140FGA24R0006_Lake_Andes_DB_amendment_1_Q_and_A_0001.pdf
PDF 74 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Lake Andes NWR Design Build Bunkhouse
- Solicitation number
- 140FGA24R0006
About this file
This document is an amendment to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Design-Build project to construct a bunkhouse facility at the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge. The amendment provides answers to several questions from potential offerors, including extending the Phase I proposal due date by one week to July 12, 2024, clarifying that sister-company project experience can be used, and increasing the page limit for the Technical Approach section from 5 to 10 pages. The amendment also confirms that Past Performance Questionnaires are not required for Phase I, and that a minimum of 3 relevant project examples from the collective design and construction team are required, not 6 individual projects. The solicitation is being issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Solicitation Number 140FGA24R0006.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
140FGA24R0006 Lake Andes DB amendment 1
Phase I Response Due Date extended. New due date: 10 am CST – July 12, 2024.
Questions and Responses:
1. We respectfully request a two-week extension due to the Holiday. We have many participating employees on vacation the entire week.
ONE WEEK EXTENSION TO 12 JULY 2024 WILL BE ISSUED
2. May we use our sister-company projects as part of the three similar projects with similar complexity?
A SISTER COMPANY'S EXPERIENCE CAN BE USED, IF THAT COMPANY IS AN
INTEGRATED PART OF THE PLANNED PROJECT TEAM, FOR THE DURATION OF
THE PROJECT
3. When you say team members responsible for design and construction, do you mean designer needs to provide three projects and contractor needs to provide three projects?
A MINIMUM OF THREE PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED, IT IS BEST IF THE DESIGN
TEAM AND CONSTRUCTION TEAM HAVE COLLABORATED ON AT LEAST ONE.
4. Would the Government please consider a short extension to move the due date of the proposals for Phase I away from the Federal holiday of July 4?
ONE WEEK EXTENSION TO 12 JULY 2024 WILL BE ISSUED
5. This is a D-B project covering multiple facilities. Would the Government please consider expanding the page limitations on the Technical Approach section to 10 pages (currently 5) to allow offerors to more clearly address all of the complexities of the effort and associated timelines?
A MAXIMUM OF 10 PAGES FOR THE TECHNICAL APPROACH IS ACCEPTABLE
6. Is there a size limitation on attachments to emails? If so, and the offeror’s proposal exceeds the size, may multiple emails be sent, provided it is very clear what is being submitted?
CONSIDER PROVIDING A LINK TO ALLOW USE OF FILESHARE OR IF MULTIPLE
EMAILS ARE SENT, ENSURE YOU HAVE A CLEAR SUBJECT LINE FOR EACH
EMAIL.
7. If the offeror is a joint venture, is there any additional substantiation documentation to be submitted in Phase I (e.g. JV agreement).
YES PLEASE.
8. Please confirm Past Performance Questionnaires are not required as part of Phase I, Evaluation Factor 2, but may be submitted if an offeror chooses.
A PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE IS NOT A REQUIRED PAST
PERFORMANCE DOCUMENT FOR THIS SOLICITATION. PLEASE SUBMIT THE
REQUIRED DOCUMENTS ONLY.
9. The solicitation, Section L, p 50, indicates “The team members responsible for the design and construction of this project shall provide 3 projects in the past 5 years constructed within similar scope, schedule, and budget limitations.”.
Please confirm this requirement is for three projects in total representing the capabilities of the collective Design-Build team and not three projects from each team member (i.e. Design Team and Construction Team) for a total of 6 (or more) projects.
THREE PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED, IT IS BEST IF THE DESIGN TEAM AND
CONSTRUCTION TEAM HAVE COLLABORATED ON AT LEAST ONE. SIX
PROJECTS ARE NOT REQUIRED.
10. Although RFI are requested to be sent to Mark Tapp, and Ian Young, offerors are instructed to send their proposal response to Ian Young and/or Ryan Boisvert.
Please confirm this is the intent and that Mark Tapp is not to be included in the response submission.
MARK TAPP IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RESPONSE SUBMISSION.
OFFERORS MUST SEND THEIR PROPOSAL RESPONSE TO IAN YOUNG AND/OR
RYAN BOISVERT. RECOMMEND "AND" RYAN BOISVERT.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .