0001 Attachment 1 - RFI Tracker - Milwaukee.docx

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND

Confirmed.

This time frame is not entirely known now. For planning purposes, an estimate of within 3 weeks.

Technical Question 1 – Factor 2: Technical Qualifications, Identify a List of Team Qualifications, Solicitation page 11:

In Factor 2, both “Lead MEP Engineer” and “Lead Electrical Engineer” are identified. “Lead MEP Engineer” covers multiple unique engineering disciplines, including mechanical and electrical. Please confirm that the intent for "Lead MEP Engineer" is “Lead Mechanical Engineer”, and electrical will be covered under “Lead Electrical Engineer”.

Phase I, Factor 2 Technical qualifications is revised to the following: “

· Design-Build Project Manager

· Construction Project Manager/Site Superintendent

· Onsite Quality Control Specialist

· Lead Architect

· Lead Civil Engineer

· Lead Structural Engineer

· Lead MEP Engineer/ Mechanical Engineer

· Lead Electrical Engineer

· Lead Controls Engineer

· Lead Startup Testing & Commissioning Engineer

· Fire Protection Engineer”

This change allows for either a mechanical engineer or a MEP engineer to be submitted for the criteria.

Technical Question 2 – Factor 2: Technical Qualifications, Identify a List of Team Qualifications, Solicitation page 11:

Factor 2: Technical Qualifications call for a “Lead MEP Engineer” and “Lead Controls Engineer” and note that dual hatting will not be allowed. The control design typically falls under the mechanical engineer’s scope. Will it be acceptable for the Lead MEP engineer to fill the role as Lead Controls Engineer?

No. The Technical qualifications call for the following.

· Design-Build Project Manager

· Construction Project Manager/Site Superintendent

· Onsite Quality Control Specialist

· Lead Architect

· Lead Civil Engineer

· Lead Structural Engineer

· Lead MEP Engineer/ Mechanical Engineer

· Lead Electrical Engineer

· Lead Controls Engineer

· Lead Startup Testing & Commissioning Engineer

· Fire Protection Engineer”

Technical Question 3 – Factor 2 Technical Qualifications, Solicitation page 11:

In Factor 2, two (2) pages are allowed for each requested team member resume. Given the size of the Design Build Teams including members of the Designer of Record's Team and the Construction Team, two pages per resume will take up a significant amount of the overall thirty-five (35) pages limit, which is potentially approximately twenty-two (22) pages. Please confirm if the resumes pages count toward the overall page limit.

Yes, resume pages will count toward the overall page count of thirty-five (35) pages.

Technical Question 4 – Factor 3 Past Performance / Design-Build Team Experience, Solicitation pages 12-13:

Factor 3 requires offerors to provide at least two and no more than three recent projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to Project 695-24-101. The criteria also state that, for offerors lacking relevant past performance history, information may be submitted regarding predecessor companies, subcontractors, and/or key personnel who have performed on other contracts.

Because this is a design-build procurement, successful performance depends on both the construction prime’s ability to execute the work and the Designer of Record’s ability to design a fully functional, constructible, maintainable chiller plant that can be procured, phased, commissioned, and turned over within the required performance period.

Please confirm that the Government will allow an offeror to submit one of the required two to three Factor 3 past performance projects based on the experience of its proposed Designer of Record or major design subcontractor, provided that:

1. The Designer of Record is committed to the offeror’s proposed design-build team for this procurement;

2. The project involved design of a fully functional chiller plant or central utility plant similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude to Project 695-24-101;

3. The submitted narrative clearly explains the Designer of Record’s role, responsibility, scope, and contribution to successful project performance;

4. The offeror still submits at least one project completed by the Prime, as required by Factor 3; and

5. The offeror provides CPARS, PPQ, or other owner/customer past performance documentation to the extent available for the submitted project.

This clarification will help offerors present the Government with the most relevant design-build team experience for this procurement, rather than limiting the assessment to construction-only references where the solicitation’s successful performance requirements include both design and construction of the new chiller plant.

The solicitation allows offerors who lack relevant past performance history to supplement their submission with information from predecessor companies, subcontractors, and/or key personnel who performed on other contracts.

As of the publication of Amendment 0001 This allowance is not limited solely to construction subcontractors and therefore includes design professionals when their experience is relevant to the requirements of this procurement.

Accordingly, an offeror may submit one of the required two to three past performance projects based on the experience of its proposed AE designer or major design subcontractor, provided that:

1. The AE designer is formally committed to the offeror’s proposed design-build team for this project.

2. The submitted project involved design of a fully functional chiller plant or central utility plant, and is similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to Project 695-24-101.

3. The past performance narrative clearly identifies the AE designer specific role, responsibilities, scope, challenges addressed, and contribution to overall project success.

4. At least one submitted project was completed by the Prime Contractor, consistent with Factor 3 requirements.

5. Applicable CPARS, PPQs, or other owner past performance documentation for the DOR’s project is provided to the extent available.

Technical Question 5 – Factor 3 Past Performance Magnitude Threshold for Chiller Plant Projects, Solicitation page 12:

Factor 3 states that submitted past performance projects must demonstrate construction of a fully functional chiller plant similar in size, scope, complexity, and magnitude to Milwaukee VAMC Project 695-24-101, with each submitted project having a total value exceeding $20 million.

Please clarify whether the Government will consider recent VHA or Federal healthcare chiller plant projects with an original contract value below $20 million to be relevant where the offeror demonstrates that the project is otherwise highly similar in scope and complexity to Project 695-24-101.

Many recent VHA chiller plant projects involve smaller plant tonnage than large commercial district-energy systems and were awarded before the significant post-2020 escalation in mechanical equipment, electrical gear, materials, and labor. As a result, the historical awarded value of a recent VHA chiller plant project may materially understate the present-day replacement value of the same scope. A project below $20 million may still demonstrate directly relevant experience in constructing a fully functional chiller plant, including chilled water generation, cooling towers, pumping systems, hydronic piping, electrical infrastructure, controls integration, site development, demolition, utility tie-ins, phasing, commissioning, and work within an active healthcare campus.

Accordingly, please confirm whether the Government will accept and evaluate chiller plant projects with original contract values of $10 million or greater, provided the offeror’s narrative demonstrates that the project is similar in plant type, delivery method, system capacity, technical complexity, phasing requirements, active-facility constraints, and present-day replacement value.

This clarification would allow offerors to submit the most technically relevant VHA and Federal healthcare chiller plant experience, rather than substituting less relevant projects that exceed $20 million primarily due to broader scope, unrelated building work, or non-healthcare market conditions Factor 3 specifies that each submitted past performance project must have a total value exceeding $20 million and must demonstrate construction of a fully functional chiller plant similar in size, scope, and complexity to Milwaukee VAMC Project 695‑24‑101.

Projects under the $20 million threshold will still be evaluated, but it may be a weakness due to the magnitude requirement.

Offerors without relevant past performance or for whom past performance information is not available cannot be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for this Factor.

The VA 3rd Cx Agent review will be allowed (in real-time and post-occurrence) to work in collaboration with the Contractor, AE, and Startup Test Cx personnel.

Offerors are advised to search the combined project specifications for a significant number of ‘Commissioning’ and ‘Cx’ references.

A revised statement of work reflecting this change will be issued to contractors participating in Phase II.

The VA 3rd Cx Agent review will be allowed to happen in real-time and post-occurrence in collaboration with the contractor, AE, and your startup test Cx personnel. Feedback by this VA ‘over the shoulder’ 3rd Party Cx Agent will occur either through or with VA oversight and approval.

Offerors are advised to ‘search’ project specifications for a significant number of ‘Commissioning’ and ‘Cx’ references and addressing how Offeror’s and VA Cx Agents shall collaborate together.

During the “off-season” the installation of a new three-way valve is expected to have no impact on critical path schedule, taking a few days to install and test.

No matter the time of the year, the newly started & tested Chiller Plant can then be tied into the Main Hospital at this three-way (flanged/capped) valve having no expected impact on schedule. Final Cx to occur only after full integration and functionality with the hospital is installed fully tested and documented.

Upon demolition of the old Chillers, the three-way (flanged/capped) valve remains available as back-up for potential future use by temporary Chillers. The old Chillers and any above grade footings are to be demo’d.

Final startup, testing, & Cx of the integrated chilled water system and Plant to occur during the appropriate time of year and under loaded conditions.

An Offerors Phase II submission will be scored based on the methodology identified in the RFP. Qualifications of the Consultant are further defined in this spec section.

B.2 PM shall be dedicated to this project alone – which dictates being onsite.

C.4 Superintendent(s) shall be dedicated to this project alone -which dictates being on site.

D.4 QCM/CPM shall be onsite when work is being performed.

E.2 SSHO shall be dedicated to this project alone – which dictates being onsite.

It is expected that all other members of the Project Management Team Memo are to be available onsite (so as not to affect schedule) when technically specific work is being performed or relevant questions arise related to that SME.

The Offeror will submit for VA review/approval a Management Team Memo and Project Schedule to ensure that the appropriate SME Team Member will be onsite for a particular SME tasking.

image1.jpeg