2570-26 Addendum 2 Eugene.pdf

ADDENDUM #2 April 17, 2026

Architects & Planners for Riverside School Building Committee

OPENING DATE: 4/23/26

OPENING TIME: 1:00 p.m.

RFP NUMBER: 2570-26

This Addendum No. 2 is being issued to answer the following RFIs received for the above-mentioned bid:

QUESTION ANSWER

The RFP requests conceptual design options and estimating for Riverside Elementary. Will the existing condition drawings for the building and campus be made available to all proposers in a format suitable for creating conceptual drawings, such as AutoCAD, Revit, or scaled PDF format?

The attached drawings are to be considered the most recent Existing Conditions available and are to be used for REFERENCE ONLY. Room Identifications are NOT confirmed.

Existing Conditions Drawings (link)

The first paragraph under REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL on page 3 indicates a primary charge of the selected vendor to design an elevator, ADA compliance components, doors, windows, ceilings, lights, and painting. It also indicates a potential secondary funding phase for a new main entrance and cafeteria expansion. Please confirm if this is part of the Riverside project or inadvertently included in the RFP and should be disregarded.

Yes, all of the above is to be included as to be determined by the architect and appropriate engineers.

Grant Application – The components of the Existing Conditions Assessment and Facility Analysis, along with the Educational Specifications Review and the 3 Concept Options listed in the Schematic Design phase, reflect the requirements to submit a project for a Renovate-as-New (RNV) designation from the State OGA. Has a Grant application been submitted or is the intent to submit a RNV Grant Application by June 30, 2026? This would inform our proposed design and project schedules.

No. This project is not on the accelerated timeline that would necessitate a June 2026 grant submission.

Schematic Design Phase (p. 7–8) – The scope of the services outlines the development of three conceptual alternatives that address issues at a concept level (i.e., massing, site analysis, phasing strategy, ROM cost comparison, etc.). Is the intention to select one of these alternatives for further development to a typical AIA contract Schematic Design level, which includes a site plan, floor plans, exterior elevations, building sections, basic wall sections, and preliminary architectural and systems narratives (finishes, MEP/FP, Technology, Structure)? What is the reason and intent for combining Concept Design and Schematic Design into one phase? Can we opt to separate them for the purposes of schedule and fee?

Not prescribed. Proposers should determine the appropriate approach.

Project Budget – On page 12, V. Additional Information, the RFP notes that the “Project has an established budget.” If that is correct, please provide the anticipated project budget. If that is not correct, please confirm how we should base our fees. (See Fee Questions 7 & 8.)

To date, the anticipated Capital funding is $45 million.

Project Schedule – On page 14, Project Approach, item c, we are asked to comment on the proposed design schedule within our Technical Proposal. What is the proposed design schedule, We want to start immediately upon award of this contract; the Capital plan has funds earmarked for the 2028–2029 school year.

https://www.greenwichschools.org/fs/resource-manager/view/95b76d21-7a40-4466-b9d1-a599a304973e and when does Greenwich plan/desire to start construction and complete the fully renovated school?

Enrollment Projections – Can the Enrollment Report referenced in the RFP and Educational Specifications be shared?

See the Enrollment Projection to 2035 Report attached.

The Riverside Ed Spec is being built to accommodate the following at maximum:

Four Sections (classrooms) on Each Grade Level Kindergarten 4 classrooms × 21 students max 84 students

1st Grade 4 classrooms × 21 students max 84 students

2nd Grade 4 classrooms × 24 students max 96 students

3rd Grade 4 classrooms × 24 students max 96 students

4th Grade 4 classrooms × 26 students max 104 students

5th Grade 4 classrooms × 26 students max 104 students 568 students maximum

Submittal Requirements – Items 6, 7, and 9 (page 15) appear to be requesting proposers develop concept designs, illustrated through sketches, drawings, or photographs, along with a phasing schedule and a preliminary, yet itemized, construction cost estimate with hard and soft costs. That appears to be the scope of the RFP (the concept designs outlined in the Schematic Design Phase). Please clarify the extent and nature of the work being requested for our Technical Response.

At the discretion of the Proposer.

Fee Proposal Form (Missing Scope) – The Form does not include line items for two components of the project scope: 1) Existing Conditions Assessment and Facility Analysis; and 2) Educational Specifications and Program Review. Where do you want our fees for these services included? Can we add these services as separate line items?

Please see the revised Cost Sheet attached. The Ed Specs & Program Review should be integrated into the design process.

Fee Proposal Form (Basis for Fee) – Because the scope of work for the design phases cannot be finalized until one of the Concept Design alternatives is selected, lump sum fees cannot accurately be determined. For the design phases, to ensure consistency across proposals, would you be willing to either: 1) Provide a target project budget that all proposers should use as the basis for their fee proposals, or 2) Request that proposers submit fees as a percentage of construction cost, to be converted to a lump sum once the construction budget is established during the project?

The $45M placeholder in the capital plan is the only current figure. The architect’s role is to help define the actual budget. Proposers should submit fees as a lump sum based on the $45M figure, with the option to submit an alternative percentage of construction cost proposal on a separate page.

Are there any previous environmental reports for the school such as AHERA or asbestos testing?

Please see the 2025 Asbestos Inspection Reports and AHERA Management Plan for Riverside School (April 2025):

AHERA / Asbestos Reports (link)

Are the following services to be included in the proposed fee for Riverside School?

• Hazardous building materials assessment (asbestos, lead, PCBs, universal waste)

• Abatement design for hazardous building material removal

• Abatement monitoring during construction

Yes, all of the above is to be included as to be determined by the architect and appropriate engineers.

https://www.greenwichschools.org/fs/resource-manager/view/bdd2f2a6-5796-4103-8d80-024f106a656c

If assessment is included, should we include unit rates for samples, or is there a baseline number of samples that all contractors can include to level the playing field?

Bidders must provide a unit rate per test. This creates a level playing field by preventing firms from omitting testing costs in their initial bid. The AHERA book will be provided as an addendum.

The “Request for Proposal” paragraph on page three of the RFP indicates that the initial charge of the selected vendor will be the design and placement of an elevator and other ADA compliance components. Is it the intent to conduct this scope of work as a standalone project? Meaning, will the elevator and ADA scope of work be designed, approved by DAS Office of Grants Administration, bid, and constructed separately from the remainder of the work outlined within the RFP?

The Committee is currently working with an overall budget framework of approximately $45M. Proposers are encouraged to develop concepts within this context and may suggest appropriate budget allocations for each approach (minimal intervention, complete new construction, hybrid solution) as part of their submission.

The Schematic Design Phase section, Concept B, describes a new construction scenario. Is it the intent to build a new facility on the existing site, or is a separate site being considered?

Not explicitly required. The RFP is for architect services, not a final design. Firms are encouraged to submit what they believe best demonstrates their understanding and effort.

Under the “Submittal Requirements” section, part “5. Project Approach,” subparagraph C, a proposed design schedule is referenced. A proposed schedule could not be located within the RFP documents; can this be provided?

Work is anticipated to begin immediately upon contract award. Funding is currently identified in the Capital Plan for the 2028-2029 school year.

Under the “Submittal Requirements” section, part “9. Cost Estimates,” it is indicated that preliminary construction estimates should be included as part of the vendor’s RFP response. Is it expected that construction cost estimates for all scenarios outlined within the “Schematic Design Phase” section (Concepts A, B & C) be included with the RFP response? If so, is a separate estimate for the elevator and ADA scope required as well?

The Committee is currently working with an overall budget framework of approximately $45M. Proposers are encouraged to develop concepts within this context and may suggest appropriate budget allocations for each approach (minimal intervention, complete new construction, hybrid solution) as part of their submission.

At the completion of the Schematic Design Phase, is it anticipated that the town would require assistance from the vendor in authoring and assembling paperwork required to be included as part of the DAS Office of Grants Administration application process?

Yes.

The “Existing Conditions Assessment and Facility Analysis” scope of work is not listed on the Fee Proposal Form as a separate line item. Would you like the proposed fee for the scope of this work to be provided as a broken-out value?

See revised Cost Sheet attached. The Ed Specs & Program Review should be integrated into the design process.

LEED is referenced in various locations throughout the RFP. Is it the intent to pursue LEED certification for this project?

No.

The RFQ/RFP agreement documents and insurance provisions repeatedly refer to the Design Professional as a “Contractor.”

Would the Town of Greenwich consider revising this terminology to “Consultant” throughout the documents to more accurately reflect the role of the Design Professional?

The Town of Greenwich will accept the use of the term ‘Consultant’ in lieu of ‘Contractor,’ provided that the selected terminology is used consistently across the proposal and all accompanying documents.

Section 16 includes an obligation to defend. Many professional liability insurance policies do not provide for an upfront defense of indemnitees. Would the Town consider removing the duty to defend and instead limiting indemnification obligations to claims arising from the Consultant’s negligence, so that the

No—this is a standard requirement of the Town and will remain as written.

requirements align with standard Architects/Engineers professional liability coverage?

Are digitized images or scanned copies of existing floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, and site plans available? Is a full site survey PDF or AutoCAD file now available? Additionally, can the Town provide these documents in AutoCAD format to proposers?

Digitized images or scanned copies of existing floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, and site plans are not available. A full site survey in PDF or AutoCAD format is also not currently available. The Town is unable to provide these documents in AutoCAD format to proposers at this time.

Can the Town provide preliminary budget ranges for the three proposed concepts? A) Minimal Intervention B) Complete New Construction C) Hybrid Solution Establishing budget benchmarks (e.g., Concept A: $25M, Concept B: $100M, Concept C: $50M) would help ensure that all proposing teams are developing concepts on a consistent basis.

The Committee is currently working with an overall budget framework of approximately $45M. Proposers are encouraged to develop concepts within this context and may suggest appropriate budget allocations for each approach (minimal intervention, complete new construction, hybrid solution) as part of their submission.

Please confirm whether proposers are required to include conceptual drawings and site plans for both a new building and an addition as part of their submission, along with preliminary cost estimates and high-level schedules. Additionally, would the Town consider an alternative approach—such as shortlisting three firms and requesting paid concept development—similar to the process used by Darien Public Schools in recent procurements?

Not prescribed. Proposers should determine the appropriate level of detail and materials to include in their submission.

Would the Town consider revising the insurance requirements related to notification of policy changes or “restrictive amendments”? Insurance carriers typically do not provide such notices but will provide notice of cancellation or non-renewal.

This requirement also appears in Exhibit A (Sample Endorsement Letter).

No—this is a standard requirement of the Town and will remain as written.

Would the Town consider, as part of the later documented work, providing conceptual drawings, elevations, and renderings for Concept B, the proposed new school building, in lieu of schematic-level documents as outlined in the RFP? Schematic design, as defined by AIA standards, represents approximately a 15% level of design development for a new school, which is a significant, costly, and consultant-intensive undertaking.

No change to the submission requirements is prescribed. Proposers may determine the appropriate level of detail to effectively convey their concept, considering scope and effort.

Firm Name _______________________________________________ Date: _________

Fee Proposal Form

Including, but not limited to, the following scope of services: Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Survey and Borings, Demolition and Abatement Design, Structural Design, Landscape Design, Architectural Design, MEP Design, Acoustical Design, FF&E Design, Technology Design, Security Design, Traffic Study, Parking Analysis, 3D computer simulation modeling, and Cost Estimating Services; this firm requests the following Lump Sum Fee for the design of the Riverside School Project. Vendors should feel empowered to submit alternative fee proposals on a separate page, based on the stated goals of this

RFP.

Total Lump Sum Fee: $ _________________________

The fee will be billed in accordance with the following Progress Payment Schedule:

Service Fee

Land Use (Municipal Improvements and Other Town Approvals) $

Existing Conditions Assessment & Facility Analysis $

Demolition & Abatement $

Schematic Design $

Design Development $

Construction Documents $

Bidding & Award $

FF&E $

Technology Design $

Construction Administration $

Close Out $

TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE $

List any services that are specifically excluded from your scope of service:

All project requirements, except for those that are specifically added or modified by this Addendum, shall remain in full effect.

Eugene H. Watts

End of Addendum #2