Phase 1 RFIs for Design-Build Bridging US Courthouse Huntsville AL.pdf

Phase 1 Request for Information Huntsville Design-Build Bridging RFI Number Question Response

1 Solicitation section I.E provides a Zoom link for a virtual pre-proposal meeting to be held on January 29, 2021. Please provide the time the meeting will be held.

10 am. Please note, this was updated in Amendment 001, please ensure you are looking at the correct solicitation.

2 Solicitation section II.B. Proposal Format states, “…The total submission should not exceed XXX 8-1/2”x 11” pages (not including the Cover Letter, Table of Contents or Section Separators)…”. Please advise what the page limit is for this requirement.

Please note, this was updated in Amendment 001, please ensure you are looking at the correct solicitation.

However, Amendment 002 will change the page limit from 25 to 35.

3 Solicitation Section II.C Technical Proposal Factor 1 indicates the most relevant past performance projects have been delivered utilizing Design-Build, Bridging Design-Build, or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). In addition to these project delivery types, will the Government consider GSA’s CMc project delivery that includes relevant Design Phase / Design Assist experience on U.S. Courthouse(s) and similar projects to also be relevant past performance?

See the response to question #14 below.

4 Solicitation Section II.C Technical Proposal Factor 1 indicates Offeror’s should submit the information identified on Attachment 1. Will the Government allow Offerors to utilize their own format provided it contains all required information on Attachment 1?

Offerors may utilize their own format, provided it contains all required information.

5 Please clarify the submission requirement for Factor 1 related to the number of projects to be submitted for Contractor and Architect. The RFQ states “each member of the Offeror’s team shall provide sufficient documentation in order to demonstrate the extent of the Offeror’s past experience for at least four (4) but no more than six (6) Relevant Projects.” It also states “If more than six (6) projects are submitted, only the first six (6) will be evaluated. Projects exceeding the first six (6) will not be evaluated.” Please clarify whether a maximum total of twelve (12) projects may be submitted (up to six (6) for the contractor and up to six (6) for the architect), or if a total of six (6) projects is to be submitted.

The minimum of four (4) and maximum of six (6) represents the total quantity of Relevant Projects.

6 Amendment 1 provided a limit of 25 single-sided pages for the Phase 1 technical proposal. Considering the extent of the information requested please consider increasing this limit to eighty (80) single-sided pages. The rationale for this request is based on:

a. The document provided by the Government for Attachment 1 Prior Experience on Relevant Projects is 4 pages. If both the contractor and architect submit 6 projects utilizing this form, the total pages required is 48 (per question 1 above, if the projects are limited to 6 total, the total could be 24 pages for relevant projects alone).

b. A minimum of 10 pages is recommended to allow submitting firms to adequately address the submission criteria for Factor 3.

As an alternative, the Government could consider excluding Factor 1 from the page limitation.

It's a total of 6 projects for Factor 1, not 6 projects for the General Construction Contractor and 6 projects for the A/E.

Attachment 1 would equal a total of 24 pages if the Offer submits the maximum number of projects for Factor 1. The total page limit for Phase 1 technical proposal is increased to 35 single sided pages.

7 Phase 1 Go/No Go Criteria – Technical Qualifications considers ‘recent’ projects as projects that are completed within seven (7) years of the closing date of the Phase I RFQ or projects at or past 75% construction completion on the closing date of the Phase I RFQ. Please consider extending this to ten (10) years from the release of the solicitation so that Offerors are able offer a greater range of projects, even if projects within 7 years are weighted more favorably.

Projects that are completed within ten

(10) years of the closing date of the Phase I RFQ can be submitted and will be considered Relevant. Projects completed within seven (7) years or less of the closing date of the Phase I RFQ will be evaluated more favorably.

8 Phase 1 Go/No Go Criteria – Technical Qualifications considers ‘relevant’ projects as projects that have been delivered utilizing design-build (DB), bridging design-build (BDB), or integrated project delivery (IPD) methods.

Please consider revising this to note that at least 1 (or 50%, whichever is greater) of the submitted projects for the Contractor and Designer must be DB, BDB, or IPD. Allowing Offerors to submit design bid build (DBB) projects, even if DB/BDB/IPD project are weighted more favorably will allow Offerors to demonstrate a greater range of expertise and capability in delivering projects of similar size/complexity.

This request has been considered. The requirements of the solicitation remain unchanged. Design Bid Build projects will not be considered as a Relevant Project for this soliciation.

9 Page 10 of 18 of the solicitation states “Offerors shall also submit with their proposal, the Annual Representations and Certifications (FAR 52.204-8), using the attached Offeror’s Representations and Certifications (C301-SAT).” The referenced attachment was not found in the solicitation documents.

Attachment will be included in Amendment A002.

10 Page 10 of 18 asks to “explain how the stipend will be distributed among the team members.” The solicitation doesn’t state the stipend amount.

The stipend is $75 k for each unsuccessful Offeror in Phase 2. Firms should be advised that the shortlisted offerors will be required to conduct their own geotechnical study as part of the Phase 2 technical submission requirements. The stipend will be paid to the unsuccesful firms in Phase 2 once the Government has a fully executed contract with the successful Offeror.

11 The Factor 3 standard for evaluation indicates additional favorable consideration will be given for written binding agreements between the team members on the equitable distribution of the stipend. Please confirm these written agreements do not count against the page limitation for the technical submission (Factors 1, 2, and 3).

Correct. The written agreement does not count towards your page count.

12 Please confirm the Other Information that is to be submitted with the technical submission (Factors 1, 2, and 3) is not subject to the page limitation and includes the following items:

a. SF 1442 with acknowledgement of amendments.

b. Representations and Certifications.

c. Proof of Bonding to $70,000,000.

Correct. These documents are not included in the page limit.

13 Reps and Certs form C301-SAT was not included with the solicitation documents.

Attachment will be included in Amendment A002.

14 Please confirm that GSA Federal Courthouses delivered through CMC are highly relevant projects for Factor 1. The preconstruction effort of the CMC and AE team is very similar to Bridging Design-Build, where the AE team and CMC team collaborated closely together during the design to complete the work within the Government’s budget. The highly collaborative nature of the CMC’s preconstruction process in a Federal Courthouse project has strong parallels to the Huntsville CH delivery method.

Federal courthouses delivered using CMc or CM at Risk delivery method will be considered as a Relevant Project for this solicitation. The project must meet all other criteria in the solicitation for Relevant Project.

15 The requested Factor 2 information is a duplicate of information requested in Attachment 1 of Factor 1, please confirm that GSA would like this information listed in both factors.

The contact information provided in Attachment 1 for Factor 1 will be used to evaluate the Offeror's past performance. As long as complete contact information is provided in Attachment 1 for each project submitted, the Offeror does not need to repeat that information again for Factor

2. Offeror can use the same projects from Factor 1 in Factor 2 as well.

16 Are section dividers required? Section dividers are not required as long as there is a clear delineage between each factors.