AESD RFI RESPONSE_RFQ_AOR (REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS) (6).pdf. AESD RFI RESPONSE_RFQ_AOR (REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS) (
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS SHORT LIST (MODERNIZATION, NEW CONSTRUCTION, EXPANSION, AND SMALL PROJECTS) ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT Facilities & Planning Department
05-31-2016 AESD RFI RESPONSES TO AOR FIRM QUESTIONS for RFQ No.: 2016-05-09 AOR (Request for Qualifications)
RFI 001
AOR:
“What is the status of the ADA Transition Plan that was advertised earlier in the year?”
AESD:
The District interviewed and shortlisted Architects for the ADA Transition Plan project; however, since that time, the District placed a hold on the ADA Transition plan. Our more immediate need is to generate a pool of Board approved Architects for current and projected workload. We anticipate moving forward with the ADA Transition Plan, following Board Approval of Shortlist Pool of Architects for current and projected need.
AOR:
RFI 002
AESD:
“What is meant by small projects, as mentioned in the RFQ program overview and summary?” The District has numerous projects that are ‘small’, throughout each Fiscal Year. Samples of these projects include, but are not limited to: Districtwide assessment of existing Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Roofing, Playgrounds, Paving, etc., at all sites, including District Administration Office Sites; ADA improvements at sites; i.e., playground equipment replacement at upper and lower playgrounds as multiple campuses; Multiple portable classroom installations with associated ADA improvements at one or several campuses; Code analysis of Plumbing Fixture Counts, Fire Lanes, Site Signage, On-Site Parking, etc.; Traffic Studies and Mitigation Plan projects; Media/Library and Kitchen remodels and reconfiguration projects; In any giving month, over the last two years, the district may have as many as 27 small projects calendared for Board approval; estimated construction value ranging from $50K to $1.5M. 1. 2.
AOR: 3.
RFI 003
1.
AESD:
2. 3.
“Why is the RFQ so few in pages?” “Will the Addendum request additional deliverables?” “Do you expect to see the summary points labeled exactly “a” through “f” in descending order on one page with a summarized response to each specific point, or do you simply wish to have us summarize our overall response based on these 6 points/sections in bullet style format?” “I see no page limit specified in this RFQ. Do you have any general guidelines on how thorough or succinct the District would prefer our responses to be?” The first page of the RFQ is the ‘Estimated Schedule’; the second page provides general School District information, qualifying AOR requirements, and RFQ deliverables, per Item 4. Submitting AORs shall follow RFQ Item 4 for format. Format, indexing, and tabbing is clear. The District’s goal is to generate a qualified pool of local, California Registered Architectural firms, based on their K12 public school experience. The District’s RFQ requests AORs to submit proof of their experience by providing requested information & documentation denoted in Item 4 of the RFQ. Although there may be no limit to the number of pages of RFQ submittal, AORs are directed, per Item 4, what shall be furnished to support firm’s qualifications, along with formatting requirements.
05-31-2016: AESD RFI RESPONSES TO AOR FIRM QUESTIONS for RFP No.: 2016-05-09 AOR (Request for Qualifications)
Page 1 of 2
AOR:
RFI 004
AESD:
AOR:
RFI 005
AESD:
AOR:
RFI 006
RFI 008
RFI 009
RFI 010
AOR: AESD:
AOR: AESD:
Regarding Page 2, Section 4 of RFQ, under Section 01 Executive Summary. 1. “You do not specifically ask for Sub Consultants. Would you like our sub-consultants listed? If so with Key Personnel or is listing the firm names adequate?” 2. We’re assuming the executive summary includes A-F, but is there a page limit for items A-F?” 3. Under DSA Certification Statistics, is this for only K-12 or all education levels?”
2. 3.
Per “Executive Summary”, the use of item 4.01.f Other is provided for your use in supplying additional information; such as a brief bulleted list of Consultants by discipline; including contact information. See AESD response to RFI 005. It is preferred only K12 DSA Public School projects be included; however, firms with K14 DSA Public School project experience are encouraged to submit their qualifications for AESD consideration. [NOTE: Provide grade profile (i.e., PS-K, K-3, K-8, K-12, K-14, 12-14) with submitted Project Samples under Item 4.01.c.
“We would like to clarify item #4C, would you like all our completed projects in the past 5 years to include a sample of the 4 projects you are requesting?” The submitting AOR shall provide the aggregate numerical value of DSA projects completed over the past five (5) years; along with the aggregate numerical value of these projects that were closed with DSA Certification. “Just to clarify, does our submittal need to consist of an Executive Summary (summarizing A-F) plus indindividual sections with detailed information for items A-F for a total of 7 sections? Is that the whole of the submittal?” See AESD response to RFI 005.
AOR:
“The RFQ instructs: 01. Executive Summary- Provide an Executive Summary- Provide and Executive Summary [not to exceed one (1) page], with bullet points summarizing items “a” through “f” below. Is the intent for each of the bullets (a-f) to be one page each?”
AESD:
See AESD response to RFI 003 and RFI 005.
AOR:
“Is there a list of existing consultants holding contracts/recent contracts for architectural services?
AESD:
The District has used several firms over the past 15 years; many of these firms have retired, closed offices, or no longer provide K12 DSA Public School architectural services.
AOR:
RFI 011
“Under 4.01 Executive Summary, it reads [not to exceed one (1) page].” Please clarify The Executive Summary shall consist the title (Executive Summary), along with requisite five or six (if item 4.01.f Other is provided) bullets; with sub-bullets succinctly denoting requested information for Item 4.01 (a.) thru (f.).
1.
AESD:
RFI 007
“Would our firm still be considered, even if we are 94 miles away from the School District?” RFQ summary states Architectural firms whose office is located regionally within 50 miles of the AESD District Office. The District requests local (within 50 mile radius from District Office), California Registered, and K12 Public School experienced Architect. Responsiveness to District’s on-going workload is paramount to generating this pool of Architects; thus, no exception shall be made to the maximum ‘distance’ requirement, denoted in RFQ.
AESD:
“Does AESD have a five year Capital Improvement Program?” AESD is in the process of completing a Long Range Facilities Master Plan update. Site Needs and Prioritized Projects by Funding availability will be identified in the Final Draft of that report. AESD anticipates approval of the Final Draft at the June 22, 2016 Board Meeting.
Page 2 of 2
