Statement of Work/Overview:
BGIS is inviting qualified consultant firms to provide professional services for GOC823408 Deep Energy Retrofit Study in Sudbury, 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 1050 Notre Dame Ave., Sudbury, 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?
A8: All staff submitted should comply with the
security requirements for their role.
Q9: Section 1.3.2. indicates under item 1.
Architectural assembly/system optimization that “WP
2.0 + ABW considerations” are required as
deliverables. However, the SOW does not mention
the “WP 2.0 + ABW considerations” or define what
level of effort is required or expected. In
considering the “WP 2.0 + ABW considerations” can
you provide a more detailed scope for the
architectural component of the work, ie. will new floor
plans and tenant layouts be required as part of the
architectural scope?
A9: The successful consultant should be able to
understand how implementation of Workplace 2.0
and/or ABW will impact occupant loading for the
purposes of evaluating potential energy reduction
measures. 1.3.2 refers to services or core
competencies and not specific deliverables. The
successful consultant must show an understanding
of Workplace 2.0 in the final deliverable report
including providing a write-up to that effect, but this
is not a requirement for the proponents RFP
submission.
Q10: How is the Pricing Table for Optional Services
in Section 4 of Appendix A used to score the price
A10: The hourly rates are not a scored criterion.
The rates will be used to negotiate additional fees
SSM 205 01 Rev. V2 2017-06-01
proposal? beyond the documented scope of work if required.
Q11: At the end of the RFP there is a list of
Attachments, however item “3. Reference
documents” was not included in the submission, can
you please provide those documents?
A11: The “Reference Documents” indicated at the
end of the RFP refers to the PDF document labelled
“Requirements Document – GOC823408”, which
was provided as part of the RFP package. Any
further reference documentation, including building
condition reports, etc., will be provided to the
successful consultant upon award.
Q12: In the SOW, section 6 indicates Thermography
is part of the scope, however to get useful
thermographic scans of a building there needs to be
an indoor and outdoor temperature difference of
more than 30 degrees Celsius. Given the project
schedule is to largely take place during the fall, a
temperature difference of 30 degrees Celsius may
not occur until the very end of the project and provide
no value in the development of ECMs or the energy
analysis. Is the requirement of thermography
mandatory?
A12: An existing thermographic scan and
report of this building was performed in 2017.
This report will be provided to the successful
consultant upon award for reference while
preparing the energy audit deliverable.
Q13: In the SOW Section 8. Workshops, indicates
that two mandatory workshops are required, where
will these workshops take place?
A13: The workshops should be held at a location
convenient to the key stakeholders.
Q14: In the SOW, section 12 it indicates that biweekly
meeting are required throughout the duration
of the project, where are these bi-weekly meetings
to take place or can they be teleconferenced?
A14: Bi-weekly meetings may be held via
teleconference.
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: Section 3.1 of the Scope of Work indicates only
pre-approved energy modelling software will be
allowed. Is the latest version of eQuest (currently
3.65) considered pre-approved energy modelling
software?
A1: eQuest is not considered a pre-approved
software tool at this time.
Q2: Can RFP responses for this project be provided
in French?
A2: This project is being performed within the
“Ontario” region of procurement. As such, the
expectation of proponents is for RFP deliverables
to be submitted in English.
Q3: 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
through any Supplementary General Conditions. We
request new GC 14.5 be amended to reflect the
A3: 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
exclusion of consequential or indirect loss or damage.
Q4: 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.
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.
Q5: With respect to new GC 14.10.2, we request that
third party liability have a limitation/cap of $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
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.”
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.
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: Section 10 of the Deep Energy Retrofit SOW
indicates the following: - The architect must be a
member in good standing of the association of
architects in the province where the project is taking
place. - The mechanical engineer must be a member
in good standing of the association of engineers for
the province in which the project is taking place. - The
electrical engineer must be a member in good
standing of the association of engineers for the
province in which the project is taking place. Is it
necessary that these requirements be met at the time
of bid submission?
A1: Yes, or propoents can show proof that they are
eligible for registration in the province within which
the project takes place.
Q2: Are engineers and architects that are members in
good standing of the respective associations of their
home province be considered as meeting these
mandatory requirements, provided they are eligible
for registration in the province within which the project
takes place and/or can prove that registration process
has been undertaken, though not yet completed?
A2: Yes this is acceptable.
