Questions_Answers for RFP_NEXCOM WCDC_MAY26.pdf

NEXCOM West Coast Distribution Center RFP Q&A 05/27/2026

1. Q: Incumbent information

Would you be able to advise who the incumbent is for the current West Coast

Distribution Center requirement, if any?

A: Not available for release

2. Incumbent contract number

If there is an incumbent contract or lease currently in place, would you please provide the contract number / lease number?

A: Not available for release

3. Current contract value

Would you be able to share the current or most recent total contract / lease value, whether annualized or total, if available for release?

A: Not available for release

4. Multiple property submissions

We note the solicitation references that multiple offers may be submitted. We currently have nearly ten properties that appear as though they could be strong fits for the

Government. May we submit all viable properties that independently meet the solicitation requirements, so long as each is separately priced and packaged, or is there any practical limit on the number of properties the Government would prefer to receive from one offeror?

A: Yes.

5. Multiple offers from the same offeror

If we submit multiple properties, may they all be submitted under the same prime offeror so long as each property is clearly separated, individually priced, and fully compliant on its own, or would the Government prefer a smaller number of finalists?

A: Please refer to Section B.5 of the RFP. Each offer should be submitted individually.

6. Maximum building size / larger parent buildings

The solicitation states approximately 400,000 to 600,000 square feet, while the minimum technical requirement appears to state that total building size must be at least 400,000 square feet. We are aware of some larger facilities, including buildings that are significantly larger than the stated target range, where an owner may be willing to lease only a portion of the building. Would the Government consider such properties acceptable if the offered premises otherwise meet the operational needs, or would a larger overall building size negatively affect evaluation, particularly given that the purchase option pricing could inherently be impacted if the building itself is substantially larger than the desired operational footprint?

A: Please refer to Section B.2.(b) of the RFP. In accordance with Section C.1.(b) the minimum requirement is 400,000SF.

7. Purchase option structure for partial buildings

Related to the above, if a property is part of a larger building or larger project, how would the Government view the purchase option requirement? Would the Government consider an offer where only a demised portion is leased, but the purchase option would need to be structured around a larger asset, condo map, subdivided parcel, or other ownership arrangement?

A: Please refer to Section B.2.(a) of the RFP. All offers must include a purchase price.

8. Full-building preference

Does the Government prefer that the offered premises be the entire building, particularly in light of the lease-to-purchase structure, or will the Government evaluate partial-building offerings equally so long as they are otherwise compliant?

A: Please refer to Section B.2.(b) of the RFP.

9. Timing of move / occupancy

The solicitation notes anticipated operational occupancy approximately 8–10 months after award, and we also see references to occupancy commencing upon a mutually agreed date with consideration given to completion of tenant improvements. Would you please confirm the Government’s desired move-in timing as precisely as possible, including whether there is a target occupancy month, any internal deadline driving the move, and whether phased occupancy would be acceptable if tenant improvements are involved?

A: Please refer to Sections A.1. and B.9.(d)(1)(ii) of the SFO. Move-in would be 8-10 months after award upon completion of any necessary Tenant Improvements as well as installation of GF/GI.

10. Reason for relocation

Would you be able to share the primary reason the Government is moving from the current building? For example, is the move being driven primarily by size limitations, functionality, condition, cost, ownership considerations, modernization needs, expansion, security, location efficiency, or some other operational driver? This would be very helpful in ensuring we prioritize the most relevant property characteristics.

A: The current lease will be ending; therefore a new solicitation is required.

11. Priority among evaluation considerations

Beyond the stated evaluation factors, are there any particular operational priorities that the Government views as especially important in practice, such as layout efficiency, trailer circulation, expansion capability, newer construction, reduced tenant improvement burden, or proximity to the current Chino facility?

A: Please refer to Section B.8 of the RFP. This RFP will be evaluated according to the

Evaluation Factors listed on pages 10-11 of the RFP.

12. Total building size versus offered premises

When the solicitation refers to building size, should offerors interpret that as the size of the full building, the size of the offered leased premises, or both? We want to ensure we are applying the minimum and target square footage requirements correctly when screening properties.

A: You can provide both.

13. Tenant improvements affecting responsiveness

If a property meets the minimum technical requirements at the time of offer but requires tenant improvements to satisfy certain specifications, including parking, trailer yard enhancements, dock-related upgrades, office reconfiguration, special-purpose areas, electrical upgrades, or security-related items, will those types of improvements be acceptable so long as they are clearly identified and priced in the proposal?

A: Yes. Please refer to Section A. 1 of the RFP.

14. Extent of acceptable tenant improvements

Are there any categories of tenant improvements that the Government would consider too extensive or too fundamental in nature for this requirement, even if the property otherwise appears promising?

A: No.

15. Parking and trailer yard flexibility

If a property is very strong operationally but is slightly below one site metric today, such as automobile parking count, trailer parking striping, or guard shack configuration, may those items be proposed as tenant improvements without negatively impacting responsiveness, assuming the minimum technical requirements are already satisfied?

A: Please refer to Sections A. 1 and B.8.(d)(2)(ii) of the RFP. All offers should meet the

Technical Requirements as stated in Section C. of the RFP to be considered.

16. Multi-tenant buildings

If a proposed facility is located within a multi-tenant industrial project, are there any heightened concerns the Government would have regarding adjacent tenants, shared circulation, shared truck access, shared utilities, or security separation that offerors should address up front?

A: Please refer to Section C.2.(i) of the RFP. Security standards (AT/FP Level 1) shall apply to all off- installation leased spaces managed by the DoW.

17. Fire/life safety evaluation scope

For a multi-tenant or larger building where only a portion may be offered, should the fire protection and life safety evaluation address the entire building or only the offered premises? We want to make sure any engineering effort is scoped appropriately.

A: Please refer to Section C.2.(k) of the RFP.

18. Security survey timing

Do you anticipate the ISC / ATFP review occurring before establishment of a competitive range, after initial evaluation, or only after identification of the apparent successful offeror? This would help us manage owner expectations and access coordination.

A: This review will occur once the warehouse has been identified for award.

19. Environmental / NEPA timing

Do you have any guidance on the anticipated NEPA timeline after selection of an apparent awardee, and should offerors assume that occupancy timing should be measured from award notification, lease execution, or completion of NEPA review?

20. A: NEPA review will vary depending upon complexity. NEPA will be completed prior to award of the contract Government-furnished / Government-installed improvements

Are there any current expectations you can share regarding the magnitude or nature of the

Government-installed systems, such as racking, conveyors, material handling equipment, charging infrastructure, or other improvements, that owners should understand when evaluating structural, electrical, and operational suitability?

A: Please refer to Section A.1. of the RFP.

21. Utility and electrical adequacy

If a property currently falls short of the stated electrical service requirement but can be upgraded within the delivery period, is that acceptable as part of tenant improvements, or does the Government expect that service capacity to already be in place at time of offer?

A: Please refer to Section A. 1 of the RFP.

22. Ability to expand

The evaluation section notes that greater preference may be given to properties that are newer and allow the ability for the Government to expand. Would you be able to clarify what type of expansion the Government has in mind — for example additional office area, additional warehouse area, site expansion, trailer capacity, or internal reconfiguration flexibility?

A: All the above could be included in an expansion.

23. Lease-to-purchase economics

For properties where the owner is willing to provide the required purchase option pricing for Years 1 through 5, is the Government primarily looking for a true purchase candidate from the outset, or should offerors view the purchase option more as a required flexibility provision while the Government still evaluates the property principally as a lease solution?

A: Please refer to Section B.2.(a) of the RFP. A firm Purchase Price for each of the first five (5) years of the lease term is required.

24. Delivery condition

Would the Government prefer properties that are entirely vacant at time of offer, or are occupied / future-available buildings acceptable so long as delivery can be made within the required timeframe?

A: Either is acceptable.

25. Clarification on best submission strategy

Given that we are identifying several potentially strong fits, would the Government prefer to receive every viable, independently compliant property we can source, or would it be more helpful to limit our submission to only the strongest shortlist?

A: Submit all offers that meet the requirement.