HDPS DB RFP ADDM #2_FINAL.pdf

Hemlock Public School District

Request for Proposals for Design-Build Services

Hemlock Elementary School/ECC Expansion and Renovation

ADDENDUM #2

July 2, 2026

Below is a summary of the pre-proposal walk-through that took place on June 30, 2026, for the Design-Build

Services RFP for the above-mentioned project.

1. The meeting began with a welcome to the participants, both in person and virtual, as well as a sincere thank you for participation in the RFP process. Katie Jacobs, Project Executive with Veridus Advisors then introduced herself and the other members of the Ownership team:

▪ Don Killingbeck, Superintendent, Hemlock Public School District

▪ Denise Dowdell, Director of Business Operations and Human Resources, Hemlock Public School District

▪ Landon Martin, Director, Veridus Advisors

2. Katie then shared some housekeeping items, noting the following:

▪ Sign-in sheet for in-person participants, and a virtual option or those online.

▪ The ownership team will capture the notes from this meeting, along with all of the Q/A and issue an addendum (#2) by EOD Thursday, July 2nd. The sign-in sheet will be included.

▪ Schedule reminders:

o All questions due by noon on July 6th—a final addendum will be issued to capture responses by

EOD July 7th.

o Proposals due July 15th at noon.

o Selection Committee to meet and determine which teams to interview on July 20th. Teams will be notified that same day.

o Interviews will take place on July 28th. Please save all day—time slots will be developed once the number of interviewees is known.

3. Don then shared some thoughts:

▪ The mantra for this set of projects is on time, on budget and better than expected.

▪ The District has utilized the design-build delivery method on two previous projects (the fieldhouse and the STEM center).

▪ Goal is to maximize every dollar without compromising the look or design, while still meeting all educational standards.

▪ This RFP process is wide open. The District is going out in good faith to find the best partner for the project scope. The best proposal will win.

▪ District branding is very important. The pull the sled tagline is taken seriously—hard work is important and will be expected from the chosen team.

4. Katie then opened up the floor to questions, which are captured below.

5. The meeting ended, and the walk-through at Hemlock Elementary commenced. A few salient points from that site visit included:

▪ Don described the extent of the phase I and II work scope, noting that the additions will allow the childhood/early education classrooms to migrate east to make space for 1st grade students to come back into the building.

▪ The District would like to continue to meet families where they are, filling needs that arise, including potential overnight care.

▪ Hemlock Elementary is the oldest building in the district, having opened in 1952.

▪ Don pointed out the building materials on the existing elementary school, which he would like to continue on the new additions in order to keep the same look and feel.

▪ Don shared the huge growth that the District is experiencing (consistently and significantly exceeding their projections), which is the impetus for needing additional space in both elementary schools.

The following questions were received during the pre-proposal meeting. Answers are captured below.

6. Could you please clarify whether the selected design-build firm, acting as the constructor, will be eligible to self-perform portions of the scope of work?

Yes, though the District needs to follow State statutory requirements, so these trade categories will still need to be competitively bid. The District will then choose the most responsible bidder as with any trade category.

As an aside, Don noted that the District is in favor of this and welcomes self-performance.

7. Could you please clarify bond terms?

This is still in progress as the team works with both legal counsel and the District’s financial advisor to finalize ballot language and bond terms. That said, the District still anticipates a total project value of approximately

$14 to 15M, paid out in two series. Series 1 would be approximately $11 to $12M with the rest paid out in series 2.

8. Please clarify the role of design criteria developer in this RFP process.

The District has consulted with legal counsel to better understand the rules around this, and the qualifications-based methodology that is being used to procure the design-build entity does not require a design criteria developer in the true sense. That said, Katie, as a licensed architect in the State of Michigan, will formally act as the design criteria developer, working in conjunction with the design-builder to develop the final programmatic requirements for the various projects.

9. Could you please comment on how the budget was established for Phase I work scope?

The District acknowledges that the $1M USDA grant will not cover the entire project cost and does have other funding to utilize for items outside the cost of work. The goal would be to use the $1M grant to complete as much work as possible, though there is hope that when the bond passes, the work scope can flex a bit, absorbing any overage from phase I into phase II.

Don also shared that in his previous design-build experience, the District was able to complete the projects for significantly less than the average cost / s.f. for school construction, which influenced the original budget amount.

10. Would you be willing to share the bond scoping document / budget for series 1 and 2? Also, is there a rough schedule for the bond implementation?

The team is actively working on these documents now and plans to share them out with the chosen design-build team once they are brought on board. That said, understanding that this might help with putting together fee proposals, please see the following attachments:

▪ Appendix F, an area tabulation for the Hemlock Elementary and KC Ling Elementary additions

▪ Appendix G, a graphic depiction of the bond scope.

These should be considered preliminary and works-in-progress—the District will work with the chosen

Design-Builder to finalize these as part of the design process.

NOTE that the question about the bond implementation schedule was not answered publicly. A preliminary draft has been developed as part of the bond cash flow exercise and is shared below (NOTE that these are still being vetted by the District’s financial advisor). The District will work with the chosen Design-Builder to vet and finalize these as part of the early design process, with the goal of maximizing efficiency and funds.

The following categories correspond to the Capital Priorities outlined in Appendix B:

PROPOSED SERIES 1

A. Hemlock Elementary School Expansion, phase I and II

▪ Construction = Spring 2027 – Summer 2028, open for 2028/2029 academic year

B. KC Ling Elementary Expansion

C. Campus Outdoor Learning and Recreation Corridor

D. Parking, Traffic Flow and Site Infrastructure

▪ B, C and D will all be designed and constructed together

▪ Construction = Summer 2028 to Summer 2029, open for 2029/2030 academic year

E. Safety and Security

▪ Construction/Implementation = Summer 2028

PROPOSED SERIES 2

F. Technology, Transportation and Furnishings

▪ Construction/Implementation = Fall 2029

11. Was a similar USDA grant used for any of the previous work in the District, and were there any challenges to complying with the BABA requirements?

Yes, the District was awarded a USDA grant to help complete the PW Fieldhouse. And no, there were no real challenges with BABA. There were things that cost more because of that requirement, but other items resulted in cost savings.

12. Does the District have a contact person at the USDA?

Yes, and has worked with this same person on past projects.

13. Is there any leeway to the 1 page per person limit for the team resumes?

No. Please stay to the 1 page per person limit.

14. Was the draft AIA contract attached to the RFP?

Yes. That was attached as Appendix C.

15. Could you lend more detail to the relocation of the Fordney Road School?

The intent is to relocate the building, moving it to the area south of the administration building. An unfinished basement or crawl space for storage is desired, and eventually some site improvements including a patio and sidewalks connecting it to other areas of campus. The intent is for this to become a community gathering space and will need to be accessible for all (Don mentioned ice cream socials, tailgates, parade start point, etc.). The building is solid and was previously moved to its current location. Part of the reason for relocation is to create a more inviting gateway to campus at the corner of Wilson Street and North Hemlock

Road and allow sightlines to the new performing arts center.

ADDITIONAL ITEMS:

16. Please refer to attached Appendix E: Fee Proposal Form and include that in your proposal response.

17. CLARIFICATION on the draft AIA A141 – 2014 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Design-

Builder as it relates to the phase I scope of work: The USDA does NOT require the project to follow the Davis-

Bacon Prevailing Wage Act.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (received after the meeting):

18. Does Hemlock anticipate bond campaign support from the firm that is eventually chosen for the work?

No.

19. If the District has $1,000,000.00 in grant money and $2,000,000.00 to $3,00,000.00 of bond funds that will be used to expand the elementary than what does the District plan to do with the other $11,000,000.00 of bond funds?

Please refer to Appendix B: Bond Scoping Summary in the RFP for a description of the full bond scope.

Also note item 10 above.

20. Will the bond funds include other categories besides Design & Construction such as furnishings, technology and property cost? If other categories are included, how much funding will be allocated to those categories

(a round number within $100,000.00)?

Please refer to Appendix B: Bond Scoping Summary in the RFP for a description of the bond scope, which does include more than just design and construction. Additional information will be shared with the chosen team once they are brought on board.

end of Addendum #2

RFP for Design-build Services Hemlock Elementary School/

ECC Expansion and Renovation

Pre-proposal Meeting Sign-in Sheet

Name Company E-mail Address kjacobs Rectangle kjacobs Image

APPENDIX E: FEE PROPOSAL FORM

INSTRUCTIONS:

Please include a copy of this Fee Proposal Form as part of your formal submission. Proposer shall specify the fee percentages as outlined in Section I of the Request for Proposal.

PHASE I WORK SCOPE:

Fee range for design services (expressed as a % of the cost of work):______________________________________

Fee range for general conditions (expressed as a % of the cost of work):___________________________________

List of items included in general conditions:___________________________________________________________

Fee range for contractor overhead and profit (OHP) (expressed as a % of the cost of work):________________

% fee for contractor mark-up for changes to the work:____________________________________________________

PHASE II WORK SCOPE:

Fee range for design services (expressed as a % of the cost of work):______________________________________

Fee range for general conditions (expressed as a % of the cost of work):___________________________________

List of items included in general conditions:___________________________________________________________

Fee range for contractor overhead and profit (OHP) (expressed as a % of the cost of work):________________

% fee for contractor mark-up for changes to the work:____________________________________________________

Design-Builder affirms that they can complete the project scopes within the fee ranges noted above. It is the

Owner’s intent for the design fee(s) to be defined as a lump sum once scopes are clarified, and that these fees will fall within the range indicated. Design-Builder understands that GMPs for each phase of work will be developed and finalized with the Owner as each project progresses, and that contractor fees within the GMP will reflect the percentages outlined. Further, any changes to the work over the course of construction will be marked-up no more than the percentages noted.

Design-Builder signature_____________________________________________________Date_______________________

Hemlock Public School District Hemlock,MI 30 June 2026

Total # Total

Room Name Area (s.f.) of Rooms Area (s.f.) Notes

Hemlock Elementary / ECC Phase I

Entry Vestibule 160 1 160 Connect new addition to existing central hallway

ECC Director Office 100 1 100 Visual connection to student drop-off area

Shared Staff Office 200 1 200 Visual connection to student drop-off area - public facing - 2 staff

Storage 100 1 100

Student Support Space 0 0 0 This space can remain in the existing building

Early Childhood Classrooms 900 2 1,800 2 to 3 total classrooms desired

Toilet Room 56 2 112 Inside classroom

Storage 50 2 100 Inside classroom

Lockers 45 2 90 Bank of 30 per classroom (12" w x 16" d)

Toilet Rooms - Student 185 2 370 4-stall gang toilet rooms (in lieu of individual toilets in the existing bldg)

Toilet Rooms - Staff 0 0 0 Use existing single occupancy toilet room until phase II

Mechanical Room 0 0 0 Assume RTUs

Electrical Room 36 1 36

IT Closet 36 1 36

Janitor Closet 36 1 36

Phase I 3,140

Building Factor 1.15

TOTAL PHASE I 3,611 Use 3,650 s.f.

Phase II 9,167

Office 0 0 0 Included in Phase I

Nurse Office / Multi-use Space 120 1 120 Couch/cot, rolling cart (meds), stool - shared with social worker, et. al.

Work Room 0 0 0

Staff Break Room 180 1 180 Kitchenette table for 4 to 6 people

Flexible Learning Environments 1,250 1 1,250 Open commons for lunch, movement, etc. - 25 s.f. / person

Classrooms 900 7 6,300 6 to 8 total classrooms desired

Toilet Room 56 7 392 Inside classroom

Storage 50 7 350 Inside classroom

Lockers 45 7 315 Bank of 30 per classroom (12" w x 16" d)

Toilet Rooms - Staff 130 2 260 2-stall gang toilet rooms

Toilet Rooms - Student 0 0 0 In phase I

Bunk Room 160 1 160 2 bunk beds, desk in the middle - for overnight care

Toilet Room / Shower 85 1 85 For overnight care

Mechanical Room 0 0 0 Assume RTUs

Electrical Closet 0 0 0 In phase I

IT Closet 0 0 0 In phase I

Janitor Closet 0 0 0 In phase I

General Storage 120 1 120

Phase II 9,532

Building Factor 1.15

TOTAL PHASE II 10,962 Use 10,975 s.f.

Relocation of Fordney Road School

Basement (unfinished) - 26'-4" x 40'-4" 1,075 1 1,075 Include outdoor learning space, sidewalks, and site improvements

Stair 120 1 120 Single run

KC Ling Elementary School Open Multipurpose Learning Area 3,500 1 3,500 Open space for 100 - 150 kids at 25 s.f. / person; lunch for 65 students

Open Kitchenette / Café 400 1 400

Shared Office (PT/OT and Speech and MTSS) 185 2 370 2 workstations in back - student facing in front

Shared Office (Special Ed) 0 0 0 Remains in existing building

Administrative Shared Office 120 1 120 Dean + Asst. Principal + Principal

Nurse Office 120 1 120

Student Toilet Rooms (Gang) 155 2 310 3-stall gang toilet rooms

Student Toilet Rooms (Individual) 56 4 224 Assume 1 for every 2 classrooms

Staff Toilet Rooms 155 2 310 3-stall gang toilet rooms

Family Restroom 56 1 56 With diaper changing station (staff and parents)

Classrooms 1,000 7 7,000 6 to 8 total classrooms desired

Lockers 45 7 315 Bank of 30 per classroom (12" w x 16" d)

Title Rooms 175 0 0

Storage 180 2 360

Mechanical Room 0 0 0 Assume RTUs

Electrical Room 65 1 65

IT Closet 80 1 80

Janitor Closet 80 1 80

K.C. LING (n.s.f.) 13,310

Building Factor 1.20

TOTAL K.C. LING (g.s.f.) 15,972 Assume 16,000 s.f. (Existing building is 51,850 s.f., 18 classrooms)

AREA TABULATION

kjacobs Text Box

APPENDIX F

WORKING COPY - PRELIMINARY