Master Facilities Plan Addendum _2.pdf

CONTRACT NO. 24-01-CF-CIP

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL:

MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

Request for Proposal

Bulloch County Board of Commissioners Master Facilities Plan

ANNOUNCEMENT

The Bulloch County Board of Commissioners is accepting proposals from qualified professional consultants for this project. Prospective firms shall file all documents necessary to support its proposal. NO

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS ACCEPTED.

ADDENDUM #2

BULLOCH COUNTY MASTER FACILITIES PLAN RFP

VENDOR QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES 12.01.23

1. Are there any vacant or decommissioned buildings currently?

No.

2. Are there going to be spaces that are not accessible during building assessment, such as an attic or crawl spaces?

All spaces should be accessible, although due to security measures some assessments will have to be conducted with appropriate county personnel present or nearby.

3. For the facilities quality index (FQI), can you elaborate and expand on how we are grading the “physical conditions”, “functional needs”, and “current replacement value?

Please read the link below for a full understanding of FQI.

https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1040339.pdf

4. Are you hosting any short-list interviews?

Yes, depending on the number of qualified responses.

https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1040339.pdf

5. Is there a hard or soft cap on the overall budget of the project?

No. A majority of the scoring rubric is qualifications based. A review committee will determine the reasonableness of pricing based on comps we have studied. If the cost of the candidate vendor seems high or unreasonable, we may seek to negotiate and “value engineer” the pricing.

6. Is there a priority list of which facilities must be assessed for condition beyond the $100,000 improvement threshold? (whether they are occupancy, function or use type)

No. However the results of the plan should reveal a constrained priority list of existing and new facility needs.

7. When will the key findings from the workforce demand study be available?

Unfortunately, we cannot determine that until that RFP process concludes. We are trying to do both projects in lockstep.

8. What is the intended purpose / use of the findings from the plan? (short term vs. long term)

Bulloch County anticipates a surge of population and business growth from the location of Hyundai and three suppliers locally. Southeast Bulloch County and greater Statesboro are expected to be the epicenters. This study, and the workforce study will tell us how we need to utilize, re-commission or de-commission exiting facilities, and where to locate and scale new facilities.

9. Regarding the programming phase, could you provide an overview of the types or categories of buildings that are expected to be prioritized?

Priorities for all proposed projects will need to be recommended by the selected vendor and County staff collaboratively.

10. What are the logistical considerations regarding access to the buildings for inspection purposes, including scheduling, security, and escort requirements?

Most County facilities will be accessible. However, court space, detention facilities, cash handling offices, health/mental health DFACS facilities may are more sensitive. Also, Bulloch County is geographically large and many facilities such as fire stations, voting precincts and parks are dispersed. Collaboration through kick-off and other planning meetings between the County staff will reveal this information.

11. Are there any upcoming capital improvement projects or general SPLOST initiatives that the county is considering, particularly those that might relate to or influence the scope of the facilities assessment? And is there a timeframe the county is targeting for these?

If planned and negotiated seamlessly with the municipalities, the current SPLOST will expire in October 2025, and transition to the following month. We anticipate that both the County and the Municipalities will be SPLOST-challenged. Current estimates (subject to change) project $95-$105 million over six years. Three new large projects discussed (Judicial Complex, Jail Pod, Indoor Recreation Center) would likely take most of or exceed the amount collected, thus deferring other facility and rolling stock needs. We do have TSPLOST II which currently serves roads and bridges. We also have a Public Facilities Authority which allows us to incur debt without voter approval, in addition to COPS, lease purchase and other financing tools. We also have a municipal financial advisor – Davenport and Company, Richmond, Virginia.

12. How do you envision the collaboration process with your staff and key stakeholders?

Given our experience with the effectiveness of a hybrid approach for programming, combining virtual and in-person meetings, we're interested to know if the county would be open to this method.

Since the pandemic, we have been flexible with a hybrid approach. Of course, certain meetings on-site would need to occur out of necessity.

13. Are there any privacy or security concerns or other considerations that we should be aware of when using reality capture and scanning technology in the documentation and assessment of facilities?

This should not be a problem if coordinated properly in advance (see question 10 and response).

14. In reference to the GIS support provided by the county, we are interested in understanding the current methods or systems employed for asset cataloging and management. Is there an established GIS database or similar technology in use?

We began a process a few years ago. We will check with GIS and see if what we a using is still active.

15. In reference to available data, plans, etc., what is the primary format of this information

(paper drawings, digital pdfs, etc.), and how complete or comprehensive is this information?

There is a mix, and there will be gaps because some facilities were constructed by prison labor in a rudimentary fashion.

16. Are horizontal improvements, like walkways, parking lots, and roads considered as public facilities to be evaluated?

Yes, although roads are less likely a concern unless a new or expanded facility is proposed.

17. Are you currently using a CMMS system to track the work done on the buildings and the assets within the buildings? If yes, what is the system, and can you share the data?

No, but a recommendation is welcome toward the conclusion of the project.

18. Are the major building systems and assets expected to be individually assessed?

Question needs greater clarification, specificity or examples.

19. How many years into the future does the life cycle model need to consider?

For existing facilities, 10 years, for future facilities 40-50 years.

20. Are all facilities, including parks, a part of this effort?

All facilities except the public safety and public works complex on US 301 north which is already under study.

Signature Date

Name of Company: ______________________________________________________

A copy of this addendum must be signed and returned in the submitted proposal package.

Failure to include the signed addendum will cause the submitted proposal not to be considered for this project. The signed addendum must be included in the mandatory forms section.