Progressive Design Build Services for the Lee S. Dukes WTP Expansion Project.pdf

DBIA Document No. 405 FY27-DB-01: Progressive Design-Build Services for Lee S. Dukes WTP Expansion © 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 1

City of Charlotte, NC

Request for Qualifications for Progressive Design-Build Services for the Lee S. Dukes WTP Expansion Project

FY27-DB-01

This REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (“RFQ”) from the Owner named below invites the submittal of a Statement of Qualifications (“SOQ” or “proposal”) from Proposers interested in providing design-build services for the Project(s) described below. By submitting an SOQ, the Proposer represents that it has carefully read the terms and conditions of this RFQ and all attachments and Addenda and agrees to be bound by them. This RFQ is not an offer to enter into a contract, but merely a solicitation of persons interested in submitting an SOQ to the Owner for the Project.

DATE ISSUED:

July 1, 2026

OWNER:

City of Charlotte – Charlotte Water

PROJECT:

Lee S. Dukes WTP Expansion

OWNER CONTACT PERSON:

Charlotte Water Procurement Officer Laura Osborne, Laura.Osborne@charlottenc.gov

SOQ DUE DATE AND TIME

Proposer’s SOQ shall be submitted no later than: September 3, 2026 at 2:00 p.m.

RFQ AND ADDENDA POSTED AT:

Procurement Portal: https://charlottenc.bonfirehub.com/portal/?tab=openOpportunities

All SOQs must be submitted pursuant to the instructions below. It is the Proposer’s sole responsibility to ensure that the SOQ is delivered in the manner required by this RFQ by the Due Date and Time. Owner has the right to reject any SOQs not properly delivered.

https://charlottenc.bonfirehub.com/portal/?tab=openOpportunities

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: OWNER DESCRIPTION

1.1: General

1.2: Funding/Authority

1.3: Procurement Website

SECTION 2: OVERVIEW OF PROJECT

2.1: General

2.2: Project Objectives

2.3: Scope of Work

2.4: Estimated Budget and Cash Flow

2.5: Project Procurement Schedule

2.6: Definitions

SECTION 3: PROCUREMENT PROCESS

3.1: General Information

3.2: Owner Rights and Procurement Conditions

3.3: Outline of the Procurement Process

3.4: Contract

3.5: Reference Documents

SECTION 4: SOQ SUBMITTAL, FORMAT, AND ORGANIZATION

4.1: SOQ Submittal Requirements

4.2: SOQ Format Requirements

4.3: SOQ Organization

SECTION 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS RFQ

5.1: Charlotte Business INClusion

5.2: Vendor Registration

5.3: Public Records

5.4: Commercial Non-Discrimination Ordinance

5.5: E-Verify

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 3

5.6: Applicable Laws

5.7: Cost of SOQ Preparation

5.8: Registration with Secretary of State of North Carolina

5.9: Communication Guidelines

5.10: No Lobbying

5.11: NC Prohibition of Contracts with Companies that Invest in Iran or Boycott Israel

5.12: Financial Capacity; Insurance Requirements

FORMS

FORM 1: Proposer Information

FORM 2: Basic Requirements

FORM 3: General Background of Designer

FORM 4: General Background of Builder

FORM 5: Subconsultants / Subcontractors

FORM 6: Affidavits

FORM 7: E-Verify Certification

FORM 8: Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters

FORM 9: Byrd Anti-Lobbying Certification

FORM 10: Intent to Submit a Proposal and Request for Documents and Reverse Interview

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1: Sample Contract

EXHIBIT 2: Reference Questionnaire

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 4

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE UPON SUBMISSION OF FORM 10

1 – LEE S. DUKES WTP EXPANSION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT, JUNE 2026

2 – LEE S. DUKES WTP EXPANSION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT, REVIT AND CAD

FILES, JUNE 2026

3 – FULL-SCALE RE-RATING STUDY PROTOCOL, LEE S. DUKES WTP, MAY 2026

4 – LEE S. DUKES WTP PLATE SETTLERS ADDITION, DRAFT EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT

PACKAGE, APRIL 2026

5 – LEE S. DUKES WTP CHEMICAL PIPING REPLACEMENT, 70% DELIVERABLE, MARCH 2026

6 – LEE S. DUKES WTP EXPANSION STUDY, JUNE 2024

7 – LEE S. DUKES WTP EXPANSION STUDY, REVIT AND CAD FILES, JUNE 2024

8 – LEE S. DUKES WTP RELIABILITY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT, JUNE 2024

9 – LEE S. DUKES WTP RELIABILITY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT, REVIT AND CAD

FILES, JUNE 2024

10 – NORTH MECKLENBURG WATER TREATMENT PLANT, CHLORINE GAS SCRUBBER

ADDITION, PART 1, CONFORMED PLANS, 2006

11 – NORTH MECKLENBURG WATER TREATMENT PLANT, WATER TREATMENT PLAN

UPGRADES, PART 2, CONFORMED PLANS, 2006

12 – NORTH MECKLENBURG WATER TREATMENT PLANT, WATER TREATMENT PLANT

UPGRADES, PART 2, CAD FILES, 2006

13 – NORTH MECKLENBURG WATER TREATMENT PLANT, CONTRACT NO. 2, INTAKE AND RAW

WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS, CONFORMED PLANS, NOV. 1998

14 – NORTH MECKLENBURG WATER TREATMENT PLANT, CONTRACT NO. 3, FINISHED WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN, CONFORMED PLANS, FEB. 1997

15 – NORTH MECKLENBURG WATER TREATMENT PLANT, CONTRACT NO. 4, WATER

TREATMENT PLANT, CONFORMED PLANS, DEC. 1998

16 – REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE, PROPOSED

NORTH MECKLENBURG WATER TREATMENT PLANT, DEC. 1993

17 – HIGH SERVICE PUMP CURVES, PUMPS 1-6

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 5

SECTION 1: OWNER DESCRIPTION

1.1 General

Charlotte Water (CLTWater) is seeking Progressive Design-Build services to design and construct the Lee S Dukes WTP Expansion Project. Based on recent water planning evaluations, CLTWater has identified the need for several improvements to address future water capacity needs. These improvements include expansion of the Lee S. Dukes WTP along with various improvements and upgrades to the distribution system, particularly in the 978 Pressure Zone. Based on the system demand projections, construction must be completed for the Dukes WTP expansion by December 31st, 2034.

The current facility was originally designed and constructed for a capacity of 18 mgd but is allowed to operate up to 25 mgd based on approval from NCDEQ in 2000 to high-rate the filters to 5.5 gpm/sf (or 6 gpm/sf under drought conditions). In May 2026, CLTWater submitted a request to NCDEQ to further increase the filtration rate up to 8 gpm/sf due to system demands. The intent of this re-rate is to get more treatment capacity from the existing module to ensure available capacity in the 978 Pressure Zone while the new modules are being constructed under this expansion project. Plate settlers have also been considered for addition in the existing sedimentation basins prior to the completion of this project to help improve settled water turbidities to the filters and extend filter run times. Due to high demands even in winter months, this equipment has not been procured or installed due to tight construction timeframes available for rehabilitation projects.

To meet projected system demands, the intent of this expansion is to triple the plant’s treatment capacity with the addition of two treatment modules, each with an initial capacity rating of 18 mgd (for a total of three modules, or 54 mgd). CLTWater will then perform a high-rate study once each module is constructed with the overall goal of obtaining permission from NCDEQ to treat up to 75 mgd at the Lee S. Dukes WTP.

Proposers will need to assemble a team of experts, including but not limited to, design, survey, geotechnical, environmental, permitting, construction, start-up, commissioning, and provide technical input for the public communications plan for the execution of this project.

Proposers may only submit one proposal in response to this RFQ. CLTWater reserves the right to make final decisions regarding the utilization of subcontractors/subconsultants and to require the removal and replacement of any personnel of the awarded team. For instance, if a contractor submits a proposal with multiple design subconsultants, CLTWater may determine which designer (or combination of designers) is to be utilized.

Proposers who submit an SOQ are submitting a proposal for all of the projects identified and do not need to identify which project they would like to be considered for.

CLTWater will consider the evaluation criteria when making project assignments, as well as other factors such as schedule, proximity to other projects, team capacity and approach.

1.2 Funding

Funding for this project is included in CLTWater’s Capital Investment Plan. Funding for some of the project may be from private grant programs, as deemed appropriate by CLTWater.

1.3 Procurement Website

The full RFQ document, addenda, clarifications, and all other related information will be posted on the City’s Procurement Portal as listed on page 1 of the RFQ. Each Proposer is responsible for checking the Procurement Portal to obtain the latest information.

SECTION 2: OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS

2.1 General

The Project is for the design and construction of the Lee S. Dukes WTP Expansion to a total treatment capacity of 54 MGD with the ability to high rate to 75 MGD. The Project will have two

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 6 major milestones as described below:

Interim Milestone:

The interim milestone shall be successfully reached when Charlotte Water can successfully treat an additional 18 MGD. This may include the construction of the following:

• Construction of an 18 MGD conventional treatment module, including rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation, and filter basins

• Additional high service pumping capacity, including but not limited to channelization of the existing pump station

• Chemical feed and storage system improvements and additions

• New lime storage and feed

• Pre-alkalinity chemical addition

• Gravity thickener basin

• Recycle pumping station

• Clearwell storage

• Clarifier basin

• Chlorine contact chamber

• Electrical distribution and standby power system improvements to support expanded facilities

• Ancillary systems in support of the above-listed improvements

Final Milestone:

The Final Milestone shall be successfully reached upon completion of the remaining work which may include:

• Construction of a second 18 MGD conventional treatment module, including rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation, and filter basins

• Additional high service pumping capacity

• Gravity thickener basin

• Clearwell storage

• Dewatering Building, including incorporation of mechanical dewatering technology

• Dewatered solids storage

• Raw water intake screen modifications and additions

• Installation of a new 60-inch diameter raw water line from previous termination point to existing tie-in location at the Lee S. Dukes WTP

• Electrical distribution and standby power system improvements to support expanded facilities

• Chemical feed and storage system improvements and additions

• Ancillary systems in support of the above-listed improvements

2.2 Project Objectives

The overall Project objective is to expand the existing Lee S. Dukes WTP from 25 mgd to a high-rated treatment capacity of 75 mgd to meet overall system demands.

Alternate Delivery Justification: Per N.C.G.S. 143-128.1A, the following are the criteria that were used in determining the circumstances under which the design-build method is appropriate for this project:

• The extent to which CLTWater can adequately and thoroughly define the project requirements prior to the issuance of the request for qualifications for a Design-Builder.

• The time constraints for the delivery of the project.

• The ability to ensure that a quality project can be delivered.

• The capability of CLTWater to manage and oversee the project, including the availability of experienced staff or outside consultants who are experienced with the

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 7 design-build method of project delivery.

• A good-faith effort to comply with N.C.G.S. 143-128.2, N.C.G.S. 143-128.4, and to recruit and select small business entities. CLTWater shall not limit or otherwise preclude any Proposer from submitting a response so long as the Proposer, itself or through its proposed team, is properly licensed and qualified to perform the work defined by the public notice issued under subsection (c) of this section.

• The criteria utilized by CLTWater, including a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of using the design-build delivery method for a given project in lieu of the delivery methods identified in subdivisions (1), (2), and (4) of N.C.G.S. 143-128(a1).

Additional project objectives are as follows:

• Maintain a safe, injury free work site(s) and environment throughout each phase of the project.

• Establish a collaborative relationship between CLTWater, the Owner’s Advisor (Hazen), and the Design-Build team to leverage the progressive design-build delivery model to generate innovative, effective, and efficient solutions that produce quality design and construction.

• Complete the project on time and within CLTWater’s budget/GMP and optimize lifecycle costs with initial capital costs.

• Minimize impacts to CLTWater and its customers through close coordination with CLTWater. This includes ensuring that plant treatment operations are not interrupted through proper planning of construction activities.

• Develop detailed maintenance of plant operations (MOPO) that minimize plant shutdowns while taking into account scheduling and consideration that some plant shutdowns will be weather and season dependent.

• Provide accessibility and transparency regarding the accounting, development of cost estimates, and overall project finances in partnership with the Owner’s Advisor and CLTWater.

• Ensure CLTWater Operations staff and other pertinent staff/key stakeholders are fully engaged.

• Provide a project that reliably meets or exceeds all regulatory and permitting requirements and anticipates the ability to upgrade/expand with additional phases.

• Provide seamless transition of the start-up activities to the CLTWater operations and maintenance team.

• Maximize contracting opportunities with MWSBE firms.

Note that work on this project may be delivered through one or multiple GMPs to complement funding needs and schedule goals.

2.3 Scope of Work and Schedule

Scope of Work

The Design-Builder will work with CLTWater and the Owner’s Advisor (Hazen) to review the identified treatment processes and plant improvements recommended in the Lee S. Dukes WTP Expansion Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) completed in June 2026 and advance (or modify and advance) the final layout, sizing, and equipment/components to meet CLTWater’s goals for the Project. The Design-Builder will provide the resources and staff to deliver the final project that will include, but not be limited to:

• Preliminary Design – The Owner’s Advisor (OA) is completing the surveying and

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 8 geotechnical studies of the overall site. These records will be provided to the Design- Builder for their review once completed (anticipated fall 2026). The Design-Builder will provide resources needed to provide any additional planning and design information (i.e. geotechnical studies, surveying, testing, site visits, analyses, etc.) required for preliminary design efforts. The Design-Builder will review the PER and develop a series of Technical Memoranda to memorialize the final decisions with regards to the preliminary design.

o CLTWater desires to work with the Design-Builder to develop a project scope that incorporates creativity and innovation relative to costs, schedule, and reliability and demonstrates a keen understanding of working within a strict funding limit.

Evaluate the need for a second High Service Pump Station (HSPS), considering potential challenges with MOPO during construction, layout of pump station(s) for ease of operations and maintenance, and feasibility of pumping capacities for treatment capacity over 75 MGD. This effort would also include physical modeling of both the existing and potential second HSPS.

Evaluate options for expanding the existing emergency generator capacity beyond three generators.

• Permitting – Currently, no permitting has been completed for the Project. The Design- Builder will provide the expertise and resources to determine the permitting to be completed and work with CLTWater and the regulatory agencies to successfully obtain all required permits. CLTWater and their OA will complete high-rate applications for each treatment module constructed and will coordinate any required reporting with

FERC.

• Detailed Design – The Design-Builder will provide the resources and expertise to complete the design of a well-performing and reliable facility that meets or exceeds all regulatory requirements, operations, and maintenance goals of the project. Both the Preliminary Design and Detailed Design will need to have a strong emphasis on MOPO, the strategies for adhering to the overall project schedule, a cash flow analysis, and facilitation of a smooth transition between the project milestones and GMP package(s).

• Scheduling and Cost Estimating including Monthly Cashflows – Budget management is critical for this project. The Design-Builder will be expected to have a high degree of accuracy of cost estimating at all phases of design such that development of the final GMP proceeds seamlessly. It will be the responsibility of the Design-Builder to monitor costs during preliminary design and immediately alert CLTWater to any scope that likely exceeds the budget prior to detailed design beyond 30% being initiated. The Design-Builder is expected to develop and update project schedules. A resource-loaded monthly project schedule will be required after issuance of the Notice to Proceed (NTP), with updates provided on a monthly basis thereafter. Cashflow and project schedule reporting shall include major constraints, perceived cost or schedule impacts, and known constructability issues.

• Risk Management – Identification, management, and mitigation of risk will be a key aspect for the Project team to navigate. The Design-Builder will be responsible for preparation and maintenance of a Project risk register and working collaboratively with CLTWater, the OA, and other parties to manage Project risks.

• Construction – Provide excellent construction expertise, management, and resources to complete the project safely, on schedule, and within budget.

• Start-Up and Commissioning – Provide the resources and expertise to start up the new and modified facilities and ensure they are operating reliably as planned. Commissioning includes coordinating and delivering adequate operations and maintenance (O&M)

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 9 training on the new facilities, excellent documentation of the structures and equipment via O&M manuals and record drawings, and satisfactory closeout of all permits.

Project Schedule

The requirements associated with meeting the Interim Milestone of the Lee S. Dukes WTP Expansion shall be completed and placed into operation by the end of calendar year 2031.

The requirements associated with meeting the Final Milestone of the Lee S. Dukes WTP Expansion shall be completed and placed into operation by the end of calendar year 2034.

2.4 Estimated Budget & Cash Flow

The overall budget for the Scope of Work referenced in Section 2.3 (engineering and construction) is approximately $790M (Interim Milestone - $315M +/-, Final Milestone – $475M +/-).

This project will be completed in phases (GMPs or Work Packages) over approximately nine years to match the funding available for the project. Currently, the funding budget for the project is as follows, where a fiscal year (FY) begins July 1 and ends on June 30th):

a. FY2027: $5M

b. FY2028: $52M

c. FY2029: $75M

d. FY2030: $81M

e. FY2031: $133M

f. FY2032: $144M

g. FY2033: $112M

h. FY2034: $114M

i. FY2035: $74M

While funding between the years cannot be accelerated, there is potential for unspent or unencumbered (not under contract) funds for each of these years to be carried over to the following year. Therefore, spending in an FY could be different from the amount listed above, but it cannot exceed the funding that is allocated for that year, plus any carryover allowed from prior year(s). CLTWater reserves the right to increase or decrease the funding shown for any fiscal year its’ discretion.

CLTWater is interested in opportunities to expedite the completion of the project milestones;

however, the included funding schedule cannot be accelerated at this time. CLTWater will, however, consider alternative strategies that allow acceleration of the schedule while maintaining the indicated funding schedule, understanding that this may have an impact on the overall budget.

2.5 Project Procurement Schedule

2.5.1 The following is the Project Procurement Schedule. The Owner reserves the right to modify the Project Procurement Schedule via Addenda.

If three responses are received from qualified Design-Builders, CLTWater may proceed with evaluating and ranking proposals. If three responses are not received from qualified Design-Builders by the deadline shown below, CLTWater will re-advertise the RFQ. A timeline for each of these scenarios is provided in the following table.

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 10

Event Deadline Issuance of RFQ July 1, 2026 Pre-Proposal Meeting/Tour (see 2.5.2) July 15, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.

Deadline to Request Reference Documents and Reverse Interview

July 28, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.

Reverse Interviews August 12, 2026 Deadline to Submit Questions August 18, 2026 SOQ Packages Due September 3, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.

ACTIVITY: Three Proposals Received Less Than Three Proposals Received

Notification of Short-Listed Proposers (Optional) September 22, 2026 September 29, 2026

Optional Interviews with Short- Listed Companies

September 30 – October 1, 2026 October 7, 2026

Selection Notification October 6, 2026 October 13, 2026

2.5.2 The pre-proposal meeting and site visit for Proposers is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on July 15, 2026, at Lee S. Dukes WTP (7980 Babe Stillwell Farm Road, Huntersville, NC). This will be the only site visit scheduled during the solicitation period; additional site visits will not be permitted. Although this meeting is not mandatory, attendance is strongly encouraged.

2.5.3 Reverse interviews will be held only for teams committing to submit an SOQ in response to the RFQ. Proposers intending to submit an SOQ should complete Form 11 and follow the instructions on the form to request an interview. CLTWater will schedule a reverse interview for each team. Below are some guidelines and ground rules for these reverse interviews:

• They are intended to be for the benefit of the Proposers to gather additional information from CLTWater staff about the project scope and preferences relative to the presentation of information in the Proposers’ Statement of Qualifications.

• They are not mandatory and have no bearing on the selection decision.

• Presentations and handouts are permitted, but no materials will be retained by CLTWater.

• It is CLTWater’s intent to treat the team’s questions as confidential; however, CLTWater reserves the right to issue any interpretations or clarifications arising from the interview as an addendum to all Proposers.

• Design-build teams may present information relative to design, treatment processes, or construction concepts for the project for the purpose of gauging the Owner’s acceptance or interest. However, any feedback would simply be to help the design-build teams gain insight into what type of approach/creativity the CLTWater team finds advantageous or not.

2.6 Definitions

2.6.1 Business Day: any day on which the Owner is open for regularly conducted business.

2.6.2 Charlotte Business INClusion: Refers to the Charlotte Business INClusion Policy and Program of the City of Charlotte pertaining to participation of Minority, Women, Small Business Enterprises (MWSBEs) on City contracts and procurements.

2.6.3 Design-Builder: The entity with the prime design-build contract with the Owner.

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 11

2.6.4 Design-Build Team: All entities listed by the Design-Builder as providing services or construction on the Project. The Design-Builder is not required to list all members of the Design-Build Team in the SOQ. Members of the Design-Build Team may also be referred to as “Team Members.”

2.6.5 Key Team Member: Individuals who will be assigned to the Project who play an important role in the design, construction, or management of the Project. At a minimum, these would include: Project Director / Principal-In-Charge, Project Manager, Design Manager, Lead Process Mechanical Engineer, Preconstruction Services Manager, Construction Manager, Site Superintendent, Safety Manager, and Lead Cost Estimator.

2.6.6 Owner’s Advisor: For this project, the Owner’s Advisor is Hazen and Sawyer, who will provide engineering and procurement services to facilitate the selection of the Design- Builder by CLTWater and evaluation of information and documentation generated by the Design-Builder during the course of the project.

2.6.7 Procurement: The Owner’s process for selecting a Design-Build Team for this Project.

2.6.8 Procurement Documents: All documents issued by the Owner in connection with the Procurement or Project.

2.6.9 Projects of Similar Scope and Complexity: Projects that had completion dates within 10 years of the RFQ Issue Date and that have many or all of the following characteristics:

(Note: These are not minimum criteria but considered the ideal experience level by which all project experience submitted will be evaluated against.)

Design-build water treatment plant projects of a similar size and budget that involved the design and construction of water plant expansion and/or water plant upgrades or rehabilitation with a minimum firm capacity of 15 MGD and included conventional treatment processes; or if no design-build projects are available meeting this description, Proposers may list design projects meeting the scope above and construction projects for similarly sized water treatment plants of similar scope. (Each project reference will count separately toward the total allowed).

Additional desirable reference project features:

a. Significant coordination of plant shutdown for the plant or key processes – MOPO.

b. Projects that utilize a collaborative delivery method that require strong coordination and integration of the design and construction professionals, and early involvement of the construction professionals during design.

c. Projects where the Design-Builder was selected based on qualifications and where the Design-Builder collaborated with the Owner and Owner’s Advisor to develop the final price and schedule.

d. Projects where the Design-Builder was selected on a strong recruitment and utilization of MWSBE/DBEs.

e. Projects that were completed after 2021, where Contractors can demonstrate experience dealing with supply chain and other post-COVID construction impacts.

f. Projects that demonstrate the ability to meet a challenging schedule.

g. Projects that demonstrate the ability to meet the cash flow requirements set by the Owner, without penalty to the Owner.

2.6.10 Proposer: The Proposer is the legal entity responsible for submitting the SOQ and delivering the project and executing contracts for the project if they are selected as the Design-Builder. That could be the engineer, constructor, or joint venture entity depending on the structure of the proposed team. Proposer shall also include any and all members of the Design-Build Team.

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 12

SECTION 3: PROCUREMENT PROCESS

3.1 General Information

3.1.1 Compliance with Legal Requirements

Procurement will be in accordance with N.C.G.S. 143-128.1A and all applicable federal, state, and local laws, and Owner policies and procedures.

3.1.2 Addenda / Questions and Answers

Proposers may submit written questions concerning this RFQ to Laura Osborne via email at Laura.Osborne@charlottenc.gov. Questions received after the stated deadline in the Schedule of Events will not be answered. No oral statement of any person shall modify or otherwise change or affect the terms, conditions, specifications, or any other item stated in the RFQ. Changes, interpretations, and clarifications considered necessary by the Owner in response to questions received will be issued by Addenda. Addenda shall be made in writing only and posted on CLTWater’s website as listed on page 1 of the RFQ.

Proposers are encouraged to contact the Charlotte Business INClusion (CBI) Liaison for assistance or clarification with issues specifically related to the City’s CBI Program. The point of contact is Frederica Love, who may be reached via email at frederica.love@charlottenc.gov.

3.2 Owner Rights and Procurement Conditions

3.2.1 The Owner reserves without limitation, and may exercise at its sole discretion, the following rights and conditions with regard to this Procurement process:

a. To cancel the Procurement process and reject any and all SOQs and/or Proposals;

b. To waive any informality, technicality, or irregularity;

c. To revise the Procurement Documents and Schedule via an Addendum;

d. To reject any or all responses to the RFQ, to advertise for new RFQ responses, or to accept any RFQ response deemed to be in the best interest of the City;

e. To require confirmation of information furnished by a Proposer, require additional information from a Proposer concerning its SOQ or Proposal, and require additional evidence of qualifications to perform the work described in this RFQ;

f. To provide clarifications or conduct discussions, at any time, with one or more Proposers;

g. To contact references who are not listed in the Proposer’s SOQs and investigate statements on the SOQs and/or qualification of the Proposer and any Proposers or individuals identified in the SOQ;

h. To consider Alternative Technical Concepts and/or approaches identified by Proposers;

i. To take any action affecting the RFQ process or the Project that is determined to be in the Owner’s best interests;

j. Approve or disapprove of the use of particular Subconsultants, Subcontractors, or Key Team Members and/or substitutions and/or changes to Subconsultants, Subcontractors, or Key Team Members from those identified in the SOQ or Proposal.

Such approval or disapproval shall not be unreasonably exercised; and

k. To establish a maximum number of projects that a Proposer may be awarded.

mailto:frederica.love@charlottenc.gov

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 13

3.3 Outline of the Procurement Process

3.3.1 Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

a. This RFQ invites Proposers to submit SOQs describing in detail their technical, management, and financial qualifications to design, permit, construct, commission, and close out the Project.

b. Proposers will submit their SOQ and other deliverables required pursuant to this Procurement at the time and in the manner set forth in this RFQ and any Addenda. The Owner will not consider SOQs or other deliverables that are submitted after the deadline set forth in the RFQ. See Section 4 for detailed information on how to submit a proposal.

c. The Owner will evaluate the information submitted by each Proposer. Any Proposer who fails to meet the requirements set forth in the RFQ may be deemed non-responsive and will not be considered further by the Owner in this procurement.

d. All SOQs will be evaluated in accordance solely with the criteria established in the RFQ and any Addenda issued thereto. The evaluation criteria are listed herein, including the relative weight given to each criterion.

e. Following evaluation of the SOQs, the three most highly qualified Proposers shall be ranked. Owner will then begin negotiations with the highest-ranked Proposer.

f. Design-Build Team Members and individual Key Team Members will be used as a basis for selection. Once shortlisted, neither the Proposer nor Team Members that are submitted to the Owner as part of the SOQ or Proposal may substitute a listed consultant, subconsultant or subcontractor, or any individual listed as a Key Team Member; however, a change to any submitted Team Member or Key Team Member will result in re-evaluation and may result in a change to the evaluation and ranking of the Proposer.

3.3.2 Selection Process / Interviews

Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-64.31, CLTWater is conducting a “qualifications-based” selection process without regard to fee or the price of the project.

CLTWater will conduct a fair and impartial evaluation of all proposals that are received in accordance with the provisions of this RFQ. CLTWater will appoint a selection committee to perform the evaluation. CLTWater reserves the right to obtain clarification of any point in a Proposer’s/Team’s Qualification Package or to obtain additional information. All Proposers/Teams who submit Qualification Packages will be notified of the selection committee’s choice. Final approval of any selected Proposer/Team is subject to the action of City Council or appropriate City officials.

Interviews with Proposers are not anticipated but may be held at the option of the selection committee. An interview process may be used to clarify the information contained in the SOQ, but not to modify the SOQ. The SOQ evaluation committee may use the interviews to confirm or modify the evaluation of the SOQs and to clarify any questions.

3.3.3 Evaluation and Ranking of Proposers

In the evaluation and ranking of Proposers, the Owner will consider the information submitted in the SOQ, as well as optional interviews with the Proposers with respect to the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ. The result of the evaluation will be a comparative ranking of Proposers. Only the top three Proposers’ ranking will be disclosed.

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 14

Evaluation of Proposers

Criteria Points

1 Mandatory Responsiveness Mandatory Responsiveness, Completeness of SOQ Pass/Fail

Cover Letter (Information Only) Pass/Fail

2 Content and Quality of Team’s Proposal Quality and Content of the Proposal 10

3 Qualifications of Team Experience and Qualifications 10

Key Personnel’s Experience and Qualifications 15

Team Organization & Firm Resources (org chart) 10

Safety record and approach 5

4 Team’s Experience and Capabilities to Complete Work Demonstrated past performance with projects of similar capacity, size, scope, complexity, and budget. Preference given to water treatment projects

Demonstrated past performance specific to engineering approach in design-build delivery

Demonstrated past performance specific to startup and commissioning in design-build delivery

Demonstrated past performance specific to coordination and collaboration, both internal among the design-build team and external with Owner and OA

Demonstrates familiarity with CLTWater standards and water treatment facilities

5 Approach

Project Approach 20

Team’s approach to meeting the schedule 15

Team’s approach to managing the cashflow 15

6 Subcontracting Approach

Self-Performance and Subcontracting Approach 10

CBI Participation 10

Subtotal, SOQ = 165

If interviews are conducted for Proposers, the following evaluation criteria will be used to make a final selection:

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 15

Final Evaluation of Short-Listed Proposers

Criteria Points

Ability to convey knowledge and understanding of the project consistent with the Proposer’s SOQ

Firm’s approach to cost control and the design process 10

Quality of presentation and relevance of the interview as it relates to the scope and questions

Team’s ability to respond to Owner’s questions 10

Team’s synergy and dynamic 15

Subtotal, Interview = 55

3.3.4 Failure to Comply with Instructions

The City may choose to exercise the following options for SOQ packages that fail to comply with any requirement of this RFQ: a) assign a low rating; or b) deem the SOQ non-responsive and remove the SOQ from further consideration.

3.3.5 Modification of Withdrawal of SOQs

Proposers may change or withdraw their SOQs at any time prior to the due date by providing written notice via email to the Procurement Officer stated on page 1 of this RFQ.

In order to be effective, the intent of the notification must be clear and concise.

Withdrawal of a SOQ will not preclude a Proposer from subsequently submitting a new SOQ, so long as that new SOQ is properly submitted and received by the City’s Procurement Officer prior to the SOQ Due Date.

3.4 Contract

3.4.1 Contract Format

The Owner will enter into negotiations for the Design-Build Agreement with any selected Proposer. A sample of the agreement that will be utilized for this project is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to 3.4.2, the Owner reserves the right to modify any of these documents as it deems appropriate and that is determined to be in the Owner’s best interests.

3.4.2 Negotiations and Modification of Contract Documents

The City reserves the right to conduct negotiations with the Proposer regarding any remaining issues provided that the general work scope remains the same and that the field of competition does not change as a result of material changes to the requirements stated in the RFQ. The City will make such modifications to the Contract Documents as it may determine, in the exercise of its sole discretion, to be necessary to fully incorporate the terms of the Proposer’s Statement of Qualification, or to correct any inconsistencies, ambiguities, or errors that may exist in the Contract Documents. If, in the City’s sole discretion, it determines that the highest qualified Proposer is not responsive to the negotiation process, negotiations are negatively impacting the project schedule, or that the parties will be unable to reach a mutually-acceptable Contract, the City may terminate negotiations with the Proposer. The City will then continue the process of negotiation with the next highest qualified Proposer until the City either successfully negotiates a Contract or cancels the procurement.

3.5 Reference Documents

There are reference documents for the Project available to Proposers, as listed on Page 4.

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 16

These Reference Documents are available to Proposers intending to submit an SOQ.

Proposers should follow the instructions on Form 11 to request a copy of the Reference Documents.

SECTION 4: SOQ SUBMITTAL, FORMAT, AND ORGANIZATION

4.1. SOQ Submittal Requirements

4.1.1 Proposers wanting to be considered to provide the required services to the City must submit all required documents and respond to all questions with the Procurement Portal under the respective project. Refer to the Instructions document in the Procurement Portal for submission instructions.

The City strongly recommends allowing sufficient time to complete this process (several days prior to the deadline) to begin the uploading process and to finalize its submission.

Uploading large documents may take time, depending on the size of the file(s) and your Internet connection speed. You will receive an email confirmation with a unique confirmation number once you finalize your submission.

4.1.2 Each Proposer is solely responsible for the timely submittal of their SOQ. Proposers accept all risks of late delivery regardless of fault. Proposers accept all risk if file is corrupted, incorrect, incomplete, or not attached.

4.2 SOQ Format Requirements

The SOQs shall comply with the following format requirements:

a. Pages shall be numbered.

b. Pages sized greater than 8.5x11-inches will count as two pages. These larger pages may be used in any section at the Proposer’s discretion.

c. Add tabs between sections.

d. The font shall be no smaller than 11 points for narrative sections, but may be reduced for captions, footnotes, etc. as required while still maintaining legibility.

e. Page limits are provided for individual sections in Section 4.3.

f. Proposers may not include hyperlinks, QR codes, or similar, that links to websites or additional online resources in their SOQ. All content submitted for consideration must be printed in the SOQ and adhere to the page limits provided.

g. Modifying the forms may be grounds for rejection of the Proposer’s SOQ. Proposers are responsible for ensuring all information is transposed accurately.

h. SOQs that exceed the page limits specified may be rejected. The Owner, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to remove pages from the sections of any non-conforming SOQ submittals to bring each non-conforming SOQ submittal within the page count requirement.

4.3 SOQ Organization

SOQs shall consist of the following parts:

4.3.1 Section 1 - Cover letter

Page limit: maximum 1 page

Cover letter to be signed by person authorized to execute contracts on behalf of the Proposer and designated Proposer’s contact person for this project (if different).

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 17

4.3.2 Section 2 - Proposed Project Personnel

Page limit: 20 pages

a. Provide an overall organizational chart for the Proposer. Include all Key Team Members and supporting team members. Chart should designate team member’s employer.

o Please note Proposers must also complete Form 5 – “Subconsultants / Subcontractors” which requires identification of any MWSBE subconsultants / subcontractors.

b. Proposer must provide an explanation of the project team selection. In accordance with N.C.G.S. 143-128.1A, provide either of the following:

o Option 1: A list of the licensed contractors, licensed subcontractors, and design professionals whom the design-builder proposes to use for the project's design and construction.

o Option 2: A list of the licensed contractors and design professionals whom the design-builder proposes to use for the project’s design and construction and an outline of the strategy the design-builder plans to use for open subcontractor selection based upon the provisions of Article 8 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes.

CLTWater is not specifying an approach, and the Proposer may submit either option for consideration.

c. Per N.C.G.S. 143-128.1A, the Proposer shall provide a statement certifying that each design professional who is a member of the design-build team, including subconsultants, was selected based upon demonstrated competence and qualifications in the manner provided by N.C.G.S. 143-64.31.

d. Proposer may provide up to a one-page summary describing the organization of the team and the benefits of the team organization to the execution of the project.

e. Proposer must provide two resumes for each of the key positions listed below.

Proposer shall indicate which candidate the Proposer believes is the best (primary) person and which candidate is the backup.

- Project Director/Principal-In-Charge – individual most responsible for the successful delivery of the project.

- Project Manager – individual responsible for the overall delivery of the project including planning, design, construction, and commissioning and would serve as the primary owner contact.

- Design Manager – individual responsible for managing the activities and team resources to deliver the planning, permitting and design of the project through completion.

- Lead Process Mechanical Engineer – individual responsible for leading the process mechanical approach and design.

- Preconstruction Services Manager – Individual responsible for constructability reviews, permits needed during construction, cost estimating, GMP development, and other as needed for the transition between design and construction phases.

- Construction Manager – individual responsible for the delivery of the construction

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 18 phase of the project. They would be responsible for providing constructability reviews during design and managing the team resources to deliver the construction phase of the project.

- Site Superintendent – individual assigned to the project full time in the field to manage all construction activities and team field staff on the project site.

- Safety Manager - individual with appropriate training and experience in safety requirements and methodologies who will be assigned to the project to provide guidance and oversight to the team in the field. Individual should not be a corporate position that will not be engaged with this project.

- Lead Cost Estimator – individual responsible for leading the cost estimation efforts throughout design and construction.

Each resume for the key positions will include the following information in the order described:

- Name and qualifications relative to general experience and qualifications (can be narrative statement), education, total years of experience, years with current company, and registrations/certifications (note whether these are North Carolina and if NC no need to list other states)

- Names and addresses of previous employers for past 10 years

- Provide a summary of at least three Projects of Similar Scope and Complexity performed by the candidate within the last 10 years. The summary shall include:

o Project Name o Brief Description of project scope o Constructed Value o Project Duration and Completion Date o Candidate’s Position and Duties Within the Project o Owner Point of Contact, Email Address and Phone Number

The following commitment is required of all key team members by including the following statement in the bottom margin of the resumes:

This proposed individual shall be available to meet the scope and schedule on this Project(s) for its entire duration and shall not be reassigned without the expressed written concurrence of CHARLOTTE WATER.

f. For other key support staff leading primary components of the project execution provide brief biographical information for each technical discipline as well as primary members of the construction phase services support staff. Brief biographical information shall include: qualifications, similar project experience, and professional registrations. The total page limit for this section governs for this biographical information and Proposers will choose which key staff to present.

g. This section should include a single chart indicating the planned effort for each key team member for the duration of the project. A simple “Percent (%) dedicated to the project” graph, bar chart, etc. is sufficient showing each member’s effort on a quarterly basis.

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 19

4.3.3 Section 3 - Proposer Experience (Design-Build, Design, and Construction)

Page limit: Project descriptions – Maximum 10 pages

a. Provide a maximum of 5 total projects highlighting Proposer’s team experience with collaborative delivery projects, design, and construction of Projects of Similar Scope and Complexity. Preference may be given to Key Team Members on the Proposer’s team showing experience with progressive design-build. It is not necessary for the Proposer’s team to show previous experience working together on previous projects.

It is preferred that no more than two team experience projects are from CLTWater.

b. Design-Build projects are preferred and count for both design and construction if Proposer’s team members are the same as those who delivered the work.

c. All projects should have been completed within the last 10 years.

d. A completed reference sheet (Exhibit 3) must be submitted to Procurement for each team project experience project no later than the SOQ due date. The person submitting the reference sheet must match the individual noted as the reference in the team project experience project.

e. Project Experience sheets should be formatted as follows:

- Section A – General Information o Name of project o Owner name, title, phone number and email address (Contact name should be individual involved in the project management for the owner.)

o Name of designer and constructor

- Section B – Project Description o Project scope o Project budget and describe if completed above or below bid or GMP o Key elements or challenges of the project similar to this project o Project schedule (including initial contract time, actual time to complete, and the completion date). Include the reason for any project time extensions.

o Penalties assessed by the owner including but not limited to claims or liquidated damages o Claims on the project, including any made against the Owner

- Section C – Team Members o Key Team Members for this project that worked on the team experience project and their position/role on the team experience project.

- Section D – Innovative Solution to a Challenge o Describe at least one project challenge and how it was managed.

© 2016 Design-Build Institute of America Page 20

4.3.4 Section 4 - Perception of the Work and Approach

Page limit: Maximum of 10 pages

a. The following information should be included at a minimum. Responses do not need to follow the structure below but should address each item in the narrative.

Responses may include references to project described in Section 3 of the SOQ that demonstrate the breadth and depth of the Proposers experience and expertise in developing and delivering water treatment plant expansion projects where an existing plant must be partially or completely left online.

- Comments on the Project scope versus budget as described in this RFQ and perceived needs of the Projects.

- Methodology and approach to the design, permitting, and construction services, including innovative or creative alternatives that could be proposed to add value or cost savings opportunities.

- Methodology and approach to working with the Owner and Owner’s Advisor in developing the project scope with a discussion of scoping workshops for process, layout, equipment, MOPO, and cost estimating.

- Approach and methodology on working within a contractual framework of a multi-phase project with limited annual funding.

- Describe how Proposer may phase work to reduce construction schedule and provide overall cost efficiencies.

- Potential risks and mitigation for all phases of the Projects.

- Describe how Proposer will ensure sufficient bidders of all work packages, including addressing how much of the construction work will be subcontracted and self-performed.

- Describe how Proposer will address craft labor challenges and ensure sufficient resources to accomplish schedule.

- Describe Proposer’s process to develop GMP.

- Expected needs from Owner-provided services.

4.3.5 Section 5 – Project List

Page Limit: 1 page

Submit a list of all projects presently under construction by the Builder including dollar value of the contract for each project and the percent of completion based on dollar value of work…