CITY OF HOBOKEN
ADDENDUM TO RFP DOCUMENTS
RFP – 21 – 01 - Request for Proposals (RFP) – Professional Services HOBOKEN COMMUNITY AQUATICS RECREATION CENTER
DESIGN CONCEPT AND REVENUE PLAN
This Addendum # 1, dated January 13, 2021 is issued to modify the above mentioned RFP and is hereby made part of the RFP documents.
Please attach this Addendum #1 to the original documents in your possession, and ensure same is included in your proposal.
A. Questions and answers:
Q1. The RFP states that the submission must be delivered as a physical printed proposal in a sealed envelope with one duplicate and one electronic copy. Would you be open to receiving submissions in entirely digital format, through a file upload site or email?
A1. At this time, NJ local public contracts law does not allow email submission.
Q2. Would you like us to include a Traffic Engineer on our team to do new traffic analysis or would it be sufficient to use the recent traffic analysis that was part of the North Lot Study?
A2. A Traffic Analysis that illustrates the traffic impact of the selected Concept(s) will likely be needed.
Q3. For the final phase / final report, do you see this as Concept or SD level resolution?
Q4. The RFP states – “More than one proposal from an individual, a firm, a corporation or association under the same names shall not be accepted.” Does this apply just to the prime consultant, or are all team members required to submit as part of only one team? For example, can a swimming pool consultant team up with more than one architect as part of separate teams / proposals?
A4. This provision only applies to the Prime consultant. A sub-consultant can be part of more than one submitting Team.
Q5. For community engagement efforts, will the City be responsible for identifying key stakeholders, community leaders and important demographics to target outreach to, or are you looking for the consultant team to perform a stakeholder analysis?
A5. The City will be responsible for identifying key stakeholders. The consultant team will not need to perform a stakeholder analysis.
Q6. The evaluation criteria states that we should have the capability to produce short videos. Do you envision these videos explaining the design options for community input, or will the videos document interviews / engagement sessions with members of the public, or something else?
A6. The Evaluation Criteria on page 24 in the RFP was included in error by the City. Proposers should use the Evaluation Criteria provided as part of this addendum.
Q7. Please provide clarification on what needs to submitted for the "Project Work Plan" is (#3, page 22 under submittal requirements)
A7. The Project Work Plan should indicate project phases and tasks with associated milestones and deliverables on a timeline. Ideally, the Work Plan Assigns Team members and budget.
Q8. Please provide clarification about the type of information is required under “Optional Submittal: Deviation from Scope of Services & Outline of Phased Tasks” (#7, page 22 under submittal requirements)
A8. In the case where a Consulting Team proposes an alternative to addressing one or more scope items with the intent to achieve the goals of the RFP, the Proposer may articulate those alternatives in this section.
Q9. Can you please confirm if there is a (not to exceed) budget established for this project? If yes, can you please confirm the amount?
A9. A not-to-exceed budget is not available.
Q10. Is there a developing capacity study completed for the North Lot for various uses envisioned?
A10. No. The City has not completed a capacity study for this site.
Q11. Did the OLIN study identify number of parking spaces that needs to be accommodated within the North Lot?
A11. No. This area is located within a compact, urban and walkable neighborhood where a substantial amount of parking may not be needed, unless otherwise to be determined during the planning process.
Q12. Reference is made in the RFP to “future high-level storm sewer system to be installed by the North Hudson Sewerage Authority in the North End.” It would be helpful if further information could be provided relative to the project design and location.
A12. To comply with their Long Term Control Plan, NHSA will be installing new separate storm sewers that will connect to the storm water detention tank at the Northwest Resiliency Park.
Q13. Shall we assume that structured parking will be required as part of this project? A13. Yes, although the amount of parking has not been determined.
Q14. Does the City of Hoboken intend to operate this facility once the design is complete?A14. It may be operated by the City or a third party/vendor. However, we are looking to understand through this process the pros/cons of operation by the City or a third party.
Q15. Our services can vary greatly as it relates to level of detail and depth of research for developing Operational Strategies and Revenue Plans. Have you prepared a budgeted amount for these services that you can share or are you looking for our recommendations based on our expertise?
A15. We do not have a budget figure to provide. We are looking for recommendations based on the firms’ expertise.
Q16. Does the City have an overall budget to construct the future Hoboken Aquatics Facility and Recreation Center, and if so, what is that amount?
Q17. What are the anticipated building design and programmatic considerations relative to the 12’-0” Flood Elevation?
A17. Design must be in accordance with the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
Q18. Clarification under meetings and communications: a. Confirm all meetings/focus groups will be done virtually. b. What is the expectation regarding in person meetings?
A18. Considering the timeline for this project, it is likely that all meetings and focus groups will be conducted virtually. If in-person meetings are needed or desired, the expectation is that the Consulting Team would provide all meeting materials and facilitate the meeting. The City would ensure appropriate health and safety protocols are in place, including mask wearing, physical distancing and sanitization.
Q19. In terms of proposal presentation, does the City have a desired place in submission layouts where proposers present team member project roles, backgrounds, and resumes?
A19. We leave this up to the Proposing team.
Q20. Is there an expected number of references proposers should provide? A20. We leave this up to the Proposing team.
Q21. Would the City consider accepting only electronic submissions, given the current safety requirements relating to the pandemic?
A21. At this time, NJ local public contracts law does not allow email submission.
Q22. Given that the project will not involve the handling of cash, checks or important documents or access to any bank accounts, would the City be willing to waive the $1mm Crime/Fidelity Insurance requirement?
A22. Vendor will need to add this on the exception page; the City will seek the advice from the insurance provider and the legal counsel and either accept or deny the request during the evaluation process.
Q23. Given the combined design scope and revenue plan, does the city have a preference for the project leadership being completed by an A/E firm or a feasibility/operations/planning consultant, and if so, who? A23. We leave this up to the Proposing team.
Q24. Please confirm the expectation is two separate concept design packages that will be brought to a level that can be priced. Our recommendation would be to provide 2-3 “big idea” concepts and once one concept is chosen, complete a design development package which would be used for pricing.
Typically, we would provide a full design development package which we believe will result in a more accurate price.
A24. The RFP allows for submissions to propose “alternative scope options” so that Proposing Teams can put forth their recommended approach, if it varies from the scope outline in the RFP.
Q25. May we request a phone call with your team to discuss the deliverable for concept design prior
to submitting our response prior to the Jan 22ⁿᵈ deadline?
A25. The City may choose to interview the top-ranked Teams. If selected for an Interview, Proposers may ask questions related to deliverables at that time.
Q26. Please confirm that a GC will be on boarded for pricing of design package, procurement of all materials and eventual construction of project. Reference items 2-4 on Page 8/9 under “Pricing Information for Preparation of Proposals”.
A26. Items 2-4 are not applicable to this RFP for Professional Services.
Q27. Please confirm that a GC will be on boarded for Equipment Certification on Page 13. A27. Equipment Certification is not applicable to this RFP for Professional Services.
A. The City will not accept questions and RFI at this time. Submission deadline remains the same on January 22, 2021 at 3:00 pm prevailing time.
This addendum will be published in the newspaper and posted on the City of Hoboken website to ensure compliance.
There are no other changes to the RFP documents as part of this addendum.
ATTEST: Date: January
AL B. Dineros, QPA Purchasing Agent
(Revised – Addendum 1 – Jan 13, 2021_
RFP – 21 – 01
Request for Proposals (RFP) – Professional Services
HOBOKEN COMMUNITY AQUATICS RECREATION CENTER DESIGN CONCEPT AND REVENUE PLAN The following is the criteria for evaluation of the proposal. Points shall be awarded based on the information contained in the proposal for each category as listed, with a high score of total
possible points meaning that the proposal meets all required criteria for that category and a score
of zero meaning that the proposal did not meet any of the required criteria for that category. The
highest total score shall be basis for the contract award.
Revised Evaluation Criteria for Hoboken Aquatic Center RFP:
EVALUATION CRITERIA POSSIBLE POINTS
Proposed technical approach to completing the scope of work; 10
Vendor’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the scope
of work and related objectives;
Vendor’s history and past performance on similar aquatics center
Vendor’s history and past performance on indoor recreation center
Demonstrated ability to meet deadlines;
Anticipated schedule with critical path and milestones identified; 5
Qualifications of assigned personnel;
Favorable recommendations or references from similar clients; 5
Detailed hourly rates of assigned personnel by task and inclusion of 5
all anticipated “out-of-pocket” and incidental expenses;
Competitiveness of Cost Proposal; and
*Diversity Preference-Diverse business entities (certified M/WBE, 3
LGBT, Veteran, or Disabled person -owned businesses) are eligible for additional points in
accordance with EO #6, issued October 24, 2018.*
*A business need only demonstrate one type of Diverse Business Entity to qualify for the total
possible points when applying for a contract. Businesses qualifying for more than one diversity
type will not be weighted higher.
City of Hoboken
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF ADDENDA
RFP – 21 – 01
Request for Proposals (RFP) – Professional Services HOBOKEN COMMUNITY AQUATICS RECREATION CENTER
DESIGN CONCEPT AND REVENUE PLAN
The undersigned Bidder hereby acknowledges receipt of the following Addenda:
Addendum Number Date Acknowledge Receipt
Addendum # 1 January 13, 2021
No addenda were received:
(Name of Bidder)
By: (Signature of
(Print or Type)