Addendum 2 - MSU RFQ Design-Builder for the MSU Gallatin College

ADDENDUM #2
TO THE RFQ DOCUMENT
FOR DESIGN BUILD SERVICES
MSU GALLATIN COLLEGE
A/E#2025-07-05
Date: June 22, 2025
Changes to the RFQ document and answers to questions asked to date by firms are as follows:
The last paragraph on page 13 states the "no other consultants or trade contractors should
be included in the proposal; these team members will be selected in consultation with the
Owner". I wanted to clarify that this means that structural, civil, MEP, etc. consultants will
be picked later after the D/B Team is selected and we are not to include them in our Team
for this response. Is that correct?
The only additional consultants that should be named are the Lead Constructor, Lead
Designer, and those entities that employ Key Team Members. The intent is for
subconsultants to be picked after the DB Team is selected in consultation with the Owner.
Section 5.2 indicates an RFQ checklist. Under that checklist section 5.3 indicates the max
page count of 180 pages. We are assuming that this is a typo? Please clarify.
Yes, 180 pages is a typo. In Section 3.4, we have 20 pages. It should be that.
Section 5.3.1 - There is no request for a Project Superintendent unless we provide in
section viii - can the Project Scheduler also be the Project Superintendent and not count
towards the additional 3 key team members?
Yes. Section 5.3.1a specifically notes that a single person can have multiple roles. If
Proposers want to assign being a superintendent to their scheduler in their description of
that person's duties, then that appears to be consistent with the SOQ.
Section 5.3.1 - under section vii - Quality Control Manager - the paragraph abruptly ends.
Please add additional comments.
5.3.1.a.vii should just have a period at the end of the sentence rather than a semi-colon.
The semi-colon was intended to indicate that it is a list.
Section 5.6 - Corporate Structure Questionnaire says to submit for Design Builder and
each Team Member. We are assuming that team members is not a reference to team

members listed in section 5.3.1. Team Members is in reference to Builders and Architects
correct?
2.6.5 defines Design-Build Team Member (also referenced as a "Team Member) as an entity
rather than a person.
I understand that proposers are not allowed to use their own form for Exhibit B. Can you
provide Exhibit B (Projects Table Form) in excel or word format or should we just try to
replicate it as closely as possible in a chart?
DB teams may convert to a Word or Excel form, but it must match the layout and format
provided in Exhibit B.
Section 3.3.4 is the evaluation and scoring criteria. There is no reference section that
correlates to the 30-point scored section (unless I missed it)? All other scoring sections
have a direct reference to a section in the RFQ. See below for clarification:
The table in Section 3.3.4 is replaced with the following:
SOQ Total SOQ Points: 80
Team Organization and Collaborative Process 20 points
Innovative Facility Design 25 points
Transparent Pricing 15 points
Efficient Scheduling, Sequencing, and Construction 20 points
Means and Methods
Response to RFP Total RFP Points: 100
Overall Management Approach 25 points
Innovative Facility Design 25 points
Transparent Pricing 25 points
Efficient Scheduling, Sequencing, and Construction 25 points
Means and Methods
Price Proposal Total Price Proposal Points : 20
TOTAL GRAND TOTAL Points: 200

Is the intention for the Design-Builder and the Design Consultant to both provide insurance
information? There is a max 1-page limit. Or should the Design-Builder provide information
and verify with the design firm that they meet the Professional Liability Insurance
requirements?
The intent is for the Design-Builder to acknowledge that they can meet the insurance
requirements. The prime/principal D-B will be contractually bound to ensure that their
subcontractors (design and construction) have insurance.
Can you share with proposers who will comprise the RFQ review committee?
Two members from State A&E and two from MSU.
In Section 5.3.1 - Paragraph a: Provides a description of Key Team Members. In review, this
listing of personnel seems to be very "construction centric". Is this by design, or is there
any flexibility in the "Naming" of these roles. Still keeping "Key Team Members" to a
maximum of ten, but possibly flexing their job description?
Yes, there is flexibility. Key Team Members can have multiple roles. In addition, Proposers
may name up to 3 additional Key Team Members.
Where will the August 6th confidential meetings be held?
MSU campus with a virtual option. Meetings will occur at the Facilities Management
Building on S 5th Ave. Room TBD.
Can you please share the tracked changes version of the DBIA 530 and DBIA 535 as part of
the next addendum?
Yes
There was wording in the RFP 3.1.1 about only the Owner and no one else with Owner
Employees, Rep, etc. Who is our point of contact?
Bob Warfle, bwarfle@mt.gov with a cc to DOAAEDivision@mt.gov . Connecting outside of
this limitation is non-binding on the Owner.
Just to clarify on key team members: There is no request for a Project Superintendent
unless we provide in section viii (3 additional key team members) - can the Project
Scheduler also be the Project Superintendent and not count towards the additional 3 key
team members?
7 key + 3 extras for a total of 10 maximum; team members can hold multiple roles, but
primary role should be identified.
What will the agenda be for the confidential meetings in the RFP phase?
Owner will issue 2 or 3 items they want firm to address during the meetings.
Firm will describe how they will approach the project.

How many firms will the Owner shortlist to receive the RFP?
Three (3) is goal with option to go up or down.
RFP 2.2.1 - Please clarify MSU's expectations regarding "student engagement" by Design
Build team.
MSU has no set number of meetings or format and is looking for the selected DB Team to
provide input/suggestions.
With this being MSU's first PDB, based off the list of programs in Exhibit D and the $43M
target, can you share how MSU may prioritize scope flexibility vs budget adherence if those
come into conflict?
The project is not being managed by MSU; it is a State A&E project. $43M is the current
project budget with $3M is set aside for owner related expenses . No additional funds are
anticipated and the selected DB Team in collaboration with the State will be expected to
manage the scope and schedule within this target upon contracting.
Will the Owner provide de-briefings to firms?
There will be no debriefings offered at the conclusion of either the RFQ or RFP phases.
Is MSU open to early work packages (site, utilities, structural systems) ahead of a full GMP?
Yes
What is the Owners' top priority?
State - Timing ;speed of delivery.
MSU - Time and maximizing funds to get the most space
See the Project Goals. For more clarity:
Section 2.1, second paragraph states the Design Build team will examine available spaces
on the current MSU campus to determine whether there are spaces that could be used for
the Gallatin Program. What is the owner's expectation of the DB Team?
Intent was for Firms to fully understand Gallatin Colleges operations. Bulk of this work will
be after firm is selected to fully understand the needs.
The RFQ emphasizes developing adaptable spaces that can "flex" with changing statewide
workforce needs. What specific fields or industries is Gallatin College anticipating
expanding into next?
No new industries are on Gallatin College's radar right now. Firms should showcase any
new ideas they think are relevant based on the State's workforce needs.

Please clarify if tab pages between sections and the TOC are included in the 20 page count,
or is section 5.3 the only portion that counts towards the 20 pages.
Tab pages between sections do not count towards the 20 page limit provided that they
contain no substantive content.
TOC is part of the 20 page count because it contains substantive content.
Is it acceptable if the org chart is 8.5 x 14 folded to fit in 8.5 x 11?
Larger paper size is acceptable if folded for items like an org chart.
Regarding RFQ Section 2.6.11, I would like to respectfully request that the requirement that
"Projects of Similar Scope and Complexity" have substantial completion dates within the
last seven years be eliminated or at least extended to 10-15 years. I know from experience
that current design trends and best practices for collegiate trade education facilities aren't
limited to the last 7 years. We feel MSU and the State should also take into consideration
the limited number of facilities like Gallatin College that were constructed over the last 7
years due to the pandemic and volatility of the construction market.
The Owner will leave section 2.6.11 as written in the RFQ.
[END OF ADDENDUM #2]