Statewide Facility Conditions Assessments Addendum 1

Agency:	State of Vermont
State:	Vermont
Type of Government:	State & Local
NAICS Category:	541330 - Engineering Services
Posted Date:	Jan 21, 2026
Due Date:	Feb 3, 2026
Original Source:	Please Login to View Page
Contact information:	Please Login to View Page
Bid Documents:	Please Login to View Page

Attachment Preview

Statewide Facility Conditions Assessments

ADDENDUM # 1

State of Vermont

Department of Buildings and General Services

Office of Purchasing & Contracting

133 State Street

Montpelier, Vermont 05633-8000

1/20/2026

TO ALL BIDDERS OF RECORD:

This Addendum consists of 6 page(s).

Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum by entering its number and date on the Proposal Form. This Addendum forms

a part of the Contract Documents and modifies them as follows:

1. Date Change

The bid opening date is hereby changed from 1/22/2026 at 4:30 PM until 2/3/2026 at 4:30 PM

2. Questions Received

The RFP notes that the State may elect to hire multiple providers to complete the assessments. Will the State

consider proposals for a partial scope of work? If so, may the pricing table be amended to allow proposers to identify a

square footage quantity that their firm would be able to complete?

Answer: This is standard boilerplate for this project the intent is to contract with only one contractor

Given the accelerated timeline for Phase 1 will there be fewer projects for this phase as compared to

subsequent phases?

Answer: There are only 20 buildings in Phase one and 12 of them are in Montpelier. Based on square footage alone,

phase one is similar to other phases, but when based on number of buildings, number of town, complexity of the

buildings, and access challenges, this phase has the least of each, so we don’t expect the physical assessments to take as

long.

The RFP states that the State has completed two rounds of FCAs to date. It also states that 4,294,423 SF (see

Price Schedule table on page 17) of the 4,308,821 SF under BGS oversight will be assessed during the five-year

contract. This suggests that only 14,398 SF has been assessed in the previous five-year contracts. Please verify that the

Price Schedule table SF per phase and, therefore, the anticipated size of the contract, is correct and not boilerplate SF

from a previous RFP.

Answer: The 4,308,821 SF is an outdated number which should have been updated to 4,294,423 SF. The scope of this

contract is 4,294,423 SF. All buildings under BGS oversite are required to be assessed on a 5 year cycle, so regardless

of previous assessments all buildings listed on attachment G are part of the scope of this contract.

For Criterion 1: Strength of Project Team Section 3.6.2.1 on pp. 8 of the RFP requests 5 client references, and

section 4.8 References on pp. 11 requests three companies you have contracted with in the last 12 months. Can you

please clarify the expectation for references?

Answer: The request for 5 client references in strength of Project Team Section 3.6.2.1 on pp. 8, is reverences

specifically from the list of comparable projects you have provided vs. 4.8 References on pp. 11 request from three

companies, are reverences from other contractors you have used in the past 12 months.

Rev 12.5.23

Please clarify what is expected in Criterion 4: Database example on pp. 9? It is our understanding that the

state will expect selected contractors to use a specific excel workbook provided by the state per section 2.5 Deliverable

on pp. 5 of the RFP.

Answer: This table should have been updated to show that for this round of FCA’s the State of Vermont’s IWMS will

be the database which will be the source and destination of asset data for the properties within this contract’s scope of

work. The table in the current RFP was for the old contract where the State needed a database to house assessment data.

This is no longer the case. An updated Evaluation criteria table is below.

CRITERIA

1. Strength of Project Team

2. Project Approach

3. Fee Structure/Price

Schedule

TOTAL

WEIGHT

MAXIMUM POINTS

WEIGHTED TOTAL

100

Does the State expect corrective actions to be scoped at a level sufficient for conceptual capital budgeting

only, or detailed enough to support future project programming?

Answer: The State’s preference is that corrective actions be scoped at a level detailed enough to support future project

programming. FCA data is used to support strategic planning beyond the scope of the capital budget.

When deficiencies are observed in portions of a system (e.g., roof areas, HVAC components), should

corrective actions generally assume partial replacement or full system replacement unless otherwise noted?

Answer: Where partial replacements are practical and cost effective that is the preference for corrective action

recommendations. But it will depend on the situation and should be discussed with the Project Manager.

Is it acceptable to group corrective actions for identical systems within the same building (e.g., multiple AHUs

of the same type) into a single corrective action, provided quantities and locations are clearly identified?

Answer: Corrective actions should be noted on the asset they pertain to at the lowest practical level. Per the question’s

example, if a building has 3 AHUs of the same type with similar install dates and lifespans, each AHU should be

addressed separately as they may be in different conditions and have different priority scores/replacement dates/etc.

(RFP 2.3.2) Is RSMeans by Gordian the preferred cost basis, or are alternative industry-standard sources

acceptable if methodology is clearly documented?

Answer: The State currently uses RSMeans for FCAs. Alternative industry standard sources may be considered during

submission review but are not preferred.

10. (RFP 1.1) What is the current Workplace Management System?

Answer: Integrated Workplace Management System by Facility Force

11. (RFP 2.3.2.1) Please provide clarity on what level of customization is allowed for priorities and project types.

Answer: Basically, if we change, add, or remove priorities and project types to address business needs, we want them

updated accordingly. While we do not expect the lists to change, if they do then the validated fields on State Excel files

Rev 12.5.23

will be updated accordingly and the contractor is expected to use the lists that the State provides.

12. Does the State have an inventory of elevators and escalators, including a count of these assets, that are

included in the scope of the assessments? If so, is the State willing to provide this inventory or list?

Answer: There are no escalators in State of Vermont buildings. There are 77 active Elevators listed in the State’s

IWMS. If one is in the field and not listed, contractor needs to add/verify. The list will be provided after contract

signing during the scope of work phase.

13. Will the selected team be responsible for providing recommendations or evaluations related to buried utilities

outside of the buildings (e.g., water and sewer service lines)?

Answer: Some site assets may not be listed on the initial scope of work list, but if the asset is BGS maintained it should

be added/included. Verify with Maintenance contacts during onsite evaluation.

14. Can the evaluation of on-site septic systems be limited to a visual review of the disposal field area?

Answer: Yes. Verify with Maintenance contacts during onsite evaluation.

15. Is a review of prior VT ANR permits, and their status, expected of the selected team?

Answer: No.

16. Does the State expect the deliverable to include GIS-based site plans showing mapped site restrictions (from

VT Open Data and or VT Natural Resources Mapping)?

Answer: No.

17. Is the proposer required to perform the full portfolio of work, or may firms submit a bid for a subset of

facilities (e.g., police stations, prisons, and courthouses)?

Answer: BGS does not intend to consider partial scopes.

18. Who is the incumbent for the current contract?

Answer: Bureau Veritas

19. What is the budget for this project?

Answer: The State does not provide budget estimates.

20. What workplace management system is the state currently using?

Answer: Integrated Workplace Management System by Facility Force

21. Section 3.6.2.1 is requesting five references. Section 4.8 requests three. What is the total number of references

we should be presenting?

Answer: The request for 5 client references in strength of Project Team Section 3.6.2.1 on pp. 8, is reverences

specifically from the list of comparable projects you have provided vs. 4.8 References on pp. 11 request from three

companies, are reverences from other contractors you have used in the past 12 months.

22. Page 5, Section 2.5: Can the State provide a template of the Property-Specific Excel workbooks so that

proposers may better understand the deliverable structure and expectations?

Answer: A draft submission worksheet for a single property is available. Some formatting changes may occur

Rev 12.5.23

throughout the contract period to address any ease-of-use issues or business process updates.

23. Project Budget: Does the State of Vermont have a predetermined budget or budget range established for this

project?

Answer: The State does not provide budget estimate.

24. Site Access / Escorts: How many State of Vermont escorts will be available annually to accompany

assessment teams? This information will help proposers plan staffing levels and the number of concurrent assessment

teams.

Answer: Each site will have a maintenance contact that will escort contractors around each facility. Where applicable,

there may be an additional agency, maintenance, or security escorts.

25. Page 30 – Uniformat Assets: Please confirm whether UniFormat E2010 (Fixed Furnishings) and E2020

(Movable Furnishings) are included in the scope of this assessment. If included, please specify the required level of

assessment.

Answer: Yes. The level is specified in the RFP.

26. Confined Spaces: Please confirm that confined spaces and/or alternate confined spaces are not intended to be

assessed as part of this project scope.

Answer: If there’s an asset in confined or alternate confined spaces it should be included. Verify with Maintenance

contacts during onsite evaluation.

27. Does the State plan on awarding a single firm or multiple firms to complete the services detailed in the RFP

for this project?

Answer: This is a BSG option, for this project the intent is to contract with only one contractor

28. What is the level of confidence in the previous FCA data? Is this considered to be correct and complete?

Answer: Current FCA data is 1 to 5 years out of date. Contractor is expected to verify and update all Asset data and add

any missing assets.

29. Could the State please clarify the number of references it is requiring firms to provide? For example, on page

8 within section 3.6.2.1 it states 5 client references are required and on page 11 within section 4.8 it states 3 references

from the past 12 months are required?

Answer: specifically from the list of comparable projects you have provided vs. 4.8 References on pp. 11 request from

three companies, are reverences from other contractors you have used in the past 12 months..

30. Regarding the evaluation criteria for Fee Structure/Price Schedule, will the lowest fee firm receive all the total

points, or will each firm receive a percentage relative to what they proposed? Often in these types of proposals we see

an equation such as (lowest fee / proposers fee) x available points. Stated as an oversimplified example, if one firm bids

$99 and the next bids $100 does the first firm take all 10 points which are then weighted out to 30% of selection? Or

would the second firm get awarded a percentage of those points?

Answer: Our weighted evaluation criteria table is in the RFP reference specific section. See update removing database

requirements in answer to question 5 above.

31. We understand the State wants all deliverables exported into an Excel spreadsheet/database, but is the State

interested in receiving information on capital asset management software and CMMS integration services as a value-

added option in this proposal?

Rev 12.5.23

Answer: No.

32. Additionally, can the State clarify the extent and level of detail for the data collection on page 3 of the RFP,

involving hazardous materials, including asbestos, and fire and life safety issues?

Answer: Observations only, not specific testing.

33. Our standard FCA includes utility connections and shut offs at the building, facility entry points, paving

systems, walkways, ramps, and exterior lighting within 10’ of the building perimeter. Is this sufficient, or do your needs

extend beyond that to include items like parking lots, curbing, all walkways, retaining walls, fixed benches, site

lighting, etc.?

Answer: If it is something BGS maintains then it should be included (Parking lots, site lighting, etc.).

34. Please confirm if an asset inventory and/or asset tagging is desired as part of this project? (Note: both asset

inventory and asset tagging are typically completed in tandem.) Furthermore, have you had an asset inventory and/or

asset tagging services completed in the past and will this information be referenced for the current project?

Answer: The State has an active inventory and some but not all assets are tagged. The State is not looking to have

assets tagged as part of this contract.

35. Page 4 calls for an assessment based upon 4 critical priority categories. Is the expectation that the assessment

is more detailed than observational?

Is the expectation that additional diagnostics are performed, requiring diagnostic testing such as checking amp

draw on motors or temperature rise over ambient for breakers/other electrical devices?

Answer: Observational, no diagnostic testing.

36. For equipment which has been determined to need immediate action, which the in-house maintenance staff

can complete, should Roth provide a list of in-house performed tasks versus an estimate by an outside contractor?

Answer: RS means or whatever approved model is being used for estimate.

37. Equipment which is above 10’ and may require additional safety equipment, such as man lifts or boom trucks,

should Roth budget for this equipment or will the state provide the necessary equipment to access?

Answer: The State does not expect the contractor to provide budgeting for restricted access like in the example

provided

38. Since this is a statewide RFP, there may be facilities with both facilities and process-related equipment. Will

the process-related equipment, such as waste water ejection equipment, vehicle lifts for service vehicles, air

compressors, etc., be included in the inventory to be collected?

Answer: If its an asset BGS is responsible for maintaining it should be included. Verify with Maintenance contacts

during onsite evaluation.

39. With regards to 2.3.1.5, can the State please estimate the number of pieces of equipment that it has tagged to

date?

Is the proponent to collect Make and Model information only on those pieces of equipment that are tagged?

If no, then can you please provide a list of the specific equipment which Make and Model information should

be collected?

Answer: ~2400 Assets have been tagged as of 1/16/26. The contractor is expected where possible to capture/verify

make and model on all MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, Or Plumbing) assets, not just those tagged.

40. With regards to 2.3.1.7, are the narratives associated with the existence of hazardous materials to be based

Rev 12.5.23

This page summarizes the opportunity, including an overview and a preview of the attached documents.

TITLE	QUESTIONS DUE	ANSWERS POSTED	DUE DATE	NO POSTING AFTER
Statewide Facility Conditions Assessments Addendum 1	01/13/2026 04:30PM		02/03/2026 04:30PM

Statewide Facility Conditions Assessments Addendum 1

Attachment Preview

Sign-up for a Free Trial, Government Bid Alerts

See Also