Nogales CPC - Solicitation RFI Log - Responses Ammend 0001 Final.xls
XLS spreadsheet 52 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 47PA0321R0005
About this file
This document contains a solicitation for design-build construction services for renovations to a Border Patrol facility in Nogales, Arizona. The solicitation is issued by the General Services Administration on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security for a project that will renovate approximately 78,000 square feet of existing warehouse space into a Centralized Processing Center. The renovation will include administrative offices, processing and holding areas, restrooms, and upgrades to utilities and stormwater management infrastructure. The delivery method is design-build, with proposals due on January 15, 2021. Firms must meet minimum experience requirements and provide past performance information for at least three similar projects with satisfactory ratings. Joint ventures are permitted but both partners must be registered in SAM by the proposal deadline. The value of the contract is estimated between $25-30 million.
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
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
RFI LOG
| GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION | ||||
| Special Programs Divisions | ||||
| Building 41, Denver Federal Center | ||||
| Denver, Colorado 80225 | ||||
| RFI Log - Solicitation 47PA0321R0005 Nogales CPC | ||||
| Project: | Nogales CPC D/B | |||
| Location: | Nogales, AZ | |||
| RFI # | RFI Question | Response By | RFI Response | |
| 1 | In the Access Control portion it says to reference page 83 for the approved vendors list. Would you be able to send me that so I can see if Hirsch/Identiv is on the list? I appreciate your consideration and time. | The vendor list will be provided to offeros that are shortlisted for Phase II. Please respond only to the Phase I portion of this solicitation on or before 15 jan 2021. | ||
| 2 | There is some odd scheduling relating to the Pre-Proposal Conference and the actual Due Date of the Phase 1 proposals (see below). Please clarify if these dates are correct. A 15 January due date seems abnormally aggressive for the Government. Maybe the dates had mistakenly been reversed? | Overton Spence | Phase I is due 15 Jan 2021, the Pre-Proposal Site Visit is tentatively scheduled for 12 Feb 2021. Contractors will not have a site visit before Phase I proposals are due. Only contractor’s shortlisted from Phase I will receive an invite for Phase II and the Pre-Proposal Site visit. | |
| 3 | Are Mentor-Protégé Small Businesses allowed to Propose on the project? | Overton Spence | Yes | |
| 4 | Are offerors required to show past experience for both JV partners or just the partner who can meet the Past Experience and $35M Bonding Capacity requirements? | Overton Spence | Submit the past performance that makes the best case for your firm to be awarded this project. Past performance of a subcontractor you are planning to use would not be considered relevant unless it is work that the bidding firm performed or supervised. If you are submitting as a Joint Venture, then a subcontractor relationship does not exist. In the case of a Mentor-Protégé JV a LB and SB have partnered and made a new company. All past performance of that new company is relevant. If you have a Teaming Agreement then that is a subcontractor relationship with a prime contractor; again the past performance of your subcontractor within the teaming agreement is not relevant unless it is work that the bidding firm performed or supervised. | |
| 5 | Is the Government only looking for past performance projects from the Design-Build Contractor? Are there any past performance requirements of the Lead Designer? | Overton Spence | The Lead Designer is a member of the Design Build contractor team, the Past Performance is one and the same. Factor 1 is the DB contractor (broad) Factor 2 is specificly considering the qualifications of the Design-Build Project Manager. | |
| 6 | What is the minimum and maximum amount of past projects the DB Contractor can provide? | Overton Spence | Minimum and maximum page numbers for each Factor within the solicitation have been provided. Please keep your proposal within those limits. There is no limit on the amount of past projects the DB can provide. This solicitation is requesting a minimum of 3 projects are submitted for past performance. | |
| 7 | Is the Government looking for (3) people “references” for each project or is the Government referring to (3) “references” as actually meaning (3) projects? | Overton Spence | Offeror’s shall provide (3) references as in 3 Projects with at least one reference (person) from the customer. | |
| 8 | Is there a particular form you would like us to use in providing this information? | Overton Spence | No | |
| 9 | Are we to provide our CPARS reports with our proposal? | Overton Spence | You are permitted to provide your CPARS report. | |
| 10 | Is there a particular resume form you would like us to use in providing this information? | Overton Spence | No | |
| 11 | Please clarify is the Government looking for projects only the Design-Build Contractor has performed, or performed only with the Lead Designer (Architect) or will past projects with other subcontractors also be acceptable? | Overton Spence | Factor 1 considers the Past Performance of the DB Contractor (Company X). Factor 2 considers the experience of the DB Project Manager (Ms/Mr Doe). | |
| 12 | It is noted to provide “at least 3 projects”. What is the maximum amount of projects we can provide in this Factor? | Overton Spence | Minimum and maximum page numbers for each Factor within the solicitation have been provided. Please keep your proposal within those limits. There is no limit on the amount of past projects the DB can provide. More project of similar size and complexity will be viewed more favorably than fewer projects of dissimilar size and complexity. | |
| 13 | Please indicate which Factor we shall insert the following requested commitments and clarify if these letters of commitment count against the maximum page count in that Factor: 1.Proposal contains a commitment to keep the evaluated Design Team intact through the entire design phase. 2.Proposal must commit that design drawings and/or construction documents will be prepared by professional architects and engineers registered in the state of Arizona. | Overton Spence | Please submit this as a part of the Go/No-Go section of the Phase 1 Solicitation. No these will not count against any Page Numbers. | |
| 14 | 1. As a “small business set-aside” with a project size of between $25 - $30 million, it would be difficult for any small business to be able to meet many of the proposal technical requirements for Past Performance. The Solicitation section II.E. Requirements of Joint Venture Offerors (page 7 of 17) addresses joint ventures but does not address a “Teaming Agreement” between a small business and a large business. For proposal evaluation purposes, will the GSA recognize Teaming Agreements between a small business and a large business in order to meet the size requirements of the RFQ, or must this relationship be in the form of a Joint Venture? | Overton Spence | Please refer to the respose for question 4. | |
| 15 | If a Joint Venture is required, would the GSA consider removing the Proof of SAM Registration for Joint Ventures from the Mandatory “go/no-go” Requirements for Phase 1 submittal and move that requirement to Phase 2 submittal. The process of setting up a JV and getting it registered in SAM can take up to two weeks during normal times. During this time of COVID and the resulting slowdown of government, not to mention the Christmas/New Year holiday, getting this done by the January 15 deadline could be problematic. | Overton Spence | A Joint Venture is NOT required. If a DB Offeror chooses to offer as a Joint venture then they must show evidence that they have submitted their JV Agreement to the SBA on or before 15 Jan 2021. Additionally, both Firms that are forming the JV must be registered in SAM and eligible to do business with the government indivudually on or before 15 Jan 2021. | |
| 16 | If a Joint Venture is required, would the GSA take into consideration that both JV partners are registered in SAM if the JV is still in process of being registered in SAM when evaluating the Phase 1 Mandatory “go/no-go” Requirements? (Note: it has been our experience that JVs must be “official” and registered in SAM by the time of award.) | Overton Spence | Please refer to the respose for question 15. | |
| 17 | The Solicitation appears to be missing Pages 15 of 17, 16 of 17, and 17 of 17. Please provide the information from these pages. | Overton Spence | This is a Typo, the Phase 1 Solicitation only has 14 Pages. | |
| 18 | Please confirm that this project will take place on land owned by the Federal Government. Will contractors/subcontractors be required to hold licensing from the state of Arizona? | Overton Spence | This is a DB Project, the government requires all contractor provided AE design/ engineering personnel who are stamping drawings to be licensed in AZ. No state construction permitting is required except for work that will have an impact on city owned utilities and perhaps site stormwater diversion. Please pay special attention to the portion of the SOW that describes how this project will impact those items. | |
| 19 | Regarding Factor 1 – Past Performance, the Solicitation states that the standard may be met when, “… The Offeror’s performance ratings on one or more similar projects exceed “satisfactory” in one or more categories measured?” Will Past Performance Questionnaires be required to be submitted for past projects? If so, can the GSA please provide these forms. | Overton Spence | Past Performance questionnaires must address the salient points of this project. The government will provide questionnaires for optional use. The contractor is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided. The contractor is responsible to ensure that all salient points of this projects are addressed with the past performance questionnaire. | |
| 20 | Requirements for Joint Venture Offerors (page 8 of 17) requires that past performance information must be submitted for each member of the Joint Venture. We request that the page limit for Factor 1 – Past Performance be increased in order to accommodate past performance information from both members of the JV / Teaming Agreement. | Overton Spence | The page limit for factor 1 is hereby increased from 9 pages to 15 pages. | |
| 21 | ||||
| 22 | William barnes | |||
| 23 | ||||
| 24 | ||||
| 25 | ||||
| 26 | ||||
| 27 | ||||
| 28 | ||||
| 29 | ||||
| 30 | ||||
| 31 | ||||
| 32 | ||||
| 33 |
&L&"Arial,Bold"Printed on &D&R&"Arial,Bold"Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .