Toledo_CMc_Submitted_Questions.pdf

Ashley U.S. Courthouse Modernization and New Annex CMc - GS05P17GBC0005b Contractor submitted questions as of 8/16/2017

1. Were there industry sub-contractors you worked with to develop the design? (Posed to the

AE)

a. Thornton Tomasetti is the AE’s consultant for engineering and blast protection.

2. Can you expand on the comment regarding past performance, and can you expand on the subcontracting plan?

a. Past performance is outlined in the RFP in regards to what we are looking to see. It’s how well you did on past projects. If it’s a project outside of the team you’ve proposed, it’s going to hold less weight. We want to know how your proposed team has done on the projects they’ve worked. We strongly encourage you to get in contact with people who will be responsive. With regards to the subcontracting plan, we included a sample plan in the documents posted to FedBizzOpps and the SOW has goal percentages for each subsection: Small Business – 29%, HUBZone Small Business – 3%, Small Disadvantaged Business – 5% Women-Owned Small Business – 5%, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business – 3%

3. Is this an access floor job?

a. It is not the intent. There will be a little level adjustment, but it is not intended to be an access floor project.

4. Is the new building to be progressive collapse?

a. Yes; the criteria is spelled out in the supplied narrative. The Ashley Building is called out for it to be hardened to some degree. There are no plans to harden the façade, but we are planning to harden all the windows.

5. Is there any provision for escalation?

The Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) should be inclusive of all cost including escalation.

7. Will hazardous material abatement be a part of the GMP?

a. Yes; and GSA will monitor the CMc’s abatement via 3 rd party monitoring.

8. What is the structure of the Ashley?

a. Steel frame/ Wood planks, steel trusses in roofing structure.

9. Can you explain the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) process in more depth?

a. The base award will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for the Design Phase and we are looking for a GMP construction option. There will be one overall GMP for both the Ashley and the Annex, but we will have two separate line items for funding purposes. We cannot exceed the GMP for the current scope. If we change the scope, with change of requirements, then the GMP could increase or decrease. The GMP will be issued as a bilateral modification.

10. Is the breakdown between the two projects accounting only or can the money flow from one project to the other?

a. The intent is to be pretty rigid given how the money was obligated by Congress. In the event that one project is over and one is under, and that’s evident by the market, we can go notify congress and make a request on reallocating the funds one direction or another.

11. Could a CMc propose less staff than what really needed, and then later move money from scope to staffing? For example, can you bid with less staff than what you needed and count on scope savings to cover what you need?

a. No, there would have to be a distinct change in scope. Prepare your proposal to carry the staff you need. Key Personnel is a technical evaluation factor; it is to your benefit to make sure you staff appropriately with qualified personnel from the beginning.

12. Assuming there are contingencies on both sides, are we able to transfer contingency dollars from the Annex once complete to the Ashley? If we burn through the Ashley contingency and there’s leftover funds from the annex, can we access the Annex contingency?

a. Yes, but GSA would have to notify congress. We consider one project a renovation, and the other new construction, so we have to keep the two budgets separate. Both projects have a 3% Construction Contingency Allowance (CCA).

13. Will the design development for both projects be parallel tracts?

a. Yes. We will start to push harder on the Annex at first rather than the Ashley, but it’s objectively one big package.

14. Will a blast test on a mock up be required?

a. No

15. Is the architect the LEED coordinator on the project?

a. Heapy Engineering, a subcontractor to the AE is working on LEED from an engineering perspective and has started registration.

16. Is it possible to grant a time extension of two weeks?

a. A one week extension was be issued extending the due date to September 7, 2017 at 2:00 PM Central Time. See the SF30 for Amendment 0001.

17. Can CPARS ratings be used in lieu of past performance questionnaires?

a. CPARS will be pulled in addition to the past performance questionnaires. Failure to provide adequate past performance may result in your firm being rated as neutral.

18. Clarification is needed as far as whether to submit five or three similar projects. In Factor

1.1 it mentions 5 similar projects, and Factor 1.3 it mentions three examples.

a. Five projects should be submitted - See Amendment 0001

19. I believe there’s a conflict in the RFP regarding the subcontracting requirements. Pages 22/23 of the CMc 201 RFP document indicate 8.8% for MBE and 6.9% for WBE. Page 35 of this same document has the following requirements:

● Small Business – 29%

● HUBZone Small Business – 3%

● Small Disadvantaged Business – 5%

● Women-Owned Small Business – 5%

● Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business – 3%

a. Page 22/23 is in regard to EEOC and the mix of labor working in each trade, including employees of the prime company.

Page 35 is in regard to the subcontracting goals and more specifically the size, ownership or location(Hubzone) of the company you sub too.