Statement of Work/Overview:
BGIS is inviting qualified consultant firms to provide professional services for GOC823407 Deep Energy Retrofit Study in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This is a one-step two envelope electronic submission process (Technical and Financial) to select the highest ranked consultant firm.
BGIS is looking to hire a multidisciplinary team of advisors to conduct a deep energy retrofit study for the building located at 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ontario. Specifically, the investment required to complete this energy retrofit project to improve the building’s energy efficiency in comparison with the energy efficiency of the reference building needs to be analyzed, evaluated and determined. The building will continue to house federal tenants, in compliance with all appropriate codes, standards and policies and in accordance with the requirements of the competent authorities.
The Consultant shall integrate energy, carbon neutral, sustainability, and health and wellness measures/objectives into a single, cohesive and balanced set of options. This aligns with the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) 2016-19 and Public Services and Procurement Canada’s (PSPC) Real Property Service 2016-19 Business Plan. These emphasize reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of the FSDS, the Government of Canada committed to reducing GHG emisions by 17% by 2020, and 40% by 2030 when compared to the 2005-06 baseline. In addition, the Real Property Services Branch of PSPC has committed to initiating measures to achieve a carbon neutral portfolio by 2030.
BGIS requires professional consulting services to develop a feasibility study of four (4) options in detail, propose potential measures and solutions for each option, and recommend the best solutions in the consultant's opinion for each of the four options to be studied.
Refer to the project's Requirements Document & Deep Energy Retrofit Study SOW for further scope of services.
Addendum #1
Clarification:
Q1: Will the occupant load calculations be based on
a program for office space on a floor by floor basis
provided by PWGSC?
A1: Baseline load analysis should be based on the
current occupant loading. Options should be based
on the program for office space as provided by
PWGSC (aka PSPC).
Where occupancy densification changes are being
contemplated, those details will be provided for
purposes of running model scenarios.
Q2: Will the occupant load be derived from the
generic Workplace 2.0 allocations determined by the
Occupant Load calculator (ratio of meeting rooms,
support spaces to workstations, offices etc)?
A2: Future occupant load should be based on the
Workplace 2.0 unless otherwise provided by PSPC.
Q3: Will drawing layouts for new office spaces
conforming to Workplace 2.0 standards be required
for each floor in the building?
A3: The deliverable for this project is to provide
a study in the form of a report document. Formal
drawing layouts are not a required deliverable,
however any generated drawings that provide
clarity to the study are highly encouraged.
These drawings do not need to confirm to
Workplace 2.0 standards.
Q4: What level of detail is required to be performed
as part of the ‘Code Review’ mentioned in section
A4: A life safety code review is not intended.
The intent of this inclusion is to ensure that the
SSM 205 01 Rev. V2 2017-06-01
1.3 of the RFP? Is a life safety audit of the existing
building required as part of this assignment?
successful consultant consider code implications for
any and all measures studied and recommended.
Recommended measures must be executable and
in a code compliant manner. At the same time,
should issues of code non-compliance be
uncovered during the execution of the study,
then these need to be identified and communicated
appropriately. While the main focus of the report is
to be placed on energy reduction and greenhouse
gas reduction, the proposed measures must be
code compliant.
Q5: Does ‘code review’ include identification of
compliance measures to be included in the scope for
costing the 4 options such as, impact of increased
occupant loads on life safety and exiting systems?
A5: Refer to answer (A4) above. The intent is not to
identify and remediate current code
non-compliances but rather ensure that any
measures considered are code compliant.
Q6: Does ‘code review’ include identification of
compliance measures to be included in the scope for
costing the 4 options such as, accessibility upgrades
to workspaces and washrooms?
A6: Refer to answers (A4 & A5) above.
Q7: Will the current life safety, accessibility and
Building Condition reports be made available to the
proponents during the RFP period?
A7: All building reports/audits/drawings etc.,
cannot be distributed to proponents during the RFP
period, however, upon award of the contract to the
successful consultant, BGIS will provide copies of
all available Building Condition Reports, Designated
Substance Surveys, and as-built drawings, etc. at
that time.
Q8: Is Security clearance required for the
Thermographer? Is the team allowed to submit an
accredited level I infrared thermograph professional
with security clearance or an accredited level II
infrared thermography professional with no security
clearance?
Clarification:
New Deadline for Questions: Wednesday August 23, 2017 at 2:00:00 PM (EST)
New Bid Submission Closing Date: Tuesday August 29, 2017 at 2:00:00 PM (EST)
Addendum #2
Clarification:
Q1: We need an indication of the amount of plug
loads for the building.
A1: One of the outcomes of this study is to
determine the appropriate end-use distribution.
BGIS will assist the consultant with obtaining the
necessary information required to accomplish this
upon award. Building and/or operation specifics will
not be provided during procurement stage.
Q2: We need the percentage of model calibration. A2: The energy model should be calibrated
consistent with the requirements set forth in the
latest version of ASHRAE Standard 14.
Q3: We need the number of occupancy and if it is
variable throughout the day.
A3: This data will be provided to the successful
proponent upon award.
Q4: With respect to new GC 14.5, we believe the
language (“…from and against all claims, demands,
losses, costs, damages, actions, suits, or
proceedings…”) contravenes ACEC Document 31
GC 14.8, which excludes “…any liability whatsoever
for consequential or indirect loss or damage…”.
Please clarify how new GC 14.5 is intended to
complement existing GC 14.8 from the ACEC 31
Document, since GC 14.8 has not been modified
A4: The descriptions, terms and clauses found within
the contractual documentation (including
Supplementary General Conditions), will not be
modified at this time. It is intended that the contractu
terms required for this project will
not impact delivery of scope.
SSM 205 01 Rev. V2 2017-06-01
through any Supplementary General Conditions. We
request new GC 14.5 be amended to reflect the
exclusion of consequential or indirect loss or damage.
Q5: With respect to new GC 14.10.1 (2), the
limitation/capped amount of $20,000,000 for losses
related to first party liability is excessive for this
assignment. We request that BGIS reduce this
amount to $2,000,000.
A5: The descriptions, terms and clauses found within
the contractual documentation (including
Supplementary General Conditions), will not be
modified at this time. It is intended that the contractu
terms required for this project will
not impact delivery of scope.
Q6: With respect to new GC 14.10.2, we request that
third party liability have a limitation/cap of $2,000,000.
A6: The descriptions, terms and clauses found within
the contractual documentation (including
Supplementary General Conditions), will not be
modified at this time. It is intended that the contractu
terms required for this project will
not impact delivery of scope.
Q7: With respect to new GC 14.10.2, we request that
the following statement be deleted: “If requested by
the Client or PWGSC, the Engineer must defend the
Client or PWGSC against any third party claims.”
A7: The descriptions, terms and clauses found within
the contractual documentation (including
Supplementary General Conditions), will not be
modified at this time. It is intended that the contractu
terms required for this project will
not impact delivery of scope.
ALL OTHER ITEMS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME.
Addendum #3
Clarification:
Effective immediately, the project title will be known as “Carbon Neutral Study”, rather than “Deep Energy
Retrofit Study”. Any previous reference to this project as “Deep Energy Retrofit Study” shall be replaced
with the aformentiond new title as “Carbon Neutral Study”, going forward. The project # will remain the
same.
Addendum #4
Clarification:
Q1: Can we combine the kick off meeting to cover the
Main Building and the Laboratory Building? Or is the
intent to have separate kick off meetings for each
building?
A1: These kick off meetings can be combined.
Q2: Can we combine the Main building and
Laboratory building into one summary report? Or is
the intent to have a summary report for the Main
building & the Laboratory building?
A2: The summary report can be combined for both
buildings as long as; a) the model accurately
incorporates the differences in construction,
operation, and occupancy; b) appropriate
measures are considered for each building
independently; and c) the report clearly delineates
between the main and laboratory buildings in terms
of description, model, measure and
recommendations.
Q3: Are the buildings classified as heritage in this
RFP?
A3: 4905 Dufferin (main building) is classified as
RECOGNIZED heritage building.
Q4: Will the workshop for this project be held at 4905
Dufferin St., Toronto?
A4: Yes.
