1 Friday, January 3, 2020

Request for Proposal (RFP):

Downtown Rochester Rapid Transit (BRT) A&E Design Services.

January 3, 2020

Addendum #1 – Response to Questions

The following is a list of questions that were received by the City of Rochester in response to the

Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Downtown Rochester Rapid Transit (BRT) A&E Design Services

released on December 3, 2019. All of the following questions were received prior to the December 20,

2019 deadline set by the RFP.

All proposals remain due to Jarrett Hubbard, Project Manager, at 201 4th Street SE; City Administration,

Room 266; Rochester, MN 55904 no later than 2:00 p.m., Monday January 13, 2020.

A. General Proposal and Contract Questions

1. Please clarify if this Qualification Based Selection should not include a price and the

proposer is to submit the cost per Page 32 of the RFP; After the notification of

selection?

This is a Qualification Based Selection and all cost proposals should be submitted on or

before the January 13th deadline with the rest of the proposal but kept out of the body

of the proposals. The cost and pricing information must be submitted in a separate,

sealed and marked envelope.

2. Is the pre-proposal meeting at 9AM or 2PM on December 19th?

The pre-proposal meeting was held Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 9am in Rochester

City Hall.

3. Will the City of Rochester share the most recent conceptual design and detailed cost

estimate for the rapid transit project along with the mentioned 2nd Street SW Corridor

Plan dated February 2009?

Yes, the most recent design and cost estimates will be shared with the chosen

consultant.The Second Street SW Corridor Plan will be shared as well but it is also

available on the City’s website.

B. Scope of Work

1. Does the scope of Section 9 (East Transit Village Parking Structure) include final design

and services during construction, or is this section only for preliminary level of design?

2 Friday, January 3, 2020

The chosen consultant will be asked to perform preliminary and final design services in

addition to assistance through the pre- and post bid process for the parking structure at

the East Transit Village.

2. Under the 5 notices to proceed on page 6; should Construction Management be

included in the consultants fee proposal or is this text indicating that it is an optional

task that may be added to the contract post selection?

The reference to “construction management” on page 6 is to the list of services being

requested under Section 8 (page 25) of the Scope of Work entitled “Services During

Construction.” The act of construction management (observation) will be fulfilled by the

City at this time.

3. Please confirm that the City of Rochester will conduct all construction observation (as

listed on page 25 in Section 8.A.ii.4) and consultants do not need to lead this task?

Construction observation (management) will be completed by the City. All of the

services listed under Section 8: Services During Construction are requested.

4. What will be the chosen consultant’s responsibilities in designing the East and West

Transit Villages, especially in relation to the ongoing Transit-Oriented Development

(TOD) Station Area Planning Study?

The chosen consultant team will have a significant influence in the design and

construction of the transit features at the East and West Transit Villages. Through the

design and construction of the proposed parking structure, at the East Transit Village,

the consulting team will have significant influence in ensuring the users of the system

experience a safe and convenient connection between their automobile and the rapid

transit vehicle. At the West Transit Village the consultant team will given the placement

of the transit stop and be asked to work with Mayo Clinic in ensuring that the stop

works cohesively with their proposed private parking structure. The scope of work for

TOD Station Area Planning Study does not include the transit villages but each village is

currently in different stages related to property ownership and design.

5. As we are looking at the scope of work, in particular the planned pedestrian underpass

at St. Mary’s Hospital, it would be helpful to know what public utilities exist within this

area. Would you be able to provide me with copies of as-builts the City has for this

area?

Included with this document is a 2018 memorandum documenting sewer lines in the

area. The selected consultant team will receive all previous work associated with the

proposed pedestrian tunnel.

3 Friday, January 3, 2020

C. General Project Related Questions

1. What are the mode shift goals for the City of Rochester and how does HourCar fit into

them?

The DMC Development Plan established the mode shift goals for this project and other

DMC related projects. Specifically, for the use of mass transit it established the goal of

increasing the current downtown employee usage of mass transit from 10% to 30% by

2024. These same mode shift goals requested reducing single occupancy vehicles for

downtown employees from 71% to 43%. This is where on-demand vehicles and shared

vehicles like the HourCar program fit in. More information on HourCar can be found at

https://hourcar.org/.

2. Has the vehicle fuel type been selected?

It is the City of Rochester’s preference that the selected vehicle for the Downtown rapid

transit line be propelled primarily by electric sources. This is supported by the City’s

commitment to creating a sustainable and resilient future as evidenced in the City’s

designation as the first LEED Gold Certified City in the state of Minnesota and the recent

adoption of the Sustainability Pledge in which Mayor Kim Norton encourages Rochester

residents to join her in making a commitment to improving sustainability in our

community. More about these efforts may be found on the City’s Sustainability

webpage.

3. Has an electric vehicle provider been selected?

No electric vehicle provider for the Downtown Rapid Transit Line has been selected.

The City of Rochester is in the process of purchasing its first electric bus from New Flyer

for existing Rochester Public Transit (RPT) service.

4. What is the budget for the Project Development Phase of the Downtown Rochester

Circulator Rapid Transit System?

On December 2, 2019, Rochester City Council approved the annual budget and placed

$3,872,000 in 2020 and $7,592,000 in 2021 of the 2020 to 2025 Capital Improvement

Program (CIP) for Project Development of the Rapid Transit service.

5. What will the selected consultant’s role be in the 2nd Street and Circulator Prototyping

planned for late 2020?

It is unknown what role the selected consultant team will have with the proposed

prototyping. The prototype is being coordinated and organized by the Destination

Medical Center EDA and oversight is being provided by the University of Minnesota.

The selected consultant should expect to be a participant in the exercise by attending

4 Friday, January 3, 2020

and offering expertise at meetings and providing any previously prepared data or

information which may impact the experience.

6. A proposed timeline for the Rapid Transit Circulator displayed a milestone item labeled,

“Service Operations Partnership.” What is this in reference to and what role will the

chosen consultant team have in this milestone?

This reference is to the partnership that will be created between Mayo Clinic and the

City of Rochester for the operations of the rapid transit system. The consultant team

will have little to no involvement in this task as currently foreseen.

D. Destination Medical Center (DMC) Target Business Utilization Plan and Disadvantage Business

Enterprise

1. Please expand on the DBE, VBE, SBE, and Targeted Business Goals and preferences of

the project. A portion of the proposal appears to be cut off on page 31 section 6 under

Forms, Documents and Certifications that may provide clarity to how responders should

document how they intend to meet the goals.

Please refer all DBE, VBE, SBE and Targeted Business Goal questions to the

“DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE(DBE) REQUIREMENTS (FTA FUNDING WITH

DBE GOAL)” section on page 39.

Memo

gb v:\1938\active\193804068\reports\technicalreports\mayo 2nd street utility review response memo.docx

To: Karen Finneman Killinger – MayoFacilities

From: Joseph Palen, PE

StantecFile: City No. J-8611

Stantec No. 193804068Date: June 6, 2018

Reference: WHKS 2nd Street Storm and Sewer Analysis (8R160430) Memo

We have reviewed the referenced memo from WHKS to Mayo regarding storm and sanitary sewer design configurations and capacities with the proposed improvements adjacent to Mayo (2nd Street SW and 14th

Avenue SW). Subsequently, we have worked with RPW staff to refine our proposed 2nd Street SW and 14th

Avenue SW utility configuration to address the WHKS comments. The following discussion addresses each of the concerns raised within the WHKS memo and how each concern has been addressed with the proposed utility design. Please review this information along with the associated figure and let Matt Crawford and I know if you have additional comments or concern.

Sanitary Sewer Adequacy

14th Avenue (MH 79/0305 to 79/0707): As requested, the City of Rochester has added this sanitary sewerpipe replacement within 14th Avenue to the 2nd Street SW Reconstruction project. The proposed sanitarysewer is scheduled to be upsized to a 15-inch diameter as requested within the 2nd Street Storm and SanitaryAnalysis (8R160430) memo. See attached Figure 1 for the revised plan view of this improvement.

2nd Street (St. Mary’s Place): This proposed sanitary sewer main has been extended to the project limits onthe East end of the improvement area to aid in serving St. Mary’s Place. The proposed termination is justWest of the 11th Avenue intersection. Future improvements within 11th Avenue will facilitate the extension ofthis sanitary sewer trunk main further to the East to assist in any additional capacity necessary within St.Mary’s Place redevelopment. See attached Figure 2 for the revised plan view of this improvement.

Storm Sewer Adequacy

Connection No. B (Second Street SW): Upon further field investigation, it was confirmed that the downstreampipe is 18-inch VCP as shown in our initial field survey. At this time we are proposing to replace the existingfacility as shown in our original plan review request dated 01/04/2018. See attached Figure 1 for the revisedplan view of this improvement.

Connection No. E (Second Street SW): As requested, we are proposing to extend a 36-inch diameter trunk storm sewer which originates on 12th Avenue W and then extends to and along 2nd Street SW to the eastern project limits (the west side of the 2nd Street SW / 11th Avenue SW intersection). This storm sewer can be extended from its proposed termination point as needed to support redevelopment in and around the 11th Avenue / 2nd Street SW intersection when it occurs. A storm sewer stub into the St. Marys campus will also be provided west of 11th Avenue SW as illustrated on the attached figures. The size / conveyance capacity of the proposed storm sewer is limited by the downstream pipe that is not intended for replacement. As a result, the proposed storm sewer main will remain 36-inch diameter. If future development in this area requires additional storm sewer conveyance capacity be provided, RPW staff plan to accommodate this potential need with the future reconstruction of 11th Avenue W (from 2nd Street SW to the north).

June 6, 2018Karen Finneman Killinger – Mayo FacilitiesPage 2 of 2

Reference: WHKS 2nd Street Storm and Sewer Analysis (8R160430) Memo

gb v:\1938\active\193804068\reports\technicalreports\mayo 2nd street utility review response memo.docx

STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.

Joseph PalenSenior Associate

Phone: (507) 529-6036Fax: (507) 282-3100Joseph.Palen@stantec.com

Attachment: 2nd Street SW Utilities Exhibit – Figure 1 (Dated 06/06/2018)2nd Street SW Utilities Exhibit – Figure 2 (Dated 06/06/2018)WHKS 2nd Street Storm and Sewer Analysis (8R160430) Memo

c. Matt Crawford - RPWDillon Dombrovski - RPWBill Angerman - WHKS

DATE: PROJ. NO.:

Plot

Da

te:0

6/06

/201

8-1

0:23

amD

raw

ing

nam

e:V

:\19

38\a

ctiv

e\19

3804

068\

CA

D\D

wg\

WH

KSRe

spon

seM

emo

Figur

es.d

wg

Xref

s:,64

,74,

Sta

ntec

_2nd

StC

orrid

or,8

670_

gm

d(S

RFG

eom

etric

Layo

ut8-

13-1

5),D

rain

age

Are

aan

dG

ISM

app

ing,

13th

Ave

GIS

WM

,193

8040

68_X

SNO

,193

8040

68_X

SXI,

8670

_gm

b_04

1818

,193

8030

12XS

XT,1

9380

4068

_XSX

T

6188 Rome Cir. NWRochester, MN 55901www.stantec.com

2nd St. SW Utilities Exhibit

City of Rochester

2nd St. SW, 12th Ave. SW, & 13th Ave. SW Utility Improvements

6/6/2018 193803012

FIGURE NO. 1

N

SANITARY SEWER14TH AVENUE (MH 79 / 0305)

STORM SEWERCONNECTION NO. B

DATE: PROJ. NO.:

Plot

Da

te:0

6/06

/201

8-1

0:57

amD

raw

ing

nam

e:V

:\19

38\a

ctiv

e\19

3804

068\

CA

D\D

wg\

WH

KSRe

spon

seM

emo

Figur

es.d

wg

Xref

s:,64

,74,

Sta

ntec

_2nd

StC

orrid

or,8

670_

gm

d(S

RFG

eom

etric

Layo

ut8-

13-1

5),D

rain

age

Are

aan

dG

ISM

app

ing,

13th

Ave

GIS

WM

,193

8040

68_X

SNO

,193

8040

68_X

SXI,

8670

_gm

b_04

1818

,193

8030

12XS

XT,1

9380

4068

_XSX

T

6188 Rome Cir. NWRochester, MN 55901www.stantec.com

2nd St. SW Utilities Exhibit

City of Rochester

2nd St. SW, 12th Ave. SW, & 13th Ave. SW Utility Improvements

6/6/2018 193803012

FIGURE NO. 2

N

SANITARY SEWER2ND STREET ST. MARY'S PLACE

STORM SEWERCONNECTION NO. E

Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM TO: Deny Djock, PE

Brad Lahr, PE Brett Gorden, PE

FROM: Bill Angerman, PE

Angie Kolz, PE DATE: March 16, 2018 RE: 2nd Street Storm and Sewer Analysis (8R160430)

The City of Rochester is proposing storm and sewer upgrades on 2nd St and 13th Ave SW in 2019/2020. The City has requested that Mayo Clinic evaluate the proposed storm and sewer service stubs into the St. Marys Campus (SMC) and confirm if they are sufficient for Mayo’s existing and future expansion capacity needs. This memo summarizes the adequacy of proposed stubs and identifies areas where the design of proposed stubs should be re-evaluated.

PLANNING HORIZON AND FLOW PROJECTION METHODS Planning Horizon Mayo has developed rough 50-year growth projections on the St Marys Campus and adjacent property to the year 2068. DMC developed 20-year growth projections within the St Marys Place DMC zone to the year 2034. DMC growth projections were used in this analysis outside the SMC campus. Sanitary Sewer Flow Projections Existing sewer flows were directly monitored and modeled at several locations at SMC during the Kutzky/Slatterly Pilot I/I Study in 2008-2010. Those flow records were used as existing flows for this analysis. Sanitary sewer flow growth projections were based on SMC’s 50-year square footage development projections on the SMC campus and DMC 20-year development projections outside of SMC. A loading rate of 0.1 gpd/SF and 2.7 peaking factor was used to calculate flow increases, which is the same loading rate and peaking factor used in DMC and other City of Rochester sanitary sewer modeling efforts. East Tower flows are included in ‘future flows’ based on square footages provided by Mayo and the same loading rates.  Storm Flow Projections Existing storm flows were based on "2nd St SW…" memos dated 7/21/16, 1/4/18, 2/12/18 (Stantec)” and “East Tower…” memo dated 12/2/15 (WSB). Storm flow growth projections were based on SMC’s 50-year development projections. Detailed development projections for the 50-year planning period have not been established. Likewise, internal routing of storm and sewer flows in SMC may change during the 50-year planning period. Therefore, the adequacy of proposed storm and sewer stubs is presented as a ‘pass/fail’ analysis with comments relevant to each stub presented in the table notes below.

Page 2 of 4

SANTARY SEWER ADEQUACY Table 1 Adequacy of Sanitary Sewer Stubs Proposed in 1/4/18 Stantec Memo

Sewer Stub Connection #

Proposed stub cap. GPM

Pass / Re-eval

Notes

“Connection No. 1” 14th Ave MH 79/0707-79/0267

2,209 Pass Ok

14th Ave MH 79/0305-79/0707

n/a Re-evaluate

Overcapacity with existing flows. Generose expansion will exacerbate surcharge. This pipe not included in proposed project, suggest upsize to 15".

“Connection No. 2” 2nd St

3,350 Pass Applies to Connection No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, 6: SMC uncertain where future flows may go, they may all be combined into one service in the future. Each of the proposed 2nd St connection points are adequate for SMC to combine their services in future and direct flow to any one of the proposed 2nd St stubs.

“Connection No. 3” 2nd St

2,437 Pass

“Connection No. 4 & 5” 2nd St

2,209 Pass

“Connection No. 6” 2nd St

1,723 Pass

2nd St St. Marys Place

n/a Re-evaluate

Proposed project ends 470' east of 12th Ave. "St Marys Place" at 2nd St between 10th-11th Ave not served. Existing 8" main on 2nd St SW may not have capacity for St Marys Place development. Suggest lowering elevation of proposed main to allow possible future connection of St Marys Place trunk into system, or move #6 farther east to 10th Ave.

The 2/12/18 Stantec memo “Option 5A/5B” describes reduction of proposed stub capacity and reduced ability to serve 2nd St in the St Marys Place area. This does not provide SMC with the ability to combine sanitary sewer services on 2nd St. Nor does it potentially provide service to the St. Marys Place development to 10th Ave. We recommend the City re-evaluate option 5A/5B in consideration of the above.

We recommend that the City re-evaluate extending the project extents farther south on 14th Ave to address existing surcharge on 14th Ave, and farther east to 10th Ave to serve future development in SMC and in the St Marys Place DMC zone.

Page 3 of 4

STORM SEWER ADEQUACY Table 2 Adequacy of Storm Sewer Stubs Proposed in 1/4/18 Stantec Memo

Sewer Stub Connection #

Proposed stub cap. CFS

Pass / Re-eval

Notes

“Connection No. A” 14th Ave & 2nd St SW

285 Pass Ok. Existing 42” @253 cfs cap. On campus proposed upsized to 54" @ 285 cfs capacity. Future expansions at Generose, East Tower, and Future Tower are the only significant change, vertical wind-blown effects minor overall. Ground Storage Reservoir overflow currently routes to A. It is assumed the reservoir may eventually be routed NE to 2nd Street but it will route to ‘A’ for the interim period.

“Connection No. B” 2nd St SW

15 Re-evaluate

Existing pipes on SMC CAD map shows existing 10" & 12" into 24" here, @ 34 cfs existing capacity. Proposed stub is 18” @ 15 cfs capacity, less than existing. Recommend confirm existing system.

“Connection No. C” 2nd St SW

7.5 Pass Ok. Existing 15” @ 6.3 cfs capacity upsized to 18” @ 7.5 cfs capacity. SMC reports no issues with existing storm capacity. Redevelopment has negligible effect on storm flow.

“Connection No. D” 2nd St SW

7.5 Pass Ok. Existing 15” @ 3.3 cfs capacity upsized to 18” @ 7.5 cfs capacity. SMC reports no issues with existing storm capacity. Redevelopment has negligible effect on storm flow.

“Connection No. E” 2nd St SW

48 Re-evaluate

Proposed 36” @ 48 cfs. Proposed project does not extend far enough east to capture hillside & St Marys Place development, and account for future routing of Ground Storage Reservoir overflow. Recommend extending project east and re-evaluating size. Appropriate assumptions may include assuming 5 Acres additional impervious along the hillside near Power Plant, and add 15 cfs of emergency overflow from Ground Storage Reservoir.

The 2/12/18 Stantec memo “Option 5A/5B” describes reduction is proposed stub capacity and reduced ability to serve Stormwater in the St Marys Place area. Significant increases in

Page 4 of 4

impervious area may take place along the 2nd St / 11th Ave hillside and in St Marys Place in the 50-year horizon. Extending storm sewer east to 11th Avenue or lowering the proposed main to accept future extensions should be evaluated. The main should provide for future hillside development, redevelopment of NE SMC campus, and rerouting of Ground Storage Reservoir emergency overflow. We recommend the City re-evaluate option 5A/5B in consideration of the above. We also recommend field verifying existing storm sewer capacity at Connection “B” since the proposed storm stub does not match the existing storm sizing based on SMC CAD maps. (end)