Addenda / Updates

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

a.    Display boards submitted electronically and printed by Navy Pier.

See the attached Display Material Guidelines for board sizes and content parameters for the exhibition at the Chicago Architecture Foundation.  In addition to those requirements, each design team should prepare the graphic content for one stand-alone 24” x 36” board that identifies the design team and its members and provides an overview of the Team’s design proposal.  This stand-alone board will be displayed at various locations throughout Chicago.  All boards should be full-size PDFs with placed photos and graphics no less than 200dpi at full size.

b.    An 11×17 booklet with pages that contain both written and graphic content.

The booklet should be a stand-alone document that is a concise and comprehensive description of the design proposal and include a one-page only overview of the Design Team and its members.  The booklet should be submitted as a single PDF file exported at “Press Quality”.  Additionally, a packaged InDesign file with all supporting links and fonts should be sent.  Please package art into one folder and ZIP compress its contents.  Only design related information should be included in the booklet.  Other required information should be submitted separately.  Navy Pier will make the booklet available for online viewing by the public.  The booklet will be printed and bound by Navy Pier.

c.     A conceptual construction cost estimate of the proposed design.

Design Teams should submit the estimate in an 8½” x 11” format and include whatever narrative, diagrams, and backup is necessary to provide an overview of the estimate.  This information should be submitted as a separate PDF file.

d.    An animation of no more than three minutes in length that provides an overview of the team’s design proposal is encouraged but is not required.

The videos should be in uncompressed QuickTime or .mpg format.  Please let us know by January 11, 2012 if you intend to submit a video animation.

e.     A site model is encouraged but is not required.

2.  Oral Interview and Presentation
The times and format for the oral presentations to the Board of Navy Pier Inc. have been set and already provided.  A projector will be available for use by each Design Team as will the team’s model.

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
Refer to Addendum 5 for information about the submittal requirements.

4.  Design Team’s MBE/WBE Program
A description of the Design Team’s MBE/WBE Program should be provided as a separate PDF.

 

Attachments

Display Materials Guidelines

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:

i. Fee estimate as set forth in the Pierscape Design Fee Form. This will become Attachment 1 to Exhibit C – Proposal to the Agreement.

ii. Written description of the scope of work for each of the five components of the Pierscape Project that will form the basis of the definition of the Architect’s Basic Services. This will become Attachment 2 to Exhibit C – Proposal to the Agreement.

iii. Written description of the work plan and approach to the initial phase of the design process, Program and Concept Refinement, that outlines how the Design Team intends to interact with the client and other relevant stakeholders in order to refine the program and design concept for each of the components of the Pierscape Project. This will become Attachment 3 to Exhibit C – Proposal to the Agreement.

iv. List of Additional Services, if any, that the Design Team believes may be necessary to complete the work but are not included in the Design Team’s fee estimate. This will become Attachment 4 to Exhibit C – Proposal to the Agreement.

v. A schedule of billing rates for the individuals designated to work on the project. This will become Attachment 5 to Exhibit C – Proposal to the Agreement.

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.

i. Identification and evidence of the legal structure and organization of Design Team, and identification of Design Team’s legal and beneficial owners. If applicable, the Design Team shall also submit the following:

1. If a closely-held corporation (i.e., not publicly traded), a copy of its shareholders agreement.

2. If a limited liability company, a copy of its operating agreement.

3. If a partnership, a copy of its partnership agreement.

4. If a joint venture, a copy of its joint venture agreement.

ii. Copies of all business and professional licenses and registrations which are required by law in order to perform the Services under the Agreement.

iii. A list of the overall contractual organization of the various Team Members indicating the nature of that contractual relationship. (By way of example, if a Team Member is not part of the entity with which Navy Pier, Inc. will enter into the Agreement but, rather, will be acting as a subcontractor or subconsultant to that Design Team entity, identify those Team Members who shall be subconsultants, and the nature of that agreement, if any, that exists or shall exist upon the award being made.).

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

Pierscape Design Fee Form

Form of Acknowledgement

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.

Navy Pier
Use of this website signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use. Privacy Policy.
Copyright © 2013 Navy Pier, Inc., All Rights Reserved.