Rutger Park Restoration Project

RPRP Consultant Team Selected!

2011-12-14T10:21:00.001-08:00

In November 2011, after advertising the Rutger Park Restoration Project RFP nationally, reviewing the twelve submitted proposals and conducting in-person interviews with the six shortlisted teams, the Rutger Park Restoration Project Committee initially recommended the firm of John G. Waite to the Landmarks Board, which voted to confirm this recommendation.

However, following further consultation with our funding partners and a review of the terms of the EPF grant, we all came to the same regrettable conclusion that Landmarks simply does not have the available funding at this time to engage the Waite team for this phase of the project at the proposed levels. In order to verify this conclusion and choose an alternate team, the RPRP went back to the top six groups with a specific list of fee questions, and asked for more in-depth responses so that we could make an “apples-to-apples” comparison of all six finalists.

Based on the results of the fee proposal responses, and after nearly six months of debate, deliberation and reference checking, the RPRP voted to remove their previous recommendation of John G. Waite, and to replace it with a final recommendation to engage the Syracuse-based firm of Crawford & Stearns. The recommendation was passed to the full Board of Trustees on December 12, 2011, who voted unanimously to confirm it.

As a result, Landmarks is pleased to announce that the Syracuse-based firm of Crawford & Stearns will be leading the effort to produce two Historic Structure Reports and one Cultural Landscape report for the estate grounds at 1, 2 and 3 Rutger Park. Congratulations!

This decision was made based on the available project funding, in-person team interviews, similar completed projects and references, and the published criteria in the original RFP, including: Conformance with the terms of the RFP; Quality, completeness, and clarity of proposal and methodology; Demonstrated competence and technical expertise in the project area; Organization, management, and technical approach to the project; Demonstrated staffing capacity, expertise and availability of key personnel; Experience in performance of comparable engagements; and Reasonableness of cost.

We would like to thank all six groups again for their participation and very thoughtful submissions. It has been a real pleasure to get to know the fine teams that you all assembled. We will keep your proposals on file for five years along with your interview presentations, and have added your teams to our very short “Prequalified & Preferred Vendor” list. Some future work may be awarded exclusively from this list (funding and restriction dependent). Of course, your firms will all be invited and encouraged to tender responses to any and all future opportunities. We sincerely look forward to working with you in the future, and wish you the very best.

RPRP RFP Fee Proposal Q&A

2011-11-04T06:08:00.001-07:00

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.

14. Are we correct in our understanding that you no longer would like cost associated with the recommendations under #13?

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?

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”?

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).

RPRP RFP Fee Proposals

2011-11-04T06:06:00.000-07:00

Argus

Bero

Crawford & Stearns

Hartgen

John G.Waite

Mills + Schnoering

In an effort to be as expedient and transparent as possible and not leave your schedules hanging, all Rutger Park Restoration Project RFP responders received notice that the Selection Committee and the Landmarks Board made a choice for the Rutger Park HSR/CLR project. However, the NYS Office Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation [OPRHP], principal funder for the HSR/CLR project, has advised Landmarks to collected task specific data to make a sufficient apples-to-apples comparison of potential costs for the project among the interviewed teams. In addition, because original estimates for services to prepare these documents appears less than what will be necessary, Landmarks has asked OPRHP if it is possible to revise the original budget within its regulations to reallocate nominal funds within the overall grant-funded project for the subject work.

Landmarks, therefore, is requesting final cost proposals from our six (6) shortlisted firms only, to be completed using the attached task matrix. This portion of the solicitation will be open for seven (7) working days from Monday October 31, 2011 – Tuesday November 8, 2011 at 5 pm. To be clear, a new search is NOT being initiated. Rather, we are soliciting more detail on the FEE PORTION ONLY of the response from our short listed interviewees in order to address OPRHP procurement requirements and to complete the consultant selection process.

We have also streamlined the scope of work to eliminate some of our more ambitious requests (HABS level drawings and scientific materials analysis), and will consider the possibility of producing one CLR document that addresses the individual historic development of the properties.

We sincerely hope that you have not lost interest in the project, and will indeed participate in the final round of competition. Should you choose to respond, please use ONLY the format of the attached task matrix without edit. No other information or proposal revisions will be considered at this time – this request is limited to the cost breakdowns only.

Thanks for your patience, time and interest as we work through these issues. Responses to this Request for Qualifications and Proposal must be received no later than 5:00 pm Tuesday November 8, 2011. Responses should be emailed to: rutgerpark@gmail.com or mailed to: Rutger Park c/o Bonacci Architects :: 6320 Fly Road :: East Syracuse, NY 13057 (315) 437-2636

(For delivery purposes only. No phone calls, please.)

TASK	STAFF	TITLE	RATE P/H	HOURS
1. Research of archival documentation, as well as oral histories, related to the historic development of the individual building/landscape [and community/context] as required
2. On-site research of physical evidence as related to historic development of the individual buildings/landscape
3. Evaluation of existing conditions [not to include laboratory analysis] to assess current state of systems, features, materials and finishes of each building/landscape
4. Writing of buildings/landscape history narratives
5. Preparation of supportive graphics for history narratives - e.g., graphic representation of chronological physical development (may be scaled drawings or other means of representation), historic photographs, maps, site plans as available reproduced for report, etc.
6. Review and editing of history narratives in conjunction with supporting graphics (#5) [only if separate task from editing of entire document]
7. Preparation of supportive graphics for existing conditions narratives [e.g., scaled drawings, photo reproduction, etc.]
8. Editing of existing conditions report [only if separate task from editing of entire document]
9. Hazardous materials survey
10. Archeology (limited to Phase1-B tasks; Phase1-A to be taken from overall CLR and HSR research)
11. Evaluation of significance and integrity for each building/landscape (and by extension each entire property)
12. Selection and rationale for the most appropriate approach to treatment (preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction)
13. Development of general [NOT detailed] recommendations [policies, programs, physical projects] with prioritized list of potential construction projects
14. Compilation of all relevant materials/document assembly [only if separate task from editing of entire document]
15. Editing of complete HSR/CLR documents
16. Document production (loose leaf final reports)
17. Administrative
18. Reimbursables
19. Other, non-categorized
TOTAL HOURS

Rutger Park Restoration Project Update – Fall 2011 (issue #1)

2011-10-08T07:10:00.000-07:00

2008

Phase I of The Rutger Park Restoration Project began in June 2008 with the acquisition of #1, the grounds of #2, and #3 by Landmarks from the Dowling estate. The Community Foundation of Herkimer and Oneida Counties, the Preservation League of New York State and the City of Utica contributed a blend of grants and loans for the acquisition and early studies. Special thanks to these funders, whose foresight and vision allowed us to secure these irreplaceable bits of history.

In July 2008, Landmarks retained the Architectural firm of Crawford & Stearns to complete two Technical Assistance Reports for #1 and #3. These reports gave an overall account of the existing conditions of the buildings, as well as some very cursory historical and materials information. The full reports are available free to the public as PDFs. Please send your request to: rutgerpark@gmail.com.

2009

From 2009 through early 2011, Landmarks was engaged primarily in fundraising, site stabilization (including heating and security systems) and generating project awareness and support in the local community through events and lectures, including our very popular Utica Monday Nite Walks & Talks program, now in its 14th season. This important behind-the-scenes work, while not very glamorous or showy, provides the foundation for the rest of the project.

In June of 2009, Landmarks successfully leveraged that initial funding into a $1.2 million dollar matching Environmental Protection Fund grant from NYSHPO for acquisition, preliminary reporting on the condition of the structures, and emergency stabilization. Other grants are being researched and drafted continually to meet the match, with two very good prospects identified and ready to submit in October 2011.

2011

In August of 2011, Landmarks drafted, issued and nationally advertised a Request for Qualifications and Proposals for consultants, which generated 12 very qualified responses from NY, NJ and PA. These firms have been shortlisted to six, and the selection committee will be conducting interviews in September to choose the consultant team that will take us through the more complete Historic Structures Report and Cultural Landscape Report for each address. The HSRs and CLRs pick up where the TA reports leave off, and will function as the complete "road map" for phase II of the project. They will include scholarly research on the social and physical history of the houses and grounds, documenting the physical changes over time in order to determine the period of greatest significance for each home, and identifying a ranked list of emergency construction projects.

Landmarks will then undertake the recommended top priority projects to secure the envelope of both structures to prevent further deterioration and begin, in a limited fashion, the actual restoration process that will be taking place through 2017. The end result will be two fully restored, publicly accessible homes (a la Fountain Elms at Munson-Williams-Proctor). Accordingly, neighbors will see some limited construction happening by 2012. At this point, we anticipate that those projects will probably include the roofs, porches and drainage systems of both structures, but final determination will be made after the HSRs and CLRs are completed.

In September 2011, we hosted almost 200 supporters at the first annual “History Comes Alive at Rutger Park” open house to celebrate the 150^th anniversary of the Civil War. This successful event featured living scholars, period furnishings, music, lawn croquet and an afternoon of lectures on topics related to the Civil War era. Landmarks feels very strongly that signature events like this can educate, while fostering community involvement and generating broad-based support. This approach has been, and will continue to be, key to the project's success.

Further, we feel that the houses play such an important part in Utica's collective history that we have undertaken this entire effort to ensure that they are open and available to the public forevermore. In accordance with this philosophy, we are working with MVCC's construction trades program to provide hands-on educational opportunities in historic preservation; partnering with our neighbors in the Rutger-Steuben Historic District on street improvements; and preserving and stewarding the homes so that they function as a new source of heritage tourism for the Mohawk Valley and New York State.

We also feel that outreach, transparency and up-to-date public information are a key part of this approach as well. In order to facilitate this, we have started a Rutger Park Restoration Project blog at: http://rutgerpark.blogspot.com and maintain an active facebook page and website too. Your feedback, stories, pictures, comments, ideas and recollections are always welcome.

LOOKING FORWARD:

Our next steps include the naming of the HSR/CLR consultant team; grant submissions; in-depth site documentation; and the launch of our “Pillars of Preservation” friends society. Stay tuned!

The Interview Shortlist

2011-09-14T15:09:00.000-07:00

On behalf of the entire Board of Directors of the Landmarks Society of Greater Utica, please allow us to again offer our most sincere thank you to all 12 of the very qualified respondent teams. We understand and appreciate the time and efforts that you all invested to analyze and respond to the RFQ/RFP for the Rutger Park Restoration Project.

The Selection Committee has both individually and collectively scored each proposal based on the written criteria provided to interested parties and also posted on the project blog site at http://rutgerpark.blogspot.com. Due to the quantity of qualified responses, overall excellence of proposed teams and scores of the proposals the Committee has elected to interview six (6) teams instead of four (4).

Those teams are:

Argus - Tuesday 20 September @ 5 p.m.
Bero - Wednesday 21 September @ 12 noon
Crawford & Stearns - Wednesday 21 September @ 2 p.m.
Hartgen - Thursday 22 September @ 10 a.m.
John G Waite - Thursday 22 September @ 2 p.m.
Mills + Schnoering - Thursday 22 September @ 12 noon

The interviews are designed to evaluate the team’s capabilities, experience and overall “fit”, as well as the experience and qualifications of key personnel proposed. Accordingly, Project Managers will be present along with the majority of the proposed team. The interviews will be 90 minutes in length and will have three parts. First, bidders will have 30 - 40 minutes to demonstrate their qualifications, experience and project approach. Second will be a 30 - 40 minute Q&A session and fee discussion. The remaining 10 - 30 minutes will be used for closing and summary. A screen, LCD projector and Apple MacBook Pro laptop will be available on site to assist with presentations.

Teams are asked to dedicate the bulk of their presentation to discussing, in detail, one (1) representative sample each of a recent HSR and CLR for which the majority of the proposed team had substantial responsibility for completing. Bidders should also be prepared to present and discuss the fee structure/ proposal and references in some detail. The Selection Committee has the right to independently research and verify all statements made by the team during the interview process, and may contact any or all references or agencies referred to by the team during the interview proceedings.

We are very much looking forward to discussing the proposals in more detail and meeting these impressive teams.

RPRP

RFP Has Ended; Selection Process Begun

2011-09-07T09:11:00.000-07:00

The response period for the Rutger Park Restoration Project RFP has ended. TWELVE (12) proposals from NY, NJ and PA were received, including submissions from:

Argus Architecture

Bero Architecture

Clinton Brown & Company

Crawford & Stearns

Hartgen Archeological Associates

Heritage Strategies

Holmes, King, Kallquist & Associates

John G. Waite Associates

John Milner Associates

Landmark Consulting

Mills + Schnoering

Walter Sedovic Architects

The Selection Committee is in receipt of all proposals, and they are being reviewed now. The Committee will announce the short list teams for in-person interviews next Monday, September 12 after 5 pm. If selected, teams will be contacted via email and/or phone call to arrange an interview time during the week of September 12 – 16. If not selected, teams will be contacted via email and/ or letter.

Either way, all of the respondents have all contributed to our understanding of, and appreciation for, these irreplaceable buildings and their enthusiasm for the project has reinvigorated our team. We would like to thank each of them for the hard work and time that these proposals took. It is evident in the quality of the submissions, and for that all respondent teams should be very proud.

A sincere thank you to all from the entire Landmarks Board and membership.

RFP Closing; Selection Committee Ready

2011-09-02T12:55:00.000-07:00

Attention all RPRP Selection Committee Members:

The time for action is upon us!

The RFP for Rutger Park is closing this coming Tuesday, and the RPRP Selection Committee will meet BRIEFLY (no more than 30 minutes) on Tuesday, September 6 at 7:30 pm at 3 Rutger Park to pick up copies of proposals for review and to go over our next steps. THIS MEANS YOU!

You will have from the evening of the 6th until that Friday, September 9 to review and independently score ALL received proposals based on our written criteria.

The full Selection Committee will meet, schedule depending, either over the weekend of the 10th and 11th or on Monday September 12 to collectively review and consensus score the proposals. We will announce the top four (4) scoring proposals on September 12, and will immediately schedule in-person, on-site interviews during the week of September 12 - 16. Final Selection Committee recommendation to the full Board, and official vote following in rapid succession.

The official schedule is summarized as follows:

Receipt of RFP/ RFQ Responses – September 6, 2011 by 5 pm

Candidates Selected for Interview -- September 12, 2011

Interviews Completed -- September 16, 2011

Consultant Selected -- September 19, 2011

Consultant Engagement -- September 23, 2011

Draft Documents -- HSRs, June 2012; CLRs, September 2012

Final Documents -- HSR, July 2012; CLRs, October 2012

Presentation of Documents -- November 2012

Possible Limited Construction -- Spring/Summer 2012

As you can see, our timeline is extremely tight, due in large part to the extension that we granted because of the Hurricane. We are sorry for any inconvenience, but there was really no choice in light of the impact the storm caused to our interested applicants. If you feel that you can no longer make these deadlines in light of the calendar changes, please speak up now while we can still name an alternate. No harm, no foul.

Also, please be sure to check your email over the long holiday weekend, as we will be circulating draft copies of interview questions for the short list candidates as well.

Happy Labor Day Weekend!

RPRP

RFP extension

2011-08-25T11:42:00.000-07:00

Hurricane Irene’s impending landfall is already causing disruption to interested respondents, and looks to effect delivery service here on Monday (our original due date). Our intent is to provide the most level playing field possible, and so Landmarks has officially extended the deadline for the Rutger Park Restoration Project Request for Qualifications and Proposals from

Monday, August 29th at 5 pm to Tuesday September 6, 2011 at 5 pm.

The Project Schedule is hereby amended as follows:

RFQ/ RFP Issued -- August 8, 2011

Property Walk Through -- August 23, 2011

Receipt of RFP/ RFQ Responses – September 6, 2011 by 5 pm

Candidates Selected for Interview -- September 12, 2011

Interviews Completed -- September 16, 2011

Consultant Selected -- September 19, 2011

Consultant Engagement -- September 23, 2011

Draft Documents -- HSRs, June 2012; CLRs, September 2012

Final Documents -- HSR, July 2012; CLRs, October 2012

Presentation of Documents -- November 2012

Possible Limited Construction -- Spring/Summer 2012

RUTGER PARK RESTORATION PROJECT RFP WALK THROUGH QUESTIONS ROUND II

2011-08-25T07:13:00.001-07:00

Q1. Per RFP Attachment C, Generic Outline for Historic Structure/Cultural Landscape Reports (page 23): "Some recommendations might be fully developed [e.g., construction documents for a physical project] while others might establish parameters for more detailed work later on." Please clarify whether the expectation is that architectural construction documents (specifically, design drawings and specifications) will be provided in Part 2 of the HSR/CLR for proposed work; or, if this portion of the report functions as a feasibility study.

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.

RFP WALK THROUGH QUESTIONS ROUND I

2011-08-24T14:45:00.000-07:00

Q: What is the estimated budget for construction?

A: We are awaiting the final appraised value determination from the State right now, so the budget is not yet final. But, a ballpark ESTIMATE would be $500,000 - $600,000 for Number 1 and $400,000 - $500,000 Number 3. These numbers are subject to change, and should not be considered official.

Q: Do measured floor plans exist? If not, are they a necessary component of the response?

A: There are floor plans for #1 in the Crawford & Stearns TA reports, but they are not measured (available upon email request). Floor plans for #3 do not exist at this time. Measured, CAD floor plans and elevations for existing conditions are an expected deliverable of this RFP.

Q: Will a professional mortar and paint analysis be required?

A: Yes and yes; please budget and staff accordingly. The end use of the analysis will be to help determine physical changes, and to suggest the history of the structures in order to determine the period of significance for each.

Q: What if we do not yet know who our sub-contractors will be specifically?

A: If individuals are not yet part of your committed project team, please explain in detail what qualifications you will be requiring of the sub, including any necessary education, certification or specialized knowledge. Please also timeline the contractor’s involvement and indicate if they will ride with the project throughout, or of they will only be utilized for a finite period of time. References may be requested for subs. ALL subs must meet the minimum standards listed in the Appendix of the RFP.

Q: How important is the timeline?

A: VERY! We are expecting to complete this phase of the project and spend down the entire $1.2M EPF grant by the end of 2013. This means that we will need to stick to a strict schedule. A tight, but realistic, timeline is an essential component of the project, and thus, of your response. The ability to work on time and on budget will be a weighted factor in consultant selection as well.

Q: Should we submit a fee proposal now?

A: No, not at this time, but you should include your typical fee structure in your response. If your team is selected for an interview, a more detailed fee proposal will be expected and discussed in person at the interview.

RFP REVIEWER CRITERIA FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION

2011-08-24T14:44:00.000-07:00

The Evaluation Committee will review and individually score each written proposal based solely on these guidelines.

Once all proposals have been scored individually, the Committee will meet to develop consensus scores for each respondent.

The Committee will then select the top scoring proposals for an interview.

The final award will be made to the most qualified respondent following interviews and the successful negotiation of the contract for services.

Unsuccessful respondents will be notified as soon as possible.

Generally, the criteria used in the evaluation of qualifications includes:

· Conformance with the terms of the RFP
· Quality, completeness, and clarity of proposal and methodology
· Demonstrated competence and technical expertise in the project area
· Organization, management, and technical approach to the project
· Demonstrated staffing capacity, expertise and availability of key personnel
· Experience in performance of comparable engagements
· Reasonableness of cost

RATING FACTOR

1. Quality, completeness and clarity of proposal and methodology

Overall quality, clarity, creativity and thoroughness of response and its compatibility with the RFPs stated objectives and submission requirements; Does the proposal generally reflect a good understanding of the scope of work?

2. Organization, management and technical approach to the project; Staffing capacity; Resources available

Overall experience, qualifications, accreditation and specialized knowledge of respondent team; Meets minimums as listed in full RFP

Clear description of how the work will be managed and coordinated; Assignment of a qualified Project Manager

Clear description of proposed timeline and project milestones

Respondent team’s availability and ability to commit individuals with required experience and expertise; Prime individuals and subcontractors with project until completion

Qualifications and experience of proposed sub-consultants both over time and recently

3. Demonstrated understanding of the project area and requirements; Demonstrated experience in technical expertise required to complete the project

Respondent(s) knowledge of, and demonstrated recent experience with, state/federal grants and contracts; Demonstrated fiscal and administrative compliance with federal and state regulations both over time and recently

Respondent(s) demonstrated experience with and successful completion of HSRs and CLRs for mid-19th century residential buildings and landscapes; Number and quality of samples presented

Knowledge of the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; How readily the respondents’ work has been approved by the SHPO in the past

Respondent(s) team’s overall knowledge of, and experience with, monitoring Davis-Bacon wage rate; National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Buy-American, MWBE regulations

Respondent(s) team’s overall knowledge of and demonstrated success working with state and federal historic preservation agencies; Team’s experience with properties listed on the National and/or a State Register of Historic Places

Respondent(s) team’s overall experience in developing similar studies in New York both over time and recently

4. Review of references

Results of information gathered from client reference checks; Are the reference checks supportive of the respondent(s) technical abilities and ability to work within original budgets and timelines?

5. Cost to provide the requested services and deliverables

Competitiveness of the firm’s fee structure, contingency requirements, out of pocket expenses, travel, other reimbursable, etc.; Willingness of the firm to accept the conditions and form of contract to be provided and copyright provision

Bonus/minus

Attended the walk-through of the properties

Proximity to site; NYS based firm

Intangibles (+/-)

RFP Progress: The Walk Through

2011-08-24T14:41:00.000-07:00

The walk through for the RPRP was held yesterday. We had a great turnout, with folks from PA, NJ and NY including representatives from:

Argus Architecture

Bero Architecture

Clinton Brown Co.

Crawford & Stearns

edr companies

Grant Johnson

Holmes, King, Kallquist

Joan Fiori Blanchfield

John Milner Assoc.

John G. Waite Assoc.

Johnson Schmidt & Assoc.

Landmark Consulting

Mills + Schnoering

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to visit the site. We look forward to seeing what you have in store for us!

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS

2011-08-08T09:35:00.000-07:00

Landmarks has issued a Request for Qualifications and Proposals for the Rutger Park Restoration Project. Please email rutgerpark@gmail.com for a copy.

Issue Date: August 8, 2011

Property Walk Through: August 23, 2011

Response Date: August 29, 2011 by 5 pm

I. SUMMARY

The Landmarks Society of Greater Utica (“Landmarks”) is seeking qualifications and proposals for professional services to prepare TWO (2) historic structure reports (HSR Parts 1 and 2) and TWO (2) cultural landscape reports (CLR Parts 1 and 2) for the nationally significant mansions at Numbers 1 and 3 Rutger Park, to include the now vacant lot where 2 Rutger Park once stood and the associated common estate grounds. In addition, the successful candidate might be engaged to provide design and construction documents for as many as three priority projects.

Because research regarding contextual and property-specific history is required for all four documents, proposals providing coordinated services for both the HSRs and CLRs are preferred. However, separate HSR and CLR proposals also are welcome. ALL work product produced through this RFQ/ RFP, including copyrights, will become the property of The Landmarks Society of Greater Utica.

This project, and subsequent physical work at Rutger Park, will be reviewed by the New York State Historic Preservation Office regularly to ensure conformance with the US Department of the Interior, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and various companion Guidelines documents.

Landmarks currently has 2008 Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) grant funds under administration for the services requested here from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation under the 1993 NYS Environmental Protection Act. Additional funds are being/ will be sought to complete subsequent phases of the project.

Respondents are strongly encouraged, but not required, to visit 1 and 3 Rutger Park in Utica, NY before submitting a response. A formal walk-through of the property will be held on Tuesday August 23, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Please register in advance by calling (315) 520-9851 anytime before August 23. All questions should be submitted in written form via email to <rutgerpark@gmail.com> and answers will be distributed, in writing, to all interested parties.

Responses to this Request for Qualifications and Proposal must be received no later than 5:00 pm August 29, 2011. Responses should be sent to:

Rutger Park c/o Bonacci Architects :: 6320 Fly Road :: East Syracuse, NY 13057

(315) 437-2636 (For delivery purposes only. No phone calls, please.)

PROJECT SCHEDULE:

RFQ/ RFP Issued -- August 8, 2011

Property Walk Through -- August 23, 2011

Receipt of RFP/ RFQ Responses -- August 29, 2011 by 5 p.m.

Candidates Selected for Interview -- September 2, 2011

Interviews Completed -- September 16, 2011

Consultant Selected -- September 19, 2011

Consultant Engagement -- September 23, 2011

Draft Documents -- HSRs, June 2012; CLRs, September 2012

Final Documents -- HSR, July 2012; CLRs, October 2012

Presentation of Documents -- November 2012

Possible Limited Construction -- Spring/Summer 2012

II. BACKGROUND, SOCIAL HISTORY

RUTGER PARK:

The entire Rutger-Steuben Park National Historic District encompasses the mansions of Rutger Park, the properties that front onto Steuben Park, and all Rutger Street properties from Steuben Park to Taylor Avenue and Second Street in Utica, NY. The district is architecturally significant for the numerous and varied examples of nineteenth century residential architecture types, and for being one of the largest groupings of Italianate style structures in America.

The centerpiece of the neighborhood are the five original mansions of Rutger Park which, until the 1994 demolition of Number 2, offered a nearly complete ensemble of major nineteenth century American domestic architecture styles. The elegant mansions not only reflect the stature of their early owners, but also the general prosperity of Utica between 1830 and 1890. During that period the opening of the Erie and Chenango Canals, the establishment of the textile industry in Utica and along the Oriskany and Sauquoit Creeks, the building of railroads, the continuing agricultural production, including the export of cheddar cheese and hops, brought major economic growth to Central New York, from which Utica especially benefited.

NUMBER 3:

Rutger Park was only a portion of a large farm tract owned by Rutger Bleecker of Albany. Bleecker divided his property in Utica among his children, and hired Morris Smith Miller to manage his affairs. Miller came to Utica in 1806 and soon after his arrival married Bleecker’s daughter, Maria. He began planning for “Miller’s Seat” including the placement of the main structure and construction of its foundations and the masonry wall along the Rutger Park northern boundary, which all were completed in the late 1820s. The Millers eventually had five children, and after Morris Miller’s death in 1824, his wife and eldest son Rutger Bleecker Miller engaged the services of noted Albany architect Philip Hooker to design the house.

Completed c1830, Number 3 stood alone in Rutger Park at a considerable distance from the village center, and was difficult to get to. Yet, Rutger Bleecker Miller was the first in a long and distinguished line to use the stately home at “Miller’s Seat” as his power base, living there until 1841. His mother lived in Number 3 until her death in 1850. At that time, the Rutger Bleecker Farm was divided into the parcels for the five mansions that ultimately occupied Rutger Park.

Thomas R. Walker, publisher of the Columbian Gazette and Mayor of Utica from 1849-50, purchased Number 3 in 1859 and, like the former owners, entertained many notable guests at the property. In 1868 Walker sold Number 3 to his law partner US Senator Roscoe Conkling who was then at the height of his considerable national political power. Number 3 was Conkling’s political headquarters for 20 years until his death. His political tenure coincided with that of another national political leader from Utica, Democrat Francis Kernan, and so Rutger Park became the site of social gatherings attended by America’s leading national political figures that often represented completely opposing positions.

Conkling died in 1888 and the property passed to his daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth G. Oakman, who in March 1894 sold it to Nicholas E. Kernan, who added electricity and constructed the large two-story stone kitchen addition to the southeast. When Kernan died in 1903, the property passed to his wife, Harriet. In 1952 the Dowling family purchased 1, 2 and 3 Rutger Park, living in Number 3 as a single-family residence until c1983. The home sat vacant until June 2008, when Landmarks purchased it for restoration.

The property is recognized as a contributing element to the federal, State and locally designated Rutger-Steuben Park Historic District. Moreover, the property was declared an individual National Historic Landmark in 1975 due to the national prominence of the various owners and their distinguished guests, principal architectural designer, and the many important events that took place here. (See Attachment A for Supplemental Histories & Descriptions).

NUMBER 2:

From 1830 until 1850, the grounds surrounding Number 3 Rutger Park were planted with gardens that covered the entire block. In 1850, the property was subdivided into five lots and ground was broken for Number 2 Rutger Park (c1850) immediately to the west.

Its first owner, J. Wyman Jones sold it in 1856 to the Reverend Philemon H. Fowler of the First Presbyterian Church of Utica, who in turn sold it to the Gilbert Butler family in 1886, who lived there until 1958. The property was then sold to the Dowling family, who left the mansion vacant in 1975 and afforded it minimal attention. The building fell into disrepair, and in 1994 Number 2 Rutger Park was demolished by the Dowling family due to their prolonged lack of maintenance. The Landmarks purchased the Number 2 parcel in June 2008. The grassy lot where the home was stands empty today, flanked by Numbers 1 and 3.

NUMBER 1:

In 1850, the “long lot” was subdivided out of the main Rutger Bleecker Farm parcel and sold by the Millers to Mary Jane Munn. Soon after the purchase, Alexander Jackson Davis designed Number 1 Rutger Park (c1850) in the Italian Villa style. For many years the home was known as “Munn’s Castle” after its original owners. John Munn was a banker who had made a fortune in Mississippi before returning to Utica with his southern wife Mary Jane, who entertained lavishly “in true southern style” - the home even boasted a built in pipe organ, now lost.

In 1864 Mrs. Munn sold the estate to Samuel Remington, then Vice President of Remington Arms. In 1868 Samuel was promoted to President of Remington and reassigned to Europe. The house was then sold to Ellen M. and John C. Devereux, who occupied it until 1879, when they sold it to the Green family.

Walter Jerome Green, Sr. was a member of Charles Green & Son of Utica. Known as a national leader in financial circles, he was also active in the railroads, serving as president of the Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Halifax Railroad in Florida. He was married to Sarah Ketelhuyn Swartwout Green. Their son, Walter Jerome Green, Jr. moved to the house when he was five, and lived there until he died at the age of 76. Walter Jr. was married to Mary Jane Hubbard, of Hubbardsville, who was a descendant of Captain Abraham Swartwout, who provided the dark blue cloth for the first American Flag to fly from a colonial military post, which was made and unfurled on August 3, 1777 at Ft. Stanwix. Walter Jr. died in 1951 and willed the house and grounds to Grace Episcopal Church.

In 1952, the Dowling family purchased Number 1 from the church, and divided its grand rooms to accommodate a private nursing care facility, where Mrs. Dowling lived during the last years of her life until her death in 2004. Number 1 remained vacant until Landmarks purchased the property from the Dowling estate in June 2008. (See Attachment A for Supplemental Histories & Descriptions).

III. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

RUTGER PARK:

While the block-long estate grounds are still intact and undeveloped, the common gardens are overgrown and neglected, and there is a near complete loss of Rutger Park’s original plant material, which featured white and purple lilacs, snow balls, syringas, mountain ash, honey locusts, “Bleecker plum” and apple trees. The design of the winding driveway paths and circular slate central walkway are intact, but are under brush and lawn in most places. Happily, Judge Morris Miller’s original stone wall with its wide coping and center entrance is fully intact, and still marks the 666-foot long northern property border along Rutger Street.

The overall physical condition of #1 and #3 is sound, but poor, with some areas of specific and notable deterioration present. Lack of maintenance has caused serious damage to both roof systems, and there is evidence of long-term moisture infiltration. Likewise, there are several inappropriate modifications have been made to both mansions, such as contemporary finishes, incompatible materials and unsympathetic enclosure of porches.

Yet, this deferred maintenance has some benefit. Because they were never “remodeled”, the mansions retain exceptional architectural integrity. The highly illustrative multi-paneled Zuber wallpaper mural still graces the dining room of Number 3, and multiple converted gas light fixtures, original doors, hardware and fireplaces still adorn the grand public rooms. Even the basements have preserved irreplaceable artifacts, including Number 3’s early heating and cooling system, which was an engineering marvel of its day and was an early precursor to the heat pump.

NUMBER 3:

#3 Rutger Park is deeply set back from the street like the other four mansions, and occupies the center of Rutger Park. Historically, the grounds featured a large circular walk and driveway in front of the house and another in the rear, with an orchard south of the main house.

Designed by Philip Hooker, the mansion is an outstanding example of the Greek Revival style, being executed in brick with a stucco surface scored to simulate limestone blocks. The two story main mass is roughly 50 x 70 ft., and was originally flanked by two, one-story wings with pedimented porticos. In the 1850s one pavilion was removed to allow construction of Number 2 Rutger Park. The other wing was detached and moved to the rear of Number 2, but has since been lost. The current porch, two-story kitchen wing and the dormers were 1894 additions. An upper piazza originally extended across the carriage drives, and ran across to the roofs of the wings, connecting the barns, the grapery and the greenhouse. The balustrade at the main and porch roofs has been removed, leaving the low slung hipped roof with overhanging eaves supported by a wide, simple frieze board.

The first floor central hall is flanked on the west by front and back parlors with matching black marble fireplaces, carved wood door and window detailing, tiered crystal chandeliers, ornate plaster crown moldings, paneled shutters and ceiling medallions. To the east is the veneer-paneled library with center fireplace, four-foot high built-in bookshelves, a wide window seat with paneled shutters, simple plaster crown moldings and millwork carved in high relief. Beyond the library is the dining room with damaged but otherwise intact Zuber wallpaper. The room also features four foot high paneled wainscoting, paneled shutters and a central wood and marble fireplace surround. The 1894 Kernan addition adjoins the dining room, and features the butler’s pantry with floor-to-ceiling built-in cabinets, the kitchen complex and a powder room.

Behind a mirrored hall divider at the central hall rear is another powder room, the servant’s basement entrance and the elliptical main staircase leading up to the second floor hallway gallery, sleeping/ dressing rooms and two full bathrooms. Originally the back rooms of both second and first floors opened onto a wide piazza that extended the entire width of the house.

The basement housed the original kitchen with huge fireplaces, fruits and vegetables cellars, pantries and a servant’s room. The early heating and cooling system with its wooden chutes and dividers remains, along with a later wine cellar. Additional servant’s quarters were in the attic.

Number 3 had had three major, known renovations. The first was between 1868 and 1888, when Italianate features were applied to the mansion; the gardens were trimmed and new walkways, evergreens and imported shrubs installed; and latticed porches added to the old barn.

The second major renovation was completed c1894, and included the addition of the large two-story wing housing the kitchen complex, an extensive butler’s pantry and a small powder room. Mechanical upgrades included installing hot and cold running water throughout the house, a new gas furnace in the basement and heaters in every room.

The third renovation was completed c1929, and included the joining of the parlors, wiring for electricity and the reconfiguration of the second floor to accommodate updated bathrooms and sleeping rooms.

Despite these alterations, Number 3 retains outstanding historic integrity to Hooker’s original design with the vast majority of the original exterior materials intact; although in generally poor condition with spalling stucco, painted over stonework and incompatible parging. Some of the sand paint is missing, mortar joints are deteriorated/damaged, the front porch supports are failing and most importantly the roof, dormers, chimneys, fascia and porches are all in critical condition. (See Attachment A for Supplemental Histories & Descriptions).

NUMBER 2:

#2 Rutger Park c1852 (demolished 1994) was the second house constructed in the Park. The towered Italian Villa style home was based on a plan that Alexander Jackson Davis provided for his friend Andrew Jackson Downing, who published it as Design VI in his famous pattern book ‘Cottage Residences of 1842’. In the same book, Downing included the plans for laying out the gardens, orchards, grounds and even included various plants to be used. Characterized by its large porches and bay windows, it was constructed of cedar board and batten siding. Large, ornate roof corbels supported the blue-grey slate roof.

The structure was demolished in 1994, though key interior features remain in #1 Rutger Park’s Carriage House. Today, the lot stands vacant flanked by #1 and #3.

NUMBER 1:

Constructed on “the long lot” at the western edge of Rutger Park and designed by Alexander Jackson Davis c1850, Number 1 contains one of the finest examples of an Italianate Gothic Villa anywhere. It exhibits the key features of the style, including a roofline punctuated by a tall tower and smaller companion tower, wide overhanging eaves, prominent roof brackets, tall narrow arched windows arranged in groups, large double doors, balustraded porches and bay windows.

Originally the building had a wide, open veranda porch to the east and a wrap-around colonnaded porch to the west. Like Number 3, its exterior surfaces were originally sand painted and scored to simulate limestone. Currently the mansion’s exterior is in poor condition overall, with the roof system, chimneys, porches and balustrades exhibiting critical deterioration and requiring priority treatment.

The central mass is dominated by two adjacent towers, with the taller one capped by a projecting, bracketed roof and containing an oversized arched entry portico, doors and windows. The shorter tower has a large bay window with balustrade on the first floor. Adjacent the towers are two roughly symmetrical masses, the colonnade to the west with its large square support columns; and the veranda to the east, which has been inappropriately modified by an enclosure with steel door and vinyl windows.

The oversized, arched double front doors of the taller tower lead to a large reception hall with echoing archways, pocket doors and oversized windows with shutters. The main circular staircase rises from here to the upper floors, and is topped by an original multi-colored stained glass skylight. The primary first floor rooms have high ceilings and large windows with shutters. Original chandeliers remain in the dining room and the library.

Through the reception hall at the rear of the first floor are a pair of two story ells, which were later additions that accommodated service functions, including the kitchen and a powder room. The second floor was altered substantially and now contains a maze of smaller bedrooms and dressing rooms, including a 1920s bathroom.

The attic contained servants’ quarters and provides access to the tower and roof. The basement contains three previous HVAC systems.

The mansion had two known major renovations. The first was during the Victorian period, when ornate plaster medallions, ceilings and crown moldings, tiled fireplaces, copper foil library ceiling, tapestry wall coverings and handsome arched corner built-ins were added to the downstairs rooms. The second took place in the 1950s to convert the building into a private nursing home. Modifications included painting over the first floor’s tapestry wall coverings, installation of a commercial sprinkler system, illuminated exit signs, steel fire doors, escape lights, surface-mounted wiring and construction of fire separation walls.

During the last private ownership only routine and piecemeal maintenance occurred. Critical cyclical repairs were not made, resulting in the current state of damage and deterioration. Despite these conditions, Number 1 retains outstanding historic integrity to Davis’ original design with the vast majority of the original exterior features and materials still intact. (See Attachment A for Supplemental Histories & Descriptions).

IV. FUTURE USE

Landmarks currently is considering a wide range of options for future uses at the Rutger Park properties, including but not limited to turning Rutger Park, in its entirety, into a National Trust Site devoted to 19^th Century Politics and Architecture.

Number 3 Rutger Park -- The building might be used to house exhibits on Utica’s place in 19^th Century politics, highlighting Roscoe Conkling and including a multimedia production recounting various aspects of his public and private life. Accompanying exhibits would be devoted to the other families and organizations associated with Rutger Park. The landscape might be restored to recreate the original front gardens and other outdoor spaces.

Number1 Rutger Park -- The building might be used to house exhibits related to Utica’s architectural history, landscape architecture and lost landmarks. The landscape might be restored to recreate the original front gardens and other outdoor spaces.

In addition, selected spaces in both buildings as well as on the grounds would be made available to rent for special events on a fee-for-hire basis.

Neighborhood Improvements -- Properties on the south side of Rutger Park (South Street) might be acquired and redeveloped. A stone wall resembling the one on Rutger Street might be constructed to enclose a parking area south of the historic buildings. Utilities could be buried from Park Ave and South Street to Steuben Park, across Rutger Street to Taylor Ave. A new sidewalk streetscape and lighting might be installed, with similar improvements to John Street from Bleecker Street to Rutger Street.

2 Rutger Park -- Long-range plans call for the eventual reconstruction of the lost main structure for use as the administration building for the overall site as well as the Landmarks Society.

V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project involves the development of an HSR Parts 1 & 2 and CLR Part 1 & 2 for both Number 3 and Number 1 Rutger Park; potentially including development construction documents for several priority projects, if project resources allow.

The organization and content for each HSR and CLR will meet current professional standards for such documents (see attached HSR/CLR outline in Attachment C).

Each Report is intended to:

Summarize the property history as a context for each building/landscape
Research and document the historic development of each building/landscape using known sources as well as physical evidence
Document and evaluate existing physical conditions
Assess historic significance and integrity of features of each building/landscape, identifying contributing and non-contributing components
Provide overall and specific recommendations for treatments

Available information about 1, 2 and 3 Rutger Park includes:

A property survey (on file with County Clerk)
Separate Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) TA/Conditions Reports by Crawford & Stearns on 1 and 3 (on file with Landmarks)
Separate, professional appraisals for 1 and 3 (on file with Landmarks)
Architectural plans for Number 1 (The Metropolitan Museum, NYC)
National Register submission listing (on file with Landmarks)
Archived press clippings (on Landmarks website)
City of Utica Master Plan (http://www.uticamasterplan.org)
Historical Sanborn maps (on file with Landmarks)

The following materials also are available to aid with the project:

Memorial History of Utica, by M.M. Bagg (1892)
Pioneers of Utica, by M.M. Bagg (1877)
Sketch of Old Utica, by Blandina Dudley Miller (1913)
History of the Mohawk Valley: Gateway to the West 1614-1925, Volume II edited by Nelson Greene (1925)
The Gentleman from New York: A Life of Roscoe Conkling, by Donald Barr Chidsey (1935)
Utica for a Century and a Half, by T. Wood Clarke (1952)
Vignettes of Old Utica, by John J. Walsh (1982)
Cottage Residences of 1842, Design VI, by Andrew Jackson Downing - reprinted as Andrew Jackson Downing, Victorian Cottage Residences, Dover Publications (1981)
Philip Hooker and His Contemporaries, 1796-1836 (1993)
Archives, Photographs & Collections, Oneida County Historical Society

VI. FORM OF RESPONSE

Respondents are strongly encouraged to visit the property before submitting a response. A formal Property Walk Through will be held on August 23, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Please register in advance by contacting (315) 520-9851 anytime before August 23.

All questions should be submitted in written form via email to <rutgerpark@gmail.com> and answers will be distributed, in writing, to all interested parties.

Interested respondents must submit six (6) full printed copies of their proposals. Facsimile and email materials are not acceptable. Responses to this Request for Qualifications and Proposal must be received no later than 5:00 pm August 29, 2011.

Responses should be sent to:

Rutger Park

c/o Bonacci Architects
6320 Fly Road

East Syracuse, NY 13057

(315) 437-2636 (For delivery purposes only. No phone calls, please.)

ALL work product produced through this RFQ/ RFP, including copyrights, will become the property of The Landmarks Society of Greater Utica.

Responses Must Include:

1. A brief description of individual and/or firm history, areas of expertise, and staffing. Provide a list and description of recent relevant projects, prioritizing those involving:

§ mid-19^th Century residential buildings and landscapes

§ properties in Central New York State

§ preservation grant programs

§ approval by the NY State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO], other State SHPOs and/or the National Park Service

§ properties listed on the National and/or a State Register of Historic Places

2. Three (3) project references, including summary of scope and budget. Provide name, address, email and phone number of client representative. Copies of, or links to, completed work product for these projects is also appreciated.

3. Proposed project team, including Project Manager, and resume of each participant. Identify each individual’s responsibilities in past projects with firm or under separate employment specifically related to components of this project. In addition, the person with primary work responsibility must meet minimum professional qualifications [see Attachment C].

4. Identify proposed sub-consultants, if any. Provide resumes, references and relevant project lists for each.

5. Outline project schedule, with phases noted below. Provide potential schedule for design/construction projects likely to run concurrently with or immediately following later stages of principal services.

6. Typical fee structure to be used as a basis for further negotiation. Do not submit a fee proposal at this time. Compensation will be discussed at the interviews after respondents are more familiar with the particulars of the project program.

Consultant Review/Selection Process:

A committee of Board members of The Landmarks Society of Greater Utica will review all responses, and narrow them into a selected short list of respondents for interviews the week of September 2 – 16, 2011, followed by recommendation by the committee to the full Board.

Fee proposals and compensation will be discussed at the interviews.

Final consultant selection will be made by the Landmarks Society’s Selection Committee, and approved by the full Board of Directors based on:

Previous relevant work experience, education and professional accreditation of the firm
Project Manager’s qualifications, demonstrated ability to complete similar projects and prior SHPO and grant-funded project experience
Composition and qualifications of project team
References
Ability to meet schedule
Fee response / cost proposal
Overall responsiveness, completeness and timeliness of response

Landmarks will announce the selected consultant on September 19, 2011, with professional engagement beginning approximately September 23, 2011. All those responding will be notified of decisions, in writing, as soon as possible.

The Landmarks Society of Greater Utica is an equal opportunity employer and will follow State mandated minority- and women-owned business enterprises and affirmative action requirements [see Attachment D]. ##end ##

Welcome!

2011-08-08T09:27:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Rutger Park Restoration Project, a Landmarks Society of Greater Utica initiative.

BACKGROUND:

The historic mansions along Utica’s Rutger Street have always been central to The Landmarks Society’s efforts. In fact, the organization was founded in 1974 in order to protect the buildings, which even then were being threatened by incompatible development and demolition. Numbers 1 and 3 Rutger Park have occupied the top positions on The Landmarks Society’s annual “Endangered Buildings List” since its inception, and were named to the Preservation League of New York State’s “Seven to Save” list in 2006. The lengthy saga surrounding the unknown future for the structures was highlighted again and again in the organization’s newsletter, in the local press, and even in the New York Times.

When the historic structures became available for outright purchase in 2005, The Landmarks Society immediately sought input from its 350 members at an open public meeting and based on the positive public response, the Board of Trustees submitted a purchase offer. After three years of ongoing legal battles and four separate purchase offers, on June 5, 2008 the Landmarks Society took title to Numbers 1 and 3 and the vacant lot where Number 2 stood.

SIGNIFICANCE:

One of the most interesting political periods in our country occurred in the years leading up to, during and following the Civil War (the Reconstruction Period). In this northern city of Utica, where the abundance of textile mills made cotton king, lived three of the most influential political figures of the times: U.S. Senator Francis Kernan, the revered Democratic elder statesmen; Horatio Seymour, governor of New York, then the largest state in the Union; and Roscoe Conkling, arguably the most powerful Republican of the period, staunch Lincoln supporter — and who happened to be Seymour’s brother-in-law. Remarkably, all three of these national political powerhouses were Utica-based, and all had strong ties to Rutger Park.

PROJECT:

These buildings, the collections they house and the landscapes that surround them are both our legacy from the past and our gift to the future. Hearing the stories of the people — patriots and artists, presidents and slaves, millionaires and immigrants — who lived and worked in them is like turning the pages of America’s family album.

The Landmarks Society’s concept focuses on turning Rutger Park into a National Historic Site devoted to 19th-Century Politics and Architecture. The properties will house exhibits chronicling the development and extraordinary people who built this great city, and indeed, this great nation.

The proposed Rutger Park project has three main goals:

1. Acquisition of the nationally significant mansions at Numbers 1 and 3 Rutger Park, the now vacant lot where 2 Rutger Park once stood, and the associated estate grounds.

2. Scholarly research and reporting on the Park leading to the stabilization of the exterior envelopes of the mansions and protection of the associated cultural landscape, while providing access to currently underutilized and abandoned urban open space.

3. Complete restoration done to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and the development of a new source for heritage tourism in the Mohawk Valley. This will establish greater public awareness, ensure long-term public access, and provide an educational resource through permanent interpretive exhibitions and curricula programs dedicated to nineteenth century architecture, politics and landscape design.

More info at: http://www.uticalandmarks.org/rutger_park/rp_main.cfm