RFI Q and A - CUP Phase I.pdf

1. Please confirm that CPARS submitted in response to the Past Performance requirement do not count against the page limit for Phase I Proposals.

Response: Correct, CPARS do not against the page limit.

2. Do resumes of key personnel count against the page limit for Phase I proposals?

Response: Yes.

3. Will the page limit to Phase I Proposals be increased?

Response: Yes. Attachment J.4 resume template requires 2 pages; therefore, the Phase I Proposal page limit is increased to 60 pages. See revised Section L.

4. Phase I, Factor I indicate a required minimum bonding capacity of $575.2M. The basis of evaluation on page 145 of the RFP indicates a minimum bonding criterion of $150M. Please confirm the minimum bonding capacity that should be noted in the surety letter.

Response: The minimum bonding criteria is $575.2M. See revised Section M.

5. Is the use of the “Resume Form for Key Personnel” (included in Attachment J) required for Phase I key personnel resumes? If so, please confirm the page limit for resumes in Phase I will be extended to two pages to fit this template.

Response: See response to Question No. 3.

5. Page 121 of the solicitation (Phase I, Factor 3, Section 1.g.i) specifies that Project Data Sheets shall not exceed four pages total per project. Are these forms also included in the total page count / limits of the response?

Response: Yes, they are included in the total Phase 1 Proposal page limit.

6. Please confirm the Project Labor Agreement (Phase II, Factor 7) is to be submitted prior to award and may be finalized after the Phase II selection. Please confirm an executed PLA is not required with the Phase II proposal submission, if selected to proceed.

Response: Confirmed. The PLA is required in RFP for Phase II.

7. Phase 1, Factor 2: Design Build Approach (page 118, paragraph 1) – Please confirm that required key personnel resumes are NOT counted towards the 50-page limit.

Response: See response to Questions No. 2 and No. 3

8. Phase 1, Factor 3: Technical Qualifications (page 121, paragraph g.i) – Please confirm the required project data sheets are not counted towards the 50-page limit.

Response: Project data sheets count toward the page limit.

9. Phase 1, Factor 3: Technical Qualifications: Past Performance (page 122, paragraph a.i) – Please confirm that it is the government’s intent to have new past performance questionnaires (PPQs) submitted with the Phase 1 proposal and not sent directly to the government from the reviewing client.

Response: Past Performance Questionnaires shall come directly from the reviewing client to the Government POC. See Revised Section L.

10. Phase 1, Factor 3: Technical Qualifications: Past Performance (page 122, paragraph d) – Please confirm that the required explanation of corrective actions related to past projects submitted is not counted towards the 50-page limit.

Response: Any explanation of correction actions will not count towards the 50-page limitation.

However, explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

11. Phase 1, General Instructions: please confirm cover pages and tabs are not counted towards the 50-page limit.

Response: Cover pages and tabs do not count toward the page limit.

12. Solicitation Reference(s): Relevant Cybersecurity Documents/Links, NIST SP 800-53, "Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations, I.106 52.244-6

SUBCONTRACTS FOR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

(OCT 2025) & I.12 52.204-2 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS (MAR 2021).

Does NIST contemplate that the contractor will be required to access and control FCI and/or CUI under performance of this contract? Please clarify specifically which Federal Cyber Security requirements the awarded prime contractor and its subcontractors will be bound to. Is FAR 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems (NOV 2021) considered the minimum cyber security requirement or will the provisions of NIST SP 800-53 LOW BASELINE requirements apply?

Response: Contract documents (drawings, specifications, submittals, RFIs, etc.) shall follow FAR 52.204-21. However, the control systems that are part of the CUP modernization must comply with NIST SP 800-53.

13. Is AEI prohibited from pursuing the NIST project due to their involvement in the project’s preliminary work?

Response: See response to question 21.

14. Does the Government intend to revise the proposal-related dates, including the submission deadline, to accommodate the release of the finalized RFP?

Response: See Amendment.

15. When does the Government anticipate releasing the final RFP?

Response: See Amendment and response to Question 27.

16. The RFP, POR, and supporting documents only specify historic preservation requirements for the exterior, site, and landscape, and contain little to no specific requirements or references regarding the interior of the CUP complex as a historic resource. While the A/E guidelines indicate that certain building interiors are reviewed and approved at various stages by the NIST Architectural Design Review Board (ADRB) and the NIST Federal Preservation Officer (FPO), the buildings referenced in this RFP do not seem to have historic structure reports. The “Architectural Approach” section does not make special mention of interior historic finishes, partition layouts, or the need to preserve/conserve/restore existing interior features for historic reasons. Interior spaces do not seem to be flagged as historic or protected, nor are special preservation approaches, design, or review/approval steps required for interior modifications.

Please confirm that there are no historic preservation requirements for any of the interiors related to this project.

Response: The area of historic significance for the CUP is only the building exterior, views from other buildings, and view from public ways. Interior spaces of the CUP do not have historic preservation requirements.

17. I'm reaching out in regard to the modernization and expansion of the NIST Central Utility Plant project currently being advertised to see if there's any way to get involved as a subcontractor. We are a professional utility locator and would be interested in providing our services as required in the site civil utilities scope. I look forward to hearing from you.

Response: The sign-in sheet for the site-visit held during 12/11/25, will be posted to SAM.gov.

Please note that the government cannot establish subcontractors with prime contractors.

18. Please consider an extension for the Phase 1 proposal from the current date to January 9, 2026, to account for proposal preparation over the holiday period.

Response: See Amendment.

19. Please reference page 117 of 150 and page 144 of 150 of the solicitation regarding the importance of the other non-price factors, Factor 2 and Factor 3. On page 117, the solicitation states Factors 2 & 3 are of equal importance. On page 144, the third paragraph states all other non-price factors are listed in descending order of importance and then states they are of equal important in the last sentence of the page. Please confirm for the phase 1 evaluation, Factor 2 and Factor 3 will be evaluated of equal importance.

Response: Factors 2 & 3 are of equal importance for Phase 1. See revised Section L.

20. Please reference page xxx and page 145 of the solicitation regarding the minimum value the offeror has the ability to obtain. Page 118 within the Phase I, Factor 1 – Bonding Capacity states

Offerors must demonstrate the ability to achieve both performance and payment bonding capacity at a minimum amount of $575.2M for the project. Page 145 within the Phase 1 – Basis of evaluation states a Surety letter will be evaluated to ensure that the offeror has the ability to obtain a minimum bonding value of $150M for both performance and payment bonds if awarded the contract. Please confirm offerors are to demonstrate the ability to achieve both performance and payment bonding capacity at a minimum amount of $575.2M for the project.

Response: See response to Question 4.

21. Can the Government provide a list of Architect-Engineer (A/E) firms that are precluded from competing on this solicitation?

Response: No. The Government cannot provide a list of Architect-Engineer (A/E) firms that are precluded from competing on this solicitation. Eligibility determinations are fact-specific and may involve procurement-sensitive, proprietary, or legal considerations. As a result, providing such a list could be inaccurate, unfair, or misleading, and the Government does not make or publish advance determinations of ineligibility outside the established procurement process. - FAR 36.209 — Construction Contracts with Architect-Engineer Firms. Refer to Section L, Limitation of Future Contracting.

22. Will the Government accept previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires, or must new questionnaires be completed specifically for this solicitation?

Response: Previously completed PPQs may be submitted. The Government reserves the right to verify PPQs as part of its evaluation as noted in Section M, for Phase 1, Factor 3.

23. Under Section #1, Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, regarding the projects described in item b. on pages 120–121 of the RFP: a. Must both referenced projects be either steam generating plants or electrical substations serving a campus or multiple buildings?;

b. Additionally, must both projects also meet one of the criteria listed in items i.–iv?

Response: See revised Section L.

24. Is submission of SF 1442 required for Phase 1 of this procurement?

Response: Yes

25. Are Representations and Certifications required to be submitted as part of the Phase 1 submission?

Response: No, Phase 2 only.

26. Regarding the Substation:

a. What software is used to monitor the substation?

Response: Eaton Foreseer

b. What is the amount of power coming in and out?

Response: Refer to pg 37, e. Electrical Substation of CUP POR for details: The present capacity of the switchgear is 112.5 MVA total / 75 MVA firm with a future expansion of 150 MVA / 112.5 MVA with the installation of a fourth transformer. The present campus peak demand load is 31 MW / 34 MVA. Power coming into Pepco Transformers is 69-kV and output to substation is 13.8-kV.

c. Is all piping underground?

Response: All site conduit and ductbank is underground. Runs from Pepco transformers to substation is above ground.

27. Confirm the draft solicitation is for "informational and planning purposes only" and you're looking for comments on it by December 30th, not the formal Phase I proposal.

Response: Per this amendment: the Phase I submission deadline will change to 1:00 PM ET on 01/08/2026 and this solicitation is no longer considered a “Draft” as a result of this amendment.

See updated notice on SAM.gov for this amendment.

As such a formal Phase 1 proposal is required by 1:00 PM ET on 01/08/2026.

28. LEED Certification Level Discrepancy: Attachment F1 explicitly states that "LEED Silver certification from the USGBC/GBCI shall be achieved" and that point totals must meet the Silver threshold. However, the NIST Program of Requirements (POR) referenced in other sections indicates a target of LEED Gold. Please clarify which LEED certification level is the contractual requirement for the CUP Modernization to ensure the technical approach aligns with the correct sustainability target.

Response: See Revised SATOC SOW, Task Order SOW, and Attachment F1.

29. Phase II Pre-Proposal Presentations: Please advise whether the Government anticipates meeting with Design-Build teams prior to the formal Phase II RFP submission date to preview their prospective approach and design solutions. This would significantly reduce performance risk to NIST and ensure responsive proposals are received.

Response: Shortlisted vendors will be given an opportunity to submit questions during Phase 2.

30. Conflict in Visitor Badge Duration Limits: Primes will likely look to limit the use of visitor badges, however, attachment G (NIST PR 2401.01) states that "In the same year, a person may visit a NIST campus a maximum of ten times". Attachment A (Guidelines) states the Visitor Pass is available for "14 campus visits in 365 days". Please clarify which limit applies.

Response: 14 campus visits in 365 days is correct. See revised attachment G NIST PR 2401.01 with issue date of 09/19/2025.

31. Attachment F2 - Section 011000, Paragraph 3.5.C.1; Attachment A - Guidelines for Contractors, Section 39: Section 011000 requires the submission of "One full size complete set of drawings in 4 mil Mylar double matt drafting film" for As-Builts. However, Attachment A requests "hard copies on Arch D". Mylar is an increasingly obsolete and costly medium that does not enhance the utility of the record documents given the requirement for electronic native files (Revit/CAD). Will the Government accept standard bond paper hard copies or strictly digital deliverables in lieu of Mylar for the final As-Builts?

Response: Referenced section of the attachment allows for other reproducible formats to be proposed to the COR. Standard bond would be acceptable. Digital copies of as-bults are also required in Attachment F2, 011000,3.5,C, 2 & 3.

32. Clarification of Scope for Site Restoration and Pre-Existing Subsurface Debris:

• Attachment A, Section 31 states: "Upon completion of all contract work, the contractor shall restore the entire construction site to its original condition. This shall include removing all debris and stones of 2 inches or larger from the subsoil to a depth of 8 inches below the finished grade, regardless of the site's pre-existing condition." Given the duration that the NIST Gaithersburg campus has been active, it is highly probable that the subsurface soil in designated laydown and work areas contains legacy rubble, natural stones, or debris from previous decades of campus development.

• The phrase "regardless of the site's pre-existing condition" appears to transfer 100% of the risk for remediating these unknown legacy subsurface conditions to the Contractor, even if the Contractor's activities (e.g., placing a construction trailer or staging material) did not generate or disturb the subsurface debris. Requiring the Contractor to screen and export soil to a depth of 8 inches across acres of laydown area to remove pre-existing stones or rubble introduces a significant and unquantifiable cost driver for a Firm-Fixed Price task orders. This requirement effectively turns a standard site restoration task into a subsurface soil remediation project.

• Recommendation: Update Attachment A, Section 31 to state: "The contractor shall remove all construction debris and stones of 2 inches or larger generated by the Contractor's operations from the subsoil to a depth of 8 inches..." Alternatively, please establish a Unit Price Allowance for the removal and export of pre-existing subsurface debris encountered during site restoration to ensure fair and reasonable pricing.

Response: See Revised Attachment A.