AM_3.pdf

(x)

F16SOL10023

x x copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

OCON

Washington DC 20013-7012

MRC 1200

P.O. BOX 37012

OCON

OCON

Washington DC 20013-7012

MRC 1200

P.O. BOX 37012

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

03/30/2016000003

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

03/30/2016

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The solicitation numbered F16SOL10023 is hereby amended as follows:

1) Questions submitted as of the time of posting this amendment on April 27, 2016, and answers thereto, are integrated into the solicitation by reference.

Statements of qualifications are due May 11, 2016, at 3:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Dorothy A. Leffler

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

Smithsonian Institution Last Updated 4/27/2016 @ 3:50 pm /ee

Office of Planning Design & Construction

PROJECT: NASM Revitalization, RFQ F16SOL10023

PROJECT NUMBER:

SI RFI Number Date Company Request for Information SI Response

S001 Grunley 1 1) If a joint-venture is submitting as a prime contractor, should each partner complete the Section II. Entity’s Background section separately?

Yes.

Grunley 2 2) Section C. Minimum Requirements limits the period of performance for completion of comparable and non-comparable experience to five (5) years. Given the size of this project, the extent of the scope of work, and the infrequency with which renovation projects of this magnitude occur, would the Smithsonian Institution consider extending this period to seven (7) years?

We've heard this concern from a number of different firms. We do think recent experience is important. Please see see our answer to Whiting Turner, question 2. Please note that the bonding requirements will, by necessity, remain at the same dollar value as the subject project.

S002 Grunley 1 1) Part II Entity’s Background, Section J. Officers, Partners and/or Owners falls between Section I. Judgement and Claims (to be included in Tab 2) and Section K.

Suspension and Debarment (to be included in Tab 3). Please clarify where you would like to see Section J – Tab 1, Tab 2, Tab 3 or somewhere different?

Please include Officers, Partners & Owners at Tab 1.

Grunley 2 2) Page 11 of the RFQ indicates that the completed qualification statement should contain no more than 50 pages. In many cases, financial statements alone may be more than 50 pages in length. Additionally, for joint venture teams, multiple EMR letters, Bonding letters, banking reference letters, etc. will be required. To accommodate the requirements of the RFQ while simultaneously restricting the page count, we respectfully request that the foregoing items be excluded from the page count, assuming that only the items are included in the section and no additional information is provided?

Please exclude the following items from the page count: a. Safety EMR letters; b. Backlog Tables; c.

Audited Financial Statements; d. Bonding/Surety Letters; and e. Banking Reference Letters.

S003 Whiting-

Turner

1 1. Will the number of responders be narrowed down from Qualifications stage to a select group invited to participate in the RFP stage? If so, what number will they be reduced to?

The shortlist should ideally reduce the pool to 3-4 firms.

Whiting-

Turner

2 2. Achieving a greater than $300Million project within the past 5 years that represents the criteria requested is going to be a challenge for many. It appears this is a major requirement in the RFQ, such that we feel compelled to ask if entities submit none above the $300Million within the past 5 years will they be rejected from further consideration?

We will amend the solicitation to consider comparable projects from $150M.

Whiting-

Turner

3 3. The RFQ limits the number of pages to 50. Does this 50 pages refer to the number of sheets (which could be front and back page totally 100 printed pages) or total of 50 sheets one side only?

50 pages, one side only.

S004 Hensel-Phelps 1 While Hensel Phelps has successfully completed a significant number of projects comparable to this project in complexity, magnitude and scope in the last ten (10) years we have not done so in the last five (5) years. Hensel Phelps is not aware of more than just a few comparable project that have been constructed in the DC Metropolitan area over the last 5 years and even fewer in excess of $300M in value.

No one CMc including Hensel Phelps could have constructed all or the majority of the available comparable projects in the market place to meet the RFQ requirements.

We've heard this concern from a number of different firms (please see above). We do think recent experience is important. Please note that the bonding requirements will, by necessity, remain at the same dollar value as the subject project.

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text Updated April 27, 2016: Period extended to 10 years per AM 2.

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text Updated April 27, 2016: Period extended to 10 years per AM 2.

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Smithsonian Institution Last Updated 4/27/2016 @ 3:50 pm /ee

Office of Planning Design & Construction

PROJECT: NASM Revitalization, RFQ F16SOL10023

PROJECT NUMBER:

SI RFI Number Date Company Request for Information SI Response

S005 Tishman

Construction

Company

1 Recently I learned that our sister company, AECOM Design Services, recently (Dec 2015) won as design Task Order as part of the Quinn Evans team – it may only be for landscaping services, and I am still doing my own research, but what is the best way for me to determine if there may be a conflict for us to pursue the CMc portion of your solicitation, since we are AECOM also?

There are a number of firms that have been involved in the preliminary studies and design effort.

Please include a statement of possible conflicts of interest in your qualifications, as part of Tab 1, with any mitigation factors you think are relevant. Mitigation factors might include the corporate formation of your parent company--IE, that the initial work was completed by a different in-house shop. Additionally, the design effort and studies will be issued as part of the RFP, so all shortlisted participants will be on notice of all contributions & possible conflicts.

S006 Clark

Construction

Group, LLC

1 For the Comparable and Non-Comparable Experience, the solicitation states:

"submit under Tab 5 using the attached excel template". Upon closer review, the excel template has some redundant information found within the requested information identified within the solicitation proper (pages 16-21), as well as some unique information not asked within the pages listed; and, vice versa.

The question is this: would the Smithsonian like to see the excel template utilized and completed as a project overview/summary checklist; followed by the more detailed information found within pages 16-21?

In theory, at least, the spreadsheets should reflect all the elements on the forms found at pp. 16-21.

The discrepancies should be pretty small, hopefully. The formatting in the spreadsheets has in the past been very helpful to our reviewers and ideally speeds our review process. As much as possible, please use the spreadsheets and follow with more detailed information as needed. Please let us know if this approach proves difficult or unworkable.

S007 Grunley 1 In Amendment 00001, the Smithsonian confirmed that comparable projects will be accepted from $150 million. Previously, 1 project had to be at least $300 million.

Do all comparable projects have to be at least $150 million, or only 1 project?

All comparable projects should be $150M or greater.

Grunley 2 The project description form that was released with the RFP is formatted as an 11 x 17 document. For the project descriptions, will an 11 x 17 page format be counted as one page or two pages?

Please count the 11x17 project description forms as two pages.

End of RFIs