PV-975-200-001 - ADDENDUM NO 3.pdf
PDF 280 KB Posted
- Attached to
- PV-975-200-001 - Barrack V - Berlin Replacement
- Solicitation number
- BPM017007
- Issued by
- Worcester County, Bethesda CDP, Maryland
About this file
This document is Addendum No. 3 issued by the Maryland Department of General Services for the PV-975-200-001 - Barrack V - Berlin Replacement project. The addendum clarifies and makes changes to the bid documents for this state contract. It includes responses to questions related to the conflict of interest affidavit, resume format, project matrix, and past performance information required in the proposal. The project involves the full scope design and creation of construction bid documents for the demolition and construction of a new state police barrack, garage, and forensic laboratory facility in Berlin, Maryland. The proposal due date has been extended to December 12, 2019 at 3:00 pm.
The addendum provides guidance on the format and content required for the technical proposal, including the use of an alternate matrix format in lieu of the SF-330 Section F, and clarifies that only the prime contractor or joint venture members need to submit a certificate of insurance with the proposal, not subconsultants. The project will be located in Worcester County, Maryland.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ADDENDUM NO. 3
December 4, 2019
STATE OF MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
Ellington E. Churchill Jr., Secretary
PROJECT NO.: PV-975-200-001
TITLE: BARRACK V – BERLIN REPLACEMENT
This Addendum will clarify, add to, delete from, correct and/or change the bid documents for the project referenced above to the extent indicated. This Addendum is hereby made a part of the bid documents on which the contract will be based. By submitting a bid for this solicitation, you acknowledge receipt of this addendum.
All questions must be in writing and addressed to the Procurement Officer, Mark Riesett.
This Addendum includes the following:
QUESTIONS:
Question 1: Page 24 section 4.31.1 indicates the Conflict of Interest Affidavit shall be submitted with this proposal. The last box on page 35 states “NA” regarding when to submit the conflict of interest affidavit.
The link provided for the attachment leads to an attachment labeled “federal funds attachment” though the body of the attachment appears to be correct relating to conflict of interest. Is this the correct attachment, and should it be submitted with the proposal?
Answer 1: A Conflict of Interest Affidavit should be submitted with the technical proposal. While the body of the attachment is correct, please see the correct link here:
https://procurement.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/05/AttachmentH-Conflict-of-
InterestAffidavit.pdf.
Question 2: Page 27 Section F Item 3 – Should the additional resume for each person be in SF 330 format or is individual firm format acceptable?
Answer 2: Section E of the SF330 must be completed and submitted for each Key Staff member.
The second page should be used to supplement or add to the information found in the SF-330
Section E for each Key Personnel and is not restricted in format. The information that is requested in the resume is still general experience and specific experience related to the subject Project.
https://procurement.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/05/AttachmentH-Conflict-of-InterestAffidavit.pdf https://procurement.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/05/AttachmentH-Conflict-of-InterestAffidavit.pdf
Question 3: Page 29 Section F Item 4 – “In lieu of the SF-330 Section F, a matrix containing all 5 projects, highlighting qualifying criteria found in SF-330 Section F can be provided for each project”
Would the state prefer the matrix accompanies the SF-330 section F, or take the place of SF-330 section
F?
Answer 3: The matrix can take the place of the SF 330 Section F.
Question 4: Evaluation Criteria 6.2.5 Past Performance on State work or Similar Work by Prime/JV &
Sub-Consultants – The state previously included an attachment to be completed to provide this information, however this does not seem to be included within the RFP packet. How would the State like to have this information presented, what information should be included, and where within the proposal should the information be included?
Answer 4: Per RFP Section 6.2.5, “Evaluations will be based, in part, on information available from within the Department and discussions with contacts cited for specific relevant projects.” The relevant projects can be projects submitted pursuant to RFP Section 5.3.2(F)(4), as part of a Key
Personnel Resume pursuant to RFP Section 5.3.2(F)(3) or as indicated in RFP Section 5.3.2(F)(6).
Question 5: Due to the fact that law enforcement facilities are not frequently constructed throughout communities, would it be acceptable to submit projects under construction with a scheduled completion date?
Answer 5: No.
Question 6: Will the proposal due date and time still be extended to 12/12/19 at 3:00 pm in eMMA to reflect the Pre-Proposal meeting minutes from Addendum No. 2?
Answer 6: Yes. It should be extended along with this addendum.
Question 7: On page 36 under Section 5.3 Volume I – Technical Proposal, F, 4, the RFP reads “In lieu of the SF-330 Section F, A matrix containing all five (5) projects, highlighting qualifying criteria found in
SF-330 Section F can be provided for each project presented…” Please clarify the format, and if SF-330
Item F is to be omitted and replaced with a 10-page written and graphical matrix, or if a summary matrix is to be prepared and included in addition to the SF-330 Item F project sheets?
Answer 7: Please see Answer 3, above. If a matrix is prepared in a format other than the SF 330, then it must contain the same qualifying criteria found in the SF 330 Section F.
Question 8: Is only the prime offeror’s certificate of insurance required with the submission, or subconsultants also?
Answer 8: The Prime Offeror or the members of a joint venture are required with the submission.
Subconsultants do not need to provide the certificate.
Issued by:
Department of General Services
Office of Procurement & Logistics
301 West Preston Street, Room M-7
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
/s/ Mark Riesett Program Manager
Construction & A/E
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .