Landmarks has received some questions on the fee response portion of the solicitation. Please find all questions and answers attached. This document will be distributed to all six interview teams via email, and posted on the project blog. The deadline for receipt of your fee proposals remains Tuesday, November 8 by 5 pm. Thank you again for your continued interest and time.
1. The email below says that HABS level drawings have been eliminated. Are you requesting any elevation drawings? If yes, to what specifications? If no, is the use of photographs with callouts acceptable for the HSRs?
We are requesting scaled drawings [CAD produced] derived from basic measurements of key components to establish overall dimensions and relative dimensions of individual features. Should your team feel that more detail is required (i.e. HABS level) please include that as a separate item under the #19 “Other” category.
2. Do you require a licensed land survey of the property?
Yes, ideally the survey should be built in to the overall CLR fee. Teams may also elect to list it under the #19 “Other” category.
3. Architectural contract drawings and construction oversight are not mentioned in the itemized table. Is this work still included or is this work now planned as a future phase?
As per the original RFP, the preparation of construction documents for 3 priority projects generally is viewed as HSR/CLR Part 2 work. However, for the purposes of examining fee proposals in light of available funding, costs for these design services should be separated from fees for preparing the Part 1 of the HSR/CLRs. Additionally, respondents should assume those services will be for construction documents for roof systems, porches and drainage.
4. The fee table does not include columns or rows for calculating fee subtotals/totals. Is this intended or should we add additional columns/rows for this information?
Yes, subtotal columns can be added to the right.
5. Will Rutger Park still be contracting separately with Hartgen for Archeology? Are we to obtain the services of an outside archeologist to obtain a fee to include on line item #10?
Limited archeology must be included and budgeted for. We are requesting each team provide a fee for professional archeology services for the Phase 1B; however Landmarks reserves the right to enter into a separate contract for these purposes.
6. Do you have a specific line item where you would like meetings represented or should we place that on line item #19 under Other?
Meetings should be listed under item #17 “Administrative”, please. Respondents should include quarterly full team meetings on-site as well as a balanced blend of bi-weekly email updates and/or conference calls with Landmarks.
7. You say in the letter provided that you will consider the possibility of producing one CLR document. Should we base our fee on the assumption that only one report will be required?
The SHPO has tentatively agreed to accept a single CLR document; however the content must still address the evolution and existing condition of each property [#1, 2 and 3].
8. How many copies of the final loose-leaf report will be required?
Six (6) loose-leaf copies will be required, as well as an electronic version on DVD or hard drive.
9. I do not see a line item for a land survey to be completed for use in preparing the CLR. Should that fee be built in to the CLR overall fee? If not, where should that number be represented?
Yes, ideally the survey should be built in to the overall CLR fee. Teams may also elect to list it under the #19 “Other” category.
10. There doesn’t appear to be a section for the actual writing of the existing conditions, just the editing (which falls under #8).
Category #3 “Evaluation of Existing Conditions” should include on-site analysis as well as preparation of written narratives of same. Generally these tasks are considered separate from preparation of the history narratives [#4].
11. Can you give clarification on the hazardous materials survey (i.e. lead paint, asbestos)?
While the RPF did not request services regarding hazardous materials, the EPF project budget does allow for this task. At this time Landmarks is requesting the responding teams provide a cost for limited/initial haz mat identification at the properties; however, we reserve the right to enter into a separate contract for these purposes.
12. What exactly would fall under the “Other” category?
Items that your team feel are integral to the successful completion of the HSRs and CLRs, but which do not fit into one of the categories; i.e. HABS drawings, paint analysis, mortar analysis, structural/ mechanical systems analysis, etc.
13. Please clarify the request for scaled drawings (#7) as opposed to measured drawings.
We are requesting scaled drawings [CAD produced] derived from basic measurements of key components to establish overall dimensions and relative dimensions of individual features. Should your team feel that more detail is required (i.e. HABS level) please include that as a separate item under the #19 “Other” category.
14. Are we correct in our understanding that you no longer would like cost associated with the recommendations under #13?
As per the original RFP, the preparation of construction documents for 3 priority projects generally is viewed as HSR/CLR Part 2 work. However, for the purposes of examining fee proposals in light of available funding, costs for these design services should be separated from fees for preparing the Part 1 of the HSR/CLRs. Additionally, respondents should assume those services will be for construction documents for roof systems, porches and drainage.
15. Would you please confirm that one CLR is acceptable?
The SHPO has tentatively agreed to accept a single CLR document; however the content must still address the evolution and existing condition of each property [#1, #2 and #3].
16. A site survey is not listed, but we think it is a basic task. Is it your intent to do it separately or to eliminate the survey? Assuming not, can the survey be put in as a line item or should we include it under “Other, non-categorized”?
Ideally the survey should be built in to the overall CLR fee. Teams may also elect to list it under the #19 “Other” category.
17. What are your current expectations for client-team meetings over the course of preparing the HSRs/CLR?
Meetings should be listed under item #17 “Administrative”, please. Respondents should include quarterly full team meetings on-site as well as a balanced blend of bi-weekly email updates and/or conference calls with Landmarks.
18. Similarly, please clarify the required submissions to, and meetings and reviews with SHPO. Will there be a submission and review of a Draft Part 1 and the same for a complete Draft (Parts 1 & 2) as previously indicated?
The SHPO must review and approve the HSR/CLRs. To that end, drafts will be submitted at various stages throughout development of each document. A specific schedule/number of submissions will be determined with the selected consultant, however we anticipate most consultation will be via hard copy submissions and conference calls.
19. Item 8 is repeated. We assume this is just a typo – please confirm.
Sorry, yes that second #8 is a typo.
20. How many copies of the final reports do you want, and in what format (hard copy and/or electronic)?
Six (6) loose-leaf copies will be required, as well as an electronic version.
21. Measured drawings of any type do not appear to be required as the scope is now defined. However, we think that measuring the buildings and preparing base drawings in CAD as early as feasible has significant benefits: efficiency in measuring the same time as the conditions inspection; architectural/historical information yielded through the hands-on measuring process; having drawings in CAD to support the HSR analysis and narrative; and advance preparation of base drawings that will be used for stabilization/conservation projects. May we include preparing measured (not HABS) base drawings under “Other, non-categorized”?
We are requesting scaled drawings [CAD produced] derived from basic measurements of key components to establish overall dimensions and relative dimensions of individual features. Should your team feel that more detail is required (i.e. HABS level) please include that as a separate item under the #19 “Other” category.
22. Regarding the chart format, can a sub-total column be added on the right hand side? This will make your comparison easier. Also, though we understand that you want to see hours allocated, there are one or two line items (for example hazardous materials survey) where that subtotal is not a straight extrapolation of hours times rates.
Yes, subtotal columns can be added.
23. Also, can the Reimbursables line be moved below the total hours and itemized fee total? Reimbursables are typically estimated and it is very difficult to provide a firm number in advance unless we substantially overestimate. Reimbursables are also expenses incurred rather than staff time, which do not conform to the format of the chart. We suggest it’s best to keep reimbursables separate.
Reimbursables can be expressed either as an estimated figure or as a percentage of the total. Either way, that number will need to be substantiated by figures from your team’s most recently completed comparable projects. The matrix should stay as is for the sake of apples-to-apples comparison (the addition of sub-total columns is acceptable, however).
No comments:
Post a Comment