A1. It is anticipated that the top three priority projects will be construction related. As such, architectural construction documents that will take us through completion for those top three projects should be included as a deliverable for this RFP. At the time that we issued the RFP Landmarks had envisioned these to include the roof systems, porches and drainage -- though the ultimate project selection is left entirely to the discretion of the respondent team. Respondent(s) may find other actions to be more critical, and those may or may not require construction drawings. In either case, all proposed projects should be ranked in order of urgency, and addressed in as much detail as you see fit.
Q2. Can you clarify whether the CAD drawings requested for each of the buildings are expected to be HABS -level or basic conceptual-level measured drawings.
A2. Yes, CAD drawings should be at HABS level. We understand that measured drawings are far more costly to generate [particularly for the CLR as it would require a site survey with both horizontal and vertical controls]. As Landmarks has no current measured plans, and will use these documents as our foundation and “guiding star” throughout the project, we are requiring as much detail as possible for this particular aspect of the project. These concerns must be balanced against the overall project goals as well.
Q3. Is there a sample of the anticipated consultant/Landmarks contract that consultants can review prior to proposal submission?
A3. The form of contract will be standard AIA, with standard clauses for NYS and SHPO. The main difference is in the copyright provision. Landmarks will use and change these documents into the foreseeable future, and all end uses cannot be determined at this time. Some of these may/ will require Landmarks to hold the copyright. If this is a deal breaking issue for a respondent team, please submit your response with suggestions for alternate copyright accommodation.
Q4. Per RFP Attachment D: What are the specific MWBE goal requirements for this project, which consultants "shall make good faith efforts to meet?"
A4. Landmarks strongly supports the Human Rights Law, and is an equal opportunity employer; we require our vendors and subcontractors to non-discriminatory be as well. An EEOP statement will be required of the selected consultant. The State of NY has set our MWBE goals for the project at 8% Minority-owned and 7% Women-owned. Goals are established on construction projects with total costs in excess of $100,000, and can be addressed through Pre-Development costs, or the purchase of supplies and materials. Complete information on requirements and regulations, including good faith efforts, can be found at: (http://empire.state.ny.us/MWBE.html).
Q5. Since responses to questions submitted at the 8/23/11 walkthrough will not be issued until 8/26 (the same date on which most proposals will need to be shipped for 8/29 receipt), there will not be adequate time for project teams to coordinate final revisions to proposals to address these responses. In light of this, is it possible to extend the proposal submission deadline?
A5. Round I questions from the 8/23 walkthrough were answered via email to all interested parties on 8/24. Round II questions were answered via email on 8/25. All responses were posted on the RPRP blog site as well. At this time, we do not envision extending the deadline.
Q6. The listing of available information included a Cultural Landscape Report done by C&S, however this was not included on the CD provided. Is this available to review prior to Aug. 29th?
A6. Crawford & Stearns produced two TA reports, one for Number 1 and one for Number 3. While landscape issues are touched on in these reports, there ARE NOT separate stand-alone landscape reports. Full copies of the TA reports were included on the resource CD that was distributed at the walk through, or are available via email. There is also a brief, one-page overview done as a favor to Landmarks by a local arborist, which was emailed to respondents on 8/24. If you would like to receive these documents, please send your request to: (rutgerpark@gmail.com).
Q7. Listed in the proposal requirements under item #5 it asks for schedule of design/construction projects likely to run concurrently or immediately after principal services. Just for clarification, you are requesting that we overlay the schedule of our other workloads between Sept 2011 and Nov. 2012? Or was this meant to request how we would schedule concurrent repairs at Rutger Park during the time of the study?
A7. This schedule of projects is meant to illustrate the timeline of all suggested RPRP projects only (i.e. masonry, carpentry, drainage grading, roofing, electrical, etc.). This information should be overlayed with the timeline for principal services. We are trying to determine how much oversight and assistance we can rely on the chosen consultant for when it comes down to the actual physical construction. Our interest is in knowing how the consultant will handle both the HSR/CLR task and possible construction projects at RP simultaneously.
Q8. Would it be acceptable (and desired) by the Review/Selection Committee if we were to email .PDF versions of relevant samples of work. As you may imagine some of these project reports are quite extensive or they are expensive to reproduce given the number of images, or graphics. However, we generally provide digital versions of the reports to our clients so that they have both hardcopies and electronic copies for the ease of reproduction, distribution and linking to on websites.
A8. Yes, please consider the environment before printing mountains of paper for us. We encourage you to provide samples and reports electronically either as a link, a PDF, on a CD, etc. We DO NOT expect hard copies of samples, though they are certainly acceptable too. There is no penalty or reward for either form of sample.
No comments:
Post a Comment