IA0089ZZ_Solicitation_Amend_5_-_Attachment_A_Q_and_A_161123.pdf

Mack Scogin Merrill Elam Architects November 18, 2016 Project Number #1610 Questions for GSA from Consultants Information for Fee Proposal

Questions and Answers

Questions from Architects

1. We have not seen the draft schedule or the additional information about site options posted as an addendum on fbo.gov? Will these items be e-mailed or posted publicly on the fbo.gov?

Response: This information won’t be shared through fbo.gov. Please see the attached master schedule prepared by GSA as well as the site characteristics for consideration during for your proposal. As discussed in the phone conversation on 11/14/16, please consider this information preliminary as the site selection has not yet been made. As part of your proposal, please outline the implications and assumptions made by disciplines related to the site.

2. We would like to re-ask the question concerning Form 527. We have received feedback from some of our consultants with minor roles. Is it possible that those consultants with input at 3% or less be waived from the requirement to fill out Form 527? If this is acceptable, this would simply be a convenience for those who have lesser input.

Response: For firms whose input is at 5% or less of the overall effort it is not mandatory at this point that the 527 paperwork be provided, however if in order to make a determination that the price proposed is fair and reasonable GSA reserves the right to request the 527 forms at a later date prior to award.

3. We have received the question from several consultants about escalation of rates across the five year duration of the project. Is it acceptable to apply an escalation factor to the rates calculated from the latest complete quarter? If so, is there a methodology.

Response: Yes, this is acceptable. No, there is no prescribed methodology.

4. We believe the spreadsheet will need to be modified. The Direct Salary Costs Tab will need to relate to each task outlined in the SOW with man hour breakdown for each employee.

Response: The proposed screenshot appears appropriate. To break down by task from the SOW is acceptable.

5. Also can the spreadsheet be adjust the spreadsheet to represent two architectural firms rather than one.

Response: When this sheet was created, the intention was that there would be a single A/E as the lead and the “other” A/E would be included in the Consultant Rates tab. This may be complicated if the proposal goes forward as a Joint Venture.

Question from Jensen Hughes (Fire Protection)

6. I wanted to confirm the fire protection engineer’s scope, based on the attached scoping document it appears we are only bidding on items 3.2.4 and 3.3.4.5 is that correct? So a code analysis report for Section 3.2.4 but how do we include section 3.3.4.5?

a. Generally for P-100 projects we do fire sprinkler/fire pump/fire alarm design as well so I am trying to figure out what our scope includes. Section 3.3.4.5 states that the FPE must verify in writing that they were involved in all aspects of the design, which doesn’t seem to align with the scoping document.

Response: Please refer to references within the scope of work as part of the SOW. We would expect the FPE and other consultants to provide services as required to provide a complete design. It is imperative that the design team understands those references fully and not only price the narrative portion of SOW.

Questions from Dan L. Wiley Associates (Courts Planner)

7. Considering that the program is in good fit shape, it is necessary to have a formal role for a courts planner? I am willing to step out or provide a smaller, advisory role to the architect.

Response: The program for the Judiciary and the USMS has been included as an attachment per our 11/14/16 conversation. Regarding the need for a Courts Planning consultant, the GSA feels this is a decision that design team needs to consider and propose accordingly.

Questions from M2H Protection (Security, Audio Visual, and Telecom)

8. Does GSA anticipate M2H and Hinman supporting the security risk assessment process? In general, do they feel the Levels of Protection (LOP) are established, or should we anticipate involvement with the GSA risk assessment? We recognize the court standards are established, but generally inquiring about the Interagency Security Criteria Risk Assessment Process and subsequent LOP. In most cases, the risk assessment is complete and LOP will be provided for us to implement. It’s important for us to know the LOP early in the project.

Response: The Facility Security Level for this facility will be Level IV.

9. In support of the project, we request a copy of any references that maybe Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) necessary for the project.

Response: GSA is not aware of any references in the SOW that are considered SBU. If there are specific references the design team can not access, we will provide them upon request.

10. It appears the project may require protection at the SBU level, requiring SBU document marking and controls to be in place - please confirm.

Response: This is correct. Please reference in Appendix A: Government Reference Documents. Document Number 5 is a link to GSA SBU Policy PBS P 3490.2 (09.2014).

Hinman Consulting (Blast Design Engineer)

11. Has an assessment been completed consistent with the ISC “The Risk Management Process of Federal Facilities” guideline to determine the Facility Security Level (FSL) applicable to the courthouse? If yes, please confirm the applicable FSL. If no, please confirm the baseline assumption for the project.

Response: While the process has not formally been completed for this specific facility, typical with all new construction courthouse projects, the FSL for this building will be a level

IV.

12. Please provide a list of physical security and blast protection criteria documents applicable to the project. Unless otherwise stated, we will assume the following frame the applicable requirements:

a. “General Services Administration Alternate Path Analysis & Design Guidelines for Progressive Collapse Resistance” (24 October 2013)

b. “General Services Administration Facility Security Requirements for Explosive Devices Applicable to Facility Security Levels III and IV” (2 August 2011)

c. “PBS-P100 – Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service” (March 2016)

d. “The Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities: An Interagency Security Committee

Standard” (1st Edition, August 2013)

e. “The Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities Appendix A: The Design-Basis

Threat (U)” (10th Edition – 1st Revision, February 2016)

f. “The Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities Appendix B: Countermeasures” (2nd

Edition, January 2016)

g. “U.S. Marshals Service Judicial Security Systems Requirements and Specifications –

Volume Three, Publication 64” (2005)

13. The Scope of Work document discusses Construction Administration services to be completed by the DOR. However, Form 2631 does not detail this as a project phase. Please confirm if the price proposal (Form 2630 and Form 2631) should include CA services noted in the SOW. If yes, please confirm if this should be designated an “included” or “excluded” service relative to the Brooks Act limits.

Response: There is a ConstAdmin Phase noted in the Excel file provided with the RFP. The CA services should be identified and labeled accordingly as part of this phase. Generally speaking, CA services are “excluded” from the 6% fee limitation. However, please review the criteria in full detail to understand exactly what is and is not included.

14. Referring to page 13 of 55 of the SOW, we assume that our scope includes engineering/consulting services related to blast protection and vehicle barrier requirements. The latter focuses on preparation of Construction Documents to appropriately locate and specify ratings for crash resistant barrier systems. Please confirm if our scope is additionally intended to include completion of progressive collapse design. Often we defer to the Structural Engineer of Record to complete this task unless they do not have adequate experience or comfort level. Please let us know how to proceed so that this scope item is adequately accounted for.

Response: It is anticipated that the building will be greater than 3 levels. The SOW includes progressive collapse design. We agree that this would be an analysis and design completed by the Structural Engineer per the requirements of the policy.