Q and A_ DB Building 53 Project.pdf

General Services Administration Public Building Service

Rocky Mountain Region 1 Denver Federal Center | Denver, CO | 80225

Building 53 Limited Scope & Tenant Backfill

Project Questions & Answers

1. I wanted to reach out regarding the building 53 sources sought notification I saw in

January and see if there is a future plan to bring on a construction manager for this project. Earlier in 2019, I believe we were informed there was intent but not sure when the project would be looking for that procurement. I noticed it was put on hold with the pandemic and it appears it has been revitalized again. Is this something the GSA will be looking for on this project and is there a potential timing planned as well?

A. Yes, a Construction Manager as Advisor (CMa) will be procured as part of this project, but not as part of this solicitation.

2. Does each “Similar Project” have to meet all 5 criteria described in Evaluation Factor 1 on Page 15 of the solicitation to be considered relevant? Could all 5 criteria be met by a combination of projects?

A. Yes, each “Similar Project” must meet all five of the criteria described in Evaluation Factor 1 to be considered a “Similar Project”.

3. Considering the unusually high threshold of Design-Build, Renovation, and $20 Million, would the government consider changing the latter requirement to $10 million?

A. The government will not change the threshold of a similar project to $10 million. The government will keep the “Similar Project” threshold at $20 million.

4. I see that you have a project coming up and I also see that the Town place suites is affiliated with this project. I wanted to see how we can be on this list of opportunities for contractors to stay at our hotel in the Lakewood Federal Center area. I have attached our upgrades to a quick video so you can see the value you are getting in our all-suites hotel.

A. This is a federal government Design Build construction procurement and is not affiliated with any private sector project. There will be no list provided to encourage any interested party in any private sector endeavor.

5. Is there a small business requirement for this contract? It is full and open. Usually, there is a small business participation requirement.

A. There is no small business requirement for this procurement. It is full and open.

However, all interested parties are encouraged to participate.

6. Has design excellence been removed as a criterion from the previous solicitation on this procurement vs. the previous procurement for this facility?

A. Yes, design excellence has been removed

7. Is there a scope on the abatement expected for this facility?

A. Details related to the abatement associated with this procurement will be released during Phase 2 of this procurement.

8. We respectfully request the government consider allowing CPARs evaluations to fulfill the past performance requirement.

A. Submitting a CPARS evaluation in lieu of submitting the past performance questionnaire to fulfill the past performance requirement will not be accepted.

9. If a GC and an AE worked on the same project together, is it acceptable to complete one Past Performance Questionnaire? Having the same reference complete two separate questionnaires may pose an undue burden on them.

A. Since the evaluation questionnaire should be for either the GC or the AE, separate questionnaires should be completed for each entity if coming from the same reference.

10. Will there be a GSA conference call/walk prior to phase 1 submission?

A. No, there will not be a conference call/walk prior to the Phase 1 submission.

11. Knowing that questions will be accepted until March 1st, will questions be answered as they come in or within a certain time frame of being asked? If questions are all answered around March 1st, it may not provide enough time for respondents to complete Phase 1 proposals by March 5th.

A. Questions will be issued as they are submitted, with final questions answered by March 2, 2021.

12. Would the government consider lowering some of the criteria based on the overall project scope being diminished from past building 53 RFPs to allow for more contractors to qualify for the project? If not, would the evaluation factors of similar projects for the experience of the General contractor and A/E be pass fail or will partial credit be given for values near the RFP quantities? Examples below.

a. Project area not less than 100,000 SF, would a project size of 80,000sf be considered?

b. Project Value greater or equal to 20M, would a project value of 15M be considered?

A. The evaluation factor criteria will remain the same as stated within the Phase 1 Solicitation.

13. Understanding that projects submitted by the Prime Contractor/GC must be a Design Build delivery method, would an A/E team partner qualifying project which used a Design Bid Build delivery method be considered?

A. No. The evaluation factor is considering projects utilizing the Design-Build delivery method

14. Is there a preferred format for the 4 pages narrative for each similar project experience of the general contractor and A/E?

A. Single sided, 10 point minimum font.

15. When a similar project involved both the GC and A/E could 2 Similar project narratives be submitted to document the experience of each firm? Would this qualify as 2 of the 3-5 required project submissions?

A. Yes, when a similar project is submitted to document the experience of both the A/E and GC it would qualify as 2 of the required submissions as long as the submissions are submitted separately to document the experience of each firm.

16. For the past performance references, would CPARS be acceptable in place of PPQ’s? If the PPQ’s are required, would CPARS for submitted projects be accepted in addition to other information given in Phase 1 submission?

A. No, CPARs evaluations will not be accepted in lieu of submitting the past performance questionnaires.

17. Looking at previous solicitations it appears that this project was originally going to be a bid build. Would you be able to provide any details on why this is being reissued as a design build?

A. It was an internal business decision

More answers will be published as questions come in.