, deliverables, hours, cost detail supporting total
cost, and personnel details. Fees outlined in the Work Order will conform with those stated
in the Agreement.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 8 of 20
No Work Order over $7,500 will be considered valid until signed, at a minimum, by the
Design Professional, designated Owner authority, and Purchasing Department
representative. Depending on the cost and nature of the Work, additional signature
authorization may be required. Any changes to the dates, cost or scope of any Work Order
must be agreed upon in writing utilizing the City’s Change Order (included in the
Agreement) and will not be considered valid until signed, at a minimum, by the Design
Professional, designated Owner authority, and Purchasing Department representative.
X. Invoicing and Payment
Invoices should be emailed monthly to invoices@fcgov.com with a copy to the Owner
Representative, bkardos@wemberinc.com. The cost of the work completed shall be paid
to the Design Professional each month following the submittal of a correct invoice by the
Design Professional indicating the project name, Purchase Order number, task
description, hours worked, personnel/work type category, hourly rate for each
employee/work type category, date of the work performed specific to the task, percentage
of that work that has been completed by task, 3rd party supporting documentation with the
same detail, and a brief progress report.
Payments will be made using the prices stated in the Work Order and Agreement. In the
event a service is requested which is not stated in the Work Order and/or Agreement, the
Design Professional and the City will negotiate an appropriate unit price for the service
prior to the Design Professional initiating such work. The City pays undisputed invoices
on Net 30 terms.
30. Related to the above, in second Section L of Part II: "Invoicing and Payment," there is a
reference to "3rd Party supporting documentation with the same detail." What is meant by
"3rd party supporting documentation?" Is this intended to mean for the sub-consultants?
Response: Correct.
31. Asked in the preproposal, but also formally submitting in writing. The RFP document
referenced "Net Zero" in several places as being an aspirational goal beyond LEED Gold.
Is the intention for the project to be "Net-Zero Energy" or "Net-Zero Carbon?" Perhaps
both?
Response: Refer to question #4.
32. Part III suggests listing each of the Owner's questions in the Response document itself,
would referencing the Part and Section numbers be sufficient in order to keep the
submission content focused on the team's qualifications and approach?
Response: Yes.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 9 of 20
33. At the preproposal meeting, the question was asked whether resumes count toward the
40-page limit. With Part III Section E.2 requesting resumes of each member of the design
team, including the sub-consultant team, this section could be fairly robust, limiting content
elsewhere. Or are there specific key personnel you'd like teams to focus on to limit the
resume section?
Response: We would like to see experience and qualifications of the Team we will be
working with directly. Refer also to question #9.
34. Part III Section E.3 - Should we provide a full list of relevant projects completed by the
firm? Do the individual team member resumes from Part III Section E.2 fill the requirement
for team member qualifications?
Response: Refer to questions #9 and #33.
35. Part III Section E.4-6 - Can all of these projects be within the last 10 years? What is the
intention for limiting some sections to more recent and not others, particularly if the
examples are similar co-located facilities?
Response: Please see RFP Part III Section E 4-6 for requirements.
36. Part III Section C.10 - Are sub-consultants required to provide the information requested
in Part III Section B or would a general firm description fulfill the requirements?
Response: For sub-consultants, a general firm description and their role/responsibility as
a part of the overall Design Professional team will suffice. Qualifications for aquatics and
library subconsultants are highly desired.
37. Please explain the intended scope of the 3rd Party LEED consultant vs. what
responsibilities should fall under the design team' scope of service.
Response: The Owner is planning to engage the services of a LEED consultant. The
design team is expected to collaborate with the LEED consultant as part of an integrated
design process. Also refer to question #5.
38. Does the owner expect the design team to subcontract with a cost estimator to provide
the Cost Estimate Validation listed in section II.A.22, or is the intention for the Design
Team to review and provide an opinion of costs provided by the CMGC?
Response: The later is expected of the Design Professional.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 10 of 20
39. Should we provide hourly rates for all subconsultants?
Response: Yes.
40. What specific development and entitlement review process will be required for this project:
BDR or PDP/ FDP?
Response: Refer to question #77.
41. For the project programming phase, should we assume a conceptual site plan will be
developed for each of the 3 options, or will programming options be limited to the building?
Response: Assume site plan options must be included along with the building options.
42. The RFP asks that the estimated cost of work is to be delivered per EXHIBIT A – Master
Scope of Services Matrix. However, the exhibit does not align with the RFP’s milestones,
which is also a requirement for the cost of work delivery. How does the City want to receive
the estimated costs of work: Per Exhibit A or broken down by the milestones in the RFP?
Response: Please provide a proposed fee using Exhibit A, then please provide a
separate breakdown of that fee into an itemized “Cost By Milestone” per Part III Section
G.2 of the RFP.
43. EXHIBIT A excludes a Traffic Consultant from the scope. Depending on the site selected,
a traffic study may be required. Should we included a Traffic Consultant on the project
team?
Response: Refer to question #15.
44. Are you able to clarify expectations related to public engagement and meetings, as listed
in the Scope of Work (Page 5, #24), as related to both the recreational and library
programs?
Response: Refer to questions #8 and #27.
45. We understand that the selected team will work closely with the Owners (and eventually
the CM/GC) to define the scope of work and construction budget. Shall the design team
anticipate any benchmark information, standards or other programming guidelines, to
initiate the programming effort, and to what degree (if any) do you anticipate additional
public engagement informing the programming?
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 11 of 20
Response: The Owner will provide all previous programming information to the Design
Professional. It is intended that the CM/GC be brought on board early to assist and be
part of an integrated design process.
Refer to question # 8 regarding the engagement process.
46. Will the City be able to provide site information (Soils Report, Topographical Survey, Utility
Plans, etc.) prior to the RFP submittal?
Response: Refer to questions #12 and #21.
47. What is the City's proposed schedule for on-boarding the CM/GC? Based on the RFP, it
appears that the City will select a CM/GC concurrently with the Design Professional. Is
that a correct assumption?
Response: The CM/GC RFP is anticipated to be issued in the late-summer of 2024, and
the CM/GC will therefore be selected and under contract by the fall of 2024.
48. At what phase will the CMGC be brought on board? Will the DP be involved in proposal review
and interviews?
Response: Refer to question #47.
49. Will the owner-provided commissioning cover all Commissioning required for the project,
LEED as well as any code required Commissioning?
Response: Yes.
50. What scope will the owner provided sustainability consultant provide?
Response: Refer to questions #5 and #37.
51. Please confirm that resumes are included in the 40 page limit.
Response: Refer to question #1.
52. Are all resumes, including partners, sub-consultants, and subcontractors, required to
include three references?
Response: Yes.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 12 of 20
53. Will the Childcare Facility be a State licensed Childcare facility?
Response: Refer to question #26.
54. Fees, License, Permits. Clarify if the DP is to carry and Allowance for Plan Check fees
for all agency review? DP typically does not carry Construction permit fees, please confirm
construction permit fees are excluded from the DP fees.
Response: No, the Design Professional should not carry an allowance for agency review
costs, but they should plan on helping the project team prepare for and manage the
review and approvals process. The Owner anticipates paying for all permit and review
fees and they are budgeting for that as a part of the SECC overall project costs; while
this is a City project, development and review fees will not be waived. Also, it is
anticipated that there may also be other authorities and jurisdictions as part of this
project (i.e. Poudre Fire Authority).
55. FF&E – Provide more detail on specific DP responsibilities regarding bidding, procurement
and installation. For example, is the DP expected to help coordinate Owner FF&E move-
in or will this be handled by the Owner/Owner Rep?
Response: FF&E selection, bidding, procurement, and installation/move-in will be handled by the Owner/Owner’s Representative, however the Design Professional will be expected to be involved in the review and selection of FF&E items to be sure that they coordinate with the design of the facility.
56. Public Outreach and Meetings, Does the City have more detail on what this process could
look like, for instance, how many meetings should the DP include and what phases of the
design Public Outreach meetings are anticipated?
Response: Refer to question #8.
57. Fee schedule discrepancy with Worker’s Comp as required for DP, but then states only
GC. Please clarify.
Response: Worker’s Comp is for the CM/GC only; Design Professional does not need to
provide a cost for this item/coverage.
58. Spreadsheet, Item J, 12, Preparation of the O&M is by the GC only, DP does not prepare
O&Ms, please clarify.
Response: Design Professional does not need to provide a cost for item J.12, however,
please provide a cost for item J.13 (Review of Operation and Maintenance Manuals).
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 13 of 20
59. Traffic Engineering consultant is excluded in the fee spreadsheet but included (if required)
under Scope of Work. Please clarify if the DP should carry a Traffic Engineer on our team
and if fees are to be submitted.
Response: Refer to question #15.
60. What specific responsibilities and tasks are expected from the Design Professional
concerning grant assistance and coordination?
Response: Design Professional is expected to provide supporting documentation for the Owner’s grant writing and application efforts.
61. Spreadsheet A. Design Services, Task 49, Rezoning Process. Can you describe the DP
scope or process anticipated for rezoning the site (if rezoning is required)?
Response: Based on the Owner’s due diligence to-date, the zoning of the current proposed site allows for the proposed use.
62. Spreadsheet A. Design Services, Task 51. Documentation of owner existing Furniture
Fixtures and Equipment. Please clarify the scope of work. Which existing buildings’
furnishings, fixtures and equipment are to be inventoried and documented? What is the
extent of documentation and/or evaluation expected? Will the DP plan to use existing
furnishings in the furnishings plan for the new building?
Response: Noting this line item as the responsibility of the Architect/Engineer team was
done by mistake; the Owner does not anticipate reuse of any FF&E items for the new
Southeast center.
63. Spreadsheet D. Project Cost Control. DP is indicated to be involved in Construction Cash
Flow Projections (Monthly). Construction is solely a Contractor Means& Methods, please
explain the DP role in this task.
Response: The Design Professional does not need to provide a cost for line item D.8.
64. Spreadsheet J. Quality Control/Warranty Task 12. Prepare Operation and Maintenance
Manuals. DP does not prepare the contractor’s O&M manuals, please clarify DP scope
of work.
Response: Refer to question #58.
65. Spreadsheet, A. Design Services, Task 35, Security Evaluation and Planning. Please
clarify scope anticipated for the DP’s Security and Evaluation and Planning consultant vs.
the Owner’s Security consultant indicated in B. Task 21, Procurement, Security Consultant
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 14 of 20
Response: Design Professional will be expected to coordinate with the Owner’s internal security team(s) to properly design, procure, and install the facility’s security and access control systems. The Owner will NOT have an externally contracted security consultant.
66. Under the Construction Documents scope, the RFP states that at 100% CD the DP is to
provide a model developed to LOD 350, industry standard for the DP is LOD 300. While
the general naming of the levels of design in some publications may associate LOD 350
to construction documents, it is actually a level of detail typically reserved for fabrication
and shop drawings of focused content related to specialized fields (for example, steel lift
shop drawings). For full scope projects we would expect the increase from LOD 300 to
LOD 350 can reasonably increase the design fees and schedule by approximately 50%
or more and may increase the overall schedule. Additionally, LOD 350 usually requires
trade craft knowledge to accurately model added elements, which is why it is typically left
to the contractor and subcontractors to provide.
Please confirm the requirement of LOD 350 is intended for the project. If so:
• Please confirm if it is meant to be applied to all consultants within the project team
or if is only meant to apply to architecture.
• Please confirm that this requirement only applies to fields that have traditionally
modelled their design elements, and does not apply to those who would be
expected to use CAD (ie civil and landscape).
• If the requirement of LOD 350 is required for all subconsultants, can an extension of
proposals be granted to allow design teams to confirm subconsultant
ability/capacity to meet this requirement? Or, can design teams assume standard
LOD 300 level BIM modeling for the purposes of the RFP, LOD 350 requirements to
be discussed later with the selected firm.
Response: Refer to question #28.
67. Can we include additional project sheets in an appendix?
Response: No, this will not be allowed.
68. Could the City clarify what is meant by Net Zero?
Response: Refer to question # 4.
69. May captions under images be smaller than 10 pt font?
Response: Yes, however please verify that your proposal document is legible.
70. May resumes use a font smaller than 10 pt?
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 15 of 20
Response: Please follow the intent of the RFP and verify that your proposal document is
legible.
71. Is the Arial font requirement intended for narrative responses or would you prefer to see
resumes, the org chart, and references in Arial as well.
Response: Please follow the intent of the RFP and verify that your proposal document is
legible.
72. May headers be in a font other than Arial?
Response: Please follow the intent of the RFP and verify that your proposal document is
legible.
73. Can graphics and images extend past the .5" margin?
Response: Graphics and images that need to extend beyond the .5” margin should be
placed on 11”x17”.
74. Page 11 notes that “extended page sizes, such as 11”x17” shall count as a single page”. Is
there a limit to the extent we may use 11”x17” spreads? We were considering showcasing our
experience in project pages that are 11”x17” and also highlighting our commitment to TBL
Methodology on two 11”x17” spreads which would be about 8 of the 40 pages.
Response: The intent of using 11x17 is meant primarily for graphics and information that
is not legible on 8.5x11 pages; please use 11x17 for that purpose.
75. Are we correct to assume we should not include a LEED consultant on our team? Are you able to
share the scope of work the City’s sustainability consultant will be covering so we know the
expectations for credit documentation & LEED checklist management?
Response: Refer to questions #5 and #37.
76. Will energy modeling, building enclosure, and commissioning services all be provided through
your on-call contract?
Response: These scopes/disciplines will be procured by and directly contracted with the
Owner via their current on-call service providers. The Design Professional and CM/GC
are required to collaborate with these consultants.
77. Will a formal City development review process be required for the project? Or, as this is
on public school property, will all reviews be via the State with only cursory City review?
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 16 of 20
a. If a formal City development review is required, can you confirm the City
application processes that would be required?
Response: Yes. The property is being purchased from the Poudre School District and
subject to all requirements related to development and construction within the City of
Fort Collins.
Our team has already conducted a preliminary meeting with the City of Fort Collins
Community Development and Neighborhood Services. The proposer should consider a
full development review process, including review by the planning and zoning
commission (Type 2 Review is understood to be required since it is a City of Fort Collins
project).
78. Is vehicular access for the community center intended to originate from internal FRHS
driveways or are additional/separate accesses to Ziegler anticipated?
Response: At least one vehicular access has been anticipated to be from the FRHS driveway that connects to the Rock Creek Drive intersection. A secondary access is anticipated to be required but it is unclear at this time whether or not access to Ziegler or Saber Cat Drive will be possible. This item will need to be vetted during the design process.
79. Will the development be required to provide onsite detention and water quality
facilities/ponds or is the property already included in the drainage system for FRHS?
Response: We understand the existing detention (southeast of FRHS, across from Twin Silo Dog Park) was designed to accommodate future development of the planned site. However, this will need to be confirmed during the course of design activities.
80. Can the City provide a copy of the FRHS drain report? It does not appear to be located
on the Engineering Link Docs system.
Response: We will provide the information we have available to the successful Design Professional.
81. Will Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) be required for the project?
Response: Refer to question #13.
82. The development parcel is located on a single tract of land included on FRHS property.
Will the site require a subdivision plat to split the lot from the FRHS property or will the
property remain as-is?
Response: Yes. The Owner has a survey consultant currently working on this item.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 17 of 20
83. Under Section A. Scope of work, item 24 notes Public Outreach and Meetings are listed
as required. Item 29 of the fee matrix mentions Prepare and Present at Public Sessions
and Board meetings. Does the City have an idea of the number of public outreach meetings,
public sessions, and board meetings that are anticipated?
Response: Refer to question #8.
84. Under Section A. Scope of work, item 26 notes “include BIM execution plan”. Is this based
on AIA standards, City Requirements or each firms individual plans?
Response: We expect the successful Design Professional and CM/GC to leverage their
expertise in preparing a comprehensive plan based off AIA standards for this project.
85. Under Section B. Coordination, there is a reference that the project will be managed
collectively through the Owner’s rep. online project management system. Is this Procore,
or another software/system?
Response: The Owner and Owner’s Representative will be using Owner Insite as the
owner’s online project management system for budget and cost management. The
Owner will host a Procore site for the project and this tool will be required to be used by
the project team for sharing of documents, data filing, etc., during the pre-construction
and construction phases of the project.
86. Under Section D. Schematic Design, item 11 lists “ Graphic Documentation as required
by Owner for fundraising and community relations. Is this the graphics only, or does it
include printing/publication expense costs. Is there a sense or range of how
much/quantities desired?
Response: Digital media is planned to be utilized as much as possible. However, print
media may be necessary during the course of the project. Please indicate in your
response what you have considered and are including in your scope.
87. Item 35 of the fee matrix mentions Security Evaluation and Planning. Is this part of the
Design team's scope? If so, please clarify if this is meant as Evaluation and planning for
Security needs. Or is it providing service to design the security system?
Response: Refer to question #65.
88. Under Section G. Cost of Work Hours, paragraph 2. Asks for the cost to be broken down
by milestone. The Master Scope of Service Matrix is asking for fee by task only. Is there
another form we should be using to define the fee by milestone or should we manipulate
the Master Scope of Service Matrix document? Also, please confirm the only milestones
that fees should be broken down by are; Conceptual Design, Schematic Design, Design
Development, Construction Documents and Construction Administration.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 18 of 20
Response: Refer to question #42.
89. Page 7 Section F notes that the BIM model should be developed to a minimum of LOD 350. It
is our understanding that LOD 300 is above industry standard. Would the City consider revising
this requirement?
Response: Refer to question #28.
90. Based on the pre-proposal meeting, I would like to confirm that all items requested in Section
G (Exhibit A, Cost by Milestone, Schedule of Rates, Direct Costs) are to be uploaded to Rocky
Mountain E-Purchasing as a separate PDF and will not count towards the page limit?
Response: Correct.
91. Who is on the selection committee?
Response: The selection committee members are planned to include representatives from the City of Fort Collins (Recreation, Community Services, and Purchasing) and the Poudre River Public Library District.
92. Would it be correct to assume that the outdoor aquatics area will include a lap pool, lazy
river, vortex, leisure pool with water play equipment, slide tower(s), tot pool, splash pad,
shelters/cabanas, rentable event area, standalone ticketing booth/entrance, concessions
building, standalone pump building, dedicated restrooms/changing rooms, outdoor
showers, site lighting, concrete pool decking, open green spaces/lawn area, etc.?
Response: Refer to questions #6 and #25.
93. Are any outdoor spaces or amenities envisioned to support the library, community center,
and/or childcare center?
Response: Refer also to question #92.
94. Art In Public Places – should the scope include services associated with artist selection
and coordination?
Response: Yes, the City APP process will be required.
95. What will the water source be for the landscape irrigation system?
Response: Water for the facility will be provided via a municipal source. We understand, at this time, the use of other sources of water for irrigation is not allowed.
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 19 of 20
96. Will any pumping/conveyance/water storage infrastructure design be required for the new
irrigation system?
Response: Unknown currently.
97. Item 36 of the fee matrix mentions PV Panel Design. Is this required or only a potential
additional service if determined from the outcome of the design process?
Response: The Owner plans to have a on-call consultant prepare PV design information.
The Owner will provide this data to the successful Design Professional. The Design
Professional is expected to collaborate with other members of the team to help with
designing the appropriate MEP systems, the building structure, and assist with modeling
of the building showing solar PV on the roof.
98. Item 48 of the fee matrix mentions ComCheck preparation. If an Energy Model is provided,
can we exclude this service?
Response: No; include cost for this scope as a part of your fee proposal.
99. Item 50 of the fee matrix mentions the preparation of a submittal log. Are we to assume
this is only a log of the expected/required submittals and that the GC would provide a
schedule tied to this log?
Response: Yes.
100. Item 51 of the fee matrix mentions documentation of the owner's EXISTING
furniture, fixtures, and Equipment. Please explain the extent of the scope of any existing
owner furniture and equipment that would need to be included.
Response: Refer to question #62.
101. Item 54 of the fee matrix mentions Prepare bid packages, chair pre-bid meeting,
log results. This scope is typically provided by the GC or Owner. Is this scope expected of
the Design Team instead?
Response: This scope is by the CM/GC, therefore the Design Professional is not
required to provide a cost for Part B line item 54.
102. Item 59 of the fee matrix mentions generation of ASI’s, RFI’s and install locations
as part of close out. There is however no mention or line item in the FEE matrix for creating
ASI’s and responding to RFI’s during the Construction phase of the process? Should this
be added or is line 59 a typo?
Addendum # 1
RFP 10003 Design Services for the New SECC Page 20 of 20
Response: Include the typical CA process tasks (review of and response to CM/GC
RFIs, as well as the development of ASI, PRs, and other clarifications) as a part of Part
B line item A.58.
103. On page 4 Section IA Item 8 a childcare facility is noted as a potential amenity.
Does the City anticipate this will be a licensed daycare, licensed preschool, or a standard
child watch room for drop in hours?
Response: Refer to question #26.
104. On page 5 Section IIA Item 3 and 19 both mention Interior Design. Do you
anticipate these are do different scopes of work or is item 19 redundant?
Response: Items 3 and 19 of this section of the RFP are redundant.
105. On page 6 Section IID the Schematic Design narrative references that schematic
design shall provide sufficient detail to show “base building modifications”. Is this implying
that there is an existing building that may be modified?
Response: The planned SECC site does NOT include an existing building to be
incorporated in the new facility.
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
OF
REVISIONS
DESIGNER / DRAFTER
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE
SHEET
BOOK AND PAGE
LAMPRYNEARSON.COM
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
14710 W. DODGE RD, STE. 100 (402) 496.2498
NE AUTHORIZATION NO.: CA0130
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
4715 INNOVATION DR., STE. 100 (970) 226.0342
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
9001 STATE LINE RD., STE. 200 (816) 361.0440
MO AUTH. NO.: E-2013011903 | LS-2019043127
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
CO L O R A D O L ICE
N
S
E
D
P
R
O
F
E
S SI O N A L L A N D S U R V E Y O R
LA I N E A . LA
N
D
A
U31159
6/27/2024
STOP
STOP
ZI
E
G
L
E
R
R
D
(C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
9
)
11
1
'
R
.
O
.
W
.
ROCK CREEK DR
R.O.W. WIDTH VARIES
ROCK CREEK DR
110' R.O.W.
STOP
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
OF
REVISIONS
DESIGNER / DRAFTER
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE
SHEET
BOOK AND PAGE
LAMPRYNEARSON.COM
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
14710 W. DODGE RD, STE. 100 (402) 496.2498
NE AUTHORIZATION NO.: CA0130
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
4715 INNOVATION DR., STE. 100 (970) 226.0342
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
9001 STATE LINE RD., STE. 200 (816) 361.0440
MO AUTH. NO.: E-2013011903 | LS-2019043127
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY
CO L O R A D O L ICE
N
S
E
D
P
R
O
F
E
S
SI O N A L L A N D S U R V E Y O R
LA I N E A . LA
N
D
A
U31159
6/27/2024