HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.17.11
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF EVANSTON, ILLINOIS
LORRAINE H. MORTON CIVIC CENTER
2100 RIDGE AVENUE, EVANSTON 60201
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Monday, October 17, 2011
7:00 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(I) Roll Call – Begin with Alderman Braithwaite
(II) Mayor Public Announcements
End Polio: Rotary World Polio Day
(III) City Manager Presentations and Announcements
Donation to Evanston Police Department of a T-3 Vehicle by David Cherry
Tree Donation Program
Day in the Life of Evanston: A Photo Story, October 22, 2011
(IV) Citizen Comment
Members of the public are welcome to speak at City Council meetings. As part of the Council
agenda, a period for citizen comments shall be offered at the commencement of each regular
Council meeting. Those wishing to speak should sign their name, address and the agenda item
or topic to be addressed on a designated participation sheet. If there are five or fewer speakers,
fifteen minutes shall be provided for Citizen Comment. If there are more than five speakers, a
period of forty-five minutes shall be provided for all comment, and no individual shall speak longer
than three minutes. The Mayor will allocate time among the speakers to ensure that Citizen
Comment does not exceed forty-five minutes. The business of the City Council shall commence
forty-five minutes after the beginning of Citizen Comment. Aldermen do not respond during
Citizen Comment. Citizen comment is intended to foster dialogue in a respectful and civil manner.
Citizen comments are requested to be made with these guidelines in mind.
(V) Special Orders of Business
(VI) Executive Session
(VII) Adjournment
1
City Council Agenda October 17, 2011 Page 2 of 3
10/14/2011 4:36 PM
SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
(SP1) 2nd Quarter 311 Report Presentation
Staff recommends that City Council review the 2nd Quarter 311 Report.
For Discussion
(SP2) License Plate Recognition Proposal Presentation
Staff recommends City Council review the License Plate Recognition proposal.
For Discussion
(SP3) Robert Crown Request For Proposal
Staff recommends Council approval to release a Request for Proposal for the
subject project to three developer teams, prequalified earlier this year. Funding
will be provided by Capital Improvement Plan Account No. 415555 with a budget
of $143,000
For Action
(SP4) Public Works Projects
(SP4.1) 2012 Water Main Replacement & Street Resurfacing Program
Staff recommends City Council approval of the proposed list of projects to be
included in the 2012 Water Main Replacement and Street Resurfacing Program,
subject to final approval of the FY2012 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). In
addition, staff recommends the development of a new 5-Year Street
Improvement Plan (FY2013-FY2017) to be completed in 2012.
For Action
(SP4.2) Potential Bus Shelter Locations – Citywide Creative Outdoor
Advertising of America (COA), Inc.
Staff will present potential locations for Creative Outdoor Advertising of America
(COA) Inc., to proceed to install bus shelters where feasible for City Council
review and approval. A 10 year contract with COA was approved by the City
Council on September 27, 2010. The potential bus shelter locations were
presented and discussed during the Administrative & Public Works Committee
meeting on March 14, 2011.
For Discussion
(SP4.3) TIGER III Grant Application: Church Street from Lawler St. (Skokie)
to Chicago Ave. (Evanston) and Dodge Avenue from Dempster St. to
Lyons St.
Staff recommends authorization for the City Manager to apply for a TIGER III
Discretionary Grant to fund the construction of the West Evanston Plan on
Church Street (NS Channel to Chicago) and Dodge Avenue (Dempster to
Lyons). The total cost of funding this project is estimated to be $16,300,000 of
which $11,720,000 would be funded with TIGER III Grant funds. The remaining
$4,580,000 would be funded by the City of Evanston.
For Discussion
2
City Council Agenda October 17, 2011 Page 3 of 3
10/14/2011 4:36 PM
(SP5) Disposable Bag Presentation
Environment Board will present an update on options regarding disposable bags
for City Council to review.
For Discussion
Information is available about Evanston City Council meetings at: www.cityofevanston.org/citycouncil.
Questions can be directed to the City Manager’s Office at 847-866-2936. The City is committed to
ensuring accessibility for all citizens. If an accommodation is needed to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Manager’s Office 48 hours in advance so that arrangements can be made for the
accommodation if possible.
3
For City Council meeting of October 17, 2011 Item SP3
Crown Park Request for Proposal
For Action
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Douglas J. Gaynor, Director, Parks, Recreation & Community Services
Robert Dorneker, Superintendent of Recreation
Stefanie Levine, Assistant Superintendent Parks/Forestry & Facilities
Subject: RFP to Design, Build, Finance and Operate an Ice Rink and Community
Center within Crown Park
Date: October 17, 2011
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends Council approval to release an RFP for the subject project to three
developer teams, prequalified earlier this year.
Funding Source:
CIP Account No. 415555: $143,000
Summary:
On November 16, 2009, City Council directed staff to prepare a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) to procure the services of a Developer to design, build, finance and
operate a new ice rink and community center at Crown Park, replacing the existing
Crown Center. On April 1, 2010 the RFQ document was publicly issued. Responses
were received from eight consultants on June 29, 2010. An evaluation committee,
selected by the full City Council and consisting of three Aldermen, three Parks and
Recreation Board members and a variety of city staff was organized to review the
proposals received. The evaluation committee met and shortlisted four firms for
interviews on August 23, 2010. After interviews were held, three firms (Harbour
Contractors, William Blair and McCaffrey Interests) were recommended for
prequalification. On January 24, 2011, the City Council approved that recommendation.
In addition to the pre-qualifications approved at the January 24, 2011 Council meeting,
staff was directed to proceed with the following items:
1. Performance of a Phase I and (potentially) Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) for the Crown property.
Memorandum
4
2. Performance of a preliminary geotechnical investigation to evaluate
subsurface soils.
3. Performance of a market study to validate the market feasibility of the
proposed building program.
4. Preparation of an RFP to the three finalist firms to Design, Build, Finance and
Operate an Ice Rink and Community Center within Crown Park
The Phase 1 ESA was completed in early spring 2011 by consultants EPI. The report
collected, identified and summarized information on past or present recognized
environmental conditions and/or activities on the property. The assessment included
review of all available historic and geologic records which could provide insight into past
land uses and potential environmental concerns. The ESA revealed no evidence of
recognized environmental conditions on the property and concluded that no further
investigation, including a Phase 2 ESA, was deemed warranted at this time.
The preliminary geotechnical work was completed in late spring 2011 by consultants
EPI. The report evaluated subsoil surfaces on the property for purposes of providing
preliminary foundation system analysis. The investigation concluded that the existing
shallow depth soils on site are not capable of supporting a proposed building of the type
contemplated for this project. As a result, the report recommends that the proposed
structure be supported by belled caissons.
The market study was completed in early fall 2011 by consultants HVS. The purpose of
the report was to review the current operations and assess the market demand potential
of a new expanded facility. Work included staff and user interviews, analysis of
economic and demographic data, examination of programming and ice utilization and
comparative analysis of the local market. The study concluded that demand exists for a
regulation sized ice surface in addition to the one and one-half ice surfaces currently at
Crown today.
In addition to conducting the above studies, staff has prepared an RFP for issuance to
the three finalist firms. The RFP contains a variety of components including: an
introduction, financing options for proposer responses, procurement process, evaluation
and selection information, proposal instructions, proposal forms, contractual agreement,
general technical specifications for construction, design/build work requirements and
procedures, operations and maintenance requirements, a facility evaluation protocol
and repair/replacement schedules.
A complete copy of the RFP, which includes the studies described above, can be found
at www.cityofevanston.org/citycouncil for your review. Staff recommends Council
approval to release the RFP document to the three prequalified firms. The current
anticipated schedule for this project is as follows:
Issue Request for Proposals October 27, 2011
One-on-one Proposer Meetings to Discuss Submittals November 10, 2011
Deadline for RFP Questions December 1, 2011
5
Issue Final Response Addendum and RFP Questions December 15, 2011
Proposal Due Date February 2, 2012
Proposal Selection and start of Negotiations (anticipated) March 29, 2012
Project Award and Agreement Execution (anticipated) May 28, 2012
Design / Build work begins Summer/Fall 2012
Design / Build work completed Summer/Fall 2014
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments:
Draft Request for Proposal (RFP)
(The complete RFP including Exhibits A-F is available as a separate document at
www.cityofevanston.org/citycouncil.
6
CITY OF EVANSTON
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
Design, Build, Operate and Finance
The Evanston Ice Rink and Community Center through a Design,
Build, Operate and Finance Agreement
RFP 12-61
SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 2:00pm, February 2, 2012, Room 4200,
Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge
Avenue, Evanston, Illinois 60201
SEALED PROPOSALS TO BE RETURNED TO:
CITY OF EVANSTON
PURCHASING DIVISION
ROOM 4200, CIVIC CENTER
2100 RIDGE AVENUE
EVANSTON, IL 60201
Phone: 847-866-2935
Fax: 847-448-8128
7
RFP – Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section 1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1 Introduction 4
1.2 Project Goals 4
1.3 General Project Description and Scope of Developer’s Obligations 5
1.4 Procurement Schedule 7
1.5 General Provisions Regarding Proposals 7
1.6 M/W/EBE Goals 8
1.7 LEP Requirements 8
1.8 Employment Offer to Current City Employees 8
1.9 Public Art 9
Section 2 OPTIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Objectives 9
2.2 Option 1 9
2.3 Option 2 9
2.4 Option 3 9
2.5 Option 4 (voluntary) 10
Section 3 PROCUREMENT PROCESS
3.1 Procurement Method 10
3.2 Receipt of the Request for Proposal Documents, Communications
and Other Information 10
3.3 Questions and Response Process, and Addenda 12
3.4 Pre-Proposal Meetings 14
3.5 Confidentiality 15
3.6 City Studies and Investigations 16
3.7 Examination of RFP and Site Access 16
3.8 Errors 17
3.9 Changes in Proposer’s Organization 17
3.10 Taxes 18
3.11 Prevailing Wages 18
3.12 Building Permits 19
Section 4 REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS AND
ACCEPTANCE OF DELIVERY BY CITY
4.1 General Submittal Requirements 19
4.2 Modifications, Withdrawals and Late Submittals 21
4.3 Acceptance of Delivery by City 22
4.4 Costs Not Reimbursable 22
Section 5 EVALUATION AND POST-SELECTION PROCESS
5.1 Technical Proposals / Project Development Plan 23
8
RFP – Page 3
5.2 Financial Proposals 25
5.3 City Rights to Exclude Proposals from Consideration or to Waive Mistakes 26
5.4 Requests for Clarification 26
5.5 Requests for Proposal Revisions 26
5.6 Recommendation to City Council 27
5.7 Finalization of the Agreement; Post-Selection Process 27
5.8 Post-Selection Deliverables 27
Section 6 FINAL AWARD AND EXECUTION; POST-EXECUTION ACTIONS
6.1 Final Award, Execution and Delivery of Agreement 28
6.2 Debriefings 30
Section 7 PROTEST PROCEDURES
7.1 General 31
7.2 Authority to Resolve Protests and Contract Claims 31
Section 8 CITY RESERVED RIGHTS 32
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Technical Proposal Instructions
Exhibit B Financial Proposal Instructions
Exhibit C Agreement
Exhibit D Appendices to the Agreement
Exhibit E City Studies and Investigations
Exhibit F Required Forms
Form A Proposal Letter
Form B-1 Information About Equity Members, Major Non-Equity
Members and Identified Subcontractors
Form B-2 Information About Proposer Organization
Form C Disclosure of Ownership Interests
Form D through H M/W/EBE Certifications and Forms
Form I Design/Build Price
Form J Operations Expenses
Form K User Fee Structure
Form L Opinion of Council
9
RFP – Page 4
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1 Introduction
This Request for Proposals (“RFP”), is issued by the City of Evanston (“City”), to seek
competitive detailed proposals (individually, a “Proposal” and collectively, “Proposals”) for
a public-private partnership to be evidenced by a Design, Build, Operate and Finance
Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement will provide that the entity identified in the
successful Proposal (“Developer”) must design, build, finance and operate the Evanston
Ice Rink and Community Center (the “Facility” or the “Project”).
The City is issuing the RFP to those Proposers shortlisted based on the City’s evaluation
of qualification submittals delivered to the City on June 29, 2010 in response to Request
for Qualifications 11-06 for the Project issued on April 1, 2010 (the “RFQ”). Those
Proposers are:
1. Harbour Contractors, Inc.;
2. McCaffery Interests;
3. William Blair & Company
Proposers must comply with the instructions provided to Proposers in this RFP during the
procurement and in their responses to the RFP. Proposers must also consider the Project
goals identified in Section 1.2 below when drafting Proposals.
The RFP allows a Proposer to identify an entity other than Proposer to act as Developer,
thus allowing unsuccessful Proposers to avoid unnecessary costs associated with
formation of such entity. However, if the entity identified as Developer in the successful
Proposal is not formed as contemplated by this RFP, or fails to comply with the
requirements of this RFP, the entity(ies) that signed the Proposal must either enter into the
Agreement itself or provide a substitute Developer acceptable to the City in its sole
discretion.
All forms identified in this RFP are found in Exhibit F unless otherwise noted. All times in
this RFP are central standard time (CST) or central daily savings time (CDT), as
applicable.
1.2 Project Goals
The City’s goals for the Project are as follows:
1. Maintain ongoing and uninterrupted operations at the existing Crown Center during
construction of the new Facility. The existing Crown Center cannot close until the
new Facility is complete and open for use;
2. Minimize impacts to the operation of Crown Park’s athletic fields during construction
of the new Facility;
10
RFP – Page 5
3. Minimize impacts to the public, business, communities and adjacent property
owners during construction through effective communication, cooperation and
coordination;
4. Improve ice, recreation and community programming opportunities for Evanston
and the surrounding communities after Facility construction;
5. Secure quality design, construction, financing and operating services meeting or
exceeding the City’s expectations and technical requirements provided in this RFP,
including its appendices, at the lowest construction and operations cost to ensure
fair and competitive use fees to optimize the Facility’s life cycle performance as
described in this RFP and its appendices;
6. Develop a Facility that provides a use fee structure which is substantially similar to
the current uses and prices of the existing Crown Center as specifically set forth in
the Options identified below;
7. Develop a Facility that ensures public recreational uses and programming receives
the top priority for utilizing the Facility;
8. Develop a Facility that preserves existing recreational programs and activities as
well as maintains and strengthens relationships with existing recreational affiliate
organizations which currently utilize Crown Center and Crown Park;
9. Construct the project safely;
10. Expedite delivery of the completed Project;
11. Facilitate participation by Minority, Women and Evanston Business Enterprises
(M/W/EBE) businesses consistent with the Agreement and applicable goals;
12. Facilitate implementation of the City’s Local Employment Program (LEP) consistent
with the Agreement and applicable laws;
13. Cooperate and coordinate with Project Stakeholders identified by the City;
1.3 General Project Description and Scope of Developer’s Obligations
1.3.1 General Project Description
This RFP solicits competitive, sealed, proposals from Proposers for the design,
permitting, construction, financing, operating, and maintaining of a new ice rink and
community center (replacing the existing Crown Center) that meets the needs of both
Evanston residents and the surrounding communities. The Project includes a variety of
components geared toward multi-sport, recreational and community activities. The new
11
RFP – Page 6
Facility will be located at the southwest corner of Crown Park (corner of Main Street and
Dodge Avenue) and will not exceed permitted zoning maximums (Open Space District,
FAR: 0.15, Building height: 35 feet or 2-½ stories (whichever is less)). In addition to the
new building, construction will include demolition of the existing Crown Center and
surface parking lot, construction of a new surface parking lot and
redevelopment/reconstruction of the existing park and athletic fields within Crown Park.
Building and site program elements include:
1. Ice rinks (one 100’ x 200’ ice sheet with seating for 1200 spectators, one 85’ x
200’ ice sheet with seating for 500 spectators and one 60’ x 80’ studio ice sheet);
2. One 110’ x 80’ gymnasium with seating for 500 spectators and a three lane
running track above;
3. Locker / team rooms (as needed to support sports programming);
4. Multipurpose rooms, community programming rooms, recreation space and pro-
shop space (estimated at 10,000 square feet);
5. Branch library (estimated at 5,000 square feet);
6. Concession services;
7. Administrative offices (as needed to support operations);
8. Associated support facilities (lobby, restrooms, storage, MEP operations, etc., as
needed to support operations);
9. Surface parking facilities (as needed to support operations);
10. Two developed baseball fields (for youth and adult athletic programs including
lighting) for which public uses receive first priority in access and scheduling;
11. Two developed soccer/football fields (for youth and adult athletic programs
including lighting) for which public uses receive first priority in access and
scheduling;
12. Four tennis courts (including lighting; existing courts must be maintained) for
which public uses receive first priority in access and scheduling;
13. One children’s playground; and
14. Exterior and park accommodations as required (pedestrian / vehicular circulation,
perimeter fencing, site furnishings, lighting, landscaping, etc.).
12
RFP – Page 7
The Agreement developed for this project obligates the Developer to 1) design and build
the Project; 2) invest equity and provide financing for the Project; 3) operate and
maintain the Project; and d) collect revenues from users of the project for a 30 year
period, subject to any revenue sharing or upfront concession payment to the City. The
Agreement requires ongoing coordination and involvement with the City to ensure
Project acceptance from both a community and public agency perspective.
1.3.2 Scope of Developer’s Obligations
Developer’s obligations will generally include all efforts required to design, build, finance
and operate the Project in accordance with the requirements of the Agreement.
1.4 Procurement Schedule
The following represents the current schedule for the procurement.
Issue Request for Proposals October 27, 2011
One-on-one Proposer Meetings to Discuss Submittals November 10, 2011
Deadline for RFP Questions December 1, 2011
Issue Final Response Addendum and RFP Questions December 15, 2011
Proposal Due Date February 2, 2012
Proposal Selection and start of Negotiations (anticipated) March 29, 2012
Project Award and Agreement Execution (anticipated) May 28, 2012
All dates set forth above and elsewhere in the RFP are subject to change, in the City’s
sole discretion, by Addendum.
1.5 General Provisions Regarding Proposals
1.5.1 Proposal Contents
As used in this procurement, the term “Proposal” means a Proposer’s complete response
to the RFP, including (1) a Technical Proposal; and (2) a Financial Proposal.
Requirements for the Technical Proposal and the Financial Proposal are set forth in
Exhibits A and B, respectively. The Proposal must be organized in the order listed in
Exhibits A and B. It must be clearly indexed. Each Proposal component must be clearly
titled and identified and submitted without reservations, qualifications, conditions or
assumptions. Any failure to provide all the information and all completed forms in the
format specified or submittal of a Proposal subject to any reservations, qualifications,
conditions or assumptions may result in the City’s rejection of the Proposal or giving it a
lower rating. All blank spaces in the Proposal forms must be filled in as appropriate. No
substantive change may be made in the Proposal forms.
1.5.2 Inclusion of Proposal in Agreement
13
RFP – Page 8
Portions of the successful Proposal will become part of the Agreement, as specified in the
Agreement. All other information is for evaluation purposes only and will not become part
of the Agreement.
1.5.3 Commitments in the Proposal
The verbiage used in each Proposal will be interpreted and evaluated based on the level
of commitment provided by Proposer. Tentative commitments will be given no
consideration. For example, phrases such as “we may” or “we are considering” will be
given no consideration in the evaluation process since they do not indicate a firm
commitment.
1.5.4 Ownership of Proposal
All written and electronic correspondence, exhibits, photographs, reports, printed material,
tapes, disks, designs, and other graphic and visual aids submitted to the City during this
procurement process, whether included in the Proposal or otherwise submitted, become
the property of the City upon delivery to the City and will not be returned to the submitting
parties. The City may use such materials for any purpose including, without limitation,
media distribution.
1.6 M/W/EBE Goals
The City has a 25% Minority-Owned, Women-Owned, and Evanston-based business
(M/W/EBEs) participation goal for all of its contracts. As part of its proposal, each
respondent must complete Forms D through H. Any questions regarding M/W/EBE
compliance should be directed to Lloyd Shepard, M/W/EBE Coordinator at 847-448-
8078, or Jewell Jackson, Purchasing Manager, at 847-448-8107.
1.7 LEP Requirements
In an effort to increase hiring of economically disadvantaged Evanston residents on
construction projects, this Project will require Proposers to comply with the provisions of
the City’s Local Employment Program (LEP) set forth in Section 1-17-1 (C) of the
Evanston City Code of 1979 as amended when utilizing public funding over $250,000
for construction purposes. The intent of the LEP is to have Evanston residents
employed at the construction site as laborers, apprentices and journeymen in such
trades as electrical, HVAC, carpenters, masonry, concrete finishers, truck drivers and
other construction occupations necessary for the project.
1.8 Employment Offer to Current City Employees
Upon execution of the Agreement, the Developer must offer full-time employment to all
current full-time City employees employed at the current Robert Crown Center who
pass medical and background examinations required by the Developer. Said
employees will be eligible for employment at the Facility. Any employees so hired must
14
RFP – Page 9
have salary and compensation commensurate with that earned while such employees
were employed with the City. Other than for disciplinary or medical reasons as
determined by Developer, or by reason of voluntary termination or retirement, all such
employees covered by this section must be employed by Developer for a minimum of
two (2) years.
1.9 Public Art
Proposers are advised that City ordinance requires Public Art be included in projects
using public funding. Specifically, 1% of all construction costs using $1 million or more
of public money must be used for Public Art purposes. Proposals responding to the RFP
that include a request for public funding of $1 million or more must include provisions for
incorporating Public Art and the artist selection process (administered independently by
the City’s Public Art Committee).
SECTION 2 OPTIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL
2.1 Objectives
Each Proposal must include at least three options (see below) for delivering the Project as
contemplated by this RFP. A Proposal may, but is not required to, include a fourth option
for the City’s consideration which fulfills the City’s goal, as stated in this RFP, to deliver the
Project at no or minimal public cost while also providing the highest possible service for
public access and programming.
2.2 Option 1.
Each Proposal must include an option (Option 1) which provides a plan as follows:
• Private financing and construction of the Project;
• Private operation of the Project; and
• No contribution of public monies for construction or operation of the Project.
2.3 Option 2.
Each Proposal must include an option (Option 2) which provides a plan as follows:
• Private financing and construction of the Project;
• Public operation of the Project; and
• The method by which the Developer will be repaid for constructing the Project, e.g.,
with public monies.
2.4 Option 3.
Each Proposal must include an option (Option 3) which provides a plan as follows:
15
RFP – Page 10
• Private financing and construction of the Project;
• Private operation of the ice skating rink(s);
• Public operation of the community center; and
• The method by which the Developer will be repaid for constructing the community
center, e.g., with public monies.
2.5 Option 4 (voluntary)
While not required by this RFP, each Proposal may also include an option (Option 4)
which provides a plan to accomplish the City’s goals that may be different from Options 1-
3 set forth above. Developers are encouraged to be creative in their proposed plan, but
should understand that one City objective is not to use public monies in constructing the
Project.
SECTION 3 PROCUREMENT PROCESS
3.1 Procurement Method
The City will award the Agreement (if at all) to the responsible Proposer offering a
Proposal meeting the high standards set by the City and which is determined by the City,
through evaluation based upon the criteria set forth in the RFP to provide the best value to
the City and to be in the best interest of the City.
The City will accept Proposals for the Project only from those Proposers the City has
shortlisted for the procurement based on their responses to the RFQ. The City will not
review or consider alternative proposers.
3.2 Receipt of the Request for Proposal Documents, Communications and Other
Information
The RFP and any addenda will be posted to the City’s website at the following address:
LIST WEBPAGE HERE
3.2.1 Authorized Representative
The City has designated the following individual to be its authorized representative for the
procurement (the “Authorized Representative”):
Stefanie Levine, RLA
City of Evanston, Parks, Recreation and Community Services
2100 Ridge Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60201
Phone: (847) 448-8043
Fax: (847) 448-8070
E-mail: slevine@cityofevanston.org
16
RFP – Page 11
From time to time during the procurement process or during the term of the Agreement the
City may designate another Authorized Representative or representatives to carry out
some or all of the City’s obligations pertaining to the Project. Respondents will send a copy
of all correspondence delivered to the Authorized Representative to the following
individual:
Douglas J. Gaynor
City of Evanston, Parks, Recreation and Community Services
2100 Ridge Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60201
Phone: (847) 448-8040
Fax: (847) 448-8051
E-mail: dgaynor@cityofevanston.org
3.2.2 Identification of Proposer Authorized Representative
A Proposer must identify in its Proposal an individual authorized to act on behalf of
Proposer relating to this procurement (“Proposer Authorized Representative”). If a
Proposer changes its Proposer Authorized Representative to receive documents,
communications or notices in connection with the procurement subsequent to its
submission of its Proposal, Proposer must provide the City’s Authorized Representative
with the name and address of such new Proposer Authorized Representative. Failure to
identify a Proposer Authorized Representative in writing may result in Proposer failing to
receive important communications from the City. The City is not responsible for any such
failure and may not be held liable for Proposer’s failure to receive information.
3.2.3 Rules of Contact
The following rules of contact apply during the procurement for the Project, which began
upon the date of issuance of the RFQ and will be completed with the execution of the
Agreement. These rules are designated to promote a fair and unbiased procurement
process. Contact includes face-to-face, telephone, facsimile, electronic mail or formal
written communication.
The specified rules of contact are as follow:
1. After submittal of RFP responses, no Proposer or any of its team members may
communicate with another Proposer or its team member with regard to the RFP
or either team’s Proposal, except that subcontractors that are shared between
two more Proposer teams may communicate with their respective team members
so long as those Proposers establish a protocol to ensure that the subcontractor
will not act as a conduit of information between the teams (contact among
Proposer organizations is allowed during City sponsored informational meetings);
17
RFP – Page 12
2. The Proposers may correspond with the City regarding the RFP only through the
City’s and Proposer’s authorized representatives;
3. Commencing with the issuance of the RFQ and continuing until the earliest of i)
award and execution of the Agreement; ii) rejection of all Proposals by the City;
or iii) cancellation of the procurement, no Proposer or representative thereof may
conduct ex parte communications regarding the RFQ, RFP or the procurement
described herein with any member of the Evanston City Council or with any City
staff, advisors, contractors or consultants involved with the procurement, except
for communications expressly permitted by the RFP or except as approved in
advance by the City Manager, in his or her sole discretion. The foregoing
restriction does not, however, preclude or restrict communications with regard to
matters unrelated to the RFP or the procurement or from participating in public
meetings of the City Council or any public or Proposer workshop related to this
RFP. Any Proposer engaging in such prohibited communications may be
disqualified at the City’s sole discretion;
4. The Proposers may not contact stakeholders regarding the Project including
employees, representatives and members of the entities listed below:
a. Crown Center staff;
b. City staff (other than the City’s designated representative); or
c. City of Evanston council, board and committee members.
5. Any communications determined to be improper, at the City’s sole discretion may
result in disqualification of the Proposer;
6. Any official information regarding the Project will be disseminated from the City’s
office on City letterhead. Any official correspondence will be in writing and signed
by the City’s Authorized Representative or designee; and
7. The City is not responsible for any oral exchange or any other information or
exchange that occurs outside the official process specified herein.
3.3 Questions and Response Process, and Addenda
3.3.1 Questions and Responses Regarding the RFP
Proposers are responsible for reviewing the RFP and any Addenda issued by the City
prior to the Proposal Due Date, and for requesting written clarification or interpretation of
any perceived discrepancy, deficiency, ambiguity, error or omission contained therein, or
of any provision which Proposer fails to understand. Failure of Proposer to so examine
and inform itself is at its sole risk, and no relief for error or omission will be provided by the
City. Proposers must submit, and the City will respond to, requests for written clarification
18
RFP – Page 13
in accordance with this Section 3.3.1. To the extent responses are provided, they will not
be considered part of the Agreement, nor will they be relevant in interpreting the
Agreement, except as expressly set forth in the Agreement, as applicable.
The City will only consider comments or questions regarding the RFP, including requests
for clarification and requests to correct errors, if submitted by a shortlisted Proposer to the
Authorized Representative by hard copy, facsimile or electronic transmission in the
prescribed format.
Such comments or questions may be submitted at any time before the applicable last date
specified in Section 1.4 or such later date as may be specified in any Addendum.
Questions and comments, including requests for clarification or interpretation, must: (i) be
sequentially numbered; (ii) specifically reference the relevant RFP section and page
number, unless such request is of general application (in which case the request for
clarification must so note); (iii) not identify the Proposer’s identity in the body of the
question or contain proprietary or confidential information.
Proposers are limited to 20 questions regarding this RFP including Addendum, if any. If a
question has more than one subpart, each subpart is considered a separate question.
Corrections of typographical errors, incorrect cross references or internal inconsistencies
within or among the RFP documents are excluded from the 20-question limitation.
No telephone or oral requests will be considered, and e-mail requests must be followed up
by a facsimile or other hard copy delivery. Proposers must ensure that any written
communications clearly indicate on the first page or in the subject line, as applicable, that
the material relates to the Project. No requests for additional information or clarification to
any person other than the City’s Authorized Representative will be considered. Questions
may be submitted only by the Proposer Authorized Representative, and must include the
requestor’s name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and Proposer he/she
represents.
The questions and the City’s responses will be in writing and will be delivered to all
Proposers, except that the City intends to respond individually to those questions identified
by a Proposer or deemed by the City as containing confidential or proprietary information
relating to Proposer’s Proposal. The City may disagree with Proposer’s assessment
regarding confidentiality of information in the interest of maintaining a fair process or
complying with applicable Law. Under such circumstances, the City will inform Proposers
and may allow Proposer to withdraw the question, rephrase the question, or have the
question answered non-confidentially or, if the City determines that it is appropriate to
provide a general response the City will modify the question to remove information that the
City determines is confidential. The City may rephrase questions as it deems appropriate
and may consolidate similar questions. The City contemplates issuing multiple sets of
responses at different times during the procurement process. The last response to
comments and questions will be issued no later than the date specified in Section 1.4.
19
RFP – Page 14
The City may convene pre-proposal meetings with Proposers as it deems necessary (see
Section 3.4), and Proposers must make themselves available to the City for such pre-
Proposal meetings and to discuss any matters they submit to the City under this Section
3.3.1. If the City determines, in its sole discretion, that its interpretation or clarification
requires a change in the RFP, the City will prepare and issue an Addendum.
3.3.2 Addenda
The City may, in its sole discretion, revise, modify or change the RFP and/or procurement
process at any time before the Proposal Due Date (or, if Proposal Revisions are
requested, before the due date for Proposal Revisions). Any such revisions will be
implemented by issuing an Addenda to the RFP. Addenda will be issued to Proposers via
hardcopy and posted to the City’s website at the web address listed above. If any
Addendum significantly impacts the RFP, as determined in the City’s sole discretion, the
City may change the Proposal Due Date. The announcement of such new date will be
included in the Addendum. In addition, if the last date for Proposer to submit questions
regarding the RFP has occurred or has changed, the Addendum will indicate the latest
date for submittal of any clarification requests concerning the Addendum.
Proposer must acknowledge in its proposal letter receipt of all Addenda. Failure to
acknowledge such receipt may cause the Proposal to be deemed non-responsive and be
rejected. The City may hold group meetings with Proposers and/or one-on-one meetings
with each Proposer to discuss any Addenda or response to requests for clarifications. The
City does not anticipate issuing any Addenda later than ten Business Days before the
Proposal Due Date. However, if the need arises, the City may issue Addenda after such
date. If the City finds it necessary to issue an Addendum after such date, then any relevant
processes or response times necessitated by the Addendum will be set forth in a cover
letter to that specific Addendum.
3.4 Pre-Proposal Meetings
3.4.1 Informational Meetings
The City may hold joint informational meetings with all Proposers at any time before the
Proposal Due Date. Written notice of any informational meetings will be sent to all
Proposers.
If any informational meeting is held, each Proposer must attend with appropriate members
of its proposed key management personnel, and if required by the City, senior
representatives of proposed team members identified by the City.
3.4.2 One-on-One Meetings
The City intends to conduct one-on-one meetings with each Proposer on the date set forth
in Section 1.4, and on such other dates designated by the City in writing to the Proposers,
to discuss issues and clarifications regarding the RFP. The City may disclose to all
20
RFP – Page 15
Proposers any issues raised during the one-on-one meetings, except to the extent that the
City determines, in its sole discretion, such disclosure would reveal a Proposer’s
confidential business strategies. Participation at such meetings by the Proposers is
mandatory.
The one-on-one meetings are subject to the following:
1. The meetings are intended to provide Proposers with a better understanding of the
RFP.
2. The City will not discuss with any Proposer any Proposal other than its own.
3. Proposers cannot seek to obtain commitments from the City in the meetings or
otherwise seek to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over any other Proposer.
4. No aspect of these meetings is intended to provide any Proposer with access to
information that is not similarly available to other Proposers, and no part of the
evaluation of Proposals will be based on the conduct or discussions that occur
during these meetings.
3.4.3 Questions and Responses during One-on-One Meetings
During one-on-one meetings, Proposers may ask questions and the City may provide
responses. However, any responses provided by the City during one-on-one meetings
may not be relied upon unless questions were submitted in writing and the City provided
written responses in accordance with Section 3.3.1. Written questions and City responses
will be provided in writing to all Proposers, except to the extent such questions are
deemed by the City to contain confidential or proprietary information relating to a particular
Proposer’s Proposal.
3.4.4 Statements at Meetings
Nothing stated at any pre-proposal meeting or included in a written record or summary of a
meeting will modify the RFP unless it is incorporated in an Addendum.
3.5 Confidentiality
Responses to this RFP become the exclusive property of the City. All documents
submitted in response to this RFP are public records and are subject to disclosure.
Protection from disclosure generally applies to those elements in each submittal which
are marked as “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY.” During the
course of the procurement process, the City will accept materials clearly and
prominently labeled “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY” by the
Proposer or other submitting party. The City will not advise as to the nature of the
content of the documents entitled to protection to disclosure, or as to the definition of
trade secret, confidential, or proprietary information. The respondent or other
21
RFP – Page 16
submitting party is solely responsible for all such determinations made by it, and for
clearly and prominently marking each and every page or sheet of materials with
“TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY” as it determines to be
appropriate. Proposers which indiscriminately so identify all or most of their submittal
as protected from disclosure without justification may be deemed non-responsive.
The City will endeavor to advise Proposers of any request for the disclosure of the
material so marked with “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,”
and give the Proposer or other submitting party the opportunity to seek a court order to
protect such materials from disclosure. If the requested material was submitted by a
party other than the Proposer, the Proposer is solely responsible for notifying the
submitting party of the request. The City’s sole responsibility is to notify the Proposer of
the request for disclosure, and the City is not liable for any damages resulting out of
such disclosure, whether such disclosure is deemed required by law, by an order of
court or administrative agency, or occurs through inadvertence, mistake, negligence on
the part of the City or its officers, employees, consultants, or sub-consultants.
3.6 City Studies and Investigations
The City has performed several studies and investigations for this project in advance of the
release of this RFP including: 1) a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2) a
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and 3) a Market Study. Copies of these studies and
investigations are attached to this RFP in Exhibit E.
3.7 Examination of RFP and Site Access
3.7.1 Examination of RFP
Each Proposer is solely responsible for examining, with appropriate care and diligence, the
RFP, including Exhibits, Addenda and other referenced information and for informing itself
with respect to any and all conditions which may in any way affect the amount or nature of
its Proposal, or the performance of Developer’s obligations under the Agreement. Failure
of Proposer to so examine and inform itself is at its sole risk, and the City will provide no
relief for any error or omission.
Each Proposer is responsible for conducting such investigations as it deems appropriate in
connection with its Proposal, regarding the condition of existing facilities and Site, including
without limitation environmental concerns, geotechnical, utilities and zoning requirements,
keeping in mind the provisions in the Agreement regarding assumption of liability by
Proposer. Proposer’s receipt of City-furnished information does not relieve Proposer of
such responsibility.
The submission of a Proposal is considered prima facie evidence that Proposer has made
the above-described examination and is satisfied as to the conditions to be encountered in
performing the Project, and as to the requirements of the Agreement.
22
RFP – Page 17
3.7.2 Site Access
Proposers will be allowed access, through the Proposal Due Date, to all portions of the
Project site for purposes of inspecting in-place assets and determining Site conditions
through non-destructive investigations. This work may include surveys and site
investigations, such as geotechnical, environmental testing and utilities investigations.
After award is made, the selected Proposer will be allowed access to the Project site in
order to conduct surveys and site investigations, including geotechnical, environmental
testing and utilities investigations, and to engage in the other activities in accordance with
the Agreement.
3.8 Errors
If any mistake, error, or ambiguity is identified by a Proposer at any time during the
procurement process in any of the documents supplied by the City, the Proposer will notify
the City of the recommended correction in writing in accordance with Section 3.3.1.
3.9 Changes in Proposer’s Organization
The City wants to ensure that Proposers are able to develop and attract the broad
expertise as may be necessary to participate in this procurement and to design, build,
finance and operate the Project in an innovative, effective and efficient manner.
Accordingly, the City will permit Proposers to add team members and reorganize the
Proposer entity through the procurement process until 15 business days before
submittals of the Proposals, except in the event of potential organizational conflicts of
interest and/or deficiencies in qualifications and experience for the proposed role.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, following shortlist selection, the following actions may
not be undertaken without the City’s prior written consent:
1. deletion or substitution of a Proposer team member identified in the response;
2. deletion or substitution of an equity owner of Proposer, a guarantor of
Proposer or any other entity that will bear financial responsibility or liability for
the performance of the Proposer; or
3. other changes in the equity ownership or team membership of a Proposer.
Proposer must submit to the City written requests for approval of organizational changes
from the City as soon as possible but in no event later than 15 business days before the
Proposal deadline. Any such request must be sent to the City’s Authorized Representative
accompanied by the information specified for such entities in the RFQ. If a request is made
to allow deletion or role change of any Major Participant identified in its RFQ response,
Proposer must submit such information as may be required by the City to demonstrate that
the changed team meets the RFQ and RFP criteria. Proposer must submit an original and
five copies of each request package. The City is not obligated to approve such requests
23
RFP – Page 18
and may approve or disapprove in writing a portion of the request or the entire request at
its sole discretion. Except as provided herein, a Proposer may not change the Major
Participants identified in its RFQ response after the date set forth above. Between the
applicable dates set forth above and execution of the Agreement, the City, in its sole
discretion, will consider requests by Proposers to make changes in Proposers’
organization based only on unusual circumstances beyond Proposer’s control.
3.10 Taxes
Proposers must assume that this project is subject to all applicable Federal, State and
Local taxes.
3.11 Prevailing Wages
The Illinois Prevailing Wage Act (820 ILCS 130/0.01 et seq) requires contractors and
subcontractors to pay laborers, workers and mechanics employed on public works
projects no less than the general prevailing rate of wages (consisting of hourly cash
wages plus fringe benefits) for work of similar character in the locality where the work is
performed. This requirement applies regardless of the dollar amount of the contract.
Proposers must thoroughly familiarize themselves with the provisions of the
above-mentioned Act and prepare any and all bids/proposals in strict compliance
therewith.
Contractors and subcontractors on public works projects must submit certified payrolls on
a monthly basis to the public body in charge of the construction project, along with a
statement affirming that such records are true and accurate, that the wages paid to each
worker are not less than the required prevailing rate and that the contractor is aware that
filing records her or she knows to be false is a Class B misdemeanor.
1. The certified payroll record must include for every worker employed on the public
works project the name, address, telephone number, social security number, job
classification, hourly wages paid in each pay period, number of hours worked each
day, and starting and ending time of work each day. These certified payroll records
are considered public records and public bodies must make these records available
to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, with the exception of the
employee’s address, telephone number and social security number. Any contractor
who fails to submit a certified payroll or knowingly files a false certified payroll is
guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
2. All certified payrolls must be submitted in electronic format, preferably PDF files.
3.12 Building Permits
Proposers must secure and pay for any licenses required by the City of Evanston
including, without limitation, a business license (as required by Evanston City Code §§
24
RFP – Page 19
3-1-1, et seq.). Necessary building permits are required, but all permit fees will be
waived.
SECTION 4 REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS AND
ACCEPTANCE OF DELIVERY BY THE CITY
4.1 General Submittal Requirements
Each Proposal must include a Technical Proposal and a Financial Proposal meeting the
requirements set forth in Exhibits A and B. The Proposal must be submitted in sealed
containers in the format and manner set forth below no later than the Proposal Due Date.
4.1.1 Signatures Required
The Proposal Letter (Form A) must be signed by authorized representatives of all parties
constituting the Proposer and be accompanied by evidence of signatory authorization as
specified in Form A.
4.1.2 Certified Copies
Where certified copies of the Proposal are required, Proposer must mark the document or
cover with the words “Certified True Copy” and have the mark oversigned by the
Proposer’s Authorized Representative.
4.1.3 Consequences of Failure to Follow Requirements
Failure to use sealed containers or to properly identify the Proposal may result in an
inadvertent early opening of the Proposal and may result in disqualification of the
Proposal. Proposer is entirely responsible for any consequences, including disqualification
of the Proposal, which result from any inadvertent opening if the City determines that
Proposer did not follow the foregoing instructions. It is Proposer’s sole responsibility to see
that its Proposal is received as required. Proposals received after the time due will be
rejected without consideration or evaluation.
4.1.4 Requirement to Submit Compliant Proposal
The Proposal may not include any qualifications, conditions, exceptions to or deviations
from the requirements of the RFP. If the Proposal does not fully comply with the
instructions and rules contained in this RFP, including the exhibits, it may be disqualified.
Each Proposal must be submitted in the official format which is specified by the City in the
RFP. Proposer must sign the original copy of the Proposal submitted to the City. Multiple
or alternate proposals may not be submitted.
Proposals may be considered non-compliant and may be rejected for any of the following
reasons:
25
RFP – Page 20
1. If the Proposal is submitted in paper form or on disk other than that specified by the
City; if it is not properly signed; if any part of the Proposal is missing from the
Proposal package, and/or if it otherwise does not meet the Proposal submittal
requirements;
2. If the City determines that the Proposal contains irregularities that make the
Proposal incomplete, indefinite, or ambiguous as to its meaning, including illegible
text, omissions, erasures, alterations, or items not called for in the RFP, or
unauthorized additions;
3. If multiple or alternate Proposals are submitted or if the Proposal includes any
conditions or provisions reserving the right to accept or reject an award or to enter
into a Agreement following award; or
4. Any other reason the City determines the Proposal to be non-compliant.
4.1.5 Format
The Proposal must contain concise written material and drawings enabling a clear
understanding and evaluation of the capabilities of Proposer and the characteristics and
benefits of the Proposal. Legibility, clarity, and completeness of the Technical Proposal
and Financial Proposal are essential. The Technical Proposal cannot exceed the page
limitation set forth in Exhibit A, Section 2.0. No page limit applies to appendices and
exhibits, however, the City does not commit to review any information in appendices and
exhibits other than those required to be provided, and the Proposal evaluation process will
focus on the body of the Proposal and any required appendices and exhibits.
An 8 ½ by 11-inch format is required for typed submissions and an 8 ½ by 11-inch or 11
by 17-inch format is required for drawings. Submittals must be bound with all pages in a
binder sequentially numbered. The use of 11 by 17-inch foldouts for tables, graphics,
drawings and maps is acceptable in the main body of the Proposal. Each 11 by 17–inch
foldout will be considered one page.
4.1.6 Additional Requirements for Proposal Delivery
Proposer must provide one (1) unbound original and fifteen (15) copies (for a total of
sixteen (16) hardcopies) and one (1) digital copy (burned onto a compact disc) of the
Technical Proposal and the Financial Proposal each. Proposals must be delivered to the
City at the following address:
City of Evanston
Purchasing Division
Room 4200, Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center
2100 Ridge Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60201
26
RFP – Page 21
Attn: Ms. Jewell Jackson
Each binder of the Proposal must be labeled to indicate its contents. The original
Technical and Financial Proposals must be clearly identified as “original”; copies of the
Proposals must be sequentially numbered, labeled and bound.
4.2 Modifications, Withdrawals and Late Submittals
4.2.1 Modifications to a Proposal
A Proposer may modify its Proposal in writing before the specified time on the Proposal
Due Date. The modification must conform in all respects to the requirements for
submission of a Proposal. Modifications must be clearly delineated as such on the face of
the document to prevent confusion with the original Proposal and specifically state that the
modification supersedes the previous Proposal and all previous modifications, if any. If
multiple modifications are submitted, they must be sequentially numbered so the City can
accurately identify the final Proposal. The modification must contain complete Proposal
sections, complete pages or complete forms as described in Exhibits A and B. Line item
changes will not be accepted. No facsimile or other electronically transmitted modifications
are permitted.
4.2.2 Withdrawal and Validity of Proposals
Proposer may withdraw its Proposal at any time before the time due on the Proposal Due
Date by means of a written request signed by the Proposer’s Authorized Representative.
Such written request must be delivered to the address in Section 3.2.1. Withdrawing a
Proposal will not prejudice the right of a Proposer to file a new Proposal provided that it is
received before the time due on the Proposal Due Date. Proposals are initially valid for a
period of 270 days after the Proposal Due Date. The City has the right to extend this
period for up to an additional 90 days. A Proposer cannot withdraw its Proposal, which
remains valid for an additional 90 days, if notified by the City that it is selected for
negotiations of the Agreement within such 270-day period. Any Proposer may elect, in its
sole discretion, to extend the validity of its Proposal beyond the time periods set forth
above.
4.2.3 Late Proposals
The City will not consider any late Proposals. Proposals and/or modification or withdrawal
requests received after the time for submittal of Proposals will be returned to Proposer
without consideration or evaluation.
4.3 Acceptance of Delivery by the City
The City will provide a receipt for Proposals that are timely delivered to the City as
specified herein.
27
RFP – Page 22
4.4 Costs Not Reimbursable
The cost of preparing the Proposal and any costs incurred at any time before final award
and execution of the Agreement, including costs incurred for any interviews and costs
associated with Post-Selection Deliverables, are borne by Proposer.
SECTION 5 EVALUATION AND POST-SELECTION PROCESS
The City’s goal is to create a fair and uniform basis for the evaluation of the Proposals in
compliance with all applicable legal requirements governing this procurement.
The Proposal evaluation process will include responsiveness and qualitative evaluation
of the Technical Proposal, Financial Proposal and a best value determination. The City
anticipates utilizing one or more committees to review and evaluate the responses and
to make recommendations to the City Council based on such analysis. During the
deliberations the City many issue one or more requests for written clarification to
individual Proposers. The City may also schedule interviews with one or more
Proposers on a one-on-one basis, for the purpose of enhancing and/or clarifying the
City’s understanding of the response. The process may include a request for Proposal
Revisions, and may include a negotiations phase with the selected Proposer(s). The
steps in the process and evaluation criteria are set forth below. The evaluation and
selection process is subject to modification by the City, in its sole discretion.
The City may at any time request additional information or clarification from the
Proposer or may request the Proposer to verify or certify certain aspects of its response.
The scope, length and topics to be addressed shall be prescribed by and subject to the
discretion of the City. At the conclusion of this process, Proposers may be required to
submit written confirmation of any new information and clarifications provided during an
interview. Upon receipt of requested clarifications and additional information as
described above, if any, the response will be re-evaluated to factor in the clarifications
and additional information.
Evaluations and rankings of the responses are subject to the sole discretion of the City,
City staff and such professional and other advisors the City may designate. The City will
make the final determinations in its sole discretion and in the best interests of the City.
28
RFP – Page 23
5.1 Technical Proposals / Project Development Plan
Technical Proposals will be evaluated based on the following general responsiveness
criteria:
1. The business form of Proposer, the proposed Developer and any entities that will
have joint and several liability under the Agreement or will provide a guaranty
(including any joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, operating
agreement, articles of incorporation, bylaws or equivalent documents) consistent
with the requirements of the Project and Agreement.
2. Proposer has provided M/W/EBE certifications in accordance with the requirements
of Exhibit A.
3. Proposer information, certifications, signed statements and documents as listed in
Exhibit A, are included in the Proposal and do not identify any material adverse
information.
4. The Proposal provides for Substantial Completion within 730 calendar days from
Notice to Proceed.
5. Technical Proposal meets all applicable RFP requirements.
5.1.1 Project Development Plan Evaluation Factors
The evaluation factors for the Project Development Plan, which are presented in no
particular order of importance, are as follows:
1. Design Solutions;
2. Project Management Plan; and
3. Quality Management Plan
5.1.1.1 Design Solutions
Objectives: Innovative design, construction and operating solutions that effectively respond
to and address the Project’s requirements, including the following:
1. The need to minimize community, user and program impacts and disruption;
2. The need to provide high quality and enhanced recreational services to Evanston
and the surrounding communities;
3. The requirement to plan and coordinate the design and construction activities;
4. The environmental and community sensitivities and commitments;
29
RFP – Page 24
5. The requirement for high quality design principals, materials, equipment and
aesthetics;
6. The requirement for LEED Commissioning;
7. Construction staging and sequencing;
8. Utility coordination and requirements;
9. Operating and Capital Maintenance Plan;
10. Life Cycle Costs as identified in the RFP’s appendices;
11. Preliminary Project Schedule;
12. Permit coordination and strategy; and
13. Traffic impacts and analysis.
5.1.1.2 Project Management Plan
Objective: An organization that is designed with clear lines of responsibility, quality Key
Personnel and well-defined roles that respond to the Project and the City that includes the
following:
1. Integrated specialty subcontractors and subconsultants;
2. Partnering throughout the project;
3. Quality through a well-defined and executed quality plan for design, construction
and operations of the project;
4. A disciplined strategy for design, design quality and design review, safety, risk
management, public involvement, and securing of third-party approvals;
5. A comprehensive strategy for construction management, logistics, access,
construction sequencing, minimizing public disruptions, safety, subcontracting,
M/W/EBE and LEP compliance;
6. An operating and capital maintenance plan that provides:
a. A well-maintained Project in compliance with the Agreement;
b. Efficient and safe responses to the capital maintenance needs of the
Project;
c. Effective interfacing, communication and coordination with separate
contractors, Stakeholders and other third parties;
30
RFP – Page 25
d. Efficient transition activities from Developer to the City upon completion of
operations obligations;
7. General Project Management;
8. Risk Management;
9. Construction and Site Management during Construction;
10. Schedule and Cost Control Management;
11. Public Information and Communications;
12. Environmental Management;
13. Design Management;
14. Operations Management during Operating Period;
5.1.1.3 Quality Management Plan
Objective: To provide a Quality Management Plan that integrates the City into the quality
management system and enables the City to monitor, audit, and measure Developer’s
performance in the management of design, construction, financing and operations of the
Project.
5.2 Financial Proposals
Financial Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
1. Proposer's financial condition and capabilities cannot have materially adversely
changed from its financial condition and capabilities as evidenced by the financial
data submitted in the RFQ response, such that Proposer continues to have the
financial capacity to design, build, finance and operate a project of the nature and
scope of the Project. Factors that will be considered in evaluating Proposer’s
financial capacity include the following:
a. Profitability
b. Capital structure
c. Ability to service existing debt
d. Other commitments and contingencies
31
RFP – Page 26
If the City determines that a Proposer is undercapitalized, it will offer Proposer the
opportunity to meet the financial requirements through one or more guarantors
acceptable to the City.
2. Proposer’s Design/Build Price (Form I), compliant with the requirements of Exhibit
B.
3. Proposer’s Operations Expenses (Form J), compliant with the requirements of
Exhibit B.
4. Proposer’s User Fee Structure compliant with the requirements of Exhibit B.
5. Proposer’s response to the financing options outlined in Section 2 of the RFP.
5.3 City Right to Exclude Proposals from Consideration or to Waive Mistakes
Those Proposals not responsive to the RFP may be excluded from further consideration,
and Proposer will be so advised. The City may also exclude from consideration any
Proposer whose Proposal contains a material misrepresentation. The City may waive
minor informalities, irregularities and apparent clerical mistakes which are unrelated to the
substantive content of the Proposals.
5.4 Requests for Clarification
The City may at any time issue one or more requests for clarification to the individual
Proposers, requesting additional information or clarification from a Proposer, or may
request a Proposer to verify or certify certain aspects of its Proposal. Proposers must
respond to any such requests within two business days (or such other time as is specified
by the City) from receipt of the request. The scope, length and topics to be addressed in
clarifications shall be prescribed by, and subject to the discretion of the City.
Upon receipt of requested clarifications and additional information as described above, if
any, the Proposals may be re-evaluated to factor in the clarifications and additional
information.
5.5 Requests for Proposal Revisions
The City may, at any time after receipt of Proposals and before final award and execution
of the Agreement, determine that it is appropriate to request changes to the Proposals
(“Proposal Revisions”). The City may request Proposal Revisions with or without
discussions. The request for Proposal Revisions will identify any revisions to the RFP and
will specify terms and conditions applicable to the Proposal Revisions, including identifying
a time and date for delivery. In the event that Proposal Revisions are requested, the term
“Proposal,” as used in the RFP, shall mean the original Proposal, as modified by the
Proposal Revision.
32
RFP – Page 27
Upon receipt of Proposal Revisions, the evaluation committee will re-evaluate the
Proposals as revised, and will revise ratings and value estimates as appropriate following
the process described above.
5.6 Recommendation to City Council
Once the evaluation committee determined assigned rankings to the Proposals, the City
will present a recommendation to the City Council regarding the rankings of Proposers and
designation of the best value. The City Council will evaluate the recommendations and will
determine whether to proceed with award of a Agreement to the apparent best value
Proposer or take any other action. Award of the Agreement would be conditioned upon (a)
successful completion of negotiations, (b) receipt by the City of all of the documents
required to be provided before execution of the Agreement, (c) execution of the
Agreement by the City Manager and (d) any other conditions required by the City Council.
The City Council’s decision regarding award of the Agreement is final.
5.7 Finalization of the Agreement; Post-Selection Process
5.7.1 Negotiation of Agreement
If authorized by the City Council, the City will proceed with the apparent best value
Proposer to finalize the Agreement. The City may agree to negotiate various aspects of
the Agreement with the apparent best value Proposer, including incorporation of
unsuccessful Proposers’ work product; however, any decision to commence negotiations
regarding the terms of the Agreement is at the City’s sole discretion. By submitting its
Proposal, each Proposer commits to enter into the form of the Agreement included in the
RFP, without negotiation or variation, except to fill in blanks and include information that
the form of the Agreement indicates is required from the Proposal. If an Agreement
satisfactory to the City cannot be negotiated with the best value Proposer, the City will
formally end negotiations with that Proposer and take action consistent with the direction
provided by the City Council. Such action may include (a) rejection of all Proposals, (b)
issuance of a request for Proposal Revisions to Proposers, or (c) proceeding to the next
most highly ranked Proposal to attempt to negotiate an Agreement with that Proposer in
accordance with this Section.
In the event the City elects to commence negotiations with a Proposer, such Proposer will
be deemed to have failed to engage in good faith negotiations with the City if Proposer
fails to attend and actively participate in reasonably scheduled negotiation meetings with
the City or insists upon terms or conditions for any documents to be negotiated or provided
by Developer hereunder that are inconsistent with the Agreement.
5.8 Post-Selection Deliverables
5.8.1 Documents to be submitted following Conditional Award
33
RFP – Page 28
The successful Proposer must deliver the following to the City within ten business days
after notification of award:
1. Evidence of authority to transact business in the State of Illinois for all members of
Proposer’s team that will transact business in the State, dated no earlier than 30
days before the Proposal Due Date. Depending on the form of organization, such
evidence may be in the form of (i) a Certificate of Authority to transact business in
Illinois along with a Certificate of Good Standing from the state of organization of
the member; (ii) a Certificate of Good Standing from the Illinois Comptroller; or (iii)
other evidence acceptable to the City.
2. A copy of the final organizational documents for Developer and, if Developer is a
limited liability company, partnership or joint venture, final organizational documents
for each member or partner of Developer. The final form of the organizational
documents may not differ materially from the draft organizational documents
included with the Proposal.
5.8.2 City Comments on Post-Selection Deliverables
The City should provide comments on any Post-Selection Deliverables required to be
delivered to the City hereunder within ten business days of the date of the City’s receipt of
such deliverable. The City will endeavor to review and respond to subsequent submittals
of the deliverable within five business days after receipt.
SECTION 6 FINAL AWARD AND EXECUTION; POST-EXECUTION ACTIONS
6.1 Final Award, Execution and Delivery of Agreement
Upon the successful completion of negotiations, finalization of the Agreement and
satisfaction of all conditions to award specified in this RFP, the City will deliver four sets of
execution copies of the Agreement to the selected Proposer, along with a number of sets
of execution copies as reasonably requested by Proposer. The selected Proposer will
obtain all required signatures and deliver all of the execution sets to the City within seven
business days of receipt, together with the required documents described in Section 6.1.1.
If Developer is a joint venture or a partnership, the Agreement must be executed by all
joint venture members or general partners, as applicable. Within 15 business days of the
City’s receipt of all required and compliant documents from Proposer, the City will execute
the agreements, retain four sets of the agreements and deliver the other executed sets to
Proposer. Final award is deemed to have occurred upon delivery of the fully executed sets
to Proposer.
6.1.1 Documents to be delivered by Proposer with Executed Agreement
Proposer will deliver the documents listed below to the City concurrently with the executed
Agreement as a condition to execution of the Agreement by the City. On or before the date
34
RFP – Page 29
that the City delivers the execution sets of the Agreement to Proposer, the City will notify
Proposer regarding the number of originals and copies required to be delivered.
1. For each Proposer, its general partners and its joint venture members and each
other Major Participant, (i) a Certificate of Authority to transact business in Illinois
along with a Certificate of Good Standing from the state of its organization; or (ii) a
Certificate of Good Standing from the Illinois Comptroller in form and substance
acceptable to the City. If such documents are not available due to the form of
organization of the entity, Proposer shall provide appropriate documents evidencing
its ability to transact business in the State of Illinois;
2. For entities formed after submission of the Proposal, a copy of the entity’s final
organizational documents. The final form of the organizational documents may not
differ materially from the draft organizational documents included with the Proposal;
3. If security for Proposer’s obligations under the Agreement is required by the City,
Proposer must submit one or more guarantees from guarantor(s) acceptable to the
City, in its sole discretion;
4. Evidence of approval of the final form, and of due authorization, execution, delivery
and performance, of the Agreement by Developer and, if Developer is a joint
venture, by its joint venture members. Such evidence must be in a form and
substance satisfactory to the City. If Developer is a corporation, such evidence
must be in the form of a resolution of its governing body certified by an appropriate
officer of the corporation. If Developer is a partnership, such evidence will be in the
form of a resolution signed by the general partners and appropriate evidence of
authorization for each of the general partners, in each case, certified by an
appropriate officer of the general partner. If Developer is a limited liability company,
such evidence shall be in the form of: (i) a resolution of the governing body of the
limited liability company, certified by an appropriate officer of the company, (ii) a
managing member(s) resolution, certified by an appropriate officer of the managing
member(s), or (iii) if there is no managing member, a resolution from each member,
certified by an appropriate officer of such member. If Developer is a joint venture,
such evidence shall be in the form of a resolution of each joint venture member,
certified by an appropriate officer of such joint venture member;
5. A written opinion from counsel for Developer, which counsel is approved by the City
(which may be in-house or outside counsel, provided that the
organization/authorization/execution opinion is provided by an attorney licensed in
the State of the formation/organization of the entity for which the opinion is
rendered e.g., Developer or joint venture member, and the qualification to do
business in Illinois and the enforceability opinion is provided by an attorney licensed
in the State of Illinois), in substantially the form attached hereto as Form M (with
such changes as agreed to by the City in its sole discretion);
6. Evidence of insurance required to be provided by Developer under the Agreement;
35
RFP – Page 30
7. Evidence that Developer and its Major Participants hold all licenses required for
performance of the work under the Agreement;
8. City approved M/W/EBE Plan in accordance with the requirements of Section 1.7;
9. A letter from a licensed Surety, rated at least A-VII or better by A.M. Best and
Company, signed by an authorized representative as evidenced by a current
certified power of attorney, committing to provide a Performance Bond and
Payment Bond, each in an amount equal to 100% of the total construction value of
the project and a 10% Retainage Bond to the Agreement. If multiple Surety letters
are provided, the Proposal must identify which Surety will be the lead Surety. The
commitment letter may include no conditions, qualifications or reservations for
underwriting or otherwise, other than a statement that the commitment is subject to
award and execution of the Agreement and issuance of Notice to Proceed;
provided, however, that the Surety may reserve in its letter the right to reasonably
approve any material adverse changes made to the Agreement, but excluding any
changes or information reflected in the Proposal, such as Proposer commitments;
10. A LEP Plan as described in the Agreement; and
11. Any other requirements identified by the City during pre-award negotiations
6.2 Debriefings
All Proposers submitting Proposals will be notified in writing of the results of the evaluation
process. Proposers not selected for award may request a debriefing. Debriefings must be
provided at the earliest feasible time after execution of the Agreement.
Debriefings will:
1. Be limited to discussion of the unsuccessful Proposer’s Proposal and may not
include specific discussion of a competing Proposal;
2. Be factual and consistent with the evaluation of the unsuccessful Proposer’s
Proposal; and
3. Provide information on areas in which the unsuccessful Proposer’s Technical
Proposal had weaknesses or deficiencies.
Debriefing may not include discussion or dissemination of the thoughts, notes, or rankings
of individual members of the evaluation committee, but may include a summary of the
rationale for the selection decision and Agreement award.
36
RFP – Page 31
SECTION 7 PROTEST PROCEDURES
7.1 General
Any actual or prospective bidder, proposer, or contractor who is aggrieved in connection
with the solicitation or award of a contract may protest to the Purchasing and Contracts
Manager. The protest must be submitted in writing within ten (10) calendar days after
such aggrieved person knows or should have known of the facts giving rise thereto.
The bidder/proposer must submit any protests or claims regarding this solicitation to the
office of the Purchasing Manager. A pre-bid protest must be filed five (5) days before
the bid opening or proposal submittal, a pre-award protest must be filed no later than
ten (10) days after the bid opening date or proposal deadline, and a post-award protest
must be filed no later than ten (10) days after the award of the Contract.
All claims by a contractor against the City relating to a contract must be submitted in
writing to the Purchasing Manager. The City will consider protests that are properly and
timely submitted.
All protests or claims must set forth the name and address of the protester, the contract
number, the grounds for the protest or claim, and the course of action that the protesting
party desires that Purchasing Manager take. Statements must be sworn and submitted
under penalty of perjury.
7.2 Authority to Resolve Protests and Contract Claims
Protests: The Purchasing Manager has the authority to consider and resolve a protest
of an aggrieved bidder, proposer, or contractor, actual or prospective, concerning the
solicitation or award of a contract. The City will issue a written decision and that
decision is final.
Contract Claims: The Purchasing Manager, after consulting with the City Attorney, has
the authority to resolve contract claims, subject to the approval of the City Manager or
City Council, as applicable, regarding any settlement that will result in a change order or
contract modification.
Each proposer, by submitting a response to this RFP, expressly recognizes the
limitations on its rights to protest provided in this Section and expressly waives all other
rights and remedies and agrees that the decision on the protest is final and conclusive.
If a proposer disregards, disputes or does not follow the exclusive protest remedies
provided in this Section, it indemnifies and hold the City and its officers, employees,
agents and consultants harmless from and against all liabilities, fees and costs,
including legal and consultant fees and costs, and damages incurred or suffered as a
result of such proposer’s actions. Each proposer, by submitting a response to this RFP,
is deemed to have irrevocably and unconditionally agreed to this indemnity obligation.
37
RFP – Page 32
SECTION 8 CITY RESERVED RIGHTS
In connection with this procurement, the City reserves to itself all rights (which rights
shall be exercisable by the City in its sole discretion) available to it under the law,
including without limitations, with or without cause and with or without notice the right to:
1. Develop the Project in any manner that it, in its sole discretion, deems
necessary. If the City is unable to negotiate a Agreement to its satisfaction with a
Proposer, it may negotiate with the next highest rated Proposer, terminate this
procurement and pursue other development or solicitations relating to the Project
or exercise such other rights under the law as it deems appropriate;
2. Cancel this RFP in whole or in part at any time before the execution by the City
of a Agreement without incurring any cost obligations or liabilities;
3. Issue a new RFP after withdrawal of this RFP;
4. Reject any and all submittals and responses received at any time;
5. Modify all dates set or projected in this RFP;
6. Terminate evaluations of responses received at any time;
7. Suspend and terminate Agreement negotiations at any time, elect not to
commence Agreement negotiations with any responding Proposer and engage in
negotiations with other than the highest ranked Proposer;
8. Issue addenda, supplements and modifications to this RFP;
9. Appoint evaluation committees to review responses, make recommendations to
the City Council and seek the assistance of outside technical experts and
consultants in RFP evaluation;
10. Require confirmation of information furnished by a Proposer, require additional
information from a Proposer concerning its submittal and require additional
evidence of qualifications to perform the work described in this RFP;
11. Seek or obtain data from any source that has the potential to improve the
understanding and evaluation of the responses to this RFP;
12. Add or delete Proposer responsibilities from the information contained in this
RFP;
13. Negotiate with a Proposer without being bound by any provision in its proposal;
38
RFP – Page 33
14. Waive deficiencies in a response, accept and review a non-conforming response
or permit clarifications or supplements to a response;
15. Disqualify any Proposer that changes its submittal without City approval;
16. Not issue a notice to proceed after execution of the Agreement; and
17. Exercise any other right reserved or afforded to the City under this RFP.
This RFP does not commit the City to enter into a contract or proceed with the
procurement described herein. The City assumes no obligations, responsibilities and
liabilities, fiscal or otherwise, to reimburse all or part of the costs incurred or alleged to
have been incurred by parties considering a response and/or responding to this RFP.
All such costs are borne solely by each Proposer.
In no event is the City be bound by, or liable for, any obligations with respect to the
Project until such time (if at all) as a Agreement, in form and substance satisfactory to
the City, has been executed and authorized by the City Council and then only to the
extent set forth therein.
39
For City Council meeting of October 17, 2011 Item SP4.1
Business of the City by Motion: 2012 Water Main Replacement & Street
Resurfacing Program
For Action
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Members of the Administration & Public Works Committee
From: Suzette Robinson, Director of Public Works
Dave Stoneback, Director of Utilities
Paul Schneider, P.E., City Engineer
Sat Nagar, P.E., Senior Engineer, Engineering & Transportation
Subject: 2012 Water Main Replacement & Street Resurfacing Program
Date: October 6, 2011
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council approval of the proposed list of projects to be included
in the 2012 Water Main Replacement and Street Resurfacing Program, subject to final
approval of the FY2012 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). In addition, staff recommends
the development of a new 5-Year Street Improvement Plan (FY2013-FY2017) to be
completed in 2012.
Funding Source:
FY2012 proposed funding will be provided subject to prioritization of the CIP during the
upcoming Budget process. Proposed funds may be provided by the Water Fund
($3.1m), Motor Fuel Tax Fund ($1.4m), Capital Improvement Fund ($900,000), and TIF
Funds (Water Main - $430,000 & Street Resurfacing - $795,000). Proposed funding for
the street evaluation will be provided by the Capitol Improvement Fund ($200,000).
Summary:
The 5-Year (FY2007-FY2011) Street Improvement Plan was passed by the City Council
on August 14, 2006. The list is reviewed annually by staff to determine if modifications
are necessary. The revised program is then brought to the City Council for approval.
Once the annual list is approved by the City Council, Engineering staff initiates the
topographic survey of the streets. After the base drawings are prepared the design of
water main replacement, necessary sewer repair and street resurfacing construction
plans are prepared in-house. The necessary coordination with Nicor, ComEd, Comcast,
AT&T and other utilities are also initiated at the same time. The plans are also
submitted to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), Metropolitan Water
Memorandum
40
Page 2 of 3
Reclamation District (MWRD) and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to
obtain the necessary permits/approvals. We recommend evaluating the streets next
year to develop the next five-year (FY 2013- FY 2017) Street Resurfacing Program.
Beginning in spring each year, City staff reviews the projects included in the 5-Year
Street Improvement Plan and recommends program modifications to the City Council
for the following year based on:
• Carryover projects from the previous year
• Water Main replacement projects proposed by the Utility Department
• Comparative roadway conditions (since streets degrade at varying rates)
• Potential conflicts with other street, utility or development projects
• Funding availability
• Physical inspections
Staff has completed its review and the attached list contains the proposed streets for
water main replacement and street resurfacing in 2012. As a result staff developed the
attached list of projects and recommends approval. Once the annual list is approved by
the City Council, Engineering staff initiates the in-house design of the street resurfacing
and Water Main Replacement Program so that projects are ready for bid in February
and March, when bid pricing is most competitive.
2012 Public Works Street Improvement Program
The following streets are carryover projects from the 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011 Program.
Ewing Avenue Grant Street to Colfax Street
Greenwood Street Maple Avenue to Sherman Avenue
Hinman Avenue Greenleaf Street to Dempster Street
Madison Street Ridge Avenue to Custer Avenue
Sheridan Place Sheridan Road to Sheridan Road
Dodge Avenue Emerson Street to Simpson Street
Church Street Ridge Avenue to Benson Avenue
The following streets have been coordinated with Utility Department for Water Main
Replacement in 2012:
Ashland Avenue Lincoln Street to Central Street
Bradley Place Fowler Avenue to Pitner Avenue
Isabella Street Lawndale Avenue to Central Park Avenue
Lyons Street Darrow Avenue to East Dead End
Main Street Maple Avenue to Sherman Avenue
McDaniel Avenue Lee Street to Dead End North of Crain Street
Nathaniel Place McDaniel Avenue to Pitner Avenue
Pitner Avenue Main Street to Nathaniel Place
Prospect Avenue Grant Street to Colfax Street
Greenleaf Street Grey Avenue to Dodge Avenue
41
Page 3 of 3
The following Street Resurfacing and Water Main Replacement Projects are funded by
TIF Funds.
Church Street Dodge Avenue to Ashland Avenue
Church Street Benson Avenue to Chicago Avenue
Greenleaf Street Grey Avenue to Dodge Avenue
Howard Street Custer Avenue to Chicago Avenue
The limits of some of the 2012 streets have been modified and a few streets have been
included based on comparative condition which is presented in the attached table.
Attachments:
2012 Street Improvement List
Map
42
STREET FROM TO LENGTH
( FT )TYPE WARD REMARKS
Ashland Avenue Lincoln Street Central Street 770 Wm / Res 7 Water Main/Resurfacing
Ewing Avenue **Grant Street Colfax Street 630 Res 6
Foster Street Dodge Avenue Dewey Avenue 840 Res 5
Greenwood Street **Maple Avenue Sherman Place 720 Res 4
Grove Street Chicago Avenue Judson Avenue 1,000 Res 1
Hinman Avenue **Greenleaf Street Dempster Street 1,340 Res 3
Madison Street **Ridge Avenue Custer Avenue 1,614 Res 9
Sheridan Place **Sheridan Road Sheridan Road 1,267 Res 7
Highland Avenue Thayer Street Isabella Street 620 Res 6
**CARRYOVERS FROM 2008, 2010 AND 2011 PLANS 8,801
Bradley Place Fowler Avenue Pitner Avenue 410 WM 2
*Restoration: Trench Patching
Only
Church Street Ridge Avenue Benson Avenue 1,490 Res 1 / 2 / 4
Funding - 60% CIP Funds and 40%
West Evanston TIF Funds
Dodge Avenue **Emerson Street Simpson Street 1,310 Res 5
Greenleaf Street Grey Avenue Dodge Avenue 780 WM / Res 2 Water Main Replacement
Isabella Street Lawndale Avenue Central Park Avenue 780 WM 6
*Restoration: Trench Patching
Only
Lyons Street Darrow Avenue Dead End East of Darrow
Avenue 215 WM 2 / 5
*Restoration: Trench Patching
Only
Main Street Maple Avenue Hinman Avenue 2,040 WM/Res 3 / 4 / 9 Water Main/Resurfacing
McDaniel Avenue Greenleaf Street Dead end North of Crain
Street 1,060 WM 2
*Restoration: Trench Patching
Only
McDaniel Avenue Lee Street Greenleaf Street 700 WM 2
*Restoration: Trench Patching
Only
Nathaniel Place McDaniel Avenue Pitner Avenue 850 WM 2
*Restoration: Trench Patching
Only
Pitner Avenue Main Street Nathaniel Place 1,025 WM 2
*Restoration: Trench Patching
Only
Prospect Avenue Grant Street Colfax Street 580 WM 6
*Restoration: Trench Patching
Only
11,240
Church Street Dodge Avenue Ashland Avenue 1,480 Res 2 / 5 West Evanston TIF
Church Street Benson Avenue Chicago Avenue 1,280 Res 1 Washington TIF
Greenleaf Street Grey Avenue Dodge Avenue 780 Res 2
Street Resurfacing - West
Evanston TIF
Howard Street Custer Avenue Chicago Avenue 1,125 WM / Res 8
Water Main/Resurfacing One
Lane Only - Howard Street TIF
4,665
Grand Total:24,706
2012 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
MFT PROGRAM
CIP PROGRAM
TIF PROGRAM
10/13/2011
43
NORTH SHORE CHANNELNORTH SHORE CHANNELL A K E
M I C H I G A N1200
1800 29002300200019001600400100
200
800
900
1000
1700
2100
2700
2800
500
2100
2700 340030002200160015001000500300300
1100
1200
1300
1800
1900
2300
2900
900 28002500270025007006005002400
1400
1500
1900
2200
2300
2600 350026002400180017001500120011001000800600
2500
2600
300
400
600
800
700
2800 3600230020002200130012001100700200400
1600
200
1000 380033001700900900200500
2000
1300
1600
2500
2400 370026002400210019001400100300100700
1400
1500
2200
100
1100
1700
2000 320031002100180013001400800600400JENKS ST
HAVEN ST
PAYNE ST
LEON PL
P
O
P
L
A
R
A
V
E
GREY AVEHARRISON ST
PR
A
I
R
I
E
A
V
E
REBA PL
COLFAX ST
SH
E
R
IDAN
RD
PARK PL
ASHLAND AVEDODGE AVEHURD AVEGIRARD AVELEE STOAK
AVE
SHERIDAN PL
RIDGE CTMcCORMICK BLVDG
R
E
E
N
B
A
Y
R
D
THAYER ST
PRATT CTGRANT
PITNER ALYLAUREL AVEHINMAN AVEDEWEY AVEEWING AVECENTRAL ST
CALLAN AVERIDGE TER
HULL TER
HOWARD STCOWPER AVEKIRK STHOVLAND CTJUDSON AVEGARRETT PLARBORLN
FOREST AVEINGLESIDE PK
GREY AVEST. MARK'S CTEMERSON ST SHERMAN AVEWILDER ST GARRISON AVECAMPUS DRMILBURN PK
THELIN CT FOREST PLASBURY AVEMICHIGAN AVEWESLEY AVELELAND AVELEMAR AVEMARCY AVEDAVIS S
T
MAPLE AVEHARTZELL ST
LIBRARY PL
SIMPSON ST
CLYDE AVEBROWN AVEGREELEYELMWOOD AVESEWARD ST
ROSL YN PL
GREY AVEFLORENCE AVEHOWARD ST
ISABELLA ST
GROSS POINT RDCUSTER AVELYONS ST
FOWLER AVECLARK
S
T
DARROW AVEPIONEER RDHASTINGS AVEHARTREY AVEEMERSON ST
BRUMMEL STPRINCETON AVEPROSPECT AVEHAMLIN ST
PAYNE ELM AVECASE PLRIDGEWAY AVEMULFORD ST MICHIGAN AVELAWNDALE AVECHURCH
S
T
CRAIN ST
DEMPSTER STJACKSON AVEKEDZIE ST
CLINTON PL
McDANIEL AVEBRI
D
G
E
ST
CALVIN CIR
BROWN AVENORMANDY PL
WOODLAND RD
ELINOR PL
WARREN STLIVINGSTON WASHINGTON ST
NATHANIEL PL OAKKEENEY ST SOUTH BLVD
HAMILTON ST
E
A
S
T
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
GREENWOOD ST
UNIVERSITY PLREESE AVEBRUMMEL PL
GAFFIELD PLLINCOLNWOOD DRCRAWFORD AVELEONARD PLCENTRAL PARK AVEBENNETT AVEMADISON PL
BRADLEY PL
GREENLEAF STWALNUT AVEROSALIE ST
BURNHAM PLBENSON AVESHERMAN PL
CULVER
FORESTVIEW RDMARTHA LNHAWTHORNE LN
WADE CT
BROWN AVECROFT LNBROWNGREYCENTRAL ST
RIDGE AVECHANCELLOR ST
PAYNE ST
WESLEY AVEDODGE AVEHARVARD TER MAPLE AVEDOBSON STDEWEY AVEDARROW AVEDEWEY AVEINGLESIDE PL
RIDGE AVEASBURY AVEFOWLER AVEBROADWAY AVEHARTREY AVECASE ST
SOUTH BLVD ASHLAND AVESHERMAN AVELYONS ST
STE
W
A
R
T
A
V
EMARCY AVEWELLINGTON CTCLEVELAND ST
MONROE ST
LINDEN PL LAKE SHORE BLVDKNOX
CIRHILLSIDE LN
TRINITY CT
SHERIDAN
SQEDGEMERE CTG
R
E
E
N
B
A
Y
R
D
GARNETT PL
ASHLAND AVEGROVE ST
FOSTER ST
ASBURY AVEBARTON AVEEUCLIDPARK PL
WESLEYCLARK ST
LIVINGSTON ST
COLFAX TER
HARRISON
GRANT ST BRYANT AVEJUDSON AVESHERMAN AVECOLFAX ST
ISABELLA ST
DAVIS ST
MAIN ST
RIDGE AVEASBURY AVET
H
A
Y
E
R
C
T
THAYER ST
ISABELLA ST
HAYES
DARTMOUTH PL
COLFAX PL
THAYERTHAYERSTCRAWFORD
LINCOLNWOOD DRMILBURN ST
LAKESIDE CT
CHURCH ST
HARTZELL ST
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
A
V
E
DODGE AVEOAKTON ST
SOUTH BLVD
CRAINMcDANIEL AVEPITNER AVELEE ST
NOYES ST
LAKE ST
THAYER ST
WASHINGTON ST
LAKE ST
LIVINGSTONCHANCELLOR
LYONS ST
DEWEY AVEPAYNE ST
MAIN STDODGE AVECENTRAL ST
McDANIEL AVEEWING AVESHERIDAN RDBRUMMEL ST
WASHINGTON ST
PITNER AVELINCOLN ST
HINMAN
AVE
SEWARD ST
WESLEY AVECENTRAL ST
KEENEY ST RIDGE
AVEOAK AVEJACKSONSHERMAN AVEDOBSON ST
LINCOLN ST
SEWARD STDARROW AVEGREY AVEPARK PL
ORRINGTON AVEELGI
N
R
D
ELMWOOD AVECOLFAX ST
HINMAN AVEGROVE
S
T
ELG
I
N
R
D
FLORENCE AVEFOREST AVEFOSTER STSIMPSON ST
WESLEY AVEOAKTON ST SHERIDAN
RD
SHERIDAN RD
DEMPSTER ST
GREY AVELEE ST
SIMPSON ST
CHICAGO
AVECHICAGO
AVEBENNETT AVEMADISON ST
KEENEY STRIDGE AVESHERIDAN RDMONTICELLO PL
RICHMOND AVEGRANT ST ASBURY AVEMcDANIEL AVEAUSTIN STASHLAND AVEWESLEY AVEGLENVIEW RD
NOYES CTHAMPTON PKYOTTO LNBERNARD PLMEADOW-LARK LNRIDGE AVEMULFORD ST
GREENLEAF ST
HILLSIDE RD
CLEVELAND ST BROWN AVEHARTREY AVEHARTREY AVEGREY AVEARNOLD PLPITNER AVELINCOLN ST
McCORMICK BLVDFOSTER STGREENWOOD ST
CALLANPARK PL
JUDSON
AVE
NOYES ST
DARROW AVEASHLAND AVEHARRISON ST
EASTWOOD AVEARTSCIRCLE DR
NOYES WOODBINE AVEPRINCETONCLIFFORD ST
HIGHLAND AVELAWNDALE AVETECH DR
DARTMOUTH PL
Proposed 2012 Street Improvement Program
9/16/2011
This map is provided "as is" without warranties of any kind. See www.cityofevanston.org/mapdisclaimers.html for more information.
StreetImprovements2012.mxd
City of Evanston Department of Public Works
Street Resurfacing
Water Main Improvement w/Resurfacing
Water Main Improvement w/Trench Patching
Main Road
Local Street
Railroad
Water
City Boundary
0 0.5 10.25
Mile
44
For City Council meeting of October 17, 2011 Item SP4.2
Potential Bus Shelter Locations
For Discussion
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Members of the Administration and Public Works Committee
From: Suzette Robinson, Director of Public Works
Paul Schneider, City Engineer
Rajeev Dahal, Senior Traffic Engineer
Subject: Potential Bus Shelter Locations - Citywide
Creative Outdoor Advertising of America (COA), Inc.
Date: October 6, 2011
Recommended Action:
Staff will present potential locations for Creative Outdoor Advertising of America (COA)
Inc., to proceed to install bus shelters where feasible for City Council review and
approval.
Summary:
A 10 year contract with COA was approved by the City Council on September 27, 2010.
The potential bus shelter locations were presented and discussed during the
Administrative & Public Works Committee meeting on March 14, 2011. Based on the
discussion and the expressed desire to see a sample bus shelter, staff has worked with
COA and Alderman Holmes to install a pilot bus shelter at the intersection of Emerson
and Dewey. COA will install the bus shelters at their own cost and reimburse the City
either 10% of the advertising net revenues or $250 for each installed bus shelter per
year, whichever is higher.
COA has reviewed some of the potential locations and has proposed the installation of
shelters at eighteen locations in the first phase. Eighteen more shelters are planned for
the second phase but need detailed review and easements agreements where needed.
All thirty six shelters are scheduled to be installed in 2012, starting in the spring.
Subsequent to the JULIE utility locates; where ADA, right-of-way, tree impacts and
other obstructions are not issues, COA will install the bus shelters, maintain them, and
seek local business advertisement on them.
Memorandum
45
For City Council meeting of October 17, 2011 Item SP4.3
TIGER III Grant Application
For Discussion
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Members of the Administration & Public Works Committee
From: Suzette Robinson, Director of Public Works
Paul Schneider, P.E., City Engineer
Sat Nagar, P.E., Senior Engineer, Division of Transportation
Subject: TIGER III Grant Application
Church Street from Lawler Ave. (Skokie) to Chicago Ave. (Evanston) and
Dodge Avenue from Dempster St. to Lyons St.
Date: October 14, 2011
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends authorization for the City Manager to apply for a TIGER III
Discretionary Grant to fund the construction of the West Evanston Plan on Church
Street (NS Channel to Chicago) and Dodge Avenue (Dempster to Lyons). The project
will include bicycle accommodations on Church Street from Lawler Avenue (Skokie) to
Chicago Avenue (Evanston). The project will also include the modernization and
interconnection of seven (7) Dodge Avenue traffic signals from Mulford St. to Church St.
Funding Source:
The total cost of funding this project is estimated to be $16,300,000 of which
$11,720,000 would be funded with TIGER III Grant funds. The remaining $4,580,000
would be funded by the City of Evanston.
Phase I Environ. Engineering (2012) $ 825,000 ($650k GO/$200k TIF)
Phase II Design Engineering (2012) $ 825,000 (GO Bond)
Phase III Construction Engineering (2013/14) $ 280,000 (GO Bond)
Participating Construction (2014/15) $ 2,650,000 ($1,270k GO/$1,380k TIF)
$ 4,580,000 (Local Share)
The local share of the project is not currently a part of the City’s Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP). Should the City be awarded the grant, either the CIP roadway program
would have to be revised or additional bonding would be required in order to raise the
necessary funds to proceed.
Memorandum
46
Page 2 of 2
Summary:
In 2005, the City Council established the West Evanston TIF district. Its purpose is to
address disinvestment and economic stagnation in the commercial district at the
Church/Dodge intersection and in adjacent industrial areas along the now-abandoned
Mayfair railroad spur line. To accomplish this objective the City initiated a master
planning process and adopted the West Evanston Master Plan on May 14, 2007. The
plan emphasizes fostering new economic development, increasing the walkability of the
neighborhoods, and maintaining the green character of the community.
This plan is intended to transform the entire streetscape of the Dodge Avenue and
Church Street corridors, by integrating economic development, affordable housing,
greater sustainability and safer transportation access. This project will create a
framework that the region will recognize as a model for future street development. It will
also compliment Evanston’s NSP2 grant program.
The proposed project calls for the reconstruction of Church Street (NS Channel to
Chicago) and Dodge Avenue (Dempster to Lyons). The project will include bicycle
accommodations on Church Street from Lawler Avenue (Skokie) to Chicago Avenue
(Evanston). The path will incorporate the current best practices for both off-street and
on-street bicycle facilities. Once constructed, this section will complete the eastern
portion of the regional Golf Road bicycle corridor. Sustainability will be a key feature of
this project. Evanston will address this project element with a comprehensive
sustainable streetscape design that will use several environmentally friendly techniques
not typical in streetscape designs. The plans incorporate sustainable design elements
such as rain gardens, alternative paving options (including recycled pavement) and may
incorporate bioswale technology to treat and filter storm water prior to being released
into the storm sewer system. Additionally, the city will focus on improved bus stops and
place pedestrian mobility at a premium with new accessible sidewalks and improved
crosswalks. The “Complete Streets” approach will provide landscaped buffers while
preserving existing & adding new open spaces that are important to the community.
Attachments:
Location Map
Regional Map
SAMPLE Local Agency Agreement
47
Grove Street
Lake Street
Dobson StreetHartrey AvenuePitner AvenueSimpson Stre et
Dempster Street
Dodge AvenueGreenwood Street
Elgin
Road Orrington AvenueHamilton Street
Custer AvenueDavis Street
Lee StreetMcCormick BoulevardOakton Street Chicago AvenueEmerson StreetMcDaniel AvenueBennett AvenueFlorence AvenueMain Street Maple AvenueMulford Street Orrington AvenueBenson AvenueKedzie Street
Brummel Street
University Place
Darrow AvenueMadison Street
Monroe Street Sherman AvenueKeene y Street
South Boulevard Jackson AvenueSeward Stre etDarrow AvenueCrain Stree t
Lyo ns Stre etGreen Ba
y Ro
a
d
Seward Street
Austin Street
Cleveland Street
Washington Street
Warren Street
South BoulevardDewey AvenueDobson Street
Cleveland Street
Lyo ns Stre et
Seward Stre et Ashland AvenueMulford Street
Harvard Terrace
Bradley Place
Sherman AvenueCroft LaneWesley AvenueLyons Stree t Ridge AvenueWesley AvenueCrain Street
Dewey AvenueHartrey AvenueFoster Street
Hamlin Street
Thelin Court
Foster Street
Mulford StreetPitner AvenueWesley AvenueGrey AvenueGrey AvenueElmwood AvenueSeward Street
Crain Street
M adi so n Place
Garnett Place
Clark Street
Clark Street
Hull Terrace
Case Place
Crain Street
Brumm el Street
Lee Street
G reenwood Street
Brummel Street
Grove Street
Davis Street
Greenleaf Street
Nathaniel Place
Wesley AvenueAshland AvenueSeward StreetFoster S treetBrown AvenueReba PlaceGrey AvenueLeon Place
Case StreetPratt CourtBrown AvenueGrey AvenueBrown AvenueBrown AvenueRidge CourtDewey AvenueGrey AvenueOak AvenueLibrary Place
Laurel AvenueBrummel Place Hinman AvenueHinman AvenueHartrey AvenueRidge AvenueRidge AvenuePitner AvenueMaple AvenueMaple AvenueMcDaniel AvenueElmwood AvenueHartrey AvenueSherman AvenueSherman AvenueFowler AvenueFlorence AvenueLemar AvenueAsbury AvenueMcDaniel AvenueOak AvenueSherman AvenueWesley AvenueDewey AvenueSheridan RoadCallan AvenueBarton AvenueFlorence AvenueHartrey AvenueAshland AvenueGrey AvenueAshland AvenueWesley AvenueCallan AvenueGrey AvenueLeland AvenueFlorence AvenueDarrow AvenueDewey AvenueDarrow AvenueHovland CourtDarrow AvenueBrown AvenuePitner AlleyGrey AvenueChurch Street & Dodge AvenueProject Area
Traffic Light
Building Footprint
Tax Parcel
Project Area
Water
This map is provided "as is" without warranties of any kind. See www.cityofevanston.org/mapdisclaimers.html for more information.
0 500 Feet
ChurchDodgeProjectAreaII.mxd -- 10/07/2011
48
49
Printed on 10/14/2011 Page 1 of 4 BLR 05310 (Rev. 05/28/09)
Local Agency
City of Evanston
State Contract
X
Day Labor
Local
Contract
RR Force Account
Local Agency Agreement
for Federal Participation
Section
Fund Type
TIGER III/IDOT FY13
ITEP Number
Construction Engineering Right-of-Way
Job Number Project Number Job Number Project Number Job Number Project Number
This Agreement is made and entered into between the above local agency hereinafter referred to as the “LA” and the state of Illinois, acting
by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as “STATE”. The STATE and LA jointly propose to improve the
designated location as described below. The improvement shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the STATE and the
STATE’s policies and procedures approved and/or required by the Federal Highway Administration hereinafter referred to as “FHWA”.
Location
Local Name Church Street/Dodge Avenue Route FAU 1313/2840 Length 3.80/1.80 Miles
Termini Church Street: Lawler Avenue to Chicago Ave. / Dodge Avenue: Mulford St. to Lyons St.
Current Jurisdiction Church Street (Local/IDOT/CCHD)/ Dodge Avenue (Local Agency) Existing Structure No N/A
Project Description
Construction and Engineering for the reconstruction of Church Street (McDaniel Ave. to Ashland Ave.) and Dodge Avenue (Main St. to
Lyons St.) consisting of full roadway reconstruction, curb and gutter construction, storm sewer and drainage, traffic signal installation, and
pavement markings.
Division of Cost
Type of Work FHWA % STATE % LA % Total
Phase I Engineering ( ) ( ) 825,000 ( 100 ) 825,000
Phase II Engineering ( ) ( ) 825,000 ( 100 ) 825,000
Participating Construction 10,600,000 ( 80* ) ( ) 2,650,000 ( BAL ) 13,250,000
Non-Participating Construction ( ) ( ) ( )
Construction Engineering 1,120,000 ( 80*) ( ) 280,000 ( BAL ) 1,400,000
Railroads ( ) ( ) ( )
Utilities ( ) ( ) ( )
Materials
TOTAL $ 11,720,000 $ $4,580,000 $16,300,000
* TIGER III FEDERAL funds NTE $10,600,000 to be used first.
(shortfall to be covered by the local agency in the event the federal allocation differs from this amount)
ETHS to pay Non-Participating Construction Costs
NOTE:
The costs shown in the Division of Cost table are approximate and subject to change. The final LA share is dependent on the final Federal and
State participation. The actual costs will be used in the final division of cost for billing and reimbursment.
If funding is not a percentage of the total, place an asterisk in the space provided for the percentage and explain above.
The Federal share of construction engineering may not exceed 15% of the Federal share of the final construction cost.
Local Agency Appropriation
By execution of this Agreement, the LA is indicating sufficient funds have been set aside to cover the local share of the project cost and
additional funds will be appropriated, if required, to cover the LA’s total cost.
Method of Financing (State Contract Work)
METHOD A---Lump Sum (80% of LA Obligation)
METHOD B--- Monthly Payments of
METHOD C---LA’s Share Balance divided by estimated total cost multiplied by actual progress payment.
(See page two for details of the above methods and the financing of Day Labor and Local Contracts)
50
Printed on 10/14/2011 Page 2 of 4 BLR 05310 (Rev. 05/28/09)
Agreement Provisions
THE LA AGREES:
(1) To acquire in its name, or in the name of the state if on the state highway system, all right-of-way necessary for this project in
accordance with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970, and established state policies and procedures. Prior to advertising for bids, the LA shall certify to the STATE that all
requirements of Titles II and III of said Uniform Act have been satisfied. The disposition of encroachments, if any, will be
cooperatively determined by representatives of the LA, and STATE and the FHWA, if required.
(2) To provide for all utility adjustments, and to regulate the use of the right-of-way of this improvement by utilities, public and private,
in accordance with the current Utility Accommodation Policy for Local Agency Highway and Street Systems.
(3) To provide for surveys and the preparation of plans for the proposed improvement and engineering supervision during construction
of the proposed improvement.
(4) To retain jurisdiction of the completed improvement unless specified otherwise by addendum (addendum should be accompanied
by a location map). If the improvement location is currently under road district jurisdiction, an addendum is required.
(5) To maintain or cause to be maintained, in a manner satisfactory to the STATE and FHWA, the completed improvement, or that
portion of the completed improvement within its jurisdiction as established by addendum referred to in item 4 above.
(6) To comply with all applicable Executive Orders and Federal Highway Acts pursuant to the Equal Employment Opportunity and
Nondiscrimination Regulations required by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
(7) To maintain, for a minimum of 3 years after the completion of the contract, adequate books, records and supporting documents to
verify the amounts, recipients and uses of all disbursements of funds passing in conjunction with the contract; the contract and all
books, records and supporting documents related to the contract shall be available for review and audit by the Auditor General and
the department; and the LA agrees to cooperate fully with any audit conducted by the Auditor General and the department; and to
provide full access to all relevant materials. Failure to maintain the books, records and supporting documents required by this
section shall establish a presumption in favor of the STATE for the recovery of any funds paid by the STATE under the contract for
which adequate books, records and supporting documentation are not available to support their purported disbursement.
(8) To provide if required, for the improvement of any railroad-highway grade crossing and rail crossing protection within the limits of
the proposed improvement.
(9) To comply with Federal requirements or possibly lose (partial or total) Federal participation as determined by the FHWA.
(10) (State Contracts Only) That the method of payment designated on page one will be as follows:
Method A - Lump Sum Payment. Upon award of the contract for this improvement, the LA will pay to the STATE, in lump sum,
an amount equal to 80% of the LA’s estimated obligation incurred under this Agreement, and will pay to the STATE
the remainder of the LA’s obligation (including any nonparticipating costs) in a lump sum, upon completion of the
project based upon final costs.
Method B - Monthly Payments. Upon award of the contract for this improvement, the LA will pay to the STATE, a specified
amount each month for an estimated period of months, or until 80% of the LA’s estimated obligation under the
provisions of the Agreement has been paid, and will pay to the STATE the remainder of the LA’s obligation (including
any nonparticipating costs) in a lump sum, upon completion of the project based upon final costs.
Method C - Progress Payments. Upon receipt of the contractor’s first and subsequent progressive bills for this improvement, the
LA will pay to the STATE, an amount equal to the LA’s share of the construction cost divided by the estimated total
cost, multiplied by the actual payment (appropriately adjusted for nonparticipating costs) made to the contractor until
the entire obligation incurred under this Agreement has been paid.
(11) (Day Labor or Local Contracts) To provide or cause to be provided all of the initial funding, equipment, labor, material and services
necessary to construct the complete project.
(12) (Preliminary Engineering) In the event that right-of-way acquisition for, or actual construction of the project for which this
preliminary engineering is undertaken with Federal participation is not started by the close of the tenth fiscal year following the
fiscal year in which this agreement is executed, the LA will repay the STATE any Federal funds received under the terms of this
Agreement.
(13) (Right-of-Way Acquisition) In the event that the actual construction of the project on this right-of-way is not undertaken by the
close of the twentieth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which this Agreement is executed, the LA will repay the STATE any
Federal Funds received under the terms of this Agreement.
(14) (Railroad Related Work Only) The estimates and general layout plans for at-grade crossing improvements should be forwarded to
the Rail Safety and Project Engineer, Room 204, Illinois Department of Transportation, 2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Springfield,
Illinois, 62764. Approval of the estimates and general layout plans should be obtained prior to the commencement of railroad
related work. All railroad related work is also subject to approval be the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). Final inspection for
railroad related work should be coordinated through appropriate IDOT District Bureau of Local Roads and Streets office.
Plans and preemption times for signal related work that will be interconnected with traffic signals shall be submitted to the ICC for
review and approval prior to the commencement of work. Signal related work involving interconnects with state maintained traffic
signals should also be coordinated with the IDOT’s District Bureau of Operations.
The LA is responsible for the payment of the railroad related expenses in accordance with the LA/railroad agreement prior to
requesting reimbursement from IDOT. Requests for reimbursement should be sent to the appropriate IDOT District Bureau of
Local Roads and Streets office.
Engineer’s Payment Estimates in accordance with the Division of Cost on page one.
51
Printed on 10/14/2011 Page 3 of 4 BLR 05310 (Rev. 05/28/09)
(15) And certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief its officials:
(a) are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from covered
transactions by any Federal department or agency;
(b) have not within a three-year period preceding this Agreement been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them
for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain or performing a public (Federal,
State or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission
of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements receiving stolen
property;
(c) are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, local) with
commission of any of the offenses enumerated in item (b) of this certification; and
(d) have not within a three-year period preceding the Agreement had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, local)
terminated for cause or default.
(16) To include the certifications, listed in item 15 above and all other certifications required by State statutes, in every contract,
including procurement of materials and leases of equipment.
(17) (State Contracts) That execution of this agreement constitutes the LA’s concurrence in the award of the construction contract to
the responsible low bidder as determined by the STATE.
(18) That for agreements exceeding $100,000 in federal funds, execution of this Agreement constitutes the LA’s certification that:
(a) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress or any employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of
any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of any Federal contract,
grant, loan or cooperative agreement;
(b) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress or an employee of
a Member of Congress, in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall
complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying”, in accordance with its instructions;
(c) The LA shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all ties
(including subcontracts, subgrants and contracts under grants, loans and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients
shall certify and disclose accordingly.
(19) To regulate parking and traffic in accordance with the approved project report.
(20) To regulate encroachments on public right-of-way in accordance with current Illinois Compiled Statutes.
(21) To regulate the discharge of sanitary sewage into any storm water drainage system constructed with this improvement in
accordance with current Illinois Compiled Statutes.
(22) That the LA may invoice the STATE monthly for the FHWA and/or STATE share of the costs incurred for this phase of the
improvement. The LA will submit supporting documentation with each request for reimbursement from the STATE. Supporting
documentation is defined as verification of payment, certified time sheets, vendor invoices, vendor receipts, and other
documentation supporting the requested reimbursement amount.
(23) To complete this phase of the project within three years from the date this agreement is approved by the STATE if this portion of
the project described in the Project Description does not exceed $1,000,000 (five years if the project costs exceed $1,000,000).
(24) Upon completion of this phase of the improvement, the LA will submit to the STATE a complete and detailed final invoice with all
applicable supporting supporting documentation of all incurred costs, less previous payments, no later than one year from the date
of completion of this phase of the improvement. If a final invoice is not received within one year of completion of this phase of the
improvement, the most recent invoice may be considered the final invoice and the obligation of the funds closed.
(25) (Single Audit Requirements) That if the LA receives $500,000 or more a year in federal financial assistance they shall have an
audit made in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-133. LA’s that receive less than
$500,000 a year shall be exempt from compliance. A copy of the audit report must be submitted to the STATE with 30 days after
the completion of the audit, but no later than one year after the end of the LA’s fiscal year. The CFDA number for all highway
planning and construction activities is 20.205.
THE STATE AGREES:
(1) To provide such guidance, assistance and supervision and to monitor and perform audits to the extent necessary to assure validity
of the LA’s certification of compliance with Titles II and III requirements.
(2) (State Contracts) To receive bids for the construction of the proposed improvement when the plans have been approved by the
STATE (and FHWA, if required) and to award a contract for construction of the proposed improvement, after receipt of a
satisfactory bid.
(3) (Day Labor) To authorize the LA to proceed with the construction of the improvement when Agreed Unit Prices are approved and
to reimburse the LA for that portion of the cost payable from Federal and/or State funds based on the Agreed Unit Prices and
Engineer’s Payment Estimates in accordance with the Division of Cost on page one.
(4) (Local Contracts) That for agreements with Federal and/or State funds in engineering, right-of-way, utility work and/or construction
work:
52
Printed on 10/14/2011 Page 4 of 4 BLR 05310 (Rev. 05/28/09)
(a) To reimburse the LA for the Federal and/or State share on the basis of periodic billings, provided said billings contain sufficient
cost information and show evidence of payment by the LA;
(b) To provide independent assurance sampling, to furnish off-site material inspection and testing at sources normally visited by
STATE inspectors of steel, cement, aggregate, structural steel and other materials customarily tested by the STATE.
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
(1) That this Agreement and the covenants contained herein shall become null and void in the event that the FHWA does not approve
the proposed improvement for Federal-aid participation or the contract covering the construction work contemplated herein is not
awarded within three years of the date of execution of this Agreement.
(2) This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their successors and assigns.
(3) For contracts awarded by the LA, the LA shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and
performance of any USDOT – assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR part 26.
The LA shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and
administration of USDOT – assisted contracts. The LA’s DBE program, as required by 49 CFR part 26 and as approved by
USDOT, is incorporated by reference in this Agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved
program, the department may impose sanctions as provided for under part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for
enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31U.S.C. 3801 et seq.). In the absence
of a USDOT – approved LA DBE Program or on State awarded contracts, this Agreement shall be administered under the
provisions of the STATE’s USDOT approved Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.
(4) In cases where the STATE is reimbursing the LA, obligations of the STATE shall cease immediately without penalty or further
payment being required if, in any fiscal year, the Illinois General Assembly or applicable Federal Funding source fails to
appropriate or otherwise make available funds for the work contemplated herein.
(5) All projects for the construction of fixed works which are financed in whole or in part with funds provided by this Agreement and/or
amendment shall be subject to the Prevailing Wage Act (820 ILCS 130/0.01 et seq.) unless the provisions of that Act exempt its
application.
ADDENDA
Additional information and/or stipulations are hereby attached and identified below as being a part of this Agreement.
Number 1 Location Map
(Insert addendum numbers and titles as applicable)
The LA further agrees, as a condition of payment, that it accepts and will comply with the applicable provisions set forth in this Agreement
and all addenda indicated above.
APPROVED APPROVED State of Illinois
Department of Transportation
Name Elizabeth B. Tisdahl
Title Mayor
County Board Chairperson/Mayor/Village President/etc. Gary Hannig, Secretary of Transportation Date
Signature By:
(Delegate’s Signature)
Date
(Delegate’s Name – Printed)
TIN Number 36-6005870
NOTE: If signature is by an APPOINTED official, a resolution authorizing Christine M. Reed, Director of Highways/Chief Engineer Date
said appointed official to execute this agreement is required.
Ellen J. Schanzle-Haskins, Chief Counsel Date
Ann L. Schneider, Director of Finance and Administration Date
53