Addendum 7
Update 12 January 2012
Addendum 7 consists of the following information:
A. Questions and Answers
The following answers are in response to written questions that have been submitted by the finalists. Questions have been paraphrased and combined in some instances for clarity. If questions were not answered it was because information was either unavailable or is not necessary to develop a design concept for the Perscape at Navy Pier.
1. Will models that are larger than the size outlined in Addendum 6 be accepted?
The size requirements for the models were established to work for the public exhibition at the Chicago Architecture Foundation. Design Teams are encouraged to comply with these requirements. Design Teams may use a larger model for their presentation to the Board of NPI but it may likely not be included in the exhibition at the Chicago Architecture Foundation.
2. Is additional information about the expansion of Chicago Shakespeare Theater available?
Conceptual designs are being developed for the expansion of the theater. The designs contemplate the removal of the Skyline Stage and design teams should develop designs assuming that Chicago Shakespeare Theater expands. A budget and schedule has not yet been finalized. The timing for the project will be dependent on a capital campaign that has not yet been started.
3. The median in the roadway in front of the Headhouse is not shown in the revised road plan for Gateway Park. Please confirm that this barrier may be removed.
One objective of the redesign of Gateway Park and the corresponding road plan is to better connect the Headhouse and the park space. It is expected that the barrier would be removed and replaced with some other system that will allow for the safe loading and unloading of buses but will also permit the east/west flow of pedestrians.
4. What information is available about the artwork at Navy Pier and are there any specific requirements of which we should be aware?
Refer to the attached Artwork Inventory for information about the individual pieces of art. Additional information beyond what is included in the inventory is not readily available.
5. Who will serve on the jury that reviews the design proposals?
The Board of Directors of Navy Pier, Inc. will determine in its sole discretion which Design Team or Teams will be awarded a contract for work at Navy Pier. The Board of Directors of Navy Pier, Inc. will receive assistance from its team of advisors who will review the information submitted by each Design Team within the context of the Evaluation Criteria set forth in this RFP. The Board members of NPI and the advisors are identified in the RFP, which has been updated to reflect the recent addition of members to the Board of Directors of Navy Pier, Inc.
6. Are members of a design team eligible to bid on construction or installation work during the construction phase?
There is no legal prohibition against a member of a Design Team subcontracting with a firm hired by Navy Pier to construct or install the Pierscape improvements. Recognize that decisions about the award of construction work will be based upon what is in the best interest of Navy Pier and a team member installing or constructing improvements as a contractor would not be able to have a conflicting oversight role for the Design Team during construction administration.
7. Can detailed drawings for all projects currently in development be provided in order to show massing, circulation and other aspect of the proposed structures?
There are no other projects that are sufficiently developed to provide any additional information that would be meaningful or useful to the Design Teams.
8. Can information on current grading and drainage for the site be provided?
There are not reliable drawings that are readily available for use by the Design Teams for this purpose.
9. Are prevailing or union wages to be used in preparing the cost estimate?
Design Teams should use union wages to prepare the cost estimate.
10. Is there a specific design and construction timeline that Design Teams should follow?
No. Any assumptions made in the cost estimate about escalation in construction costs should be noted accordingly.
11. Is there a project underway for the Navy Memorial and are there drawings that are available?
Navy Pier is working with a group of naval veterans and civic leaders for a memorial as outlined in the Design Criteria and Program but this initiative is in its early stages. It is our expectation that designs for Gateway Park will inform the design approach for the Navy Memorial.
12. Can you provide any structural drawings for the South Dock?
Selected structural drawings for the south dock are attached in order to better describe the nature of the dock platform.
B. Submittal Requirements
All Design Teams should review the work plans prepared in Phase II and are encouraged to make sure that there is sufficient involvement throughout the critical phases of the design process of the lead design talent assigned to work on the Pierscape. Each team should prepare a summary of no more than two pages that highlights that involvement and commitment. This summary should be submitted as a single page PDF along with the other submittal requirements.
Attachments
Draft Inventory of Exterior Public Art at Navy Pier
Stage 1 – Widening of South Pier (March 1958)
Plans for Improvement of Navy Pier (February 1960)
Addendum 6
Update 5 January 2012
Addendum 6 consists of the following information:
Submittal Requirements
The design proposals prepared by each of the Design Teams are to be comprised of the components that were outlined in the Pierscape RFP and are outlined below with additional detail. The material that is submitted will serve a number of purposes. The boards will be part of a public exhibition that will be held at the Chicago Architecture Foundation. The models and animations would also be part of this exhibit. In addition, one summary board from each team will be on display at approximately ten other locations throughout Chicago. The summary board and model will also be on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art the evening of the public presentations. The boards will be printed and mounted by Navy Pier.
The 11’ x 17” booklet will be the primary means of communicating in advance with the Board of Navy Pier Inc. The oral interview and design presentation made to the Board should be supported by a PowerPoint or some other similar presentation format. The model will be available for use during the interview with the Board.
Navy Pier encourages the Design Teams to curate the content and graphic communication of the boards, booklets, animation, and model.
Except for the model and video animation, all submittal requirements must be received electronically by Navy Pier no later than 5:00 PM Central Time on Tuesday, January 24, 2012. Design Teams can email files as attachments or, in the case of files exceeding 10MB in size, provide a link to an FTP site from which Navy Pier can download the information. The model must be received at Navy Pier by 2:00 PM Central Time on Friday, January 27, 2012, and the video animation must be received electronically by 5:00 PM Central Time Friday, January 27, 2012.
PHASE III SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Design Proposal
2. Oral Interview and Presentation Public presentations will take place the evening of each team’s oral interview. The presentations are tentatively scheduled to begin at 6:00 PM and will take place in the same order as the oral interviews. Each team will be allotted 25 minutes for its presentation, approximately 10 minutes for questions from the audience, and 10 minutes between presentations. The public presentations will take place in the theater at the Museum of Contemporary Art. The auditorium seats approximately 300 people. 3. Fee Estimate 4. Design Team’s MBE/WBE Program
Attachments |
Addendum 5
Update 16 December 2011
Addendum 5 consists of the following information:
Pierscape Form of Agreement
The proposed Pierscape Form of Agreement (the “Agreement”) and rider to the Agreement that would be entered into by Navy Pier, Inc. with one or more Design Teams for the completion of all or part of Pierscape are attached. Design Teams should use this as the basis for the fee estimate that must be submitted along with a written list of any exceptions or proposed modifications to the Agreement. In order to fully understand the fee estimate and the nature of the contracting entities, the additional information outlined below should also be submitted. As outlined previously in the Pierscape RFP, Navy Pier reserves the right to engage in discussions with one, some or all of the Design Teams in order to clarify and negotiate specific components of an agreement.
Specifically, Design Teams should submit the information in a single PDF that includes the following:
A. The Proposal, which shall become Exhibit C to the Agreement. This Proposal shall contain, but need not be limited to, the following subparts:
B. List of comments, questions, exceptions and proposed modifications to the Form of Agreement. Each Design Team must identify, in writing and with as much detail and specificity as possible, those questions, comments, or exceptions, if any, that the Design Team may have to the Agreement for Navy Pier, Inc.’s review and consideration. Failure to submit such questions, comments, or exceptions will be a waiver of those issues by the Design Team. C. Written description of the legal structure of the Design Team entity with which Navy Pier, Inc. will enter into the Agreement. Such written description shall include, if applicable, the following information.
D. Evidence that each member of the Design Team can comply with the insurance provisions set forth in the Pierscape Form of Agreement. |
Acknowledgement Form
Each Design Team shall sign and return one (1) copy of the attached Acknowledgement Form. The form should be signed by the lead team on behalf of it and all the team members. Each Design Team, when it submitted its information in response to the Pierscape RFP, acknowledged that it would be bound by all of the terms of the Pierscape RFP. This acknowledgement memorializes that. The executed Acknowledgement Form shall be submitted with the other submittal material required in Phase III.
Public Design Presentations
The public design presentation that each Design Team is expected to make will take place in the evening of the date that its Board interview has been scheduled. The Board interview is an opportunity for each team to present its design, introduce its key team members, and answer questions. The details of the public design presentation are being developed but it will be shorter than the Board presentation and will be structured as a public lecture with a short question and answer period following the presentation. The public presentations are planned to take place in an auditorium at the Museum of Contemporary Art. We will forward additional details when they become available.
Travel Vouchers
Navy Pier has set aside ten (10) American Airlines travel vouchers for each team for travel to and from the Board interview and public presentation. Each team should designate one person who can coordinate use of the vouchers with Sara Tieman at Navy Pier. She can be reached by email at stieman@navypier.com and by phone at 312.595.5325. Recognize that use of the vouchers on certain flights is limited.
Attachments
Pierscape Form of Agreement and Rider to B101
Addendum 4
Update 9 December 2011
The following information is attached for your use in preparing the Phase III submittal:
1. Pre-Design Submittal Presentation
2. Form of Conceptual Estimate
Update 23 November 2011
A Design Team Search for the Pierscape at Navy Pier
Phase III Shortlist
| AECOM |
| BIG |
| Lead Pencil Studio |
| Project Projects |
| Speirs + Major |
| WET Design |
| Davis Langdon |
| Christy Webber |
| Tivoli International |
| Eden Project |
| Aedas Architects |
| Martha Schwartz Partners |
| Halcrow Yolles |
| Solomon Cordwell Buenz |
| Marshall Brown Projects |
| Pentagram |
| Fisher Marantz Stone |
| Suzanne Randolph Fine Arts |
| Davis Brody Bond |
| Atelier Dreiseitl GMBH |
| Dan Euser |
| Ned Kahn Studios |
| Hoerr Schaudt |
| Action Sport Development |
| Marks Barfield Architects |
| Lou Raizin |
| Gregory Hummel |
| James Corner Field Operations |
| Terry Guen Design Associates |
| nArchitects |
| Bruce Mau Design |
| Leo Villareal |
| L’Observatoire International |
| Ed Marszewski |
| Fluidity Design Consultants |
| Patrick Blanc |
| John Greenlee & Associates |
| Chris Wangro |
| Billings Jackson |
| Buro Happold |
| Primera |
| HR&A Advisors |
| ETM Associates |
| !melk |
| HOK |
| UrbanLab |
| Terry Guen Design Associates |
| Thirst |
| Zoe Ryan |
| Conservation Design Forum |
| HR&A Advisors |
| Magnusson Klemencic Associates |
| Sam Schwartz Engineering |
| Leni Schwendinger LIGHT projects |
| CMS Fountain Consultants |
| Karin Bacon Enterprises |
| Xavier Vendrell Studio |
| Grimshaw Architects |
| Tom Leader Studio |
| Harley Ellis Devereaux |
| Arup |
| Studio Lab |
| Schuler Shook |
| Iñigo Manglano-Ovalle |
| Lisa D. Freiman |
| Creative Time |
| Nelson Nygaard |
| Fluidity |
| Faithful + Gould |
Addendum 3
Questions & Answers
Update 2 November 2011
A. The following are questions and answers in response to written questions that have been submitted by shortlisted Design Teams. Questions have been paraphrased and combined in some instances for clarity.
1. If a Design Team adds team members to supplement or strengthen the capabilities of its team, what information should be provided?
All Design Teams should include a cover letter with its Phase II submittal that indicates whether it has or has not added any additional team members. If members have been added, clearly state the role that they will serve and include in a separate section of your Phase II submittal an overview and portfolio for each new team member. Refer to the Phase I submittal requirements for additional information. Phase II information for the added team members should be included with the information required of all team members for this phase.
2. Are the limits of the Pierscape scope of work indicated in the diagram on page 11 of the Pierscape RFP or is there an opportunity to expand the design scope beyond what is highlighted in green?
The diagram on page 11 and the text in the Pierscape RFP generally describe the scope of work and design limits. Supplemental information will be provided to the teams that are invited to participate in Phase III that will more specifically describe the scope and program for which design proposals will be submitted.
B. The Phase II submittal requirements are to be received by Navy Pier no later than 5:00 PM Central Time on Thursday, November 10, 2011. Teams are strongly encouraged not to wait until the last minute to upload their submittal.
C. Navy Pier may request additional information or clarification of information provided by a Design Team when it believes such information is necessary to properly evaluate the submittal. In such event, Navy Pier will contact the Design Team’s designated contact.
Update 21 September 2011
A Design Team Search for the Pierscape at Navy Pier
Phase I Design Team Shortlist
The following is a list of design firms that have been invited to participate in Phase II of the Pierscape RFP:
| AECOM |
| BIG |
| Lead Pencil Studio |
| Project Projects |
| Speirs + Major |
| WET Design |
| Davis Langdon |
| Christy Webber |
| Tivoli International |
| Aedas Architects |
| Martha Schwartz Partners |
| Halcrow Yolles |
| Solomon Cordwell Buenz |
| Marshall Brown Projects |
| Pentagram |
| Fisher Marantz Stone |
| Suzanne Randolph Fine Arts |
| Frederic Schwartz Architects |
| Alejandro Zaera-Polo Architects |
| Thomas Balsley Associates |
| Arup |
| Atelier Ten |
| Pentagram |
| Fisher Marantz Stone |
| Nancy Rosen Inc. |
| Gustafson Guthrie Nichol |
| Diller Scofidio + Renfro |
| Magnusson Klemencic Associates |
| Pentagram |
| Tillotson Design Associates |
| Jacques Ferrier Architectures |
| Sensual City Studio |
| Tim Brown Architects |
| Agence Ter |
| Integral Ruedi Baur |
| Chris Rockey |
| Dear Production |
| James Corner Field Operations |
| Terry Guen Design Associates |
| nArchitects |
| Bruce Mau Design |
| Leo Villareal |
| L’Observatoire International |
| Ed Marszewski |
| Fluidity Design Consultants |
| Patrick Blanc |
| John Greenlee & Associates |
| Chris Wangro |
| Billings Jackson |
| Buro Happold |
| Primera |
| HR&A Advisors |
| ETM Associates |
| !melk |
| HOK |
| UrbanLab |
| Terry Guen Design Associates |
| Thirst |
| Zoe Ryan |
| Conservation Design Forum |
| HR&A Advisors |
| Magnusson Klemencic Associates |
| Sam Schwartz Engineering |
| Leni Schwendinger LIGHT projects |
| CMS Fountain Consultants |
| Karin Bacon Enterprises |
| OMA/SGA |
| SCAPE |
| Thirst |
| Tillotson Design Associates |
| Arup |
| dbHMS |
| Fluidity Design Consultants |
| Patti Gilford Fine Arts |
| Robert Kirschner |
| Davis Langdon |
| KLOA |
| SHoP Architects |
| Brininstool, Kerwin and Lynch |
| Coen + Partners |
| GCAM Group |
| Mark Robbins |
| Pentagram |
| L’Observatoire International |
| Acoustic Dimensions |
| Arup |
| Xavier Vendrell Studio |
| Grimshaw Architects |
| Harley Ellis Devereaux |
| Arup |
| Studio Lab |
| Schuler Shook |
| Iñigo Manglano-Ovalle |
| Sarah Herda |
| Zaha Hadid Architects |
| tvsdesign |
| Balmori Associates, Inc. |
| Halvorson and Partners |
| Space Agency |
| Seam |
Update 19 September 2011
Navy Pier has added Lee Bey to the team of advisors that is providing input to the Board of Directors of Navy Pier, Inc. and assisting and advising them at each of the stages of the evaluation and selection process. Information about Lee Bey can be found in the updated Advisors section of this Pierscape RFP.
Update 10 October 2011
A Design Team Search for the Pierscape at Navy Pier
Phase I Submittals
| 1 | AECOM |
| BIG | |
| Lead Pencil Studio | |
| Project Projects | |
| Speirs + Major | |
| WET Design | |
| Davis Langdon | |
| Christy Webber | |
| 2 | Aedas Architects |
| Martha Schwartz Partners | |
| Halcrow Yolles | |
| 3 | All Design |
| Halcrow Yolles | |
| Janet Rosenberg + Associates | |
| 4 | Behnisch Architekten |
| Urban Strategies | |
| Urban Works | |
| Mia Lehrer + Associates | |
| Arup | |
| 5 | Booth Hansen |
| Hoerr Schaudt Landscape Architects | |
| Terry Guen Design Associates | |
| Arup | |
| Tillett Lighting Design | |
| Bruce Mau Design | |
| 6 | Cooper Carry, Inc. |
| SWA Group | |
| Janet Rosenberg + Associates | |
| Terry Guen Design Associates | |
| MIG, Inc. | |
| Light Projects, LTD | |
| Fluidity Design Consultants | |
| Selbert Perkins Design | |
| Arup | |
| Chicago Public Art Group | |
| 7 | D+K Architects |
| Theaster Gates | |
| Schuler Shook | |
| Daniel Weinbach & Partners, Ltd. | |
| Larson Engineering, Inc. | |
| Tylk Gustafson Reckers Wilson Andrews, LLC | |
| 8 | Design Workshop |
| Pickard Chilton | |
| Patrick B Quigley Associates | |
| JSC Art Consulting | |
| Selbert Perkins Design | |
| CMS Collaborataive | |
| AES | |
| RWDI | |
| Live.Work.Learn.Play | |
| Altus Works | |
| Nelson Nygaard | |
| MGPG Events | |
| Primera | |
| 9 | EC Purdy and Associates |
| Milhouse Engineering | |
| Hitchcock Design Group | |
| Vistara | |
| GSG | |
| Nayar Nayar | |
| Land Surveying Services | |
| Gjean Guarino | |
| 10 | Epstein |
| Foster + Partners | |
| Site Design Group | |
| Schuler Shook | |
| Catt Lyon Design | |
| 11 | Frederic Schwartz Architects |
| Alejandro Zaera-Polo Architects | |
| Thomas Balsley Associates | |
| Arup | |
| Atelier Ten | |
| Pentagram | |
| Fisher Marantz Stone | |
| Nancy Rosen Inc. | |
| 12 | Gustafson Guthrie Nichol |
| Diller Scofidio + Renfro | |
| Magnusson Klemencic Associates | |
| Pentagram | |
| Tillotson Design Associates | |
| 13 | Habitat |
| 14 | ingenhoven architects |
| Goettsch partners | |
| Werner Sobek | |
| Magnusson Klemencic Associates | |
| Topotek 1 | |
| Liskae Associates | |
| Jack Rouse | |
| Office for Visual Interaction | |
| Barbara Flynn | |
| 15 | Jacques Ferrier Architectures |
| Sensual City Studio | |
| Agenceter | |
| Integral Ruedi Baur | |
| Chris Rockey | |
| Dear Production | |
| 16 | James Corner Field Operations |
| nArchitects | |
| Leo Villareal | |
| Bruce Mau Design | |
| L’Observatoire International | |
| Fluidity Design Consultants | |
| Patrick Marszewski | |
| Buro Happold | |
| Primera | |
| HR&A Advisors | |
| ETM Associates | |
| 17 | John Ronan Architects |
| Janet Rosenberg + Associates | |
| Arup | |
| Thirst | |
| Derek Porter Studio | |
| CLUAA | |
| Sharma Art Advisory | |
| 18 | Kengo Kuma and Associates |
| StudioGC | |
| Pivot Design | |
| Anne Kustner Lighting Design | |
| Terra Engineering Ltd. | |
| Primera | |
| 19 | Krueck + Sexton Architect |
| Brooks+Scarpa | |
| Uhlir Consulting LLC | |
| Charles Anderson Atelier | |
| Terry Guen Design Associates | |
| Fluidity Design Consultants | |
| James Rondeau | |
| Fisher Marantz Stone | |
| Thornton Tomasetti | |
| Pentagram | |
| 20 | Landworks Studio, Inc. |
| NADAAA | |
| Arup | |
| Urban Art Projects | |
| 50,000 feet | |
| L’Observatoire International | |
| 21 | Lohan Anderson |
| PWP Landscape Architecture | |
| Civitas | |
| LAM Partners | |
| Catt Lyon Design | |
| Halvorson and Partners | |
| Terra Engineering Ltd. | |
| 22 | Machado and Silvetti Associates, LLC |
| Grant Associates | |
| Solomon Cordwell Buenz (SCB) | |
| Terry Guen Design Associates | |
| Buro Happold | |
| Thomas.matthews Ltd. | |
| Jason Bruges Studio | |
| 23 | marquardt + GRIDWERK ARCHITECTURE |
| Buro Happold | |
| Conservation Design Forum | |
| Urban Works | |
| 24 | !melk |
| HOK | |
| UrbanLab | |
| Terry Guen Design Associates | |
| Zoe Ryan | |
| Thirst | |
| Conservation Design Forum | |
| HR&A Advisors | |
| Magnusson Klemencic Associates | |
| Sam Schwatz Engineering | |
| Leni Schwendinger LIGHT projects | |
| CMS Collaborataive | |
| Karin Bacon Enterprises | |
| 25 | Metropolitan Workshop |
| Buro Happold | |
| Townshend Landscape Architects | |
| Squint/Opera | |
| Speirs + Major | |
| Modus Operandi | |
| HR&A Advisors | |
| A Different View | |
| 26 | Miralles Tagliabue |
| David Woodhouse Architects | |
| Site Design Group | |
| Atelier Ten | |
| TKB | |
| Primera | |
| Schuler Shook | |
| Selbert Perkins Design | |
| Waterline Studios | |
| Concord Group | |
| Sam Schwartz Engineering | |
| 27 | Morphosis |
| Terry Guen Design Associates | |
| Arup | |
| Horton Lees Brogden Lighting Design | |
| Pentagram | |
| Merry Norris Contemporary Art | |
| 28 | MorrisTerra |
| CD+M Lighting Design Group | |
| WET Design | |
| ESI Design | |
| 29 | MSI Design |
| Utopia Entertainment | |
| Hunt Design | |
| Gallegos Lighting | |
| Fluidity Design Consultants | |
| 30 | OBRA Architects |
| Dattner Architects | |
| Hood Design | |
| L’Observatoire International | |
| Mary Jane Jacob | |
| CSS | |
| Philip Habib | |
| 31 | OMA/SGA |
| SCAPE | |
| Thirst | |
| Tillotson Design Associates | |
| Arup | |
| dbHMS | |
| Patti Gilford Fine Arts | |
| Robert Kirschner | |
| Davis Langdon | |
| KLOA | |
| 32 | Perkins + Will |
| Hoerr Schaudt Landscape Architects | |
| John David Mooney | |
| 33 | PLANT Architect |
| Dialog Urban Design | |
| Hoerr Schaudt Landscape Architects | |
| Enermodal Engineering | |
| United Visual Artists | |
| Leni Schwendinger Light Projects | |
| Dan Euser Water Projects | |
| Andrew Jones | |
| Entro Communications | |
| Beth Kapusta | |
| The Publicity Works | |
| 34 | Rafael Viñoly Architects |
| Sasaki Associates | |
| URS Corporation | |
| Thornton Tomasetti | |
| V3 Companies | |
| Alfred Benesch & Company | |
| Pentagram | |
| Art Production Fund | |
| One Lux Studio | |
| 35 | Rios Clementi Hale Studios |
| Destefano Partners | |
| 36 | Rogers Marvel Architects |
| Rockwell Group | |
| Hoerr Schaudt Landscape Architects | |
| L’Observatoire International | |
| Mary Jane Jacob | |
| 37 | Ross Barney Architects |
| Hoerr Schaudt Landscape Architects | |
| Arup | |
| WET Design | |
| Karpowicz Studios | |
| Thirst | |
| Schuler Shook | |
| 38 | RTKL Associates |
| Adjaye Associates | |
| Rios Clemente Hale | |
| Siteworks | |
| Daniel Weinbach & Partners, Ltd. | |
| Speirs + Major | |
| Pentagram | |
| Greenblue | |
| Halvorson and Partners | |
| Joseph Becherer | |
| Fluidity Design Consultants | |
| C.H. Johnson Consultants, Inc. | |
| Primera | |
| 39 | Safdie Architects |
| SCB | |
| SWA Group | |
| Terry Guen Design Associates | |
| Moffatt & Nichol | |
| Sam Schwatz Engineering | |
| Halvorson and Partners | |
| Primera | |
| RME | |
| Cotter Consulting | |
| Concord Group | |
| TKB | |
| Speirs + Major | |
| Pentagram | |
| Fluidity Design Consultants | |
| SMW | |
| Ned Kahn | |
| Electroland | |
| FTL Design Engineering | |
| Motive Industries | |
| 40 | SANJAY EKTATE |
| 41 | SHoP Architects |
| Brininstool | |
| Kerwin + Lynch | |
| Coen + Partners | |
| GCAM Group | |
| Mark Robbins | |
| Pentagram | |
| L’Observatoire International | |
| Acoustic Dimensions | |
| Arup | |
| 42 | Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP |
| Wirtz International | |
| James Carpenter Design Associates Inc. | |
| 43 | STOSS Landscpe Urbanism |
| MPdL Studio | |
| Myefski Architects | |
| Terry Guen Design Associates | |
| Jacobs Ryan Associates | |
| L’Observatoire International | |
| Studio Blue | |
| Buro Happold | |
| KPFF Consulting Engineers | |
| 44 | TCL |
| Grain Collective | |
| ARM | |
| 45 | UNStudio |
| CAMES/gibson | |
| Tom Leader Studio | |
| a.g. Licht | |
| Robert Somol | |
| Lord Cultural Resources | |
| Buro Happold | |
| Norcon Inc. | |
| 46 | Vasilko Architects |
| Philips Farevaag Smallenberg | |
| Sussman Preja & Co. | |
| Schuler Shook | |
| Vasilko Architects | |
| Shabica & Associates | |
| CS Associates | |
| WMA Consulting Engineers | |
| 47 | W Architecture |
| Handel Architects | |
| Tillett Lighting Design | |
| Site Design Group | |
| 212 | |
| Lisa Corrin | |
| Green Shield Ecology | |
| 48 | WEISS/MANFREDI |
| Terry Guen Design Associates | |
| Magnusson Klemencic Associates | |
| HR&A Advisors | |
| Brandston Partnership | |
| Construction Cost Systems | |
| Urban Works | |
| Pentagram | |
| dbHMS | |
| Fluidity Design Consultants | |
| Lisa Corrin | |
| 49 | Woods Bagot |
| Surfacedesign Inc. | |
| Lisa Freiman Curator | |
| Bailey Edwards Architecture | |
| Sherwood Design Engineers | |
| Original Champions of Design | |
| 50 | WORKSHOP: Ken Smith Landscape Architect |
| Michael Maltzan Architecture | |
| Guy Nordenson and Associates | |
| EE&K/Perkins Eastman | |
| HR&A Advisors | |
| Site Design Group | |
| Edgewater Resources | |
| Terra Engineering Ltd. | |
| Tillotson Design Associates | |
| Merry Norris Contemporary Art | |
| April Greiman | |
| Fluidity Design Consultants | |
| ETM Associates | |
| Ambius | |
| 51 | Xavier Vendrell Studio |
| Grimshaw Architects | |
| Harley Ellis Devereaux | |
| Arup | |
| Studio Lab | |
| Schuler Shook | |
| IA+igo Manglano-Ovalle | |
| Sarah Herda | |
| 52 | Zaha Hadid Architects |
| tvsdesign | |
| Balmori Associates, Inc. | |
| Halvorson and Partners | |
| Space Agency | |
| Seam |
Update 05 October 2011
Remember, the Phase I submittal requirements are to be received by Navy Pier no later than 5:00 PM Central Time on Thursday, October 6, 2011. Teams are strongly encouraged not to wait until the last minute to upload their submittal.
Additionally, Navy Pier may decide to add individuals to the team of advisors that is providing input to the Board of Directors of Navy Pier, Inc. and assisting and advising them at each of the stages of the evaluation and selection process. The name of any new advisors will be included on the Pierscape RFP website when added to the advisory team.
Addendum 2
Questions & Answers
Update 29 September 2011
The list of questions and answers provided below is in response to written questions that have been submitted. Questions have been paraphrased and combined in some instances for clarity. Some questions were omitted if the answers are already set forth in the Pierscape RFP.
1. Can a firm be a part of more than one team?
A firm or individual can participate on more than one team so long as that firm is not a Design Team’s lead firm.
2. In the General Conditions, you state that Navy Pier will retain ownership of all concepts, designs, ideas, and materials developed that are submitted as part of this RFP. Please clarify what is intended.
It is not the intention of Navy Pier to take a design that was submitted by a Design Team and to hand that design to another firm for completion. However, given the breadth and complexity of the work contemplated at Navy Pier, the Pier recognizes that there may exist instances where Design Teams submit similar design concepts or design concepts may be similar to concepts already presented to the Pier and so Navy Pier has elected to protect itself as outlined in the RFP.
3. What funding is available to implement the Pierscape design and are the costs outlined in the RFP project costs or construction costs?
The costs outlined in the Overview of the RFP are total project costs and include construction costs, design fees, and other soft costs. Navy Pier currently has set aside $60M for the implementation of The Centennial Vision but not all of that money will be available for implementation of the Pierscape design. The Board of Navy Pier, Inc. has taken no formal action on the allocation of funding for capital projects but additional guidance will be available later in the RFP selection process. Navy Pier does intend to pursue other potential revenue sources for elements of the Pierscape design program that may include naming rights and fundraising from corporate and philanthropic sources.
4. Will the current operator of the amusement attractions in Navy Pier Park remain after redevelopment occurs?
The amusement attractions in Navy Pier Park are owned and operated by Navy Pier, Inc. and it is currently anticipated that NPI will continue to operate the rides with its own staff after redevelopment.
5. Clarify whether the MBE and WBE goals outlined in the RFP is based upon the number of team members or the design fees.
The MBE/WBE goals are based upon the design fees. As set forth in the RFP, specific details of the Design Team’s plan to incorporate MBE/WBE firms need only be provided in Phase III. Design Teams should, however, include a specific statement acknowledging these goals in its cover letter provided in Phase I.
6. Will Design Teams receive an acknowledgment upon receipt by Navy Pier of its Phase I submittal?
Yes, Navy Pier will send an acknowledgement upon receipt of a Design Team’s Phase I submittal. The Phase I submittal requirements are to be received by Navy Pier no later than 5:00 PM Central Time on Thursday, October 6, 2011. Teams are strongly encouraged not to wait until the last minute to upload their submittal.
7. If Navy Pier selects a team or teams to enter into an agreement, what is the intended scope of work?
The intended scope of work may vary depending upon the particular circumstances and may include the development of a design, the preparation of construction documents, and contract administration. It is anticipated that the contract will be broken down by phase and Pierscape component. Work would be authorized separately as circumstances warrant. Additional information will be provided at the start of Phase III.
8. Will Navy Pier publish the list of Design Teams that submit proposals?
Yes, a list of Design Teams will be made available publicly and posted on the Pierscape RFP website Monday, October 10, 2011. The list will identify each Design Team’s lead firm and other team members.
9. Can Design Teams that are shortlisted add team members prior to submitting the information required in Phase II?
Yes, Design Teams are permitted to add members to their team between the Phase I and Phase II submittals in order to supplement and strengthen the capabilities of the team.
10. In response to a question in Addendum 1, you stated that “The Design Teams should include an Architect licensed to do business in the State of Illinois and should identify that firm or individual in its Phase I submittal.” Can that Phase I requirement be satisfied by a Landscape Architect licensed to do business in the state of Illinois?
Yes, but recognize that the Design Team will require an architect licensed to do business in the state of Illinois and will need to identify that firm or individual in Phase II if it has not already done so in Phase I.
Update 21 September 2011
The following is a list of firms that have either i) asked to receive updates, ii) asked questions, or iii) registered for the online Pre-Submittal Meeting. The list does not indicate which firms have completed the Intent to Participate form.
| FIRM | CITY |
STATE |
COUNTRY |
| A2SO4 | Indianapolis |
IN |
US |
| AECOM | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Applied Ecological Services, Inc. | Broadhead |
WI |
US |
| Aquatic Design & Engineering | Oakland |
FL |
US |
| Arup | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| BIG | New York |
NY |
US |
| Booth Hansen | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Brininstool, Kerwin and Lynch | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Brooks + Scarpa | Los Angeles |
CA |
US |
| C&G Partners LLC | New York |
NY |
US |
| Civitas & Associates, Inc. | Denver |
CO |
US |
| Cline & Associates, Inc. | Algonquin |
IL |
US |
| Cody Design Group, Inc. | Naperville |
IL |
US |
| Coen + Partners | Minneapolis |
MN |
US |
| Coll-Barreu Arquitectors | Madrid |
SP |
|
| Construction Cost Systems, Inc. | Oakbrook Terrace |
IL |
US |
| Cooper Carry | Atlanta |
GA |
US |
| Daniel P Coffey + Associates | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Design Workshop | Aspen |
CO |
US |
| DeStefano + Partners | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| DPZ | Miami |
FL |
US |
| EC Purdy & Associates | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| EDSA | Fort Lauderdale |
FL |
US |
| Epstein | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Farr Associates | Chicago |
Il |
US |
| Foster + Partners | London |
UK |
|
| GEI Consultants Inc | Libertyville |
IL |
US |
| Goettsch Partners | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Gridwerk Architecture | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Grimshaw Architects | London |
UK |
|
| Gustafson Guthrie Nichol | Seattle |
WA |
US |
| Halcrow Yolles | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Harley Ellis Devereaux | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Hill Burgess Architect | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Hoerr Schaudt Landscape Architects | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| HOK | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Holmar Architecture | Brooklyn |
NY |
US |
| Jeff Miller & Company Inc | Seattle |
WA |
US |
| JGMA | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| JJR | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| John Ronan Architects | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Ken Smith Workshop | New York |
NY |
US |
| Kengo Kuma & Associates | Minato-ku |
TK |
JP |
| Land Dimensions | Glassboro |
NJ |
US |
| Landworks Studio | Boston |
MA |
US |
| Level-1 Global Solutions | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Lightswitch | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Lohan Anderson | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Machado and Silvetti Associates | Boston |
MA |
US |
| Mark Walhimer Exhibition Design, LLC | Woodbridge |
CT |
US |
| Matrix Engineering Corporation | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Michael Van Vaulkenberg Associates, Inc | Brooklyn |
NY |
US |
| MIG, Inc. | Berkeley |
CA |
US |
| MorrisTerra | Orlando |
FL |
US |
| Myefski Architects Inc | Evanston |
IL |
US |
| Nagle Hartray | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| OBRA Architects | New York |
NY |
US |
| OLIN | Philadelphia |
PA |
US |
| OMA | New York |
NY |
US |
| Otero Arquitectos, S.L.P. | Madrid |
SP |
|
| PGAV Destinations | St. Louis |
MO |
US |
| Rafael Viñoly Architects | New York |
NY |
US |
| Rhodes Works Ltd | Champaign |
IL |
US |
| Rios Clementi Hale Studios | Los Angeles |
CA |
US |
| RME, Inc. | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Rodriguez and Associates Inc | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Rogers Marvel Architects | New York |
NY |
US |
| RTKL | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Selbert Perkins Design | Playa del Rey |
CA |
US |
| SHoP Architects | New York |
NY |
US |
| Site Design Group Ltd | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| SmithGroup | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Solomon Coldwell Buenz | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| SOM | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Spackman Mossop Michaels | New Orleans |
LA |
US |
| Spade Concepts | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Stoss Landscape Urbanism | Boston |
MA |
US |
| Studio Gang | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| StudioGC, Inc | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| TEN Arquitectos | New York |
NY |
US |
| Teng & Associates | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| The Architects Enterprise LTD | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| The Bezark Company | Altadena |
CA |
US |
| Thomas Balsley Associates | New York |
NY |
US |
| Thornton Tomasetti, Inc | Brooklyn |
NY |
US |
| TVS Design | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Urbanus, LLC | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| URS Corporation | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| US Equities Realty | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Vasilko-Architects | Chicago |
IL |
US |
| Vertex Productions | Altadena |
CA |
US |
| Weiss/Manfredi | New York |
NY |
US |
| Wet Design | Sun Valley |
CA |
US |
| WXY Architecture + Urban Design | New York |
NY |
US |
| Zaha Hadid Limited | London |
UK |
|
| ZOLA | Long Beach |
CA |
US |
Addendum 1
Pierscape RFP Pre-Submittal Meeting
Questions & Answers
19 September 2011
The list of questions and answers provided below is in response to the questions asked during the online Pre-Submittal Meeting held on September 15, 2011. Questions have been paraphrased and combined in some instances for clarity. Some questions were omitted if the answers are already set forth in the Pierscape RFP. To the extent that questions remain unanswered, please submit them in writing using the form provided on this website.
Will Design Teams be permitted to propose additional attractions on the Pier?
More detailed programmatic information will be provided at the beginning of Phase III that will outline specifically which attractions must remain. The Pierscape program will be limited to specific areas of the Pier with specific physical constraints. Additional ideas for attractions may be proposed but they should be consistent with the design goals and scope for each component of the Pierscape.
Will the program allow for the demolition or reconfiguration of the existing buildings on Navy Pier?
No, the design of the Pierscape is intended to address specific areas of Navy Pier. The buildings and uses housed within them should remain intact.
Will the scope of the graphics and signage include rebranding at Navy Pier?
The logo and marks used at Navy Pier will remain unchanged but Design Teams will be asked to design the site signage and graphics located throughout the Pier and to provide design criteria for tenant signage.
Will roadway changes be made to the North Dock and will there be improvements made to the pedestrian experience?
The traffic configuration of the North Dock is anticipated to remain unchanged but Design Teams will be asked to include designs for improvements to the pedestrian portions of the north side of the Pier.
Will the scope of work include improvements to the underside of Lake Shore Drive?
Yes, Design Teams will be asked to provide ideas for enhancing the arrival sequence at Navy Pier, including the underside of Lake Shore Drive.
Can Design Teams propose modifications to the edge of the Pier?
Specific criteria for the location of the Pier’s dinner cruise and tour boats will be provided at the beginning of Phase III. Changes to the Pier’s edge may be proposed so long as the other programmatic requirements of the South Dock are met.
Can Navy Pier provide a list of firms that that has expressed an interest in participating in the Pierscape RFP?
Navy Pier will provide a list of firms that registered for the online Pre-Submittal Meeting or that requested that they be advised of updates to the RFP. The list will be posted on this website by Wednesday, September 21, 2011.
Does a cost estimating firm need to be identified as part of the Design Team in Phase I?
Design Teams will not be required to identify a cost estimating firm in either its Phase I or Phase II submittal.
Will a Design Team that submits its qualification in Phase I be required to have team members licensed to conduct business as an Architect and an Engineer in the State of Illinois on the team when its qualifications are submitted or can that requirement be met in a later phase?
The Design Teams should include an Architect licensed to do business in the State of Illinois and should identify that firm or individual in its Phase I submittal. Engineering firms can be identified in the Phase I submittal but may also be added to a team after it has been selected to participate in Phase II.
Are copies of the ULI Report available?
A copy of the full ULI Report is now available on the Resource page of the Pierscape RFP website.
Does a Design Team need to identify all members of its multi-disciplinary team and their respective responsibilities in the Phase I submittal or just certain disciplines?
Design Teams should identify which firms will address the disciplines of landscape architecture, architecture, urban design, communication and graphic design, and lighting design in their Phase I submittal. To the extent that art curation and engineering are integral to the design process envisioned by the Design Team, those firms or individuals should also be identified in Phase I, otherwise they may be identified as part of the Phase II submittal. Design Teams invited to participate in Phase II may augment or supplement their team with additional members prior to submitting the information required in Phase II of the Pierscape RFP.
Update 16 September 2011
The online Pre-Submittal Meeting took place on Thursday, September 15, 2011. A replay of the meeting and a copy of the presentation can be found at http://www.navypiervision.com/rfp/pre-submittal-meeting.
Update 14 September 2011
Navy Pier Pierscape RFP Online Pre-Submittal Meeting
Join us for the online Pre-Submittal Meeting on September 15, 2011.
You should register at the above link in order to participate in the Pierscape RFP Online Pre-Submittal Meeting.
Navy Pier will provide an overview of the Pierscape RFP and The Centennial Vision and provide an opportunity for questions and answers. An addendum will be posted on the website after the meeting with written responses to the questions. The online meeting is expected to last approximately 90 minutes. Participation is not required.
Title: Navy Pier Pierscape RFP Online Pre-Submittal Meeting
Date: Thursday, September 15, 2011
Time: 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM CDT
After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Online Pre-Submittal Meeting.
System Requirements
PC-based attendees
Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 Server
Macintosh®-based attendees
Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer
Update 9 September 2011
The online Pre-Submittal Meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 15, 2011 will take place at 1:00 PM Central Time. Login information will be provided the day preceding the meeting on this website. During the online meeting, Navy Pier will provide an overview of the Pierscape RFP and The Centennial Vision and provide an opportunity for questions and answers. An addendum will be posted on the website after the meeting with written responses to the questions. The online meeting is expected to last approximately 90 minutes.
Participation is not required.