082609 Addendum 1 Contractor FINAL.pdf

STATE OF COLORADO

DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

Purchasing and Contracts 6848 South Revere Parkway Centennial, Colorado 80112 Phone (720) 250-1542 Fax (720) 250-1579

ADDENDUM #1

PROJECT 082609

BID # RFQ1 2026*046

Pueblo Master Plan

Questions received from Contractors that attended the MANDATORY Pre-Bid Meeting:

1. Appendix A (pp. 11-12) within the RFQ appears to contain evaluation criteria that differ from those listed in RFQ Section X, Evaluation of Qualifications (pp. 7-9). Examples include Energy Modeling Capability, Experienced Commissioning Similar Facilities, and several Project Approach evaluation factors that are shown in Appendix A but not Section X, and vice versa. Since Section VIII requires firms to organize qualifications in accordance with Appendix A, and indicates that submissions will be ranked using the Appendix A evaluation form, should respondents use Appendix A as the primary basis for their response organization and content, and consider Appendix A to supersede the evaluation criteria described in Section X where differences exist? ANSWER:

• Include requirements in X. EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS and

APPENDIX A1: PREQUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL EVALUATION FORM

2. Appendix D, Scope of Work requires a life-cycle cost analysis of each alternative. As this is a master planning effort rather than a facility design project, can you please clarify whether the life-cycle cost analysis is expected and what variables/systems you would like us to look at? ANSWER:

• Rather than performing the exact math for a building that hasn't been designed yet, the Master Plan will define when the LCCA will be conducted based on planned construction and evaluate the alternatives on upfront costs (site prep, utility runs, paving, stormwater), site dispersion efficiency, and sustainability efficiency based on the alternatives.

3. We would like to know if an Environmental Report will be submitted by you before the submittal deadline? ANSWER:

Jared Polis Governor

Major General Robert B. Davis The Adjutant General

• We have a geotechnical report and Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS), Pueblo West Parcel, Colorado COARNG if requested. The files are too large to email or post, so contact Samuel.d.vanzant.nfg@army.mil if you need a copy.

4. RFP Section VIII. Submittals of Qualifications, Part 2.a. identifies the following order for submissions: “A cover letter addressed to the DMVA outlining the firm(s) qualifications is required at the front of the submittal, the attestation next, followed by submittal documents.” Part 2.e. states “Complete and execute the Appendix C: Acknowledgment and Attestation Form and submit at the back of the Qualification Submittal.” Which location would DMVA like offerors to include the executed form? ANSWER:

• Place after cover letter before submittal documents.

5. Appendix A1: Prequalification Submittal Evaluation Form under evaluation criteria 2.

Firm/Team Capabilities, “Energy Modeling Capability” is listed. However, RFP Section X Evaluation of Qualifications Part A.2 does not include this requirement. Will offerors be evaluated on “Energy Modeling Capability”? ANSWER:

• Firms will be scored in APP A1, the Master Plan should evaluate conceptual designs (analyzing solar/wind orientation, building envelope materials, and lighting) to optimize efficiency.

6. Appendix A1: Prequalification Submittal Evaluation Form under evaluation criteria 3.

Prior Experience, “Experience commissioning similar facilities” is listed. However, RFP Section X Evaluation of Qualifications Part A.3 does not include this requirement. Will offerors be evaluated on “Experience commissioning similar facilities”? ANSWER:

• Commissioning will be scored in APP A1, but at a lower weight since we are not in the design of the projects. By incorporating Commissioning into the Installation Master Plan, DMVA planners ensure that individual construction projects operate together as a unified, resilient, and efficient facilities.

7. Appendix A1: Prequalification Submittal Evaluation Form under evaluation criteria 6.

Work Location, “Understanding of project locations impact on system performance” is listed. However, RFP Section X Evaluation of Qualifications Part A.6 does not include this requirement and instead includes “Knowledge of the local labor and material markets”. Which will offerors be evaluated on? ANSWER:

• “Understanding of project locations impact on system performance” will be scored as geographic locations effects efficiency and availability of systems. Knowledge of local labor and material markets will be looked at if included, but will not be scored.

8. Appendix A2: k. USGBC LEED criteria- basic planning-level recommendations based upon UFS 2-100-01 Appendix B LEED-ND Checklist? Is there a CO state requirement for LEED analysis beyond federal? ANSWER:

mailto:Samuel.d.vanzant.nfg@army.mil

• While both frameworks share a 5,000-square-foot size threshold, Colorado’s HPCP is significantly more stringent in its certification targets (demanding LEED Gold vs. the federal target of LEED Silver). Explicitly state the certification baseline for all future projects. If state funding might be used (triggering HPCP), mandate LEED Gold, Green Globes (Three Globes), or equivalent. If strictly federally funded, establish the baseline at LEED Silver or compliance with the Federal Guiding Principles. For the Master Plan we will outline LEED Silver requirements for the Maintenance shop since it is 100% Federal and over 5000 SF. The readiness center will require the more stringent requirements since there is a State of Colorado funding share.

9. Appendix A2: o. Utilities Assessment- Does COARNG have the existing utilities locations, sizes, etc for new site? ANSWER:

• COARNG has an ALTA Site Survey indicating existing utilities, but a detailed assessment of utility requirements has not been conducted or documented.

10. Appendix A2, Section 3: Certification requirements. Certification requirements for LEED or historic preservation. Are there any known historic preservation considerations (i.e.

Historic Districts/Neighborhoods, National Monuments, etc)? ANSWER:

• Although there are over 60 Major National Registry properties in Pueblo County, our site is not included on any Historic Preservation, Architectural, Archeological or Paleontology areas. We will verify with coordination with History Colorado (the State Historic Preservation Office).

11. Appendix A2, Section 3: Environmental Conditions. Has COARNG conducted NEPA for the anticipated MILCON? If so, will NEPA documents be provided? If not, when will they pursue the process? ANSWER:

• We have a geotechnical report and Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS), Pueblo West Parcel, Colorado COARNG if requested. NEPA for our FY31 FYDP project will not be funded until 2028.

12. MILCON for Readiness Centers requires a 25% state match. Has CO DMVA requested the capital construction appropriation from the legislature? If so, how much? If not, is there a plan to do so or is that dependent upon the proposed phasing of this plan?

ANSWER:

• The planned Readiness Center has not been approved for FY34 and is being submitted for “SoftLock” consideration Feb 2027. The current 25% amount for this project is $10,213,000 with $40,850,000 total cost. State funding will not be requested until the project is on the FYDP.

13. Would the state contribute additional funds for non-federal requirements during either MILCON (state offices, state maintenance, CFMO storage, conference spaces, museum annex, etc)? ANSWER:

• Rarely, competing/ requesting for State funds beyond the required 25% state share for Readiness Centers is often not supported.

14. Has CO DMVA determined the sequencing of the two facilities: Construct VMS first (100% Federal 2085 funds), followed by RC (75% Federal 2085 funds, 25% State match)? ANSWER:

• Correct, the VMS/ FMS is on the FYDP for FY31 and we should have initial design authority this fall. DMVA is competing the Readiness Center for FY34 construction.

15. For the requirement that 80% of the workforce be Colorado labor, how will the evaluation team determine the 80%? Will it be personnel, labor hours, dollars, or something else? ANSWER:

• According to C.R.S. § 8-17-105, compliance with the 80% threshold is calculated as a percentage of the total taxable wages and fringe benefits paid to all workers employed directly on the project.

• Definition of "Colorado Labor": To count toward the 80% portion of the payroll, a worker must satisfy the statutory definition of Colorado labor: an individual who is a resident of the state of Colorado at the time of employment

• The Compliance Threshold: At least 80% of the total compensation (wages and fringe benefits) paid on the job must be paid to qualifying Colorado resident.

16. Is there any concern with one proposing entity winning all three opportunities as long as the offeror can show the capacity to manage all three concurrent projects? ANSWER:

• No concern

17. The minimum qualifications reference utilizing expertise present in the firm's Colorado office. May key personnel be located outside Colorado provided the project is managed through a Colorado office and substantial project work is performed by Colorado-based staff? ANSWER:

• The Compliance Threshold: At least 80% of the total compensation (wages and fringe benefits) paid on the job must be paid to qualifying Colorado resident. It does not specify whom can be located outside of Colorado.

18. Does the contracting office have additional instruction for firms submitting as a Joint Venture? ANSWER:

• One firm must be listed as primary

19. Does the contracting office require an Acknowledgement and Attestation Form for both firms within a Joint Venture? ANSWER:

• Primary firm will submit all required forms and documents including the Acknowledgment and Attestation.

20. Will the evaluation team/ contracting office release the weights per section of the Prequalification Submittal Evaluation Form? ANSWER:

• Yes, based on a planning project and not a construction project, the weights will reflect.

21. Within Tab 1, the evaluators will score the experience on projects as a team. When submitting a proposal with partners and subconsultants, does that history mean between these partnered/sub firms or between the key personnel? ANSWER:

• Both will be considered, but will be weighed less than Capabilities during scoring.

22. Additionally in Tab 1, there is a scoring line for on-site presence. Will the government elaborate on the requirement for on-site presence and how it plans to evaluate this aspect of master planning? ANSWER:

• We will look for in person collaboration (charettes, sync meetings, periodic in-person milestone meetings). Usually outlined in the project approach.

23. Due to the proximity of the addendum release with the answers to the questions and the due date for proposals, will the contracting office please extend the due date an additional week to allow offerors the ability to adjust proposals? ANSWER:

• No additional time will be afforded

24. Within Tab 3, the evaluation team is looking for demonstrated success on past projects of similar scope and complexity. Will the government please confirm that federal and non-federal projects are equally suited to meet this requirement, as long as firms can show expertise with the applicable UFC and NG PAMs? ANSWER:

• Confirmed, please use projects that best support showcasing your firms capabilities. Para X,3. States “Demonstrated success on past non-DMVA projects of similar scope and complexity.” DMVA being Department of Military Veterans Affairs, any other Federal or State projects are acceptable. If a DMVA project is the only projects you can showcase, please include them.

25. Also, within Tab 3, for references, can the government confirm that POCs with proper contact information for previous projects will satisfy maximum scoring or would the government prefer Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) as well? ANSWER:

• POCs with proper contact information will be sufficient.

26. Within Tab 4, there is a lot of required narrative regarding cost, quality, and scheduling but not a lot on the actual planning. Can the government add a section to the project approach on the technical plan on the execution of the master planning? ANSWER:

• We will follow the process outlined in Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 2-100- 01 (Installation Master Planning) as much as possible and modify based on existing information with the awarded firm:

• Phase 1: Establish the Baseline (Where Are We Now?)

• Phase 2: Formulate the Vision (Where Do We Need to Go?)

• Phase 3: Hold the Design Charrette (Build Consensus)

• Phase 4: Finalize & Approve (Get the Leadership and NGB approval)

• Phase 5: Implement & Operationalize

• Phase 6: Review & Refine

27. Within Tab 5, the RFQ states to describe how your team attempts to partner with SDVOSBs and HUBZones. Can the government confirm that this is a requirement of the firm always and not just for this proposal? In other words, there is not a requirement to bring in those entities within this proposal, but the evaluators want offerors who regularly successfully partner with such entities. ANSWER:

• Key term is “Attempts”. We will look for a history or a summary of how your firm attempts or does include Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses or historically disadvantaged businesses

28. Will asked and answered questions from the Mandatory Pre-Submittal Conference and Tour also be published within the addendum? ANSWER:

• No, as stated during the Mandatory Pre-Submittal Conference and Tour, all questions and answers during that meeting are unofficial. Questions submitted in accordance with solicitation instructions and answers issued in this format are official and published in Addendum 1.

29. Will the government release the attendees of the Mandatory Pre-Submittal Conference and Tour? ANSWER:

• Yes, find attached in Addendum #1.

Attachments:

Addendum #1 Pre-Bid Sign in Sheet APP A1 Example of Weighted Evaluation Form

End of Addendum