CC SR 20220215 04 - Griffin PM Services and Gensler Site Plan Design Civic Ctr (Updated 20220214)CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 02/15/2022
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to award contract services agreement to Griffin
Structures and Gensler for services related to the Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center
Master Plan Project.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1)Award a contract services agreement to Griffin Structures for Phase 1 project
management and construction management services for the Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Master Plan Project in the not to exceed amount of $148,029;
(2)Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract services agreement with Griffin
Structures, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney;
(3)Award a contract services agreement to Gensler for site plan pre-design services
for the Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Master Plan Project in the not to exceed
amount of $59,800;
(4)Authorize the Mayor to execute the work authorization for additional services with
Gensler in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; and,
(5)Approve an additional appropriation of $10,000 from the Capital Infrastructure
Project (CIP) Fund.
FISCAL IMPACT: These actions will result in a City expenditure of $207,829.
Amount Budgeted: $240,743
Additional Appropriation: $10,000
Account Number(s): 330-400-8503-8001
(CIP Funds – Civic Center/Professional Services)
ORIGINATED BY: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A.Contract Services Agreement with Griffin Structures (page A-1)
B.Contract Services Agreement with Gensler (page B-1)
C.Fee proposal from Griffin Structures (page C-1)
D.2021 Proposal from Griffin Structures (page D-1)
E.Request for Proposals (RFP) for Civic Center Project Management Services
(page E-1)
1
CfTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
F. December 7, 2021 staff report
BACKGROUND:
Developing the 17-acre Upper Point Vicente Park/Civic Center property has been a City
goal for decades. The City completed a Citywide Parks Master Plan in 2015 that
recommended a separate comprehensive master plan design and public outreach
process for the Civic Center/Point Vicente Park site, including City Hall. The Parks Master
Plan noted that current buildings, consisting of 1950s-era military buildings and various
modular buildings, need significant renovation to meet organizational needs and to
comply with current building codes and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements. Based on the age of the buildings and overall condition, a renovation was
determined not to be a viable alternative in the past.
In 2017, a seven-person Civic Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) was formed to explore
developing a master plan for the Civic Center to serve as a central location for community
engagement and services. Over the past five years, the CCAC has diligently pursued this
goal. Among its many accomplishments, the CCAC worked with the architecture firm
Gensler and Staff to create, review and approve a program document for the site,
identifying site components and their approximate sizes. This program document and a
subsequent validation/update were approved by City Council in 2019 and affirmed in
2021.
With the affirmation of the program document, the next step is to begin the pre -design
process to help establish a project budget for the City Council’s consideration at a later
date. In order to initiate this next step, Staff is seeking City Council consideration and
approval of the following contract service agreements:
(1) Griffin Structures for Phase 1 project management and construction
management services in the not to exceed the amount of $148,029; and
(2) Gensler for site plan pre-design services in the not to exceed the amount of
$59,800.
DISCUSSION:
1. Griffin Structures - Project Management and Construction Management
Services
There was a general discussion at the December 9, 2021, Civic Center Advisory
Committee (CCAC) meeting about the advantages of obtaining the services of a project
management firm, given the complexity of the project, the level of community importance,
and current City Staff’s limited experience with construction projects of this breadth and
scope.
At its January 21, 2021 meeting, the CCAC directed Staff to include the following request
for direction from the City Council as part of its biannual report:
2
Request direction and approval from the City Council regarding initiating a request
for proposals (RFP) for a project management consultant to assist with the Civic
Center project. Due to the complexity of the project and its community importance,
the services of a project management consultant are needed to assist with a wide
range of expert services.
The City Council approved the request to initiate the RFP process and directed Staff to
prepare a draft RFP for the CCAC’s review. Staff presented a draft project background
and scope of services for project management services for the CCAC’s consideration at
its April 22, 2021, meeting.
The CCAC approved the draft RFP on June 24, 2021. The RFP was subsequently
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Ad Hoc City Council RFP and
Contracts Subcommittee (Attachment E).
The scope of services is detailed in the RFP. It includes a wide range of project
management services from the project’s current status through to the end of construction.
The RFP states that the professional consulting firm selected for this project would be
responsible for full coordination between the project team , providing advice and guidance
through project completion.
The RFP was distributed to interested companies primarily using PlanetBids, a public bid
site that is heavily used by the industry. Additionally, the RFP was sent to companies that
have either contacted the City directly or were identified during the City’s outreach effort
to gain more information about development/financial alternatives. The RFP was released
on August 18, 2021. Representatives from 20 companies attended the mandatory pre-
proposal meeting and site tour on September 8, 2021. Seven firms submitted proposals
by the September 29, 2021 deadline.
A panel of City Staff from multiple departments evaluated the submissions in late
October/early November. Three firms — Gardiner & Theobald, Griffin Structures (Griffin),
and RWBID — were selected to participate in virtual interviews with the same panel on
November 18, 2021. The panel unanimously selected Griffin and subsequently entered
into discussions to refine the scope and schedule and establish a fee and materials
proposal with a fixed not-to-exceed budget. Griffin’s original proposal is attached
(Attachment D).
Due to the breadth of the RFP’s scope and its anticipated multi-year length, Griffin and
City Staff, following initial discussions, recommend beginning with a contract services
agreement encompassing an initial focused scope of services, identified as Phase 1
(Attachment A). Below is a list of the project’s phases.
Phase 1: Project feasibility and Preliminary Site Planning
Phase 2: Design Solicitation
Phase 3: Schematic Design
Phase 4: Entitlement
3
Phase 5: Design Development
Phase 6: Construction Documents and Permitting
Phase 7: Contractor Procurement
Phase 8: Construction and Move-in
More detailed information about phases 2 through 8, and their respective estimated
durations will be clarified during Phase 1.
Phase 1 includes the following scope and deliverables, which are detailed in Griffin’s Fee
Proposal (Attachment C):
1. Initial Project Document Review: Griffin Structures will perform an initial document
review of all existent project documentation. This will include the review of any
previous geotechnical analysis, previous site planning efforts, American Land Title
Association (ALTA) surveys, hazardous materials surveys, and utility drawings.
This effort will also include the review of the recent programming efforts completed
to date by Gensler, analyze potential areas for efficiencies and/or enhancements,
and formalize this documentation into an initial space planning exercise.
2. Preliminary Site Planning: After completing an initial project review, Griffin will
implement and oversee an initial site planning effort for the purpose of assessing
overall site constraints and capabilities. Staff is recommending utilizing Gensler for
this effort as it is the author of the programming document and has an intimate
understanding of the site. Griffin will manage Gensler’s efforts under direct prime
contact with the City.
3. Geotechnical Investigation: Key to understanding the nature of the site will be the
performance of a geotechnical investigation. It will be important to get a better
understanding of the geologic constraints the site may have in the preparation of
an initial site plan. To execute this effort, Griffin is proposing to subcontract with a
firm directly, as reflected in its proposal.
4. Delivery Analysis: Based on the information gleaned during the programming and
preliminary site planning phases, Griffin will perform an in-depth analysis of various
forms of product (procurement) delivery and make recommendations to the City
for implementation. This analysis will include analysis of design-bid-build, design-
build, construction manager (CM) at risk, and P3s.
5. Project Schedule: Based on the analysis above, and after considering various
delivery options, Griffin will then produce a comprehensive project schedule that
will include all phases of the project, all necessary procurements, design iterations,
approvals, permitting, bidding, and construction. This project schedule will then
serve as the roadmap for the remainder of the project and will be updated
periodically.
6. Project Budget: Griffin will then take all the analysis and information described
above and produce a statement of probable cost for the project. This initial budget
will include all consultant costs, investigations, inspections, management,
4
construction costs, furniture, fixtures, equipment (FF&E), electronics and
networking, utility costs, City Staff costs, and contingency costs.
The estimated Phase 1 cost is $148,029. All third-party consultants under contract with
Griffin will be invoiced a direct cost with a 15% markup. Services will be performed on an
as-needed basis, and all costs will be invoiced based on actual time spent. All proposed
hourly rates are fully burdened and include overhead profit, taxes, and benefits. The
contract services agreement consists of the following tasks and costs (Attachment A):
Project and Construction Management: $83,325
Geotechnical Investigation (Leighton): $61,204
Reimbursable Expenses: $3,500
Total: $148,029
Additional contract services to be performed by Griffin for future phases can be
considered by the City at the conclusion of Phase 1.
2. Gensler – Site Plan Pre-Design Services
As mentioned previously, Griffin intends to work closely with Gensler on pre-design site
plan services. Gensler has been identified as the appropriate company for this component
of Phase 1 due to its familiarity with the site and its previous work on the project program
document. Gensler facilitated the creation of a program document for the site that was
approved by the City Council in 2019. This work was performed on a pro bono basis
pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Gensler (Attachment
F). On August 17, 2021, Gensler was authorized by the City Manager to perform
additional services for $24,800 to conduct a program validation of the 2019 program
document. The program document validation, following review and approval by the
CCAC, was approved by the City Council on December 7, 2021 (Attachment F).
Because any additional work performed by Gensler would exceed $25,000, the City
Manager’s signing authorization limit, Staff now proposes that the City Council consider
entering into a contract services agreement with Gensler to perform site plan pre-design
services for a not-to-exceed amount of $59,800 (Attachment B). Gensler’s proposed
scope of services is on the next page:
5
3. Additional Appropriation from the Capital Infrastructure Project (CIP) Fund
The project budget and spending for FY 2021-22 is summarized in a table on the following
page. In summary, the current CIP project budget is $240,743, of which $225,000 was
included in the FY 2021-22 budget. As of February 2022, the City has spent almost
$31,000 in Professional/Technical Services for the Civic Center. This expenditure
includes work performed on the program validation of $25,000 from Gensler and the
financial advisory services of $6,000 from Kosmont Transaction Services (KTS). The City
also has an outstanding commitment with KTS for future financial advisory services, if
needed, for $9,645.
6
Scope Due Date Fee
1 Present prior site p lanning and opportun ity/ 2/24/2022 $ 2,000
constra ints d iagram to Civic Center Adv isory
Comm ittee (CCAC} for input
2 Update opportun ity / constra ints diagram based 3/24/2022 $ 3,000
on prior study
3 Pre -des ign workshop, one for City Staff and one 3 /24/2022 $ 15,000
forCCAC
4 Prov ide up to three site d iagrams with pot ential 4/8/2022 $ 18,000
phasing fo r City Staff review based on workshop
5 City staff rev iew (one wee k) 4/15/2022 $ -
6 Des ign updates as needed for presentation to 4/28/2022 $ -
CCAC for input
7 Prov ide preferred pre -des ign site plan for 5/13/2022 $ 16,800
budget purposes for City staff review
8 City staff rev iew (one wee k) 5 /20/2022 $ -
9 Des ign updates as needed for presentation to 5/26/2022 $ -
CCAC -recommendation to C ity Counci l
10 Present CCAC recommended design to City 7/19/2022 $ 3,000
Council -receive input.
11 City staff rev iew (one week) 7/26/2022
12 Final design updates as required for City 8 /16/2022 $ 2,000
Council Presentat ion
Total Lump Sum Fee $ 59,800
If the City Council approves contract services agreements with both Griffin Structures and
Gensler for a total not to exceed $207,829, an additional budget appropriation is needed.
Thus, Staff is requesting an additional appropriation of $10,000 from the CIP Fund to
adequately fund Phase 1 of the Civic Center Master Plan Project.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends awarding a contract services agreement to Griffin Structures and
Gensler to perform work for Phase 1 of the Civic Center Master Plan Project and to
approve an additional appropriation of $10,000 from the CIP Fund to cover costs for this
phase of the project.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the
City Council’s consideration:
1. Do not award a contract services agreement to Griffin and give alternative direction
to Staff regarding project management and construction management services.
2. Do not approve a contract services agreement with Gensler and give alternative
direction to Staff regarding site plan pre-design services for the Civic Center
Master Plan Project.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
8503 - Civic Center
Budget Actual
Committed/
Encumbrance
Available
Balance Notes
168,651.00 168,651.00 Adopted in FY 19-20
(1) Additional Appropriation 62,447.00 231,098.00 Included in FY 21-22 budget
(3) PO Carry Forward 9,645.00 240,743.00 Approved on 12/21/22
Total Current Project Budget 240,743.00
8XXX Construction - - - -
8XXX Contingency - - - -
8XXX Inspection - - - -
8001 Professional/Tech Services 240,743.00 30,911.00 9,645.00 200,187.00
Total Project Costs 240,743.00 30,911.00 9,645.00 200,187.00
Project Total 240,743.00$ 30,911.00$ 9,645.00$ 200,187.00$
Description
Original Project Budget
Project Costs:
Project Budget:
7
I
01203.0006/736843.1 EQG
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
GRIFFIN STRUCTURES
for Project Management Services
for the Civic Center Project
A-1
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
GRIFFIN STRUCTURES
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and
entered into on February 15, 2022, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
a California municipal corporation (“City”) and GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, a California
corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively,
as “Party” or “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals, the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the services
defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the City to
perform those services.
C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, City has authority to
enter into and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms
of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the
Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide
those services specified in the “Scope of Services”, as stated in the Proposal, attached hereto as
Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the
“services” or “work” hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement,
Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities
necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough,
competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services
contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its
ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it
shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required
hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended.
For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean those
A-2
standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under
similar circumstances.
1.2 Consultant’s Proposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant’s Proposal which shall be incorporated
herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between
the terms of such Proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in
accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any
Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is
rendered.
1.4 California Labor Law.
If the Scope of Services includes any “public work” or “maintenance work,” as those terms
are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of Regulations,
Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant shall
pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in California Labor Code
section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws, including the following
requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be
performed under this Agreement is a “public work” as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and
that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts
and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”)
implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance
monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job site
where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall comply with
and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment
of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The
Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit $200 (two hundred dollars) for each calendar day,
or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for
A-3
the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this
Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor.
(d) Payroll Records. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsultant to: keep
accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified
in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by
Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records.
(e) Apprentices. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Consultant
shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable
occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City with
a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 (sixty)
days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of its subconsultants
shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed
under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that 8 (eight) hours labor
constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section
1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit $25 (twenty five dollars) for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any subcontractor
for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than 8
(eight) hours in any one calendar day and 40 (forty) hours in any one calendar week in violation
of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor
Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of 8 (eight) hours per
day, and 40 (forty) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than 1½ (one and one
half) times the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers’ Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700
provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its
employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section
1861, Consultant certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract.”
Consultant’s Authorized Initials ________
A-4
(i) Consultant’s Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such
subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of
the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with
any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to take all actions
necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance, including
without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor on a
periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers
the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or
rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as
may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant
shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties
and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant’s
performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes,
penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.
1.6 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially
affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of
such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until written instructions are received
from the Contract Officer in the form of a Change Order.
1.7 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish
continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies
and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such
damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or
damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.
1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments,
prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes
A-5
of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of
the other.
1.9 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without
invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or
make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be
undertaken unless a written Change Order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra work,
and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written
approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to 15% of the Contract Sum; or,
in the time to perform of up to 90 (ninety) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer through
a written Change Order. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be
approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this
Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby
acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of
Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant
shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute
discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims for an increase in the Contract
Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are
followed.
If in the performance of the contract scope, the Consultant becomes aware of material defects in
the scope, duration or span of the contract or the Consultant becomes aware of extenuating
circumstance that will or could prevent the completion of the contract, on time or on budget, the
Consultant shall inform the Contracting Officer of an anticipated Change Order. This proposed
change order will stipulate, the facts surrounding the issue, proposed solutions, proposed costs and
proposed schedule impacts.
1.10 Special Requirements.
Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof
are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein
by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any other
provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the
amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual
expenses, shall not exceed $148,029 (One Hundred Forty Eight Thousand and Twenty-Nine
Dollars) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section
1.9.
A-6
2.2 Method of Compensation.
The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii)
payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services; (iii)
payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant’s rates as specified in the Schedule of
Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, and
(b) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the
Schedule of Compensation.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice, using the City template,
or in a format acceptable to the City, for all work performed and expenses incurred during the
preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for
payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the
Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following
categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-contractor
contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not
invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause
Consultant to be paid within 45 (forty-five) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed
invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures,
the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges
or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for
correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the
Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable
law.
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed
to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
A-7
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
3.2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the
“Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the
Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer through a Change
Order, but not exceeding 90 (ninety) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires,
earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars,
litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall
within 10 (ten) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of
the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and
extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the
judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s determination shall
be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled
to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however
caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one year
from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”).
The City may, in its discretion, extend the Term by an additional one (1) year term by giving
advance written notice of the same to Consultant not later than 45 calendar days prior to the
expiration of the Term.
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work
specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
A-8
Jon Hughes___________ Executive Vice-President
Name Title
Dustin Alamo Vice President
Name Title
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only the personnel included in the Proposal to perform services pursuant to this Agreement.
Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of
Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this
Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and subcontractors,
if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any
such performance. City shall have the right to approve or reject any proposed replacement
personnel, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any
of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or
agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or agents, shall
obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to
City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Karina Banales, Deputy City Manager or such person as
she may designate. It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is
kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any
decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein,
any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The
Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all
documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
4.4 Independent Consultant.
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or
means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except
A-9
as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or
control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number,
compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an
independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent
contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any
time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees
of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of
Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with
Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City; all subcontractors included in
the Proposal are deemed approved. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may
be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of
law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City.
Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting
in concert of more than 25% (twenty five percent) of the present ownership and/or control of
Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such
unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No
approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder
without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of any
services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense
during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below
and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in
an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has
not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not
be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and
property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Services
to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or
rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.
A-10
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1,000,000). Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver
of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City
as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property,
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder by
Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be
primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of
primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be
endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall
be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced,
City has the right but not the duty to obtain and continuously maintain the insurance it deems
necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will
withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City
may cancel this Agreement.
A-11
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or
that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned
policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in
accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the
City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City
nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and
is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or
a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above,
the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the
Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of
insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a 30 (thirty) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a 10 (ten) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
(j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be
endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall
be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella
liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
(l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured
A-12
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant 90 (ninety) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant’s compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability
policies.
(q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own
cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary
for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will hold
and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative,
arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties,
obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims or
liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in
connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of
Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity
for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’
reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ negligent performance
of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in
connection therewith:
A-13
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of
said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys’
fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with
the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Consultant
hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees
harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to
any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work,
operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers,
agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’
fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it
fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as
a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted
by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City’s negligence, except that
design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of
the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity
obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination
of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts,
invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and
detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times
during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records
and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years
following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in
the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business, custody of the
books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant’s successor
in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully cooperate with the City in
A-14
providing access to the books and records if a public records request is made and disclosure is
required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act.
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of
work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees
that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or
will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if
Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall
promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”)
prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract
Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further
employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of
ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or
assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents
without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk and without
liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use,
reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant
shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for
assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant
fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting
therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as
“works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby
deemed “works made for hire” for the City.
6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such
information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not,
without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City
Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions,
A-15
response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this
Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided
Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at
any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and
to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by
Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by
City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after
the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons
for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default.
This timeframe is 15 (fifteen) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances
warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and
shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City
may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of
default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this
Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s
default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out
of any provision of this Agreement.
A-16
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant
(whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City
to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the
Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.
Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other
default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any
other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided
in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this
Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 (thirty) days’ written notice to Consultant,
A-17
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. Upon receipt of any notice of
termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be
specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all
services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services
authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or
such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event
of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the City need not provide the Consultant
with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7.8 Termination for Default of Party.
If termination is due to the failure of the other Party to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement:
(a) City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable
to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such
damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off or
partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
(b) Consultant may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, terminate the
Agreement upon written notice to the City‘s Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to
payment for all work performed up to the date of termination.
7.9 Attorneys’ Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action
or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable,
shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s fees on any
appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable
costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs
the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued
on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted
to judgment.
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms
of this Agreement.
A-18
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests
of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person
having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid
conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the
performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation,
partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any
State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay
or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons
claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of,
any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and
that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion,
sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement,
and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens,
Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions
imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by City.
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party
desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either
served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager
and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in the case of the
Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement.
A-19
Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing.
Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72)
hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
9.2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of
this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between
the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections
contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or
decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any
of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are
hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder
unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit
of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.
No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this
Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating
to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of any
corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in
violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly
interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of
“financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be
“remote” or “noninterests” pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant
warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party
including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or
A-20
other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s),
or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or
other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or
employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is
aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such
payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of
no force or effect.
Consultant’s Authorized Initials _______
9.7 Corporate Authority.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such
party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally
bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
A-21
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the date and year first-above written.
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
David Bradley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
GRIFFIN STRUCTURES
By:
Jon Hughes, Executive Vice President
By:
Dustin Alamo, Vice President
Address: 2 Technology Drive
Suite 150
Irvine, California 92618
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from
each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any
Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURES
SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS
MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
A-22
01203.0006/736843.1 EQG
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2022 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
A-23
□ □
□ □ □ □ □ □
□
01203.0006/736843.1 EQG
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2022 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
A-24
□ □
□ □ □ □ □ □
□
01203.0006/736843.1 EQG B-1
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES/DELIVERABLES
Consultant will provide Project Management and Construction Management Services for the Civic
Center Project, as follows.
1. Initial Project Document Review: Griffin Structures will perform an initial document
review of all existent project documentation. This will include the review of any previous
geotechnical analysis, previous site planning efforts, ALTA surveys, hazardous materials
surveys, and utility drawings. This effort will also include the review of the recent
programming efforts completed to date, analyze potential areas for efficiencies and/or
enhancements, and formalize this documentation into an initial space planning exercise.
2. Preliminary Site Planning: After completing an initial project review, Griffin implement
and oversee an initial Site Planning effort for the purpose of assessing overall site
constraints and capabilities. It has been recommended that the City utilize Gensler
Architecture firm for this effort as they are the author of the programming document and
have an intimate understanding of the site. Griffin Structures will manage Gensler’ efforts
under a direct prime contact with the City.
3. Geotechnical Investigation: Key to understanding the nature of the site will be the
performance of a Geotechnical investigation. It will be important to get a better
understanding of the geologic constraints the site may have in the preparation of an initial
site plan, the scope for which is included below. To execute this effort, Griffin is prepared
to subcontract with a firm directly.
4. Delivery Analysis: Based on the information gleaned during the programming and
preliminary site planning phases, Griffin will perform and in-depth analysis of various
forms of delivery and make recommendations to the City for implementation. This analysis
will include analysis of Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, CM at Risk, and Public Private
Partnerships.
5. Project Schedule: Based on the analysis above, and after considering various delivery
options, Griffin will then produce a comprehensive project schedule that will include all
phases of the project, all necessary procurements, design iterations, approvals, permitting,
bidding, and construction. This project schedule will then serve as the road map for the
remainder of the project and will be updated periodically.
6. Project Budget: Griffin will then take all the analysis and information described above and
produce a Statement of Probable cost for the project. This initial budget will include all
consultant costs, investigations, inspections, management, construction costs, FF&E,
electronics and networking, utility costs, City staff costs, and contingency.
A-25
01203.0006/736843.1 EQG B-2
Consultant shall complete other tasks deemed necessary for the accomplishment of a complete and
comprehensive outcome as described in the project objective. Consultant shall expand on the
above-noted tasks, where appropriate, and provide suggestions which might lead to efficiencies
and enhance the results or usefulness of the work.
[Continued on next page]
A-26
GRIFFIN STRUCTURES FEE PROPOSAL
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – PHASE 1
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
02/04/2022
Griffin Structures’ Fee Proposal is based on all reasonable costs necessary to perform Project Management for Phase
1 services on the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center project. For these requisite services Griffin Structures
proposes the following Not-to-Exceed Fee:
Project and Construction Management: $ 83,325
Geotechnical Investigation: $ 61,204
Reimbursable Expenses: $ 3,500
Grand Total $ 148,029
This proposal is offered as a Time & Materials, Not to Exceed fee. As such, all work will be performed on an as-
needed basis and not limited to any specific scope item or work effort. All costs will be billed based on actual time
spent. Any unused savings will be returned to the City or reallocated for another use as it deems appropriate.
All proposed hourly rates are fully burdened and include overhead profit, taxes, and benefits. The hours identified
for each individual employee and task are estimates only and are not to be construed as not to exceed hours for any
individual task, phase, or time period. We reserve the right to reallocate hours between staff members,
subconsultants, and tasks, in consultation with the City, to accomplish the overall objectives and requirements of the
project. Any reallocations of funds will be performed in close coordination with the City to provide best value to the
project.
Services are based on the attached Fee Proposal and Resource Allocation Schedule, which provides detail on the
allocation of hours for services as they occur over time. Any extension of the schedule may result in additional fee,
in good faith negotiation with the City.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on discussions with City staff, this proposal (herein referred to as Phase 1) is limited to only those activities
deemed necessary for the City to make informed decisions for the future of the project. To that end, the scope of
this proposal includes the following efforts:
1. Initial Project Document Review: Griffin Structures will perform an initial document review of all
existent project documentation. This will include the review of any previous geotechnical analysis,
previous site planning efforts, ALTA surveys, hazardous materials surveys, and utility drawings. This
effort will also include the review of the recent programming efforts completed to date, analyze
potential areas for efficiencies and/or enhancements, and formalize this documentation into an initial
space planning exercise.
A-27
11
2 Technology Drive , Suite 150 I Irvine, CA 92618 I 949.497.9000 I griffinstructures.com
Page 2 of 3
2. Preliminary Site Planning : After completing an initial project review, Griffin implement and oversee
an initial Site Planning effort for the purpose of assessing overall site constraints and capabilities. It has
been recommended that the City utilize Gensler Architecture firm for this effort as they are the author
of the programming document and have an intimate understanding of the site. Depending on the
preferences of the City, Griffin Structures is prepared to subcontract with Gensler for this purpose or
manage their efforts under a direct prime contact with the City.
3. Geotechnical Investigation: Key to understanding the nature of the site will be the performance of a
Geotechnical investigation. It will be important to get a better understanding of the geologic constraints
the site may have in the preparation of an initial site plan, the scope for which is included below. To
execute this effort, Griffin is prepared to manage a geotechnical firm under direct contract with the
City, or to subcontract with a firm directly.
4. Delivery Analysis: Based on the information gleaned during the programming and preliminary site
planning phases, Griffin will perform and in -depth analysis of various forms of delivery and make
recommendations to the City for implementation. This analysis will include analysis of Design-Bid-
Build, Design-Build, CM at Risk, and Public Private Partnerships.
5. Project Schedule: Based on the analysis above, and after considering various delivery options, Griffin
will then produce a comprehensive project schedule that will include all phases of the project, all
necessary procurements, design iterations, approvals, permitting, bidding, and construction. This
project schedule will then serve as the road map for the remainder of the project and will be updated
periodically.
6. Project Budget: Griffin will then take all the analysis and information described above and produce a
Statement of Probable cost for the project. This initial budget will include all consultant costs,
investigations, inspections, management, construction costs, FF&E, electronics and networking, utility
costs, City staff costs, and contingency.
APPROACH TO STAFFING AND PROJECT TEAM
To bring the highest level of efficiency and value to the City, Griffin Structures has assembled following team in
accordance with the scope of work discussed with the City and described ab ove:
Roger Torriero will service as Principal in Charge for the duration of the project and will provide guidance to the
project based on his extensive experience in real estate development and the assembly of complex deal structures.
For this level of effort, we have allocated a total of 24 hours of Roger’s time.
Jon Hughes will serve as the Project Executive for the duration of the project and will provide as -needed leadership
to the team to ensure a successful delivery. Key to the success of the project will be Jon’s experience in complex
Civic Center projects, delivery analysis, project budgeting and scheduling support . For this level of service, we have
allocated a total of 60 hours of Jon’s time.
Robert Godfrey will serve as the Sr. Project & Construction Manager for the duration of the project. Robert will
bring leadership to the team, establish all construction management protocols, maintain all communications, and
will serve as the primary point of contact for the project team. For this level of service, we have allocated a total of
155 hours of Robert’s time.
Dustin Alamo will serve as the Pre-Design Manager for this project, bringing his considerable experience in space
planning, programming, and cost analysis to perform a peer review of the programming and site planning efforts to
date. For this level of service, we have allocated a total of 80 hours of Dustin’s time.
Jay Helekar and Ryan Craven will provide cost estimates for the development of a comprehensive statement of
probable cost for the project based on programming and site planning performed by the project team. For this
A-28
Page 3 of 3
level of service, we have allocated a total 100 hours of estimating time.
Leighton Group will perform the necessary investigation, exploration, borings, and required research to produce a
Geotechnical report for the site which will inform t he establishment of the preliminary site plan and the future
design of the Civic Center as a whole. For this level of service, we have included a fixed fee of $64,464.
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
1. Hourly rates are valid through December 2022 and will escalate by CPI annually thereafter.
2. Costs for all permits required for the project are excluded. It is assumed that the City will pay for all
permitting fees, assessments, easements, school fees, and other agency or governmental fees or costs to
support the design and construction the project. We have not included any permit related fees within our
fee proposal. Permits will be pulled by others.
3. At no cost to the Owner, and subject to Internal Revenue Code 179D, (Deduction for Energy Efficient
Commercial Buildings) Owner agrees to allocate any applicable tax deductions to construction manager
(Griffin Structures) as may be relevant to ‘public entity’ projects.
4. Costs for surveying, construction staking, environmental and hazardous mate rials surveys, and all
environmental and hazardous materials transportation and remediation costs are excluded
5. Independent or third-party testing and inspection companies such as hazardous materials investigation,
waterproofing, peer reviews, LEED, or other specialized third-party oversight services other than those listed
herein are excluded.
6. Construction Cost Estimates, when provided, are based on standard industry practice, professional
experience, and knowledge of market conditions. Griffin has no control over material and labor costs,
contractor’s methods of establishing prices or the market and bidding conditions at the time of bid.
Therefore, Griffin does not guarantee that bids received will not vary from the cost estimate provided and
Griffin is not liable for any costs, liabilities, or damages incurred by City arising from Griffin’s opinion of
cost, the actual project cost to City, delays caused by events outside the control of Griffin, or any labor or
material cost increases.
7. Griffin is not responsible for, and City will hold Griffin harmless from, any schedule delays and/or any
losses, damages, or liabilities resulting therefrom that are caused by (1) events or conditions that are outside
of Griffin’s control or (2) the acts or omissions of parties for whom Griffin is not legally liable (collectively,
“Non-Consultant Delays”). The schedule for completion will be extended for any Non -Consultant Delays.
If Griffin incurs additional costs or expenses due to Non -Consultant Delays, then Griffin’s fee compensation
will be equitably adjusted to cover such additional costs or expenses.
A-29
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Project: Phase 1
Fee Proposal
PRINCIPAL IN
CHARGE PROJECT EXECUTIVE
SR PROJECT &
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER
PRE-DESIGN
MANAGER ESTIMATING
Roger Torriero Jon Hughes Robert Godfrey Dustin Alamo Jay Helekar
$275/hr.$220/hr.$195/hr.$185/hr.$185/hr.
1 PHASE 01: PROJECT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 24 60 155 80 100
1.1 Initial Project Document Review Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.2 Preliminary Site Planning Management Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.3 Geotechnical Investigation Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.4 Delivery Analysis Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.5 Total Project Schedule Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.6 Estimating Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.7 Total Project Budget Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.8 Develop Comprehensive Communications Plan Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
Total Hours 24 60 155 80 100
Subtotals $6,600 $13,200 $30,225 $14,800 $18,500
PROJECT / CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT TOTAL $83,325
2 SUB-CONSULTANTS $61,204
2.1 Geotechnical Investigation: Leighton Group $61,204
3 REIMBURSABLE COSTS $3,500
3.2 Misc. Printing and Office Supplies $3,500
GRAND TOTAL $148,029
Item No.PROJECT PHASE
Griffin Structures 02/04/2022A-30
I
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Project: Phase 1
Resource Allocation Schedule
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
PHASE 1 SERVICES
Advisory Committee 01: Previous Site Plans and Phase 1 Schedule
Initial Project Analysis and Start Up
Geotechnical Investigation
Initial Site Planning
Advisory Committee 02: Pre-Design Workshop
Site Planning Revisions
Delivery Analysis
Project Scheduling
Project Estimate & Budgeting
Advisory Committee 03: Updated Site Plan, Project Schedule, Project Budget
Revise and Prepare For City Council Presentation
Presentation to City Council
Principal In Charge: Roger Torriero 4 4 4 4 4 4 24
Project Executive: Jon Hughes 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 60
Sr. Program & Construction Manager: Robert Godfrey 10 25 25 25 25 25 20 155
Pre-Design Manager: Dustin Alamo 80 80
Estimating: Ryan Craven 100 100
Principal In Charge: Roger Torriero -$ 1,100$ 1,100$ 1,100$ 1,100$ 1,100$ 1,100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,600$
Project Executive: Jon Hughes -$ 2,200$ 2,200$ 1,760$ 1,760$ 1,760$ 1,760$ 1,760$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,200$
Sr. Program & Construction Manager: Robert Godfrey -$ 1,950$ 4,875$ 4,875$ 4,875$ 4,875$ 4,875$ 3,900$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30,225$
Pre-Design Manager: Dustin Alamo -$ -$ 14,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,800$
Estimating: Ryan Craven -$ -$ -$ -$ 18,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18,500$
-$ 5,250$ 22,975$ 7,735$ 26,235$ 7,735$ 7,735$ 5,660$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 83,325$
PROJECT PHASE
MONTHLY STAFFING HOURS
2022
Griffin Structures 02/04/2022A-31
II
*
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
February 3, 2022
Proposal No. IR22-037
Griffin Structures, Inc.
2 Technology, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92618
Attention: Mr. Jon Hughes, Executive Vice President
Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical Exploration
Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Project
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Leighton Consulting, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal for performing a geotechnical
exploration, for the Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center project to be located 30940
Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Our understanding of this project is based on the information provided in the RFP issued
by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for project management services, dated August 18,
2021. The project, currently in the conceptual stage, consists of expansion of the existing
City Hall area and with new buildings to accommodate city administration, finance, public
works, community development, recreation and parks, shared building support, public
counter, council chambers, and other functions. Other proposed facilities at the expanded
site will include a Sheriff Substation, Medium Fire Station, Emergency Operations Center,
and other facilities. The total site area will be 13.14 acres.
PROPOSED BASIC SCOPE OF WORK
Our services for this project will be mobilized and managed from our Irvine office. We
propose to perform a subsurface exploration, test recovered soil samples at our in-house
geotechnical laboratory, perform site-specific geotechnical and geologic analyses, and
prepare a report of our geotechnical findings, conclusions and recommendations; as
described in the following subsections.
A-3217781 Cowan, Irvine, CA 92614
www.leightongroup.com
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
A Leighton Group Company
T: 949 .250 .1421
RPV Civic Center IR22-037
Page 2
Subsurface Exploration and Sampling
Our subsurface exploration consists of seven hollow-stem auger borings (approximately
8 inches in diameter) and two large-diameter bucket-auger borings (approximately 28
inches in diameter). The hollow-stem auger borings are anticipated to be advanced to
depths between 20 and 80 feet below existing ground surface, and the bucket-auger
borings are anticipated to be advanced up to 100 feet. The actual depths of the borings
may be less than anticipated due to drilling refusal.
We assume we will have unhindered access to this site to perform our field exploration.
For the purposes of this proposal, we assume that you will provide us with legal access
to this site for our fieldwork.
We assume that the borings will be excavated within the city-controlled property, such
that no permits will be required. Before we begin fieldwork, we will mark proposed boring
locations and notify you and Underground Service Alert (USA), so that known public or
private underground utilities can be identified. We will also rely on as-built utility plans
from the City’s maintenance/facilities for our review in advance of exploration. We are
not responsible for damage to any unidentified utilities.
We anticipate our subsurface exploration can be performed within three to four
consecutive days.
We will advance the borings to the planned target depths as mentioned above, or to
refusal, whichever is deepest. A truck-mounted drill rig will excavate the hollow-stem
auger borings. Each boring will be logged by a member of our technical staff under
direction of a Geotechnical Engineer (GE) or Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG).
Representative soil samples will be collected and transported to our in-house Irvine
laboratory for geotechnical testing. Driven soil samples will be collected using a standard
penetration test (SPT) sampler and a modified California sampler. A hammer weighing
140 pounds and falling 30 inches will drive the samplers a total of 18 inches, if possible.
The number of blows to drive the samplers for each 6-inch increment will be recorded.
Soil samples from the modified California sampler will be retained in 1-inch-high brass
rings. Bulk soil samples will be collected directly from the flight of the augers or
excavation spoils. The bucket-auger borings will also be excavated using a truck-
mounted drill rig. We will down-hole log the bucket-auger borings. The boreholes will be
backfilled with soil from the excavations upon completion and the surface will be patched
with cold-patch asphalt, if applicable. Our services exclude replacement of tile, re-
paving, re-vegetation and/or landscaping restoration.
A-33~Leighton
RPV Civic Center IR22-037
Page 3
Our proposed scope of work does not include an assessment of this site for the presence
of substances that may be considered hazardous. If we encounter material that we
suspect may be hazardous, we will discontinue work in the immediate area and notify
you. If required, we have available geoenvironmental specialists who can assist you.
Upon request, a proposal to address handling of such materials and recommended
further action will be submitted.
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Selected soil samples obtained from our borings and trenches will be tested at our in-
house Irvine geotechnical laboratory in general accordance with applicable ASTM
standards. We expect that in-place moisture and density, wash sieve, direct shear,
consolidation, expansion index (EI), Atterberg Limits, and corrosivity (pH, chloride,
sulfate, and resistivity will be performed. Unused samples remaining after completion of
geotechnical laboratory testing will be stored in our laboratory for at least 30 days after
sampling.
Geotechnical Analyses and Report Preparation
We will review all available site-specific geotechnical reports, Alquist-Priolo maps, seismic
hazard maps, and other literature and historic aerial photographs available from our in-
house library or in the public domain. Our report will be signed and stamped by a
California Geotechnical Engineer (GE) and Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG).
In this report, we will document our geotechnical findings, conclusions and
recommendations for the proposed building, and specifically address the following:
• Geologic Hazards: We will discuss potential geologic hazards at this site, including
potential for surface fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading,
slope stability, and differential seismic settlement at the site using available data.
• Seismicity: We will provide a regional fault map showing the proximity of this site to
major faults identified by the California Geological Survey within a 100-kilometer
radius of the site. We will also provide site-specific seismic coefficients in accordance
with ASCE 7-16 and the 2019 California Building Code (CBC).
We assumed a Site-Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis is not required for the
proposed buildings and that Exception 2 of ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, will be the
design approach by the structural engineer. Please confirm this with your structural
A-34~Leighton
RPV Civic Center IR22-037
Page 4
engineer. This proposal will need to be revised to include a Site-Specific Ground
Motion Hazard Analysis if the analysis is required.
• Grading and Earthwork: We will present earthwork criteria, including
recommendations for new footing subgrade preparation, recommendations for
removal of unsuitable soil or fill, utility trench backfill, surface drainage, and
landscaping considerations, as necessary. Recommendations for import soil
engineering and compaction criteria will also be provided.
• Foundations: Utilizing data collected during our exploration, we will recommend
allowable vertical and lateral bearing pressures for use in designing new spread-
footing foundations. We will also provide foundation design criteria including
recommendations for minimum size, embedment depth, allowable vertical and lateral
capacities, and expected total and differential settlements.
• Slabs-On-Grade: We will present concrete slab-on-grade design criteria, including
recommendations for subgrade preparation, moisture vapor mitigation and if
necessary, non-expansive fill.
• Temporary Excavations: Utilizing the data collected during our exploration, we will
present temporary excavation guidelines (construction site safety is the responsibility
of the contractor).
SCHEDULE
Leighton Consulting, Inc. will begin scheduling field equipment and personnel for our
geotechnical exploration immediately upon receipt of your written authorization to
proceed. About five to ten working days will be required to schedule personnel and
equipment, and to obtain USA and City utility clearance prior to drilling (additional delay
may occur during holidays). Additional delay may occur due to site access constraints
and/or weather. Geotechnical laboratory testing, analysis and report preparation will
require 15 to 20 working days after the subsurface exploration is completed. Upon
request, project updates can be provided as our data is developed.
FEES AND TERMS
Leighton Consulting, Inc. will provide the proposed scope of services on a time-and-
materials basis for the not-to-exceed fees listed in the attached Table 1, Fee Estimate.
The estimated fee should be considered a rough-order-of-magnitude estimate due to the
conceptual nature of the project.
A-35~Leighton
RPV Civic Center IR22-037
Page 5
We assume this project is subject to California Prevailing Wage Law. If this project is not
subject to prevailing wages, our field exploration fees will be reduced significantly. Our
fee is based on the assumption that our borings can be excavated during normal weekday
daylight-hours, without any site stand-by or delay. Any authorized work beyond the
proposed scope of services will be charged in accordance with the attached 2021
Professional Fee Schedule. This proposal excludes geotechnical and/or materials
testing during construction.
Terms and Conditions
We understand that this work will be authorized under a standard professional services
agreement. If you wish us to proceed, please send us your agreement to review and
sign. If you prefer, we can also generate a Scope of Work Agreement.
CLOSURE
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or information
that would update our scope of work, please call us at your convenience at (866)
LEIGHTON, directly at the extensions and/or e-mail addresses listed below.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC.
Edward Che, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
Extension 4283, eche@leightongroup.com
EC/lr
Attachments: Table 1, Fee Estimate
2021 Professional Fee Schedule
Distribution: (1) addressee
A-36~Leighton
Griffin Structures - RPV Civic Center
Subsurface Exploration Proposal # IR22-037
TASK DESCRIPTION UNITS COST
Mark Exploration Locations and Notify Digalert
Project Geologist $175.00 /hour 6 $1,050.00
SUBTOTAL $1,050.00
Subsurface Exploration
Labor
Senior Staff Engineer $152.00 /hour 56 $8,512.00
Associate $212.00 /hour 12 $2,544.00
Principal $230.00 /hour 3 $690.00
Subcontractors
JET Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger, 7 locations, 20 to 80 feet deep $380.00 /hour 24 $9,120.00
Tri-Valley Drilling Services Bucket Auger, 2 locations, 100 feet deep $400.00 /hour 32 $12,800.00
Mark-up 15%$3,288.00
SUBTOTAL $36,954.00
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing #N/A #N/Aeach$30.00 /each 35 $1,050.00
$150.00 /each 6 $900.00
$185.00 /each 3 $555.00
$220.00 /each 2 $440.00
$265.00 /each 3 $795.00
$285.00 /each 6 $1,710.00
$90.00 /each 1 $90.00
$195.00 /each 3 $585.00
$130.00 /each 3 $390.00#N/A SUBTOTAL $6,515.00
Engineering Evaluation and Report
Project Administrator/Word Processor $74.00 /hour 4 $296.00
CAD Operator $113.00 /hour 6 $678.00
Senior Staff Engineer $152.00 /hour 15 $2,280.00
Senior Staff Geologist $152.00 /hour 15 $2,280.00
Project Geologist $175.00 /hour 8 $1,400.00
Associate $212.00 /hour 4 $848.00
Principal $230.00 /hour 4 $920.00
SUBTOTAL $8,702.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 53,221.00$
Corrosion suite: minimum resistivity, sulfate, chloride, pH (CTM 643)
Direct shear (ASTM D3080, mod., 3 points) consolidated undrained - 0.05 inch /min (CU)
Remolding or hand trimming of specimens (3 points)
Consolidation (ASTM D2435)
Expansion Index (EI, ASTM D4829)
RATE
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Table1 - Fee Estimate
Modified Proctor compaction 4 inch mold (Methods A & B ASTM D1557)
Moisture & density (ASTM D2937) ring samples
Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318) 3 points
Particle size - Sieve + hydrometer (≤3” sieve, ASTM D6913 + D7928)
A-37
Fee/2021-X www.leightongroup.com Page 1 of 4
2021 PROFESSIONAL FEE SCHEDULE
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
LABOR RATES
METHOD $/TEST
CLASSIFICATION & INDEX PROPERTIES
Photograph of sample ....................................................................................10
Moisture content (ASTM D2216) ........................................................................20
Moisture & density (ASTM D2937) ring samples ................................................30
Moisture & density (ASTM D2937) Shelby tube or cutting .................................40
Atterberg limits 3 points (ASTM D4318): ..........................................................150
-Single point, non-plastic ............................................................................85
-Atterberg limits (organic ASTM D2487 / D4318) .............................................180
-Visual classification as non-plastic (ASTM D2488).......................................10
Particle size: .......................................................................................................
-Sieve only 1½ inch to #200 (AASHTO T27/ASTM C136/ASTM D6913/CTM 202) ...135
-Large sieve 6 inch to #200 (AASHTO T27/ASTM C136/ASTM D6913/CTM 202) ...175
-Hydrometer only (ASTM D7928) ................................................................110
-Sieve + hydrometer ≤3 inch sieve, (ASTM 7928) ......................................185
-Percent passing #200 sieve, wash only (ASTM D1140) ...............................70
Specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregate
(AASHTO T84/ASTM C128/ASTM D854/CTM 207) ..............................................130
Specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate
(AASHTO T85/ASTM C127/CTM 206) ...............................................................100
-Total porosity - on Shelby tube sample (calculated) ...............................165
-Total porosity - on other sample (calculated) ..........................................155
Shrinkage limits wax method (ASTM D4943) ...................................................126
Pinhole dispersion (ASTM D4647) ...................................................................210
Dispersive characteristics (double hydrometer ASTM D4221) ................................90
As-received moisture & density (chunk/carved samples) ...............................60
Sand Equivalent (AASHTO T176/ASTM D2419/CTM 217) ....................................105
SHEAR STRENGTH
Pocket penetrometer ......................................................................................15
Direct shear (ASTM D3080, mod., 3 points):
Consolidated undrained - 0.05 inch/min (CU) ..............................................285
Consolidated drained - <0.05 inch/min (CD) ................................................345
Residual shear EM 1110-2-1906-IXA (price per each additional pass after shear)....50
Remolding or hand trimming of specimens (3 points) ....................................90
Oriented or block hand trimming (per hour) ....................................................65
Single point shear .........................................................................................105
Torsional shear (ASTM D6467 / ASTM D7608) ....................................................820
METHOD $/TEST
COMPACTION & PAVEMENT SUBGRADE TESTS
Standard Proctor compaction, 4 points (ASTM D698)
-4 inch diameter mold (Methods A & B) ...................................................160
-6 inch diameter mold (Method C) ...........................................................215
Modified Proctor compaction 4 points (ASTM D1557):
-4 inch diameter mold Methods A & B ......................................................220
-6 inch diameter mold Method C ..............................................................245
Check point (per point) ...................................................................................65
Relative compaction of untreated/treated soils/aggregates (CTM 216) ..........250
Relative density 0.1 ft mold (ASTM D4253, D4254) ...........................................235
California Bearing Ratio (ASTM D1883)
-3 point .....................................................................................................500
-1 point .....................................................................................................185
R-Value untreated soils/aggregates (AASHTO T190/ASTM D2844/CTM 301) .......310
R-Value lime or cement treated soils/aggregates (AASHTO T190/ASTM
D2844/CTM 301) ..........................................................................................340
SOIL CHEMISTRY & CORROSIVITY
pH Method A (ASTM D4972 or CTM 643) .............................................................45
Electrical resistivity – single point – as received moisture ..............................45
Minimum resistivity 3 moisture content points (ASTM G187/CTM 643) ...............90
pH + minimum resistivity (CTM 643) ...............................................................130
Sulfate content - gravimetric (CTM 417 B Part 2) ................................................70
Sulfate content - by ion chromatograph (CTM 417 Part 2) .................................80
Sulfate screen (Hach®) ....................................................................................30
Chloride content (AASHTO T291/CTM 422) .........................................................70
Chloride content – by ion chromatograph (AASHTO T291/CTM 422)...................80
Corrosion suite: minimum resistivity, sulfate, chloride, pH (CTM 643) ............265
Organic matter content (ASTM D2974) ..............................................................65
CONSOLIDATION & EXPANSION/SWELL TESTS
Consolidation (ASTM D2435): ..........................................................................195
Each additional time curve .............................................................................45
Each additional load/unload w/o time reading ................................................40
Expansion Index (ASTM D4829) ......................................................................130
Single load swell/collapse - Method B (ASTM D4546-B, seat, load & inundate only) ....105
Swell collapse Method A up to 10 load/unloads w/o time curves
(ASTM D4546-A) ..........................................................................................290
CLASSIFICATION $/HR
Technician I .....................................................................................................81
Technician II / Special Inspector .....................................................................90
Senior Technician / Senior Special Inspector ...............................................106
Prevailing Wage (field soils / materials tester) * ...........................................138
Prevailing Wage (Special Inspector) * ..........................................................142
Prevailing Wage (Source Inspector, NDT and soil remediation O&M)* ........145
System Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Specialist ....................................135
Non Destructive Testing (NDT) .....................................................................142
Deputy Inspector ..........................................................................................106
Field / Laboratory Supervisor .......................................................................135
Source Inspector ..........................................................................................122
City of Los Angeles Deputy Building (including Grading) Inspector .............144
* See Prevailing Wages in Terms and Conditions
CLASSIFICATION $/HR
Project Administrator/Word Processor/Dispatcher .........................................74
Information Specialist .....................................................................................99
CAD Operator ...............................................................................................117
GIS Specialist ...............................................................................................126
GIS Analyst ..................................................................................................149
Staff Engineer / Geologist / Scientist ............................................................138
Senior Staff Engineer / Geologist / Scientist / ASMR ...................................152
Operations / Laboratory Manager .................................................................167
Project Engineer / Geologist / Scientist ........................................................175
Senior Project Engineer / Geologist / Scientist / SMR ..................................193
Associate ......................................................................................................212
Principal ........................................................................................................230
Senior Principal ............................................................................................266
A-38
Fee/2021-X www.leightongroup.com
FEE SCHEDULE
Page 2 of 4
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS LABORATORY TESTING
METHOD $/TEST
TRIAXIAL TESTS
Unconfined compression strength of cohesive soil (with stress/strain plot,
ASTM D2166) ..................................................................................................................135
Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression test on cohesive soils
(UU, ASTM D2850, USACE Q test, per confining stress) ..........................................170
Consolidated undrained triaxial compression test for cohesive soils,
(CU, ASTM D4767, USACE R-bar test) with back pressure saturation & pore
water pressure measurement (per confining stress) ........................................375
Consolidated drained triaxial compression test (CD, USACE S), with volume
change measurement. Price per soil type below EM 1110-2-1906(X):
Sand or silty sand soils (per confining stress) .........................................375
Silt or clayey sand soils (per confining stress) ........................................500
Clay soils (per confining stress) ..............................................................705
Three-stage triaxial (sand or silty sand soils) ..........................................655
Three-stage triaxial (silt or clayey sand soils) .........................................875
Three-stage triaxial (clay soils) .............................................................1,235
Remolding of test specimens ....................................................................65
METHOD $/TEST
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTS
Triaxial permeability in flexible-wall permeameter with backpressure
saturation at one effective stress
(EPA 9100/ASTM D5084, falling head Method C): ................................................310
Each additional effective stress ....................................................................120
Hand trimming of soil samples for horizontal K ..............................................60
Remolding of test specimens .........................................................................65
Permeability of granular soils (ASTM D2434) ..................................................135
Soil suction (filter paper method, ASTM D5298) ....................................................400
SOIL-CEMENT
Moisture-density curve for soil-cement mixtures (ASTM D558) .......................240
Wet-dry durability of soil-cement mixtures (ASTM D559) ¹ ...........................1,205
Compressive strength of molded soil-cement cylinder (ASTM D1633)¹ .............60
Soil-cement remolded specimen (for shear strength, consolidation, etc.) ¹ ............235
¹ Compaction (ASTM D558 maximum density) should also be performed – not included
in above price
METHOD $/TEST
CONCRETE STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS
Concrete cylinders compression (ASTM C39) (6” x 12” and 4” x 8”) ................35
Compression, concrete or masonry cores (testing only) ≤6 inch (ASTM C42) ......40
Trimming concrete cores (per core) ...............................................................20
Flexural strength of concrete (simple beam-3rd pt. loading, ASTM C78/CTM 523) .....85
Flexural strength of concrete (simple beam-center pt. loading, ASTM C293/CTM 523) ...85
Non shrink grout cubes (2 inch, ASTM C109/C1107) ............................................25
Drying shrinkage - four readings, up to 90 days, 3 bars (ASTM C157) ...........400
Length of concrete cores (CTM 531) .................................................................40
HOT MIX ASPHALT (HMA)
Resistance of compacted HMA to moisture-induced damage
(AASHTO T283/CTM 371) ...........................................................................2,100
Hamburg Wheel, 4 briquettes (modified) (AASHTO T324) ...............................900
Superpave gyratory compaction (AASHTO T312/ASTM D6925) .........................350
Extraction by ignition oven, percent asphalt
(AASHTO T308/ASTM D6307/CTM 382) ............................................................150
Ignition oven correction/correlation values
(AASHTO T308/ASTM D6307/CTM 382) .........................................................1,350
Extraction by centrifuge, percent asphalt (ASTM D2172) ................................150
Gradation of extracted aggregate (AASHTO T30/ASTM D5444/CTM 202) ............135
Stabilometer, S-Value (ASTM D1560/CTM 366) .................................................265
Bituminous mixture preparation (AASHTO R30/CTM 304) ...................................80
Moisture content of HMA (AASHTO T329/ASTM D6037/CTM 370) .........................60
Bulk specific gravity of compacted HMA, molded specimen or cores,
uncoated (AASHTO T166/ASTM D2726/CTM 308) ..............................................50
Bulk specific gravity of compacted HMA, molded specimen or cores,
paraffin-coated (AASHTO T275/ASTM D1188/CTM 308) .....................................55
Maximum density - Hveem (CTM 308) ............................................................200
Theoretical maximum density and specific gravity of HMA (AASHTO T209/
ASTM D2041/CTM 309) .................................................................................130
Thickness or height of compacted bituminous paving mixture specimens
(ASTM D3549) ...............................................................................................40
Wet track abrasion of slurry seal (ASTM D3910) .............................................150
Rubberized asphalt (add to above rates) ........................................................+25%
BRICK
Compression - cost for each, 5 required (ASTM C67) .......................................50
Absorption - cost for each, 5 required (ASTM C67) ...........................................50
METHOD $/TEST
AGGREGATE PROPERTIES
Bulk density and voids in aggregates (AASHTO T19/ASTM C29/ CTM 212) ............50
Organic impurities in fine aggregate sand (AASHTO T21/ASTM C40/CTM 213) ....60
LA Rattler-smaller coarse aggregate <1.5” (AASHTO T96/ASTM C131/ CTM 211) ...200
LA Rattler-larger coarse aggregate 1-3” (AASHTO T96/ASTM C535/CTM 211) ....250
Apparent specific gravity of fine aggregate (AASHTO T84/ASTM C128/ CTM 208)...130
Specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate (ASTM C127/CTM 206)
>#4 retained .............................................................................................100
Clay lumps, friable particles (AASHTO T112/ASTM C142) ..................................175
Durability Index (AASHTO T210/ASTM D3744/CTM 229) ......................................200
Moisture content of aggregates by oven drying
(AASHTO T255/ASTM C566/CTM 226) ...............................................................40
Uncompacted void content of fine aggregate
(AASHTO T304/ ASTM C1252/ CTM 234) ..........................................................130
Percent of crushed particles (AASHTO T335/ASTM D5821/CTM 205) ..................135
Flat & elongated particles in coarse aggregate (ASTM D4791/CTM 235) ..........215
Cleanness value of coarse aggregate (CTM 227) ...........................................210
Soundness, magnesium (AASHTO T104/ASTM C88/CTM 214) ...........................225
Soundness, sodium (AASHTO T104/ASTM C88/CTM 214) ..................................650
MASONRY
Mortar cylinders 2” x 4” (ASTM C780) ...............................................................30
Grout prisms 3” x 6” (ASTM C1019) ...................................................................30
Masonry cores compression, ≤6” diameter - testing only (ASTM C42) .............40
Masonry core-shear, Title 24 - test only..........................................................80
Veneer bond strength, cost for each - 5 required (ASTM C482) ........................55
CMU compression to size 8” x 8” x 16” - 3 required (ASTM C140) ....................55
CMU moisture content, absorption & unit weight - 6 required (ASTM C140) .....50
CMU linear drying shrinkage (ASTM C426) .....................................................175
CMU grouted prisms compression test ≤8” x 8” x 16” (ASTM C1314) .............200
CMU grouted prisms compression test > 8” x 8” x 16”(ASTM C1314) .............250
BEARING PADS/PLATES AND JOINT SEAL
Elastomeric bearing pads (Caltrans SS 51-3) ...................................................990
Elastomeric bearing pad with hardness and compression tests
(Caltrans SS 51-3) ......................................................................................1,230
Type A Joint Seals (Caltrans SS 51-2) ...........................................................1,620
Type B Joint Seals (Caltrans SS 51-2) ...........................................................1,530
Bearing plates (A536) .....................................................................................720
A-39
Fee/2021-X www.leightongroup.com
FEE SCHEDULE
Page 3 of 4
EQUIPMENT LIST
METHOD $/TEST
STREET LIGHTS/SIGNALS
LED Luminaires / Signal Modules / Countdown Pedestrian Signal Face
Modules (Caltrans RSS 86)........................................................................1,300
SPRAY APPLIED FIREPROOFING
Unit weight (density, ASTM E605) ........................................................................60
REINFORCING STEEL AND PRESTRESSING STRANDS
Rebar tensile test, ≤ up to No. 11 (ASTM A370) ................................................65
Rebar tensile test, ≥ No. 14 & over (ASTM A370) ...........................................200
Rebar bend test, up to No. 11 (ASTM A370) ......................................................65
Rebar bend test, ≥ No. 14 & over (ASTM A370) ..............................................200
Resistance butt-welded hoops/bars, tensile test, ≤ up to No. 10 (CTM 670) ....65
Resistance butt-welded hoops/bars, tensile test, ≥ No. 11 & over (CTM 670) ...85
Mechanical rebar splice, tensile test, ≤ up to No. 11 (CTM 670).......................65
Mechanical rebar splice, slip test, ≤ up to No. 11 (CTM 670)............................40
Mechanical rebar splice, tensile test, ≥ No. 14 & over (CTM 670) ..................200
Mechanical rebar splice, slip test, ≥ No. 14 & over (CTM 670) .......................200
Headed rebar splice, tensile test, ≤ up to No. 11 (CTM 670) ............................65
Headed rebar splice, tensile test, ≥ No. 14 & over (CTM 670) .......................200
METHOD .........................................................................$/TEST
Epoxy coated rebar/dowel film thickness (coating) test (ASTM A775/A934) .......45
Epoxy coated rebar/dowel continuity (Holiday) test (ASTM A775/A934) .............65
Epoxy coated rebar flexibility/bend test, up to No. 11 (ASTM A775/A934) ..........45
Prestressing wire, tension (ASTM A416) .........................................................175
Sample preparation (cutting) .........................................................................50
FASTENERS / BOLTS / RODS
F3125 GR A307, A325 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, plain
(ASTM A370) .................................................................................................65
F3125 GR A307, A325 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter,
galvanized (ASTM A370) ...............................................................................75
A490 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, plain (ASTM A370) ................65
A490 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, galvanized (ASTM A370) ......75
A593 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, stainless steel (ASTM A370) ...65
F1554 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, plain (ASTM A370) ............100
F1554 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, galvanized (ASTM A370) ...120
SAMPLE TRANSPORT
Pick-up & delivery (weekdays, per trip, <50 mile radius from Leighton office) ...90
ITEM $UNIT
1/4 inch Grab plates ................................................................................5 each
1/4 inch Tubing (bonded) ....................................................................0.55 foot
1/4 inch Tubing (single) ......................................................................0.35 foot
3/8 inch Tubing, clear vinyl ................................................................0.55 foot
4-Gas meter (RKI Eagle or similar)/GEM 2000 ...................................130 day
Air flow meter and purge pump (200 cc/min) .........................................50 day
Box of 24 soil drive-sample rings .........................................................120 box
Brass sample tubes ...............................................................................10 each
Caution tape (1000-foot roll) ..................................................................20 each
Combination lock or padlock .................................................................11 each
Compressed air tank and regulator .......................................................50 day
Concrete coring machine (≤6-inch-dia) ...............................................150 day
Consumables (gloves, rope, soap, tape, etc.) .......................................35 day
Core sample boxes ................................................................................11 each
Crack monitor ........................................................................................25 each
Cutoff saws, reciprocating, electric (Sawzall®) .....................................75 day
D-Meter Walking Floor Profiler ............................................................100 day
Disposable bailers .................................................................................12 each
Disposable bladders ..............................................................................10 each
Dissolved oxygen meter ........................................................................45 day
DOT 55-gallon containment drum with lid .............................................65 drum
Double-ring infiltrometer ......................................................................125 day
Dual-stage interface probe ....................................................................80 day
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer ..............................................................400 day
Generator, portable gasoline fueled, 3,500 watts ..................................90 day
Global Positioning System/Laser Range Finder ....................................80 day
Hand auger set ......................................................................................90 day
HDPE safety fence (≤100 feet) .............................................................40 roll
Horiba U-51 water quality meter ..........................................................135 day
Light tower (towable vertical mast) ......................................................150 day
Magnehelic gauge .................................................................................15 day
Manometer ............................................................................................25 day
Mileage (IRS Allowable) .................................................................... 0.585 mile
ITEM $UNIT
Moisture test kit (excludes labor to perform test, ASTM E1907) ...........60 test
Nuclear moisture and density gauge ....................................................88 day
Pachometer ...........................................................................................25 day
Particulate Monitor ...............................................................................125 day
pH/Conductivity/Temperature meter ......................................................55 day
Photo-Ionization Detector (PID) ...........................................................120 day
Pump, Typhoon 2 or 4 stage .................................................................50 day
QED bladder pump w/QED control box ...............................................160 day
Quire fee – Phase I only ......................................................................200 each
Resistivity field meter & pins ..................................................................50 day
Slip / threaded cap, 2-inch or 4-inch diameter, PVC Schedule 40 .........15 each
Slope inclinometer ...............................................................................200 day
Soil sampling T-handle (Encore) ...........................................................10 day
Soil sampling tripod ...............................................................................35 day
Stainless steel bailer ..............................................................................40 day
Submersible pump, 10 gpm, high powered Grundfos
2-inch with controller .......................................................................160 day
Submersible pump/transfer pump, 10-25 gpm ......................................50 day
Support service truck usage (well installation, etc.) .............................200 day
Survey/fence stakes ................................................................................8 each
Tedlar® bags .........................................................................................18 each
Traffic cones (≤25)/barricades (single lane) ..........................................50 day
Turbidity meter ......................................................................................70 day
Tyvek® suit (each) .................................................................................18 each
Vapor sampling box ...............................................................................55 day
Vehicle usage (carrying equipment) ......................................................20 hour
VelociCalc ..............................................................................................35 day
Visqueen (20 x 100 feet) .....................................................................100 roll
Water level indicator (electronic well sounder) <300 feet deep well ......60 day
ZIPLEVEL® ...........................................................................................15 day
Other specialized geotechnical and environmental testing & monitoring
equipment are available, and priced per site
A-40
Fee/2021-X www.leightongroup.com
FEE SCHEDULE
Page 4 of 4
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Expiration: This fee schedule is effective through
December 31, 2021 after which remaining work
will be billed at then-current rates.
Proposal Expiration: Proposals are valid for at
least 30 days, subject to change after 30 days;
unless otherwise stated in an attached proposal.
Prevailing Wages: Our fees for prevailing wage
work are based upon California prevailing wage
laws and wage determinations. Unless specifically
indicated in our proposal, costs for apprentice
are not included. If we are required to have an
apprentice on your project, additional fees will be
charged.
Overtime: Standard overtime rate is per
California Labor Law and is billed at 1.5 or 2 times
their hourly billing rate. Overtime rate for non-
exempt field personnel working on a Leighton
observed holiday is billed at 2 times their hourly
billing rate. Overtime rate for Prevailing wage
work is per the California Department of Industrial
Relations (DIR) determination and is multiplied at
1.5 to 2 times their hourly billing rate for overtime
and double-time, respectively.
Expert Witness Time: Expert witness deposition
and testimony will be charged at 2 times hourly
rates listed on the previous pages, with a minimum
charge of four hours per day.
Minimum Field Hourly Charges: For Field
Technicians, Special Inspectors or any on-site
(field) materials testing services:
4 hours: 4-hour minimum charge up to the first
four hours of work
8 hours: 8-hour minimum charge for over four
hours of work, up to eight hours.
Project time accrued includes portal to portal
travel time.
Insurance & Limitation of Liability: These rates
are predicated on standard insurance coverage
and a limit of Leighton’s liability equal to our total
fees for a given project.
Outside Direct Costs: Heavy equipment,
subcontractor fees and expenses, project-
specific permits and/or licenses, project-specific
supplemental insurance, travel, subsistence,
project-specific parking charges, shipping,
reproduction, and other reimbursable expenses
will be invoiced at cost plus 20%, unless billed
directly to and paid by client.
Invoicing: Invoices are rendered monthly,
payable upon receipt in United States dollars. A
service charge of 1½-percent per month will be
charged for late payment.
Client Disclosures: Client agrees to provide
all information in Client’s possession about
actual or possible presence of buried utilities and
hazardous materials on the project site, prior to
fieldwork, and agrees to reimburse Leighton for
all costs related to unanticipated discovery of
utilities and/or hazardous materials. Client is also
responsible for providing safe and legal access to
the project site for all Leighton field personnel.
Earth Material Samples: Quoted testing unit
rates are for soil and/or rock (earth) samples
free of hazardous materials. Additional costs will
accrue beyond these standard testing unit rates
for handling, testing and/or disposing of soil and/or
rock containing hazardous materials. Hazardous
materials will be returned to the site or the site
owner’s designated representative at additional
cost not included in listed unit rates. Standard
turn-around time for geotechnical-laboratory test
results is 10 working days. Samples will be stored
for 2 months, after which they will be discarded.
Prior documented notification is required if
samples need to be stored for a longer time. A
monthly storage fee of $10 per bag and $5 per
sleeve or tube will be applied. Quoted unit rates
are only for earth materials sampled in the United
States. There may be additional cost for handling
imported samples.
Construction Material Samples: After all
designated 28-day breaks for a given sample
set meet specified compressive or other client-
designated strength, all “hold” cylinders or
specimens will be automatically disposed of,
unless specified in writing prior to the 28-day
break. All other construction materials will be
disposed of after completion of testing and
reporting.
A-41
a | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T S E R V I C E S
Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
A-42
b | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
38+
city halls featuring council chambers,
board rooms, conference rooms, and highly customized spaces
40+
years of public sector
experience
350+
public projects in-and-around Los
Angeles county
75+
public maintenance and corporate
yards
Significant financial experience in the
form of assessments, cost estimating,
and proposed Financial Advisors
who have served several thousand
municipalities to fund public facilities
Stellar record of completing projectsunder budget& ahead ofschedule
Why Griffin Structures?
80+
public safety facilities includingemergency operations centers,
communication and dispatch centers,
and others
Dedicated team inclusive of
outreach advocate
Susan Harden, providing community outreach for significant civic center
projects, city and county-wide plans
150+
Plazas, pavilions, and parks including
sustainable and striking open space projects
A-43
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Police Services of Salinas
CONFIDENTIAL
California Civil Code §3426.1 (d); California Evidence Code § 1040 and § 1060;
California Government Code § 6254 (k); Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (4)
Do not release without redactions
County of Orange Civic Center
Table of Contents
1. Approach to Scope of Services 1
2. Organization & Staffing 4
3. Staff Qualifications & Experience 6
4. Project Schedule 26
5. Quality Control Plan 27
6. Acceptance of Conditions 28 High Desert Government Center
Stanton Corporate Yard
A-44
ii | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
September 29, 2021
30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: Request for Proposals for Project Management Services for the Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Project
Dear Mr. Waters and Evaluation Team,
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes requires a partner with the management, design and construction expertise, local and public relations
knowledge, communications proficiency, and creativity to complete the Civic Center project in a timely and cost-effective manner. We are
pleased to be your partner and to encourage creative, innovative, and engaging facilities which will serve as a nexus for your community.
Rancho Palos Verdes is a truly captivating, historically vibrant destination with an opportunity to build upon years of planning its civic
center and related iconic location. Incorporating a state-of-the-art civic center which houses not only a base of operations for City staff,
but provides a 21st century emergency operations center, public maintenance yard, and striking open plaza will be a complex endeavor.
Not to mention, the re-envisioning of the various historic elements on site including the Coast Guard bunker and missel silos as well as
being cognizant of and planning around the surrounding 60-acre beautiful nature preserve. Our team of handpicked professionals will
provide the City a clear path for developing this endeavor while protecting your investments from day one, utilizing our expertise in
managing similarly ambitious projects valued over $350 million publicly funded dollars.
Griffin Structures offers a well-rounded platform of experience aligned with the many diverse elements contained within the Civic
Center’s program. The team will be led by long-time Griffin Structures Senior Project Manager and Owner’s Representative, Robert
Godfrey. As one of our most seasoned public sector experts, we believe Robert Godfrey’s shared participation on both the Civic Center
and Ladera Linda Community Center and Park will create incredible efficiencies across both projects. These efficiencies will take multiple
forms and when coupled with Robert’s understanding of the City’s process and its procedural requirements, will offer significant value to
the City. Our team also includes dedicated Civic Development Expert, Korin Crawford, and our highly credentialed CFO, Mark Hoglund,
who are currently leading the Orange Civic Center, Rancho Cordova Civic Center, and Placer County Civic Center projects with support
from long-time Griffin partners, Financial Advisor, and Municipal Financial Advisor firms - DTA and Fieldman Rolapp Associates, who are
ready, willing, and able to immediately discuss unique revenue opportunities and funding options for the City. Dustin Alamo, Pre-Design
Manager and Facilities Master Planning expert is also included along with locally recognized Outreach Advocate, Susan Harden. We also
offer the services of nationally recognized specialty firms pertaining to Food Service Design and Move/Relocation Management.
To summarize, we offer the following key benefits to the City:
• A firm with deep “real estate roots”, offering unique entitlement, community engagements, financial and development expertise
which significantly differentiates Griffin Structures from other firms, and experience leading many of the state’s largest building
programs.
• A team with a dedicated Strategic Services division, offering the ability to engage in programming and master planning efforts, real
estate services, cost/schedule development, and much more.
• A collaborative, streamlined project delivery process to ultimately reduce your administrative costs and ensure timely delivery.
• Unparalleled experience with the public sector civic centers, emergency operations centers and public safety facilities, public
maintenance yards, parks, plazas, and open space projects.
• Direct engagement which courageously, creatively, and collaboratively ensures accountability for the City, directly supported by our
management team.
• Outreach advocacy to assist the City in gaining community consensus and public advocacy.
Griffin Structures takes great pride in providing both competitive pricing, highly qualified personnel and goes to extraordinary measures
to ask, “what is our true value-added proposition to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes?” The answer to this question is our people. We
bring a higher caliber of Owner’s Representative and Project Manager to our Clients - one that is trained as Architects and Contractors
but thinks as an Owner. One that protects your City throughout the design and construction process. This is our differentiator and the
meaning behind the Griffin Structures pledge to provide excellence in project delivery.
We look forward to serving you,
Roger Torriero, President & CEO
C: (949) 412-9000 | E: rtorriero@griffinholdings.net
1 Technology Drive, Building i, Suite 829 | Irvine, CA | 949.497.9000 | griffinstructures.com A-45
II
iii | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Type of Organization
Corporation
Officers
Conflict of Interest
Griffin Structures has no conflicts of interests to disclose
Present Staff + Subconsultants
Please refer to our organizational chart on page 4 of our proposal
Organization Standing
Roger Torriero
Principal-In-Charge, President & CEO
(949) 412-9000
rtorriero@griffinholdings.net
Jon Hughes, CCM, DBIA
Executive Vice President & Project
Executive
(949) 497-9000 x208
jhughes@griffinstructures.com
Dustin Alamo, CCM, LEED AP, DRE BROKER
Vice President of Pre-Construction &
Pre-Design Manager
(949) 497-9000 x263
dalamo@griffinstructures.com
Mark Hoglund
COO & CFO
(949) 497-9000 x203
mhoglund@griffinstructures.com
Kelly Boyle
Executive Vice President
(949) 497-9000 x202
kboyle@griffinstructures.com
Firm Contact Information
1 Technology Drive
Building i, Suite 829
Irvine, CA 92618
Primary Contact Information
Jon Hughes, CCM, DBIA
Executive Vice President &
Project Executive
(949) 497-9000 x208
jhughes@griffinstructures.com
A-46
Jon W. McClintock, CPA
P .o. Box 15955
Newport Beaeh, CA 92659
Callfornla CPA #67088
I have reviewed the balance sheet and income statement of Grlffin Structures, Inc. and I am hereby
confirming the following:
l. Griffin Structures, Jnc. had a Profit after Tax Margin ofatleast3% forthe last twoyears(2019
and 2020).
2. Griffin Structures, Inc. had a Debt to Equity Ratio lower than 0.6 as of 12/31/20.
3. Griffin Structures, Inc. had a cash Ratio (Cash and cash equivalents/current Uabilltiesl greater
than 0.5 as of 12/31/20.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ca 11 me at (949) 290--2451.
Sincerely,
Jon w. Mcclintock, CPA
iv | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Addendum 1 Acknowledgment
PAGE 1 OF 1
August 31, 2021
ADDENDUM NO. 1
TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CIVIC CENTER PROJECT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
The following changes (revisions, additions, and/or deletions) as noted below, are hereby
incorporated and made a part of the Project Management Services For Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Project request for proposals. Portions of the RFP, not specifically mentioned in
the Addendum, remain the same. All trades affected shall be fully advised of these revisions,
deletions, and additions.
This Addendum forms a part of the request for proposals for the Project Management Services
For Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Project and modifies the original request for proposals.
Each proposer shall be responsible for ascertaining, prior to submitting a proposal, that it has
received all issued Addenda and shall ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM ON
THE PROPOSER’S CERTIFICATION, attached. A proposer’s failure to address the
requirements of this addendum or failure to acknowledge the receipt of this addendum may
result in that proposal being rejected.
Note the following changes and/or additions to the Project Management Services For Rancho
Palos Verdes Civic Center Project request for proposals. The proposer shall execute the
Certification at the end of this addendum and shall attach all pages of this addendum to the
proposal.
The Mandatory pre-proposal meeting and site tour has been rescheduled from
September 1, 2021 at 2pm to September 8, 2021 at 2pm.
End of Addendum No. 1
Any questions regarding this Addendum should be directed to Senior Administrative
Analyst Matt Waters, at (310) 544-5218 or by email at mattw@rpvca.gov.
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
A-47
C ITVO RANCHO PALOS VERD S
PUBLC WORKS PARTMENT
v | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
PAGE 2 OF 2
PROPOSER'S CERTIFICATION
I acknowledge receipt of the foregoing Addendum No. 1 and accept all conditions
contained therein.
___________________________
Proposal’s Signature
___________________________ ____________________
By Date
Please sign above and include this signed addendum in the proposal package. Failure to do so may result in that proposal being rejected.
Roger Torriero, Principal-In-Charge,
President & Chief Executive Officer 9/29/21
A-48GRIFFIN
.STRUCTURE!!
vi | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
PAGE 1 OF 1
September 9, 2021
ADDENDUM NO. 2
TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CIVIC CENTER PROJECT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
The following changes (revisions, additions, and/or deletions) as noted below, are hereby
incorporated and made a part of the Project Management Services For Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Project request for proposals. Portions of the RFP, not specifically mentioned in
the Addendum, remain the same. All trades affected shall be fully advised of these revisions,
deletions, and additions.
This Addendum forms a part of the request for proposals for the Project Management Services
For Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Project and modifies the original request for proposals.
Each proposer shall be responsible for ascertaining, prior to submitting a proposal, that it has
received all issued Addenda and shall ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM ON
THE PROPOSER’S CERTIFICATION, attached. A proposer’s failure to address the
requirements of this addendum or failure to acknowledge the receipt of this addendum may
result in that proposal being rejected.
Note the following changes and/or additions to the Project Management Services For Rancho
Palos Verdes Civic Center Project request for proposals. The proposer shall execute the
Certification at the end of this addendum and shall attach all pages of this addendum to the
proposal.
1) Sign-in sheets from the mandatory pre-proposal meeting and site tour on
September 8, 2021 are attached.
2) Follow-up Response to question from 9-8-21 pre-submittal tour regarding
whether a sub-contractor could submit a proposal. The question was in
reference to RFP section VI-1: “Only one proposal per firm will be
considered.”
Response: While the use of subcontractors is both allowable and expected for a
project of this size and scope, each proposal should be comprehensive and must
be submitted by a single prime company.
.
End of Addendum No. 2
Any questions regarding this Addendum should be directed to Senior Administrative
Analyst Matt Waters, at (310) 544-5218 or by email at mattw@rpvca.gov.
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
Addendum 2 Acknowledgment
A-49
C ITYO RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT
GRIFFIN
.STRUCTURE!!
vii | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
PAGE 2 OF 2
PROPOSER'S CERTIFICATION
I acknowledge receipt of the foregoing Addendum No. 2 and accept all conditions
contained therein.
___________________________
Proposal’s Signature
___________________________ ____________________
By Date
Please sign above and include this signed addendum in the proposal package. Failure to do so may result in that proposal being rejected.
9/29/21
Roger Torriero, Principal-In-Charge,
President & Chief Executive Officer
A-50GRIFFIN
.STRUCTURE!!
viii | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“Griffin’s staff consistently provided
outstanding professional services and was
instrumental in completing each project
ahead of schedule and under budget. Griffin
has always illustrated the desire to complete
their jobs to a very high level of professional
standards and have always taken their
fiduciary duties very seriously.”
- City of Hesperia 1. Approach to Scope of ServicesA-51
1 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ Civic Center project is an ambitious, complex endeavor that requires
a team with the unique experience necessary to deliver a successful project. Griffin Structures
understands that the City has several key considerations and constraints which have impacted this
project in the past, requiring a skilled team of specialists. For this reason, we have assembled a team
that possesses the unique skill sets to address the unique circumstances associated with this project.
Specifically, we have identified the following as crucial to the success of the project.
Program Validation
The program for this project is complex and multifaceted. To turn the existing program (which we
recognize is undergoing an additional review by the City) and conform it into a single master plan will
require a team that understands the nuances of programming for each facility type and one that has the
recent and relevant experience to help guide the City toward a program that satisfies the needs of the
City. Griffin Structures has that expertise and will guide the program validation process accordingly.
Site Analysis
The key to the success of this project is to evaluate the site, specifically as it pertains to the constraints
that are currently in place for the two lots. We recognize that specific DOJ restrictions for the “red”
area restrict its use to public safety. We also recognize the diverse set of goals associated with this
project and that the current lot lines may not be conducive to the campus. Griffin has extensive
experience in real estate and will help the City evaluate the highest and best use of existing properties
and wil support the City in any lot line adjustments, land swaps, and zoning redistribution.
Financial Analysis + Supporting Consultants
This effort will include financial advisors who are specifically trained and experienced in guiding
municipalities in their financial affairs. For that reason, we have teamed with DTA and Fieldman
Rolapp to provide the necessary insights and guidance for this project. Together with our program
management experience and real estate experience, we believe this team has the experience to assist
the City in evaluating its options to arrive at a comprehensive program that brings the highest value.
Additionally, we have included Webb Food Service to guide this aspect of the program/design as it
relates to a possible café or food service component as the Master Plan is developed. We also offer
the services of Move/Relocation Management firm, John Barry & Associates who will execute the
relocation plan to offer uninterrupted operations as we look towards implementation..
Program and Construction Management
While pursuing the items above, it will be essential that the City maintains a single point of contact for
the project that serves as a clearinghouse for all decisions and coordination. It will also be critical that
this person has an intimate understanding of the City, its policies and procedures, and even insight into
other important projects throughout the City, not the least of which is the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park. We believe there is a real and tangible benefit of having the same team serving the
City on both projects as we understand there are vital elements envisioned for this project that will be
transferred from the existing Ladera Linda Community Center and Park. By having a single point of
contact that is intimately involved in both projects, we believe the City will benefit from economies of
scale and continuity within the City’s overall capital improvements plan. With these components and
an intimate understanding of what it takes to work adjacent to a nature preserve, we are confident the
Griffin team has the requisite skills and experience for this project.
1. Approach to Scope of Services
A-52~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
Project Process Map
Project
Kickoff
Comprehensive
Project
Development Plan
Delivery Method
Decision
RFP for A&E
Partner Master Plan
Development Design Process Construction
Process Occupancy
Assess Funding
Potential
Assess Revenue
Potential
(Service, Tax, Etc.)
Delivery Method
Consultation
Initiate Outreach
Campaign
Project
Partnership
Discussion
Confirm Project
Opportunities &
Constraints
Project Quality
Assurance Plan
Funding
Considerations
Schedule
Considerations
Risk
Considerations
Program
Verification
CCAC /
Community
Outreach
Project
Partnership
Integration
Budget &
Schedule
Development
CCAC /
Community
Outreach
Project
Partnership
Integration
Permits &
Approvals
Budget &
Schedule
Development
CCAC /
Community
Outreach
Budget &
Schedule
Management
RFI & Change
Order
Management
Closeout
Warranty /
Training
City Staff &
CCAC Integration
Scope & Legal
Approval
Local, State &
Federal
Compliance
Highest & Best
Use of Site
Surveys:
HazMat, Topo, &
Geotechnical
Project Quality
Assurance Plan
Local, State &
Federal
Compliance
Bid for Construction
(Timing Dependent
on Project Delivery)
2 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S A-53
r
\.
II
r " r
\.
r
'I
~
"I
~
(====)
( __ )
GRIFFIN
\TRUCHIRl\
3 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Question: Given that these building and sites have so much flexibility in program and potential use, how will our team ensure
the City maximizes its investment and achieves the best outcome for its residents?
Answer: Our team has been specifically curated to engage individuals within our organization as well as long-time partner
firms to guide the City in this exact issue. From our programming specialists who will review the City’s currently refined space
requirements and identify opportunities for maximization; to our pre-design specialists who will aid in developing scope for
enhanced flexibility from the future partnering A&E team; to our robust financial advisors who will review and test program
options to project revenues, costs, debt service strategies, tax opportunities, and more; to our outreach advocates who will engage
and listen to your stakeholders and community to integrate their interests into the project; and finally our project management
group who will oversee the entire process to ensure the City interests are always protected by providing reliable service, clear
communication, and successful implementation.
Question: What are the keys to developing and implementing a successful campus program?
Answer: When developing and implementing a program of this size and diversity, it will be critical to develop overarching
guidelines pertaining to program and project design, followed by the prioritization of projects based on need, funding availability,
and to some extent, community interest. These guidelines will act as the benchmark against which we measure progress and
goal achievement. Additionally, this prioritization will dictate the initial master schedule - informing all due diligence and design
efforts, ultimately providing the framework for the construction plan.
Q: How do you implement a successful campus program while maintaining site access and public services?
Answer: The construction phasing will be determined to mitigate the impact on City operations and public access by those doing
business with the City or utilizing its recreational amenities. The City will want to maintain a “happy campus” where it is clear
a project will occur, including the relocation of services and access, navigating the site, and providing reliable access for the
Contractor, or Contractor(s), building the facilities. It is important to note that the topography of this site may present access
challenges throughout the construction phase, which our team will immediately provide resolutions for.
Question: As the City seeks to redevelop this site, what significant challenges may be encountered?
Answer: Given our experience with developing similar project sites, the unique history of the civic center site as a World War II
facility creates unique challenges as it pertains to environmental site assessment. The cost for demolition versus reuse will need
to be weighed based upon the levels of mitigation and remediation which may need to be performed. In addition, the desire to
reuse the missile silos presents a unique challenge to ensuring public accessibility of these spaces – all tasks for which we have
already begun to assess and develop solutions.
Question: How will stakeholder engagement inform the planning of the Civic Center?
Answer: Stakeholder engagement and consensus building will be paramount for this project. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has
a very involved, informed, and vocal constituency. They will want a Civic Center which represents their City while maintaining
its proper context within the community landscape. We are ready to leverage participation in City-sponsored events, social
media, web platforms, e-newsletters, and more. We are committed to developing a project which achieves consensus from your
community at large.
Value-Adding Strategies, Innovations & Strategic Considerations
We have utilized a page from Staff Qualifications to include an additional page for this section.
A-54~GRIFFIN
~\IR,U(;llll\l~
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“Griffin has served as a valuable partner in
the both the Police Services Headquarters
and El Gabilan Library project, representing
a historic event in our City’s progress toward
a new renaissance era”
- City of Salinas 2. Organization & StaffingA-55
4 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
2. Organization & Staffing
Our proposed team shares a long history of successful partnerships and is
comprised of leading Owner’s Representatives, Program and Construction
Managers specializing in the development of leading civic centers and
administrative complexes, libraries, community centers, public safety
facilities, parks, and recreational centers.
The project team will be managed by:
• Roger Torriero, Principal-In-Charge, and Project Executive Jon Hughes,
providing oversight to;
• Project Manager Robert Godfrey, who will manage the entirety of the
project and serve as the single point-of-contact;
• Assistant Project Manager, Erin Jones, to support Robert Godfrey from
pre-design to construction completion;
The project team will also be supported by our wealth of internal resources,
including;
• Mark Hoglund, CFO, will share his 40+ years as an experienced financial
advisor for countless development projects;
• Dustin Alamo, Pre-Design Manager, to support pre-design efforts as we
confirm the site, program, and plan;
• Korin Crawford, Civic Development Expert, offering advice and
recommendations on financing and development approaches, including,
but not limited to P3, Traditional, and Design-Build;
• David Taussig, Financial Advisor, to provide financing and funding
analysis, financial modeling, revenue forecasting, and public-private
financing options;
• James V. Fabian, Municipal Financial Advisor, offering financing and
funding analysis, financial modeling, revenue forecasting, and public-
private financing options;
• Susan Harden, Outreach Advocate;
• Jay Helekar, Cost Estimator;
Not only have our proposed Griffin Structures team members worked
collaboratively to deliver several 21st-century public facilities throughout
their careers, but the Griffin/development team, as well as Susan Harden,
possess vast experience working with our firm.
Our proposed Project Manager and key staff will remain assigned to this
project through completion of the Scope of Services.
Roger Torriero
Principal-In-Charge,
President & CEO
Griffin Structures
Jon Hughes
CCM, DBIA
Project
Executive
Griffin Structures
Mark Hoglund
CPA
Chief Financial &
Operating Officer
Griffin Structures
Webb Food
Service Design
Food & Beverage
Consultant
John Barry &
Associates
Move / Relocation
Management
Dustin Alamo
CCM, LEED AP, DRE
BROKER
Pre-Design Manager
Griffin Structures
Korin Crawford
Civic Development
Expert
Griffin Structures
Jay Helekar
LEED AP
Cost Estimator
Griffin Structures
Susan Harden
LEED AP
Outreach Advocate
Circlepoint
David Taussig
AICP, Series 54 & 50
Financial Advisor
DTA
James V. Fabian
MSRB, SEC
Municipal Financial
Advisor
Fieldman Rolapp
Primary Contact
Erin Jones
LEED AP
Assistant Project
Manager
Griffin Structures
Robert Godfrey
CCM
Project Manager
Griffin Structures
A-56~GRIFFIN
~STRUCTUR E!>
5 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Involvement & Availability
Employee & Title % of Involvement Availability
Roger Torriero
PIC, President & CEO 10%Located from our corporate headquarters in Irvine, Roger provides
leadership to all projects as-needed.
Mark Hoglund, CPA
COO & CFO As-needed Located from our corporate headquarters in Irvine, Mark provides
contractual and financial oversight to all projects as-needed.
Jon Hughes, CCM, DBIA
Project Executive 20%Located from our corporate headquarters in Irvine, Jon provides
leadership to all projects as-needed.
Robert Godfrey, CCM
Project Manager 40% - 60%
Located from our Irvine office, Robert is currently serving as the
lead for the Ladera Linda project and will manage these projects
simultaneously.
Erin Jones, LEED AP
Assistant Project Manager
As-needed, 100%
during construction
Located from our Irvine office, Erin Jones will provide support to
Robert Godfrey and team.
Dustin Alamo, CCM, LEED AP
Pre-Design Manager
As-needed, 40%
during pre-design
phase
Located from our headquarters in Irvine, Dustin will provide
support through the pre-design phase as-needed.
Korin Crawford
Civic Development Expert As-needed A lead development/Public-Private Partnership expert, Korin will
provide support to the project as-needed.
DTA
Financial Advisor As-needed Located from Newport Beach, DTA’s time will be properly allocated
to ensure your needs are properly served.
Fieldman Rolapp & Associates
Municipal Financial Advisor As-needed Located from Irvine, Fieldman Rolapp’s time will be properly
allocated to ensure your needs are properly served.
Susan Harden, LEED AP
Outreach Advocate As-needed Located in Orange County, Susan’s time will be properly allocated
to ensure your needs are properly served.
Jay Helekar, LEED AP
Cost Estimator As-needed Located from our corporate headquarters in Irvine, Jay’s time will
be properly allocated to ensure your needs are properly served.
Webb Food Service Design
Food & Beverage Consultant As-needed Located from Anaheim, Webb Food Service Design’s time will be
properly allocated to ensure your needs are properly served.
John Barry & Associates
Move/Relocation Management As-needed Located from Newport Beach, JBA’s time will be properly allocated
to ensure your needs are properly served.
Griffin Structures tailors its deployment of resources to bring the highest value to the client. Accordingly, each team member is
utilized to bring the maximum benefit to the project while also not overburdening the client with excessive fees. By taking this
approach we are able to mobilize maximum support when needed, and then reduce that commitment as project circumstances
dictate. To that end, below is a summary of our labor deployment percentages by team member.
A-57~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“The Griffin Structures team created a
masterful plan. We needed cost efficient
buildings. Security is paramount for the
employees and this project is designed
through technology. The cost savings are
truly tremendous through the efficiency
and design.”
- County of Orange 3. Staff Qualifications & ExperienceA-58
6 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
3. Staff Qualifications & Experience
Civic Centers
Throughout the vast portfolio of our firm, we have delivered
multiple leading civic centers for the County of Orange
($346M), County of San Bernardino ($260M), City of
Watsonville ($60M), City of Hesperia ($50M), City of Rancho
Santa Margarita ($20M), and others. These civic centers
contained not only city halls and council chambers, but also
police and fire departments, emergency operations centers,
libraries, community centers, and striking open pavilions
/ open space. These projects have earned designations
nationally as well as statewide, including designations from
LEED, AIA, APWA, ASCE, CCM, and countless others.
Given our unique ability to provide early programming and
strategic services, our team coordinates with our clients
and their neighboring communities early to provide civic
centers that capture the unique ambitions of each City, design
preferences, and incorporated amenities while integrating
a comprehensive outreach campaign. Civic centers are the
nexus of the community and must be well designed and
constructed to withstand the test of time and allow flexibility
for the future.
Existing Military Site Considerations
We understand the project site currently houses a military
bunker. Our team at Griffin Structures possesses great
experience in mitigating similar circumstances, having
completed the Buena Park Community Center atop a former
bomb shelter, as well as the Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena,
and Between the Rinks Restaurant which also stands atop a
former military site.
1
1. County of Orange Civic Center
2. Hesperia Civic Center
3. High Desert Government Center
4. Watsonville Civic Center
5. Rancho Cordova Civic Center
6. SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union Headquarters
7. West Hollywood City Hall
8. La Cañada Flintridge City Hall
9. Rancho Mission Viejo Esencia Sports Park
10. Lake Forest Sports Park & Recreation Center
2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
A-59
7 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Parks + Pavilions + Open Space
Griffin Structure’s open space, pavilion, and park portfolio is
unparalleled. With our project management, development,
and early program management team, our team has overseen
the delivery of public sector open space projects directly
aligned with your project program. With registered landscape
architects within our ranks, we can offer a wealth of internal
resources unlike our competitors, with a diverse range
of experience managing unique site considerations (i.e.,
hazardous materials sites/former military bases, tight site
constraints, vocal neighborhoods, adjacent shorelines, and
countless others).
Public Safety
With over 75+ programmed and constructed public safety
facilities in our portfolio, Griffin Structures has earned the
reputation as a preferred Owner’s Representative, Project,
Program, and Construction Manager for facilities that keep
communities safe. From master planned police headquarters,
fire stations, emergency operations centers, training facilities,
to $95M communication centers, our clients run the gamut
from the County of San Bernardino, Orange County Fire
Authority, City of Salinas, Buena Park, Tustin, Manhattan
Beach, Westminster, and several others. We understand public
safety, unique design considerations, and can offer a variety
of support in determining ideal operations for your City with
our wealth of internal resources, technical architect partners,
multi-disciplinary consultant relationships, and effective
outreach advocacy.
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
15. Tustin Water Administration Building, Corporate
Yard & Emergency Operations Center
16. Stanton Corporate Yard
17. Westminster Corporate Yard
18. Visalia Emergency Communications Center
19. High Desert Public Safety Operations Center
20. Westminster Police Department Headquarters
11. Marina Community Sailing Center & Park
12. Quail Hill Community Center
13. Environmental Nature Center & Preschool
14. Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena & Between the
Rinks Restaurant
A-60~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
8 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Emergency Operations Centers
A unique aspect to the vast portfolio of our firm is
our extensive experience with Emergency Operations
Centers, dispatch, and communication facilities and Public
Maintenance Yards. These are two project types, and others,
that we provide leadership in the industry. We understand
Emergency Operations Centers that are shared by cities and
Public Maintenance Yards which house diverse operations
intended to provide nation-leading service to the community.
Highlights include:
• Inglewood Emergency Operations Center
• Tustin Water Administration Building, Corporate Yard &
Emergency Operations Center
• Westminster Police Department Headquarters
• Buena Park Police Department Headquarters
• Hesperia Police Department
Master Planning
Griffin Structures possesses a dedicated in-house master
planning team unlike our competitors. Our teams are
professionally trained as architects and builders, but think as
owners first. We believe this intimate separation is integral as
to ensure the City and community’s interested are protected
before our own.
We have completed hundreds of master plans, studies, and
assessments. Highlights include:
• County of Orange, Strategic Facilities Plan & Civic Center
• County of San Bern., Downtown Campus Master Plan
• City of Hesperia, Civic Center
• City of Rancho Cordova, Civic Center
• Placer County, Civic Center
Nature Preserve Experience + Coordination
At Griffin Structures, we possess a deep understanding of the
sensitivities and considerations associated with developing
projects within and adjacent to significant nature preserves.
We have on several occassions completed similar projects,
including the Environmental Nature Center and Preschool,
300-acre Cornerstone Development in Henderson Nevada,
Lake Gregory Dam Rehabilitation, and many others. Robert
Godfrey, proposed Project Manager, will bring this experience
to bear for the City to ensure your project is completed on
task with special attention paid to your historically rich and
vibrant nature preserve.
High Desert Public Safety Operations Center
Buena Park Police Department Headquarters
Rancho CordovaCivic Center
We have utilized a page from Staff Qualifications to include an additional page for this section.
A-61~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
9 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
As our Principal-In-Charge, Roger focuses on the delivery of complex projects for
the private and public sectors, including civic centers, city hall and administrative
complexes, open space/plazas, and public safety facilities including emergency
operation centers.
As President and CEO, Roger will provide valuable insight to the project team,
ensuring your scheduling and financial expectations are met throughout the
duration of our services.
Education
Master of Architecture, Accademia di Belli Arti di Firenze Italia
Bachelor of Architecture, Syracuse University, New York
Certification
California Contractor License #793600, Class B
Years of Experience
42
Roger Torriero
Principal-In-Charge,
President & CEO
Representative Experience
Roger has led all Griffin projects since the firm’s inception
County of Orange Civic Center, CA
Watsonville Civic Center, CA
Hesperia Civic Plaza & High Desert
Govt. Center, San Bernardino, CA
La Canada Flintridge City Hall, CA
West Hollywood City Hall, CA
Santa Clarita Canyon Country
Community Center, CA
Quail Hill Comm. Center, Irvine, CA
Vernola Park & Comm. Center, CA
The Trust for Public Land Parks, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center, CA
Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena &
Restaurant, Irvine, CA
Lake Forest Sports Park & Rec. Ctr., CA
Tustin Water Admin.. Building,
Corporate Yard & EOC, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
County of San Bernardino, Valley
Communication Center, CA
Visalia Emergency Comm. Ctr., CA
Westminster Corporate Yard, CA
Qualifications
Chief Financial and Operating Officer for Griffin Structures, Mark has structured
many complex real estate deals and transactions, from arrangements with
investment partners to nuanced “P3” structures. He has provided extensive
expertise, gained through decades of experience in both the private and public
sectors.
As COO/CFO, Mark will provide contractual and financial oversight to the team
as-needed.
Education
Master of Business Administration, Finance, Real Estate and Public Policy, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Bachelor of Science, McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia
Certification
Certified Public Accountant
Years of Experience
40
Mark Hoglund
CPA
CFO & COO
Representative Experience
Mark has provided oversight to all Griffin projects since the firm’s inception
County of Orange Civic Center, CA
Watsonville Civic Center, CA
Hesperia Civic Plaza & High Desert
Govt. Center, San Bernardino, CA
La Canada Flintridge City Hall, CA
West Hollywood City Hall, CA
Santa Clarita Canyon Country
Community Center, CA
Quail Hill Comm. Center, Irvine, CA
Vernola Park & Comm. Center, CA
The Trust for Public Land Parks, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center, CA
Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena &
Restaurant, Irvine, CA
Lake Forest Sports Park & Rec. Ctr., CA
Tustin Water Admin.. Building,
Corporate Yard & EOC, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
County of San Bernardino, Valley
Communication Center, CA
Visalia Emergency Comm. Ctr., CA
Westminster Corporate Yard, CA
A-62~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
10 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
Jon Hughes’ career spans some of the region’s most prestigious properties in
Southern California. His experience and skills with program and construction
management tools and processes have enabled him to deliver winning results
on every project. Jon’s resume highlights include newly constructed, expanded,
or renovated newly constructed, expanded, or renovated civic centers, city hall
and administrative complexes, open space/plazas, and public safety facilities
including emergency operation centers. Jon’s construction management
experience includes pre-construction services, bid review, contract negotiations,
safety protocols, site evaluation, quality control, budgetary controls, change order
review, materials acquisition and supply chain management, schedule review and
enforcement, site staging, off-sites and grading, inter-contractor coordination,
punch list, and turnover.
Jon Hughes
CCM, DBIA
Project Executive
Education
Bachelor of Science, Philosophy and History, Westmont College
Certification
Certified Construction Manager (CCM)
Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) Associate
California Contractor License #793600, Class A
Affiliations
NAVFAC and US Army Corps Construction Quality Management (CQM) Program
Construction Management Association of America, Member
Years of Experience
28
Representative Experience
County of Orange Civic Center
Hesperia Civic Plaza (incl: library, public safety, city hall), CA
High Desert Government Center (incl: library, public safety, city hall), CA
La Cañada Flintridge City Hall, CA
West Hollywood City Hall, CA
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union Headquarters, Tustin, CA
Santa Clarita Canyon Country Community Center, CA
Quail Hill Community Center, Irvine, CA
Esencia Sports Park, Rancho Mission Viejo, CA
Rialto Frisbie Park Expansion, CA
Vernola Park Expansion & Community Center, Jurupa Valley, CA
The Trust for Public Land Parks, Los Angeles, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center, CA
Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena & Between the Rinks Restaurant, Irvine, CA
Lake Forest Sports Park & Recreation Center, CA
Linc Housing, SIPA Headquarters & HiFi Collective, Los Angeles, CA
Tustin Water Admin. Building, Corporate Yard & Emergency Ops. Center, CA
Pomona Water Resources Headquarters & Yard, CA
Westminster Corporate Yard, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
Buena Park Fire Station No.61, CA
County of San Bernardino, Valley Communication Center, CA
Visalia Emergency Communications Center, CA
Cathedral City Fire Station No.411, CA
Tustin Fire Station No.37, CA
+ Jon has served on all Griffin Structures projects included in our response
As Project Executive, Jon is responsible for overseeing the
overall lifecycle of the project.
A-63
11
~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTU RE!!
11 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
Robert Godfrey brings 20 years of combined experience in Project Management
and Owner’s Representation from pre-design to construction completion.
He has been involved during all phases of development and construction.
His responsibilities have entailed, public and stakeholder outreach, contract
negotiations, budgetary/scheduling controls, managing entitlement and plan
check processes, obtaining building permits and coordinating inspections, and
generating punch lists and project closeout.
Robert has a proven record of project management involving effective
communication with design team members, coordinating consultants, vendors
and contractors - all to assure the client’s goals and objectives are achieved.
Robert Godfrey
CCM
Project Manager
Education
Bachelor of Science, Management, The George Institute of Technology
Certification
Certified Construction Manager (CCM)
Affiliations
Construction Management Association of America, Member
Years of Experience
20
Representative Experience
La Cañada Flintridge City Hall, CA
West Hollywood City Hall, CA
Santa Clarita Canyon Country Community Center, CA
Quail Hill Community Center, Irvine, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center, CA
Linc Housing, SIPA Headquarters & HiFi Collective, Los Angeles, CA
Vernola Park Expansion & Community Center, Jurupa Valley, CA
Buena Park Navigation Center, CA
Jordan Downs Housing Redevelopment, CA
MidPen Shirley Chilsom Educator Housing, San Francisco, CA
LANLT Wishing Tree Park, Los Angeles, CA
Lawndale Community Center, CA
The Trust for Public Land Parks, Los Angeles, CA
As Project Manager, Robert will be responsible for the
day-to-day management of the project.
• South Victoria Park
• Patton Street Park
• Carlton Way Park
• Aliso Creek & Los Angeles River
Confluence Park
• Bradley Green Alley
• Monitor Avenue / Serenity Park
• Benito Juarez Park
• Zamora Park
• Quincy Jones Park
We are proposing Robert Godfrey for this project amidst the recently awarded Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park. We see this as an incredible advantage for the city to streamline two projects
simultaneously with direct access to one Senior OR/PM to serve as an extension of staff, protecting your
investments from day one. As one of our most sought after project managers, Robert will guide both
projects simultaneously given his stellar record to manage simultaneously complex, high-profile projects.
Robert Godfrey is energetic, extremely capable, and possesses the exact management expertise required to
deliver a project of this size and scope.
A-64
11
~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTU RE!!
12 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
Dustin serves as the Vice President of Preconstruction Services for Griffin
Structures, Inc. His primary responsibilities include the executive management
of all needs assessment and master planning projects ranging by facility type,
including civic centers, city hall and administrative complexes, open space/
plazas, and public safety facilities including emergency operation centers, and
others. In addition, Dustin is skilled at developing long-term facility plans (ranging
from $10M to $300M) which incorporate future space requirements, phasing
considerations, and capital funding mechanisms such as bonds, repositioning real
estate assets, and public private partnerships (P3). With a formal background in
architecture, Dustin is able to provide architectural programs, site plans, floor
plans, elevations, and technical detailing.
Dustin Alamo
CCM, LEED AP, DRE 01930629
Pre-Design Manager
Education
Bachelor of Architecture, University of Colorado, Boulder
Certification
State of California Licensed Real Estate Broker
Certified Construction Manager (CCM)
LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP)
Affiliations
U.S. Green Building Council, Member
Construction Management Association of America, Member
Rancho Palos Verdes Corp. Yard, CA
County of Orange Civic Center, CA
Hesperia Civic Plaza, CA
Covina Civic Center, CA
Newport Beach Civic Center, CA
Brea Civic Center, CA
Rancho Santa Margarita Civic Ctr., CA
High Desert Government Center, CA
Tustin Water Administration Building,
Corporate Yard & EOC, CA
High Desert Public Safety Operations
Center, CA
Lake Forest Civic Center, CA
Visalia Emergency Communications
Center, CA
Buena Park FS No.61 & EOC, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
Hesperia Police Dept. & EOC, CA
Cathedral City FS No.411, CA
Stanton Corporate Yard, CA
Westminster Corporate Yard, CA
Pomona Water Resources
Headquarters & Yard, CA
Dustin has provided Facilities Master
Plans for over 100+ public clients, many
of which included civic centers, city
halls, public safety, parks, pavilions,
and maintenance facilities. Dustin is
also our resident Corporate Yard expert,
having provided over 75 programmed
yards from a single strategic initiatives
to delivered, state-of-the-art operations
facilities.
As Pre-Design, Dustin offers insight and support during
the earliest phases of project development.
Representative Experience
Strategic Consulting
• Organizational Assessment
• Operational Assessments
• Needs Assessment
• Space Efficiency Studies
• Space Planning
• Strategic Planning & Programming
• Facility Assessment
• Benchmarking Studies
• Business / Institutional Visioning
• Business Planning & Feasibility
Studies
• Process Improvement / Technology
Integration
• Organizational Studies
• Managed Outsourcing
• Capital Assessment
• Campus Master Planning
• Phasing Analysis
• Implementation Strategies
• Relocation Planning & Management
• Portfolio Utilization Analysis
• Sustainability
Real Estate Consulting
• Analysis of Real Estate
• Lease / Buy / Build Analysis
• Property Acquisition and Disposition
• Lease Evaluation and Negotiation
• Portfolio Evaluation and
Management
• Portfolio/Lease Administration
• Development Consulting
A-65
11
~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTU RE!!
13 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
Throughout her career, Erin Jones has managed a wide range of design and
construction projects across the state, including $250M+ bond programs
An extension of client staff, Erin Jones is a communicative and pragmatic
professional, protecting client investments through her thorough evaluation and
oversight of all programming and construction related items.
As Assistant Project Manager, Erin will provide support to Robert Godfrey and the
City throughout the course of the project.
Education
Bachelor of Science, Construction Engineering Management, California State University, Long Beach
Bachelor of Arts, Studio Art, University of California, Davis
Certification + Training
Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design, Accredited
Professional (LEED AP)
Years of Experience
16
Erin Jones
LEED AP
Construction Manager
Representative Experience
Good Shepherd Women’s Village, Los
Angeles, CA
Shea Symmetry Apartments,
Northridge, CA
Huntington Library Chinese Garden
Expansion, Huntington Beach, CA
NBC Universal Area 71, Los Angeles, CA
Facey Canyon Country Medical Office
Building, Santa Clarita, CA
Fox Studios Production Office
Building, Los Angeles, CA
William H. Hannon Library, Loyola
Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA
Santa Monica College ($250M+)
• Early Childhood Lab School
• Performing Arts Center East Wing
• Information technology Building
& Media Center
• Student Services Building &
Parking Structure
• Health, P.E., and Central Plant
• Bundy Campus Classroom
• Organic Learning Garden
Qualifications
Korin is responsible for originating, evaluating, structuring, and closing public-
private partnerships (P3s) for Griffin Structures, with $500M of public facilities
under development as P3 transactions. Korin leverages 20 years of experience
in infrastructure, real estate, and M&A of property-backed operating businesses
with an emphasis on P3s and real estate transactions in complex regulatory
environments.
As Civic Development Expert with significant experience with our development and
financial team, Korin will provide as-needed, invaluable input as-needed.
Education
Master of Science in Management,
Stanford Graduate School of Business
Master of Science, Electrical Engineering, Stanford University
Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering,
Duke University
Years of Experience
20
Korin Crawford
Civic Development Expert
Representative Experience
County of Orange Civic Center, CA
Rancho Cordova Civic Center, CA
Placer County Government Ctr., CA
Manteca Civic Center Feasibility, CA
Concord Civic Center, Feasibility, CA
Los Angeles Civic Ctr. Master Plan, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
Riverside Convention Center
Expansion, CA
Downtown Los Angeles Streetcar, Los
Angeles, CA
Bancroft Row Residential
Development, Oakland, CA
Pier 70 Redevelopment, Port of San
Francisco, CA
Mission Rock / SWL, Port of San
Francisco, CA
Oakland Army Base Disposition and
Reuse, CA
Texas Rangers Heritage Museum,
Fredricksburg, TX
A-66~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
14 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Financial Advisory Team
Certification Education Years of
Experience
Series 54 and 50 Municipal Advisor, SEC & MSRB
American Institute of Certified Planners
Registered Investment Advisor
Bachelor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley
48
Series 50 Municipal Advisor
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, #K0276
Security and Exchange Commission, #867-00175
Master of Public Administration, Kent State Unviersity
Bachelor of Arts, Kent State University
35
David Taussig
AICP, Series 54 & 50
Financial Advisor
James V. Fabian
MSRB, SEC
Municipal Financial Advisor
With industry leading expertise in both public and private finance for civic capital projects and real estate, our financial advisory
team is led by DTA and Fieldman Rolapp & Associates (FRA), both registered municipal financial advisory firms, a decades-long
track record of working together, and two of California’s leading municipal FAs, serving a multitude of California cities and
counties over decades.
DTA and FRA will work with the City’s Finance Department and Finance Advisory Committee to:
• Evaluate financing alternatives and project delivery approaches, including, but not limited to Public-Private Partnerships (P3),
Traditional, and Design-Build.
• Identify funding opportunities and approaches for the City Council’s consideration.
• Provide professional analysis, assessment, and projections of the Project’s revenue potential (if any).
DTA and FRA shall assist the City in identifying public and private finance mechanisms available to fund the infrastructure and
public facilities needed for the construction of the Civic Center. DTA and FRA will also assist with determining the amount of
public/private financing the City can anticipate receiving.
Other services include:
• Review and confirm project land uses, values, overlapping districts, liens, and possible revenues with the team.
• Prepare Bonding capacity analyses for selected public finance programs (Community Facilities Districts (CFD), Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), Lease Revenue Bond (LRB) or Certificates of Participation (COP), Commercial
Property Assessed Clean Energy).
• Evaluate Public-Private Partnership opportunities.
• Prepare a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) Report.
A-67
d t a
FIELDMAN
ROLAPP
& ASSOC IATES
~GRIFFIN
~.STR UC TUR E!!
15 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
Jay has 22 years of cost estimating experience on various municipal projects,
including renovation and new construction with a mixed background of being
both a preconstruction manager and a general contractor. He brings his creative
and expert skills to his work, including cost estimating, LEED analysis, value
engineering, constructability reviews, master planning, and scheduling.
As Cost Estimator, Jay will provide value engineering and cost control services
through each stage of the project to ensure your fiscal objectives are achieved.
Education
Construction Management Engineering, California State University, Long Beach
Certification + Training
LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP)
Years of Experience
22
Jay Helekar
LEED AP
Cost Estimator
Representative Experience
County of Orange Civic Center, CA
Watsonville Civic Center, CA
Hesperia Civic Plaza & High Desert
Govt. Center, San Bernardino, CA
Covina Civic Center, CA
Rancho Cordova Civic Center, CA
La Canada Flintridge City Hall, CA
West Hollywood City Hall, CA
Santa Clarita Canyon Country Comm.
Center, CA
Quail Hill Comm. Center, Irvine, CA
Vernola Park & Comm. Center, CA
The Trust for Public Land Parks, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Ctr., CA
Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena &
Restaurant, Irvine, CA
Lake Forest Sports Park & Rec. Ctr., CA
Tustin Water Admin.. Building,
Corporate Yard & EOC, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
County of San Bernardino, Valley
Communication Center, CA
Visalia Emergency Comm. Ctr., CA
Westminster Corporate Yard, CA
Qualifications
For over 25 years, Susan has built her career around community-based planning
and visioning, striving to create a network of healthier, more livable communities.
She has provided community engagement and planning services to public clients
across the country.
As your Outreach Advocate, Susan will assist the City project team in facilitating
community engagements, planning, and visioning sessions to achieve community
buy-in, public support, and consensus.
Education
Master of Environmental Planning, Arizona State University
Bachelor of Arts, Architectural Studies, University of Kansas
Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Studies, University of Kansas
Certification
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED AP)
Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners
Years of Experience
25
Susan Harden
LEED AP
Outreach Advocate
Vista Civic Center Master Plan, CA
Wildomar Town Ctr. Master Plan, CA
Poway Town Center Master Plan, CA
Shoreline Park Master Plan, San
Leandro, CA
Yorba Linda Library & Cultural Arts
Center, CA
Santa Cruz Downtown Library &
Mixed-Use Project, CA
Laguna Beach Village Entrance, CA
Cupertino Library Expansion, CA
+50 Additional Projects
Community workshops / charrettes
Facilitate meetings with CHOA, HOAs
and interested parties
Online survey tools
Pop-up events
In-person and video site tours
Input summaries and reports
Press releases & media outreach
Social media calendar
Project newsletters & email blasts
Informational flyers and fact sheets
Graphic design (posters, banners, etc.)
Website updates
Representative Experience
Engagement Activites & Communications Support
A-68
(@ epomt
~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
16 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Food & Beverage Consultant
Webb Foodservice Design creates immersive kitchen and dining
experiences for civic environments. Since 1989 the Webb team of
planners and designers has partnered with clients to bring culinary
visions to life; Webb’s expertise spans from feasibility studies,
concept design, and programming to market research, design
documentation, and construction administration. Projects range
from small cafes to large, centralized kitchens, with each combining
strategy and spectacle to produce efficient, emotionally engaging
front- and back-of-the-house design. Webb excels in solutions that
are sustainable and energy-efficient. SBE and WBENC certified, the
firm has the largest and most diverse team on the West Coast.
Our approach to civic projects is rooted in our belief that
foodservice plays an important role in affecting social change.
Through our civic practice, we have designed food service spaces
that range in use from a kitchen supporting the blind enterprise
program, to developing a culinary arts program for correctional
rehabilitation.
Move / Relocation Management
JBA has assisted in the planning and orchestrating of millions of
square feet of office space, clients range from ten or less employees
to several hundred. JBA follows a proven office migration model in
planning and executing seamless office relocations. This includes
the accurate documentation of the current layout, furniture,
workstations, and all office assets. We work closely with the
operator of each workstations to identify their requirements in
their new office space. In some cases, we are moving a single office
to a new single location office and in others, we are consolidating
multiple facilities into one. In each case, we are tracking hundreds
of assets and multiple vendors to support the effort.
We understand that operations must continue as the project
develops. We have included the services of JBA for this project as a
result of our many past experiences with public clients who require
moving and relocation services to minimize impact to their civic
operations. Our oversight ensures that moves are well coordinated
and carefully planned as to ensure a uninterrupted operations.
A-69
J .. gmmering 4!xcell ence •· -~mcr1954
17 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
La Cañada Flintridge City Hall
La Cañada Flintridge, CA
Griffin was selected as the OR/PM to manage the design and construction of the 28,000 SF La
Cañada Flintridge’s New City Hall. Upon our hiring, it became apparent that a space assessment
was required to assist the City in assessing its current space needs, and its future needs for
growth. Griffin Structures managed this process and led the project to timely delivery on budget.
This project is relevant to yours in that we provided Owner’s Representation / Project Management
(OR/PM), managed this project from the early planning phases while providing creative
programming, including the idea to lease out remaining space to the private sector for revenue
capture.
Value + Size
$7M, 28,000 SF
Completion Date
2019
Client + Contact
City of La Cañada Flintridge Mark Alexander City Manager (818) 790-8880
Malexander@lcf.ca.gov
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
County of Orange Civic Center
Santa Ana, CA
The completed Administration South building includes a six-story office tower over two levels
of underground parking, and freestanding conference center. The building is designed to
exceed AIA’s 2030 Commitment to reduce net energy consumption by 70 percent. The $180M
Administration North and sister building to the recently completed $166M Administration South
will reach construction completion next year.
This project is relevant to yours in that it is a significant, high-profile project wherein Griffin
Structures and ALL proposed consultants have served from pre-design to construction completion,
with the Administration North second building in-progress. This hub of civic operations is a
pinnacle of sustainability and functional design directly aligned with your project expectations.
Value + Size
$346M, 500,000 SF
Completion Date
2022
Client + Contact
County of Orange Frank Kim, County CEO (714) 834-4304 frank.kim@ocgov.com
Mat Miller Chief Real Estate Officer (714) 834-2345 mat.miller@oc.gov.com
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Korin Crawford, David
Taussig, Dustin Alamo,
and Jay Helekar
A-70~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
18 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
West Hollywood City Hall
West Hollywood, CA
Griffin Structures originally worked with the City of West Hollywood to redevelop an aging
commercial building into a new City Hall and state-of-the-art Emergency Operations Center
through a Public Private Partnership (“P3”). Griffin Structures was again selected to manage the
City Hall’s major renovation.
This project is relevant to yours in that we provided Owner’s Representation / Project Management
(OR/PM), managing this base of operations for the City project from the early planning phases
while providing creative financing alternatives.
Value + Size
$10M, 36,000 SF
Completion Date
2020
Client + Contact
City of West Hollywood Joan English Retired Director of Transportation (310) 413-3302
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
Santa Clarita Canyon Country Community Center
Santa Clarita, CA
This new 28,000 SF community center and the outdoor recreational facilities rests on a 16.5
acre project site. Indoor spaces will include a multipurpose room, gym, classrooms, catering
and teaching kitchen, fitness room, staff offices, reception lobby, and supportive areas. Outdoor
improvements include play areas, outdoor market, event stage area, basketball half-court, events
garden, shade structures, outdoor restroom building, and perimeter trail.
This project is relevant to yours in that it is a high-profile, significant community center project
involving adept quality control measures pertaining to the design and construction of the facility,
as well as a unique phasing and outreach approach as to not impact the sensitive surrounding area.
Value + Size
$58M, 28,000 SF
Completion Date
2021
Client + Contact
City of Santa Clarita Wayne Weber Parks Planning Manager
(661) 255-4961 wweber@santa-clarita.com
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
A-71~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
19 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Quail Hill Community Center
Irvine, CA
The new community center in Irvine is one of the largest in the area, and serves to bring the
region together through education and exploration, connecting users to the local trail system
that extends through the Quail Hill Loop Trail leading to the coast. The building houses an
exercise room for wellness activities, classrooms, a space for fine arts camps, and a rentable
conference center. Outdoor spaces include interpretive gardens and a playground for adventure
play.
This project is relevant to yours in that we provided Owner’s Representation / Project Management
(OR/PM) services from the early master planned Quail Hill Community Park into a high-profile,
significant community center project, which was the final phase.
Value + Size
$8M, 19,000 SF
Completion Date
2018
Client + Contact
City of Irvine
Thomas Perez, PE
Former CIP
Administrator
Current Project Dir.,
Laguna Beach
(949) 464-6688
tperez@lagunabeachcity.
net
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
Environmental Nature Center & Preschool
Newport Beach, CA
Griffin Structures led the programming, design, and construction of the Environmental Nature
Center, Orange County’s first LEED Platinum facility. The 9,000 SF education center located
on a 3.5-acre site is top 10 sustainably designed facility on behalf of the American Institute of
Architects. This new preschool features three classrooms, administrative and support space, and
interactive outdoor open space area with education garden and play area.
This project is relevant to yours in that it called for the unique understanding of nature
preservation as we built a facility dedicated to a mission. Neighboring the coastline, nature
preserve, and adjacent channel, adept agency coordination was also required. This living building
also required coordination with the Newport Beach Fire Dept. wireless communication regulation.
Value + Size
$12M, 9,000 SF
Completion Date
2020
Client + Contact
Bo Glover Executive Director (949) 645-8489 bo@encenter.org
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
A-72~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
20 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
The Trust for Public Land Parks
Los Angeles, CA
Robert Godfrey has managed over 11 non-profit parks for the organization, The Trust for Public
Land, including Madison Ave. Park and Community Gardens, South Victoria Ave. Park, Benito
Juarez Park, Rudolph Park, and many more. Each project is unique in that it provides a mixture
spaces with designs influenced through community input. Parks are designed to be ecologically
sensitive and minimize maintenance costs.
This project is relevant to yours in that we provided OR/PM services for a variety of ongoing
projects which align with the civic center’s Program Document (play amenities, open space, shade
structures, dog parks, amphitheaters…etc.). All of which called for extensive community outreach as
our team managed the development of the project from pre-design to construction completion.
Value + Size
$25M+, 100,000 SF+
Completion Date
2020
Client + Contact
The Trust for Public
Land
Robin Mark
Program Manager
(310) 770-6499
robin.mark@tpl.org
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
This project includes two pre-engineered steel structures–one enclosed and one open-air
pavilion. The project featured three indoor regulation-sized basketball/volleyball courts as
well as concession and public common areas, a multipurpose room, restroom facilities, and
administrative office space.
This project is relevant to yours in that we were tasked with providing several cost saving
alternatives, which ultimately led to the incorporation of a pre-engineered metal building, saving
the City nearly $1M publicly funded dollars and vastly expediting the schedule. This project also
featured two open-air pavilions and was designed with ultimate sustainability in mind.
Value + Size
$14M, 56,000 SF
Completion Date
2018
Client + Contact
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Jeff Benson
Management Analyst
(909) 774-4137
Jeff.benson@cityofrc.us
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
A-73~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
21 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena & Between the Rinks Restaurant
Irvine, CA
This training facility for the Anaheim Ducks features four indoor ice rinks—three NHL regulation
rinks, Olympic regulation rink, and striking outdoor pavilion area. The main arena seats 2,500
with the ability to host a wide variety of sporting and entertainment events. Other features
include a modern restaurant, party rooms, classrooms, outdoor public spaces, and amenities.
This project is uniquely relevant to yours in that it is set on a former air base which called for major
hazardous material considerations/coordination. The client faced significant budgetary constraints
calling for unique design considerations from our team. We saved the client significant funds and
sliced the project schedule significantly via innovative solutions, resulting in a project delivered on
time and under budget.
Value + Size
$108M, 280,000 SF
Completion Date
2019
Client + Contact
H&S Ventures, LLC Bill Foltz CFO (949) 760-4304 bfoltz@hsventures.org
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
Lake Forest Sports Park & Recreation Center
Lake Forest, CA
This Sports Park features five baseball fields, six soccer and multi-use fields of natural turf and
synthetic turf, a rugby field overlay of two soccer fields, and two basketball courts. The general
use elements consist of two playgrounds with tot lots and play equipment, two restroom
facilities and eight gazebo picnic structures. In addition, the Park has two 1,915 SF clubhouse
buildings. A 26,000 SF Recreation/Community Center located in the middle of the site, situated
on a plateau overlooking the “park commons.”
This project is uniquely relevant to yours in that it features best-in-class green open space,
community/rec center, park amenities, picnic pavilions, play areas and we provided OR/PM
services.
Value + Size
$52M, 86 Acres
Completion Date
This project falls just outside of the 3-year window but we felt pertinent to include with our response
Client + Contact
City of Lake Forest Tom Wheeler City Engineer (949) 461-3480 twheeler@lakeforestca.gov
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
A-74~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
22 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Tustin Water Admin. Building, Corporate Yard & Emergency Ops. Center
Tustin, CA
This project consisted of the demolition of an existing fire station and office trailers; and
construction of a water administration headquarters and yard, state-of-the-art Emergency
Operations Center, emergency dispatch center, and Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service
room. The facility also includes a wellness center, locker rooms, water lab, facilities offices, break
and conference rooms.
This project is relevant to yours in that it not only features significant administrative/office space,
but also emergency communications facilities and a maintenance yard. We led this project as
Owner’s Representatives and Program Managers, overseeing the project’s delivery from pre-design
to construction completion.
Value + Size
$15.2M, 17,300 SF
Completion Date
2020
Client + Contact
City of Tustin
Doug Stack
Public Works Director
(714) 573-3150
dstack@tustinca.org
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
Linc Housing, SIPA Headquarters & HiFi Collective
Los Angeles, CA
This project encompasses the development of a modern Mixed-Use development in historic
Filipinotown, Los Angeles. The new HiFi Collective is envisioned to be a new five-story building
and will feature 63 affordable housing units, along with SIPA’s administrative headquarters,
community cultural center, multi-purpose area, and business center.
This project is relevant to yours in that we are providing OR/PM services for an extremely multi-
faceted project featuring administrative components for multiple departments, as well as private-
public elements to generate revenue for the facility. Additionally, the site is within a methane
zone containing volatile organic compounds, calling for in-depth soils remediation and control of
potentially hazardous material on a existing fueling site.
Value + Size
$29M, 6,100,000 SF
Completion Date
2018
Client + Contact
Linc Housing
Frances F. Sarmiento
Project Manager
(562) 684-1102
sarmiento@linchousing.
org
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
A-75~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
23 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Pomona Water Resources Headquarters & Yard
Pomona, CA
This facility includes a modularly-constructed administration/office building, warehouse, and
shops buildings, covered parking canopies and equipment storage, site walls and gates, covered
material storage bins, vehicular and pedestrian concrete paving, and landscape planting/
irrigation. A special emphasis has also been placed on multi-use and flexible sizing, as well as
ease-of-maintenance, durability, and sustainability.
This project is relevant to yours in that it not only features significant administrative/office space,
but also a significant maintenance yard. We are leading this project as Owner’s Representatives and
Program Managers, overseeing the project’s delivery from pre-design to construction completion.
Value + Size
$27M, 203,100 SF
Completion Date
2022
Client + Contact
Pomona Water
Resources Dept.
Chris Diggs
Water Resources
Director
(909) 620-2251
chris_diggs@ci.pomona.
ca.us
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
Westminster Corporate Yard
Westminster, CA
With an aging infrastructure and code violations throughout the yard, Griffin Structures was
hired to perform a needs assessment on the future space requirements, repurpose buildings,
consolidate others, and reposition the real estate into a logical, safe work flow. This assessment
led to our delivery of a new corporate yard which contains a new administration building,
canopy, fuel station, and warehouse facilities. This project was constructed on an active campus
which called for unique phasing and staff relocation plan.
This project is relevant to yours in that the Griffin team was tasked with providing early
programming and pre-design management as part of our OR/PM service resulting in a state-of-
the-art public maintenance/corporate yard for the City.
Value + Size
$20M, 40,000 SF
Completion Date
This project falls just outside of the 3-year window but we felt pertinent to include with our response
Client + Contact
City of Westminster Marwan Youssef Public Works Director (714) 548-3460 myoussef@westminster-ca.gov
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
A-76~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
24 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Police Services of Salinas
Salinas, CA
This facility was delivered utilizing a Public-Private Partnership (P3), which provides for the
design, financing, construction, and delivery of the new facility. The project encompasses three
buildings on a 6.3-acre site. The two-story headquarters building serves as the essential services
administrative building and includes detention spaces, community room, and plaza. Two support
buildings provide police support services, including evidence intake and storage, crime lab
spaces, and indoor firing range.
This project is uniquely relevant to yours in that it incorporates emergency communications
features and we provided OR/PM and development services wherein Griffin Structures managed
all proposed consultants, serving from pre-design to construction completion.
Value + Size
$52M, 70,800 SF
Completion Date
2020
Client + Contact
City of Salinas Adele Fresé Chief of Police (831) 758-7201 adelef@ci.salinas.ca.us
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Korin Crawford, David
Taussig, Dustin Alamo,
and Jay Helekar
County of San Bernardino, Public Safety Operations Center
Hesperia, CA
The Public Safety Operations Center housed within this 67,000 SF Government Center features
a 175-foot tower, offering multiple communication paths. Other features include a Sheriff and
County Fire Department dispatch system, a state-of-the-art voice and data infrastructure, non-
critical functions of training and administrative areas, kitchen, restroom and locker areas with
showers. All of these elements have duplicate emergency generators that back-up power to the
building and the systems within the facility.
This project is relevant to yours in that it also features a communication tower, which was
programmed, designed, and constructed to great satisfaction of the County, earning our firm the
opportunity to now manage the County’s $95M Valley Communication Center project.
Value + Size
$17M, 67,000 SF
Completion Date
This project falls just outside of the 3-year window but we felt pertinent to include with our response
Client + Contact
County of San Bernardino Rene Glynn Supervisor (909) 771-1223 rene.glynn@pmd.sbcounty.gov
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
A-77~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
25 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
County of San Bernardino, Valley Communication Center
San Bernardino, CA
The Valley Communication Center will be located in the City and County of San Bernardino
and will be a new mission-critical facility that must be operational 365/24/7, under extreme
conditions as the primary Emergency Operation Center (EOC) in the San Bernardino Valley.
The comprehensive 80,000 SF building on the 6.85 acre site will be occupied by multiple county
entities including emergency, fire, and others.
This project is uniquely relevant to yours in that it incorporates emergency communications
features and we are providing OR/PM and development services wherein Griffin Structures is
managing all proposed consultants, serving from pre-design to construction completion.
Value + Size
$95M, 80,000 SF
Completion Date
2021 - Ongoing
Client + Contact
County of San Bernardino Rene Glynn Supervisor (909) 771-1223 rene.glynn@pmd.sbcounty.gov
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
Visalia Emergency Communications Center
Visalia, CA
This $16 million, 21,000 SF facility featuring a 3,500 SF dispatch room, an emergency operations
center and the fire department’s administration offices. The emergency dispatch center is the
first building constructed in what will eventually be a public safety complex. Design plans were
complete by the end of 2014 and construction began in the first quarter of 2015.
This project is uniquely relevant to yours in that it incorporates emergency communications
features in addition to dispatch/traffic control and also incorporated adept coordination with the
applicable radio communications Authority Having Juridstiction for successful completion.
Value + Size
$16M, 21,000 SF
Completion Date
2017
Client + Contact
City of Visalia Mike Porter City Engineer (559) 713-4412 Mike.Porter@ci.visalia.ca.us
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
A-78~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“Griffin Structures did an excellent job to
ensure the City’s best interests were met.
In particular, the detailed review of change
orders ensured the City got exactly what
we paid for and that the project stayed
within budget. The Griffin Structures
team delivered the City a very high-quality
amenity that will serve the community for
years to come.”
- City of Irvine 4. Project ScheduleA-79
26 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
4. Project Schedule
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Total Project Duration 1082 days Mon 11/1/21 Tue 12/23/25
2 Pre-Design Phase 87 days Mon 11/1/21 Tue 3/1/22
3 Kick Off Meeting 1 day Mon 11/1/21 Mon 11/1/21
4 Site Analysis 65 days Mon 11/1/21 Fri 1/28/22
5 Financial Analysis 65 days Mon 11/1/21 Fri 1/28/22
6 Delivery Analysis 65 days Mon 11/1/21 Fri 1/28/22
7 Program Validation 65 days Mon 11/1/21 Fri 1/28/22
8 Staff Review of Program 20 days Mon 1/31/22 Fri 2/25/22
9 CCAC Review of Program 1 day Mon 2/28/22 Mon 2/28/22
10 City Approval of Program 1 day Tue 3/1/22 Tue 3/1/22
11 Design Procurement 65 days Wed 3/2/22 Tue 5/31/22
12 Master Plan Phase 70 days Wed 6/1/22 Tue 9/6/22
13 Master Plan Development 45 days Wed 6/1/22 Tue 8/2/22
14 City Review of Master Plan 20 days Wed 8/3/22 Tue 8/30/22
15 CCAC Review of Master Plan 1 day Wed 8/31/22 Wed 8/31/22
16 Council Approval of Master Plan 1 day Tue 9/6/22 Tue 9/6/22
17 Schematic Design Phase 95 days Wed 9/7/22 Tue 1/17/23
18 Schematic Design 65 days Wed 9/7/22 Tue 12/6/22
19 Staff Review of Schematic Design 20 days Wed 12/7/22 Tue 1/3/23
20 CCAC Review of Schematic Design 1 day Wed 1/4/23 Wed 1/4/23
21 Council Approval of Schematic Design 1 day Tue 1/17/23 Tue 1/17/23
22 Design Development Phase 106 days Wed 1/18/23 Wed 6/14/23
23 Design Development 85 days Wed 1/18/23 Tue 5/16/23
24 City Review of Design Development 20 days Wed 5/17/23 Tue 6/13/23
25 CCAC Review of Design Development 1 day Wed 6/14/23 Wed 6/14/23
26 Construction Documents Phase 75 days Thu 6/15/23 Wed 9/27/23
27 Construction Documents 75 days Thu 6/15/23 Wed 9/27/23
28 Permitting 45 days Thu 9/28/23 Wed 11/29/23
29 1st Submission 15 days Thu 9/28/23 Wed 10/18/23
30 2nd Submission 15 days Thu 10/19/23 Wed 11/8/23
31 Final Submission 15 days Thu 11/9/23 Wed 11/29/23
32 Contractor Procurement 114 days Thu 9/28/23 Tue 3/5/24
33 Contractor Prequalification 45 days Thu 9/28/23 Wed 11/29/23
34 Contractor Bidding 64 days Thu 11/30/23 Tue 2/27/24
35 Council Award of Contractor 1 day Tue 3/5/24 Tue 3/5/24
36 Construction Phase 470 days Wed 3/6/24 Tue 12/23/25
37 Construction 400 days Wed 3/6/24 Tue 9/16/25
38 Punch List & Move-in 25 days Wed 9/17/25 Tue 10/21/25
39 Project Closeout 45 days Wed 10/22/25 Tue 12/23/25
11/1 11/1
11/1 1/28
11/1 1/28
11/1 1/28
11/1 1/28
1/31 2/25
2/28 2/28
3/1 3/1
3/2 5/31
6/1 8/2
8/3 8/30
8/31 8/31
9/6 9/6
9/7 12/6
12/7 1/3
1/4 1/4
1/17 1/17
1/18 5/16
5/17 6/13
6/14 6/14
6/15 9/27
9/28 10/18
10/19 11/8
11/9 11/29
9/28 11/29
11/30 2/27
3/5 3/5
3/6 9/16
9/17 10/21
10/22 12/23
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Project Schedule
Page 1
Having served over 350 municipal clients throughout the state of California, our team is incredibly familiar with completing work expeditiously and managing aggressive public project schedules. We are ready, willing, and able to provide unique time saving alternatives to assist
the City to deliver a project that not only accomplishes the City’s operational goals, but is delivered expeditiously so the community may benefit from the City’s investment as soon as possible.
A-80
i""
l
'-
i""
~GRIFFI
~STRUC N TLIRE!io
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“Griffin Structures provides high quality
service and increases our capacity to
oversee multiple complex projects
simultaneously. Robert Godfrey is
collaborative, detail oriented and readily
available whenever there is an issue. Over
the years they have helped to manage
a wide range of complex projects. With
each project they continue to demonstrate
their dedication to public projects and high
quality project management.“
- The Trust for Public Land 5. Quality Control PlanA-81
27 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
5. Quality Control Plan
Financial
Advisory Services
Change
Management
Deputy
Inspection
& Testing
Oversight
Building
Contractor
Oversight
Quality
Assurance
Oversight &
Documentation
Safety
Oversight
Technological
Integrations
(i.e., OpenSpace)
Cost Control /
Estimating
Schedule /
Control
Oversight
Commissioning
/ LEED
Coordination
Move /
Relocation
Management
Oversight
Photographic
Documentation
Design
Oversight
Outreach
Advocacy
Environmental
Oversight
Griffin approaches projects with the perspective of an Owner, and the insight of an Architect and Contractor. Like an Owner,
we approach each project as if it is our own money, schedule, and facility that is being developed. With licensed Architects and
Contractors within our ranks, we also understand the technical aspects and trade secrets essential to providing quality services.
Together with these two key components, Griffin provides Inspection and Construction Management services based on our
unique blend of experience as both a public agency Program and Construction Managers, Owner’s Representatives, and At-Risk
Fee Developers - uniquely enhancing our ability to provide enhanced services to our Clients. If selected for this project, we will
provide the following quality control procedures from inception to completion of our services. Should the City wish to receive
more information regarding these integral components, we would be happy to discuss as soon as possible. However, given the
brevity of this proposal, we’ve included highlights to our QC plan below.
A-82
. .
,fr □ □ □ □ I □□□□ □□□□
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“The Griffin team is doing an excellent
job, anticipating and addressing potential
problems that may have impacted the
completion date. They apply vast experience
and attention to detail that greatly benefits
our City.“
- City of Santa Clarita 6. Acceptance of ConditionsA-83
28 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
6. Acceptance of Conditions
We have reviewed the Contract Services Agreement for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and have included the proposed
exceptions and deviations below. We are ready, willing, and able to discuss these items immediately and execute an agreement
with the City as soon as possible.
• 1.1 – 5th line –delete “and warrants”. The use of “warrants” within a contract provision is a subtlety that may extend the
standard of care beyond what is expected and reasonable. The word “represents” in this sentence already reflects that
Consultant will do everything in our power to comply, we cannot warrant that there will be absolute compliance.
• 1.11 – 0th line –delete the entire sentence beginning with “Consultant covenants…” and instead insert “In providing services
under this Agreement, Consultant shall perform in a manner consistent with, but limited to, that degree of skill and care
commonly used by other reputable members of Consultant’s profession practicing in the same or similar locality and under
similar circumstances. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to require Consultant to meet any higher standard of
care, and this paragraph shall control over any such contrary provision.”
• 1.1 – 13th line – delete entire sentence beginning with “For purposes of this Agreement….”.
• 1.6 – f1st and 5th lines – replace “warrants” with “represents” – logic for this request is spelled out under the first comment
above.
• 3.1 – Replace this section with “The Consultant shall not be responsible for delays from any and all causes beyond its
reasonable control.”
• 5.2 (f) – 3rd line – delete “agents” and “and volunteers”.
• 5.2 (j) – 2nd line – same request as at 5.2 (f) above.
• 5.3 – 2nd line – delete “and agents”.
• 5.3 – 6th and 7th lines – delete “arising out of or in connection with” and replace with “as caused by the”, as we do not wish to
indemnify and defend for something we did not cause.
• 5.3 (a) – change “any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities” with “any action or actions filed
due to a claim or liability caused by”.
• 5.3 (b) – 2nd and 4th lines – delete “agents”.
• 5.3 (c) – 1st and 5th lines – delete “agents”.
• 8.2 – 2nd paragraph – 5th line – replace “warrants” with “represents” – same logic as explained in the first comment above.
A-84~GRI FFI N ~ \TRU<..:TlllU~
29 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
1 Technology Drive, Building i, Suite 829
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 497-9000
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
1850 Warburton Avenue, Suite 120
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 955-0431
A-85
01203.0006/736843.1 EQG B-3
EXHIBIT “B”
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
Added text indicated in bold italics, deleted text indicated in strikethrough.
I. Section 1.1., Scope of Services, is amended to read:
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide
those services specified in the “Scope of Services”, as stated in the Proposal, attached hereto as
Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the
“services” or “work” hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement,
Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities
necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough,
competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services
contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its
ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it
shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required
hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended.
For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean those
standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under
similar circumstances. In providing services under this Agreement, Consultant shall perform in
a manner consistent with, but limited to, the highest professional standards of skill and care
commonly used by other reputable members of Consultant’s profession practicing in the same
or similar locality and under similar circumstances.
II. Section 1.6, Familiarity with Work, is amended to read:
1.6 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant represents that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially
affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of
such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until written instructions are received
from the Contract Officer in the form of a Change Order.
III. Section 3.1, Time of the Essence, is amended to read:
A-86
01203.0006/736843.1 EQG B-4
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant shall not be
responsible for delays from any and all causes beyond its reasonable control.
IV. Subsections (f) and (J) of Section 5.2, General Insurance Requirements, are amended
to read:
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
…
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to
this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed
officers, agents, officials, and employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or
others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right
of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and
shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
…
(j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to
provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be
additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella
liability policies.
A-87
01203.0006/736843.1 EQG C-1
EXHIBIT “C”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
A-88
~
,,. ~ ~ .1
~ ~ ~ ~cm ~ swm:n,,
l -OIi,,.._..,._,,,...,._ M -:Ill • lOO
1.1 IMliillPrljlra. Oueuiflli'II RINin ..... .... 1 ... . .... IO<I
1.-:? Piilillnullltw,i!it'llil PllilN1l1l!ilif.:na.Mi'r'lfmll """ >ld IO<I ..... IO<I
1..~ --... -...... ""' .... lid ""' litl
1.-4 c.o.-,--..... .... 1 ... . .... IO<I
1..5 r.,..,,,.,.._1o ..... Old 1 ... . .... 1 ...
1..11 _.,.....,. ""' Old lt<I ""' lt<I I
1..1 J<llollPtu ... ~-""' Old lid """ lt<I I
LB ~--r.-...,~ICaiiw'tui■tiillutli fllrl. ..... -lid ..... lid I
I --:M ea, Uli Ill IIIO I --.,,..__..,., ---......... ~ I NllmDT J Cllllllllllllff WWWeNl'DAI.
I
I: --I
2 .1 l'.:liidlil::l'll■tlilll~.-.-ii.:n Lill'ftinC.W!'.1 96'1..-I
I
a --..n I
:U .. ~ .... -S-1-Ql1 I
~.2 >i--p;.,.., .... o«" ... s.. ....... 13,511) I I
I WIIDIDW. MIOOOO I
01203.0006/736843.1 EQG D-1
EXHIBIT “D”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
A-89
-u-~Qxnm D1:01.:f'Rr.lbJ$SilaPlamiK.:IPhas.1111Sd'lildukt
lni:ill Pfa:IIC'lkill,sd.andStanUp
GoatllC'hnGl l~iµr.Jon
lnlllal SU: Flan~
A1:MsotyO>mmt:D1:02:P!a,.Oas;,r~P
Sh-'1: P:llnnln,g: R4!'15Jons
Dal wnyAn~
f'rqaU· ~ ta & ,8Ulfif,mHJ.8,
Alh'tSol)'O>mm Dl:03:tlpd,Wd:SIUI P\an, Projle1Sthodlilt, flm;tt,., Budpt
Rwta and, Prap,,1ra For Ol')I Cbuncl PNsem.nklD
Pl"HRrutmmar,Ci::xn:J
* ---.,.
* -*
01203.0006/736843.1 EQG D-2
A-90
01203.0001/767710.1 1
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
CIVIC CENTER PRE-DESIGN SERVICES
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (herein “Agreement”) is made and
entered into this 15th day of February, 2022, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, a municipal corporation (“City”) and GENSLER, a California corporation (herein
“Consultant”).
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all of the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, the Consultant shall perform the work or services set forth in the “Scope of
Services” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant
warrants that it has the experience and ability to perform all work and services required
hereunder and that it shall diligently perform such work and services in a professional and
satisfactory manner.
1.2 Compliance With Law. All work and services rendered hereunder shall
be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the
City and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
1.3 California Labor Law. If the Scope of Services includes any “public
work” or “maintenance work,” as those terms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720
et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total
compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and
comply with the requirements in California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq.,
and all other applicable laws.
1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Consultant shall obtain at its
sole cost and expense such licenses, permits, and approvals as may be required by law for the
performance of the services required by the Agreement.
1.5 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this
Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the “Special Requirements”
attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a
conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any other provisions of this Agreement, the
provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.
2.COMPENSATION
2.1 Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement,
Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with the “Schedule of Compensation” attached
hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference, but not exceeding the maximum
contract amount of $59,800 (Fifty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars) together with
reimbursable expenses approved by City’s Contract Officer (including a 10% mark-up to such
expenses) (the “Contract Sum”).
B-1
2
01203.0001/767710.1
2.2 Invoices. Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice
for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by
City’s Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement,
Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall
contain all information specified in Exhibit “C”, and shall detail charges for all necessary and
actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials,
equipment, supplies, and sub-contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed
by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by
more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within
forty five (45) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed invoice; however,
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot
guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. However, if any invoice remains
unpaid more than sixty (60) days after submission, Consultant shall notify City of its delay in
payment and may suspend services if payment is not received within ten days of such notice. In
the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by
City to Consultant no later than thirty days after invoice date with a description of the reason for
the dispute for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by the City of any invoice
provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided
herein or any applicable law.
2.3 Additional Services. City shall have the right at any time during the
performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond
that specified in the Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from
said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the
Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum
for the actual cost of the extra work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said
adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation
of up to ten percent (10%) of the Contract Sum but not exceeding a total contract amount of Five
Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or in the time to perform of up to ninety (90) days may be approved
by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be
approved by the City Council. No claim for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for
performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed.
3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time for Performance. The services shall be performed in accordance
with the Schedule of Performance subject to any adjustments as described below.
3.2 Schedule of Performance. Consultant shall commence the services
pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all
services within the time period(s) established in the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto
as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant,
B-2
3
01203.0001/767710.1
extensions to the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in
writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding thirty (30) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure. The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of
Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be
extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the
fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public
enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions,
riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency,
including the City, if the Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such
delay notify the con Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall
ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the
period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is
justified. The Contract Officer’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to
this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for
any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Consultant’s sole remedy
being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this
Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services
but not exceeding one (1) year from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the
Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”).
4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representative of Consultant. Peter Barsuk is hereby designated as being
the representative of Consultant authorized to act on its behalf with respect to the work and
services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith. All personnel of
Consultant and any authorized agents shall be under the exclusive direction of the representative
of Consultant. Consultant shall utilize only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to
this Agreement. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and
continuity of Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, and shall keep City informed of any changes.
4.2 Contract Officer. Karina Banales, Deputy City Manager, or such person
as may be designated by the City Manager, is hereby designated as being the representative the
City authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work and services specified herein and to
make all decisions in connection therewith (“Contract Officer”).
4.3 Prohibition Against Assignment. Consultant shall not contract with any
entity to perform in whole or in part the work or services required hereunder without the express
written approval of the City. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or
transferred, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. Any
such prohibited assignment or transfer shall be void.
4.4 Independent Consultant. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall
have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees,
perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth. Consultant shall perform all
services required herein as an independent contractor of City with only such obligations as are
consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or
B-3
4
01203.0001/767710.1
any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City, or that it is a member of a joint
enterprise with City.
/ / /
5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages. Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of
City, and prior to commencement of any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain,
provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance
of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01,
in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that
has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language
will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury
and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-
owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated
herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to
City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
B-4
5
01203.0001/767710.1
endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder
by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be
primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination
of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or
be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall
be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced,
City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium
paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient
to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance
or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger)
in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by
the City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the
City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific
reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given
B-5
6
01203.0001/767710.1
issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other
coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums
shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained
by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits
of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
(j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be
endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers
shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any
excess/umbrella liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
(l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant’s compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required
liability policies.
B-6
7
01203.0001/767710.1
(q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be
necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to
indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified
Parties”) against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all
actions, either judicial, administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or
property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or
threatened (herein “claims or liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or
entity to the extent resulting from the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities
provided herein of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, invitees, or any
individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from
Consultant’s or indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or
indemnitors’ negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or
condition of this Agreement, except claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City’s sole
negligence or willful acts or omissions, However, Consultants indemnity obligation for claims
arising from professional negligence shall be limited to its proportionate negligence. The
indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records. Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such
ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other
documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the
“books and records”), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement
and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such services and shall keep such
records for a period of three years following completion of the services hereunder. The Contract
Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during normal
business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and
transcripts from such records.
6.2 Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract
Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement or as
the Contract Officer shall require.
6.3 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such
information or work product to persons or entities other than the City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract
Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations,
letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information
concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order
B-7
8
01203.0001/767710.1
shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives the City notice of such court order
or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant provides any information or work product in violation of this
Agreement, then the City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant
for any damages, costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of
Consultant’s conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify the City should Consultant be served
with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents,
interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from
any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder. The City retains the
right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or
similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with the City and to provide the City
with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant.
6.4 Ownership of Documents. All studies, surveys, data, notes, computer
files, reports, records, drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, documents and other
materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Consultant in the performance of this
Agreement shall upon payment of all amounts due to Consultant become the joint property of the
City and Consultant and copies of the documents and materials shall be delivered to the City
upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant
shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise
by the City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and
materials hereunder. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may
qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials
are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City.
7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and
governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in
relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles,
State of California. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively
in the Central District of California, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default. In the event that Consultant is in default under the
terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to
Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe
in which Consultant may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but
may be extended, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in
default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with
payment on the invoices. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary
steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article.
7.3 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party
may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover
B-8
9
01203.0001/767710.1
damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain
declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this
Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory
claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et. seq. and 910 et. seq., in order to pursue any
legal action under this Agreement.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
7.4 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. This Section shall govern any
termination of this Contract except as specifically provided in the following Section for
termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or
without cause, upon fifteen (15) days’ written notice to Consultant, except that where
termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be such shorter time as
may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant reserves the right to
terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to
City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination,
Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically
approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated termination, the
Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date
of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in
accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract
Officer. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to
compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder, but
not exceeding the compensation provided therefore in the Schedule of Compensation Exhibit
“C”. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the terminating party
need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7.5 Termination for Default of Consultant. If termination is due to the
failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after
compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to
completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total
cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein
stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City
may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the
amounts owed the City as previously stated.
8. MISCELLANEOUS
8.1 Covenant Against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for
itself, its heirs, executors, assigns and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall
be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of
race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin,
ancestry, or other protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take
B-9
10
01203.0001/767710.1
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during
employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation,
marital status, national origin, ancestry, or other protected class
8.2 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of
the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of
any default or breach by the City or for any amount, which may become due to the Consultant or
to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.
8.3 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or
communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person
shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of
the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and
City title), City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, California 90275, and in
the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of
this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of
address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in
seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
8.4 Integration; Amendment. It is understood that there are no oral
agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes
and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if
any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. This Agreement
may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing.
8.5 Severability. In the event that part of this Agreement shall be declared
invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining portions of this Agreement
which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the
parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either
party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
8.6 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a
waiver. A party’s consent to or approval of any act by the other party requiring the party’s
consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the other party’s consent
to or approval of any subsequent act. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in
writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision
of this Agreement.
8.7 Attorneys’ Fees. If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate
or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this
Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief
which any be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees,
whether or not the matter proceeds to judgment.
8.8 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either
B-10
11
01203.0001/767710.1
party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which
might otherwise apply.
8.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
8.10 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion. No official, officer, or
employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any
official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which
may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or
association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any corporation,
partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any
State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of “financial interest” shall be
consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be “remote” or “noninterests”
pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant warrants and represents that
it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to,
any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a
result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant further warrants
and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or
collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to
any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of
consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and
understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such payment of
money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of no force or
effect.
Consultant’s Authorized Initials _______
8.11 Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of
the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly
authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing
this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the
entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which
said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns of the parties.
[Signatures On The Following Page]
B-11
12
01203.0001/767710.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the date and year first-above written.
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
Ara M. Mihranian, City Manager
ATTEST:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
GENSLER, INC.
By:
Name: Peter Barsuk
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
Address:
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required
from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2)
Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S
SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
B-12
01203.0001/767710.1
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2022 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
B-13
01203.0001/767710.1
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2022 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
B-14
01203.0001/767710.1 A-1
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following services:
A. Consultant shall perform the following identified pre-design services,
including preliminary/conceptual site planning, for the purpose of assessing overall Civil
Center site constraints and capabilities to assist Griffin Structures in developing a project
cost(s) for a Civic Center construction project. Consultant shall engage in six (6) public
presentations (including a pre-design workshop, one workshop for City Staff and one
workshop for the Civic Center Advisory Committee).
II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible
work products to the City:
Scope Due Date Fee
1 Present prior site planning and opportunity /
constraints diagram to Civic Center Advisory
Committee (CCAC) for input
2/24/2022 $ 2,000
2 Update opportunity / constraints diagram based
on prior study
3/24/2022 $ 3,000
3 Pre-design workshop, one for City Staff and one
for CCAC
3/24/2022 $ 15,000
4 Provide up to three site diagrams with potential
phasing for City Staff review based on workshop
4/8/2022 $ 18,000
5 City staff review (one week) 4/15/2022 $ -
6 Design updates as needed for presentation to
CCAC for input
4/28/2022 $ -
7 Provide preferred pre-design site plan for
budget purposes for City staff review
5/13/2022 $ 16,800
8 City staff review (one week) 5/20/2022 $ -
9 Design updates as needed for presentation to
CCAC – recommendation to City Council
5/26/2022 $ -
10 Present CCAC recommended design to City
Council – receive input.
7/19/2022 $ 3,000
11 City staff review (one week) 7/26/2022
12 Final design updates as required for City
Council Presentation
8/16/2022 $ 2,000
Total Lump Sum Fee $ 59,800
B-15
01203.0001/767710.1
III. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be
revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found
satisfactory and accepted by City.
IV. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
A. Peter Barsuk
B. Michael Volk
C.
B-16
01203.0001/767710.1 B-1
EXHIBIT “B”
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
B-17
C-1
01203.0001/767710.1
EXHIBIT “C”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following Services at the following rates:
Task 1 $2,000
Task 2 $3,000
Task 3 $15,000
Task 4 $18,000
Task 7 $16,800
Task 10 $3,000
Task 12 $2,000
II. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a periodic invoice for each task.
III. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as
provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
B-18
D-1
01203.0001/767710.1
EXHIBIT “D”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following
schedule:
As set forth in the Scope of Services, Exhibit “A.”
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
As set forth in the Scope of Services, Exhibit “A.”
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
B-19
GRIFFIN STRUCTURES FEE PROPOSAL
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – PHASE 1
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
02/04/2022
Griffin Structures’ Fee Proposal is based on all reasonable costs necessary to perform Project Management for Phase
1 services on the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center project. For these requisite services Griffin Structures
proposes the following Not-to-Exceed Fee:
Project and Construction Management: $ 83,325
Geotechnical Investigation: $ 61,204
Reimbursable Expenses: $ 3,500
Grand Total $ 148,029
This proposal is offered as a Time & Materials, Not to Exceed fee. As such, all work will be performed on an as-
needed basis and not limited to any specific scope item or work effort. All costs will be billed based on actual time
spent. Any unused savings will be returned to the City or reallocated for another use as it deems appropriate.
All proposed hourly rates are fully burdened and include overhead profit, taxes, and benefits. The hours identified
for each individual employee and task are estimates only and are not to be construed as not to exceed hours for any
individual task, phase, or time period. We reserve the right to reallocate hours between staff members,
subconsultants, and tasks, in consultation with the City, to accomplish the overall objectives and requirements of the
project. Any reallocations of funds will be performed in close coordination with the City to provide best value to the
project.
Services are based on the attached Fee Proposal and Resource Allocation Schedule, which provides detail on the
allocation of hours for services as they occur over time. Any extension of the schedule may result in additional fee,
in good faith negotiation with the City.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on discussions with City staff, this proposal (herein referred to as Phase 1) is limited to only those activities
deemed necessary for the City to make informed decisions for the future of the project. To that end, the scope of
this proposal includes the following efforts:
1. Initial Project Document Review: Griffin Structures will perform an initial document review of all
existent project documentation. This will include the review of any previous geotechnical analysis,
previous site planning efforts, ALTA surveys, hazardous materials surveys, and utility drawings. This
effort will also include the review of the recent programming efforts completed to date, analyze
potential areas for efficiencies and/or enhancements, and formalize this documentation into an initial
space planning exercise.
C-1
11
2 Technology Drive , Suite 150 I Irvine, CA 92618 I 949.497.9000 I griffinstructures.com
Page 2 of 3
2. Preliminary Site Planning : After completing an initial project review, Griffin implement and oversee
an initial Site Planning effort for the purpose of assessing overall site constraints and capabilities. It has
been recommended that the City utilize Gensler Architecture firm for this effort as they are the author
of the programming document and have an intimate understanding of the site. Depending on the
preferences of the City, Griffin Structures is prepared to subcontract with Gensler for this purpose or
manage their efforts under a direct prime contact with the City.
3. Geotechnical Investigation: Key to understanding the nature of the site will be the performance of a
Geotechnical investigation. It will be important to get a better understanding of the geologic constraints
the site may have in the preparation of an initial site plan, the scope for which is included below. To
execute this effort, Griffin is prepared to manage a geotechnical firm under direct contract with the
City, or to subcontract with a firm directly.
4. Delivery Analysis: Based on the information gleaned during the programming and preliminary site
planning phases, Griffin will perform and in -depth analysis of various forms of delivery and make
recommendations to the City for implementation. This analysis will include analysis of Design-Bid-
Build, Design-Build, CM at Risk, and Public Private Partnerships.
5. Project Schedule: Based on the analysis above, and after considering various delivery options, Griffin
will then produce a comprehensive project schedule that will include all phases of the project, all
necessary procurements, design iterations, approvals, permitting, bidding, and construction. This
project schedule will then serve as the road map for the remainder of the project and will be updated
periodically.
6. Project Budget: Griffin will then take all the analysis and information described above and produce a
Statement of Probable cost for the project. This initial budget will include all consultant costs,
investigations, inspections, management, construction costs, FF&E, electronics and networking, utility
costs, City staff costs, and contingency.
APPROACH TO STAFFING AND PROJECT TEAM
To bring the highest level of efficiency and value to the City, Griffin Structures has assembled following team in
accordance with the scope of work discussed with the City and described ab ove:
Roger Torriero will service as Principal in Charge for the duration of the project and will provide guidance to the
project based on his extensive experience in real estate development and the assembly of complex deal structures.
For this level of effort, we have allocated a total of 24 hours of Roger’s time.
Jon Hughes will serve as the Project Executive for the duration of the project and will provide as -needed leadership
to the team to ensure a successful delivery. Key to the success of the project will be Jon’s experience in complex
Civic Center projects, delivery analysis, project budgeting and scheduling support . For this level of service, we have
allocated a total of 60 hours of Jon’s time.
Robert Godfrey will serve as the Sr. Project & Construction Manager for the duration of the project. Robert will
bring leadership to the team, establish all construction management protocols, maintain all communications, and
will serve as the primary point of contact for the project team. For this level of service, we have allocated a total of
155 hours of Robert’s time.
Dustin Alamo will serve as the Pre-Design Manager for this project, bringing his considerable experience in space
planning, programming, and cost analysis to perform a peer review of the programming and site planning efforts to
date. For this level of service, we have allocated a total of 80 hours of Dustin’s time.
Jay Helekar and Ryan Craven will provide cost estimates for the development of a comprehensive statement of
probable cost for the project based on programming and site planning performed by the project team. For this
C-2
Page 3 of 3
level of service, we have allocated a total 100 hours of estimating time.
Leighton Group will perform the necessary investigation, exploration, borings, and required research to produce a
Geotechnical report for the site which will inform t he establishment of the preliminary site plan and the future
design of the Civic Center as a whole. For this level of service, we have included a fixed fee of $64,464.
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
1. Hourly rates are valid through December 2022 and will escalate by CPI annually thereafter.
2. Costs for all permits required for the project are excluded. It is assumed that the City will pay for all
permitting fees, assessments, easements, school fees, and other agency or governmental fees or costs to
support the design and construction the project. We have not included any permit related fees within our
fee proposal. Permits will be pulled by others.
3. At no cost to the Owner, and subject to Internal Revenue Code 179D, (Deduction for Energy Efficient
Commercial Buildings) Owner agrees to allocate any applicable tax deductions to construction manager
(Griffin Structures) as may be relevant to ‘public entity’ projects.
4. Costs for surveying, construction staking, environmental and hazardous mate rials surveys, and all
environmental and hazardous materials transportation and remediation costs are excluded
5. Independent or third-party testing and inspection companies such as hazardous materials investigation,
waterproofing, peer reviews, LEED, or other specialized third-party oversight services other than those listed
herein are excluded.
6. Construction Cost Estimates, when provided, are based on standard industry practice, professional
experience, and knowledge of market conditions. Griffin has no control over material and labor costs,
contractor’s methods of establishing prices or the market and bidding conditions at the time of bid.
Therefore, Griffin does not guarantee that bids received will not vary from the cost estimate provided and
Griffin is not liable for any costs, liabilities, or damages incurred by City arising from Griffin’s opinion of
cost, the actual project cost to City, delays caused by events outside the control of Griffin, or any labor or
material cost increases.
7. Griffin is not responsible for, and City will hold Griffin harmless from, any schedule delays and/or any
losses, damages, or liabilities resulting therefrom that are caused by (1) events or conditions that are outside
of Griffin’s control or (2) the acts or omissions of parties for whom Griffin is not legally liable (collectively,
“Non-Consultant Delays”). The schedule for completion will be extended for any Non -Consultant Delays.
If Griffin incurs additional costs or expenses due to Non -Consultant Delays, then Griffin’s fee compensation
will be equitably adjusted to cover such additional costs or expenses.
C-3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Project: Phase 1
Fee Proposal
PRINCIPAL IN
CHARGE PROJECT EXECUTIVE
SR PROJECT &
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER
PRE-DESIGN
MANAGER ESTIMATING
Roger Torriero Jon Hughes Robert Godfrey Dustin Alamo Jay Helekar
$275/hr.$220/hr.$195/hr.$185/hr.$185/hr.
1 PHASE 01: PROJECT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 24 60 155 80 100
1.1 Initial Project Document Review Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.2 Preliminary Site Planning Management Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.3 Geotechnical Investigation Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.4 Delivery Analysis Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.5 Total Project Schedule Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.6 Estimating Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.7 Total Project Budget Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.8 Develop Comprehensive Communications Plan Incl Incl Incl Incl Incl
Total Hours 24 60 155 80 100
Subtotals $6,600 $13,200 $30,225 $14,800 $18,500
PROJECT / CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT TOTAL $83,325
2 SUB-CONSULTANTS $61,204
2.1 Geotechnical Investigation: Leighton Group $61,204
3 REIMBURSABLE COSTS $3,500
3.2 Misc. Printing and Office Supplies $3,500
GRAND TOTAL $148,029
Item No.PROJECT PHASE
Griffin Structures 02/04/2022C-4
I
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Project: Phase 1
Resource Allocation Schedule
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
PHASE 1 SERVICES
Advisory Committee 01: Previous Site Plans and Phase 1 Schedule
Initial Project Analysis and Start Up
Geotechnical Investigation
Initial Site Planning
Advisory Committee 02: Pre-Design Workshop
Site Planning Revisions
Delivery Analysis
Project Scheduling
Project Estimate & Budgeting
Advisory Committee 03: Updated Site Plan, Project Schedule, Project Budget
Revise and Prepare For City Council Presentation
Presentation to City Council
Principal In Charge: Roger Torriero 4 4 4 4 4 4 24
Project Executive: Jon Hughes 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 60
Sr. Program & Construction Manager: Robert Godfrey 10 25 25 25 25 25 20 155
Pre-Design Manager: Dustin Alamo 80 80
Estimating: Ryan Craven 100 100
Principal In Charge: Roger Torriero -$ 1,100$ 1,100$ 1,100$ 1,100$ 1,100$ 1,100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,600$
Project Executive: Jon Hughes -$ 2,200$ 2,200$ 1,760$ 1,760$ 1,760$ 1,760$ 1,760$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,200$
Sr. Program & Construction Manager: Robert Godfrey -$ 1,950$ 4,875$ 4,875$ 4,875$ 4,875$ 4,875$ 3,900$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30,225$
Pre-Design Manager: Dustin Alamo -$ -$ 14,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,800$
Estimating: Ryan Craven -$ -$ -$ -$ 18,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18,500$
-$ 5,250$ 22,975$ 7,735$ 26,235$ 7,735$ 7,735$ 5,660$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 83,325$
PROJECT PHASE
MONTHLY STAFFING HOURS
2022
Griffin Structures 02/04/2022C-5
II
*
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
February 3, 2022
Proposal No. IR22-037
Griffin Structures, Inc.
2 Technology, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92618
Attention: Mr. Jon Hughes, Executive Vice President
Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical Exploration
Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Project
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Leighton Consulting, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal for performing a geotechnical
exploration, for the Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center project to be located 30940
Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Our understanding of this project is based on the information provided in the RFP issued
by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for project management services, dated August 18,
2021. The project, currently in the conceptual stage, consists of expansion of the existing
City Hall area and with new buildings to accommodate city administration, finance, public
works, community development, recreation and parks, shared building support, public
counter, council chambers, and other functions. Other proposed facilities at the expanded
site will include a Sheriff Substation, Medium Fire Station, Emergency Operations Center,
and other facilities. The total site area will be 13.14 acres.
PROPOSED BASIC SCOPE OF WORK
Our services for this project will be mobilized and managed from our Irvine office. We
propose to perform a subsurface exploration, test recovered soil samples at our in-house
geotechnical laboratory, perform site-specific geotechnical and geologic analyses, and
prepare a report of our geotechnical findings, conclusions and recommendations; as
described in the following subsections.
C-617781 Cowan, Irvine, CA 92614
www.leightongroup.com
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
A Leighton Group Company
T: 949 .250 .1421
RPV Civic Center IR22-037
Page 2
Subsurface Exploration and Sampling
Our subsurface exploration consists of seven hollow-stem auger borings (approximately
8 inches in diameter) and two large-diameter bucket-auger borings (approximately 28
inches in diameter). The hollow-stem auger borings are anticipated to be advanced to
depths between 20 and 80 feet below existing ground surface, and the bucket-auger
borings are anticipated to be advanced up to 100 feet. The actual depths of the borings
may be less than anticipated due to drilling refusal.
We assume we will have unhindered access to this site to perform our field exploration.
For the purposes of this proposal, we assume that you will provide us with legal access
to this site for our fieldwork.
We assume that the borings will be excavated within the city-controlled property, such
that no permits will be required. Before we begin fieldwork, we will mark proposed boring
locations and notify you and Underground Service Alert (USA), so that known public or
private underground utilities can be identified. We will also rely on as-built utility plans
from the City’s maintenance/facilities for our review in advance of exploration. We are
not responsible for damage to any unidentified utilities.
We anticipate our subsurface exploration can be performed within three to four
consecutive days.
We will advance the borings to the planned target depths as mentioned above, or to
refusal, whichever is deepest. A truck-mounted drill rig will excavate the hollow-stem
auger borings. Each boring will be logged by a member of our technical staff under
direction of a Geotechnical Engineer (GE) or Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG).
Representative soil samples will be collected and transported to our in-house Irvine
laboratory for geotechnical testing. Driven soil samples will be collected using a standard
penetration test (SPT) sampler and a modified California sampler. A hammer weighing
140 pounds and falling 30 inches will drive the samplers a total of 18 inches, if possible.
The number of blows to drive the samplers for each 6-inch increment will be recorded.
Soil samples from the modified California sampler will be retained in 1-inch-high brass
rings. Bulk soil samples will be collected directly from the flight of the augers or
excavation spoils. The bucket-auger borings will also be excavated using a truck-
mounted drill rig. We will down-hole log the bucket-auger borings. The boreholes will be
backfilled with soil from the excavations upon completion and the surface will be patched
with cold-patch asphalt, if applicable. Our services exclude replacement of tile, re-
paving, re-vegetation and/or landscaping restoration.
C-7~Leighton
RPV Civic Center IR22-037
Page 3
Our proposed scope of work does not include an assessment of this site for the presence
of substances that may be considered hazardous. If we encounter material that we
suspect may be hazardous, we will discontinue work in the immediate area and notify
you. If required, we have available geoenvironmental specialists who can assist you.
Upon request, a proposal to address handling of such materials and recommended
further action will be submitted.
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Selected soil samples obtained from our borings and trenches will be tested at our in-
house Irvine geotechnical laboratory in general accordance with applicable ASTM
standards. We expect that in-place moisture and density, wash sieve, direct shear,
consolidation, expansion index (EI), Atterberg Limits, and corrosivity (pH, chloride,
sulfate, and resistivity will be performed. Unused samples remaining after completion of
geotechnical laboratory testing will be stored in our laboratory for at least 30 days after
sampling.
Geotechnical Analyses and Report Preparation
We will review all available site-specific geotechnical reports, Alquist-Priolo maps, seismic
hazard maps, and other literature and historic aerial photographs available from our in-
house library or in the public domain. Our report will be signed and stamped by a
California Geotechnical Engineer (GE) and Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG).
In this report, we will document our geotechnical findings, conclusions and
recommendations for the proposed building, and specifically address the following:
• Geologic Hazards: We will discuss potential geologic hazards at this site, including
potential for surface fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading,
slope stability, and differential seismic settlement at the site using available data.
• Seismicity: We will provide a regional fault map showing the proximity of this site to
major faults identified by the California Geological Survey within a 100-kilometer
radius of the site. We will also provide site-specific seismic coefficients in accordance
with ASCE 7-16 and the 2019 California Building Code (CBC).
We assumed a Site-Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis is not required for the
proposed buildings and that Exception 2 of ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, will be the
design approach by the structural engineer. Please confirm this with your structural
C-8~Leighton
RPV Civic Center IR22-037
Page 4
engineer. This proposal will need to be revised to include a Site-Specific Ground
Motion Hazard Analysis if the analysis is required.
• Grading and Earthwork: We will present earthwork criteria, including
recommendations for new footing subgrade preparation, recommendations for
removal of unsuitable soil or fill, utility trench backfill, surface drainage, and
landscaping considerations, as necessary. Recommendations for import soil
engineering and compaction criteria will also be provided.
• Foundations: Utilizing data collected during our exploration, we will recommend
allowable vertical and lateral bearing pressures for use in designing new spread-
footing foundations. We will also provide foundation design criteria including
recommendations for minimum size, embedment depth, allowable vertical and lateral
capacities, and expected total and differential settlements.
• Slabs-On-Grade: We will present concrete slab-on-grade design criteria, including
recommendations for subgrade preparation, moisture vapor mitigation and if
necessary, non-expansive fill.
• Temporary Excavations: Utilizing the data collected during our exploration, we will
present temporary excavation guidelines (construction site safety is the responsibility
of the contractor).
SCHEDULE
Leighton Consulting, Inc. will begin scheduling field equipment and personnel for our
geotechnical exploration immediately upon receipt of your written authorization to
proceed. About five to ten working days will be required to schedule personnel and
equipment, and to obtain USA and City utility clearance prior to drilling (additional delay
may occur during holidays). Additional delay may occur due to site access constraints
and/or weather. Geotechnical laboratory testing, analysis and report preparation will
require 15 to 20 working days after the subsurface exploration is completed. Upon
request, project updates can be provided as our data is developed.
FEES AND TERMS
Leighton Consulting, Inc. will provide the proposed scope of services on a time-and-
materials basis for the not-to-exceed fees listed in the attached Table 1, Fee Estimate.
The estimated fee should be considered a rough-order-of-magnitude estimate due to the
conceptual nature of the project.
C-9~Leighton
RPV Civic Center IR22-037
Page 5
We assume this project is subject to California Prevailing Wage Law. If this project is not
subject to prevailing wages, our field exploration fees will be reduced significantly. Our
fee is based on the assumption that our borings can be excavated during normal weekday
daylight-hours, without any site stand-by or delay. Any authorized work beyond the
proposed scope of services will be charged in accordance with the attached 2021
Professional Fee Schedule. This proposal excludes geotechnical and/or materials
testing during construction.
Terms and Conditions
We understand that this work will be authorized under a standard professional services
agreement. If you wish us to proceed, please send us your agreement to review and
sign. If you prefer, we can also generate a Scope of Work Agreement.
CLOSURE
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or information
that would update our scope of work, please call us at your convenience at (866)
LEIGHTON, directly at the extensions and/or e-mail addresses listed below.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC.
Edward Che, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
Extension 4283, eche@leightongroup.com
EC/lr
Attachments: Table 1, Fee Estimate
2021 Professional Fee Schedule
Distribution: (1) addressee
C-10~Leighton
Griffin Structures - RPV Civic Center
Subsurface Exploration Proposal # IR22-037
TASK DESCRIPTION UNITS COST
Mark Exploration Locations and Notify Digalert
Project Geologist $175.00 /hour 6 $1,050.00
SUBTOTAL $1,050.00
Subsurface Exploration
Labor
Senior Staff Engineer $152.00 /hour 56 $8,512.00
Associate $212.00 /hour 12 $2,544.00
Principal $230.00 /hour 3 $690.00
Subcontractors
JET Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger, 7 locations, 20 to 80 feet deep $380.00 /hour 24 $9,120.00
Tri-Valley Drilling Services Bucket Auger, 2 locations, 100 feet deep $400.00 /hour 32 $12,800.00
Mark-up 15%$3,288.00
SUBTOTAL $36,954.00
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing #N/A #N/Aeach$30.00 /each 35 $1,050.00
$150.00 /each 6 $900.00
$185.00 /each 3 $555.00
$220.00 /each 2 $440.00
$265.00 /each 3 $795.00
$285.00 /each 6 $1,710.00
$90.00 /each 1 $90.00
$195.00 /each 3 $585.00
$130.00 /each 3 $390.00#N/A SUBTOTAL $6,515.00
Engineering Evaluation and Report
Project Administrator/Word Processor $74.00 /hour 4 $296.00
CAD Operator $113.00 /hour 6 $678.00
Senior Staff Engineer $152.00 /hour 15 $2,280.00
Senior Staff Geologist $152.00 /hour 15 $2,280.00
Project Geologist $175.00 /hour 8 $1,400.00
Associate $212.00 /hour 4 $848.00
Principal $230.00 /hour 4 $920.00
SUBTOTAL $8,702.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 53,221.00$
Corrosion suite: minimum resistivity, sulfate, chloride, pH (CTM 643)
Direct shear (ASTM D3080, mod., 3 points) consolidated undrained - 0.05 inch /min (CU)
Remolding or hand trimming of specimens (3 points)
Consolidation (ASTM D2435)
Expansion Index (EI, ASTM D4829)
RATE
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Table1 - Fee Estimate
Modified Proctor compaction 4 inch mold (Methods A & B ASTM D1557)
Moisture & density (ASTM D2937) ring samples
Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318) 3 points
Particle size - Sieve + hydrometer (≤3” sieve, ASTM D6913 + D7928)
C-11
Fee/2021-X www.leightongroup.com Page 1 of 4
2021 PROFESSIONAL FEE SCHEDULE
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
LABOR RATES
METHOD $/TEST
CLASSIFICATION & INDEX PROPERTIES
Photograph of sample ....................................................................................10
Moisture content (ASTM D2216) ........................................................................20
Moisture & density (ASTM D2937) ring samples ................................................30
Moisture & density (ASTM D2937) Shelby tube or cutting .................................40
Atterberg limits 3 points (ASTM D4318): ..........................................................150
-Single point, non-plastic ............................................................................85
-Atterberg limits (organic ASTM D2487 / D4318) .............................................180
-Visual classification as non-plastic (ASTM D2488).......................................10
Particle size: .......................................................................................................
-Sieve only 1½ inch to #200 (AASHTO T27/ASTM C136/ASTM D6913/CTM 202) ...135
-Large sieve 6 inch to #200 (AASHTO T27/ASTM C136/ASTM D6913/CTM 202) ...175
-Hydrometer only (ASTM D7928) ................................................................110
-Sieve + hydrometer ≤3 inch sieve, (ASTM 7928) ......................................185
-Percent passing #200 sieve, wash only (ASTM D1140) ...............................70
Specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregate
(AASHTO T84/ASTM C128/ASTM D854/CTM 207) ..............................................130
Specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate
(AASHTO T85/ASTM C127/CTM 206) ...............................................................100
-Total porosity - on Shelby tube sample (calculated) ...............................165
-Total porosity - on other sample (calculated) ..........................................155
Shrinkage limits wax method (ASTM D4943) ...................................................126
Pinhole dispersion (ASTM D4647) ...................................................................210
Dispersive characteristics (double hydrometer ASTM D4221) ................................90
As-received moisture & density (chunk/carved samples) ...............................60
Sand Equivalent (AASHTO T176/ASTM D2419/CTM 217) ....................................105
SHEAR STRENGTH
Pocket penetrometer ......................................................................................15
Direct shear (ASTM D3080, mod., 3 points):
Consolidated undrained - 0.05 inch/min (CU) ..............................................285
Consolidated drained - <0.05 inch/min (CD) ................................................345
Residual shear EM 1110-2-1906-IXA (price per each additional pass after shear)....50
Remolding or hand trimming of specimens (3 points) ....................................90
Oriented or block hand trimming (per hour) ....................................................65
Single point shear .........................................................................................105
Torsional shear (ASTM D6467 / ASTM D7608) ....................................................820
METHOD $/TEST
COMPACTION & PAVEMENT SUBGRADE TESTS
Standard Proctor compaction, 4 points (ASTM D698)
-4 inch diameter mold (Methods A & B) ...................................................160
-6 inch diameter mold (Method C) ...........................................................215
Modified Proctor compaction 4 points (ASTM D1557):
-4 inch diameter mold Methods A & B ......................................................220
-6 inch diameter mold Method C ..............................................................245
Check point (per point) ...................................................................................65
Relative compaction of untreated/treated soils/aggregates (CTM 216) ..........250
Relative density 0.1 ft mold (ASTM D4253, D4254) ...........................................235
California Bearing Ratio (ASTM D1883)
-3 point .....................................................................................................500
-1 point .....................................................................................................185
R-Value untreated soils/aggregates (AASHTO T190/ASTM D2844/CTM 301) .......310
R-Value lime or cement treated soils/aggregates (AASHTO T190/ASTM
D2844/CTM 301) ..........................................................................................340
SOIL CHEMISTRY & CORROSIVITY
pH Method A (ASTM D4972 or CTM 643) .............................................................45
Electrical resistivity – single point – as received moisture ..............................45
Minimum resistivity 3 moisture content points (ASTM G187/CTM 643) ...............90
pH + minimum resistivity (CTM 643) ...............................................................130
Sulfate content - gravimetric (CTM 417 B Part 2) ................................................70
Sulfate content - by ion chromatograph (CTM 417 Part 2) .................................80
Sulfate screen (Hach®) ....................................................................................30
Chloride content (AASHTO T291/CTM 422) .........................................................70
Chloride content – by ion chromatograph (AASHTO T291/CTM 422)...................80
Corrosion suite: minimum resistivity, sulfate, chloride, pH (CTM 643) ............265
Organic matter content (ASTM D2974) ..............................................................65
CONSOLIDATION & EXPANSION/SWELL TESTS
Consolidation (ASTM D2435): ..........................................................................195
Each additional time curve .............................................................................45
Each additional load/unload w/o time reading ................................................40
Expansion Index (ASTM D4829) ......................................................................130
Single load swell/collapse - Method B (ASTM D4546-B, seat, load & inundate only) ....105
Swell collapse Method A up to 10 load/unloads w/o time curves
(ASTM D4546-A) ..........................................................................................290
CLASSIFICATION $/HR
Technician I .....................................................................................................81
Technician II / Special Inspector .....................................................................90
Senior Technician / Senior Special Inspector ...............................................106
Prevailing Wage (field soils / materials tester) * ...........................................138
Prevailing Wage (Special Inspector) * ..........................................................142
Prevailing Wage (Source Inspector, NDT and soil remediation O&M)* ........145
System Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Specialist ....................................135
Non Destructive Testing (NDT) .....................................................................142
Deputy Inspector ..........................................................................................106
Field / Laboratory Supervisor .......................................................................135
Source Inspector ..........................................................................................122
City of Los Angeles Deputy Building (including Grading) Inspector .............144
* See Prevailing Wages in Terms and Conditions
CLASSIFICATION $/HR
Project Administrator/Word Processor/Dispatcher .........................................74
Information Specialist .....................................................................................99
CAD Operator ...............................................................................................117
GIS Specialist ...............................................................................................126
GIS Analyst ..................................................................................................149
Staff Engineer / Geologist / Scientist ............................................................138
Senior Staff Engineer / Geologist / Scientist / ASMR ...................................152
Operations / Laboratory Manager .................................................................167
Project Engineer / Geologist / Scientist ........................................................175
Senior Project Engineer / Geologist / Scientist / SMR ..................................193
Associate ......................................................................................................212
Principal ........................................................................................................230
Senior Principal ............................................................................................266
C-12
Fee/2021-X www.leightongroup.com
FEE SCHEDULE
Page 2 of 4
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS LABORATORY TESTING
METHOD $/TEST
TRIAXIAL TESTS
Unconfined compression strength of cohesive soil (with stress/strain plot,
ASTM D2166) ..................................................................................................................135
Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression test on cohesive soils
(UU, ASTM D2850, USACE Q test, per confining stress) ..........................................170
Consolidated undrained triaxial compression test for cohesive soils,
(CU, ASTM D4767, USACE R-bar test) with back pressure saturation & pore
water pressure measurement (per confining stress) ........................................375
Consolidated drained triaxial compression test (CD, USACE S), with volume
change measurement. Price per soil type below EM 1110-2-1906(X):
Sand or silty sand soils (per confining stress) .........................................375
Silt or clayey sand soils (per confining stress) ........................................500
Clay soils (per confining stress) ..............................................................705
Three-stage triaxial (sand or silty sand soils) ..........................................655
Three-stage triaxial (silt or clayey sand soils) .........................................875
Three-stage triaxial (clay soils) .............................................................1,235
Remolding of test specimens ....................................................................65
METHOD $/TEST
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTS
Triaxial permeability in flexible-wall permeameter with backpressure
saturation at one effective stress
(EPA 9100/ASTM D5084, falling head Method C): ................................................310
Each additional effective stress ....................................................................120
Hand trimming of soil samples for horizontal K ..............................................60
Remolding of test specimens .........................................................................65
Permeability of granular soils (ASTM D2434) ..................................................135
Soil suction (filter paper method, ASTM D5298) ....................................................400
SOIL-CEMENT
Moisture-density curve for soil-cement mixtures (ASTM D558) .......................240
Wet-dry durability of soil-cement mixtures (ASTM D559) ¹ ...........................1,205
Compressive strength of molded soil-cement cylinder (ASTM D1633)¹ .............60
Soil-cement remolded specimen (for shear strength, consolidation, etc.) ¹ ............235
¹ Compaction (ASTM D558 maximum density) should also be performed – not included
in above price
METHOD $/TEST
CONCRETE STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS
Concrete cylinders compression (ASTM C39) (6” x 12” and 4” x 8”) ................35
Compression, concrete or masonry cores (testing only) ≤6 inch (ASTM C42) ......40
Trimming concrete cores (per core) ...............................................................20
Flexural strength of concrete (simple beam-3rd pt. loading, ASTM C78/CTM 523) .....85
Flexural strength of concrete (simple beam-center pt. loading, ASTM C293/CTM 523) ...85
Non shrink grout cubes (2 inch, ASTM C109/C1107) ............................................25
Drying shrinkage - four readings, up to 90 days, 3 bars (ASTM C157) ...........400
Length of concrete cores (CTM 531) .................................................................40
HOT MIX ASPHALT (HMA)
Resistance of compacted HMA to moisture-induced damage
(AASHTO T283/CTM 371) ...........................................................................2,100
Hamburg Wheel, 4 briquettes (modified) (AASHTO T324) ...............................900
Superpave gyratory compaction (AASHTO T312/ASTM D6925) .........................350
Extraction by ignition oven, percent asphalt
(AASHTO T308/ASTM D6307/CTM 382) ............................................................150
Ignition oven correction/correlation values
(AASHTO T308/ASTM D6307/CTM 382) .........................................................1,350
Extraction by centrifuge, percent asphalt (ASTM D2172) ................................150
Gradation of extracted aggregate (AASHTO T30/ASTM D5444/CTM 202) ............135
Stabilometer, S-Value (ASTM D1560/CTM 366) .................................................265
Bituminous mixture preparation (AASHTO R30/CTM 304) ...................................80
Moisture content of HMA (AASHTO T329/ASTM D6037/CTM 370) .........................60
Bulk specific gravity of compacted HMA, molded specimen or cores,
uncoated (AASHTO T166/ASTM D2726/CTM 308) ..............................................50
Bulk specific gravity of compacted HMA, molded specimen or cores,
paraffin-coated (AASHTO T275/ASTM D1188/CTM 308) .....................................55
Maximum density - Hveem (CTM 308) ............................................................200
Theoretical maximum density and specific gravity of HMA (AASHTO T209/
ASTM D2041/CTM 309) .................................................................................130
Thickness or height of compacted bituminous paving mixture specimens
(ASTM D3549) ...............................................................................................40
Wet track abrasion of slurry seal (ASTM D3910) .............................................150
Rubberized asphalt (add to above rates) ........................................................+25%
BRICK
Compression - cost for each, 5 required (ASTM C67) .......................................50
Absorption - cost for each, 5 required (ASTM C67) ...........................................50
METHOD $/TEST
AGGREGATE PROPERTIES
Bulk density and voids in aggregates (AASHTO T19/ASTM C29/ CTM 212) ............50
Organic impurities in fine aggregate sand (AASHTO T21/ASTM C40/CTM 213) ....60
LA Rattler-smaller coarse aggregate <1.5” (AASHTO T96/ASTM C131/ CTM 211) ...200
LA Rattler-larger coarse aggregate 1-3” (AASHTO T96/ASTM C535/CTM 211) ....250
Apparent specific gravity of fine aggregate (AASHTO T84/ASTM C128/ CTM 208)...130
Specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate (ASTM C127/CTM 206)
>#4 retained .............................................................................................100
Clay lumps, friable particles (AASHTO T112/ASTM C142) ..................................175
Durability Index (AASHTO T210/ASTM D3744/CTM 229) ......................................200
Moisture content of aggregates by oven drying
(AASHTO T255/ASTM C566/CTM 226) ...............................................................40
Uncompacted void content of fine aggregate
(AASHTO T304/ ASTM C1252/ CTM 234) ..........................................................130
Percent of crushed particles (AASHTO T335/ASTM D5821/CTM 205) ..................135
Flat & elongated particles in coarse aggregate (ASTM D4791/CTM 235) ..........215
Cleanness value of coarse aggregate (CTM 227) ...........................................210
Soundness, magnesium (AASHTO T104/ASTM C88/CTM 214) ...........................225
Soundness, sodium (AASHTO T104/ASTM C88/CTM 214) ..................................650
MASONRY
Mortar cylinders 2” x 4” (ASTM C780) ...............................................................30
Grout prisms 3” x 6” (ASTM C1019) ...................................................................30
Masonry cores compression, ≤6” diameter - testing only (ASTM C42) .............40
Masonry core-shear, Title 24 - test only..........................................................80
Veneer bond strength, cost for each - 5 required (ASTM C482) ........................55
CMU compression to size 8” x 8” x 16” - 3 required (ASTM C140) ....................55
CMU moisture content, absorption & unit weight - 6 required (ASTM C140) .....50
CMU linear drying shrinkage (ASTM C426) .....................................................175
CMU grouted prisms compression test ≤8” x 8” x 16” (ASTM C1314) .............200
CMU grouted prisms compression test > 8” x 8” x 16”(ASTM C1314) .............250
BEARING PADS/PLATES AND JOINT SEAL
Elastomeric bearing pads (Caltrans SS 51-3) ...................................................990
Elastomeric bearing pad with hardness and compression tests
(Caltrans SS 51-3) ......................................................................................1,230
Type A Joint Seals (Caltrans SS 51-2) ...........................................................1,620
Type B Joint Seals (Caltrans SS 51-2) ...........................................................1,530
Bearing plates (A536) .....................................................................................720
C-13
Fee/2021-X www.leightongroup.com
FEE SCHEDULE
Page 3 of 4
EQUIPMENT LIST
METHOD $/TEST
STREET LIGHTS/SIGNALS
LED Luminaires / Signal Modules / Countdown Pedestrian Signal Face
Modules (Caltrans RSS 86)........................................................................1,300
SPRAY APPLIED FIREPROOFING
Unit weight (density, ASTM E605) ........................................................................60
REINFORCING STEEL AND PRESTRESSING STRANDS
Rebar tensile test, ≤ up to No. 11 (ASTM A370) ................................................65
Rebar tensile test, ≥ No. 14 & over (ASTM A370) ...........................................200
Rebar bend test, up to No. 11 (ASTM A370) ......................................................65
Rebar bend test, ≥ No. 14 & over (ASTM A370) ..............................................200
Resistance butt-welded hoops/bars, tensile test, ≤ up to No. 10 (CTM 670) ....65
Resistance butt-welded hoops/bars, tensile test, ≥ No. 11 & over (CTM 670) ...85
Mechanical rebar splice, tensile test, ≤ up to No. 11 (CTM 670).......................65
Mechanical rebar splice, slip test, ≤ up to No. 11 (CTM 670)............................40
Mechanical rebar splice, tensile test, ≥ No. 14 & over (CTM 670) ..................200
Mechanical rebar splice, slip test, ≥ No. 14 & over (CTM 670) .......................200
Headed rebar splice, tensile test, ≤ up to No. 11 (CTM 670) ............................65
Headed rebar splice, tensile test, ≥ No. 14 & over (CTM 670) .......................200
METHOD .........................................................................$/TEST
Epoxy coated rebar/dowel film thickness (coating) test (ASTM A775/A934) .......45
Epoxy coated rebar/dowel continuity (Holiday) test (ASTM A775/A934) .............65
Epoxy coated rebar flexibility/bend test, up to No. 11 (ASTM A775/A934) ..........45
Prestressing wire, tension (ASTM A416) .........................................................175
Sample preparation (cutting) .........................................................................50
FASTENERS / BOLTS / RODS
F3125 GR A307, A325 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, plain
(ASTM A370) .................................................................................................65
F3125 GR A307, A325 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter,
galvanized (ASTM A370) ...............................................................................75
A490 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, plain (ASTM A370) ................65
A490 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, galvanized (ASTM A370) ......75
A593 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, stainless steel (ASTM A370) ...65
F1554 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, plain (ASTM A370) ............100
F1554 Bolts, tensile test, ≤ up to 1-1/4” diameter, galvanized (ASTM A370) ...120
SAMPLE TRANSPORT
Pick-up & delivery (weekdays, per trip, <50 mile radius from Leighton office) ...90
ITEM $UNIT
1/4 inch Grab plates ................................................................................5 each
1/4 inch Tubing (bonded) ....................................................................0.55 foot
1/4 inch Tubing (single) ......................................................................0.35 foot
3/8 inch Tubing, clear vinyl ................................................................0.55 foot
4-Gas meter (RKI Eagle or similar)/GEM 2000 ...................................130 day
Air flow meter and purge pump (200 cc/min) .........................................50 day
Box of 24 soil drive-sample rings .........................................................120 box
Brass sample tubes ...............................................................................10 each
Caution tape (1000-foot roll) ..................................................................20 each
Combination lock or padlock .................................................................11 each
Compressed air tank and regulator .......................................................50 day
Concrete coring machine (≤6-inch-dia) ...............................................150 day
Consumables (gloves, rope, soap, tape, etc.) .......................................35 day
Core sample boxes ................................................................................11 each
Crack monitor ........................................................................................25 each
Cutoff saws, reciprocating, electric (Sawzall®) .....................................75 day
D-Meter Walking Floor Profiler ............................................................100 day
Disposable bailers .................................................................................12 each
Disposable bladders ..............................................................................10 each
Dissolved oxygen meter ........................................................................45 day
DOT 55-gallon containment drum with lid .............................................65 drum
Double-ring infiltrometer ......................................................................125 day
Dual-stage interface probe ....................................................................80 day
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer ..............................................................400 day
Generator, portable gasoline fueled, 3,500 watts ..................................90 day
Global Positioning System/Laser Range Finder ....................................80 day
Hand auger set ......................................................................................90 day
HDPE safety fence (≤100 feet) .............................................................40 roll
Horiba U-51 water quality meter ..........................................................135 day
Light tower (towable vertical mast) ......................................................150 day
Magnehelic gauge .................................................................................15 day
Manometer ............................................................................................25 day
Mileage (IRS Allowable) .................................................................... 0.585 mile
ITEM $UNIT
Moisture test kit (excludes labor to perform test, ASTM E1907) ...........60 test
Nuclear moisture and density gauge ....................................................88 day
Pachometer ...........................................................................................25 day
Particulate Monitor ...............................................................................125 day
pH/Conductivity/Temperature meter ......................................................55 day
Photo-Ionization Detector (PID) ...........................................................120 day
Pump, Typhoon 2 or 4 stage .................................................................50 day
QED bladder pump w/QED control box ...............................................160 day
Quire fee – Phase I only ......................................................................200 each
Resistivity field meter & pins ..................................................................50 day
Slip / threaded cap, 2-inch or 4-inch diameter, PVC Schedule 40 .........15 each
Slope inclinometer ...............................................................................200 day
Soil sampling T-handle (Encore) ...........................................................10 day
Soil sampling tripod ...............................................................................35 day
Stainless steel bailer ..............................................................................40 day
Submersible pump, 10 gpm, high powered Grundfos
2-inch with controller .......................................................................160 day
Submersible pump/transfer pump, 10-25 gpm ......................................50 day
Support service truck usage (well installation, etc.) .............................200 day
Survey/fence stakes ................................................................................8 each
Tedlar® bags .........................................................................................18 each
Traffic cones (≤25)/barricades (single lane) ..........................................50 day
Turbidity meter ......................................................................................70 day
Tyvek® suit (each) .................................................................................18 each
Vapor sampling box ...............................................................................55 day
Vehicle usage (carrying equipment) ......................................................20 hour
VelociCalc ..............................................................................................35 day
Visqueen (20 x 100 feet) .....................................................................100 roll
Water level indicator (electronic well sounder) <300 feet deep well ......60 day
ZIPLEVEL® ...........................................................................................15 day
Other specialized geotechnical and environmental testing & monitoring
equipment are available, and priced per site
C-14
Fee/2021-X www.leightongroup.com
FEE SCHEDULE
Page 4 of 4
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Expiration: This fee schedule is effective through
December 31, 2021 after which remaining work
will be billed at then-current rates.
Proposal Expiration: Proposals are valid for at
least 30 days, subject to change after 30 days;
unless otherwise stated in an attached proposal.
Prevailing Wages: Our fees for prevailing wage
work are based upon California prevailing wage
laws and wage determinations. Unless specifically
indicated in our proposal, costs for apprentice
are not included. If we are required to have an
apprentice on your project, additional fees will be
charged.
Overtime: Standard overtime rate is per
California Labor Law and is billed at 1.5 or 2 times
their hourly billing rate. Overtime rate for non-
exempt field personnel working on a Leighton
observed holiday is billed at 2 times their hourly
billing rate. Overtime rate for Prevailing wage
work is per the California Department of Industrial
Relations (DIR) determination and is multiplied at
1.5 to 2 times their hourly billing rate for overtime
and double-time, respectively.
Expert Witness Time: Expert witness deposition
and testimony will be charged at 2 times hourly
rates listed on the previous pages, with a minimum
charge of four hours per day.
Minimum Field Hourly Charges: For Field
Technicians, Special Inspectors or any on-site
(field) materials testing services:
4 hours: 4-hour minimum charge up to the first
four hours of work
8 hours: 8-hour minimum charge for over four
hours of work, up to eight hours.
Project time accrued includes portal to portal
travel time.
Insurance & Limitation of Liability: These rates
are predicated on standard insurance coverage
and a limit of Leighton’s liability equal to our total
fees for a given project.
Outside Direct Costs: Heavy equipment,
subcontractor fees and expenses, project-
specific permits and/or licenses, project-specific
supplemental insurance, travel, subsistence,
project-specific parking charges, shipping,
reproduction, and other reimbursable expenses
will be invoiced at cost plus 20%, unless billed
directly to and paid by client.
Invoicing: Invoices are rendered monthly,
payable upon receipt in United States dollars. A
service charge of 1½-percent per month will be
charged for late payment.
Client Disclosures: Client agrees to provide
all information in Client’s possession about
actual or possible presence of buried utilities and
hazardous materials on the project site, prior to
fieldwork, and agrees to reimburse Leighton for
all costs related to unanticipated discovery of
utilities and/or hazardous materials. Client is also
responsible for providing safe and legal access to
the project site for all Leighton field personnel.
Earth Material Samples: Quoted testing unit
rates are for soil and/or rock (earth) samples
free of hazardous materials. Additional costs will
accrue beyond these standard testing unit rates
for handling, testing and/or disposing of soil and/or
rock containing hazardous materials. Hazardous
materials will be returned to the site or the site
owner’s designated representative at additional
cost not included in listed unit rates. Standard
turn-around time for geotechnical-laboratory test
results is 10 working days. Samples will be stored
for 2 months, after which they will be discarded.
Prior documented notification is required if
samples need to be stored for a longer time. A
monthly storage fee of $10 per bag and $5 per
sleeve or tube will be applied. Quoted unit rates
are only for earth materials sampled in the United
States. There may be additional cost for handling
imported samples.
Construction Material Samples: After all
designated 28-day breaks for a given sample
set meet specified compressive or other client-
designated strength, all “hold” cylinders or
specimens will be automatically disposed of,
unless specified in writing prior to the 28-day
break. All other construction materials will be
disposed of after completion of testing and
reporting.
C-15
a | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T S E R V I C E S
Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
D-1
b | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
38+
city halls featuring council chambers,
board rooms, conference rooms, and highly customized spaces
40+
years of public sector
experience
350+
public projects in-and-around Los
Angeles county
75+
public maintenance and corporate
yards
Significant financial experience in the
form of assessments, cost estimating,
and proposed Financial Advisors
who have served several thousand
municipalities to fund public facilities
Stellar record of completing projectsunder budget& ahead ofschedule
Why Griffin Structures?
80+
public safety facilities includingemergency operations centers,
communication and dispatch centers,
and others
Dedicated team inclusive of
outreach advocate
Susan Harden, providing community outreach for significant civic center
projects, city and county-wide plans
150+
Plazas, pavilions, and parks including
sustainable and striking open space projects
D-2
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Police Services of Salinas
CONFIDENTIAL
California Civil Code §3426.1 (d); California Evidence Code § 1040 and § 1060;
California Government Code § 6254 (k); Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (4)
Do not release without redactions
County of Orange Civic Center
Table of Contents
1. Approach to Scope of Services 1
2. Organization & Staffing 4
3. Staff Qualifications & Experience 6
4. Project Schedule 26
5. Quality Control Plan 27
6. Acceptance of Conditions 28 High Desert Government Center
Stanton Corporate Yard
D-3
ii | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
September 29, 2021
30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: Request for Proposals for Project Management Services for the Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Project
Dear Mr. Waters and Evaluation Team,
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes requires a partner with the management, design and construction expertise, local and public relations
knowledge, communications proficiency, and creativity to complete the Civic Center project in a timely and cost-effective manner. We are
pleased to be your partner and to encourage creative, innovative, and engaging facilities which will serve as a nexus for your community.
Rancho Palos Verdes is a truly captivating, historically vibrant destination with an opportunity to build upon years of planning its civic
center and related iconic location. Incorporating a state-of-the-art civic center which houses not only a base of operations for City staff,
but provides a 21st century emergency operations center, public maintenance yard, and striking open plaza will be a complex endeavor.
Not to mention, the re-envisioning of the various historic elements on site including the Coast Guard bunker and missel silos as well as
being cognizant of and planning around the surrounding 60-acre beautiful nature preserve. Our team of handpicked professionals will
provide the City a clear path for developing this endeavor while protecting your investments from day one, utilizing our expertise in
managing similarly ambitious projects valued over $350 million publicly funded dollars.
Griffin Structures offers a well-rounded platform of experience aligned with the many diverse elements contained within the Civic
Center’s program. The team will be led by long-time Griffin Structures Senior Project Manager and Owner’s Representative, Robert
Godfrey. As one of our most seasoned public sector experts, we believe Robert Godfrey’s shared participation on both the Civic Center
and Ladera Linda Community Center and Park will create incredible efficiencies across both projects. These efficiencies will take multiple
forms and when coupled with Robert’s understanding of the City’s process and its procedural requirements, will offer significant value to
the City. Our team also includes dedicated Civic Development Expert, Korin Crawford, and our highly credentialed CFO, Mark Hoglund,
who are currently leading the Orange Civic Center, Rancho Cordova Civic Center, and Placer County Civic Center projects with support
from long-time Griffin partners, Financial Advisor, and Municipal Financial Advisor firms - DTA and Fieldman Rolapp Associates, who are
ready, willing, and able to immediately discuss unique revenue opportunities and funding options for the City. Dustin Alamo, Pre-Design
Manager and Facilities Master Planning expert is also included along with locally recognized Outreach Advocate, Susan Harden. We also
offer the services of nationally recognized specialty firms pertaining to Food Service Design and Move/Relocation Management.
To summarize, we offer the following key benefits to the City:
• A firm with deep “real estate roots”, offering unique entitlement, community engagements, financial and development expertise
which significantly differentiates Griffin Structures from other firms, and experience leading many of the state’s largest building
programs.
• A team with a dedicated Strategic Services division, offering the ability to engage in programming and master planning efforts, real
estate services, cost/schedule development, and much more.
• A collaborative, streamlined project delivery process to ultimately reduce your administrative costs and ensure timely delivery.
• Unparalleled experience with the public sector civic centers, emergency operations centers and public safety facilities, public
maintenance yards, parks, plazas, and open space projects.
• Direct engagement which courageously, creatively, and collaboratively ensures accountability for the City, directly supported by our
management team.
• Outreach advocacy to assist the City in gaining community consensus and public advocacy.
Griffin Structures takes great pride in providing both competitive pricing, highly qualified personnel and goes to extraordinary measures
to ask, “what is our true value-added proposition to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes?” The answer to this question is our people. We
bring a higher caliber of Owner’s Representative and Project Manager to our Clients - one that is trained as Architects and Contractors
but thinks as an Owner. One that protects your City throughout the design and construction process. This is our differentiator and the
meaning behind the Griffin Structures pledge to provide excellence in project delivery.
We look forward to serving you,
Roger Torriero, President & CEO
C: (949) 412-9000 | E: rtorriero@griffinholdings.net
1 Technology Drive, Building i, Suite 829 | Irvine, CA | 949.497.9000 | griffinstructures.com D-4
II
iii | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Type of Organization
Corporation
Officers
Conflict of Interest
Griffin Structures has no conflicts of interests to disclose
Present Staff + Subconsultants
Please refer to our organizational chart on page 4 of our proposal
Organization Standing
Roger Torriero
Principal-In-Charge, President & CEO
(949) 412-9000
rtorriero@griffinholdings.net
Jon Hughes, CCM, DBIA
Executive Vice President & Project
Executive
(949) 497-9000 x208
jhughes@griffinstructures.com
Dustin Alamo, CCM, LEED AP, DRE BROKER
Vice President of Pre-Construction &
Pre-Design Manager
(949) 497-9000 x263
dalamo@griffinstructures.com
Mark Hoglund
COO & CFO
(949) 497-9000 x203
mhoglund@griffinstructures.com
Kelly Boyle
Executive Vice President
(949) 497-9000 x202
kboyle@griffinstructures.com
Firm Contact Information
1 Technology Drive
Building i, Suite 829
Irvine, CA 92618
Primary Contact Information
Jon Hughes, CCM, DBIA
Executive Vice President &
Project Executive
(949) 497-9000 x208
jhughes@griffinstructures.com
D-5
Jon W. McClintock, CPA
P .o. Box 15955
Newport Beaeh, CA 92659
Callfornla CPA #67088
I have reviewed the balance sheet and income statement of Grlffin Structures, Inc. and I am hereby
confirming the following:
l. Griffin Structures, Jnc. had a Profit after Tax Margin ofatleast3% forthe last twoyears(2019
and 2020).
2. Griffin Structures, Inc. had a Debt to Equity Ratio lower than 0.6 as of 12/31/20.
3. Griffin Structures, Inc. had a cash Ratio (Cash and cash equivalents/current Uabilltiesl greater
than 0.5 as of 12/31/20.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ca 11 me at (949) 290--2451.
Sincerely,
Jon w. Mcclintock, CPA
iv | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Addendum 1 Acknowledgment
PAGE 1 OF 1
August 31, 2021
ADDENDUM NO. 1
TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CIVIC CENTER PROJECT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
The following changes (revisions, additions, and/or deletions) as noted below, are hereby
incorporated and made a part of the Project Management Services For Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Project request for proposals. Portions of the RFP, not specifically mentioned in
the Addendum, remain the same. All trades affected shall be fully advised of these revisions,
deletions, and additions.
This Addendum forms a part of the request for proposals for the Project Management Services
For Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Project and modifies the original request for proposals.
Each proposer shall be responsible for ascertaining, prior to submitting a proposal, that it has
received all issued Addenda and shall ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM ON
THE PROPOSER’S CERTIFICATION, attached. A proposer’s failure to address the
requirements of this addendum or failure to acknowledge the receipt of this addendum may
result in that proposal being rejected.
Note the following changes and/or additions to the Project Management Services For Rancho
Palos Verdes Civic Center Project request for proposals. The proposer shall execute the
Certification at the end of this addendum and shall attach all pages of this addendum to the
proposal.
The Mandatory pre-proposal meeting and site tour has been rescheduled from
September 1, 2021 at 2pm to September 8, 2021 at 2pm.
End of Addendum No. 1
Any questions regarding this Addendum should be directed to Senior Administrative
Analyst Matt Waters, at (310) 544-5218 or by email at mattw@rpvca.gov.
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
D-6
C ITVO RANCHO PALOS VERD S
PUBLC WORKS PARTMENT
v | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
PAGE 2 OF 2
PROPOSER'S CERTIFICATION
I acknowledge receipt of the foregoing Addendum No. 1 and accept all conditions
contained therein.
___________________________
Proposal’s Signature
___________________________ ____________________
By Date
Please sign above and include this signed addendum in the proposal package. Failure to do so may result in that proposal being rejected.
Roger Torriero, Principal-In-Charge,
President & Chief Executive Officer 9/29/21
D-7GRIFFIN
.STRUCTURE!!
vi | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
PAGE 1 OF 1
September 9, 2021
ADDENDUM NO. 2
TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CIVIC CENTER PROJECT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
The following changes (revisions, additions, and/or deletions) as noted below, are hereby
incorporated and made a part of the Project Management Services For Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Project request for proposals. Portions of the RFP, not specifically mentioned in
the Addendum, remain the same. All trades affected shall be fully advised of these revisions,
deletions, and additions.
This Addendum forms a part of the request for proposals for the Project Management Services
For Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Project and modifies the original request for proposals.
Each proposer shall be responsible for ascertaining, prior to submitting a proposal, that it has
received all issued Addenda and shall ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM ON
THE PROPOSER’S CERTIFICATION, attached. A proposer’s failure to address the
requirements of this addendum or failure to acknowledge the receipt of this addendum may
result in that proposal being rejected.
Note the following changes and/or additions to the Project Management Services For Rancho
Palos Verdes Civic Center Project request for proposals. The proposer shall execute the
Certification at the end of this addendum and shall attach all pages of this addendum to the
proposal.
1) Sign-in sheets from the mandatory pre-proposal meeting and site tour on
September 8, 2021 are attached.
2) Follow-up Response to question from 9-8-21 pre-submittal tour regarding
whether a sub-contractor could submit a proposal. The question was in
reference to RFP section VI-1: “Only one proposal per firm will be
considered.”
Response: While the use of subcontractors is both allowable and expected for a
project of this size and scope, each proposal should be comprehensive and must
be submitted by a single prime company.
.
End of Addendum No. 2
Any questions regarding this Addendum should be directed to Senior Administrative
Analyst Matt Waters, at (310) 544-5218 or by email at mattw@rpvca.gov.
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
Addendum 2 Acknowledgment
D-8
C ITYO RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT
GRIFFIN
.STRUCTURE!!
vii | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
PAGE 2 OF 2
PROPOSER'S CERTIFICATION
I acknowledge receipt of the foregoing Addendum No. 2 and accept all conditions
contained therein.
___________________________
Proposal’s Signature
___________________________ ____________________
By Date
Please sign above and include this signed addendum in the proposal package. Failure to do so may result in that proposal being rejected.
9/29/21
Roger Torriero, Principal-In-Charge,
President & Chief Executive Officer
D-9GRIFFIN
.STRUCTURE!!
viii | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“Griffin’s staff consistently provided
outstanding professional services and was
instrumental in completing each project
ahead of schedule and under budget. Griffin
has always illustrated the desire to complete
their jobs to a very high level of professional
standards and have always taken their
fiduciary duties very seriously.”
- City of Hesperia 1. Approach to Scope of ServicesD-10
1 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ Civic Center project is an ambitious, complex endeavor that requires
a team with the unique experience necessary to deliver a successful project. Griffin Structures
understands that the City has several key considerations and constraints which have impacted this
project in the past, requiring a skilled team of specialists. For this reason, we have assembled a team
that possesses the unique skill sets to address the unique circumstances associated with this project.
Specifically, we have identified the following as crucial to the success of the project.
Program Validation
The program for this project is complex and multifaceted. To turn the existing program (which we
recognize is undergoing an additional review by the City) and conform it into a single master plan will
require a team that understands the nuances of programming for each facility type and one that has the
recent and relevant experience to help guide the City toward a program that satisfies the needs of the
City. Griffin Structures has that expertise and will guide the program validation process accordingly.
Site Analysis
The key to the success of this project is to evaluate the site, specifically as it pertains to the constraints
that are currently in place for the two lots. We recognize that specific DOJ restrictions for the “red”
area restrict its use to public safety. We also recognize the diverse set of goals associated with this
project and that the current lot lines may not be conducive to the campus. Griffin has extensive
experience in real estate and will help the City evaluate the highest and best use of existing properties
and wil support the City in any lot line adjustments, land swaps, and zoning redistribution.
Financial Analysis + Supporting Consultants
This effort will include financial advisors who are specifically trained and experienced in guiding
municipalities in their financial affairs. For that reason, we have teamed with DTA and Fieldman
Rolapp to provide the necessary insights and guidance for this project. Together with our program
management experience and real estate experience, we believe this team has the experience to assist
the City in evaluating its options to arrive at a comprehensive program that brings the highest value.
Additionally, we have included Webb Food Service to guide this aspect of the program/design as it
relates to a possible café or food service component as the Master Plan is developed. We also offer
the services of Move/Relocation Management firm, John Barry & Associates who will execute the
relocation plan to offer uninterrupted operations as we look towards implementation..
Program and Construction Management
While pursuing the items above, it will be essential that the City maintains a single point of contact for
the project that serves as a clearinghouse for all decisions and coordination. It will also be critical that
this person has an intimate understanding of the City, its policies and procedures, and even insight into
other important projects throughout the City, not the least of which is the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park. We believe there is a real and tangible benefit of having the same team serving the
City on both projects as we understand there are vital elements envisioned for this project that will be
transferred from the existing Ladera Linda Community Center and Park. By having a single point of
contact that is intimately involved in both projects, we believe the City will benefit from economies of
scale and continuity within the City’s overall capital improvements plan. With these components and
an intimate understanding of what it takes to work adjacent to a nature preserve, we are confident the
Griffin team has the requisite skills and experience for this project.
1. Approach to Scope of Services
D-11~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
Project Process Map
Project
Kickoff
Comprehensive
Project
Development Plan
Delivery Method
Decision
RFP for A&E
Partner Master Plan
Development Design Process Construction
Process Occupancy
Assess Funding
Potential
Assess Revenue
Potential
(Service, Tax, Etc.)
Delivery Method
Consultation
Initiate Outreach
Campaign
Project
Partnership
Discussion
Confirm Project
Opportunities &
Constraints
Project Quality
Assurance Plan
Funding
Considerations
Schedule
Considerations
Risk
Considerations
Program
Verification
CCAC /
Community
Outreach
Project
Partnership
Integration
Budget &
Schedule
Development
CCAC /
Community
Outreach
Project
Partnership
Integration
Permits &
Approvals
Budget &
Schedule
Development
CCAC /
Community
Outreach
Budget &
Schedule
Management
RFI & Change
Order
Management
Closeout
Warranty /
Training
City Staff &
CCAC Integration
Scope & Legal
Approval
Local, State &
Federal
Compliance
Highest & Best
Use of Site
Surveys:
HazMat, Topo, &
Geotechnical
Project Quality
Assurance Plan
Local, State &
Federal
Compliance
Bid for Construction
(Timing Dependent
on Project Delivery)
2 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S D-12
r
\.
II
r " r
\.
r
'I
~
"I
~
(====)
( __ )
GRIFFIN
\TRUCHIRl\
3 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Question: Given that these building and sites have so much flexibility in program and potential use, how will our team ensure
the City maximizes its investment and achieves the best outcome for its residents?
Answer: Our team has been specifically curated to engage individuals within our organization as well as long-time partner
firms to guide the City in this exact issue. From our programming specialists who will review the City’s currently refined space
requirements and identify opportunities for maximization; to our pre-design specialists who will aid in developing scope for
enhanced flexibility from the future partnering A&E team; to our robust financial advisors who will review and test program
options to project revenues, costs, debt service strategies, tax opportunities, and more; to our outreach advocates who will engage
and listen to your stakeholders and community to integrate their interests into the project; and finally our project management
group who will oversee the entire process to ensure the City interests are always protected by providing reliable service, clear
communication, and successful implementation.
Question: What are the keys to developing and implementing a successful campus program?
Answer: When developing and implementing a program of this size and diversity, it will be critical to develop overarching
guidelines pertaining to program and project design, followed by the prioritization of projects based on need, funding availability,
and to some extent, community interest. These guidelines will act as the benchmark against which we measure progress and
goal achievement. Additionally, this prioritization will dictate the initial master schedule - informing all due diligence and design
efforts, ultimately providing the framework for the construction plan.
Q: How do you implement a successful campus program while maintaining site access and public services?
Answer: The construction phasing will be determined to mitigate the impact on City operations and public access by those doing
business with the City or utilizing its recreational amenities. The City will want to maintain a “happy campus” where it is clear
a project will occur, including the relocation of services and access, navigating the site, and providing reliable access for the
Contractor, or Contractor(s), building the facilities. It is important to note that the topography of this site may present access
challenges throughout the construction phase, which our team will immediately provide resolutions for.
Question: As the City seeks to redevelop this site, what significant challenges may be encountered?
Answer: Given our experience with developing similar project sites, the unique history of the civic center site as a World War II
facility creates unique challenges as it pertains to environmental site assessment. The cost for demolition versus reuse will need
to be weighed based upon the levels of mitigation and remediation which may need to be performed. In addition, the desire to
reuse the missile silos presents a unique challenge to ensuring public accessibility of these spaces – all tasks for which we have
already begun to assess and develop solutions.
Question: How will stakeholder engagement inform the planning of the Civic Center?
Answer: Stakeholder engagement and consensus building will be paramount for this project. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has
a very involved, informed, and vocal constituency. They will want a Civic Center which represents their City while maintaining
its proper context within the community landscape. We are ready to leverage participation in City-sponsored events, social
media, web platforms, e-newsletters, and more. We are committed to developing a project which achieves consensus from your
community at large.
Value-Adding Strategies, Innovations & Strategic Considerations
We have utilized a page from Staff Qualifications to include an additional page for this section.
D-13~GRIFFIN
~\IR,U(;llll\l~
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“Griffin has served as a valuable partner in
the both the Police Services Headquarters
and El Gabilan Library project, representing
a historic event in our City’s progress toward
a new renaissance era”
- City of Salinas 2. Organization & StaffingD-14
4 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
2. Organization & Staffing
Our proposed team shares a long history of successful partnerships and is
comprised of leading Owner’s Representatives, Program and Construction
Managers specializing in the development of leading civic centers and
administrative complexes, libraries, community centers, public safety
facilities, parks, and recreational centers.
The project team will be managed by:
• Roger Torriero, Principal-In-Charge, and Project Executive Jon Hughes,
providing oversight to;
• Project Manager Robert Godfrey, who will manage the entirety of the
project and serve as the single point-of-contact;
• Assistant Project Manager, Erin Jones, to support Robert Godfrey from
pre-design to construction completion;
The project team will also be supported by our wealth of internal resources,
including;
• Mark Hoglund, CFO, will share his 40+ years as an experienced financial
advisor for countless development projects;
• Dustin Alamo, Pre-Design Manager, to support pre-design efforts as we
confirm the site, program, and plan;
• Korin Crawford, Civic Development Expert, offering advice and
recommendations on financing and development approaches, including,
but not limited to P3, Traditional, and Design-Build;
• David Taussig, Financial Advisor, to provide financing and funding
analysis, financial modeling, revenue forecasting, and public-private
financing options;
• James V. Fabian, Municipal Financial Advisor, offering financing and
funding analysis, financial modeling, revenue forecasting, and public-
private financing options;
• Susan Harden, Outreach Advocate;
• Jay Helekar, Cost Estimator;
Not only have our proposed Griffin Structures team members worked
collaboratively to deliver several 21st-century public facilities throughout
their careers, but the Griffin/development team, as well as Susan Harden,
possess vast experience working with our firm.
Our proposed Project Manager and key staff will remain assigned to this
project through completion of the Scope of Services.
Roger Torriero
Principal-In-Charge,
President & CEO
Griffin Structures
Jon Hughes
CCM, DBIA
Project
Executive
Griffin Structures
Mark Hoglund
CPA
Chief Financial &
Operating Officer
Griffin Structures
Webb Food
Service Design
Food & Beverage
Consultant
John Barry &
Associates
Move / Relocation
Management
Dustin Alamo
CCM, LEED AP, DRE
BROKER
Pre-Design Manager
Griffin Structures
Korin Crawford
Civic Development
Expert
Griffin Structures
Jay Helekar
LEED AP
Cost Estimator
Griffin Structures
Susan Harden
LEED AP
Outreach Advocate
Circlepoint
David Taussig
AICP, Series 54 & 50
Financial Advisor
DTA
James V. Fabian
MSRB, SEC
Municipal Financial
Advisor
Fieldman Rolapp
Primary Contact
Erin Jones
LEED AP
Assistant Project
Manager
Griffin Structures
Robert Godfrey
CCM
Project Manager
Griffin Structures
D-15~GRIFFIN
~STRUCTUR E!>
5 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Involvement & Availability
Employee & Title % of Involvement Availability
Roger Torriero
PIC, President & CEO 10%Located from our corporate headquarters in Irvine, Roger provides
leadership to all projects as-needed.
Mark Hoglund, CPA
COO & CFO As-needed Located from our corporate headquarters in Irvine, Mark provides
contractual and financial oversight to all projects as-needed.
Jon Hughes, CCM, DBIA
Project Executive 20%Located from our corporate headquarters in Irvine, Jon provides
leadership to all projects as-needed.
Robert Godfrey, CCM
Project Manager 40% - 60%
Located from our Irvine office, Robert is currently serving as the
lead for the Ladera Linda project and will manage these projects
simultaneously.
Erin Jones, LEED AP
Assistant Project Manager
As-needed, 100%
during construction
Located from our Irvine office, Erin Jones will provide support to
Robert Godfrey and team.
Dustin Alamo, CCM, LEED AP
Pre-Design Manager
As-needed, 40%
during pre-design
phase
Located from our headquarters in Irvine, Dustin will provide
support through the pre-design phase as-needed.
Korin Crawford
Civic Development Expert As-needed A lead development/Public-Private Partnership expert, Korin will
provide support to the project as-needed.
DTA
Financial Advisor As-needed Located from Newport Beach, DTA’s time will be properly allocated
to ensure your needs are properly served.
Fieldman Rolapp & Associates
Municipal Financial Advisor As-needed Located from Irvine, Fieldman Rolapp’s time will be properly
allocated to ensure your needs are properly served.
Susan Harden, LEED AP
Outreach Advocate As-needed Located in Orange County, Susan’s time will be properly allocated
to ensure your needs are properly served.
Jay Helekar, LEED AP
Cost Estimator As-needed Located from our corporate headquarters in Irvine, Jay’s time will
be properly allocated to ensure your needs are properly served.
Webb Food Service Design
Food & Beverage Consultant As-needed Located from Anaheim, Webb Food Service Design’s time will be
properly allocated to ensure your needs are properly served.
John Barry & Associates
Move/Relocation Management As-needed Located from Newport Beach, JBA’s time will be properly allocated
to ensure your needs are properly served.
Griffin Structures tailors its deployment of resources to bring the highest value to the client. Accordingly, each team member is
utilized to bring the maximum benefit to the project while also not overburdening the client with excessive fees. By taking this
approach we are able to mobilize maximum support when needed, and then reduce that commitment as project circumstances
dictate. To that end, below is a summary of our labor deployment percentages by team member.
D-16~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“The Griffin Structures team created a
masterful plan. We needed cost efficient
buildings. Security is paramount for the
employees and this project is designed
through technology. The cost savings are
truly tremendous through the efficiency
and design.”
- County of Orange 3. Staff Qualifications & ExperienceD-17
6 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
3. Staff Qualifications & Experience
Civic Centers
Throughout the vast portfolio of our firm, we have delivered
multiple leading civic centers for the County of Orange
($346M), County of San Bernardino ($260M), City of
Watsonville ($60M), City of Hesperia ($50M), City of Rancho
Santa Margarita ($20M), and others. These civic centers
contained not only city halls and council chambers, but also
police and fire departments, emergency operations centers,
libraries, community centers, and striking open pavilions
/ open space. These projects have earned designations
nationally as well as statewide, including designations from
LEED, AIA, APWA, ASCE, CCM, and countless others.
Given our unique ability to provide early programming and
strategic services, our team coordinates with our clients
and their neighboring communities early to provide civic
centers that capture the unique ambitions of each City, design
preferences, and incorporated amenities while integrating
a comprehensive outreach campaign. Civic centers are the
nexus of the community and must be well designed and
constructed to withstand the test of time and allow flexibility
for the future.
Existing Military Site Considerations
We understand the project site currently houses a military
bunker. Our team at Griffin Structures possesses great
experience in mitigating similar circumstances, having
completed the Buena Park Community Center atop a former
bomb shelter, as well as the Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena,
and Between the Rinks Restaurant which also stands atop a
former military site.
1
1. County of Orange Civic Center
2. Hesperia Civic Center
3. High Desert Government Center
4. Watsonville Civic Center
5. Rancho Cordova Civic Center
6. SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union Headquarters
7. West Hollywood City Hall
8. La Cañada Flintridge City Hall
9. Rancho Mission Viejo Esencia Sports Park
10. Lake Forest Sports Park & Recreation Center
2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
D-18
7 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Parks + Pavilions + Open Space
Griffin Structure’s open space, pavilion, and park portfolio is
unparalleled. With our project management, development,
and early program management team, our team has overseen
the delivery of public sector open space projects directly
aligned with your project program. With registered landscape
architects within our ranks, we can offer a wealth of internal
resources unlike our competitors, with a diverse range
of experience managing unique site considerations (i.e.,
hazardous materials sites/former military bases, tight site
constraints, vocal neighborhoods, adjacent shorelines, and
countless others).
Public Safety
With over 75+ programmed and constructed public safety
facilities in our portfolio, Griffin Structures has earned the
reputation as a preferred Owner’s Representative, Project,
Program, and Construction Manager for facilities that keep
communities safe. From master planned police headquarters,
fire stations, emergency operations centers, training facilities,
to $95M communication centers, our clients run the gamut
from the County of San Bernardino, Orange County Fire
Authority, City of Salinas, Buena Park, Tustin, Manhattan
Beach, Westminster, and several others. We understand public
safety, unique design considerations, and can offer a variety
of support in determining ideal operations for your City with
our wealth of internal resources, technical architect partners,
multi-disciplinary consultant relationships, and effective
outreach advocacy.
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
15. Tustin Water Administration Building, Corporate
Yard & Emergency Operations Center
16. Stanton Corporate Yard
17. Westminster Corporate Yard
18. Visalia Emergency Communications Center
19. High Desert Public Safety Operations Center
20. Westminster Police Department Headquarters
11. Marina Community Sailing Center & Park
12. Quail Hill Community Center
13. Environmental Nature Center & Preschool
14. Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena & Between the
Rinks Restaurant
D-19~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
8 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Emergency Operations Centers
A unique aspect to the vast portfolio of our firm is
our extensive experience with Emergency Operations
Centers, dispatch, and communication facilities and Public
Maintenance Yards. These are two project types, and others,
that we provide leadership in the industry. We understand
Emergency Operations Centers that are shared by cities and
Public Maintenance Yards which house diverse operations
intended to provide nation-leading service to the community.
Highlights include:
• Inglewood Emergency Operations Center
• Tustin Water Administration Building, Corporate Yard &
Emergency Operations Center
• Westminster Police Department Headquarters
• Buena Park Police Department Headquarters
• Hesperia Police Department
Master Planning
Griffin Structures possesses a dedicated in-house master
planning team unlike our competitors. Our teams are
professionally trained as architects and builders, but think as
owners first. We believe this intimate separation is integral as
to ensure the City and community’s interested are protected
before our own.
We have completed hundreds of master plans, studies, and
assessments. Highlights include:
• County of Orange, Strategic Facilities Plan & Civic Center
• County of San Bern., Downtown Campus Master Plan
• City of Hesperia, Civic Center
• City of Rancho Cordova, Civic Center
• Placer County, Civic Center
Nature Preserve Experience + Coordination
At Griffin Structures, we possess a deep understanding of the
sensitivities and considerations associated with developing
projects within and adjacent to significant nature preserves.
We have on several occassions completed similar projects,
including the Environmental Nature Center and Preschool,
300-acre Cornerstone Development in Henderson Nevada,
Lake Gregory Dam Rehabilitation, and many others. Robert
Godfrey, proposed Project Manager, will bring this experience
to bear for the City to ensure your project is completed on
task with special attention paid to your historically rich and
vibrant nature preserve.
High Desert Public Safety Operations Center
Buena Park Police Department Headquarters
Rancho CordovaCivic Center
We have utilized a page from Staff Qualifications to include an additional page for this section.
D-20~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
9 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
As our Principal-In-Charge, Roger focuses on the delivery of complex projects for
the private and public sectors, including civic centers, city hall and administrative
complexes, open space/plazas, and public safety facilities including emergency
operation centers.
As President and CEO, Roger will provide valuable insight to the project team,
ensuring your scheduling and financial expectations are met throughout the
duration of our services.
Education
Master of Architecture, Accademia di Belli Arti di Firenze Italia
Bachelor of Architecture, Syracuse University, New York
Certification
California Contractor License #793600, Class B
Years of Experience
42
Roger Torriero
Principal-In-Charge,
President & CEO
Representative Experience
Roger has led all Griffin projects since the firm’s inception
County of Orange Civic Center, CA
Watsonville Civic Center, CA
Hesperia Civic Plaza & High Desert
Govt. Center, San Bernardino, CA
La Canada Flintridge City Hall, CA
West Hollywood City Hall, CA
Santa Clarita Canyon Country
Community Center, CA
Quail Hill Comm. Center, Irvine, CA
Vernola Park & Comm. Center, CA
The Trust for Public Land Parks, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center, CA
Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena &
Restaurant, Irvine, CA
Lake Forest Sports Park & Rec. Ctr., CA
Tustin Water Admin.. Building,
Corporate Yard & EOC, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
County of San Bernardino, Valley
Communication Center, CA
Visalia Emergency Comm. Ctr., CA
Westminster Corporate Yard, CA
Qualifications
Chief Financial and Operating Officer for Griffin Structures, Mark has structured
many complex real estate deals and transactions, from arrangements with
investment partners to nuanced “P3” structures. He has provided extensive
expertise, gained through decades of experience in both the private and public
sectors.
As COO/CFO, Mark will provide contractual and financial oversight to the team
as-needed.
Education
Master of Business Administration, Finance, Real Estate and Public Policy, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Bachelor of Science, McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia
Certification
Certified Public Accountant
Years of Experience
40
Mark Hoglund
CPA
CFO & COO
Representative Experience
Mark has provided oversight to all Griffin projects since the firm’s inception
County of Orange Civic Center, CA
Watsonville Civic Center, CA
Hesperia Civic Plaza & High Desert
Govt. Center, San Bernardino, CA
La Canada Flintridge City Hall, CA
West Hollywood City Hall, CA
Santa Clarita Canyon Country
Community Center, CA
Quail Hill Comm. Center, Irvine, CA
Vernola Park & Comm. Center, CA
The Trust for Public Land Parks, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center, CA
Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena &
Restaurant, Irvine, CA
Lake Forest Sports Park & Rec. Ctr., CA
Tustin Water Admin.. Building,
Corporate Yard & EOC, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
County of San Bernardino, Valley
Communication Center, CA
Visalia Emergency Comm. Ctr., CA
Westminster Corporate Yard, CA
D-21~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
10 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
Jon Hughes’ career spans some of the region’s most prestigious properties in
Southern California. His experience and skills with program and construction
management tools and processes have enabled him to deliver winning results
on every project. Jon’s resume highlights include newly constructed, expanded,
or renovated newly constructed, expanded, or renovated civic centers, city hall
and administrative complexes, open space/plazas, and public safety facilities
including emergency operation centers. Jon’s construction management
experience includes pre-construction services, bid review, contract negotiations,
safety protocols, site evaluation, quality control, budgetary controls, change order
review, materials acquisition and supply chain management, schedule review and
enforcement, site staging, off-sites and grading, inter-contractor coordination,
punch list, and turnover.
Jon Hughes
CCM, DBIA
Project Executive
Education
Bachelor of Science, Philosophy and History, Westmont College
Certification
Certified Construction Manager (CCM)
Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) Associate
California Contractor License #793600, Class A
Affiliations
NAVFAC and US Army Corps Construction Quality Management (CQM) Program
Construction Management Association of America, Member
Years of Experience
28
Representative Experience
County of Orange Civic Center
Hesperia Civic Plaza (incl: library, public safety, city hall), CA
High Desert Government Center (incl: library, public safety, city hall), CA
La Cañada Flintridge City Hall, CA
West Hollywood City Hall, CA
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union Headquarters, Tustin, CA
Santa Clarita Canyon Country Community Center, CA
Quail Hill Community Center, Irvine, CA
Esencia Sports Park, Rancho Mission Viejo, CA
Rialto Frisbie Park Expansion, CA
Vernola Park Expansion & Community Center, Jurupa Valley, CA
The Trust for Public Land Parks, Los Angeles, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center, CA
Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena & Between the Rinks Restaurant, Irvine, CA
Lake Forest Sports Park & Recreation Center, CA
Linc Housing, SIPA Headquarters & HiFi Collective, Los Angeles, CA
Tustin Water Admin. Building, Corporate Yard & Emergency Ops. Center, CA
Pomona Water Resources Headquarters & Yard, CA
Westminster Corporate Yard, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
Buena Park Fire Station No.61, CA
County of San Bernardino, Valley Communication Center, CA
Visalia Emergency Communications Center, CA
Cathedral City Fire Station No.411, CA
Tustin Fire Station No.37, CA
+ Jon has served on all Griffin Structures projects included in our response
As Project Executive, Jon is responsible for overseeing the
overall lifecycle of the project.
D-22
11
~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTU RE!!
11 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
Robert Godfrey brings 20 years of combined experience in Project Management
and Owner’s Representation from pre-design to construction completion.
He has been involved during all phases of development and construction.
His responsibilities have entailed, public and stakeholder outreach, contract
negotiations, budgetary/scheduling controls, managing entitlement and plan
check processes, obtaining building permits and coordinating inspections, and
generating punch lists and project closeout.
Robert has a proven record of project management involving effective
communication with design team members, coordinating consultants, vendors
and contractors - all to assure the client’s goals and objectives are achieved.
Robert Godfrey
CCM
Project Manager
Education
Bachelor of Science, Management, The George Institute of Technology
Certification
Certified Construction Manager (CCM)
Affiliations
Construction Management Association of America, Member
Years of Experience
20
Representative Experience
La Cañada Flintridge City Hall, CA
West Hollywood City Hall, CA
Santa Clarita Canyon Country Community Center, CA
Quail Hill Community Center, Irvine, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center, CA
Linc Housing, SIPA Headquarters & HiFi Collective, Los Angeles, CA
Vernola Park Expansion & Community Center, Jurupa Valley, CA
Buena Park Navigation Center, CA
Jordan Downs Housing Redevelopment, CA
MidPen Shirley Chilsom Educator Housing, San Francisco, CA
LANLT Wishing Tree Park, Los Angeles, CA
Lawndale Community Center, CA
The Trust for Public Land Parks, Los Angeles, CA
As Project Manager, Robert will be responsible for the
day-to-day management of the project.
• South Victoria Park
• Patton Street Park
• Carlton Way Park
• Aliso Creek & Los Angeles River
Confluence Park
• Bradley Green Alley
• Monitor Avenue / Serenity Park
• Benito Juarez Park
• Zamora Park
• Quincy Jones Park
We are proposing Robert Godfrey for this project amidst the recently awarded Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park. We see this as an incredible advantage for the city to streamline two projects
simultaneously with direct access to one Senior OR/PM to serve as an extension of staff, protecting your
investments from day one. As one of our most sought after project managers, Robert will guide both
projects simultaneously given his stellar record to manage simultaneously complex, high-profile projects.
Robert Godfrey is energetic, extremely capable, and possesses the exact management expertise required to
deliver a project of this size and scope.
D-23
11
~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTU RE!!
12 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
Dustin serves as the Vice President of Preconstruction Services for Griffin
Structures, Inc. His primary responsibilities include the executive management
of all needs assessment and master planning projects ranging by facility type,
including civic centers, city hall and administrative complexes, open space/
plazas, and public safety facilities including emergency operation centers, and
others. In addition, Dustin is skilled at developing long-term facility plans (ranging
from $10M to $300M) which incorporate future space requirements, phasing
considerations, and capital funding mechanisms such as bonds, repositioning real
estate assets, and public private partnerships (P3). With a formal background in
architecture, Dustin is able to provide architectural programs, site plans, floor
plans, elevations, and technical detailing.
Dustin Alamo
CCM, LEED AP, DRE 01930629
Pre-Design Manager
Education
Bachelor of Architecture, University of Colorado, Boulder
Certification
State of California Licensed Real Estate Broker
Certified Construction Manager (CCM)
LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP)
Affiliations
U.S. Green Building Council, Member
Construction Management Association of America, Member
Rancho Palos Verdes Corp. Yard, CA
County of Orange Civic Center, CA
Hesperia Civic Plaza, CA
Covina Civic Center, CA
Newport Beach Civic Center, CA
Brea Civic Center, CA
Rancho Santa Margarita Civic Ctr., CA
High Desert Government Center, CA
Tustin Water Administration Building,
Corporate Yard & EOC, CA
High Desert Public Safety Operations
Center, CA
Lake Forest Civic Center, CA
Visalia Emergency Communications
Center, CA
Buena Park FS No.61 & EOC, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
Hesperia Police Dept. & EOC, CA
Cathedral City FS No.411, CA
Stanton Corporate Yard, CA
Westminster Corporate Yard, CA
Pomona Water Resources
Headquarters & Yard, CA
Dustin has provided Facilities Master
Plans for over 100+ public clients, many
of which included civic centers, city
halls, public safety, parks, pavilions,
and maintenance facilities. Dustin is
also our resident Corporate Yard expert,
having provided over 75 programmed
yards from a single strategic initiatives
to delivered, state-of-the-art operations
facilities.
As Pre-Design, Dustin offers insight and support during
the earliest phases of project development.
Representative Experience
Strategic Consulting
• Organizational Assessment
• Operational Assessments
• Needs Assessment
• Space Efficiency Studies
• Space Planning
• Strategic Planning & Programming
• Facility Assessment
• Benchmarking Studies
• Business / Institutional Visioning
• Business Planning & Feasibility
Studies
• Process Improvement / Technology
Integration
• Organizational Studies
• Managed Outsourcing
• Capital Assessment
• Campus Master Planning
• Phasing Analysis
• Implementation Strategies
• Relocation Planning & Management
• Portfolio Utilization Analysis
• Sustainability
Real Estate Consulting
• Analysis of Real Estate
• Lease / Buy / Build Analysis
• Property Acquisition and Disposition
• Lease Evaluation and Negotiation
• Portfolio Evaluation and
Management
• Portfolio/Lease Administration
• Development Consulting
D-24
11
~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTU RE!!
13 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
Throughout her career, Erin Jones has managed a wide range of design and
construction projects across the state, including $250M+ bond programs
An extension of client staff, Erin Jones is a communicative and pragmatic
professional, protecting client investments through her thorough evaluation and
oversight of all programming and construction related items.
As Assistant Project Manager, Erin will provide support to Robert Godfrey and the
City throughout the course of the project.
Education
Bachelor of Science, Construction Engineering Management, California State University, Long Beach
Bachelor of Arts, Studio Art, University of California, Davis
Certification + Training
Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design, Accredited
Professional (LEED AP)
Years of Experience
16
Erin Jones
LEED AP
Construction Manager
Representative Experience
Good Shepherd Women’s Village, Los
Angeles, CA
Shea Symmetry Apartments,
Northridge, CA
Huntington Library Chinese Garden
Expansion, Huntington Beach, CA
NBC Universal Area 71, Los Angeles, CA
Facey Canyon Country Medical Office
Building, Santa Clarita, CA
Fox Studios Production Office
Building, Los Angeles, CA
William H. Hannon Library, Loyola
Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA
Santa Monica College ($250M+)
• Early Childhood Lab School
• Performing Arts Center East Wing
• Information technology Building
& Media Center
• Student Services Building &
Parking Structure
• Health, P.E., and Central Plant
• Bundy Campus Classroom
• Organic Learning Garden
Qualifications
Korin is responsible for originating, evaluating, structuring, and closing public-
private partnerships (P3s) for Griffin Structures, with $500M of public facilities
under development as P3 transactions. Korin leverages 20 years of experience
in infrastructure, real estate, and M&A of property-backed operating businesses
with an emphasis on P3s and real estate transactions in complex regulatory
environments.
As Civic Development Expert with significant experience with our development and
financial team, Korin will provide as-needed, invaluable input as-needed.
Education
Master of Science in Management,
Stanford Graduate School of Business
Master of Science, Electrical Engineering, Stanford University
Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering,
Duke University
Years of Experience
20
Korin Crawford
Civic Development Expert
Representative Experience
County of Orange Civic Center, CA
Rancho Cordova Civic Center, CA
Placer County Government Ctr., CA
Manteca Civic Center Feasibility, CA
Concord Civic Center, Feasibility, CA
Los Angeles Civic Ctr. Master Plan, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
Riverside Convention Center
Expansion, CA
Downtown Los Angeles Streetcar, Los
Angeles, CA
Bancroft Row Residential
Development, Oakland, CA
Pier 70 Redevelopment, Port of San
Francisco, CA
Mission Rock / SWL, Port of San
Francisco, CA
Oakland Army Base Disposition and
Reuse, CA
Texas Rangers Heritage Museum,
Fredricksburg, TX
D-25~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
14 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Financial Advisory Team
Certification Education Years of
Experience
Series 54 and 50 Municipal Advisor, SEC & MSRB
American Institute of Certified Planners
Registered Investment Advisor
Bachelor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley
48
Series 50 Municipal Advisor
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, #K0276
Security and Exchange Commission, #867-00175
Master of Public Administration, Kent State Unviersity
Bachelor of Arts, Kent State University
35
David Taussig
AICP, Series 54 & 50
Financial Advisor
James V. Fabian
MSRB, SEC
Municipal Financial Advisor
With industry leading expertise in both public and private finance for civic capital projects and real estate, our financial advisory
team is led by DTA and Fieldman Rolapp & Associates (FRA), both registered municipal financial advisory firms, a decades-long
track record of working together, and two of California’s leading municipal FAs, serving a multitude of California cities and
counties over decades.
DTA and FRA will work with the City’s Finance Department and Finance Advisory Committee to:
• Evaluate financing alternatives and project delivery approaches, including, but not limited to Public-Private Partnerships (P3),
Traditional, and Design-Build.
• Identify funding opportunities and approaches for the City Council’s consideration.
• Provide professional analysis, assessment, and projections of the Project’s revenue potential (if any).
DTA and FRA shall assist the City in identifying public and private finance mechanisms available to fund the infrastructure and
public facilities needed for the construction of the Civic Center. DTA and FRA will also assist with determining the amount of
public/private financing the City can anticipate receiving.
Other services include:
• Review and confirm project land uses, values, overlapping districts, liens, and possible revenues with the team.
• Prepare Bonding capacity analyses for selected public finance programs (Community Facilities Districts (CFD), Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), Lease Revenue Bond (LRB) or Certificates of Participation (COP), Commercial
Property Assessed Clean Energy).
• Evaluate Public-Private Partnership opportunities.
• Prepare a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) Report.
D-26
d t a
FIELDMAN
ROLAPP
& ASSOC IATES
~GRIFFIN
~.STR UC TUR E!!
15 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Qualifications
Jay has 22 years of cost estimating experience on various municipal projects,
including renovation and new construction with a mixed background of being
both a preconstruction manager and a general contractor. He brings his creative
and expert skills to his work, including cost estimating, LEED analysis, value
engineering, constructability reviews, master planning, and scheduling.
As Cost Estimator, Jay will provide value engineering and cost control services
through each stage of the project to ensure your fiscal objectives are achieved.
Education
Construction Management Engineering, California State University, Long Beach
Certification + Training
LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP)
Years of Experience
22
Jay Helekar
LEED AP
Cost Estimator
Representative Experience
County of Orange Civic Center, CA
Watsonville Civic Center, CA
Hesperia Civic Plaza & High Desert
Govt. Center, San Bernardino, CA
Covina Civic Center, CA
Rancho Cordova Civic Center, CA
La Canada Flintridge City Hall, CA
West Hollywood City Hall, CA
Santa Clarita Canyon Country Comm.
Center, CA
Quail Hill Comm. Center, Irvine, CA
Vernola Park & Comm. Center, CA
The Trust for Public Land Parks, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Ctr., CA
Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena &
Restaurant, Irvine, CA
Lake Forest Sports Park & Rec. Ctr., CA
Tustin Water Admin.. Building,
Corporate Yard & EOC, CA
Police Services of Salinas, CA
County of San Bernardino, Valley
Communication Center, CA
Visalia Emergency Comm. Ctr., CA
Westminster Corporate Yard, CA
Qualifications
For over 25 years, Susan has built her career around community-based planning
and visioning, striving to create a network of healthier, more livable communities.
She has provided community engagement and planning services to public clients
across the country.
As your Outreach Advocate, Susan will assist the City project team in facilitating
community engagements, planning, and visioning sessions to achieve community
buy-in, public support, and consensus.
Education
Master of Environmental Planning, Arizona State University
Bachelor of Arts, Architectural Studies, University of Kansas
Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Studies, University of Kansas
Certification
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED AP)
Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners
Years of Experience
25
Susan Harden
LEED AP
Outreach Advocate
Vista Civic Center Master Plan, CA
Wildomar Town Ctr. Master Plan, CA
Poway Town Center Master Plan, CA
Shoreline Park Master Plan, San
Leandro, CA
Yorba Linda Library & Cultural Arts
Center, CA
Santa Cruz Downtown Library &
Mixed-Use Project, CA
Laguna Beach Village Entrance, CA
Cupertino Library Expansion, CA
+50 Additional Projects
Community workshops / charrettes
Facilitate meetings with CHOA, HOAs
and interested parties
Online survey tools
Pop-up events
In-person and video site tours
Input summaries and reports
Press releases & media outreach
Social media calendar
Project newsletters & email blasts
Informational flyers and fact sheets
Graphic design (posters, banners, etc.)
Website updates
Representative Experience
Engagement Activites & Communications Support
D-27
(@ epomt
~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
16 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Food & Beverage Consultant
Webb Foodservice Design creates immersive kitchen and dining
experiences for civic environments. Since 1989 the Webb team of
planners and designers has partnered with clients to bring culinary
visions to life; Webb’s expertise spans from feasibility studies,
concept design, and programming to market research, design
documentation, and construction administration. Projects range
from small cafes to large, centralized kitchens, with each combining
strategy and spectacle to produce efficient, emotionally engaging
front- and back-of-the-house design. Webb excels in solutions that
are sustainable and energy-efficient. SBE and WBENC certified, the
firm has the largest and most diverse team on the West Coast.
Our approach to civic projects is rooted in our belief that
foodservice plays an important role in affecting social change.
Through our civic practice, we have designed food service spaces
that range in use from a kitchen supporting the blind enterprise
program, to developing a culinary arts program for correctional
rehabilitation.
Move / Relocation Management
JBA has assisted in the planning and orchestrating of millions of
square feet of office space, clients range from ten or less employees
to several hundred. JBA follows a proven office migration model in
planning and executing seamless office relocations. This includes
the accurate documentation of the current layout, furniture,
workstations, and all office assets. We work closely with the
operator of each workstations to identify their requirements in
their new office space. In some cases, we are moving a single office
to a new single location office and in others, we are consolidating
multiple facilities into one. In each case, we are tracking hundreds
of assets and multiple vendors to support the effort.
We understand that operations must continue as the project
develops. We have included the services of JBA for this project as a
result of our many past experiences with public clients who require
moving and relocation services to minimize impact to their civic
operations. Our oversight ensures that moves are well coordinated
and carefully planned as to ensure a uninterrupted operations.
D-28
J .. gmmering 4!xcell ence •· -~mcr1954
17 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
La Cañada Flintridge City Hall
La Cañada Flintridge, CA
Griffin was selected as the OR/PM to manage the design and construction of the 28,000 SF La
Cañada Flintridge’s New City Hall. Upon our hiring, it became apparent that a space assessment
was required to assist the City in assessing its current space needs, and its future needs for
growth. Griffin Structures managed this process and led the project to timely delivery on budget.
This project is relevant to yours in that we provided Owner’s Representation / Project Management
(OR/PM), managed this project from the early planning phases while providing creative
programming, including the idea to lease out remaining space to the private sector for revenue
capture.
Value + Size
$7M, 28,000 SF
Completion Date
2019
Client + Contact
City of La Cañada Flintridge Mark Alexander City Manager (818) 790-8880
Malexander@lcf.ca.gov
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
County of Orange Civic Center
Santa Ana, CA
The completed Administration South building includes a six-story office tower over two levels
of underground parking, and freestanding conference center. The building is designed to
exceed AIA’s 2030 Commitment to reduce net energy consumption by 70 percent. The $180M
Administration North and sister building to the recently completed $166M Administration South
will reach construction completion next year.
This project is relevant to yours in that it is a significant, high-profile project wherein Griffin
Structures and ALL proposed consultants have served from pre-design to construction completion,
with the Administration North second building in-progress. This hub of civic operations is a
pinnacle of sustainability and functional design directly aligned with your project expectations.
Value + Size
$346M, 500,000 SF
Completion Date
2022
Client + Contact
County of Orange Frank Kim, County CEO (714) 834-4304 frank.kim@ocgov.com
Mat Miller Chief Real Estate Officer (714) 834-2345 mat.miller@oc.gov.com
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Korin Crawford, David
Taussig, Dustin Alamo,
and Jay Helekar
D-29~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
18 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
West Hollywood City Hall
West Hollywood, CA
Griffin Structures originally worked with the City of West Hollywood to redevelop an aging
commercial building into a new City Hall and state-of-the-art Emergency Operations Center
through a Public Private Partnership (“P3”). Griffin Structures was again selected to manage the
City Hall’s major renovation.
This project is relevant to yours in that we provided Owner’s Representation / Project Management
(OR/PM), managing this base of operations for the City project from the early planning phases
while providing creative financing alternatives.
Value + Size
$10M, 36,000 SF
Completion Date
2020
Client + Contact
City of West Hollywood Joan English Retired Director of Transportation (310) 413-3302
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
Santa Clarita Canyon Country Community Center
Santa Clarita, CA
This new 28,000 SF community center and the outdoor recreational facilities rests on a 16.5
acre project site. Indoor spaces will include a multipurpose room, gym, classrooms, catering
and teaching kitchen, fitness room, staff offices, reception lobby, and supportive areas. Outdoor
improvements include play areas, outdoor market, event stage area, basketball half-court, events
garden, shade structures, outdoor restroom building, and perimeter trail.
This project is relevant to yours in that it is a high-profile, significant community center project
involving adept quality control measures pertaining to the design and construction of the facility,
as well as a unique phasing and outreach approach as to not impact the sensitive surrounding area.
Value + Size
$58M, 28,000 SF
Completion Date
2021
Client + Contact
City of Santa Clarita Wayne Weber Parks Planning Manager
(661) 255-4961 wweber@santa-clarita.com
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
D-30~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
19 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Quail Hill Community Center
Irvine, CA
The new community center in Irvine is one of the largest in the area, and serves to bring the
region together through education and exploration, connecting users to the local trail system
that extends through the Quail Hill Loop Trail leading to the coast. The building houses an
exercise room for wellness activities, classrooms, a space for fine arts camps, and a rentable
conference center. Outdoor spaces include interpretive gardens and a playground for adventure
play.
This project is relevant to yours in that we provided Owner’s Representation / Project Management
(OR/PM) services from the early master planned Quail Hill Community Park into a high-profile,
significant community center project, which was the final phase.
Value + Size
$8M, 19,000 SF
Completion Date
2018
Client + Contact
City of Irvine
Thomas Perez, PE
Former CIP
Administrator
Current Project Dir.,
Laguna Beach
(949) 464-6688
tperez@lagunabeachcity.
net
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
Environmental Nature Center & Preschool
Newport Beach, CA
Griffin Structures led the programming, design, and construction of the Environmental Nature
Center, Orange County’s first LEED Platinum facility. The 9,000 SF education center located
on a 3.5-acre site is top 10 sustainably designed facility on behalf of the American Institute of
Architects. This new preschool features three classrooms, administrative and support space, and
interactive outdoor open space area with education garden and play area.
This project is relevant to yours in that it called for the unique understanding of nature
preservation as we built a facility dedicated to a mission. Neighboring the coastline, nature
preserve, and adjacent channel, adept agency coordination was also required. This living building
also required coordination with the Newport Beach Fire Dept. wireless communication regulation.
Value + Size
$12M, 9,000 SF
Completion Date
2020
Client + Contact
Bo Glover Executive Director (949) 645-8489 bo@encenter.org
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
D-31~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
20 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
The Trust for Public Land Parks
Los Angeles, CA
Robert Godfrey has managed over 11 non-profit parks for the organization, The Trust for Public
Land, including Madison Ave. Park and Community Gardens, South Victoria Ave. Park, Benito
Juarez Park, Rudolph Park, and many more. Each project is unique in that it provides a mixture
spaces with designs influenced through community input. Parks are designed to be ecologically
sensitive and minimize maintenance costs.
This project is relevant to yours in that we provided OR/PM services for a variety of ongoing
projects which align with the civic center’s Program Document (play amenities, open space, shade
structures, dog parks, amphitheaters…etc.). All of which called for extensive community outreach as
our team managed the development of the project from pre-design to construction completion.
Value + Size
$25M+, 100,000 SF+
Completion Date
2020
Client + Contact
The Trust for Public
Land
Robin Mark
Program Manager
(310) 770-6499
robin.mark@tpl.org
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
Rancho Cucamonga Sports Center
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
This project includes two pre-engineered steel structures–one enclosed and one open-air
pavilion. The project featured three indoor regulation-sized basketball/volleyball courts as
well as concession and public common areas, a multipurpose room, restroom facilities, and
administrative office space.
This project is relevant to yours in that we were tasked with providing several cost saving
alternatives, which ultimately led to the incorporation of a pre-engineered metal building, saving
the City nearly $1M publicly funded dollars and vastly expediting the schedule. This project also
featured two open-air pavilions and was designed with ultimate sustainability in mind.
Value + Size
$14M, 56,000 SF
Completion Date
2018
Client + Contact
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Jeff Benson
Management Analyst
(909) 774-4137
Jeff.benson@cityofrc.us
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
D-32~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
21 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Great Park Ice, FivePoint Arena & Between the Rinks Restaurant
Irvine, CA
This training facility for the Anaheim Ducks features four indoor ice rinks—three NHL regulation
rinks, Olympic regulation rink, and striking outdoor pavilion area. The main arena seats 2,500
with the ability to host a wide variety of sporting and entertainment events. Other features
include a modern restaurant, party rooms, classrooms, outdoor public spaces, and amenities.
This project is uniquely relevant to yours in that it is set on a former air base which called for major
hazardous material considerations/coordination. The client faced significant budgetary constraints
calling for unique design considerations from our team. We saved the client significant funds and
sliced the project schedule significantly via innovative solutions, resulting in a project delivered on
time and under budget.
Value + Size
$108M, 280,000 SF
Completion Date
2019
Client + Contact
H&S Ventures, LLC Bill Foltz CFO (949) 760-4304 bfoltz@hsventures.org
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
Lake Forest Sports Park & Recreation Center
Lake Forest, CA
This Sports Park features five baseball fields, six soccer and multi-use fields of natural turf and
synthetic turf, a rugby field overlay of two soccer fields, and two basketball courts. The general
use elements consist of two playgrounds with tot lots and play equipment, two restroom
facilities and eight gazebo picnic structures. In addition, the Park has two 1,915 SF clubhouse
buildings. A 26,000 SF Recreation/Community Center located in the middle of the site, situated
on a plateau overlooking the “park commons.”
This project is uniquely relevant to yours in that it features best-in-class green open space,
community/rec center, park amenities, picnic pavilions, play areas and we provided OR/PM
services.
Value + Size
$52M, 86 Acres
Completion Date
This project falls just outside of the 3-year window but we felt pertinent to include with our response
Client + Contact
City of Lake Forest Tom Wheeler City Engineer (949) 461-3480 twheeler@lakeforestca.gov
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
D-33~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
22 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Tustin Water Admin. Building, Corporate Yard & Emergency Ops. Center
Tustin, CA
This project consisted of the demolition of an existing fire station and office trailers; and
construction of a water administration headquarters and yard, state-of-the-art Emergency
Operations Center, emergency dispatch center, and Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service
room. The facility also includes a wellness center, locker rooms, water lab, facilities offices, break
and conference rooms.
This project is relevant to yours in that it not only features significant administrative/office space,
but also emergency communications facilities and a maintenance yard. We led this project as
Owner’s Representatives and Program Managers, overseeing the project’s delivery from pre-design
to construction completion.
Value + Size
$15.2M, 17,300 SF
Completion Date
2020
Client + Contact
City of Tustin
Doug Stack
Public Works Director
(714) 573-3150
dstack@tustinca.org
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
Linc Housing, SIPA Headquarters & HiFi Collective
Los Angeles, CA
This project encompasses the development of a modern Mixed-Use development in historic
Filipinotown, Los Angeles. The new HiFi Collective is envisioned to be a new five-story building
and will feature 63 affordable housing units, along with SIPA’s administrative headquarters,
community cultural center, multi-purpose area, and business center.
This project is relevant to yours in that we are providing OR/PM services for an extremely multi-
faceted project featuring administrative components for multiple departments, as well as private-
public elements to generate revenue for the facility. Additionally, the site is within a methane
zone containing volatile organic compounds, calling for in-depth soils remediation and control of
potentially hazardous material on a existing fueling site.
Value + Size
$29M, 6,100,000 SF
Completion Date
2018
Client + Contact
Linc Housing
Frances F. Sarmiento
Project Manager
(562) 684-1102
sarmiento@linchousing.
org
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Robert Godfrey, Dustin
Alamo, and Jay Helekar
D-34~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
23 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Pomona Water Resources Headquarters & Yard
Pomona, CA
This facility includes a modularly-constructed administration/office building, warehouse, and
shops buildings, covered parking canopies and equipment storage, site walls and gates, covered
material storage bins, vehicular and pedestrian concrete paving, and landscape planting/
irrigation. A special emphasis has also been placed on multi-use and flexible sizing, as well as
ease-of-maintenance, durability, and sustainability.
This project is relevant to yours in that it not only features significant administrative/office space,
but also a significant maintenance yard. We are leading this project as Owner’s Representatives and
Program Managers, overseeing the project’s delivery from pre-design to construction completion.
Value + Size
$27M, 203,100 SF
Completion Date
2022
Client + Contact
Pomona Water
Resources Dept.
Chris Diggs
Water Resources
Director
(909) 620-2251
chris_diggs@ci.pomona.
ca.us
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
Westminster Corporate Yard
Westminster, CA
With an aging infrastructure and code violations throughout the yard, Griffin Structures was
hired to perform a needs assessment on the future space requirements, repurpose buildings,
consolidate others, and reposition the real estate into a logical, safe work flow. This assessment
led to our delivery of a new corporate yard which contains a new administration building,
canopy, fuel station, and warehouse facilities. This project was constructed on an active campus
which called for unique phasing and staff relocation plan.
This project is relevant to yours in that the Griffin team was tasked with providing early
programming and pre-design management as part of our OR/PM service resulting in a state-of-
the-art public maintenance/corporate yard for the City.
Value + Size
$20M, 40,000 SF
Completion Date
This project falls just outside of the 3-year window but we felt pertinent to include with our response
Client + Contact
City of Westminster Marwan Youssef Public Works Director (714) 548-3460 myoussef@westminster-ca.gov
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
D-35~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
24 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
Police Services of Salinas
Salinas, CA
This facility was delivered utilizing a Public-Private Partnership (P3), which provides for the
design, financing, construction, and delivery of the new facility. The project encompasses three
buildings on a 6.3-acre site. The two-story headquarters building serves as the essential services
administrative building and includes detention spaces, community room, and plaza. Two support
buildings provide police support services, including evidence intake and storage, crime lab
spaces, and indoor firing range.
This project is uniquely relevant to yours in that it incorporates emergency communications
features and we provided OR/PM and development services wherein Griffin Structures managed
all proposed consultants, serving from pre-design to construction completion.
Value + Size
$52M, 70,800 SF
Completion Date
2020
Client + Contact
City of Salinas Adele Fresé Chief of Police (831) 758-7201 adelef@ci.salinas.ca.us
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Korin Crawford, David
Taussig, Dustin Alamo,
and Jay Helekar
County of San Bernardino, Public Safety Operations Center
Hesperia, CA
The Public Safety Operations Center housed within this 67,000 SF Government Center features
a 175-foot tower, offering multiple communication paths. Other features include a Sheriff and
County Fire Department dispatch system, a state-of-the-art voice and data infrastructure, non-
critical functions of training and administrative areas, kitchen, restroom and locker areas with
showers. All of these elements have duplicate emergency generators that back-up power to the
building and the systems within the facility.
This project is relevant to yours in that it also features a communication tower, which was
programmed, designed, and constructed to great satisfaction of the County, earning our firm the
opportunity to now manage the County’s $95M Valley Communication Center project.
Value + Size
$17M, 67,000 SF
Completion Date
This project falls just outside of the 3-year window but we felt pertinent to include with our response
Client + Contact
County of San Bernardino Rene Glynn Supervisor (909) 771-1223 rene.glynn@pmd.sbcounty.gov
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
D-36~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
25 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
County of San Bernardino, Valley Communication Center
San Bernardino, CA
The Valley Communication Center will be located in the City and County of San Bernardino
and will be a new mission-critical facility that must be operational 365/24/7, under extreme
conditions as the primary Emergency Operation Center (EOC) in the San Bernardino Valley.
The comprehensive 80,000 SF building on the 6.85 acre site will be occupied by multiple county
entities including emergency, fire, and others.
This project is uniquely relevant to yours in that it incorporates emergency communications
features and we are providing OR/PM and development services wherein Griffin Structures is
managing all proposed consultants, serving from pre-design to construction completion.
Value + Size
$95M, 80,000 SF
Completion Date
2021 - Ongoing
Client + Contact
County of San Bernardino Rene Glynn Supervisor (909) 771-1223 rene.glynn@pmd.sbcounty.gov
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
Visalia Emergency Communications Center
Visalia, CA
This $16 million, 21,000 SF facility featuring a 3,500 SF dispatch room, an emergency operations
center and the fire department’s administration offices. The emergency dispatch center is the
first building constructed in what will eventually be a public safety complex. Design plans were
complete by the end of 2014 and construction began in the first quarter of 2015.
This project is uniquely relevant to yours in that it incorporates emergency communications
features in addition to dispatch/traffic control and also incorporated adept coordination with the
applicable radio communications Authority Having Juridstiction for successful completion.
Value + Size
$16M, 21,000 SF
Completion Date
2017
Client + Contact
City of Visalia Mike Porter City Engineer (559) 713-4412 Mike.Porter@ci.visalia.ca.us
Key Staff
Roger Torriero, Mark
Hoglund, Jon Hughes,
Dustin Alamo, and Jay
Helekar
D-37~GRIFFIN
~.STRUCTURE!!
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“Griffin Structures did an excellent job to
ensure the City’s best interests were met.
In particular, the detailed review of change
orders ensured the City got exactly what
we paid for and that the project stayed
within budget. The Griffin Structures
team delivered the City a very high-quality
amenity that will serve the community for
years to come.”
- City of Irvine 4. Project ScheduleD-38
26 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
4. Project Schedule
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Total Project Duration 1082 days Mon 11/1/21 Tue 12/23/25
2 Pre-Design Phase 87 days Mon 11/1/21 Tue 3/1/22
3 Kick Off Meeting 1 day Mon 11/1/21 Mon 11/1/21
4 Site Analysis 65 days Mon 11/1/21 Fri 1/28/22
5 Financial Analysis 65 days Mon 11/1/21 Fri 1/28/22
6 Delivery Analysis 65 days Mon 11/1/21 Fri 1/28/22
7 Program Validation 65 days Mon 11/1/21 Fri 1/28/22
8 Staff Review of Program 20 days Mon 1/31/22 Fri 2/25/22
9 CCAC Review of Program 1 day Mon 2/28/22 Mon 2/28/22
10 City Approval of Program 1 day Tue 3/1/22 Tue 3/1/22
11 Design Procurement 65 days Wed 3/2/22 Tue 5/31/22
12 Master Plan Phase 70 days Wed 6/1/22 Tue 9/6/22
13 Master Plan Development 45 days Wed 6/1/22 Tue 8/2/22
14 City Review of Master Plan 20 days Wed 8/3/22 Tue 8/30/22
15 CCAC Review of Master Plan 1 day Wed 8/31/22 Wed 8/31/22
16 Council Approval of Master Plan 1 day Tue 9/6/22 Tue 9/6/22
17 Schematic Design Phase 95 days Wed 9/7/22 Tue 1/17/23
18 Schematic Design 65 days Wed 9/7/22 Tue 12/6/22
19 Staff Review of Schematic Design 20 days Wed 12/7/22 Tue 1/3/23
20 CCAC Review of Schematic Design 1 day Wed 1/4/23 Wed 1/4/23
21 Council Approval of Schematic Design 1 day Tue 1/17/23 Tue 1/17/23
22 Design Development Phase 106 days Wed 1/18/23 Wed 6/14/23
23 Design Development 85 days Wed 1/18/23 Tue 5/16/23
24 City Review of Design Development 20 days Wed 5/17/23 Tue 6/13/23
25 CCAC Review of Design Development 1 day Wed 6/14/23 Wed 6/14/23
26 Construction Documents Phase 75 days Thu 6/15/23 Wed 9/27/23
27 Construction Documents 75 days Thu 6/15/23 Wed 9/27/23
28 Permitting 45 days Thu 9/28/23 Wed 11/29/23
29 1st Submission 15 days Thu 9/28/23 Wed 10/18/23
30 2nd Submission 15 days Thu 10/19/23 Wed 11/8/23
31 Final Submission 15 days Thu 11/9/23 Wed 11/29/23
32 Contractor Procurement 114 days Thu 9/28/23 Tue 3/5/24
33 Contractor Prequalification 45 days Thu 9/28/23 Wed 11/29/23
34 Contractor Bidding 64 days Thu 11/30/23 Tue 2/27/24
35 Council Award of Contractor 1 day Tue 3/5/24 Tue 3/5/24
36 Construction Phase 470 days Wed 3/6/24 Tue 12/23/25
37 Construction 400 days Wed 3/6/24 Tue 9/16/25
38 Punch List & Move-in 25 days Wed 9/17/25 Tue 10/21/25
39 Project Closeout 45 days Wed 10/22/25 Tue 12/23/25
11/1 11/1
11/1 1/28
11/1 1/28
11/1 1/28
11/1 1/28
1/31 2/25
2/28 2/28
3/1 3/1
3/2 5/31
6/1 8/2
8/3 8/30
8/31 8/31
9/6 9/6
9/7 12/6
12/7 1/3
1/4 1/4
1/17 1/17
1/18 5/16
5/17 6/13
6/14 6/14
6/15 9/27
9/28 10/18
10/19 11/8
11/9 11/29
9/28 11/29
11/30 2/27
3/5 3/5
3/6 9/16
9/17 10/21
10/22 12/23
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rancho Palos Verdes
Civic Center Project Schedule
Page 1
Having served over 350 municipal clients throughout the state of California, our team is incredibly familiar with completing work expeditiously and managing aggressive public project schedules. We are ready, willing, and able to provide unique time saving alternatives to assist
the City to deliver a project that not only accomplishes the City’s operational goals, but is delivered expeditiously so the community may benefit from the City’s investment as soon as possible.
D-39
i""
l
'-
i""
~GRIFFI
~STRUC N TLIRE!io
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“Griffin Structures provides high quality
service and increases our capacity to
oversee multiple complex projects
simultaneously. Robert Godfrey is
collaborative, detail oriented and readily
available whenever there is an issue. Over
the years they have helped to manage
a wide range of complex projects. With
each project they continue to demonstrate
their dedication to public projects and high
quality project management.“
- The Trust for Public Land 5. Quality Control PlanD-40
27 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
5. Quality Control Plan
Financial
Advisory Services
Change
Management
Deputy
Inspection
& Testing
Oversight
Building
Contractor
Oversight
Quality
Assurance
Oversight &
Documentation
Safety
Oversight
Technological
Integrations
(i.e., OpenSpace)
Cost Control /
Estimating
Schedule /
Control
Oversight
Commissioning
/ LEED
Coordination
Move /
Relocation
Management
Oversight
Photographic
Documentation
Design
Oversight
Outreach
Advocacy
Environmental
Oversight
Griffin approaches projects with the perspective of an Owner, and the insight of an Architect and Contractor. Like an Owner,
we approach each project as if it is our own money, schedule, and facility that is being developed. With licensed Architects and
Contractors within our ranks, we also understand the technical aspects and trade secrets essential to providing quality services.
Together with these two key components, Griffin provides Inspection and Construction Management services based on our
unique blend of experience as both a public agency Program and Construction Managers, Owner’s Representatives, and At-Risk
Fee Developers - uniquely enhancing our ability to provide enhanced services to our Clients. If selected for this project, we will
provide the following quality control procedures from inception to completion of our services. Should the City wish to receive
more information regarding these integral components, we would be happy to discuss as soon as possible. However, given the
brevity of this proposal, we’ve included highlights to our QC plan below.
D-41
. .
,fr □ □ □ □ I □□□□ □□□□
i | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
“The Griffin team is doing an excellent
job, anticipating and addressing potential
problems that may have impacted the
completion date. They apply vast experience
and attention to detail that greatly benefits
our City.“
- City of Santa Clarita 6. Acceptance of ConditionsD-42
28 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
6. Acceptance of Conditions
We have reviewed the Contract Services Agreement for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and have included the proposed
exceptions and deviations below. We are ready, willing, and able to discuss these items immediately and execute an agreement
with the City as soon as possible.
• 1.1 – 5th line –delete “and warrants”. The use of “warrants” within a contract provision is a subtlety that may extend the
standard of care beyond what is expected and reasonable. The word “represents” in this sentence already reflects that
Consultant will do everything in our power to comply, we cannot warrant that there will be absolute compliance.
• 1.11 – 0th line –delete the entire sentence beginning with “Consultant covenants…” and instead insert “In providing services
under this Agreement, Consultant shall perform in a manner consistent with, but limited to, that degree of skill and care
commonly used by other reputable members of Consultant’s profession practicing in the same or similar locality and under
similar circumstances. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to require Consultant to meet any higher standard of
care, and this paragraph shall control over any such contrary provision.”
• 1.1 – 13th line – delete entire sentence beginning with “For purposes of this Agreement….”.
• 1.6 – f1st and 5th lines – replace “warrants” with “represents” – logic for this request is spelled out under the first comment
above.
• 3.1 – Replace this section with “The Consultant shall not be responsible for delays from any and all causes beyond its
reasonable control.”
• 5.2 (f) – 3rd line – delete “agents” and “and volunteers”.
• 5.2 (j) – 2nd line – same request as at 5.2 (f) above.
• 5.3 – 2nd line – delete “and agents”.
• 5.3 – 6th and 7th lines – delete “arising out of or in connection with” and replace with “as caused by the”, as we do not wish to
indemnify and defend for something we did not cause.
• 5.3 (a) – change “any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities” with “any action or actions filed
due to a claim or liability caused by”.
• 5.3 (b) – 2nd and 4th lines – delete “agents”.
• 5.3 (c) – 1st and 5th lines – delete “agents”.
• 8.2 – 2nd paragraph – 5th line – replace “warrants” with “represents” – same logic as explained in the first comment above.
D-43~GRI FFI N ~ \TRU<..:TlllU~
29 | G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
1 Technology Drive, Building i, Suite 829
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 497-9000
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
1850 Warburton Avenue, Suite 120
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 955-0431
D-44
Page 1 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Request for Proposals
Project Management Services for
Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Project
Administration Department
Attention: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: 310-544-5218 | Email: mattw@rpvca.gov
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting and Site Tour:
September 1, 2021 2 p.m.
Request for Clarification Deadline:
September 15, 2021 4:30 p.m.
RFP Submittal Deadline: September 29, 2021 4:30 p.m.
E-1Pl
Page 2 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
Project Management Services for
Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Project
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is requesting proposals from qualified
consulting firms to perform comprehensive project management
services for development of a Master Plan through completion of
construction for a new Civic Center.
All correspondence and questions regarding this RFP should be submitted via
email no later than 4:30 p.m. on September 15, 2021 to:
Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
Email: mattw@rpvca.gov
To be considered for this project, submit an electronic copy of the proposal to the
above email address by 4:30 p.m. on September 29, 2021
E-2
Page 3 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction Page 4
II. Project Objective Page 4
III. Project Description and Background Page 5
IV. Scope of Services Page 11
V. Preliminary Project Schedule Page 13
VI. Necessary Qualifications and Submittal
Requirements Page 13
VII. Submission of Proposal Page 15
VIII. Evaluation and Selection Process Page 16
IX. Attachments
Attachment [A] – Program Document
Attachment [B] – Sample Professional Services Agreement
Attachment [C] CCAC-Approved Public Outreach Outline
E-3
Page 4 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) is a scenic, upscale, residential coastal
community, with a population of approximately 42,000, located on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula of southwestern Los Angeles County.
The City is a contract city, meaning that some services are provided by contract with
agencies (both public and private) and some services are delivered by the City’s own
employees.
City Government: Rancho Palos Verdes is a General Law City and has operated under
the Council-Manager form of government since its incorporation in 1973. Policy-making
and legislative authority are vested in the governing City Council, which consists of five
Council Members, including the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem. The City is fiscally sound and
functions on an annual budget cycle.
The purpose of this document is to provide proposers with the information needed to
submit a proposal for review by the City and, if selected, enter into a Professional Service
Agreement with the City. Enclosed is a blank Professional Services Agreement form for
proposers’ review.
II. PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The City is requesting proposals from qualified consulting firms to provide project
management services for the Civic Center Master Plan project (Project).
The selected firm’s overriding purpose is to assist the City in seeing the project through
from its current preliminary planning stage through the development and approval of a
Master Plan through to completion of construction of the legislatively approved Master
Plan.
The Project includes the re-development of the existing Civic Center site as described in
the project background below.
The following is a vision statement for the project:
“The vision of this project is to develop a Master Plan for the RPV Civic Center that
accomplishes the following goals:
1) Provide a focal point for civic life and public engagement;
2) Supports vital government and public safety functions;
3) Respects and celebrates the incredible natural beauty, vistas, and history of
the property; and,
4) Incorporates design flexibility and practicality to adapt to the needs of the City
as they change over time.”
E-4
Page 5 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
The Master Plan will be the guiding document for the final project. An awareness and
understanding of the City’s low-key, semi-rural nature is crucial.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The City completed a City-wide Parks Master Plan in 2015. The Parks Master Plan
recommended a separate comprehensive master plan design and public outreach
process for the Civic Center/Point Vicente Park site, including City Hall. The Parks Master
Plan noted that current buildings, which consist of 1950’s era military buildings and
various modular buildings, need significant renovation to meet organizational needs and
to comply with current building codes and ADA requirements. Based on the age of the
buildings and overall condition, renovation is not an alternative.
A Civic Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) composed of seven City residents was
formed by the City Council in 2017 with the primary objective to develop a draft Civic
Center Master Plan for Council approval. The CCAC has been instrumental in the early
stages of the Master Plan process, particularly in the development of a program document
that is discussed below. It is expected that the CCAC will remain active throughout the
project. The Office of the City Manager is leading the CCAC project with support from
the Public Works, Community Development, Finance and Recreation and Parks
Departments.
The Civic Center site currently includes the following components:
1. City Hall (two buildings; no Council Chamber)
2. Public Works Facilities
a. Corporate Yard
b. Maintenance Building (landscape and general maintenance contractor
equipment)
c. Sign Building (traffic signs and materials)
d. Storm Central Building (emergency operations meeting space, storage, has
computer and phone service – not in current use)
3. Emergency Operations Helicopter landing pad
4. Former Nike missile silos
5. Upper Point Vicente Park
a. Tennis Court
b. Sand Volleyball Court
c. Trailheads
d. Dog Park
e. Open turf area
6. Server Room and IDFs (2)
7. RPVTV Studio
8. Ham Radio Facility (Emergency Operations)
9. Backup Generator
E-5
Page 6 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
10. Contractor drop-in workspace (Public Works)
11. Palos Verdes Peninsula Historical Society Trailer
12. 81 Foot High Monopole
a. Wireless telecommunications
b. Leased space inside City Hall for related equipment
13. Meeting Space (within existing buildings)
a. Community Room (seats 40). Uses: election polling site, all-hands meetings
(not sufficient space), staff training, staff meetings, committee meetings, bid
openings, Emergency Operations Center (EOC) - must be set-up when
needed
b. Administrative Conference Room (seats 10). Uses: training, interviews, staff
meetings
c. Recreation and Parks Conference Room (seats 8). Uses: Finance auditors
work room, training, interviews, staff meetings (space not sufficient for R &
P staff)
d. Community Development Conference Room (seats 12). Uses: training,
interviews, staff meetings, file storage
14. Parking Spaces (130)
a. City Hall Visitors and Staff Lots (86)
b. Public Works City Vehicle Parking Lot (9)
c. Palos Verdes Peninsula Historical Society Parking Spaces (2)
d. Ancillary Parking Lot (16)
e. Dog Park Parking Lot (5)
f. Tennis Court Gravel Lot (7)
g. RPVTV Studio Lot (5)
15. Overflow Gravel Parking Area used for Special Event Parking (Whale of a Day,
4th of July), Terranea Resort Overflow Parking, Film Shoot Parking (approx. 200
spaces)
16. Storage Containers (7+)
a. Records (4)
b. Public Works Yard Storage Containers for Supplies (2)
c. Contractor Storage Container (1)
Below is a summary of the Civic Center Program Document approved by the City Council
on October 15, 2019. A 2017 survey mailed to all City residents and a 2018 public
workshop were key factors in developing this document. (Note: A Program Validation
update currently being discussed may result in some modifications to the existing
Program Document
E-6
Page 7 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
The Program Document includes detailed required square footage based on office space,
meeting and storage areas, and other needs for each City department: Administration,
Finance, Public Works, Community Development, and Recreation and Parks. The
recommended 32,891 gross square footage (GSF) for the City Hall buildings is smaller
than its current footprint of 38,700 GSF. The program document also includes common
areas such as the lobby, conference rooms, production rooms
(copiers/scanners/printers), server room, and record storage. While flexibility on sizing
the facility is encouraged, a not-to-exceed limit of 33,000 GSF should be adhered to for
City Hall facilities (accounting for post-covid operations). Consultant is encouraged to
review program document to identify possible program efficiencies.
In addition to the components listed above, a maintenance/corporation yard is considered
essential. The current yard is 130,000 square feet (SF) and is located in a prime viewing
area of the property. That square footage is likely larger than necessary based on a 2015
study conducted by the City. Creative suggestions for reducing the size and relocating
the maintenance yard to a different, lower-profile section of the property is required.
Designing the maintenance yard in a manner so it could potentially be removed from the
E-7
RPV: Civic Center Program Summary
C ity H a ll
RPV .1 City Administrati on
RPV .2 Finance
RPV .3 Public Works
RPV .4 Community Development
RPV .5 Recreation and Parks
6.0 Shared Building Su ppo<t
Proposed N ew Pro gra m Ele m e nts
6.1 Public Counler, PVPLC Offices & Computer Training Room
6.2 Council Chambers
Total
Site Areas
7.0
7.1
Site Requiremenis
Site Amen~ies
Total
Oth e r Fac ilities
8.0 Sheriff Sub Stati on
9.0 Medium Fire Station
10.0 Emergency Ops. Center (EOC)
11 .0 Community Cenl;r Facilities
12.0 Tra~head Facilities
13.0 Cafe
Total
Civic Center Gross Total
Count
17
13
23
25
11
89
Count
GS F Tota l Notes
5,062 GSF
2,977 GSF
5,247 GSF
5,783 GSF
4,357 GSF
9,465 GSF
32 ,891 GSF
GS F Tota l Notes
6,353 GSF
9,680 GSF
16,033 GSF
GS F Tota l Notes
229,199 GSF
343.300 GSF
572,499 GSF
GS F Tota l Notes
12,323 GSF Based on La Mirada Station Plan
12,885 GSF
4,106 GSF
5,176 GSF
1,200 GSF
5,000 GSF
40,690 GSF
662,1 13 GSF
,76AC
,37 AC
13.14 AC
,93AC
15.2 ACI
Page 8 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
Civic Center site entirely if an off-site location is identified and procured and the remaining
space then replaced with a different component is also required.
The “site areas” section on Page 1 of the Program Document refers to the total square
footage of the Civic Center’s site requirements (parking, trash recycling, helipad,
maintenance yard etc.) and site amenities (village green, public plaza, dog park,
amphitheater, etc.). Details on the individual “site areas” components can be found on
Page 10 of the Program Document.
The Program Document also includes details for the following components:
• City Council chambers
• Parking
• Overflow parking
• Potential Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy leasable office space (3,400
est. GSF)
• Trailhead parking
• Service/loading area
• Trash/recycling component
• Emergency generator enclosure
• Helipad
• Monopole
• Wireless telecommunication equipment enclosure (associated with monopole)
• Emergency communications antenna and yard
• Proposed Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System monopole
• Public Works maintenance yard
• Village green open space
• Public plaza
• Park amenities/picnic pavilion
• Shade structures
• Children’s play amenities
• Dog park
• Amphitheater
• Open space for future amenities
• Community center
• Trailhead facilities (restroom building(s))
• Café (5,000 est. GSF) The type and size of restaurant and how it would be
operated is still to be determined.
The report appendix includes an inventory of existing buildings on -site and other
considered uses (pool, gym, skate park, ball fields) that were not recommended by the
CCAC nor approved by the City Council in 2019 as part of the program . These
components received low levels of support in the citywide survey and at the public
workshop.
E-8
Page 9 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
The Project Document also includes public safety components consisting of a Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department substation, a medium Los Angeles County
Department fire station and an emergency operations center (4,106 est. GSF) that could
possibly serve the four Peninsula cities. Staff has held ongoing discussions with the
Sheriff’s Department and the L.A. County Fire Department about the possibility of locating
stations at the Civic Center site. Both agencies have expressed interest in being part of
the project, although that has not been formalized at this time.
While the programming document does not prioritize components, the following elements
should be considered high priorities in laying out a potential design for the Master Plan.
It is worth noting that passive elements were rated more highly by the community in the
2017 survey and 2018 workshop:
• City Hall
• Council Chambers
• EOC
• Open Space
• Parking
• Public Maintenance Yard
• Public Plaza
• Public Safety Elements
• Trailhead Access
The Program Document was developed and approved by City Council prior to COVID -
19. The program document was subsequently revisited by Staff and the CCAC to
ascertain if any modifications should be considered in light of operational changes due to
COVID-19. Below is a list of recommendations and considerations.
• Maintain 33,000 GSF target size for City Hall
• Have the selected design consultant perform a “program validation” of the existing
Program Document
• Consider an increased percentage of private offices
• Consider “mini” offices, same size as cubicle spaces
• Consider increasing separation between spaces using plexiglass and other
materials
• Enhance air handling/filtration systems
• Consider reducing the number of meeting spaces given increased Staff and public
comfort level with remote access
• Move towards “touchless” approaches e.g. automatic door openers, trash
receptacles, key fob access, etc.
• Locate public meeting rooms near entrances for better air circulation
E-9
Page 10 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
• Locate meeting rooms between public and staff to the ground floor away from Staff
offices
• Incorporate virtual technologies into design to assist/enhance remote meetings
The following elements (Ranger Station and Discovery Room artifacts) are not currently
included in the program document but should be considered as potential components.
The City-managed Park Ranger program is currently housed at Ladera Linda Park and
Community Center, but that site is slated for demolition and construction by early 2022
and the Rangers will likely need a new base of operation. The Discovery Room, a
classroom-sized (1000 SF) museum displaying local fauna, flora and geologic displays,
along with an additional classroom of stored exhibits is also currently at Ladera Linda and
the great majority of exhibits will need to be stored at a different site, most likely the Civic
Center.
Ranger Station:
▪ Offices and Locker Room
▪ Equipment and tool storage
▪ IT and Radio Communications
▪ Conference and Training areas / rooms
▪ Parking for Vehicles (employee and city)
▪ Outdoor / Indoor Storage area (trailers, ATVs, etc)
Discovery Room and Storage (2,000 SF of exhibits)
▪ Nature Displays
▪ Interpretive and Historical Displays
Land Use Description, Update and Constraints
The buildable section of the Civic Center site is approximately 17.27 acres in size. The
majority of the buildable area is bordered by the 55 acre Alta Vicente Nature Reserve,
which is part of the City’s 1,400 acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. United States Coast
Guard owns a 3.9 acre parcel on the western side of the property that includes an
approximately 5,000 square foot covered World War II bunker known as Battery Barnes.
This parcel not currently included in the program document, but the City has initiated
discussions with the Coast Guard to potentially acquire it for inclusion in the Civic Center
Master Plan. Neither the 3.9 acreage nor the bunker is included in the current program
document. If the City acquires this property, the program document would need to be
modified to incorporate both the increased acreage and the additional building. Ideas
such as storage, gallery space, historic displays, an EOC, and office space have been
discussed as possible uses for Battery Barnes and the former missile silos.
The Civic Center site has had land-use constraints for decades, but significant progress
has been made recently to mitigate those constraints. Since the Civic Center property
E-10
Page 11 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
was acquired from the federal government as part of the National Park Service's (NPS)
Federal Lands to Parks Program, it has been overseen by the NPS. Significant deed-
restrictions have been in place on part of the property, thus limiting uses. The area
outlined in yellow below shows the portion of the property restricted to “general
government use.” The area outlined in red has been restricted to “passive recreational
use” that the City owns outright without any restrictions. The area outside the yellow and
red lines is deed restricted for “passive recreational use,” and the majority of this area is
also designated as part of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and is subject to a
conservation easement.
The City worked unsuccessfully with the NPS for 25 years to lift deed restrictions on the
red outlined area, and most recently, to allow the placement of public safety facilities such
as a fire station, Sheriff’s Department substation, updated helipad, and emergency
operations center. Recently, the City received formal approval to transfer oversight of the
property from the NPS to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). This transfer changed the allowed use of the red outlined
section from passive recreation to public safety use.
E-11
-779AC . . Center Bound,yy -.
Exi:siti ng C iVlC _ g 4 8 AC
d Civic Center Bouidary -. c::::J Propose
Total = 17.27 AC
Page 12 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
While the shift to FEMA and DOJ oversight is a positive and long -awaited development,
broad constraints are still in place. The permitted uses in the red section are still limited
to public safety components. Permitted uses in the yellow zone are still limited to general
government use. The City is exploring the possibility of receiving permission to exchange
or “swap” equivalent sections of the yellow and red sections of the property to allow for
maximum flexibility in placing components. This would allow a “general government use”
component, such as City Council chambers, to be located in the red zone, while a public
safety component, such as a helipad, could be located in the yellow zo ne.
The City has expressed interest in the acquisition of the approximately 4 -acre Coast
Guard parcel located at the western edge of the property. The parcel, known as Battery
Barnes, and informally called the Coast Guard bunker, has significant historical elements,
which could potentially be used for future land swaps as described above.
A Citizen Satisfaction Survey was completed in early 2021 which included several
questions about the Civic Center Project. The main take -aways were that public
awareness of the project was very limited and that more respondents favored than
opposed the project, but the great majority of respondents had no opinion. The full
document as well as information about the surveys and workshop are available on the
City’s Civic Center Master Plan webpage:
IV. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City is accepting proposals to perform the following scope of services. The scope
encompasses guiding the process from its current preliminary planning stage through
construction completion and includes the development and approval of a Master Plan .
and an approved updated program document.
Consultant shall complete other tasks deemed necessary for the accomplishment of a
complete and comprehensive outcome as described in the project objective. Consultant
shall expand on the tasks noted below, where appropriate, and provide suggestions which
might lead to efficiencies and enhance the results or usefulness of the work.
SCOPE OF WORK
The professional consulting firm selected for this project will be considered an extension
of staff and be responsible for full coordination between the project team , providing advice
and guidance through project completion.
The scope of work, in general, consists of the following:
E-12
Page 13 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
a) Facilitate CCAC meetings, including noticing, development of meeting agenda,
and preparation of meeting agenda and minutes.
b) Upon request of the City Manager or designated Staff, attend all project-related
meetings and make presentations, to the City Council, Civic Center Advisory
Committee, Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee, Finance Advisory
Committee, Planning Commission and Traffic Safety Committee and other
agencies and organizations as needed.
c) Provide professional advice and recommendations on financing and financial
approaches, including, but not limited to P-3, traditional, and design-build. Would
work with Finance Department personnel and Finance Advisory Committee.
d) Identify funding opportunities and approaches for the City Council’s consideration.
Would work with Finance Department personnel and Finance Advisory Committee
e) Provide professional analysis, assessment, and projections of, if any, the Project’s
revenue potential.
f) In coordination with Staff and CCAC, assist with public outreach effort
g) Upon request, coordinate and participate in negotiations with potential Project
partners.
h) Upon request, serve as contract monitor.
i) Upon request, assist with development of possible uses for Coast Guard owned
“Battery Barnes” parcel.
j) Advise and assist with the selection of the professional team as directed through
the appropriate process (e.g., RFP, RFB, RFI) for:
• Architect, Engineer, Design Consultant, Hazardous Materials Abatement,
CEQA/Permitting, Construction Management & Inspection, Utility, and site
security.
• Upon request, Prepare and distribute RFP/RFB/RFI documents and
participation in the evaluation and interview process.
• Coordinate with the City Attorney and staff in the preparation and review of
contracts.
• Assist with execution of consultant contracts.
• Upon request, ensure that the consultants, contractor, and their
subcontractors are properly insured and bonded.
• Upon request, review and recommend payment of consultant and
contractor invoices.
k) Upon request, assist review and advise on overall program schedule and a
detailed construction project schedule with the City’s interest in mind.
l) Track milestones and assertively suggest corrective actions in order to stay on
schedule.
m) Assist with the City’s public outreach effort.
n) Ensure a reasonable and realistic budget is developed and maintained. Upon
request, offer advice on the project budget to maintain the quality or integrity of the
project. Offer advice on all fees, profits, overhead, contingencies, etc. in line with
industry standards.
E-13
Page 14 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
o) Change order management: review - manage the contract to avoid unnecessary
change orders or potential change orders for the project.
p) Advise in coordinating the temporary relocation and continuing City operations
prior to and during construction.
q) Review progress billings and when necessary, upon request negotiate revisions.
r) Upon request, oversee plans and specifications for quality; safety; building code
compliance; CALGreen compliance, fire code compliance; future operation costs;
and budget.
s) Offer advise on applicable federal, state, and local requirements..
t) Assist with obtaining outside agency approvals for the project.
u) Upon request, oversee that all permits are procured and the applicant is in
compliance with all local fire district requirements.
v) Propose, develop and implement Project quality assurance plan (e.g., testing and
inspection program, etc.).
w) Assist with resolving disputes or claims that may occur.
x) Upon request offer advise that all materials used are approved by City staff as
environmentally appropriate.
y) Assist and advise on obtaining Certificate of Occupancy.
z) Assist and advise City Hall staff with move back into the City Hall building once
construction is complete.
aa) Assist and advise contractors to provide the necessary operational training for the
new equipment.
V. PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE
A. RFP Schedule
The following is the anticipated schedule for the RFP process:
Request for Proposal available August 18, 2021
Site Meeting September 1, 2021
Request for Clarification due September 15, 2021
Proposals due September 29, 2021 (4:30pm)
Firm Interviews (if necessary) October 2021
Anticipated Notice of Award October 2021
This project is expected to last for multiple years and there is not a firm schedule at this
time. This RFP includes the submission of a draft schedule. It is anticipated that the
selected Consultant will work with staff to refine and create a preliminary schedule and it
is the City’s expectation that the Scope of Services will be completed in a timely manner,
avoiding needless delays. The ideal Consultant candidate will have available resources
E-14
Page 15 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
and personnel, either in-house or under subcontract, to ensure the completion of the
Scope of Services at the earliest possible time.
VI. NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Only one proposal per firm will be considered.
2. The submittal should be typed and as brief as possible while adequately describing
the qualifications of the firm. The final submittal shall be sent as a PDF via email
to Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst at mattw@rpvca.gov.
3. The proposing firm shall submit the following information with the package,
including the same information for subcontractors, in the following format:
a) Cover Letter: Provide the name, address, and phone number of the firm; the
present staff (size, classification, credentials); the primary contact’s name,
phone number, and email address; any qualifying statements or comments
regarding the proposal; and identification of any sub-consultants and their
responsibilities. Identify the firm’s type of organization (individual, partnership,
corporation), including names and contact information for all officers, and proof
that the organization is currently in good standing. The signed letter should also
include a paragraph stating that the firm is unaware of any conflict of interest in
performing the proposed work. (No more than two pages)
b) Approach to Scope of Services: Respond to the Scope of Services with any
creative and innovative approaches that the firm proposes in order to provide
the services and produce the deliverables contained in this RFP. Describe how
completing the Scope of Services will be approached and any cost-saving or
value-adding strategies or innovations the firm will bring to the project. (No
more than two pages)
c) Organization and Staffing: Identify the person who will be the Project Manager
and primary contact person responsible for the overall delivery of the project.
Provide an organizational chart of the project team that clearly delineates
communication and reporting relationships among the project staff and among
the sub-consultants involved in the project. Identify key personnel to perform
work in the various tasks and include major areas of subcontracted work.
Indicate the expected contributions of each staff member in time as a
percentage of the total effort. Specifically show the availability of staff to provide
the necessary resource levels to meet the City’s needs. Indicate that the Project
Manager and key staff will remain assigned to this project through completion
of the Scope of Services. (No more than two pages)
E-15
Page 16 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
d) Staff Qualifications and Experience: Describe qualifications of the assigned
staff and sub-contractors including relevant technical experience. Staff
assigned to complete the Scope of Services must have p revious experience in
providing the necessary services as described under the Scope of Services.
Description of Consultant’s experience should include:
• Prior Experience: Demonstrate that the firm has significant experience
providing services on similar projects within the past five years (No more
than two pages)
• Staff Qualifications: Provide resumes for the Project Manager and any other
key staff members to be assigned to contribute to the Scope of Services,
with an emphasis on similar services which they provided to other agencies.
(No more than ten pages)
• Reference Projects: Include at least three projects with similar scope of
services performed by the project team within the past three years and
indicate the specific responsibilities of each team member on the reference
project. Provide contact information for each client. (No more than ten
pages)
e) Project Schedule: Provide a detailed critical-path-method schedule for
completion of the tasks and sub-tasks required to accomplish the scope of
work. Note all deliverables and interim milestones on the schedule. (No more
than one 11” x 17” page)
f) Quality Control Plan: Describe the quality control procedures and associated
staff responsibilities which will ensure that the deliverables will meet the City’s
needs. (No more than one page)
g) Acceptance of Conditions: State the offering firm’s acceptance of all conditions
listed in the Request for Proposal (RFP) document and Sample Professional
Services Agreement (Attachment D). Any exceptions or suggested changes to
the RFP or Professional Services Agreement (PSA), including the suggested
change, the reasons therefore and the impact it may have on cost or other
considerations on the firm’s behalf must be stated in the proposal. Unless
specifically noted by the firm, the City will rely on the proposal being in
compliance with all aspects of the RFP and in agreement with all provisions of
the PSA. (No more than one page)
VII. Submission of Proposal
A. Requests for Clarification
E-16
Page 17 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
Requests for clarification of the information contained herein shall be submitted by
email by 4:30 pm on September 15 , 2021. Responses to any clarification
question will be provided to each firm from which proposals have been requested.
A pre-proposal meeting and Civic Center tour is mandatory: September 1, 2021
2pm.
B. Confirmation Email
Upon submission of proposal to the City, the proposing firm shall request an email
confirmation that the proposal was received and retain the email as a record. If an
email confirmation is not received, the proposing firm shall correspond with the
City until a confirmation is received.
VIII. EVALUATIONS AND SELECTION PROCESS
1. Proposals Will be Evaluated Based on the Following Criteria:
a) Approach to Scope of Services (25%)
• Understanding of the Scope of Services as demonstrated by the
thoroughness of the proposal, introduction of cost-saving or value-adding
strategies or innovations (including those applying to overall project
schedule), and an overall approach most likely to result in the desired
outcome for the City.
b) Proposal Schedule (20%)
• Ability to complete the work in the shortest schedule possible (excluding
time for review and community meetings).
c) Staff Qualifications and Experience (30%)
• Relevance of experience of the proposing firm (to provide support resources
to the project team)
• Relevance of experience and strength of qualifications of the Project
Manager
• Relevance of experience and strength of qualifications of the key personnel
performing the work
• Relevance of referenced projects and client review of performance during
those projects
d) Organization and Staffing (15%)
• Availability of key staff to perform the services throughout the duration of
the project
• Assignment of appropriate staff in the right numbers to perform the Scope
of Services
• Appropriate communication and reporting relationships to meet the City’s
needs
E-17
Page 18 of 18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RFP- Civic Center Project Management Services
RFP Release Date: August 18, 2021
e) Quality Control (10%)
• Adequate immediate supervision and review of staff performing the work as
well as appropriate independent peer review of the work by qualified
technical staff not otherwise involved in the project.
2. Selection Process
An evaluation panel will review all proposals submitted and select the top
proposals. These top firms may then be invited to make a presentation (in-person
or virtual TBD) to the evaluation panel, at no costs to the City. The panel will select
the proposal, if any, which best fulfills the City’s requirements. The City will then
further refine the scope and schedule with that firm and request a fee and materials
proposal with a not-to-exceed fee and budget. The City will negotiate the fee with
that firm. The City reserves the right to negotiate special requirements and
proposed service levels using the selected proposal as a basis. If the City is unable
to negotiate an agreeable fee for services with top firm, the City will negotiate with
the next firm chosen among the top firms.
3. Award Notification
The City will notify all proposers in writing of the outcome of the selection process
and intent to award. This RFP does not commit the City to award an agreement,
nor pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of the propo sal in
anticipation of an agreement. The City reserves the right to reject any or all
proposals, or any part thereof, to waive any formalities or informalities, and to
award the agreement to the proposer deemed to be in the best interest of the City
and the Department.
4. Award of Agreement
The selected firm shall be required to enter into a written agreement (see sample
City agreement in Attachment [B]) with the City, in a form approved by the City
Attorney, to perform the Scope of Services. This RFP and the proposal, or any part
thereof, may be incorporated into and made a part of the final agreement; however,
the City reserves the right to further negotiate the terms and conditions of the
agreement with the selected consultant. The agreement will, in any event, include
a maximum "fixed cost" to the City.
E-18