For
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER &
CONVERSION OF AQUATIC CENTER TO INDOOR TURF FIELD HOUSE
For
MONTROSE, COLORADO
April 24, 2014
Issued by:
Montrose Recreation District
Proposal Statements due
(in hard copy and electronically):
2:00 PM
May 20, 2014
to:
Attn: Ken Sherbenou, Executive Director
25 Colorado Avenue
Montrose, CO 81401
(970) 249-7705
Page
of
The Montrose Recreation District (MRD) hereby requests proposals for the above named project. Proposers shall be professional firms with Engineers or Architects licensed by the State of Colorado. If the proposer is an out-of-state corporation, the firm shall be registered with the Secretary of State of Colorado to do business in Colorado. Proposers shall submit, in writing, information outlined under the PROPOSAL FORMAT section. The submittal shall address the selection criteria as listed herein and such other data as may be useful in evaluating the ability of the firm to perform the work required. Proposals should be short and concise.
Information contained in the Request For Proposal and in the proposal submitted by the winning consultant shall be incorporated by reference into and be considered part of the contract between MRD and the firm selected. A. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
To be considered, proposals must be received by the MRD at the following location before 2:00 p.m. MST on Thursday, May 20, 2014 at:
Montrose Recreation District 25 Colorado Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401 Attn: Ken Sherbenou, Executive Director
Any proposal received after that time shall not be considered, but shall be returned unopened to the proposer. Telegraphic or fax submittals shall not be considered.
Proposers are advised that the MRD will utilize a two-step process for selecting a consultant team through this solicitation. This process dictates that proposers divide their submittals in two parts: a technical proposal and a
price proposal. Proposers shall submit their technical proposals and price proposals simultaneously on the date and time specified in this RFP, sealed in separate, clearly marked envelopes as follows:
Technical Proposal: One (1) original of the technical proposal, bound with all required attachments, One (1) electronic copy of the technical proposal and five (7) additional copies shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and clearly marked with the following information. Additionally, an electronic copy of the technical proposal must also be emailed to Ken Sherbenou at [email protected]:
(a) the phrase: “COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER & INDOOR TURF FIELD
HOUSE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL"
(b) the date specified for receipt of proposals; and (c) the name and address of the proposer.
Price Proposal: A price proposal is to be submitted in accordance with the requirements of this section and as follows: Submit one (1) original in a sealed envelope attached to the original technical proposal and clearly marked with the following information:
(a) the phrase: “COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER & INDOOR TURF FIELD
HOUSE PRICE PROPOSAL"
Page
of
(c) the name and address of the proposer.
NOTE: the price proposal should NOT be emailed. Instead, the hard copy of the price proposal should be attached to the hard copy of the technical proposal, but again, be in a separate and sealed envelope.
Proposers are advised that proposal content and completeness are most important, and that clear and effective presentations are preferred, with unnecessarily elaborate, decorative or extraneous materials discouraged. Each section within the proposal shall be clearly defined for easy reference. All blank spaces must be filled in (e.g., the number “0”, the word “None” or the words “Not Applicable” or “NA” are to be inserted, where appropriate, on the forms).
B. PROPOSAL FORMAT
The proposer shall use the following format when preparing their proposal: Technical Proposal (Envelope #1)
1. Project Team - Identify the project team members and their positions on the team, briefly outlining the responsibilities of each member. The office of each project team member not located in Montrose should be identified. Detailed resumes should be attached to the back of this section to identify the experience and qualifications of the individual team members. If the proposer intends to utilize one or more sub-consultants to complete a portion of the Project, all such firms must be listed on Attachment B-3. The proposer shall describe the relevance of each firm to the Project and explain past relationships between the proposer (the legally responsible entity) and each sub-consultant.
2. Schedule - The anticipated time to perform the required work with respect to the availability of project personnel and present work load should be identified using the tasks outlined under the SCOPE OF WORK. Identify the team members and the percentage of time that they will dedicate to each task. A bar graph is suggested for this section. Additional tasks or duties not addressed in Exhibit "A - Scope of Work” of the Professional Service Agreement should be discussed in paragraph form, under Section 6, Other Information. Attention is directed to Exhibit “C - Project Schedule” of the proposed Professional Services Agreement, draft copy attached.
3. Project Familiarity - The proposer should show briefly and concisely his familiarity with the project. The proposer is expected to thoroughly review all data submitted and identify potential problems that may arise during design and construction.
4. Scope of Work – At a minimum, all proposers must commit to the services outlined in Exhibit A – Scope of Work of the proposed Professional Services Agreement, draft copy attached. The MRD and proposer may supplement the draft Scope of Work with any additional work or clarification of work that is determined necessary for the successful completion of the project. It is our intent that the proposer shall provide complete project design and construction administration services.
Page
of
sheets if more than three references are provided. Provide the following information for each reference: Client Name, Address, Contact Person, Telephone, Project Dates, Project Description, Original Project Budget, Final Project Cost, and Explanation of variation from original budget to final project cost.
6. Other Information - Any additional information the proposer feels would be useful to the committee in evaluating the proposal should be placed in this section.
7. Project Specific Information - The proposer should carefully review Exhibit A “Scope of Work”. This exhibit provides background and other information as well as directions necessary for proposal preparation.
8. Proposal Submittal Checklist: This form (Attachment B-1) must be completed and signed by the proposer and attached to the outside of the technical proposal envelope to ensure completeness of submittal.
9. Sample Professional Services Contract: include the contract that your firm, if selected, would propose to use such as the AIA B101.
Any proposal not submitted in this format shall be deemed to be non-responsive and shall not be considered further by the MRD. The signer of the proposal must declare that the person(s), company or parties interested in the contract as principals are named therein; that it is, in all respects, fair and in good faith without collusion or fraud; and that the signer of the proposal has the authority to bind the principal proposer.
Price Proposal (Envelope #2, an electronic copy is not necessary)
1. Cover Letter - Identify the proposer’s name, mailing address, telephone number and contact person(s). The letter must be signed by the proposer, and should be limited to two (2) pages. Consortiums, joint ventures or teams submitting proposals, although permitted and encouraged, will not be considered to be responsive unless it is established that all contractual responsibility shall rest solely with one consultant or one legal entity, which shall not be a subsidiary or affiliate with limited resources. Each submittal shall indicate the entity responsible for execution on behalf of the team.
2. Provide a complete line item budget for all Phases of the work listed in “Exhibit B” COMPENSATION SCHEDULE, of the Scope of Work, with breakdown of each phase, as necessary to complete the Project as specified in the RFP, its attachments and other
documents referenced. Each proposer shall certify that its price proposal shall remain valid for a period of at least one hundred and twenty (120) days. In the event that a contract award by the MRD is delayed beyond the 120-day period, such award shall be conditioned upon the proposer's acceptance.
C. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
A pre-proposal conference will be at the Aquatic Center, 25 Colorado Avenue, on Monday May 5, 2014, beginning at 2:00p.m. MST, for the purpose of responding to questions or request for clarification regarding the contents of this RFP. Proposers are strongly encouraged to attend the pre-proposal meeting.
Page
of
D. ADDENDA
Any and all proposers may make inquiries in writing to MRD at any time prior to noon on May 13, 2014. Any written question of a proposer regarding the meaning or interpretation of the RFP, work scope, specifications, etc., must be submitted to the MRD prior to the above specified date. All clarifications given to any prospective proposer shall be similarly furnished to all prospective proposers in summary form as an addendum to this RFP. No technical assistance shall be given by the MRD to any proposer in preparation of its proposal.
Written inquiries shall be directed via email to: Ken Sherbenou, Executive Director at [email protected].
Any or all changes, additions, or clarifications in connection with this RFP shall be issued by the MRD in the form of written addenda. Each proposer must sign the “Acknowledgment of Receipt of RFP Packet, Sample Agreement and Addenda” form (Attachment B-2) and submit the executed form with its proposal. Oral comments, responses and/or representations shall not be binding upon the MRD.
E. DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSAL CONTENTS
All proposals and supporting documents, except such information that discloses proprietary or financial information submitted in response to qualification statements, becomes public information held in custody of the MRD after the proposal submittal date given in this RFP. The MRD assumes no liability for the use or disclosure of technical or cost data submitted by any proposer.
Nevertheless, if a proposal contains information that the respondent does not want disclosed to the public, or used for any purpose other than the evaluation of this offer, all such information must be indicated with the following or similar statement:
"The information contained on pages ________ shall not be duplicated, used in whole or in part for any purpose other than to evaluate the proposal provided; that if a contract is awarded to this firm as a result of the submission of such information, the Montrose Recreation District shall have the right to duplicate, use or disclose this information to the extent provided in the contract or to the extent provided by law. This restriction does not limit the right of the Montrose Recreation District to use the information contained herein if obtained from another source."
All such nondisclosure items specified in the proposal shall be subject to disclosure as provided in "The Colorado Open Records Act (CORA)" or as otherwise provided by law.
F. PROPOSAL PROTEST PROCEDURES
Proposers are advised that the MRD shall administer any protest initiated by a protesting party concerning this solicitation in the following manner:
1. The protesting party may submit a written protest prior to the due date for Proposals stated elsewhere in this RFP, unless the protesting party did not know and could not have known of the
Page
of
facts giving rise to such protest prior to the Proposal opening. The protest shall be submitted within three (3) calendar days after the protesting party acquires actual knowledge of the facts giving rise thereto.
2. Upon receipt of a timely written protest, the MRD shall not proceed further with the solicitation or contract award until all administrative remedies have been exhausted, or until the MRD’s Executive Director and/or MRD’s Attorney determines that a contract award without delay is necessary to protect the interests of the MRD.
3. Timely protests shall be reviewed by the MRD’s Executive Director, who shall consider all facts, technical support, and justification submitted by the protesting party, and in a timely manner render a decision on behalf of MRD as to the validity of the protest and the disposition thereof. The MRD’s Executive Director may request additional information from the protesting party to clarify or support its protest, in which case such information shall be supplied in writing by the protesting party within three (3) calendar days following the MRD’s request. After the MRD’s Executive Director renders a decision on the protest the mater shall proceed to the MRD’s Board of Directors for the award of the contract to the successful proposer.
4. In the event that the protesting party disagrees with any response, determination and decision resides with MRD’s Executive Director. The Executive Director’s decision is final.
G. SELECTION PROCESS
Each responsive proposal received by the MRD shall be evaluated in a consistent manner as described in this subsection. A responsive proposal is one which complies with all material aspects of the solicitation, both as to the method and timeliness of submission, and as to the substance of any resulting contract. Prospective proposers are advised to submit all required forms, attachments, and other information as requested in the RFP. Proposals that do not comply with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be rejected as non-responsive.
As noted above, the MRD shall utilize a two-step evaluation process for selecting a Consultant through this solicitation. The two-step process dictates that proposers make submittals in two parts: a technical proposal and a price proposal. It is the intent of the MRD to first evaluate all technical proposals in order to establish a quantitative ranking of the proposals exclusive of price. The MRD shall use this process to identify one or more proposers who are considered to be best qualified to perform the work required by the MRD.
All responsive technical proposals will be reviewed by an evaluation committee comprised of the Growth Committee of the MRD, the Executive Director, and other individuals selected by the MRD. A weighted evaluation methodology shall be used to rank each proposal, using the evaluation criteria and relative weighting indicated on Attachment A-1.
After review of the technical proposals, the best qualified firms MAY be invited to participate in oral interviews with the evaluation committee for the purpose of clarifying and confirming offerings and assertions made. Similar to the proposals, a weighted evaluation methodology shall be used to rank each interview, using the evaluation criteria and relative weighting indicated on Attachment A-2. At the end of the proposal review or interview process, depending on whether the evaluation committee deems interviews necessary, the MRD shall then unseal the highest ranked proposer price proposal and initiate negotiations toward a final contract containing a detailed scope of work and budget. If
Page
of
negotiations with the first selected proposer are unsuccessful, negotiations with the second highest ranked proposer will be pursued, followed by the third proposer if necessary to secure a contract. In the event the MRD is unable to secure an Agreement with any of the qualified proposers this procurement may be terminated at the MRD’s option.
The MRD reserves the right to delay making an award as necessary to permit proper study and analysis of all proposals received, to split award on proposals, to reject any or all proposals received, and to make a pre-award survey to determine the capability of any or all proposers. The MRD reserves the right to reject any or all proposals if it believes there is a sound business reason for doing so, and to negotiate matters of Consultant performance, project schedule and other issues not directly related to the proposal price submitted prior to awarding a contract. The MRD further reserves the right to cancel the procurement process at any time during the evaluation process if it appears that the proposals received are not suitable for any reason whatsoever. The MRD additionally reserves the right to adjust dates within the requests for proposals as it deems to be in its best interest.
H. SELECTION PROCESS SCHEDULE
April 26, 2014 Legal Notice Posted in Montrose Daily Press May 5, 2014 Pre-proposal Meeting at 2pm MST
May 20, 2014 Proposals due from Consultants
May 27, 2014 Evaluation Committee members complete ranking of proposals; sent to Ken.
May 28, 2014 Evaluation Committee meets at 12pm to determine if interviews are necessary. If interviews are not necessary, final selection is made.
June 5, 2014 Evaluation Committee interviews held if necessary at 11:30am. After the interviews and recommends final selection if interviews were held
June 6, 2014* Special board meeting to approve final selection at 8am. June 9, 2014* Notice-to-proceed issued by MRD if Agreement approved June 3 or 12, 2014* Professional Services Agreement finalized with successful
Consultant.
ATTACHMENT “A-1”
CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA WEIGHTING
CRITERIA
Applicable experience
Approach to project
Cost saving & Project innovations
Technical expertise
Adequate resources
Performance on past projects/Reference check
Familiarity with project
Proposal quality
DESCRIPTION
Quantity and type of experience with design of similar Recreation Center facilities and renovation/re-purposing projects, Public Involvement and Construction Management work.
Methods of identifying, understanding and addressing project, including significant issues i.e.; Natatorium Design, Foundation Design, Renovation, Public Information, Safety, etc. Involvement of local firms in the project.
Ideas or suggestions to improve schedule, cost, feasibility, or scope of the project.
Expertise dealing with the technical issues important to the project.
Sufficient available staff and equipment to complete the proposed work within the requested time frame.
Success on previous projects in the way of project deadlines, cost control, quality, innovative deadline driven design approaches used, public relations and general cooperative nature of the firm. Knowledge of project background, needs, goals, limitations, and special considerations.
Readability, completeness, brevity, and organization of the proposal. TOTAL WEIGHT 15 15 10 15 5 20 15 5 100
ATTACHMENT “A-2”
SECOND ROUND CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION (INTERVIEWS)
CRITERIA WEIGHTING
INTERVIEW SCORE COMMENTS
--Completeness 10
--Method of presentation 10 --Professionalism 10 --Enthusiasm for project 10 Innovative ideas/creative project approach 20 Applicable experience/Technical expertise 20 Familiarity with project 20 TOTAL 100
List reasons you have for recommending a particular firm:
... ... ... ... ... ... ... List reasons you have for rejecting a particular firm:
... ... ... ... ... ... General comments/clarifications/questions: ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
ATTACHMENT “B-1”
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST This form must be completed and returned with the proposal submittal.
Attachment Description
Proposer’s Initials
MRD’s Initials B-1 Proposal Submittal Checklist
Envelope #1 Technical Proposal
Sealed Envelope with required information on front
Signed Cover Letter Project Team Schedule Project Area Scope of Work References
Project Specific Information
Sample Professional Services Contract B-2 Acknowledgment of Receipt of RFP Packet,
Sample Agreement and Addenda B-3 Use of Sub-consultants
Envelope #2 Price Proposal
Sealed Envelope with required information on front
Signed Cover Letter
Project Fee Proposal with breakdown
Name of Proposer: _______________________________
Signature of Proposer: _______________________________
ATTACHMENT “B-2”
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT
OF RFP PACKET, SAMPLE AGREEMENT AND ADDENDA
The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of the Montrose Recreation District Request for Proposals (RFP) packet for COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER & INDOOR TURF FIELD HOUSE, including: Scope of Work, Compensation Schedule, Project Schedule, Informational Brochure and the following addenda issued during the procurement process.
Addendum #1: ______________________________________ dated _________
Addendum #2: ______________________________________ dated _________
Addendum #3: ______________________________________ dated _________
Failure to acknowledge receipt of the proposal packet, sample Agreement, and all addenda may cause the proposal to be considered non-responsive to this solicitation.
Name of Proposer: _______________________________ Signature of Proposer: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________ ATTACHMENT “B-3” USE OF SUBCONSULTANTS Sub-consultant Name/City/State
Est. Value of Work Work Tasks to be Assigned
Total Value of Subcontracts
Name of Proposer: _______________________________
Signature of Proposer: _______________________________
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF WORK
I.
Project Description
The Montrose Recreation District (MRD) is seeking qualification statements and service proposals from
consulting groups specializing in the area of multi-purpose recreation center design to address the
Montrose Recreation District’s intent to construct and operate a new stand-alone Community Recreation
Center (CRC). Additionally, the project also includes the subsequent renovation and conversion of the
current Aquatic Center into an indoor turf Field House (FH). The CRC will be built at a site owned by
MRD that is currently agricultural land, at 16350 Woodgate Road, Montrose CO, 81401. Once the CRC
is open, the main pool at the current facility, the Aquatic Center, will be converted into an indoor turf
field. The remaining portions of the current Aquatic Center including the multi-purpose rooms, lobby and
outdoor pool, slide and splash pad will remain as is. The specific nature of the scope of work for the
project is outlined in this Request for Proposals (RFP). Proposers responding will be evaluated and a
short list developed for formal interviews to be conducted on June 5
th, 2014 at 11:30am. A schedule for
Proposer selection and project completion is attached. Such proposals shall be submitted to the
Montrose Recreation District’s Aquatic Center, 25 Colorado Ave., Montrose CO 81401 as well as
emailed to Ken Sherbenou at [email protected], by 2:00 pm, May 20, 2014.
II.
Introduction and Background
The Montrose Recreation District is located approximately 60 miles south of Grand Junction on the
Western Slope of Colorado and comprises the City of Montrose as well as surrounding areas. The City
of Montrose has an estimated population of 18,388 and the Montrose Recreation District has an
estimated population of 30,465, which includes the City of Montrose. The Montrose Recreation District
has a 17,000 square foot aquatic center built in 1987 with a recent 6,000 square foot addition of lobby
space, community rooms, and offices, built in 2009. Additionally, the MRD owns, manages and
in opportunities only in aquatics.
In April of 2014, City of Montrose voters approved a sales and use tax increase for the construction of the
CRC and FH. The total project budget including building construction, site construction and other project
development costs for the Community Recreation Center and Field House is $25,450,452. These budget
were prepared assuming constructing beginning in early 2015, and based upon the median value of
preliminary bids submitted by four general contractors with a history of building similar projects. Exhibit “D –
Informational Brochure” shows the final facility program and total project budget.
III.
Project Objectives
The objectives of this project are:
Utilize the existing and approved conceptual design to complete final design and engineering
documents.
Assist in the selection of the CMGC. Following selection, work constructively with MRD and
the CMGC to prepare the 35%, 65% and 100% design documents.
Prepare 35%, 65% and 100% design documents and construction documents.
Provide construction administration services of the CMGC for the construction of both the CRC
and the FH.
IV.
Scope of Services
The minimum scope of services related to this project includes the following: [The Proposer is invited to
provide additional steps or work tasks as they see fit to assist in the completion of the objective.]
A.
CMGC Selection
Proposer shall work with the MRD to prepare an RFP/RFQ for selection of a qualified
CMGC.
Proposer shall conduct all necessary pre-bid meetings for the CMGC, create all
necessary addendums and facilitate the CMGC selection meeting
The proposer shall apply the conceptual and schematic designs defined in the CRC
and Woodgate Master Plan (phase 1 only) and use these to guide towards final design
of the CRC and FH. The schematic design does not include mechanical, electrical or
structural design. There is a completed feasibility study by Barker-Rinker-Seacat
(BRS), which is owned by BRS and MRD. Both have agreed to let the winning
proposer use this design.
The proposal shall work with MRD to define a RFP/RFQ for a Construction Manager
General Contractor (CMGC). The MRD, architect/engineer and construction manager
shall work as a team. This begins with the MRD and the selected architect/engineer
working together to select the CMGC.
After the CMGC is selected, the proposer shall meet with MRD’s board and staff and
Citizen Oversight Committee at the 35%, 65% and 100% design phases to ensure that
the design meets the goals of the project and that sufficient design progress is being
achieved. Representatives of the following groups may also be invited and engaged to
inform and support the progression of the process: the City Public Works and Planning
and Development Staff, Montrose Fire Protection District Personnel, Uncompahgre
Valley Water Users Association, Delta Montrose Electric Association, Montrose County
Health Department Personnel and any other review agency the proposer, the CMGC or
MRD feels appropriate.
The proposer shall facilitate a minimum of two (2), well publicized community wide
public meetings to gain feedback from the public on key design decisions. The MRD
will also be a part of the presentations at these meetings and expect that the CMGC
will also participate. The suggested points to have these meetings are following the
35% and 100% design benchmarks, but MRD is open to guidance from the rest of the
team: the architect/engineer and the CMGC.
The proposer shall provide 35%, 65% and 100% design documents to be reviewed by
MRD staff and the Growth Committee of the Board of Directors.
Upon completion of the Design Development Phase, the proposer shall make
necessary revisions to the 100% design and develop construction documents and a
project manual to be used in the construction process. These documents must comply
with applicable building codes, ADA regulations, State Pool Codes and any other
federal, state or local agency that has jurisdiction over this project.
D.
Collaboration with the CMGC
Proposer shall work closely with the MRD board and staff as well as the CMGC in
preparation of the design at every phase.
The MRD intends that the CMGC and Architect will work as a team to produce design
documents that consider constructability and place an importance on value engineering
where possible.
Proposer shall provide construction administration services in conjunction with the
CMGC including participation in periodic on site meetings, submittal reviews,
construction inspection services, and any other necessary item to ensure proper
construction of the project. Construction administration may include daily observation
during critical construction periods and periodic observations during less important
periods of construction.
CMGC shall have overall responsibility for budgeting and construction estimating.
Proposer will work with CMGC on feasibility of systems, document completeness and
acceptability and alternatives for bidding.
V.
Materials/Information to be Provided by the Montrose Recreation District (attachments in the RFP)
The following documents will be provided to the proposer by the Montrose Recreation District. All
files will be placed in dropbox.com and invitations will be sent to join the folder at the same time that
the RFP/RFQ is issued:
•
Aerial of the Woodgate Property outlined in red
•
Existing Construction Documents of the Aquatic Center including the original construction in
1987 as well as the 2008 addition.
•
Due Diligence Documents including but not limited to geotechnical information (2005
geotechnical was done when the site was planned as the Grove residential subdivision; the
2012 report from Buckhorn was completed when the land was contemplated as a site for a
recreation center); the real estate listing that shows zoning; water/sewer lines for the former
planned use as the Grove subdivision; a traffic response memo; development site analysis and
geotechnical analysis from Buckhorn Geotech; bore hole locations from BRS used by
Buckhorn; Phase I environmental assessment of the land from Ken Walters.
•
Site plan for all four phases (1. CRC, 2. Trails, 3. Outdoor Amenities, 4. Future phases
(these future phases may be subject to change except for the outdoor pool). The scope of
this project only includes phase 1, the CRC. However, limited design will be needed to
ensure capacity for future phases. Phase 2 and 3 are grant contingent.
•
Currently developed partial schematic plans including floor plans, final site plan for phase 1 of
Woodgate, CRC renderings and building elevations. These were created by Barker Rinker
Seacat, and will be used by the winning proposer.
•
Improvement Survey for the Woodgate site from Buckhorn Geotech.
•
CRC and Woodgate Final Project Presentation from MRD.
•
Factual summary of Measure B provided to Montrose voters
•
Other relevant documents to the project.
A.
Project Budget
The total budget for the professional services for the architect/engineer includes design development,
construction documents, bidding documents/assistance and administration. Payment for these services
will be negotiated with the chosen Proposer.
B.
General Conditions
The following items are considered to be included as part of the basic compensation for this project:
Normal business expenses – payroll, consultants, materials, phone, postage, etc.
Cost of insurance
In-house computer time and service
Permits and license fees
Mileage
Travel fees, room and board, per diem
Printing costs for all standard review, bidding, and as-constructed plans and other correspondence
and contract documents
Film and processing
Overtime engineering and inspection
Any additional survey work that may be required including materials, stakes, etc
Additional required services
Any changes in the Proposers or Sub-proposers staff or fee structure shall be presented in writing to the
MRD for approval prior to initiating any changes or performing any work.
“EXHIBIT B”
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
The Proposer shall prepare and submit a lump sum compensation proposal. A Payment Schedule broken
into the following categories shall be submitted in the separate envelope as described in the RFP.
Requests for payment for specific phases shall not exceed the scheduled amount prior to completion of
that phase:
CMGC Selection
$ ______________________
Design Development Phase
$ ______________________
Construction Document Phase
$ ______________________
Bidding Documents & Assistance
$ ______________________
Construction Administration Phase
$ ______________________
“EXHIBIT C”
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The key milestones for the
MONTROSE COMMUNITY REC CENTER AND FIELD HOUSE
The proposer should complete the following schedule as part of the proposal and include any other
key dates needed. Also, if the proposer believes a certain date related to the CMGC is in need of
revision, please indicate this in your proposal.
Date
Schedule Item
______________
Submit CMGC RFP/RFQ to MRD board and growth committee for review
______________
MRD Approves CMGC RFP/RFQ
______________
CMGC RFP/RFQ Due
______________
CMGC Notice-to-proceed issued by MRD
______________
Hold project meeting with MRD Staff, Board and Oversight Committee
______________
Submit RFQ/RFP for Construction Manager/General Contractor
______________
Submit 35% design set
______________
Facilitate public meeting to review 35% design
______________
Meet with MRD and CMGC to discuss review 35% design
______________
Submit 65% design set
______________
Meet with MRD and CMGC to discuss review 65% design
______________
Submit 100% design set
______________
Facilitate public meeting to review 100% design
______________
Meet with MRD and CMGC to discuss review 100% design
______________
Submit Construction Documents for review
______________
Start Construction
______________
Completion Date
“
EXHIBIT D”:
INFORMATIONAL BROCHURE
I.
Final Facility Program
Program Space
Net Area
Selected Program
Gross Area
Facility Administration Spaces
1,045
1,275 SF
Required Building Support Spaces
6,950
8,479 SF
Child Watch / Babysitting
690
842 SF
Games Room
724
883 SF
Single HS / Double Middle School Courts Gymnasium
11,120
12,454 SF
Elevated Walk / Jog Track
4,800
5,376 SF
4,900
Weight / Fitness
5,640
6,881 SF
Active Community Room
1,650
2,013 SF
2 Racquetball Courts
1,600
1,792 SF
Aquatics Support
740
903 SF
8-Lane x 25-Meter Lap Pool with Bulkhead
12,000
13,440 SF
Medium Leisure Pool
10,680
13,030 SF
Therapy Pool
1,176
1,435 SF
Multi-Purpose Class/Party Rooms
750
915 SF
Sustainable Options
0 SF
Solar Hot Water Heating
0 SF
TOTAL
59,565
69,717
Renovate Existing into a Field House / Indoor Soccer
12,400
14,260 SF
II.
Project Budget Summary
FINAL FACILITY ESTIMATE
Project Component Cost
1. FACILITY CONSTRUCTION $18,961,835
2. SITE CONSTRUCTION $2,739,170
3. OTHER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS $2,702,315
4. AQUATIC CENTER RENOVATION $1,047,132
5. GRAND-TOTAL ALL PROJECT COSTS $25,450,452
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP–-
For
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER &
CONVERSION OF AQUATIC CENTER TO INDOOR TURF FIELD HOUSE
MONTROSE, COLORADO April 24, 2014
Issued by:
Montrose Recreation District
Proposal Statements due (in hard copy and electronically):
2:00 PM May 20, 2014
to:
Attn: Ken Sherbenou, Executive Director 25 Colorado Avenue
Montrose, CO 81401 (970) 249-7705
The Montrose Recreation District (MRD) hereby requests proposals for the above named project. Proposers shall be professional firms with Engineers or Architects licensed by the State of Colorado. If the proposer is an out-of-state corporation, the firm shall be registered with the Secretary of State of Colorado to do business in Colorado.
Proposers shall submit, in writing, information outlined under the PROPOSAL FORMAT section. The submittal shall address the selection criteria as listed herein and such other data as may be useful in evaluating the ability of the firm to perform the work required. Proposals should be short and concise.
Information contained in the Request For Proposal and in the proposal submitted by the winning consultant shall be incorporated by reference into and be considered part of the contract between MRD and the firm selected.
A. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
To be considered, proposals must be received by the MRD at the following location before 2:00 p.m. MST on Thursday, May 20, 2014 at:
Montrose Recreation District 25 Colorado Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401 Attn: Ken Sherbenou, Executive Director
Any proposal received after that time shall not be considered, but shall be returned unopened to the proposer. Telegraphic or fax submittals shall not be considered.
Proposers are advised that the MRD will utilize a two-step process for selecting a consultant team through this solicitation. This process dictates that proposers divide their submittals in two parts: a
technical proposal and a price proposal. Proposers shall submit their technical proposals and price proposals simultaneously on the date and time specified in this RFP, sealed in separate, clearly marked envelopes as follows:
Technical Proposal: One (1) original of the technical proposal, bound with all required attachments, One (1) electronic copy of the technical proposal and five (7) additional copies shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and clearly marked with the following information. Additionally, an electronic copy of the technical proposal must also be emailed to Ken Sherbenou at [email protected]:
(a) the phrase: “COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER & INDOOR TURF FIELD HOUSE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL"
(b) the date specified for receipt of proposals; and (c) the name and address of the proposer.
Price Proposal: A price proposal is to be submitted in accordance with the requirements of this section and as follows: Submit one (1) original in a sealed envelope attached to the original technical proposal and clearly marked with the following information:
TURF FIELD HOUSE PRICE PROPOSAL" (b) the date specified for receipt of proposals; and (c) the name and address of the proposer.
NOTE: the price proposal should NOT be emailed. Instead, the hard copy of the price proposal should be attached to the hard copy of the technical proposal, but again, be in a separate and sealed envelope.
Proposers are advised that proposal content and completeness are most important, and that clear and effective presentations are preferred, with unnecessarily elaborate, decorative or extraneous materials discouraged. Each section within the proposal shall be clearly defined for easy reference. All blank spaces must be filled in (e.g., the number “0”, the word “None” or the words “Not Applicable” or “NA” are to be inserted, where appropriate, on the forms).
B. PROPOSAL FORMAT
The proposer shall use the following format when preparing their proposal: Technical Proposal (Envelope #1)
1. Project Team - Identify the project team members and their positions on the team, briefly outlining the responsibilities of each member. The office of each project team member not located in Montrose should be identified. Detailed resumes should be attached to the back of this section to identify the experience and qualifications of the individual team members. If the proposer intends to utilize one or more sub-consultants to complete a portion of the Project, all such firms must be listed on Attachment B-3. The proposer shall describe the relevance of each firm to the Project and explain past relationships between the proposer (the legally responsible entity) and each sub-consultant.
2. Schedule - The anticipated time to perform the required work with respect to the availability of project personnel and present work load should be identified using the tasks outlined under the SCOPE OF WORK. Identify the team members and the percentage of time that they will dedicate to each task. A bar graph is suggested for this section. Additional tasks or duties not addressed in Exhibit "A - Scope of Work”, Agreement should be discussed in paragraph form, under Section 6, Other Information.
3. Project Familiarity - The proposer should show briefly and concisely his familiarity with the project. The proposer is expected to thoroughly review all data submitted and identify potential problems that may arise during design and construction.
4. Scope of Work – At a minimum, all proposers must commit to the services outlined in Exhibit A – Scope of Work. The MRD and proposer may supplement the draft Scope of Work with any additional work or clarification of work that is determined necessary for the successful completion of the project. It is our intent that the proposer shall provide complete project design and construction administration services.
5. References: List at least three (3) similar Recreation Center design projects. Use additional sheets if more than three references are provided. Provide the following information for each reference: Client Name, Address, Contact Person, Telephone, Project Dates, Project Description, Original Project Budget, Final Project Cost, and Explanation of variation from
original budget to final project cost.
6. Other Information - Any additional information the proposer feels would be useful to the committee in evaluating the proposal should be placed in this section.
7. Project Specific Information - The proposer should carefully review Exhibit A “Scope of Work”. This exhibit provides background and other information as well as directions necessary for proposal preparation. Additionally, more project specific information is available via the dropbox folder.
8. Proposal Submittal Checklist: This form (Attachment B-1) must be completed and signed by the proposer and attached to the outside of the technical proposal envelope to ensure completeness of submittal.
9. Sample Professional Services Contract: include the contract that your firm, if selected, would propose to use such as the AIA B101.
Any proposal not submitted in this format shall be deemed to be non-responsive and shall not be considered further by the MRD. The signer of the proposal must declare that the person(s), company or parties interested in the contract as principals are named therein; that it is, in all respects, fair and in good faith without collusion or fraud; and that the signer of the proposal has the authority to bind the principal proposer.
Price Proposal (Envelope #2, an electronic copy is not necessary)
1. Cover Letter - Identify the proposer’s name, mailing address, telephone number and contact person(s). The letter must be signed by the proposer, and should be limited to two (2) pages. Consortiums, joint ventures or teams submitting proposals, although permitted and encouraged, will not be considered to be responsive unless it is established that all contractual responsibility shall rest solely with one consultant or one legal entity, which shall not be a subsidiary or affiliate with limited resources. Each submittal shall indicate the entity responsible for execution on behalf of the team.
2. Provide a complete line item budget for all Phases of the work listed in “Exhibit B” COMPENSATION SCHEDULE, of the Scope of Work, with breakdown of each phase, as necessary to complete the Project as specified in the RFP, its attachments and other documents referenced. Each proposer shall certify that its price proposal shall remain valid for a period of at least one hundred and twenty (120) days. In the event that a contract award by the MRD is delayed beyond the 120-day period, such award shall be conditioned upon the proposer's acceptance.
C. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
A pre-proposal conference will be at the Aquatic Center, 25 Colorado Avenue, on Monday May 5, 2014, beginning at 2:00p.m. MST, for the purpose of responding to questions or request for clarification regarding the contents of this RFP. Proposers are strongly encouraged to attend the pre-proposal meeting.
D. ADDENDA
Any and all proposers may make inquiries in writing to MRD at any time prior to noon on May 13, 2014. Any written question of a proposer regarding the meaning or interpretation of the RFP, work
scope, specifications, etc., must be submitted to the MRD prior to the above specified date. All clarifications given to any prospective proposer shall be similarly furnished to all prospective proposers in summary form as an addendum to this RFP. No technical assistance shall be given by the MRD to any proposer in preparation of its proposal.
Written inquiries shall be directed via email to: Ken Sherbenou, Executive Director at [email protected].
Any or all changes, additions, or clarifications in connection with this RFP shall be issued by the MRD in the form of written addenda. Each proposer must sign the “Acknowledgment of Receipt of RFP Packet and Addenda” form (Attachment B-2) and submit the executed form with its proposal. Oral comments, responses and/or representations shall not be binding upon the MRD.
E. DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSAL CONTENTS
All proposals and supporting documents, except such information that discloses proprietary or financial information submitted in response to qualification statements, becomes public information held in custody of the MRD after the proposal submittal date given in this RFP. The MRD assumes no liability for the use or disclosure of technical or cost data submitted by any proposer.
Nevertheless, if a proposal contains information that the respondent does not want disclosed to the public, or used for any purpose other than the evaluation of this offer, all such information must be indicated with the following or similar statement:
"The information contained on pages ________ shall not be duplicated, used in whole or in part for any purpose other than to evaluate the proposal provided; that if a contract is awarded to this firm as a result of the submission of such information, the Montrose Recreation District shall have the right to duplicate, use or disclose this information to the extent provided in the contract or to the extent provided by law. This restriction does not limit the right of the Montrose Recreation District to use the information contained herein if obtained from another source."
All such nondisclosure items specified in the proposal shall be subject to disclosure as provided in "The Colorado Open Records Act (CORA)" or as otherwise provided by law.
F. PROPOSAL PROTEST PROCEDURES
Proposers are advised that the MRD shall administer any protest initiated by a protesting party concerning this solicitation in the following manner:
1. The protesting party may submit a written protest prior to the due date for Proposals stated elsewhere in this RFP, unless the protesting party did not know and could not have known of the facts giving rise to such protest prior to the Proposal opening. The protest shall be submitted within three (3) calendar days after the protesting party acquires actual knowledge of the facts giving rise thereto.
2. Upon receipt of a timely written protest, the MRD shall not proceed further with the solicitation or contract award until all administrative remedies have been exhausted, or until the MRD’s Executive Director and/or MRD’s Attorney determines that a contract award without delay is necessary to protect the interests of the MRD.
facts, technical support, and justification submitted by the protesting party, and in a timely manner render a decision on behalf of MRD as to the validity of the protest and the disposition thereof. The MRD’s Executive Director may request additional information from the protesting party to clarify or support its protest, in which case such information shall be supplied in writing by the protesting party within three (3) calendar days following the MRD’s request. After the MRD’s Executive Director renders a decision on the protest the mater shall proceed to the MRD’s Board of Directors for the award of the contract to the successful proposer.
4. In the event that the protesting party disagrees with any response, determination and decision resides with MRD’s Executive Director. The Executive Director’s decision is final. G. SELECTION PROCESS
Each responsive proposal received by the MRD shall be evaluated in a consistent manner as described in this subsection. A responsive proposal is one which complies with all material aspects of the solicitation, both as to the method and timeliness of submission, and as to the substance of any resulting contract. Prospective proposers are advised to submit all required forms, attachments, and other information as requested in the RFP. Proposals that do not comply with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be rejected as non-responsive.
As noted above, the MRD shall utilize a two-step evaluation process for selecting a Consultant through this solicitation. The two-step process dictates that proposers make submittals in two parts: a technical proposal and a price proposal. It is the intent of the MRD to first evaluate all technical proposals in order to establish a quantitative ranking of the proposals exclusive of price. The MRD shall use this process to identify one or more proposers who are considered to be best qualified to perform the work required by the MRD.
All responsive technical proposals will be reviewed by an evaluation committee comprised of the Growth Committee of the MRD, the Executive Director, and other individuals selected by the MRD. A weighted evaluation methodology shall be used to rank each proposal, using the evaluation criteria and relative weighting indicated on Attachment A-1.
After review of the technical proposals, the best qualified firms MAY be invited to participate in oral interviews with the evaluation committee for the purpose of clarifying and confirming offerings and assertions made. Similar to the proposals, a weighted evaluation methodology shall be used to rank each interview, using the evaluation criteria and relative weighting indicated on Attachment A-2. At the end of the proposal review or interview process, depending on whether the evaluation committee deems interviews necessary, the MRD shall then unseal the highest ranked proposer price proposal and initiate negotiations toward a final contract containing a detailed scope of work and budget. If negotiations with the first selected proposer are unsuccessful, negotiations with the second highest ranked proposer will be pursued, followed by the third proposer if necessary to secure a contract. In the event the MRD is unable to secure an Agreement with any of the qualified proposers this procurement may be terminated at the MRD’s option. The MRD reserves the right to delay making an award as necessary to permit proper study and analysis of all proposals received, to split award on proposals, to reject any or all proposals received, and to make a pre-award survey to determine the capability of any or all proposers. The MRD reserves the right to reject any or all proposals if it believes there is a sound business reason for doing so, and to negotiate matters of Consultant performance, project schedule and other issues not directly related to the proposal price
submitted prior to awarding a contract. The MRD further reserves the right to cancel the procurement process at any time during the evaluation process if it appears that the proposals received are not suitable for any reason whatsoever. The MRD additionally reserves the right to adjust dates within the requests for proposals as it deems to be in its best interest.
H. SELECTION PROCESS SCHEDULE
April 26, 2014 Legal Notice Posted in Montrose Daily Press May 5, 2014 Pre-proposal Meeting at 2pm MST
May 20, 2014 Proposals due from Consultants
May 27, 2014 Evaluation Committee members complete ranking of proposals; sent to Ken.
May 28, 2014 Evaluation Committee meets at 12pm to determine if interviews are necessary. If interviews are not necessary, final selection is made.
June 5, 2014 Evaluation Committee interviews held if necessary at 11:30am. After the interviews and recommends final selection if interviews were held
June 6, 2014* Special board meeting to approve final selection at 8am. June 9, 2014* Notice-to-proceed issued by MRD if Agreement approved June 3 or 12, 2014* Professional Services Agreement finalized with successful
Consultant.
ATTACHMENT “A-1”
CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA WEIGHTING
CRITERIA
Applicable experience
Approach to project
Cost saving & Project innovations
Technical expertise
Adequate resources
Performance on past projects/Reference check
Familiarity with project
Proposal quality
DESCRIPTION
Quantity and type of experience with design of similar Recreation Center facilities and renovation/re-purposing projects, Public Involvement and Construction Management work.
Methods of identifying, understanding and addressing project, including significant issues i.e.; Natatorium Design, Foundation Design, Renovation, Public Information, Safety, etc. Involvement of local firms in the project.
Ideas or suggestions to improve schedule, cost, feasibility, or scope of the project.
Expertise dealing with the technical issues important to the project.
Sufficient available staff and equipment to complete the proposed work within the requested time frame.
Success on previous projects in the way of project deadlines, cost control, quality, innovative deadline driven design approaches used, public relations and general cooperative nature of the firm. Knowledge of project background, needs, goals, limitations, and special considerations.
Readability, completeness, brevity, and organization of the proposal. TOTAL WEIGHT 15 15 10 15 5 20 15 5 100
ATTACHMENT “A-2”
SECOND ROUND CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION (INTERVIEWS, which may or may not be held)
CRITERIA WEIGHTING
INTERVIEW SCORE COMMENTS
--Completeness 10
--Method of presentation 10 --Professionalism 10 --Enthusiasm for project 10 Innovative ideas/creative project approach 20 Applicable experience/Technical expertise 20 Familiarity with project 20 TOTAL 100
List reasons you have for recommending a particular firm:
... ... ... ... ... ... ... List reasons you have for rejecting a particular firm:
... ... ... ... ... ... General comments/clarifications/questions: ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
ATTACHMENT “B-1”
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST This form must be completed and returned with the proposal submittal.
Attachment Description
Proposer’s Initials
MRD’s Initials B-1 Proposal Submittal Checklist
Envelope #1 Technical Proposal
Sealed Envelope with required information on front
Signed Cover Letter Project Team Schedule Project Area Scope of Work References
Project Specific Information
Sample Professional Services Contract B-2 Acknowledgment of Receipt of RFP Packet
and Addenda
B-3 Use of Sub-consultants
Envelope #2 Price Proposal
Sealed Envelope with required information on front
Signed Cover Letter
Project Fee Proposal with breakdown
Name of Proposer: _______________________________
Signature of Proposer: _______________________________
ATTACHMENT “B-2”
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF RFP PACKET AND ADDENDA
The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of the Montrose Recreation District Request for Proposals (RFP) packet for COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER & INDOOR TURF FIELD HOUSE, including: Scope of Work, Compensation Schedule, Project Schedule, Informational Brochure and the addenda files in the dropbox folder. Failure to acknowledge receipt of the proposal packet and all addenda may cause the proposal to be
considered non-responsive to this solicitation.
Name of Proposer: _______________________________ Signature of Proposer: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________ ATTACHMENT “B-3” USE OF SUBCONSULTANTS Sub-consultant Name/City/State
Est. Value of Work Work Tasks to be Assigned
Total Value of Subcontracts
Name of Proposer: _______________________________ Signature of Proposer: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF WORK
I. Project Description
The Montrose Recreation District (MRD) is seeking qualification statements and service proposals from consulting groups specializing in the area of multi-purpose recreation center design to address the Montrose Recreation District’s intent to construct and operate a new stand-alone Community Recreation Center (CRC). Additionally, the project also includes the subsequent renovation and conversion of the current Aquatic Center into an indoor turf Field House (FH). The CRC will be built at a site owned by MRD that is currently agricultural land, at 16350 Woodgate Road, Montrose CO, 81401. Once the CRC is open, the main pool at the current facility, the Aquatic Center, will be converted into an indoor turf field. The remaining portions of the current Aquatic Center including the multi-purpose rooms, lobby and outdoor pool, slide and splash pad will remain as is. The specific nature of the scope of work for the project is outlined in this Request for Proposals (RFP). Proposers responding will be evaluated and a short list developed for formal interviews to be conducted on June 5th, 2014 at 11:30am. A schedule for
Proposer selection and project completion is attached. Such proposals shall be submitted to the Montrose Recreation District’s Aquatic Center, 25 Colorado Ave., Montrose CO 81401 as well as emailed to Ken Sherbenou at [email protected], by 2:00 pm, May 20, 2014.
II. Introduction and Background
The Montrose Recreation District is located approximately 60 miles south of Grand Junction on the Western Slope of Colorado and comprises the City of Montrose as well as surrounding areas. The City of Montrose has an estimated population of 18,388 and the Montrose Recreation District has an
estimated population of 30,465, which includes the City of Montrose. The Montrose Recreation District has a 17,000 square foot aquatic center built in 1987 with a recent 6,000 square foot addition of lobby space, community rooms, and offices, built in 2009. Additionally, the MRD owns, manages and
in opportunities only in aquatics.
In April of 2014, City of Montrose voters approved a sales and use tax increase for the construction of the CRC and FH. The total project budget including building construction, site construction and other project development costs for the Community Recreation Center and Field House is $25,450,452. These budget were prepared assuming constructing beginning in early 2015, and based upon the median value of preliminary bids submitted by four general contractors with a history of building similar projects. Exhibit “D – Informational Brochure” shows the final facility program and total project budget.
III. Project Objectives
The objectives of this project are:
Utilize the existing and approved conceptual design to complete final design and engineering documents.
Assist in the selection of the CMGC. Following selection, work constructively with MRD and the CMGC to prepare the 35%, 65% and 100% design documents.
Prepare 35%, 65% and 100% design documents and construction documents.
Provide construction administration services of the CMGC for the construction of both the CRC and the FH.
IV. Scope of Services
The minimum scope of services related to this project includes the following: [The Proposer is invited to provide additional steps or work tasks as they see fit to assist in the completion of the objective.]
A. CMGC Selection
Proposer shall work with the MRD to prepare an RFP/RFQ for selection of a qualified CMGC.
Proposer shall conduct all necessary pre-bid meetings for the CMGC, create all necessary addendums and facilitate the CMGC selection meeting
The proposer shall apply the conceptual and schematic designs defined in the CRC and Woodgate Master Plan (phase 1 only) and use these to guide towards final design of the CRC and FH. The schematic design does not include mechanical, electrical or structural design. There is a completed feasibility study by Barker-Rinker-Seacat (BRS), which is owned by BRS and MRD. Both have agreed to let the winning proposer use this design.
The proposal shall work with MRD to define a RFP/RFQ for a Construction Manager General Contractor (CMGC). The MRD, architect/engineer and construction manager shall work as a team. This begins with the MRD and the selected architect/engineer working together to select the CMGC.
After the CMGC is selected, the proposer shall meet with MRD’s board and staff and Citizen Oversight Committee at the 35%, 65% and 100% design phases to ensure that the design meets the goals of the project and that sufficient design progress is being achieved. Representatives of the following groups may also be invited and engaged to inform and support the progression of the process: the City Public Works and Planning and Development Staff, Montrose Fire Protection District Personnel, Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, Delta Montrose Electric Association, Montrose County Health Department Personnel and any other review agency the proposer, the CMGC or MRD feels appropriate.
The proposer shall facilitate a minimum of two (2), well publicized community wide public meetings to gain feedback from the public on key design decisions. The MRD will also be a part of the presentations at these meetings and expect that the CMGC will also participate. The suggested points to have these meetings are following the 35% and 100% design benchmarks, but MRD is open to guidance from the rest of the team: the architect/engineer and the CMGC.
The proposer shall provide 35%, 65% and 100% design documents to be reviewed by MRD staff and the Growth Committee of the Board of Directors.
Upon completion of the Design Development Phase, the proposer shall make necessary revisions to the 100% design and develop construction documents and a project manual to be used in the construction process. These documents must comply with applicable building codes, ADA regulations, State Pool Codes and any other federal, state or local agency that has jurisdiction over this project.
D. Collaboration with the CMGC
Proposer shall work closely with the MRD board and staff as well as the CMGC in preparation of the design at every phase.
The MRD intends that the CMGC and Architect will work as a team to produce design documents that consider constructability and place an importance on value engineering where possible.
Proposer shall provide construction administration services in conjunction with the CMGC including participation in periodic on site meetings, submittal reviews, construction inspection services, and any other necessary item to ensure proper construction of the project. Construction administration may include daily observation during critical construction periods and periodic observations during less important periods of construction.
CMGC shall have overall responsibility for budgeting and construction estimating. Proposer will work with CMGC on feasibility of systems, document completeness and
acceptability and alternatives for bidding.
V. Materials/Information to be Provided by the Montrose Recreation District (attachments in the RFP) The following documents will be provided to the proposer by the Montrose Recreation District. All files will be placed in dropbox.com and invitations will be sent to join the folder at the same time that the RFP/RFQ is issued:
• Aerial of the Woodgate Property outlined in red
• Existing Construction Documents of the Aquatic Center including the original construction in 1987 as well as the 2008 addition.
