Space 134 - RFP for Glendale Freeway Ramps/Vision Plan

City of Glendale Request for Proposals: Glendale Freeway Ramps / Space 134 “Vision Plan”
Page 1 of 37
CITY OF GLENDALE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Glendale Freeway Ramps / Space 134 “Vision Plan”
To: All Qualified Firms
Date: March 28, 2016
Subject: Request for Proposals for the Glendale Freeway Ramps / Space 134 “Vi-
sion Plan”
DUE DATE: Ten (10) hard copies and two (2) electronic copies on CDs responding to the Re-
quest for Proposals are to be submitted to:
Juan Gomez-Novy
Senior Mobility Planner
City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Room 300
Glendale, CA 91206
By 5:00 pm on June 3, 2016.
Proposals received after this date and time will not be considered.

Page 2 of 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Schedule of Events......................................................................................................................3
II. Explanation of the Project .......................................................................................................3
III. Background & Study Area.....................................................................................................4
IV. Scope of Work........................................................................................................................12
V. Instructions to Proposer.........................................................................................................19
VI. Response to RFP – Formatting & Contents........................................................................22
VII. Appendix...............................................................................................................................25
Submittal Forms............................................................................................................................26
Attachments...................................................................................................................................36

Page 3 of 37
I. Schedule of Events
Event Date
Request for Proposals (RFP) Issued March 28, 2016
Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting April 28, 2016, 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Deadline for Written Questions and Requests May 11, 2016, 5:00 pm
Responses and Addenda Issued May 20, 2016
Technical and Price Proposals Due June 3, 2016, 5:00 pm
Interview Firms (TBD based on City review of written proposal) Late June – Early July 2016
Proposed Approval of Selected Consultant(s) by City Council Mid – Late July 2016
Notice to Proceed / Service Contract Begins / Kick-Off Meeting Late August – Late September 2016
Project Completion Date (18-20 mos. after start of contract) Fall 2017
The City of Glendale reserves the right to alter any of the dates shown above by written notice.
Submit any inquiries via email to Juan Gomez-Novy, Senior Mobility Planner at jgomez-
novy@glendaleca.gov. No phone calls please.
II. Explanation of the Project
The purpose of this RFP is to obtain the services of a well-qualified firm or team of firms, spe-
cializing in environmental planning, traffic analysis, civil/structural engineering, and urban de-
sign, to study and develop the road and transportation network surrounding a proposed “freeway
cap park” over the 134 Freeway (“Space 134” or “Space 134 Cap Park”) as it passes through
downtown Glendale. This project will study the complex relationship between the Space 134
Cap Park; the 134 Freeway and its on- and off-ramps; the city’s street, bicycle, pedestrian, and
bus network; and a number of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route alternatives currently being studied
by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro). Key elements of the scope
of work, described in further detail in Section IV, include:
 Existing Conditions Analysis. Become familiar with the existing physical, transporta-
tion, and regulatory conditions; with the conceptual Space 134 design and supporting ma-
terials generated to date; and with Metro’s various BRT alternatives.
 Design Alternatives. Generate up to six (6) alternative designs for the freeway and its
on- and off-ramps, the surrounding surface street network, Metro’s proposed BRT transit
facilities, and the connections between them. The roadway alternatives should consider
options for linking Pacific Avenue, Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard, and Glendale Av-
enue with frontage roads as well as consider ways of adjusting, reconfiguring, or even
removing some of the freeway on- and off-ramps in order to improve traffic flow both on
the 134 Freeway and on the City’s surface streets. Based on the consultant’s professional
experience and discussions with City staff and representatives from Metro and Caltrans,
refine and narrow the six (6) alternatives down to three (3).
As part of the design process, assess the tradeoffs between the various freeway and road-
way alternatives in terms of congestion on city surface streets and on the 134 Freeway;

Page 4 of 37
opportunities to reduce freeway associated congestion on the City’s surface streets; in-
creased access to transit and associated amenities; pedestrian safety considerations be-
tween vehicles queuing at freeway on-ramps, north-south cross-town traffic, and pedes-
trians and cyclists walking and biking to the park; the impact on the design of the Space
134 park and the quality of the Space 134 experience, including potential effects of me-
chanical vents on park users and surrounding neighborhoods; and other urban design con-
siderations.
 Phasing, Construction Schedule and Staging, and Engineering Cost Estimate. Study
the three (3) refined alternatives and the one (1) preferred alternative in terms of the se-
quence, timing, and schedule in which the proposed freeway, road improvements, and
Space 134 Cap Park would be built. Also provide a conceptual engineering cost estimate
for the freeway and roadway improvements and the associated cap structure.
 Traffic Study. Using the City’s traffic model, analyze the three (3) refined alternatives
and the one (1) preferred alternative in terms of the effects on traffic flow and congestion
along the 134 Freeway, its on- and off-ramps, and along Glendale’s surface streets. In-
clude in the analysis the potential reduction in vehicular trips due to the introduction of
BRT service.
 Preferred and Final Alternative. Produce a final set of drawings and a final report that
describes the preferred alternative design and summarizes the associated traffic findings
and recommendations; provides a final engineering cost estimate; describes phasing, con-
struction schedule and staging considerations; and describes next steps, including further
design development and environmental clearance. The final design should balance the
urban design objectives of Space 134 and its surroundings with the goal of reducing traf-
fic congestion on the 134 Freeway, its on- and off-ramps, and the surrounding street net-
work, as well as improving access to transit and generating a safe environment for pedes-
trians, cyclists, transit riders, and motor vehicles.
 Participation in Meetings. Participate in up to eight (8) meetings total with the Plan-
ning Commission, Transportation and Parking Commission, City Council, and/or the
community, as well as up to six (6) meetings with related agencies such as Metro and
Caltrans.
III. Background & Study Area
A. City of Glendale Background
Over the past 100 years, Glendale has grown from a small community at the edge of Los An-
geles into a dynamic cosmopolitan city as diverse in its culture as it is in opportunities. To-
day, Glendale is the fourth largest city in Los Angeles County and is surrounded by Southern
California’s leading commercial districts including Los Angeles, Pasadena, Hollywood, and
Universal City. Incorporated on February 16, 1906, the City of Glendale spans approximate-

Page 5 of 37
ly 30.6 square miles and has a current population of approximately 200,167 (2014 US Census
–American Community Survey).
Glendale is consistently listed as one of the Safest Cities in America and contains abundant
amenities, making Glendale a desirable place to call home for residents and businesses alike.
Glendale is a full-service city offering first class amenities, with its own police and fire de-
partments, a wholly owned municipal utility company offering water and power, a complete
public works department to maintain infrastructure, libraries to provide programs for lifelong
learning, and a variety of parks for quiet enjoyment, organized sports, or open space adven-
ture. Glendale also offers its own bus service, the Beeline, with ten routes connecting cus-
tomers to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the City of Burbank, and Metrolink Stations in
both Burbank and Glendale.
In addition to its reputation for safety, Glendale is a vibrant commercial and cultural center,
with a blend of large and small businesses, multi-national corporations, and special event
venues such as the legendary Alex Theatre. Glendale’s five small but unique neighborhood
shopping districts offer convenience to bordering neighborhoods, while the Glendale Galleria
and The Americana at Brand offer exciting regional shopping and entertainment options.
Even with its bustling business culture, the City has retained its small-town appeal with quiet
tree-lined neighborhoods, mountain ridges, wilderness reserves, and residential neighbor-
hoods with distinctive and well-preserved period architecture. Glendale also boasts a large
health care presence with three hospitals, two of which are regional medical centers, within
its borders.
The City is also home to Glendale Community College, a fully accredited institution which
currently serves approximately 25,000 day and evening students, and approximately 10,000
others who participate in adult education and specialized training programs. Glendale’s pri-
mary and secondary schools also have a long-standing reputation for excellence. Operating
out of 31 schools and instructing approximately 27,000 culturally diverse children with inno-
vative educational programs, the Glendale Unified School District is committed to achieving
the highest standards on campuses.
Glendale is served by several major freeways (Interstate 5 and 210 and State Routes 2 and
134), and its proximity to downtown Los Angeles, Bob Hope Airport (Burbank), and many
recreational facilities make it a desirable place to live.
B. Space 134 Background
In 2006, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency adopted the Glendale Downtown
Specific Plan (DSP), a proactive urban design strategy for a mixed-use, transit- and pedestri-
an-oriented downtown. One element of the DSP – also identified in the 2007 Glendale
Downtown Mobility Study – is a “freeway lid” that spans over the 134 Freeway with a transit
plaza and public open space, providing a transit hub at an important junction between local
and future regional transit routes and better connecting the residential neighborhoods north of
the freeway to downtown Glendale and its civic, cultural, and business offerings.

Page 6 of 37
In 2012, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) awarded the City of
Glendale a Compass Blueprint grant to prepare concept plans and a cost analysis for the
Space 134 Cap Park project. The City then selected through a competitive RFP process, a
team led by Meléndrez to prepare a vision for the Space 134 Cap Park, including a conceptu-
al master plan, preliminary structural analysis, a preliminary cost estimate, and a description
of potential funding sources and strategies. This community-based effort culminated in City
Council approval of the Space 134 Vision Plan in June 2013 (“2013 Vision Plan”). Then in
2014, the City was awarded a second SCAG Compass Blueprint grant and again selected a
team led by Meléndrez to conduct additional community outreach, prepare an economic
analysis and mobility analysis, and further refine the master plan. The City Council endorsed
the updated Space 134 Vision Plan on March 22, 2016 (“2016 Vision Plan Update”), prepar-
ing the way for the further design development and technical analysis for this third phase of
work. This phase will be followed by a fourth and separate phase consisting of design devel-
opment of the park itself, environmental review, final engineering, and final approval of the
project. Construction is anticipated to begin after 2020 at the earliest.
C. Space 134 Project Study Area
The Space 134 Phase 3 project study area is an approximately 1.25 mile-long portion of the
134 Freeway between Pacific Avenue and Glendale Avenue, including the associated free-
way on- and off-ramps and the surrounding street network (see Figure 1).
FIGURE 1

Page 7 of 37
While a majority of the city of Glendale is located north of the 134 Freeway, the downtown
core, which is located in the southern part of the city, is bisected almost in two by the free-
way itself. Completed in 1971, the freeway vastly improved regional connectivity, but sev-
ered the neighborhoods to the north from the downtown core and neighborhoods to the south
(see Figure 2) – a condition that the introduction of the Space 134 Cap Park seeks to mend.
Immediately north of the study area is the Verdugo Wash, a channelized tributary to the Los
Angeles River. Key components of the project area include: the Space 134 cap park itself;
the 134 Freeway and its on- and off-ramps and over- and under-crossings; the surrounding
surface street network, including some existing and potential Freeway frontage road seg-
ments; and a potential transit hub that serves existing transit service and a future Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) station or bus stops.
FIGURE 2

Page 8 of 37
 The Space 134 Cap Park. As described in the 2016 Vision Plan Update, Space 134 is
conceived as a multi-purpose “freeway cap park” built over the 134 freeway that provides
passive and active open space; programmed community and civic buildings; pedestrian-
and bike-friendly trails; and convenient access to transit, including Metro’s proposed
BRT line between North Hollywood and Pasadena (see Figure 3).
FIGURE 3
Space 134 is envisioned to relink the well-established residential neighborhoods north of
the freeway to downtown Glendale and its civic, cultural, and business offerings to the
south; revitalize Downtown’s highway-adjacent neighborhoods; catalyze new develop-
ment and investment in the city; introduce green space and urban forest in the middle of
Glendale; allow downtown Glendale to increase its density while maintaining ample
space for people to relax, exercise, gather, and participate in events; and improve traffic
performance on both the Freeway and City streets through adjustments to freeway on-
and off-ramps, incorporation of frontage roads, and reduction in automobile trips through
new BRT service. Space 134 is comprised of two parts (see Figure 4):
o A Downtown Park (The “Heart”), located in the north end of Downtown between
Central Avenue and Louise Street, is more metropolitan in character, integrating
and expanding the vibrancy of Downtown with a regional meeting center and
concert/event spaces; restaurant/café spaces, coffee kiosks, a “food truck court,”
and a farmers market; walking trails and a nature park; and a mobility hub and as-

Page 9 of 37
sociated transit facilities, including a BRT station or bus stops. The park design
also proposes to create a more pedestrian-friendly experience along the western
side of the Central Avenue overpass by widening the sidewalk to cantilever from
the existing bridge structure and introducing gateway signage, art work, and/or a
new fence along the freeway-facing edge of the bridge.
o A Neighborhood Park (The “Soul”), located between the residential neighbor-
hoods to the north and to the south of the 134 Freeway between Louise Street and
Balboa Avenue, is more local in character, serving the needs of the surrounding
residential community with a small community center; community gardens; sports
courts and fitness equipment; children’s play areas; a dog park; as well as walking
trails and a nature park. Balboa Avenue, which currently does not cross the 134
Freeway, is extended across with a new bridge to provide better connectivity be-
tween the neighborhoods on either side of the freeway. Similar to the Central Av-
enue overpass, the eastern-facing side of the bridge would accommodate gateway
signage and/or art work.
FIGURE 4

Page 10 of 37
Space 134 is envisioned to be built in multiple phases, beginning with the portion of the
Downtown Park between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard (see Figure 5). Depend-
ing on Metro’s final BRT route, this first phase would include the construction of either a
BRT station and platform, BRT bus stop facilities, and/or a transit hub. The remaining
portions of Space 134 would be built in later, still to be determined, phases. Funding is
anticipated to be obtained from both public and private sources, as has occurred on simi-
lar projects in other North American cities.
FIGURE 5
 The 134 Freeway. The 134 Freeway is a major east-west freeway that extends from
Ventura to Pasadena and has approximately five lanes in each direction, with four general
access lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. It passes approximately 20
feet below grade with sloped embankments on each side. Overpasses at Central Avenue,
Brand Boulevard, Louise Street, Jackson Street, Geneva Street, and Glendale Avenue
cross at grade over the sunken freeway. The remaining north-south streets have no thru-
access, terminating in cul-de-sacs at the freeway edge. Pedestrian-only crossings over
and under the freeway include a bridge located near Woodrow Wilson Middle School just
east of Glendale Avenue (bridge currently closed), a bridge at Columbus Avenue (bridge
currently open), and a tunnel under the freeway at Kenilworth Avenue, adjacent to
Fremont Park. The distance between crossings ranges from 700 feet to over 1,300 feet.
Caltrans is responsible for the operation and planning for the Freeway as a link in the
statewide and regional highway network. Metro provides coordinated funding for future

Page 11 of 37
improvements to the transportation network, including the freeway system. The Caltrans
2002 Transportation Concept Report (TCR) represents the most current focused planning
document for the 134 Freeway with an emphasis on determining the ultimate need for
freeway right of way. While the TCR acknowledges recurring congestion on the segment
approaching the interchange of the Freeway with the I-5 Freeway (just to the west of the
study area), it does not contemplate further highway capacity enhancements beyond the
recently completed HOV lane and four mixed flow lanes in each direction.
 Surrounding Surface Street Network and Frontage Roads. The surrounding street net-
work is interconnected and, as mentioned above, is disrupted by the 134 Freeway. Pacif-
ic Avenue, Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard, and Glendale Avenue provide access to
the freeway and are the most heavily congested segments of the City’s street system. Be-
cause the 134 Freeway on-ramps are metered, these streets frequently back-up during
peak hours. In addition, the Freeway frontage roads (Sanchez Drive and Goode Avenue),
located between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard, link the Brand Boulevard and
Central Avenue on- and off-ramps, but do not extend beyond to Pacific Avenue or Glen-
dale Avenue. Consequently, high traffic volumes occur on adjacent residential neighbor-
hood streets, where commuters utilize these streets to bypass the congested freeway
ramps. In particular, complaints about traffic volumes and speeds on Doran Street during
the commuter hours are a recurring issue for the City. To mitigate excessive traffic vol-
umes on these streets, the Glendale Downtown Mobility Study describes possible changes
to implement a more continuous frontage road system adjacent to the freeway, focusing
on Sanchez Drive on the south side and Goode Avenue and Monterey Road on the north
side.
 Existing Transit and Future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Space 134 is located at what is
envisioned to be a major hub within the regional transit system, with east-west rapid
transit service connecting to north-south local/feeder bus service. Currently, however,
there is little existing transit in the east-west 134 Freeway corridor. Los Angeles De-
partment of Transportation (LADOT) Commuter Express Route 549 operates only during
peak periods, and relatively infrequently, between Encino and Pasadena with stops on
Goode Avenue (westbound) and Sanchez Drive (eastbound). North-south, there is a vari-
ety of existing bus service operated by Metro and the City of Glendale Beeline, connect-
ing the project study area to downtown Glendale’s retail and civic core, to the nearest ex-
isting major east-west bus route, Metro’s Route 780 Rapid service on Broadway and on
Central Avenue south of Broadway, and to the Metrolink commuter rail Glendale Station
on the city’s southern border with Los Angeles.
As of the writing of this RFP, Parsons Corporation is in the midst of preparing for Metro
a technical study analyzing potential BRT route alignments between North Hollywood
and Pasadena. Scheduled to be completed in Fall 2016, the analysis is examining four
different route alternatives, falling into three basic categories in relation to Space 134:
running within the freeway right-of-way with a BRT stop at Space 134; running along
surface streets with BRT stops at Space 134; running along surface streets with no BRT
stop at Space 134. If there is no BRT stop at Space 134, there is still the opportunity for a

Page 12 of 37
transit hub at Space 134. The 2016 Vision Plan Update studied ways of accommodating
both the freeway-level station platform alternative and the street-level bus stop alterna-
tive.
The Caltrans TCR acknowledges the potential for bus rapid transit (BRT) in the median
of the freeway to complete a regional transit network.
Note the 2013 Vision Plan provided conceptual structural designs, including for the cap
structure itself, for widening the sidewalks along the existing bridges, and for modifying the
freeway embankments through the introduction of retaining walls in order to accommodate
more freeway lanes, the BRT right-of-way, and/or extending the existing frontage roads.
IV. Scope of Work
In developing the Glendale Freeway Ramps / Space 134 “Vision Plan”, the Consultant shall
comply with all applicable local, State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
and federal facility design guidelines and requirements.
The lead consultant and/or members of the consultant team should be well-versed in urban de-
sign. While the focus of this study is the conceptual design, impact, and constructability of the
roadways that surround and pass through Space 134 (including the 134 Freeway and its on- and
off-ramps as well as the Metro’s potential BRT route alignments), knowledge and expertise of
how these roadways will affect, relate to, and impact surrounding buildings, streetscapes, and the
Space 134 park itself, is critical to a successful final design. In addition, this scope of work will
incorporate and adjust as necessary the conceptual park design prepared in earlier phases by Me-
léndrez, although, as mentioned above, the focus will be on the roadway network and the ad-
justments that would need to be made to the park design in order to accommodate it.
The City of Glendale has hired Meléndrez, the preparer of the conceptual Space 134 park design,
under a separate contract to review the deliverables of this Glendale Freeway Ramps / Space 134
“Vision Plan” project and provide input on the design alternatives as they proceed through the
various steps towards a final preferred alternative.
Completion of the following tasks will be required as part of creating the Glendale Freeway
Ramps / Space 134 “Vision Plan”:
Task 1: Kick-Off Meeting and Site Tour
Participate in a kick-off meeting with City staff to confirm the desired goals and outcomes
for the Glendale Freeway Ramps / Space 134 “Vision Plan”; to meet key people involved
with the project; to discuss and confirm project methodology, including project management
protocols, key deliverables, project milestones, and schedule; to identify relevant background
documents and data; and to discuss outside agency outreach strategies.

Page 13 of 37
A part of the kick-off meeting will include a walking tour with City staff to familiarize the
team with the project area and its context and to identify and discuss potential opportunities
and constraints.
A representative from Meléndrez will attend the kick-off meeting to provide the chosen con-
sultant with background information.
Deliverables: Agenda; Participation in Kick-off Meeting and Site Tour; Meeting and Site
Tour Summary; Team Contact List.
Task 2: Bi-weekly Status Reports and Monthly meetings
Participate in bi-weekly progress and coordination teleconferences and monthly meetings
with City Staff to discuss project progress, schedule, and upcoming milestones; and to ensure
the work product is consistent with the project’s goals and objectives.
Deliverables: Agendas; Participation in Bi-weekly Teleconferences and Monthly Meet-
ings; Teleconference/ Meeting Summaries.
Task 3: Existing Data and Background Information and Base Plan Preparation
In order to gain a thorough understanding of the existing conditions, collect and review perti-
nent background data and documentation such as:
1. The original 2013 Vision Plan, the 2016 Vision Plan Update, and related memoranda
and supporting documents, including Space 134 Final Transit Recommendations,
prepared by NelsonNygaard; Conclusions on the Funding, Operation and Implemen-
tation of Space 134, prepared by HR&A Advisors; and Rough Order of Magnitude
Statement of Probable Cost, prepared by Cumming Construction Management.
2. The Glendale Downtown Specific Plan.
3. Pertinent agency documents, standards, and regulations such as any information that
is available regarding Metro’s North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Technical Study
and any pertinent Caltrans regulations, plans, and documents, such as the Caltrans
2002 Transportation Concept Report.
4. The Citywide traffic model prepared by Fehr & Peers.
5. Existing topographic contours and utility infrastructure information is available upon
request.
Prepare base plans and cross sections documenting the existing freeway and city street net-
work. Freeway plan drawings should include at a minimum existing freeway lane configura-
tions, widths, and lane directions, including HOV lanes and on- and off-ramps and lanes;
bridge pier, center median, and embankment locations and dimensions; topographic contours
and any other pertinent information. City street plans should show at a minimum vehicular
lanes, turn lanes, bike lanes, lane directions, crosswalks, signal and stop sign locations, bus
stops, on-street parking locations, topographic countours, and other pertinent information.

Page 14 of 37
Transverse cross sections (cut perpendicular to freeway) should show embankment slopes
and widths; existing frontage roads where present; travel and parking lanes, and bridge sup-
port structures. Longitudinal cross sections (cut parallel to freeway) should be provided as
necessary.
Deliverables: Plans and Cross Sections of Existing Conditions (PDF).
Task 4: Freeway/Cap Park Alternative Drawings
Prepare up to six (6) conceptual alternatives drawings that develop and investigate the rela-
tionship between the latest version of the Space 134 Cap Park design as shown in the 2016
Vision Plan Update; the 134 Freeway and its on- and off-ramps; the city’s street, bicycle, pe-
destrian, and bus network; and Metro’s BRT station platform/bus stop alternative. Design
components, which can be mixed and matched, to consider include:
1. On- and Off-Ramps. Consider ways of adjusting, reconfiguring, or even removing
freeway on- and off-ramps in order to improve traffic flow both on the 134 Freeway
and the City’s surface streets and to ensure quality connections for people walking
and biking to and from the park. At a minimum, study:
a. Pacific Avenue and Central Avenue. Reconfigure the westbound and east-
bound Pacific Avenue and Central Avenue on- and off-ramps to reduce cross-
over merging and exiting onto and off of the 134 Freeway at Pacific Avenue
and Central Avenue.
b. Glendale Avenue. Reconfigure the Glendale Avenue westbound and east-
bound on- and off-ramps in order to be able to accommodate a potential front-
age road extension from Brand Boulevard to Glendale Avenue as well as to
potentially free up more developable land.
c. No change. Leave on- and off-ramps in their current configuration.
2. BRT Alignments and Station / Bus stops / Transit Hub. Subject to the status of the
alternatives being studied in Metro’s North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Technical
Study, further develop the BRT Station and/or bus stop alternatives proposed in the
2013 Vision Plan, the 2016 Vision Plan Update, and Nelson/Nygaard’s Space 134
Final Transit Recommendations memorandum, including:
a. BRT station in 134 Freeway center median. Further develop the freeway-
level platform alternatives, including a center platform (platform between
BRT lanes), side platforms (BRT lanes between platforms), as well as surface
street level bus stops (i.e., bus exits freeway). Determine how much space the
BRT lanes and station platform will require and how many freeway lanes they
would displace. Also consider the relationship between the platforms and the
adjacent vehicular lanes (solid wall, transparent barriers, art work, etc.) as

Page 15 of 37
well as methods of making the platforms more inviting, such as providing
skylights to let natural light in from above.
b. No BRT station. Confirm or adjust the optimal locations for surface street lev-
el BRT bus stops, or if BRT is not routed to pass through or stop in Space
134, confirm/recommend the best locations for local and rapid bus stops.
c. Transit Hub. Consider incorporating a transit hub into the above alternatives.
3. Freeway Embankments. Further develop the freeway embankment modification
methods proposed by the 2013 Vision Plan to accommodate additional freeway lanes
at the freeway-level and/or to accommodate frontage roads at the surface street level,
including:
a. Fill in the sloped embankment. Build retaining walls at the toe (low side) of
the embankments and fill in the sloped embankment to accommodate the
frontage roads at the surface street level.
b. Completely remove the sloped embankment or a portion of the sloped em-
bankment. Build retaining walls at the crest (high side) or higher side of the
embankment to introduce additional freeway lanes at freeway level. The em-
bankment modifications should consider the impacts to the existing overpass
bridge footings.
c. No change. Leave the embankments in their current configuration.
4. Frontage Roads. Expanding on the frontage road designs proposed in the 2013 Vi-
sion Plan, study additional frontage road alternatives in order to understand the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of various frontage road configurations.
a. Extend/reconfigure existing frontage roads. Introduce frontage roads along
the north, south, or both sides of the freeway. Potential alternatives should
consider questions such as whether the frontage roads can accommodate both
freeway on-ramp queue traffic and freeway pass-through traffic without com-
promising the relationship between the park and the buildings and uses across
the street; accommodate freeway queue traffic, but discourage freeway pass-
through traffic; or be solely devoted to serving the adjacent park and the local
neighborhoods. Also investigate ways of extending frontage roads to Glen-
dale Avenue and any adjustments that would need to be made to the Glendale
Avenue freeway on- and off-ramps to accommodate the frontage road(s).
b. No change. Leave frontage roads in current configuration.
5. Cross Streets. Consider extending some or all the cross streets that currently termi-
nate at cul-de-sacs across the freeway through the Space 134 Cap Park. Also study
the feasibility of cantilevering a new sidewalk and gateway signage/art work from the
western side of the Central Avenue overpass.

Page 16 of 37
6. Venting. Consider at a conceptual level the potential venting requirements for the
covered freeway lanes in terms of how long a tunnel can be before mechanical vent-
ing is required and where, should they be required, exhaust vents are located.
7. Space 134 Phase 2 Conceptual Design. Identify any modifications or refinements
that need to be made to the Phase 2 Space 134 park design as a result of the roadway
design work.
The design alternatives should assess the tradeoffs between the various freeway and roadway
alternatives in terms of congestion on city surface streets and on the 134 Freeway; opportuni-
ties to reduce freeway associated congestion on the City’s surface streets; increased access to
transit and associated amenities; pedestrian safety considerations between vehicles queuing at
freeway on-ramps, north-south cross-town traffic, and pedestrians and cyclists walking and
biking to the park; the impact on the design of the Space 134 park and the quality of the
Space 134 experience, including potential effects of mechanical vents on park users and sur-
rounding neighborhoods; and other urban design considerations.
Deliverables: Freeway/Cap Park Technical Alternatives Drawings (up to 6 alternatives),
including Plans and Cross Sections (PDF).
Task 5: Alternatives Refinement
Based on the consultant’s professional experience and on discussions with City staff and rep-
resentatives from Metro and Caltrans, refine and narrow the alternatives developed in above
Task 4 down to three (3) technical alternatives. The drawings should include the same draw-
ing elements as described in above Task 3 (freeway lane configurations, widths, and lane di-
rections, including HOV lanes and on- and off-ramps and lanes, etc., as well as street trees
and Meléndrez ‘s conceptual park design and any associated changes to it that arise during
the roadway design process).
Deliverables: Up to three (3) Freeway/Cap Park Technical Alternatives Drawings
(PDF).
Task 6: Phasing, Construction Schedule and Staging, and Engineering Cost Estimate
Memorandum
Prepare a memorandum that analyzes up to three (3) of the refined alternatives developed in
above Task 5 in terms of:
1. Conceptual Phasing, Construction Schedule, and Staging. Describe and diagram
which components should be built first and how the cap park is built in relation to the
existing bridges (for example, are the existing bridges independent structures that are
preserved and the cap structure is infilled in between them, or do bridges need to be
removed to build the cap structure?). Also estimate how long it will take to build the
roadway improvements and cap park structure and provide a conceptual staging plan
that discusses whether or not some or all freeway lanes and/or certain on-ramps and

Page 17 of 37
off-ramps might need to be shut down during certain phases of construction. Also
discuss the potential impacts on the surface street network if lanes, bridges, and/or
freeway on- and off-ramps are closed during construction.
2. Conceptual Engineering Cost Estimate. Provide an engineering cost estimate for the
freeway and roadway improvements described in above Task 5. Also review and up-
date as necessary the cost estimate for the actual park space prepared by Cumming
Construction Management for the 2016 Vision Plan Update.
Update the Phasing, Construction Schedule and Staging, and Engineering Cost Estimate
Memorandum as needed when the alternatives are narrowed down to one (1) preferred alter-
native (Task 10). Also include a summary of the findings and recommendations in the Pre-
ferred Alternative Report (also Task 10).
Deliverables: Draft and Final Phasing, Construction Schedule and Staging, and Engi-
neering Cost Estimate Memorandum at completion of Task 5 (PDF); Draft and Final
Phasing, Construction Schedule and Staging, and Engineering Cost Estimate Memoran-
dum at completion of Task 10 (PDF).
Task 7: Traffic Study
After completing the Technical Alternatives Refinement described in above Task 5, use the
City’s traffic model to analyze the effects on up to three (3) alternatives on traffic flow and
congestion along the 134 Freeway, its on- and off-ramps and along Glendale’s surface
streets, comparing them to existing traffic conditions. Also study/discuss how the introduc-
tion of BRT could potentially reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled and/or average
daily trips.
Update the Traffic Study as needed when the alternatives are narrowed down to one (1) pre-
ferred alternative (Task 10). Also include a summary of the findings and recommendations
in the Preferred Alternative Report (also Task 10).
Deliverables: Draft and Final Traffic Study (PDF) at the completion of Task 5; Updated
Draft and Final Traffic Study (PDF) at the completion of Task 10.
Task 8. Agency Meetings
Attend up to six (6) meetings with agencies such as Caltrans and Metro at a minimum during
the following recommended junctures:
1. During Task 3 (Existing Data and Background Information and Base Plan Prepara-
tion) to brief Caltrans and/or Metro on the vision and scope of this Glendale Freeway
Ramps / Space 134 “Vision Plan” project, to discuss each agency’s requirements and
expectations, and to discuss potential adjustments to the freeway, its on- and off-
ramps, and the surrounding surface street network.

Page 18 of 37
2. Prior to or during Task 5 (Alternatives Refinement) share with Caltrans and Metro the
alternatives developed during Task 4 (Freeway/Cap Park Alternatives) as well as to
brief them on the findings of the Traffic Study (Task 7) and the Phasing, Construction
Schedule and Staging, and Engineering Cost Estimate Memorandum (Task 6).
Deliverables: Attendance at meetings with agencies; meeting summary for each meeting.
Task 9. Planning Commission, Transportation and Parking Commission, and City
Council Study Sessions
Present the three (3) alternatives for discussion and input at up to four (4) total meetings with
the Planning Commission, Transportation and Parking Commission, City Council and/or the
community.
Deliverables: PowerPoint presentations; meeting summaries.
Task 10. Preferred Alternative Drawings and Report
Based on input from the commissions, the City Council, and on discussions with Caltrans
and Metro, generate preferred alternative drawings and compile a report that includes at a
minimum:
1. A brief summary of the existing physical, transportation, and regulatory conditions.
2. The preferred alternative drawings (plans and sections) and a description of them.
The preferred alternative should balance the urban design objectives of Space 134
with the goal of reducing traffic congestion on the 134 Freeway, its on- and off-
ramps, and the surrounding street network, as well as improving access to transit and
generating a safe environment for pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and motor vehi-
cles.
3. A summary of the final analysis findings and recommendations in terms of traffic and
constructability.
4. Final engineering cost estimate.
5. Implementation strategies including phasing, construction schedule and staging con-
siderations, and next steps, including further design development and environmental
clearance.
The final alternative will be the project description for a Program Environmental Impact Re-
port to be conducted under a separate contract as part of a future Phase 4 of this Space 134
project.
Deliverables: Draft Preferred Alternative Drawings and Report (PDF).

Page 19 of 37
Task 11. Planning Commission, Transportation and Parking Commission, City Coun-
cil Meetings and Final Report.
Present the preferred alternative drawings and report developed in Task 10 at up to four (4)
total meetings with the Planning Commission, the Transportation and Parking Commission,
City Council and/or the community. Based on the input of the commissions and the City
Council, prepare the final alternative drawings and report.
Deliverables: PowerPoint Presentations; Meeting Summaries; Final Alternative Draw-
ings and Report (PDF).
V. Instructions to Proposer
Compliance with Applicable Guidelines and Regulations
Consultants are required to comply with all applicable State of California guidelines and regula-
tions regarding the Glendale Freeway Ramps / Space 134 “Vision Plan” project.
Late Proposals
All proposals, as well as any modifications, received at this office after the hour and date speci-
fied will not be considered unless they are sent by certified mail, for which an official, dated post
office stamp has been obtained, and it is determined by the City’s Project Manager that the late
receipt was due solely to delay in the mail.
Disclaimers
The City reserves the right to extend the time allotted for the RFP submittal, to interview the
Proposer in person, and to request a best and final offer, should the City deem that it is in its best
interest to do so. This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract, or to pay any costs in-
curred in its preparation. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all RFPs received
as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified firm, or to cancel this RFP in part or in
its entirety. The City may require the selected firm to participate in negotiations and to submit
such technical, price, or other revisions of their proposals as may result from negotiations. Any
costs incurred by the Proposer in responding to this Request for Proposals shall be the Proposer’s
sole expense and will not be reimbursed by the City.
Limitations
All reports and pertinent data or materials shall be the sole property of the City of Glendale, and
may not be used or reproduced in any form without the explicit written permission of the City.
The Proposer should expect to have access to only the public records and files of local govern-
ment agencies in preparing the proposal or reports. City staff assistance should not be anticipated
by the Proposer in the preparation of responses to this RFP. Good business practices, such as the
use of formal requests for information and the setting of appointments, should be followed.
Agreement
The Contractor to whom the Agreement is awarded shall be required to enter into a written
Agreement with the City of Glendale in a form approved by the City Attorney. A Sample Profes-
sional Services Agreement will be provided. The agreement specifies the terms and conditions of

Page 20 of 37
the contract and the required insurance provisions. The RFP, or any part thereof, and the Propos-
er's responses, may be incorporated into and made a part of the final Agreement; however, City
reserves the right to further negotiate the terms and conditions of the Agreement with the select-
ed Proposer. Neither the Agreement nor any interest herein nor claim hereunder may be assigned
by Contractor, either voluntarily or by operation of law, nor may all or substantially all of the
Agreement be further subcontracted by Proposer without the prior written consent of City. Penal-
ty or possible termination may result for failing to procure written approval from the City. No
such consent shall be deemed to relieve Proposer of its obligations to comply fully with the re-
quirements hereof.
Insurance Requirements
Based on the Scope of Work, insurance is required for the following coverages:
• Professional Liability Insurance
• Workers’ Compensation Insurance
• Commercial General Liability or Businessowners Liability Insurance
• Business Automobile Liability Insurance
The City’s specific insurance requirements are included in the Appendix to this RFP, as are sam-
ple Professional Services Agreements (PSAs) for 1) consultants who are not Architects, Land-
scape Architects, Professional Engineers, or Professional Land Surveyors and 2) consultants who
ARE licensed professionals in the aforementioned fields.
Definition of Terms
The following terms used in the RFP documents shall be construed as follows:
“City” shall mean the City of Glendale.
“Agreement” shall be considered synonymous with the term “Contract.”
“Proposer” shall mean the individual, partnership, corporation or other entity who re-
sponds to the RFP.
“Consultant” shall mean the individual, partnership, corporation or other entity to which
an agreement is awarded.
“Days” shall mean the business days recognized by City of Glendale.
Requests for Clarification
A Proposer with questions may submit to the City a written Request for Clarification by email to
Juan Gomez-Novy, Senior Mobility Planner at jgomez-novy@glendaleca.gov for an inter-
pretation or clarification of, or addenda to, this RFP. Any such request must be received by the
City no later than the date and time specified in Section I. Schedule of Events in this RFP. The
City will review and prepare a written response to each request made pursuant to this section.
The City's determination will be furnished to all Proposers by the date specified in Section I.
Schedule of Events in this RFP.

Page 21 of 37
The City reserves the right to modify or issue addenda to this RFP. If the City determines it ap-
propriate to revise any portion of this RFP, either at the request of a Proposer or upon the City’s
own initiative, the City will issue, and make available to all prospective Proposers, a written ad-
dendum setting forth this revision. Proposer shall acknowledge receipt of addenda by written no-
tice thereof returned to the City. Where addenda require changes in the work to be performed
under the Agreement, the date for receipt of proposals may be postponed by such number of days
as the City deems appropriate to enable Proposers to revise proposals. The City is not bound by
any oral interpretations, clarifications, or changes made to this RFP by any City staff member.
Any clarification or change to the RFP must be provided in writing pursuant to this section.
Acceptance of Proposals
Each proposal shall be submitted with the understanding that it is subject to the evaluation pro-
cedure set forth in this RFP, and to negotiation at the option of the City. Upon acceptance in
writing by the City of the final offer to furnish any and all of the services described herein, the
parties shall promptly execute the final contract documents. The written Agreement shall bind
the Proposer to furnish, deliver, maintain, operate or compensate in accordance with conditions
of said accepted proposal and this Request for Proposals, as negotiated. The City reserves the
right to make the award under this RFP based upon the initial proposals submitted. The City has
the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any informality in any proposal.
Restrictions on Lobbying and Contacts
During the period beginning on the date of the issuance of the RFP and ending on the date of se-
lection of the Proposer, no person (or entity) submitting a proposal in response to this RFP, nor
any officer, employee, representative, agent, or consultant representing such a person (or entity)
shall contact through any means or engage in any discussion concerning the award of the Con-
tract with any member of the City Council of the City of Glendale or his or her personal staff.
Any such contact shall be grounds for the disqualification of the proposal. During the period be-
ginning on the date of the issuance of this RFP and ending on the date of selection of the Propos-
er, each person or entity described in the previous paragraph shall limit his or her communication
with City staff to the written clarification and amendment process described in this RFP, and in-
terviews or discussions pursuant to evaluation and selection process described in this RFP. At no
time may any Proposer have any communication with a member of the City’s evaluation Com-
mittee, other than communication initiated by such member during interviews or discussions.

Page 22 of 37
VI. Evaluation & Selection
Evaluation/Selection Criteria
a. Written Proposal (180 points)
a. Project Understanding
b. Clarity of Proposal/Organization
c. Thoroughness in Addressing Requirements
d. Technical Expertise/Experience of Team, including Personnel
e. Technical Ability to Perform
f. Experience with Similar Projects
g. Experience working with Caltrans and/or Metro
h. Schedule
i. Overall Cost of Product
j. Creativity in Approach
b. Oral Presentation (60 points)
a. Presentation
b. Organization
c. Clarity
d. Communication Skills
e. Technical Understanding
f. Responses to Questions
Top candidates from the Written Proposal section will be selected for the Oral Presentation.
The City reserves the right to reject the proposal of any Proposer who has previously failed to
perform properly, or complete on time, contracts of a similar nature, or to reject the proposal of a
Proposer who is not in a position to perform such a contract satisfactorily. The City expressly
reserves the right to reject the proposal of any Proposer who is in default of the payment of taxes,
Agreements or other monies due to the City of Glendale.
VI. Response to RFP – Formatting & Contents
Response Formatting and Contents
The City expects the Proposer to prepare a comprehensive proposal with recommendations, ac-
tions, and procedures to accomplish the scope of work set forth in this RFP.
The City shall provide all relevant data in its possession that pertains to this project in support of
the Proposer’s services. The City assumes no responsibility whatsoever with respect to the suffi-
ciency or accuracy of any information supplied. The Proposer shall be responsible for evaluation
of all information supplied by the City.
The City of Glendale must receive two (2) CDs and ten (10) hard copies of the proposal, as well
as Form H, Price and Staffing Proposal, completed in MS Excel. All documents must be submit-
ted together by the date and time noted on the RFP title sheet.

Page 23 of 37
Proposals should be concise and must be correctly formatted in accordance with this RFP. Each
proposal must be divided into Parts I, II, and III as specified below, and must include all of the
required contents of each Part, in the sequence specified. Each proposal shall include a table of
contents clearly referencing each Part in the proposal.
Part I – BACKGROUND, AFFIRMATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND STABILITY
1. Submittal Cover – Form A
The proposal shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Proposer and shall state that
the proposal is a firm offer for a 120-day period.
2. Proposer Contact Information – Form B
Provide the indicated contact information for the primary contact person who will be authorized
to make representations for the Proposer’s firm. Provide information for the Proposer’s second-
ary contact. List all sub-contractors proposed for this project including type of work to be per-
formed. Use additional sheets as needed.
3. Statements and Agreements
This section should include the following certifications, each of which shall be fully executed:
i. Form C – Restrictions on Lobbying and Contacts
ii. Form D – Statement of Qualifications
iii. Form E – Proposer's Affidavit of Noncollusion
iv. Form F – Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Statement
v. Form G – Hold Harmless Agreement
vi. Disclosure – Campaign Finance Ordinance
4. Information Regarding Debarments, Defaults, Claims, and Related Events
Each Proposer, including its Joint Venture members and general partners (“team members”),
shall submit the information set forth below regarding past performance, activities, and projects.
The information shall cover the 5 year period prior to the due date of the proposal.
i. Any instance where the Proposer or a team member defaulted on a public services
contract.
ii. Information concerning the bankruptcy or receivership of the Proposer or a team
member.
iii. Information concerning all adverse claims, disputes, settlements, or lawsuits between
a public agency and the Proposer or a team member (including professional liabil-
ity/errors and omissions claims) in which the claim, settlement, or judgment exceeds
two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).

Page 24 of 37
Part II – QUALIFICATIONS & TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Each Proposer shall submit Part II that includes each of the materials set forth below, explaining
the qualifications of the Proposer to perform the scope of work and setting forth the Proposer’s
management and organizational structure, capability, experience, and proposed programs and
plans to ensure successful performance of the scope of work.
a. Project Team
i. Proposer must submit an organizational chart identifying the titles of pro-
ject team members (and subcontractors if applicable) and reporting rela-
tionships within the team. The submittal shall also include a brief descrip-
tion for each position identifying which functions they will be responsible
to perform in relation to the Agreement including coordination of subcon-
tractors. The chart shall indicate a “Project Manager” who will be the
City’s central contact person for day-to-day matters. The successful Pro-
poser agrees not to change the assigned project staff without prior written
consent of the City.
ii. If applicable, the Proposer will submit a description of the proposed sub-
contractors and identify which functions they will be responsible to per-
form in relation to the scope of work.
b. Experience, Reference, and Performance Record
i. Provide contact information for five (5) current agencies for which the
Proposer has provided similar work product during the past three or more
years. Provide contact name, title, agency name, address, phone, email,
services provided. Provide a brief scope of services provided for each con-
tractual relationship.
c. Technical Proposal
i. Provide detailed Scope of Work based on tasks specified in this RFP. For
each task, please include the following: assigned staff, estimated time or
proportion of staffer’s total project time, and total proposed cost.
Part III -- PRICE PROPOSAL AND STAFFING PLAN
Price Proposal and Staffing Plan - Form H
Each Proposer shall submit a price proposal and staffing plan using Form H. A review copy of
this form is included within this document, while a submittal copy in MS Excel format is provid-
ed electronically as a separate file distributed with this RFP. All figures on Form H must be
submitted as a completed spreadsheet in MS Excel format on CD and within the printed matter
as well. Proposer must submit a staffing plan that includes a comprehensive list of all key staff
by name and position proposed for this Agreement. Include contract labor by count, position, and
rate only, as applicable.

Page 25 of 37
VII. Appendix
List of Resources
For a list of resources, see the Attachments section of this Appendix. The following resources
shall be used to inform the development of the Glendale Freeway Ramps / Space 134 “Vision
Plan” and, as appropriate, summarized or incorporated into the Plan. All are available online for
download at the Space 134 website: http://www.space134.net/p/rfps.html.
Local Plan Report/Study Other
 Downtown Specific Plan (2006)  Space 134 Vision Plan (2013)
 Space 134 Vision Plan Update
(2016)
 Space 134 Space 134 Final
Transit Recommendations
Memorandum (2015)
 Space 134 Conclusions on the
Funding, Operation and Imple-
mentation of Space 134 Memo-
randum (2015)
 Space 134 Rough Order of
Magnitude Statement of Proba-
ble Cost (2015)
 Caltrans Transportation Con-
cept Report State Route 134
(2002)
 Sample Professional Services
Agreements
 City of Glendale Insurance Re-
quirements
 Forms B, D, H
 Disclosure Form - Campaign
Finance Ordinance
 Campaign Finance Summary -
Contracts

Page 26 of 37
Submittal Forms
MS Word versions of Form B, Form D, the Campaign Finance Disclosure form,
and an MS Excel version of Form H are provided electronically on the city’s FTP site:
http://www.space134.net/p/rfps.html
All other forms should be printed from this RFP and executed manually.

Page 27 of 37
FORM A
SUBMITTAL COVER PAGE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
CITY OF GLENDALE
GLENDALE FREEWAY RAMPS / SPACE 134 “VISION PLAN”
Proposer:
Firm Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip:
I certify that this Proposer is sufficiently informed as to all matters affecting the performance of
the work, and the furnishing of labor, supplies, material or equipment called for in this proposal;
that the proposal has been checked for errors and omissions, that the facts stated in the proposal
are current and as intended and are a complete and correct statement of the facts stated therein
for performing the work or furnishing the labor, supplies, materials or equipment required by the
RFP. This Proposer waives any claim for the return of its proposal on account of errors or omis-
sions claimed to have been made in its proposal or for any other reason.
I certify that this response fully complies with the requirements as defined in the RFP, and that I
am an authorized representative of the company to bind the firm to this response to the RFP for a
120 day period.
__________________________________ ___________________________________
Printed Name of Authorized Representative Signature of Authorized Representative

Page 28 of 37
FORM B
PROPOSER CONTACT INFORMATION
Proposer
Firm Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip
Authorized Signer Name:
Authorized Signer Title:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Email Address:
Project Manager Name:
Project Manager Title:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Email Address:
Subcontractors to Proposer
Firm Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip
Authorized Representative Name:
Authorized Representative Title:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Email Address:
Work to be Performed:
Firm Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Authorized Representative Name:
Authorized Representative Title:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Email Address:
Work to be Performed:
Attach additional pages as necessary.

Page 29 of 37
FORM C
RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING AND CONTACTS
The Proposer agrees that during the period beginning on the date of the issuance of the RFP and
ending on the date of selection of the Proposer, no person (or entity) submitting a proposal in re-
sponse to this RFP, nor any officer, employee, representative, agent, or consultant representing
such a person (or entity) has not and shall not contact through any means or engage in any dis-
cussion concerning the award of the Contract with any member of the City Council of the City of
Glendale or his or her personal staff. Any such contact shall be grounds for the disqualification
of the proposal.
The Proposer agrees that during the period beginning on the date of the issuance of this RFP and
ending on the date of selection of the Proposer, each person or entity described in the previous
paragraph has and shall limit his or her communication with City staff to the written clarification
and amendment process described in Section IV, and interviews or discussions pursuant to eval-
uation and selection process described in Section V. At no time has or shall this Proposer have
any communication with a member of the City’s Evaluation Committee, other than communica-
tion initiated by such member during interviews or discussions.
________________________________ _______________
Signature of Authorized Representative Date
____________________________________________
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative

Page 30 of 37
FORM D
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
A. If your organization is a corporation or a limited liability company, answer the following:
1. Date of incorporation/organization:
2. State of incorporation/organization:
3. Corporate ID number:
4. Agent for Service of Process:
5. Attach names, addresses and phone numbers of all Corporate Officers.
B. If your organization is a partnership, answer the following:
1. Date of organization/formation:
2. Type of partnership (if applicable):
3. Attach name(s), address and telephone number of general partner(s):
C. If your organization is individually owned, answer the following:
1. Date of organization:
2. Owner Name:
Address:
Telephone number:
D. Claims and Suits (Check the box if answer is “no”. If the answer to any of the questions
below is “yes”, please attach an explanation.)
 1. Has your organization ever been debarred or disqualified from bidding by any
state, county or local government agencies? If yes, please explain.
 2. Are there any judgments, claims, arbitration proceedings or suits pending or
outstanding against your organization or its officers?
 3. Has your organization filed any lawsuits or requested arbitration within the last
five (5) years?
 4. Have you or, if Proposer is a corporation, any principal of the corporation ever
been convicted of a felony? If your answer is “Yes”, please explain the details of that conviction
and, if so, whether you or said officer have served his or her sentence.
 5. Have you or your company ever been charged by any governmental agency for
failure to follow safety procedures? If so, please explain.
We/I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this day of , 20____
Name of Company:
By:
Title:

Page 31 of 37
FORM E
PROPOSER'S AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOLLUSION
I, ____________________________________ under penalty of perjury, state as follows:
1. That I am the ________________________ (Title of office if a corporation: "sole own-
er," "Partner," or other proper title) of __________________________________, (hereinafter
called "Proposer") who has submitted to the City of Glendale a Proposal for the Glendale Free-
way Ramps / Space 134 “Vision Plan” project;
2. That said Proposal is genuine; that the same is not sham; that all statements of fact therein
are true;
3. That said Proposal is not made in the interest or behalf of any person, partnership, com-
pany, association, organization, or corporation not named or disclosed;
4. That Proposer did not, directly or indirectly induce, solicit, agree, collude, conspire or
contrive with anyone else to submit a false or sham proposal, to refrain from proposing, or with-
draw his/her proposal, to raise or fix the proposal price of Proposer or of anyone else, or to raise
or fix any overhead profit, or any cost element of Proposer’s price or the price of anyone else;
and did not attempt to induce action prejudicial to the interests of the City of Glendale, or of any
other Proposer, or anyone else interested in the proposed Agreement;
5. That the Proposer has not in any manner sought by collusion to secure for him-
self/herself/itself an advantage over any other Proposer or induce action prejudicial to the inter-
ests of the City of Glendale or of any other Proposer, or anyone else interested in the proposed
Agreement;
6. That the Proposer did not, directly or indirectly, submit its proposal price or any break-
down thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulge information or data relative thereto, to any cor-
poration, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or
agent thereof, or to any individual or group of individuals, except to the City of Glendale, or to
any person or persons who have partnership or other financial interest with said Proposer in
his/her business.
We/I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this day of , 20____
Name of Company:
By:
Title:

Page 32 of 37
FORM F
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION STATEMENT
The Proposer hereafter described will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race/color, national origin, sex, sexual preference, religion, age, or hand-
icapped status in employment or the provisions of services.
________________________________ _______________
____________________________________________

Page 33 of 37
FORM G
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
Proposer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Glendale against and from any and
all damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, including employees or
agents of the City, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents,
and employees, from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, or proceedings of any kind or
nature, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting from or arising out of the negligent or
intentional acts, errors, or omissions of the Proposer or any of its officers, agents, or employees.
________________________________ _______________
____________________________________________

Page 34 of 37
FORM H (Sample)
PRICE & STAFFING PROPOSAL

Page 35 of 37
CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE FORM (Sample)

Page 36 of 37
Attachments
All attachments are available online for download at: http://www.space134.net/p/rfps.html.
1. Space 134 Vision Plan (2013)
o The Space 134 Vision Plan provides a conceptual master plan for a Space 134
Cap Park between Central Avenue and Glendale Avenue, preliminary structural
analysis, a preliminary cost estimate, and a description of potential funding
sources and strategies for implementing Space 134.
2. Space 134 Vision Plan Update (2016)
o The Space 134 Visions Plan Update provides refinements to the conceptual mas-
ter plan, notably trimming down the Space 134 Cap Park boundary to extend be-
tween Central Avenue and Balboa Avenue.
3. Space 134 Final Transit Recommendations Memorandum (2015)
o This memorandum, accompanying the 2016 Space 134 Vision Plan Update, in-
cludes a discussion of the role of transit within the project the Space 134 project;
draft recommendations for transit infrastructure and service associated with the
project; and transit-related next steps in the planning process.
4. Space 134 Conclusions on the Funding, Operation and Implementation of Space 134
Memorandum (2015)
o This memorandum, accompanying the 2016 Space 134 Vision Plan Update, pro-
vides a summary of the range of economic and social benefits that the new park
could generate; a preliminary assessment of capital and operational funding
strategies for the proposed Space 134 cap park based on national precedents and
best practices; a preliminary operating model for the park; and a series of best
practices for the implementation, governance and continued success of the park.
5. Space 134 Rough Order of Magnitude Statement of Probable Cost (2015)
o Provides cost estimates for constructing the Space 134 concept plan as illustrated
in the 2016 Space 134 Vision Plan Update.
6. Downtown Specific Plan (2006)
o The Downtown Specific Plan is a mixed-use, urban design plan that establishes
the desired physical vision for Downtown Glendale through a clear and compre-
hensive set of policies, incentives, and requirements.
7. Caltrans Transportation Concept Report State Route 134 (2002)
o This document is an internal Caltrans planning tool intended to provide an initial
look at developments within State Route 134 over the next twenty years. Its identi-
fies "need" – the difference between forecast demand and capacity – by docu-
menting current conditions, by contrasting projected future demand with planned
facilities (capacity), and by proposing future development alternatives to address
the shortfalls between demand and capacity.
8. Consultant Insurance Requirements
o Details insurance limits required of the selected Consultant for the Scope(s) of
Work outlined in this RFP.
9. Information Sheet – Campaign Finance Ordinance
10. Sample Professional Services Agreement – Architect Engineer Surveyor
11. Sample Professional Services Agreement – NonArchitect NonEngineer NonSurveyor

Page 37 of 37
12. Form B. Proposer Contact Information
13. Form D. Statement of Qualifications
14. Form H. Price & Staffing Proposal (MS Excel)
15. Disclosure – Campaign Finance Ordinance – CONTRACTS

Space 134 - RFP for Glendale Freeway Ramps/Vision Plan

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (11)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (19)

Ähnlich wie Space 134 - RFP for Glendale Freeway Ramps/Vision Plan

Ähnlich wie Space 134 - RFP for Glendale Freeway Ramps/Vision Plan (20)

Mehr von Community Development Department-Glendale, CA

Mehr von Community Development Department-Glendale, CA (12)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Space 134 - RFP for Glendale Freeway Ramps/Vision Plan