01 WTP - RFQ 25-12.pdf

City of Gunnison – RFQ for Water Treatment Plant Progressive Design-Build Services

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FOR

P R O G R E S S I V E D E S I G N - B U I L D S E R V I C E S

THE CITY OF GUNNISON WATER TREATMENT PLANT

July 22, 2025

City of Gunnison, Colorado

Table of Contents

PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND

Project Scope Summary

Project Scope

Project Budget and Funding

Risk Allocation

PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT PROCESS

Procurement Schedule

Pre-SOQ Meeting and Site Visit

Submittal Method and Deadline

QUALIFICATIONS EVALUATION AND SHORT-LISTING

Responsiveness (Pass/Fail)

Minimum Qualifications Requirements (Pass/Fail)

Evaluation Criteria

Short-Listing

SOQ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

Submittal Format

Submittal Content

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS

City Authority

Appendices to this RFQ

Ineligible Firms and Individuals

Proprietary Information

Rights of the City

Obligation to Keep Project Team Intact

Addenda

Protests

RFQ APPENDIX A

PRELIMINARY RISK ALLOCATION MATRIX AND TERM SHEET

RFQ APPENDIX B

INDEX OF PROJECT BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Background Documents

PUBLIC AWARDS (INFORMATIONAL)

Item A. State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs Grant Award EIAF 9813

Item B. State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs Local Match Program 23022

Item C. U.S. Department of the Interior Grant No. R24AP00469-00

RFQ APPENDIX D LIST OF RESPONDENT ATTACHMENTS TO THE RFQ RESPONSE

Attachment A: Design-Build Entity (Team Structure and Participating Company Profiles)

Attachment B: Design-Builder’s Delivery Team (Key Personnel and References)

Attachment C: Design-Builder Relevant Project Experience Summary (People and Project Experience Table)

Attachment D: Design-Builder Relevant Project Experience Detail (Relevant Project Descriptions and References)

Attachment E: Essential Requirements for Qualification and Certification (Pass/Fail Checklist and Required Documentation)

Project Objectives and Background

By implementing the PDB delivery method for this Project, the City is committed to working in close collaboration with the selected Design-Builder during Phase 1 to develop a design and funding for construction that achieves the City objectives at a mutually agreeable Contract Price, implemented as a GMP or LS for delivery of the Project. The City also expects the Design-Builder to construct the Project, as designed, within the agreed-upon price and schedule, through commissioning, startup, and Acceptance.

Prior to determining that PDB would be the preferred delivery method to meet the City’s Water System Improvement Community Objectives, the City created a program for the Project through a public process that established a broad overall set of objectives for the Project, regardless of the ultimate delivery method.

Water System Improvement Community Objectives

• Provide a reliable, ef�icient, and resilient water delivery system through a water treatment facility accepted and permitted by CDPHE and in accordance with the PUD Standards;

• Utilize an advanced and innovative approach to ensure proactive regulatory compliance and exceptional leadership in water quality;

• Provide protection of surface and groundwater resources from contamination and depletion;

• Incorporate best practices for effective design, construction and operations that achieve long-term sustainability of the Project to prevent, minimize or eliminate environmental impacts to ecosystem and wetland health, the aquifer recharge and aquatic and terrestrial species;

• Minimize soil compaction and disturbance to decrease impacts to permeable surfaces;

• Ensure sustainability of the aquatic ecosystem and providing residents with potable water during extreme drought events;

• Respect and protect for the allowable land uses on the property that are compatible with water quality standards;

• Minimize the scale and height of building(s) and associated infrastructure to provide protection of ecosystems and viewsheds;

• Ensure an architectural style that is consistent with the surrounding natural environment and character of existing structures within the land use area;

• Minimize light and noise pollution during construction and during operations of the water systems;

• Maximize energy ef�iciency during construction and operations of the water systems;

• Identify opportunities for ecosystem restoration, including restoration of natural vegetation, hydrology, and wildlife habitats;

• Ensure that life-safety and access is maintained by incorporating best industry practices throughout the Project;

• Provide effective project management by implementing a strong quality management program, resolving issues before they become critical and costly, achieving the earliest date of operations that is consistent with reliable and high-quality design and construction, and remain �iscally responsible in decisions.

The following Project-specific objectives then served as the basis for selecting PDB as the preferred delivery method:

• High Performance in Meeting Water Quality Objectives

• Reliably meet permit conditions

• Reliably meet additional high-importance treatment outcomes (beyond the permit)

• Avoid negatively impacting the existing distribution system with new water blend

• Equitably Share Risk between the City and the Design-Builder:

• Establish performance metrics and then assign equitable performance accountability to a

Design-Builder

• Collaborate with a Design-Builder to obtain performance that can be demonstrated via an

Acceptance test

• Implement contractual recourse to be certain that the completed Project meets pre-established performance requirements

Deliver Quality:

• Protect the interests of the City’s rate payers via implementation of a quality project that our community can be proud of

• Promote durability and protect the new facilities against environmental risks, now and in the future

• Make good investment decisions to accommodate future conditions, including population growth and regulatory change

Support Smooth Transition to Operations and Maintenance:

• Promote meaningful Operations and Maintenance (O&M) engagement in scope and design decisions

• Integrate O&M participation in training during design, construction, and commissioning

• Ensure that O&M can successfully operate the WTP at Substantial Completion, and has access to training and post-project support

Generate a Predictable Cost

• Reliably establish the total cost relatively early in the Project

• Obtain an early cost estimate that is unlikely to signi�icantly change

• Prioritize life cycle cost if practical, accounting for initial capital and long-term O&M

Successfully short-listed Respondents will have demonstrated an understanding of these objectives via their response to this RFQ.

Project Scope Summary The Gunnison Water Treatment Plant Project (collectively, the “Project”) is comprised of three components:

Project 1: Design and Engineering (D+E): Preliminary studies, design reports, and raw water design for a surface water intake and wells #11, #12, and #13. Construction (Drilling), via bidding, of wells (Fall 2025) and the surface water intake (Summer 2026). This element of the Project is not included in this PDB solicitation. Bidding is expected to take place in Summer of 2025 for the wells and winter of 2025 for the surface water intake.

Projects 2 and 3: Project 2 encompasses the design and construction of transmission mains and distribution; Project 3 encompasses the design and construction of the Water Treatment Plant (WTP).

These projects are bundled together for this PDB solicitation.

The design for projects 2 and 3 was initially instigated on the City’s premise of using a traditional design and bidding process or CMAR delivery. As such, the design has progressed to date approximately the 30% design milestone by a third party that is precluded from participating in this PDB solicitation.

As a result of adopting PDB going forward, the City has paused the design effort, and the selected design-builder will be offered the use of (but not obligated to so use) any existing work product for which the City has rights, subject to such selected design builder acknowledging and agreeing that it accepts such existing design in its “AS IS WHERE IS WITH ALL FAULTS” condition and assumes the risk of all errors and omissions in such existing design, none of which City warrants is complete, complies with applicable legal requirements, is merchantable, fit or suitable for its intended purpose or otherwise free from errors or defects. The selected design-builder, if it so utilizes or relies on such existing design, will assume the risk that such design is incomplete or defective and will release the City of and from all liability regard thereto.

While it is the City’s intention to require the design-builder to adhere to the existing plans only to the extent necessary to maintain current permitting and funding status and to document site use and related site use, access, or layout constraints, the existing design should be viewed by Respondents as a “baseline” from which the Respondents proposes their own value-added improvements and vendor selection while at all times exercising their sole discretion and professional judgment in creating a design that will satisfy the City’s program objectives. Additional detail regarding use of the existing design, flexibility for design-build changes, and performance requirements will be provided to Short-listed Respondents in the RFP.

The City estimated that the design and engineering scope for. Projects 2 and 3 would equate to approximately 10% of the constructed value of the facilities, or about $4 million. Approximately $1 million of the design budget has been expended to date, and the remaining budget is subject to significant adjustment based on the change in approach and efficiency potential for PDB. Currently, the City has secured approximately $3,600,000 in funding to complete the design.

At this time, the City has not secured funding for the construction of Projects 2 and 3. The Preliminary Design Report completed 2023 outlines several potential funding opportunities for the scope, estimated at approximately $40 million, including:

• Colorado Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWRF) construction loan

• Colorado Energy/Mineral Impact Assistance Fund Grant (EIAF), Tier II

• Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Drought Resiliency

• Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS)

• Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)

• The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Water Project Loan Program

• Municipal Bonds

It is the City’s expectation that the selected design builder will support in the identification, application, and award of funds from these and other sources as a significant element of its Phase 1 Design and Preconstruction scope. Respondents are encouraged to relay their experience and insight in obtaining funding in their responses to this solicitation. In an effort to conceptualize the entire program and integration of all projects within the program, additional information on Phase 1, will be included in the

RFP.

Project Scope Project 2 efforts to date include the 30 percent design of conveyance infrastructure between the raw water sources, the new WTP, and the distribution system. Alignment drawings were completed for the manifolding of wells 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 to the new WTP and distribution leaving the WTP. Site control plans, overall utility plans, and utility details have also been developed. 30 percent plan and profile drawings were completed for the raw water piping from the intake to the River Pump Station.

Project 3 efforts include 30 percent design of the well houses, river pump station, WTP, and maintenance shops building. Preliminary calculations were performed to size raw water pumps from the river and wells, chemical feed systems for pretreatment and coagulant dosing, the membrane filtration system, disinfection and future pH adjustment, high service finished water pumps, a residuals handling system, and WTP tanks. The 30 percent drawings include a hydraulic profile of the proposed water system, Process Flow Diagram (PFD) and Process & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs), and process, civil, architectural, structural, and electrical sheets.

The City with input from the community, previously developed a “Water System Improvement Community Objectives”, as described above, which outlines the key objectives established by the City and community for the WTP, raw water wells, underground utilities, and ancillary buildings located on the VTR. The current design concept includes a WTP site layout (shown below) located at the Van Tuyl Ranch.

The current Project’s sizing was based water production data analyzed in the Water Master Plan, including City-provided maximum day water demand data from 2019 to 2024. The maximum daily production during spring was approximately 2.8 MGD, which equates to an annual water demand growth rate of 2.7 percent. Based on this information, it was recommended that the WTP and associated water system improvements be designed for a capacity of 4 MGD firm (with one treatment train out of operation) and 5 MGD total (all treatment trains in operation), with the ability for future expansion to 6 MGD. This information was presented to and approved by City Council on April 23, 2024, prior to finalizing the 30 percent design. Respondents are encouraged to relay their experience and insight to review this data and recommend the treatment system most appropriate for the City’s current and future needs.

Project Budget and Funding The City anticipates that this Project will be funded by a combination of federal, state, and local funds (“Public Awards”). Respondents are on notice that Phase 1 is funded with contributions from the following public funding awards, which are provided in Appendix E:

• State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs Grant Award EIAF 9813

• State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs Local Match Program 23033

• U.S. Department of the Interior Grant No. R24AP00469-00

As the recipient of these Phase 1 Public Awards, the City must comply with the terms and conditions of each, including without limitation Colorado State requirements and those set forth in 2 CFR Part 200, the federal Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, as amended, modified, or supplemented (“Public Award Requirements”). Any awardee under this solicitation must also comply with all Public Award Requirements. Any subawards or contracts entered into by the awardee or its subrecipients or contractors at any tier in connection with this Agreement must likewise be in compliance with all applicable Public Award Requirements.

Risk Allocation This Project is being delivered using PDB. As such, it is expected that the design-builder will assume certain equitably allocated performance and commercial risks that may require demonstrated compliance via an Acceptance test process subsequent to commissioning activities. A summary of the risks to be further defined in the RFP and design-build contract is included in Appendix A. This risk summary is provided to inform Respondents of the City’s anticipated risk framework for this project.

Further details regarding proposed risk allocation will be provided in the RFP, including a draft design-build contract. The Phase 1 contract will include draft performance requirements which are expected to be refined and finalized as part of the Phase 2 Construction contract terms.

Progressive Design-Build Procurement Process

The Project is to be designed and constructed in two phases using the Progressive Design-Build (PDB) delivery method:

• Phase 1 Design and Preconstruction Services (Phase 1) encompasses the full design of the Project, supported by constructability reviews, value engineering, estimating construction, leading grant acquisition and scheduling activities. The City currently has funding in hand to support Phase 1 scope. Identifying funding sources, preferably public grants and low interest loans for Phase 2 construction, will be a signi�icant element of the design-builder’s preconstruction scope.

• Transition to Phase 2 occurs when Phase 1 Preconstruction is completed, funding for Phase 2 identi�ied and secured, and agreement on the Project schedule and Contract Price have been agreed to by the design builder and the City. Agreement on a Contract Price and Project Schedule for Phase 2 will be implemented, pursuant to a Contract Price Amendment to the Progressive Design Build Contract as a Cost of the Work per unit per Design-Builder’s Fee with a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). It is the City’s objective to agree on the Contract Price as early in the design process as feasible (e.g., at the 60% design milestone), but no later than the 95% design milestone. In no event will a Contract Price Amendment to the Progressive Design Build Contract be executed unless and until the City has secured appropriate funding for Phase 2 in amounts and on terms and conditions acceptable to the City in its sole and absolute discretion.

Phase 2 Public Award Requirements: The City anticipates that Phase 2 will also include funding from Public Awards. Any applicable Phase 2 Public Award Requirements will be provided to the design builder as part of the Contract Price Amendment, and the design builder (and its lower-tier subawardees and contractors) must comply with all such requirements as a condition of commencing Phase 2.

• Phase 2 Construction (Phase 2) commences at the milestone where the design-builder assumes the general contractor role, completes the engagement of subcontractors and vendors, self-performs certain elements of the construction (where permitted, and at the City’s discretion), and oversees the full construction, commissioning, and Acceptance of the Project according to the schedule and all other parameters agreed upon as part of the Contract Price.

This Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the Project invites Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) according to the requirements set forth in this RFQ, including the included format and content guidelines. Respondents’ SOQs will be reviewed and evaluated, as described herein, to select a short-list of up to three Respondents. The City intends to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to the Short-listed Respondents, inviting them to submit a Proposal in response to the RFP, ultimately leading to award of a Progressive Design-Build (PDB) Contract for the Project.

In no event will the City be liable for any costs incurred by any Respondent or any other party in developing or submitting an SOQ or Proposal. All terminology and definitions used herein are subject to revision and precedence of any terms defined in the Project’s contract documents. This RFQ includes terminology, and definitions based the Water Collaborative Delivery Association (WCDA) Water and Wastewater Collaborative Delivery Handbook, sixth edition, and WCDA’s Procurement Guides, used with permission with attribution.

On behalf of the City, Jackie Johnson, Procurement, Contracts and Grants administrator, will act as the sole point of contact for this RFQ and shall administer the RFQ process. All communications shall be submitted by email and shall specifically reference this RFQ. All questions or comments should be directed as follows:

Jackie Johnson Procurement, Contracts and Grants Administrator Jjohnson@gunnisonco.gov

No oral communications from the City's contact or other individuals are binding. No contact with the City’s staff or any public officials concerning the Project during the procurement process outside of formal procurement meetings is allowed. A violation of this provision may result in disqualification of Respondent.

Procurement Schedule The City’s anticipated procurement schedule for this Project is as follows, subject to change at City’s sole discretion:

Activity Anticipated Dates

RFQ release July 22, 2025

RFQ-related questions from Respondents due August 11, 2025 (no later than)

RFQ-related answers and final addenda issued August 21, 2025 (no later than)

SOQs from Respondents due August 28, 2025 (no later than 2:00PM MT)

Short-listed Respondents notified September 15, 2025

RFP issued to Short-listed Respondents September 18, 2025

Site access provided to Short-listed Respondents October 1 and/or 2, 2025 (by appointment)

One-on-One Confidential Meetings with Short-Listed Respondents October 8 and/or 9, 2025

RFP-related questions from Short-listed Respondents due October 14, 2025 (no later than)

RFP-related answers issued October 23, 2025 (no later than)

Proposals from Short-listed Respondents due October 30, 2025 (no later than 2:00PM MT)

Short-listed respondent Interviews (at City’s option, in person) November 12, 2025

Notice of intent to negotiate with successful Short-listed Respondent November 17, 2025

Negotiations complete with successful Short-listed Respondent December 2, 2025 (no later than)

City of Gunnison City Council Approval December 9, 2025

Phase 1 Notice to Proceed January 5, 2026 mailto:Jjohnson@gunnisonco.gov

Pre-SOQ Meeting and Site Visit The City will not be conducting a Pre-SOQ meeting. Potential Respondents are encouraged to ask questions regarding this procurement via the process described herein. The City will provide access to the WTP site by appointment for short-listed firms, upon request, which may be made directly to Jackie Johnson via email at: Jjohnson@gunnisonco.gov.

Submittal Method and Deadline Submittals must be received in the RMEPS submission portal: https://www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado on or before 2:00PM Mountain Time on August 28, 2025. Hardcopy submittals will not be accepted. It is the Respondent’s sole responsibility to ensure all required documents are submitted through RMEPS by the submission deadline. RMEPS does not allow for uploading of documents after the submittal due date and time has closed. Electronic submittals must be made in .PDF format with no file use restrictions or passwords. Note that the Supporting Financial and Company Documentation required for Attachment E must be submitted as a separate PDF via BidNet.

The Submittal will be time-stamped by RMEPS upon receipt. After uploading Submittal documents, Respondents must click the SUBMIT button. The City of Gunnison will not accept uploads that are “saved” but not “submitted.” To verify that a Submittal has been submitted successfully, Respondents may contact BidNet Support or verify, via the Bid Management tab in the Respondent’s account, that the documents are not in “Draft” status. The City does not have access to or control of the Vendor side of RMEPS. Please contact RMEPS at 1-800-835-4603, Option 2, for technical assistance.

Please Note: Addenda may be issued for this RFQ and will be posted online at https://www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado. Respondents shall ensure all addenda issued are acknowledged and responses thereto submitted along with the required Submittal documents. Failure to submit such responses may result in disqualification of the respective Submittal.

Statements of Qualifications (as hereinafter defined) received after the specified due date and time, or which are not prepared and filed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”), may not be considered for evaluation.

mailto:Jjohnson@gunnisonco.gov https://www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado https://www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado

Qualifications Evaluation and Short-Listing

The submittals will be reviewed and evaluated by the City’s selection committee (with non-voting assistance provided by outside advisors, if desired by the City) according to the requirements and criteria outlined in this RFQ. During the evaluation process, questions or requests for clarification may be submitted to one or more Respondents regarding its submittal or related matters. Failure to respond in a timely manner to any such questions or requests may be grounds for the elimination of the Respondent from further consideration.

Responsiveness (Pass/Fail) Each submittal will be initially screened by the City to determine whether it is responsive to the RFQ.

Failure to comply with the requirements of this RFQ may result in a Respondent being rejected as nonresponsive. At its sole discretion, however, the City may waive any such failure to meet a requirement of this RFQ and may request clarification or additional information to remedy a deficiency.

Responsiveness will be evaluated based conformance to the submittal instructions herein, including the following the required format and page limitations.

Minimum Qualifications Requirements (Pass/Fail) Subsequent to determining that a submittal is responsive, submittals will be reviewed by the City to determine whether they meet minimum qualification requirements. At its sole discretion, the selection committee may waive any failure to satisfy such requirements and may request clarification or additional information to address any questions that may arise in this regard. Any submittal that does not satisfy all of the following minimum requirements may be eliminated from further consideration.

Responsiveness will be evaluated based on the responses provided in Attachment E: Essential Requirements for Prequalification and Certification.

Evaluation Criteria The City will evaluate and rank the responsive and qualified submittals by applying these evaluation criteria and weighting:

Submittal Section Evaluation Weight

Transmittal Letter Responsiveness Pass/Fail

Part 1 Executive Summary Responsiveness Pass/Fail

Part 2 Design-Builder Profile and Key Firms (Includes Attachment A) 20%

Part 3 Project Team Structure and Key Personnel (Includes Attachment B, and feedback from individual references) 25%

Part 4 Relevant Project Experience (Includes Attachments C and D, and feedback from project references) 30%

Part 5 Project Approach 25%

Attachment E - Essential Requirements for Prequalification and Certification Responsiveness Pass/Fail

Other Required Forms Responsiveness Pass/Fail

Short-Listing After the evaluation process is complete, the City will notify Respondents of their qualification status.

Unqualified Respondents will be eliminated from consideration for selection for this Project. The most qualified Respondents will be short-listed and invited to respond to the RFP. Qualified Respondents that are not short-listed will remain eligible for short-listing in the event that a Short-listed Respondent elects not to participate in the RFP process or is otherwise removed from competition at the City’s sole discretion.

SOQ Submittal Requirements

Submittal Format The SOQ shall be formatted as follows and provided as a .PDF file that is not locked or restricted in any manner. Individual file size is limited to 400MB per bidding website.

Page limits: The SOQ narrative, resumes, and project descriptions must not exceed the page limits noted below, which exclude the front and back covers, table of contents, title pages/separation tabs, and other attachment content. Pages may be formatted as single- or double-sided, with each face counting as a page. The SOQ may include up to four (4) 11 × 17 pages; each 11 x 17 face counts as two pages.

Electronic version: The submitted PDF must contain bookmarks for each section.

Front Cover: SOQ front cover shall be labeled:

[RESPONDENT NAME]

[PROJECT TITLE]

[PROJECT NUMBER]

[STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS]

[DATE OF SUBMITTAL]

Submittal Content The following content requirements represent the required format and structure of the SOQ Submittal, including specific page limits per section. The SOQ should not contain any additional marketing or other materials. Respondent’s SOQ attachments must be included in the order listed following the main body of the RFQ response narrative.

The SOQ must include the following information in the order listed.

RFQ Response Narrative (to be arranged in the order presented):

Transmittal Letter (limited to two pages)

Part 1 Executive Summary (limited to four pages)

Part 2 Design-Builder Profile Summary Narrative (limited to four pages)

Part 3 Design-Builder’s Delivery Team Narrative (limited to four pages)

Part 4 Relevant Project Experience Narrative (limited to two pages)

Part 5 Approach to Successful Progressive Design-Build Delivery (limited to six pages)

Attachments

(refer to Appendix D, to be attached following the RFQ Response Narrative, in the order presented):

Attachment A: Design-Builder Entity Detail Team Structure Detail

Participating Company Profiles (company descriptions limited to two pages each)

Attachment B: Design-Builder’s Delivery Team Key Personnel Resumes and References (limited to two pages each)

Attachment C: Design-Builder Relevant Project Experience Summary People and Project Experience Table

Attachment D: Design-Builder Relevant Project Experience Detail Relevant Project Descriptions and References (limited to four pages each)

Attachment E: Essential Requirements for Prequalification and Certification Pass/Fail Checklist and Attached Required Documentation

Financial Statements (to be submitted separately via BidNet)

The following table lists the RFQ Response Narrative requirements and section-by-section page limits, instructions to Respondents for the information desired in each section, and the overall evaluation factors that will be used by the City to evaluate submittals:

Section/Pages RFQ Response Narrative Content Instructions Evaluation Factors

Transmittal Letter (two-pages maximum)

Respondents must submit a transmittal letter on the Respondent’s letterhead. It must be signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent with the ability to commit the Respondent to the obligations contained in the herein. The transmittal letter must include the name, address, phone number, and email address for the Respondent’s authorized representative. If different, also provide an additional point of contact to receive RFQ and RFP Addenda and other communications on the Respondent’s authorized representative’s behalf.

Within the allocated page limit, the Transmittal Letter must acknowledge the number and date of each RFQ Addenda and may include other information deemed relevant by the Respondent.

Pass/Fail

The transmittal letter must affirm the truthfulness and accuracy of the submittal, confirm receipt of all addenda, and provide the requested contact information.

Part 1 Executive Summary (four pages maximum)

The Executive Summary must include a concise overview of the key elements of the submittal suitable for the City leadership review. The Executive Summary shall not be used to convey additional information not found elsewhere in the submittal.

Pass/Fail

The Executive Summary should not contain any materials not otherwise addressed in the submittal

Part 2 Design- Builder Profile Summary (Narrative:

four pages maximum) (Additional required information:

not included in this page count, provide in Attachment A as noted.)

For the Narrative Response:

Provide an overview description of the design-builder (lead entity/JV Members) and participating firms (e.g., subconsultants/subcontractors), with supporting detail and individual company profiles provided in Attachment A.

Note that required information applies to the members of the design-build entity and not to additional participating firms (e.g., subconsultants/subcontractors), except as specifically noted. In the case of a Joint Venture (JV), all parties to the JV must provide requested information.

For the narrative response, describe the design-builder’s entity structure and each participating firm’s services and responsibilities, including the following information:

• PDB Legal Structure. Identify whether the PDB is organized as a corporation, limited liability company (LLC), general partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, or other form of legal entity. Describe how the PDB has used this structure, or a similar structure, to deliver similar projects.

• General Description. Provide general information about the design-builder, such as lines of business and service offerings, locations of home and other offices, and relevant resources.

• Project Office Location. Identify where the design-builder intends to maintain its Project office(s) and the location where the Design-Builder’s management of the Project will be conducted.

• Safety Summary. Provide a summary description of the PDB’s corporate safety program and include a summary of safety statistics for the design-builder and any additional team member anticipated to be responsible for construction

This section will be evaluated on a scored basis to reflect the overall compatibility of the Design-Builder’s capacity and capability for the work required on this type and size of Project. The PDB’s legal structure will be evaluated on its potential benefits, including risk mitigation, to the City.

Capability and capacity of additional participating firms will be considered in the evaluation, especially in regard to previous participation with the design-builder on past relevant projects and with respect to safety performance.

Section/Pages RFQ Response Narrative Content Instructions Evaluation Factors activities. At a minimum, include:

- OSHA Experience Modification Rates (EMR) for the past three years. If any of these values are greater than the industry average of 1.0, Respondent may include mitigating information to explain the reasons for the EMR rating.

- Days-away-from-work injury incidence rates, indicating categories of accidents and their incidence or frequency rates for the past three years.

• Additional Participating Firms. Identify and provide general information (e.g., brief summary narrative or table) for any additional participating firms (such as subcontractors and subconsultants) included to augment the Respondent’s qualifications but that are not otherwise party to the design-builder’s formal entity (e.g., not an affiliate of the design-builder itself or part of a JV or other type of consortium). These entities’ qualifications and resources will be considered with the design-builders’ qualifications, particularly in regard to participation on relevant projects.

Include in Attachment A:

Provide additional narrative details regarding the Design-Builder entity, including specific roles within its team structure (e.g., split of Project responsibilities and past working relationships among members of the design-build entity). For JVs or partnerships, provide a description of the agreement among the parties that clarifies intended risk sharing and intentions for joint and several liability. Include a team structure (companies) organization chart clearly showing Design-Build entity member(s) and their relationships to additional participating firms

Provide detailed company descriptions for members of the Design-Builder entity (limited to two pages per each company). Do not include descriptions for additional participating firms (e.g., subconsultants/subcontractors) except for the Design-Builder’s lead design entity (if not part of the Design-Build entity itself).

Include in Attachment E:

Complete all the required information in Attachment E, including the Oath of Truthfulness, which should mirror the signatory commitment in the Transmittal Letter.

Pass/Fail Elements:

Data provided as required for Attachment E will be reviewed for completeness, an accuracy and then a pass/fail basis as noted in the Attachment E instructions.

Part 3 Design- Builder’s Delivery Team (Narrative, including the organizational chart and summary tables: four pages maximum) (Resumes: not included in this page count, provide in Attachment B, as noted)

For the Narrative Response:

Describe the structure and management of the design-builder’s delivery team.

Note that any change in the design-builder entity, subcontractors and subconsultants, or Key Personnel included in the submittal are subject to the provisions outlined in the RFQ (Obligation to the Design-Build Delivery Team Intact), which requires the City pre-approval of such changes. Include:

• Design-Build Delivery Team Organization. Include organizational chart(s) identifying all Key Personnel (and their firm affiliations) and other named personnel/positions that are deemed important for delivery of the Project. Show reporting relationships of all Key Personnel and other named personnel/positions during Phase 1 and Phase 2. Explain how the organization might change as the project evolves. Describe how the Design-Build Delivery Team’s qualifications and experience are of unique benefit to the Project in light of the Respondent’s progressive design-build approach described in Part 5.

• Key Personnel Experience and Qualifications. Provide a narrative and summary table that identifies the following Key Personnel, and functions at a minimum (individuals may fill multiple roles and titles may vary as long as alignment to the required functions is clear):

This section will be evaluated on the potential benefit of the respondent’s organizational approach, Project continuity, clear lines of authority and accountability, and refinement of the delivery approach to meet the specific needs of this Project.

Key Personnel will be evaluated on the quality and applicability of each Key Personnel’s experience and

Section/Pages RFQ Response Narrative Content Instructions Evaluation Factors

- Overall Project Manager (person responsible throughout the project and primary point of accountability to the City)

- Overall Design Manager (person responsible for leading the design development process)

- Preconstruction Manager (person responsible for overseeing the Phase 1 Preconstruction Phase cost, schedule, and construction scope development, working with the City’s Designer(s))

- Construction Manager (person responsible for overseeing the Phase 2 Construction activities, presumably primarily at the project site)

- Additional Optional Key Positions. Identify up to two additional Key Personnel/functions (e.g., Funding Lead) that are deemed by the Respondent to be critical for meeting this Project’s objectives, as additional roles may be optionally added by the Respondent to supplement the three required Key Personnel positions. Provide a narrative that summarizes the rationale for adding the optional Key Personnel role(s) and include these personnel, if any, in the summary table required above.

• Other Named Personnel/Positions. Provide a brief narrative or table discussing the benefit and value to the City for additional (non-key) positions shown on the project delivery organization chart(s). Within the page count, provide a table listing the other named personnel/positions in conjunction with a brief biographical summary of the qualifications for the individuals listed.

Include in Attachment B:

Submit resumes with the required information, including references in the format described in Attachment B. Resumes are only required for Key Personnel, and are not desired for any other named personnel/positions shown on the project delivery organization chart(s). Each Key Personnel Resume is limited to two pages.

Include in Attachment C:

Complete the information provided in the Attachment C table with information regarding key personnel and roles for each relevant project experience summary.

reference feedback.

In addition, the rationale and project-specific benefit of additionally named Key Personnel will be evaluated.

Other named personnel will be evaluated on their potential benefit to the project, and qualifications of the named persons.

The tie between proposed Key Personnel and Key Projects will be evaluated as essential to achieving a higher score.

Part 4 Relevant Project Experience (Narrative, including the relevant project summary chart: two pages maximum) (People and Projects Experience Matrix, Attachment C and Project Descriptions, For the Narrative Response:

Describe the performance history and experience of the Design-Builder and participating firms on similar projects, including a description of past working relationships together. Within the page limit, provide a summary table of relevant projects to demonstrate a breadth of experience. Include the project name and owner, the project’s value (total installed cost); delivery method (e.g., PDB), and the role/value of provided services by any of the Design-Builder and participating firms. In the table, include and identify or highlight (e.g., bold) the Key Projects being submitted with full project descriptions and references as required for Attachment D described below.

Note that “Project Relevance” is defined for this Project by the criteria A through G listed across the top of the table in Attachment C.

Include in Attachment C:

Complete the People and Projects Experience Table in Attachment C. The matrix should clearly identify how the Respondent’s relevant project experience aligns to this Project’s relevant criteria as defined by the categories included across the top of the table, as well as providing crosswalk to the experience of the Key Personnel proposed for this Project

This section will be evaluated on the breadth of experience demonstrated in the summary narrative and project summary table, demonstrating the Respondent’s ability to repeatedly deliver work of similar scope, size, and delivery method.

Key Projects will be evaluated on their relevance to the specific goals and requirements of this Project, the role of the Respondent in

Section/Pages RFQ Response Narrative Content Instructions Evaluation Factors

Appendix D:

not included in this page count)

Include in Attachment D:

For the relevant projects listed in the Attachment C People and Projects Experience Table, submit project descriptions and references with the information required in Attachment D. Each Project Description is limited to four pages, with the minimum and maximum number of projects noted in the Attachment D instructions.

each project’s success, and feedback from references.

The tie between proposed Key Personnel and Key Projects will be evaluated as essential to achieving a higher score.

Part 5 Approach to Successful Progressive Design-Build Delivery (Narrative:

six pages maximum)

Provide a narrative description of the Respondent’s approach for managing and performing its services during both Phase 1 Preconstruction Services and Phase 2 Construction. Specifically address the unique aspects of this Project (including funding identification) and how, as the Design-Builder, project success will be facilitated with the City. In the context of this Projects key challenges, include the following items in your discussion:

• A description of the Design-Builder’s approach to establishing an early baseline construction cost estimate that will validate the project’s budget going forward;

• A process for identifying and obtaining funding sufficient to cover the construction cost;

• A summary of the potential scope, timing, and benefit to the City of any early work packages;

• An assessment of the ideal design milestone (e.g., 60- or 90%) to target for reaching a final Contract Price; and

• The scope of work that is intended to be self-performed by the Respondent, and why, and what subcontracts will ideally be competed on the open market.

Include in Attachment E:

Complete the Essential Requirements for Prequalification and Certification Pass/Fail Checklist and Required Documentation and attach the required insurance and bonding statements.

Submit required financial statement materials separately in BidNet.

This section will be evaluated on the Project-specific insight offered by the Respondent to meet this Project’s unique needs.

Responses that clearly articulate the need and benefit, if any, of early work packages will rated higher.

Higher-rated responses will also provide a clear rationale for the Design-Builder’s anticipated self-performed scope and ideal design milestone for the final construction cost/price.

Additional Information and Requirements

City Authority In connection with this procurement process, including the receipt and evaluation of SOQs and development of the short list, the City reserves to itself (at its sole discretion) all rights available to it under applicable law, including without limitation, with or without cause, and with or without notice, the right to:

• Cancel, withdraw, postpone, or extend this RFQ, in whole or in part, at any time prior to the execution of the PDB Contract, without incurring any obligations or liabilities.

• Modify the procurement schedule.

• Waive de�iciencies, informalities, and irregularities in an SOQ and accept and review a nonconforming SOQ.

• Suspend and terminate the procurement process or terminate evaluations of SOQs received.

• Permit corrections to data submitted with any SOQ.

• Hold meetings and interviews, and conduct discussions and correspondence, with one or more of the Respondents to seek an improved understanding of any information contained in an SOQ.

• Seek or obtain, from any source, data that has the potential to improve the understanding and evaluation of the SOQs.

• Seek clari�ication from any Respondent to fully understand information provided in the SOQ and to help evaluate and rank the Respondents.

• Reject an SOQ containing exceptions, additions, quali�ications, or conditions not called for in the RFQ or otherwise not acceptable to the City.

• Conduct an independent investigation of any information, including experience, included in an SOQ by contacting Project references, accessing public information, contacting independent parties, or any other means.

• Request additional information from a Respondent during the evaluation of its SOQ.

The City of Gunnison is a Colorado home rule municipality. In accordance with the Municipal Home Rule Charter, adopted by Special Election on May 11, 1962, the City has “all the power of local self-government and home rule and all the power possible for a City to have under the Constitution of the State of Colorado.” The City Council formally authorized a Progressive Design-Build method of procurement, on March 25, 2025.”

Appendices to this RFQ The following Appendices are included in the document to support Respondents’ responses:

• RFQ Appendix A - Preliminary Risk Allocation Matrix and Term Sheet

• RFQ Appendix B - Index of Available Project Background Documents

• RFQ Appendix C - Public Awards

• RFQ Appendix D - List of Respondent Attachments to the RFQ Response

Ineligible Firms and Individuals The following firms and individuals are serving in an advisory capacity to the City for this Project or otherwise have been deemed to have a potential conflict of interest and are therefore not eligible to assist or participate with any Respondent that submits an SOQ:

• JVA Consulting Engineers (Previous designer for the City of Gunnison Water Systems Improvements)

• All Things Collaborative Delivery Inc.

(Owner Advisor)

Proprietary Information All materials submitted to the City become public property and are subject to the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). The City, or any of its agents, representatives, employees, or firms, shall not be liable to a Respondent or individual participating in a SOQ, as a result of the disclosure of all or a portion of a SOQ under this RFQ. Any information contained in a SOQ which the Respondent believes constitutes proprietary or confidential, exempting from any non-authorized disclosure, shall be clearly designated. If the SOQ contains proprietary information that the Respondent does not want disclosed, each page containing such information must be identified and marked “PROPRIETARY” at the time of submittal. Blanket designations shall not be accepted. The City will notify the Respondent of any Public Records request relating to this RFQ, providing an opportunity for the Respondent to seek a court injunction against the requested disclosure. The City will, to the extent provided by law, endeavor to protect such information from disclosure. The final decision on what information must be disclosed, however, lies with the City. Failure to identify proprietary information will result in all unmarked sections being deemed nonproprietary and available upon public request. Respondents shall not be permitted to mark the entire SOQ as proprietary.

Rights of the City The City reserves all rights, which shall be exercisable in its sole discretion, without limitation or cause or notice, the following and/or any applicable law:

• The right to reject any or all SOQs without limitation and/or to cancel, re-issue, postpone, or withdraw the RFQ at any time without incurring any obligation or liability.

• The right to modify the RFQ language, timeframes, or contents and issue addenda.

• The right to engage technical and/or legal �irms in the evaluation of SOQs.

• The right to waive informalities, irregularities, or de�iciencies in the RFQ or SOQs.

Obligation to Keep Project Team Intact The City expects the Design-Builder and its supporting firms and proposed Key Personnel to be available to provide services for this Project. Respondents are advised that firms and Key Personnel identified in the SOQ shall remain on the Project Team for the duration of the procurement process and execution of the Project. Following announcement of the short list, Respondents shall not substitute a firm or an individual filling a Key Personnel position, except in unavoidable circumstances. In such circumstances the Respondents shall notify the City in writing, and the City may rescore, and re-rank, and thereafter decide whether the Respondent may continue to compete in the selection process.

Key Personnel are committed to the Project and changes may not be accepted, unless they no longer work for the firm or the City otherwise agrees that a change is appropriate. If extraordinary circumstances require a change, it must be submitted in writing and, at the City’s sole discretion, a determine whether to authorize a change will be made, recognizing that certain circumstances (such as termination of employment) may occur that are beyond the Design-Builder’s control. Unauthorized changes at any time during the procurement process may result in elimination of the Respondent from further consideration.

Addenda If any revisions…