082615 Addendum 1 RFQ 2026-0045.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 082615

BID # RFQ1 2026*0045

Master Plan for JFHQ

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

1. 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.

2. 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 concerns

3. 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:

Jared Polis Governor

Major General Robert B. Davis The Adjutant General

• 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.

4. Does the contracting office have additional instruction for firms submitting as a Joint

Venture? ANSWER:

• One firm must be listed as primary

5. 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.

6. Will the evaluation team/ contracting office release the weights per section of the

Prequalification Submittal Evaluation Form? ANSWER:

• Yes and will be published in Addendum 1.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 extension will be granted

10. 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 are the only projects you can showcase, please include them.

11. 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.

12. 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?) TAG/ Leadership interviews- previous Master Plan Review 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

13. 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

14. 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.

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

• Yes, find attached in Addendum #1.

16. 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, but either is acceptable.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 effect efficiency and availability of systems. Knowledge of local labor and material markets will be looked at if included, but will not be scored.

20. Appendix D2: Validate as-built floor plans. Statement indicates that “Accurate floor plans exist for these facilities.” The validation of as-builts is focused on use per the nine

(9) data elements listed, not for architectural accuracy. The later paragraph includes updating existing CAD drawings for window locations and door swings. Are as-built updates required? ANSWER:

• As-builts will not require updating. Existing space usage, SF, and tenants was mapped in the 2016 Master Plan and recently updated. If the approved COA includes keeping the existing facilities, we will require updated plans.

21. Appendix D2: Helipad. What information exists for the helipad located at the nearby municipal Centennial Airport? Does this master plan address anything beyond requirements analysis for the helipad? ANSWER:

• We will assess the potential of including a limited use helipad per UFC 3- 260-01 as authorized by NG PAM 415-12 para 2-4(2) for JFHQs. (Information from Centennial Operations) Centennial Airport (KAPA) features a dedicated concrete helipad designated as H1, 24-hour helicopter services are coordinated via the local helicopter FBO (The Heliplex). The airspace at KAPA is Class D, underlying the busy Denver Class B airspace (which begins at 8,000 feet). The nearest non-airport helipad is located at HCA Health one Centennial Emergency Room ,1 mile away. The COARNG has landed military aircraft at Centennial Airport in the past including ceremonial events at Wings Over the Rockies Museum.

22. Appendix D2: Review/Incorporation of existing drainage features, utility infrastructure, and topographic info. Has an ICAM been conducted for utilities? Are GIS files for utilities accurate and updated? Has survey been conducted on the site? If so, are these documents available? ANSWER:

• GIS files will be provided to the awarded firm. An ICAM has not been conducted for physical or cyber vulnerabilities.

23. Appendix D2: Relevant soils and geologic info. Have borings been conducted to include soils analysis? If so, are these documents available?

• DMVA will provide a soils study by Terracon completed in 2003.

24. Appendix D2: USGBC Leed criteria for new construction. Is planning-level checklist analysis sufficient? ANSWER:

• Yes

25. Appendix D2: Assess utilities. Has an ICAM been conducted for utilities? Are GIS files for utilities accurate and updated? Has COARNG considered following this plan with condition and capacity assessments? ANSWER:

• GIS files will be provided to the awarded firm. An ICAM has not been conducted for physical or cyber utility vulnerabilities.

26. Appendix D Section 3: Concept Design. Does CO DMVA have guidance on the use of federal and state programs for the proposed construction? Are there existing 1390/91s for any new construction? Are there any state capital construction studies or designs? Is CO DMVA considering a mixture of Federal MILCON and State CAPCON, a singular program, or is it dependent upon the phasing of this plan? ANSWER:

• DMVA will adhere to the 75% Federal/ 25% state share for JFHQ MILCON construction as it will be CATCD 17142- National Guard/Reserve Center Building. We have a 1390/91 for current stationing at JFHQ but will create a new 1390/91 based on the approved COA and stationing plan. Awarded firm will be provided previous Master Plans that identified the then approved COAs for capital construction projects.

Attachments:

Addendum #1 Pre-Bid Sign in Sheet Weighted Evaluation Form

End of Addendum