The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20220215 04 - Griffin PM Services and Gensler Site Plan Design Civic Ctr 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 (forthcoming as late correspondence) 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 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