SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Hetch Hetchy Water & Power
Request for Proposals
AGREEMENT NO. DB-124 DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT
OCTOBER 2013
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION BUREAU SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 525 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, 8TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Hetch Hetchy Water and Power
Agreement No. DB-124 Design-Build Services
Table of Contents TITLE
PAGE
I.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 3
II.
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 4
III.
SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................................................ 5
IV.
QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 7
V.
PROPOSAL PROCESS ....................................................................................... 8
VI.
EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA............................................. 19
VII.
AWARD OF AN AGREEMENT....................................................................... 23
VIII.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 24
IX.
CONTRACT MONITORING DIVISION (CMD) REQUIREMENTS ........ 29
X.
ADDITIONAL CITY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................ 32
XI.
PROTEST PROCEDURES ............................................................................... 38
Appendices: A. Proposal Related Documents B. Special Provisions and General Requirements, and Criteria Package C. Proposed Microwave Sites D. Maintenance/Service Contract
DB-124
i
Request For Proposal
Acronyms and Abbreviations AAR
Alternative Analysis Report
AC
Alternating Current
ACI
American Concrete Association
AGM
Assistant General Manager
ASCE
American Society of Civil Engineers
BAWSCA
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
BDPL
Bay Division Pipeline
City
City & County of San Francisco
CDFG
California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CER
Conceptual Engineering Report
CIP
Capital Improvement Program
CMB
Construction Management Bureau
CMD
Contract Monitoring Division
CPI
Consumer Price Index
CPM
Critical Path Method
CSI
Construction Specifications Institute
DB
Design-Build
DPW
Department of Public Works
EIC
Earned Income Credit
EMB
Engineering Management Bureau
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FCC
Federal Communications Commission
FSHP
First Source Hiring Program
GBR
Geotechnical Baseline Report
GDR
Geotechnical Data Report
GIR
Geotechnical Interpretive Report
HCAO
Health Care Accountability Ordinance
HHWP
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power
IEEE
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IP
Internet Protocol
DB-124
Page 1
Request For Proposal
IRS
Internal Revenue Service
JV
Joint Venture
LAN
Local Area Network
LBE
Local Business Enterprise
LMR
Land Mobile Radio
LOS
Level of Service
LPTA
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
MCO
Minimum Compensation Ordinance
NEC
National Electric Code
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NERC
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NTP
Notice to Proceed
ODC
Other Direct Cost
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCSB
Program Controls and Support Bureau
PMB
Program Management Bureau
QA/QC
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RF
Radio Frequency
RFI
Request for Information
RFP
Request for Proposals
RFQ
Request for Qualifications
ROW
Right-of-Way
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SFPUC
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
TPC
Total Project Cost
TWR
Treated Water Reservoir
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VLAN
Virtual Local Area Network
WAN
Wide Area Network
WBS
Work Breakdown Structure
WECC
Western Electricity Coordinating Council
DB-124
Page 2
Request For Proposal
I.
INTRODUCTION 1.
Summary
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), a department of the City and County of San Francisco (the City), seeks to retain the services of a pre-qualified design-build firm to provide design-build services for the San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project. Design-build services will include, but not be limited to, turnkey planning, design, engineering, labor, materials procurement, delivery, installation, and commissioning of a 20-site digital microwave radio communication system to provide sufficient bandwidth to support system controls, telecommunications, and security at control stations. The selected Design-Builder may also be called upon to provide other related specialized services at the discretion of the SFPUC. The term Design-Builder shall refer to any legal entity(ies) submitting a proposal in response to this Request for Proposals (RFP). Please note that the terms "Design-Builder," “Design Builder,” "Proposer," "Bidder" and "Contractor" are used interchangeably throughout this RFP and the Proposal-related forms attached in Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D. The City has pre-qualified the following design-build firms through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. Only these four firms will be allowed to submit Proposals in response to this RFP. • • • •
Motorola Solutions, Inc. Jacobs Field Services North America, Inc. Burns & McDonnell Communications Services, Inc.
Design Builders shall comply with the City terms and conditions set forth in this RFP (including the attached Design-Build Agreement), taking no exceptions that substantively alter scope, affect cost or risk. During the RFP process, prospective Design-Builders will have the opportunity to submit questions and request clarifications from the City prior to submitting a proposal. We encourage prospective Design-Builders to take advantage of the opportunity to submit questions and request clarifications to help minimize the possibility of a DesignBuilder submitting a non-responsive Proposal. A list of the required communication sites is as follows (detailed information of each site is provided in Appendix C): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
DB-124
Tesla Treatment Facility Pelican Crossover San Joaquin Valve House Modesto lease Site, TRISTAR #9289* Roselle Crossover Albers Road Valve House Oakdale Office Warnerville Substation Emery Cross Over
10. MP 56.51 PCCP Tie-in 11. Throttle Station 2 12. Throttle Station 1 13. Oakdale Portal 14. Rock River Lime Plant 15. Transmission Tower 122N 16. Red Mountain Bar 17. Moccasin peak 18. Livermore Hills* 19. Mt. Allison*
Page 3
Request For Proposal
20. Calaveras Substation * lease sites Additional information relating to the RFP may be posted on the SFPUC Contract Administration Bureau webpage (http://contracts.sfwater.org) as needed, after issuance of the RFP. Design Builders should therefore consult the SFPUC website regularly for these updates. Sealed Written Technical Submittals must be received at the SFPUC, Contract Administration Bureau, 525 Golden Gate Ave., 1st Floor in Customer Service, San Francisco, California no later than 2:00 p.m. January 24, 2014. Final Proposals, Sealed Bid Securities, Schedule of Bid Prices, and any Revised Written Technical Submittals must be received at the SFPUC, Contract Administration Bureau, 525 Golden Gate Ave., 1st Floor in Customer Service, San Francisco, California no later than 2:00 p.m. on February 28, 2014. In accordance with San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 6, no proposal will be accepted and no agreement in excess of $400,000 will be awarded by the City and County of San Francisco until such time as: (a) the department head recommends the agreement for award; and (b) the Commission then adopts a resolution awarding the agreement. Pursuant to Charter Section 3.105, all contract awards are subject to certification by the Controller as to the availability of funds. Proposals shall remain valid a minimum of 90 days from the proposal due date. A Bid Security, in an amount equal to 10% percent of the Total Lump Sum Bid Price as reflected in Total Bid Price (Base Bid) of the Schedule of Bid Prices (Document 00410), shall be submitted with each Schedule of Bid Prices in accordance with the instructions set forth in the RFP. Questions concerning this Request for Proposal should be addressed to Blake Blackwell at
[email protected].
2.
Project Schedule
The SFPUC has established the following target dates for issuance, receipt and evaluation of proposals in addition to award of a Design-Build Agreement in response to this RFP. The following dates are tentative, non-binding and are subject to change without prior notice: Advertisement of RFP ......................................................................... November 27, 2013 Pre-Submittal Conference and Site Visit ............................................... December 9, 2013 Deadline for Design Builders to Submit Questions .................................. January 7, 2014 Deadline for Design Builders to Submit Written Technical Submittal...... January 24, 2014 Notification of Technical Acceptability of Written Technical Submittal February 14, 2014 Deadline for Design Builders to Submit Final Proposals, Bid Securities, Schedule of Bid Prices and Revised Written Technical Submittals’ ...................................... February 28, 2014
DB-124
Page 2
Request For Proposal
Posting of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Proposal/Design Builder; Protest Period Begins ..................................................................................................... March 7, 2014 Public Utilities Commission Authorization to Execute Agreement ................ April 2014 Deadline for Design Builder to Achieve Vendor Compliance and Execute Agreement* .... .................................................................................................................. April 25, 2014 Notice of Award** *
Failure by the Design Builder to obtain compliance with City requirements and execute an Agreement within two (2) weeks of the date of Public Utilities Commission’s authorization to execute the Agreement may result in the General Manager’s executing an Agreement with the next highest ranked Design Builder. Such compliance shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: the submission of the required bonds and certificates of insurance, compliance with Administrative Code Chapter 12B and obtaining approved city vendor status.
**
Award is anticipated to be made within the Proposal validity term of 90 days.
3.
Conflict of Interest
The successful Design Builder will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the applicable provisions of state and local laws related to conflicts of interest, including Section 15.103 of the City's Charter, Article III, Chapter 2 of City’s Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, and Section 87100 et seq. and Section 1090 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California. The successful Design Builder will be required to acknowledge that it is familiar with these laws; certify that it does not know of any facts that constitute a violation of said provisions; and agree to immediately notify the City if it becomes aware of any such fact during the term of the Agreement. Individuals who will perform work for the City on behalf of the successful Design Builder might be deemed consultants under state and local conflict of interest laws. If so, such individuals will be required to submit a Statement of Economic Interests, California Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700, to the City within ten calendar days of the City notifying the successful Design Builder that the City has selected the Design Builder.
OBLIGATIONS It is the obligation of the Design Builder as well as their Subconsultants to determine whether or not participation in this contract constitutes a conflict of interest. While the SFPUC staff maintains records regarding award and execution of contracts, it does not have access to specific information concerning which entities, partners, sub-consultants or team members perform specific work on these contracts. A conflict of interest or an unfair advantage may exist without any knowledge of the SFPUC. The database of our records concerning work performed by various sub-consultants is available for reference to consultants making their own determination of potential conflicts. This information should not be relied upon as either comprehensive or indisputable. Final determination of the potential for conflict must be made by the Design Builder. A court makes the
DB-124
Page 2
Request For Proposal
final determination of whether an actual conflict exists. The guidelines below address conflicts under the aforementioned laws but there are other laws that affect qualifications for a contract. WORK There are many phases of work pertaining to SFPUC contracts. Potential conflicts arise out of progressive participation in various phases of that work. Set forth below are general guidelines regarding when participation in a specific phase of work may create a conflict. Because an actual determination regarding whether a conflict exists depends upon the specific facts of each situation, the general guidelines set forth below should be treated only as a starting point. A Design Builder should consult with their legal counsel to determine whether a potential conflict exists.
DB-124
•
RFI/RFQ/RFP/Proposal Documents. Any entity that participates in the development of any of these documents has participated in “making the contract” for the work. For these purposes “participating in making” has the same meaning as under Government Code Section 1090 and the term “entity” includes any parent, subsidiary or other related business.
•
General Program Management Services. Since these advisory services necessarily assist in general definitions of the program and projects, conflict would likely exist in participation in the design phase of any project.
•
Preplanning. Participation in preplanning work, which may include the needs assessment report, since it is an initial phase, would likely be limited only by previous participation in preparation of RFI/RFQ/RFP or proposal documents.
•
Planning. The planning phase of any project establishes the facts pertaining to the project and possible options for consideration. This phase typically does not result in the making of any contract.
Alternative Analysis Report. This phase proposes to decision-makers the various alternatives in project scope, cost, schedule and environmental impact necessary to make a determination of the proper project. Firms may have a conflict of interest in subsequent design work if they participated in the decision-making process of selecting an alternative.
Conceptual Engineering Report. This document defines the project and shapes the design contract. Participation in this phase may likely be in conflict with any future design services.
•
Environmental Review. Similar to the planning phase, this phase of work gathers information from other sources resulting in a definition of the project for the purposes of reviewing the environmental effects of the work. Firms participating in environmental review would likely not have a conflict in participating in subsequent phases.
•
Final Engineering Design. Documents produced under this phase constitute the definition of the construction contract. Participation in this phase would likely be in conflict with participation in any subsequent phases, such as construction management or general construction.
•
Construction Management. This work consists of review, assessment and recommendation for actions based on interpretation of contract documents. No firm under one contract can
Page 3
Request For Proposal
review any of its own work performed under another contract. Conflicts would likely arise had any firm participated in either preparation of final engineering design or any documents enumerated in a contract for construction or documents the SFPUC requires a Design Builder to rely on in the preparation of their proposal. •
Construction. It is unlikely that participation in construction contracts would result in conflicts on subsequent contracts. Restrictions on participation in construction contracts may be stipulated in other federal, state or local laws.
•
General. Work associated with gathering, assessing, reviewing technical data such as geotechnical investigations, site surveys, condition assessments would likely have conflicts with other work only if the firms were in a position to review their own work.
CONSULTATION WITH COUNSEL The SFPUC strongly advises any proposing/bidding firm to consult with their legal counsel to determine whether or not a conflict of interest exists. It is the responsibility of the proposing/bidding firm to make that determination.
II.
BACKGROUND 1.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is a department of the City and County of San Francisco that provides retail drinking water and wastewater services to San Francisco, wholesale water to three Bay Area counties, and green hydroelectric and solar power to San Francisco's municipal departments. We are comprised of three essential 24/7 service utilities: Water, Wastewater and Power. These functions are supported by the Business Services, Infrastructure and External Affairs bureaus. Headquartered at 525 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco, the SFPUC has approximately 2,300 employees working in seven counties with a combined annual operating budget of over $700 million. The mission of the SFPUC is to: •
• • •
Serve San Francisco and its Bay Area customers with reliable, high quality and affordable water, while maximizing benefits from power operations and responsibly managing the resources entrusted to its care; Protect public health, public safety and the environment by providing reliable and efficient collection, treatment and disposal of San Francisco’s wastewater; Conduct its business affairs in a manner that promotes efficiency, minimizes waste and ensures rate payers confidence; and Promote diversity and the health, safety and professional development of its employees.
The SFPUC is comprised of three (3) separate enterprises. The SFPUC Water Enterprise is responsible for managing the transmission, treatment, storage and distribution of potable water to San Francisco’s wholesale and retail customers. The SFPUC Wastewater Enterprise is
DB-124
Page 4
Request For Proposal
responsible for managing the collection, treatment and disposal of San Francisco’s wastewater. The SFPUC Power Enterprise is responsible for managing retail power sales, transmission and power scheduling, energy efficiency programs, street lighting services, utilities planning for redevelopment projects, energy resource planning efforts and various other energy services.
2.
Project Background and Objectives
As part of the SFPUC’s Microwave Radio Communication System Design-Build Services, the SFPUC plans to install a microwave radio communication system, consisting of 20 sites/hops along the San Joaquin Valley from Moccasin Peak to Calaveras Substation in Tuolumne, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Contra Costa, and Alameda Counties to provide sufficient bandwidth to support system controls, telecommunications, and site security at control stations. Some sites will require full development of the site, including providing power, site fencing, new communications towers, equipment enclosures, back-up power, and microwave radio equipment. The Engineer’s Estimate for this work is $5.5 million.
III.
SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.
Introduction
The SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP) Division has developed the enclosed scope of services for this RFP. The primary role of the selected Design-Builder will be to provide turnkey planning, design, engineering, labor, materials procurement, delivery, installation, and commissioning of a 20-site digital microwave radio communication system. The selected DesignBuilder will work under the direction of the Project Manager and HHWP’s Project Engineer and Resident Engineer. Prospective Design-Builders will submit proposals according to the instructions and conditions contained in this RFP, including its appendices and attachments. The Design-Build Agreement, DB-124, which includes Appendix A (Proposal Related Documents), Appendix B (Special Provisions and General Requirements, and Criteria Package), Appendix C (Proposed Microwave Sites), and Appendix D (Maintenance/Service Contract) will form the Design-Build Agreement between the City and the successful Design Builder. Each Design Builder shall provide a Proposal consistent with the full scope of the obligations terms and conditions described therein.
DB-124
Page 5
Request For Proposal
2.
Schedule
The proposed Project will proceed in two phases.
Start NTP #1 for Phase 1: Design Engineering and Procurement Preparation 65% Design
SFPUC/HHWP Review 95% Design SFPUC/HHWP Review 100% Design SFPUC/HHWP Review NTP #2 for Phase 2: Construction Construction (for Substantial Completion) Final Completion
Finish
Duration
Week 1
Week 12
Week 13 Week 13 Week 23 Week 23 Week 27
Week 15 Week 22 Week 25 Week 26 Week 28
84 consecutive calendar (CC) days 14 CC days 70 CC days 14 CC days 28 CC days 14 CC days
Week 1
Week 52
Week 52
Week 57
365 CC days 30 CC days
A. Phase 1: Design Engineering and Procurement Preparation The City intends to issue Notice to Proceed ("NTP") for Phase 1 work soon after Award (expected May 2013). Phase 1 work will include design engineering, and long lead item procurement preparation including limited ordering necessary to meet engineering and delivery obligations so as to support overall project schedule. The City will not pay for non-installed long lead items; payment will be made only after Design-Builder incorporates the items into the work per the Design-Build Agreement. Design-Builder will be responsible for planning accordingly when scheduling the procurement and installation of long lead items. B. Phase 2: Construction The Design-Builder shall have up to 365 consecutive calendar days from Phase 2 NTP to reach Substantial Completion (SC) and then 30 consecutive calendar days from SC to reach Final Completion. . Design Builders shall predicate their proposal on these schedule constraints and in accordance with the Project Milestone Schedule found in Document 00802, Special Provisions and General Requirements, Appendix B.
3.
DB-124
General Description of Services
Page 6
Request For Proposal
This RFP solicits the following services from a Design Builder: (1) design, including studies, investigations, planning; (2) preparation of specifications and drawings for the microwave system, site work, structural, electrical, and other required specialties; (3) supply and delivery of equipment and tools; (4) procuring FCC and any other required licenses; (5) assisting with obtaining leases for lease sites; (6) system installation; and (7) start-up, testing, commissioning, warranty, and guarantee of the San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project. The Design Builder shall perform all design, fabrication, renovation and startup tasks as set forth in the Design-Build Agreement (Appendix A). Close coordination with SFPUC staff is essential for the timely completion of the whole project.
4.
CEQA Environmental Review – Option to Modify Project
As detailed in Appendix A, Document 00300, Section 1.2, the project has undergone environmental review as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Changes to the project description, such as the addition of project sites not previously examined in the CEQA Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, may trigger the need for additional CEQA review by the San Francisco Planning Department. The SFPUC will work with Design Builders to evaluate the need for project changes, including any deviations between the project elements in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and the scope of this RFP, as well as any changes proposed by the Design Bidder. The SFPUC retains final authority in the selection and approval of changes to the project.
IV.
QUALIFICATIONS 1. Pre-Qualification of Prime Design Builder and Joint Venture (JV) Partners The qualification requirements for Prime Design Builders and Joint Venture Partners were set forth in the RFQ for the Project published on August 16, 2012. Based on the RFQ process, the City has pre-qualified the following firms: • • • •
Motorola Solutions, Inc. Jacobs Field Services North America, Inc. Burns & McDonnell Communications Systems, Inc.
Only the four firms listed above will be allowed to submit Proposals.
2.
Key/Lead Team Member Qualifications
As a condition of the award of Contract, the LPTA Design Builder must meet the qualifications for key team members as specified. The key team members and other engineers and professionals providing design services must be currently licensed to practice in California in the appropriate fields of civil engineering, electrical engineering, structural engineering or other disciplines applicable to the services provided. The
DB-124
Page 7
Request For Proposal
Design Builder shall list the qualifications of all employees involved in the microwave system design and field installation work in their proposal.
V.
PROPOSAL PROCESS 1. Pre-Submittal Conference, Site Visit and Requests for Information •
Mandatory Pre-Submittal Conference The pre-submittal conference is scheduled for December 9, 2013 at 9:00 A.M. The conference will be held at: Administration Building Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 1 Lakeshore Drive, Junction Hwy 120 and Hwy 49 Moccasin, CA 95347
•
Questions regarding the RFP will be addressed at this conference and any new information will be provided at that time. While City staff may provide oral clarifications, explanations or responses to any inquiries, the City is not bound by any oral representation. If any new and/or substantive information is provided in response to questions raised at the pre-submittal conference, it will be memorialized in a written addendum to this RFP.
•
Optional Site Visit Design Builders are strongly encouraged to attend a site visit facilitated by SFPUC project staff to be held immediately after the pre-submittal conference (December 9, 2013). Design Builders must meet SFPUC project staff at the project site located at: Administration Building Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 1 Lakeshore Drive, Junction Hwy 120 and Hwy 49 Moccasin, CA 95347
DB-124
•
The site visit is scheduled for three (3) days (December 9, 2013 through December 11, 2013).
•
The site visit will span the entire project as all sites will be visited.
•
Some sites are not accessible by public roads so bidders are strongly encouraged to attend.
•
Visitors will be able to see inside buildings where new equipment will be placed.
•
Tentative site visit schedule is as follows: o
December 9, 2013, noon to 4PM – Visit 4 sites (Moccasin Peak to Rock River Lime Plant)
o
December 10, 2013, 8AM to 4PM – Visit 8 sites (Oakdale Portal to Albers Road Valve House)
Page 8
Request For Proposal
o
December 11, 2013, 8AM to 4PM – Visit 8 sites (Roselle Cross Over to Calaveras Substation)
•
Safety hard hats and boots are required to enter the Site Viewing location.
•
Requests for Information All requests for information concerning the RFP, whether submitted before or after the PreSubmittal conference, must be in writing and directed to Blake Blackwell at
[email protected]. All inquiries should include the number and title of the RFP. Substantive replies will be memorialized in written addenda to be made part of this RFP. All addenda will be posted on the Contract Administration Bureau webpage at: http://contracts.sfwater.org. This RFP will only be governed by information provided through written addenda. With the exception of Contract Monitoring Division (CMD) or City contracting inquiries, no questions or requests for interpretation will be accepted after February 19, 2014.
2. Design Builder’s Acknowledgement of Addenda •
As part of their proposals, prospective Design-Builders must acknowledge receipt of this RFP and all addenda to this RFP using Document 00432 (see Appendix A). Failure by a prospective Design-Builder to submit a complete Document 00432 with its Proposal, acknowledging receipt of all Addenda issued prior to the due date for Proposals, may cause a Design-Builder’s Proposal to be deemed non-responsive and result in its rejection by the City.
3. Proposal Submittal •
Deliver the following items in a sealed package clearly marked “Proposal- DB-124, DesignBuild Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project by [Design Builder’s Name]: 1) Written Technical Submittal: One (1) 3-ring bounded, original hard copy and six (6) electronic copies (in .pdf format on CD or flash drive) of the proposal and any related information (See Section V.4); The package, which includes the Design-Builder’s Written Technical Submittal, must be received at the following location no later than 2:00 p.m. on January 24, 2014. Electronic submittal only is not acceptable. Proposals must be submitted via mail or delivery. Postmarks will not be considered evidence of delivery. Late proposals may be deemed non-responsive and rejected. Proposals shall be mailed to: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Contract Administration Bureau Attn: Blake Blackwell RE: DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102
DB-124
Page 9
Request For Proposal
or Proposals should be delivered to: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Contract Administration Bureau Attn: Blake Blackwell RE: DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 1st Floor, Customer Service San Francisco, CA 94102
4. Initial Written Technical Submittal Format and Content •
The Initial Written Technical Submittal shall be (1) clear and concise, (2) responsive to all RFP requirements and (3) not contain extraneous information not directly related to this Project. Design Builders shall submit one (1) 3-ring bounded original hard copy and six (6) electronic copies (in .pdf format on CD or flash drive) of the Initial Written Technical Submittal. The bounded hard copy shall be presented in the form of a written report separated by tabs. The electronic media (CD or flash drive) shall be formatted in an identical manner and shall contain folders with the following headings, in order: PART I – TRANSMITTAL LETTER PART II – ORGANIZATION & KEY PERSONNEL PART III – PROJECT UNDERSTANDING PART IV – PROJECT DESIGN APPROACH
•
The outside of the Initial Written Technical Submittal envelope/package shall include Design Builder's name and address and shall be labeled “Proposal/Initial Written Technical Submittal - DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project by [Design Builder’s Name]”.
•
The Design Builder’s Initial Written Technical Submittal must include the following information: Part I - Transmittal Letter •
Design Builders shall provide a transmittal letter signed by an individual authorized to obligate the Design Builder to fulfill the commitments contained in the proposal. The letter must include the following: 1) a statement identifying the Lead Design Builder if a JV is responding to this RFP; 2) a contact for all communications pertaining to the Design Builder’s proposal (include telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and mailing address);
DB-124
Page 10
Request For Proposal
3) a statement of the Design Builder’s overall ability and qualifications to conduct the work; 4) a statement that the Design Builder agrees to comply fully with the terms and conditions of the Design Build Agreement, attached hereto in Appendix A; and 5) a statement that the Design Builder agrees to fully comply with all applicable San Francisco laws. Part II – Organization and Key Personnel •
Provide an organization chart showing the structure and positions of the team proposed to be assigned to the Project, including significant design subconsultants and construction subcontractors. Describe the organizational position, function and responsibilities of each team member, showing reporting relationships and showing clear lines of authority and communication. Describe training requirements and certifications for each type of working personnel.
•
Identify the following Key Personnel proposed for the Project. Key Personnel (those who will dedicate no less than 50% of their time to the Project) must be committed to the Project for its duration, and may not be removed or substituted without SFPUC’s prior written consent. Any proposed substitute must meet all applicable qualification requirements as set forth in this RFP. The On-Site Field Construction Manager can also serve in the role of Construction Superintendent and Construction Quality Manager. 1) Design Build Project Manager who will be the primary interface for all technical and construction matters for this Project. 2) Design Manager 3) Quality Manager for design 4) On-Site Field Construction Manager 5) Construction Superintendent(s) 6) Designated Site Safety Officer 7) Construction Quality Manager 8) Microwave System Design Lead Engineer 9) Electrical Design Lead Engineer 10) Structural Design Lead Engineer
•
For each of the Key Personnel, provide the following background information. 1) Years of employment with current employer. 2) Identify any other projects this person will be involved with concurrently with the Project, and state the time commitment for the Project and each other project. 3) Identify professional registrations, education, certifications and credentials held by this person that are applicable to the Project.
DB-124
Page 11
Request For Proposal
•
Include the resume of each Key Personnel showing relevant project and Design Build experience as well as all professional registrations.
Part III – Project Understanding •
Discuss major work elements and tasks involved in the Project.
•
Illustrate clearly and concisely the Design Builder's understanding of the commercial, technical, fabrication and renovation elements that must be addressed for successful completion of the Project.
•
Identify all proposed shut downs and tie-ins for installing the new microwave communication system.
Part IV - Project Design Approach •
Design Builders shall include a Project Design Approach consisting of technical design documents that describe the intent, quality, value and constructability of their proposed designs. The technical design documents should be equivalent to 35% design completion and address materials of construction, manufacturing processes, renovation and sustainable principles or practices that are incorporated into the design.
•
The Project Design Approach submittal should provide the best presentation of the Design Builder’s design, the project approach for design and construction of the San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project. It should include the following information: 1) Critical path schedules on all work to be performed including design package submittals; material procurement and testing reports submittals; shop drawing preparation and submittals; construction; startup, testing and commissioning of each site/hop and the overall system. All work elements shall be completed in accordance with schedules stipulated in Document 00802, Special Provisions and General Requirements, Appendix B. 2) The size of crew, number of shifts per day, hour per day and days worked per week for onsite work for the communication system upgrade. 3) Specific Design Details in accordance with Criteria Package Appendix B (for the digital microwave equipment), addressing Communication Routes and Site Plans and including the following items: a.) Communication Routes 1.
DB-124
Provide network path routing map. Repeater hops are non-essential and can be changed to minimize the cost of the project and to maximize the system efficiency. It is recommended to consider the existing SFPUC leased tower sites at Mt. Allison and Livermore Hills
Page 12
Request For Proposal
are preferable to new leased sites that do not have contracts in place with the City. Proposals proposing one or more new leased sites must include information/approach demonstrating that a lease could be secured within the project schedule. Failure to provide such information may result in a “Not Acceptable” rating. 2.
Provide network antenna and tower layout showing hop relationships and antenna locations and heights on communication towers and transmission towers. a. Clearance to power conductors to be maintained at 12’ minimum clearance. b. Provide tower load calculations to document that tower structures can support the proposed antennas. Assume that all towers will require load study including leased towers. We encourage Bidders to consult the San Joaquin Valve House Transmission Tower Structural Study, performed by Black and Veatch under contract with the City based on the project plans, and included in Appendix C of the RFP.
3.
Provide path profiles and calculations. a. End of line hops to have a minimum of 55Mbps capacity and use only one polarization. b. Repeater hops to have a minimum of 330Mbps capacity. Use of dual polarization is acceptable as long as hot standby is provided. c. Path design to be 99.999% reliable. d. Fade Margin shall be greater than 35 dB @no greater than 10-6 BER.
b.) Site Plans
DB-124
1.
24 DC systems: a. Provide design load calculations based on: 1. Eight hours backup for sites with AC based on 70% battery capacity, N+1 rectifier capacity and 12 hour recharge time. 2. Seventy two hours for sites with solar based on 70% battery capacity.
2.
Solar Power a. Provide array design calculations b. Provide array monthly power production calculations. c. Provide LP generator specifications. d. DC system “trouble” contact to be monitored by Modicon remote I/O for alarm monitoring.
3.
Tower and Foundations a. Provide tower specifications and foundation design
Page 13
Request For Proposal
b. c. d. e. f.
g. h. i.
Radio equipment enclosures with maintenance personnel protection as required for outdoor installations. Fencing modifications to existing or new fencing. Transmission tower locations require security fence around radio equipment. Modification of existing fencing acceptable. Generator location if required. Outside radio equipment enclosures requiring power from existing buildings shall include a separate 1 ½” communication conduit to the building for owners use. Waveguide to be run in 4 inch PVC coated galvanized conduit to safeguard against vandalism. Tower designed for 30% extra capacity for future antennas. Site #3 and site #8 site shall have a 10’x12’ communication shelter with A/C, 120/208 VAC electrical panel, fire system, back up fan cooling, door monitor and site “attended” switch.
4) Provide Design Details • Radio manufacturer and model proposed, MNI Proteus M or MX radios are HHWP standard. Radio proposals to include spare parts list and recommended spares. i. Radios to be indoor design. ii. SNMP based NMS interface iii. Support AES encryption for 128 and 256 bit AES iv. Adaptive Code and Modulation to ensure Ethernet path continuity during poor propagation periods. v. The 1+1 protected microwave radio equipment shall be fully redundant with automatic switching between the primary and standby paths. No active components may exist in the data path where the failure of which would interrupt radio traffic. Internal power supplies, multiplexers, line build-out circuits, Ethernet switches, modems, transmitters and receivers shall be fully redundant. Failover switching time shall be 100 ms or less. Redundancy switching shall be software selectable for Primary Path Preferred (i.e., revertive) or for No Path Preference (non revertive). The protected radio shall include errorless receiver switching for Space Diversity applications. It shall be possible to select and lock the radio to either the primary or the backup path. A warning alarm will be issued when the radio locked to either path. The radio shall include facilities for switching between the primary and backup path via both a hardware switch and through software commands. All field replaceable units (FRU) shall either have an individual On/Off switch or be hot-pluggable. Replacement of modules in the off-line side of a 1+1 protected radio shall be possible without interrupting traffic carried by the radio. vi. 24VDC power
DB-124
Page 14
Request For Proposal
• • •
• • • • •
•
•
vii. IP type Radio equipment enclosure design cooling approach Site #3 and #8 communication shelter layout and electrical one line. Modicom Momentum with Ethernet based remote I/O for radio equipment enclosure security and environment monitoring including temperature, humidity, door opening and other necessary equipment status except sites 1 and 17. Standard environmental monitoring is an Omega HX93DAC-F. Site #3 and #8 to have a single monitoring PLC. Alternative network routing if used. Waveguide pressurization plans. DC system manufacturer and model proposed, Eltek V series rectifiers and BC2000 controller are HHWP standard. Antenna manufacture and model. HHWP standard is dual polarized. Both polarizations can be used for 330 Mbps hops. Network routing requires a minimum of six separate Ethernet radio channels. Ethernet port 1 to be assigned to the Control Net, (CN), port 2 to be Business Network, (BN), and port three through six will be spare. Ethernet ports to be port based VLAN capable. The following sites require network switches installed in the equipment enclosures: 1, 3, 7-9, 14 and 17. CN standard switch: Ruggedcom RX1511-L3-DIN-48P-L3SEL3HW-6TX01. BN standard switch: CISCO IE-3000-8TC-E. Site 18 requires only the BN switch. Note that the existing radio enclosure at site 8 needs communication conduit between the existing equipment and new communication shelter.
5) Drawings: Title Sheet containing SFPUC logo and name, Project Title, Project Number, Job Number, Drawing Title, and Design Builder Name. Provide complete drawings depicting the microwave system, peripheral systems, site improvements, etc. Design Builder’s drawing number, revision number, sheet number and total number of sheets shall appear on each drawing. These drawings are for informational purposes only to evaluate proposals and need not meet final drawing quality requirements. Drawings to be in ACAD 2011 or later format. a. b. c. d.
Network hop map Network antenna elevation profile Enclosure layout Site plans
6) Design Builder shall prepare a detailed preventative maintenance plan for the microwave system equipment to ensure reliability and to maintain any manufacturer warranties. As part of its contractual obligations, Design Builder will be required to enter into a separate two-year operations, support, service,
DB-124
Page 15
Request For Proposal
and maintenance services agreement with the City to implement the preventative maintenance plan (see Appendix D). 7) Proposed Acceptance/Rejection Criteria a. Proposals shall include the acceptance/rejection criteria that the Design Builder proposes to use for inspection of construction, start up, commissioning and testing. Criteria must be in conformance with the Criteria Package in Appendix B, at a minimum, and be sufficiently detailed as to allow for ready comprehension and use. 8) Minimum Design Builder Technical Requirements Checklist (Document 0002) a. This completed checklist will be used by the Technical Review Panel as the set of questions referenced in Section VI - Step 2, (used to evaluate the pass/fail (Acceptable/Non Acceptable) status of the Proposal).
5. Final Proposal Requirements Deliver the following items in a sealed package clearly marked “Final Proposal- DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project by [Design Builder’s Name]: 1) Final Written Technical Submittal: One (1) 3-ring bounded, original hard copy and six (6) electronic copies (in .pdf format on CD or flash drive) of the proposal and any related information (See Section V.4). Including resubmitting, which shall clearly indicate the changes and new information provided. PART I – TRANSMITTAL LETTER PART II – ORGANIZATION & KEY PERSONNEL PART III – PROJECT UNDERSTANDING PART IV – PROJECT DESIGN APPROACH ATTACHMENT A 2) Schedule of Bid Prices: One (1) original, one (1) copy of the Schedule of Bid Prices in a separate sealed envelope. Envelope must be labeled “Proposal/Schedule of Bid Prices - DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project by [Design Builder’s Name]” (See Section V.5.B); 3) CMD Forms: Please submit one (1) original and one (1) copy of CMD Attachment 6 forms in a separate sealed envelope labeled “CMD Forms - DB-124, DesignBuild Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Project by [Design Builder’s Name]” (See Section V.5.A and Section IX.1.c.); and 4) CMD/12B & 12C Form: One (1) original and one (1) copy of CMD form (Form No. 12B-101) in a separate sealed envelope labeled “CMD/12B Forms - DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Project by [Design Builder’s Name]” (See Section V.5.A and Section IX.2).
DB-124
Page 16
Request For Proposal
The package, which includes the Design Builder’s Final Written Technical Submittal and three (3) separately sealed envelopes, must be received at the following location no later than 2:00 p.m. on January 24, 2014. Postmarks will not be considered evidence of delivery. Late proposals may be deemed non-responsive and rejected. Proposals shall be mailed to: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Contract Administration Bureau Attn: Blake Blackwell RE: DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project 525 Golden Gate Ave, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 or Proposals should be delivered to: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Contract Administration Bureau Attn: Blake Blackwell RE: DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 1st Floor, Customer Service San Francisco, CA 94102 Attachment A to Final Written Technical Submittal -- Miscellaneous Bid Forms •
•
•
DB-124
Design Builder will complete, execute and include as Attachment A to its Final Written Technical Submittal, the Miscellaneous Bid Forms as listed in Appendix A - Design Builder Checklist (excluding those bid forms that are to be submitted with the Proposal in separate, sealed envelopes, and those forms that are to be submitted after Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Design Builder ranking is announced). As part of the Miscellaneous Bid Form package, Design Builder shall submit a Bid Security, in an amount equal to 10 percent of the Total Bid Price set forth in the Schedule of Bid Prices (Document 00410), using Document 00430 (Appendix A). The Bid Security may be in the form of a corporate surety bond or an irrevocable standby letter of credit on a bank or trust company doing business and having an office in the State of California, having a combined capital and surplus of at least $50,000,000 and subject to the supervision and examination by federal or state authority as provided for in San Francisco Administrative Code section 6.21.A.4. If a Proposer uses a Bid Bond for its Bid Security, the Proposer must submit the Bid Bond using a hard copy version of the Bid Bond form provided by the City (see
Page 17
Request For Proposal
•
•
•
6.
Document 000430, Appendix A) or an exact, true and correct photocopy of such form. The Bid Bond form may not be retyped, reformatted, or transcribed onto another form, or altered in any manner except for the purpose of completing the form. The submittal of a Bid Bond that uses a form other than the City’s Bid Bond form may result in the rejection of the Bid Bond and the rejection of the corresponding Proposal as nonresponsive. If a Proposer submits a Bid Bond, the Bond must be duly executed on behalf of the surety in accordance with applicable law. Submitted Bid Bonds must contain original signatures; photocopy signatures are not acceptable. The surety executing the Bid Bond must be legally authorized to engage in the business of furnishing surety bonds in the State of California, and must have either a current A.M. Best Rating of not less than “A-,VIII” or shall be listed in the current version of the United States Department of the Treasury’s Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570). If a Proposer submits an irrevocable standby letter of credit instead of a Bid Bond, the Proposer must submit the letter of credit on a form provided by or approved in advance by the City. If a Proposer intends to submit an irrevocable standby letter of credit with its Proposal, the Proposer must notify the SFPUC Contract Administration Bureau as of such intent at least five (5) business days prior to the due date for Final Written Technical Submittals. If the Commission awards a Design-Build Agreement to the successful Design-Builder, and such Design-Builder fails to execute the Design-Build Agreement and/or fails to furnish all items required by the RFP within the time limits specified, then the City may reject such Proposer’s Proposal and select the next LPTA Design Builder until all Proposals have been exhausted or the City may reject all Proposals. The Proposer whose Proposal is rejected for such failure(s) shall be liable for and forfeit to the City the amount of the difference, not to exceed the amount of the Bid Security, between the amount of the Proposal of the Proposer so rejected and the greater amount for which the City procures the Work.
Supplemental Final Proposal Requirements •
Contract Monitoring Division Forms All proposals submitted must include the following Contract Monitoring Division (CMD) Forms contained in the CMD Attachment 6: 1) Form 2B: “Good Faith Outreach” Requirements Form; Please submit one (1) original and one (1) copy of the above forms with your Final Proposal. The forms should be placed in a separate sealed envelope labeled “CMD Forms - DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project by [Design Builder’s Name]” and delivered with the proposal package. One (1) original and one (1) copy of the CMD/12B form (Form No. 12B-101) must be submitted in a separate sealed envelope labeled “CMD/12B Forms - DB-124, DesignBuild Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Project by [Design Builder’s Name]” and delivered with the proposal package.
DB-124
Page 18
Request For Proposal
Failure to complete, sign and submit each of the CMD forms listed above may result in the proposal being deemed non-responsive and rejected. •
Schedule of Bid Prices Each Proposal shall include a separate sealed envelope containing the Design Builder's Schedule of Bid Prices prepared using Document 00410 (see Appendix A). Design Builder shall complete Bid Items 1 through 30 and their summation as Total Bid Price (Base Bid). In addition Design Builder shall complete Deductive Alternate No. 1 in accordance with the instructions from Document 00410. One (1) original and one (1) copy of the Schedule of Bid Prices must be submitted in a separate sealed envelope labeled “Proposal/Schedule of Bid Prices - DB-124, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project by [Design Builder’s Name]” and delivered with the proposal package. Submitted Schedules of Bid Prices will not be opened until Final Written Technical Submittal Evaluation is complete.
7.
VI.
Design Builder’s Escrow Proposal Documents •
Design Builder is hereby advised that its Proposal is subject to the terms of Document 00496, Escrow Proposal Documents, included in Appendix A – Escrow Document Forms.
•
The LPTA Design Builder shall submit a set of Escrow Proposal Documents accompanied by a signed Escrow Proposal Document Declaration form (refer to Document 00496/APA) within 10 working days after the LPTA Design Builder is announced in the manner specified.
EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA
Consistent with the requirements of Administrative Code section 6.61(E), the Design Builder that submits the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest price (the "Lowest Price Technically Acceptable" proposal or "LPTA") will be announced as the apparent successful Design Builder eligible for award of the Design-Build Agreement. The LPTA evaluation will consist of the following three steps: 1) Submittal and Evaluation of Initial Written Technical Submittals 2) Submittal and Evaluation of Final Proposals a) Total Bid Prices b) Final Written Technical Submittals c) Bid Forms & CMD Forms 3) Calculation and Announcement of LPTA Design-Builder
Step 1. Submittal and Evaluation of Initial Written Technical Submittal
DB-124
Page 19
Request For Proposal
As required by section V.3 of the RFP, each Design Builder must submit an Initial Written Technical Submittal. The Technical Review Panel will review each Initial Written Technical Submittal to determine whether it meets the acceptability levels established in the RFP for each technical evaluation factor or sub-factor. The technical evaluation factors and sub-factors reflect the requirements of the Criteria Package set forth in the Design-Build Agreement (Appendix A). Initial Written Technical Submittals that fail to comply with the requirements of the design-criteria will be rated "Non Acceptable." The Panel will review and evaluate each Written Technical Submittal based on a series of pass/fail (Acceptable/Non Acceptable) criteria represented by the set of questions in the Design Builder Technical Requirements Checklist (Document 0002). Please note that an evaluation factor with sub-factors, to be rated "Acceptable" overall, must be rated "Acceptable" on all sub-factors. After members of the Panel individually and independently evaluate and rate all factors and sub-factors, the Panel as a whole will assign a Consensus Rating for each Initial Written Technical Submittal as either "Acceptable" or "Non Acceptable." The Consensus Rating will be the determinative rating for each Initial Written Technical Submittal. To receive an "Acceptable" Consensus Rating, an Initial Written Technical Submittal must be rated "Acceptable" by the Panel for each and every factor and sub-factor. A rating of "Non Acceptable" by the Panel for any evaluation factor or subfactor will result in an overall Consensus Rating of "Non Acceptable." Important: Design Builders whose Initial Written Technical Submittals are rated “Non Acceptable” will have a minimum period of two weeks to revise their Technical Submittals and incorporate such revisions into their Final Written Technical Submittals (submitted with Final Proposals). Please note that Initial Written Technical Submittals should contain thorough and detailed responses as required in Section V.4 of the RFP. The following types of responses in a Written Technical Submittal are not adequate and may result in a determination that a Written Technical Submittal is Non Acceptable: (i) general statements that the Design Builder understands or will comply with the design-criteria, without further elaboration or explanation; (ii) statements paraphrasing the design criteria, without further elaboration or explanation; or (iii) general or overly broad responses such as "standard procedures will be employed" or "well known techniques will be used." In addition, the Panel will consider a Design Builder's conformance with the specified format and submission requirements specified in the RFP as part of the Initial Technical Submittal Evaluation. A Design Builder's failure to comply with the format and/or the submission requirements may be indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. Accordingly, material omission(s) or deviation(s) may cause an Initial Written Technical Submittal to be rated as Non Acceptable. Furthermore, the Design Builder must adhere to the prescribed page and formatting limitations. Information submitted that exceeds the specified page and formatting limits will NOT be considered in the Initial Written Technical Submittal evaluation. For example, the City will not evaluate excess information; if four pages are submitted in response to an item with a three page limitation, the information of the fourth page will not be considered or evaluated.
DB-124
Page 20
Request For Proposal
Step 2. Review and Evaluation of Final Proposals Step 2a. Initial Screening SFPUC and CMD staff will review each Final Proposal to determine if it is responsive to RFP requirements and if the applicable Design Builder meets minimum standards of responsibility. Final Proposals will be reviewed for completeness, format requirements, and responsiveness to RFP requirements. Proposals that do not meet minimum submittal or content requirements of this RFP, or that take material exception(s) to the RFP requirements (including but not limited to the provisions of the Design-Build Agreement), may be rejected and eliminated from further consideration. Design Builders are reminded and cautioned that, as set forth in section VII of the RFP, the substantive, material terms and conditions of the Design Build Agreement attached to the RFP in Appendix A will not be negotiable. Accordingly, a Final Proposal that contains material exceptions to such terms and conditions may be rejected as non-responsive. Step 2b. Bid Forms per Document 00016
Step 2c. Final Written Technical Submittal Evaluation As required by section V.3 of the RFP, each Design Builder must submit a Final Written Technical Submittal. Each Design-Builder must provide a list describing the differences (if any) between its Initial Written Technical Submittal and its Final Written Technical Submittal. Absent extenuating circumstances, a Design-Builder’s Final Written Technical Submittal should not contain material modifications to the technical aspects that were contained in its Initial Technical Submittal, except to the extent necessary to address factors or sub-factors rated as Non Acceptable by the Technical Review Panel (if any) and any addenda issued by the City after submittal of the Initial Written Technical Submittals. The Technical Review Panel will review each Final Written Technical Submittal to determine whether it meets the acceptability levels established in the RFP for each technical evaluation factor or sub-factor. The technical evaluation factors and sub-factors reflect the requirements of the design criteria set forth in the Design-Build Agreement (Appendix A). Final Written Technical Submittals that fail to comply with the requirements of the design-criteria will be rated "Non Acceptable", and the applicable Final Proposals will be rejected as non-responsive. The Panel will review and evaluate each Final Written Technical Submittal based on a series of pass/fail (Acceptable/Non Acceptable) criteria represented by the set of questions in the Design Builder Technical Requirements Checklist (Document 0002). Please note than an evaluation factor with sub-factors, to be rated "Acceptable" overall, must be rated "Acceptable" on all sub-factors. After members of the Panel individually and independently evaluate and rate all factors and sub-factors, the Panel as a whole will assign a Consensus Rating for each Final Written Technical Submittal as either "Acceptable" or "Non Acceptable." The Consensus Rating will be the determinative rating for each Final Written Technical Submittal. To receive an "Acceptable" Consensus Rating, a Final
DB-124
Page 21
Request For Proposal
Written Technical Submittal must be rated "Acceptable" by the Panel for each and every factor and sub-factor. A rating of "Non Acceptable" by the Panel for any evaluation factor or sub-factor will result in an overall Consensus Rating of "Non Acceptable", and the applicable Proposal will be rejected as non-responsive and will not be considered in Step 3, below. Important: Please note that Final Written Technical Submittals should contain thorough and detailed responses as required in Section V.4 of the RFP. The following types of responses in a Final Written Technical Submittal are not adequate and may result in a determination that the Final Written Technical Submittal is Non Acceptable and the corresponding Final Proposal is non-responsive: (i) general statements that the Design Builder understands or will comply with the design-criteria, without further elaboration or explanation; (ii) statements paraphrasing the design criteria, without further elaboration or explanation; or (iii) general or overly broad responses such as "standard procedures will be employed" or "well known techniques will be used." In addition, the Panel will consider a Design Builder's conformance with the specified format and submission requirements specified in the RFP as part of the Final Written Technical Submittal Evaluation. A Design Builder's failure to comply with the format and/or the submission requirements may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. Accordingly, material omission(s) may cause a Final Written Technical Submittal to be rejected as Non Acceptable. Furthermore, the Design Builder must adhere to the prescribed page and formatting limitations. Information submitted that exceeds the specified page or formatting limits will NOT be considered in the Final Written Technical Submittal evaluation. For example, the City will not evaluate excess information; if four pages are submitted in response to an item with a three page limitation, the information of the fourth page will not be considered or evaluated. Step 2d. Total Bid Price As required by section V.5 of the RFP, each Design Builder shall submit its Schedule of Bid Prices in a separate envelope. After Step 2c. is complete for all Proposals, SFPUC staff will open the Total Bid Price submittals. Total Bid Prices will be calculated in accordance with the procedures set forth in Document 00410 (see Appendix A). Step 3. Calculation and Announcement of LPTA Design-Builder The CMD Contract Compliance Officer will calculate the apparent LPTA Design-Builder based on Total Bid Prices, the application of proposal discount/rating bonuses to the Total Bid Prices (if applicable), the Final Written Technical Submittal ratings, and compliance with LBE requirements. The Design-Builder with the LPTA and responsive proposal will be identified as the apparent LTPA Design-Builder eligible for award of the Design-Build Agreement. For example, in the hypothetical summarized in Table 1, below, Design Builder “E” is the apparent LPTA Design-Builder.
DB-124
Page 22
Request For Proposal
Table 1 Design Builder
Design Builder A Design Builder B Design Builder C Design Builder D Design Builder E
Total Bid Price (includes LBE discount/rating bonus if applicable) $1,500,000 $1,250,000 $1,750,000 $1,550,000 $1,495,000
Final Written Technical Submittal Rating Acceptable Not Acceptable Acceptable Not Acceptable Acceptable
VII. AWARD OF AN AGREEMENT 1.
Agreement Negotiations and Preparation
Following completion of the evaluation process, SFPUC staff, as authorized by the Commission, may negotiate a Design-Build Agreement with the LPTA Design Builder. Staff may negotiate final procedural or ministerial issues only; the material terms and conditions of the Design-Build Agreement (including the prices submitted in the Schedule of Bid Prices) will not be negotiable. Any negotiations shall not imply acceptance by the City of all terms of a Proposal. It should be noted that the Bid Schedule to be provided by the Design Builder as part of its proposal will be directly incorporated in the final Design-Build Agreement. In the event that the City is unable to award the Design-Build Agreement to the LPTA Design Builder, the City may award a contract to the next LPTA Design Builder, and so on. In accordance with San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 6, the Design-Build Agreement, if awarded, shall be awarded by the SFPUC. Failure by the successful Design Builder to obtain compliance with City requirements and execute a Design-Build Agreement within two (2) weeks of the date of Public Utilities Commission’s authorization to execute the Agreement may result in the General Manager’s executing an Agreement with the next LPTA Design Builder and forfeiture of Design-Builder’s Bid Security (see Section V.5). Once the Design Build Agreement is complete and after obtaining all the necessary City approvals, the Agreement will be executed and certified, and the SFPUC will issue a Notice of Agreement Award.
2.
Design-Build Agreement Language
By submitting a Proposal, Design Builders acknowledge that they have read, understand and agree with all of the material terms and conditions of the City’s Design-Build Agreement (Appendix A.)
3.
Design-Build Agreement Administration
Performance of Work under the Design-Build Agreement will be executed in phases. The San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project Manager will determine the work to be
DB-124
Page 23
Request For Proposal
conducted under each phase and authorize the start of each phase in accordance with the overall Project schedule. The successful Design Builder is hereby notified that Work cannot commence until it receives a written NTP in accordance with Chapter 6 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Any work performed without a NTP will be at the Design Builder’s own commercial risk. Any resulting agreement will be administered according to the terms and conditions of the Design Build Agreement DB-124 and the project plans and specification provided by the City and made a part of the Contract Documents.
VIII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1.
Errors and Omissions in RFP
Design Builders are responsible for reviewing all portions of this RFP, including all appendices. Design Builders are to promptly notify the SFPUC, in writing, upon discovery of any ambiguity, discrepancy, omission or other error in the RFP. All requests for information concerning the RFP must be in writing and directed to Blake Blackwell at
[email protected] prior to February 19, 2014. All inquiries should include the number and name of the RFP. Modifications and clarifications will be made by addenda as specified in this RFP. The City is not obligated to issue addenda in response to any request submitted after the deadline.
2.
Inquiries Regarding RFP
All requests for information concerning the RFP, whether submitted before or after the presubmittal conference, must be in writing and directed to Blake Blackwell at
[email protected]. All inquiries should include the number and title of the RFP. Substantive replies will be memorialized in written addenda to be made part of this RFP. All addenda will be posted on the Contract Administration Bureau webpage at: http://contracts.sfwater.org. This RFP will only be governed by information provided through written addenda. With the exception of CMD or City contracting inquiries, no questions or requests for interpretation will be accepted after February 19, 2014. If any new and/or substantive information is provided in response to questions raised at the presubmittal conference, it will be memorialized in a written addendum to this RFP and posted on the Contract Administration Bureau webpage at: http://contracts.sfwater.org Direct all inquiries (other than inquiries at the pre-proposal conference) concerning administration of this RFP to Blake Blackwell at
[email protected]. All inquiries should include the number and title of the RFP. Direct all inquiries (other than inquiries at the pre-proposal conference) concerning LBE certification requirements to the CMD Certification Unit at (415) 581–2310.
DB-124
Page 24
Request For Proposal
Direct all inquiries (other than inquiries at the pre-proposal conference) concerning the LBE Program to Mindy Lee, the CMD Contract Compliance Officer for the SFPUC at (415) 554-3136. For questions concerning CMD certification requirements for equal benefits Design Builders should refer to the CMD website at http://www.sfgov.org/cmd. Direct all inquiries regarding business tax registration procedures to the Tax Collector’s Office at (415) 554-4400.
3.
Objections to RFP Terms
Should a prospective Design Builder object on any ground to any provision or legal requirement set forth in the RFP (including all Appendices and all Addenda), including but not limited to Objections based on allegations that: (i) the RFP is unlawful in whole or in part; (ii) one or more of the requirements of the RFP is onerous, unfair or unclear; (iii) the structure of the RFP does not provide a correct or optimal process for the solicitation of the design-build services; (iv) the RFP contains one or more ambiguity, conflict, discrepancy or other error; or (v) the RFP unnecessarily precludes alternative solutions to the design-build services or project at issue, the prospective Design-Builder must provide timely written notice of Objection as set forth below. a) An Objection must be in writing and must be received by the City no later than 5:00 p.m. on the 10th working date prior to the deadline for submittal of Final Proposals (as that deadline may be adjusted by Addenda). If a prospective Design-Builder mails an Objection, such Design-Builder bears the risk of non-delivery within the required time period. Prospective Design-Builders should transmit Objections by a means that will objectively establish the date of receipt by the City. The City will not consider Objections or notices of Objections that are delivered orally (e.g., by telephone). b) Objections must be delivered to: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Contract Administration Bureau Attn: Blake Blackwell Re: DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 c) To be acceptable, an Objection shall state the basis for the Objection, refer to the specific requirement or portion of the RFP at issue, and shall describe the modification to the RFP sought by the prospective Proposer. The Objection shall also include the name, address, telephone number, and email address of the person representing the prospective Proposer. d) The City, at its discretion, may make a determination regarding an Objection without requesting further documents or information from the prospective Proposer who submitted the Objection. Accordingly, the initial Objection must include all grounds of objection and all supporting documentation or evidence reasonably available to the prospective Proposer at the time the Objection is submitted. If the prospective Proposer later raises new grounds or
DB-124
Page 25
Request For Proposal
evidence that were not included in the initial Objection, but which could have been raised at that time, then the City may not consider such new grounds or new evidence. e) Upon receipt of a timely and proper Objection, the City will review the Objection and conduct an investigation as it deems appropriate. As part of its investigation, the City may consider information provided by sources other than the prospective Proposer who submitted the Objection. At the completion of its investigation, the City will provide a written determination to the prospective Proposer who submitted the Objection. If required, the City may extend the proposal submittal deadline to allow sufficient time to review and investigate the Objection, and issue Addenda to incorporate any necessary changes to the RFP. f) The City will not consider Objections that are not received within the time and/or in the manner specified. A Proposer's failure to provide the City with a written Objection as specified above on or before the time specified above shall constitute a complete and irrevocable waiver of the ground(s) of objection and forfeit the Proposer's right to raise such ground(s) of objection later in the procurement process, in a Government Code Claim, or in other legal proceedings. g) A Proposer may not rely on an Objection submitted by another Proposer, but must timely pursue its own Objection.
4.
Interpretation and Addenda/Change Notices
Any interpretation of, or change in, the RFP will be made by addendum and shall become a part of the RFP and of any Agreement awarded. Change Notices in the form of Addenda will be posted on the Contract Administration Bureau webpage at: http://contracts.sfwater.org The SFPUC will make reasonable efforts to post in a timely manner any modifications to the RFP on the Contract Administration Bureau webpage at: http://contracts.sfwater.org. Notwithstanding this provision, the Design Builder shall be responsible for ensuring that its proposal reflects any and all addenda posted by the SFPUC prior to the proposal due date regardless of when the proposal is submitted. Therefore, the City recommends that the Design Builder check the SFPUC Contract Administration Bureau webpage before submitting its proposal to determine if the Design Builder has read all posted addenda. The SFPUC will not be responsible for any other explanation or interpretation.
5.
Term of Proposal
By submitting a proposal for consideration, the Design Builder agrees that the proposed services and prices are valid for 90 calendar days from the proposal due date, and that the quoted prices are genuine and not the result of collusion or any other anti-competitive activity.
6.
Revision of Proposal
Notwithstanding the forgoing, a Design Builder may withdraw or revise a Final Proposal on the Design Builder’s own initiative at any time before the deadline for submission of Final Proposals. The Design Builder must submit any revised Final Proposal in the same manner as the original
DB-124
Page 26
Request For Proposal
Final Proposal. Any revised Final Proposal must be received by the City on or before the Final Proposal due date. A revised Final Proposal must be worded so as to not reveal the amount of the Total Bid Price included in the original Final Proposal. The Bid Security shall be in an amount sufficient for the Total Bid Price as revised. A withdrawn Final Proposal may be resubmitted on or before the Final Proposal due date. In no case will a statement of intent to submit a revised Final Proposal or the commencement of a revision process extend the Final Proposal due date for any Design Builder. At any time during the proposal evaluation process, the SFPUC may require a Design Builder to provide oral or written clarification of its proposal. The SFPUC reserves the right to make an award without receiving or accepting any clarifications of proposals received.
7.
Errors and Omissions in Proposal
Failure by the SFPUC to object to an error, omission or deviation in the proposal will in no way modify the RFP or excuse the Design Builder from full compliance with the specifications of the RFP or any Design-Build Agreement awarded pursuant to the RFP.
8.
Financial Responsibility
The SFPUC accepts no financial responsibility for any costs incurred by a Design Builder in responding to this RFP, participating in oral interviews or negotiating a Design-Build Agreement with the SFPUC. The proposals in response to the RFP will become the property of the SFPUC and may be used by the SFPUC in any way it deems appropriate.
9.
Design Builder’s Obligations Under the Campaign Reform Ordinance
Design Builders must comply with Section 1.126 of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Code, which states: No person who contracts with the City and County of San Francisco for the rendition of personal services, for the furnishing of any material, supplies or equipment to the City, or for selling any land or building to the City, whenever such transaction would require approval by a City elective officer, or the board on which that City elective officer serves, shall make any contribution to such an officer, or candidates for such an office, or committee controlled by such officer or candidate at any time between commencement of negotiations for such contract until (1) the termination of negotiations for such contract; or (2) three months have elapsed from the date the contract is approved by the City elective officer, or the board on which that City elective officer serves. If a Design Builder is negotiating for a contract that must be approved by an elected local officer or the board on which that officer serves, during the negotiation period the Design Builder is prohibited from making contributions to: •
DB-124
The officer’s re-election campaign;
Page 27
Request For Proposal
• •
A candidate for that officer’s office; and A committee controlled by the officer or candidate.
The negotiation period begins with the first point of contact, either by telephone, in person, or in writing, when a Design Builder approaches any city officer or employee about a particular contract, or a city officer or employee initiates communication with a potential Design Builder about a contract. The negotiation period ends when a contract is awarded or not awarded to the Design Builder. Examples of initial contacts include: (i) a vendor contacts a city officer or employee to promote himself or herself as a candidate for a contract; and (ii) a city officer or employee contacts a Design Builder to propose that the Design Builder apply for a contract. Inquiries for information about a particular contract, requests for documents relating to a RFP and requests to be placed on a mailing list do not constitute negotiations. Violation of Section 1.126 may result in the following criminal, civil or administrative penalties: 1. Criminal: Any person who knowingly or willfully violates Section 1.126 is subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and a jail term of not more than six months, or both. 2. Civil: Any person who intentionally or negligently violates Section 1.126 may be held liable in a civil action brought by the civil prosecutor for an amount up to $5,000. 3. Administrative: Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held liable in an administrative proceeding before the Ethics Commission held pursuant to the Charter for an amount up to $5,000 for each violation.
10.
Sunshine Ordinance
In accordance with San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.24(e), Design Builders’ proposals, responses to RFP’s and all other records of communications between the City and persons or firms seeking contracts shall be open to inspection immediately after a contract has been awarded. Nothing in this provision requires the disclosure of a private person’s or entity's net worth or other proprietary financial data submitted for qualification for a contract or other benefits until and unless that person or organization is awarded the contract or benefit. Information provided which is covered by this paragraph will be made available to the public upon request.
11.
Public Access to Meetings and Records
If a Design Builder is a non-profit entity that receives a cumulative total per year of at least $250,000 in City-funds or City-administered funds and is a non-profit organization as defined in Chapter 12L of the San Francisco Administrative Code, the Design Builder must comply with Chapter 12L. The Design Builder must include in its proposal: (1) a statement describing its efforts to comply with the Chapter 12L provisions regarding public access to Design Builder’s meetings and records, and (2) a summary of all complaints concerning the Design Builder’s compliance with Chapter 12L that were filed with the City in the last two years and deemed by the City to be substantiated. The summary shall also describe the disposition of each complaint. If no such complaints were filed, the Design Builder shall include a statement to that effect. Failure to
DB-124
Page 28
Request For Proposal
comply with the reporting requirements of Chapter 12L or material misrepresentation in Design Builder’s Chapter 12L submissions shall be grounds for rejection of the proposal and/or termination of any subsequent Agreement reached on the basis of the proposal.
12.
Reservations of Rights by the City
The issuance of this RFP does not constitute an agreement by the City that any contract will actually be entered into by the City. The City expressly reserves the right at any time to: 1. Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, proposal or proposal procedure; 2. Reject any or all proposals; 3. Reissue an RFP; 4. Prior to submission deadline for proposals, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures, including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be provided under this RFP or the requirements for contents or format of the proposals; 5. Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFP by any other means; or 6. Determine that no project will be pursued.
13.
No Waiver
No waiver by the City of any provision of this RFP shall be implied from any failure by the City to recognize or take action on account of any failure by a Design Builder to observe any provision of this RFP.
IX.
CONTRACT MONITORING DIVISION (CMD) REQUIREMENTS
The requirements of the Local Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination in Contracting Ordinance set forth in Chapter 14B of the San Francisco Administrative Code as it now exists or as it may be amended in the future (collectively the “LBE Ordinance”) shall apply to this RFP.
1.
Chapter 14B Requirements A.
LBE Subconsultant/Subcontractor Participation Goal
The LBE subconsulting/subcontracting goal for this project is 6% of the total value of the entire contract. This goal must be met with LBE firms that are certified as LBE firms by the Contract Monitoring Division. Due to the location of the project, the LBE subcontracting goal can be met with CMD certified LBEs and/or SFPUC-LBEs. Pursuant to Sec. 14B.9 of the Administrative Code, Proposers are hereby advised that the availability of Minority Business Enterprises ("MBEs"), Woman Business Enterprises ("WBEs") and Other Business Enterprises ("OBEs") to perform subconsulting/subcontracting work on this project is as follows: 2.5% MBE, 0.9% WBE,
DB-124
Page 29
Request For Proposal
and 2.6% OBE. Proposers are further advised that they may not discriminate in the selection of subconsultants/subcontractors on the basis of race, gender, or other basis prohibited by law, and that they shall undertake all required good faith outreach steps in such a manner as to ensure that neither MBEs nor WBEs nor OBEs are unfairly or arbitrarily excluded from the required outreach. Each firm responding to this solicitation shall demonstrate in its response that it has used good-faith outreach to select LBE subcontractors as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code §§14B.8 and 14B.9, and shall identify the particular LBE subcontractors solicited and selected to be used in performing the contract. For each LBE identified as a subcontractor, the response must specify the value of the participation as a percentage of the total value of the goods and/or services to be procured, the type of work to be performed, and such information as may reasonably be required to determine the responsiveness of the proposal. LBEs identified as subcontractors must be certified with the San Francisco Contract Monitoring Division at the time the proposal is submitted, and must be contacted by the proposer (prime contractor) prior to listing them as subcontractors in the proposal. Any proposal that does not meet the requirements of this paragraph may be nonresponsive. In addition to demonstrating that it will achieve the level of subconsulting/subcontracting participation required by the contract, a proposer shall also undertake and document in its submittal the good faith efforts required by Chapter 14B.8(D) & (E) and CMD Attachment 6, Requirements for SFPUC Regional Construction Contracts. However, pursuant to 14B.8 (B), if a proposer submits a proposal that demonstrates LBE participation that exceeds by 35% of the established LBE subcontracting participation goal for the project, the proposer will not be required to conduct good faith efforts or to file evidence of good faith efforts as required in Sections 14B. (D) and (E). Proposals which fail to comply with the material requirements of S.F. Administrative Code §§14B.8 and 14B.9, CMD Attachment 6 and this RFP will be deemed non-responsive and will be rejected. During the term of the contract, any failure to comply with the level of LBE subcontractor participation specified in the contract shall be deemed a material breach of contract. Subconsulting/subcontracting goals can only be met with CMD-certified Micro and Small LBEs located in San Francisco and/or SFPUC-LBEs, unless the RFP allows for SBA-LBE subconsultants to count towards the LBE participation goal. Proposers should note that the LBE subconsulting/subcontracting percentage listed on Document 00435 (the Subcontractor List) will be incorporated into the final Standard Agreement. B.
LBE Ratings Bonus/Proposal Discount
Pursuant to Chapter 14B, the following proposal discount will be in effect for the selection process for this contract for any Design Builders who are certified by CMD as a Small or Micro-LBE, or a SBA-LBE, or a SFPUC-LBE. Application of the bid discount shall be as follows:
DB-124
Page 30
Request For Proposal
When bidding as a prime, certified SFPUC-LBEs shall be eligible for the prime contractor bid discount for PUC Non Cost-Sharing Regional Projects located 70 miles outside of the City and County of San Francisco. The SFPUC-LBE bid discount shall only apply if application of the bid discount will not adversely impact the ranking of a bid submitted by a Small, Micro or SBA “San Francisco” LBE (that is, an LBE certified under 14B.3 with its principle place of business in San Francisco). Micro-LBE and Small-LBE Proposal Discount The Micro-LBE and Small-LBE proposal discount does apply to this contract because the anticipated agreement amount is under $10 million. A 10% proposal discount will apply to any proposals submitted by CMD certified Small or Micro-LBEs. If, after the application of the 10% proposal discount to proposals submitted by Small or Micro-LBEs, the apparent low proposer is not a Small or Micro-LBE, a 2% proposal discount will be applied to any proposal from an SBA-LBE in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Section 14B.7(E). SBA-LBE Proposal Discount The SBA-LBE proposal discount does apply to this Agreement because the anticipated agreement amount is under $20 million. A 2% proposal discount will be applied to any proposal from an SBA-LBE, except that the 2% proposal discount shall not be applied at any stage if it would adversely affect a Small or Micro-LBE Design Builder. If, after the application of the 10% and 2% proposal discount to proposals submitted by Small or Micro-LBEs, or SBA-LBEs, respectively, the apparent low proposer is not a Small or Micro-LBE, or SBA-LBE, a 10% proposal discount will be applied to any proposal from an SFPUC-LBE in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Section 14B.5. SFPUC-LBE Proposal Discount The SFPUC-LBE proposal discount does apply to this Agreement because certified SFPUC-LBEs shall be eligible for the proposal discount for all PUC Regional Projects located 70 miles outside of the City and County of San Francisco (as defined pursuant to Chapter 14B). A 10% proposal discount will be applied to any proposal from an SFPUCLBE, except the 10% proposal discount shall not be applied at any stage if it would adversely affect a Small or Micro-LBE Design Builder, or a SBA-LBE Design Builder. C.
CMD Forms to be Submitted with Proposal
(1) All proposals submitted must include the following Contract Monitoring Division (CMD) Forms contained in the CMD Attachment 6 “Requirements for SFPUC Regional Construction Contracts” (See Appendix A): Form 2B : "Good Faith Outreach" Requirements Form D.
DB-124
CMD Forms to be Submitted on the Fifth Business Day after Bid Opening
Page 31
Request For Proposal
The apparent low LPTA, and any other LPTA so requested, must submit the following documentation and forms by 5 p.m. on the fifth business day following Bid Opening to the attention of Mindy Lee, the CMD Contract Compliance Officer for the SFPUC, If CMD determines that the bidder is not acting in good faith in the timely and accurate submission of these forms, the bid may be determined non-responsive and rejected. • Documentation required under Item 5 and 6 of FORM 2B: "Good Faith Outreach" Requirements Form (if bidder is not exempt from this requirement) • FORM 3: CMD Non-Discrimination Affidavit • FORM 6: CMD LBE Subcontractor Participation Affidavit H • FORM 6A: CMD LBE Trucking Form If these forms are not returned with the proposal, the proposal may be determined to be non-responsive and may be rejected. (2) Please submit one (1) original and one (1) copy of the above forms with your proposal. The forms should be placed in a separate, sealed envelope labeled “CMD Forms.” If you have any questions concerning the CMD Forms, you may call Mindy Lee, the CMD Contract Compliance Officer for the SFPUC at (415) 554-3136.
2.
Chapters 12B and 12C Requirements (Equal Benefits)
Effective June 1, 1997, Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code was amended to prohibit the City from entering into contracts or leases with any entity that discriminates in the provision of benefits between employees with domestic partners and employees with spouses, and/or between the domestic partners and spouses of employees. All proposing firms should be in the process of becoming compliant with Chapter 12B, if not already in compliance. The CMD has developed rules of procedure and various resource materials explaining the equal benefits program. These materials are available by calling the CMD Equal Benefits Section at (415) 5812310 or by visiting the CMD website at http://www.sfgov.org/cmd . CMD/12B & 12C Form: One (1) original and one (1) copy of CMD form (Form No. 12B-101) in a separate sealed envelope labeled “CMD/12B Forms - DB-124, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project by [Design Builder’s Name].”
X.
ADDITIONAL CITY REQUIREMENTS 1.
Insurance Requirements
Without in any way limiting Design Builder’s liability pursuant to the “Indemnification” section of the Design-Build Agreement (See Document 00700, Appendix A), Design Builder(s) will be required to maintain in force, during the full term of any Design-Build Agreement, insurance as specified in the Design-Build Agreement (see Document 00805). Insurance requirements are summarized as follows:
DB-124
Page 32
Request For Proposal
1. Worker’s Compensation Insurance, in statutory amount, including Employer’s Liability limits (for on-site project activities) not less than $1,000,000 each accident, injury or illness. 2. Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury and Completed Operations. 3. Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Owned, Non-owned and Hired auto coverage, as applicable. 4. Professional liability insurance with limits not less than $5,000,000 each claim with respect to negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with design services to be provided under the Design-Build Agreement. 5. Environmental Pollution Liability: In the event that hazardous / contaminated material is discovered during the course of the work, and the Design Builder or its subcontractors is required to perform abatement or disposal of such materials, then the Design Builder, or its sub-contractor, who perform abatement of hazardous or contaminated materials removal shall maintain in force, throughout the term of this Contract, Design Builder's pollution liability insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence combined single limit (true occurrence form), including coverages for on-site or off-site third party claims for bodily injury and property damage 6. Builder's Risk Insurance: Contractor shall provide "Special Form" (All Risk) Builder's Risk Insurance on a replacement cost basis as follows: 1.
Amount of Coverage: The amount of coverage shall be equal to the full replacement cost on a completed value basis, including periodic increases or decreases in values through change orders. The policy shall provide for no deduction for depreciation. The policy shall provide coverage for consequential loss/"soft costs," such as but not limited to architectural, engineering, financing, legal fees caused by an insured peril; the policy may limit the amount for soft costs but such limit shall not be less than 5% of the coverage amount. The Builder's Risk Insurance shall also include the full replacement cost of all City-furnished equipment, if any.
2.
Additional Premium: If, due to change orders or project term extensions authorized by the City, the Builder's Risk policy becomes subject to additional premium, the City will reimburse Contractor the actual cost of such additional premium, without markup, provided that the Contractor submits to the City proof of payment of such additional premium and either: (a) copy of the applicable endorsement to the Builder's Risk policy, if the Builder's Risk Policy is issued on a declared-project basis; or (b) copy of Evidence of Property Insurance if the Builder's Risk policy is placed on a reporting form basis.
DB-124
Page 33
Request For Proposal
3.
Parties Covered: The Builder's Risk policy shall include as named insureds and be made payable to Contractor, its Subcontractors and Suppliers of all tiers, and to the City and County of San Francisco and other parties as their interests may appear. Each insured shall waive all rights of subrogation against each of the other insured to the extent that the loss is covered by the Builder's Risk Insurance.
4.
Included Coverage: The Builder's Risk Insurance shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following coverages: (a) All damages of loss to the Work and to appurtenances, to materials and equipment to be incorporated into the Project while the same are in transit, stored on or off the Project site, to construction plant and temporary structures. (b) The perils of fire, lightning, windstorm, hail, explosion, riot, riot attending a strike, civil commotion, smoke damage, damage by aircraft or vehicles, vandalism and malicious mischief, theft, collapse, and water damage. (c) The costs of debris removal, including demolition as may be made reasonably necessary by such covered perils, resulting damage, and any applicable law, ordinance, or regulation. (d) Start up and testing and machinery breakdown including electrical arcing. (e) Consequential loss/”soft costs” (architectural, engineering, financing, legal fees when a covered risk causes delay in completing the Work). In the event the City receives coverage specifically for a consequential loss associated with delay to the completion of the Project, such specific amount shall be credited against any liquidated damages for delay for which the Contractor would otherwise be responsible.
General Liability and Automobile Liability Insurance policies shall be endorsed to provide the following: 1. Name as Additional Insured, the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and their respective officers, agents and employees. 2. That such policies are primary insurance to any other insurance available to the Additional Insured, with respect to any claims arising out of the Agreement, and that such insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. All policies shall provide thirty (30) days advance written notice to City of reduction or nonrenewal of coverages or cancellation of coverages for any reason. Should any of the required insurance be provided under a claims-made form, Design Builder shall maintain such coverage continuously throughout the term of the Agreement and, without lapse, for a period of three years beyond the expiration of the Agreement, to the effect that, should occurrences during the contract term give rise to claims made after expiration of the Agreement, such claims shall be covered by such claims-made policies.
DB-124
Page 34
Request For Proposal
Should any of the required insurance be provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defense costs be included in such general annual aggregate limit, such general annual aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limits specified above. Should any required insurance lapse during the term of the Agreement, requests for payments originating after such lapse shall not be processed until the City receives satisfactory evidence of reinstated coverage as required by the Agreement, effective as of the lapse date. If insurance is not reinstated, the City may, at its sole option, terminate this Agreement effective on the date of such lapse of insurance. Before commencing any operations under the Design-Build Agreement, Design Builder shall furnish to City certificates of insurance and additional insured policy endorsements with insurers with ratings comparable to A-, VIII or higher, that are authorized to do business in the State of California, and that are satisfactory to City, in form evidencing all coverages set forth above. Failure to maintain insurance shall constitute a material breach of the Agreement. Approval of the insurance by City shall not relieve or decrease the liability of Design Builder in the Agreement. If a subcontractor or subconsultant will be used to complete any portion of the Design-Build Agreement, the Design Builder shall ensure that the subcontractor shall provide all necessary insurance and shall name the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and their respective officers, agents and employees and the Design Builder as additional insureds. Insurance requirements may be changed at the option of the City.
2.
San Francisco Local Hiring Policy
This Contract incorporates applicable requirements of the San Francisco Local Hiring Policy for Construction ("Policy") as set forth in Section 6.22(G) of the San Francisco Administrative Code. The Provisions of the Policy are hereby incorporated as a material term of this Contract. Contractor agrees that (i) Contractor shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Policy; (ii) the provisions of the Policy are reasonable and achievable by Contractor and its Subcontractors; and (iii) they have had a full and fair opportunity to review and understand the terms of the Policy. See Appendix A Document 00820 Local Hiring Requirements. The Total Project Work Hours By Trade: For all contracts for Covered Projects advertised for bids between March 25, 2013 and March 24, 2014, the mandatory participation level in terms of Project Work Hours within each trade to be performed by Local Residents is 30%, with a goal of no less than 12.5% of Project Work Hours within each trade to be performed by Disadvantaged Workers.
3.
DB-124
Design-Build Agreement
Page 35
Request For Proposal
The LPTA Design Builder will be required to enter into the Design-Build Agreement, substantially in the form of the Design-Build Agreement DB-124, attached hereto as Appendix A. Submission of a proposal shall indicate Design Builder's agreement to all material terms and conditions of the Design-Build Agreement. Failure by the Design Builder to obtain compliance with City requirements and execute a Design-Build Agreement within two (2) weeks of the date of Public Utilities Commission’s authorization to execute the Agreement may result in the General Manager’s executing an Agreement with the next LPTA Design Builder. The SFPUC, at its sole discretion, may select another Design Builder and may proceed against the original selected Design Builder for damages through forfeiture of the Design-Builder’s Bid Security. Design Builders are urged to pay special attention to the requirements of Administrative Code Chapters 12B and 12C, Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits; the Minimum Compensation Ordinance; the Health Care Accountability Ordinance; the Earned Income Credit; the First Source Hiring Program; and applicable conflict of interest laws. Refer to the Contract Documents for more information, including but not limited to Documents 00820 and 00822.
4.
Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits
As outlined above, the successful Design Builder will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of Chapters 12B and 12C of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Generally, Chapter 12B prohibits the City and County of San Francisco from entering into contracts or leases with any entity that discriminates in the provision of benefits between employees with domestic partners and employees with spouses, and/or between the domestic partners and spouses of employees. The Chapter 12C requires nondiscrimination in contracts in public accommodation. Additional information on Chapters 12B and 12C is available on the CMD’s website at http://www.sfgov.org/cmd and in Document 00822.
5.
Minimum Compensation Ordinance for Employees (MCO)
The successful Design Builder will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO), as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 12P. Generally, this Ordinance requires contractors to provide employees covered by the Ordinance who do work funded under the contract with hourly gross compensation and paid and unpaid time off that meet certain minimum requirements. For the contractual requirements of the MCO, see Document 00822 in Appendix A. For the amount of hourly gross compensation currently required under the MCO, see http://www.sfgov.org/olse/mco. Note that this hourly rate may increase on January 1 of each year and that Design Builders will be required to pay any such increases to covered employees during the term of the contract. Additional information regarding the MCO is http://www.sfgov.org/olse, and in Document 00822.
6.
DB-124
available
on
the
City
website
at
Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO)
Page 36
Request For Proposal
The successful Design Builder will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO), as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 12Q. Design Builders should consult the San Francisco Administrative Code to determine their compliance obligations under this chapter. Additional information regarding the HCAO is available on the web at www.sfgov.org/olse/hcao, and in Document 00822.
7.
First Source Hiring Program (FSHP)
If the contract is for more than $50,000, then the First Source Hiring Program (Admin. Code Chapter 83) may apply. Generally, this ordinance requires Design Builders to notify the FSHP of available entry-level jobs and provide the Workforce Development System with the first opportunity to refer qualified individuals for employment. Design Builders should consult the San Francisco Administrative Code to determine their compliance obligations under this chapter. Additional information regarding the FSHP is available on the web at http://www.workforcedevelopmentsf.org , from the First Source Hiring Administrator, (415)581-2335, and in Document 00820.
8.
Signature Requirements
An unsigned or improperly signed proposal will be rejected. A proposal may be signed by an agent of the Design Builder if he/she is properly authorized by a power of attorney or equivalent document submitted to the City prior to the submission of the proposal or with the proposal to bind the Design Builder to the proposal. The proposal may be modified after its submission by withdrawing and resubmitting the proposal prior to the time and date specified for offer submission. Modification offered in any other manner, oral or written, will not be considered. A Design Builder may withdraw his/her offer by submitting a written request for its withdrawal to the City, signed by the Design Builder in accordance with the first paragraph above. The Design Builder may, therefore, submit a new proposal prior to the proposal submission time. All proposals submitted may be subject to negotiation by the City prior to an award of contract.
9.
Business Tax Registration
In accordance with San Francisco City Ordinance 345-88, all vendors conducting business with the City are required to maintain a valid business tax registration number. Agreements will not be awarded to the selected Design Builder unless business tax registration fees are paid in full by the time the Agreement is awarded. Design Builder may contact the Tax Collector's office at 415554-4470 to confirm that business tax registrations fees have been paid in full. Each selected Design Builder must provide a taxpayer ID. If not previously filed, an IRS Form W-9 must be submitted either by fax or mail to:
DB-124
Page 37
Request For Proposal
Purchasing Department City Hall, Room 430 San Francisco, CA 94102-4685 415-554-6718
10.
Conflicts of Interest
The successful Design Builder will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the applicable provisions of state and local related to conflicts of interest including Section 15.103 of the City's Charter, Article III, Chapter 2 of City's Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, and Section 87100 et seq. and Section 1090 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California. The successful Design Builder will be required to acknowledge that it is familiar with these laws; certify that it does not know of any facts that constitute a violation of said provisions; and agree to immediately notify the City if it becomes aware of any such fact during the term of the Agreement. Individuals who will perform work for the City on behalf of the successful Design Builder might be deemed Design Builders under state and local conflict of interest laws. If so, such individuals will be required to submit a Statement of Economic Interests, California Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700, to the City within ten (10) calendar days of the City notifying the successful Design Builder that the City has selected the Design Builder.
XI.
PROTEST PROCEDURES 1.
Objections to RFP Terms
Refer to Section VIII.3 of this RFP. 2.
Protest of Final Proposal Rejection
After receipt of Final Proposals, the SFPUC, with the assistance of CMD and the Technical Evaluation Panel, will conduct the evaluation and selection process as described in Section VI of this RFP. If SFPUC staff, CMD, and/or the Technical Evaluation Panel determine that a Final Proposal should be rejected without further consideration because it is either non-responsive to RFP requirements or the Proposer is not responsible (i.e., fails to meet the Key Team Member requirements set forth in Section IV of this RFP), then the City will issue a Preliminary Notice of Proposal Rejection to the applicable Proposer(s). If a Proposer believes that the City has unfairly determined that its Final Proposal should be rejected, Proposer may submit a written notice of protest within five (5) working days of the SFPUC's issuance of a Preliminary Notice of Proposal Rejection. Such notice of protest must be received by the SFPUC on or before the fifth (5th) working day following the SFPUC's issuance of the Preliminary Notice of Proposal Rejection. The notice of protest must include a written statement specifying in detail each and every one of the grounds asserted for the protest. The protest must be signed by an individual authorized to represent the Proposer, and must cite the
DB-124
Page 38
Request For Proposal
law, rule, local ordinance, procedure or RFP provision on which the protest is based. In addition, the Proposer must specify facts and evidence sufficient for the SFPUC to determine the validity of the protest. The City, at its discretion, may make a determination regarding a protest without requesting further documents or information from the Proposer who submitted the protest. Accordingly, the initial protest must include all grounds of protest and all supporting documentation or evidence reasonably available to the prospective Proposer at the time the protest is submitted. If the Proposer later raises new grounds or evidence that were not included in the initial protest, but which could have been raised at that time, then the City may not consider such new grounds or new evidence. Upon receipt of a timely and proper protest, the City will review the protest and conduct an investigation as it deems appropriate. As part of its investigation, the City may consider information provided by sources other than the Proposer who submitted the protest. The City may also consider supplemental correspondence or other information relating to the original ground(s) of Protest submitted by a protesting Proposer to the extent the City determines that such information will assist it in resolving the Protest. At the completion of its investigation, the City will provide a written determination to the Proposer who submitted the protest. Protests not received within the time and manner specified will not be considered. If a Proposer does not protest a Preliminary Notice of Proposal Rejection within the time and in the manner specified, above, then the City's determination set forth in the Preliminary Notice will become final. A Proposer's failure to protest as specified above on or before the time specified above shall constitute a complete and irrevocable waiver of the ground(s) of protest and forfeit the Proposer's right to raise such ground(s) of protest later in the procurement process, in a Government Code Claim, or in other legal proceedings. 3.
Protest of Agreement Award
After completion of the Proposal evaluation and selection process, and promptly after the determination of the apparent LPTA Design-Builder, the SFPUC will announce the apparent LPTA Design-Builder and post the results of the evaluation and selection process on the Contract Administration Bureau webpage at: http://contracts.sfwater.org Within five (5) working days of the SFPUC’s posting of the results on the SFPUC Contract Administration Bureau webpage, any Proposer who submitted a responsive proposal that was evaluated during the Proposal evaluation and selection process (and not rejected) and who believes that the City has unfairly selected another Proposer for award may submit a written notice of protest. The notice of protest must include a written statement specifying in detail each and every one of the grounds asserted for the protest. The protest must be signed by an individual authorized to represent the Proposer, and must cite the law, rule, local ordinance, procedure or RFP provision on
DB-124
Page 39
Request For Proposal
which the protest is based. In addition, the Proposer must specify facts and evidence sufficient for the City to determine the validity of the protest. All protests must be received by the SFPUC on or before the fifth (5th) working day following the SFPUC’s posting of the results. The Proposer submitting the protest must concurrently transmit a copy of the initial protest document and any attached documentation to the other Proposer(s) who may be adversely affected by the outcome of the protest. The City will provide protested Proposers with five (5) working days from their receipt of the protest to submit a written response to the protest. The City, at its discretion, may make a determination regarding a protest without requesting further documents or information from the Proposer who submitted the protest. Accordingly, the initial protest must include all grounds of protest and all supporting documentation or evidence reasonably available to the prospective Proposer at the time the protest is submitted. If the Proposer later raises new grounds or evidence that were not included in the initial protest, but which could have been raised at that time, then the City may not consider such new grounds or new evidence. Upon receipt of a timely and proper protest, the City will review the protest and conduct an investigation as it deems appropriate. As part of its investigation, the City may consider information provided by sources other than the protesting and protested Proposers. The City may also consider supplemental correspondence or other information relating to the original ground(s) of Protest submitted by a protesting Proposer and/or a protested Proposer to the extent the City determines that such information will assist it in resolving the Protest. At the completion of its investigation, the City will provide a written determination to the Proposer who submitted the protest, with a copy to the protested Proposer(s). Protests not received within the time and manner specified will not be considered. A Proposer may not rely on a protest submitted by another Proposer, but must timely pursue its own protest. The procedures and time limits set forth in this Paragraph are mandatory and are a Proposer's sole and exclusive remedy in protesting Agreement award to another Proposer. Failure to comply with these protest procedures shall constitute a complete and irrevocable waiver of the ground(s) of protest and forfeit the Proposer's right to raise such ground(s) of protest later in the procurement process, in a Government Code Claim, or in other legal proceedings. 4.
Delivery of Protests and Responses to Protests
If a protest or response to a protest is mailed, the protestor or protested Proposer bears the risk of non-delivery within the deadlines specified above. Protests and responses to protests should be transmitted by a means that will objectively establish the date the City received the protest or response. Protests, notice of protests, and responses to protests made orally (e.g., by telephone) will not be considered. Protests and responses to protests must be delivered to:
DB-124
Page 40
Request For Proposal
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Contract Administration Bureau Attn: Blake Blackwell Re: DB-124, Design-Build Services, San Joaquin Valley Communication System Upgrade Project 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102
END OF DOCUMENT
DB-124
Page 41
Request For Proposal
