Amendment #1
RFP #03-13 Proposition EE Program Management
Clarifications
Requests by a Proposer for clarification must be received by the District by the deadline set forth in the RFP Schedule for
submission of RFQ/RFP Proposals. Without limitation to the District's right to conduct Pre-Scoring Discussions,
Negotiations or Post-Scoring Discussions, requests for clarification received after that time will not be responded to. All
requests for clarification must be in writing and shall be delivered, by hand delivery, mail, fax or e-mail no later than
Thursday, October 25, 2012 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and prior to the applicable deadline in the RFP
Schedule to the following:
Kim Simonds, Buyer
MiraCosta Community College District
1 Barnard Drive
Oceanside, CA 92056
Phone: 760-795-6755
Fax:
760-795-6795
Email: ksimonds@miracosta.edu
A. Questions and Clarifications from Pre-Proposal Meeting on October 19, 2012.
1. Will you be distributing the sign in sheets as part of the amendment?
Answer:
Yes.
2. Have all of the architectural firms been already selected.
Answer:
Concurrent to this RFP we are issuing an RFP for a Master Consulting Architect. This will be an Architect that will
be at the 50,000 foot level overseeing all of the bond related architectural services. The individual projects will
have architects that will be selected by the processes that the Program Manager is in charge of.
3. The work done by the Master Planners is a separate contract?
Answer:
Yes, that is a separate and completed contract.
4. ABR Assessment
a. Does the master plan that has been completed address full ABR assessment?
Answer:
No, one of the things moving forward is that we need to do a more thorough analysis of the path of travel and
ABR. We did a study, but moving forward we would have to look at this much more extensively. This is in the
scope of work.
b. I didn’t see it listed.
Answer:
When in doubt, it’s in the scope of work. As was explained to the Board of Trustees at a workshop this is the
most important contract that will be awarded in the next ten years. Jim’s philosophy is that the reputation of
the District and the reputation of the bond program depend on the quality of the program manager. So, one
way or another it is in the scope.
5. Is there an existing EIR available?
Answer:
MCCD RFP #03-13 Proposition EE Program Management
Page 1
The District has done preliminary assessment of need. The District is in contract with Dudek Environmental, the
plan is that once we know the results of the election, to go back to the board on November 20 th and request a
notice to proceed on Phase 2 which is the full EIR which Dudek has given us a scope of work for that includes all
3 campuses. That Scope of Work is approximately 14-16 months to complete.
6. How will relocation planning be handled?
Answer:
We plan to use the Program Management Firm to organize and coordinate the movement of people as we are
cascading through the projects. That is in the scope of work. One of the major objectives of the Program
Manager is to minimize the impact on the students, faculty, staff and our neighbors and a big part of that is the
planning of the swing space, the timing, the sequencing.
7. Do you anticipate the Contract amount to reflect the total of the extended values in the right column of Exhibit “A”?
Answer:
It is not a guarantee of what we will pay. We will be paying on time, materials, overhead, general conditions and
negotiated margin. This allows us to compare the staffing philosophies that are being looked at. Once the
Program Manager has been selected it will be mutually determined the exact scope of work. It does tell us how
you would be bidding the components. But this is not a fixed price contract.
8. You talk about staff support of MiraCosta staff for things like Labor Compliance and design management. What
are the staff resources available?
Answer:
There are very limited resources within the District. Essentially the district has no staff for this Bond Program.
The District will have oversight, but the Program Manager will be handling all of the day to day things.
9. Section 1 Scope of Work – FF&E Responsibilities Paragraph a. states “provide planning, specifications &
implementation” for all bond FF&E. This implies that we are to carry out design responsibilities. Is it the Districts
intention for this scope to be in the program manager’s contract?
Answer:
The district is currently on the street for the Master Architect. One of the first jobs the Program Manager will have
to do will be to create our design specifications and criteria, this includes FF&E. They Program Manager is not
responsible for the designing layouts, but they are going to be responsible for working with District staff on the
criteria and standards. The district plans to heavily plagiarize the SDCCD standards, adding in the districts
specifics, but this will be under the Program Manager.
10. The District’s “Draft Project Schedule” appears to be set up for all projects to be Design/Build delivery. Is it the
District’s intention to use Design/Build for all of the Bond Projects?
Answer:
It is the intent of the District to utilize some form of Design/Build for the 5 major building projects. The smaller
renovation and modernization projects will be a mix of delivery methods, although the district is moving away from
CM Multi Prime, but this will be a determination that the Program Manager will be involved in. The project
manager will be instrumental in determining the logistical and political conditions to be the most effective. The
district is looking for creative solutions to problems.
11. What is the timeline of the amendment being issued?
Answer:
It should be released Monday afternoon or Tuesday. It will be posted to the website and an e-mail will be sent to
everyone.
12. There is a requirement to list all of the CA Educational experience, if there are multiple sub consultants on the
team this applies to them as well, correct?
Answer:
We want consolidate this down to a reasonable amount. Experience should be listed for CA Community College
and complex K-12 projects of similar scope and size to demonstrate their ability to handle multiple building
projects at the same time.
MCCD RFP #03-13 Proposition EE Program Management
Page 2
13. The Labor Compliance and the Community Outreach could be separated out.
Answer:
The Program Manager selected will be able to determine if they use someone in house or if it is a contracted
function. It is acceptable to leave the hourly rate blank.
14. The deadline to submit questions is the 25th; following that how quickly will the answers be issued.
Answer:
Dependent on the questions and the research that is required will determine. However, we will get them out as
quickly as possible prior to the RFQ/RFP date.
15. Is the relocation planning going to be submitted separately, or is it expected that the Program Manager to provide
those services in house?
Answer:
The District realizes that some companies may specialize in Project Management while others may specialize in
the Program Management. The District encourages companies to partner up as necessary in order to provide the
services required.
B. Submitted Written Questions.
1. In section A. General Instructions, 1. Introduction and Brief Summary – Would you like this section to have its
separate tab or is it ok to include it with the Section 1 – Firm Information + Technical Proposal?
Answer:
The District requests that these be submitted in separate sections.
2. Three questions related to section B. Firm Information.
a. In Items m. and n. – Should it be saying program management/manager instead of project management?
Answer:
This is written correctly.
b. Can you clarify what you are expecting to see in each of these two sections given the similarity of requested
information? Are you looking for a mutually exclusive list for both L & M and do you want the same list for
each?
Answer:
This section has been corrected. Please see the attached Replacement Pages.
c.
In section B. Firm Information, References – Do we need to list references just for our firm or is it a
combination of references for the entire team?
Answer:
References should be for the firm.
3. Two questions related section C. Technical Capabilities:
a. Our firm has managed more than 250 education projects in the past 5 years. You are asking to provide a one
page response to each question in Section C., and it would be impossible to include all of those projects with
items a. through d. all in one page. Do you really need us to list ALL projects? Could you please clarify?
Answer:
It is acceptable consolidate this down to a reasonable amount. Experience should be listed for CA
Community College and complex K-12 projects of similar scope and size to demonstrate their ability to handle
multiple building projects at the same time.
b. It will be very challenging (impossible) to place all our California Education Projects, including our teaming
MCCD RFP #03-13 Proposition EE Program Management
Page 3
members, onto only one page. Is it possible to extend this page limit or to even remove this page limit?
Answer:
Since It is acceptable consolidate this down to a reasonable amount, the page limit will not change.
4. Would the District be willing to accept a “Performance Based” response to this solicitation? It appears that the
approach to the program is based on bodies and hours. We would like to offer and approach that guarantees
delivery of the projects and base the need for bodies on the requirements of the projects and program oversight
and reporting, not on personnel time and quantity of bodies. In other words, we would like to answer the
question, “How would you approach the delivery of the program, how would you assure the district that you will
bring the projects in on time and within budget, and what is your fee structure to accomplish this?
We would be willing to respond to the solicitation as written, but would appreciate it if an alternative approach
section would be allowed and be able to be considered in the scoring.
Answer:
Please provide the proposal as requested in this RFQ / RFP. However, if any potential proposer wishes to submit
an alternate proposal, please provide that as an alternative proposal.
5. Two questions related Section G. Labor Compliance:
a. Is it the district’s intention to operate its own approved Labor Compliance Program in addition to the
Construction Monitoring unit’s program under the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement?
Answer:
This is in the Scope of Work that will be the Program Managers Responsibilities. The District does not have
its own in house Labor Compliance Program.
b. It is our understanding that effective 1/1/2012 all Labor Compliance efforts are to be performed by the CMU
(the Compliance Monitoring Unit) of the DLSE if they are projects that are legally required to use the CMU
following the adoption of AB 436 and approval of revisions to program regulations. It is our understanding
that, per the State CMU website, the requirements are as follows:
 Any public works project paid for in whole or part out of public funds that are derived from bonds issued
by the state, except Proposition 84 (2006 Water project bond initiative)
 Public entities that utilize design – build contracts as a project delivery method that has a CMU
requirement within the authorizing statute
 Projects undertaken by an awarding body that elects to use the CMU on all of its projects.
Can you advise/confirm that the MiraCosta projects will fall under one or more of these provisions, and
that the Labor Compliance work must be provided by the CMU, or if your projects are exempted? If your
projects are not exempt, then the requirement for Labor performance of Labor Compliance goes away,
and the Program Manager role becomes one of coordination with and management of the CMU’s efforts.
Please clarify if you still want burdened rates for the identified Labor Compliance positions.
Answer:
Proposition EE will not be issued by the state and not all projects will be Design Build. The district needs the
flexibility to utilize burdened rates for 3rd party labor compliance positions on a project by project basis that
does not fall into the categories listed above. The District may choose to have labor compliance covered
outside of the requirements of the CMU.
6. Two questions related Exhibit ‘A’ Schedule of Hourly Billing Rates:
a. Referring to the hourly rate sheet; how is the Extended Rate column to be filled out?
Answer:
Hourly Rate Fully Burdened x Projected Number of Personnel = Extended Rate
b. Referring to the hourly rate sheet, are we to provide additional sheets for each of the 3, years, and if so,
should the extended rate column only show the single year’s costs?
Answer:
Yes, please provide additional sheets for each of the three (3) years. Each sheet should be for a single years
MCCD RFP #03-13 Proposition EE Program Management
Page 4
cost per sheet.
7. Referring to the evaluation process, we will be scored based on our comprehensive methodology and
management plan. We do not see any section of the proposal identified to old this information other than the
cover letter. What section(s) should be used to submit these scored items? May we suggest that a subsection to
Section C be opened to allow for a description of a comprehensive overall approach and management plan, in
addition to the specific items requested in C8 and C10?
Answer:
The District has amended the document to include a section to cover this. Please see the attached replacement
pages.
8. Are there any goals for participation by disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs), small business enterprises
(SBEs), or minority-owned enterprises (MBEs)? Owners will typically set a percent utilization target, and
competing primes may earn points toward their overall proposal score for including these types of firms on their
team.
Answer:
There currently no goals set. This will be address in the process for Design/Build once we have awarded the RFP
for the Construction Project-Related Legal Services.
MCCD RFP #03-13 Proposition EE Program Management
Page 5