Peralta Community College District Sealed Solicitation
Title: RFQ/RFP 20 21/10 District-wide Building Commissioning Services and Proposal For The Laney Central Utility Plant
Deadline: 6/21/2021 2:00 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
Status: In Review
Solicitation Number: 20 21/10
Description:
Pre-Bid Meeting Date: 6/8/2021 10:00 AM
Pre-Bid Meeting Details: Hi there, Myisha Lewis-Reed is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: RFQ/RFP 20 21/10 Time: Jun 8, 2021 10:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://cccconfer.zoom.us/j/97193693118 Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +16699006833,97193693118# or +12532158782,97193693118# Or Telephone: Dial: +1 669 900 6833 (US Toll) +1 253 215 8782 (US Toll) +1 346 248 7799 (US Toll) +1 301 715 8592 (US Toll) +1 312 626 6799 (US Toll) +1 646 876 9923 (US Toll) Meeting ID: 971 9369 3118 International numbers available: https://cccconfer.zoom.us/u/adJH07BHR2 Or Skype for Business (Lync): SIP:97193693118@lync.zoom.us Please sign up if you plan to attend the pre-bid meeting.
Documents:
Addition 1
Posted: 6/17/2021
Type of Addition: Addendum 1
Deadline: 6/18/2021 2:00 PM
Solicitation #: 20-21/10 RFQ/RFP
Documents:
Addition 2
Posted: 7/15/2021
Type of Addition: In Review
Question 1
Posted: 6/8/2021
Question: The District's request for information in Tab 6 Litigation History (RFQ Page 20) is overly broad and goes well beyond what we typically see in similar RFQs for California public works, in particular the statement that a mere mention of attorney-client privilege will result in disqualification from the evaluation process. At best we can provide a statement that no litigation, ongoing or otherwise, will materially impact the ability of the respondent to provide the services requested in the RFQ. Please clarify whether this would be considered responsive.
Response: As noted in Tab 6 Litigation History in the RFQ, this is a District requirement for all firms responding to this RFQ. Provide the information as requested.
Question 2
Posted: 6/8/2021
Question: The CUP RFP (Exhibit N) mentions several exhibits that are missing: N-1: 100% Design Development Documents prepared by Gilbane/WLC dated 04/14/2021 N-2: Project Schedule dated 5/10/2021 N-3: Criteria Documents prepared by Noll & Tam Architects. Will these be provided? These documents will provide critical input for development of the bid and as such, we respectfully request the District allow sufficient time for respondents to review them if and when they are posted.
Response: Exhibits N-1, N-2, and N-3 are available on Vendor Registry.
Question 3
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: I see that Exhibit N contains another, second RFQ to be submitted. Do we need to include this in addition to the original RFQ?
Response: Exhibit N is an RFP for the Laney Central Utility Plant. Firms that are interested in pursuing the Laney Central Utility Plant RFP may do so.
Question 4
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: For the District-wide Building Commissioning Services RFQ, would consideration be given to increase the page limit to 20 pages to allow enough room for responses to the content requirements and selection criteria?
Response: Please limit proposals to no more than twelve (12) pages as noted in the RFP section III, Requirements for Submittal of Qualifications.
Question 5
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: For the District-wide Building Commissioning Services RFQ, under the Team Summary, can we provide brief qualifications for key personnel with full resumes as a separate attachment (separate from page count)?
Response: Yes
Question 6
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: RFQ / RFP 20 21_10_Commissioning: • Insurance Requirements – What insurance coverage limits are required, as the agreement and the RFQ/P do not indicate such? • LEED Cx Credits – Does the district want the prospective bidders to be able to provide services that meet all 6 points for the Enhanced Cx Credit under LEED v4? • Building Enclosure Cx (BECx) – Will the district pursue the BECx requirement as called out in Title 24 - 2019 for all new construction / ground-up buildings greater than 10,000 square feet? • K-14 Project Experience – What is the intent of providing K-14 experience if the RFQ/P is geared to Community College Districts? • Fee Schedule – Is there a range for a fee schedule that the district is seeking? We ask because the Laney College CUP Project wont be completed until 10/31/2022 and we didn’t see a duration provided with the RFQ/P documentation provided. • Contract Award – When does the district plan to award or provide notification to the bidders? Exhibit 6 – N-2 2021 0510 Schedule: • CxA Involvement w/ CUP – Please provide clarification for when the Cx Agent will be working on the project? • Cx SOW – Since the potential bidders wont be brought on until summer, what part of the SOW will the Cx Agents need to complete for the Laney College CUP project? We ask because prospective bidders will miss the design phase, and equipment will have already been reviewed and purchased for the project and the project will already be in the construction phase. Please provide clarification. Exhibit N Laney CUP Proposal Final: • Cx SOW – Is it the intent of the district to have the Cx Agent perform the design phase tasks retro-actively even though the team will be onboarded sometime during the construction phase? Please identify the SOW the Cx Agents need to perform based upon the award date.
Response: Insurance requirements will be addressed at the time of contract execution with the successful firm. --- Yes ---District will meet all code requirements for all new construction and ground-up buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. ---The goal was to request all education experience, “with particular experience in community college work”. --The District is not seeking a specific range for the fee schedule. ---Contract is tentatively scheduled to be awarded July 27, 2021. ---Refer to Exhibit N-1 of the RFP “schedule “ for all pre-construction and construction dates. Exhibit “N” of the RFP includes anticipated meetings with the CXA and the minimum hours the CXA should include in their proposals to attend. ---The CXA will be expected to perform a summary level peer review of the DSA submittal set. CXA will also be expected to provide quality assurance to ensure that the contractor’s work is in compliance with the contract documents. ---The CXA is NOT expected to perform design phase tasks. Refer to the RFI response 6 above for the extent of the CXA role for Commissioning.
Question 7
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: Due to the amount of information required in the 20 21/10 District-wide Building Commissioning Services RFQ, it would be exceptionally difficult to provide adequate responses within the limit of 12 pages. Would the district consider increasing the page limit for the RFQ to 25 pages?
Response: Please limit proposals to no more than twelve (12) pages as noted in the RFP section III, Requirements for Submittal of Qualifications.
Question 8
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: Will you be posting the pre-proposal meeting presentation as well as the attendee list?
Response: Yes, the presentation and attendee list will be posted to Vendor Registry.
Question 9
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: As per the RFQ/RFP, the responses to questions are to be issued by Friday, 6/18 and submissions are due on Monday, 6/21. Would the district consider extending the submission deadline to Friday, 6/25 to allow time for teams to adjust responses if required based on the responses to the questions?
Response: The District is currently not considering extending the deadline.
Question 10
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: In the RFQ, Question 4: Relevant K-12 project experience asks for K-14 projects in California. Will you accept University building projects as part of this section or is it limited to K-14 only?
Response: Yes, we accept all education experience.
Question 11
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: In the RFQ, Question 4: Relevant K-12 project experience asks for K-14 projects in California. Would it be acceptable to include CUP experience outside of K-14 campuses as part of our answer to this question?
Response: Yes, we accept all Commissioning experience.
Question 12
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: There are many questions pertaining to DSA. While we are happy to provide our DSA experience, questions pertaining to Notice of Completion and DSA final certification, etc., does not always fall into our scope as Commissioning Agents. How would you like us to address those questions?
Response: Provide the date when Commissioning scope was completed
Posted: 6/17/2021
Type of Addition: Addendum 1
Deadline: 6/18/2021 2:00 PM
Solicitation #: 20-21/10 RFQ/RFP
Documents:
Posted: 7/15/2021
Type of Addition: In Review
Posted: 6/8/2021
Question: The District's request for information in Tab 6 Litigation History (RFQ Page 20) is overly broad and goes well beyond what we typically see in similar RFQs for California public works, in particular the statement that a mere mention of attorney-client privilege will result in disqualification from the evaluation process. At best we can provide a statement that no litigation, ongoing or otherwise, will materially impact the ability of the respondent to provide the services requested in the RFQ. Please clarify whether this would be considered responsive.
Response: As noted in Tab 6 Litigation History in the RFQ, this is a District requirement for all firms responding to this RFQ. Provide the information as requested.
Posted: 6/8/2021
Question: The CUP RFP (Exhibit N) mentions several exhibits that are missing: N-1: 100% Design Development Documents prepared by Gilbane/WLC dated 04/14/2021 N-2: Project Schedule dated 5/10/2021 N-3: Criteria Documents prepared by Noll & Tam Architects. Will these be provided? These documents will provide critical input for development of the bid and as such, we respectfully request the District allow sufficient time for respondents to review them if and when they are posted.
Response: Exhibits N-1, N-2, and N-3 are available on Vendor Registry.
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: I see that Exhibit N contains another, second RFQ to be submitted. Do we need to include this in addition to the original RFQ?
Response: Exhibit N is an RFP for the Laney Central Utility Plant. Firms that are interested in pursuing the Laney Central Utility Plant RFP may do so.
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: For the District-wide Building Commissioning Services RFQ, would consideration be given to increase the page limit to 20 pages to allow enough room for responses to the content requirements and selection criteria?
Response: Please limit proposals to no more than twelve (12) pages as noted in the RFP section III, Requirements for Submittal of Qualifications.
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: For the District-wide Building Commissioning Services RFQ, under the Team Summary, can we provide brief qualifications for key personnel with full resumes as a separate attachment (separate from page count)?
Response: Yes
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: RFQ / RFP 20 21_10_Commissioning: • Insurance Requirements – What insurance coverage limits are required, as the agreement and the RFQ/P do not indicate such? • LEED Cx Credits – Does the district want the prospective bidders to be able to provide services that meet all 6 points for the Enhanced Cx Credit under LEED v4? • Building Enclosure Cx (BECx) – Will the district pursue the BECx requirement as called out in Title 24 - 2019 for all new construction / ground-up buildings greater than 10,000 square feet? • K-14 Project Experience – What is the intent of providing K-14 experience if the RFQ/P is geared to Community College Districts? • Fee Schedule – Is there a range for a fee schedule that the district is seeking? We ask because the Laney College CUP Project wont be completed until 10/31/2022 and we didn’t see a duration provided with the RFQ/P documentation provided. • Contract Award – When does the district plan to award or provide notification to the bidders? Exhibit 6 – N-2 2021 0510 Schedule: • CxA Involvement w/ CUP – Please provide clarification for when the Cx Agent will be working on the project? • Cx SOW – Since the potential bidders wont be brought on until summer, what part of the SOW will the Cx Agents need to complete for the Laney College CUP project? We ask because prospective bidders will miss the design phase, and equipment will have already been reviewed and purchased for the project and the project will already be in the construction phase. Please provide clarification. Exhibit N Laney CUP Proposal Final: • Cx SOW – Is it the intent of the district to have the Cx Agent perform the design phase tasks retro-actively even though the team will be onboarded sometime during the construction phase? Please identify the SOW the Cx Agents need to perform based upon the award date.
Response: Insurance requirements will be addressed at the time of contract execution with the successful firm. --- Yes ---District will meet all code requirements for all new construction and ground-up buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. ---The goal was to request all education experience, “with particular experience in community college work”. --The District is not seeking a specific range for the fee schedule. ---Contract is tentatively scheduled to be awarded July 27, 2021. ---Refer to Exhibit N-1 of the RFP “schedule “ for all pre-construction and construction dates. Exhibit “N” of the RFP includes anticipated meetings with the CXA and the minimum hours the CXA should include in their proposals to attend. ---The CXA will be expected to perform a summary level peer review of the DSA submittal set. CXA will also be expected to provide quality assurance to ensure that the contractor’s work is in compliance with the contract documents. ---The CXA is NOT expected to perform design phase tasks. Refer to the RFI response 6 above for the extent of the CXA role for Commissioning.
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: Due to the amount of information required in the 20 21/10 District-wide Building Commissioning Services RFQ, it would be exceptionally difficult to provide adequate responses within the limit of 12 pages. Would the district consider increasing the page limit for the RFQ to 25 pages?
Response: Please limit proposals to no more than twelve (12) pages as noted in the RFP section III, Requirements for Submittal of Qualifications.
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: Will you be posting the pre-proposal meeting presentation as well as the attendee list?
Response: Yes, the presentation and attendee list will be posted to Vendor Registry.
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: As per the RFQ/RFP, the responses to questions are to be issued by Friday, 6/18 and submissions are due on Monday, 6/21. Would the district consider extending the submission deadline to Friday, 6/25 to allow time for teams to adjust responses if required based on the responses to the questions?
Response: The District is currently not considering extending the deadline.
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: In the RFQ, Question 4: Relevant K-12 project experience asks for K-14 projects in California. Will you accept University building projects as part of this section or is it limited to K-14 only?
Response: Yes, we accept all education experience.
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: In the RFQ, Question 4: Relevant K-12 project experience asks for K-14 projects in California. Would it be acceptable to include CUP experience outside of K-14 campuses as part of our answer to this question?
Response: Yes, we accept all Commissioning experience.
Posted: 6/10/2021
Question: There are many questions pertaining to DSA. While we are happy to provide our DSA experience, questions pertaining to Notice of Completion and DSA final certification, etc., does not always fall into our scope as Commissioning Agents. How would you like us to address those questions?
Response: Provide the date when Commissioning scope was completed