3-Spring Lane Park RFP QA 1.docx
DOCX document 2 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NS27-19
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Hildale City, Utah
About this file
This is a Question and Answer document issued by the City of Holladay, Utah, addressing inquiries from prospective proposers for the Spring Lane Park Landscape Architect RFP. The project involves landscape design and site planning finalization for a park development with a total construction budget between $6 million and $8 million. The landscape architect scope is limited to design and site planning for landscape elements and the park monument sign, with three separate design-build packages (pickleball courts, splash pad, and playground) to be procured following completion of building envelopes. The City will handle civil design and construction bidding in-house and will provide civil engineering coordination, dwg files, and geotechnical testing services. Proposals were due by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, submitted electronically to Jared Bunch at jbunch@holladayUT.gov, with questions accepted until 12:00 PM on Thursday, September 3, 2026. No pre-bid conference was scheduled.
Key clarifications from the Q&A include that truss bridge structures from the former elementary school site will be hauled off for recycling unless the selected landscape architect proposes their reuse; the plaza will serve as a dedicated art display area rather than accommodate food trucks; pickleball courts will not be illuminated; soil and percolation testing will be performed by a city-hired geotechnical engineer upon project award; and the restroom and maintenance building will be procured separately through design-build with no architect required for this RFP. Design-build contractor selection for the three packages may occur before final bid documents are complete, contingent upon finalized building envelopes. The landscape architect must prepare drawings using engineering scale, coordinate with city staff on civil work, and design must align with the stated budget with potential value engineering if costs exceed targets.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 4-Spring Lane Park RFP QA 2.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-Courtesy Posting Close Out Docx ADA.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Spring Lane Park RFP Supporting Docs.pdf | ||
| 1-RFP For Spring Lane Park.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
CITY OF HOLLADAY
Spring Lane Park Landscape Architect RFP Q&A No. 1
August 25, 2026
To All Prospective Proposers:
Consultants submitting proposals for the above project shall take note of the following changes, additions, deletions, clarifications, etc. in the Request for Proposal.
Q&A No. 1
Q.1. What will the total construction budget be for the Spring Lake Park project?
A.1. Total construction budget is between $6M - $8M.
Q.2. Can you please confirm that this is just a design solicitation for select components of the conceptual design included in The Bridging Document and that a Design-Build Contractor/Team will be selected separately for the construction of the park and design of those specific elements?
A.2. The scope of work is just for the landscape design and finalization of the site planning. Other than finalizing the site plan for the design-build areas, the landscape architect is not responsible for the design of those projects.
Q.3. Is it correct that the design of the Maintenance and Restroom Building is to be done by the design-build team and should not be covered in our proposal?
A.3. The landscape architect is expected to finalize the site plan with a building envelope for each of the design-build areas. The design-build team(s) will be responsible for completing the design within that building envelope.
Q.4. Can you tell us more about the Truss Bridge structures? Where are they from? Where are they now? Are they intended to be used as actual bridges or repurposed in some other way in the park?
A.4. The truss bridge structures are from the elementary school previously on the site. The structures were removed from the school during demolition and left on site where they currently remain. During the preparation of the Bridging Document it was determined the bridge trusses will require a fair bit of repair work to re-use them. Furthermore, the area where these were used within the school has been filled in, making the re-use of the bridges less effective. The city is no longer interested in making the re-use of the bridges a priority. The city expects to have them hauled off for recycling. If the landscape architect has interest in re-using any of them, the city be open to it.
Q.5. Who is to design the park monument sign? The selected landscape architectural team or the design-build team?
A.5. The landscape architectural team is to design the park monument sign.
Q.6. Is there a desire to use the plaza for food trucks as well as for displaying art?
A.6. The plaza will not be used for food trucks. The plaza will be a place for artwork in the future. The landscape design is to work with city staff to plan out space for such pieces.
Q.7. Have soil and percolation tests been done on the sports fields? Should we include that in our fee proposal?
A.7. Upon awarding the project, the successful landscape architect will need to request what types of soil tests they need for their design. The city will hire a geotechnical engineer to complete those tests.
Q.8. We understand the pickleball courts are one of the “design-build” features of the project. As they pertain to the greater site, however, is the intent to light the pickleball courts? With a Musco system or other? We just want to make sure power/electrical needs are considered as part of the greater site electrical design.
A.8. The pickleball courts will not be lit, nor are there any future plans to light them.
Q.9. There is reference to a Prefab Restroom, but in the Bridging Document section 3.3, there are performance descriptions that suggest the building could be custom designed. Is the restroom/maintenance building intended to be a manufactured/prefabricated unit, and if so, does the city have a preferred manufacturer or product line in mind, since adding an architect to the team would change both the Design-Build procurement document scope and the design team's fee assumption.
A.9. The restroom/maintenance building will be bid in a separate design-build process. An architect for the building is not required for this RFP.
Q.10. It is our understanding that the City will handle all the civil scope of work. Will the City be self-performing the civil design/scope of work, or would the selected design firm work with a civil engineering firm hired by the City? Either way, how does the City plan to coordinate the civil work with the selected design team relevant to exchanging drawing bases, drawing deliverables, project schedule, etc. since the site layout and grading are likely to drive the direction of the rest of the design development.
A.10. The city will provide the civil design and civil construction bid package in-house. The landscape architect will need to coordinate with the city just as they would if the civil design was being prepared by a consultant. The city will provide dwg files. It is preferred the landscape architect prepares drawings using an engineering scale vs. an architectural scale.
Q.11. Will the City be providing a geotechnical report or should the hired design team include a geo tech study/report?
A.11. Upon awarding the project, the successful landscape architect will need to request what types of soil tests they need for their design. The city will hire a geotechnical engineer to complete those tests.
Q.12. Is it the City's intent that design-build contractor selection for these three packages occur only after Draft Final/Bid Documents (Task 4) are complete, or is earlier involvement intended, for example at the 40% preliminary design stage, so the DB teams can provide cost and constructability input while the design is still flexible?
A.12. The city would like to issue the design-build packages as soon as the building envelopes for the three areas are finalized. This could be before the Draft Final submission.
Q.13. Has the City validated current market pricing for these three packages since the Bridging Document's cost estimate (Construction Control Corp, July 2026), given the roughly seven-month gap to procurement and potential material/labor cost movement.
A.13. The city is comfortable with the cost estimate and has built in contingency.
Q.14. Is there a total project budget, or a budget by task/package, that the landscape architect's design and design-build procurement documents need to be checked against at each milestone, and is a budget reconciliation or value-engineering step built into the schedule if design exceeds that budget?
A.14. Total construction budget is between $6M - $8M. If needed, improvements may need to be reduced as design progresses to meet the budget.
Q.15. Would the City consider a progressive or two-step design-build procurement for these three packages, pre-qualifying DB teams early, then having the selected team collaborate with the landscape architect on the performance-based documents before final pricing, to capture cost and constructability input earlier while keeping procurement competitive?
A.15. No. A max budget will be set in the design-build procurement packages to meet the city’s budget.
Q.16. Is the delivery method for these three packages (design-build vs. another method) still undecided, and if so, when will that decision be made, since it directly affects how Task 5 should be scoped, staffed, and paced?
A.16. The three design-build areas are decided. Note, the civil work and landscape work are design-bid-build.
End of Q&A
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .