The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRFP - P1098 HISTORICAL SURVEY POST WWII COMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE IN FORT COLLINSr City of Fort Collins REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Financial Services Purchasing Division 215 N. Mason St. 2n' Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6775 970.221,6707 fcgov.com/Purchasing Written proposals,five (5) will be received at the City of Fort Collins' Purchasing Division, 215 North Mason St., 2nd floor, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. Proposals will be received before 3:00 p.m. (our clock), January 16, 2008. Proposal No. P1098. If delivered, they are to be sent to 215 North Mason Street, 2"d Floor, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. If mailed, the address is P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, 80522-0580. Questions concerning the scope of the project should be directed to Project Manager Karen McWilliams (970) 224-0678. Questions regarding proposals submittal or process should be directed to David M. Carey, CPPB, C.P.M., Buyer (970) 221-2191. A copy of the Proposal may be obtained as follows: Download the Proposal/Bid from the BuySpeed Webpage, www_fcgov.com/eprocurement Come by Purchasing at 215 North Mason St., 2nd floor, Fort Collins, and request a copy of the Bid. The City of Fort Collins is subject to public information laws, which permit access to most records and documents. Proprietary information in your response must be clearly identified and will be protected to the extent legally permissible. Proposals may not be marked 'Proprietary' in their entirety. Information considered proprietary is limited to material treated as confidential in the normal conduct of business, trade secrets, discount information, and individual product or service pricing. Summary price information may not be designated as proprietary as such information may be carried forward into other public documents. All provisions of any contract resulting from this request for proposal will be public information. Sales Prohibited/Conflict of Interest: No officer, employee, or member of City Council, shall have a financial interest in the sale to the City of any real or personal property, equipment, material, supplies or services where such officer or employee exercises directly or indirectly any decision - making authority concerning such sale or any supervisory authority over the services to be rendered. This rule also applies to subcontracts with the City. Soliciting or accepting any gift, gratuity favor, entertainment, kickback or any items of monetary value from any person who has or is seeking to do business with the City of Fort Collins is prohibited. Collusive or sham proposals: Any proposal deemed to be collusive or a sham proposal will be rejected and reported to authorities as such. Your authorized signature of this proposal assures that such proposal is genuine and is not a collusive or sham proposal. The City of Fort Collins reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any irregularities or informalities. Sincerely, James B. O'Neill II, CPPO, FNIGP Director of Purchasing & Risk Managemen \All-iere rc nc;wr1)l is �-z way of life; P1098 Historic Context and Survey Post -World War II Commercial and Residential Architecture in Fort Collins, 1945 - 1967 SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS The project will be completed in the following steps: 1) In consultation with the OAHP, select a qualified consulting firm. 2) Execution of a contract with the successful firm. 3) In accordance with the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Manual, the consultant will: A. Develop a scholarly context on post -World War II commercial and residential architecture in Fort Collins, from 1945 — 1967: a. Conduct thorough background research on the history, growth and development of Fort Collins, and on state, national and international trends affecting our community, including information on social and political trends and their architectural manifestations, on the development of new construction materials and techniques, and on innovations in community planning, as well as on significant area and regional architects and builders; b. Archival research and literature search, on existing documentation and source materials; c. Complete a file search of existing information at CHS/OAHP, at the Fort Collins Museum and Local History Archives, and in the City Planning and Engineering Departments. B. Conduct a reconnaissance survey of 5 selected residential subdivisions and of the College Avenue and Campus West commercial districts: a. In consultation with CHS, establish the methodology for the reconnaissance survey; b. Perform reconnaissance survey, noting good examples of intact post -WWII architecture, and examples of common alterations to these properties; document relevant examples through digital photography; c. In consultation with CHS, select properties for intensive level survey. C. Perform the intensive survey of 62 properties: a. Prepare a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form(OAHP #1403) for each property, including all primary and secondary buildings and structures; b. Provide a detailed architectural description and in-depth historical research for each building and structure; c. Provide professional quality black and white digital photography of all primary and secondary structures; d. Determine the number and distribution of resources by age, architectural style and type, construction materials, and property type; e. Provide a professional evaluation of each resource's eligibility, based upon its significance and integrity, for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, and for listing on the State and National Registers. f. Determine the distribution of historic buildings and areas of concentration, and delineate potential district boundaries. 2/9/00 D. Prepare a survey report, to include bibliography, tables and maps. E. During and at the completion of the project, present findings at neighborhood meetings and Landmark Preservation Commission Hearings. 4) Each draft product will be reviewed by the City Planning and Community Development Department and the Landmark Preservation Commission, prior to submittal to the Colorado Historical Society for its comments and approval. Following any necessary revisions, the final products, to include the context, the Architectural Inventory Forms, and the final survey report, will be submitted. The City confirms that all project reviews and approvals will be coordinated with State Historic Fund staff, to ensure that the project meets all SHF requirements. TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION This project will be completed in 18 months: Item Date * Award of SHF Grant Feb. 1, 2008 * Contract with SHF Mar. 31, 2008 City and CHS review of proposals completed; May 1, 2008 Contract with consulting firm signed * Landmark Preservation Commission public meeting: June 1, 2008 Introduction and project methodology * Reconnaissance Survey completed; June 15, 2008 Draft list of properties to be surveyed submitted to CHS Draft context submitted to City Oct. 15, 2008 City review completed; Draft context submitted to CHS Nov. 15, 2008 * CHS review of preliminary context completed Dec. 15, 2008 * Interim financial and status report to CHS TBD * Submit 10 draft survey forms to City Dec. 1, 2008 * City review completed; Submit 10 draft survey forms to CHS Dec. 15, 2008 * Landmark Preservation Commission public meeting: Dec. 15, 2008 Context and survey findings to date * CHS review of draft surveys completed Jan. 30, 2009 * Remaining draft survey forms and survey report submitted to City April 1, 2009 City review completed; Remaining draft survey forms and survey May 15, 2009 report submitted to CHS CHS review of forms and survey report completed June 15, 2009 * All revisions to forms and survey report completed June 30, 2009 * Landmark Preservation Commission public meeting: July 15, 2009 Final survey results and recommendations 2/9/00 REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT Professional firms will be evaluated on the following criteria. These criteria will be the basis for review of the written proposals and interview session. The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and 5 being an outstanding rating. WEIGHTING FACTOR QUALIFICATION STANDARD 2.0 Scope of Proposal Does the proposal show an understanding of the project objective, methodology to be used and results that are desired from the project? 2.0 Assigned Personnel Do the persons who will be working on the project have the necessary skills? Are sufficient people of the requisite skills assigned to the project? 1.0 Availability Can the work be completed in the necessary time? Can the target start and completion dates be met? Are other qualified personnel available to assist in meeting the project schedule if required? Is the project team available to attend meetings as required by the Scope of Work? 1.0 Motivation Is the firm interested and are they capable of doing the work in the required time frame? 2.0 Cost and Do the proposed cost and work hours compare Work Hours favorably with the project Manager's estimate? Are the work hours presented reasonable for the effort required in each project task or phase? 2.0 Firm Capability Does the firm have the support capabilities the assigned personnel require? Has the firm done previous projects of this type and scope? 2/9/00 Reference evaluation (Top Ranked Firm) The project Manager will check references using the following criteria. The evaluation rankings will be labeled Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory. QUALIFICATION STANDARD Overall Performance Would you hire this Professional again? Did they show the skills required by this project? Timetable Was the original Scope of Work completed within the specified time? Were interim deadlines met in a timely manner? Completeness Was the Professional responsive to client needs; did the Professional anticipate problems? Were problems solved quickly and effectively? Budget Was the original Scope of Work completed within the project budget? Job Knowledge a) If a study, did it meet the Scope of Work? b) If Professional administered a construction contract, was the project functional upon completion and did it operate properly? Were problems corrected quickly and effectively? SA rev06/07