082613 - 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 082613

BID # RFQ1 2026*0043

Statewide Real Property Development Plan

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

1. 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.

2. 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 Area Development Plans should evaluate conceptual designs (analyzing solar/wind orientation, building envelope materials, and lighting) to optimize efficiency.

3. 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 RPDP, DMVA planners ensure that future planned construction projects operate together as a unified, resilient, and efficient facilities.

Jared Polis Governor

Major General Robert B. Davis The Adjutant General

4. 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.

5. Appendix D2: Is the term “Architectural Theme Study” equivalent to “Installation Planning Standards?” Is further analysis of surrounding military/non-military architecture styles required? Is it fair to assume the enclaves at Fort Carson and USAFA must support host installation planning standards? Can all other DMVA sites will be lumped into grouped planning standards based upon architectural styles? ANSWER:

• Enclaves (Buckley SFB, Peterson SFB, Ft. Carson, and Air Force Academy) will need to adhere to their specific Installation Planning Standards. All other sites have flexibility on architectural styles based on local/ state governance and guidelines yet adhering to government requirements for Facility type and location.

6. Appendix D2: Environmental Baseline Survey for proposed construction. Can you better define this requirement? Is planning-level analysis sufficient? ANSWER:

• Most sites have a completed EBS and NEPA. These documents will be requested and provided by the DMVA environmental section. We will work with DMVA environmental to develop a planning level EBS for any proposed projects.

7. Has COARNG conducted NEPA for any proposed construction? If not, are there plans to do so or is it dependent upon the phasing of this plan? ANSWER:

• NEPA funds are executed five (5) to two (2) years prior to the project construction start date. Funding requirements are also worked through the States’ Environmental Condition Property (ECP) Program.. Currently, Westminster Readiness Center (FY31 construction) is the most recent NEPA. For any planned construction, we will project the NEPA completion date for the project.

8. Appendix D3: Jurisdiction approvals and site access. Are there any known issues that would complicate access or approval in any jurisdiction or at any installation?

ANSWER:

• DMVA can assist in access to State and Federal facilities. Firms can pre-register in DBIDS via the DBIDS Visitor Enrollment System (DVES) available at https://dbids-global-enroll.dmdc.mil.

https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdbids-global-enroll.dmdc.mil%2Fpreenrollui%2F%23%2Flanding-page&data=05%7C02%7Csamuel.d.vanzant.nfg%40army.mil%7Ccb23b032e9604dfe575a08dd2f5350a2%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638718757498484008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=A2ph%2BqyTi%2Fw9QHLeK33C9y95rO1EwjKcKynoLgBtVUE%3D&reserved=0

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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.

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

• One firm must be listed as primary

13. 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.

14. 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 this.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 allowed

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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:

1. Real Property Database (RPDB) Validation (what we have where, RPLANS/ ASPIRE validation)

2. Space Utilization & Miss ion Gap Analys is (who is there and how much are deficient or exces s , how old are the facilities , dives ture planning)

3. Stakeholder Charrettes & Area Development Planning (ADP) TAG Vis ion

4. Infras tructure, NEPA Planning, & Commiss ioning (Cx) Integration

5. Capital Inves tment Strategy (CIS) & Phas ing (50 year plan)

6. Finalize & Approve (Get the Leadership and NGB approval)

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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 Weighted Evaluation Form

End of Addendum