47PD0223R0043 CMS Back on Campus Phase IIII RFI Log Response 12 7 2023.pdf

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION LOG

RFP#: 47PD0223R0043

Due Date: December 5th, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. ET CMS Back on Campus Phase III

RFI # Request for Clarification/Interpretation Response

1 Please allow a project to be considered relevant meeting the GSF or construction cost. Similar scope projects will be considered relevant.

2 The dollar value for relevant projects is lowered from $20 million to $50 million to "Total project value of approximately $15 million to $45 million".

3 Renovations will be considered relevant, but occupied renovations will be favorable.

4 Allow renovation of multifamily, not only office renovations. Similar scope projects are relevant, but federal and office space renovations will be favorable.

5 Regarding the designer projects, would you permit projects where design is complete, but construction is currently underway but not completed? Completed projects will be evaluated more favorably.

6 Also, please confirm you were permit projects in a higher education setting that included classrooms and office space. Similar scope projects are relevant.

We wanted to see whether the applicant has to be the lead architect or whether we can assemble a team with a lead architect and other agencies that are needed for the design-build approach.

The lead architect has to be identified, but a team can be assembled to fullfil the project requirements.

8 Does the lead applicant have to be SBE qualified? Yes the lead applicant needs to be an SBE.

9 Is there a plan holder for this project? The solicitation was posted on Sam.gov, there is no plan holder list for this project.

10 PPQs are required.

Please see revised Philosphy and Design Intent.

12 Three (3) pages per project is acceptable.

13 Yes

14 No PPQs must be submitted directly to GSA from the firm providing the evaluation.

15 No PPQs must be submitted directly to GSA from the firm providing the evaluation.

16 All the detail should be submitted in Section A1 Past Performance and the page limit is restricted to the three (3) pages of the PPQ.

For Factor 1A. Prior Experience on Relevant Projects, the Standard of Evaluation indicates that additional favorable consideration may be given for “Higher quantity of similar project experience”, but the submittal requirement states, “The Offeror shall provide relevant project experience for each of its team member firms:

Design/Builder* – One (1) Project; Design Team – One (1) Project; General Contractor – One (1) Project,” for a total of three projects. 1) Can more than three projects be submitted? 2) Is there a maximum number of projects that the offeror can submit for evaluation?

Only three (3) projects can be submitted.

Solicitation II.D. Subfactor 1.A: Solicitation states that "Each project submitted shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) pages. Additionally, images of completed projects may be provided". If images are included, please confirm they do not count towards the 2 page limit?

This is acceptable.

19 Please confirm that Offerors will need to show they are capable of obtaining a bond for this size project. Yes.

Solicitation II.D. Factor 2: If intentionally blank pages are used and marked in the Approach to Design Build in order to keep two pages together for viewing purposes, will they count towards the 10 page limit?

This is acceptable.

Solicitation II.D. Factor 2: Solicitation states that “Written, binding agreements between the team members on the equitable distribution of the stipend” would add favorable consideration. Do offerors need to include a copy of the agreement with our proposal? If so, will that count towards the 10 page limit?

The copy of the agreement is considered favorable, but not required. The copy of the agreemnet will not count towards the 10 page limit.

Please clarify if the soliciation will be a set-aside. The Classification under SAM.gov states that this is a Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5), The RFQ DB Solicitation does not mention a set-aside. Please confirm if the solicitation is a Small Business Set-Aside or not.

Yes this solicitation is a Small Business Set-Aside.

We ask that the dollar value, be lowered

Allow renovations, not just occupied renovations.

Can a CPARS report for federal projects qualify as the PPQ? Is a PPQ required for federal projects?

Please clarify under Philosophy and Design Intent, the mention of constructing a vertical wind tunnel.

As the technical qualifications represents the largest percentage in the evaluation, can it be increased to 3 pages per project?

Please clarify whether a party to a Joint Venture Offeror can submit Relevant Project Experience on behalf of the Joint Venture

Philosophy and Design Intent: The Offeror’s philosophy and design intent as related to the project that is described in the solicitation. Such a discussion may include such topics as the parameters of an overall design philosophy; the Offeror’s approach to the challenges of a phased renovation in an occupied and secure government building, and commitment to integrated and sustainable design. The Offeror’s philosophy and design intent should be characterized by clarity, standard grammar, and the absence of clichés or jargon. The Government expects clear, thoughtful phrases that demonstrate the ability of the team to communicate ideas. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s philosophy and design intent is suitable for this project.

May PPQs be included in the submission, rather than submitted directly to GSA?

May prior PPQS that were submitted on GSA forms be provided in the submission to meet SubFactor 1B Past Performance on Relevant Project requirements?

Pages 14 and 15 of 54 list the standards for evaluation for past performance including items that may result in additional favorable conditions. Please confirm that all of these details are to be submitted in Section A1 Past Performance and that no page limits apply