Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06062000 - D3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR � Costa Count DATE: Y June 6, 2000 SUBJECT: DESIGN COMPETITION FOR NEW COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1. RECOGNIZE that due to the fact that the County is currently trying to solve budget problems in several County departments, it is fiscally imprudent to proceed with the development of the new government center at this time. 2. EXPRESS appreciation to the members of the Technical Evaluation Committee, which included David Meckel, FAIA Dean of Architecture at the California College of Arts and Crafts; Marcia Raines, City Manager of Martinez; Gerald Bender, County Architect; Scott Tandy, Chief Assistant County Administrator; Laura Lockwood, Director of Capital Facilities and Debt Management; and Mark Tortorich, Project Manager from O'Brien Kreitzburg; for their professional efforts in evaluating the design proposals for the new county government enter. 3. EXPRESS appreciation to the Professional Architectural,Jury, which included Chairman David Meckel; Mary Margaret Jones, ASLA Principal at Hargreaves Associates; and Craig Hartman, FAIA Partner of Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP; for their professional efforts in evaluating the design proposals for the new county government center. 4. EXPRESS appreciation to the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County for their participation in the design evaluation process for the new county government center. j} CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE { `" RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SItiNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON June 6 , 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDEDX OTHER SEE THE' ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE �YeX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT - " - - i - " + AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED June 6 , 2000 %UWAdministrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF (&s Kramer,Assessor SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Steve weir,Clerk/Recorder Mark Tortorich,O'Brien Kreltzburg 0 M r J ,DEPUTY 5. CONCUR with the reports of the Technical Evaluation Committee and the Professional Architectural Jury that the two top-ranked firms, Dworsky & Associates and Moore Ruble Yudell/Fisher Friedman Associates, be granted further consideration by the Board of Supervisors for work on the new county government center. 6. AGREE that the decision on the final selection of an architect for the new county government center be delayed until after budget hearings this summer, at which time the Board will have a better sense of the County's overall financial position. 7. DIRECT the County Administrator to schedule a Board workshop to discuss various financing options and the architectural aspects of the new county government center with Dworsky&Associates and Moore Ruble Yudell/Fisher Friedman Associates. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND AND REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On November 24, 1998, the Board of Supervisors DIRECTED the County Administrator to return to the Board with options for constructing a new office building to replace 851 Pine Street and a time table for doing so. BACKGROUND (continued): By memorandum dated March 18, 1999 the County Administrator expressed a desire to study alternative building sites for the Family Law Center and future County Government Center. On April 6, 1999 the Board of Supervisors authorized and approved Michael Ross/Charles Drulis Architects and Planners to study these alternative sites. On July 27, 1999 Ross/Drulis presented preliminary findings to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. These findings indicated that the best site for a new County Government Center was the site bound by Escobar, Marina Vista, and Court Streets. On November 16, 1999 the Board of Supervisors authorized the programming and feasibility studies, including an architectural design competition, for a new County Administration Center, O'Brien Kreitzberg (OK), as agent for the County, developed an RFQ for Architect/Engineer services dated January 18, 2900. In order to encourage participation from the widest range of qualified architects, OK placed advertisements in the San Francisco Chronicle, Contra Costa Times, and Competitions Magazine. Notices advertising the availability of an RFQ also appeared on the San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Architects website. The deadline for response was February 18, 2000. Twenty-five firms responded to the RFQ. Of these twenty-five proposals, five were from minority businesses (20%) and three were from women owned businesses (12%). These twenty-five firms were evaluated against the criteria stated in the RFQ by the Technical Evaluation Committee. The Committee members included the Dean of Architectural Studies at the California College of Arts and Crafts, the Senior Project --03 Manager for O'Brien Kreitzberg, the director of Capital Facilities and Debt Management, the Chief Assistant County Administrator, the County's Architectural Services Manager, and the City Manager of Martinez. The Committee identified four finalists to proceed with visioning concepts and submittal of an expanded qualifications statement. On March 14, 2000, the Board authorized the County Administrator to proceed with the design competition for a new County Administration Center, with the following four firms: Hellmuth Obata & Kassabaum, Inc. Dworsky Associates Fentress Bradburn Architects Moore Ruble Yudell/Fisher Friedman Associates The Board also approved $25,000 stipends for each of the four firms. On March 21 , 2000, the Board approved the preliminary program for the new County Administration Center to provide space for the City of Martinez, Assessor, and general government functions including: Board Chambers, Supervisor's offices, Clerk of the Board, County Administrator's office, County Counsel, Human Resources, LAFCO and shared community conference space. The Board directed the County Administrator to return with architect selection recommendations after evaluating the visionary concepts and cost estimates. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3 June 6, 2000 Agenda On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the design competition for the new County Government Center. Phil Batchelor, County Administrator presented the staff report regarding the proposed Family Law Center and the County Government Center. He suggested that the four architectural firms that presented proposals for the Center be narrowed to two in order to facilitate selecting one architect. He stated that due to budget considerations at this time, it is questionable whether the County can afford to build a new County complex, there are some County departments that have multi-million dollar deficits. He said it would be appropriate to "think budget" this summer, and come back in September and re-evaluate this issue. He further suggested a workshop for the Board to discuss what steps to take next regarding this issue. Martinez City Councilmember Rob Schroeder requested to speak. He noted the Council's commitment to continuing their partnership with the County to construct a new Government Center. The Board discussed the issue. Supervisor Uilkema stated that the Board should be made fully aware of the requirements to bring 651 Pine Street up to building standards and the costs involved. She moved the recommendations as stated above. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. The Chair called the question, and the vote was as follows: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA,UILKEMA, DeSAULNIER, CANCIAMILLA and GERBER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Contra Costa County Government Center Technical Evaluation Committee Report STAGE 2 SUMMARY The second stage evaluation required each shortlist firm to provide an expanded statement of qualifications and a visioning concept that included a construction cost estimate. Each firm received additional materials regarding the proposed government center including the preliminary program approved by the Board of Supervisors, a soils analysis and topographic survey for the proposed site, and a consulting services agreement for the visioning concept with prescriptive submittal requirements (see attachment 4). A site tour and briefing held March 24`h provided additional information to the competitors and opened the structured question and answer period. The question and answer period afforded all competitors equal opportunity to receive additional information regarding the site, program, or submittal requirements. All written questions (including e-mail) were answered within two days. Each competitor received a summary of all questions and answers on a periodic basis (see attachment 5). Stage 2 materials were due April 280. All competitors delivered their materials before the 3:00pm deadline. Materials were sequestered from the technical evaluation committee or public (with the exception of the competition manager who provided quality assurance reviews) until their evaluation. The professional jury evaluated these materials on May 8th. Members of the jury included Chairman David Meckel, FAIA Dean of Architecture at the California College of Arts and Crafts, Mary Margaret Jones, ASLA Principal at Hargreaves Associates, and Craig Hartman, FAIA Partner of Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP. The jury evaluated each visioning concept and unanimously rated the Dworsky scheme superior to the others. The MRY/Fisher Friedman scheme ranked second, and the HOK and Fentress Bradburn schemes tied for fourth (see attachment 2). jury findings were not revealed to the technical committee until the committee concluded the interviews. The technical evaluation committee interviewed each firm for approximately two hours on either May 91h or 1 0`h. Firms were randomly selected for their interview time and date at the conclusion of the site briefing on April 28,'. Representatives of the Contra Costa Arts and Culture Commission joined the committee during these interviews (see attachment 3). During the interview, each firm presented their team's qualifications, vision for a new government center, and answered questions from the committee. After concluding all four interviews the committee shared individual impressions and was informed of the jury's findings. The committee unanimously agreed that the Dworsky firm provided the best combination of qualifications and vision for the new government center. A majority of the committee felt that the MRY/Fisher Friedman firm ranked second while HOK and Fentress Bradburn each received a second place vote. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 2. Stage 1 Evaluation 3. Stage 2 Summary 4. Stage 2 Technical Evaluation 5. Attachments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The architect selection process for the new Contra Costa County Government Center occurred in two stages. The first stage included the evaluation of architectural portfolios to establish a short list of firms for further consideration. Twenty-five architects responded to the County's January 18" Request for Qualifications. The short list approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 14, 2000 included the following four firms as recommended by the technical evaluation committee. 1) Hellmuth Obata and Kassabaum (HOK) 2) Dworsky Associates 3) Fentress Bradburn Architects 4) Moore Ruble Yudell/Fisher Friedman Associates On March 14' these four firms were invited to submit an expanded statement of qualifications and a visioning concept for the new Government Center. All second stage materials were due April 286. Commonly referred to as a design competition, the preparation of these visioning concepts occurred under strict guidelines. These guidelines ensured fair and impartial communications with the finalists. Technical evaluations also occurred in an order of precedence to maintain this sense of fairness and professionalism. Before making its final recommendations the technical evaluation committee considered each firm's previous experience and past performance, key personnel, sub-consultants, information gathered from an interview, and the professional jury's evaluation of the visioning concepts. The technical committee unanimously agreed that the Dworsky firm ranked highest among the shortlist firms. Four of the six members of the committee considered Moore Ruble Yudell/Fisher Freidman Associates the second ranked firm. HOK received one second place vote and Fentress Bradburn Architects received the other. Contra Costa County Government Center Technical Evaluation Committee Report TECHNICAL EVALUATION The committee established the following four elements, which were disclosed in advance to competitors, as the criteria for selection of an architect. These criteria, placed in order of priority, include: 1) Ability to conceive a timeless dignified and cost effective vision for County facilities in downtown Martinez. 2) The A/E team's past performance on comparable projects. 3) Project management structure and proposed key personnel for each discipline. 4) Engineering and specialty consultants. The following summarizes the consensus opinion of the selection committee. Reference attachment 1 for model images. Dworsky (Team B) The Dworsky proposal provides a bold visual statement for a new government center. Dworsky's lead designer, Mehrdad Yazdani, impressed the technical committee with his desire to incorporate client input and community feedback to his final design. The proposal integrates landscape and "sustainable design elements" to improve workspace quality and reduce energy consumption. These design elements include ample daylight to interior office spaces, exterior courtyards, and special non-reflective glass on the exterior facades. Building floor plans provide efficient office spaces that could easily accommodate any county department. The Dworsky proposal was the most thoroughly conceived, giving equal attention to internal functions, outside access, and public use and enjoyment. Dworsky's cost estimate exceeded the program budget by less thanl0% (reasonable for this stage of development) but the firm presented options, such as eliminating underground parking, to bring the estimate in line with the budget. Dworsky's past performance on previous projects demonstrates their ability to work with public clients. The firm's award winning public projects include the Long Beach Federal Building, the Los Angeles County Courts Building, and the Federal Reserve Bank in Los Angeles. Dworksy recently received the commission for the new San Ramon Civic Center. The proposed project manager, Michael Smith, heads a cadre of consultants including firms discovered through Dworsky's outreach efforts. A key component of this proposal is the engineering consulting firm of Ove Arup and Partners. Engineers for the Gap Inc. headquarters, a building designed to use 30% less energy .)3 � ' Contra Costa County Government Center Technical Evaluation Committee Report than state standards, Ove Arup is a world leader in the design and engineering of sustainable architecture. (MRY) Moore Ruble Yudell with Fisher Freidman Associates (Team A) MRY's proposal for a new government center focused on creating a community living room along Escobar to integrate both city and county governmental functions. This living room, enlivened by a water feature and landscaping, opens to a community room and cafe. The building's exterior responds to the surrounding environment by using solar screens on the southern and western elevations to minimize the influence of hot summer sun on the building interiors. Unlike the screens on the current administration building, these screens allow views out of the building. The committee was impressed with how the firm's principal and lead designer, John Ruble, varied the building's height to correspond with surrounding landmarks such as the Community College and Finance Buildings. The MRY cost estimate exceeded the program budget by less thanl0%, which is reasonable for this stage of development. MRY's previous experience with governmental and educational projects provides a good platform for development of the new government center. The committee agreed that MRY's portfolio, specifically the Haas Business School and the Berlin Embassy, provided satisfying examples of suitable buildings for Martinez. Consultants for the MRY team included numerous small business and women owned business enterprises. In addition, Los Angeles based MRY teamed with a San Francisco architect, Fisher Friedman Associates and a Berkeley firm, Marci Wong, to facilitate communications with the county project management team. This team provided examples of proposed workspaces for the new building. (HOK) Hellmuth Obata and Kassabaum (Team D) The HOK proposal emphasized development of a public plaza adjacent to Marina Vista and the regional park. Surrounded by a sweeping, glassy public gallery this feature provided the only animation to the building facades. The committee was unimpressed with elevations facing the downtown business district and other government buildings. The floor plans provide large floor plates with little possibility of day light to interior office spaces. During their interview, architects from HOK mentioned building features related to sustainable design, however neither the drawings or model demonstrated these features. Estimated at 3% less than the project budget, HOK's schematic drawings did not provide sufficient information to support a credible cost estimate. For example, building plans did not accommodate the required parking or depict how the ground floor relates to surrounding street grades. Contra Costa County Government Center Technical Evaluation Committee Report Examples of HOK's past performance included courthouses in Phoenix and Salt Lake City. Unlike other firms HOK provides landscape design in house. Technical consultants provide competent support services. Fentress Bradburn Architects {Team Q The Fentress Bradburn scheme places building blocks on each of the two existing parcels while visually preserving the Pine Street corridor through the site. An elevated plaza links the two buildings at the main floor, which is accessible to visitor by a flight of stairs from Escobar Street. The committee challenged the Architects on the ADA deficiencies of this approach. Furthermore, the committee was unimpressed by the planning of the office blocks. Spaces were poorly shaped and provided space planning challenges. While most of the committee did not appreciate the building massing, supportive comments were expressed regarding the similarity of exterior design elements to historic Martinez structures. The consultant who prepared the county budget estimate prepared the architect's cost estimate. Therefore, the architect's estimate was $5,000 less than the budget. Fentress Bradburn provided the greatest experience with similar government facilities of any shortlist firm. The proposed project manager impressed many committee members with his credentials and strong presentation skills. However, this Denver based firm neglected to select a local architect to associate with. Their proposal stated that "Upon selection for this project, Fentress Bradburn Architects will select a local associate architect and would welcome your approval." The committee was concerned by this omission since a local architect should have been a key component of this out-of-state proposal. Report Prepared by: Mark J. Tortorich, AIA Competition Manager O'Brien Kreitzberg Technical Evaluation Committee: Scott Tandy, County Administrators Office Laura Lockwood, County Administrators Office Gerald Bender, General Services Department Marcia Raines, Martinez City Manager David Meckel, FAIA Mark J. Tortorich, AIA ' 70 70 r ° s n . gr wn m C m a IAK m a c N �n ro d w Contra Costa County Administration Building Attachment to Technical Evaluation Committee Report SCHEME A: MOORE RUBLE YUDELL WITH FISHER FREIDMAN ASSOCIATES View from Southwest View from Northwest 6 Contra Costa County Administration Building Attachment to Technical Evaluation Committee Report SCHEME 13: DWORSKY ASSOCIATES View from Southwest View from Northwest Contra Costa County Administration Building Attachment to Technical Evaluation Committee Report SCHEME C: FENTRESS BRAIDBURN ARCHITECTS View from Southwest View from Northwest 4 Contra Costa County Administration Building Attachment to Technical Evaluation Committee Report SCHEME D: HOK View from Southwest View from Northwest _ -D3, Centra Costa County Government Center Architect Selection Process Professional Jury Report / May 2000 David Meckel FAIR, Jury Chair Dean of Architecture California College of Arts and Crafts Mary Margaret Jones Principal Hargreaves Associates Craig Hartman FAIR Partner Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP 17 This report reflects the deliberations of a three- person professional jury that met on May 8th to evaluate four submissions on the merits of their respective design responses to the site and program . The jury understands that the county is -choosing a design firm, not a building design . However, as professionals who understand the site and building design processes extremely well, our report will address the attitudes imbedded in these provisional designs that we feel hold the most promise for the citizens of Martinez and greater Contra Costa County. ~ _ ` - ' DWORSKY TEAM Site: The jurors believe that this team develops an approach that is most appropriately scaled to Martinez. Even though the drawings aren 't always convincing in their civic language, the model and ground floor plan are. As with all the schemes, this one recognizes the Pine Street axis and vista but, unlike the others, successfully gathers-up circulation from Court Street and elsewhere to create a gracious sequence of experiences, leading you to a single, obvious entry. The suggestion of raising the street elevation is a bold one, but the scheme also works without that change. Building: The architectural language of the scheme, while not fully resolved, shows a sensitivity to scale, material, sunlight, and views that gives the jury confidence that this team can work with the public to develop a building that belongs in Martinez and does not look like big government. Interior: This is the only team that appears to recognize that the building needs two elevator cores. The office plan is very flexible, with a lot of interaction between departments. But the true brilliance of their scheme is its section, which diagonally places two atrium spaces in a relationship to one another, creating both an easy, natural flow through the building and an abundance of daylight in close proximity to every office worker. Ranking First 1,9 MOORE RUBLE YUDELL/FISHER-FRIEDMAN TEAM Site: The jurors feel that this scheme conveys a quality of civicness on the South side, with its smaller scaled-out building defining a community living room. While the scale of the office block seems inappropriate when examined in the model and building sections, the jurors believe that this team demonstrates the skills necessary to resolve this conflict. Building: The architectural language and curving form of the office slab respond well to views on the North, as well as the solar shading/daylighting challenges on the South. The Community Room and the Board Chambers are nicely developed as both functional and symbolic civic spaces, although the podium level indoor/outdoor relationship could be developed in order to take better advantage of the courtyard idea. Interior: Lifting the Board Chambers to the second level creates circulation and after-hours access challenges that the scheme does not resolve. The single elevator core and its placement decrease the efficiency of what should be a rational and flexible interior, given the building form. However, the detailed layout of a sample office area shows a level of functional thoughtfulness not evident in the other schemes. Ranking Second '5p-3 4- . HOK TEAM Site: The jurors feel that this scheme does not respond well to two important site conditions. First, by placing the major outdoor space on the North, away form the sun and exposed to the wind, the design dramatically compromises its ability to function well as a public gathering space. Second, the overall height and bulk of the building overwhelms the existing scale of its Martinez context. Building: The architectural language of the building is quite formal. While this would be appropriate in Sacramento or Washington DC, it is inappropriate in Martinez. The renderings, while seductive, will not deliver on their promise. The placement and terminus of the bridge seem unconvincing, leveraging neither the natural pedestrian flow of Court Street nor a landing that would deliver pedestrians over the railroad tracks. Interior: The main architectural gesture, a sweeping curve scooped out of the North side of the volume, gives dramatic views to staff and visitors only when they use the corridors. The rest of the time, they are isolated in deep office areas that will be both difficult to lay out and handicapped by the distance that must be traversed to reach the single elevator core. The cross section of the building does nothing to counteract this condition, uniformly stacking floors with no spatial penetration that might allow views or light. Ranking Tied for fourth -00 PENTRESS BRADBURN TEAM Site: The jurors recognize that this team develops a good understanding of the areas surrounding the site, and that the urban design ideas suggested (such as the asymmetrical design of Pine Street) might begin to remedy some of the disjointed conditions that currently exist downtown. However, the sensitivity brought to bear on the surrounding areas seems completely absent in the siting of the building. The overall height and bulk of the building appears completely inappropriate. The overscaled hole through the building has the potential to be an inhospitable wind tunnel. Moreover, the main entry condition is unclear, unsuccessful as a civic gesture, and noncompliant with ADA requirements. Building: The jury believes that the renderings of this building, while visually pleasing and comforting, are not a good indication of the character of the design. The model tells a more accurate story, which is that of an overscaled office building with very few special qualities. Interior: The layout calls for two separate towers but only one restroom core, compromising circulation and user-comfort. Both the exterior and interior designs suggest a kind of nameless, faceless, generic government with no personal touch. The interior layouts are not developed to a credible point of conclusion. This is probably best demonstrated by the lack of character shown for the Board Chambers. Ranking Tied for fourth 3 Arts and Culture Commission _4W f� of Contra Costa County --DRAFT-- *40�k Contra Costa County Government Center Architect/Engineer Technical Evaluation Committee Deport from Arts and Culture Commission (AC5) Art in Public Places Committee (Subject to formal approval by the Commission) Two members of the AC5 Art in Public Places Committee and one staff member took part in last week's Architect/Engineer Technical Review for the proposed Contra Costa County Government Center. Presentations by the four candidates were interesting and enlightening, and AC5 Commissioners look forward to participating in future stages of the process. The new County government seat must be worthy of not only the power of governance that it implies but also the people that it serves and represents. The Arts and Culture Commission believes that a beautifully designed building that embraces, and provides space for, a diversity of art presentations, both permanent and changing, will make the residents of Contra Costa County feel welcome and part of a community. Three out of four firms made strong references to the inclusion of art, either in the design stage or in the finished spaces. Only one of those firms (Dworsky) spoke of art in more than a very general fashion. In fact, this particular architect, Mehrdad Yazdani, used terms that indicated familiarity with and a welcoming of the inclusion of art and artists in almost every stage of the building's development. Moore Ruble Yudell presented an innovative approach to the challenge of creating a public structure that must also serve a number of internal office functions. Their extensive use of glass would help to break down perceived barriers between the public and the functions and workers inside the building. However, they did not indicate an innate sense of how art could be used to make the public spaces,both inside the building and in the entry plaza, more inviting and alive. Innovative design combined with a homogeneous collection of natural or natural-looking building materials offering color and texture delighted the eye when viewing the architectural renderings of Mehrdad Yazdani. Dworsky has built in,with its choices of materials, color, and welcoming public spaces, artistic elements that can easily be expanded, both in the integral design and in the finished spaces. Dworsky's design was the most thoroughly conceived, giving equal attention to internal functions, outside access, and public use and enjoyment. 1236 Escobar Street, Martinez, CA 94553 'rel. 925 646-2278 Fax 925 646-2078 AC ` ) Fentress Bradburn has designed a number of cultural facilities as well as government centers, and has a good sense of the extensive interaction needed to produce the ultimate design that will serve the public well into the future. The company seems to have a strong record with"green" projects that reduce long-term expenditures. Despite highly contemporary designs in other locales, this firm seemed unwilling to challenge its perception of conservatism in this region with a design that would take the County into the future. While the design indicated possibilities for art,the designers themselves seemed not to have given a great deal of thought to the incorporation of art, beyond suggesting that artistic elements might be included in the design and that any major public art should be included in their contract so they could retain control over its completion times. The rendering and model by HOK.were attractive, but presented certain immediate problems. The placement of the exterior courtyard/event space faced the marina rather than the town, giving the impression of"turning its back"on the public. The designers spoke of integrating art into the design of the building, but their ideas and plans were so undefined as to make it difficult to envision what the public spaces could offer for the inclusion of art. It is exciting to explore the possibilities for establishing a new County seat that is representative of and complementary to its diverse population and architectural styles, not just of Martinez but also of the County at large. This project can provide an opportunity to work with a designer who understands the interactive, inclusive process of creating a building that serves the public as well as the people who work there. Creativity, as embodied in welcoming interior and exterior public spaces with a range of artistic expression represented, inspires people to work better and more productively. It is important to give weight to the design process; any architect can"design"a functional building where people do their work, but it takes a sensitive, creative designer to envision a built environment that works for the people and the community in which it sits. Draft Report—Page 2 May 31,2000 O'BRIESI KREITZBER A DAMES A MOORE GROUP COMPANY VIA FAX: (303) 722-5080 Original to Follow March 14, 2000 Mr. Curtis Worth Fentress, FAIA, RIBA Fentress Bradburn Architects, Ltd. 421 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Mr. Fentress: Congratulations on making the short list for the new Contra Costa County Government Center. As you know the first stage of this selection focused exclusively on the architectural design firm and key personnel proposed by each firm. After evaluating each submittal in depth, we are confident that the firms on our short list have the capacity to produce a functional and elegant work of architecture within the County's technical requirements. In this second stage of the selection we will evaluate each architectural design firm's vision for a new Government Center as well as the firm's engineering and specialty consultants. We are particularly interested in the project team's creativity and response to the symbolic and functional issues of site and program. We have identified below the specific evaluation criteria for this second stage as well as guidelines for the submittal and interview. EVALUATION CRITERIA The selection of an A/E design firm will be made on the basis of information submitted in stage I, stage 11, and the interview. The evaluation criteria for final selection are identified in descending order of priority. 1) Ability to conceive a timeless, dignified, and cost effective vision for County facilities in downtown Martinez. 2) The A/E team's past performance on comparable projects. 3) Project management structure and proposed key personnel for each discipline. 4) Engineering and specialty consultants. Offices WoHdwfde STAGE II REQUIREMENTS A. Supplementary Statements of Qualifications Please submit Standard GSA form 254, questions 1 through 9, for all proposed consultants not identified in stage I including the structural, mechanical, electrical, landscape, and cost management consultants; and Standard GSA form 255, question 7, for a maximum of three key personnel from each consulting discipline (i.e., mechanical, engineering, security, etc.); and Supporting illustrations and graphics as appropriate. In addition, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors encourages professional consultants to conduct outreach efforts with targeted business enterprises. The Contra Costa County Professional/Personal Services Outreach Program is attached to this correspondence. Please consider these guidelines when developing your list of consultants. There are no mandatory goals associated with this outreach program. However, each firm is expected to make its best effort to include targeted business enterprises in the proposal. B. Interviews An interview will be held in Martinez with each short listed firm. Attendance is limited to a maximum of 4 key individuals. Each firm will be given 45 minutes for the presentation with an additional 15 minutes for questions/answers. I will contact you with further information on the time for your presentation. The interview should focus on the following topics: 1) The Lead Designer's design philosophy and the application of this philosophy to a new Government Center, 2) The Project Manager's role in the project, including the proposed integration between the architectural design firm, associated design firms, and subconsultants. 5) Other topics that the firm considers relevant to the selection. C. Visioning Concept and Feasibility Study Attached to this correspondence you will find a draft Consulting Services Agreement for the Visioning Concept and f=easibility Study. Each firm needs to execute this agreement prior to commencing work on the visioning concept. The County prepared a competition base model for each consultant team. Arrangements for distribution of the model base will be discussed at the site tour and briefing. Page 2 SCHEDULE The tentative schedule for the stage it selection is as follows. Board of Supervisors approves Preliminary Program March 21, 2000 Visioning Contracts Executed No Later Than March 24, 2000 Site Visit and Briefing 10:30 a.m. March 24, 2000 Question and Answer Period (Competition) March 27 through April 14, 2000 Competition and Supplementary Qualifications Submittal 3:00 p.m.April 28, 2000 Interviews Week of May 8, 2000 Selection Recommendations to the Board June 6, 2000 Congratulations again on making the short list. If you should have any questions, please contact me at (925) 3351065 or by e-mail at tortorich@okpcm.com. Sincerely, TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE 1roM1� ro*� Mark J. Tortorich, AIA Competition Manager Attachments: Contra Costa County Professional/Personal Services Outreach Program Draft Consulting Services Agreement cc: File 601098 Page 3 Contra Costa County Professional/Personal Services Outreach Program This program applies to all=vice contrasts, bath formal and informal,including purchase orders for services. The following are exempt from,this program:contracts less than$2,500; emergencies, as deemed in Ordinance Cade Section 1108-7.206(c);special cqmt services(criminal investigation, prosecution,etc.)pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 1108-2.214(b')(3),and unique circumstances where the County Administrator determines;mines that an exception is nemsary. Outreach—Informal Contracts When a request for services is made informally (i.e., not with a request for proposals, request for quotation, or statement of qualifications), it is the department's responsibility to solicit consultantsiservice providers and to award the contract in a manner that is consistent with this program- Outreach by Consultant—Formal Contracts When a request for services is made formally (i.e., with a request for proposals, request for quotation,or statement of qualifications), consultants/service providers are encouraged to .awake the following outreach efforts: a. Contact the following acceptable certifying agencies for listings of NMEs,WBEs, SBEs. and LBEs: (1) City of Oakland Office of Public Works One City Miall Plaza Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-3970 (510) 238-2233/fax - I - (2) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Transit Coordinating Council Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, Chair 1011 Andersen Drive#108 San Rafael, CA 94901-5381 (415) 257-4536 (415) 257-4555/fax Cgonzale@ggbhtd.dst.ra.us Includes listings for the following agencies— Alameda Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) (510) 577-8812 (510) 577-8839/fax Sandy@pacbeH.net Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) (510) 464-6610 (510) 464-7587/fax Imackl@bart.dst.ca.us Central Contra Costa Transit Authority(CCCTA or County Connection) (510) 67/6-1976 x223 (510) 686-2630/fax Metropolitan Transportation Commission (510) 464-7750 (510) 464-7848/fax Jmiyaz@mtc.dst.ca.us San Mateo County Transit District(Samtrans) (415) 508-6417 (415) 508-6415/fax San Francisco Public Transportation (415) 923-5139 (415) 923-6137 (415) 923-6180/fax _ 2 .. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (408) 321-5606 (408) 955-0892/fax Andy.flores@vta.org (3) San Francisco Human Eights Commission 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 800 San Francisco,CA 94102-6033 (415)252-2500 (415) 431-57641fax (4) State of California Department of Transportation Division of Civil Rights 1120 N Street,Room 2445 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 654-7048 Http://www.dotca.gov/hq/bep/ (5) Port of Oakland 530 Water Street Oakland, CA 94507 (510) 272-1390 (510) 272-1172/fax (6) Los Angeles Transportation Commission Contract Compliance 818 'West 71 Street, 41 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 (7) U.S. Small Business Administration Regional Office 71 Stevenson Street, 201 Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2939 (415) 744-6808 b. Request assistance in identifying and notifying MBEs, WBEs, SBEs, and LBEs from community organizations; consultant groups; local, state, or federal business assistance offices; and/or other agencies or infions that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of MBEs, WBEs, SBEs, and LBEs. C. Conduct broad-based outreach to potential subconsultants, including MBEs, WBEs, SBEs, and LBEs,by notifying those firms of the project(via fax,newspaper advertisements, etc.), 3 by providing project information (proposal due date, description of the project, and other pertinent information), and by inviting quotations from all interested firms. Outreach by Department—Formal Contracts Departments are responsible for the following outreach efforts: a. Provide pre-solicitation meetings and identify items of work to be performed by the consultant/service provider, including licenses and bonding requirements. b. Advertise projects in daily or weekly newspapers or other media, including minority and women publications or other media. The advertisement(s) should state the following at a minimum: (1) Proposal due date; (2) Description of the entire project; (3) Items of work to be performed in the project; (4) Banding requirements and other special license requirements; and (5) Other pertinent information. C. Maintain a list of certified IMBEs, WBEs, and SBEs by using the Caltrans directory, the County directory, and the directories of other certifying agencies acceptable to the County. d. Annually and upon request, revise the list of MBE, WBE, and SBE consultants/service providers maintained by the department to include updated information from the Caltrans directory, the County directory, and the directories of other certifying agencies acceptable to the County. e. Continue to submit to the Contract Compliance Officer, upon request, documentation on projects. f: Review the feasibility of identifying contracts that would allow for the selection of a pool of consultants/service providers to receive contract awards on a rotational basis. The pool of consultants/service providers would include MBEs, WBEs, SBEs, and LBEs. Verlfication of Performance Upon completion of services,the consultant/service provider shall submit a completed"Verification of Performance"form for each identified first tier subconsultant utilized by the consultant/service provider in connection with the project. Where possible, the form shall be signed by the subconsultant and shall identify the item(s) of work performed and the actual dollar amount received _ 4 _ or to be received. consultants/service providers should submit the forms to the department, which shall forward copies of the completed forms to the Contract Compliance Officer prior to final payment for work done. -0/ o CONSULIM SERVICES AGREEIYIENT 1. Special Conditions. These special conditions are incorporated below by reference. (a) Public Agency: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET a FLOOR MARTINEZ,CA 94553 (b) Consultant's Name&Address: Dworsky Associates 3530 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 1000 Los Angeles,California 90010-2300 (c) Project Name,Number&Location: Contra Costa County Government Center Martinez,Ca(WH 436B) (d) Effective Date:March 14,2000 (e)Payment Limit: $25,000 (f)Completion Date:April 28,2000 (g) Liquidated Damages:None (h) Federal Taxpayers I.D.or Social Security No: (i)License No: 2. SignlWres. These signatures attest the parties'agreement hereto: FLIBLiC AGENCY CONSULTANT By:• Date: Type of business: Director Capital Facilities and Debt Management (Designate type—corporation,sole proprietorship, partnership,partnership,government agency,limited liability company,etc.) If corporation,state of incorporation: By: Title: (Designate official capacity in the business) By: Title: (Designate official capacity in the business) Note to Consultant:For corporations,the contract must be signed by two officers. The first signature must be that of the chairman of the board, president or vice-president;the second signature must be that of the secretary,assistant secretary,chief financial officer or assistant treasurer.(Civ. Code,Sec. 1190 and Corps.Code,Sec.313.) The acknowledgment below must be signed by a Notary Public. CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ) ss. County of ) On the date written below, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared the person(s) signing above for Consultant, personally known to fine(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshe/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures) on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Dated: [Notary's Seal] Notary Public 3. Parties. Effective on the above date,the above-named Public Agency and Consultant mutually agree and promise as follows: 4. Employment. Public Agency hereby employs Consultant, and Consultant accepts such employment, to perform the professional services described herein,upon the terms and in consideration of the payments stated herein. 5. Scone of Service. Scope of service shall be as described in Appendix A,attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. *See Appendix A and B for Changes,Deletions or Additions to this Section \161litLOOR\SHARBD\EVSKMARK\NEWADMIFMwoVISCSA.DM Page 1 of COMULIM S RM ES AGREEWM 1. Svecial Conditions. These special conditions are incorporated below by reference. (a) Public Agency: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET a FLOOR MARTINEZ,CA 94553 (b) Consultant's Name&Address: Moore Ruble Yudell 933 Pico Boulevard Santa Monica,California 90405 (c) Project Name,Number&Location: Contra Costa County Government Center Martinez,Ca(WH 436B) (d) Effective Date:March 14,2000 (e)Payment Limit: $25,000 (f)Completion Date:April 28,2000 (g) Liquidated Damages:None (h) Federal Taxpayers I.D.or Social Security No: (i)License No: 2. SigmatuIes. These signatures attest the parties'agreement hereto: PUBLIC AGENCY CONSULTANT By: Date: Type of business: Director Capital Facilities and Debt Management (Designate type—corporation,sole proprietorship, partnership,partnership,government agency,limited liability company,etc.) If corporation,state of incorporation: By: Title: (Designate official capacity in the business) By: Title: (Designate official capacity in the business) Note to Consultant:For corporations,the contract must be signed by two officers. The first signature must be that of the chairman of the board, president or vice-president,the second signature must be that of the secretary,assistant secretary,chief financial officer or assistant treasurer.(Civ. Code,Sec. 1190 and Corps.Code,Sec.313.) The acknowledgment below must be signed by a Notary Public. CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ) ss. County of _ 1 On the date written below, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared the person(s) signing above for Consultant, personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shelthey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Dated: [Notary's Seal] Notary Public 3. Parties. Effective on the above date,the above-named Public Agency and Consultant mutually agree and promise as follows: 4. Em l�ovment. Public Agency hereby employs Consultant, and Consultant accepts such employment, to perform the professional services described herein,upon the terms and in consideration of the payments stated herein. 5. Scoge of Service. Scope of service shall be as described in Appendix A,attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. *See Appendix A and B for Changes,Deletions or Additions to this Section S:SEVEPMAtt"EWADM1NVmyV1SCSA.D0C Page 1 of 3 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT 1. S2ecial Conditions. These special conditions are incorporated below by reference. (a) Public Agency: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET bei FLOOR MARTINEZ,CA 94553 (b) Consultant's Name&Address: Fentress Bradburn Architects,Ltd. 421 Broadway Denver,Colorado 80203 (c) Project Name,Number&Location: Contra Costa County Government Center Martinez,Ca(WH 436B) (d) Effective Date:March 14,2000 (e)Payment Limit: $25,000 (f)Completion Date:April 28,2000 (g) Liquidated Damages:None (h) Federal Taxpayers I.D.or Social Security No: (i)License No: 2. Signaures. These signatures attest the patties'agreement hereto: PUBLIC AGENCY CONSULTANT By:' Date: Type of business: Director Capital Facilities and Debt Management (Designate type--corporation,sole proprietorship, partnership,partnership,government agency,limited liability company,etc.) If corporation,state of incorporation: By: Title: (Designate official capacity in the business) By: Title: (Designate official capacity in the business) Note to Consultant:For corporations,the contract must be signed by two officers. The first signature must be that of the chairman of the board, president or vice-president;the second signature must be that of the secretary,assistant secretary,chief financial officer or assistant treasurer.(Civ. Code,Sec. 1190 and Corps.Code,Sec.313.) The acknowledgment below must be signed by a Notary Public. CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ) } ss. County of ) On the date written below, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared the person(s) signing above for Consultant, personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Dated: [Notary's Seal] Notary Public 3. Parties. Effective on the above date,the above-named Public Agency and Consultant mutually agree and promise as follows: 4. Employment. Public Agency hereby employs Consultant, and Consultant accepts such employment, to perform the professional services described herein,upon the terms and in consideration of the payments stated herein. 5. Scope of Service. Scope of service shall be as described in Appendix A,attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. *See Appendix A and B for Changes,Deletions or Additions to this Section s:usvr s►eKuvswnpM1NVbVlscsA.00c Page I of 3 3s !Q12 NSJJJ &3ERVIC S AGREEMENT I. &ecial Conditions. These special conditions are incorporated below by reference. (a) Public Agency: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET a FLOOR MARTINEZ,CA 94553 (b) Consultant's Name&Address: Heltmuth Obata&Kassabaum,Inc. 71 Stevenson Street,Suite 2200 San Francisco,California 94105 (c) Project Name,Number&Location: Contra Costa County Government Center Martinez,Ca(WH 436B) (d) Effective Date:March 14,2408 (e)Payment Limit: $25,000 (f)Completion Date:April 28,2040 (g) Liquidated Damages:None (h) Federal Taxpayers I.D.or Social Security No: (i)License No: 2. Signatum These signatures attest the parties'agreement hereto: PUBLIC AGENCY CONSULTANT By: Date: Type of business: Director Capital Facilities and Debt Management (Designate type—corporation,sole proprietorship, partnership,partnership,government agency,limited liability company,etc.) If corporation,state of incorporation: By: Title: (Designate official capacity in the business) By: Title: (Designate official capacity in the business) Note to Consultant:For corporations,the contract must be signed by two officers. The first signature must be that of the chairman of the board, president or vice-president;the second signature must be that of the secretary,assistant secretary,chief financial officer or assistant treasurer.(Civ. Code,Sec. 1190 and Corps.Code,Sec.313.) The acknowledgment below must be signed by a Notary public. CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ) ss. County of ) On the date written below, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared the person(s) signing above for Consultant, personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose names)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Dated: [Notary's Seal] Notary Public 3. Parties. Effective on the above date,the above-named Public Agency and Consultant mutually agree and promise as follows: 4. Emoloyment. Public Agency hereby employs Consultant, and Consultant accepts such employment, to perform the professional services described herein.upon the terms and in consideration of the payments stated herein. 5. Scone of Service. Scope of service shall be as described in Appendix A,attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. *See Appendix A and B for Changes,Deletions or Additions to this Section S:NEVE.RMARKINEWADMIMIwkVISCSA.DW Page I of 3 6. Report Disclosure Section. Any document or written report prepared hereunder by Consultant, or a subcontractor, for Public Agency shall contain,in a separate section,the numbers and dollar amounts of this contract and all subcontracts relating to the preparation of such document or written report,provided that the payment limit specified in Section 1(e)exceeds$5,000. When multiple documents or written reports are the subject or products of this agreement, the disclosure section may also contain a statement indicating that the total contract amount represents compensation for multiple documents or written reports. 7. . Consultant shall, at no cost to Public Agency,obtain and maintain during the term hereof: (a) Workers'Compensation insurance pursuant to state law,and(b)Comprehensive Liability Insurance,including coverage for owned and non-owned automobiles,with a minimum combined single limit coverage of$500,000 for all damages due to bodily injury,sickness or disease,or death to any person, and damage to property, including the loss of use thereof, arising out of each accident or occurrence. Consultant shall furnish evidence of such coverage, naming Public Agency,its officers and employees as additional insureds,and requiring 30 days'written notice of policy lapse or cancellation. 8. Plyment. Public Agency shall pay Consultant for professional services performed at the rates shown in Appendix 8 attached hereto, which include all overhead and incidental expenses, for which no additional compensation shall be allowed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, those incidental expenses specifically itemized in Appendix R shall be reimbursable by Public Agency to Consultant, provided that Consultant submits copies of receipts and, if applicable, a detailed mileage log to Public Agency. In no event shall the total amount paid to Consultant exceed the payment limit specified in Sec. 1(e) without prior written approval of Public Agency. Consultant's billing statements shall be submitted at convenient intervals approved by Public Agency and shall list,for each item of services,the employee categories,hours and rates. Payment will be made within thirty(30)days after receipt of each statement. 9. S#atus. The Consultant is an independent contractor,and shall not be considered an employee of Public Agency. 10. Time for Comgletion. unless the time is extended in writing by Public Agency, Consultant shall complete all services covered by this Agreement no later than the Completion Date listed above. 11. Record Retention and Auditintt. Except for materials and records delivered to Public Agency,Consultant shall retain all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, including financial records, for a period of at least five years after Consultant's receipt of the final payment under this Agreement. 12. Documentation. Consultant shall prepare and deliver to Public Agency at no additional charge the items described in Appendix A to document the performance of this Agreement and shall furnish to Public Agency such information as is necessary to enable Public Agency to monitor the performance of this Agreement. 13. Qwnershio of cu ents. All materials and records of a finished nature, such as final plans, specifications, reports. and maps. prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become property of Public Agency. All materials of a preliminary nature, such as survey notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement,shall be made available,upon request,to Public Agency at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on their use. 14. Termination by Public Agency. At its option, Public Agency shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by written notice to Consultant,whether or not Consultant is then in default. Upon such termination,Consultant shall,without delay,deliver to Public Agency all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, and shall be paid, without duplication, all amounts due for the services rendered up to the date of termination. 15. Abandonment by Consultant. In the event that Consultant ceases performing service under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to completing all of the services described in this Agreement,Consultant shall,without delay,deliver to Public Agency all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement,and shall be paid for the reasonable value of the services performed up to the time of cessation or abandonment,less a deduction for any damages or additional expenses which Public Agency incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment. 16. Y=.Any litigation involving this Agreement or relating to the work shall be brought in Contra Costa County,and Consultant hereby waives the removal provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 394. 17. Compliance with Laws. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations,whether federal,state or local in origin. 18. Assignment.This Agreement shall not be assignable or transferable in whole or in part by Consultant,whether voluntarily,by operation of law or otherwise;provided,however,that Consultant shall have the right to sub-contract that portion of the services for which Consultant does not have the facilities to perform so long as Consultant notifies Public Agency of such subcontracting prior to execution of this Agreement. Any other purported assignment,transfer or sub-contracting shall be void. 19. Heirs,Successors and Assi¢ns. Except as provided otherwise in Section 20 above, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the heirs,successors,executors,personal representatives and assigns of the parties. *See Appendix A and 8 for Changes,Deletions or Additions to this Section S:1EVERMARK\NEWADM1NVnkV1SCSA.DOC Page 2 of 3 y 20. Public ElIdgmeMmm Consultant shall not in its capacity as a consultant with Contra Costa County publicly endorse or oppose the use of any particular brand naive or commercial product without the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. In its County consultant capacity. Consultant shall not publicly attribute dualities or lark of qualities to a particular brand nate or commercial product in the absence of a well- established and widely-accepted scientific basis for such claims or without the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. In its County consultant Capacity,Consultant shall not participate or appear in any commercially-produced advertisements designedto promote a particular brand name or commercial product, even if Consultant is not publicly endorsing a product, as long as the Consultanes presence In the advertisement can reasonably be interpreted as an endorsement of the product by or on behalf of Contra Costa County. Notwithstanding the foregoing,Consultant may express its views on products to other consultants,the Board of Supervisors,County officers,or others who may be authorized by the Board of Supervisors or by law to receive such views. Attachments Appendix A Attachment 1 Appendix B *See Appendix A and B for Changes,Deletions or Additions to this Section S:\EVERMARXVVBWADMINftkVYSCSA.DCC Page 3 of 3 Appendix A To Consulting Services Agreement Between Contra Costa County And An Architect For A Visioning Concept and Feasibility Study Contra Costa County Government Center Visioning Concept and Feasibility Study Scope of Service 1. General Requirements 1.1. The Consultant shall certify by entering into this Agreement that he is professionally competent and able to provide the professional services outlined herein by reason of his personal knowledge and skill. 1.2. The Consultant hereby agrees to prepare a Visioning Concept and Feasibility Study for the Contra Costa County Government Center in consideration of the fixed fee. 1.3. All designs prepared specifically for this competition shall become property of the Public Agency. 1.4. The Consultant agrees to abide by the decisions and final judgment of the Competition Manager and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. 2. Supplemental information provided by the Public Agencv 2.1. Spot Survey of City Blocks at 1"-50'-0" scale 2.2. Boundary and Utility Plan of Phase 1 building site at 1 20"-0"scale 2.3. Soils report for the Phase 1 building site 2.4. Preliminary Program for the Contra Costa County Government Center 3. Competition Boundaries 3.1. Context: Consultants are encouraged to provide visioning concepts for the Phase 1 Building, and future speculative development phases including the site of the 1944 addition to the historic county jail. 3.2. Phase 1 Building Site: The Phase 1 building site is confined to the two blocks incorporated by the topographic survey including that portion of Pine Street that bisects the two blocks. Competitors may propose removal of the Martinez Museum if desired. The two adjacent County owned residential parcels may be used for official vehicle parking. 4. Competition Submittals 4.1. All submissions are limited to the following: ♦ Four 30" horizontal by 40" vertical presentation surfaces, rigid mounted with drawings and text conforming to prescribed requirements. Drawings may span the surface of more than one board. ♦ Building massing models. ♦ Estimate of probable construction cost in a format similar to the attachment ♦ All submissions are to remain anonymous except for numerical designation provided by the Competition Manager. Page 1 of 5 Appendix A To Consulting Services Agreement Between Contra Costa County And An Architect For A Visioning Concept and Feasibility Study 4.2. Site Context ♦ Provide a Site Context Plan at 1"-50'-0"scale that incorporates the three phase site development and surrounding context. ♦ The context plan may include annotations to describe proposals for future downtown development. ♦ Include perspectives or vignettes as necessary to articulate the consultant's master plan vision for county facilities. 4.3. Phase 1 Building Floor Plans at 1"-20'-0"scale ♦ Ground or Entry level floor plan with departments and important building spaces labeled. ♦ One additional floor plan to illustrate the design concept ♦ One of the two floor plans shall include the Board of Supervisors Chambers 4.4. Phase 1 Building Elevations at 1'-20'-0"scale ♦ Elevation views shall include Marina Vista, Escobar, and Court Street. ♦ Identify major building materials on at least one building elevation. 4.5. Phase 1 Building and Wall Section ♦ One longitudinal building section at 1'-20'-0" scale. ♦ One wall section with typical building materials and profile at h"to 1"-0". 4.6. A Minimum of Two Perspective Drawings of the Phase 1 Building Provide one perspective from the mandatory view identified by the attachment. 4.7. Miscellaneous ♦ Include with competition boards a narrative description of the consultant's design philosophy and vision of a new government center in Martinez. ♦ Graphics and narratives other than those specified herein may be included on the presentation surfaces at the discretion of the consultant, as long as mandatory drawings are included and the maximum number of presentation surfaces is not exceeded. 4.8. Building Massing Model at 1 30"-0" scale ♦ Basswood model (or similar material) to depict the Phase 1 building mass and architectural features. Detailed building elevations are neither encouraged nor allowed. ♦ Phase 1 massing models must use the base provided. ♦ Consultants may provide massing models for the Phase 2 and Phase 3 developments. 4.9. Estimate of Probable Construction Cost ♦ Provide an estimate of probable construction cost conforming to the format and mark- ups prescribed by the attachment. The cost estimate shall be included in a sealed envelope and delivered with the presentation materials. Page 2 of 5 Appendix A To Consulting Services Agreement Between Contra Costa County And An Architect For A Visioning Concept and Feasibility Study 5. Communications 5.1. All communications regarding competition and building program requirements shall be directed to the Competition Manager: Mark J.Tortorich, AIA O'Brien Kreitzberg 2500 Alhambra Avenue Martinez,Ca 94553 925-370-5371 (main line) 925-335-1065 (direct) e-mail:tortorichookpcm.com 5.2. Competitors are prohibited from contacting the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors or any employee of Contra Costa County, Martinez City Council members, the Mayor, or other public officials during the period of the design competition. 5.3. Presentation Boards and Models may not identify the consultant in any way other than with the numerical designation provided by the Competition Manager. 5.4. Site Visit and Briefing: A site visit and briefing is tentatively scheduled for March 24, 2000 at 10:30a in Martinez, Ca. 5.5. Questions and Answers: ♦ All competition inquiries must be submitted in writing or via e-mail during the period for questions and answers. All questions and answers will be published periodically and at the conclusion of the question and answer period and distributed to all consultants. ♦ The Question and Answer period will commence March 27, 2000 and end April 14, 2000. 5.6. Delivery Location/Date/Time: s All materials shall be delivered to the Competition Manager by 3:00p April 28, 2000. Page 3 of 5 Appendix A To Consulting Services Agreement Between Contra Costa County And An Architect For A Visioning Concept and Feasibility Study Competition Submittal Requirements Mandatory Perspective View n x j 4, View from the Regional Park Page 4 of 5 Appendix A To Consulting Services Agreement Between Contra Costa County And An Architect For A Visioning Concept and Feasibility Study Competition Submittal Requirements Cost Estimate Format Units $/Unit Total SUBSTRUCTURE Foundations Basement Construction SHELL Superstructure Exterior Closure Roofing INTERIORS Interior Construction Staircases Interior Finishes SERVICES Conveying Systems Plumbing HVAC Fire Protection Electrical E UIPMENT AND FURNISHING Equipment Furnishings SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION/DEMO Special Construction Selective Building Demolition BUILDING SiTEWORK Site Preparation Site Improvements Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities Site Electrical Utilities Other Site Construction TOTAL EXCLUDING GC OH& Profit General Contractors OH & Profit 13% Design Contingency 10 Escalation 10% TOTAL ESTIMATED COST Page 5 of 5 a i r r r cw 66 i { • �- c Z O z uj W rrrr r am *a t �y t V CL �ry w rrr rs r r■riven'woo 0 0 •m U t� it •m ¢ GL am �rr �rr�rr �ritrr p�y F Z dw Wei t i t 0 W6rJ�.1 ./ W �A 0 t U IR a. s.r r vw w.rr j r� r 3NId 6- L., ..rr W r r W m L..j 0 r..r W wiuju z m u z z 0 v Appendix B to Consulting Services Agreement March 14, 2000 Between Contra Costa County and an Architect for a Visionin Concept and Feasibility Study PAYMENT A. The Public Agency agrees to pay the Consultant in one lump sum for full performance of the services on a fixed fee basis, in accordance with Sections 1 (e)and Appendix B in the Agreement. B. The Consultant's fee specified in subheading A above, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement,shall constitute full compensation to the Consultant for the services under this Agreement C. As a condition of payment the Consultant shall release the Public Agency from all liability. *END OF APPENDIX B* S:\EVERMARK\NEWADM1NWISAPPXB.DOC -`tom del Contra Costa County Government Center Response#4 to Competition Questions # date 1.0 3/24/00 Q: Can the City or County provide a summary of proposed developments in the surrounding areal' 3129/00 A: City Projects: (1) A new Intermodal Transit Station (see attachment) (2) Development proposals for a new parking garage and housing development on the block bound by Marina Vista, Ferry, Escobar, and Las Juntas Streets. County Projects: A new Family Law Center as noted in the program. 2.0 3/24/00 Q: Is the cost of moving the Martinez Museum included with the construction budget?_ 3/29/00 A: No. Land acquisitions and assembly costs are excluded from the construction budget as noted in the 2rogram. 3.0 3/24/00 Q: How many seats are currently in the City Council and County Board Chambers? 3/29/00 A: City Council Chambers: 7 Council Seats; 6 Staff, 1 Clerk; and 79 Public Seats County Board Chambers: 5 Supervisors + 2 Additional Seats for Subcommittee Members; 3 Clerks; 5 Press; 12 Staff,and 180 Public Seats 4.0 3/24/00 Q: Should the seating in the new Board Chambers be fixed? 3/29/00 A: Competitors may propose either fixed or movable seating. 4.1 3/24/00 Q: How many seats are required for the new Board Chambers? 3/29/00 A: New seating should accommodate current capacity plus additional seating to comply with ADA requirements. 5.0 3/24/00 Q: What is the preferred size of building floor plates? 3/29/00 A: The City and County have not expressed a minimum or maximum size for building floor plates. Floor plates in the existing County Administration Building are less than 5,000 square feet. These small floor plates are very inefficient. Other County facilities with 25,000 square foot floors have raven more efficient to plan and operate. 6.0 3/24/00 Q: Can the competitors liberally interpret the competition guidelines? 3/29/00 A: Competitors must provide the minimum requirements stated in the Consulting Services Agreement. Beyond that, competitors may use their best judgement in presentation. Publication Date: May 31, 2000 Page 1 Contra Costa County Government Center Response#4 to Competition Questions 7.0 3/24/00 Q: Please identify the professional jury. 3/29/00 A: The jurors are: David Meckel, FAIA Dean of Architectural Studies at the California College of Arts and Crafts; Craig Hartman, FAIA Partner Skidmore Owings and Merrill; Mary Margaret)ones, ASLA Hargreaves and Associates. 8.0 3/24/00 Q: Please confirm the due date. 3/29/00 A: All competition materials are due 3:OOp April 28, 2000. 9.0 3/24/00 Q: Can you provide an electronic copy of the site plan included with the program? 3/29/00 A: Yes. One was provided via electronic mail on 3/24/00. 10.0 3/24/00 Q: Please confirm the interview schedule. 3/29/00 A: 10:00a May 9, 2000: Dworsky 1:30p May 9, 2000: HOK 10:00a May 10, 2000: Fentress Bradburn 1:30p__May 10 2000: Moore Ruble Yudell with Fisher Friedman 11.0 3/31/00 Q: Can the County Administration Building (Phase 1) extend into the parcel identified for parking? A: Yes. However, no additional topographic, boundary survey or soils information is available for this parcel. Furthermore, the estimated construction cost will not be increased to account for additional site development costs. 12.0 3/31/00 Q: Can you provide an aerial photograph of the site? 3/31/00 A: The County can not provide an aerial photograph of the site. 13.0 3/31/00 Q: Can you provide a three-dimensional drawing of the Family Law Center? 3/31/00 A: Yes. Please see the attachment. 14.0 3/31/00 Q: Do you have elevations with floor heights of the Family Law Center? 3/31/00 A: Yes. Please see the attachment. 15.0 3/31/00 Q: Can we have more information on the Master Plan? 3/31/00 A: The "master plan" was used to select the site for the County Administration Building. No additional information is available. Publication Date: May 31, 2000 Page 2 Contra Costa County Government Center Response#4 to Competition Questions 16.0 3/31/00 Q: We would like more information regarding the park. 16.1 Can we have site information showing the train station and park areas? 16.2 What events take place in the ark? 3/31/00 A: Please refer to the information provided in response to question #1.0 and the attached newsletter reerding.the Muir Heritage Land Trust. 17.0 3/31/00 Q: Do you have a more comprehensive urban design plan of the downtown area? A: Unfortunately the downtown plan is under development and not currently available for distribution. 18.0 3/31/00 Q: It is our understanding that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is encouraging consultants to conduct outreach efforts with targeted business enterprises. Could you please specify if these consultants should be from Contra Costar Is it just as valid to use firms from the Bay Area? Also, could you estimate the percentage of consultants associated with this outreach program that we should user 4/3/00 A: The Outreach Program wishes to provide equal opportunity to all potential subconsultants including those with a place of business in Contra Costa County. 19.0 4/4/00 Q: Is there a definition of LBE? Are LBEs limited to firms within Contra Costa County or does the definition extend to surrounding counties as well? 4/4/00 A: An LBE (local business enterprise) is an enterprise whose principal place of business is located in Contra Costa Count 20.0 4/4/00 Q: Please advise us regarding the requirements for WBE/MBE participation su ested by the 5-page attachment to our 3/14/00 letter. 4/4/00 A: The five-page attachment provides the guidance necessary to comply with the Countys Outreach program. 21.0 4/10/00 Q: How is the cost estimate to be presented? Do we include it on the presentation boards or present it separately? 4/13/00 A: Appendix A Paragraph 4.9 to the Consulting Services Agreement provides requirements for presentation of the cost estimate. Please provide three co ies of the estimate. 22.0 4/10/00 Q: Can we have a basic ground floor plan of the Finance Building and the courthouse? 4/13/00 A: We will forward a plan under separate cover. 23.0 4/10/00 Q: Please clarify the two lots east of the site, which are available for 60 min. parking spaces. The preliminary space plan only shows one of the sites. 23.1 4/10/00 Can we build on top of the parking? 4/13/00 A: Please reference the site plan with the Preliminary Space Program. The hatched area to the east of the site includes two separate parcels. Each parcel contains one residential structure. The parking requirement is a minimum of 60 parking spaces. Competitors may propose construction on the two parcels as noted in the response to question #11.0. Publication Date: May 31, 2000 Page 3 Contra Costa County Government Center Response#4 to Competition Questions 24.0 4/11/00 Q: There is a large change in level across the site, how can we present this in a 1:30 model? Is there a way of incorporating the change using the base you gave us? 4/13/00 A: Competitors may alter the phase one base distributed at the site briefing, or create a new one. However, the finished product must fit into the County's context model. 25.0 4/11/00 Q: Can we have the elevations of the courthouse and the Finance Building? 4/13/00 A: We will forward this information under separate cover. 26.0 4/12/00 Q: How many copies of the Stage 11 requirements are we required to submit on April 28? 4/13/00 A: Competitors must provide three copies of the Supplementary Statement of ualifications. Publication Gate:May 31, 2000 Pape 4