Toledo_RFIs_9.11.2019.pdf

Amendment 0002 - RFP Bridging Design Build Services for the Ashley U.S. Courthouse Modernization and New Annex Project

This amendment hereby incorporates the Questions and Answers supplied at the PreProposal Conference, held at the Ashley U.S. Courthouse on Friday, September 6, 2019. This amendment also hereby incorporates RFIs and supplied answers, submitted through Friday September 6, 2019 directly to the Contracting Officer.

The following were asked at the PreProposal Conference:

1. Q: How many employees are in the building currently, and how many more will be added in the annex?

A: As of now, there will be approximately 95 full time employees. Currently, there are approximately 72 FTE, with approximately an additional 20 FTE that will be moving in from leased space. Daily visitor rates are not very high due to electronic filing.

Lawyers/juries are typically a few dozen visitors at a time. It may be as high as 200, but it’s typically staggered. The program and project requirements will be included in the bridging documents which will be provided to offerors included in the competitive range and invited to participate in Phase II of the procurement.

2. Q: There was a mention of road closure, can you elaborate?

A: GSA owns the land comprising the flat parking lot and the land immediately North of the Courthouse as well as the rights to Constitution Ave between the parcels. While the utility easement must be maintained, the closure of this section of Constitution Ave aides in establishing the necessary setbacks and secure perimeter. The flat parking lot can/will be used for staging. Whatever footprint is necessary for the Annex and site program will be retained as GSA property upon completion of construction; any land left over will be reported as excess to GSA’s needs. Modifications to Constitution Ave must maintain access to the Lucas County Court of Appeals, adjacent properties, and consider pedestrian traffic. The vacant land located on Orange and Cherry Streets near Spielbusch Street has a highest and best use as land to be improved for commercial development. Any left over GSA land that is not necessary for completion of the project will need to retain the property’s ability to be developed for its highest and best use and be consistent with underlying zoning. The program and project requirements will be included in the bridging documents which will be provided to offerors included in the competitive range and invited to participate in Phase II of the procurement.

3. Q: What is the scope/scheduling for historic renovation? How long is the projected project duration?

A: The Ashley Courthouse needs to modernized. The intent is to update the space and respect as much of the historic aspects of the Ashley as possible; it will be a team effort to work with historic preservation to find the best solution. We anticipate major systems replacement (HVAC etc), and reconfiguration of spaces for functionality; there is to be only one public entrance to allow circulation between both buildings for the public, but also ensure secure spaces where required. Where the entrance is will be up to the BDB team as proposed in a concept submission. The program and project requirements will be included in the bridging documents which will be provided to offerors included in the competitive range and invited to participate in Phase II of the procurement.

4. Q: There was a mention of over the shoulder design reviews; who is participating? How and when will those be conducted?

A: The over the shoulder design reviews are intended to accomplish two things: 1.

Provide mid-stream checkpoints for the teams to ensure they don’t misinterpret requirements, going too far down a wrong path, and 2. Provide quality checks for GSA prior to award. Since the Phase 2 process will conclude with an award and a Concept, GSA will be ensuring that the appropriate subject matter experts have an opportunity to advise on general design acceptability and fulfillment of program intent. This includes in-house technical experts as well as tenant representatives, such as the USMS. These reviews will be conducted in a variety of ways including as a Phase 2 Pre-Proposal Conference for the shortlisted teams, as confidential reviews between the Source Selection Board and each shortlisted team, and as presentations by shortlisted teams for SSB feedback. The board will likely act as the conduit for all commentary between subject matter experts and the shortlisted firms as maintaining the integrity of the Source Selection process if critical. Similarly, maintaining equity of information between all shortlist teams will be paramount to the process, and necessary clarifications that arise from the over-the-shoulder process will be published for all the shortlisted teams benefit.

5. Q: Regarding the previous process, will there be information shared of ideas that were previously considered but rejected? What is acceptable and not acceptable?

A: That information will be shared in Phase II as part of the Bridging package which includes lessons learned. The intent is to share raw data; nothing shared is designed to direct contractors to any specific solution.

6. Q: What is the timeline for Phase II?

A: We expect to conclude Phase I and kick of Phase II for the shortlist in December 2019. Phase II proposals are intended to be due in spring 2020.

7. Q: Design team vs independent lead designer, how many project examples should be submitted per person?

A: If the “Lead Designer” is being proposed as a team, the solicitation requests that no more than 2 examples of past projects from the “Lead Designer” team be provided, so up to 2 projects per person on the Team.

8. Q: Is a scoring matrix available; will you score better for providing more examples?

A: There is no scoring matrix available. The solicitation provides the point weight for each of the evaluation factors. You will not score better for providing more examples than what is requested in the solicitation. The solicitation provides the guidance for proposal submission requirements and expectations. Additional projects submitted may be considered, however we encourage you to ensure they are necessary for providing a holistic demonstration of relevant past experience. Your proposals will be evaluated and scored per the requirements of the solicitation. The quality and relevance of the past experience examples are more important than quantity.

9. Q: Is it ok to submit examples using CMc delivery method?

A: It is up to the contractor to determine their best project examples to demonstrate relevance and similarity to the Toledo project, and to submit their proposal which adheres to the requirements of the solicitation for past experience. Note that the solicitation prioritizes experience with Bridging Design Build, Design Build, and Integrated Project Delivery.

The following RFIs were submitted directly to the contracting officer:

1. Q: Under the Standard for Evaluation for Factor 2 (Page 13/17), a $150,000 stipend is noted. Please confirm that the $150,000 stipend will be provided to all offerors selected for Phase II but not ultimately awarded the Design-Build contract (provided the unsuccessful proposers meet the requirements of the Phase II submission).

A: GSA anticipates a shortlist of 3 firms. The two firms who are not selected will each receive a $150,000.00 stipend (provided the unsuccessful firms meet the requirements of the Phase II submission).

2. Q: Section I.F of the RFP indicates the estimated price range for the Project is between $76,000,000 and $86,000,000. Is $86,000,000 the maximum funding available for the design and construction of this project? If no, please confirm total funding planned/allocated/available for this project.

A: Funding is available for the range identified and is intended to be inclusive of all design and construction costs.

3. Q: To assist in the development of the proposal, please confirm the planned sizes (overall building SF) for both the Annex construction and Ashley renovation or provide any current bridging documents/early conceptual drawings that are available at this time.

A: Phase 2 will include a technical package to shortlisted firms. A program of requirements will be provided; GSA will not provide a Concept design. The Annex SF can be up to 96,000 gsf.

4. Q: Factor 3: Lead Designer. The RFP states that there is a 5-page limit for the narratives for each of the projects submitted. 3.a.iv. States “In addition to the page limits above, each offeror may include: One of the following for each project: a representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3D model, a building section, or other appropriate drawing, and two pages of photographs for each project.” Are these additional pages included in the 40 page count?

A: These pages should be included in the 40 page count.

5. Q: Factor 4: Past Performance of the Offeror’s Team requests that Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) be sent to two references for each project submitted in Factor 1

– Technical Qualifications of the Firm. In the event the Offeror has copies of previously requested PPQs or CPAR evaluations, may they be submitted as hard copies in Factor 4 (and not be included in the page count) along with the required contact information in lieu of initiating a request for questionnaire to the references again?

A: Please initiate a request for the questionnaire references again.

6. Q: Are the required Reps and Certs and the proof of bonding information included in the 40-page count?

A: The Reps and Certs and proof of bonding are permitted to be in addition to the 40-page count.

7. Q: The Factor 1 submission requirements note “legal entity permitted by law to practice the profession of architecture and engineering and the State of Ohio”. Please confirm that, in accordance with FAR 52.236-25, architects and engineers holding a current state license (regardless of the issuing state) are permitted by law to practice in the State of Ohio.

A: To practice in the state of Ohio, individuals either need to be licensed in the state or need to obtain reciprocity for their license to be applicable in the State of Ohio. For guidelines on practicing in the State of Ohio, see here:

https://arc.ohio.gov/Registration-Requirements

8. Q: Section I.C of The Agreement notes an overall period of performance of 1,866 calendar days, noting a period of 1,066 days for the new annex and 720 days for the Ashley modernization. Please provide a description of the design submissions required (including design excellence and SHPO) for the new annex so that we may analyze the https://arc.ohio.gov/Registration-Requirements sufficiency of the 1,066 calendar day period of performance prior to submission of the Phase 1 proposal. In the absence of schematic design-level bridging documents the period of performance for the annex may be insufficient.

A: Award for a Design Build team is anticipated mid year 2020. Initial NTP is expected in the Spring of 2021 with the understanding that early packages (demo, foundations, etc.)

may be released before a full NTP is issued. The construction durations listed as 1066 days for the Annex and 720 days for the Ashley modernization are the government’s best current estimate. Teams will be asked during phase 2 of the solicitation to provide their own proposed schedule of construction.

9. Q: Reference RFP section VI.G Non-Price Factors, Factor 1 Technical Qualification of the Firm. The definition of similar projects is included in the first bullet at the bottom of page 11 of 17. Please confirm IPD (while not a provision currently allowable by the FAR), a delivery method in non-federal market sectors, demonstrates similar methodologies, techniques, and design-build collaboration skill-sets essential to the performance of the work under this contract. Similarly, please confirm that projects delivered via CMc or CM@R where there is a high level of contractor engagement in the design phase, collaboration and alignment of scope, budget, and project goals through the design phase is acceptable to the Government as a similar project.

A: It is the contractor’s responsibility to submit projects that adequately demonstrates their relevant past experience and make the connection to the Toledo project apparent for evaluators.

10. Q: Do Tabs and/or Dividers count towards the overall 40 page proposal limit?

A: Tabs and/or Dividers do not count towards the overall 40 page proposal limit.

11. Q: In Factor 2, “Stipend” additional consideration is given when there is a written, binding agreement between team members regarding distribution of the stipend. If we include teaming agreements in the RFP response, do the teaming agreements count against the page limit?

A: Teaming agreements can be in addition to the page limit.

12. Q: Does a cover letter count against the page limit?

A: A cover letter does count against the page limit.

13. Q: Factor 1 & Factor 4 both require references for the projects submitted under Factor 1.

Do a list of at least two references per project need to be on the Factor 1 project description sheets, or under factor 4, or both?

A: The point of contacts listed for the Factor 1 Past Experience projects do not necessarily have to be a Factor 4 Past Performance reference, but can be at the contractors’ discretion. Please list references in both locations.

14. Q: As noted in section II.B of The Solicitation, an Offeror’s proposals must be no longer than 40 pages long. Section II.D(1) indicates that updated Representations and Certifications must also be submitted with the proposal. Can you please confirm if the Reps and Certs are considered part of the 40 page limit of the proposal?

A: The Reps and Certs do not have to be part of the 40 page limit in the proposal.

15. Q: Is the funding range ECC or ECCA?

A: ECCA