B09_Amd2_Q_A_0002.pdf

1. Procurement Method / Brooks Act

a. Is this procurement being conducted under the Brooks Act (FAR Part 36) or as a non-Brooks Act procurement under FAR Part 13?

FAR Part 36

b. If Brooks Act does apply, can you clarify: Qualification over price. Price still applies

i. Why is a price/fee schedule requested at proposal stage? FAR Part 36

ii. How price will be considered relative to qualifications? FAR Part 36

c. If Brooks Act does NOT apply, can you confirm that this is a best-value tradeoff under FAR Part 13, and price will be evaluated as part of award?

2. Evaluation Criteria & Scoring Procedures under FAR 36 will be followed

a. Can the Government clarify the relative importance of the following evaluation factors beyond the stated overall weighting:

i. Past performance

ii. Technical approach

iii. Schedule

iv. Price

3. Past Performance Submission

a. The solicitation references three projects—should these be:

i. Submitted via SF330 format (Section F), or

ii. Completed using the Past Performance Survey form provided? Completed form is preferred

b. How will the Past Performance Survey be used: Completed by offeror

i. Completed by offeror only, or

ii. Sent to client references for validation?

4. Scope & Technical Expectations

a. For numerical modeling: Are there preferred/required modeling platforms for the additional sediment transport modeling, or is contractor discretion acceptable? Considerable ADCIRC modeling has been conducted by LSU, and it is expected that best value would be to utilize that model results and/or modeling team. Peter Bacopoulos - pbacopoulos@lsu.edu

b. For System-Based Tools (SBTs): Does the Government have an existing framework or examples, or is this expected to be developed from scratch?

No frame work exists currently, but much of the based data for the blending of the statistical and empirical approaches exists. SBTs have been applied in Mid-Atlantic by design contractors and this same assessment of appropriate hydrology for tidal marshes should be used. Examples have been presented at past Partnership for Delaere Estuary Conference and Delaware Wetlands Conference.

c. For conceptual design: Is the intent to reach a true 30% design level, or high-level conceptual planning only? The goal is 30% design level. The goal is to move toward more solid design approach.

d. Given that no pre-proposal site visit is scheduled, for the required post-award site visit under Task 3, will USFWS provide boats for field access, or will the contractor be responsible for providing boats for the project team and USFWS personnel? USFWS will provide boat for post-award walk through.

e. For SBT case studies, may the contractor consider examples from states outside of New York through Massachusetts, or is the review limited to projects within those states? Several other East Coast states have implemented similar projects that may provide relevant lessons learned and best practices. Much of the work outside of NY to MA may not apply appropriately, so project will focus on using marshes in these states to develop SBT.

f. For the marsh site visits, does USFWS anticipate that the contractor will visit each example marsh selected for SBT development, or is there a minimum number of marshes that should be evaluated in the field? The USFWS anticipates that the contractor will determine which sites are best to visit (while others assessed remotely). The contractor will determine what would be minimum number to develop SBT while balancing cost in site visits.

g. For Task 5: Alternative Analysis Development, are the meetings expected to be in-person or virtual? At least one meeting will be in -person while follow-up discussions would be virtual.

h. For Task 6: Concept Refinement and Development, the SOW references the integration of additional modeling results. Will this modeling be performed by the contractor, or will it be completed by LSU and provided for incorporation into the project deliverables? Considerable ADCIRC modeling has been conducted by LSU, and it is expected that best value would be to utilize that model results and/or modeling team. Additional modeling should be cordiate with LSU, and any cost to do this modeling should be integrated into contractors proposal. Peter Bacopoulos -pbacopoulos@lsu.edu

i. For the 2026 Louisiana State University Hydrodynamic Modeling Products, the link provided for the model file repository does not appear to be accessible. Could USFWS provide an updated link or alternative means of accessing these files? Web-based visualization tool is available, as well as final report attached.

https://proteus.cee.lsu.edu/usfws/

5. Pricing & Level of Effort

a. Should the fee schedule be fully burdened by task, including labor, travel, and modeling costs? Yes

b. Is the Government expecting a detailed breakdown (labor categories/hours) or just lump sum per task? Yes, level of detail is based on how the bid was created. Lump sum is required within the proposal per the Bid Sheet. A detailed breakout may be requested prior to award per CO discretion.

6. Incumbency & Data Availability

a. Is there a current or previous contractor that performed similar work at this site? N/A

b. If so, will existing data, models, or prior studies (beyond Appendix #A) be made available to bidders?

7. Schedule & Submission

a. Are there any specific page limits or formatting expectations the Government would like offerors to follow? 3-5 pages 10-12 font for Qualification section.

b. Will there be any additional Q&A responses or amendments issued prior to the proposal due date? Questions are due July 6, 2026