Transmittal E-Mail.doc

Transmittal E-Mail to Contractors who Received an Early Exchange Meeting:

I'd like to thank-you again for meeting with us and discussing our Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt modernization project. I've attached a summary of our market research and discussions with our industry partners, along with updated versions of the handouts provided. I've also included a spreadsheet of the POC data I was provided. This summary will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) Web Site.

I'd appreciate your review and any comments you might have. I have another very important request at the end of this message.

We haven't initiated round 2 early exchanges for the following reasons:

1. We wanted to determine the potential impact to the project scope that the High Performance Building Workshop discussions may have had.

STATUS: We believe there will be new energy conservation measures that we can include in the project scope, but that those measures won't materially impact competition (add unique or proprietary capabilities)

2. We wanted to confirm that vacating the building, during construction, was possible.

STATUS: Vacating the building is possible and can be funded. Lease space is available.

3. We wanted feedback from our tenants with respect to vacating the building as well as capturing their programming and our ability to design build-outs.

STATUS: This is ongoing, but feedback to date is very encouraging. The design, and pricing, of TI build-outs will be accomplished after tenants vacate the building. The Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) delivery method provides sufficient flexibility to manage this complexity.

4. We wanted to ensure our strategy was consistent with ARRA rule clarifications.

STATUS: Our preferred strategy has not been affected by any ARRA rule clarification issued or being vetted in draft.

At this point, operating under a "vacate the building strategy" and given the feedback industry provided during first round market research we will not be conducting a second round. As we have been, and will continue to do so up to release of the solicitation, we will accommodate meeting requests from industry to the greatest extent possible.

Given input provided, we believe a CMc delivery method, with a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contract type, is most appropriate for this project. Given ARRA obligation constraints we will solicit the CMc with up to, but not more than 5 first tier subcontractors. We will revise past performance questionnaires to limit the size (will attempt to get it to a 1 page document). We will eliminate inquiries to AE's and will eliminate past performance questionnaires for key personnel. Given we will be soliciting a CMc team, a GMP proposal, after a voluntary short-list, will be required. We believe the GMP will be meaningful, since we will have a more fully articulated design (about 100% DD's). It will also help us set a reasonable baseline for negotiating the construction option after the design phase. An AE option, to be considered during the design phase, will also be included.

We will attempt to post a draft copy of the solicitation document (on FedBizOpps) for comment, but the comment period will be short (1-3 days).

As a post script, I have a very important request to ask pertaining to federal cost accounting standards (CAS). If you would please respond to the following "survey":

1. Are you familiar with (federal) CAS requirements?

2. Does your firm have a written accounting description disclosure THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED by a government entity:

3. If you have an approved disclosure statement, when was it approved? _____________ What agency/individual issued the approval? __________________

4. Would you participate in the solicitation if CAS compliance was required?

5. Could you obtain CAS compliance before contract award (assume December 2009)?

Attachments:

Summary of market research/early exchanges, with attachments cited