RFQ Amend 01 - JFB.doc

SF30 Continuation of Block Narrative

Kimberlee Wallentine, 253 931-7195

Vendor ID: 0000

9B. Date (See Item 11)

DUNS:

September 25, 2009

10A. Modification of Contract/Order No.

10B. Date (See Item 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDG-

MENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT

IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

Set fourth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR 43.103 (b)

C. This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

D. Other (Specify type of modification and authority)

is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing office.

14. Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

RECOVERY – JACKSON FEDERAL BUILDING MODERNIZATION

DESIGN/BUILD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SEATTLE, WA

See next page for details.

ATTACHMENTS

(1) Revised RFQ (see Section 00110)

(2) PBS Order 3490.1A

(3) Site Visit Attendee Roster and Minutes

A. GENERAL.

The RFQ is changed/clarified as follows:

1) Questions: Both the solicitation and RFQ list the estimated value of the work between $30,000,000 & $50,000,000, and the RFW indicates the building to be 865,141sf. The math would indicate a minimum cost per SF to be $34.68/sf and at the highest end $57.79/sf. These seem to be rather low costs if one was consider demolition, new MEP, new glass, and a silver LEED rating. Are these accurate estimates? Foley has the same estimated value but for a structure only 301,594 sf.

Answer: Information concerning the Government estimate shall not be disclosed IAW FAR 36.203.

2) In the Scope of Work the GSA indicates a Construction Manager has already been secure. Can you tell us who that is and what the limits of the construction manager are?

Answer: Award information as to the selected Construction Manager assist (CMa) was posted to www.fbo.gov IAW FAR 5.3. Roles and responsibilities of all parties, including that of the CMa, will be discussed during Phase Two and upon award of the D/B construction contract. Interested parties responding to this RFQ shall not contact the CMa firms; all inquires regarding this project and the RFQ/RFP process shall be directed to the Contracting Officer only.

3) Proposal Submission Requirements and Instructions: Factor 1 – Relevant Experience; requests the respondent provide 3 to 5 “relevant” projects of “similar” size (500,000 to 900,000 sf) and complexity; completed in the past 5 years at a minimum of 75% complete may be submitted. If the answer to question #1 above changes the estimate, will that revision affect this scope description and subsequently the selection of past projects that would comply with that revised description?

Answer: No change was made to the RFQ as a result of questions one. Factor 1 was amended to allow projects at least 75% compelted within the last six (6) years.

Factor 2 - Projects listed in response to Factor 2 are intended to demonstrate the “quality” , “technical success”, and “customer satisfaction” of the contractors “Past Performance” over the past 3 years. Each offeror must submit 4 projects completed over the past 3 years that demonstrate the listed 6 items at the bottom of page 14. It seems the qualification standards listed in Factor #1 (3 to 5 projects completed, or 75% complete) are significantly different from those listed in Factor 2 (4 projects completed, in the past 3 years). Please advise, or clarify, which criteria is the governing criteria.

Answer: Factor 1 (Expereince) seeks to evaluate “what” an offeror has done whereas Factor 2 (Past Performance) seeks to evaluate “how well” an offeror has performed in the past. Thus, the criteria as stated in the RFQ is different in terms of completed projects (Past Perforamnce) versus those at least 75% completed (Experience). For purposes of clarity, and to correct an error in length of past performance that may be considered for construction contracts, the RFQ has been revised to extend the age of projects for both Factor 1 (Experience) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) to six (6) years. A revised Section 00110 is hereby attached to the Amendment to reflect these changes.

4) On both of these projects, we're seeing a conflict in what is required re: bonding. On the first page of the SF 1442 for each project, box 13 indicates that you need an offer guarantee (i.e. a Bid Bond), but on page 12 of the RFQ, you state you want proof of bonding capacity of up to $50 million for each project. Are you asking for a bonding letter or a bid bond?

Answer: A bid guarantee IAW FAR 52.228-1 will be required at the time Phase Two proposals (including pricing) are submitted. Since pricing is not being obtained during Phase One, a Bid Guarantee (i.e. bid bond) cannot be obtained by offerors. Thus, during Phase One, the requirements at page 12 requiring proof of bonding capcity is being utilized to ensure short-listed firms from Phase One have adequate bonding capbilities (i.e. if shortlisted firms would be able to obtain bid guarantees/bonding as required in Phase Two). To satisfy the requirements at page 12 of the RFQ during Phase one, Offerors shall provide proof of bonding capcity up to $50M; at minimum this proof shall be a letter executed by an appropriate source capable of verifying bonding capacity.

5) CCR Registration (page 12): We went to the CCR Website and cannot find anywhere to print out “proof” of being current in the CCR system. Do you have a form that needs to be completed? Or are you simply looking for a statement that our information is current?

Answer: A statement (i.e. in the cover letter) that an Offeror is current in CCR and ORCA (online Representations and Certifications) is sufficient. Offerors in Phase One are being requested to ensure this information is compelted prior to beign shortlisted for Phase Two since current CCR and ORCA registrations are required to be verified prior to ultimate award of the contract.

6) Once a shortlist of Design-Build Teams is established and Phase 2 of the solicitation is underway, will the D-B Teams have any opportunities DURING Phase 2 to interact with the users/etc to brainstorm ideas, concepts, etc during the Phase 2 but BEFORE the final design-build submission and interview?

Answer: No. Phase Two will include the final Statement of Work (SOW) which will include full project requirements and will include an evaluation of proposed design concept. GSA is the end user.

7) Factor 3 – Technical Approach Including Qualifications of Proposed Team Members – Proposed Designer: Each resume is limited to two pages. For the Proposed Designer, there is an additional biographical sketch limited to three pages (does this add up to 5 pages?). It calls for site plans, floor plans, building sections and other appropriate materials for the referenced projects. Are these items to be included in the three page count biographical sketch or additive? If additive, is there a page/size limit?

Answer: Factor 3 (Technical Approach), Submittal Requirements, Lead Designer in the RFQ has been revised to delete, “A representative floor plan, a site plan, a building section, or other appropriate drawing, or photographs may be included for each project." See revised Section 00110 attached to this Amendment revised to reflect these changes.

8) Factor 3 – Technical Approach Including Qualifications of Proposed Team Members – LEED Architect/ LEED Consultant– Question: Can the LEED Architect and the LEED Consultant be the same person?

Answer: Yes, if the individual meets crietia for both positions.

9) H-11.6 Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) Building Information (page 46). Question: Please provide us with a copy of GSA Order PBS P 3490.1.

Answer: A copy of the SBU form is included in the RFQ. See Exhibit 5. A copy of the PBS Order 2490.1A has also been included with this Amendment for informational purposes.

10) Exhibit 1 Statement of Work; Project Milestone Schedule (page 9) – Question – In other parts of the RFP the Statement of Qualifications is due on November 20, 2009. In the Project Milestone Schedule the Phase II RFP is issued November 9, 2009. These dates are in conflict; please clarify.

Answer: Phase One submissions are due November 2, 2009, for the Jackson Federal Building. Phase One submissions are due Novermber 20, 2009, for the Thomas S. Foley Buildings. As stated, the SOW contained in the Phase One RFQ is in draft form and is provided for information purposes only at this time. Any conflicting dates contained with the draft SOW should be ignored at this time; the SOW (including erroneous dates) will be corrected when the Phase Two RFQ is issued to short-listed firms.

11) Exhibit 1 Statement of Work; Electronic Project Management System (page 17) – Question – An Electronic Project Management System (ePMS) is required for the project. Are there any unique software/hardware requirements to make the system work? If the software is available to the public, can you provide any details about what software it might be?

Answer: The ePM system and pertinent system requirements will be identified in the Phase Two RFP that will be issued to short-listed firms. Firms are advised that the ePM system which will be utilized is Meridian Proliance.

12) Exhibit 1 Statement of Work; Travel (page 38) – Question – Will all project related meetings be held in Spokane?

Answer: As stated in the SOW under “Travel”: "The Contractor shall assume all travel will be within the vicinity of the project site except as specifically indicated otherwise in the Scope of Services section."

13) Page 16 of the RFQ Construction Project manager experience requirements state that the PM is required to have a baccalaureate degree in a relevant field and at least 10 years experience. Past RFQ’s on projects of similar size, scope and complexity have allowed additional years of experience to replace the need for the PM to have a degree, we would request that the PM experience criteria be changed to allow additional years of experience to take the place of having a baccalaureate degree.

Answer: The minimum requirements as stated in the RFQ for the Construction Project Manager remain unchanged. Offerors shall ensure the key personnel submitted comply with the stated requirements.

14) On page 12, my interpretation of Factor 1 is that sub factor 1A and 1B make up that factor. The 3 to 5 projects for both the contractor and designer are the only examples required for this factor and make up the complete factor 1 requirement. Please confirm my interpretation of this is correct.

Answer: Correct; at least three but now more than five projects shall be provided for the builder and at least three but no more than five projects shall be provided for the designer for Factor 1.

15) The description on page 13 for sub factor 1B identifies relevant experience of the proposed lead designer. The description of sub factor 1B on page 14 identifies relevant experience of the proposed designer. Is the experience you are seeking for factor 1B the experience of the firm (as the proposed designer which would equate to the proposed builders experience in factor 1A) or the individual experience of the Lead designer?

Answer: Subfactor 1(B) seeks demonstration of the Proposed Design firm experience; Factor 3 seeks demonstration of the individual qualifications of the Proposed Lead Designer; see attached revised Section 00110 which has been amended to clarify these distinctions in Factors 1 and 3.

16) On page 15 under factor 3: Can the proposed designer in item 2e also be the LEED architect in item 2f if he meets the qualifications or is the intent to have a separate individual for each of the positions listed under item 2 for resumes?

Answer: Yes; the Proposed Lead Designer can be the same individual as the proposed LEED Architect if the individual meets crietia for both positions.

B. Site Visit Attendee Roster and Minutes The site visit attendee roster is hereby attached for reference. Minutes from the conference are also attached including annotation of questions asked during the conference.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

(Signature of Contracting Officer) 16C. Date Signed

_____________________________________________(Signature of person authorized to sign)

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243