am3.pdf

(x)

F16SOL10024

x x

1 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

08/22/2016000003

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

08/22/2016

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 RFP is amended as follows:

1) The attached clarifications are hereby incorporated by reference.

2) The deadline for technical proposals is extended to October 11, 2016 at 2:00 pm EST.

Period of Performance: 11/16/2016 to 03/01/2018

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)

Thomas Dempsey

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

Smithsonian Facilities

PROJECT: NASM Revitalization, F16SOL10024

PROJECT

NUMBER:

SI RFI

Number Date Company

Request for Information

S001 8/31/2016 Hensel Phelps 1 The RFP refers to two NTPs, Pre-Construction and Construction, please confirm that the Safe

Harbor / Scope Validation Period begins upon receipt of the Construction NTP.

The Scope Validation Period begins prior to the Construction NTP, but after the release Final

Design Documents.

2 Page 1 of 4 of the RFP solicitation, section 11, states that it is mandatory for the contractor to complete contract performance 220 calendar days after receiving notice to proceed. Page 3 of 4 of the solicitation states the pre-construction period is anticipated to be from November 15, 2016 to March 1, 2018 a period that is greater than 220 calendar days. Please clarify the actual period of performance and amend page 1 of 4.

Pre-construction services should be completed by the end of the Scope Validation Period, sometime in the second quarter of fiscal year 2018.

3 Please provide instructions regarding the upload of electronic files for the technical proposal submission, including those listed in Appendix B.

Please submit 3D pdfs, viewable in Bluebeam & Revizto. These documents will be uploaded to a dropbox folder.

4 Reference Chapter 22 page 3. It states the following “Sequencing diagrams are provided at the end of this chapter, as well as Jacobs Scheduling Sequence Schedule draft for reference”. Please confirm if the Jacobs Scheduling Sequence Schedule draft is the narrative based information provided beginning on Page 12 of Chapter 22 or is there a missing document providing a schedule in bar-chart format?

It is the narrative-based information provided. It is appropriate for use as a general guideline, and has been used as the basis of design to date.

5 There are discrepancies in regard to the overall anticipated construction period, below are the durations identified:a. RFP states – Start of Construction 3/1/18 and Complete 2nd QTR 2025 =

88 months

b. Sequencing Chapter 22 states – Start construction 1/1/2018 completed 11/24 = 83 months

c. The Cost Estimate states – Start 1/1/2018 completed 11/24 = 82 months

d. Division 1 specifications, page 25 states start 3/1/18 with a 7.5 year duration = 90 months.

e. Appendix A, page 1 states the completion date to be December 31, 2025 = 94 months.

Please confirm the total duration that should be utilized for the schedule.

Total construction time is 83 months, beginning after the completion of the Scope Validation

Period.

6 Please provide the design schedule milestones that should be used for the following deliverables:

a. 65% Documents

b. 95% Documents

c. 100% Documents

d. Final Documents

Our current design schedule is as follows: a) 65% Documents completed 20 Feb 2017; b) 100%

Documents (FKA 95% Documents) 24 July 2017; c) Final Construction Documents 29 Sept 2017;

and d) Post Back-Check Completed 30 Oct 2017.

7 Please confirm the 4D BIM model will be presented at the interview the week of October 17th and is not submitted with the Technical Proposal.

Confirmed

8 Please confirm the deadline date for RFIs. Questions should be submitted by September 21, 2016.

S002 8/24/2020 Gilbane-Grunley Joint

Venture

1 There is a detailed phasing program/schedule outlined in the risk analysis document with breakout by zone, demount/remount timeframes etc. Are we to use that as a general guideline as we develop our approach and is that the phasing that the design documents were developed around?

The outline in the risk analysis document is appropriate for use as a general guideline, and has been used as the basis of design to date. New approaches are welcomed for consideration.

PROJECT: NASM Revitalization, F16SOL10024

PROJECT

NUMBER:

SI RFI

Number Date Company

Request for Information

S003 8/26/2016 Clark/Smoot/Consigli, a

Joint Venture

1 How is it envisioned that the Smithsonian would like to see our response to Item D. Construction-

4D BIM Submission? Is it anticipated that the 4D model is accompanied by a detailed written discussion of our approach?

Please submit 3D pdfs, viewable in Bluebeam. These documents will be uploaded to a dropbox folder. For the written supplement, please submit a brief narrative highlighting your innovations, a table of contents, a chronology and a key of any symbols used for navigation or reference.

S004 9/2/2016 Gilbane-Grunley Joint

Venture

1 Please reference RFP section L.1.b Past Performance. For this requirement do we also provide project narratives for the projects we submit, or just the PPIRS and references?

PPIRs and references are sufficent.

2 Please reference RFP section L.1.b Past Performance. For projects that are not Federal/do not have PPIRS, could the Smithsonian provide a Past Performance Questionnaire or document we could use in lieu of the PPIRS?

Please use the attached questionnaire.

3 Please provide further clarification regarding the submission date of the 4-D BIM Model. Section

L.1.d.-Technical Volume Construction Approach notes the 4-D BIM Submission. The Technical

Volume is due on October 3rd. The 4-D BIM Model is to be presented during the Interviews on

October 18th, 19th, and 20th. Is the Smithsonian Institution anticipating receiving file with the 4-

D BIM Model on October 3rd

Please see above.

4 RFP section C.4.b.2. indicates that a number of envelope mock-ups are required for evaluation.

Additionally, Memorandum dated 7/29/2016 from Quinn Evans Architects lists a number of envelope system elements and notes specific evaluations/testing that need to be performed.

Please clarify who is responsible for the analyses, testing, scheduling, expenses, etc.

Envelope mockups are included in the scope for pre-construction and all related costs shall be borne by the selected CMc.

5 RFP section L.1.c. Management Plan indicates that we should identify major subcontractors and list where the prime and subcontractor have worked together before. 1) Please provide a list of the major subcontractor trades that the Smithsonian Institution anticipates receiving qualifications for. 2) Given that this is a CMc contract that will require multiple bidders during the GMP process, how many subcontractors are we allowed to list per trade?

Major subcontractors required to manage the project should be listed.

6 RFP section L.1.b. Past Performance Subsection iii. indicates that we are to provide no more than three (3) references. Is this three references per project or three references total?

Please provide three references total.

7 RFP section L.1.b. Past Performance indicates that we should present at least three projects.

Should these projects come from the Phase 1 submission, or are additional projects allowed

Three additional projects are permitted.

PROJECT: NASM Revitalization, F16SOL10024

PROJECT

NUMBER:

SI RFI

Number Date Company

Request for Information

8 RFP section L.1.c. Management Plan indicates that the entire final JV agreement must be included in the submission. Given the size of many JV Agreements, please consider excluding this document from the page count.

The JV agreement is excluded from the page count.

9 RFP section L.3.c.5. requires type size equivalent to 12 pitch or larger. Please confirm that this is equivalent to 10 points or larger.

Confirmed.

S005 Quinn Evans Architects 1 We have identified a point of information in the Jester & MacKillop memorandum that have may have caused the misinterpretation by the prospective bidders in regards to the design assist role as listed below.

a. The text currently reads as follows:

While the CM may award of the design-assist scope for each building enclosure system to separate subcontractors, we note that award of the design-assist scope of one or all systems to a single subcontractor will produce positive benefits for coordination of system design and construction. To the extent feasible, offsite laboratory performance mockups for each system should physically integrate so that performance testing may most closely approximate actual project conditions.

b. The edited text currently would reads as follows:

While the CM may award the various components of the design-assist scope to separate subcontractors, it should be noted that positive benefits for the project may be attained by grouping certain interrelated scope items under single subcontracts. Design-assist should consider and anticipate implications of construction sequence, site logistics, quality control, and execution of warranty when determining how to divide the overall design-assist scope between subcontractors. To the extent feasible, offsite laboratory performance mockups for each system should physically integrated so that performance testing may most closely approximate actual project conditions.

2 We have identified a point of information in the Solicitation at Section C4.b.2 that have may have caused the misinterpretation by the prospective bidders in regards to the design assist role as listed below.

b. The edited text currently would reads as follows (changes underlined ):

Design Assist for the Stone Clad Curtain Wall, the Glazed Aluminum Curtain Wall, Glazed

Skylight Systems, North Canopy and Vestibule Enclosure, and the South Canopy as set out in the Jester & MacKillop Memorandum described above. The Design Assist scope of work includes but is not limited to multiple mock-ups for at least three (3) stone cladding materials and at least two (2) non-stone cladding materials for review and consultation by the

Smithsonian as set forth in the Project Documents. The salvage of existing Tennessee Pink stone panels shall be considered for use on the new cladding system. Re-use of the existing stone panels may be in the context of composite high-performance concrete cladding or in the context of decorative masonry elements. Salvaged panels may be utilized as a component of one of the two required non-stone cladding materials. The Smithsonian reserves the right to request geological testing such as borings or other sample types for the purpose of determining quarry capacity for stone cladding materials. The CMc shall support the

Smithsonian in conducting required due diligence steps as may be needed to support the

Smithsonian’s selection and confirmation of cladding materials for the Project.

S006 9/16/2016 Hensel Phelps 1 The Drawing Index (G-001) lists Drawing S-602 Column Schedules but the drawing is not included in the structural set. Please provide this drawing if it is available.

The drawing 'S-602' has not yet been developed. This reference is a place holder.

2 Reference RFI S003 (1). The industry standard 4D software we are utilizing does not allow 3D

PDFs to be viewable in Bluebeam, only Adobe. Please confirm that Abobe accessible 3D PDFs are acceptable.

Please submit 4D video files in addition to 3D pdfs.

PROJECT: NASM Revitalization, F16SOL10024

PROJECT

NUMBER:

SI RFI

Number Date Company

Request for Information

3 Appendix A page 4 of 6 has a line items near the bottom of the sheet called Reimbursable

Contingency. Please clarify what this contingency line is to represent.

The reimburseable contingency should reflect any costs not included in general conditions that may require reimbursement; ie, one time fees for document reproduction.

4 Appendix A page 1 has line item 0002 for “Estimated General Conditions Reimbursable” and line item 0004 for “Construction Services Profit/Fee”. Appendix A page 3 is titled Construction Phase

Services, Section C.5.a Item 0002, this title implies that the total of page 3 needs to match the total written on line item 0002 on Page 1. Line item 27 on page 3 is Construction Fee/Profit and appears to be included within the total of this sheet that will be filled out on line item 0002 on page 1. Please clarify whether the fee on line 27 of page 3 is the same fee as one line item 0004 on page 1. If it is the same fee it appears to be doubled up in the total at the bottom of page 1.

Please clarify.

Please strike line 27 from page 3 of the Bid Sheets.

S007 9/20/2016 Clark/Smoot/Consigli, a

Joint Venture

1 Please confirm the Alternates that should be priced in the Budget. The Executive Summary in

Volume 1 of the 35% Design Development Report lists numerous alternates (seven exterior, four interior). Supplementary Conditions Specification 010000 Part 4 requests pricing for Option 1:

Vest-1: Replacement and canopy addition at North Entrance and Option 2: Vest-2: Replacement and canopy addition at South Entrance. Alternates Specification 012300 requests pricing for:

Alternate No. 1: Provide “Silver Shadow” Alabama Limestone in 3” thickness in lieu of specified

Tennessee Marble Stone, Alternate No. 2: Provide alternate to convert Zone 2 South roof (RF-2) for the addition of a photovoltaic panel array with structural frame upgrade in addition to RF-1

Single Ply PVC roofing, and Alternate No. 3: Provide alternate to convert Zone 3 South roof (RF-

4) to an occupiable terrace with structural frame upgrade. Please confirm which Alternates should be budgeted at this time.

Please price the project as set forth in the Specifications as opposed to the Executive

Summary.

2 RFP Section C.4.d).1. states cost estimates are to be provided within two weeks of each of the document issuance. Due to the magnitude of the project and the time associated with getting complete subcontractor budgeting and constructability backup, we recommend a minimum of four to six week period for document review and pricing submission. Please confirm if this time can be adjusted.

We are open to considering this after award in review with all members of the Project Team.

3 Please clarify the responsible party for constructing the temporary protection detailed on 0A-

110 for the “Protect-in-Place” artifacts. Request for Proposal section A-2.c. indicates that the

CMc is to coordinate its construction phase services with the Artifacts Logistics Contractor’s efforts to “de-mount, relocate, protect in place, and ultimately re-mount collections items at the

NASM Mall Building during the course of the Project.” Please confirm if the CMc is responsible for building the temporary protection and conditioning required for the PiP, or if the Artifacts

Logistics Contractor will be performing this work.

The selected CMc will construct 'hard' aspects of protection in place such as constructed frames and partitions with environmental controls. The Artifacts Logistics Contractor will provide 'soft' protection in place--shielding with non-permanent materials and 'hard' protection in place for museum murals.

4 Paragraph C.2.D states: "Offeror shall as part of its proposal identify in writing any services for which the CMc agrees to assume design liability. The parties agree to work together continuously to resolve errors, conflicts or omissions efficiently and without incurring additional costs if reasonably possible". Is this a requirement of the Technical or Price Proposal and, if so, where would the Smithsonian prefer it be addressed/included?

Please include this information on page 2, Item 001 of the Bid Sheets. Line item 2 refers to

Design services and should be appropriately annotated to reflect specific scopes of work.

PROJECT: NASM Revitalization, F16SOL10024

PROJECT

NUMBER:

SI RFI

Number Date Company

Request for Information

S008 10/3/2016 Housekeeping concerns raised by multiple bidders

1 Can you confirm that the printed schedule does not count against the 100 page limit for the technical.

Confirmed

2 13. The technical proposals are due October 10, which is Columbus Day. Please confirm that the Capital Gallery Office at 600 Maryland Avenue will be open on this day.

Technical proposals will be received on October 11, 2016 by 2 pm. We apologize for the confusion.

3 Volume 1 Chapter 6 of the 35% Design Development Report makes several references to the

“Stone Feasibility Study prepared by Jacobs Engineering” issued in April 2016. Please provide this report for reference if available.

This study is as yet under discussion and is not available for release.

4 The 4-D BIM Modeling Submission Guidelines (Appendix B of the RFP) indicates that the electronic construction schedule file should be submitted along with a pdf of the schedule for review. Please confirm that the pdf version of the schedule can be attached to the hard copy response as an appendix and will not count against page number requirements.

Confirmed

End of RFIs