HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.D.1. Selection of Huber Park Design Firm
IS; 0# II
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director
Meeting Date: May 4, 2004
Subject: Selection of Huber Park Design Firm
INTRODUCTION
City Council is asked to authorize appropriate city officials to enter into agreement with
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates for final design and construction documents
for Huber Park.
BACKGROUND
In 2003, City Council authorized staff to issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) for Huber
Park final design and construction documents. We issued the RFP in March of this year
(Attachment A). The RFP asked that firms submit proposals for the following services:
1. Use the approved master plan as a guide to develop final plans for this park.
2. Develop at least three refined plans and cost estimates that shows conceptually how
the entire park area from west of the Hwy 101 bridge to the east end of the park
property line can be developed to its full potential. This includes design
considerations such as:
. What type of performance area should be constructed, and what utilities are
required to serve the performance area.
. How the site can be designed to meet all accessibility standards.
. How the two parking areas can most effectively serve the park.
. What type of riverbank stabilization and beautification can be achieved.
. Where the restroom building and future community playground should be
located, and what options could be considered for play equipment as an
alternative to the community playground. (The final design should include
specifications for optional commercial play equipment, but is not required to have
the final design for the restroom building.)
. How the State trail should be aligned through the park, and how the west parking
area can serve as a trailhead for this park.
. What should be done with the existing restroom building on the west end. of the
park.
. What design considerations should be made to protect the park and its amenities
from any potential flooding.
. How the plan can be phased in over several years, if desired by the City,
including the advantages and disadvantages of phasing the project.
3. Meet with residents, downtown business owners, the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, and City Council to discuss components of the final plan, present options, and
incorporate their feedback.
4. Provide the City with final plans, construction documents, and cost estimates. As
noted previously, the final plans should provide the City the opportunity to phase
construction of the project over several years, if so desired.
Five design teams submitted proposals. Due to the unique nature and complexity of the
,
project with riverbank stabilization and floodplain issues, all of the proposals involved a
team-based approach. Under this scenario, one firm would be the project lead and other
firms would provide specialized services like hydrology, geotechnical expertise, and
architecture.
The five proposals were as follows:
Firm Proposal Cost
HTPO $ 85,150
Bonestoo Rosene Anderlik & Associates $108,192
WSB $124,080*
Sanders Wacker and Bergly $132,750*
SRF $138,800*
*Rates were adjusted (lowered) from their original proposal to better reflect the services
being requested.
An evaluation team consisting of Mike Hullander, Mark McQuillan, Bruce Loney, Tracy
Schaefer and I reviewed the proposals and interviewed all five firms. Following the
interview, we ranked the firms based on the following criteria:
. Resources and qualifications in park planning and design
. Resources and qualifications in riverbank stabilization
. Proposer's understanding of the project
. Experience with similar projects
. Ability to meet project requirements and services
Although the proposed fee was important, we felt that the initial ranking without factoring
in fees would help ensure that we selected the firm that could truly provide the best
service to the city for this project.
DISCUSSION
Evaluation Panel Recommendation
All five firms submitted excellent proposals. After ranking the teams, there was clear
consensus from the evaluation panel that Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates had
the best understanding of the project, most innovative approach to the critical issues of
the park design and riverbank stabilization, and would provide the best service to the
City.
As you can see, Bonestroo's rate is not the lowest. The evaluation panel believes that
Bonestroo's abilities and past experience exceed those of other proposers that have
both lower and higher fees. I have also checked with other cities that have used
Bonestroo in the past (Rochester, Minneapolis, Apple Valley) and they were very
satisfied with their services. Two specifically commented that Bonestroo's cost
estimating is very accurate - an important component in developing the final design for
Huber Park.
Additional Services
I need to make Counc;il aware of other services that weren't requested in the RFP but
should be considered during the final design. Although these are additional costs, it is
important that we address these now to ensure we have a quality design. I asked
Bonestroo to provide what fees they would charge to provide each of these services.
They were able to respond to all of them in time for this memo except the sound
analysis. I hope to have that information for your meeting.
. Sound Analysis
On April 14, I attended a meeting at the City of Shoreview where they are looking at
the feasibility of constructing a performance area adjacent to County Road 96. One
of the firms they retained was a firm that specializes in sound. As I understand, not
only will noise cause issues with the audience, but some performers will not play if
there is an unacceptable amount of noise entering the performance area.
Given the proximity of County Road 101 in Shakopee, we discussed the need for
some type of sound study with each of the design teams. There was consensus from
all firms that we need to get some idea of how noise from County Road 101 will
impact the performance area, and what design techniques can be used to mitigate
sound issues.
Proposed Fee: To be determined
. CR101/Sommerville Pedestrian Crossing Analysis
At the Walkable Communities workshop on April 22, we studied the CR101/
Sommerville pedestrian crossing. In the short time we were there, it was evident that
this crossing is not pedestrian friendly. There needs to be further analysis of traffic
issues and road design to determine if it is feasible to provide.a safe pedestrian
entrance to the park.
Proposed Fee: $2,000-$4,000
. Grant Applications for Funding
Each of the design teams commented on potential funding sources for this project,
and different agencies that they work with that has funding. In order to expedite
application of these grants using their contacts, it would be beneficial for Bonestroo
to submit these applications on behalf of the city.
Proposed Fee: $2,000 for four grant applications
. Permits
The RFP indicated that staff would prepare and submit the required permits for this
project and the design firm would provide technical information. In order to expedite
the application process, it would again be beneficial for Bonestroo to submit these
applications on behalf of the city due to their contacts with various regulatory
agencies.
Proposed Fee: $1,500 for all permits
. Electrical Plans for Park Lighting
In the RFP, plans for lighting was only requested for the performance area. If the
final design for the park identifies other park lighting such as along the trails or
parking areas, additional electrical engineering services would be needed.
Proposed F~(3: $~OQ
. 3-D Modeling of Plans
The ability to present the concept and final plans for the park using 3-D modeling
may be very helpful for residents and other groups to experience how the proposed
designs would look and function. This is the same technology that Scott County used
to present their jail plans.
Proposed Fee: $4,500
Total cost for these additional services (excluding the sound study) would be $12,800. I
believe that this would be a valuable investment to help ensure that this park is
developed to its best potential.
BUDGET IMPACT
The CIP provides $1.489 million in 2004 and 2005 for Huber Park development. Of this
amount, we estimated $114,000 for qesign and project administration services. Since
the proposed fees including additional services would exceed this amount, additional
funding could come from the Park Reserve fund. The Park Reserve Fund balance is
currently $2.832 million.
RECOMMENDATION
I am recommending that the city enter into agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik
and Associates for final design and construction documents for Huber Park. The
evaluation panel and I believe that they will provide the best service for the city in
developing a quality design that will maximize the potential for Huber Park. I also would
recomrnend that we obtain the additional services described above.
In discussing the timeline with all the design teams, they acknowledged that the timeline
proposed in the RFP was aggressive. In discussing further with Bonestroo, they propose
a two-phase approach to the project. The first phase would develop overall park design
concepts with construction plans specifically for the riverbank stabilization this summer.
The riverbank work could potentially be bid this year and completed during the fall and/or
over the winter. The second phase would involve the final design and construction plans
for the remaining. park improvements, which could be bid. during the winter for
construction in 2005.
REQUESTED ACTION
If City Council concurs, move to authorize appropriate city officials to enter into
agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates for final design and
construction documents for Huber Park.
Ma~~~
Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director
Creativity, technical expertise and
call boratio .
a VI
waterfront com
focal point
~=:
lil-
-.-
Huber Park Project Understanding
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realize the Potential: Create a design JIj::;::""
it=
---
vocabulary an material palette for
Huber Park
D Respond to the context
River and floodplain
I! Historic and new
downtown Shakopee::~c;~-
The old bridge (No.
D Simple, elegant, clean,
linear
D Durable, submersible
D Design everything-carry
vocabulary throughout
the park
Creative and responsive a roach
refines master plan to solve c Ilenges
an maximize opportu ities
D Build on previous work
D Explore the alternativ~~:c'"
and maximize the . c:>;C_:Cd
potential
D Define costs and phasing
D Refine and complete
~ ::::""
li=
--
Design tour: The Magi Bu
Establish a common vocabulary and vision
Community Parks
Riverfront Parks
Performance Areas
Facilitate the design discussion
Inclusive process creates d i n that
reflects your visi n and goals
o Engage stakeholders
in respectful dialog,ue
< ',-~ <.^'^';.:::.,,::;;;:::'):::\^
Identify priorities;:~~~w=( .
__".,;,.:.. .. ,................H.n
o Apply creativity anay w,
technical expertise
Result: strong
collaborative effort
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JIll:::=-
li=
-.-
Experience with Similar Projects
Experie ce delivering pa rojects
creates commu ity focal point
------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
.~
lL 'Il:"~~
... ...
:; . :
.:
.: . ..
J1V::::-
11=
-.-
Experience with bioengineering results
in best riverbank stabilization solution
Construction
Spring Creek Bank Stabilization, Carver, MN
Experience with bioengin ring results
in best riverbank stabilization solution
Perch Lake Trail Access and Shoreli
St. Croix Cau nty, WI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
~::::'"
11=
-.-
Developing Your Vision
Huber Park: Shakopee's Undeveloped
Asset
o Substantial size
o Location, location,
location
River
DNR Trail
Nearby residential and
commercial
o Excellent potential
jIj ::::""
.,. -.
!t~
Realize the Potential: Create a "draw"
from Downtown Shakopee and beyond
o Enhance the invitation
(define the door)
o Create a place
o Reinforce and
the draw
Bright, cheerful, active-
lots of life
Interesting, various
Realize the Potential: Design the
land/water interface
o Define where and how people experience the
water
"'''.;
Visual experience~.see:/~.ut Qotf~el
...It'" "~_""""_'_">'W
;~.'~:;___:__/:::::;:..:_:~. .-..l,;;'Mij,:_\
Physical experience~se~e;ahcl feel
Soft and hard treatments
t\
Opportunities for education and interactioh
JU ::::""
;1=
---
Ability to Meet Project Requirements
Dual-phase timeli e eets City's
expectations for completion
o Address riverbank first
o Develop performanc;:~areasec:ond
~ ~".. _..____~>____m"" .,,",~^
^''',''
""~."
m~::,;.,.~:~-_,__."~
~"---"':'.J
;~.,", "'0' " ~j)1
q~,:+2;~>:::\jf~;.;:L_-j', '~::ltlull ,.W:
111 ::::--
Wi=
---
Summary: Why Choose Bonestroo
Bonestroo's creativity, technical
expertise and collaboration produce
vibrant waterfront rk
o Creative and responsive approach refines master plan
to solve challenges and,"r'!1"~1irl1.i~e()pportunities
>,',~':',~~ ,~0"" ...... .... . 'f;;;;". ..,. . . .... .
o Multidisciplinary team}'Gr~atesi"~r deSign vocab~larY~IilI(jW,'r}i'
material palette for lDu[)ercrgg.rlt~j;that reflects yotlt'lV1$fQ!t,:,:::.
0 Bioengineering experience offers hard and
solutions to bank stabilization
o Environmentally sensitive site.design~g.R architecture
expertise creates integrated parkexpeHence
~
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FINAL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR HUBER PARK
· Master Plan..
Huber Park .. City of Shako pee, Minnesota
~To.An>philheaftt
At..flQlll~: ~"'~.'T .
'~P";;'.^..I(4(]\l-$$OI/) R"'"f"'~
!f....P##M"'2(400-SOOil) '~T.Othet
''''''1'''''''_3(12001/) ~~~
1kilI;;I"lOO;~:=,~~~
SlagtIP!:tf~M-MinAte&; "
.s..og_tllmCl<r ...8
'M~ '''.~T''''
'Mod<T'WI_~.~ '{.)lJ.c;.~pK
.PIIblia~GanJcDi,' ,()f~~:,:
...'Il!ol\OIl-
~"""'R,i;&oiml~
","~p~
"~,,,.~/,..0.., l'.Iilrao<c!{odti .
. 'l'#lkl>~!ll<meo<.
'l'#~~~.
ItnptoYeIU~
fillnWrc S~t
RtSltJaABcyAi:Ceis
''''''''Q!>lr.''''00f~
1\i><I~~oo,;,,,,,,",
..
~
~Overl<>>kISlag.M- llDWllto!vl!9>nn!<lI<m . . . . ."":"'"
's..;.F<<SllIaltor~ '"' '~CIMaI< .lIml~..A.MldaI~L1d;
'~.~fOmlook_ "'( ..SOlfli8bl .'I>t. 1~11~""""""
.. ....~~.. ."""........!llIlalde . Jf 'l>iOO~" }'. .SUita...lfumh<r... Oof. .....
. ."... '1"' ~SiakO(* 'I' .......MNSs:u'
SHAKOPEE ~.' 7:::.
SfIAKjO' "PE" 'E
'. - . ,.' .-' ,~ '. ,.... '.' ~ _._~
'. -' . '. .
. ,"
. '. ' . .
". . . .... "', . ,. .........
......."........ ..... ..' ..................... ............. .... .... ." ..... ....... ... ......... .'... ....... ,,; . ........ ... ..... .
COMrdUN11'r.PamI!SJ!N'CBl8S1'
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1255 Fuller Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
(952) 233-3830
HUBER PARK FINAL DESIGN REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Proiect Background
The City of Shakopee is requesting proposals from qualified park designers to do final
design and develop plans and construction documents for Huber Park. Huber Park is
located north of Trunk Highway 101 along the Minnesota River in Shakopee, Minnesota. To
some extent, the park has been vacant of recreational amenities since 1985. The park has
a State trail that traverses through the park and a boat landing that will be relocated across
the river from the park.
In 1994, the City commissioned Brauer & Associates to prepare a master plan for the park.
The master planning process involved significant input from residents and the downtown
business community. However, the plan was not implemented. In 2000, the City rehired
Brauer & Associates to revise the park master plan with fewer amenities than the 1994 plan.
The City Council adopted the new plan in 2001.
One of the most significant concerns for the City in moving this project forward both in 1994
and 2001 was how to design and/or protect the developed park area and amenities from
damage during flooding. City Council decided that filling portions of the park above the
normal flood level was in the best long-term interest of the City. The City's Engineering
Department worked with Parks and Recreation staff to develop a fill and rough grading plan
based on the master plan that would raise the majority of amenities out of the normal flood
plain. The City began the fill process in 2003, and expects to have the majority of fill in place
by summer of 2004.
A second concern that the City has but hasn't addressed is how to stabilize and improve the
aesthetics of the riverbank. Over the years, the river has slowly eroded the riverbank, which
resulted in closing a portion of the state trail due to safety concerns. Also, considerable
debris has been placed along the riverbank to try to stabilize it. This has resulted in less
than ideal aesthetic conditions.
The current Huber Park Master Plan includes a performance area as the park's centerpiece,
parking on the east and west ends of the park, and trails, open space areas and filtration
ponds throughout. Not included in the master plan is a community-built playground that
could be constructed in the park at some point in the future, a restroom building that will be
needed to serve the park area, and an area between old and new Hwy 101 bridges that
needs to be improved.
Scope of Services to be Provided
The selected firm will be expected to:
1. Use the approved master plan as a guide to develop final plans for this park.
2
2. Develop at least three refined plans and cost estimates that shows conceptually how the
entire park area from west of the Hwy 101 bridge to the east end of the park property
line can be developed to its full potential. This includes design considerations such as:
. What type of performance area should be constructed, and what utilities are required
to serve the performance area.
. How the site can be designed to meet all accessibility standards.
. How the two parking areas can most effectively serve the park.
. What type of riverbank stabilization and beautification can be achieved.
. Where the restroom building and future community playground should be located,
and what options could be considered for play equipment as an alternative to the
community playground. (The final design should include specifications for optional
commercial play equipment, but is not required to have the final design for the
restroom building.)
. How the State trail should be aligned through the park, and how the west parking
area can serve as a trailhead for this park.
. What should be done with the existing restroom building on the west end of the park.
. What design considerations should be made to protect the park and its amenities
from any potential flooding.
. How the plan can be phased in over several years, if desired by the City, including
the advantages and disadvantages of phasing the project.
3. Meet with residents, downtown business owners, the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, and City Council to discuss components of the final plan, present options, and
incorporate their feedback.
4. Provide the City with final plans, construction documents, and cost estimates. As noted
previously, the final plans should prOVide the City the opportunity to phase construction
of the project over several years, if so desired.
Other Considerations
. The City has finalized plans for replacing a sewer line that runs through the park. The
new sewer line has been designed and located to minimize impact on the proposed park
development. Replacement of the sewer line should be completed by late summer 2004.
. Shakopee Public Utilities Commission has overhead power lines located in the park,
which will be undergrounded during the construction process. Alignment of the
underground power lines should be considered as part of the final design work.
. A resident group has started the process of fundraising for a community-built
playground, which would likely be located in the park. Accommodations should be made
in the design for either this amenity or a similar commercial play structure.
. The lower Minnesota River Watershed District has been involved in the grading plan,
but will likely need to provide comments or approval on the final design plans.
. The City may choose to design the riverbank stabilization independently of this project, if
found to be in the best interest of the City. However, the riverbank stabilization and
design would occur simultaneously with the park design, and would likely be integrated
into the park project at some point in the future.
. As part of the sewer project, the City has a significant amount of surveying in the park
area. However, additional surveying will be needed to determine current grades, and
should be included in the proposal.
3
. MNDOT Bridge No. 4175 provided vehicular river crossing until the new Hwy 101 bridge
was constructed in the early 1990's. According to City records, City Council adopted
plans that would have Bridge No. 4175 serve as the pedestrian river crossing instead of
adding a pedestrian section to the new Hwy 101 bridge. However, the bridge has
significant structural issues and will likely need to be either removed or undergo
significant renovation. The City will be calling for meetings with MNDOT to determine the
future of this bridge and pedestrian river crossing. Due to the location of the bridge, it
should be considered as an element of the final plans for the park, but it is not
anticipated that the bridge will be a component of the design work being requested.
. The 1995 master plan included concepts for an area adjacent to the park that is currently
commercial. Some consideration may need to be given to the long-term use of this
property, and whether or not it makes sense to consider it as part of an overall plan.
. The construction bid drawings (architectural, civil, structural, landscaping, mechanical,
electrical and furniture) will be CAD or compatible software. Specifications will be
created in Microsoft Word 2000@, and delivered to City on a CD. The detail books are to
be converted to PDF format and delivered to City on a CD. A copy of the CAD file(s) on
CD shall be provided to the City at the time of bidding. The cost of providing the plans
via CAD, Microsoft Word 2000@ and PDF format should be reflected in your proposal.
Estimated Proiect Schedule
April 20 Selection of designer and City Council authorization to enter into
contract for design services
April 26-May 21 Develop final plan concepts (3) and cost estimates
May 24-June 4 Meet with residents and business community to present final plan
concepts and incorporate comments into final design concepts
June 28 Present final plan concepts to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board
July 9 Complete final plans and cost estimates
July 20 Present final plans to City Council for approval and authorization to
bid project
July 30 Advertise for bids
August 23 Bid Opening
September 7 Award construction contract
September 8 Pre-construction meeting
September 9 Construction begins
Pre-Proposal Meetina
The City will hold a pre-proposal meeting at 10:00 a.m., Monday, March 29th at Shakopee
City Hall, 129 South Holmes Street. At this meeting, we will have an opportunity to answer
your questions about the project. We will also conduct a tour of the project site. Attendance
at this meeting is highly encouraged but is not mandatory.
Submission Procedures
1. Proposals must be submitted with the following information:
A. An overview of your firm and information that details how you would approach this
project.
B. list of key personnel expected to work on the project by discipline. Please indicate
who would be responsible for designing the riverbank stabilization and the
performance area. Include resumes or an overview of each personnel's credentials.
4
C. A list and description of comparable projects.
D. References.
E. The completed City of Shakopee proposal sheet (attached).
2. Proposals are due by 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 7.
3. Submit to:
Shako pee Parks and Recreation
1255 Fuller Street South
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
(Faxed proposals will not be accepted.)
4. The proposal must include an original and one (1) paper copy of the proposal, as well as
one electronic version, preferably in PDF format. The first page of the original must
have the original signature of the officer who will be accountable for all representations.
Both paper copies shall have the attached City proposal sheet as a cover sheet for the
proposal.
5. Unsigned proposals will be considered invalid.
6. Both copies should be sealed in a single envelope or box. The name, address, and firm
should be. clearly marked on the outside.
7. A proposal may be withdrawn on written request of the proposer prior to the proposal
due date. Negligence of the proposer in preparing this proposal confers no right to
withdraw the proposal after the proposal due date. Prior to opening, changes may be
made, provided the change is initialed by the proposer or the proposer's agent. If the
intent of the proposer is not clearly identifiable, the interpretation most advantageous to
the City will prevail. Once submitted, a proposal becomes pUblic property and will not be
returned.
8. All information included in the submitted proposal will be classified in accordance with
Minnesota statutes governing data practices.
Evaluation and Selection
1. The City reserves the right to reject and/or award any and all proposals or parts thereof
and to waive any formalities and technicalities according to the best interests of the City.
2. The City reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in the proposal request
process.
3. The City reserves the right to interview any or all proposers at its discretion.
4. The City will review proposals based on the following criteria:
a) The experience, resources, and qualifications of the firm and individuals to be
assigned to the project.
b) The proposer's understanding of the scope of services requested.
c) Experience with similar projects.
d) Ability to meet project requirement and services.
e) Fees proposed for services.
Execution of Contract
Notification in writing by the City to the successful firm of award of contract shall be deemed
a final contract award. The proposal submittal form, as submitted and signed by the
company, shall constitute a final agreement and the proposal specifications contained
5
herein shall become part of the agreement. Any additional work to be performed, as
mutually agreed upon by the City and the company, shall become a part of that agreement.
Unless it is specifically stated otherwise on the proposal, the proposal will be awarded to, or
placed with, and payment made to the person or company that signs the proposal.
Reauirements of Proposal
When necessary, the successful company shall, within ten (10) days after notification of the
award: (a) enter into a contract in writing with the City covering all matters and things as set
forth in the specifications and proposal; (b) carry insurance acceptable to the City.
Compliance with All laws
All work under the contract must be executed in accordance with all applicable federal, state
and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.
Contract Alterations
No amendment of a contract shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the City
Administrator or his/her authorized agent.
Notices
All notices required by the contract shall be given in writing.
Non-Assianabilitv
The contractor shall not assign the contract, or any part thereof, to any other person, firm or
corporation without the previous written consent of the City. Such assignment shall not
relieve the contractor from his/her obligations, or change the terms of the contract.
Indemnitv
The contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees from
any and all liability, losses or damages, including attorney's fees and costs. of defense, the
City may suffer as a result of claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of any kind or
nature, including worker's compensation claims, in any way resulting from or arising outof
the operations of contractor under this contract, including operations of subcontractors;. and
the contractor shall, at his/her own expense, appear, defend and pay all fees of attorneys
and all costs and other expenses arising there from or incurred in connection therewith; and,
if any judgments shall be rendered against the City in any such action, the contractor shall,
at his/her own expense, satisfy and discharge same. The contractor expressly understands
and agrees that any performance bond or insurance protection required by the contract, or
otherwise provided by the contractor, shall in no way limit the responsibility to indemnify,
keep and hold harmless, and defend the City as herein provided.
Eaual Emplovment Opportunity
During the performance of the contract and/or supplying of materials, equipment and
supplies, proposer must be in full compliance with all provisions of the State of Minnesota
relating to employment, including equal employment opportunity requirements.
Reauired Insurance
The firm selected shall provide a certificate of insurance showing proof of general liability in
the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence. The required insurance certificate must
name City of Shakopee. its officials, aQents. emplovees. and volunteers as additional
insured's.
6
Acceptance
After the acceptance and award of the proposal, and upon receipt of a written purchase
order executed by the proper officials of the City, this instruction to proposers, including the
specifications, will constitute part of the legal contract between the City of Shakopee and the
successful company.
Default
The City may terminate a contract by written notice of default to the contractor/vendor if:
1. The contractor/vendor fails to make delivery of the materials or perform the services as
outlined in the specifications within the time specified in the proposal, or
2. Fails to make progress so as to endanger the performance of the contract, or
3. Fails to provide or maintain in full force and effect, the liability and indemnification
coverages or performance bond as is required.
If the City terminates the contract, the City may procure supplies or services similar to those
so terminated, and the contractor/vendor shall be liable to the City for any excess costs for
similar supplies and services, unless the contractor/vendor provides acceptable evidence
that failure to perform the contract was due to causes beyond the control and without the
fault or negligence of the Contractor.
Permits and Licenses
The successful company shall obtain, at their own expense, all permits and licenses which
may be required to complete the contract.
Questions
Proposers may submit questions related to the specific project requirements and contents of
proposal only in writing (preferablv email) by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 31 to:
Shakopee Parks and Recreation
1255 Fuller Street South
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Or faxed to 952-233-3831
Or emailed to parks@cLshakopee.mn.us
Written responses to all questions received on time will be emailed to all holders of the
Request for Proposals by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, April 2, in the form of addenda. No oral
questions will be entertained prior to or after the deadline for written questions specified
above. Proposers shall rely only on the provisions of this Request for Proposals, the Pre-
Proposal Conference, and written addenda in preparing their proposals.
7