47PF0023R0049 Amend 01 RFIs.pdf

Amendment 01 - RFP 47PF0023R0039 - CMc Services for the International Falls

Land Port of Entry Project, International Falls, MN

This Amendment hereby incorporates the sign in sheet, agenda, and presentation from the Site

Visit and Pre-Proposal Conference held in International Falls, MN, on May 14, 2024. Additionally, this Amendment incorporates a clarification to Option 2: Firearms Range scope, via the attachment titled “2024_05_20 Trusted Traveler Options_fl”.

As noted below, the due date for proposals is hereby extended to June 20, 2024, no later than

1:00pm Central Time.

Please see the submitted RFIs as of 5/21/2024, with corresponding responses:

Q: Can you clarify the due date for proposals?

● June 12, 2024 is listed as the submission due date in the Master Schedule.

● 4:00 pm Central time June 5, 2024 is stated on p. 6 of the RFP.

● p. 32 of the RFP states it must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified if transmitted through an electronic commerce method.

A: The original due date for Digital Proposals was June 5, 2024. This amendment hereby extends the due date for proposals to 1:00pm Central Time on Thursday, June 20, 2024. A revised

Milestone schedule is included as an attachment, titled “IFalls Master Schedule_240520”. The reference to the time on page 32 of the Solicitation is in regards to late proposals.

Q: Can additional design renderings and the native Revit and CAD files be provided to better facilitate understanding of overall site and associated estimating efforts?

A: “Working” files in Revit and/or CAD format will not be provided during the bidding process, but will be available to the CMc contractor after the award has been made.

Q: The Excel “International Falls Modernization IRA Project Submittal_Reporting

Form.xlsx” does not open properly. Can you publish a new workbook with these errors corrected?

A: There is an issue with how this document converts from a Google document, into a Microsoft document. A PDF will be uploaded with this amendment package to show the information from this doc and each of the tabs - this form will be utilized post award, and no actions with regard to the document are required at this time, it is shared for informational purposes only. The new document is titled “724 International Falls LPOE Modernization IRA Project Submittal_ Reporting

Form.pdf”. A more workable excel version of the same document will be uploaded as well.

Q: The Excel “Award Allocation Form IRA.xlsx” workbook format for pricing input does not match the pricing evaluation outlined in the RFP solicitation on pp.38-39. Do you have an

Excel workbook that you can provide that matches the outline format in the RFP? (images below)

A: Please use both the pricing sheet provided in the Solicitation (page 38-39), which matches the

Supplemental 1442 pricing sheet, as well as complete and provide the PBS Masterformat CSI from the “Award Allocation Form IRA.xlsx”, which is required as part of the P-120 and the

Inflation Reduction Act program. Both should be part of your price proposal package.

Q: Can you provide any more detail of project schedule assumptions made to date by the

GSA and/or design team for:

○ number of early design packages for construction issuance and scope(s) of work in each

○ anticipated early construction activities to occur in 2024

○ construction sequence and durations for each major building and site components

○ Phased move-in and occupancy dates

A: Assume that there will be one Early Release Package with an anticipated start date of next spring (2025). The remaining work will be released at the conclusion of the Construction

Document development phase at the end of 2025. Regarding early construction activities in 2024, the answer is no. The early construction activities would begin in spring 2025. We expect that the awarded CMc contractor will help establish which scope will be included in that early release package, but will likely include soil remediation work, shoreline work, utility relocation work, re-routing of First Creek, possibly foundation and roadway work, etc. Regarding construction sequence and durations for each major building and site components, we will issue a preliminary phasing diagram during/after the pre-proposal walkthrough on 05/14, which will show the assumptions about construction sequencing and phasing. Once a CMc has been selected, we assume they will assist in further developing/refining the construction sequence and phasing plan based on constructability reviews during the DD and CD phases of the design process. Finally, for the phased move-in and occupancy dates, please see response above. Note that the initial assumption is that the majority of the new work can be completed in one phase, the tenant agencies will move once at the end of the project, and then the existing building will be demolished. Phased move-in is not anticipated for this project.

Q: Can you please advise if the Port of Entry facility is expected to have dog kennels for the working military dogs? We build custom dog kennels.

A: Yes.

The following were questions and answers provided during the Pre-Proposal Conference and Walk Through.

Project questions asked during review of Slide deck presented by Seth LaRocque and Anna Vanko:

Question: Will the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) be included in the project?

Answer: No. During initial feasibility studies, FWS was included as a customer agency, but have since decided not to be included in the new LPOE.

Question: Does the construction of the port go to the bridge?

Answer: Yes, to the foot of the bridge, but does not include the bridge itself.

Question: In the current schedule, there is time allotted for condemnation. Is this going forward?

Answer: It is possible that the condemnation process may need to be used for GSA to acquire the property and an alternate set of tasks is shown for reference to indicate the potential delay if that is required. However, the best outcome is for the parties to reach a negotiated settlement by the end of 2024.

Question: Would condemnation change the start of construction?

Answer: If the condemnation process is necessary, then the master schedule would be adjusted accordingly and the start/end dates for construction would be pushed back.

Question: Is GMP based on final design docs?

Answer: The final negotiated GMP will be based on the 100% Construction Document set, currently planned to occur in the fall of 2025.

Question: What does the DOE Effects grant cover?

Answer: A Geothermal system- $10M is the max that can be covered by the grant; GSA is in the process of pursuing but does not have it in hand/guaranteed.

Question: Is there a possibility to extend the submission date?

Answer: Yes. See above Date Extension to June 20, 2024

Question: Is the early package a GMP?

Answer: No, it would be a Firm-Fixed Price.

Question: The condition of the soil and extent of remediation is unknown at this point. How should this scope be priced for proposal purposes?

Answer: There are contaminants, but it is unknown as to the extent. Another amendment will be forthcoming with additional guidance/information on how to price this as an unknown.

Question: Is there a ground water issue?

Answer: There are contaminants, but the extent is unknown. Another amendment will be forthcoming with additional guidance/information on how to price this as an unknown.

Question: How do we define what to price?

Answer: We are currently testing on the eastern parcel and at the existing LPOE. We will provide guidance in an upcoming amendment on how to price the remediation.

Question: Currently we are pricing that we will not be taking any soil offsite?

Answer: No, that assumption is incorrect. We will address this in a subsequent amendment to be released.

Question: When will soil and water testing take place?

Answer: This spring.

Question: How big is the geothermal field?

Answer: The information is in the narrative.

Question: In relation to the rail line that feeds PCA, do we have to cross over it with this project?

Answer: No. This rail is to be moved so there will be no pedestrian or vehicular traffic crossing

it. See site plan.

Question: Is moving the rail part of this project?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Is it reasonable to take the rail out of commission to move it?

Answer: PCA has 2 other branches. This will take coordination with PCA operations, but it is anticipated that the rail will have to be out of commission at least partially.

Question: Are there any consequential damages? How are we to manage them?

Answer: PCA informed us that there is a $1.5M/day loss if the plant is offline. This is the worst-case scenario.

Procurement questions asked during review:

Question: Concerning the soil remediation, there might be many unit costs provided.

Answer: This will be better defined in a forthcoming amendment.

Question: Solicitation mentions a post award audit. When will this happen?

Answer: Earlier is better to make sure your system is set up to meet the requirements. It will have to occur before the final GMP is obligated.

Question: Concerning references, can they come through me (the contractor)?

Answer: Anna is flexible on this, but experience shows that the references are more honest if they come directly to GSA.

Question: For LEC pricing, we are to provide the delta between base-bid and upgrade?

Answer: No, all LEC bids will be the full price. All non-LEC pricing will be captured in 2A.

Question: Do we need to provide EPDs with proposal?

Answer: Per the solicitation, “For each offeror that is unable to submit any of the compliant

EPDs by the proposal due date, the offeror shall submit a statement for each such missing compliant EPD certifying that it is unable to submit the compliant EPD by the proposal due date.

Failure by an offeror to submit any compliant EPD or its certification (as described in the immediately preceding sentence) by the proposal due date shall result in the offeror’s proposal being unacceptable and the offeror being ineligible for award.

The contract resulting from this solicitation shall have the following provision: “Within 180 days after contract award, the Contractor shall submit a compliant EPD for any IRA-eligible Material for which the Contractor was unable to submit a compliant EPD by the proposal due date. Such

EPD must reflect GWP values that comply with the IRA Limit Commitments incorporated into the contract. GSA shall not issue a Notice to Proceed with construction services to the

Contractor until the Contractor has submitted a compliant EPD for each IRA-eligible Material for which the Contractor was unable to submit a compliant EPD by the proposal due date. In addition to other remedies available to the Government, if the Contractor fails to comply with the

180-day requirement in this paragraph for submission of compliant EPDs, GSA shall have the option to cancel the contract for the construction services at no cost to either the Contractor or

GSA.

Cancellation of the contract for the construction services by GSA under this paragraph shall not relieve the contractor of its obligation to provide GSA with a completed design in compliance with the contract. The design completed by the contractor in compliance with the contract shall be property of GSA and may be used by GSA to, among other things, obtain construction services under a separate contract with another contractor.””

Question: What is the expectation for on-site full-time staff?

Answer: Refer to the CMc SOW part I.D for Project Team requirements. The expectation is that offerors will develop an appropriate staffing plan to effectively manage the project. GSA will not specify a required number of on-site and/or full-time staff.

Clarifications:

● There are rumors that a new bridge may be built, however, there is no confirmation so it will not impact our project. GSA has no part in the bridge except that it is adjacent to the port property.

● Inflation Reduction Act funding must be obligated by September 30, 2026.

● Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding must be expensed by September 30, 2029

● Inform Anna Vanko ASAP if your firm can not price or source LEC materials.

● Will provide the FAR clauses regarding GMP.

○ Please refer to GSAM clause 536.71 for additional CMc/GMP information.

● GSA intends to provide a set of civil demolition plans for the existing rail and LPOE in a subsequent amendment.