request for responses ‐ qualifications based selection ... · request for responses ‐...
TRANSCRIPT
City of Amesbury Request for Responses ‐ Qualifications Based Selection
Engineering and Consulting Services Corridor Plan: South Hunt Road
Due February 5, 12:00 noon
William Scott
Director Office of Community and Economic Development
City of Amesbury, Massachusetts
CITY OF AMESBURY REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
CORRIDOR PLAN January 2018
The City of Amesbury is seeking responses from a lead engineering firm for a team to provide
survey, engineering, traffic studies, and a corridor plan in the area of South Hunt Road, and
Route 150.
Pursuant to the Request for Responses lead firms are required to submit proposals to the Office
of Community and Economic Development, 62 Friend Street, City Hall, Amesbury Massachusetts
01913 NO LATER THAN 12:00 noon, February 5, 2018. Proposals received after this time will be
rejected. Delivery of the proposals will be at the proposer's expense.
The Request for Responses titled S HUNT CORRIDOR PLAN is available by pick‐up, at the
above address, during regular business hours Mon.‐Wed. 8 am to 4 pm, Thur. 8 am to 7 pm,
and Fri 8am to noon, excluding holidays. Or the RFR‐QBS is accessible online at
https://www.amesburyma.gov/community‐economic‐development see OCED Proposals link
to left of the page. Those obtaining the RFR online must notify the City of the applicable
contact person in the event of addenda by sending an email to the below address. Questions
regarding this project should be submitted in writing to William Scott, Community and
Economic Development Director at [email protected].
The City of Amesbury, in its best interests, reserves the right to reject any and all responses.
All responses will be taken under consideration for award of a contract within thirty (30) days of
the above due date. The City of Amesbury is an equal opportunity employer, minority and
women owned firms are encouraged to apply.
____________________________________________________________
Publish December 29, 2017
and January 26, 2018.
Daily News
To be notified of addenda by email firms must provide contact information
Introduction : Qualifications Based Procurement
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/DoingBusinessWithUs/LocalAidPrograms/MunicipalProjectSummaryGuide/AppendixA
ConsultantProcurementGuidelines.aspx Successful project development requires the assistance of design professionals. For most municipalities, engineering design is a contracted service. Although the procurement of engineering design services for municipal horizontal construction is not subject to specific state procurement regulations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) process is recommended.
Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) Qualifications Based Selection for Engineering Design Consultants is the procurement process that is used by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, as well as many other state agencies. It has been required by law for all federally funded projects since 1972, and is also used by forty‐four state DOTs on state funded projects, and many local agencies. QBS is included in the American Bar Association's Model Practices for State and Local Governments, and it is an endorsed policy of the American Society of Civil Engineers to support QBS for the engagement of engineering services.
The American Public Works Association endorses the QBS process and notes that "Basing selections on qualifications and competence, rather than price, fosters greater creativity and flexibility, and it minimizes the potential for disputes and litigation."
QBS makes the consultant a partner in the development and delivery of a successful project. QBS allows firms that put together a thorough and comprehensive submission to compete fairly, and for the municipality to get "apples to apples" submission documents from engineering design firms. It avoids inconsistencies in proposed scopes of services or situations where the work effort may not include certain required efforts such as the Early Environmental Coordination Checklist, Public Outreach, Utility Coordination, Subsurface Exploration, and Right of Way Actions. Incomplete scopes of services lead to design amendments and/or contractor change orders ‐ delaying the project and driving up overall project costs.
The process for procuring consultant design services utilizing QBS can be structured into three phases: 1) planning and preparation; 2) selecting a consultant; and 3) negotiating a contract. The first phase includes developing a procurement plan; developing an initial scope of services, initial cost estimate/budget and initial project schedule; establishing selection criteria and preparing the Request for Responses (RFR) document. The second phase includes providing public notice of the RFR, receiving response submittals, evaluating response submittals, ranking and short‐listing firms, conducting interviews (if required) and determining final ranking and consultant selection. The third phase – negotiating a contract – includes collaborating with the selected consultant to develop a final, detailed scope of services, a reasonable schedule and a fair design fee for the project. In determining a fair fee for the project, the municipality must take into account the scope and complexity of the overall project.
The participation of the consultant in developing the detailed scope of services allows the municipality to fully utilize the consultant's experience and expertise in designing similar projects, fostering creativity and innovation, while avoiding problems with omissions of items from the scope of services, as often happens when utilizing low bids as part of the selection process. If a contract cannot be successfully negotiated with the highest ranked consultant, then the municipality has the option to end negotiations with the highest ranked consultant and begin negotiations with the consultant ranked second highest. The negotiations may continue with successive ranked firms until an agreement is reached.
Section One ‐ Project Description
Introduction
The City of Amesbury is faced with economic growth that requires a focused attention to facilitate traffic mitigation strategies. In this regard the City has a definitive policy to assist development proposals through the establishment of more improved access to sites. The Mayor proposed and the Amesbury City Council approved a Resolution to support the LEAD program or Leverage Economic Access for Development to create a clear path to enabling actions which will provide access to prime development sites. The text of the program is cited below: WHEREAS, the City of Amesbury understands the need to act proactively creating solutions and accessing resources for economic development before the need arises; and WHEREAS, the City of Amesbury understands the need to establish economic policy to promote offsite infrastructure expansion to access larger sites for development; and WHEREAS, There are two such sites at the Golden Triangle site off Elm Street, in excess of 50 acres, and the 49 acre Waste Management Site adjacent to Margaret Rice Park, on the top of the hill behind the Sports Park off South Hunt Road, both of which require access; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council does hereby respectfully concur with the Mayor and recommends to support the LEAD program or Leverage Economic Access for Development to create a clear path to enabling actions which will provide access to prime development sites. Through the LEAD program the City will:
1. Create partnerships with property owners to facilitate access to prime development sites. 2. Create partnerships with prospective development teams to facilitate leverage opportunities to
access prime development sites. 3. Identify City owned property that can enhance access to prime development sites and
determine the steps necessary to employ the use of those sites. 4. Create financing plans that will leverage outside funding to develop access opportunities for
prime development sites. 5. Work with the City Council and the public to take the required action to facilitate the above.
Scope As part of the above LEAD program the City is developing a corridor plan for the area serving the aforementioned sites. The South Hunt area has the Atlantic Center in the Planning Board in process. Therefore the City will anticipate a partnership with those firms and the firm selected by this process to reduce the due diligence by each party and coordinate studies. Essentially as the proponents move through the process the City will generate concept plans for the corridor. Background This project is meant to provide information necessary to facilitate economic growth in the study area. The primary development project, the Atlantic Center, is a 420,000 square foot athletic facility. The Atlantic Center project area is located off South Hunt Road which connects to route 150, which is served by an interstate ramp system of I‐495. One exit from this area provides access to Route 110 which is a connection to I‐95. There are approximately 90 acres of vacant land of which the City owns 45 acres in multiple parcels the largest of which is 38 acres. The private property is 49 acres and the future locations of the Atlantic Center a proposed 420,000 square foot, $40 million athletic facility with office space and conference center. The City property known as Margret Rice, and Trader Allen’s,
referring to prior designations is vacant land with opportunities for development tied to support uses associated with the Atlantic Center. The majority of the land is zoned for industrial, the City is proposing a zoning change to a district which facilitates uses complementary to the Atlantic Center. The City project involves the coordination of properties into a development program to facilitate the necessary capital to address the costs associated with infrastructure improvements necessary to facilitate development. The City has experienced growth in the study area with the approval of: Amesbury Heights (240 units 40R), Baileys Pond (100 units townhouse market), and Hatters Point (45 units condos upper market). The combined impacts of approved development and potential development sites owned by the City warrants an investment in traffic planning by the City. The City and developer are funding a traffic analysis which will provide the buildout for the area setting the stage for the revenue projections for a DIF. The City investment will take then Atlantic Center information and augment the traffic plan to address the combined impacts of current development and potential development on City sites. From this information the City will be able to seek grants and negotiate incentives for off‐site improvements such as the DIF. South Hunt The scope includes the area shown on the figure titled South Hunt Commercial Corridor. The figure demonstrates the development opportunity currently moving into the Planning Board process and other opportunities as noted. The intent of the analysis and planning is as follows:
Determine Right of Way opportunities and limitations in the S Hunt area, including Route 150.
Establish buildout analysis for the area including currently proposed developments and
projected growth.
Establish traffic modeling constraints against buildout.
Establish traffic concept plans to address constraints from buildout.
Establish documents and plans sufficient to seek grant funds and or to establish off site
allocation of improvements.
Meet with City and MassDOT to establish process for requesting and seeking approval for
improvements under the MassDOT process.
The intent is to create a partnership with the developer, share information and coordinate off‐site improvements in a manner that facilitates the leveraging of private and public funds for the improvements. This projects is not limited to the proposed developments and includes analysis for possible future developments as may be determine by a buildout analysis under multiple zoning scenarios.
Section Two – Qualifications
A. Introduction:
The most favorable team will deliver innovation by offering multiple approaches to opportunities
and constraints have available specific expertise to ensure effectiveness of those approaches, and
possess a clear focus on implementation within the required timeline and budget. As important is
the firms relationship and ability to work with MassDOT who is the owner of the assets and will
issue the permits for the project. The City values consultants that provide clear and timely
guidance.
B . Minimum Qualifications:
Individuals and/or Consulting Engineering Firms interested in submitting a proposal must
meet the following minimum qualifications:
1. Applicant firms must be a registered professional engineer licensed in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to provide the services indicated herein.
Applicant's surveyor must be a professional land surveyor licensed in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The lead firm is required to have the
MassDOT /Highway prequalification.
2. Applicants must have highly qualified professional staff with environmental
experiences in developing, permitting and construction in similar projects.
Including personnel and/or firm(s) with specific experience is essential.
3. Applicants must have at least five (5) years of experience providing services in the
Commonwealth of MA similar to those requested in this RFR.
4. It is mandatory that the lead applicants have prior experience of having worked
on and successfully completed at least three (3) relevant municipal
transportation projects with MassDOT based on the current edition of the
MassDOT Project Development and Design Guide. One of those projects, titled
the “Primary Project”, should be directly relatable to the City projects in its
environment and type. The “Primary project” must be constructed and in
place.
5. Applicants must identify any and all consultants that may assist them in the
performance of work pursuant to this Proposal. Said consultants may provide the
expertise to meet all requirements as noted in herein.
Section Three‐ Qualifications Proposal
The applicant shall submit three copies and one original to the address indicated herein and
by the date and time required. The qualifications proposal must contain the following information for each project in the order and divided into the sections indicated below. Items that are out of sequence or missing will be considered as non‐responsive and be considered as reason to reject the proposal. Brevity is a factor in considering proposals, pages are cited as maximums. The inclusion of reams of material that are related but not directly responding to the request is not beneficial. There are guides to the page limits, please follows those guides. For background it is recommended that firms review the guidance documents in the Appendix located on the CD provided or on the website. The lead firm shall provide the following, with information from other members of the team as applicable:
A. Cover Letter (2 pages and attachments)
A signed cover letter introducing the lead Consultant (firm) and the proposed Consultant team, and identifying the project manager and the name, title, address and telephone number of the person with authority to negotiate and contractually commit to all services. The cover letter shall indicate that the information provided represents true and accurate information. The cover letter shall be signed by the person who can sign contracts for the firm. The cover letter shall contain a statement that the firm will negotiate a contract and final scope expeditiously and in good faith. Attach proof of prequalification with MassDOT to the cover letter.
https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/webapps/MHDConsultants/MHD_Consultants.asp
B. Table of Contents (1 page)
C. Statement of Project Understanding and Approach (2 pages maximum)
A statement which describes the Consultant’s understanding of and approach to the aspects of the requested work and the various goals that must be addressed and achieved. The statement should respond to the question: What makes the composition of your team the most effective to move the projects forward to completion? Take into consideration the review criteria.
D. Scope of Services
a. A scope of services in a narrative form (maximum 5 pages not including a timeline) responsive to the MassDOT scope, where applicable, and a project schedule with tasks and/or subtasks that define clear phases or milestones with proposed dates for completion of each. The scope and schedule shall be a general scope showing the three projects with summary milestones. The scope, may be, at the applicant’s choice, in the form of a response to the scope in the attachment with suggestions and enhancements.
b. A list of scope items, schedule of hours, in the form of a simple table, with the team member names in the rows, their time investment in a column as expressed by the percentage of project time, and project name in a column. (Pages as needed). The proposal can use summary scope items, however they should relate to the MassDOT scope categories.
E. Project Team (2 pages in total maximum per firm, with a short bio on each team member identifying their role, attach resumes in an appendix). Provide a short narrative bio on each person (one paragraph) with each set of bios divided by firm. In addition through the submittal of resumes or applicable brief profile (in an appendix), provide the names and the specific educational background, qualifications, and expertise of all professional members of the Consultant and sub‐consultant (if any) project team who will actually perform the work related to some or all of the project tasks. Identify the person who will be the project manager with ultimate responsibility for the work.
F. Relevant Experience and Prior Performance and References (pages as needed for table, one page for relatable project.)
Select one “Primary project” that has been successfully constructed which provides the most direct experience and describes the relationship this project (two pages).
Subsequent to that narrative provide a table with a complete list of all similar transportation projects completed by any members of the team (the proposed project manager and the Consultant and sub‐consultant principal team members) within the last 5 years that had a contract amount of $100,000.00 or more (please do not list any projects with smaller contract amounts or projects that have not yet been completed). For each project, submit a brief description, the Consultant responsibilities, the Consultant project manager, the level of compensation under the contract, the fate of the Consultant work (adoption or rejection by MassHighway and/or client), and the name, title and telephone number of a reference person who can evaluate and judge the Consultant performance. Again a table with the applicable information would be beneficial. Contact information is a requirement for each project cited.
G. Competing Commitments (one page)
Consultant shall discuss the means by which adequate and timely attention to this project will be assured, and identify other current or pending contracts of the Consultant firm(s) in which project team members will be or may be involved, and which might compete for
time and attention of the proposed Consultant team members.
H. Certificates (pages as provided)
Signed certificates of non‐collusion and tax compliance in the form attached to this RFP. Proof of MassDOT Prequalification inserted after cover letter.
Section Four Evaluation
1. Minimum Evaluation Criteria
A. Proposals must include all documentation specified under 'Proposal Submission Requirements' and meet the proposal submission deadline above.
B. The proposed scope of services and work schedule must, in terms of effort, services, products and time frames, be nearly equivalent (but not necessarily identical) to, or exceed, the Scope of Services outlined in this RFR.
C. The proposed project manager must be a MassDOT Qualified Designer and Massachusetts registered Professional Engineer with 3 or more years of professional experience working on MassDOT projects.
D. The firm shall have a proposed project design team shall include a broad based team of professional and technical staff to address all of the project aspects.
2. Comparative Evaluation Criteria
All proposals, which meet the minimum evaluation criteria, will be further evaluated on the basis of the following comparative criteria:
A. Availability of the project team to fully attend to the project as needed, and to be responsive to the reasonable requests and direction of the City staff will be deemed "advantageous".
Substantial direct and hands‐on involvement of the Consultant principal team members in this project will be considered "highly advantageous".
Less than full commitment to the project because of lack of staff resources, competing contracts, or other reasons will be deemed "not advantageous".
B. Successful experience with similarly complex design, engineering, environmental, and administrative projects will be considered "advantageous" if there is evidence of formal approval or acceptance of the Consultant work by the client in at least half of such projects completed within the last 5 years.
Successful experience of the project team (the proposed project manager and the Consultant and sub‐consultant principal team members) with similarly complex projects will be considered "highly advantageous” if there is evidence that the Consultant team’s work was formally approved or accepted by the client, and subsequently implemented within the last 5 years. Further that the Consultant Team has worked on projects in similar circumstances to the City of Amesbury as evidenced by their “Primary project” indicated above.
No experience with such projects, or no successful experience as defined above, will be considered "not advantageous".
C. Experience of the project team (the proposed project manager and the Consultant and sub‐consultant principal team members) will be considered "advantageous", if projects
completed within the last 5 years included work for MassHighway or substantial work that required MassHighway design and project approval, and if these projects have received MassHighway approval, have been cleared for construction by MassHighway or have proceeded toward construction with the approval of MassHighway. Substantial as used in this paragraph shall mean a total of 3 or more unrelated projects and a total value of work contracts by the project team in excess of $500,000.00.
Experience of the project team that substantially exceeds the performance with MassHighway as required for a rating of “advantageous” will be considered "highly advantageous”.
Experience of the project team that fails in the performance with MassHighway as required for a rating of “advantageous”, or no experience with MassHighway will be considered "not advantageous".
D. Successful experience of the project team (the proposed project manager and the Consultant and sub‐consultant principal team members) in administering Federal and State funding will be considered "advantageous".
Experience of the project team that substantially exceeds the performance in administering Federal and State funding as required for a rating of “advantageous” will be considered "highly advantageous”.
No experience in obtaining Federal and State funding, or no successful experience as defined above, will be considered "not advantageous".
E. At least two projects will be chosen from the complete list of all projects completed by the project team (the proposed project manager and the Consultant and sub‐consultant principal team members) within the last 5 years with a contract amount of $100,000.00 or more (the complete list is a proposal submission requirement), and checked for references. Relative to the chosen projects, the City reserves the right to contact persons in addition to those shown as reference persons in the Consultant proposal.
Overall satisfaction with the Consultant and with the detailed services and products delivered by the Consultant expressed by all references checked will be considered "highly advantageous".
Overall satisfaction with the Consultant and with the detailed services and products delivered by the Consultant expressed by at least 2/3 of the references checked will be considered "advantageous".
Overall satisfaction with the Consultant and with the detailed services and products delivered by the Consultant expressed by less than 2/3 of the references checked will be considered "not advantageous".
3. Selection Process
Technical proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by a staff based committee appointed by the Mayor, including the following: The Community Development Director, Public Works Director, The City Planner, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, and in consultation with MassDOT as maybe applicable. Proposals will be evaluated based on the evaluation and selection criteria set forth herein. The committee will assign a composite rating to each proposal. There will be no interviews, except that the City reserves the right for the committee to interview two or more Consultants who are equally most qualified, following the review of their proposals based on the evaluation and selection criteria set forth herein. In that event, interviews will be scheduled as soon as possible. The Consultant who, in the opinion of the committee, presents
his/her project approach in the most logical, clear and understandable manner during the interview will be rated “highly advantageous”. All other Consultants that are interviewed will be rated “advantageous” or “not advantageous”. The committee will assign a composite rating to each Consultant interview. The Mayor or his designee will select the Consultant and identify the Consultant as the most qualified based on the "most advantageous" proposal after taking into consideration the evaluation of the technical proposals made by the committee together with a consideration of price. The City through the Office of Community an Economic Development will then negotiate the contract for the projects cited herein. If in the event the City cannot reach a successful contract, the City will move on to the next rated consultant.
Section Five General Requirements
1. Correspondence Prior or During Proposal Submission Period
A. Any information released by the City either verbally or in writing prior to the issuance of this RFR shall be deemed preliminary and bind neither the City nor the Consultant.
B. The City will not accept oral supplements, revisions, or changes to the responses to this RFR. Written supplements, revisions, or changes will be accepted before the proposal deadline only.
C. The Community Development Director will be the project coordinator. All inquiries and communication concerning this RFR must be made in writing to William Scott, Community Development Director.
D. Consultants must respond in writing to all follow‐up questions by the City’s concerning their proposal.
2. Contract Award
A. It is the City’s goal to have a Consultant selected and contract awarded within 60 days of the proposal due date. .
B. The Consultant shall be solely responsible for any separate contractual agreements with its sub‐consultant(s), if any are proposed and agreed to in the contract between the City and the Consultant.
C. Pending execution of a Contract by the selected Consultant, Consultants must agree to honor negotiated pricing for 60 days after submitting a signed contract.
D. Award of the contract is in the sole discretion of the City.
E. The City reserves the right, based on its best interest, at any time to accept any proposal in whole or in any part, and to reject any or all proposals.
CERTIFICATE OF NON‐COLLUSION
The undersigned hereby certifies under the penalties of perjury that this bid or proposal has been made and submitted in good faith and without collusion or fraud with any other person. As used in this certificate, the word person shall mean any natural person, business, partnership, corporation, union, committee, club, or other organization, entity, or group of individuals.
Signature of person signing the bid or proposal
Name of business
CERTIFICATE OF TAX COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Ch.62C, S.49A (b) of the Massachusetts General Laws, I,
, authorized signatory for (name)
,
(name of Consultant)
do hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that said contractor has complied with all laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts relating to taxes.
Consultant: ____________________________________________
By: _ (Signature of authorized representative)
(Title)
(Date)
Project Area
