Addition 1

Posted: 1/11/2021

Type of Addition: Addendum One

Overview: Please see Addendum One documents attached. 

Documents:

• Appendix A - Project Description and Scope of Services - Addendum # 1.pdf
• Appendix K - PCCD_Project Design Status Board Approval Form - Addendum # 1.pdf
• RFP 20 21_06 Addendum One.pdf
• Appendix J - SB Enrollment Report BOT 9.29.20 - Addendum # 1.pdf
• Appendix C - Form of Agreement DBE 2118 Milvia Street Project - Addendum # 1.pdf
• 1 - Request for Proposal (RFP # 20_21_06 ) 2118 Milvia Street Project - Addendum # 1.pdf

Addition 3

Posted: 3/19/2021

Type of Addition: In Review

Overview: Please see the attached Notice of Intent to Award.

Documents:

• RFP 20 21 06 2118 Milvia Street Notice of Intent to Award - signed.pdf

Question 2

Posted: 1/4/2021

Question: In general the RFP and Appendix A Scope of Services both state the DBE is required to obtain District approval after each design phase prior to advancing to the next design phase. Because we need to include this “approval process” in our schedule, can you please define the process (i.e. constructability review, shared governance cycle, etc) and the anticipated duration? 1. Please clarify if the “approval” can be obtained concurrent to proceeding with the next design phase or if the DBE should plan to pause during these duration(s). Note that the Appendix A DSA Review and Construction start dates are currently based on no “approval” durations between each design phase. 2. In addition, please identify if the “approval” process is different depending on the design phase. For example the RFP states that the DD approval includes the Board of Trustees. 3. Second, there are a few discrepancies (listed below) between the RFP and Appendix A required design milestone “approvals”. Please clarify: a. RFP (Section IV.C.1.a) listed phases: SD, DD BOT, 50% CD, 100% CD b. Appendix A (Scope of Services C.4.f) phases: Collaboration (B.11), SD BOT, DD, 50% CD, 100% CD

Response: This question was answered in Addendum One posted here.

Question 4

Posted: 1/4/2021

Question: The RFP’s Proposal Requirements in Tab 5 requests that the proposal schedule “include a minimum a maximum of 60 activities”. Should it include a minimum or maximum of 60 activities?

Response: This question was answered in Addendum One posted here.

Question 6

Posted: 1/4/2021

Question: With regard to the modular furniture systems and fixtures, furniture and equipment design/scope requirements, the following questions are geared towards understanding the required FF&E design and construction procurement requirements in a public design-build project. 1. Peralta CCD is tied to the current furniture contracts managed by the FCCC. Assuming these contracts have leveraged the State’s higher education system to obtain better pricing than we could obtain bidding the scope, would the DBE teams be expected to include an FF&E vendor during the RFP phase and then use the pre-negotiated contract pricing when it comes to GMP pricing? (similar to the MEP trade contractors that will develop GMP pricing in a negotiated open-book approach) 2. If yes, the FF&E design costs are typically inclusive with the purchase of the furniture materials, install & moving costs. In addition, the FF&E design is not required for DSA approval. Therefore, should the FF&E design/management costs be deferred until the GMP pricing? 3. If the DBE is expected to competitively bid the FF&E design/scope, are we limited to sole-source manufacturers in the FCCC contracts or expected to develop FF&E design criteria/standards that establish equal specifications for multiple broker/manufacturers to bid on? 4. Appendix A provides a brief description that the furniture will be a combination of existing and new. Is this also true for the fixtures and equipment? Can you please elaborate on the expected scope for fixtures and equipment? More detail will help us better estimate costs and provide feedback on the adequacy of the project budget.

Response: This question was answered in Addendum One posted here.

Question 8

Posted: 1/4/2021

Question: Specification 01 14 10 item 1.7.6 states that COVID-19 protocol costs should be included in the General Condition Price Proposal. There is a high probability these COVID protocols will not be required in two years from now and the District would end up paying for services not required. Rather we would recommend including an allowance in the GMP in the event these requirements come to fruition. Is it acceptable to exclude COVID-19 costs from the General Condition price proposal?

Response: This question was answered in Addendum One posted here.

Question 10

Posted: 1/4/2021

Question: Specification 01 14 10 item 1.7.2.1 states to reference specification 01 52 00 for other details that need to be included in the General Condition Price Proposal. Is item 1.7.2.1 intended to be a subset of item 1.7.2 and only asking to reference 01 52 00 with respect to temporary toilet specifics? Otherwise spec 01 52 00 is quite extensive and would require follow-up questions as the majority of those items are not quantifiable at this time and typically included in the General Requirements at the time of GMP.

Response: This question was answered in Addendum One posted here.

Question 12

Posted: 1/5/2021

Question: Under Section 0. Proposal Requirements, part 3. Contents, the deliverables are listed as Tabs 1-8, then change to numbers 4 – 10. See below. Please advise if items 4-10 should be a continuation of Tab numbering (i.e. item 4 would become Tab 9, item 5 would become Tab 10, etc.). Per the RFP, Section 3. Contents (starting on page 12): • Tab 1 – Executive Summary • Tab 2 – Table of Contents • Tab 3 – Cover Letter • Tab 4 – Method and Strategic plan • Tab 5 – Schedule and GMP Development Plan • Tab 6 – Design Proposal • Tab 7 – Life Cycle Cost Analysis • Tab 8 – SLBE/SELBE Compliance Then on page 17 the format changes to numbers: 4. Skilled Labor Force Availability 5. Safety Record 6. Price Proposal 7. Insurance 8. Comments to Form of Agreement 9. Stipend Agreement 10. Appendix (if used)

Response: This question was answered in Addendum One posted here.

Question 14

Posted: 1/7/2021

Question: Reference the RFP - Page 14 of 23: The schedule requirement section (Tab 5) in the RFP includes a typo where it references a minimum a maximum 60 activities. Please confirm the intention is to provide a minimum of 60 activities in the schedule, no more than 3 pages in length.

Response: This question was answered in Addendum One posted here.

Question 16

Posted: 1/12/2021

Question: Discount Rate - What is your minimum acceptable interest rate of return on funds you invest, not including the general rate of inflation? (example investments for reference might include; an investment in a campus energy system upgrade, or could be a market investment of donated funds, etc.)

Response: This question was responded to in Addendum Two posted here.

Question 18

Posted: 1/12/2021

Question: Operations & Maintenance Staff Labor Rate Basis - For these services does your organization provide Prevailing Wage rates?

Response: This question was responded to in Addendum Two posted here.

Question 20

Posted: 1/12/2021

Question:

Response: There was no question asked here.

Question 22

Posted: 1/12/2021

Question: Regarding fire hydrant water flow data: Please provide most recent (with last 6 months preferably) water flow data for adjacent fire hydrants if available.

Response: This question was responded to in Addendum Two posted here.

Question 24

Posted: 1/12/2021

Question: Reference Appendix B - Crtieria Documents Page 4 of 7 - Please confirm the minimum ceiling height in classrooms. The criteria document currently reads "Classroom ceiling heights should be a minimum of __ feet to meet District Standards and maximize natural lighting." Also reference App F - PCCD District Standards Page 19 of 129 - (Section 09 50 00 - Ceiling Criteria) - The district standards specify that the "Ceiling height shall not be less than eight (10) feet - six (6) inches clear." Please clarify if this minimum ceiling height is 8' 6" clear, or 10' 6" clear.

Response: This question was responded to in Addendum Two posted here.

Question 26

Posted: 1/14/2021

Question: The RFP and Appendix C Agreement both require Builder’s Risk (BR) coverage by the DBE, which we assume should be wrapped into the Insurance line item on the Price Proposal. There are many variables in pricing Builder’s Risk and the industry standard includes reviewing final drawings and materials selections. In addition the full replacement value requirement for earthquake and flood coverage significantly increase this cost by more than +500%. With construction not starting for roughly 1.5-2 years, no insurance carrier will provide a locked rate. There have been significant swings in these rates over the last few years. Bidder’s may inflate this value to ensure they are not at risk, thus reducing value to the District. a) We would propose separating the Builder’s Risk premium from the other Insurance Line on the Proposal, and the District request the Builder’s Risk as a separate allowance. Therefore the District will only pay for the actual cost of BR insurance valued at the time of the start of construction. b) Regarding the earthquake and flood coverage, CA public code 7105 is more cost effective and allows projects to carry 5% replacement value. Should DBE teams price earthquake and flood as full replacement value or per CA public code 7105?

Response: This question was responded to in Addendum Two posted here.

Question 28

Posted: 1/18/2021

Question: The Owner Agreement Appendix C references two other sections in 8.8.1.6.1 and 8.8.1.6.3 that do not exist and is the incorrect reference, respectively. This section 8.8.1.6 covers “Excluded Costs” and may be important to the price proposal. Can you please supply the correct references?

Response: This question was responded to in Addendum Two posted here.

Question 30

Posted: 1/19/2021

Question: Reference Appendix E - Division 00 01 Specifications - Please provide Spec Section 01 91 00 - Commissioning Requirements. Additionally, please confirm that 3rd party commissioning will be by the Owner's commissioning agent.

Response: This question was responded to in Addendum Two posted here.

Question 32

Posted: 1/19/2021

Question: Please confirm if the 36”x48” Concept Board should be provided as a separate file upload.

Response: This question was responded to in Addendum Two posted here.

Question 34

Posted: 1/19/2021

Question: Can you confirm that the District will be pursuing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in terms of CEQA?

Response: This question was responded to in Addendum Two posted here.

Question 36

Posted: 1/19/2021

Question:

Response: No question was asked here.

Question 38

Posted: 1/19/2021

Question: For the access control and video surveillance systems, please clarify if the intent is for the system to utilize the existing head-end equipment at 2050 Center Street.

Response: This question was responded to in Addendum Two posted here.