Amendment 2 -GSA Hartford New Federal Courthouse Solicitation SF30 42226.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

Amendment 2

This amendment is issued to incorporate the RFI responses dated 4/22/26 into the solicitation. This amendment also provides notice that additional funds may become available at a future date, and contract options may be included in the resultant Design-Build contract to ensure transparency during the procurement process and allow offerors to consider potential increased requirements in their capabilities and approach. Additionally, offerors are advised that subsequent availability of funds may allow for changes to the project; such changes will be considered to be within the scope of the competition and resulting contract. While the specific scope, terms, conditions, and options are not yet established, any availability of additional funding will be communicated as soon as possible. All other terms and conditions of the solicitation will remain unchanged.

Capital Construction Division (PQA) 1 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007

Capital Construction Division (PQA) 1 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007

47PB5126R0013

04/22/2026

03/12/2026

INSTRUCTIONS (Back Page):

Instructions for items other than those that are self-explanatory, are as follows:

Item 1 (Contract ID Code). Insert the contract type identification code that appears in the title block of the contract being modified.

Item 3 (Effective date).

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

For a solicitation amendment, change order, or administrative change, the effective date shall be the issue date of the amendment, change order, or administrative change.

For a supplemental agreement, the effective date shall be the date agreed to by the contracting parties.

For a modification issued as an initial or confirming notice of termination for the convenience of the Government, the effective date and the modification number of the confirming notice shall be the same as the effective date and modification number of the initial notice.

For a modification converting a termination for default to a termination for the convenience of the Government, the effective date shall be the same as the effective date of the termination for default.

For a modification confirming the contracting officer's determination of the amount due in settlement of a contract termination, the effective date shall be the same as the effective date of the initial decision.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Item 6 (Issued By). Insert the name and address of the issuing office. If applicable, insert the appropriate issuing office code in the code block.

Item 8 (Name and Address of Contractor). For modifications to a contract or order, enter the contractor's name, address, and code as shown in the original contract or order, unless changed by this or a previous modification.

Items 9, (Amendment of Solicitation Number - Dated), and 10, (Modification of Contract/Order Number - Dated). Check the appropriate box and in the corresponding blanks insert the number and date of the original solicitation, contract, or order.

Item 12 (Accounting and Appropriation Data).

When appropriate, indicate the impact of the modification on each affected accounting classification by inserting one of the following entries:

(2) Accounting classification Net decrease $

Include subject matter or short title of solicitation/contract where feasible.

Item 16B. The contracting officer's signature is not required on solicitation amendments. The contracting officer's signature is normally affixed last on supplemental agreements.

(i)

NOTE: If there are changes to multiple accounting classifications that cannot be placed in block 12, insert an asterisk and the words "See continuation sheet".

Item 13. Check the appropriate box to indicate the type of modification. Insert in the corresponding blank the authority under which the modification is issued. Check whether or not contractor must sign this document. (See FAR 43.103.)

Item 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification).

Organize amendments or modifications under the appropriate Uniform Contract Format (UCF) section headings from the applicable solicitation or contract. The UCF table of contents, however, shall not be set forth in this document.

Indicate the impact of the modification on the overall total contract price by inserting one of the following entries:

(i) Total contract price increased by $

(ii) Total contract price decreased by $

(iii) Total contract price unchanged.

State reason for modification.

When removing, reinstating, or adding funds, identify the contract items and accounting classifications.

(g)

(h)

When the SF 30 is used to reflect a determination by the contracting officer of the amount due in settlement of a contract terminated for the convenience of the Government, the entry in Item 14 of the modification may be limited to --

(i) A reference to the letter determination; and

(ii) A statement of the net amount determined to be due in settlement of the contract.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) BACK

(1) Accounting classification Net increase $

Project: GSA Hartford New Federal Courthouse Solicitation 47PB5126R0013

Request For Information Responses: 4/22/26

RFQ Section Page Requested Information or Question GSA Responses

Could you let me know if materials testing and special inspections services will be required for this project?

Yes, testing materials and special inspections are required as part of the Quality Assurance & Quality Control Requirements for the New Courthouse Project. The Design-Build Contractor will be responsible for procuring the services of independent third-party testing and inspection agencies to comply with the contract documents requirements, including the Statement of Work and Division One.

Prior RFIs General

The Government previously indicated that CPARS evaluations could not be used in lieu of PPQs;

however, a subsequent response states that Offerors may submit either PPQs or final CPARS evaluations. Please confirm the final requirement for Stage 1 submissions allow CPARS evaluations or PPQs and that they will be treated as equivalent response(s) for evaluation.

Yes, either Final CPARS evaluations or PPQs are acceptable and will be treated as equivalent responses when it comes to ratings.

Prior RFIs General

Earlier responses indicate Level 1 Betterments should be considered prior to Level 2, while a later response indicates Offerors are not required to include all Level 1 Betterments to include Level 2.

Please clarify whether Offerors are required to include all Level 1 Betterments before proposing any Level 2 Betterments or Offerors can propose any combination of Level 1 and Level 2 Betterments based on value optimization.

Offerors are not required to include all of Level 1 betterments in order to include Level II betterment items. However, all Level 1 betterments should be first considered.

Prior RFIs General

The SOW identifies site remediation as an option, while RFI responses and subsequent materials suggest remediation may be required as part of the base scope.

Please clarify the following:

1) Is site remediation (including LEP services and regulatory closure) part of the Base Contract scope or an Option?

2) If included in base scope, what level of remediation responsibility is assigned to the DBC (e.g., full remediation to regulatory closure vs. defined scope)?

3) Will differing site conditions provisions apply to unknown contamination? 4) GSA has successfully used allowances for these type of items in the past to "level" pricing evaluations and avoid potential issues, will GSA consider establishing allowance values for these items?

The revised DB SOW posted with this solicitation removed site remediation as an option and included it under Base Contract scope. Refer to Section Environmental Remediation Services and Soil Excavation in DB SOW. For differing site conditions, please refer to FAR 52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions

Prior RFIs General

The Government previously indicated that no Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists with respect to prior project participants, while reserving the right to revisit this determination.

Offerors have reviewed the Courthouse Tours Report and related materials and note that the report was jointly prepared by Michael Maltzan Architecture, Inc. (Design Architect) and SLAM Collaborative (Architect of Record), and reflects extensive stakeholder engagement with judiciary representatives over a prolonged pre-procurement period, including courthouse tours, interviews, and multiple debrief sessions. This engagement appears to have occurred over a period of approximately two years prior to the current solicitation, during which the prior design team had direct and iterative access to end users and project stakeholders that will ultimately influence design evaluation. Offerors further understand that, in the current procurement, SLAM Collaborative may now serve in a lead design capacity (including Architect of Record, Design Architect, or a combination thereof) as part of Design-Build Contractor teams. Please clarify the basis for the Government’s determination that no OCI exists for SLAM Collaborative, given its prior role as Architect of Record and participation in stakeholder engagement activities, for example those documented in the Courthouse Tours Report.

GSA has conducted an extensive, fact-specific analysis of these firms' prior work and has determined that no Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) would preclude these firms from participation in the procurement. These firms did not prepare the design, specifications or evaluation criteria. GSA is disclosing significant information and will disclose further information in Phase II, leveling the informational playing field. Contacts with personnel does not confer an unfair competitive advantage; all future requirements are reflected in the solicitation. These firms will not be charged with evaluating their own work. GSA has also determined that, given the design-build-to-budget structure of this procurement, documents prepared by these firms cannot slant award in the firms' favor. Moreover, multiple firms worked on the procurement package, aligning this fact pattern more closely with FAR 9.505-2 (b), which permits award to a contractor that prepared a work statement if more than one contractor was involved in such work. This work may also be considered development and design work, which does not require exclusion from competition.

GSA does, however, explicitly reserve the right to re-evaluate this determination if new facts emerge or circumstances change.

Prior RFIS Courtroom , Chamber and Proximity

Are there any minimum or maximum adjacency or floor-level requirements that must be maintained as related to Courtroom versus Chamber locations? For example, is there a maximum allowable travel path for any particular judge from the chamber office to assigned courtroom?

Being a collegial design for courtrooms and chambers, there is no required minimum or maximum travel distance for a judge. The path of travel must be secured.

Prior solicitation documents

If documents previously provided in the prior solicitation are absent from the current solicitation but absent from the solicitation documents (e.g. Courthouse Tour report shared in the prior solicitation amendments); please clarify if they are to be referenced from the prior solicitation, omitted from this solicitation on purpose or will be added via amendment?

Courthouse Tour Report will be shared in Phase 2.

Access to Referenced File Information / Criteria example pp

Some referenced documents including those referenced in the SOW under Section VII Exhibits, Drawings and other Attachments are not currently accessible, for example, the "Physical Security Assessments Disaster Resiliency, Management of Nonstationary Weather and Extreme Event

Profile (1/15/26)". When will the information not made available be shared with Offerors for review and consideration related to the Design-Build to Budget aspect of the project?

All available DB SOW Section VII Exhibits will be provided in Phase 2.

Project Budget / Design to Budget

Please confirm whether any additional funding has been received by GSA that may affect the design-to-budget amount, options, or other aspects of the solicitation, given that the design-to-budget value remains unchanged at $292,000,000 while the revised Stage 1 and Stage 2 documents appear to reflect potential additional scope.

At this time, the design-build-to-budget amount remains at $292,000,000. GSA anticpates increasing the design-build-to-budget amount early in Phase 2, as GSA continues to align scope and budget.

Stage 2 Physical Model

Does the GSA expect a physical model to be constructed as part of the competition work effort?

If so, please state the exact requirement(s) and timing or clarify if a model is to be provided after award.

GSA constructed a 1/4" scale model of the site and surrounding blocks. GSA will provide a base insert to each of the Phase 2 teams to use for their design and presentations during Phase 2.

Draft Specifications 013110, paragraph 6 Resource Loading

54 of 316 Please confirm that, consistent with typical GSA project schedule development and progress reporting requirements, resource loading is required for costs only and does not need to include labor, materials, or construction equipment.

Compliance with the schedule resource loading requirements to include cost, labor, commodities and construction equipment is required as stated in DIVISION 1 - GENERAL

REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 013110.

Draft Specifications 013110, pagaraph J Resource Loading

59 of 316 Please confirm that, consistent with typical GSA project schedule development and progress reporting requirements, resource loading is limited to costs only and does not include labor, materials, or construction equipment.

Compliance with the schedule resource loading requirements to include cost, labor, commodities and construction equipment is required as stated in DIVISION 1 - GENERAL

REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 013110.

Draft Specifications 013110, Calendars and Holidays

60 of 316 Please confirm that the final Division 1 Specifications for the Design-Build Contractor will reflect the applicable project calendar, including holidays required by any PLA stipulations, and that those PLA requirements take precedence over the GSA template specifications and any conflicting agreement provisions.

The substantial completion date is firm and will not be adjusted based on Federal or PLA-specific holidays. PLAs must adhere to FAR subpart 22.5 and implementing provisions/clauses.

General / PLA Litigation Risk

Offerors understand that litigation concerning the PLA mandate remains ongoing and may continue through a substantial portion, or potentially all, of the procurement period. This creates uncertainty as to whether award can proceed under the current solicitation structure. Because this uncertainty may materially affect project budget and cost considerations, please confirm whether GSA will reconsider proceeding through Stage 2 before the litigation is resolved. For example, if GSA proceeds through Stage 2 but is ultimately unable to make an award, any stipends paid to unsuccessful offerors, such as $1.5 million or more, could reduce the future available project scope by that amount, along with any associated escalation impacts.

GSA plans to proceed with this solicitation, including Phase II. GSA is hopeful that the protest will be resolved in advance of GSA being ready to award. GSA will re-assess the project in the event of an adverse decision.

General / PLA Litigation Risk

Offerors understand that litigation concerning the PLA mandate remains ongoing and may continue through a substantial portion, or potentially the entirety, of the procurement period. As a result, uncertainty exists regarding GSA’s ability to proceed to award under the current solicitation structure.

Accordingly, please confirm the following:

Has GSA assessed the potential impact of the ongoing litigation on its ability to proceed to award under this solicitation?

In the event of an adverse ruling, does GSA anticipate amending the solicitation, or canceling and reissuing the procurement?

Has GSA considered adjusting the procurement schedule to better align with anticipated court decisions?

GSA has assessed the risk of protest litigation, is monitoring developments and will respond as needed. GSA is hopeful that the protest will be favorably resolved in advance of GSA being ready for award.

General / PLA Litigation Risk

The prior solicitation for this project was protested and subsequently canceled following decisions by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims addressing mandatory Project Labor Agreement requirements under CICA. The current solicitation has been reissued and includes a PLA requirement based on the Administrator’s determination pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(7).

Given the substantial level of effort, design development, and cost required to participate in Phase 2 of this procurement, offerors are evaluating the extent of unrecoverable proposal risk.

Offerors, including design consultants and prospective subcontractors, are concerned that proceeding through Phase 2 under the current conditions may result in significant unrecoverable costs if the procurement is materially affected by the ongoing litigation.

In light of these considerations, please confirm the following:

Would GSA consider adjusting the Phase 2 stipend, including increasing the maximum reimbursement amount, to better align with the level of effort and uncertainty involved?

Will GSA consider offeror recommendations for increased or guaranteed stipends to more appropriately address the elevated proposal risk associated with the current procurement?

GSA considered these concerns and modified the maximum stipend amount to unsuccessful offerors from $300,000 to $500,000. In addition, GSA plans to reimburse all Phase 2 offerors up to this maximum amount should the solicitation be cancelled in Phase 2 due to litigation risks. For additional detail, please review the solicitation package.

General / PLA Litigation Risk

If this solicitation ultimately cannot be awarded as a result of the current litigation, please confirm whether GSA intends to pursue additional funding for a separate future courthouse procurement.

GSA will re-assess in the event of an adverse decision.

General / OCI Please explain the basis for the changes in this solicitation, as compared to the prior solicitation, regarding the treatment of organizational conflicts of interest under FAR 9.505-4.

See response above. There are no changes.

General / 41 U.S.

C. § 3304(a)(7) and CICA exception

Given GSA’s use of the public interest exception under 41 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(7), please clarify whether GSA has considered a sole-source procurement approach for this project, or whether increased competition remains the preferred approach.

GSA is promoting maximum competition. No firms are excluded from the competition and GSA encourages all offerors to submit a response to the solicitation. All responsible sources may submit a proposal which will be considered by the agency.

Agreement / GSA Agency Recommended Goals for Subcontracting Plan

With reference to the draft Agreement, including FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and GSA’s recommended subcontracting goals, and in consideration of the SBA Office of Advocacy’s October 2022 communication to the FAR Council regarding the negative impact on small construction contractors, please confirm whether, due to the inclusion of a mandatory PLA, offerors may propose lower subcontracting goals, as applicable, without automatic exception, adjustment request, or SBA review as part of their proposal submission and contract award.

Please see the solicitation package for applicable standards and terms.

Agreement / FAR

22.5 and related clauses

Please confirm whether GSA has considered alternative approaches, such as voluntary PLA structures, acceptance of both PLA and non-PLA offers for comparison, or other labor-management strategies, that could achieve similar project objectives without mandating a PLA while maintaining broader participation. If such alternatives are not permitted under the current FAR framework, please confirm that as well.

GSA is following the Federal Acquisition Regulation deviation for FAR part 22 (RFO-2025-22), which is clear regarding PLA requirements.

Agreement / FAR

22.5 and related clauses

Please confirm whether, pursuant to the current FAR 22.5 provisions, a PLA executed by one labor organization satisfies the applicable requirement, and whether execution by NABTU-affiliated labor organization(s) is not mandatory for this procurement.

Please see FAR subpart 22.5 and implementing clauses/provisions for applicable requirements (Deviation RFO-2025-22).

Agreement / FAR

22.5 and related clauses

Certain media reports and congressional press releases dated March 2, 2026, stated that “top lawmakers met with union leaders Monday morning to announce a project labor agreement.” In light of those statements, please confirm whether a Project Labor Agreement has already been negotiated, arranged, or otherwise established for this project by Congress or any other entity.

A PLA has not been negotiationed. Rather, GSA has reitereated the requirement of a PLA in this solicitation.

Agreement / FAR

22.5 and related clauses

Similar to the item above, media reports and congressional press releases dated March 2 stated that “the federal government has worked out what is called a project labor agreement (PLA) with the local building trades.” Please clarify whether any PLA has already been negotiated with the building trades, including NABTU-affiliated organizations, for this project. Please also confirm whether offerors are required to negotiate with NABTU or any NABTU-affiliated organization, or whether compliance with the FAR and the solicitation may be satisfied through an agreement with a single qualifying labor organization.

A PLA has not been negotiationed. Rather, GSA has reitereated the requirement of a PLA in this solicitation.

Agreement / FAR

22.5 and related clauses / Acceptable PLAs

Please confirm that any PLA proposed in connection with this procurement must conform to FAR

22.5 as well as all other applicable terms of the solicitation and the GSA agreement, and that any PLA provision inconsistent with those requirements will not be permitted. By way of example, a pricing preference favoring union subcontractors over non-union subcontractors competing for the work would be impermissible.

The awardee will be bound by all terms of the agreement.

Agreement / FAR

22.5 and related clauses / Acceptable PLAs

Offerors have observed that, under Executive Order 14063 and the related FAR 22.5 provisions, certain contractor-proposed PLAs accepted by the Government have included provisions that appear inconsistent with solicitation requirements, contract terms, or applicable FAR provisions.

Please confirm that any PLA proposed in connection with this procurement must conform not only to FAR 22.5, but also to all other applicable terms of the solicitation and the GSA agreement.

By way of example, because no exceptions to the PLA requirement appear to be provided for this project, please confirm that all contractors performing work on the project must be subject to and bound by the PLA. Please also confirm whether the same requirement applies to third-party Government contractors whose work is required for the performance or delivery of the project, as contemplated by FAR 22.5.

The awardee will be bound by all terms of the agreement.

Initial Environmental Report

Will GSA be providing the full Phase II ESA report including 1) Soil/groundwater analytical results,

2) Delineation of impacted areas and 3) Identified contaminants and concentrations?

GSA will not be completing a Phase II ESA report, however the following documents, including a Phase II/III Site Investigation by BL dated April 2019, are available and have been shared with the 3/12/26 Solicitation:

- Results of Environmental Soil Pre-Characterization Sampling Hartford Courthouse Project- Investigation Memo by GEI Consultants Final dated September 5, 2025

- Preliminary Geotechnical Report New Federal Courthouse Prepared by GEI Consultants dated September 15, 2025

- HFCH Site - Data Gap Review – Final by Fuss & O’Neill dated September 19, 2025

- Allyn St. Data Gap Review prepared by Solv, March 2024

- Utility Assessment Report prepared by Fuss & O’Neill, August 2024

- Pre-Site Analysis Volumes 1 and 2 prepared by MMA, Fall 2024

- Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations, prepared by GEI Consultants, June 2024

- Environmental Review & Status Report, prepared by GeoQuest, Inc., dated June 2019

- Phase II/III Site Investigation, prepared by BL, dated April 2019

- Phase II Site Investigation (Draft), prepared by BL, dated January 23, 2018

- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by BL Companies (BL), December 13, 2018

- Allyn St. Site Plan prepared by Close Jensen & Miller, April 1991 https://advocacy.sba.gov/2022/10/19/advocacy-urges-far-council-to-re-evaluate-compliance-costs-for-small-construction-companies-in-the-proposed-mandatory-project-labor-agreement-regulation/#:~:text=On%20Oct%2019%2C%202022,compliance%20on%20small%20construction%20contractors.

https://advocacy.sba.gov/2022/10/19/advocacy-urges-far-council-to-re-evaluate-compliance-costs-for-small-construction-companies-in-the-proposed-mandatory-project-labor-agreement-regulation/#:~:text=On%20Oct%2019%2C%202022,compliance%20on%20small%20construction%20contractors.

https://advocacy.sba.gov/2022/10/19/advocacy-urges-far-council-to-re-evaluate-compliance-costs-for-small-construction-companies-in-the-proposed-mandatory-project-labor-agreement-regulation/#:~:text=On%20Oct%2019%2C%202022,compliance%20on%20small%20construction%20contractors.

https://advocacy.sba.gov/2022/10/19/advocacy-urges-far-council-to-re-evaluate-compliance-costs-for-small-construction-companies-in-the-proposed-mandatory-project-labor-agreement-regulation/#:~:text=On%20Oct%2019%2C%202022,compliance%20on%20small%20construction%20contractors.

https://advocacy.sba.gov/2022/10/19/advocacy-urges-far-council-to-re-evaluate-compliance-costs-for-small-construction-companies-in-the-proposed-mandatory-project-labor-agreement-regulation/#:~:text=On%20Oct%2019%2C%202022,compliance%20on%20small%20construction%20contractors.

https://advocacy.sba.gov/2022/10/19/advocacy-urges-far-council-to-re-evaluate-compliance-costs-for-small-construction-companies-in-the-proposed-mandatory-project-labor-agreement-regulation/#:~:text=On%20Oct%2019%2C%202022,compliance%20on%20small%20construction%20contractors.

Initial Environmental Report

Please confirm the baseline environmental condition that will define differing site conditions. The baseline conditions consist of the findings from the following reports, as listed in Section IV.C Environmental Remediation Services and Soil Excavation of the DB SOW posted on 3/12/26:

- Results of Environmental Soil Pre-Characterization Sampling Hartford Courthouse Project- Investigation Memo by GEI Consultants Final dated September 5, 2025

- Preliminary Geotechnical Report New Federal Courthouse Prepared by GEI Consultants dated September 15, 2025

- HFCH Site - Data Gap Review – Final by Fuss & O’Neill dated September 19, 2025

- Allyn St. Data Gap Review prepared by Solv, March 2024

- Utility Assessment Report prepared by Fuss & O’Neill, August 2024

- Pre-Site Analysis Volumes 1 and 2 prepared by MMA, Fall 2024

- Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations, prepared by GEI Consultants, June 2024

- Environmental Review & Status Report, prepared by GeoQuest, Inc., dated June 2019

- Phase II/III Site Investigation, prepared by BL, dated April 2019

- Phase II Site Investigation (Draft), prepared by BL, dated January 23, 2018

- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by BL Companies (BL), December 13, 2018

- Allyn St. Site Plan prepared by Close Jensen & Miller, April 1991

Initial Environmental Report

Will GSA consider establishing allowance values to manage risk related to 1) unknown contamination, 2) Hazardous material disposal beyond identified limits?

GSA performed several environmental investigations to manage risk, including the most recent report the Results of Environmental Soil Pre-Characterization Sampling Hartford Courthouse Project-Investigation Memo by GEI Consultants Final dated September 5, 2025, which was included in the 3/12/26 Solicitation. Therefore, GSA is not establishing allowances for unknown site contamination. GSA will discuss this subject further in the next proprietary meeting in June 2026.

Initial Environmental Report

Please confirm the Transfer Act liability remains with the Owner as property owner and provide the status of CT Transfer Act filings (Forms I–IV) and any ongoing regulatory obligations or consent orders.

GSA, not the seller, will be responsible for all necessary environmental remediation at the property. GSA anticipates that all necessary environmental remediation activities and compliance with Connecticut regulatory obligations will occur during construction of the courthouse by the design-build firm. All regulatory filings are available online at the CT DEEP website.

Initial Environmental Report

The Phase II report indicates VOCs and metals exceed Surface Water Protection Criteria (SWPC) and also indicates "more investigation required." What additional investigations are anticipated to occur?

The additional investigations performed following the draft Phase II (2018) have been provided with the Solicitation. These include:

- Results of Environmental Soil Pre-Characterization Sampling Hartford Courthouse Project- Investigation Memo by GEI Consultants Final dated September 5, 2025

- Preliminary Geotechnical Report New Federal Courthouse Prepared by GEI Consultants dated September 15, 2025

- HFCH Site - Data Gap Review – Final by Fuss & O’Neill dated September 19, 2025

- Allyn St. Data Gap Review prepared by Solv, March 2024

- Utility Assessment Report prepared by Fuss & O’Neill, August 2024

- Pre-Site Analysis Volumes 1 and 2 prepared by MMA, Fall 2024

- Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations, prepared by GEI Consultants, June 2024

- Environmental Review & Status Report, prepared by GeoQuest, Inc., dated June 2019

- Phase II/III Site Investigation, prepared by BL, dated April 2019

- Phase II Site Investigation (Draft), prepared by BL, dated January 23, 2018

- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by BL Companies (BL), December 13, 2018

- Allyn St. Site Plan prepared by Close Jensen & Miller, April 1991

Initial Environmental Report

Extent of Soil Contamination / Please provide delineation of impacted soil across the Site, including:

Horizontal and vertical limits of contamination by AOC Estimated quantities (CY) of soil exceeding CT RSR criteria Breakdown by contaminant type (VOC, SVOC/PAH, ETPH, metals, PCB)

Additionally, confirm whether any site-wide soil management assumptions (reuse vs disposal) should be used for pricing. If this information cannot be provided please establish the allowance GSA prefers offerors to carry for these issues.

All environmental information obtained by GSA has been provided in reports listed in the DB SOW and contained within the 3/12/26 Solicitation Documents:

- Results of Environmental Soil Pre-Characterization Sampling Hartford Courthouse Project- Investigation Memo by GEI Consultants Final dated September 5, 2025

- Preliminary Geotechnical Report New Federal Courthouse Prepared by GEI Consultants dated September 15, 2025

- HFCH Site - Data Gap Review – Final by Fuss & O’Neill dated September 19, 2025

- Allyn St. Data Gap Review prepared by Solv, March 2024

- Utility Assessment Report prepared by Fuss & O’Neill, August 2024

- Pre-Site Analysis Volumes 1 and 2 prepared by MMA, Fall 2024

- Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations, prepared by GEI Consultants, June 2024

- Environmental Review & Status Report, prepared by GeoQuest, Inc., dated June 2019

- Phase II/III Site Investigation, prepared by BL, dated April 2019

- Phase II Site Investigation (Draft), prepared by BL, dated January 23, 2018

- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by BL Companies (BL), December 13, 2018

- Allyn St. Site Plan prepared by Close Jensen & Miller, April 1991

Initial Environmental Report

Urban Fill Characterization / The Phase II identifies widespread urban fill with exceedances.

Please clarify:

Expected classification of urban fill (clean, contaminated, hazardous, special waste) Anticipated disposal pathways and assumed unit rates (if any baseline exists) Whether any portion of urban fill is acceptable for on-site reuse under a cap or building footprint

All environmental information obtained by GSA has been provided in reports listed in the DB SOW and contained within the 3/12/26 Solicitation Documents:

- Results of Environmental Soil Pre-Characterization Sampling Hartford Courthouse Project- Investigation Memo by GEI Consultants Final dated September 5, 2025

- Preliminary Geotechnical Report New Federal Courthouse Prepared by GEI Consultants dated September 15, 2025

- HFCH Site - Data Gap Review – Final by Fuss & O’Neill dated September 19, 2025

- Allyn St. Data Gap Review prepared by Solv, March 2024

- Utility Assessment Report prepared by Fuss & O’Neill, August 2024

- Pre-Site Analysis Volumes 1 and 2 prepared by MMA, Fall 2024

- Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations, prepared by GEI Consultants, June 2024

- Environmental Review & Status Report, prepared by GeoQuest, Inc., dated June 2019

- Phase II/III Site Investigation, prepared by BL, dated April 2019

- Phase II Site Investigation (Draft), prepared by BL, dated January 23, 2018

- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by BL Companies (BL), December 13, 2018

- Allyn St. Site Plan prepared by Close Jensen & Miller, April 1991

Initial Environmental Report

Identified Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) / GPR identified multiple potential USTs and dispenser areas.

Please clarify:

Whether these anomalies have been:

Investigated, removed, or remain in place If still present, please provide:

Estimated sizes, contents, and depths Responsibility for removal and disposal Any known petroleum release case numbers associated with these features If this information cannot be provided please establish the allowance GSA prefers offerors to carry for these issues.

All environmental information obtained by GSA has been provided in reports listed in the DB SOW and contained within the 3/12/26 Solicitation Documents:

- Results of Environmental Soil Pre-Characterization Sampling Hartford Courthouse Project- Investigation Memo by GEI Consultants Final dated September 5, 2025

- Preliminary Geotechnical Report New Federal Courthouse Prepared by GEI Consultants dated September 15, 2025

- HFCH Site - Data Gap Review – Final by Fuss & O’Neill dated September 19, 2025

- Allyn St. Data Gap Review prepared by Solv, March 2024

- Utility Assessment Report prepared by Fuss & O’Neill, August 2024

- Pre-Site Analysis Volumes 1 and 2 prepared by MMA, Fall 2024

- Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations, prepared by GEI Consultants, June 2024

- Environmental Review & Status Report, prepared by GeoQuest, Inc., dated June 2019

- Phase II/III Site Investigation, prepared by BL, dated April 2019

- Phase II Site Investigation (Draft), prepared by BL, dated January 23, 2018

- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by BL Companies (BL), December 13, 2018

- Allyn St. Site Plan prepared by Close Jensen & Miller, April 1991