The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES MCC REQUEST FOR LEASE PROPOSAL: MCC-13-RLP-0105
August 28, 2013
| Question |
| Reference Document (RLP, Exhibit, Map) |
| Government Response |
| Amendment Change |
| 1 |
| Can the Government please clarify if they plan to award based on Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable or Best Value to the Government |
| RLP Section 4 Method of Award |
| The Government plans to award based on Best Value to the Government in accordance with FAR 15.101. |
| No |
| 2 |
| 2a) Please provide further information on the frequency/schedule of MCC’s required and preferred use of the event space. |
2b) In addition, please provide further clarification on which “primary event space or ancillary spaces” are acceptable to be separate from the rest of the contiguous space.
| RLP, Amendment 1, POR |
| 2a) We have 15 to 20 public events per year, however the space is intended to be used solely by MCC to meet our overall conferencing needs. Thus the inclusion of the square footage in Category C of Exhibit B. |
2b) The conference center listed under Category C on Exhibit B may be separate from the rest of the contiguous space. However, all Category C space must be together.
No
| 3 |
| Please clarify and associate unit costs—both security related and non-security related—outlined in the RLP and its supporting documents as to whether each unit cost is either Base Building Warm Lit Shell or a Tenant Improvement. |
| RLP, Exhibit C |
| Please refer to MCC FORM L201C (10/12) - Section 3 Construction Standards and Shell Components in its entirety and MCC FORM R101C – Section 1.09 Pricing of Security Requirements (SEP 2012). Please complete Exhibit L – Building Security Unit Price List in conjunction with Exhibit C – Security Requirements for Level II. |
| No |
| 4 |
| With questions being submitted on August 26 and many answers impacting how an offer will be presented, will there be any consideration to extending the due date? |
| RLP |
| The Offer due date will not be extended. |
| No |
| 5 |
| The range of ABOA square feet is rather large. Has MCC revised a closer range through its POR development? |
| RLP; MCC Indicative Requirements |
| No. The purpose of the Test Fit is to demonstrate how MCC’s Program of Requirements (MCC Indicative Requirements, Exhibit B of the RFP) fit into the building being proposed |
| No |
| 6 |
| Would MCC consider eliminating the “warm lit shell” and simply ask for a lump sum TI allowance to take out the ambiguity associated with what is “shell” and what is TI? |
| RLP; Lease |
| No. MCC has clearly defined their requirements in MCC FORM L201C (10/12) - Section 3 Construction Standards and Shell Components in its entirety. |
| No |
| 7 |
| There was no Commission Agreement for JLL attached, can this be supplied or the fee requested be disclosed for pricing purposes? |
| The Commission Agreement is now Exhibit Q to the RLP. Please see Amendment 2. |
| Yes |
| 8 |
| Are there any specific agencies associated with the test-fit, or is it simply to verify the requirement fits within the confines of the area proposed? |
| MCC Indicative Requirements, RLP |
| The test fit is specific to MCC’s needs. See question 5 above. |
| No |
| 9 |
| Operating Expenses are shown to be only escalated by 100% of the CPI. It was our impression that it would be a fully pass-through of expenses over a base. Please confirm. |
| Lease |
| Please refer to MCC FORM L201C (10/12) – Section 2.09 Operating Costs Adjustment (JUN 2012). |
| No |
| 10 |
| In Section 3.11 of the RLP, can you inform us if there are any 24/7 uses or any other use that would cause the owner to incur increased electrical usage? |
| RLP, Lease |
| The uses being proposed are typical of a downtown DC office use. |
| No |
| 11 |
| According to Section 1.14 of the RLP, within 30 days of notice to Landlord regarding the Government’s termination for convenience, the Tenant shall pay the following termination liabilities: (a) Unamortized tenant improvement costs; (b) unamortized brokerage fees paid to both tenant and landlord brokers; and (c) unamortized rental abatement. The costs associated with the Government’s warm lit shell standards should be added to these costs. Additionally, any costs associated with meeting the security standards should be included. |
| RLP |
| Section 1.14 remains correct. |
| No |
| 12 |
| Section 3.06 R of the RLP and Section 3.50 A of the Lease call for the offered building to meet LEED-NC Silver. |
12a) Does LEED-EB satisfy for existing buildings and;
12b) will a building that exceeds the minimum standard be viewed more favorably in the Technical Evaluation?
| RLP, Lease |
| 12a) Yes existing buildings that have been retrofitted to the LEED-EB standard are acceptable. Please refer to MCC FORM L201C Section 3.50 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (JUN 2012), subparagraph C. LEED-NC Silver applies only to new construction. See amended section 3.06 R. |
12b) Exceeding the requirements will only result in a more favorable evaluation if whatever features or aspects the Offeror proposes are considered by MCC to be clear benefits to MCC or its operations. Merely exceeding the requirements on their own will not result in a more favorable evaluation.
Yes
| 13 |
| For Evaluation Factor 1 – Quality of Building and Site Design Offered, the RLP states that the offered building will be evaluated on “Quality of Additional Amenities, including but not limited to available fitness center.” |
13a) Does this only evaluate amenities that exist within the buildings?
13b) Is any consideration given to neighborhood amenities (restaurants, retail, etc.), proximity to Metro or proximity to stakeholders of MCC?
13b) No, the government considers these amenities to be covered in the delineated area. See amended section 1.04 A.
Yes
| 14 |
| For Evaluation Factor 1 – Quality of Building and Site Design Offered, the RLP states that the offered building will be evaluated on “ability to meet the sustainability, energy reduction, and environmental performance requirements in Executive Orders 13423 and 13514.” Executive Orders 13423 and 13514 set broad sustainability goals for Federal agencies. |
14a) Can you provide more detail on how these criteria will be evaluated?
14b) Will an offer be evaluated favorably if exceeds the minimum criteria of the RLP rather than just meeting them, for instance earning LEED-CI Silver compared to the LEED-CI Certified or obtaining an Energy Star score of 85 compared to the minimum required score of 75?
| RLP |
| 14a) No, the Offeror should address what features of its buildings address the requirements of these executive orders. |
14b) Exceeding the requirements will only result in a more favorable evaluation if whatever features or aspects the Offeror proposes are considered by MCC to be clear benefits to MCC or its operations. Merely exceeding the requirements on their own will not result in a more favorable evaluation.
No
| 15 |
| For Evaluation Factor 1 – Quality of Building and Site Design Offered, the RLP states that the offered building will be evaluated on “Quantity of parking available to MCC employees attached to or part of the building that meets or exceeds existing code.” |
15a) How much parking does MCC require for their employees?
15b) How will this be evaluated?
| RLP |
| 15a) Per RLP section 5.01 factor 1, per code, section 5.02 section 11, and section 1.04.A. |
15b) Per RLP section 5.01 factor 1, per code, section 5.02 section 11, and section 1.04.A.
No
| 16 |
| For Evaluation Factor 2 – Project Management Plan, the RLP states that the Project Management Plan will be evaluated based on the “resumes and other documentation supporting qualifications and experience for each of the team members.” |
16a) How will the evaluation of team members for Evaluation Factor 2 be different from the evaluation that will take place as part of Factor 3 – Past Performance?
16b) Who would be considered as part of the “team”? Is the team being evaluated based on the resume of the companies involved (architecture firm, engineering firm…) or the specific individuals that work for these companies that are engaged on this project?
| RLP |
| 16a) MCC will use the project management plan to evaluate the Offeror’s approach to MCC’s specific requirements. MCC will use the Past Performance information provided by the Offerors to evaluate the Offeror’s execution of past comparable projects. |
16b) See section 5.01, Factor 2 as revised in Amendment 2.
Yes
| 17 |
| For Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance and Customer Satisfaction of Offeror, |
17a) are the past performance questionnaires all that should be submitted for evaluation, or
17b) does the government want more information regarding the “comparable projects,” i.e. case studies?
17c) Are these Forms to be submitted “blind” (directly to MCC) or should they be filled out and submitted with the Offer?
| RLP |
| 17a) Only the past performance questionnaires are required. |
17b) Additional information may be provided at the Offeror’s discretion, but it will not be evaluated.
17c) Submit directly to MCC at MCCLease@MCC.gov.
See Amendment 2 for revised language.
Yes
| 18 |
| Section 5.02 Section 9 states that the concentrated load for any Category F spaces must be 2,000 lbs per square foot. Is this a typo? This would be an extremely costly upgrade, if even achievable. |
RLP; MCC Indicative Requirements
| Section 5.02 Section 9 has been revised. Please see Amendment 2. |
| Yes |
| 19 |
| Is the Building Security Desk referenced in Section 5.02 Section 9 of the RLP met with the existing building’s security desk, or does MCC require its own security desk? |
| RLP |
| The Security Desk referenced in Section 5.02 Section 9 of the RLP is the existing building’s security desk. MCC does not require its own security desk. |
| No |
| 20 |
| Section 5.09 of the RLP states that MCC will have right to first offering. This will prove to inhibit the Owner’s ability to effectively lease the remainder of the building. Additionally, it may interfere with the rights of existing tenants. Would MCC consider eliminating this Section? |
| RLP |
| No. |
| No |
| 21 |
| The opening paragraph of Exhibit C – Security Requirements for Level II states that “These paragraphs contain additional security requirements, and unless indicated otherwise, are to be priced as part of the Building Specific Amortized Capital (BSAC).” A Building Specific Amortized Capital (BSAC) allowance and corresponding Section were deleted from the RLP. Since no BSAC amount was listed in the RLP, will all security items within Exhibit C be paid for out of Tenant Improvement Allowance? |
Security Requirements for Level II; RLP
| No. Please refer to MCC FORM R101C – Section 1.09 Pricing of Security Requirements (SEP 2012). Please complete Exhibit L – Building Security Unit Price List in conjunction with Exhibit C – Security Requirements for Level II. |
| No |
| 22 |
| In Section 6.01 of the lease the Government’s Normal Hours of Operation are “X’d” out. What are MCC’s requested Hours of Operation? |
| Lease |
| MCC’s base hours of operations are 8am to 6pm Monday through Friday. |
| No |
| 23 |
| 23a) At what time of day are the large events that MCC hosts? |
23b) Amendment 1 states that “MCC may consider proposals in which the primary event space or ancillary spaces are not contiguous with the rest but is otherwise consistent with the requirements.” Is a building conference facility or other “common” meeting space sufficient to meet these needs?
23c) Must the primary event space be for the sole use of MCC or can it be shared with other building tenants?
RLP, Amendment 1
23a) Large events are usually hosted between the hours of 8am and 7pm Monday through Friday; exact time of day varies per event but may extend beyond these hours.
23b) No, see response to question 2. The event space must be for the sole use of MCC.
23c) The primary event space must be for the sole use of MCC, see response to question 2.
No
| 24 |
| GSA currently uses Form 12000 dated APRIL 2011. Offeror intends to prepare/submit April 2011 format. Please confirm this is acceptable to the Government. |
| Exhibit J - Form 12000[1] Pre-Lease Fire Protection and Life Safety Evaluation for an Office Building MAY 2005 |
| Yes. The RLP has been amended to identify the April 2011 format. |
| Yes |
| 25 |
| Will MCC provide a commission agreement document or will MCC utilize a Lessor provided document. |
| Commission Agreement |
| See Response to Question 7 above. |
| No |
| 26 |
| What does “secured” mean for the two (2) reserved and marked parking spaces? |
| RLP, Section 1.02 C. |
| Section 1.02 C has been revised. See Amendment 2. |
| Yes |
| 27 |
| Is an antenna required on the roof? |
| RLP, Section 1.02 D. |
| No. |
| No |
| 28 |
| What is considered in “the immediate vicinity” since the ½ mile distance is deleted in reference to amenities? |
| RLP, Section 1.04 |
| See answer to question 13 above. |
| Yes |
| 29 |
| Please confirm that MCC is having HOK complete the DID’s at the Government’s cost and will deliver those drawings to the Lessor for completion of CD’s. |
| RLP, Sections 1.07 and 5.06 |
| MCC is currently under contract with JLL/HOK to provide completed DIDs which will be provided to the awardee upon execution of a Lease. The awardee is responsible for all costs associated with preparing/completing the Construction Drawings. |
| No |
| 30 |
| Please clarify which paragraph B is being utilized in Section 1.09 “Pricing of Security Requirements” |
| RLP, Section 1.09 |
| Section 1.09 has been revised. See Amendment 2. |
| Yes |
| 31 |
| Is JLL issuing a commission agreement for review prior to the RLP Due Date? |
| RLP, Section 1.12 |
| See Response to Question 7 above. |
| Yes |
| 32 |
| Can you give us more information about the size of the filing system planned for the space? You have indicated the plan to use a raised flooring for rolling turn style file shelving. What are the dimensions and the upgraded floor loading anticipated for your planned file system |
| RLP, Section 5.02 subsection 8 |
| It is a NOS High Density Mobile Shelving System, height with track does not exceed 80”. This is subject to change during design. |
| No |
| 33 |
| In subsection 11 of Section 5.02 regarding parking, there is no reference to “secured”. Please explain what the requirements are for the 2 parking spaces. |
| RLP, Section 5.02 subsection 11 |
| See question 26 above. |
| No |
| 34 |
| Can you please share what Markon Solutions and Sawdey Solution Services rolls will be and what they will each be reviewing? |
| RLP, Section 5.07 |
| Markon Solutions is currently under contract with MCC to provide leasing consulting services. Sawdey Solution Services is currently under contract with MCC to provide contract specialist support to the Lease Contracting Officer (LCO). Employees of both companies have signed Non-Disclosure Agreements for this procurement on file. They will have access to all technical proposals and all cost proposals submitted under this RLP and will serve as Advisors to the Source Selection Team and the LCO. |
| No |
| 35 |
| Can the (F) Badging office and secure briefing room be co-located with reception? |
| Exhibit B – Program of Requirements |
| No. |
| No |
| 36 |
| Can the (B) Informal Meeting / Collaboration Space be co-located with a pantry? |
| Exhibit B – Program of Requirements |
| No. |
| No |
| 37 |
| Can the (B) Informal Meeting / Collaboration Space span interior and exterior? i.e. a portion of the required SF be located on a terrace |
| Exhibit B – Program of Requirements |
| Interior only. |
| No |
| 38 |
| Should the Type B Conference Rooms be evenly distributed throughout the floors? |
| Exhibit B – Program of Requirements |
| They may be. |
| No |
| 39 |
| The Exhibit C is not clear about the Lessor’s responsibility for providing and installing, designing, and maintaining the CCTV system for the tenant’s space. |
39a) Who is paying for the design, equipment, and installation?
39b) Who is paying for the contract to repair and maintain the CCTV system?
| Exhibit C – Security Requirements |
| 39A) & 39b): The Lessor is responsible and will provide security protection/monitoring for the entire facility other than space(s) leased and occupied by MCC. MCC is responsible for the design, installation, wiring, monitoring and maintenance of all security equipment used within space(s) leased and occupied by MCC. |
| No |
| 40 |
| The Exhibit C is not clear about the Lessor’s responsibility for providing and installing, designing, and maintaining the IDS system for the tenant’s space. |
40a) Who is paying for the design, equipment, and installation?
40b) Who is paying for the contract to repair and maintain the IDS system?
| Exhibit C – Security Requirements |
| 40a) &40b): The Lessor is responsible and will provide security protection/monitoring for the entire facility other than space(s) leased and occupied by MCC. MCC is responsible for the design, installation, wiring, monitoring and maintenance of all security equipment used within space(s) leased and occupied by MCC. |
| No |
| 41 |
| The Exhibit C is not clear about the Lessor’s responsibility for providing and installing, designing, and maintaining the duress alarm system for the tenant’s space. |
41a) Who is paying for the design, equipment, and installation?
41b) Who is paying for the contract to repair and maintain the duress alarm system?
| Exhibit C – Security Requirements |
| 41a) & 41b): The Lessor is responsible and will provide security protection/monitoring for the entire facility other than space(s) leased and occupied by MCC. MCC is responsible for the design, installation, wiring, monitoring and maintenance of all security equipment used within space(s) leased and occupied by MCC. |
| No |
| 42 |
| In the event that the Bowen Building is being considered, how is the existing building going to be evaluated? |
The rules of full and open competition apply to this lease acquisition. In accordance with the RLP Section 4.04 Other Award Factors, the lease will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose offer will be most advantageous to the Government.
No
| 43 |
| Will MCC consider changing the Termination Liability language contained in the RLP? |
| RLP 1.14 |
| MCC will not entertain modifications to the termination liability language at this time. MCC may or may not consider non-material changes in final negotiations. |
| No |
Millennium Challenge Corporation