260000000451 Q & A Document.docx

Question and Answer Document RFP 260000000451

1. Question: Project Scope: Please clarify which installations are included in the scope of work? In the background section of Scope A – Professional Services, 4 installations (including GLAAF in Grand Ledge) are named plus 37 armories located across the state. Schedule B - Pricing, does not include a price for the GLAAF in Grand Ledge, but it does include “Michigan Minus – Armories”. The included Attachment B spreadsheet lists 37 armories (113 buildings) which include the GLAAF. Please clarify what installations are to be included in the first pricing item for the IEWP for “Michigan Minus – Armories”?

Answer: “Attachment B – IEWP Building Audit List” of the RFP has the breakdown. There are 37 armories on 35 sites. Grand Ledge has two which one we call the armory and the other we call an army aviation support facility (AASF). Selfridge has two armories One is called Selfridge AASF and Selfridge Facilities Maintenance Shop (FMS).

1. Question: Level of Technical Depth: For Phases II and III, what level of technical analysis is expected for resilience alternatives? Specifically, should bidders assume screening-level conceptual evaluation, or more detailed modeling and engineering sufficient to directly support capital funding submissions?

Answer: This should be a screening-level conceptual evaluation that determines cost effective (SIR over 1.25) or close to cost effective (SIR over .75) measures that could be implemented.

1. Question: Microgrid Planning Expectations: The SOW requires identification of plans to implement microgrids where applicable and sustain critical missions for 14 days. Should bidders assume development of conceptual one-line diagrams and preliminary sizing analyses, or narrative-level planning recommendations?

Answer: For Camp Grayling, Fort Custer and Joint Forces Reserve Center a narrative level planning would be required. For the armories, a one-line diagram would be sufficient even at critical sites.

1. Question: Site Visit Requirements: Should bidders assume in-person site assessments and stakeholder workshops are required at all four primary installations and each of the 37 armories, or is a tiered approach (e.g., full engagement at major installations and standardized or remote engagement for smaller armories) acceptable?

Answer: A tiered approach would be best as the armories will be lumped under one umbrella (Michigan Minus) with a lower requirement than the three other installations. It would probably be best to hold one overall stakeholder meeting for all 4 installations and then meet with maintenance mechanics or DPW staff during on-site visits for more specific information.

1. Question: Existing Data and Prior Studies: Will DMVA provide access to prior energy studies, utility data, contingency plans, facility condition assessments, and installation development plans at the outset of Phase I? If not, should bidders include time for independent data acquisition and validation?

Answer: The DMVA will provide the previous IEWP that were completed previously.

1. Question: Armory Scope Consistency: Are the 37 armories expected to receive the same level of analysis and deliverable detail as the four primary installations, or is a streamlined IEWP format anticipated for smaller facilities?

Answer: The 37 armories are included under the Michigan Minus installation. At the stakeholder meeting we will reverify the Critical facilities list. This list will require the full 14-day operation requirement whereas the other armories will not have this requirement.

1. Question: Building Audit List Clarification: The IEWP Building Audit List references additional support sites. Should bidders assume all listed facilities require on-site audit-level data collection, or is representative sampling acceptable?

Answer: Representative sampling is ok for the support buildings since all sites will have similar style buildings.

1. Question: Schedule Feasibility: Given the 120-day audit completion requirement and 180-day draft IEWP delivery timeline, will delivery orders be issued concurrently for all installations, or staggered over time?

Anwer: Initial thought was to release concurrently but can work with contractor on whichever works best for the study and both parties and decide during the kickoff meeting.

1. Question: Pricing Structure Clarification: Schedule B groups pricing for “Michigan Minus – Armories.” Should bidders submit a single bundled price for all armories, or would the State consider alternate pricing structures that reflect variations in facility size and complexity?

Answer: One fixed final price for each installation is requested. If for each building an individual price is formulated based on size and complexity, then tabulated at the end to provide total this is acceptable. An addendum changing attachment B will be provided with a column for site pricing (use rev 1 document when bidding), total pricing can be carried over to Schedule B.

1. Intended Use of IEWPs: How does DMVA intend to use the completed IEWPs (e.g., internal planning, legislative funding requests, federal grant submissions, or direct transition into design and implementation efforts)? These reports get pushed to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) for verification and approval. This report once approved becomes justification for energy conservation and resiliency projects over the next 5 years.

1. Do all stakeholder meetings need to be on site to discuss mission, contingency plans, and mission critical facilities and loads or can some be conducted virtually? Stake holder meetings can be conducted virtually