GS-04P-10-BV C-0065 Questions Rev 2.docx

The following questions and answers are provided as clarifications to Solicitation Number:

GS-04P-10-BV-C-0065

1. CLARIFICATIONS:

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.

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.”

All questions must be submitted in writing. Please submit all questions via email to: lawrence.hales@gsa.gov

Attachment 2