HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1990, C-15 - REQUEST FOR CONSULTANT PROPOSALS (RFP) TO STUDY NEW COMMUNITY AND SENIOR CENTER FACILITIES. ����J�'�i��►�II�P°�II��I� City Of Sall LUIS OBISPO - MEETINGDATE:
- To
XROMe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:/f��
FROM: Arnold Jonas ommunity Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner("1 "
SUBJECT: Request for consultant proposals (RFP) to study new community and senior
center facilities.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff to issue the Community/Senior Center Study request for
proposals.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The council reviewed the Community/Senior Center Study RFP on
February 6, 1990, along with the RFP for the Laguna Lake Park
Master Plan, which were both originally proposed as part of the
council work program. The council directed staff to proceed with
the Laguna RFP and consultant selection, but decided to wait on the
Community/Senior RFP. More recently, the council has expressed
interest in resuming work on the Community/Senior Center Study.
No systematic attempt to evaluate adequacy of the city's recreation
facilities has been attempted since the Parks and Recreation
Element Technical Report I in 1980, which served as the basis for i
the current version of the Parks and Recreation Element (adopted
1982) . That report focused primarily on outdoor park faciliites,
although some of the survey data addressed the Santa Rosa Street
Recreation Center.
To current staff's knowledge, no formal study of future indoor
recreation space needs has ever been made.
Evaluation
The Community/Senior Center Study RFP was prepared by Community
Development Department and Recreation Department staffs, working
with the Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) . It focuses on
current and projected space needs of programs serving the city's
senior population and other indoor recreation programs, and
possible locations for new facilities. The study would concentrate
on the city's needs for the next five to fifteen years.
The scope of work is slightly broader than outlined in the council
work program in two respects. The consultant will be asked to
evaluate the option of providing multiple, small facilities, in
addition to the council's request to evaluate a single, combined
center. The consultant will also be asked to do some preliminary
data collection and analysis of indoor recreation program needs
which might not be directly associated with a community/senior
center, such as indoor adult sports leagues and youth
recreation/day care programs.
The additional information will assist in updating the Parks and
Recreation Element of the General Plan, which staff and the PRC are
studying along with the Open Space Element.
Surveys done by the consultant will include questions which can be
used as a basis for formulating indoor recreation policy
statements, which the current Parks and Recreation Element does not
include. The work scope outlined in the RFP does not ask the
consultant to formulate policy recommendations; it is anticipated
that the PRC , Planning Commission ar}d staff will do that.
The review of indoor recreation needs and facilities is one aspect
of a major reassessment of the city's recreation and open space
policies. As such, it will be coordinated with Land Use Element
update and other related studies which are already underway:
Staff and the PRC have completed a preliminary review of the
Parks and Recreation Element, and work will continue on that
and the Open Space Element.
- Staff and the PRC have also completed preliminary work on
an inventory and current usage study of programs sponsored by
the city Recreation Department which use outdoor recreation
facilities; staff will continue to work on this study with the
help of interns.
CONCURRENCES
Community Development and Recreation Department staffs concur with
the CAO recommendation to proceed with the study as outlined in the
RFP, which was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
$50, 000 have been budgeted for the Community/Senior Center study.
Staff estimates that $40,000 will be paid to the consultant, with
$10, 000 reserved to cover contract staff time and direct city
expenses. These figures are preliminary estimates which will be
refined before a consultant contract is approved by the council.
ALTERNATIVES
Several options are available to the council, in addition to the
recommended action:
A. Expanded work scope. Revise the RFP to include more
detailed policy analysis and recommendations for indoor and/or
614-x`
outdoor recreation policies. The revised RFP could return to
the council in August. The budget for the study would have
to be increased, and it would take longer to complete.
B. Narrow work scope. Direct staff to delete portions of the
proposed work program which do not relate directly to plans
for new community and or senior center facilities. The
revised RFP could return to the council in July. The budget
for the study could be maintained at its current estimate
($50, 000) .
Attachments: Council Work Program Excerpt
Community/Senior Center Study RFP
gtsd:comsr003 .wp
els-3
d .
POLICIES AND M.CTIVES
7— COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM - SENIOR CENTER/COMMUNITY BUILDING (D-2)
o -
OBJECTIVE
o Prepare a demographic, siting and programming study to determine most appropriate site for a
( full service Senior Citizen Center.
Complete a needs assessment analysis to determine use patterns and compatibility of a Senior
j Center within a general-use Community Center.
PROGRAM SUMMARY
Study phase of a project to determine the most appropriate site for a full-service Senior
Citizen Center and to determine if such a center is compatible within a general use Community
Center. This project will require input from the public as well as numerous Council Advisory
Bodies. This site determination study is included within the work scope of developing a Park
and Recreation/Open.Space Element for the. General Plan update. To implement this study in a
timely manner, a consultant should be hired to help with the effort.
KEY MILESTONES TIME REQUIREMENTS BUDGET
1. Prepare work program and hire 2-3 months S 50,000
planning consultant.
2. Prepare, distribute, gather and 4-6 months
tabulate community center needs
assessment questionnaire.
• 3. Solicit public input. 4-6 months
a
4. Prepare draft plan and exhibit
for Park and Recreation Element 1-2 months
11-17 months S 50,000 (1)
STAFF WORK HOURS: 250 hours
NOTES
1. This level of analysis was not included when a contract planner was hired to prepare the
Park. Recreation and Open Space Element for the General Plan update. In that we have
subsequently found that the Senior Citizen Center cannot be expanded at its current site
and that the Recreation Center is programmed to maximum holding capacity, this study
project would greatly enhance the final General Plan update product.
OTHER FINANCIAL PLAN REFERENCES
I
Managment Team Objectives - Completion of General Plan Update (page B-50)
Operating Programs - Community Development (pages D-71 through D-73)
Capitla Improvement Plan - Leisure, Cultural, and Social Services (page E-10)
8-61 A t
�i'in��►��Inlllllllllll Ipiiiiilil � �, - �,
IIIllullll@ IIIc cI
II ® sem lul'S OBISPO
-= 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403=8100
June 6, 1990
REQUEST FOR CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS
COMMUNITY/SENIOR CENTER STUDY
CONTACT PERSON: Long Range Planner (805)549-7162
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. BACKGROUND 2
III. THE COMMUNITY 2
IV. KEY POLICY ISSUES 3
V. SCOPE OF WORK 3
VI. BUDGET 7
VII. QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS EVALUATION
AND SELECTION PROCEDURES 7
VIII. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND PROJECT REPORTS g
IX. PROPOSAL AND REVIEW SCHEDULE 9
i
X. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS g
�I
I. INTRODUCTION
A. SUMMARY
The City of San Luis Obispo requests consultants to submit
their qualifications and proposals to conduct a study which
evaluates :the need for an expanded program of one or more
community centers and , one or more full-service senior
citizens' centers, and which will produce indoor recreational
needs data which will be used by the city in revising the
Parks and Recreation Element. The study will address at least
the following issues:
1. Indoor Recreation Program Needs Assessment
(Including demographic studies and surveys)
2. Central vs. Neighborhood Centers
3. Feasibility of Joint Use Community/Senior Center
4. Interrelationship with Other Planning Studies
5. Alternative Site Evaluation
B. COORDINATION WITH OTHER STUDIES
The Community Development Department is
presently preparing
an update of the Parks and Recreation Element and a new Open
Space/Conservation Element. The. Community/Senior Center Study
will be included within the overall work program for the
update, and will .involve input from the public as well as
numerous council Advisory Bodies.
The Community/Senior Center Study will. be prepared
concurrently with the preparation of a master plan for the
City's Laguna Lake Park. The two projects will be
coordinated, and proposals should address options for
coordination of items 1 and 5 above with the park plan.
1 O
IL.. BACKGROUND
�J A. PARRS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
The city's current Parks and Recreation Element was adopted
in 1982. However, the element does not include indoor
recreation programs or facilities.
A detailed parks and recreation survey was completed in
conjunction with the current element, and data from that
survey is still available. The survey was compiled in 1980,
however, and it will be necessary to obtain new data• to
accurately represent current community needs and preferences.
B. EXISTING FACILITIES
The city currently owns and operates three indoor recreation
facilities, and leases numerous others from the local school
district for various programs.
Santa Rosa Street Recreation Center• 12,776 square-
foot wood frame building originally constructed as a USO
facility in the 19406. This facility includes a small
gymnasium/multipurpose room and several smaller meeting
rooms. Plans for a major renovation of this facility
have recently been approved by the city.
Mitchell Park Senior Center: 41878 square-foot senior
center with a 1,600 square-foot assembly area (103
occupant capacity) and smaller meeting rooms. The city
has recently remodeled this facility. However, it
appears inadequate to serve more senior users, or to
accommodate any type of. senior meal program.
Meadow Park Community _Center: 3,281 square-foot center
located in a neighborhood park. The multi-purpose
assembly room has a maximum occupancy of 78 persons.
III. THE COMMUNITY
San Luis Obispo is a distinct community of about 41,000 people.
It is the County Seat and the focus of government employment within
the county. California Polytechnic State University is the
community's largest employer and the student population of
approximately 18,000 has a strong influence on the economy and
character of the community.
According to the most recent U.S. Census information (1980) ,
population ages of 65 and over account for 11.4 percent of the
total population.
i
2
IV. KEY POLICY ISSUES
1. INDOOR RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Are existing facilities adequate to meet the needs of the
city's _current and future population? What level of
additional facilities will be needed to provide for population
growth and/or new programs? What additional demographic or
survey information, if any, is needed to make an accurate
assessment?
2. CENTRAL VS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
Should the city focus efforts on expanding the existing
recreation center (or establishing a new, large center) , or
on providing one or more additional neighborhood centers?
3. FEASIBILITY -OF .JOINT USE CENTER
Will it be feasible to operate programs for seniors using a
multi-purpose center, or will single purpose centers be
needed?
4 . INTERRELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER STUDIES
Can meaningful recommendations regarding recreation centers
be made prior to decisions on city growth limits and
annexation proposals which are currently pending?
5. ALTERNATIVE SITE EVALUATION
Which sites, including Laguna Lake Park and other city-owned
sites, might be suitable locations for new recreation center
facilities?
V. SCOPE OF WORK
In summary, the scope of work covered by this RFP/RFQ is:
a) Preparation of recommendations for appropriate types of
senior and/or community recreation facilities.
b) Evaluation of appropriate sites for the facilities
recommended.
Steering Group
The City will establish a steering group who will be available for
regular consultation by the design team, and the design consultant
shall consult and review important design decisions with the
steering committee regularly and, as necessary, with the City
3
Council and/or it's advisory bodies.
Phasing of Work
The City intends for this work to start in August. The tentative
phasing and schedule is:
Task Time Allowed Work Period
Review/forum 1 - 2 days August 1990
Detailed workscope, study/ 2 months August-September
survey and recommendations 1990
Review/forum 1 - 2 days September 1990
Preliminary policy 2 months September -
recommendations
eptember -
recommendations November 1990
Review/forum 1 - 2 days November 1990
Final recommendations 2 months November 1990
and site evaluations January 1991
However, if it is not possible to firmly set a schedule for this
work, the pre-proposal conference must proceed on the schedule
highlighted in section IX. The City intends to then complete the.
recommendations for the Community/Senior Center study as rapidly
as is feasible.
Tasks and subtasks listed below are representative. The proposals
submitted by consultants may provide for additional tasks, or for
a different sequence or organization of the work indicated. The
proposals must indicate in detail how the work included in Phase
I will be accomplished, and provide a general indication of how the
work in subsequent phases will be accomplished.
The actual sequence and timing of the work tasks, except as
specifically stated in this Scope of Work, shall be determined by
the City as the work progresses. The design consultant shall not
begin work on any task or subtask in this Scope of Work without
prior authorization by the City. The City reserves the authority
to revise the sequence of any .task or subtask, and/or delete any
task or subtask at any time prior to authorizing the consultant to
proceed on those tasks and subtasks.
REQUIRED TASK: Participation in Advisory- Forums
The City will have a continuing series of advisory conferences
which may include various city commissions and committees. The
steering committee may include representatives from the Community
Development Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Parks and
� 4
L'/S-lD
Recreation Commission, Public Works, and park and recreation
advocate and interest groups. Conference topics would be selected
to be relevant to the project development. �
The consultant may be required to present their policy
recommendations to the. City Council, Planning Commission, and/or
Parks and Recreation Commission for review.
At the City's option and direction, on a time and materials basis,
the design consultant would participate in these conferences at the
onset of contract work and/or an .individual design phase to review
the concept plan and design assumptions and, in consultation with
the City, would refine the conceptbefore proceeding with the
design work.
A. PHASE I
TASK 1: Preliminary Research
Subtasks:
-Review existing adopted policy documents provided by city.
-Direct city staff in compilation of indoor facilities and
use level inventory.
-Compile preliminary assessment of indoor recreation
programs and facilities which would be needed for senior
and general recreation programs.
TASK 2: Sensitivity Analysis
Subtasks:
-Evaluate sensitivity of decision making processes to
Various demographic scenarios (e.g. , annexation.
alternatives, population growth assumptions) .
-Determine which critical policy decisions, if any, can be
made by the city without significant additional demographic
and/or cost information.
-Identify policy decisions which must be made by the city
in order to complete or expedite future phases of the
studies.
-Evaluate the extent to which the Laguna Lake Park Master
Plan and Senior/Community Center Study are interdependent.
upon each other.
-Evaluate the extent to which the Laguna and
senior/Community Center studies are interdependent with
5 �;
pending revisions to the General Plan Land Use Element and
Parks and Open Space Element.
Preliminary evaluation of feasibility of operating senior
programs from one or more multi-purpose centers.
TASK 3: Information Needs Analysis
Subtasks:
-What additional demographic data is needed for the studies?
-How can needed data be obtained (user surveys, State
Department of Finance estimates, etc. )?
-Is it necessary or desirable to coordinate surveys or
special demographic research with similar studies of a
broader scope, in conjunction with the Parks and Open Space
Element revisions?
TASK 4: Detailed Workscope
Subtasks:
-Prepare a detailed work program for all phases.
B. PHASE II
TASK 1: Demographic Studies, Surveys
-Design and conduct
TASK 2: Detailed Research and Analysis
-Detailed evaluation of alternatives for senior/multi- use
center or centers.
-Recommend type and number of centers needed to meet
community needs.
-Prepare site selection criteria.
-Prepare preliminary estimates of acquisition, construction,
and operation costs.
TASK 3: Coordinate and Review Preliminary Recommendations
with City Council and Staff.
6
C. PHASE III
TASK 1: Final Recommendations and Products
Subtasks:
-Final recommendations and products.
-Site inventory, ranking.
-Cost estimates for acquisition, construction, operation.
-Policy statement and exhibits for inclusion in revised
Parks and Open Space Element.
VI. BUDGET
Services will be billed on the basis of actual time and materials.
In no event shall the maximum total charges exceed $40, 000.00
(forty thousand dollars) . The contractor shall submit invoices
monthly and inform the Project Manager for the City when 75%
(seventy-five percent) of the maximum total charges are reached in
order to give the City advanced notice of approaching the maximum
budget. A budget should be included in the proposal which itemizes
fee schedules and expected hours of work with the completion of
project phases.
VII. OUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS EVALUATION AND SELEC'T'ION PROCEDURES
Initial Screening
To be eligible for further consideration, consultant's
qualifications and proposals must meet the following criteria upon
submission. Failure to meet these will result in disqualification.
1) Qualifications/Proposals must comply with the submission
requirements set forth in Section X of this RFP/RF.
Pref iminary Evaluation of Oualifications/Prouosals
Qualifications/Proposals which pass the foregoing initial review
will be evaluated by a panel of City staff. The members of the
evaluation panel will be announced at the pre-proposal conference.
Each panel member will score each of the consultant's
qualifications. The scores of each panel member will then be
totaled. The consultants with the three highest scores will be
selected for further evaluation.
7 ,
Consultant's Qualifications will .be evaluated on the following
criteria:
Distribution
of Points
1) Proposal Quality & Responsiveness to RFP 10
2) Consultant Team Experience 20
3) Team's ability to carry out required work 20
4) Understanding of the project 25
5) Project Approach and Organization 25
Total. Points 100
Final Evaluation of Qualifications/Proposals
The consultants with the three highest scores will be invited to
present their qualifications/proposals for final review by City
staff. The consultant's qualifications will be re-ranked with a
point distribution as highlighted in the Preliminary Evaluation.
Contract Award
The City anticipates negotiating a time and materials contract with
the consultant scoring the highest in the foregoing interview
process. If the parties cannot reach agreement, the City will
negotiate with the second highest scoring consultant, and may
proceed in succession to the -third finalist on the same basis.
VIII. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE & PROJECT REPORTS
Questions pertaining to this request for qualifications/proposals
will be answered at a pre-proposal conference to be held from 3:00
to 5:00 p.m. , June 29, 1990, in the Community Development
Department Conference Room, City Hall, San Luis Obispo. At this
meeting the City staff will have available maps, staff reports and
other background documents relevant to this project.
Any questions arising after the conference should be directed to
Long Range Planner (805) 549-7170.
8
A_Ac_JA
M PROPOSAL AND REVIEW -SCHEDULE
Task Date -
Issuance of RFP/RFQ June 11, 1990
Pre-proposal conference, 3 - 5 p.m. June 29
Conference Room, Community Development
Proposal submission deadline - 5 p.m. July 20
Preliminary Qualifications July 23-27
and Proposal Evaluations
Consultant Presentations August 3
Consultant selection August 6
R. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Qualification/Proposals should be addressed to:
Long Range Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Submission -Deadline.
In order to be considered, qualifications and proposals must be
received in the Community Development Department office, P.O. Box
8100, 990 Palm St. , San Luis Obispo, CA 93403, by 5:00 p.m. ,
Friday. July 20. 1989.
Number of Conies Reauired
Five copies, numbered from 1 to 5 on cover sheet.
Format.
An 8-1/2" x 11" format is preferred and should not be greatly
exceeded in any case. Letter format is acceptable. Elaborate firm
brochures are not encouraged. Where readability dictates, diagrams
such as organization charts, work schedules, and flow charts may
be larger, but they should be submitted as fold-outs not exceeding
11" x 17".
Clarity and conciseness are desired and will be considered in
9
C-I.S�IJ
evaluating submissions. Materials should be in the order set below
for the inclusions, the first page of each section being titled
\ ("Item A'% "Item B", etc. ) at the top center. Documents should
either: (1) be fully paged and contain as the first sheet a table
of contents that identifies the location of each. inclusion, or
(2) be tab-indexed by the corresponding letters used below ("A",
"B". etc. ) .
Inclusions: Qualifications/proposals must include the following:
A. A complete list of the firms and individuals comprising
the team, with the prime consultant listed first, and
the balance of team members listed by discipline. Each
entry should name the firm or individuals as they exist
as legal business entities, the business address where
the work would be done, name and phone number of a
contact person, and the relevant California professional
license(s) held by the firm or individual.
B. A summary of the team's capabilities, including
specifically stating the size of each firm on the team
and listing the services that each member provides that
may be needed for this project.
C. A comparison of final cost estimates and actual
contractbids for projects similar to the proposed
development in which the prime consultant had primary or
�.. significant responsibility for the design. Include the
relevant estimate and bid dates.
D. A team organization chart for the proposed work and a
list of the individuals proposed to carry out the work,
their titles, specific roles, and time availability
during the work.
E. A description of the experience of the key individuals
proposed to do the work for each team firm on the tasks
and subtasks, and other projects or aspects you believe
relevant to the proposed work. Identify the project
manager's experience and interaction with advisory .
groups (Resumes may be included, but should follow this
focused description) .
F. A list of the related projects cited in Item E. above,
- identifying the client, naming a reference for each
project, and stating the phone number and address of the
person named as the reference.
G. A preliminary plan and schedule for providing the
services called for in the Scope of Work. These should
be based on the tentative schedule sated in the Scope
of Work. This item should also des::ribe work plan
1
10
adjustments that would be required if the City changes
the work phasing as discussed in the Scope of Work.
H. A general estimate of person-hours, correlated to
discipline, general activities identified in your
proposed work plan, and job classification for each task
and subtask in the Scope of work.
I. Fee schedules for each firm on the team and all job
classes proposed to be involved in the work.
E:COMSROOI.wp
11 '
/S-/7