GS-04P-10-BV C-0065 Amendment 1.pdf

New Federal Office Building GS-04P-10-BV-C-0065 Broward County, Florida 30 August 2010

Amendment 1 1

The following questions and answers are incorporated into solicitation GS-04P-10-BV-C-0065 as Amendment 1.

1. CLARIFICATIONS:

Question 1: Please confirm if the project is to be designed to LEED Silver or Gold.

Gold.

Question 2: We have read the definition of “Final Concept” in PBS P100, (Submission requirements starting on page 309, New Construction Modernizations – Final Concept A.3) Please confirm K&S will be providing all documentation as described on pages 309 through partial page 313 as the bridging documents for Phase two of the solicitation.

K&S will provide a complete Final Design Concept submission as required by the PBS P100 and their contract requirements. This information will be identified and defined in the RFP to be issued to short-listed firms as part of the Phase Two solicitation process.

Question 3: Related to the above, our current understanding is that K&S will be providing “Final Concept Drawings”. However, on page 13, it states that Offerors will be submitting “… final design concepts, partial schematic drawings…” Please clarify the GSA’s expectations of what is to be provided by the Offeror and how it is different from K&S “Final Concept Drawings.”

It is desired that Offerors incorporate the Design as included in the Final Concept Design by the Bridging Architect; however, if for some reason, the Offeror’s design varies from the Bridging Designer’s Concept, the Offeror would need to submit its Final Design Concept indicating the variances.

Question 4: With respect to the question and the response to Question 3, can you clarify or provide more detail to the Phase Two “Non-Financial” evaluation factor “Quality of Design Concept” also noted on page 13?

This information will be identified and defined in the RFP to be issued to short-listed firms as part of the Phase Two solicitation process.

If, the answer above is “no final concepts by Offeror”, will any other design information be required to be submitted by the Offeror as part of the phase two solicitation? If not required, but submitted, voluntarily, will it be considered as part of the overall phase two evaluation criteria for that specific Offeror?

This information will be identified and defined in the RFP to be issued to short-listed firms as part of the Phase Two solicitation process.

Question 5: Please define “Principal-in-Charge” per page 8 of the RFQ. Is this the individual who is the Principal-in-Charge for the project on the Offeror’s team, or the Principal-in-Charge of the Offeror’s local office?

The Principal-in-Charge of the project on the Offeror’s team.

Amendment 1 2

Please explain the scoring system for the phase one solicitation.

The Government has not placed a value (points) on the scoring. Each factor is weighted and placed in descending order for the Government to determine Best Value."

Question 6: Referencing pages 7 and 8 of the RFQ. Can the MRPS projects be additional projects to the 6 on the PML for a total of 9 projects? If so, can the questionnaires represent projects from the MRPS list as well, and not be limited to the projects on the PML?

Yes. The MRPS can include, but is not limited to, projects in the PML. Questionnaires may reference projects from either the PML or the MRPS.

Question 7: Referencing the outline schedule in the RFQ, can you identify the amount of time required for GSA review and approval of Offeror’s design completion drawings, post award?

Average review time is 2 weeks. However, smaller submissions would take less time.

Question 8: Page 12. Item 2. Section II – Forms/Questionnaires requests all of the completed forms required by the RFQ. However, Section III and IV already cover all of the forms requested on page 7 and 8. What specific forms do you want included in Section II?

Standard Form SF330 for the Offeror’s team, including the A/E.

Question 9: Item B.1.(7) on page 8 of the RFQ requires submission of a "Quality Control Supervisor". We normally have a "Design Quality Control Manager" and a "Construction Quality Control Manager" on a project of this size. Would it be acceptable to submit two people? If not, which do you want in the Phase I RFQ?

Submitting two resumes is acceptable.

Question 10: Phase Two Option?— From page 13 of the RFQ, I read that GSA intends to pursue Option 2 or 3 for Phase Two. Do you have information regarding which of these options will be chosen? (A jury by personal presentation or by blind submission?).

Please clarify the question. No reference to Option 2 or 3 is included in the RFQ.

Question 11: Is any stipend or other compensation for the successful Phase 2 candidates budgeted for their work submitted in Phase Two? If so, how much?

No stipend is offered by the Government.

Question 12: Section 4, Page 6 of the RFP notes that Krueck & Sexton have been retained to provide Design Excellence bridging documents and serve as the GSA’s representative during the design build phase of the project, and will review the selected Offeror’s completed design for conformance with the design intent and design philosophy as expressed in the bridging documents. As we read the RFP, it appears that the GSA is requesting that the design build teams provide an award winning lead designer on the design build team also. Is this correct?

GSA is not requiring that an award-winning lead designer be provided on the BDB Contractor’s team.

However, the Government will evaluate the Lead Designer based on those factors listed in the RFQ.

Lead Designers with Awards or Peer Recognition as described in the RFP will be evaluated more favorably than those without such peer recognition.

Amendment 1 3

Question 13: Is the A/E Firm required to have a physical office in the state of Florida?

No, however the A/E should be able to demonstrate an understanding of Florida climate and building codes.

Question 14: Will GSA be providing a soils report to the short listed Design Builders during phase two?

Yes.

Question 15: Please reference page 13, paragraph F. Is it possible that “submittal of final design concepts, partial schematic drawings, (architecture and engineering), a site plan and a rendering” is language which comes from the “GSA Developer solicitation approach” and not the “Bridging / Design Build approach?” If the BDB Offeror is to provide these documents, as part of the phase two submission, those documents would appear to be duplicative to those being provided by K&S.

It is desired that Offerors incorporate the Design as included in the Final Concept Design by the Bridging Architect, and stipulate that the Bridging Documents and the Performance Specification are correct and complete. Therefore, the D/B is requested to provide those documents to demonstrate its conformance to the Final Concept- although this may appear as a duplication of work. However, if the Offeror’s design proposal varies from the Bridging Designer’s Concept, the Offeror should submit its Final Design Concept, including partial schematic drawings (architecture and engineering), a site plan and a rendering, indicating the proposed variances.

Question 16: Please reference page 12, item two “Section ll – Forms / Questionnaires”. Clarify ALL forms required by this RFQ. We are aware of SF330, and the questionnaires. Does the GSA desire copies of the questionnaires, as sent to the references, to be included in the phase one submission?

We understand that the Offeror’s references are to email completed questionnaires directly from their place of business to the GSA no later than the phase one due date.

The only forms required to be provided in Section II are the Standard Form SF330 for the Offeror’s team, including the A/E.

Question 17: Please reference Attachment 3, middle of the page……. “ON or BEFORE September 1 2010” This date is nine days before the due date. Please clarify.

This is a mis-print. The sentence should read “…ON or BEFORE September 10, 2010.”

Question 18: As allowed in RFQ GS-04P-10-BV-C-0065, we intend to form a joint venture for this project. The experience required by the RFQ will consist of the experience of the individual joint venture partners, other team members identified in the joint venture’s proposal, and affiliated companies. While Florida Statute 489.119(2)(e) requires joint ventures to be separately licensed, Florida Statute 498.108(8) exempts projects on federal property from Florida’s licensing requirements. Accordingly, it is our understanding the joint venture will not be required to obtain a separate license to construct this project. Please let us know if the foregoing does not comply with the requirements of the RFQ.

The joint venture will not be required to obtain a separate license to construct this project.

Amendment 1 4

Question 19: With reference to page 8, Past Performance, the RFP states that the team will request PPQ’s from at least two projects selected from the “Master Project List”. Should this read “Most Relevant Project Summary” as these three projects are selected as being most relevant?

The sentence should read “…Master Project List or the Most Relevant Project Summary.”

Question 20: At the bottom of Page 2 of the RFQ, Krueck and Sexton are described as an Architectural-Engineering firm. The Bridging Documents for this project are being prepared by the architectural firm of Krueck and Sexton and their selected engineering consultants.

On Page 6 in Section A.4, “GSA’s Bridging Documents”, it states that Krueck and Sexton will review the selected Offeror’s completed design for conformance with design intent and design philosophy.

To be complete, this must also include the engineering design. Therefore in order to fully comply with the Organizational Conflict of Interest Notice on page 2 of the RFQ, please confirm that all members of the Architectural-Engineering firm of Krueck and Sexton and all of their selected consulting engineering firms who are participating in the preparation of the Bridging Documents and will need to participate in the review of the completed design as described on Page 6, must be precluded from being a member of an Offeror’s team. Even if these consulting engineering firms do not participate in the review process as described on Page 6, to fully comply with the Organizational Conflict statement on Page 2, these firms must be precluded from being a member of an Offeror’s team. Please confirm.

As the prime contractor, Krueck & Sexton (K&S) will provide architectural design services and, through sub-consultants, will provide additional services (including engineering). K&S will not be involved in the selection process except to review the selected Offeror’s completed design for conformance with design intent and design philosophy. K&S will serve in an advisory capacity to provide review services in connection with the selected Offeror’s submissions and final design documents. Therefore, the Government has determined, based on the services being provided and the relationship to the Government, that the prime firm of Krueck and Sexton has an Organizational Conflict per the statement on Page 2, and is precluded from being a member of an Offeror’s team.

However, based on the Government’s knowledge, the activities and relationship of the consultants for K&S do not pose an Organizational Conflict. The Government determination was made based on the findings that the consultants will not be involved in the selection process and will not be involved in reviewing the selected Offeror’s submissions or final design documents. The reviews and submissions and final design documents will be made by the Government and the Construction Manager.

Question 21: Since the subconsultants to K and S are going to have a "reduced" scope of work, will the phase two offer period be extended to allow enough time for the Offerors to both enhance the design to a "pricing set" and also allow adequate time to price and schedule the project.?

No. The time frame will not be extended.

Question 22: What would be the best way to identify the prime contractors that will be participating in Phase I of the procurement process? Will you forward a list of attendees?

The list of attendees will be posted on FedBizOpps.

Amendment 1 5

Question 23: The past performance questionnaire states a date of September 1, 2010 for submission. Is this date correct or should the date be September 10, 2010?

Yes, the correct date is September 10, 2010. Refer to the answer to Question 17 issued earlier.

Please send the questionnaires to “r4pbs.refchk@gsa.gov”

Question 24: Regarding Attachment 3 - GSA requests Attachment 3 be sent on PML projects, as well as a minimum of one project listed on the key personnel resumes. If these overlap, can one Attachment 3 cover all of the key personnel and the project, or do they need to be separate? If multiple key personnel have been on the same project, can one Attachment 3 be submitted to cover all?

Separate questionnaires shall be provided for the Offeror and the Key Personnel, even if they overlap.

Separate questionnaires shall be provided for each Key Personnel identified in the RFQ response.

Question 25: We are preparing to send out our questionnaire. We are not clear on a few things from the RFQ, would appreciate it if you could clarify the following concerns.

a. RFQ / Page 8, item 3 / Offeror’s Performance Questionnaire: The RFQ states – “Offeror’s shall complete the top section of the “Past Performance Questionnaire, which is included as Attachment 3…” Please clarify “top section” of questionnaire.

The top section of the questionnaire consists of Page 3-1 and the first six (6) items on Page 3-2.

References should respond to Questions 1 through 15.

b. Attachment 3 / Instructions for Questionnaire / 2nd paragraph: What email address do we have questionnaire sent to?

Please send all reference checks to the following email address on or after 24 August 2010.

r4pbs.refchk@gsa.gov

c. Attachment 3 / Page 3-1 (bottom half) has the following:

- Name of Offeror:

- Name of Contact:

- Company:

- Title:

- Telephone/email address:

Is this to be filled out by the submitting Offeror or the person filling out the reference?

This information should be provided by the Offeror (see answer to Question 24, Item #1 above).

Question 26: Regarding Attachment 3 – the email for electronic submittal is currently listed as TBD@TBD.TBD. Should this be your email address, lawrence.hales@gsa.gov?

See answer to Question 25, Item #2 above.

Question 27: The answer to Question 16 of the 8/16/10 Clarifications indicates that SF330 needs to be filled out “for the Offeror’s team, including the A/E.” At the pre-proposal conference it was made very clear that the SF330 is a form only for the Offeror’s A/E firm/team member to fill out not the Offeror/CM. Please confirm.

Standard Form SF330 should be provided for the Offeror’s team, including the A/E.

Amendment 1 6

Question 28: Will the shortlisted Offerors be able to discuss the Offeror’s design concepts with K&S, GSA or Jacobs during the phase 2 RFP process. The intent would be to attain feedback / appeal (or not) on certain concepts / added amenities. If so, the discussions would be desired to be kept exclusive between the Offeror and the GSA.

All communication should be thru the GSA. The Government will hold discussions if deemed necessary. See FAR Part 15.306 Exchanges with Offerors after receipt of proposals. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

Question 29: Page 7, item 2, lines 3 and 4 in describing the MRPS states; “the key personnel of the Offeror alone, or its GC alone, or its A/E have worked together.” Please clarify if the 1 to 3 relevant projects for the MRPS is a maximum of 3 for the entire MRPS list or a maximum for 3 each for Key Personnel, the Offeror alone, the Offeror’s GC alone and the A/E alone.

The MRPS is limited to a maximum of three projects total.

Question 30: Page 10, item 2, line 3 states; “Key Personnel’s resume and the O & M Firm.” Please provide a definition of an O & M firm.

The reference to the O & M firm should be deleted from the RFQ. Operations and maintenance of the completed facility will be provided by GSA.

Question 31:

a. During the pre-proposal meeting attendees were advised the consultants working for K+S under the bridging design contract may also engage the project chase for the design-build contract. One of the attendees asked if the Government would post the consultants for interested parties to have equal and open viewing of these firms. The Government advised the firms would not be posted, but rather contact may be made with K+S and if they were inclined they may share the contact information. Several persons in attendance believe the firms who may opt to partner with K&S’s consultants will have the opportunity to discuss program, design and other project specific information in advance of making it to the stage II of the RFP process.

Given this potential imbalance in the procurement process and potential sharing of information outside of the bridging designer, will the government consider a) disallowing the consultants from participating in the design-build contract or b) post all information these firms are privileged to for all of the competing firms to be on level playing field?

See answer to Question 20 above.

b. Will the project be designed hard metric per Executive Order 12770 ("Metric Usage in Federal

Government Programs")?

The use of metric units is under discussion and will be resolved prior to the issuance of the Stage Two

RFP.

c. Will the Government post the presentation from the August 12 pre-proposal meeting to the

FBO.gov site?

Yes, the August 12 pre-proposal conference presentation will be posted on the FedBizOpps website.

Amendment 1 7

d. Will you post the names of all Government and Jacobs attendees at the August 12 pre-proposal meeting?

Yes, the names of all attendees at the August 12 pre-proposal conference were posted on the FedBizOpps website on 16 August 2010.

e. Please confirm the “TBD@TBD.com“ noted as the address in the questionnaire forms is supposed to be “ lawrence.hales@gsa.gov “.

See answer to Question 25, Item 2 above.

f. Will the financial performance of the company’s relevant projects be weighted in consideration of selection of the teams to move to stage II? In other words, will successful performance be viewed as the design-build firms own success on the ability to deliver the project?

Cost and schedule performance on past projects will be factors in the evaluation of Offeror’s submission.

g. The Miller Act has been influencing the use of Subguard and subcontractor bonding on several federal projects over the last few years. Understanding the contract will ultimately be issued as a firm fixed price, will the disclosure of the use of Subguard by the Design-Build contractor be required on this project?

No. Disclosure of Subguard will not be required.

h. Will a Contractor Controlled Insurance Program (CCIP) be allowed (provided the coverage(s) meet the Government’s requirements) for use by the Design-Build contractor on this project as part of its firm fixed price proposal?

No.

i. During the August 12 pre-proposal meeting, one of the attendees asked if there would be goals or stipulations placed on buying “locally” or from “South Florida” contractors, service providers, equipment providers or material men. The Government advised the procurement was open to all U.S. firms capable and able to provide these services. Will foreign contractors (contractors owned outside of the U.S. as defined by FAR) and construction service providers be allowed to submit proposals for this project? If so, will the additional FAR clauses be called out for flow down to subcontractors regarding audit?

Foreign contractors and construction service providers may submit proposal for this project Yes, flow down clauses for audits shall apply.

j. Will the Buy American Act, the Privacy Act and other tenant agency rules governing the project delivery be enforced?

k. Are sports projects considered relevant to this pursuit?

Amendment 1 8

l. Given the Government’s advisement that the project will house a tenant or tenants with sensitive business and operations (we have not been allowed to participate in some procurements), will foreign owned and operated firms be considered viable to provide services given the nature of this project?

See answer to Question 31 Item #9 above

Question 32: Are the SF330 forms counted against the 50 double sided page limit? Are separation pages counted against the 50 double sided page limit?

SF330 forms will not be counted against the 50-page limit. The cover letter and any separation pages will not be counted against the 50-page limit.

Question 33: As per the previous advertisement for the original Design of this building, it was stated that none of the firms selected as part of the Krueck & Sexton design team (including any Structural, Landscaping, and/or MEP Engineering firms) would be precluded from teaming with a respondent on the Bridging Design Build Construction Services RFQ. When the RFQ for the Bridging Design Build team was released, it stated that the Krueck & Sexton team WILL be retained by the Owner as a representative during the design phase of the Design Build portion and MAY be retained by the Owner as a representative during the construction phase as well. If so, it is our understanding that the entire Krueck & Sexton team (including all consultants) would be retained, since the Owner would want to ensure all the systems being designed are in compliance with the design documents. It is our understanding that this would pose a conflict of interest should one of the Krueck & Sexton consultants be on the Design Build team as well, since they would in effect be reviewing their own work. In light of the above, please confirm whether or not consultants on the Krueck & Sexton team will be permitted to submit as part of a Design Build team.

Consultants on the Krueck & Sexton team will be permitted to submit as part of a Bridging Design-Build Contractor team. Only Krueck & Sexton is restricted from participating on a BDB Contractor’s team.

See answer to Question 20 above.

Question 34:

a. What is the electronic address for the questionnaires submission(s) to replace

“TBD@TBD.com”?

See answer to Question 25, Item 2 above.

b. Regarding Page 6, Phase I, 1. Evaluation factors, a. Technical Qualifications: in light of the page limitation for the response of the RFQ and provided the team and individual experience are being addressed in the technical qualifications in narrative, tabular and/or resume format, will the government consider omitting the requirement for the SF 330 as it may be deemed a duplication of information?

The SF330 is required, but is excluded from the 50-page limit. See answer to Question 32 above.

c. When completing form SF 330, should the Offeror include only the key personnel (as outlined by the RFQ) or the entire anticipated project team (the entire team may not be fully determined until Phase II)?

Amendment 1 9

As a minimum, the Offeror should include the key personnel outlined in the RFQ in the SF330.

Additional information may be provided at the Offeror’s option.

d. Should any sections of the SF 330 be left blank for Phase I proposals?

e. Will the government accept references from the SF 330 to Section III of the proposal for project narratives, personnel narratives, etc.?

Question 35: Question 7a: of the recently posted Q’s from the pre-proposal conference asks “Does the SF 330 need to be filled in by the CMaS as well as the A/E?” Who or what is CMaS?

CMaS is an abbreviation for Construction Managers.

Question 36: The last sentence of the PML section you state “the PML shall be limited to providing ONLY the information as described above.” Are you referring to ONLY the bullet points listed directly beneath the relevant characteristics or are you looking for the relevant characteristics of each project to be included as well?

The relevant characteristics listed at the top of Page 7 of the RFQ are provided to identify similar projects that can be included in the PML. Please provide only the information listed by bullet point below the statement “Offerors shall provide the following information for each project on the PML.”

Question 37:

a. Can the projects used for the PPQ’s be outside the 5 year range? For some staff members that have been on large projects, they may not have numerous projects within the 5 year range.

Project used for the PPQ’s must be within the 5 year range. Projects listed on Key Personnel resumes may exceed the 5-year limit.

b. Also, on page 10, it states “Offeror’s shall be responsible for initiating a request for Individual

Performance Questionnaires for at least one (1), but no more than four (4) relevant projects indentified on each Key Personnel’s resume and the O & M Firm.” What does the O & M firm mean?

Refer to the answer to Question 30. The reference to the O & M firm should be deleted from the RFQ.

Operations and maintenance of the completed facility will be provided by GSA.

Question 38: Are the past performance projects for Key Personnel relegated to the past 5 years as the PML and MRPS projects are?

No. Refer to the answer to Question 37.a above.

Question 39: Under Section C of the RFP, it is stated that “Proposals shall be limited to a total of 50 double-sided pages.” However, all page limits throughout the remainder of the RFP, state only “in three (3) pages or less”, “in four (4) pages or less”, etc. Are the page limits for all specifically noted sections to be single sided pages or double sided pages? Please clarify.

Amendment 1 10

The page limits for specifically noted sections are included in the 50 page limit and may be single or double-sided.

Question 40: I know you responded telling us that the 8/12/10 pre-proposal conference PowerPoint presentation will be on line but can you tell us when? I only ask as for us to accurately describe how we will deal with “site access” noted in c.1. General Approach we need to view the schematic site plan.

The Power Point presentation will be posted on line by September 1, 2010.

Question 41: We have a question regarding the number of pages. Our understanding is that the response is limited to 50 double-sided pages. Is this correct?

The RFQ response is limited to 50 double-sided pages, excluding the Cover Letter, separation pages, and the Standard Form SF 330.

The timeframe to submit questions closed on 27 August 2010.

Additional questions will not be accepted.