GSA Hartford New Federal Courthouse Solicitation Amendment 2.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

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)

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)

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

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

Amendment 2

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

The purpose of this amendment is to issue the attached Request For Information Responses: SET 2 related to the GSA Hartford New Federal Courthouse project as well as additional site reports.

All other terms and conditions of the solicitation will remain unchanged.

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.

Capital Construction Branch (2PQC) 1 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007

Capital Construction Branch (2PQC) 1 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007

47PC0325R0013

10/29/2025

09/18/2025

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

Request For Information Responses: SET 2 10/29/2025

RFQ Section Page Requested Information or Question GSA Responses

SOW 8. CONTRACT

TYPE

11 The SOW states, "The Project will require a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) to be submitted after the Project Issued for Construction (IFC) Documents are complete. This will be detailed in the Phase 2 Solicitation Documents." The absence of an executed PLA at the time of price proposal places substantial risk on the Government and offerors and also subjects the project to additionally, unbalanced negotiating "power" in favor of the union(s). In other words, the absence of an executed PLA at the time of offer could result in the project not moving forward into the Construction Phase, a condition beyond the control of the Government and Contractor. This condition could place undue burden on the successful offeror and more importantly the tax payers.

Further, without having an executed PLA at the time of stage 2 proposal, the Government will not be able to affirm that the proposed PLA for the project meets the requirements of the FAR, placing additional risk on Government and Contractor.

We do not read FAR 52.222-33, Notice of Requirement for Project Labor Agreement (January 2024) Alternate II (Jan 2024) or FAR 52.222-34 Project Labor Agreement Alternate I (January 2024) as precluding parties from entering a pre-award project labor agreement. Use of these particular clauses was designed to shield unsuccessful offerors from the costs of negotiating a pre-award project labor agreement.

SOW 13 Level 1 Betterment - Add Judicial Fitness Center (5.107) and Locker/Shower/Toilet Rooms (5.000) back into the Shared Court Support space; Add approx 1,900 NSF. Please confirm that intent is to keep combined program area of 5.000 and 5.107 at approximately 1,900 NSF, if not please clarify.

The Judicial Fitness Center (5.107) is 1,900 NSF, inclusive of Locker/Shower/Toilet Rooms (5.108). Exact size of those rooms will be determined during design phase. Adjustments to nomenclature will be reflected in the final Betterments list.

SOW 88 The Hartford Test Fit Diagram indicates that the government anticipates a 2 courtroom per floor layout. However, the POR Summary (pg 10) states that 3 District Courtrooms will share 2 Trial Jury Suites. Please advise if the government would allow 2 District Courtooms to share 1 Jury Suite, in order to locate the 3rd District Courtroom (with a dedicated Jury Suite) on the same floor as the Special Proceedings Courtroom.

US Courts are in agreement that having two active district courtrooms share one large jury suite on one floor is a viable option. Offerors to note that the Test Fit Diagram is a general representation of the program.

Solicitation IV. B Project Labor Agreement

22 The solicitation reads, "GSA researched the local construction market and concluded that Project Labor Agreements are commonly used and will not substantially reduce the number of potential offerors to such a degree that adequate competition at a fair and reasonable price could not be achieved."

While PLAs may be "commonly used" around the local market, no known PLAs exist on a federal contract within the past 10 years in the local market.

Without a Project Labor Agreement being in place, including craft labor rates, benefits and other provisions, how has the Government developed its IGE and budget for the project? The absence of PLA provisions and unknown labor cost factors creates a risk to the project related to budget and IGE for the project.

GSA solicitations do not typically disclose data supporting independent government cost estimates or budgets, or the agency's procedures for establishing those figures. For purposes of responding to the Phase I and II solicitations, offerors should note that this is a design-build-to-budget project, with a budget limit of $292,000,000. Offerors will be responsible for designing and delivering a project within that budget, and offeror pricing will need to account for all costs of doing so.

EO 14063 / FAR

22.504(d)

EO 14063 and the associated FAR rule promoting the use of Project Labor Agreements for large-scale Federal construction projects requires review by the Government for certain exceptions. Exceptions are based on at least one of the conditions specified by FAR 22.504(d) (and as stipulated by EO 14063).

Guidance reinforcing the FAR requirements was provided by OMB in June 2025 (memo M-25-29). Basis(es) for exception can include conditions when the requirement for a PLA 1) does not advance the Federal Government's interests ; 2) where market research indicates a substantial reduction in competition (eg GSA’s testimony to congress of March 16, 2011 titled "PROJECT LABOR

AGREEMENTS AND THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY” (link to testimony here - https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Peck_Testimony_3-16-11_Reg_Affairs.pdf ) evaluation of PLA vs. non-PLA ); or 3) where the requirement is not consistent with other statutes, regulations, E.O.s, or Presidential memoranda (ref MVL USA, Inc. v. United States , the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) ruled in favor of federal contractors who challenged the requirement to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with labor organizations (PLA mandated by E.

O. 14063) regarding the terms and conditions of employment for all large-scale construction projects. The COFC found the policy violated the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) because it excluded responsible offerors capable of performing the contract). The existence of one of these conditions substantiates basis for an exception. Further, recently GSA has been party to several Court of Federal Claims (COFC) claims whereby exceptions were not granted as required by the FAR and whereby the solicitations were impacted, unnecessarily. Examples include, but are not limited to, a. BOTA LPOE (soliciation No. 47PH0824R0007 - https://sam.

gov/opp/5f9deba0a4cb4abeaab703ff9c47fa2b/view); b. 47PB0025R0016 Fort Fairfield, ME; c. 47PB0024R0068 LPOE Coburn Gore, ME. Please advise whether the Contracting Officer has determined if any (or all) of these basis

(es) for exception exist for this project including; completion of 1) market research to determine if the PLA mandate will advance the Federal Government's interests for this project; 2) market research to determine if the PLA mandate will reduce competition at a fair and reasonable price (including subcontractor and independent contractors); and 3) completed analysis and justification for the use of a mandatory PLA based upon evaluation to determine if the PLA requirement is consistent with Federal Statutes (including the MVL USA, Inc. v U.S. case noted above).

In accordance with FAR subpart 22.5 and OMB Memorandum M-25-29, GSA has determined that project labor agreement requirements apply to this contract; no exception is justified.

PLA Parties PLA Please confirm, if a PLA is used for performance of the work for this project, all contractors working on the project will be covered by the PLA (per EO 14063 and FAR 52.222-34) and the Government will require independent contractors that are part of the Project to become party to the PLA as prerequisite to their being permitting access to work on the project. If the Government will not commit to this provision, please provide written basis for exception .

Please see FAR 52.222-33, Notice of Requirement for Project Labor Agreement (January 2024) Alternate II (Jan 2024) and FAR 52.222-34 Project Labor Agreement Alternate I (January 2024) for applicable project labor agreement requirements.

PLA executed agreement and parties to the agreement

Please confirm, if a PLA is used for performance of the work for this project, GSA acknowledges 1) as a Design-Build project a PLA will only be executed initially by Contractor and at least one labor organization (awarded subcontractors will become covered by a PLA at a future date); 2) as a Design- Build project only contractors with craft labor will be party to the PLA and 3) no design consultants will be party to the PLA.

Please see FAR 52.222-33, Notice of Requirement for Project Labor Agreement (January 2024) Alternate II (Jan 2024) and FAR 52.222-34 Project Labor Agreement Alternate I (January 2024) for applicable project labor agreement requirements.

II.D.Other Information to be Submitted with Proposals

16-17 The solicitation identifies key consultants to the Government that are prohibited from competing for the Design-Build contract. We understand there are other consultants and subconsultants who have over a year of prior history working on this project under a different delivery approach/contract.

1) please advise if any Architectural / Engineering consultants from the original project delivery will be authorized to pursue the Design-Build contract as part of a DBC team; 2) if A/E consultants from the original project delivery team will be authorized to pursue the Design-Build contact as part of a DBC team, please share for the benefit of all offerors any and all materials (e.g. meeting minutes, sketches, concepts, blocking , stacking , massing work product(s), etc. ) that may have been developed to support the current solicitation, budgeting/pricing, or other effects or endeavours that may yield an advantage for those firms to compete for the DB contract versus firms that have had no visibility to those meetings and work efforts prior to the start of Phase 2 competition and work efforts.

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) does not intend to prohibit former subconsultants from participation in the selection process for this upcoming procurement after consideration and review of the applicable regulations, including FAR 36.209 (“Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms”) and FAR Subpart 9.5 (“Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest”. FAR 36.209 generally precludes an architect-engineer contractor from providing construction services on the same project if they were responsible for preparing the design or specifications. Based on the information to date, it is of the opinion of GSA the subconsultants did not prepare the design or specifications for this courthouse project in a manner that would trigger this restriction.

Additionally, under FAR Subpart 9.5, GSA has assessed whether any organizational conflict of interest (OCI) exists that would impair your subconsultant objectivity or provide an unfair competitive advantage. At this time, GSA has not identified any such conflict that would preclude them from submitting a proposal or being considered for award. GSA provided all necessary work products for all offerors to successfully and fairly compete in the solicitation. Please note that GSA reserves the right to re-evaluate this determination if additional facts emerge that suggest a potential conflict under FAR 9.5 or if circumstances change.

IWI Please provide the current IWI standards / expectations for the US Courts. The administrative spaces for this courthouse can be designed using modified IWI standards. Meaning, there will still be private offices and open workstation areas.

NA - General QuestionIn preparation of the Phase 2 submission, can the GSA provide an outline of documents deliverables that will be included with the Phase 2 Solicitation Package?

Deliverables list was posted as part of Phase 1 RFI responses. A list of all Phase 2 Solicitation documents will be issued as part of Phase 2.

ARG - Placeholder on CUI (still researching) "Please advise if CUI requirements outlined in the Phase 1 Solicitation Documents apply to the DBCs during the Phase 1 - RFQ Phase? "

Yes

SOW and Site Feasibility ReportSOW-Pg12& Feasibility - Pg -1There are approximately 11 "Site Reports" listed that were not included with the RFQ package.

These are posted as part of Phase 1 RFI responses.

SOW SOW Pg 11 and 12 Please clarify if "Option #1" was intended for the DBC to include or exclude the LEP. The LEP is also listed in on Page 17 in the SOW as Key Personnel.

LEP should be included.

SOW SOW Pg 11 There are multiple references to a utility easement that runs through a portion of the site. If intended to outline our approach as part of the RFP Phase, please provide additional information.

Approach needs to be conveyed in Phase 2 response.

SOW - Betterments SOW - Pg 14 Level 2 Betterments - Line #7 - Tarriff Risk & Escalation sharing. Please elaborate intended approach to sharing risk tied to Tarriff and Escalation.

This is a Firm Fixed Price contract. GSA will continue to explore Tarriff Risk & Escalation sharing in Phase 2.

SOW - Reductions (If Necessary)SOW - Pg 15 Level 2 Reductions (If Necessary) - Line # 7 - Fastrack Soil Abatement & Mitigation -Please confrim that base scope approach to scheduling shall include commencment of sitework on 65% CDs and the Construction NTP on 07/05/2025. Fastrack and/or early sitework commencment is referneced in other RFQ documents.

GSA's project schedule accounts for onsite work to initiate in alignment of the 65% construction documents completion. However, the DBC will have the opportunity to determine how to best fast track scopes to initiate prior to 100% CDs.

SOW - Project Delivery ApproachSOW - Pg 15 and other sectionsPlease confirm if the CxP will be carried by the GSA, CMa or if it should be included with the DBC's proposal?

CMa is providing CxP services. The Phase 2 solication will detail the DB's responsibilities in working with the CxP.

Solicitation Solicitation Pg 11 & Pg 50 Proposal FormatSection II.B. Proposal Format indicates that the proposers shall submit one electrionic version and should be formated to be a total of 50 double sided 8- 1/2"x11" pages. This seems to indicate a hard copy of the proposal is required.

Please confirm 100 8-1/2" x 11" pages electronically is acceptable and no hard copies are required.

Yes, for the electronic submission, 50 double-sided pages is equivalent to 100 pages. No hard copies are accepted.

SOW Pg 16 Page 16 (A.3) Who are all the government stakeholders? How is the process dependent on the approval of each. Is there a single point from the GSA who will be aligning all the stakeholders or is that a responsibility of the DBC?

GSA is responsible for aligning government stakeholders. However, the DBC significantly contributes with their deliverables and responsiveness for GSA to achieve government stakeholder alignment.

SOW SOW - Pg 18 Section C paragraph 4 references a separate procurement of a CMa contract?

What is timeline, process and what responsibilities will the CMa have?

GSA has a separate contract in place with a CMa (AECOM) through Project Close-out. A description of the CMa's role can be found in Section II.G.4 of the SOW.

SOW SOW - Pg 23 Page 23 – is it clear when we would take advantage of access for environmental due diligence (assume after Phase 1 selection, but before Phase 2 selection?

Onsite access may be provided and coordinated through GSA. However, GSA is providing a significant amount of environmental information during this RFI process.

SOW Is there a draft of Division 1 Specifications, if so, can that be provided? The Division 1 Specifications will be provided in Phase 2.

SOW Is there a Risk Register the GSA is currently utilizing, if so, can that be provided?

GSA will provide the project Risk Register to the successful DBC after contract award.

Pricing Template Pricing Template On the Pricing Sheet there is a line item for “Project requirements”. Please provide more clarity on what this is.

Project Requirements are project specific costs excluded from General Conditions.

SOW SOW - Pg 30 FF&E is referenced in the SOW. Please clarify if the CMa or GSA will provide this scope or if it was intended to be included with the DB scope.

No FFE for any tenant agencies spaces. FFE will be coordinated by the tenant. The DBC's A/E shall coordinate the power, data and security work via a generic furniture plan. Draft SOW to be updated.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 Betterments Add 700 SF shared conference room (6.500 Shared Training Suite) to 6.000 District Clerk. Comment: Add 700 NSF of generic office space. Can you provide a breakdown of types and quantities of spaces to be added.

The Shared Training Suites are to provide training space for Court and Probation & Pretrial Services staff and may include training rooms, storage space, AV closets, and service units.

Exact space distribution should be confirmed during Phase 2 of the solicitation and during design with tenants.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 BettermentsAdd 1,098 SF shared conference room (9.500 Shared Training Suite) to 9.000 Bankruptcy Clerk. Comment: Add 1098 NSF of generic office space (can be reduced in size). Can you provide a breakdown of types and quantities of spaces to be added to qualify for the betterment.

The Shared Training Suites are to provide training space for Court and Probation & Pretrial Services staff and may include training rooms, storage space, AV closets, and service units.

Exact space distribution should be confirmed during Phase 2 of the solicitation and during design with tenants.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 Betterments Add 400 SF shared conference room (7.500 Shared Training Suite) to 7.000

Probation-Pretrial Office. Comment: Add 400 NSF of generic office space. Can you provide a breakdown of types and quantities of spaces to be added.

The Shared Training Suites are to provide training space for Court and Probation & Pretrial Services staff and may include training rooms, storage space, AV closets, and service units.

Exact space distribution should be confirmed during Phase 2 of the solicitation and during design with tenants.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 BettermentsConvert 1.225, 1.424, 2.223, and 10.213 Shared Work Rooms in courtroom suites to Robing Rooms. Comment: Effectively adds a bathroom to each space.

The original POR did not include bathrooms with Robing Rooms. Is the intent of this betterment to convert Shared Work Rooms AND add toilet rooms for each Robing Room?

Yes. The POR states Robing Rooms, including private restrooms, for judiciary; this betterment effectively adds 100 SF in addition to the restroom to 1.225, 1.424, 2.223, and

10.213 Shared Work Rooms, to replace the Workrooms.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 BettermentsProvide semi-atrium space. Comment: Add 400 NSF of generic office space.

Comment: Eliminate code requirements for Atrium space, not to include atrium exhaust vent, fire separation from above floor area. Is the intent of this betterment to provide a semi-atrium space design that would not trigger the code atrium requirements for smoke evacuation and fire separation?

Yes, the intent of this betterment is to provide an atrium-like space or other grand entry design that would not trigger the code atrium requirements for smoke evacuation and fire separation. Additional intent is to not encroach on 67% building efficiency; see Salt Lake City example in Courthouse Site Tour report to be provided in Phase 2 Solicitation.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 BettermentsAdd a retractable wall between the multi-defendant courtroom and adjacent space. Comment: Modification to the multi-defendant courtroom (1.201 Special Proceedings Courtroom) to allow for multipurpose use. Is the intent of this betterment to provide a movable wall system to connect Public Waiting Area [1.206] with the Special Proceedings Courtroom?

The intent of this betterment is to provide flexibility to connect the attorney conference room with the special proceedings courtroom to expand capacity. See Courthouse Site Tour report to be provided in Phase 2 Solicitation, specifically Los Angeles Courthouse example.

SOW SOW Pg 14 Level 2 Betterments (HEADING NOTE)Betterments - Level 2 selections should only be included once all Level 1 Betterments have been included. Can offerors receive credit for providing Level 2 BETTERMENTS without having to include ALL of the LEVEL 1 BETTERMENTS? We would note that the Level 1 betterment for an additional 40 secure spaces within the building footprint/envelope would be a considerable expense considering excavation, ground water table, and ventilation requirements.

Offerors do not need to include all of Level 1 betterments in order to include Level II betterment items.

SOW SOW Pg 14 Level 2 BettermentsAdd back 14.300 Congressional office in 14.000 Agency Tenant space in POR.

Comment: Add 230 GSF of generic office space. Please clarify. The original program area for 14.3 Congressional Office was 1000 NSF

Confirmed 14.300 Congressional office is 1000 NSF. Draft betterments and reductions list will be updated in the DB SOW for Phase 2.

SOW SOW Pg 14 Level 2 BettermentsAdd back 14.400 Trustees office in 14.000 Agency Tenant space in POR.

Comment: Add 230 GSF of generic office space. Please clarify. The original program area for 14.4 Trustees Office was 650 NSF.

Confirmed 14.400 Trustees office is 650 NSF. Draft betterments and reductions list will be updated in the DB SOW for Phase 2.

SOW SOW Pg 14 Level 2 BettermentsAdd back 12.200 Office Spaces in the Circuit Library. Comment: Add 479 GSF of generic office space to Circuit Library. Please clarify. The original program area for 12.2 Circuit Library Office Spaces was 479 NSF. The POR Priorities includes 282 NSF. Is the intent of this betterment to restore 12.200 to 479 NSF by adding 197 NSF?

Intent of this betterment is to restore 12.000 Circuit Library to original POR size (4,740 USF). Draft betterments and reductions list will be updated for phase 2.

SOW SOW Pg15 Level 1 ReductionsEpoxy Terrazzo or the like at Lobby space in lieu of stone or marble. We would consider that epoxy terrazzo is a standard level of finish for public lobby space and providing such should not be considered a REDUCTION.

It is confirmed that terrazzo is a standard level of finish for public lobby space. Reductions will be updated for Phase 2.

SOW SOW Pg15 Level 2 ReductionsReduce courtroom floor height to 19 and general office floor height to 15' throughout the courthouse.

No information is requested in the offerors statement

DK SOW Pg15 Level 2 ReductionsThe Phase 1 Proprietary Meeting Agenda included Question 5 to bidders regarding betterments, reductions and alterations to scope. Will shelled space of POR requirements be considered as an alternate reduction?

No

Solicitation Pg 16 RFQ Pg 16. Factor 3 Page CountFactor 3: Lead Designer submittal requirements for portfolio stipulates a maximum of 5 pages per project [Items B and C, page16]. Item E on page 16 lists a number of possible submission items "in addition to the page limits above" without page limits. Can you clarify/ confirm the number of pages allowed for portfolio projects?

For Factor 3, Offerors may include, in addition to the 5-page project limit:

-One representative visual per project (representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3D model, a building section, or other appropriate drawing).

-Two pages of photographs per project.

These additional materials are still subject to the overall submission limit of 50 double-sided pages (100 one-sided pages in an electronic submission).

Please confirm that the Phase 1 proposal submission is strictly to identify qualified offerors to shortlist and does not count in the phase 2 overall evaluation process.

Phase I factors and evaluations are independent of the Phase II factors in the solicitation notice. The Phase I factors and evaluation will only be used to evaluate and select firms to compete in Phase II.

Subfactor 1B: Past Performance13 - 14 The due date for RFQ / Stage 1 is Monday, November 5. An RFI response provided this week via Amendment 1 indicates CPARS can not be used as an alterative to PPQ's for Government projects. This position is inconsistent with other active and recent GSA and other Executive Agency procurements. Based upon recent discussions with federal employees (present) and federal employees (past) needed to complete PPQ's for Government contracts, we have concerns related to Government employee's and/or former employees being able/willing to turn around PPQs in the remaining time the Stage 1 qualifications are due primarly due to (1) additional staff workload due to substantial reduction in force this year, (2) reduction in force separating respondents for PPQ's from Government employment and (3) potential of current or nearterm furlough status. Will the Government reconsider accepting CPARS for federal contracts in lieu of PPQs?

The Offeror must submit either a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (included in the solicitation as Attachment), completed by the applicable client, or FINAL CPARS evaluations for each project included in its proposal for Factor 1A

II.B Proposal Format 11 Please confirm that the past performance documentation (PPQ / CPAR) and the II.D Other Information (noted on page 16 including JV Agreement) are excluded from the page limitation noted in II.B.

Confirmed

SOW 22 Section E Project Duration and Scheudle Milestones indicates that two NTPs will be issued; a Design Start NTP and a Construction NTP. Please confirm that the GSA will only issue one NTP to release the DBC.

Confirmed

I.E. Proprietary Meetings9 The second proprietary meeting scheduled for February 10 – 12, suggests an agenda for “the Offerors to discuss their initial concepts and options for site usage, building layout plans, building massing diagrams, building circulation and phasing of building construction.” Based on the Phase 2 response due on April 15, we recommend that GSA feedback on that level of design should be much earlier in the Phase 2 schedule. Can the second proprietary meeting be shifted to early/mid-January?

Yes. GSA intends to add a virtual Proprietary Meeting on January 12-13, 2026.