X1DB--CBOC - RICHMOND, TX - NEW/REPLACING

Active

Contract Opportunity

36C25624R0025 Richmond/Rosenberg, TX VA CBOC

This amendment clarifies some language in the RLP documents and answers several questions submitted by various prospective Offerors.

RLP Clarifications:
1.10 PRICING OF SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
Delete the following language: BSAC pricing may be included with TIs. If offeror includes BSAC pricing with TI, BSAC pricing must be clearly identified in the TICS table.

Questions and Answers:

There is a significant discrepancy between the Planned for Development (PFD) square footages and the square footages specified in the Request for Lease Proposals (RLP) documents, which suggests a misalignment with the Actual Building Occupant Area (ABOA) / Rentable Square Feet (RSF) targets. With the Richmond CBOCs current ABOA targets, the VA is at risk of losing up to one-third of their program spaces due to the multiplier not being attributed to the ABOA. The PFD indicates a net of 31,666 square feet without a multiplier, while the RLP outlines an ABOA of 31,765 SF and a rentable area of 42,822 RSF. Applying the typical 1.5x multiplier would result in 47,449 RSF.
How should we proceed to reconcile these figures without compromising essential program areas?
Answer: The multiplier applied by the Government to the ABOA SF is 1.35. The resultant maximum rentable square feet (RSF) are 42,882, which is 31,765 ABOA multiplied by 1.35. The RLP document contains a list of rooms desired (Space Plan, otherwise known as a Program for Design PFD. See attachment L). Configured properly, these rooms allow the VA to utilize the PACT design model, ensuring efficient patient flow within the clinic. The tradeoff evaluation process allows the Government to score Factor 3: Design Concept accordingly. Whatever space configuration is offered, it cannot exceed 31,765 ABOA SF / 42,882 RSF as authorized by GSA.

The Attachment L Space Plan has two communications rooms listed at 110 SF but the VA OIT standards call for healthcare facilities communications rooms to be a minimum of 170 SF. Please confirm the required size and if the VA Infrastructure Standard for Telecommunications Space will apply to this facility.
Answer: The Space Plan has been updated to reflect two 170 SF communications rooms.

The Attachment L Space plan does not include a Demarcation room to serve as the Entrance Room for telecommunications infrastructure. Please confirm if such a room is required and what is the minimum size.
Answer: For a shared building, the VA will use the Demarcation space in the existing building. For a sole tenant building, there will be a need for a Demarcation room which will require 80 SF.

Please confirm if it is acceptable to provide emergency lighting by battery packs. Part 3.43 of Attachment A Global Lease document indicates both battery packs and generator back up are acceptable but part 2.06 of Attachment B Agency Specific Requirements indicates a requirement for Life Safety to be on the backup generator. Please clarify if batteries are acceptable for life safety emergency lighting.
Answer: Delete the requirement for an emergency generator from Attachment B-Agency Specific Requirements . An emergency generator is preferred, but not required. If an emergency generator will be provided, emergency lights shall be powered by it. If the generator will not be provided, battery backup power must be sufficient to power emergency lighting for 90 minutes.

Agency Specific Requirements states, in paragraph 2.02, that Storage rooms, Communications Rooms, and Special Systems Room shall be controlled separately from other spaces. Is the intent that Storage Rooms have dedicated split-system air conditioners as we typically see for Communications Rooms?Â
Answer: Correct, IT room needs dedicated split systems. IT room requires a BACnet compatible unit with remote control via IP address. Unit also needs a rack temperature sensor to be installed inside the IT rack.

Is it the VA s intention to allow this clinic without a fire alarm system? L100 §3.13 would not require a fire alarm for this clinic as it is a single-story building. L100 §3.47 was intentionally deleted voice evac not required. IBC would not require a fire alarm for the single-story MOB with a calculated occupant load under 500, as it does not contain ambulatory care.
Answer: The section 3.13 language was deleted per the instructional blue text contained while developing the RLP. This section is intentionally deleted because both newly constructed buildings and existing buildings are acceptable options for this project. However, the Government does desire a fire alarm system with voice evacuation assistance within the space. It is also desired that the system be connected to the municipality s first responder system to facilitate local fire department response. This would be seen as an enhancement and would be evaluated under Factor 3: Design Concept.

Please provide VISN office prospectus limit? Per Section 3.05 of RLP please provide current threshold for prospectus.Â
Answer: The Department of Veterans Affairs FY-2024 prospectus threshold for leases is $3,613,000 in annual unserviced rent. The threshold for FY-2025 is $3,926,000.

Confirm, TICS pricing should not be included in initial offer. Per Amendment 1 answer #7, Tenant Improvements will be determined during competitive range stage. Per Amendment 1 answer #7, Tenant Improvements will be determined during competitive range stage.
Answer: Since the DID workshop will be held during discussions, Offerors should not offer a TI price with initial offers. For initial offers, Offerors should leave lines 12 and 15 on the GSA Form 1364 blank, as well as block 27 Tenant Improvement Fee Schedule. Offerors must include a BSAC price (line 13), Shell Build-Out price (line 14), Shell Rent rate (line 16), and Operating Costs (line 17). Revised GSA Form 1364s with complete pricing (including TI) will be required with Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) after discussions (including DID workshops) are closed.
The response time for FPRs will be 30 days after the closing of discussions. DID workshops will be held with each Offeror included in the CR prior to requests for final FPRs. These workshops will be scheduled as soon as possible after receipt of initial offers and establishment of the CR. This will allow Offerors to propose TI and BSAC pricing along with DIDs when submitting their FPR. Note: no TICS allowance is given because this is a turnkey lease, with DIDs and TI pricing required prior to award.

RLP Paragraph 1.02 Amount and Type of Space, Lease Term, and Occupancy Date, Subsection A: 1.02A The Government is seeking a maximum of 42,882 Rentable SF (RSF)/31,765 American National Standards Institute/Building Owners and Managers Association (ANSI/BOMA) Occupant Area (ABOA) square feet (SF) of contiguous space
Is there a minimum ANSI/BOMA Occupant Area Square Feet required by the Government under this RLP?
Answer: There is no minimum ABOA square footage. However, the Government seeks to maximize, without exceeding, the GSA delegated 31,765 ABOA SF and 42,882 RSF.

RLP Paragraph 1.02 Amount and Type of Space, Lease Term, and Occupancy Date, Subsection G:
The Lease Term Commencement Date will be on or about 07-01-2026, or upon acceptance of the Space, whichever is later. However, Paragraph 4.05(B), Evaluation Factor 2 states that Space must be ready for occupancy by July 1, 2026. These two provisions appear to be in conflict.
Can the Government please clarify if 07/01/2026 is a required date for occupancy or if acceptance of the space can occur at a later time? How long after July 1, 2026, is the Government willing to delay the commencement of the lease? What is the deadline by which the Government must move into the space?
Answer: The Government requires space delivery by 07/01/2026. This is the date by which the Lessor presents the Government with a certificate of occupancy (C of O), or, if C of O is not normally issued by the municipality, a suitable substitute such as an inspection by the appropriate municipal department. Rental payments will commence upon space acceptance. Once the space is accepted by the Government and ready for occupancy, activation of the clinic will commence and typically takes one to two months to bring the clinic to full operation.

RLP Paragraph 1.04 Unique Requirements, Subsection A: Offered space must be on one (1) contiguous floor.
Will the Government please confirm that it requires that the entire space to be occupied must be on the same floor? Will a bidder be ineligible for award if the space is on multiple floors? If the requirement is that the entire space be on one floor, will the Government please revise the requirement so that offerors can offer contiguous space on multiple floors? If not, can the Government please explain the programmatic or mission-related justification for requiring a rigid contiguity requirement?
Answer: The Government requires the space to be contiguous and on the ground floor. This requirement is non-negotiable and is to maximize circulation and workflow in accordance with the Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) design model. PACT design model information can be accessed at: http://vaww.hefp.va.gov/resources/community-based-outpatient-clinic-lease-templates

RLP Paragraph 1.08 Lease Description, Subsection C: Offerors are required to prepare Design Intent Drawings (DIDs) prior to Lease Award. See Paragraph TURNKEY PRICING WITH DESIGN INTENT DRAWINGS PRIOR TO AWARD for further details.
If DIDs are supposed to be provided after initial offer but prior to lease award, at what point are offerors expected to insert pricing for Tenant Improvements? How does this timeline comport with the fact that RLP paragraph 4.01 Negotiations states that The Government reserves the right to award without discussions?
Answer: This is a turnkey lease with DIDs due with Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs). Therefore, discussions must be held, and in accordance with FAR 15.306 will only be held with the most highly qualified Offerors after inclusion in the Competitive Range (CR) and may be reduced further for efficiency. FPRs will be requested after discussions (including DID workshops) are held.

This same paragraph states that Offerors are encouraged to consider the use of existing fit-out and other improvements to minimize waste .
Does this RLP language mean that the Government prefers to use existing, already built space rather than a new build? If a new build is permitted, how does that comport with the encouragement to use existing fit-out ? Does the Government have a preference for a new build versus existing space? Does this clause mean that the incumbent lessor has a competitive advantage in the procurement?
Answer: The Government will consider both existing space and new builds and does not have a preference. If an existing space is offered, the government prefers to minimize waste by using existing fit-out and other improvements such as walls and ceilings. However, the use of existing fit-out and other improvements must also accommodate the desired tenant improvements (TIs) design.

RLP Paragraph 3.03 Pricing Terms, Subsection B (1): A fully serviced Lease rate (gross rate) per ABOA and RSF, clearly itemizing the total Building shell rental, TI rate, Building Specific Amortized Capital (BSAC) rate, operating costs, and parking (itemizing all costs of parking above base local code requirements or otherwise already included in shell rent).
For the purposes of initial offer, should the offeror assume that a rate is exclusive of TI Rate given the fact that parts of the RLP imply or state that the information sufficient to supply this number will not be available until after the DID workshop?
Answer: Yes. Initial offers should not include TI pricing as TI pricing will not be able to be accurately offered until after discussions, which will include a DID workshop, with each Offeror included in the CR.

RLP Paragraph 3.06 Additional Submittals, Subsection A: Offeror shall be a verified Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and shall submit proof of SBA verification with offer.
Will the Government please share its market research that determined that there are two or more SDVOSBs eligible to fulfill the Governments requirements to set-aside the procurement pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation section 19.14? On what basis did the Government decide to set aside this lease procurement exclusively for SDVOSBs?
Answer: The Government, specifically the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, is bound by public law 109-461 Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/109/461.pdf), as confirmed by Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/14-916.pdf, to set aside its acquisitions for Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) when market research indicates that two or more SDVOSBs are expected to make offers at a fair and reasonable price, otherwise known as VA s Rule of Two. The Government s market research did indicate that two or more SDVOSBs would make offers in response to this solicitation. However, release of this information cannot be made public at this time because it is procurement-sensitive, source selection sensitive information and would identify Offerors competing for this lease.

RLP Paragraph 4.01 Negotiations: The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.
Can the Government please clarify whether it intends to establish a competitive range and enter into discussions (consistent with the answers provided in RLP Amendment 1), or if the Government still intends to award without discussions? The RLP appears to contemplate negotiations with offerors; should offerors assume the Government will conduct discussions?
Answer: See answer to #13 above. A CR will be established, and discussions will be held with each Offeror included in the CR. Discussions will include a DID workshop with each Offeror included in the CR.

RLP Paragraph 4.09 Present Value Price Evaluation, Subsection C (7): To the gross PVC will be added
How will the Government factor into its selection decision the cost of moving and relocating from the incumbent space to a new space?
Answer: The cost of moving and relocating is required for determining the feasibility of a succeeding lease, but the cost of moving and relocating is not factored into the present value price evaluation for this replacement lease.

RLP Amendment 1 at 1: Proposal Due Date is hereby extended to 12:00 PM (Central), April 15, 2024.
We respectfully request that the Government extend the submission deadline by 4 months to accommodate broader competition for this lease procurement. GSA s Leasing Desk Guide provides that For extremely large projects, it may be necessary to allow up to 3 months between issuing the RLP and receiving offers. The current response time is insufficient for new offerors to prepare a viable proposal. An extension will benefit the VA and the veterans it serves.
Answer: The solicitation was initially issued on 2/14/2024 with initial proposals due on 4/1/2024. Amendment 0001 extended the initial proposal due date to 4/15/2024, giving Offerors two full months to prepare initial offers, keeping in mind that initial offers do not include DIDs or TI price proposals. The Government will allow Offerors included in the CR an additional 30 days to produce DIDs and TI price proposals after conclusion of discussions, which includes the DID workshop. At this time, the Government declines to extend the initial proposal due date.

RLP Paragraph 1.05 Amenities, Subsection C: requiring 2,640-foot distance of the amenities . . . accessible from the building by continuous sidewalks, walkways, or pedestrian crosswalks.
Will the Government confirm that this requirement accurately reflects the VA s needs for this lease procurement? Has the Government conducted market research that confirms that this requirement is realistic in the Richmond area? If so, will the Government share the results of that market research?
The language in the RLP describing the amenities requirement is standard, GSA-directed language which is editable by delegated agencies at their discretion. Although VA desires nearby amenities, if none are within the radius specified it is not a no-go or knockout discrepancy. Rather, the tradeoff evaluation process gives the Government latitude to score Factor 1: Location described in section 4 of the RLP accordingly. For example, a space situated in a location with amenities inside the 2,640-foot radius would score higher than a space situated in a location without amenities inside the 2,640-foot radius.
Regarding the request for the Government s market research, release of this information cannot be made publicly available at this time because it is procurement-sensitive, source selection sensitive information and would identify Offerors competing for this lease.

RLP Paragraph 1.05 Amenities, Subsection C: bus rapid transit stop . . . within the immediate vicinity of the building or city-provided, on-demand transportation services.
Will the Government confirm that this requirement accurately reflects the VA s needs for this lease procurement? Will the Government please revise this requirement given that no Metro bus public transportation is available within the geographic area being considered for this lease procurement? Has the Government conducted market research that confirms that this requirement is realistic in the Richmond area? If so, will the Government share the results of that market research? Do on-demand transportation services such as Uber, Lyft or other transportation companies qualify for this requirement?
Answer: The Government desires the space to be located in an area that is serviced by public transportation. On-demand transportation services, while not classified as public transit, will be considered. Evaluations of offers in response to this Request for Lease Proposals (RLP) are being conducted in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 Tradeoff process. As such, offers will be not evaluated as a go/no-go requirement. The language in the RLP describing the public transportation requirement is standard, GSA-directed language included in the RLP which is editable by delegated agencies at their discretion. Although VA desires nearby public transportation, if no public transportation is available, it is not a no-go or knockout discrepancy. Rather, the tradeoff evaluation process gives the Government latitude to score Factor 1: Location described in section 4 of the RLP accordingly. For example, a space situated in a location that is serviced by public transportation would score higher than a space situated in a location that is not serviced by public transportation.
Regarding the request for the Government s market research, release of this information cannot be made available at this time because it is procurement-sensitive, source selection sensitive information and would identify Offerors competing for this lease.

Richmond, TX CBOC Agency Specific Requirements (herein referred to as ASR ) Section 1. The Space Plan area noted in the ATT L document differs from those in Section 1 of the Agency Specific Requirements. Will the Government please confirm if only those rooms notated in the space plan are the only requirements for this procurement? If so, will the Government please confirm that in the event there is an inconsistence between the ASR and the Space Plan, that the Space Plan will control and take precedence?
Answer: See answer for question #1 above. The ASRs take precedence. However, any inconsistencies between the ASRs and Space Plan will be reconciled during discussions, which include the DID workshop.

ASR Section 2. Will the Government require a backup emergency generator with fenced in pad? If not, will the Government please remove this requirement from the ASR document?
Answer: See answer to question #4 above.

ASR Section 3. Will the Government require a covered canopy structure for 2 drop off lanes, or will one drop off lane be sufficient? If so, will the Government please remove this requirement from the ASR documents?
Answer: Only one drop-off lane is required. Drop-off lane must be covered with a permanent canopy structure attached to the building structure to prevent rain from falling between the canopy and the building.

Will the Government require a VACM Mobile Unit? If not, will the Government please remove this requirement from the ASR documents?
Answer: The Government does not require the successful Offeror to provide the VAMC Mobile Unit. The ASRs, section 3.01, 9th bullet, specifies the following: VA[MC] will locate a Mobile Unit (for diagnostics or treatment) located within close proximity to the Clinic access door. No additional parking provisions are required for this unit. See MRI requirements below. This means that the mobile unit will be supplied by the Government. Page 8 of the ASRs (second and third bullets) specify the pad required to support the mobile unit. This pad and associated infrastructure support is to be installed by the successful Offeror as part of the parking lot/site requirements.

Will the Government require a loading dock? If not, will the Government please remove this requirement from the ASR documents?
Answer: A loading dock is required.

Will the Government require a HAZMAT storage area? If not, will the Government please remove this requirement from the ASR documents?
Answer: No HAZMAT storage area is required. Strike any reference to a HAZMAT storage area from the ASRs.

Will the Government require a separate parking lot with electronic gates for employees? If not, will the Government please remove this requirement from the ASR documents?
Answer: A separate parking area for employees is not required. Strike any reference to a separate employee parking lot from the ASRs.
END OF AMENDMENT 0002

Attachments/Links