GSA Hartford Courthouse Project Selected Prior RFI QA.pdf

Project: GSA Hartford New Federal Courthouse

Selected Prior Request For Information Responses:

SET 1 10/20/2025

RFQ Section Page Requested Information or Question GSA Responses

II.C Technical Proposal

16 of 28 In Section II.C Technical Proposal under Factor 3 Item B (Page 16 of 28) it indicates project "completed" in the last 10 years. Is the Government viewing completed as completed design or construction substantial completion or somewhere between those two?

In Section II.C Technical Proposal under Factor 3 Item B the Government views the term "completed" as construction substantial completion.

II.C Technical Proposal

16 of 28 In Section II.C Technical Proposal under Factor 3 Item B (Page 16 of 28) it indicates project completed in the last 10 years. Significant civic buildings designed in a neoclassical style are less common. Is the Government willing to consider extending the window to 12 years?

No

General Please confirm a metric waiver is in place for this project. A metric waiver is in place for the project.

Subfactor 1B:

Past Performance

13 - 14 Please confirm Offerors may use CPARS in lieu of PPQ for past performance client evaluation. No

Agreement I.

A. Period of Performance

5 The solicitation specifies 1,381 calendar days from issuance of Notice to Proceed (NTP). The SOW states the period of performance is 1460 calendar days. Please clarify the period of performance or confirm the Government will allow offerors to propose a period of performance in Stage 2.

POP is 1,460 calendar days.

Agreement III H.

Administrative Matters

10 Please clarify that EOD / HSPD-12 requirements will be required for all personnel accessing Government electronic tools and systems ( eg Kahua) ,but personnel including craft labor not requiring such access are not required to have EOD and / or HSPD -12 clearance until,such time the building is beneficially occupied / in use by the Government.

Correct. The Agreement will be updated.

SOW 1 The SOW references solicitation: 47PD02-21-Q-0010, SAM.gov and the other solicitation documents reference 47PC0325R001. Please confirm 47PC0325R001 is the correct solicitation number.

47PC0325R001 is the correct solicitation number. SOW is in draft and will be updated to reflect this.

SOW / POR 35 Collegial Chambers Environment. Please confirm for Stage 2, the desire is to have collegial (connectivity)orientation between adjacent chambers, not necessarily a collegial floor designated for chambers where courtrooms are separte. Further, is the Government opposed to collegial chamber floors where courtrooms are located on separate floor levels or is the concept up to the offeror without bias from the Government?

Collegial means the Courtroom and Chambers are not physically connected. Building design would dictate if chambers and courtrooms are on the same floor (not attached to each other) or separate floors. Designs will be reviewed during Phase 2 and concepts proposed are be subject to review by the Government.

SOW / POR 35 Chambers - The limits of Collegial chambers are mentioned several times in the SOW but are not succintly defined. The POR includes a shared conference room, a judicial assistant, and no other items appear to be shared. That would not typically be considered “Collegial chambers”. Suggest the SOW be clarified to align with the POR if the specificity of the POR is the intention.

Collegial means the Courtroom and Chambers are not physically connected. The Judicial Assistant (JA) space is incorporated with the Law Clerk Office space and is within the Chambers. The district judges will accept one conference room shared by two chambers.

The remaining district conference rooms will be co-located to create a shared conference room suite. The draft SOW and POR documents are aligned on this.

SOW / POR 35 Chambers -How many judges are expected to share resources in a particular collegial cluster (e.g.

2-10) or is it up to offeror to propose the optimal solution? Is it expected that judges do not have to leave their chamber office floor to access the shared conference and JA spaces or is it acceptable that the resources are on a separate floor?

Two district chambers can share one conference room. The Judicial Assistant (JA) space is incorporated with the Law Clerk Office space and is within the Chambers. Design will dictate if the shared district conference room suite is on the same floor or alternate floor. The draft SOW and POR area aligned on this.

SOW / POR 35 Chambers - Is it expected that judges do not have to leave their chamber office floor to access the shared conference and JA spaces or is it acceptable that the resources are on a separate floor, or could the shared resources be aligned with the court heierarchy (ie shared resources located with the highest level of court)?

Collegial means the Courtroom and Chambers are not physically connected. The Judicial Assistant (JA) space is incorporated with the Law Clerk Office space and is within the Chambers. The district judges will accept one conference room shared by two chambers.

The remaining district conference rooms will be co-located to create a shared conference room suite. The draft SOW and POR documents are aligned on this.

SOW / POR 35 Chambers -Is it GSA and the Courts expectations that USDC/USBC/USMC can share resources, or must the different Courts be separated by suite? By floor? By heirarchy?

District, Magistrate, and Bankruptcy Chambers must be separated by suite. Pending design, chambers seperation does not have to be by floor or hierarchy. The draft SOW and POR are aligned on this. Designs will be reviewed during Phase 2 and concepts proposed are be subject to review by the Government.

SOW 13 Please confirm that the end user groups including the US Courts and US Marshals are in agreement with the list of potential Betterments and Reductions identified in SOW.

Discussion with US Marshals is on-going. The US Courts are in agreement.

SOW 13 Level 1 Betterment - Convert (1) District Chambers Suite into (1) COA Resident Judge Chambers Suite; Add approx 250 NSF. Please clarify which of the 6 District Suites would be converted: Chief Judge (increase from 1820 NSF to 2070 NSF), District Judge (increase from 1670 NSF to 1920 NSF), Visiting Judge (increase from 900 NSF to 1150 NSF).

The Suite that would be converted would be one of the standard five (not the Chief Judge).

Draft SOW to be updated to clarify this item.

RFIs 37 Please clarify that under the design-build project only certain RFIs require Government approval.

Under the design-build contract and delivery method, the DBC is reponsible for handling all design and construction issues, resolving internal questions and coordinating with the team of designers, engineers, and contractors. Further, the DBC is responsible for discerning those RFI's needing Government approval and those are those typically related to matters that could, if approved, result in a variance from the Contract Documents.

Correct

Design Team Responsibilities

37 Please consider deletion of the "design team" repsonsibilities as it potentially confuses the line of authority and responsibilities designated by the DBC. For design-build delivery, the design team repsonsilibiliites are establashed by the DBC as part of its means and methods for project design and construction performance of the work.

The Draft SOW language will be updated accordingly.

Threat Analysis Report (TAR)

Has a threat analysis report been made for the project site? If yes, please confirm this information will be provided in Stage 2. If no, will a report be developed and if so will it be made available to offerrors during stage 2?

FPS completed an enhanced site survey. This assessment will be provided in Phase 2 of the solicitation.

SOW 13-15 Order of priority for betterments. Please provide the order of priority for Level 1 and Level 2 bettments during Phase 1.

The only priority consideration is to consider Level 1 list before Level 2.

SOW 13-15 Order of priority for Reductions. Please provide the order of priority for Level 1 and Level 2 Reduction during Phase 1.

The only priority consideration is to consider Level 1 list before Level 2.

Solicitation - Factor1a Prior Experience

13 The U.S. Courthouse program, aspects and requirements are a very unique, niche product type.

Will the Government consider adding as the highest order of importance, "New construction or significant alteration of a courthouse or other justice facilty , with additional consideration being given for U.S. Courthouses delivered within the last 10 years"?

The Factor 1a requirement is for projects within the last 10 years. Additional consideration is given to delivery of US Courthouses in that time period.

Solicitation - Factor1a Prior Experience

13 The U.S. Courthouse program, aspects and requirements are a very unique, niche product type.

For example, P100 requirements now transitioned to the interim Core Building Standards, USMS Pub 64, US Courts Design Guide, Progressive Collapse and Blast Resistant and related ISC design criteria, A/V - telecom and data infrastrcuture, GSA, USMS and US Courts physical and electronic security requirements and infrastructure are very different elements and aspects versus non-federal courthouse / justice design and construction. Will the Government consider clarifying in the order of importance disntinction between federal and non-federal courthouse prior experience similar to the following, "New construction of significant alteration of a courthouse or other justice facilty , with additional consideration being given for U.S. Courthouse delivery, within last 10 years"?

No

Solicitation - Factor1a Prior Experience

13 Design-Build to Budget is a unique and advantageous delivery model. Will the Government consider adding as the highest order of importance, "New construction or significant alteration of a courthouse or other justice facilty , with additional consideration being given for Design Build to Budget delivery, within last 10 years"?

No

Solicitation - Factor1a Prior Experience

13 Currently GSA lists, "completed projects within 150 miles of Hartford, CT" as an order of importance for prior experience, however, there are few (possibly no) projects completed in this radium that align with the other evaluation standards. Will GSA consider allowing offerors to demonstrate prior experience by way of a half page or full page inclusion in Factor 1a of recent, relevant project delivery experience within the 150 mile radius in order to provide GSA with a more comprehensive understanding of offeror's team prior experience in and around Hartford, CT.

No, please adhere to the page limit requirements as outlined in the solicitation

Executive Order 14344 Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again

The EO desribes the following related to Architectural styles. Classical architecture encompasses such styles as Neoclassical, Georgian, Federal, Greek Revival, Beaux-Arts, and Art Deco.

“Traditional architecture” includes classical architecture, as defined herein, and also includes the historic humanistic architecture such as Gothic, Romanesque, Second Empire, Pueblo Revival, Spanish Colonial, and other Mediterranean styles of architecture historically rooted in various regions of America. If the GSA and / or US Courts have a preferred Classical Architectural and/or Traditional Architectural style, please advise for the benefit of the offerors.

The defined style has already been narrowed and prescribed as being inline with "classical" and "traditional" architectural styles in accordance with EO 14344.

Courthouse Tour Report

Please provide a copy of the courthouse tour report. Also, if not included in the report, please provide a floor plan of the "preferred" collegial chamber arrangement observed from the tour.

Courthouse tours report has been uploaded to SAM.gov.

Solicitation Posts In support of ensuring potential offerors have the most current and comprehensive informaition, please confirm notifications will be issued to potential offerors when new information is posted to SAM.gov and please confirm there is no other location (e.g. Google Drive, etc) information information is to be obtained for the RFQ, Stage I process. Please confirm the "following" option for this soliciation is available, currently that option is not available on the posting.

The solicitation has related documents available on SAM.gov and other documents are publicly available.

Statement of Work

12 Please provide the referenced site reports and plans regarding the site remediation. These are not currently posted to SAM.gov.

Reports have been posted to SAM.gov

Solicitation 12 In Section II.C Technical Proposal under Factor 1A it indicates Prior Experience is limited to projects completed within the last ten (10) years. Most civic projects in that timespan are considered modern and not neo classical. Is the Government willing to consider extending the window to 15 years?

No

Solicitation 13 In Section II.C Technical Proposal under Factor 1B Past Performance, PPQs are required to be filled out for each project. If a CPAR is available for that project, can the CPAR be submitted in lieu of a PPQ?

No

Solicitation 13 Please clarify if PPQs are counted in the overall proposal page limit of 50 pages PPQs are not counted in the overall page limit.

Pursuant to FAR Part 9.505-4(b), could you please provide us with the Non-Disclosure of Proprietary Information Agreement pertaining to the above-referenced GSA solicitation.

We are not mandating the use of any particular agreement, a sample template is attached to the solicitation that you can use.

Since there are two contractors (AECON and Michael Maltzan Architecture), should a separate Non-Disclosure form be prepared for each one to sign?

Yes

Project: GSA Hartford New Federal Courthouse

Selected Prior Request For Information Responses:

SET 2 10/29/2025

RFQ Section Page Requested Information or Question GSA Responses

SOW 13 Level 1 Betterment - Add Judicial Fitness Center (5.107) and Locker/Shower/Toilet Rooms (5.000) back into the Shared Court Support space; Add approx 1,900 NSF. Please confirm that intent is to keep combined program area of 5.000 and 5.107 at approximately 1,900 NSF, if not please clarify.

The Judicial Fitness Center (5.107) is 1,900 NSF, inclusive of Locker/Shower/Toilet Rooms (5.108). Exact size of those rooms will be determined during design phase. Adjustments to nomenclature will be reflected in the final Betterments list.

SOW 88 The Hartford Test Fit Diagram indicates that the government anticipates a 2 courtroom per floor layout. However, the POR Summary (pg 10) states that 3 District Courtrooms will share 2 Trial Jury Suites. Please advise if the government would allow 2 District Courtooms to share 1 Jury Suite, in order to locate the 3rd District Courtroom (with a dedicated Jury Suite) on the same floor as the Special Proceedings Courtroom.

US Courts are in agreement that having two active district courtrooms share one large jury suite on one floor is a viable option. Offerors to note that the Test Fit Diagram is a general representation of the program.

II.D.Other Information to be Submitted with Proposals

16-17 The solicitation identifies key consultants to the Government that are prohibited from competing for the Design-Build contract. We understand there are other consultants and subconsultants who have over a year of prior history working on this project under a different delivery approach/contract.

1) please advise if any Architectural / Engineering consultants from the original project delivery will be authorized to pursue the Design-Build contract as part of a DBC team; 2) if A/E consultants from the original project delivery team will be authorized to pursue the Design-Build contact as part of a DBC team, please share for the benefit of all offerors any and all materials (e.g. meeting minutes, sketches, concepts, blocking , stacking , massing work product(s), etc. ) that may have been developed to support the current solicitation, budgeting/pricing, or other effects or endeavours that may yield an advantage for those firms to compete for the DB contract versus firms that have had no visibility to those meetings and work efforts prior to the start of Phase 2 competition and work efforts.

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) does not intend to prohibit former subconsultants from participation in the selection process for this upcoming procurement after consideration and review of the applicable regulations, including FAR 36.209 (“Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms”) and FAR Subpart 9.5 (“Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest”. FAR 36.209 generally precludes an architect-engineer contractor from providing construction services on the same project if they were responsible for preparing the design or specifications. Based on the information to date, it is of the opinion of GSA the subconsultants did not prepare the design or specifications for this courthouse project in a manner that would trigger this restriction.

Additionally, under FAR Subpart 9.5, GSA has assessed whether any organizational conflict of interest (OCI) exists that would impair your subconsultant objectivity or provide an unfair competitive advantage. At this time, GSA has not identified any such conflict that would preclude them from submitting a proposal or being considered for award. GSA provided all necessary work products for all offerors to successfully and fairly compete in the solicitation. Please note that GSA reserves the right to re-evaluate this determination if additional facts emerge that suggest a potential conflict under FAR 9.5 or if circumstances change.

IWI Please provide the current IWI standards / expectations for the US Courts. The administrative spaces for this courthouse can be designed using modified IWI standards. Meaning, there will still be private offices and open workstation areas.

NA - General QuestionIn preparation of the Phase 2 submission, can the GSA provide an outline of documents deliverables that will be included with the Phase 2 Solicitation Package?

Deliverables list was posted as part of Phase 1 RFI responses. A list of all Phase 2 Solicitation documents will be issued as part of Phase 2.

ARG - Placeholder on CUI (still researching) "Please advise if CUI requirements outlined in the Phase 1 Solicitation Documents apply to the DBCs during the Phase 1 - RFQ Phase? "

Yes

SOW and Site Feasibility ReportSOW-Pg12& Feasibility - Pg -1There are approximately 11 "Site Reports" listed that were not included with the RFQ package.

These are posted as part of Phase 1 RFI responses.

SOW SOW Pg 11 and 12 Please clarify if "Option #1" was intended for the DBC to include or exclude the LEP. The LEP is also listed in on Page 17 in the SOW as Key Personnel.

LEP should be included.

SOW SOW Pg 11 There are multiple references to a utility easement that runs through a portion of the site. If intended to outline our approach as part of the RFP Phase, please provide additional information.

Approach needs to be conveyed in Phase 2 response.

SOW - Betterments SOW - Pg 14 Level 2 Betterments - Line #7 - Tarriff Risk & Escalation sharing. Please elaborate intended approach to sharing risk tied to Tarriff and Escalation.

This is a Firm Fixed Price contract. GSA will continue to explore Tarriff Risk & Escalation sharing in Phase 2.

SOW - Reductions (If Necessary)SOW - Pg 15 Level 2 Reductions (If Necessary) - Line # 7 - Fastrack Soil Abatement & Mitigation -Please confrim that base scope approach to scheduling shall include commencment of sitework on 65% CDs and the Construction NTP on 07/05/2025. Fastrack and/or early sitework commencment is referneced in other RFQ documents.

GSA's project schedule accounts for onsite work to initiate in alignment of the 65% construction documents completion. However, the DBC will have the opportunity to determine how to best fast track scopes to initiate prior to 100% CDs.

SOW - Project Delivery ApproachSOW - Pg 15 and other sectionsPlease confirm if the CxP will be carried by the GSA, CMa or if it should be included with the DBC's proposal?

CMa is providing CxP services. The Phase 2 solication will detail the DB's responsibilities in working with the CxP.

Solicitation Solicitation Pg 11 & Pg 50 Proposal FormatSection II.B. Proposal Format indicates that the proposers shall submit one electrionic version and should be formated to be a total of 50 double sided 8- 1/2"x11" pages. This seems to indicate a hard copy of the proposal is required.

Please confirm 100 8-1/2" x 11" pages electronically is acceptable and no hard copies are required.

Yes, for the electronic submission, 50 double-sided pages is equivalent to 100 pages. No hard copies are accepted.

SOW Pg 16 Page 16 (A.3) Who are all the government stakeholders? How is the process dependent on the approval of each. Is there a single point from the GSA who will be aligning all the stakeholders or is that a responsibility of the DBC?

GSA is responsible for aligning government stakeholders. However, the DBC significantly contributes with their deliverables and responsiveness for GSA to achieve government stakeholder alignment.

SOW SOW - Pg 18 Section C paragraph 4 references a separate procurement of a CMa contract?

What is timeline, process and what responsibilities will the CMa have?

GSA has a separate contract in place with a CMa (AECOM) through Project Close-out. A description of the CMa's role can be found in Section II.G.4 of the SOW.

SOW SOW - Pg 23 Page 23 – is it clear when we would take advantage of access for environmental due diligence (assume after Phase 1 selection, but before Phase 2 selection?

Onsite access may be provided and coordinated through GSA. However, GSA is providing a significant amount of environmental information during this RFI process.

SOW Is there a draft of Division 1 Specifications, if so, can that be provided? The Division 1 Specifications will be provided in Phase 2.

SOW Is there a Risk Register the GSA is currently utilizing, if so, can that be provided?

GSA will provide the project Risk Register to the successful DBC after contract award.

Pricing Template Pricing Template On the Pricing Sheet there is a line item for “Project requirements”. Please provide more clarity on what this is.

Project Requirements are project specific costs excluded from General Conditions.

SOW SOW - Pg 30 FF&E is referenced in the SOW. Please clarify if the CMa or GSA will provide this scope or if it was intended to be included with the DB scope.

No FFE for any tenant agencies spaces. FFE will be coordinated by the tenant. The DBC's A/E shall coordinate the power, data and security work via a generic furniture plan. Draft SOW to be updated.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 Betterments Add 700 SF shared conference room (6.500 Shared Training Suite) to 6.000 District Clerk. Comment: Add 700 NSF of generic office space. Can you provide a breakdown of types and quantities of spaces to be added.

The Shared Training Suites are to provide training space for Court and Probation & Pretrial Services staff and may include training rooms, storage space, AV closets, and service units.

Exact space distribution should be confirmed during Phase 2 of the solicitation and during design with tenants.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 BettermentsAdd 1,098 SF shared conference room (9.500 Shared Training Suite) to 9.000 Bankruptcy Clerk. Comment: Add 1098 NSF of generic office space (can be reduced in size). Can you provide a breakdown of types and quantities of spaces to be added to qualify for the betterment.

The Shared Training Suites are to provide training space for Court and Probation & Pretrial Services staff and may include training rooms, storage space, AV closets, and service units.

Exact space distribution should be confirmed during Phase 2 of the solicitation and during design with tenants.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 Betterments Add 400 SF shared conference room (7.500 Shared Training Suite) to 7.000

Probation-Pretrial Office. Comment: Add 400 NSF of generic office space. Can you provide a breakdown of types and quantities of spaces to be added.

The Shared Training Suites are to provide training space for Court and Probation & Pretrial Services staff and may include training rooms, storage space, AV closets, and service units.

Exact space distribution should be confirmed during Phase 2 of the solicitation and during design with tenants.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 BettermentsConvert 1.225, 1.424, 2.223, and 10.213 Shared Work Rooms in courtroom suites to Robing Rooms. Comment: Effectively adds a bathroom to each space.

The original POR did not include bathrooms with Robing Rooms. Is the intent of this betterment to convert Shared Work Rooms AND add toilet rooms for each Robing Room?

Yes. The POR states Robing Rooms, including private restrooms, for judiciary; this betterment effectively adds 100 SF in addition to the restroom to 1.225, 1.424, 2.223, and

10.213 Shared Work Rooms, to replace the Workrooms.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 BettermentsProvide semi-atrium space. Comment: Add 400 NSF of generic office space.

Comment: Eliminate code requirements for Atrium space, not to include atrium exhaust vent, fire separation from above floor area. Is the intent of this betterment to provide a semi-atrium space design that would not trigger the code atrium requirements for smoke evacuation and fire separation?

Yes, the intent of this betterment is to provide an atrium-like space or other grand entry design that would not trigger the code atrium requirements for smoke evacuation and fire separation. Additional intent is to not encroach on 67% building efficiency; see Salt Lake City example in Courthouse Site Tour report to be provided in Phase 2 Solicitation.

SOW SOW Pg 13 Level 1 BettermentsAdd a retractable wall between the multi-defendant courtroom and adjacent space. Comment: Modification to the multi-defendant courtroom (1.201 Special Proceedings Courtroom) to allow for multipurpose use. Is the intent of this betterment to provide a movable wall system to connect Public Waiting Area [1.206] with the Special Proceedings Courtroom?

The intent of this betterment is to provide flexibility to connect the attorney conference room with the special proceedings courtroom to expand capacity. See Courthouse Site Tour report to be provided in Phase 2 Solicitation, specifically Los Angeles Courthouse example.

SOW SOW Pg 14 Level 2 Betterments (HEADING NOTE)Betterments - Level 2 selections should only be included once all Level 1 Betterments have been included. Can offerors receive credit for providing Level 2 BETTERMENTS without having to include ALL of the LEVEL 1 BETTERMENTS? We would note that the Level 1 betterment for an additional 40 secure spaces within the building footprint/envelope would be a considerable expense considering excavation, ground water table, and ventilation requirements.

Offerors do not need to include all of Level 1 betterments in order to include Level II betterment items.

SOW SOW Pg 14 Level 2 BettermentsAdd back 14.300 Congressional office in 14.000 Agency Tenant space in POR.

Comment: Add 230 GSF of generic office space. Please clarify. The original program area for 14.3 Congressional Office was 1000 NSF

Confirmed 14.300 Congressional office is 1000 NSF. Draft betterments and reductions list will be updated in the DB SOW for Phase 2.

SOW SOW Pg 14 Level 2 BettermentsAdd back 14.400 Trustees office in 14.000 Agency Tenant space in POR.

Comment: Add 230 GSF of generic office space. Please clarify. The original program area for 14.4 Trustees Office was 650 NSF.

Confirmed 14.400 Trustees office is 650 NSF. Draft betterments and reductions list will be updated in the DB SOW for Phase 2.

SOW SOW Pg 14 Level 2 BettermentsAdd back 12.200 Office Spaces in the Circuit Library. Comment: Add 479 GSF of generic office space to Circuit Library. Please clarify. The original program area for 12.2 Circuit Library Office Spaces was 479 NSF. The POR Priorities includes 282 NSF. Is the intent of this betterment to restore 12.200 to 479 NSF by adding 197 NSF?

Intent of this betterment is to restore 12.000 Circuit Library to original POR size (4,740 USF). Draft betterments and reductions list will be updated for phase 2.

SOW SOW Pg15 Level 1 ReductionsEpoxy Terrazzo or the like at Lobby space in lieu of stone or marble. We would consider that epoxy terrazzo is a standard level of finish for public lobby space and providing such should not be considered a REDUCTION.

It is confirmed that terrazzo is a standard level of finish for public lobby space. Reductions will be updated for Phase 2.

SOW SOW Pg15 Level 2 ReductionsReduce courtroom floor height to 19 and general office floor height to 15' throughout the courthouse.

No information is requested in the offerors statement

DK SOW Pg15 Level 2 ReductionsThe Phase 1 Proprietary Meeting Agenda included Question 5 to bidders regarding betterments, reductions and alterations to scope. Will shelled space of POR requirements be considered as an alternate reduction?

No

Solicitation Pg 16 RFQ Pg 16. Factor 3 Page CountFactor 3: Lead Designer submittal requirements for portfolio stipulates a maximum of 5 pages per project [Items B and C, page16]. Item E on page 16 lists a number of possible submission items "in addition to the page limits above" without page limits. Can you clarify/ confirm the number of pages allowed for portfolio projects?

For Factor 3, Offerors may include, in addition to the 5-page project limit:

-One representative visual per project (representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3D model, a building section, or other appropriate drawing).

-Two pages of photographs per project.

These additional materials are still subject to the overall submission limit of 50 double-sided pages (100 one-sided pages in an electronic submission).

Please confirm that the Phase 1 proposal submission is strictly to identify qualified offerors to shortlist and does not count in the phase 2 overall evaluation process.

Phase I factors and evaluations are independent of the Phase II factors in the solicitation notice. The Phase I factors and evaluation will only be used to evaluate and select firms to compete in Phase II.

Subfactor 1B: Past Performance13 - 14 The due date for RFQ / Stage 1 is Monday, November 5. An RFI response provided this week via Amendment 1 indicates CPARS can not be used as an alterative to PPQ's for Government projects. This position is inconsistent with other active and recent GSA and other Executive Agency procurements. Based upon recent discussions with federal employees (present) and federal employees (past) needed to complete PPQ's for Government contracts, we have concerns related to Government employee's and/or former employees being able/willing to turn around PPQs in the remaining time the Stage 1 qualifications are due primarly due to (1) additional staff workload due to substantial reduction in force this year, (2) reduction in force separating respondents for PPQ's from Government employment and (3) potential of current or nearterm furlough status. Will the Government reconsider accepting CPARS for federal contracts in lieu of PPQs?

The Offeror must submit either a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (included in the solicitation as Attachment), completed by the applicable client, or FINAL CPARS evaluations for each project included in its proposal for Factor 1A

II.B Proposal Format 11 Please confirm that the past performance documentation (PPQ / CPAR) and the II.D Other Information (noted on page 16 including JV Agreement) are excluded from the page limitation noted in II.B.

Confirmed

SOW 22 Section E Project Duration and Scheudle Milestones indicates that two NTPs will be issued; a Design Start NTP and a Construction NTP. Please confirm that the GSA will only issue one NTP to release the DBC.

Confirmed

I.E. Proprietary Meetings9 The second proprietary meeting scheduled for February 10 – 12, suggests an agenda for “the Offerors to discuss their initial concepts and options for site usage, building layout plans, building massing diagrams, building circulation and phasing of building construction.” Based on the Phase 2 response due on April 15, we recommend that GSA feedback on that level of design should be much earlier in the Phase 2 schedule. Can the second proprietary meeting be shifted to early/mid-January?

Yes. GSA intends to add a virtual Proprietary Meeting on January 12-13, 2026.