GS-04P-10-BV C-0065 Questions Rev 3.docx

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

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

1. CLARIFICATIONS:

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 (8/16/10, 10:00 am and 8/17/10, 1:50 pm): 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 (8/16/10, 10:01 am): 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.

Question 23 (8/16/10, 10:02 am): 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 (8/16/10, 11:23 am): 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 (8/16/10, 11:51 am): 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.

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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 (8/16/10, 5:27 pm): 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 (8/17/10, 7:44 am): 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.

Question 28 (8/17/10, 1:49 am): 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 (8/17/10, 1:50 pm): 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 (8/17/10, 1:50 pm): 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 (8/17/10, 2:16 pm):

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

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

Yes

11. Are sports projects considered relevant to this pursuit?

No.

12. 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 (8/19/10, 10:10 am): 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 (8/19/10, 10:58 am): 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.

Question 34 (8/19/10, 11:22 am): Reference Solicitation GS-04P-10-BV-C-0065 Modification/Amendment of July 23, 2010:

1. What is the electronic address for the questionnaires submission(s) to replace “TBD@TBD.com”?

See answer to Question 25, Item 2 above.

2. 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.

3. 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)?

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.

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

No

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

Yes.

Question 35 (8/20/10, 11:48 am): 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.

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

Attachment 5