belmont learning complex request for proposals presentation of evaluation panel findings february...
TRANSCRIPT
Belmont Learning ComplexRequest for Proposals
Presentation of Presentation of
Evaluation Panel FindingsEvaluation Panel Findings
February 12, 2002February 12, 2002
Environment
Panel Members
Mr. Hamid SaebfarMr. Hamid Saebfar Division Chief, School Property Evaluation Division Chief, School Property Evaluation and Clean-up Division, DTSCand Clean-up Division, DTSC
Professor Michael Professor Michael Hoffmann, PhDHoffmann, PhDJames Irvine Professor of Environmental James Irvine Professor of Environmental ScienceScienceExecutive Officer, Environmental Executive Officer, Environmental Engineering Science, California Institute of Engineering Science, California Institute of TechnologyTechnology
Mr.Thierry Sanglerat, Mr.Thierry Sanglerat, P.EP.E. . Executive Vice-President, GeoSyntec Executive Vice-President, GeoSyntec ConsultantsConsultants
Mr. Tim Buresh Mr. Tim Buresh Director of Construction, Alameda Corridor Director of Construction, Alameda Corridor ProjectProject
Mr. Calvin Hollis Mr. Calvin Hollis Managing Principal, Keyser MarstonManaging Principal, Keyser Marston
Mr. David Dybdahl, Mr. David Dybdahl, CPCU, ARMCPCU, ARMAmerican Risk Management Resources American Risk Management Resources NetworkNetwork
Mr. Colin Shepherd Mr. Colin Shepherd Vice President, Hines CorpVice President, Hines Corp
Construction
Finance
Insurance
Development
How the Panel Operated An independent panel of experts was asked to An independent panel of experts was asked to
review the proposals and provide the District review the proposals and provide the District with advice as to their quality.with advice as to their quality.
Seven Panelists from five disciplines were Seven Panelists from five disciplines were selected: Environmental; Construction; selected: Environmental; Construction; Finance; Insurance; and Development.Finance; Insurance; and Development.
Panelists opted to meet as a team several Panelists opted to meet as a team several times as their subject areas were interrelated.times as their subject areas were interrelated.
Panelists posed several follow-up questions Panelists posed several follow-up questions to the bidders and held one set of in-person to the bidders and held one set of in-person interviews to drill down deeper into the interviews to drill down deeper into the assumptions and plans reflected in the assumptions and plans reflected in the proposals.proposals.
Report of Panel Members
Environmental Issues
Professor Michael HoffmanProfessor Michael Hoffman
Mr. Thierry SangleratMr. Thierry Sanglerat
Panel Member, Mr. Hamid Saebfar of Panel Member, Mr. Hamid Saebfar of DTSC has also issued a separate letter on DTSC has also issued a separate letter on the proposals in his regulatory capacity.the proposals in his regulatory capacity.
Scope of Presentation
Current status of the site, the environmental Current status of the site, the environmental investigation and related regulatory requirementsinvestigation and related regulatory requirements
Evaluation FindingsEvaluation Findings What We Asked ForWhat We Asked For What We Got What We Got Performance Against CriteriaPerformance Against Criteria
Conclusions and RecommendationsConclusions and RecommendationsEn
viro
nm
ent
Current Environmental Status of the Site
Site Characterization is Essentially CompleteSite Characterization is Essentially Complete What is NOT on the siteWhat is NOT on the site
Hazardous waste disposal siteHazardous waste disposal site LandfillLandfill Industrial Waste DumpIndustrial Waste Dump
What is at the siteWhat is at the site Naturally Occurring Subsurface Gases and Naturally Occurring Subsurface Gases and
Hydrocarbon materialsHydrocarbon materials Methane Methane Hydrogen SulfideHydrogen Sulfide
Former Gas StationFormer Gas Station Corner of 1Corner of 1stst and Beaudry and Beaudry
En
viro
nm
ent
Selected Contractor Would Have to Meet Following Requirements
Complete Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Complete Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).Study (RI/FS).
Compile Detailed Design of Gas Migration Compile Detailed Design of Gas Migration Control System .Control System .
Optimize Monitoring System.Optimize Monitoring System. Obtain DTSC Approval of Design of Gas Obtain DTSC Approval of Design of Gas
Migration Control System. Migration Control System. Obtain DTSC Approval of Monitoring & Obtain DTSC Approval of Monitoring &
Reporting Plan.Reporting Plan.
En
viro
nm
ent
What We Asked For
Team Members and Relevant ExperienceTeam Members and Relevant Experience Approach to Site Characterization For Final Approach to Site Characterization For Final
Design and DTSC ApprovalDesign and DTSC Approval Gas Migration Control System Components Gas Migration Control System Components
and Layoutand Layout Operation, Maintenance & Monitoring Operation, Maintenance & Monitoring
ApproachApproach
En
viro
nm
ent
What We Got
All Proposals HaveAll Proposals Have Same ObjectivesSame Objectives Gas ControlGas Control Gas Extraction SystemsGas Extraction Systems Monitoring SystemsMonitoring Systems Gas Treatment SystemsGas Treatment Systems
En
viro
nm
ent
ConceptualGas Control System
What We Got
All Proposed Systems HaveAll Proposed Systems Have Same MaterialsSame Materials Same ComponentsSame Components Same Monitoring ParametersSame Monitoring Parameters
En
viro
nm
ent
Hoag HospitalHoag Hospital50% Methane Gas50% Methane Gas
Hydrogen Sulfide - 4,000 ppmHydrogen Sulfide - 4,000 ppm
ResidentialResidential17% Methane Gas17% Methane Gas
BenzeneBenzeneTolueneToluene
EthylbenzeneEthylbenzeneXyleneXylene
Sierra PointSierra Point60% Methane Gas60% Methane Gas
Vinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideBenzeneBenzene
Big Box RetailerBig Box Retailer
Former Town Gas PlantFormer Town Gas PlantOld Sewer LineOld Sewer LineFormer LandfillFormer Landfill
Liquid Waste InjectionLiquid Waste InjectionAbove Ground Storage TankAbove Ground Storage Tank
Performance Against Criteria
Teams Teams All Bidders Have Qualified Staff.All Bidders Have Qualified Staff.
ExperienceExperience All Bidders Have Gas Migration Control All Bidders Have Gas Migration Control
Experience.Experience. All Bidders Have Local Experience.All Bidders Have Local Experience.
Team Members and Relevant Experience
En
viro
nm
ent
Performance Against Criteria
All Bidders have agreed to perform All Bidders have agreed to perform additional site characterization as additional site characterization as required by DTSC.required by DTSC.
Komex Proposes Oil Field Characterization As An Komex Proposes Oil Field Characterization As An OptionOption
All Bidders Recognize the Need to All Bidders Recognize the Need to Complete the RI/FS Complete the RI/FS (AB 1301).(AB 1301).
Site Characterization
En
viro
nm
ent
Performance Against Criteria
Gas Control Migration Systems
All Proposals Include Similar Systems.All Proposals Include Similar Systems.
The Selected Bidder Will Have to The Selected Bidder Will Have to Compile Detailed Design of Gas Compile Detailed Design of Gas Migration Control System and Get Migration Control System and Get DTSC Approval.DTSC Approval.
En
viro
nm
ent
Performance Against Criteria
All Bidders Propose Essentially Similar All Bidders Propose Essentially Similar Approaches to Operation, Maintenance Approaches to Operation, Maintenance & Monitoring.& Monitoring.
The Selected Bidder Will Have toThe Selected Bidder Will Have to Optimize Monitoring SystemOptimize Monitoring System Get DTSC Approval.Get DTSC Approval.
Operation, Maintenance & Monitoring Approach
En
viro
nm
ent
Conclusions and Recommendations
Environmental IssuesEnvironmental Issues
En
viro
nm
ent
Conclusions
All Bidders Could Undertake Project.All Bidders Could Undertake Project.
All Bidders Could Complete Work to All Bidders Could Complete Work to DTSC Approval.DTSC Approval.
Belmont Learning Center Can Be Belmont Learning Center Can Be Completed And Be Safe.Completed And Be Safe.
En
viro
nm
ent
Recommendations
From Environmental Perspective, From Environmental Perspective, Proceed With Belmont Learning Proceed With Belmont Learning Center.Center.
Undertake Negotiations on the Undertake Negotiations on the Basis ofBasis of LAUSD Requirements for Environmental LAUSD Requirements for Environmental
Remedy Remedy DTSC RequirementsDTSC Requirements
En
viro
nm
ent
LAUSD Requirements Should Include: Gas Migration Control System Over Gas Migration Control System Over Entire Site.Entire Site.
ActiveActive Gas Migration Control System. Gas Migration Control System.
Hydrogen Sulfide (HHydrogen Sulfide (H22S) Monitoring to Odor S) Monitoring to Odor Detection Level with Best Available Detection Level with Best Available Technology.Technology.
En
viro
nm
ent
Provides maximum environmental protection for students, staff and community as well as expedites the process.
Estimated Costs
Estimated capital costs for the remaining site Estimated capital costs for the remaining site characterization, design and construction of an characterization, design and construction of an active gas migration control system should be active gas migration control system should be between $10-$15 millionbetween $10-$15 million
Estimated ongoing monitoring should be Estimated ongoing monitoring should be about $1.5 million on a net present value about $1.5 million on a net present value
basis (over 30 years)basis (over 30 years) or, about $150,000 per year for 30 yearsor, about $150,000 per year for 30 years
En
viro
nm
ent
Construction
Mr. Tim BureshMr. Tim Buresh
Current Conditions
Buildings are completely designed and DSA Buildings are completely designed and DSA approved.approved.
Buildings are approximately 60% complete. It Buildings are approximately 60% complete. It is hard to assess the state of completion is hard to assess the state of completion accurately.accurately.
Work has not yet begun or is mostly Work has not yet begun or is mostly incomplete on several planned joint use incomplete on several planned joint use facilities and the outdoor, common, facilities and the outdoor, common, landscaped and athletic areas of the site.landscaped and athletic areas of the site.
The buildings are weather protected and being The buildings are weather protected and being maintained at LAUSD expense.maintained at LAUSD expense.
Con
stru
ctio
n
What We Asked For Scope definition – what would be completed, Scope definition – what would be completed,
changed or deleted.changed or deleted. Construction approach – how the facilities will be Construction approach – how the facilities will be
built and completed.built and completed. Management plan – who is responsible contractually Management plan – who is responsible contractually
and in the field.and in the field. Completion schedule – total delivery time including Completion schedule – total delivery time including
design and environmental assessment process.design and environmental assessment process. Cost-to-Complete – broken down by major cost Cost-to-Complete – broken down by major cost
element and pricing mechanism.element and pricing mechanism.
Con
stru
ctio
n
What We Got
All three proposers were in compliance with All three proposers were in compliance with the criteria.the criteria.
Scope – All proposed construction of entire core Scope – All proposed construction of entire core school; variations on joint use facilities, athletics, school; variations on joint use facilities, athletics, etc.etc.
Management - It became apparent that LAUSD Management - It became apparent that LAUSD could not take “hands off” approach to project could not take “hands off” approach to project delivery, project management, project quality and delivery, project management, project quality and project cost control.project cost control.
Con
stru
ctio
n
What We Got
Schedule - All proposed delivery in 3 years or less. Schedule - All proposed delivery in 3 years or less. Faster alternative to complete buildings while Faster alternative to complete buildings while completing RI/FS.completing RI/FS.
Cost – Proposals contained wide range of Cost – Proposals contained wide range of contingencies and pricing formats. Cost range to contingencies and pricing formats. Cost range to complete buildings and environmental systems should complete buildings and environmental systems should be $60-80 million. It became apparent that the lump be $60-80 million. It became apparent that the lump sum cost to complete approach forces proposers to sum cost to complete approach forces proposers to increase costs excessively because of perceived increase costs excessively because of perceived uncertainties. uncertainties.
Con
stru
ctio
n
Recommendations
Install LAUSD Project Management team to Install LAUSD Project Management team to negotiate details, control quality and manage negotiate details, control quality and manage cost risk elements.cost risk elements.
Take aggressive schedule approach, Take aggressive schedule approach, completing buildings in parallel with completing buildings in parallel with environmental process. environmental process.
Negotiate IMAX/GMAX pricing instead of Negotiate IMAX/GMAX pricing instead of lump sum pricing.lump sum pricing.
How to Improve the Proposals
Con
stru
ctio
n
IMAX Process
IMAX GMAX
LAUSD negotiates Initial Maximum LAUSD negotiates Initial Maximum Price (IMAX) with proposer.Price (IMAX) with proposer.
Go through project evaluation and Go through project evaluation and subcontract bidding process (several subcontract bidding process (several months). Reduce uncertainty and costs months). Reduce uncertainty and costs accordingly.accordingly.
At end of evaluation period, negotiate At end of evaluation period, negotiate Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMAX) Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMAX) with specific contingencies identified.with specific contingencies identified.
Proposer responsible for costs in excess Proposer responsible for costs in excess of GMAX; shares savings if costs under of GMAX; shares savings if costs under GMAX.GMAX.
LAUSD shares some risk elements.LAUSD shares some risk elements.
Reduced Uncertainty reduces costs
Conclusion
These proposals are an adequate starting These proposals are an adequate starting point for negotiations should the Board opt point for negotiations should the Board opt to complete the school through this RFP to complete the school through this RFP process.process.
The school can be completed more quickly The school can be completed more quickly and at less cost than other alternatives.and at less cost than other alternatives.
The LAUSD Facilities Management team is The LAUSD Facilities Management team is capable of managing the project to meet capable of managing the project to meet Board goals.Board goals.
Financial Issues
Mr. Calvin HollisMr. Calvin Hollis
Current Conditions District purchased the land for the BLC for $60 District purchased the land for the BLC for $60
million, all provided by the State.million, all provided by the State. The District issued COPs to fund the non-land The District issued COPs to fund the non-land
portions of the project.portions of the project. District has spent $94 million in non-land District has spent $94 million in non-land
project costs (including $15.1 million arbitration project costs (including $15.1 million arbitration award).award).
Approximately $3 million remains in unused Approximately $3 million remains in unused COP proceeds.COP proceeds.
The variable rate on the COPS was The variable rate on the COPS was approximately 2.10% last week.approximately 2.10% last week.
Fin
ance
What We Asked For
Financing Proposal.Financing Proposal. Flexibility to use a range of sources to fund Flexibility to use a range of sources to fund
the school construction.the school construction. Financially responsible parties to limit Financially responsible parties to limit
District exposure to cost uncertainty.District exposure to cost uncertainty.
Fin
ance
What We Got
Financing proposals that ranged from simple “District Financing proposals that ranged from simple “District to provide” to privately placed, long term, lease-backed to provide” to privately placed, long term, lease-backed financing paid from general fund.financing paid from general fund.
All proposals can be structured to allow use of local All proposals can be structured to allow use of local bonds, state bonds, certificate proceeds or other local bonds, state bonds, certificate proceeds or other local sourcessources
Environmental insurance can be financed through Environmental insurance can be financed through insurance company affiliate.insurance company affiliate.
Short term financing was offered, however it requires Short term financing was offered, however it requires permanent financing.permanent financing.
All proposals are dependent upon District credit.All proposals are dependent upon District credit.
Fin
ance
Were Criteria Met
Each proposal can be efficiently financed.Each proposal can be efficiently financed. None are dependent upon unproven or risky None are dependent upon unproven or risky
financing techniques.financing techniques. Each can be adapted to meet Districts Each can be adapted to meet Districts
specific financing objectives.specific financing objectives. Each proposal contains a combination of Each proposal contains a combination of
bonding and insurance programs to mitigate bonding and insurance programs to mitigate risks of cost overruns or failure to complete.risks of cost overruns or failure to complete.
Fin
ance
Recommendations
Preserve financing flexibility until costs are Preserve financing flexibility until costs are known and District sources analyzed.known and District sources analyzed.
Avoid locking in long term pledge of general Avoid locking in long term pledge of general operating funds in favor of options to prepay operating funds in favor of options to prepay with bond, State proceeds, or other local with bond, State proceeds, or other local sources (such as Developer Fees) immediately sources (such as Developer Fees) immediately or in the future.or in the future.
How to Improve the Proposals
Fin
ance
Insurance
Mr. David DybdahlMr. David Dybdahl
Current Conditions
The District currently has an The District currently has an environmental insurance policy. environmental insurance policy.
The policy will cover the Belmont The policy will cover the Belmont Learning Center when an “NFA” or “No Learning Center when an “NFA” or “No Further Action” notice is issued by the Further Action” notice is issued by the DTSC.DTSC.
The current policy limits are $100 The current policy limits are $100 million for 20 years. We have 17 years million for 20 years. We have 17 years remaining on the policy.remaining on the policy.
Insu
ran
ce
What We Asked For
Insurance for the ProjectInsurance for the Project Clean-up Cost CapClean-up Cost Cap Contractors PollutionContractors Pollution Professional LiabilityProfessional Liability
Pollution Legal Liability (environmental)Pollution Legal Liability (environmental) We requested $100 million in coverage We requested $100 million in coverage
for 70 years.for 70 years.
Insu
ran
ce
What We Got
Proposals that included all the types of coverage Proposals that included all the types of coverage specified at the limits specified or higher.specified at the limits specified or higher.
Pollution Legal Liability was for a maximum of Pollution Legal Liability was for a maximum of 30 years; with a GIC (guaranteed investment 30 years; with a GIC (guaranteed investment contract) proposed to purchase a new policy in 30 contract) proposed to purchase a new policy in 30 years to cover the remaining required yearsyears to cover the remaining required years
Options to bundle the cost of the environmental Options to bundle the cost of the environmental mitigation measures as a part of the insurance mitigation measures as a part of the insurance premiums were provided by some teams. premiums were provided by some teams.
Insu
ran
ce
Were Criteria Met
The coverages proposed would address the insurable The coverages proposed would address the insurable risks of the District associated with the project.risks of the District associated with the project.
All proposers have demonstrated they can obtain All proposers have demonstrated they can obtain insurance to protect the District.insurance to protect the District.
Market rates for these types of coverage are reflected Market rates for these types of coverage are reflected in the quoted costs.in the quoted costs.
There is no apparent “risk premium” associated with There is no apparent “risk premium” associated with the Belmont Learning Center site or any of the the Belmont Learning Center site or any of the proposers– as reflected in the rates quoted.proposers– as reflected in the rates quoted.
Insu
ran
ce
Recommendations
Keep the District’s options open with regard to the Keep the District’s options open with regard to the ultimate level and configuration of the insurance ultimate level and configuration of the insurance package.package.
Give serious consideration to utilizing the Give serious consideration to utilizing the District’s basic environmental liability insurance District’s basic environmental liability insurance policy as a part of the ultimate package.policy as a part of the ultimate package.
Consider having the District purchase the Consider having the District purchase the coverage directly.coverage directly.
How to Improve the Proposals
Insu
ran
ce
Estimated Costs
Estimated insurance costs (+/- 20%) for the Estimated insurance costs (+/- 20%) for the $10-$15 million estimated environmental $10-$15 million estimated environmental mitigation are as follows:mitigation are as follows:
Pollution Legal Liability 30 years (environmental) Pollution Legal Liability 30 years (environmental) - $2 million - $2 million
Clean-up Cost Cap - $2.25 millionClean-up Cost Cap - $2.25 million Contractor’s Pollution Liability - $700,000Contractor’s Pollution Liability - $700,000 Professional Liability - $2 millionProfessional Liability - $2 million
Insu
ran
ce
Total = about $7 million
Summary
Summary
Today’s presentation focused on the Today’s presentation focused on the responsiveness of the RFP proposals.responsiveness of the RFP proposals.
The primary conclusion shared by all evaluation The primary conclusion shared by all evaluation panel members is that the BLC can be completed, panel members is that the BLC can be completed, safely, and at a reasonable cost and timeline, with safely, and at a reasonable cost and timeline, with one of the proposal teams.one of the proposal teams.
Summary of Estimated Costs
Onetime CostsOnetime Costs
Environmental MitigationEnvironmental Mitigation $10-$15 million$10-$15 million
ConstructionConstruction $50-$65 million$50-$65 million
InsuranceInsurance $7 million$7 million
Pre-funded Operations and Pre-funded Operations and Maintenance (30 years of Maintenance (30 years of monitoring)monitoring)
$1.5 million$1.5 million
TOTALTOTAL $68 – $88 million$68 – $88 million
Another Way of Looking at Operations and Maintenance Costs
Environmental System Maintenance CostsEnvironmental System Maintenance Costs
Ongoing Maintenance and Ongoing Maintenance and MonitoringMonitoring
$150,000 per year$150,000 per year
Senior High School Operations Costs Senior High School Operations Costs (Belmont Sr High)(Belmont Sr High)
Utilities Utilities $450,000 per year$450,000 per year
Custodial Svcs & SuppliesCustodial Svcs & Supplies $700,000 per year$700,000 per year
TOTALTOTAL $1,150,000 per year$1,150,000 per year
Next Steps
District StaffDistrict Staff