REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR TASK … page 1 of 7 revised july, 2015 request for qualifications for . task order-construction agreement for multiple projects . master enabling agreement

Page 1 of 7 Revised July, 2015

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR

TASK ORDER-CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR MULTIPLE PROJECTS MASTER ENABLING AGREEMENT

BID NUMBER: SY15008

California State University, Fullerton 2600 Nutwood Ave, Suite 300, Fullerton, CA 92831

1.0 INTRODUCTION The State of California, acting through the Board of Trustees of the California State University, hereinafter called Trustees, on behalf of California State University, Fullerton, hereinafter called University, is requesting Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) from interested and qualified General Contractors (Respondents) to provide Collaborative Design-Build and Construction Manager services with lump sum pricing for the design and construction of multiple projects under a master enabling agreement (MEA).

The delivery method for this contract is Task Order-Construction Agreement for Multiple Projects—Master Enabling Agreement (TO-CA MEA). The TO-CA MEA will include two types of agreements for the multiple projects: a single task order for the design and preconstruction phase services for the anticipated group of projects, and individual project construction agreements for the construction phase. During the design and preconstruction phase and under a Trustees-issued task order, the selected Respondent will collaborate with the Trustees on the design, constructability, cost, and schedule of the Project and develop a Lump Sum proposal to construct the Project. Upon the Trustees’ acceptance of the Lump Sum, the Trustees will issue a Construction Agreement to the General Contractor for the construction phase. If the Trustees and the General Contractor do not agree upon a Lump Sum, the Trustees will not award the construction phase of a Project to the General Contractor.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF TO-CA MEA 2.1 Description

• The Trustees’ TO-CA MEA is a one-year contract, with an option for the Trustees to extend the Contract by one year.

• The total maximum Budgeted Cost for all Projects includes all design, preconstruction and construction costs.

• In the first year of the Contract, the total maximum Budgeted Cost for all Projects shall not exceed $10,000,000. If the Trustees exercise the option to extend the agreement for the second year, the total maximum Budgeted Cost for all Projects in the second year shall not exceed $10,000,000.

• The Budgeted Direct Construction Cost for all Projects is the total cost of the work for all projects, excluding Design, Preconstruction, and Site Management fees, and Construction Overhead and Profit.

• In the first year of the Contract, the total maximum Budgeted Direct Construction Cost for all projects is $8,500,000.00. If the Trustees exercise the option to extend the agreement for the second year, the total maximum Budgeted Direct Cost for all Projects in the second year is $8,500,000.

• No single project shall exceed $5,000,000 in total Budgeted Cost. • Every project in this Contract is subject to prevailing wage rate laws as detailed in the Contract General

Conditions; the California Department of Industrial Relations will be monitoring the projects under this Contract for payment of prevailing wage rates.

• The Trustees shall not guarantee a minimum volume of Task Orders or Construction Agreements to be awarded as part of the TO-CA MEA.

• The General Contractor shall be licensed in the State of California with a ‘B’ license, and the Architect on the General Contractor’s team shall be licensed to practice architecture in the State of California. Both General Contractor and Architect must be prequalified with the Capital Planning, Design and Construction Department of the CSU Office of the Chancellor.

Request for Qualifications for Task Order-Construction Agreement for Multiple Projects—Master Enabling Agreement California State University, Fullerton – Bid No. SY15008


2.2 Projects The Projects may include, but are not limited to: No. Project Name (Delivery Method: DB or CM) Budget 1 Pollak Library Mechanical Improvements / Fire & Life Safety Upgrade

(Delivery Method: DB) This project will remove and replace the building’s infrastructure serving all floors of the south wing, including the mechanical (HVAC) equipment, ductwork, controls, hydronic piping, plumbing, electrical, telecommunications and fire alarm systems. The scope of work also includes modernization to the passenger and freight elevators + elevator controls.

$3,500,000

2 Campus – Chilled and Heating Hot Water Line System Replacement (Delivery Method: CM) This project will remove and replace the existing chilled water (CHW) and heating hot water (HHW) distribution system located in underground utility tunnels and vaults. The scope of work also includes the installation of chilled water (CHW) and heating hot water (HHW) isolation valves.

$2,582,000

3 Library – Public Restrooms ADA Upgrades (Delivery Method: DB) This project will renovate and refurbish the existing public restrooms in the south wing of Pollak Library. The newly refreshed restrooms shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Building Codes and the CSU Access Compliance Design Guidelines. Access compliance review/approval by the Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect (DSA) is also required.

$600,000

4 Library South Renovation (Phase 1B.1) – Fourth and Fifth Floors (Delivery Method: DB) This project will renovate and repurpose the fourth and fifth floors of the 1964 south wing, consistent with the Library of the Future (LOFT) goals. Pollak Library will remain operational during the renovation work and portions of the building will remain occupied during construction. The new book stacks / shelving will be Owner Furnished / Contractor Installed (OFCI).

$2,300,000

5 Central Plant – Chiller Upgrade (Phase I) (Delivery Method: CM) This project will remove and replace the main central plant chillers, associated piping and pumps. This project will also create dedicated areas (zones) for the chillers and boilers to meet current building codes. The piping infrastructure will be modified to allow the Main Chiller Plant to utilize the existing TES system should the Trigeneration Plant go down.

$1,689,000

6 Pollak Library Renovation (Phase 1B.2) – First Floor (Delivery Method: DB) This project will renovate and repurpose the entire first floor of the south wing. Pollak Library will remain open and operational during the construction phase. Subsequent phases will be employed to comprehensively improve the remaining areas of the building in accordance with the systemwide Library of the Future (LOFT) initiative.

$5,000,000

7 Other Projects – To Be Identified TBD Total $15,671,000

The Projects are more fully described in the following documents: Exhibit A: Project Description for Pollak Library Renovation / Improvements / Upgrades Exhibit B: Project Description for Campus Chilled and Heating Hot Water Line System Replacement Exhibit C: Project Description for Central Plant Chiller Upgrade

3.0 SCOPE OF WORK The contract terms and conditions, along with work to be performed by the General Contractor are specified in the following TO-CA MEA Contract Documents: • TO-CA MEA, which includes Rider A, Scope of Services; • Task Order Request (for Design and/or Preconstruction Services); • Task Order (for Design and/or Preconstruction Services); • Construction Agreement; • Contract General Conditions (both Collaborative Design-Build and Construction Manager at Risk); and • Supplementary General Conditions for both sets of Contract General Conditions.



Form contracts may be viewed and obtained at: http://www.calstate.edu/cpdc/cm/task-order-construction-agreement-for-multiple-projects.shtml. In submitting a response to this RFQ, the Respondent represents that it is qualified and capable to provide all the requirements of the TO-CA MEA, which would include both the Task Order for Design and/or Preconstruction Services and any potential Construction Agreements.

The following is a brief overview of the work the General Contractor will be required to perform, if awarded the TO-CA MEA and any subsequent task order and construction phase agreement: 3.1 Each TO-CA MEA Task Order issued shall have a separate Budgeted Cost and shall include:

• If specified to be a Design-Build (DB) project in the Task Order: Design responsibility with an Architect and Engineering consultants under contract to the General Contractor; preconstruction coordination, scheduling, constructability, and cost estimating services.

• If specified to be a Construction Manager at Risk (CM) project in the Task Order: Collaboration with the Trustees Architect and Engineering consultants; and preconstruction coordination, scheduling, constructability, and cost estimating services.

• The Rider A-Scope of Services may vary for the General Contractor on an individual project basis, depending on project needs, and in-house needs and capabilities of the Campus.

3.2 Review the initial cost estimates and provide continuous cost management to assure the design is within the budgeted cost estimate.

3.3 Develop the design and provide constructability reviews and analysis. Offer suggestions to improve the quality of the Projects.

3.4 Provide construction planning, phasing, and scheduling during design and through construction completion.

3.5 Develop and maintain Project schedules that incorporate all tasks and approvals of all involved parties necessary to complete the Project within the contract durations.

3.6 Incorporate LEAN practices and tools into the process.

3.7 Incorporate integrated project management practices into the Project.

3.8 Provide quality assurance.

3.9 Bring design-assist and design-build trade subcontractors into the design phase appropriate for the Project and as approved by the Trustees.

3.10 Provide cost estimating and value engineering. Reconcile General Contractor cost estimates with Owner’s budget.

3.11 Coordinate with and provide information as required to regulatory agencies. Schedule and monitor required agency approvals, obtain Campus Building Permit.

3.12 Advertise all projects before the first project bids. Prequalify trade contractors to comply with General Contractor’s and Trustees’ standards, to create a subcontractor bidding pool for all subsequent projects.

3.13 Comply with requirements to subcontract a minimum of three percent (3%) of the Project to Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises.

3.14 Develop Trade Contractor Bid Packages and receive bids in the most logical, competitive, and seamless manner.

3.15 Warrant the design of a Design-Build project, and the completeness and constructability of the construction documents and ensure that trade bid packages include a complete scope of work.

3.16 Submit a Lump Sum proposal.

3.17 Manage and administer the Project construction phase to achieve construction completion within the contract time and budget and with high quality workmanship.

http://www.calstate.edu/cpdc/cm/task-order-construction-agreement-for-multiple-projects.shtml

http://www.calstate.edu/cpdc/cm/task-order-construction-agreement-for-multiple-projects.shtml



4.0 SELECTION PROCESS / REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Selection Process The Trustees will select the General Contractor using a two-step process. The first step is this Request for

Qualifications (RFQ) from which Respondents may submit SOQs to the Trustees. The Trustees will appoint a selection committee to review and score the SOQs, and the highest scoring four firms will continue in the selection process. Should the score of the fifth place firm be within ten points of the score of the fourth place firm, the fifth place firm will also be selected to continue in the selection process. The Trustees will notify the unsuccessful firms, and will send the successful firms a Request for Proposal (RFP). The Trustees’ selection committee will score the responding proposals from the finalists, conduct interviews, and may conduct reference checks. The Trustees may award the TO-CA MEA to the highest scoring firm, or to multiple firms as specified in the RFP. The judgment of the Trustees in this selection process is not subject to appeal.

If the Trustees do not award the TO-CA MEA, or if the Trustees award the TO-CA MEA and do not award a construction phase agreement, the Respondents will not be entitled to recover any monetary awards of any type whatsoever. The Trustees reserve the right to reject all responses to this RFQ. The Trustees may terminate the TO-CA MEA agreement prior to a construction phase and/or seek alternate competitive public bids for a construction phase. There is no guarantee any task order or construction phase agreement will be awarded.

4.2 Requirements for Qualification All Respondents (general contractors) must be prequalified with the Trustees one day prior to the SOQ due

date, or their SOQ submission will not be considered. The last day to submit an application for CSU prequalification is indicated on the enclosed schedule. Respondents must submit the CSU prequalification applications online. For more information regarding prequalification with the Trustees, go to http://www.calstate.edu/cpdc/cm/contractor_prequal_bidders.shtml to apply for prequalification, go to this website and click on PlanetBids. The Respondent’s available prequalification rating (rating minus receivables on any current contracts held with the Trustees) for the TO-CA-MEA must be $10,000,000 or more. Construction phase contract awards may not exceed their prequalification rating at any time during the contract duration.

Architects on the successful Respondent’s team must be prequalified in accordance with the requirements found on the following CSU website: http://www.calstate.edu/CPDC/ae/prequal/.

4.3 Documents Interested parties may obtain selection documents and Project description documents by registering at the

California Department of General Services’ BidSync website at the link below: https://www.bidsync.com/SupplierRegister?ac=register&posting=true&plan=0&regtype=default&cmd=next&. Once registration is completed, login into BidSync and search for the Contract by CSU campus location at: https://www.bidsync.com/bidsynccas/login?service=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bidsync.com%2FDPXLogin.

http://www.calstate.edu/cpdc/cm/contractor_prequal_bidders.shtml

http://www.calstate.edu/CPDC/ae/prequal/

https://www.bidsync.com/SupplierRegister?ac=register&posting=true&plan=0&regtype=default&cmd=next&

https://www.bidsync.com/bidsynccas/login?service=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bidsync.com%2FDPXLogin



5.0 SELECTION PROCESS SCHEDULE

Schedule Activities Schedule RFQ advertised 12/15/15 Last day to submit application for prequalification 01/04/16 Last day to submit RFQ questions 01/07/16 RFQ addenda issued (if required) 01/13/16 Statements of Qualifications due date and time 01/19/16 at 02:00 p.m. Proposer shortlist published by e-mail 01/21/16 RFP distributed to shortlist 01/21/16 Last day to submit RFP questions 01/29/16 at 02:00 p.m. RFP addenda issued (if required) 02/05/16 Technical Proposals due date and time 02/16/16 at 02:00 p.m. Proposing firms interviewed 02/17/16 Fee Proposal due date and time 02/18/16 at 02:00 p.m. Announce (Post) Winning Proposer 02/18/16 TO-CA MEA executed 03/17/16 First task order issued 03/17/16 First construction agreement executed TBD

This is a proposed schedule that is subject to change. The task orders and construction agreements (if awarded) will identify the schedule commitments. Any changes to the schedule for the RFQ/RFP process will be issued to all Proposers via addenda.

6.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Respondents shall submit their Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) to the Managing Office shown herein before the date and time shown in the Selection Process Schedule, in accordance with the following instructions: 6.1 Provide all information requested by this RFQ.

6.2 Provide information as it pertains to your firm. When referencing projects that were joint ventures, indicate such and explain your firm’s role in the project.

6.3 The SOQ should be well organized and as concise and complete as possible while still providing the requested information.

6.4 Information you believe is relevant to the selection of your firm for this Project but not requested by the RFQ may be submitted as an appendix to the SOQ.

6.5 Where contact information is requested, include the company name, address and a company representative’s name, phone number and e-mail address.

6.6 Submit five copies of the SOQ in “8 ½ x 11” format and one copy as a digital file in PDF format.

6.7 Deliver the SOQ in a sealed package marked on the outside “SOQ SY15008” along with Company name and address.



7.0 MANAGING OFFICE FOR THE SELECTION PROCESS Deliver the SOQ to the Managing Office for the Selection Process prior to the date and time indicated in the Selection Process Schedule. Name Sally Yassine, Interim Director, Contracts & Procurement Campus California State University, Fullerton Address (mailing): 2600 Nutwood Ave, Suite 300, Fullerton, CA 92831 Telephone: (657) 278-4503 Fax: (657) 278-1540 E-Mail: [email protected]

8.0 SOQ REQUIRED INFORMATION AND SCORING Provide the following information in your SOQ. Each question will be scored against an ideal response which, in the opinion of the Trustees’ Selection Committee, would receive the maximum number of points possible, as indicated herein. If all information is not provided, the SOQ may not be considered. The Trustees may, at their discretion, call the contacts provided or others as may become known for reference checks. SOQs should be organized with numbered tabs corresponding to the following required information. Provide concise and complete responses. Non-requested information and lengthy responses are discouraged.

Tab Required Information: Points 1 Cover letter stating:

1) that your firm’s submittal is in response to this RFQ; 2) that your firm agrees to enter into preconstruction services and construction agreements if

selected; and 3) under penalty of perjury, that all information in the SOQ is accurate.

0 points

2 Organization Information: • Identify your firm’s full legal name, address, phone, fax, website, and point of contact. • Include organization chart of your Design-Build team. Give titles and names of positions.

0 points

3 Provide the address of the office that will manage this Project. 0 points

4 Copy of your firm’s CSU prequalification letter, which also contains your firm’s Composite Safety Score.

0 points

5 Copy of your firm's California Contractor License and your team Architect’s License. 0 points

6 Your firm’s past experience on CSU projects. 0 points

7 Your firm’s present contracts on CSU projects. 0 points

8 Your Team’s general qualifications and experience managing DB and CM projects of similar size and type. List up to five projects each for the GC and the AE, and provide contact information for the owners; include names and e-mail addresses. Provide examples for both types of delivery methods.

60 points

9 Your Team’s qualifications and demonstrated successful experience with DB and CM at Risk projects in the public sector. Provide the following information for the proposed GC and AE: at least three projects in California that were completed, or are 75% complete, within the last five (5) years. Your Team must have provided DB or CM at Risk services for these projects, and worked directly with the owner. Include: A. A project description in summary form showing key data for each project submitted. B. A narrative project description and include the processes that were used to:

(1) Provide design coordination and review with the architect and owner. (2) Address constructability issues and incorporate solutions into the design.

60 points



(3) Provide cost estimating to assure conformance to the owners budget (4) Demonstrates the firm’s ability to effectively use TO-CA MEA delivery.

C. Provide reference and contact information (names and e-mail addresses) for the project owner or the owner’s representative, and architect, and their roles, responsibilities and everyday interaction with your project team.

D. Describe any lawsuits involving any of your projects’ owners in the last five years to which you have been a party. Describe if you were the plaintiff or defendant, a brief summary of each case, and the outcome.

10 Your firm’s experience incorporating subcontractors into the design phase by methods such as design-assist or design-build. Provide contact information for owner and architect.

25 points

11 Your firm’s experience utilizing DVBEs. 10 points 12 Your firm will be assigned points according to the Composite Weighted Score (CWS) which is

indicated in your firm’s prequalification letter. The highest possible CWS is 50; the lowest, 25 (contractors are not prequalified with scores below 25). One point will be assigned for each increment higher than 25, for a maximum assignment of 25 points. For example, a CWS of 43 will be assigned 18 points, and a CWS of 30, 5 points.

25 points

13 Your Team’s unique qualifications to perform on this Project. 50 points 14 Your firm’s experience within 50 miles of the Project. 20 points 15 Your firm’s experience using LEAN tools and Integrated Project Management methods. 20 points 16 Your firm’s process for assuring the Project cost is within the scope and budget and completed

on time. 50 points

17 During the past five (5) years was your firm required to pay penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages? If yes, provide a description of each instance and the amount of penalties paid. .

25 points

18 During the past five (5) years has your firm been assessed CAL-OSHA fines in the serious, repeat, or willful category? If yes, provide circumstances, number of instances, and the amount of fine(s).

25 points

19 Response to RFQ was clear, concise and responsive. (No tab required) 30 points TOTAL 400 points

9.0 QUESTIONS All questions regarding this RFQ for the TO-CA MEA selection process listed herein must be submitted in writing to BidSync.com. Questions received after the due date will not be considered. Written responses to submitted questions will be posted via written Addenda. Clarifications may be requested verbally, however, verbal responses will not be considered binding.

End of Request for Qualifications

California State University Capital Planning, Design and Construction

COBCP Project Description Capital Outlay Program 2014/2015 to 2016/2017

(Form CPDC 1-4)

Campus: California State University, Fullerton Project: Library Renovation SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: (provide a brief description of project) The project will make improvements to Pollak Library with three goals in mind:

• Correct damage resulting from the 2014 earthquake, allowing closed portions of the Library to reopen;

• Implement the first phase of changes and improvements recommended by the recent “Library of the Future (LOFT) “ planning initiative; and

• Make various typical improvements consistent with upgrading a 50 year old building, including building systems and infrastructure.

A. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT: (problem, program need, infrastructure deficiency)

Three simultaneous issues converge in the Pollak Library in 2014 to make planning for a significant, building-wide renovation both timely and urgent:

• The April 2014 earthquake caused the collapse of certain sections of suspended ceiling tile and related tile grid and light fixtures on floors four, five and six of the south wing of the Pollak Library. These floors contain only book stacks and study carrels. These areas have the original 1964 ceiling and lighting systems, whereas all of the north wing and some portions of the south wing have newer, earthquake-resistant ceiling systems that were undamaged. Only portions of the 1964 ceiling and lighting systems (three floors; 92,000 SF) collapsed, though the collapsed portions that were numerous and scattered. This proves that weakness in the ceiling system was indeed the cause of the collapse. Further, it demonstrates that the remaining portions of ceilings of the three floors that currently appear undamaged are nevertheless not safe. The earthquake that caused the ceiling collapse was fairly mild, yet significant damage resulted. An equal or stronger earthquake, acting on an already damaged ceiling, would likely cause further collapse. These ceilings remain vulnerable to further collapse in the event of another earthquake, probably more vulnerable than in the first quake, because gaps in the ceiling grids now allow even more movement of the grid. For this reason, these three floors of the library have been closed to general public access. Only limited library and facilities staff and engineering consultants are currently allowed to enter the space. Library collections in the affected areas may be retrieved on request by Library staff. The ceiling and its related elements cannot be repaired or reused; it must be 100% replaced with modern materials and systems. The demolition and replacement of 72,000 SF of ceiling grid, with related light fixtures, and HVAC distribution is no small undertaking. When considered, however, in the context of a 50 year old building with multiple infrastructure deficiencies and a separate major initiative to redefine the purpose and function of the Library, it is clear the ceiling restoration should not proceed until coordinated with the other related issues.

• The LOFT planning process, mandated and funded at Cal State Fullerton by the Chancellor’s Office, has defined a new vision for the Pollak “Library of the Future.” This plan has many elements which require their own separate document to adequately explain. For purposes of this project proposal, however it means:

o The 92,000 SF affected by the ceiling issue outlined above is the same area most affected by the LOFT concept of reducing and consolidating collections, and concentrating the

Request for Qualifications for Task Order-Construction Agreement for Multiple Projects—Master Enabling Agreement California State University, Fullerton – Bid No. SY15008 Exhibit A, Page 1 of 8

remainder in compact shelving. Replacing these ceilings in kind; that is, for 92,000 SF of book stacks, would likely become a costly waste when, as expected, the function of the space may change in the forseeable future, forcing a new ceiling design. The ceiling replacement and the LOFT impacts should therefore be considered simultaneously.

o The highest principle of LOFT is to shift the emphasis of the Library from the collections to student learning by whatever means technology or other future influences may bring. Collaborative learning versus solo study has already changed the use of libraries and the trend is expected to expand. A high LOFT priority would therefore be to apply these concepts to a redesign of portions of the Library, partly in the north wing, which is most adaptable to these goals.

Full implementation of LOFT is far beyond the scope of expected funding availability. Limited, high priority improvements in a portion of the Library are proposed as a first step, however, as outlined in Section D.

• Neither ceiling replacement nor LOFT-related improvements, either separately or together, make sense unless the typical deficiencies of any unrenovated 50 year old building are also addressed at the same time. In the south wing, building infrastructure, including elevators, electrical and mechanical systems, and disabled access are among deficiencies that should be addressed at the same time, and coordinated with earthquake corrections and LOFT related improvements.

Background Constructed in 1964 (south wing) and 1995 (north wing), Pollak Library has a basement plus six floors containing about 400,000 SF. A variety of non-library functions occupy the entire basement and portions of the first and second floors

B. RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN (Relevance of proposal to fulfilling campus strategic plan goals) This project is necessary to support the strategic plan statement. We are committed to student success, not only to the responsibility, but also the necessary steps we have to undertake in order to promote learning, create knowledge, and support our region. Going forward, our challenges will be to build out the infrastructure in terms of facilities, sufficient faculty, and necessary staff support campus wide to support our activities. It is by taking on these challenges now and pursuing our goals that we can attain our long-term vision.

C. ALTERNATIVES: (for each, describe the proposed alternative and provide brief summary of scope,

cost, funding source, program benefits, facility management benefits, and impact on support budget) 1. No project.

a. zero scope, cost, funding, benefits and budget impact

2. Build the proposed project. a. Scope as outlined in this Form 1-4 b. Cost as outlined in the related Form 2-7 c. Funded by proposed debt financing bonds d. Facilities management benefit:

i. Eliminates a potential liability for additional earthquake damage. ii. Reduces maintenance and operations costs by modernizing systems, thereby

reducing utility costs and labor requirements


e. Impact on the support budget: reduced maintenance and repair costs.

3. Build a smaller project. Of the three elements of the project outlined above, the earthquake corrections are the highest priority and could potentially be addressed alone. The infrastructure improvements are the next priority. This and the earthquake corrections could potentially be addressed together, and the LOFT improvements omitted. Earthquake corrections should not be omitted, however, in lieu of infrastructure improvements.

D. RECOMMENDED SOLUTION:

1. Which alternative and why? The proposed project including all three elements outlined above is the recommended solution. The “no build” option fails in that it is inconsistent with the campus mission to provide a safe and healthy learning environment. The incremental options have these disadvantages:

a. The earthquake corrections only option would spend millions solely to restore to operation a low usage portion of the library. While the corrections are necessary, alone they would benefit few Library users. It would do nothing to prepare for the planned repurposing per, despite the LOFT plan. Indeed, the investment would be at least partly wasted if the LOFT plan is implemented separately.

b. The proposed infrastructure improvements are a necessary complement to LOFT improvements. LOFT improvements could potentially be implemented independently from infrastructure improvements, but not conversely.

2. Project delivery method (CM@Risk, Design/Bid/Build, Design/Build)

To be determined

3. Detailed scope description. To be determined

4. Basis for cost information. Campus experience

5. CEQA mitigation costs, on and off site:

The proposed project is a renovation project. A mitigated negative declaration would be sought, with minor impacts and mitigations, to be determined.

6. Factors/benefits recommended solution other than the least expensive alternative.

7. Complete description of impact on support budget.

The renovated space in the south wing and its related lighting, heating and cooling systems will be designed to be much more energy efficient than the existing space. Significant energy cost savings would be realized. Maintenance costs for new infrastructure systems and freshly renovated space would likewise be reduced, though the cost savings would be less than those due to energy savings.

8. Identify and explain any project risks. As proposed, project risks are limited to worker and pedestrian safety issues in the course of construction. All applicable workplace safety standards will be observed as required in the construction contract and enforced by appropriate supervision.


9. List requested interdepartmental coordination and/or special project approval (including

mandatory reviews and approvals, e.g. technology proposals). Fire Marshal, Division of State Architect, plan check consultant, CSU Seismic Review Board

(SRB), CSU Mechanical Review Board (MRB).

E. CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 1016, STATUTES OF 2002 – AB 857

1. Does the recommended solution (project) promote infill development by rehabilitating existing infrastructure and how? Explain. The project would renovate and extend the life of an existing building.

2. Does the project improve the protection of environmental and agricultural resources by

protecting and preserving the state’s most valuable natural resources? Explain. The proposed project would renovate an existing building. No natural or agricultural resources will be affected.

3. Does the project encourage efficient development patterns by ensuring that infrastructure

associated with development, other than infill, support efficient use of land and is appropriately planned for growth? Explain.

The project would renovate and extend the life of an existing building.

F. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GLOBAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS ACT (AB 32) – Division

25.5, commencing with Section 38500 of Health and Safety Code AB 32 requires green house gas (GHG) emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

1. In the table below, cells A1 through A3, insert the current annual utility usage for the building(s) affected by the project (Note: new construction = 0). In cells B1 through B3, insert the projected annual utility usage after project completion. Calculate the net change and insert in column C, thus B - A = C. Multiply column C times column D to calculate the change in CO₂ emissions and insert in column E, thus C x D = E. Energy efficiency projects will result in a net reduction and thus a negative value in columns C and E. For new construction projects there is no current utility usage, so the projected usage will be a positive number and equal to the net change.


2. Insert 1990 and 2006 GHG emissions from the “CSU 1990-2006 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report by Campus” (http://calstate.edu/cpdc/peu/sustainability.shtml) into cells E4 and E5. Take the sum of E1 through E3 and insert that in the “Net Change due to project” cell E6. Then calculate the total emissions by adding (or subtracting) the “Net Change due to project” to the “2006 GHG Emissions” value (E5 + E6). New construction will typically result in an increased campus total.

A B C D E

Unit

Current Bldg/Facilit

y Annual Usage

Projected Bldg/Facilit

y Annual Usage

Net Change Bldg/Facilit

y Annual Usage

CO2

Conversion Factor

Net Change (Metric Tons of

CO2)

1

Project Total

kWh 2,207,934 1,081,228 -1,126,706 0.0003655 -412

2 therms 33,431 16,829 -16,602 0.0052945 -88

3 Water-CCF 73,000 69,800 -3,200 0.0013685 -4

4

Totals (Metric Tons of CO2)

1990 Campus GHG Emissions (Certified Report) 18,693

5 2006 Campus GHG Emissions (Certified Report) 20,777

6 Net Change relative to 2006 due to project (E1 + E2 +E3) -504

7 Total Campus GHG Emissions relative to 2006 levels upon project completion (E5+ E6) 20,273

8 Emissions Reduction to reach 2020 goal of 1990 levels (E7-E4) 1580

3. Describe how the campus plans to comply with the California Global Climate Solutions Act (AB 32) by either mitigating GHG increases or implementing overall GHG reductions. The Fullerton campus is already continuously engaged in efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Current examples, both completed and ongoing for the future, include: • Programs to increase commuter ridesharing; • 2010 completion of new student housing (1,056 residents) on campus to reduce commuting; • Plans underway to add several thousand more student residents on or adjacent to campus by

2020, to reduce commuting; • Design and construction of new buildings to meet LEED standards or equivalent; • Extensive retrofitting of campus lighting to LED lamps; • Refitting of the campus central utilities plant to operate at higher efficiency; and • Completion of one megawatt photo-voltaic generating systems on various campus buildings

and parking structures, with plans to expand; Other programs and measures are currently being considered or developed for future implementation. Compliance with AB32 will be accomplished by the sum of many small, incremental improvements.


http://calstate.edu/cpdc/peu/sustainability.shtml





COBCP Project Description Capital Outlay Program 2015-2016

(Form CPDC 1-4 Infrastructure Improvement) Campus: FULLERTON Project: CHILLED AND HEATING HOT WATER

DISTRIBUTION Proposed Funding Year: 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This project will include the replacement of existing chilled

water (CHW) and heating hot water (HHW) distribution within the utility tunnel. The project will also include provisions for new CHW/HHW isolation valves.

A. PURPOSE OF PROJECT: The campus is experiencing CHW / HHW leakages throughout the campus. The original CHW / HHW distribution is over 40 years old and is deteriorating. In addition, the HHW isolation valves are failing due to age. Failure in the piping or the valves will result in disruption of the central utilities to the campus.

This project proposes to remove and replace the existing utility tunnel CHW / HHW distribution to ensure reliability of the systems.

1. Project delivery method: (CM@Risk, Design/Bid/Build, Design/Build, JOC)

Design/Bid/Build

2. Detailed scope description: Project background

Majority of the campus facilities; cooling and heating needs are met by two (2) cooling and heating plants, providing chilled water (CHW) and heating hot water (HHW) to each of the facilities on campus. The original central plant located in the basement of McCarthy Hall was completed in 1992 and utilizes a primary/secondary pumping system. The second central plant (Trigeneration Building) was completed in 2008 and also utilizes a primary/secondary pumping system. There are two (2) thermal energy storage (TES) tank systems; a chilled-water TES and a heating hot water TES on campus. A two-pipe, direct-return site distribution network located in underground vaults and direct-buried, distributes CHW and HHW to the various buildings on campus. Currently, the central plants approximately serve 2.4 million square feet of building space. The chilled water distribution system comprises of a two-pipe, direct return, chilled water piping network distributing chilled water to each of the facilities. Distribution piping is located in underground and walk-through tunnels, in underground vaults, and direct buried, throughout the campus. The chilled water distribution piping comprises of steel lines, is over 40 years old, is deteriorating, is experiencing leakages and is at the end of its useful life.

Request for Qualifications for Task Order-Construction Agreement for Multiple Projects—Master Enabling Agreement California State University, Fullerton – Bid No. SY15008 Exhibit B, Page 1 of 7

Utility Tunnel with Chilled and Heating Hot Water Piping

Chilled water piping in tunnel The heating hot water distribution system comprises of a two-pipe, direct return, heating hot water piping network around the site and inside the buildings. Site piping is located in underground and walk-through tunnels, in underground vaults, and direct buried, throughout the campus. The heating hot water distribution piping is over 40 years old, is deteriorating, is experiencing leakages and is at the end of its useful life.


Heating hot water piping in tunnel Project Scope

The project will remove and replace the existing CHW / HHW distribution within the utility tunnel, which is a two-pipe, direct return piping system.

The project will also provide additional CHW / HHW isolation valves. The existing CHW / HHW distribution does not have adequate means for isolation. The absence of isolation valves can result in major disruptions to CHW/HHW service to facilities on campus, particularly due to leaks or planned outages.

The project will include necessary excavation and surface work and will include temporary services for critical buildings throughout the construction process. The CHW / HHW distribution mains will for the most part be replaced in kind as from a design perspective the system does not have any issues.

Project Phasing

The project would be executed in two phases: Phase 1 would include PW (2014-2015) for replacement of CHW and HHW lines in underground tunnels and Phase 2 (2015-2016) would include construction of the chilled and heating hot water lines. The remaining CHW and HHW direct buried piping will be replaced in subsequent funding years.

3. Basis for Cost Information: P2S Engineering, Inc.

4. CEQA mitigation costs, when applicable

Not applicable


No impact

6. Identify and explain any project risks. Construction scheduling will need to be coordinated as it pertains to impacting CHW / HHW distribution to connected


buildings.

Allocation for temporary cooling/heating to the impacted building will need to be addressed.

D. CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 1016, STATUTES OF 2002 – AB 857

1. Does the project promote infill development by rehabilitating existing infrastructure?

Yes, this project will upgrade existing infrastructure and provide replacements only where necessary

2. Does the project encourage efficient development patterns by ensuring that infrastructure associated with development, other than infill, support efficient use of land and is appropriately planned for growth?

Yes, this project will utilize current space/land and all components will incorporate the potential for future growth

Current Annual Energy Use

*Estimated Annual Energy

Use after Project

Cost: $ 5,630,595 $ 5,630,595 Electricity kWh 37,995,333 kWh 37,995,333 Demand kW 8500 kW 8500 Natural Gas Therms 1,293,750 Therms 1,293,750

Water CCF

CCF Other

GSF:

5,681,719

5,681,719

Cost/gsf: $

$ *


CHILLED & HEATING HOT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE - BREAKDOWN OF COSTS

Description Qty Unit Cost/unit Costs

Utility Tunnel CHW Piping including all supports and hangers

5" 500 LF $120 $60,000 6" 2500 LF $150 $375,000 8" 800 LF $180 $144,000

12" 800 LF $250 $200,000 16" 800 LF $275 $220,000 20" 800 LF $300 $240,000

Utility Tunnel HHW Piping including all supports and hangers

3" 500 LF $75 $37,500 4" 500 LF $100 $50,000 5" 500 LF $120 $60,000 6" 1400 LF $150 $210,000 8" 1400 LF $180 $252,000

10" 500 LF $200 $100,000 12" 800 LF $250 $200,000

Soft Costs @ 30% $644,550.00

Total Costs 11800 $2,793,050





COBCP Project Description Capital Outlay Program 2015-2016

(Form CPDC 1-4 Infrastructure Improvement) Campus: FULLERTON Project: CHILLER REPLACEMENT Proposed Funding Year: 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This project will include the removal and replacement of

the main central plant chillers and associated piping and pumps. The project will also include separating the chiller and boiler areas so as to meet current building codes and modifying the piping infrastructure to allow the Main Chiller Plant to utilize the existing TES system should the Trigeneration Plant go down.

A. PURPOSE OF PROJECT: The purpose of this project is to replace the existing old, inefficient and unreliable main central plant chillers that provide cooling to campus facilities during peak periods and also offer redundancy should the existing cogeneration system go down either due to failure or regular maintenance.

At the same time the project would also modify the distribution piping to allow charging of the TES system by the central plant if the Trigeneration plant were to fail which currently is not an option. Finally, the chiller and boiler spaces would be separated to meet current building code.

1. Project delivery method: (CM@Risk, Design/Bid/Build, Design/Build, JOC)

Design/Bid/Build

2. Detailed scope description: Project Background

Majority of the campus facilities; cooling and heating needs are met by two (2) cooling and heating plants, providing chilled water (CHW) and heating hot water (HHW) to each of the facilities on campus. The original central plant located in the basement of McCarthy Hall was completed in 1992 and utilizes a primary/secondary pumping system. The second central plant (Trigeneration Building) was completed in 2008 and also utilizes a primary/secondary pumping system. There are two (2) thermal energy storage (TES) tank systems; a chilled-water TES and a heating hot water TES on campus. A two-pipe, direct-return site distribution network located in underground vaults and direct-buried, distributes CHW and HHW to the various buildings on campus. Currently, the central plants approximately serve 2.4 million square feet of building space. The chilled water generation at the McCarthy Hall plant is accomplished with four chillers, with a total capacity of 4,300 tons. Chillers CH-1, CH-2, and CH-3 are 1,200 ton chillers utilize refrigerant R-134a, which has zero chlorine

Request for Qualifications for Task Order-Construction Agreement for Multiple Projects—Master Enabling Agreement California State University, Fullerton – Bid No. SY15008 Exhibit C, Page 1 of 6

level and no ozone depletion factor. However, Chiller CH-4 uses refrigerant R-11, which has ozone depletion factor and has been discontinued. There is a vacant bay available for new expansion chiller between CH-3 and CH-4. The CH-1, CH-2 and CH-3 are piped in series for optimum energy efficiency. Chiller CH-1 is a heat recovery chiller, and is the first in the series CHW piping arrangement. These three (3) chillers can operate at the same time. CH-4 is a 700 ton chiller utilized as a standby unit. The four existing chillers provide an instantaneous cooling capacity of 4,300 tons.

Existing 1200 ton chillers. Empty stall where new 1200 ton

chiller can go is in middle. 700 ton pony chiller is on left.

Existing heat recovery chiller that no longer runs.

The Trigeneration Plant (installed in 2008) comprises of two gas-fired absorption chillers with a total capacity of 2,620 tons and meets the current campus heating and


cooling demands. The existing chillers in the McCarthy Hall plant are old, inefficient and are piped to make optimum 24°F design temperatures and meet the demands of the campus. Should one of the chillers fail, the chillers will not be able to support the peak load of the campus. The current configuration is also inefficient as to get partial capacity out of the plant chillers must be pumped through even if they are off. Project Scope

The project proposes removing the existing (3) existing 1200 ton chillers and the existing 700 ton chiller and replacing them with (2) 1200 ton chillers piped in parallel and sized for the full design delta T to allow for full operation should one chiller fail. Piping and pumps for each chiller will be provided and the distribution piping will be modified to allow for charging of the existing TES tanks should the Trigeneration plant go down. Finally, a separation will be built around the boilers to bring the plant up to current building codes.

Existing boilers which share hanger with chillers – against

building code regulations.

Currently there exists space in the plant for a single 1200 ton chiller to be added while all of the existing equipment remains in place. This would allow phasing of the project without taking down the existing chillers and compromising cooling to campus facilities during peak periods.

Project Phasing

The project would be executed in two phases. Phase 1 would include development of PW in 2014-2015 and Phase 2 would include construction of the project in 2015-2016.


3. Basis for Cost Information: P2S Engineering, Inc.

4. CEQA mitigation costs, when applicable Campus does not anticipate any significant environmental effects and will pursue a categorical CEQA exemption


-

6. Identify and explain any project risks. The plant operates currently helps meets the peak demand of the campus and also acts as a redundant plant to the existing Trigeneration Plant. The project can be phased to provide a new chiller in existing available space before taking down the existing chillers. As such taking the plant down for construction does not pose a risk to the campus operation.

D. CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 1016, STATUTES OF 2002 – AB 857

1. Does the project promote infill development by rehabilitating existing infrastructure?

No.

2. Does the project encourage efficient development patterns by ensuring that infrastructure associated with development, other than infill, support efficient use of land and is appropriately planned for growth?

Yes, this project will utilize current space/land and all components will incorporate the potential for future growth

Current Annual Energy Use

*Estimated Annual Energy

Use after Project

Cost: $ 5,630,595 $ 5,550,595 Electricity kWh 37,995,333 kWh 37,195,333 Demand kW 8500 kW 8200 Natural Gas Therms 1,293,750 Therms 1,293,750

Water CCF CCF Other

GSF:

5,681,719

5,681,719

Cost/gsf: $

$ Estimate based on 20% reduction with new chillers.

Request for Qualifications for Task Order-Construction Agreement for Multiple Projects—Master Enabling Agreement California State University, Fullerton – Bid No. SY15008, Exhibit C, Page 4 of 6

CENTRAL PLANT EQUIPMENT - BREAKDOWN OF COSTS

Description Qty Unit Cost/unit Costs

1200 Ton Chillers 2 EA $1,000,000 $2,000,000 Provide associated piping and pumps 1 LS $700,000 $700,000 Controls 1 EA $350,000 $350,000 Modifying distribution piping to allow TES mode

1 EA $600,000 $600,000

Modifying space to separate boilers and chillers

1 EA $300,000 $300,000

Demolish chillers and existing systems 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 Soft Costs @30% $1,245,000 Total Costs $5,395,000

