CITY OF HOBOKEN
ADDENDUM TO RFP DOCUMENTS
RFP – 22 – 43 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR UNION DRY DOCK CONCEPT DESIGN
This Addendum # 1 dated December 22, 2022, 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. This addendum includes:
Q1. The RFP states Develop Conceptual Design Alternative (10%) and Complete a Conceptual Design (30%). What do these percentages refer to?
A1. These percentages refer to the percent complete of final engineering design documents for construction. The City considers conceptual design included in this contract as 30% of the final design. A future contract will be procured to complete final engineering design documents (100%) in accordance with the Local Public Contracts Law.
Q2. We respectfully request a 2-week extension to the proposal deadline, acknowledging the upcoming holidays and tight timeline to prepare a detailed cost proposal for a multi-disciplinary team.
A2. The deadline shall be extended to 1/19/2023 at 2:30pm. Interviews shall be conducted on 1/24/2023 and 1/25/2023. Contract award is anticipated on 2/1/2023.
Q3. Please can you confirm the project budget?
A3. The consultant shall provide the most competitive price proposal to complete the scope of work as detailed in RFP 22-43.
Q4. Is the Castle Point Skate Park a part of the project site for the Waterfront Park design?
A4. Yes. See Figure 1, Project Site.
Q5. Can the model in Task 4A be a 3D computer model instead of a physical model? This will allow for detail to be added at key areas, whereas a physical model will be limited in the amount of detail.
Q6. Are there any existing surveys or reports of existing conditions and levels/types of contamination at the site that can be shared with proposers, or that will be made available to the successful bidder?
A6. All available site information including but not limited to environmental reports, engineering reports, acquisition due diligence, and survey will be made available to the selected consultant after contract award.
Q7. Topographic/Utility Survey questions:
a. For utilities, is Quality Level C (drafted from records) acceptable or is Quality Level B
(Utility Markout) necessary?
b. Will the City provide utility records within the site areas?
c. Since this is a conceptual design, is photogrammetric mapping acceptable for the survey?
A7. Quality Level B markouts are necessary. The City will provide available utility records for City-owned infrastructure (water, MS4). The City will coordinate with other utility providers to request utility records within the site area. A survey conducted during acquisition due diligence will be made available to the selected consultant after contract award. The consultant shall be responsible for updating any survey data as required to complete the concept design.
Photogrammetric mapping is not acceptable.
Q8. Is a bathymetric survey required for the river areas?
A8. The consultant shall include a bathymetric survey as an alternate task, as this information may be available, and if so, shall be provided to the selected consultant per A6.
Q9. Are video inspections of sewers and drains required?
A9. The consultant shall include video inspections of sewers and drains as an alternate task, as this information may be available, and if so, shall be provided to the selected consultant per A6.
Q10. Is a marine (in-water) survey/investigation of the piers a required work task of this RFP?
A10. The consultant shall include video inspections of sewers and drains as an alternate task, as this information may be available, and if so, shall be provided to the selected consultant. See A6.
Q11. The RFP suggests various potential site uses including a museum. Has any local organization expressed interest in operating a museum on the site?
A11. Various organizations may be interested in operating a museum on the site.
Q12. A museum or other structure will require architectural design input to develop a concept. As the scope is not yet fully determined, it is not possible to provide a detailed fee proposal for unknown tasks. May the team propose a base fee with a selection of Add Alternates that may or may not be used depending on the eventual scope?
A12. Yes, the consultant shall include architectural services for potential structures as an alternate task.
Q13. Is there a specific format for the fee proposal?
A13. Per the RFP, “The proposal shall include a price proposal for the services requested herein. The price proposal shall include a breakdown of the proposed cost by task and personnel. The proposed cost shall be all inclusive, and no additional costs or fees shall be assessed on the City if the proposal is accepted. There shall be no right to an increase in the contractual amount awarded. The vendor shall not incur additional expenses against the City above the ‘not to exceed’ amount described in the Resolution of Award, unless the City, in its sole discretion, approves an increase in the not to exceed amount, which shall be done by Resolution of the City Council. Any expenses incurred by the vendor above the not to exceed amount shall not be reimbursed by the City of Hoboken in law or equity.”
Q14. Should the fee proposal be included with the body of the proposal, or submitted as a separate document?
A14. The full proposal shall be submitted with the body of the proposal and also on PDF document, inclusive of the price proposal and all requirements in the RFP.
Q15.Are there any page limits to the proposal?
Q16. Does the City have any M/WBE requirements as far a percentage utilization for the design team?
A16. Per the RFP, basis of award evaluation criteria, “Diversity Preference- Diverse business entities (certified M/WBE, LGBT, Veteran, or Disabled person -owned businesses) are eligible for additional points in accordance with EO #6, issued October 24, 2018.” Additional weight 4%.
Q17. Under the Scope of Services section, the RFP includes “Alternative Task 4A” which states that a physical model will be required. Is this a supplemental “alternative” service or part of the base fee proposal. May the team develop a digital 3D model instead of a physical model?
A17. All alternate tasks noted in the RFP and this addendum are optional (i.e., supplemental) tasks which may or may not be included in the ultimate contract awarded to the selected consultant. See
Q18. Does the City of Hoboken have any existing information that could be shared with the consultant team regarding the condition or structural integrity of the existing waterfront structures on site?
A18. See A6.
Q19. Will the 2018 Boswell Engineering site conditions assessment and/or the 2020 EXCEL Environmental Resources, Inc. preliminary assessment report and remedial action recommendations be made available to the proposers?
A19. See A6.
Q20. Will a remedial action plan for site contamination be required as a part of the scope of work in this RFP?
A20. The consultant shall include a remedial action plan as an alternate task.
Q21. Is the City anticipating assistance from the design consultant for the acquisition of the easement through the property for the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, or will the City be owning all required aspects of the acquisition of that easement?
A21. Yes. The consultant shall include preparation of the metes and bounds description and survey map for the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway conservation easement in the scope of work for Task 8.
The City’s outside counsel will draft the conservation easement restriction.
Q22. Does the City have any existing bathymetry data for the project site and and/or adjacent parcels immediately to the north and south of the project site?
A22. See A8.
Q23. Is there an anticipated target construction budget for the park project?
A23. No. The anticipated construction budget shall be determined through the concept design process.
Q24. Proposal Requirements list a requirement of two (2) samples of work product prepared within the past 24 months should be included in the proposal response. Are these two work samples meant to be in addition to a project portfolio qualifications?
A24. The two work samples can be the same projects as those included in the consultant’s qualifications. See A14. Should the PDF file become too large by including work samples, the work samples can be provided as a live hyperlink from the proposal PDF to any file share software.
Q25. The RFP lists that copies of professional licensure should be included. Is the city requiring scans of hard copy licenses, or will the providing of license number and licensed state be sufficient for each licensed professional during the proposal phase?
A25. The consultant shall provide scanned copies of licenses in the their proposal.
Q26. Are there historic images or documents of the site that could be shared with the consultant teams?
A26. The City does not have historic images or documents of the site, aside from those included in reports referenced in A6.
Q27. Page 16, Alternate Task 4A states “Review of Existing Site Information: Use existing GIS, AutoCAD, tax maps, survey work, past reports or studies,….” Does existing material (particularly survey work) include site utilities and boundary?
A27. See A6.
Q28. Confirm that only survey required is Topographic Mapping.
A28. See A6, A7, A8, A10.
Q29. Do all members of the proposal team need to fill out all the forms?
A29. All members of the proposal team need to fill out the pay to play forms. Only the prime consultant needs to complete all other forms.
Q30. Task 4 includes Review of Existing Site Information, including “past reports or studies.” Is there an inventory of the available information regarding the site?
A30. No. See A6.
Q31. Task 3: Develop a Pre-Design Analysis. Is a wetland delineation and mapping expected for this effort?
A31. The consultant shall include a wetland delineation and mapping as an alternate task, as this information may be available, and if so, shall be provided to the selected consultant per A6.
Q32. The RFP mentioned historic fill and AOC related contamination was found on-site. Will the EXCEL Preliminary Assessment and Historical Environmental Reports be provided?
A32. See A6.
Q33. Last line of page 17 states, “an easement will need to be recorded for the public park, as part of the acquisition.” We assume this is not the consultant’s scope/responsibility, that the easement will be recorded by the City. Correct?
A33. See A21.
Q34. Will the skate park to the south remain a skate park, just redesigned, or are we to consider alternative uses/designs for this site?
A34. The same or alternate uses may be considered for the skate park, per stakeholder and community feedback.
Q35. Page 20 states, “There is the potential for endangered/threatened plant or animal species” and “The site is listed as a local registered historic property”. Page 21 describes documented hazardous waste contamination present on site. Page 25 requires consultant prepare a Final EAF. Can you clarify the consultants scope and deliverables with respect to performing environmental due diligence and coordination with applicable City, State and Federal Government Environmental Regulatory Agencies during the design Tasks 4 and 7, and confirm that as a Task 8 Deliverable, the consultant only has to “identify all necessary permit applications…” and not obtain any actual permits or any written project design approvals and/or sign-offs from regulatory environmental agencies?
A35. Environmental due diligence is included in Task 3, not Tasks 4 or 7. As stated in the RFP Task 3 Deliverables, “Draft and final Pre-Design analysis report to include an ecological analysis, draft, and final Environmental Assessment (EAF); and Marine Constraints assessment. The report shall include a vision for the proposed waterfront park and consider all environmental and ecological effects.” Task 8 does not require obtaining any permits or approvals. As stated in the RFP Task 8 Deliverables, “Completed list of identified applicable state and federal permits, based on the concept design.”
Q36. Among the possible programmatic used the consultant is asked to consider on RFP page 23 are the following:
a. A museum; should the consultant team include an architect and are we expected to produce Final Conceptual Design Plan (30%), Renderings, Estimates, and Schedules for any/all proposed new buildings and/or architectural structures as part of Task 7?
b. Revenue generating spaces (e.g., restaurants, concert space, event facility); Please confirm you expect the consultant team will include an economist/market analyst to determine economically viable concession businesses and calculate predicted potential revenue streams for them? And is the architect expected to produce 30% designs for the buildings and/or spaces these concession opportunities require. Must we also produce 30% designs and estimates for the utilities and MEP
needs of these facilities?
c. Future maritime uses; should the consultant team include an expert in ferry, boat charter and/or marina operations?
d. Pier Rehabilitation; for this the consultant team will include a marine engineer and dive inspection team. Is the final Task 7 deliverable expected to include 30% conceptual plans, renderings, estimates and schedules for rehabilitation/reconstruction of all marine structures on- site including piers, bulkheads, relieving platforms, etc.?.
A36. See A12. The consultant shall include any team members required to complete the revenue generation estimates included in Tasks 4, 5, and 7. Future uses will be determined through an iterative community-driven planning process, considering cost, feasibility, and other factors as outlined in this RFP. The City does not know what uses will be recommended through this process, including maritime uses. While the City assumes that marine structures will be required, the City does not know if/how the current marine structures will be rehabilitated or reconstructed.
Q37. RFP requires consultant construct a 3-dimensional “physical” model. Can you say approximately how big or to what scale you want this model built. Can you offer an indication of level of detail number and types of materials you would like used, how realistic, how detailed? Or can it be a simple ‘massing’ model; made of one material such as chip board and/or foam-core, etc. Perhaps you can share a picture of another model prepared for another project you have commissioned so we can gauge the level of effort and cost to prepare the desired model for this site. And is it to be a ‘working’ model… Is the consultant expected to revise and reconstruct the model through the design process and present and re-present it to the client, stakeholders and public?
A37. See A5.
The deadline shall be extended to 1/19/2023 at 2:30pm
This addendum is posted on the City of Hoboken website to ensure compliance. The City will not
accept any further RFI/questions at this time.
There are no other changes to the RFP documents as part of this addendum.
ATTEST: Date: December 22, 2022
Jennifer Mastropietro, QPA Purchasing Agent
CITY OF HOBOKEN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF ADDENDA
RFP – 22 – 43
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR UNION DRY DOCK CONCEPT DESIGN
The undersigned Bidder hereby acknowledges receipt of the following Addenda: Addendum Number
Addendum # 1 December 22, 2022
No addenda were received:
(Name of Bidder)
By: Date: (Signature of Authorized Representative)
(Print or Type)