Request for Proposal #A08-RFP-020

Request for Proposal

Department of Information Services Wheeler Site Lease Development Project Amendment #3; October 19, 2007

i

Request for Proposal #A08-RFP-020

for

The Wheeler Site Development

on the East Capitol Campus

in Olympia, Washington

by the

Washington State Department of Information Services

Released on 0ctober 8, 2007

Deleted: October 8, 2007 – Final



ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Content Page #

1. Information ........................................................................................ 1

2. Instructions to Proposers .................................................................. 3

3. Restrictions ....................................................................................... 4

4. Project Components.......................................................................... 5

5. Request for Proposal (RFP) Schedule .............................................. 8

6. General Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria ............. 9

7. RFP – Submission Requirements/Evaluation/................................... 18 Scoring/Selection of Finalist

8. Post Selection ................................................................................... 20

9. Protest Procedures ........................................................................... 21

10. Exhibits

a. Exhibit A: Legislative Authority.................................................... 23

b. Exhibit B: Legal Description/Survey............................................ 25

c. Exhibit C: Sample Financing Lease ............................................ 27

d. Exhibit D: Sample Development Agreement .............................. 29

e. Exhibit E: Capitol Campus Master Plan ..................................... 31

f. Exhibit F: Perkins + Will Pre-design Report ................................ 33

g. Exhibit G: Washington State Patrol Program ............................. 35

h. Exhibit H: Small Agency Program ................................................ 37

i. Exhibit I: City of Olympia Memorandum .................................... 39

j. Exhibit J: Capitol Campus Transportation Study ........................ 41

k. Exhibit K: RFP Estimated Worksheet Budget ............................ 43

l. Exhibit L: Form Pre-development Agreement ............................ 45




iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Content Page #

11. Attachments

a. Attachment 1: Letter of Interest................................................... 47

b. Attachment 2: Certification and Assurances .............................. 49

12. Addendums

a. Addendums to this RFP will be incorporated. .............................. 51



Department of Information Services 1 Wheeler Site Lease Development Project Amendment #3; October 19, 2007

1. Information 1.1 Goal: The State of Washington has determined a need for additional state

office buildings and facilities on the east Capitol Campus in Olympia for the Department of Information Services (DIS), Washington State Patrol (WSP) and other agencies. In order to accomplish this goal, DIS has authorized publication of this Request for Proposal (RFP).

1.2 Authority: The 2007-09 Biennium capital budget authorizes DIS, as outlined in Exhibit A, to redevelop a 7.6 acre site on the east Capitol Campus in Olympia, commonly known as the “Wheeler Site”, which is described in Exhibit B. This redevelopment contemplates approximately 461,000 sf of improvements including an office building and a data center for DIS as well as a headquarters location for the Washington State Patrol (WSP) and general offices for a number of small state agencies, and approximately 800 parking stalls (Project). DIS has outgrown its capacity for both office space and data center requirements and anticipates further growth as a result of the state’s information technology initiatives; WSP intends to consolidate a number of its offices into a headquarters location and small agencies will benefit from co-location in a shared services and shared technology environment. The intended date of occupancy is February 2010.

1.3 Implementation: The State will lease the Wheeler Site to a nonprofit corporation (Nonprofit) under the terms of a Ground Lease. The term of the Ground Lease is expected to be 30 years. The Nonprofit will execute a Financing Lease with the State for a term that is expected to be five years less than the term of the Ground Lease. A sample Financing Lease used by the State in a prior transaction is attached as Exhibit C. The Nonprofit will execute a Development Agreement with the Successful Proposer. A sample Development Agreement used in a prior transaction between a non-profit corporation and a developer is attached as Exhibit D; the development agreement negotiated for this Project may differ substantially. Please note, the financing lease must be approved by the State Finance Committee.

1.4 Nonprofit: After being selected and not before, the Successful Proposer will enter into a solicitation to select the Nonprofit. It is anticipated the Nonprofit will issue tax-exempt bonds under the provisions of Rev. Rule 63-20 and Rev. Proc 82-26 for the purpose of financing the Project. The State will not pay any of the costs of issuance of the bonds and will not provide any funds for the payment of debt service on the bonds. The State’s sole financial obligation will be to make payments under the Financing Lease after successful completion of the Project. The State will have the right under the Financing Lease to acquire unencumbered title to

Deleted: October 8, 2007 - Final



the Project by assuming the obligations under the bonds, and upon the retirement of the bonds, the Nonprofit shall be required to tender title to the Project to the State.

1.5 Financing Contract: The Financing Lease will be subject to approval by the state finance committee (a committee consisting of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and State Treasurer). It is anticipated that this approval will be solicited after the terms of the Financing Lease have been negotiated, but prior to the issuance of the bonds. If, for any reason, the state finance committee approval is not obtained, the bonds may not be issued, and DIS may, therefore, determine not to proceed with the Project. If this were to happen, the State would be under no financial obligation to the Successful Proposer.

This part left blank intentionally




2. Instructions to Proposers 2.1 Read all instructions carefully. If you do not comply with any part of this

RFP, or fail to provide the required data, documents, plans and other materials specified in this RFP, DIS may, at its sole option, reject your proposal as non-responsive.

2.2 DIS reserves the right to amend this RFP. Any and all amendments to the

RFP will be posted to the website at http://www.dis.wa.gov/wheelerSM.htm

2.3 All detailed and technical questions must be in writing and received by the

RFP Coordinator prior to October 22, 2007. Responses to questions will be made available to the public on DIS’s web page: http://www.dis.wa.gov/wheelerSM.htm

Rebekah O’Hara, RFP Coordinator Management Services Division Office of Legal Services Department of Information Services 1110 Jefferson Street SE Olympia, Washington 98504-2445 Fax: 360/902-3436 Email Address: [email protected] 2.4 Only paper submittals will be considered; fax/email proposals will not be

considered. Text of the proposals should be on 8-1/2” x 11” paper, except for the Worksheet Development Budget which is designed to print on 8-1/2 " x 14" paper. Accompanying drawings, diagrams, or maps should be on 11” x 17” paper and folded. Each proposal should include a complete table of contents with corresponding tabs. Each page shall be numbered and contain the name of the Proposer in the header or the footer. RFP submission requirements are outlined in 7.1.2.

2.5 Proprietary Information: The Proposer should clearly mark every page of

any portion(s) of the proposal which contains proprietary information. The Proposer may not mark the entire proposal as proprietary or confidential. Proposals, which are marked in such a manner, will not be considered. If DIS receives a request from a third party to view or copy the proposal, DIS shall respond according to Washington State’s Public Disclosure laws. However, if any information is marked as proprietary or confidential in the proposal, DIS shall not make that portion available without giving the Proposer an opportunity to seek a court order.

Deleted: 17


http://www.dis.wa.gov/wheelerSM.htm�

http://www.dis.wa.gov/�

mailto:[email protected]�



2.6 DIS reserves the right to waive minor irregularities contained in any proposal. DIS may, at any time and at its sole discretion reject any and all proposals, cancel the RFP, reissue an RFP and/or not execute a contract as a result of this RFP.

3. Restrictions 3.1 The Constitution of the State of Washington prohibits payments in

advance or in anticipation of receipt of goods and services. The Successful Proposer is paid after goods and services are delivered and accepted and/or services are rendered.

3.2 The State/DIS will not pay any Proposer’s costs associated with preparing or presenting any proposal in response to this RFP.

3.3 DIS’s Director, or his or her designee, is the only person authorized to

legally commit to any contracts.

3.4 All documents required by this RFP are subject to review and approval “as to form” by the Office of the Attorney General.

3.5 If a conflict exists between amendments, or between an amendment and the RFP, the document issued last shall take precedence. Proposers’ written questions and DIS’s official answers will be considered an amendment to this RFP.

3.6 All information provided with this RFP is provided only for general information purposes. The information is not warranted to be accurate and it is not a part of the bid proposal documents. The State does not guarantee either the accuracy or completeness of any of the information. The Proposer is responsible for independent verification of any and all information.




4. Project Components 4.1 Wheeler Site: The property is approximately 7.6 acres and is located in

Olympia, Washington. It is bounded on the north by 14th Avenue, on the west by Jefferson Street and on the south by the future extension of 16th Avenue SE. The site is referenced as Opportunity Site 9, Page OS9 in the attached Exhibit E “Master Plan for the Capitol of the State of Washington”. It is also referenced on Page 5-12 in the Design Section; Design Guidelines for East Campus.

4.2 Principal components, approximate square footages, and parking.

Office Building #1 for DIS 120,000 Gross SF* Data Center Complex 166,000 Gross SF*

o 100,000 gsf in Link building (offices, storage, production and studio)

o

o 66,000 gsf (data halls) o Office Building #2 for Washington State Patrol Offices & Small Agency Offices

175,000 Gross SF*

Site work: 7.6 acres Parking Assumptions: 800 total

o 700 secured; structured or open air o o 100 surface or unsecured o

*Gross square feet is defined as from the outside envelope.

4.3 Data Center: The Data Center Complex will include a Link between Office Building #1 and the Data Halls. That Link will include infrastructure and mechanical spaces, production facilities, a studio, warehouse, loading docks and office space related specifically to the data hall operations. The Data Halls include four (4) each of approximately 15,000 square feet. Two will be fully built out and two will be building shell only and allow for future growth. Preliminary estimates indicated that the data halls and back of house support spaces would be built to accommodate 150 watts per square foot; initial build out is expected to be lower.

4.4 Preliminary site layout: The preliminary site layout as outlined in the attached documentation was reviewed by the Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee (CCDAC). It was approved by the State Capitol Committee (SCC) and any significant variation will need to be explained.

4.5 Campus Location. DIS expects the Project will be distinctive in its design and architecture, but also complementary to the historic Capitol Campus.




4.6 Pre-Design Report: DIS commissioned Perkins+Will in late 2006 to provide a Pre-design Report. This report is attached as Exhibit F, focused on the DIS Data Center and office. It includes a full programming effort, site and building concept designs, parking strategies, data center criteria and a cost estimate for the DIS office building and data center. The Report referenced a possible additional office building for the site (on page 93), but the 2nd office building was not studied in detail. The Report should be used as a guideline for site development, but the Proposer will need to explore and resolve issues with regard to integration of the 2nd office building and associated structured parking on the site. Site layout assumptions referenced in the Report were made before the addition of the 2nd office building. Both budget information and design assumptions should be used for information purposes only. Budget information included in the Report was based upon a design-bid-build project delivery method.

4.7 Other Programming. Programming efforts undertaken for WSP and small agency offices are attached as Exhibits G & H. For the small agencies, sample configurations as well as a list of some typical small agencies and their associated FTEs is included. Final determination of the small agencies moving into the new office building will be made by the State during the pre-development period.

4.8 Building Design Criteria. WSP has endeavored to create building design criteria which will be made available to the Successful Proposer. Refinement of these criteria is anticipated during the collaborative pre-development period.

4.9 Security Requirements: One of the major tenants in Office Building #2 will be the Washington State Patrol (WSP). This tenant has some security requirements and will likely need specialized consulting to achieve its security goals. DIS also has specialized security requirements surrounding the Data Center. Security requirements will need to be reviewed and addressed by the Successful Proposer.

4.10 Building Identity: The Washington State Patrol is expected to occupy approximately 80% of the 2nd office building. The balance will be occupied by a number of small state agencies and shared spaces. The Successful Proposer shall be expected to create separate identities and possibly separate entrances for the two distinct occupancy types.

4.11 The property surrounds a Puget Sound Energy substation. It is not currently contemplated to be relocated. Visual integration of the substation into the new development will be desirable.




4.12 The Successful Proposer shall be required to work with Intercity Transit (IT), the public transportation provider, on all transit-related issues. IT operates a free downtown shuttle service known as Dash. Customers using Dash currently park in the Wheeler site parking lot.

4.13 The Project must be at least LEED silver certified and energy efficient with low operating and maintenance costs.

4.14 The Successful Proposer shall be required under the Development Agreement to pay state prevailing wages and comply with other requirements of state and local law.

4.15 The Department of General Administration will function as the SEPA lead agency.

4.16 The City of Olympia has identified certain design issues and affirmed its commitment to the Project, as outlined in the attached Exhibit I.

4.17 Traffic Planning: In addition to the buildings that are the subject of this RFP, the south edge and northwest edge of the Capitol Campus are also slated for redevelopment. These combined projects will redistribute operations, staff and visitors as well as their access, parking and pedestrian circulation routes across the west and east campus areas. A comprehensive analysis of and integrated plan for managing transportation and enhancing pedestrian access to the Campus is currently underway and is anticipated to be completed by January 2008. A copy of the scope of work is attached as Exhibit J.

4.18 Child Care Center. A number of small buildings currently occupy the Wheeler Site. Among them is a child care center for state workers. This center totals approximately 5,500 square feet and will be displaced as a result of the development. DIS has retained a consultant to develop options for its future location. That report should be completed by mid-October and once completed, a copy will be posted to http://www.dis.wa.gov/wheelerSM.htm, the website hosting this RFP. Options include re-locating the child care center somewhere on the Wheeler Site, either in one of the new buildings to be constructed, or, in a stand-alone building on the property. Proposers should determine if there is sufficient space to construct an 8,200 sf child care center either in one of the buildings, or as a separate, stand-alone building somewhere on the property, and should address this issue in the Proposed Development Plan / Schedule and QC portion of the Response. We have assumed a project start date of May 1, 2008. Briefly describe the impact on the schedule and budget of the project if the existing child care center were to


http://www.dis.wa.gov/�



remain on the site beyond this date. Please address this in the Proposed Development Plan / Schedule and QC portion of the Response.

4.19 Historic Building. One of the other existing buildings on the property, located on the corner of Jefferson and 16th Avenue SE is the former Clow Apartment building and is currently occupied by a legislative agency. This building may be historic and DIS has been working with Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to determine a potential mitigation strategy for this building. This issue should be addressed in the Proposed Development Plan / Schedule and QC portion of the Response.

5. RFP Schedule

5.1 Significant Dates

Below is a listing of significant dates. DIS, at its sole discretion, may change these dates. Notification of program schedule changes will be posted to DIS’s website: http://www.dis.wa.gov/wheelerSM.htm. RFP Release Date October 8, 2007 Written Questions Due from Proposers1 October 22, 2007 RFP Proposal Due Date November 2, 2007 Interviews November 12-13, 2007 Final Selection of Apparently Successful Proposer November 14, 2007 Intended Occupancy Date2 February 2010


1 See subsection 2.1.3 on process for submitting written questions regarding this RFP. 2 Occupancy shall be defined as (1) A Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) has been issued by the City of Olympia; (2) DIS has determined that the State can take beneficial occupancy.

Deleted: 17




6. General Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria 6.1 Each Proposer’s Response will be evaluated by a selection committee

(Selection Committee). Selection Committee members are anticipated to include representatives from DIS, a representative from the Office of Financial Management and General Administration, a representative from WSP and a representative from the Capital Campus Design Advisory Committee. Proposers may be requested to interview and make oral presentations to the Selection Committee as part of the selection process. The Selection Committee reserves the right to request additional information. 6.1.1 Proposer Responses will be ranked. The Selection Committee will

determine and select the highest ranked Proposer Response. DIS reserves the right to reject any and/or all Proposers.

Review of Perkins + Will Pre-Design Report 100 points / 10.0% Experience / Past Performance 100 points / 10.0% Capacity to Perform the Work 100 points / 10.0% Proposed Development Plan / Schedule & QC 200 points / 20.0% Development Agreement 100 points / 10.0% Estimated Worksheet Budget 200 points / 20.0% Interview 200 points / 20.0% Financial Strength/Liquidity Pass / Fail

6.2 RFP Submittal Instructions: Each proposal shall include a Response

addressing each of the following elements in the order stated below. Answer all parts of each question. Incomplete submittals may be rejected as non-responsive. Please use a legibly sized font (11 or 12 point sizes).

6.2.1 Review of Perkins + Will Pre-Design Report (100 points /

10.0%) Describe any (one or more) approach or method that utilizes the Pre-design Report and offers opportunities to improve upon it, and/or derive significant monetary savings. A review, professional critique and identification of potential improvements is what is anticipated - not a complete discounting or a suggested re-writing of the Report.




6.2.2 Experience & Past Performance (100 points / 10.0%) Describe specialized experience and technical competence of the Proposer and its development team, considering the types of development problems that may be encountered, the magnitude of this Project, and experience in meeting aggressive schedules. Identify recent experience and expertise with development projects of a similar type, including:

• Experience in the planning, design, development, and construction of data center facilities;

• Experience in the planning, design, development, and construction of office facilities for public and private sector tenants;

• Experience in the planning, design, development, and construction of parking garages in connection with office and campus development;

• Experience in large build-to-suit projects development projects using tax exempt financing;

• Experience in LEED certified projects.

6.2.3 Identify the Proposer’s development team. Identify the Proposer’s (and its development team) key staff assigned to the Project, including name, title, and responsibilities. Identify each individual’s role and the firm they represent.

• Project Management

• Architecture and Design

• Engineering Team for the Real Estate

• Engineering Team for the Data Center • Construction Management • General Contracting • Design Build Subcontractors (may overlap with Engineering)

6.2.4 For each individual identified above:

• provide a succinct resume describing the individual’s relevant expertise and past project experience;

• provide a one page summary of the individual’s firm, describing the firm’s relevant expertise, past project experience, and organizational depth.




6.2.5 Note past record of working together as a team on other

development projects or on projects of similar scope and complexity. Comment on how performance on previous projects and contracts qualifies Proposer to develop this Project.

6.2.6 Provide a one (1) page organization chart showing the relationships

– this chart may be prepared on a 11” x 17” sheet if required.

6.2.7 Using a Proposer prepared development schedule consisting of pre-development and construction time periods, identify the commitment of each individual team member (% of their time for each month) that will be devoted to this Project during the pre-development and construction periods.

6.2.8 As an appendix to the Response:

1. Include applicable licensing information, if appropriate, for a given expertise. Include Washington State Tax Registration Number for the Proposer and each member of the team. If the Proposer is a corporation, provide corporate information including date of incorporation, state in which incorporated, and the incorporation number. If the Proposer is to be a newly formed LLC, corporation, partnership or joint venture, please describe in appropriate detail the constituent members that will comprise the newly formed entity.

2. With regard to the Proposer, for a period inclusive of the most recent ten (10) years, attach a list identifying instances of commercial disputes that have resulted in arbitration or litigation. If the dispute has been arbitrated, identify the cause of action, the arbitrator that handled the case (including address and telephone number), and the resolution. For disputes that have proceeded to litigation, identify each instance that (1) a lawsuit has been filed, (2) the court of jurisdiction, (3) the cause of action, (4) the filing number, and (5) the resolution, including settlements, compromises, and judgments. This information shall include instances where the Proposer was plaintiff or defendant.

6.3 Capacity to Perform the Work (100 points / 10.0%): In light of how

busy the development and construction trades are throughout the Northwest Region, demonstrate the Proposer and its team’s capacity to perform the work within the demanding time and budget limitations,




considering the Proposer’s (and its team’s) current and planned workload. Describe how the Proposer proposes to provide timely submittal and quality services on multiple contracts with varying degrees of complexity, considering the current and planned work load of team members. Describe the Proposer’s team’s ability to provide the technical disciplines and services required to cover the work required by the Project.

6.4 Proposed Development Plan / Schedule & QC (200 points / 20.0%): In

no more than five (5) pages of narrative, articulate the proposed development plan, including: leadership role, pre-development collaboration, negotiation, proposed schedule, architecture and design, design-build management plan, construction, quality control, etc. Provide Proposer’s approach and methodology for assessing and defining the scope, negotiating the terms of, and implementing the Project.

6.4.1 Discuss ability to provide responsive coordination of work elements.

Include a brief discussion of work scheduling, cost control, quality assurance, and reporting. Discuss problem identification; ability to identify and solve issues related to ease of use; density, neighborhood concerns, traffic, and parking issues; appreciation of design potential to minimize cost and construction impacts; demonstrated capability to explore and develop innovative or advanced techniques and design; minimum LEED silver certification in accordance with state requirements; methodology and approach regarding the ½ of 1% for Washington State Arts Commission’s Art in Public Places program.

6.4.2 Include the following items in addition to the narrative required by

the above paragraphs.

• A conceptual design, blocking diagrams, and sketches of Project elements on the Wheeler Site. The conceptual design portion should demonstrate conceptual creativity in the way the site and development plan might be handled. DIS is interested in a preliminary visual representation of each Proposer’s approach. Limit sketches to three (3) or four (4) alternatives.

• How ingress, egress, and parking will work during construction and thereafter.

• Identify site phasing and layout issues for construction and overall development.

• Development schedule identifying substantial completion of the Project no later than January 25, 2010 and a brief narrative




describing whether this is possible, description and assessment of potential fatal flaws, likelihood of achievement, etc.

• Development schedule identifying at least one phase of the Project no later than January 25, 2010 and a brief narrative describing whether this is possible, why an earlier completion date for the complete Project is not possible, description and assessment of potential fatal flaws, likelihood of achievement, etc.

• Describe mitigation measures aimed at potential disruptions caused by construction.

• Describe how this project can demonstrate efficiencies gained from the integration of office space and telecommunications and computer technology.

6.4.3 DIS has determined that Responses demonstrating the best

value are most advantageous to the DIS and the State of Washington. Best value does not necessarily mean lowest price, and the Selection Committee will consider carefully how each Proposer describes and attributes value to DIS as part of its submission. Therefore, each Proposer’s Response should focus and articulate how elements of its development plan will create value for DIS and the State of Washington now and in the future. Examples of how that value may be created include, but are not limited to: value created as a result of design of the Capitol Campus and facilities; value created as a result of demonstrable quality control; value created as a result of creative parking strategies; value created as a result of particular or special construction techniques; value created as a result of a LEED certification and/or other sustainable attributes; value created as a result of effectively mitigating disruptions; value created by speed of the development and construction process; value created as a result of risk mitigation to DIS; etc. Where appropriate, identify how the value enhancement may have a direct impact on the Project budget.

6.5 The Development Agreement (100 points / 10.0%): Attached as Exhibit

D is an electronic copy of a Form Development Agreement. This Form Development Agreement contains terms and conditions that are anticipated to be incorporated in the final development contract between the Proposer and the non-profit facilitating entity. Please review thoroughly. Take particular note of the Proposer’s scope of work, Proposer’s responsibilities, and Proposer’s assumptions of risk. These




material terms are the primary focus of the legal relationship to be created between the Proposer and the non-profit.

6.5.1 A Proposer may affirmatively state its willingness to enter into such

an agreement. Such an affirmative statement will achieve 100 points. As an alternative, if a Proposer takes exception to a certain term or terms, then the Proposer must specifically identify the language objected to, must propose alternative language, and must affirmatively state its willingness to enter into the proposed agreement as modified. Points will be deducted for alternative terms that materially affect scope, responsibilities, and / or risk. Failure to affirmatively state a willingness to enter into such an agreement may cause the Proposer to be rejected as non-responsive.

6.5.2 Use the unaltered Form Development Agreement as background

against which to prepare an RFP Worksheet Estimated Budget, immediately below. Please understand, DIS expects each Proposer to price the risk articulated in the Development Agreement in addition to the services that will be provided upon entering into the Development Agreement.

6.6 RFP Worksheet Estimated Budget – 200 points (20%): Attached is a

hard copy and digital copy of an Excel spreadsheet, Exhibit K. When filled out and completed according to these instructions, the RFP Worksheet Estimated Budget will identify each Proposer’s guaranteed maximum price soft costs (GMP Soft Costs).

6.6.1 This RFP Worksheet Estimated Budget has a tab at the bottom of

the file titled, Wheeler Block Dvlmpt Budget. This tab and its corresponding sheet shall be completed by each Proposer. Rows 1 though 26 cannot be changed or modified. The Line Item Categories identified in Column A, Rows 36 through 95 cannot be changed or modified. Use these Line Item Categories. Finally, cell 36F and cell 90B cannot be changed or modified.

6.6.2 DIS has identified certain financial assumptions in the spreadsheet

that cannot be changed or modified. Rows 1 through 26 identify estimated construction costs, including sales tax. These estimated construction costs, including sales tax, are order of magnitude budget assumptions about the Project which Proposers shall use to complete the remainder of the Budget. These are approximate numbers only but these construction cost estimates are to be used by each Proposer (and its team) in considering the estimated Deleted: October 8, 2007 - Final



quality and potential scope of the Project. Ultimate construction costs to be incorporated in the development GMP will result from the collaborative pre-development process between the Successful Proposer and DIS.

6.6.3 The scope and financial assumptions made in this RFP Worksheet

Estimated Budget are approximations only. Examples include: it is possible that cells in Rows 1 through 26, Column B represent square foot assumptions that could vary as much as 10% less or 10% greater; it is possible that cells in Rows 1 through 26, Column D represents construction cost assumptions that could vary as much as much as 10% less or 10% greater. For purposes of this exercise, changes in scope within these parameters during the pre-development period will make no difference and will not affect the guaranteed maximum price figures that each Proposer will submit in Column D Rows 38 though 88 – GMP Line Item Categories Guaranteed By Proposer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event increases in Project scope ultimately do exceed the 10% figure identified above, the Developer will be able to increase GMP soft costs according to the following example: if cumulative changes in construction scope were to reach 12%, then GMP soft costs could increase 2%; if cumulative change in construction scope were to reach 14%, then GMP soft costs could increase 4%; etc.

• In Column B Rows 40 though 81, for each cell where there is a

blank $0 in BLACK, identify the Estimated Cost. Proposers will note that the sum of cells 40B – 47B generates a red GMP figure in cell 48D. Proposers will note that the sum of cells 50B – 58B generates a red GMP figure in cell 59D. And, Proposers will note that the sum of cells 74B – 81B generates a red GMP figure in cell 82D.

• In Column D Rows 38 through 88, for each cell (38, 61, 62, 63,

66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 84, 86, 88) where there is a blank “$0” (RED), identify the GMP Line Item figure that is Guaranteed by Proposer. The GMP Soft Cost figures in each above identified cell of Column D are fixed prices that Proposer is guaranteeing as part of its proposal. Each GMP figure submitted pursuant to this RFP is warranted notwithstanding potential scope changes within the parameters identified above. It is the responsibility of the Proposer to assure itself that each team member can and will deliver its services for the prices




identified in the submitted Budget. RFP points awarded hereunder are based upon the GMP Soft Cost figures identified by each Proposer in this Column D.

• Column F determines by pre-set formula what the Estimated

Total will be on Row 95 by summing all rows where there is a blank $0 (GREEN) – this is informational only to help identify estimated total costs.

• Column G determines by pre-set formula the percentage of

Total Development Costs (BLUE) – this is informational only to see the estimated percentage of each line item category.

6.6.4 By way of example only, a budget has been completed on the

digital Excel spreadsheet if one looks to the bottom tab titled, Example Only. By examining the Example Only spreadsheet, one can ascertain the formulas and the logic of what is expected.

6.6.5 Please submit the completed RFP Estimated Worksheet Budget in

both paper copy (color print on legal-sized paper) and digital format (disc). Identify the Proposer on spreadsheet header and on the disc as (Fill in Proposer’s Name) Estimated Worksheet Budget.

6.7 Interview (200 points / 20%): Some Proposers and their teams (but not

necessarily every Proposer and team) will be interviewed by the Selection Committee. Each Proposer’s Response will be evaluated for completeness and assigned points based upon the criteria outlined in this section. In general, the Proposer that appears to be capable of bringing the greatest value to the project will earn the highest number of points. DIS will schedule interviews to take place on November 12-13, 2007. The interviews are to be attended by no more than six or seven individuals representing each Proposer and its team.

6.8 Financial Information and Guarantees – Pass / Fail:

6.8.1 As indicated in the Form Development Agreement, all development risk will be assumed by the Successful Proposer, selected pursuant to this RFP. So, for example, in the event that the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of the Project is exceeded (see, Section 2(a) Form Development Agreement), or the project budget becomes out of balance (see, Section 10(h) Form Development Agreement), the Successful Proposer will be required to pay money into the Project




in order to achieve substantial completion and meet its contractual responsibilities under the Development Agreement.

6.8.2 Please submit financial information that will identify the liquid

financial resources readily available to meet those contractual responsibilities. If the firm has a credit rating from a national rating agency, please include that. Otherwise, submit a Dun and Bradstreet report. Identify how DIS will be assured that those financial resources will be and remain in place during development and construction of the project. Identify a strategy or method of collateralization that the Proposer will put into place, e.g., unconditional letter of credit, personal guarantee of principals, etc. Since the Successful Proposer will be required to assume all construction/completion risk, and the State will not be making any Financing Lease payments until completion, the Successful Proposer’s credit rating will be critical. The response should identify proposals to deal with this financing component. It is anticipated that the costs of the construction will be paid from the proceeds of long term tax exempt bonds to be issued by a nonprofit corporation. In order to achieve the lowest long term interest rates, the rating on the bonds should be based on the credit of the Financing Lease. Since the State will not be making any lease payments until after the Project is completed, the Proposer should identify a strategy that will ensure that bonds can be rated at the time of sale in a manner that is consistent with the anticipated long term payment stream that will support the repayment of the bonds.





7. RFP - Submission Requirements/Evaluation/Scoring/Selection of Finalist

7.1 Proposals must be received no later than 3:00 PM Pacific Time,

November 2, 2007, at the following address:

Department of Information Services Director’s Office Wheeler RFP Response 1110 Jefferson Street SE Olympia, Washington 98504-2445

7.2 As outlined further in the referenced Attachments, proposals shall include

the following: (a) One Original Letter of Interest (Attachment 1) (b) One Signed Certification and Assurances (Attachment 2) (c) One original, unbound Response to include:

• Review of Perkins + Will Pre-Design Report • Experience/Past Performance materials • Capacity to Perform the Work materials • Proposed Development Plan/Schedule and QC

materials • Response to Development Agreement Materials • RFP Estimated Worksheet Budget materials • Financial Information materials

(d) Twelve (12) copies of the entire response, comb bound (e) Two (2) copies of the entire Response on a compact disc in

MS Word format for the narrative and MS Excel for the RFP Worksheet Estimate budget.

7.3 Completeness of proposals: All required submissions outlined above in

7.2 must be included in proposals. Any incomplete proposal may be rejected as non-responsive.




7.4 Evaluation Criteria Table 1: Evaluation Criteria Score Sheet

Category/Element Element Description Points

1. Review of Perkins + Will Pre-Design Report: review, professional critique and identification of potential improvements and/or potential monetary savings

100

2.

Experience / Past Performance: identify team, individual & firm resumes, experience working together, organizational chart, commitment of individuals through pre-development & construction periods

100

3.

Capacity to Perform the Work: demonstrate the Proposer and its team’s capacity to perform the work within the demanding time and budget limitations

100

4.

Proposed Development Plan / Schedule & QC: articulate proposed development plan, discuss ability to provide responsive coordination of work elements, provide conceptual design / blocking diagrams, discuss delivery deadlines, demonstrate how Proposer’s approach will result in best value to DIS

200

5.

Development Agreement: evaluate and make affirmative statement

100

6.

Estimated Worksheet Budget: submit hard copy and digital excel file

200

7.

Interview

200

TOTAL

Possible Points

1000

8.

Financial Strength / Liquidity: submit materials

Pass or

Fail




8. Post – Selection After a Proposer is selected (Successful Proposer), the Successful Proposer will embark upon and lead a collaborative pre-development process with DIS and other State of Washington officials resulting in final documentation of the Project including a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) development agreement and delivery schedule. DIS anticipates that this collaborative pre-development period should take approximately five (5) months with design documentation having evolved sufficiently to result in a GMP for the Project. The scope of services to be undertaken by the Successful Proposer during this time period shall be described pursuant to a Pre-development Agreement, a form of which is attached as Exhibit L.





9. Protest Procedures Only Proposers who submit a Response may request an optional debriefing conference to discuss the evaluation of their Response. The requested debriefing conference must be requested within three (3) business days after notice has been given that the Apparently Successful Proposer has been selected. The request must be in writing (fax or e-mail acceptable) addressed to the RFP Coordinator. The optional debriefing will not include any comparison between the protesting Proposer’s Response and any other Responses submitted. However, DIS will discuss the factors considered in the evaluation of the requesting the Response and address questions and concerns about a Proposer’s performance with regard to the solicitation requirements.

9.1 Proposers who have submitted a Response to this solicitation and have had a debriefing conference may make protests. Upon completion of the debriefing conference, a Proposer is allowed three (3) business days to file a formal protest of the solicitation with the RFP Coordinator.

9.2 The Department of Information Services (DIS) will not consider any

protest that does not follow the process outlined herein. No additional recourse is available within DIS.

9.3 DIS shall consider only those protests concerning a matter of bias,

discrimination or conflict of interest on the part of an evaluator, material error in tabulation, or material failure to follow procedures stated in the RFP or to follow applicable law.

9.4 DIS must receive the protest within three (3) business days

following a debriefing. The complaint must cite the basis of the protest as outlined in this section 9. Failure to cite the basis of the protest will result in rejection of the protest.

9.5 The protest must comply with the requirements of this section 9 and

be signed by the protesting Proposer or an authorized representative and mailed and/or hand delivered to the RFP Coordinator. Telegrams, facsimiles or similar transmittals will not be considered.

9.6 The protest must state all facts and arguments on which the

protesting party is relying. Proposers shall, at a minimum, provide information about the protesting Proposer including: name of firm, mailing address, phone number, and name of individual responsible




for submission of the protest; specific and complete statement of the action(s) being protested; specific reference to the permissible grounds for protest; and description of the relief or corrective action requested.

9.7 Address Protest to:

Rebekah O’Hara, RFP Coordinator Management Services Division Office of Legal Services Department of Information Services 1110 Jefferson Street SE Post Office Box 42445 Olympia, Washington 98504-2445

9.8 Upon receipt of a valid protest, the Director of DIS, or a designee not involved in the solicitation will conduct an objective review. The purpose of the review is to assure agency policy and procedures were followed, all requirements were met, scores were tabulated accurately, and all Proposers were treated equally and fairly. The protest review will not contain a review of bids or scores assigned. The DIS Director or a designee will issue a written decision regarding the protest within five (5) business days after receipt of the protest, unless more time is needed. The protesting Proposer will be notified if additional time is necessary.




EXHIBIT A




Exhibit A

Legislative Authority




EXHIBIT B




Exhibit B

Legal Description/Survey

THIS DOCUMENT IS FORTHCOMING. IT IS EXPECTED TO BE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE DURING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 8.




EXHIBIT C




Exhibit C

Sample Financing Lease




EXHIBIT D




Exhibit D

Sample Development Agreement




EXHIBIT E




EXHIBIT E

Master Plan for the Capitol for the State of Washington




EXHIBIT F




Exhibit F

Perkins + Will Pre-Design Report




EXHIBIT G




Exhibit G

Washington State Patrol Program




EXHIBIT H




Exhibit H

Small Agency Programming




EXHIBIT I




Exhibit I

City of Olympia Memorandum




EXHIBIT J




Exhibit J

Capitol Campus Transportation Plan




EXHIBIT K




Exhibit K

RFP Estimated Worksheet Budget




EXHIBIT L




Exhibit L

Form Pre-development Agreement

THIS AGREEMENT IS FORTHCOMING. IT IS EXPECTED TO BE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE DURING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 8.




ATTACHMENT 1




ATTACHMENT I

LETTER OF INTEREST A Letter of Interest must accompany your proposal submitted in response to RFP Phase I. Information in your letter should be placed in the same order as outlined below: 1. Organization’s full legal name 2. Proposal contact 3. Address 4. Telephone number 5. Fax number 6. E-mail address 7. Brief description of how and why your organization meets the

qualifications expressed in the RFP




ATTACHMENT 2




ATTACHMENT 2

Certification and Assurances – RFP I/we make the following certifications and assurances as a required element of the proposal to which it is attached, understanding that the truthfulness of the facts affirmed here and the continuing compliance with these requirements are conditions precedent to the award of Apparent Successful Proposer: 1. I/we understand that the State will not reimburse me/us for any costs

incurred in the preparation of this proposal. 2. I/we understand that any contract(s) awarded as a result of this RFP will

incorporate Terms and Conditions substantially similar to those attached to the RFP. I/we certify that I/we will comply with these or substantially similar Terms and Conditions if selected as the Apparently Successful Proposer.

3. I/we understand that any person(s) selected will be required to comply

with federal and state statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These include, but are not limited to: Washington State Law Against Discrimination (Chapter 49.60 RCW).

4. I/we agree to pay Prevailing Wages as defined in Chapter 39.12 RCW. Signature Date Print Name, Title, Organization Name




ADDENDUMS


Date post:	11-Nov-2014
Category:	Business
Upload:	mike97
View:	534 times
Download:	3 times

Request for Proposal #A08-RFP-020

Business