RFP_Public_Design_18211_Addendum_01.pdf
PDF 139 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 2000018211
- Issued by
- Sherburne County, Minnesota
About this file
This is an Addendum #1 to a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the State of Minnesota's Real Estate and Construction Services division for engineering design services at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault. The RFP seeks civil, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering services to design domestic water quality upgrades and related utility infrastructure improvements at the facility. A mandatory pre-proposal meeting was held on April 21, 2026, with five firms in attendance: Bolton & Menk, SEH, Inc., AECOM, MSA Professional, and Kimley Horn. The initial fee proposal should cover only the investigation/report phase, schematic design/design development phase, and construction documents phase, with bidding, construction administration, and post-construction services to be added later through supplemental agreements. Respondents may submit project references dating back up to 15 years, and one qualifying project may be selected from the five projects listed in the evaluation criteria.
The addendum clarifies that design assumptions should be based on the need for a new water treatment plant as the highest level of effort, with piping upgrades limited to connections between wells, the water tower, and the boiler plant. The facility currently operates manual controls with no existing SCADA systems in place; any third-party commissioning requirements for the water treatment system will be procured separately by the State. Multiple deliverables originally listed in the RFP attachments—including Building Information Modeling, Historical Society review, acoustical/audio-induction loops, Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and hazmat designer coordination—are not applicable to this utility infrastructure project and should not be included in fee proposals.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibit_A3.pdf | ||
| Exhibit_A1.pdf | ||
| RFP_Public_Design_18211_Exhibit_C.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit_A5.pdf | ||
| Exhibit_A4.pdf | ||
| RECS_RFP_Design_Water___Utility_Infrastructure_Upg.pdf | ||
| RFP_Public_Design_18211_Exhibit_B.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit_A2.pdf | ||
| RFP_Public_Design_18211.pdf |
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
REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
309 Administration Building
50 Sherburne Ave St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Voice: (651) 201.2550
TTY: (800) 627.3529
FAX: (651) 215.6245
http://mn.gov/admin/
Addendum #1
Date: April 27, 2026
Request for Proposal: RECS RFP Design of Water and Related Utility Infrastructure Quality Upgrades at MCF Faribault
RECS Project Number: 78FA0100 Event ID: 2000018211
Subject: RFP Mandatory Meeting Attendees, Questions & Answers
Mandatory Meeting Attendees:
The following firms attended the mandatory meeting held on April 21, 2026:
• Bolton & Menk
• SEH, Inc.
• AEcom
• MSA Professional
• Kimley Horn
Questions & Answers:
Question #1: Since this project goes through Construction Documents, consultants will need to base their level of effort on a defined project. Should we base our assumptions on a new water treatment plant (the highest level of effort) and adjust the fees based on the results of the initial study?
Answer #1: Yes, please base your efforts on the assumption that we will need a new water treatment plant.
Question #2: The scope includes “potential piping upgrades.” Is it expected that piping upgrades would include buried water main throughout the facility or just the piping between the wells, water tower, and boiler plant?
Answer #2: Just the piping from well to boiler plant. Anything beyond this can be addressed later through an SA if necessary.
Question #3: Under section 6.0 project examples must be "no more than 10 years", Can we submit project examples greater than 10 years ago?
Answer #3: Responder may submit a project reference going back 15 years in this section.
http://mn.gov/admin/ http://mn.gov/admin/
Question #4: Will the State please provide the Water Tower Design Report and associated plans?
Answer #4: See Exhibit A4 (available in SWIFT) inspection and Evaluation Report conducted by Bolton and Menk. There were no plans associated with the report. Any additional water or utility plans will be made available to the successful consultant.
Question #5: Section 6.0 of Exhibit C allows up to 5 qualifying projects (20 points), while criterion 4 asks for "One Previous Project Experience" (10 points). Can you clarify whether the "one project" must be one of the five listed in Section 6.0 or a separate project?
Answer #5: Yes, the one project may be one of the five listed in Section 6.0
Question #6: Does the State's 3rd-party commissioning requirement apply to the water treatment system, and if so, is that commissioning agent already identified or to be procured separately?
Answer #6: If the State were to require 3rd party commissioning, it will be acquired separately and through the State.
Question #7: Several items in Attachments 1–3 appear oriented toward new-building projects (BIM, Historical Society review, acoustical/audio-induction loop, MINNCOR furniture, EAW, hazmat designer coordination, CAAP Board). Can the State confirm which of these are N/A for this utility-infrastructure project so the fee proposal reflects the actual deliverable list?
Answer #7: BIM, Historical Society review, acoustical/audio induction loop, MINNCOR furniture, EAW, hazmat designer coordination, and CAAPB efforts are all Not Applicable for this project.
Question #8: Exhibit B marks Bidding, Construction Admin, and Post-Construction as "NA" and notes they'll be added via Supplemental Agreement — can you confirm the initial fee proposal should only cover Investigation/Report + SD/DD + CD phases?
Answer #8: Yes, initial fee proposal to only cover investigation/report, SD/DD phase, and CD phase.
Question #9: Regarding the "simplified SCADA integration” what is the existing SCADA platform (vendor/version), and is the intent to replace, extend, or integrate with it?
Answer #9: We do not currently have any SCADA systems in place. Current controls are manual. See Exhibit A5 (available in SWIFT) for picture of current controls.
Attachments:
Exhibit A4 & Exhibit A5 available in SWIFT and online at: https://mnadmin.sharefile.com/d-s20b6550261684436a8cb57f433b942f3
End of Addendum #1 https://mnadmin.sharefile.com/d-s20b6550261684436a8cb57f433b942f3
| Mandatory Meeting Attendees: |
| Questions & Answers: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .