Amendment_No_6_SF30.pdf

r e r w r w w e r w e r w r e x x x X

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF

1 of

PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

Amendment No. 6

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

1/09/2013

REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE General Services Administration, NCR Office of Project Delivery, Contracts Division (WPC) 301 7 th & D Streets, SW, Room 2021

Washington, DC 20407 Denise Avery-Craft

See Block 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9. A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

GS-11P-12-MK-C-0055

To all Offerors X

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10/19/2012

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers X is extended is not extended.

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:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning _ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegraph which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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)

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

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

(x) A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN 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)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not 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).

1. See Page 2 through 5 of the SF30 that details the changes to this solicitation and Questions/Answers to RFIs.

2. A new drawing for the VRF system for Building 1 is available to all plan holders.

3. The due date for receipt of proposals has been extended. Proposals are now due no later than 3:00 PM local time, on Wednesday, January 16 th

, 2013 in the Bid Room 1928 at GSA/NCR/ROB, 301 7 th Street, SW, Washington, DC

20407.

4. End of Amendment No. 6

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

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Denise Avery-Craft, Supervisory Contract Specialist 202-205-5742 Denise.Avery-Craft@gsa.gov

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

1/09/2013

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

X

The following changes have been made to this solicitation:

1. A file that contains a revised drawing (M-702) concerning the VRF system requirements has been issued (Amendment #06—dated 1/8/2013). The encrypted file will be automatically sent to current holders of the drawings/spec on record. Please see Question 17 for additional information.

2. Revised criteria for the Sustainability subfactor has been added for Sustainability (LEEDS Certification) requirements to the project. See the Revised C201 of the RFP.

3. The pricing sheets in C101 of the RFP have been revised to reflect the following:

a) A correction to the line item option for a Glass wall for both the 12 month and 9 month period of performance from a Glass Curve Wall line item.

The following Questions and Answers are provided to assist in preparation of your proposal:

1. Section G and H on S-301 indicates 12” poured walls are to be installed from the basement floor to the footing level 6’ below the basement floor along column lines 3 and 4. Since this is a structural slab, what requirements are there in cutting the structural slab, installing the required walls, and then pouring back the cutting of the structural slab?

ANSWER: The intent is to use the 6” diameter cored openings at 24” on center for installation of the #5 vertical wall dowels and for placing the concrete for the new walls below, in lieu of cutting out sections of the existing structural slab. The new concrete walls are located in the crawl space below the structural slab, where the installation of the concrete wall reinforcing and formwork will occur. The intent is for the contractor to install the concrete through the intermittent openings with enough hydraulic head to insure that the concrete fully supports the existing concrete slab.

2. The removal of the concrete slabs for the elevator and under-wall underpinning at column lines 8 to 9+ between B and C involve excavation of materials. What is the requirement for structural fill and compaction requirements prior to installation of the new floor slabs?

ANSWER: New structural fill should consist of soil classifying as SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, or GW per ASTM D-2487 and have a liquid limit less than 40 and a plasticity index less than 20, in accordance with the Preliminary Geotechnical Report by Schnabel Engineering dated 11 March 2011. Structural fill should be compacted in lifts not exceeding 8” in loose thickness to at least 95% of the maximum dry density per ASTM D-698. The contractor may choose to backfill the walls with a lean concrete or “flowable fill” product in lieu of placing and compacting lifts of soil. The lean concrete mix shall be submitted for engineering review.

3. Construction key note #33 stated “Provide perimeter sealant around window or door opening to replace abated sealant”. Key note #33 doesn’t show anywhere on the drawing. Please provide its applications. Does this note apply to all exterior window or door openings?

ANSWER: Refer to Note D39 in Demolition Drawings.

4. Question-Answer #14 and #16 of amendment #2 indicates to delete back paint glass panels (GP- 1). Please confirm that the only finishes remaining are drywall and paint.

ANSWER: Back painted glass elevator enclosure is replaced with a fabric panel system.

Finishes for other locations where back painted glass was deleted are drywall and paint.

5. Page 8 of 35 of amendment #5 requests for option #1 – Glass Curved Wall. Please provide detail and location on the drawing for this option.

ANSWER: There is no glass curved wall. Option 1 is referring to glass wall in the conference room.

6. Drawing A703 shows glass transoms, sidelights, infills on door E1, E2, E3 and E4, and frame F2.

Are these glass transoms, sidelights, infills new or existing? Please clarify.

ANSWER: Glass transoms, sidelites and the glass infill for door types E1, E2, E3 and E4 are existing. The transom frame for type F2 is existing. The door frame for F2 is new.

7. There are many types of doors: D, D2, D3, D4, D5, E2, and E3 shown on drawing A703. Door schedule on drawing A702 does not give the types of materials (i.e., wood, hollow metal, steel) for the doors D, D2, D3, D4, D5, E2, and E3. In addition, finish legend on drawing A705 mentions WDD-1 and WDD-2 for wood doors, which are not even indicated on the door schedule. Please clarify which types of materials are for the above mentioned doors.

ANSWER: Refer to Sheet A-702 (Revision 5, Dated 12/07/2012). Door materials are listed in the schedule. E doors are existing.

8. Door schedule on drawing A702 shows door hardware for all new, existing, and relocated doors.

Please confirm that all new, existing and relocated doors receive new door hardware.

ANSWER: Correct.

9. In reviewing amendment #5 of the revised solicitation (page 26 of 34), there is a new subfactor requirement on sustainability to be submitted written and photographic documentation that illustrates that the bidder must completed at least one but no more than two repair alternation LEEDs certified projects within the past 5 years. It is our contention that these very restrictive requirements will not only have the net effect of preventing virtually every DC certified small prime contracting entity from bidding on this $6-10 million project; the second requirement almost certainly will result in significantly curtailing the number of eligible bidder(s). More importantly, we believe that these requirements are unduly restrictive to the point of being counterproductive to the government’s interests for the following reasons:

1. Getting a project LEED certified, from the general contractor’s side of the equation, is nothing more than understanding and implementing the LEED construction and construction documentation process. While we agree the actual documentation mandates for new construction vs. renovation are different, the process is substantively the same. Therefore while there are additional experiences gained by completing renovation projects vs. new projects, we submit that the government loses in potentially awarding to a contractor by the potential cost savings by having substantially more competition.

2. Further, there is nothing technically complicated about that one point which might require some extra level of sophistication or in-depth training to achieve nor is the reuse credit a pass/fail item on achieving any level of certification such that you would want to make that particular credit a differentiator in being eligible to bid the job or not. In fact there are other points where a greater degree experience might be warranted because those points, in and of themselves, could cause the project not to be certified. Admittedly from the outside looking in, we are hard pressed to see any reason to mandate experience in that particular credit beyond limiting the number of competitors eligible to bid.

3. Lastly it is in the government’s long term interests to ensure as many small prime contractors as possible are able to bid and win these smaller, less complicated contracting opportunities. This is especially true when a project involves LEED certification as part of the requirement, in order to ensure minority bidders get as many opportunities to gain valuable LEED certification process experience and thereby ensuring the small prime contracting community continues to grow and develop.

All of which lead us to submit that the additional subfactor sustainability requirement of the revised solicitation be modified from at least one, but not more than two repair and alternation to any LEED completed project(s).

ANSWER: Agreed. Revisions to the solicitation have been made to reflect LEED completed projects.

10. Prior to issuance of Amendment No. 5, we requested our references complete Attachment 1:

Firm’s Performance Questionnaire for five (5) projects, one of which is LEED Silver. Will submission of Attachment 1 to GSA from our LEED reference meet the requirements of the Sustainability subfactor or must we request that our reference complete and return Attachment 8 as well?

ANSWER: Please have your reference complete and return Attachment 8 since that questionnaire addresses performing LEED requirements.

11. Evaluation Factor 2 - Past Performance of Firm.

The RFP states that "The offeror must provide a GC Reference Form (Attachment 1) for each reference Should this Factor include Narrative or simply include copies of the cover sheets of the GC Reference Forms? If it is only to include the cover sheets, then is the page limit extended to 7? (up to 5 from Past Experience and up to 2 from the additional Sustainability Experience requirements). If this is not the intent of Evaluation Factor 2 - please define what the narrative is to contain and if the cover sheets need to be included and finally if the cover sheets are counted in the total page limitations.

ANSWER: The GC Reference Forms should be sent directly to the Contracting Officer.

Your proposal can include a one page narrative that states who your references are. The one page will count towards the total page limitation for the entire proposal.

12. Evaluation Factor 5 - Key Personnel Experience and Past Performance

The RFP states that "The Offereor must provide Key Personnel Reference Form (Attachment 2) for each reference. Should this Factor include Narrative or simply include copies of the cover sheets of the Key Personnel Reference Form? If this is not the intent of Evaluation Factor 5, please define what the narrative is to contain (are resumes required) and if the cover sheets need to be included and finally if the cover sheets are counted in the total page limitations.

ANSWER: The Key Personnel Reference Forms should be sent directly to the Contracting Officer. Your proposal can include a one page narrative that states who your references are. The one page will count towards the total page limitation for the entire proposal.

13. Question 33 in amendment 3 states that this project is tax exempt. Please clarify that the government will be issuing a tax exempt number to the contractor awarded this project.

ANSWER: Yes.

14. Alternate price for 9 months. Does this include 6 weeks for badging or an add of six weeks to the

9 months?

ANSWER: Construction NTP will be issued after the 6 weeks of Administrative period for either the 9 months or 12 months period of performance.

15. Does the LD’s change for the 9 month alternate?

ANSWER: No.

16. Will there be any reductions in review time by the Government to accomplish the reduced schedule. To achieve a shortened schedule, will the Government be reducing the time to review submittals from 14 days to 7?

ANSWER: No.

17. The original question (Amendment 3, Questions Group 3, Question 23.) was not answered in a meaningful response. The VRV Condensing Units (CU-1 & CU-2) are grossly undersized for the total connected capacity of the VRF Indoor Units. The basis of design manufacturer, Daikin, has informed us that they have been in contact with the engineer to review the design selections.

We were anticipating that Amendment 5 would readdress this issue, but it does not. Please revise the schedule and/or the specification accordingly.

ANSWER: Please see revised drawing M-702 (sent via email on 1/9/2013 to current holders of the drawings/specs).