Amendment_2_Additional_140D0425R0054_Questions_19May_3.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- US AFCEC NEPA/EA/EIS MATOC Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140D0425R0054
About this file
This file is an Amendment (Amendment 2) to a federal contract opportunity for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for NEPA/EA/EIS services for the U.S. Air Force and Department of Interior. The solicitation (140D0425R0054) seeks environmental and architectural-engineering services with a nationwide scope, focusing on environmental impact studies, environmental assessments, and related support activities.
Key details include a requirement for firms to submit SF330 forms demonstrating specialized experience in environmental disciplines, with specific professional qualifications needed such as Water Resources Specialists, Wetland Scientists, Socioeconomists, Land Use Planners, Air Quality Specialists, and NEPA Planners. The solicitation requires project descriptions that outline work completed, team disciplines, and project scope. Contractors must also provide personnel capable of supporting translation services, on-site meeting support, and potentially providing expert testimony related to environmental laws and regulations. The submission deadline has been extended, with the government emphasizing no further extensions will be granted, and firms are expected to comply with strict page limitations for their submissions.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment_2_AFCEC_MATOC_AE_synopsis_19_May_3.pdf | ||
| Synopsis_Questions_8May_v2_2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| AFCEC_MATOC_AE_synopsis_8May_2.pdf | ||
| AFCEC_MATOC_AE_synopsis_11April_1.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question Number | Industry Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Reference: New Due date and additional scope and clarifications provided in Amendment 0001. Given the magnitude of the changes to the solicitation and the existence of contradictory or conflicting requirements/guidance in the solicitation, we respectively request the following: |
1. Allowing additional questions so offerors can provide responses that provide DOI and the Air Force proposals that address the needs defined in Paragraph 2 and ensure SF330 submittals that can be evaluated against a set of factors that all offerors can evaluate and determine whether they have the capabilities required.
| 2. Provide a more realistic extension after the response to the new questions giving offerors the required time to evaluate, select and develop a compliant and responsive SF330 submittal. Our recommendation based on current changes from Amendment 0001 and, hopefully, the additional responses to new questions would be 30 days. | The submission deadline is extended. No further extension will be provided. | ||
| 2 | Reference: Paragraph 2 Project Information inclusive of the two new paragraphs and Paragraph 4 Submission 2nd Paragraph with last sentences beginning with "Project descriptions…" The scope described in Paragraph 2 is environmental services focused on NEPA activities and other environmental services; however the requirements for Project Descriptions in Paragraph 4 is focused on A-E design services (i.e., "extent of design completed by the proposed team"). The scope of the program does not appear to be what is required in Section F (A-E design services). Please clarify what is being requested for the projects in Section F and how the projects will be evaluated. | See updated language. | |
| 3 | Reference: Paragraph 2 Project Information, Other Areas of Essential Support. Please confirm that offerors will be required to provide personnel with specified security clearances. Is this capability to be demonstrated within the SF330 submittal? | This is for informational purposes only. Each project will specify security clearance requirements. | |
| 4 | Reference: Paragraph 2 Project Information, Other Areas of Essential Support. The third sentence states that offerors will be required to provide planning and logistical support to include on-site translation and/or interpreation, at various meetings and conferences worldwide. Please clarify if this MATOC is nationwide or worldwide. Please clarify what planning and logisitical support and translation support would be needed on the defined scope in the prior paragraphs. | This MATOC will be nationwide. | |
| 5 | Reference: Paragraph 3 Selection Criteria, a. Specialized Experience, Technial Competence and Professional Qualifications. The current solicitation requests that offeors should demonstrate the professional qualifications in specific key disciplines. Given that the scope of the solicitation is specific to ‘EIS and EA Services’, several of the identified key disciplines do not align with those traditionally required to execute the requested services. As such, we request that certain identified key disciplines be replaced by the suggested disciplines below: |
Geotechnical Engineer replace with Water Resources Specialist Civil Engineer replace with Wetland Scientist Hydraulic Engineer replace with Socioeconomist Hydrologic Engineer replace with Land Use Planner Structural Engineer replace with Air Quality Specialist Planner replace with NEPA Planner
| See updated disciplines. No further update will be provided. | ||
| 6 | Reference: Paragraph 3 Selection Criteria, a. Specialized Experience, Technial Competence and Professional Qualifications. For Section E resumes the solicitation requires these "lead disciplines" must be Prime employees, yet Section F requirements allow team members/subconsultant projects to be included. This conflict would result in subconsultant projects being without any personnel mapping in Section G. Please clarify how Section G will be rated. | The Synopsis does not state that lead displines must be Prime employees. |
| 7 | Reference: Paragraph 3 Selection Criteria, d. Past Performance. Please confirm offerors should not provide PPQs for projects without CPARS, but should provide a point of contact for these projects. | Firms should provide a point of contact. |
| 8 | Reference: Paragraph 3 Selection Criteria, g. Volume of Government A-E contract awards. The concern is the 20 page limit of Section H. For large businesses the number of "projects" awarded under A-E contracts, typically IDIQs, within a 12 month period could be extensive and require a large number of pages. May offerors limit this listing to A-E Environmental IDIQs or would the government considered allowing offerors to provide a single total dollar figure without the table listing each project be provided? | Firms must meet the page limitations. |
| 9 | Did you intend to list Hydraulic, Hydrologic, and Structural Engineers as labor categories rather than environmental scientist, regulatory specialist, and socioeconomist, given that Air Force NEPA projects do not typically require those engineering disciplines and the majority of NEPA practitioners hold environmental science degrees? | See updated disciplines. |
| 10 | Section 4 Submission Requirements, second paragraph indicates that Project descriptions shall clearly state the extent of work completed, the extent of work performed by the team (i.e. disciplines and scope), extent of design completed by the proposed team (i.e. preparation of design-build package; 100% design; report, etc.), and dates of completion for design and construction. While reviewing project design elements are typically part of NEPA analysis, the preparation of design and design-build packages are not. Can the government please confirm if this project description requirement is in error? | See updated language. |
| 11 | Section 2 Project Information, fourth paragraph states “…A-E services in support of facility and installation planning and programming activities. Activities must support and be directly related to or associated with real property activities.” Therefore, is the (8) Planner requirement in Section Three, Selection Criteria referring to a real property master planner and not an environmental planner? | Planner is the requirement. Firms may specify the type of planner during submission of SF330. |
| 12` | Section 2 Project Information, fifth paragraph, Other Areas of Essential Support, states “The Contractor shall address and interpret all aspects of design and environmental laws and regulations, including the preparation and presentation of expert testimony, if required. While reviewing project design elements are typically part of NEPA analysis, addressing and interpreting all aspects of design are not. Can the government please confirm if “…address and interpret all aspects of design…” requirement is in error? | Confirming that the requirement is as stated. |
| 13 | Section 3 Selection Criteria, third paragraph states “The evaluation may consider characteristics such as: breadth, depth and complexity of experience; application of engineering principles, guidance, policies and criteria; application of risk and uncertainty methods; incorporation of innovative solutions; and use of modeling tools.” While some of the evaluation criteria are applicable to NEPA, those related to application of engineering principles, application of risk and uncertainty methods etc. are not. Can the government please confirm if those evaluation criteria are listed for this solicitation in error? | Confirming the evaluation criteria are correct as stated. |
| 14 | The updated solicitation states that “project descriptions shall clearly state…extent of design completed by the proposed team”. It is our understanding the scope of this opportunity relates to NEPA and supporting studies; design and design-build related scope generally occur after and separate from the NEPA process. Please clarify and explain whether it was DOI’s intent to include this requirement for project descriptions and have it function as an evaluation criteria. | Confirming the evaluation criteria are correct as stated. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .