Request For Qualifications (RFQ)
The primary purpose of this RFQ is to qualify and select a short list of highly qualified development teams, who will then be requested to participate in the Phase II RFP. In the RFQ, respondents are asked to provide their basic project concept to address the City’s objectives and requirements and qualify firms and their key personnel with regards to their ability to provide the experience, capacity and financial resources necessary to successfully execute each of the two project components. Only those development teams short-listed will move forward and participate in Phase II. The response requirements can be found in Section 4 of this RFQ.
Although it is the City’s preference to enter into a single contract with one development entity for the entire project, the RFQ contains separate qualification criteria for the Public Building development and the proposed Private Development. At this time, development teams may either propose qualifications for both the Public Building development and the Private Development, or can choose to submit qualifications for only one of the development components. Informed by the RFQ process and prior to releasing the RFP, the City will make a determination whether it will require short-listed teams to propose on both project components, or if teams may pursue either the City development or the Private Development independently. This decision will determine if one or two RFP’s will be issued in Phase II.
Appendix A-1: Private Site Map
Appendix A-2: Public Building Map
Appendix A-3: Regional Map
Appendix A-4: Hotel Feasibility Analysis
Appendix B: Forms A-B (Word file) - File Coming Soon
Appendix B: Forms C-E (Excel file) - File Coming Soon
Follow this link for Q&A from the Pre-Submittal Meeting: Nov 16., 2015 - File Coming Soon
• Issuance of the RFQ October 30, 2015
• Pre-Submittal Conference November 16, 2015
• Deadline for Submittal of Questions regarding the RFQ December 21, 2015 (Revised Dec. 3, 2015, from earlier due date of Nov. 27)
• Submittal Due Date for RFQ February 19, 2016 (Revised by Second Addendum from earlier due date of Jan. 8)
• Interviews of teams March 2016
• Shortlisting of qualified teams to participate in RFP March 2016
• Three Qualified teams selected to participate in RFP May 10, 2016
City of Napa Pre-Submittal Meeting – Question Log as of 11/16/15
Q: How many parking spaces are envisioned for the Public Building? How are they shared with proposed private development site?
A: Per RFQ, 225 spaces, but will most likely fall within 200 – 250 spaces. Exact number has not been determined as of yet. Space allocation still to be determined between the Public and Private sites.
Q: Is there more detailed programming available for the space required for Public Safety at the Public Building?
A: Yes, more so for the Public Safety portion and City will have more detailed information for the Administration portion prior to the issuance of the RFP. Big picture numbers will be uploaded to the website as well as the current Public Safety programming that has been done to date.
Q: Has City done any architectural test fits to confirm that City can meet requirements on the Public site?
A: Yes, City has done a test fit to confirm the requirements are achievable. City was hoping to get ideas from the proposing architects prior to issuing the City’s test fit as the City did not want to sway the answer.
Q: Beyond the 2.97 acres that are to be sold to development team, is there any other financial participation the City is looking at that the respondent should be considering?
A: City is open to creative financing packages that respondent may propose. Jones Lang LaSalle analyzed the opportunity as an outright disposition but City is open to any alternative financing solutions that will help the City provide offsetting revenues to construct the Public Building. City has hired a financial advisor to review respondents’ financing solutions. The City urges respondents to be creative in their financial solutions (i.e., what might have worked in past projects that can be applicable to this project). Any questions for the financial advisor should be directed through Julie Lucido.
Q: For RFP phase, City has indicated they will require detailed design drawings. Will a stipend be available to partially cover these costs for respondent teams?
A: Yes, City is expecting to have a stipend for shortlist members but amount has not yet been determined.
Q: Does the City of Napa have a Credit Rating?
A: The City has no debt to speak of but it has been several years since the City received a credit rating. However, the City expects to have a credit rating completed during the RFQ/P process.
Q: Are finances for respondent firms considered confidential?
A: Please refer to RFQ Section 1.6 for instructions on how to submit confidential information.
City of Napa Essential Services Bldg. & Re-Development RFQ – Q&A Log as of 12/15/15*
(*not inclusive of the Q&A from the Pre-Submittal meeting on 11/16/15. The Q&A document from the Pre-Submittal meeting can be found at www.cityofnapa.org - select Essential Services Building RFQ from the “Quick Links” Menu)
Question Received – Monday, 12/9/2015
Q: Given that submittal teams will include development firms, general contractors, architects, structural engineers, financing partners, etc., we’re a bit confused on which team members need to complete Form B in Appendix B.2. The RFQ seems to indicate that each firm involved should complete Form B in Appendix B.2, but questions 10-12 specifically seem aimed at the Development firms. Can you please clarify? Along the same lines, which firms need to complete Forms C, D & E? And provide financials?
A: Per Section 4.1.6 of the RFQ, each firm involved with the development team should fill out a separate Form B (Appendix B.2). For those associated firms that are not developers, Questions 10-12 on Form B (Appendix B.2) should be marked “N/A” as those questions will not apply to them. Only development firms are required to fill out Forms C, D & E (Appendix B.3 – B.5). Each participating firm on the Respondent team should provide the required financial documents as requested in Section 4.1.11.
Question Received – Monday, 11/30/2015
QUESTION – Is there any requirement for open space, public plaza space or public park space for this project? Will there be any requirement for these for when City Hall holds public events?
ANSWER – There is open space envisioned for the Civic Building but no specific requirements set forth in the RFQ. Additional details will be provided during the RFP phase.
Question Received – Friday, 11/27/2015
Q: The following question refers to both the public and public development opportunities: Sections 2.7 and 3.4 (“Project Personnel Minimum Requirements), and section 4.2.1.C (Technical Pass/Fail Criteria) of the RFQ do not mention several design professional roles that will likely be needed to complete the project, such as MEP engineers and civil engineers. If a responding team proposes specific firms for these roles and if that team is awarded the project, please verify that the firms proposed in these roles (which are currently excluded from the RFQ) will be engaged by the City as part of the winning team. Conversely, please confirm that the City will not dismiss responding teams who do not explicitly designate a singular firm to each of the roles stated in the aforementioned sections.
A: It would be the responsibility of the selected developer to obtain the services of any sub-contractors necessary to complete the project, and is expected that these sub-consultants would fall under the general contract made with the winning firm, not as separate contracts with the City.
The proposer must, however, propose individuals / firms to handle the specific responsibilities as requested in Sections 2.7, 3.4 and 4.2.1.C. If the respondent feels other key firms/personnel should be represented in the RFQ, responding firms are welcome to include those other key firms/personnel so long as the response does not exceed the stated page limit.
Question Received – Friday, 11/27/2015
Q: Please confirm that the City does not consider attendance at the November 16 Pre-Submittal Conference as requisite for consideration of the responding teams.
A: Correct, attendance at the November 16 Pre-Submittal Conference was not required to be considered for the project.
Question Received – Friday, 11/27/2015
Q: Given the City’s objectives identified in Section 1.0 of the RFQ and varying alternates and options available to the City for consideration at this preliminary state of the solicitation process, respondents are permitted to exercise discretion on the composition of their respective teams at this time. Please confirm the City of Napa will accept responses from “Private Development team” and/or “Developer” entities and permit entities to submit responses relying on their qualifications as a “Private Development team” and/or “Developer” for either the public development opportunity, the private development opportunity, or both. The recommended criteria for such evaluation would be the following consistent with the City’s RFQ dated 10/30/15.
A: Yes, respondents may propose for the public development opportunity, the private development opportunity or both. However, per Section 1.1, it is the City’s preference for a single development team to propose on both components, but it is not a prerequisite for consideration.
Question Received – Friday, 11/20/2015
Q: Do you have a list of what hotels are either under construction, in planning or that you know are proposed for development in Napa or in the County?
ANSWER – Please refer to the “Lodging & Conference Space Inventory-City of Napa & South County” document that is posted to the RFQ website at: http://www.cityofnapa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2048:essential-services-building-rfq-rfq-and-attachments&catid=60:uncategorised&highlight=WyJyZnEiXQ==&Itemid=104