AM_4.pdf

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

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text ****UPDATED AS OF 4/27 @ 4:09 PM. Please count said forms as one page only. We apologize for the confusion. -EE

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text

Erricksone Typewritten Text