Requests for Clarification and Interpretation for Madawaska LPOE (2020 11 10).xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 585 KB Posted

Attached to
Madawaska Land Port of Entry Design Build Bridge, Maine
Solicitation number
47PB0020R0055
Issued by

About this file

This solicitation notice is for a Design Build Bridging (DB-B) contract for the design and construction of a new United States Land Port of Entry (LPOE) facility in Madawaska, Maine.

The General Services Administration (GSA) is seeking a Design Build team to complete the design using bridging documents developed by a bridging architect. The team will develop final construction documents and execute construction of the approximately 76,717 square foot LPOE facility. The new facility will replace an existing 1959 LPOE and include a Main Port Building, Commercial Inspection Building, and primary and bypass inspection lanes. The project is estimated to cost between $30-50 million.

The new LPOE must be completed upon opening of a new international bridge over the St. John River connecting Madawaska, Maine and Edmundston, New Brunswick in November 2023. The bridge project is being conducted separately by the Maine Department of Transportation. The solicitation encourages small business participation and specifies a NAICS code of 236220 with a $39.5 million small business size standard. The selection will be based on technical and price factors using best value tradeoff procedures according to FAR Part 15.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
DB101-Bridging (Aug 2020) ME-Madawaska New LPOE REVISED 2020 11 10.pdf PDF
DuboisKing Standard Pen Plot Style - RFP Amendment 0004 20201110.zip ZIP file
REV 1_A-109 - MPB RCP Lvl 2.pdf PDF
SF30 Solicitation 47PB0020R0055 (Amendment 0004).pdf PDF
REV 1_A-108 - MPB RCP Lvl 1.pdf PDF
REV 1_L-101 Site Layout.pdf PDF
Owners Project Requirements Volume 1 - RFP Amendment 0004 20201110.pdf PDF
Madawaska Design Build SOW - RFP Amendment 0004 20201110.pdf PDF
REV 1 APPENDIX_L_Site Security and Fence Diagram.pdf PDF
DB201A-DE-Bridging (Jul 2020) ME-Madawaska New LPOE (Amendment 0004) 2020 11 10.pdf PDF
SF30 Solicitation 47PB0020R0055 (Amendment 0003).pdf PDF
Copy of DuboisKing Standard.zip ZIP file
Requests for Clarification and Interpretation for Madawaska LPOE (2020 10 30).xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
COBIE EXAMPLES.zip ZIP file
DB201A-DE-Bridging (Jul 2020) ME-Madawaska New LPOE (Amendment 0003) 2020 10 30.pdf PDF
MetricClassWaiver FY21 Design and Construction Program.pdf PDF
DB101-Bridging (Aug 2020) ME-Madawaska New LPOE REVISED 2020 10 29.pdf PDF
CIO_P_2181.1_Homeland_Security_Presidential_Directive-12_Personal_Identity_Verification_and_Credentialing_-_10-20-08)_(Revised_10-5-2015).pdf PDF
Madawaska Preproposal Conference Slides.zip ZIP file
Madawaska Preproposal Conference Movies.zip ZIP file
Madawaska Virtual Pre-Proposal Meeting Table of Contents.pdf PDF
Madawaska Preproposal Attendance Sheet.pdf PDF
2018 P100 Addendum_0.pdf PDF
SS 01 - Future Grading Plan at New Bridge Landing.pdf PDF
SS 01 - Existing Site at New Bridge Landing.pdf PDF
Madawaska Virtual Site Walk Instrustions README.pdf PDF
SS 02 - Existing LPOE and Bridge.pdf PDF
DroneDeploy - Digital Terrain Model Exports.zip ZIP file
DroneDeploy - Elevation Orthomosaic and Plant Health Exports .zip ZIP file
DB201A-DE-Bridging (Jul 2020) ME-Madawaska New LPOE (Amendment 0002) 2020 10 19.pdf PDF
US Customs and Border Protection Non-Disclosure Agreement Form.pdf PDF
SF30 Solicitation 47PB0020R0055 (Amendment 0002).pdf PDF
OPR Volume 4 Appendix F.zip ZIP file
SF30 Solicitation 47PB0020R0055 (Amendment 0001).pdf PDF
Madawaska New LPOE Discipline Revit Files 1 of 3.zip ZIP file
OPR Volume 4 Appendices A-E.zip ZIP file
OPR Volume 4 Appendix G.zip ZIP file
DB201A-DE-Bridging (Jul 2020) ME-Madawaska New LPOE (Amendment 0001) 2020 10 07.pdf PDF
OPR Volume 4 Appendices H-Q.zip ZIP file
DBA WD ME20200006 Aroostook County dated 2020 09 18.pdf PDF
SBU Document Security Request for Construction Documents FORM B1.pdf PDF
PBS Past Performance Questionnaire (2014-07 Rev_2015-06).docx DOCX document
Model Subcontracting Plan Template (Updated Apr 2020).pdf PDF
SOW Standards and Criteria Attachments.zip ZIP file
Madawaska Design Build SOW_20200909.pdf PDF
SF24-16d.pdf PDF
C301 (Aug 2020) ME-Madawaska New LPOE 2020 09 30.docx DOCX document
DB101-Bridging (Aug 2020) ME-Madawaska New LPOE 2020 09 30.pdf PDF
DB201A-DE-Bridging (Jul 2020) ME-Madawaska New LPOE 2020 09 30.pdf PDF
GSA527-15e.pdf PDF
Show 40 more

Latest 50 of 52 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.

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

Master RFI Form (253 RFCs)

Date: 10/30/2020GSA DBB Solicitation RFCs for New Madawaska Land Port of Entry, Madawaska, Maine
#Requestor's Document, Section, Page ReferenceRequest for Clarification (RFC)Image attached to RFCRFC Response
1It appears there is no set aside requirement listed in the description but there are multiple references through the documents to NAICS code 236220 with a small business standard of $39.5 million dollars. Can you clarify whether this is a small business project or if it is open to all contractors?This is a full and open competition. As the request alludes to, there are differences in the solicitation and potential agreement for Small Businesses.
2Agreement, Section III.H(5)With the understanding that the current tenants are relocating from the building and the project will not be occupied by the Government for the majority of the Construction Phase, please confirm that only personnel performing work within the building after occupancy by the Government and/or those persons who are required to have PIV credential for GSA network access are required to complete security clearance submittals and obtain an HSPD-12 / EOD determination during the performance of the work.GSA initiates personnel investigations, adjudicates the results, and issues appropriate identity credentials to all its employees and contractors who require “routine access” to its controlled facilities and/or its information systems (Networks, electronic project management, BAS systems etc.). (2) Routine access is defined as regularly scheduled access. For example, a contractor who reports to the facility on a regular basis in the performance of ongoing responsibilities has routine access and a personnel investigation must be conducted. A contractor who is summoned for an emergency service call is not required to have a personnel investigation and is treated as a visitor. GSA contractors who require regularly scheduled access to one or more GSA-controlled facilities, even under multiple contracts, should be treated as having routine access to GSA facilities. GSA-controlled facilities are defined as occupied buildings housing Federal operations under space assignment by GSA. GSA-controlled facilities are leased or owned by GSA, and they may be “partially occupied” or “fully occupied” by Federal agencies. GSA-controlled space is any space in a GSA-controlled facility. The Contactor is in control of the facility until Substantial Completion. AMMENDMENT TO ADD THIS LANGUAGE TO SOW IS FORTHCOMING
3AgreementClauses are present within the Agreement affected by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. For example, 52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data. The Federal Acquisition Regulations currently provides for FAR 52.215-12 (Jun 2020), adhering the 2017 changes in law. Please confirm and/or advise whether the agreement will be amended to include 52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Jun 2020) in lieu of FAR 52.215-12 (Oct 2010) as well as other related clauses.The Form of the Agreement has been revised to include the updated clauses. See "DB101-Bridging (Aug 2020) ME-Madawaska New LPOE REVISED 2020 10 26.pdf".
4SOW, p. 10There is a requirement to provide a “box move” from the existing facility to the new one. Please provide a list of anticipated Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) (including end user agency(ies) anticipated to be managed and/or installed by Contractor under the scope of work. If not yet available, please provide an allowance value acceptable to the Government to carry for this scope of services.The box move will be handled by the GSA Furniture Vendor.

AMMENDMENT TO Remove THIS LANGUAGE TO SOW IS FORTHCOMING

5Is there a COBie template for this scope of work? If so, please provide it. If the template is to be proposed by Contractor utilizing GSA’s BIM Guide and Standards, please advise.The COBie- Information Delivery Plan (IDP) Template is provided in VOLUME 1 Owners Project Requirements & Division 1. AMENDMENT- ADDITIONAL COBIE TEMPLATE EXCEL SHEETS WILL BE ADDED TO THE SOLICIATION
63. Scope of Services, 3.1 Design SubmissionsThe scope of work includes Dr. Checks provisions for logging issues for resolution. Please confirm Dr. Checks is the intended platform for tracking design phase tracking issues and if so, clarify access provisions for Contractor to Dr Checks or confirm CMa will be responsible for updating Dr Checks. If an alternate platform is to be used, please advise.Dr. Checks access requirements are provided in Soliciation.

Dr. Checks acess will be available to DB Contractor. DB Contractor must use Dr. Checks during the design phase.

7 Within the “Owner+Project+requirements” secure download folder there is a file named “Owners Project requirements Volume 4” that indexes Appendices A - Q. The Volume 4 download includes only the index page text and does not appear to include the contents of Volume 4. Some of these items appear to be provided in other download folders, but they are not labeled, “Appendix C” , for example. Please provide all of the referenced Appendices information or modify the Appendices listing if the information is not to be provided.

VOLUME 4 APPENDICES

Appendix A Final Concept Report Appendix B Energy Model & Monthly Energy Consumption Appendix C LEED Checklist & SITES Scorecard Appendix D Maine DoT Coordination Items Appendix E Geotechnical Engineering Report Appendix F ESA Report Appendix G Art-in-Architecture Concept Appendix H Design Charrette with Room Tenant Notes Appendix I Program of Requirement (POR) Appendix K CBP Antenna and X-Ray Equipment Information Appendix L Site Security and Fence Diagram Appendix M Hydrant Flow Test Appendix N Hydrology Report Appendix O BIM Execution Plan (BEP) Appendix P Traffic Impact Assessment Appendix Q P100 Performance Matrix The referenced documents have been uploaded to beta.SAM as

• OPR Volume 4 Appendices A-E.zip

• OPR Volume 4 Appendices F.zip

• OPR Volume 4 Appendices G.zip

• OPR Volume 4 Appendices H-Q.zip 8 Secure file downloads. For the initial Solicitation documents posted on 10/3/2020, there are four (4) zip folders containing Revit files.

i. We understand that the folders labeled 1, 2 and 3 of 3 include the subconsultant Revit files; and

ii. The fourth folder contains the architects Revit files;

iii. Please confirm As with any “betaware”, beta.SAM contains a number of known and unknown bugs. GSA attempted to divide upload the documents within expected file size limitations of beta.SAM. Additionally, there is no way to create folders or packages in beta.SAM as there was in the legacy FedBizOpps (FBO.gov).

The first attempt to divide the revit files between “Main Architectural” and “Discipline” revit files; however the resulting “Discipline” .zip was still too large for beta.SAM and the content files were divided again alphabetically and in no other particular order.

The Government’s intention was to label and organize the files as logically as possible for prospective offerors, within the constraints of beta.SAM, however, it is still the responsibility of the offeror to coordinate and ensure that its relevant personnel, subcontractors, or consultants have the information they need for the offeror to put together its proposal.

To clarify the list of attachments on beta.SAM, the following is a list of the content files within these 4 revit zip files:

• Madawaska New LPOE Main Architectural Revit.zip

○ ME0052BM_A_BCD.rvt

• Madawaska New LPOE Discipline Revit Files 1 of 3.zip

○ ME0052BM_A_00-02_Prelim BCD.rvt

• Madawaska New LPOE Discipline Revit Files 2 of 3.zip

○ ME0052BM_BCD_ELECT_detached.rvt

○ ME0052BM_BCD_FP_detached.rvt

○ ME0052BM_BCD_MECH_detached.rvt

• Madawaska New LPOE Discipline Revit Files 3 of 3.zip

○ ME0052BM_BCD_PL.rvt

○ ME0052BM_S_ BCD.rvt

○ ME0052BM_SITE_BCD.rvt

○ RevitKeynotes_Imperial_2004.txt

○ RevitKeynotes_Metric.txt

9 Secure file downloads. The first Discipline Revit folder contains a subfolder named “Madawaska+ New+LPOE+Discipline+Revit+Files+1+of+3”, within this folder there is a file named “ Madawaska New LPOE Discipline Revit Files 1 of 2”. Please confirm the 1 of 2 is a mistake and that it should read “1 of 3” and the balance of the Revit files are in the 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 Revit folders. Correct. The .zip file "...1 of 3" was renamed but the folder within it was missed after discovering the second .zip file was still too large to upload to beta.SAM.

Beta.SAM has been updated.

10 Scope of Work, 2.5. Standards, Criteria Documents, Policy and Procedure Documents Within this section, several documents are refenced that either denote a hyperlink to obtain the information or “package attachment”. Several elements noted with “package attachment” are not included in the current solicitation group of documents. For example, the PBS-PQ260 Metric Design Guide – Section 412 Guidance document was provided as part of the solicitation documents. However, the GSA Metric Design Guide, CBP Signage Design_Standard_2016, CBP Land Port of Entry Design Standard (2018) and CBP Minimum Security Requirements (MSR) Guide were not. Please review the listed documents for inclusion and provide any missing information from the list within the SOW. The CBP LPOE Design Standard documents have been uploaded to beta.SAM as controlled documents. These files are For Official Use Only (FOUO).

In addition to the SBU Document Security Form (Request for Construction Documents Form B), prospective offerors are required to complete the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Non-Disclosure Agreement (uploaded separately to beta.SAM as ‘DHS-CBP NDA Form.pdf’) and return it to the Contracting Officer. Of the acknowledgements fields for Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII), Sensitive Security Information (SSI), and Other Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU), requestors need only initial the box for SBU at this time.

Note also, the GSA PBS-PQ260 is the GSA Metric Design Guide.

11Memo on 2018 P100 AddendumThe October 1, 2019 “Memo on 2018 P100 Addendum” references Attachment 1, however, we are unable to locate Attachment 1 to this memo and/or it is not clearly labeled. Please provide the missing Attachment 1 or clarify this item.The file '2018 P100 Addendum_0.pdf' has been uploaded to beta.SAM.
12The bridging documents are designed (and labeled) utilizing standard (SAE) units of measure. Please confirm this solicitation / project has a Metric waiver and that metric design and construction are not required as part of the performance of the work.GSA' has issued an FY-21 metric waiver which applies to Madawaska. A copy of the letter will be posted to Beta.SAM. Metric Design Guide Documents are not needed.

AMMENDMENT -Metric Waiver will be uploaded

13Solicitation, VI.A. Evaluation of OffersGiven the complexity(ies) associated with the performance of the work, including but not limited to: 1) the importance of delivering the work as part of maintaining national border security; 2) the location of the work and related logistical / annual climate factors and the associated risks to the Government; 3) the hard to measure value the Technical Factors represent for past performance and ability to limit risk to the Government and promote probability of success – will the Government consider amending item (4) of RFP section VI.A. Evaluation of Offers for the Non-Price Factors to be evaluated as “significantly more important than Total Evaluated Price?”The Government has already considered the 3 options from FAR 15.304(e) in relation to this project and solicitation.
14Solicitation, Section I.I Receipt of OffersRFP section I.I Receipt of Offers notes offerors shall submit one original, two hard copies, and two identical electronic copies (provided on separate thumb drives). It also states that email submissions will not be accepted. Due to the magnitude of the proposal effort, a Monday proposal due date, coupled with the increased possibility of delivery delays due to impacts of COVID-19, we request the GSA consider accepting electronic proposals via email. We have submitted solely electronic proposals for all GSA capital funded and IDIQ task order projects since the beginning of FY 20. If this is not acceptable, please consider accepting electronic proposals via email on the due date with hard copies to be received within 2 days of the due date.Amendment 0003 has extended the hour and date specified for receipt of Offers until Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 4:30 PM EST.
15Solicitation, Section V.DThe submittal requirements in for Factor 1 – Technical Qualifications in RFP section V.D Technical Proposal indicates projects must have been completed within eight years of submission deadline for proposals. GSA has delivered a limited number of design-build projects in the past eight years. Please consider an adjustment to the submittal requirements as follows: “Construction was substantially completed within eight years of submission deadline for proposals. Additionally, Offerors may submit one design-build project for which design is 100% complete and construction is a minimum of 50% complete as of the submission deadline for proposal.”No adjustment to the submital requirements has been made.
16Solicitation, Section V.DSubsection (1) of Factor 1 – Technical Qualifications / Subfactor B Past Performance indicates offerors are to submit completed PBS past performance questionnaires. Please consider allowing submission of CPARS in lieu of PPQ for projects having a CPARS.Use of the PBS Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is mandatory.
17Solicitation, Section V.DThe submission requirement for section (3) Construction Safety Performance History of RFP section V.D.(1)(b) Subfactor B Past Performance appears to contain conflicting information. Please confirm the requirement is for the Prime Contractor to provide the number of lost time accidents for the most recent 100,000 manhours of construction performed by the Prime Contractor, without regard to the past contracts submitted in this factor. As an alternative, the Government may wish to consider requesting the following information from offerors for the past three years: OSHA Days Away From Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Recordable Incident Rate (RIR). This information (DART and RIR), along with the Experience Modification Rate already requested in this section of the RFP, gives the Government detailed insight into the Offerors safety performance over the most recent three-year period, providing comprehensive information the Government can use to evaluate the likelihood of safe performance on the Madawaska project. As a large business contractor, our firm performs more than 6,000,000 manhours of work each year. The submission requirement of 100,000 manhours provides insight into less than one week of our performance. The statistical information (EMR, DART, RIR) suggested above is a more accurate measure of a contractor’s safety performance regardless of manhours worked.In Section V.D(1)(b)(3) of the Solicitation, "This information is required for the prime contractor and all subcontractors that worked on the past contracts" is in relation to the previous sentence: "Provide the number of lost time accidents for the most recent 100,000 man-hours of construction." The 100,000 man-hours of construction on past contracts in Section V.D(1)(b)(3) are not limited to the projects in Section V.D(1)(b)(1) or (2), but could include them.
18Solicitation, Section V.DSubsection (1) of Factor 3 – Management Plan notes offerors are to identify key subcontractors for the following engineering disciplines: mechanical, structural, electrical, and civil. Please confirm the key subcontractors for this RFP section are the consulting engineers who will provide engineering services as subcontractors to the Prime Contractor. The GSA has consistently held that these key subcontractors are the consulting engineers on several recent RFPs.At a minimum, the key subcontractors identified in response to Section V.D(3)(1) of the Solicitation should be the individuals and firms of the Engineer of Record for each of the Mechanical, Structural, Electrical, and Civil engineering disciplines, and in accordance with Section III.M(1) and (2) of the Agreement.

This clarification is not intended to preclude an offeror from identifying other key subcontractors (including architecture, engineering, or construction). Nor is it intended to preclude an offeror from including in its proposal an Engineer of Record that is staffed by the offeror or otherwise not a subcontractor.

19Solicitation, Section VI.BSection VI. B Non-Price Factors. As part of this FAR Part 15 procurement and the technical evaluation criteria for Factor 1 Technical Qualifications, will the Government give additional, favorable consideration for other, similar projects (in size, scope and complexity) that are land ports of entry, federal buildings, courthouses and/or other border security related projects?The Government will evaluate the factor in accordance with the Description and Submital Requirements outlined in Section V.D. and the Standard for Evaluation and Additional favorable consideration outlined in Section VI.B.
20Solicitation, Section V.ARFP section V.A Proposal Contents provides a very helpful organizational matrix of the various items to be submitted in response to the RFP. Considering the page limits for Factors 2 and 3, is it necessary for offerors to provide the tabs noted for each individual part? Our preferred approach would be to:

a. Factor 2 – include key personnel reference information on each resume, eliminating the need for a separate reference sheet.

b. Factor 3 – provide a combined 20-page narrative for this factor with easily identifiable sections for each item.

Please advise if this approach is acceptable.

It is necessary for offerors to provide the tabs noted for each individual part. As outlined in Section I.H of the Form of the Agreement, certain tabs will be incorporated as individual attachments to the Agreement.

21 Does Form B “Document Security Notice to Prospective Bidders / Offerors” need to be executed and sent in prior to allowing access to the controlled files? To clarify Section III.I of the Solicitation, Safeguarding and Dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Building Information, and Section III.H of the Agreement, Administrative Matters, the Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) Document Security Form (Request for Construction Documents Form B) is required for accessing the controlled files.

Section III.I of the Solicitation has been amended to state “Prospective Offerors must complete the SBU Document Security Form (Request for Construction Documents Form B) and provide the information/documents required therein to the Contracting Officer.”

22 Moving forward, is a Form B required for each and every sub consultant and or subcontractor working through us, or does our Form B cover all of our consultants? This is fully addressed in the SBU Document Security Form (Request for Construction Documents Form B) and Section III.H of the Agreement, Administrative Matters; however, of particular note—

• From the SBU Document Security Form (Request for Construction Documents Form B), “It is the responsibility of the person or firm disseminating the information to assure that the recipient is an authorized user and to keep records of recipients.”

• From Section III.H of the Agreement, Administrative Matters, “Contractors must maintain a list of all entities to which SBU is disseminated, in accordance with sections 2 and 3 of this clause.”

23 How do and to who should we send Form B and will this allow us access tot the controlled files? Completed SBU Document Security Form (Request for Construction Documents Form B) shall be sent to the Contracting Officer stated in Section I.D of the Agreement, Authorized Representatives.

Section III.I of the Solicitation has been amended to state “Prospective Offerors must complete the SBU Document Security Form (Request for Construction Documents Form B) and provide the information/documents required therein to the Contracting Officer.”

24Through Public Records it was noted that 170 Main Street in Madawaska, Maine, was acquired by the US government, and that the USA owned property Aztec building was acquired and removed.
Please clarify the following statement in Volume 1 Owner's Project Requrement's Design Intent Narrative, Site Acquisition, page 4. "Properties at 91 and 93 Vital Drive will be demolished under a separate GSA contract. After the U.S.A. acquires 170 Main Street & 180 Main Street (McDonald’s), it will turn the building and properties over to the DB for the project duration and demolition." And, will the DB Contractor be responsible for the removal of the Aztec building slab?Statement of work pg 9 and Volume 1 Owner's Project Requirements, Section 0010101 Design Intent Narratives, Site Acquisition, page 4. require correction.

Properties at 91 and 93 Vital Drive, 170 Main Street, and the USA Property Aztec building slab will be demolished under a separate GSA contract. GSA will be leaving the pavement it will need to be demoed by DB contractor.

After the U.S.A. acquires180 Main Street (McDonald’s), it will turn the building and properties over to the DB for the project duration and demolition."

AN AMENDMENT WITH THE CORRECT WORDING WILL BE PROVIDED

25Small Business Outreach Event: There is currently a Small Business Networking event planned for October 14, 2020 following the virtual site tour. We regularly work with GSA’s OSBU and also regularly host and support small business networking. Unless there is a specific commitment GSA has to small businesses for this particular event and timeframe (ie presenting a status update to the community and interested small businesses only, and not networking), we recommend consideration for postponing small business outreach until after award is made. This is primarily due to feedback we have received from many small businesses (especially following COVID-19 and virtual meeting platforms) where 1) the small businesses are often confused (even at in person events) by who to “connect” with; 2) what the process is (given the Design Build nature of this project – many small businesses interested in the work don’t fully understand the design phase duration prior to construction phase start; 3) they don’t feel as though competing prime contractors are as open with the small businesses as what they could be because competition is “in the room” together; 4) for a design build project where the scope of work is yet to be developed there is ambiguity in what opportunities may exist for interested small businesses; 5) they have shared they don’t want to “waste their time” when they can have a more meaningful interface with the awarded firm in the future.We encourage all potential primes to regularly work with GSA’s OSBU. GSA is committed to supporting the Small Business Program, and the OSDBU Virtual Networking Meeting will be held as scheduled. GSA intends to send out a market research survey for feedback on how to make the next OSDBU Networking Event even more successful, should the need to host virtual events continue.
26Small Business Outreach Event: If the Small Business Outreach Event is to be held on October 14, 2020 as planned for 3 hours , please provide the overall agenda (including all time slots) for the event, expectations of all attendees , especially competing prime contractors and any information necessary to assure the event is of value to attending small businesses and so that prime contractors can appropriately prepare for any presentation or other interface expectations. If the GSA OSBU is going to utilize virtual meeting rooms, please advise and also share what platform will be used. If virtual meeting rooms are used, we strongly recommend an RSVP platform be set up as soon as possible in advance of the meeting date / time. An alternative solution to holding the meeting near term could be to share prime contractor contact information with all interested small businesses.See response to #25.
27Specification Section 01 14 00, 1.1, B, 1, b.Specification Section 01 14 00, 1.1, B, 1, b. notes acquisition of several parcels of property is still underway. Please clarify via site plan the parcels that have not yet been acquired. Also, please provide the anticipated date GSA expects to acquire these parcels.93 Vital is owned and vacated. 170 Main Street is owned and will be vacated on or about Nov 30, 2020. 91 Vital will be owned (and vacated) on or about Dec 31, 2020. 180 (McDonalds) will be owned and vacated May 31, 2021, Note that at USA Site, Twin Rivers continue to access and occupy the truck storage area under a license. License requires 60 day notice to terminate (vacate); now set to terminate on March 19, 2021.

AN AMENDMENT WITH THE CORRECT WORDING WILL BE PROVIDED to section 011400.

28 Please identify all areas where the project scope of work (e.g. Art in Architecture, utility tie-ins, bridge abutment / apron, etc) where work is to be performed on other than federal property. If no work will be performed off federal property, please advise. If there is to be work performed off federal property please share all communications, efforts, MOUs and other matters affecting performance of that affected work. Work to be done off of federal property by the LPOE DB Contractor includes re-routing electrical power lines which transverse the site, tie-ins to utilities, and paving to connect to existing roadways (e.g., Main St. and Mill St.).DB will be responsible for designing the sidewalk on Main Street, paving on the bridge as noted in Voume1.

Clarification TO BE ADDED TO THE STATEMENT OF WORK VIA AMENDMENT

29VOLUME 4 APPENDICES: please provide the Bridging Design Concept LEED Scorecard demonstrating the anticipated LEED Gold scoring credits.Please refer to the LEED credit summary and checklist provided in Appendix C of Volume 4. Per section 2.14.4 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "The DB Contractor shall design the project to achieve, at a minimum, a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Version 4 Gold rating and a Sustainable Sites Certification Program (SITES™) silver rating."
30VOLUME 4 APPENDICES: please advise if the SITES Scorecard provided is the most current for the Bridging Concept Design or if there is a more recent scorecard that reflects anticipated credits to achieve SITES Silver. The current score card reflects 20 out of 85 credits necessary to achieves SITES Silver.Per paragraph 1.1 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "Under this project, the Design-Build Contractor (DB Contractor) shall finish the design developed by the DOR and build the new LPOE
31What is the earliest the Art and Architecture will be available for installation at the site? What will Contractor’s scope include related to the Art and Architecture (e.g. installation, foundations, etc)?Per Statement of Work Section 2.11, and Section 3 the Art in ARchitecture final concept will be coordinated and incorporated in the DB's design development and construction document submissions. The DB Contractor will collaborate with the artist and the DB's corresponding subcontractors to determine the installation date for the art in architecture and intergratie into the DB's project schedule. See Statement of Work Section 2.11, Volume 1 and Appendix G of the OPR for the DB Contractor's scope related to the Art in Architecture.
32For the VRF systems contemplated for this project, should contractor anticipate any period of time to “maintain” the cassettes during GSA / CBP activation and early use or is this scope of work already contemplated and to be included from substantial completion forward within the GSA O&M contractor’s scope of services.BID the Documents as is
33FAR 52.225-11 Buy American-Construction Materials under Trade Agreements.(OCT 2019). With consideration for Executive Order 13881, does the Government anticipate modifying the requirements not presently reflected in the Agreement and should offeror / contractor include the potential effects of the EO with regards to the pricing and performance of the work?While the FAR Council issued a proposed rule designed to implement the requirements of Executive Order 13881, Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials, on September 14, 2020, a final rule implementing the Executive Order has not been published.
34Visual Mock-up: The current requirement to provide an onsite virtual mock-up prior to completion of the Design Development phase comes with a price premium and requires contractor to “purchase” certain trades “out of sequence” and prior to CD design completion. Will the Government consider allowing the Virtual mock-up to occur prior to the 75% CD submission? Is the visual mock-up intended to be a full size or partial scaled mock-up (if full size, please specify approximate dimensions)?Refer to Buidling enclosure specification. VMU is to be full size. Provide VMU per the requirement and timeline of the Soliciation Documents.
35VOLUME 4 APPENDICES: Beta.SAM.gov (https://beta.sam.gov/opp/181efa99af9c43c98eae0f2f82f0f7ea/view) was updated on October 7, 2020 to include several files as show in the screen shot below. Amendment 1 posted on October 1 makes no mention of the updates.
a. Please confirm the October 7 file upload completes the missing information from the initial October 1 RFP documents upload and that these documents are considered part of the initial RFP solicitation documents.The referenced documents include the OPR Volume 4 Appendices A-Q. See also the request and response #7.
36VOLUME 4 APPENDICES: Beta.SAM.gov (https://beta.sam.gov/opp/181efa99af9c43c98eae0f2f82f0f7ea/view) was updated on October 7, 2020 to include several files as show in the screen shot below. Amendment 1 posted on October 1 makes no mention of the updates.
b. Two of the October 7 file uploads are named the same (as pictured below), however, the “top” file does not have a link. Please confirm these uploads are the same information and that the upload with the active hyperlink (pictured at bottom) is the correct files for use .See request and response #9.
37I.F. Estimated Price Range The estimated price range for the Project is between $30,000,000 and $50,000,000. Is funding authorized to allow award for a sum at the top end of the range ($50,000,000), if not, what is the maximum allowable award for this project.The estimated price range is disclosed in accordance with GSAR 536.204. Amendment 0003 has further refined this magnitude in the range of $40,000,000 to $50,000,000.
38Would you please make available the Land Port of Entry Design Standard, which, in addition to the GSA P-100, is a critical basis of design document.The CBP LPOE Design Standard documents have been uploaded to beta.SAM as controlled documents. These files are For Official Use Only (FOUO).

In addition to the SBU Document Security Form (Request for Construction Documents Form B), prospective offerors are required to complete the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Non-Disclosure Agreement (uploaded separately to beta.SAM as ‘DHS-CBP NDA Form.pdf’) and return it to the Contracting Officer. Of the acknowledgements fields for Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII), Sensitive Security Information (SSI), and Other Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU), requestors need only initial the box for SBU at this time.

39 Would it be possible for you to provide a PDF of the 2018 Land Port of Entry Design Standard as part of the solicitation for the new USLPOE in Madawaska, ME? The CBP LPOE Design Standard documents have been uploaded to beta.SAM as controlled documents. These files are For Official Use Only (FOUO).

In addition to the SBU Document Security Form (Request for Construction Documents Form B), prospective offerors are required to complete the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Non-Disclosure Agreement (uploaded separately to beta.SAM as ‘DHS-CBP NDA Form.pdf’) and return it to the Contracting Officer. Of the acknowledgements fields for Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII), Sensitive Security Information (SSI), and Other Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU), requestors need only initial the box for SBU at this time.

40Currently the DB201A-DE-Bridging (The Solicitation) asks for projects within eight years of the submission deadline for proposals. We respectfully request that the GSA expand this requirement to include projects within ten years of the original Sources Sought announcement.No adjustment to the submital requirements has been made.
41The Solicitation Pg. 28 of 39, Section V.D. Technical Proposal Section (1) Sub factor (b): Past Performance, Para. (1) Submittal Requirements 3rd ParagraphSolicitation document notes "Offerors may resubmit questionnaires previously submitted with there proposals or may obtain an updated/new PPQ from a client for any submission." QUESTION: Will GSA accept previous PPQ's obtained during Federal Solicitations, such as NAVFAC, or do the PPQ's need to be on the GSA Supplied form?Use of the PBS Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is mandatory.
42The Solicitation Pg. 26 of 39, Section V.D. Technical Proposal Section (1) Sub factor (a): Past Performance, Para. (1) Past Experience Documentation Paragraph 1"Description. This evaluation factor considers the extent of the past experience of the General Contractor and A/E members of the Offeror's design-build (DB) team." QUESTION: Are offerors allowed to submit projects from subsidiary companies?The Government will assess in accordance with the solicitation. "This evaluation factor considers the extent of the past experience of the General Contractor and A/E members of the Offeror’s design-build (DB) team. For the purposes of this evaluation factor, the term A/E is defined as an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the profession of architecture and engineering that will have responsibility for developing detailed design and construction documents" (Section V.D(1)(a)). "Experience will be evaluated as an indicator of the Offeror's capacity to perform the Contract contemplated by this Solicitation" (Section VI.B(1)(a)).

The degree to which the subsidiary company's past experience is indicative of the Offeror's capacity to perform the Contract contemplated by this Soliciation would generally depend upon the subsidiary company's involvement as part of the General Contractor and A/E members of the Offeror's design-build (DB) team.

43The Solicitation Pg. 12 of 39, Section III. General Provisions, Part B. Requests for Clarifications or Interpretation, Para. (1)QUESTION: Current deadline for questions is 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time October 16, 2020. Considering receipt of Solicitation and current due date for Clarifications and Interpretations, can the current deadline be extended by a minimum of two (2) weeks to October 30, 2020 at 4:30 PM Eastern Time?Amendment 0002 extended the deadline for requests for clarification or interpretation to October 23, 2020.
44Standard Form 1442, Section 13. Additional Solicitation Requirements, Para. a.Current sealed offers are due by 4:30 PM (EST) on November 16, 2020. Where this date falls on a Monday, it makes it difficult to acquire subcontractor proposals early in the week. QUESTION: To alleviate logistical issues and obtain the most competitive subcontractor proposals for our estimate, can the GSA grant an extension to the proposal due date by two (2) to three (3) days to November 18th or November 19th?Amendment 0003 extends the due date to 4:30 PM (EST) on 11/17/2020.
45Will the Design-Build contractor also be expected to work with a CM agent (hired by MEDOT/GSA)?The DB Contractor will be expected to work with CM agents hired by GSA and MEDOT.
46Has the attendees list been posted from yesterday’s Virtual Site Visit? If not, when might it be available?The attendees list has been posted to beta.SAM as 'Madawaska Virtual Preproposal Conference Attendance Sheet.pdf'.
47C102, C105, C107, & C108C102, C105, & C107 show the existing Sewer line along Martin Creek as being abandoned in place, from Vital Street to the SMH at the NW corner of the site. C108 shows a Sewer line from the main building connecting to the existing Sewer line, along the W side of the the property. Please clarify.Per paragraph 1.1 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "Under this project, the Design-Build Contractor (DB Contractor) shall finish the design developed by the DOR and build the new LPOE."
48C101 & C105C101 indicates an existing Hydrant at the E side of the Vital Street/West Main Street intersection. C105 shows this Hydrant at the edge of the new exit lane. Does this Hydrant need to be relocated? In either case, does the Hydrant require Bollards per Note 1 on C105?Per paragraph 1.1 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "Under this project, the Design-Build Contractor (DB Contractor) shall finish the design developed by the DOR and build the new LPOE. The final location will need to be coordinated with the Madawaska Water District (MWD) but it will also be impacted by the terms of the Maine DOT access permit. Bollards will be required.
49C101, C103, C106, & C107C101 indicates an existing Sidewalk along the S side of the site (the N side of West Main Street). C107 implies that the existing Sidewalk at this location needs to be removed to meet the new Grades (although this isn't directly indicated on C102). C103 indicates new Sidewalk locations on site, along with striped crosswalks at the S side of the site. However, neither C103 nor C106 indicate a new sidewalk along the S side of the site. Please confirm whether a new Sidewalk is needed along the S side of the site.Per paragraph 1.1 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "Under this project, the Design-Build Contractor (DB Contractor) shall finish the design developed by the DOR and build the new LPOE.

Final grading within the ROW will require coordination with Maine DOT. Considering the change in curb cuts and minor grade matching, we would recommend a replacement of the existing to match any replaced portions. Min. 5' wide bituminous sidewalk and, where curb is required, slipform concrete or granite should be used.

50C103 & L101C103 and L101 differ in the layout of the Outbound Parking on the N side of the main building. Neither layout appears to provide adequate space for a vehicle to use the Outbound Inspection location and pull out of the area, to cross the bridge (assuming the vehicle needs to pull up to the window, as per the Inbound Inspection locations). Please clarify the layout of the Outbound Parking and the intended travel path for vehicles using the Oubound Inspection station.The angled configuration in C103 should be referenced as it was studied for turning movements and provides adequate space for a vehicle to park while having vehicles pass in the lane to the bridge. Per paragraph 1.1 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "Under this project, the Design-Build Contractor (DB Contractor) shall finish the design developed by the DOR and build the new LPOE."
51C105

Appendix M

n/aAppendix M provides a Hydrant Flow test for the hydrant on Mill Street, near the NE corner of the site. There does not appear to be a Hydrant Flow test for the hydrant on West Main Street, along the S side of the site. Should the two waterlines shown on C105 be connected to each other to provide a continuous loop, so that the entire site may be fed by either new connection to the water system?The current design does not necessitate additional looping. Fire flows were confirmed off the Mill Street line and sufficient hydrants and sprinkler facilities are connected to Mill Street to provide coverage for the site. The Main Street hydrant is existing and can be considered supplemental to the on-site facilities. Looking at the relative position in MWD's system, the Main Street hydrant is likely capable of significant flows; however, the Main Street hydrant was not tested or assessed for the flow, only that of the stated hydrant was assessed and used in the current design.Per paragraph 1.1 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "Under this project, the Design-Build Contractor (DB Contractor) shall finish the design developed by the DOR and build the new LPOE."
52C106

36549

3.1.A.1 & 23.1.A.2 notes that the CIB is a bid option. Please provide a sketch of C106, showing the limit of the Site Surfacing for the Base Bid, and also indicating what surfacing material shall be used in the location of the CIB for the Base Bid.Bid options provided are to be finalized by the DBC per paragraph 1.1 of the DB SOW. In the options, where building area is omited, grass and plantings of the type specified in Vol 1 specs shall be used. The paved area shall meet necessary vehicle movements for the area, which shall be confirmed by the DBC.
53The Solicitation Pg. 30 of 39

Price Proposal

V.E. This Article states that the prices and rates for each price element shown is to be included in Block 17 of SF 1442. This requiers alot of information to be include in Block 17 unless only the CLIN numbers are to be identified. Would GSA provide a Bid From attachment that we could use to provide the pricing pbreakdown required? Or would an attachment of the General Contractor making be satisfactory to follow SF1442 form with a call out to this attachement within block 17 be acceptable? From the Solicitation, Section V.E(1), "Block 17 shall include the prices and/or rates for each price element shown in the following table [therein]." The CLIN numbers and the Prices/Rates alone will suffice if the item/bid rates descriptions do not fit.

The Additional Proposal Requirement of Cost or Pricing Data shall be included in Volume IV, Tab 2 of the proposal as required by Section V.A(1) and V.F(2) of the Solicitation.

54 10

Agreement

III.H.(5) Please confirm that ALL personnel working on site require an EOD determination or if this applies to only specific areas or time frames. The closest Enrollment Center in Maine is a Department of Interior center located 260 miles from the project in Bar Harbor. Can DOI issue an EOD for GSA? GSA initiates personnel investigations, adjudicates the results, and issues appropriate identity credentials to all its employees and contractors who require “routine access” to its controlled facilities and/or its information systems (Networks, electronic project management, BAS systems etc.).

(2) Routine access is defined as regularly scheduled access. For example, a contractor who reports to the facility on a regular basis in the performance of ongoing responsibilities has routine access and a personnel investigation must be conducted. A contractor who is summoned for an emergency service call is not required to have a personnel investigation and is treated as a visitor. GSA contractors who require regularly scheduled access to one or more GSA-controlled facilities, even under multiple contracts, should be treated as having routine access to GSA facilities..

GSA-controlled facilities are defined as occupied buildings housing Federal operations under space assignment by GSA. GSA-controlled facilities are leased or owned by GSA, and they may be “partially occupied” or “fully occupied” by Federal agencies. GSA-controlled space is any space in a GSA-controlled facility.

The Contactor is in control of the facility until Substantial Completion.

AMMENDMENT TO ADD THIS LANGUAGE TO SOW IS FORTHCOMING. GSA does not accept DOL EODs.

55 2

Appendix C - CSA GROUP - LEED CREDIT Summary

Integrative ProcessAppendix C LEED checklist: Integrative Process is marked as Likely credit. Integrative Process is based on early analysis that is to occur in the conceptual phase. For this credit to be achieved the DB Contractor will require either a completed USGBC Integrative Process Worksheet provided by the Owner’s Designer Consultant/DOR or a DOR project team letter that summarizes the teams integrative process approach that occurred in the concept design. Will this be provided by the Owner's Design Consultant to the successful Design Builder to achieve this credit?There shall be a design handoff meeting between the DB Contractor and DOR. Final LEED credits pursued shall be determined by the DBC. Per 2.14.4 LEED and Sites Certification of the DBC SOW "The DB Contractor shall register the project and achieve for certification with the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) for LEED® and SITES™ at the beginning of design and maintain the LEED® rating checklist through completion and approval of the final design concept."
56A-500, Append. A Pg. 69

Appendix A Final Concept Report, Sect. 6

Append. A Para. 3The detail on A-500 for the curtainwall frame notes “blast pane” whereas the architectural narrative (Appendix A, Sect. 6, Para. 3) indicates the glazing system must meet UL-752 Level 3 for bullet resistance and ASTM F1233 Class 3 Level III for forced entry resistance. Is it the intent to design for blast mitigation?Follow the Architectural Narrative which defines Design-Based-Threat as level 3.
57
Appendix C - LEED Checklist - SITEs ScorecardBesides the SITEs Checklist included in Appendix C, can GSA share all available SITES documentation that has been prepared to date by the Bridging Team prior to bidding?”"ALL PERTINENT DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED IN THE SOLICITATION. Per paragraph 1.1 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "Under this project, the Design-Build Contractor (DB Contractor) shall finish the design developed by the DOR and build the new LPOE.""
58
Appendix C - LEED Checklist - SITEs ScorecardDid the Bridging Team prepare the required SITES documentation for the Prerequisites required for SITES Section 1: Context and Section 2: Pre-design and assessment? Will that documentation be shared with the bidders for review prior to Soliciation submission?ALL PERTINENT DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED IN THE SOLICITATION. Per paragraph 1.1 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "Under this project, the Design-Build Contractor (DB Contractor) shall finish the design developed by the DOR and build the new LPOE."
59Conference Call and virtual site visitThere was reference to phased delivery of Construction Documents. Is this a project requirement? Or only if deemed necessary by the Contractor’s schedule?DB contractor is responsible for the design and construction delivery and has been provided with the schedule milestones that need to be achieved.
60SOW Section 2.5 Standards (pp.16)You have included the Metric Design Guide among the applicable standards, however, the OPR drawings are in imperial. Are the Construction Documents to be done in metric or may they be completed in imperial?The Madawaska LPOE has a waiver for metric design. The Construction Documents are to be completed in imperial units.
61SOW Section 2.6 POR (pp.17 & 18)It is a project requirement that the AOR validate the Program and confirm that the finished Documents are in compliance with the Program. Are the current plans Program compliant?Per paragraph 1.1 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "Under this project, the Design-Build Contractor (DB Contractor) shall finish the design developed by the DOR and build the new LPOE."
62SOW Section 3.2.9 Art in Architecture (p.35)It is indicated that the AOR shall make sure that all components which support the art are in the drawings. Is it the intent that the AOR design these components? Or will all components be designed by the Artist and provided to the AOR for inclusion in the Documents?Per paragraph 1.1 of the Design Build Statement of Work (SOW) for Design Build-Bridging Delivery Method (DB-B) Contract, "Under this project, the Design-Build Contractor (DB Contractor) shall finish the design developed by the DOR and build the new LPOE."
63SOW
Section 2.16 Physical Security (page 24/25)Per Section 2.16 Physical Security (page 24/25) of the Madawaska Design/Build SOW document, the project must comply with CBP provided specific security requirements listed in the Standards and Criteria Documents in the SOW. The list of Standards and Criteria documents includes the GSA PBS P100, Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service and the ISC Physical Security Criteria document. Has a base Facility Security Level been determined for the project?Level 3.
64The documents “CBP Land Port of Entry Design Standard (2018)” and “CBP Minimum Security Requirements (MSR) Guide” are listed in Section 2.5 (reference page 15) of the SOW, but do not seem to be provided. Can these documents please be made available?The CBP LPOE Design Standard documents, including the CBP Minimum Security Requirements Guide ('MSR Guide (Full) v.1.pdf'), have been uploaded to beta.SAM as controlled documents. These files are For Official Use Only (FOUO).

In addition to the SBU Document Security Form (Request for Construction Documents Form B), prospective offerors are required to complete the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Non-Disclosure Agreement (uploaded separately to beta.SAM as ‘DHS-CBP NDA Form.pdf’) and return it to the Contracting Officer.

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .