-
StatusArchived
-
Archived2010
-
ID#OCCM-2010-24-JMG
Description
Update (January 25, 2011)
A&E - Major Capital Projects SB1407
FY 2010-2011
Groups 2C and 3A, B, C and D
Selection Announcement
The Office of Court Construction and Management would like to express our appreciation to all of the firms who participated in the selection process for Request for Qualification for Architecture and Engineering Services, OCCM-2010-24-JMG. We understand that it takes a considerable investment of talent and resources to respond to an RFQ and prepare for the interview.
After careful consideration of the proposals received and interviews, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has selected the following firms:
County/Court Project | Firm |
Alpine-New Markleeville Courthouse | Siegel & Strain Architects |
Fresno-Renovation to County Courthouse | Ratcliff |
Glenn-Renovation/Addition to Historic Courthouse | Page & Turnbull |
Kern-New Mojave Courthouse | Gould Evans Baum Thornley, Inc. |
Los Angeles-Eastlake Juvenile Courthouse | AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (LA) |
Placer-New Tahoe Area Courthouse | Williams + Paddon Architects + Planners, Inc. |
Plumas-New Quincy Courthouse | RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. |
Nevada-Nevada City Courthouse | SmithGroup, Inc. |
Riverside-New Hemet Courthouse | Perkins & Will (LA) |
San Joaquin-Renovation & Addition to Juvenile Justice Center | Anova Architects, Inc. |
Santa Barbara-New Courthouse | Moore Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners |
Sierra-New Downieville Courthouse | Nichols-Melburg & Rossetto, AIA & Assoc., Inc. |
Stanislaus-New Modesto Courthouse | Skidmore Owings & Merrill, LLP |
Since this program began in 2001, OCCM has conducted over 400 interviews for architectural and planning consulting services. We have seen wonderful talent and have been fortunate to select and work with many excellent firms in connection with the capital program. For this particular solicitation, we received 299 written submissions from 99 firms. We were fortunate to conduct 70 stimulating interviews of 51 individual firms. We are very appreciative of the thoughtful preparation by all of the practices.
Selected architectural firms will be contacted by the project manager in February about next steps, including commencement, timing and urgency of contract negotiations, and confirmation of sub-consultants to the prime architect.
A single debriefing will be conducted by web and conference call in the coming months; there will be no individual debriefings. A notice will be posted on our website as to the exact date and time of the conference call.
Update (November 5, 2010)
The Office of Court Construction and Management is pleased to provide a listing of the firms that have been short listed for its Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services for RFQ-2010-25-JMG.
Short List - Interview Dates and Times
The Office of Court Construction and Management and the Administrative Office of the Courts wish to express their gratitude to all who have participated in responding to this RFQ.
Update (September 27, 2010)
A&E - Major Capital Projects SB1407
FY 2010-2011
Groups 2C and 3A, B, C and D
Schedule Revision 1 - September 27, 2010
Review and scoring of submissions, compile short lists | Weeks of September 13 through October 29 |
Publish Shortlists for Interviews | Week of November 1, 2010 |
Interviews | Weeks of December 6 to January 21, 2011 |
Publish Selection | Week of January 31, 2011 |
Update (August 20, 2010)
List of Attendees, Web Conference / Telcon of 08/16/2010
Update (August 13, 2010)
Questions and Answers
Notice re: Debriefings Applicable to Solicitation RFQ RFQ-2009-09-JMG (Published January 29, 2010)
Due to the volume of requests, debriefings for this prior solicitation will be scheduled after the selections under this newly published RFQ are completed in order to provide equity to all firms. Please forward any questions regarding this to occm@jud.ca.gov.
Request for Qualifications for Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services for Major Capital Projects, RFQ Number: OCCM-2010-24-JMG, (Published August 6, 2010)
The Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Construction and Management seeks to identify and select architects and their consulting engineering teams qualified to provide services in all phases of pre-design, design and construction of new courthouses for the Superior Courts of California, Counties of Alpine, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Los Angeles, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Sierra, and Stanislaus.
Further information regarding this solicitation is set forth in the following RFQ document:
The Legal Agreement that will be utilized for contracts resulting from this solicitation is set forth in the following Legal Agreement document:
A Webinar for this RFQ is scheduled to take place on:
Date: Monday, August 16, 2010
Time: 10:30 AM - 12:00 PM PDT
To Reserve your Webinar seat register now at:
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/449335907
Schedule Applicable to this RFQ:
Publish RFQ | August 6, 2010 |
Deadline for Submitting Questions | August 11, 2010 Noon |
Publish Responses to Questions | August 16, 2010 |
Goto Webinar Teleconference with Responses to Questions Published | August 16, 2010 (10:30am-12:00pm) |
Proposals Due | Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 2:00 PM PST |
Review and scoring of submissions, compile short lists | 9/1 through 9/27 |
Publish Shortlists for Interviews | Week of October 11, 2010 |
Interviews | Weeks of November 8 to December 13, 2010 |
Publish Selection | Week of December 20, 2010 |
Attachments
Disclaimer
The Judicial Council, as a public entity, prohibits direct contact with any Council personnel during the solicitation process in order to maintain fairness and equality to all proposers. Proposers are specifically directed NOT to contact any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants for meetings, conferences, or discussions that are related to the solicitation at any time between release of the solicitation and any award and execution of a contract. Unauthorized contact with any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants may be cause for rejection of the Proposer’s proposal.