AGENDA # June 19, 2012

AKI K. NAKAO, Director

1401 LAKESIDE DRIVE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 5102089700 FAX 5102089711 www.acgov.org/gsa/

June 8, 2012

Honorable Board of Supervisors County ofAlameda 1221 Oak Street, Suite 536 Oakland, California 94612-4305

Dear Board Members:

SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF THE DESIGN/BUILD REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND INCLUSION OF A STIPEND FOR THE EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT, DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA; PROJECT NO. CPP99C515500000; AMOUNT: $200,000

RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. Authorize the Director, General Services Agency (GSA) to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to prequalified Design/Build (DIB) entities in accordance with the D/B method authorized by your Board for the East County Hall of Justice (ECHOJ) project;

B. Authorize the inclusion of a stipend totaling $200,000 in the RFP; and

C. Approve that the GSA apply the Enhanced Construction Outreach Program (ECOP) and Small and Emerging Local Business (SLEB) goals and requirements in accordance with the D/B method and Request for Qualifications (RFQ) authorized by your Board.

DISCUSSION/SUMMARY:

Alameda County is authorized by Public Contract Code (PCC) Section 20133 to use the D/B method of project delivery. In accordance with the statutory requirements, on October 11,2011, your Board authorized (Item #11, File #27687) the Director of the GSA to advertise and issue an RFQ for D/B entities for the design and construction of the ECHOJ to be located in Dublin, California.

The RFQ was issued to D/B entities on November 14, 2011. GSA received nine qualifications packages on December 16, 2011. GSA, in coordination with County Counsel, Superior Courts of California, Administrative Office of the Courts and Swinerton Management and Consulting, reviewed the information submitted and determined that eight D/B entities met the qualification requirements.

Honorable Board Members Page 2 June 8, 2012 East County Hall of Justice #5155 Request for Proposals

The eight DIB entities are:

DESIGN-BUILD ENTITIES

CONTRACTORS

Clark Construction Group, Oakland, CA

DPR Construction, Redwood City, CA

Hensel Phelps Construction Co.

San Jose, CA

Lend Lease (US) Construction Inc. San Francisco, CA

McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.

San Francisco, CA

PCL Construction Services, Inc.

Glendale, CA

Rudolph & Sletten InclRoy Anderson Corp. Joint Venture, Redwood City, CA

Turner Construction Co., Oakland, CA

l ARCHITECTS I

AECOM Technical Services,

San Francisco, CA

Smith Group JJR, San Francisco, CA

Fentress Architects, San Jose, CA

Perkins Eastman Architects, San Francisco, CA

and Ross Drullis Cusenbery Architects, Inc., Sonoma, CA, a Joint Venture

Dreyfuss & Blackford Architects,

Sacramento, CA

Gruen Associates, Los Angeles, CA

HMC + Beverly Prior Architects San Francisco, CA

AC Martin + Ricci Greene, Joint Venture,

Los Angeles, CA

In accordance with the process outlined in the statute (PCC 20133), GSA and the project team, working with KMD Architects, has prepared bridging documents that describe project requirements. These project requirements include those elements of the project site design previously approved by the City of Dublin Site Design Review, as well as all other criteria needed to establish the programmatic requirements of both the County and the Courts. This will be a publicly bid DIB contract, awarded on a "best value" basis, as was done with the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center, the Acute Tower Replacement Project and the Ashland Youth Center. RFP evaluation criteria will include a cost competition element.

The RFP process will proceed in two Phases. In Phase I the DIB entities will submit their initial concepts for the project design together with other information relating to project program requirements, cost, schedule, commitment to the County's SLEB and ECOP programs, and certain criteria required by the statute. These submittals will be evaluated and scored. The three highest ranked DIB entities will be invited to submit a more fully developed proposal in Phase II. No stipends will be awarded in Phase 1.

In Phase II the three DIB entities will submit a more fully developed proposal which includes technical systems descriptions, life cycle cost information, detailed Outreach Program plans, Project team descriptions and other related material. The proposals will be evaluated by technical review panels and scored. The highest ranked DIB entity will be invited to enter into contract negotiation. At the

Honorable Board Members Page 3 June 8, 2012 East County Hall of Justice #5155 Request for Proposals

conclusion of successful contract negotiations, GSA will return to your Board with a recommendation for award.

Based on the recommendations of its consultants, GSA's experience with the County's D/B projects, and standard industry practice, GSA recommends that a stipend totaling $200,000 be included in Phase II. The stipend would be paid in equal shares ($100,000 each) to the two D/B entities not selected by Alameda County at the end of Phase II. The purpose of the stipend is to:

o Maximize the potential of receiving three proposals on this project, thereby ensuring competition in the proposal process;

o Maximize the opportunity for firms covered by the County's ECOP and SLEB programs to participate in the proposal development process as core team members; and

o Generate design ideas and innovations that add value to the project design.

GSA's consultant, Swinerton Management and Consulting, estimates that the cost of developing a proposal for this project likely exceeds $300,000. While larger firms, such as the lead D/B entities, can cover their costs with internal business development funds, smaller firms participating in the proposal development process may need to be compensated for their proposal preparation costs. The stipend will reduce a barrier to participation in the proposal development process for these small firms.

Pending updated status of the Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) and the Project Labor Agreement (PLA), both of which are still in process, GSA plans to issue the RFP before June 30,2012 to the D/B entities that were qualified through the RFQ process. If there are no further delays to the process from the DDA and/or the PLA negotiations, per the outlined RFP process a final selection can be made and a recommendation for award brought before your Board in late December 2012 or early January,2013. The project schedule anticipates a total duration for completion of design and construction to take approximately 28 months, and occupancy is anticipated in the summer of 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCESS

Request for Qualifications (RFQJ

The RFQ was released on November 14,2011 and was e-mailed to known contractors including those in the Local Vendor Database, advertised in 15 local ethnic publications, and posted in 8 Plan Rooms, 19 local trade organizations and Chambers ofCommerce and on the GSA Current Contracting Opportunities and Calendar ofEvents websites.

Two networking/bidder conferences were held to convey the ECOP and SLEB program requirements and to facilitate contractor and subcontractor relationships between large and certified small local contractors. This RFQ required the D/B teams to accept and acknowledge that, ifdeemed qualified and invited to submit a Proposal, they will meet: o ECOP goals and requirements, as they relate to the D/B construction portion ofthis project; and o SLEB Program requirements as they relate to the D/B architectural and engineering portion ofthe

project.

Honorable Board Members Page 4 June 8, 2012 East County Hall of Justice #5155 Request for Proposals

This RFQ required that D/B teams answer specific questions regarding their commitment to and acceptance ofthe County sECOP goals and SLEB requirements. Nine Statements ofQualifications were received. GSA, assisted by County Counsel and the consultingfirm ofSwinerton Management and Consulting reviewed the information submitted and determined that eight firms met the qualification requirements.

Requestfor Proposals (RFP)

The RFP will include requirements that bidders commit to and submit a preliminary project-specific plan to comply with the County sECOP and SLEB Programs and specific potential participation and utilization strategies in order to achieve the contract goals and requirements. In addition, GSA and County Counsel are currently reviewing the inclusion ofa PLA, as requested by your Board.

Phase I Proposals will be due from the D/B entities at the earliest in late July/early August 2012. Phase II Proposals would be due in mid-to-Iate October 2012. Following the RFP evaluation and negotiation process, a final selection will be made and a recommendation to award may be brought before your Board in late December 2012 or early January 2013.

FINANCING:

The Board approved the East County Courthouse Term Sheet on December 8, 2009.

Exhibit A of the Term Sheet identified the expenses as $139,882,189 with the estimated Court share of $110,078,295 and the estimated County share of $29,803,894 based upon an 80/20 split for construction related costs.

Exhibit C of the Term Sheet identified that the project revenues will be derived from a one-time equity contribution from the State and a bond financing plan where the State and County are each responsible for debt payments in connection with their relative share of costs.

There will be no increase in net County cost.

Respectfully submitted,

~~ Aki K. Nakao Director, General Services Agency

AKN:JRK:mg:I:\Board Leners\TSDlDI1lft Versions\5155 - Issue DB RFQ 20120619.doc

cc: Susan S. Muranishi, County Administrator Patrick 1. O'Connell, Auditor-Controller Donna R. Ziegler, County Counsel Rona Rothenberg, Senior Manager, Administrative Office of the Courts Pat Sweeten, Executive Officer, Superior Court of California