There is substantial interest from multiple county departments for additional office space in the downtown Martinez area. Staff proposed replacing the old administrative complex at 651 Pine Street with a new office building with parking on the first floor and either one or two floors of office space above the parking. The Board of Supervisors approved issuing a request for proposals for both a two story and three story project at the February 9, 2021 meeting. Based on the proposals received and the interest from County departments for space, staff is recommending the Board approve the three-floor building.
The County's design consultant KMD Architects prepared conceptual plans and specifications for the demolition, office building and public open space and plaza to replace the old administrative complex and the Old Jail and annex. The Design-Build procurement process began in November, 2020, and the prequalification process was completed in December, 2020. The project RFP was issued on April 21, 2021. Final proposals were received by the County on June 30, 2021, and the best value evaluation was completed as described below in the Requests for Proposal / Selection Process Section below.
Request for Qualifications (RFQ):
The Public Works Department released the RFQ on November 12, 2020. The RFQ release was communicated to known contractors, including those in the County’s Local Vendor Database, advertised in the Daily Builder and published in the Contra Costa Times. It was posted to the Public Works Department Plan Room which is accessed via link on the Contra Costa County website under the Contracting Opportunities page. A Pre-RFQ conference for all interested vendors was held on December 3, 2020.
The RFQ required that a design-build team describe their outreach efforts to include minority business enterprises, woman-owned business enterprises, and small, local, disabled veterans, and other business enterprises as part of their subcontractors.
The RFQ also required the design-build teams to provide references from past projects. Specific questions included: quality of personnel and supervision, adherence to project schedule and budget, timely payment to subcontractors and suppliers, and adequacy of equipment.
The County received responses from five Design-Build teams, The County Administrator’s Office, in coordination with Public Works Department staff and the project construction management firm Vanir Construction Management, Inc. reviewed the information submitted and short listed the top three scoring firms on February 5, 2021 according to the RFQ criteria.
Request for Proposals / Selection Process:
The three shortlisted firms were invited to bid with the request for proposals released on April 21, 2021. On June 30, 2021 the Public Works Department received proposals from all three firms. A five person selection committee consisting of Chief Assistant County Administrators Eric Angstadt and Tim Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator Dennis Bozanich, Capitals Projects Division Manager Ramesh Kanzaria and Cymbre Potter, Project Manager with Vanir Construction Management scored the proposals and conducted interviews with the three teams.
In summary, the best value proposal evaluation process included two categories of factors: (1) the Evaluation Factor Categories evaluated on a favorable / unfavorable basis as follows:
A. Green Building Criteria/LEED-NC Silver or Higher
B. Skilled Labor and Safety Record
C. Schedule Compliance - a realistic plan to achieve the Project completion date
and (2) points Evaluation Factor Categories with points assigned as follows:
- Subconsultant/Subcontractor Outreach – (10 available points)
- Bridging Documents Conformance – (20 available points)
- Design & Construction Qualifications – (25 available points)
- Best Value Enhancements – (25 available points)
- Interview / presentation questions – (20 available points)
An additional 10 points was available to bidders if all three favorable / unfavorable factors were scored as favorable. Each member of the selection team independently filled out a scoring sheet for each proposal with a maximum of 110 points available. The scores from each panel member were added together giving a total score for each proposal with a maximum of 550 points. As described in the RFP. The qualifying Bidder with the maximum points will be recommended for the award of the Contract.
The results of the scoring process had Webcor with the highest rated proposal with 461.50 points and they were also the highest rated proposal for all five scoring members. Based on their unanimous highest scoring proposal, the selection committee recommends Webcor Construction's proposal as the best value for Contra Costa County citizens.
The contractor will be required to enter into a Project Labor Agreement in connection with the services to be performed under the contract.
The RFP provided that a stipend in the amount of $75,000 would be paid to any responsible bidder, other than the bidder to whom the Contract is awarded, that submitted a proposal determined by the County to be both balanced and responsive. The stipend is designed to compensate non-awarded bidders for (1) some of the additional efforts bidders expend in developing, refining and enhancing their proposals during the RFP and supplemental information process, and (2) for County’s ownership of the bidder’s proposal documents.
One of the advantages of using a Design Build method of procurement is that the designs can continue to evolve which allows additional improvements and value engineering to the County as we move forward with the project.
For the project the following major additions and improvements are part of the proposed contract:
LEED Gold rating
True Waste Certification documenting over 95% recycling/reuse of both demolition and construction waste
Building entrance designed with universal access features
Plaza design that uses historic materials from the Old Jail in the original footprint of the Old Jail building
All electric systems to reduce carbon footprint and reduce energy costs
Any approval of the above recommended actions is contingent on the Board approving of the Administration Demolition and Redevelopment Project and making a California Environmental Quality Act determination in connection with the project (that item precedes this item on today's agenda. On April 25, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project (Jail Demolition Project) and certified that project's CEQA environmental impact report. A notice of determination was filed on April 27, 2017. On September 12, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved County Administration Building Replacement Project (New Administration Building Project), which included construction of the new County Administration Building at 1025 Escobar Street, and the demolition of the old County Administration Building at 651 Pine Street, among other actions (New Administration Building Project). A CEQA notice of exemption for that project was filed on September 15, 2017.
The Administration Demo and Redevelopment Project, Jail Demolition Project, and the New Administration Building Project are separate projects for CEQA purposes because (1) each project can be undertaken independently, and/or (2) none of the project depends on any other project, and/or (3) none of the projects is a consequence of any other project. Further, when the New Administration Building Project was approved on September 12, 2017, there were no plans to replace the old administration building at 651 Pine Street with another building. Therefore, at that time, any future use of that property for a new building project was, at best, speculative.
Not approving the action would leave the County with multiple vacant buildings in downtown Martinez which are not economically feasible to rehabilitate for other uses and which will continue to deteriorate if not demolished. The item to approve the project and make the CEQA finding should be considered and approved before this item is considered.
Speakers: Harland Strickland, Architectural Preservation Foundation, Contra Costa County. Written commentary received from Cheryll Grover, Architectural Preservation Foundation; Christine Dean; Priscilla Tudor (attached).