CITY OF CLEVELAND – DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR

CEDAR ROAD PUMP STATION

ADDENDUM No. 1

September 17, 2018

Page 1 of 3

Proposals are due October 5, 2018 by 12:00 p.m. The last day for questions is September 28, 2018 by 12:00 p.m. Attached are the sign-in sheets from the non-mandatory pre-proposal conference held on September 11, 2018. Clarification to the RFP:

1. Section 7 – Proposal Evaluation and Section Criteria – Paragraph B: Remove “vii. Answers to scenario questions”. There are no scenario questions for the technical proposal.

Release summary of the Detailed Facility Condition Assessment Report.

Answers to questions received:

1. The RFP (Page 5) says “Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted, and may be used at this stage for the adjacent site. A new environment site and surveying shall be required from the designer.” Does this mean a second Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment is intended, or is the Designer to perform a phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment? Answer: Another Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) will not be required for the replacement pump station site. However, a detailed site survey is required. Additional contaminant testing may be required for preparation of demolition plans of the existing building. If this assessment is conducted, the design consultant will be compensated from the ‘reimbursables’ allowance.

2. Can CWD please provide the environmental assessment report?

Answer: The ESA report is 375 pages long and is not relevant to the preparation of the proposal. So, we are attaching the summary for the ESA report.

3. Can CWD please confirm the number of pumps? Is there provision for a future sixth

pump, or is there only to be allowance for five pumps total? Answer: Five pumps shall be installed with space for a future sixth one. Designer shall estimate its engineering fees, based on its own estimate of the building size.

CITY OF CLEVELAND – DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR

CEDAR ROAD PUMP STATION

ADDENDUM No. 1

September 17, 2018

Page 2 of 3

4. Can CWD please provide the planning documentation that has been performed? Answer: There is no planning documentation available. CT Consultants prepared a detailed inspection report for the existing pump station, and a summary of that report is attached with this email.

5. Can CWD provide the basis that CT Consultants used to create their preliminary footprint? Answer: As stated in the RFP, an exact location and footprint of the site or the pump station has not been determined. CWD is still negotiating with MetroParks for land procurement, but final parcel location and size will be available before the designer conducts a site survey. The planners, CT Consultants, estimated a very preliminary size of 68 x 70 feet for the basement and 68 x 48 feet for the first floor footprints, based on the installation of five horizontal split case pumps. With reserved space for a future sixth pump, the building is likely to be larger.

6. Can CWD please confirm that the suction is to be split into two separate trains with three pumps each? Is the discharge to be manifolded with two discharges or are all pumps to join into a common header? Answer: RFP p. 5 states that “Individual suction and discharge headers are required that can isolate the station into two sections, as well as main line valving to isolate the BPS from the water distribution system transmission network.” This was a requirement from the CWD Operations section. However the option can be discussed during design with CWD, and the station may be designed with a single suction line and a common discharge header. The transmission network into and out of the pump station has single lines. An aerial view of the existing suction and discharge piping is attached. It is suggested to “cut-in” tee and valve connections (with short term outages) in the suction and discharge headers, in order to keep the existing pump station in operation during construction and commissioning.

7. Appendix B – Project Summary Fee Table provides for only five (5) tasks. In addition in

Appendix B, the Fee Table on the first page stipulates Task 1 as “Design and Bid and Award Support.” Following that is Construction listed as Task 2; Commissioning as Task 3 and Closeout as Task 4. To be responsive, I am asking what is the intent? Do we modify the Fee Tables to match the six (6) tasks or modify the task numbering to match the Fee Table?

CITY OF CLEVELAND – DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR

CEDAR ROAD PUMP STATION

ADDENDUM No. 1

September 17, 2018

Page 3 of 3

Answer: The Fee Table had to be revised before the RFP was issued, resulting in the Task number conflict. Tasks 1, 2 and 3 of p.6 (Preliminary Design, Detailed Design and Bid and Award Support) have been combined into a single task as Task 1 in the Fee Table. Please follow Appendix B - Fee Table and ignore any references to task numbers elsewhere.

8. The Fee Table (first sheet) request a summary of the fee and not a personnel/man hour/rate breakdown. I just want to be sure that is all that is required. Answer: The lump sum fee is all that is required for Task 1. This task shall be billed on actual costs up to the “not to be exceeded” cap. The consultant is required to furnish a complete design and bid and award support for the quoted fee.

9. The Fee Table does not provide for the indication of a labor multiplier; commonly requested by CWD. The Invoicing section of the sample agreement provided states that consultant shall provide hourly base rate and multiplier. Can that be furnished later or will CWD require the consultant to stipulate to a multiplier now? Answer: The Sample Agreement is to be used as a general example only. CWD is not asking engineering firms to disclose a multiplier for labor rates used in this project. Only burdened labor rates are required as requested in the Fee Table of Appendix B.

10. Appendix B – Fee Table under Task 2 (Contract Manager) shows 80 total hours but only

80% of work. I think that was to be 100% Answer: Appendix B- Fee Table- Task 2- There are 80 hours assigned to the Contract Manager and amount to 100% of the Contract Manager’s hours for the task.

11. Similarly in Appendix B – Fee Table under Task 3 (Contract Manager) shows a discrepancy between total hours at 12 and actual hours (100%) at 20 hrs. Answer: Appendix B – Fee Table – Task 3- Only 12 hours are assigned to the Contract Manager for this task.

12. The scope of services on Pg. 11 states design submittals at 30%; 75% and 100%. The Project Schedule on Pg. 18 includes milestones at 30%; 60%; 95% and 100%. It seems the approach intended is Pg. 11. Answer: Submittals are required at the 30%, 75% and 100% stages of the engineering design as stated on page 11.

36"

12"30

"24

"

2"

6"

4"

6"

12"2"

36"

12"

12"

36"

12"24

"2"

Lyndhurst

Beachwood

Cedar Rd

David

Mye

rs Pk

wyConn

ectin

g Roa

d Cedar Rd

David

Mye

rs Pk

wy

CEDAR RD

WINCHESTER & CEDAR RD

27080 CEDAR RD26900 CEDAR RD 27200-27350 CEDAR RD

2202 ACACIA PARK DR

®Cleveland Water System

Text

1 inch = 40 feet