Dam_IDIQ_RFP_Question_3_0002.pdf

RFP Questions:

Solicitation No. 140FGA26R0011 03/30/2026

Question Number

Question: Answer:

1 Evaluation Method Factor 3 states “Past performance will be evaluated based on information in the SF 330 package and the Example Projects submitted in Section F with an emphasis on the quality of work, compliance with performance schedules, cost control, efficient use of resources and stakeholder/customer satisfaction. Evaluation will be based on a subjective assessment by the board of the past performance evaluations submitted.” Please confirm whether past performance evaluation forms are required for non-federal projects or if POC is sufficient. If Past Performance Questionnaire forms are required, whether those evaluations are included in the overall page count.

The Government confirms that firms should provide either CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) forms to support the evaluation of Factor 3. Please be advised that these evaluation forms are included in the overall 60-page limitation for the entire submission. Offerors are responsible for managing their space to ensure all technical and administrative documentation fits within this count. This has been previously addressed; see Question 2 on the reply dated March 19, 2026.

2 Factor 2. To accurately demonstrate our team's experience working with Department of the Interior bureau, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on projects nationwide— particularly involving remote work at USFWS sites and refuges—it would be helpful to reference Section F projects completed beyond the current five year period. Would the Government consider amending the RFP to allow inclusion of relevant projects performed within the past ten (10) years?

The Government has considered the request to extend the look-back period for Factor 2; however, the requirement remains that example projects in Section F must have been completed within the past five (5) years.

This timeframe ensures the evaluation is based on the firm's current technical capabilities, recent experience with modern Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, and up-to-date Risk-Informed Decision Making (RIDM) protocols. This has been previously addressed; see Question 4 on the reply dated

3 Factor 2 states that "A task order on an IDIQ contract is considered a project, as is a standalone contract award. Do not list an IDIQ contract as an example of a completed project." For work performed at the same site under multiple, related task orders—such as phased efforts executed through separate task orders—may those efforts be considered a single project to effectively present our experience from inspections through construction?

The Government confirms that related task orders performed at the same site (e.g., a phased project moving from inspection to design and then construction) may be grouped and submitted as a single "project" in Section F.

However, the overall project must meet the "completed" definition, meaning the primary deliverables for the combined phases must have been accepted by the Government. Offerors must clearly identify the specific task order numbers associated with the effort. This has been previously addressed; see Question 5 on the reply dated

4 Please provide additional details or supporting data that clarify the definition of a completed project.

The Government defines a "completed project" as one where all primary contract deliverables have been formally submitted to and accepted by the client. For the purposes of Factor 2, this includes but is not limited to the delivery of a Final Inspection Report, a Final Design Package, or certified Record Drawings. A project is not considered complete until the final Risk-Informed Decision Making (RIDM) outcomes or construction certifications have been fully validated and the performance period for those specific deliverables has concluded. This has been previously addressed; see Question 7 on the reply dated

5 Would a series of directly-connected and dependent task orders completed for a single project location be acceptable to use as a project in Section F?

The Government confirms that a series of directly-connected and dependent task orders for a single project location may be submitted as one "project" in Section F.

This approach is acceptable to demonstrate the full breadth of a firm's involvement in a complex, multi-phased effort. However, the offeror must clearly state the specific task order numbers involved and ensure the combined description does not exceed the page limits for a single project entry. This has been previously addressed; see Question 5 on the reply dated

6 Will every selected firm/team need to show that they are situated to do the work in any location, or is there consideration for selecting teams that specialize in a geographic location? We intend to build a team that covers the whole of the US, but also recognize that firms that qualify as small businesses often don’t have as large a geographical spread.

The Government intends to award IDIQ contracts to firms that demonstrate the capability to execute task orders across the full geographic scope of the Service’s mission, which includes the Continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S.

Territories. While the evaluation board recognizes the specialized local expertise of small businesses, firms must demonstrate—through their SF 330 submission and Section F projects—how they will manage and mobilize resources for remote or nationwide requirements. The selection is based on the most highly qualified firms overall, rather than a geographic "set-aside" for specific regions.

This has been previously addressed; see Question 2 on the reply dated March 16, 2026.

7 Will task orders include groups of projects, or will each include only one project? For example, will the subset of dams that need SEED inspections each year be batched in groups by size or geographic area? We have worked on other agency IDIQ’s where that was the case. It decreases the workload on the firms and FWS preparing and ranking submittals, while increasing efficiencies born of somewhat repetitive tasks.

The Government reserves the right to issue task orders for either single projects or batched groups based on program needs, funding, and safety urgency. To maximize field mobilization efficiency and streamline administrative efforts, the Service may group repetitive tasks—such as SEED or annual inspections—by geographic region, dam size, or hazard classification. Selected firms should be prepared to manage multiple sites under a single task order award when it is in the best interest of the Government. This has been previously addressed; see Question 8 on the reply dated

8 We respectfully request that the CPARS and PPQ forms be excluded from the 60‑page limit and instead included as an appendix to the SF330 submission. Given that these materials may comprise approximately 30 pages, including them within the page limit would constrain our ability to present the full depth and breadth of our most

The Government confirms that related task orders at the same site (e.g., phased work from inspection through construction) may be grouped as a single project in Section F to demonstrate a full lifecycle of expertise.

relevant qualifications, including key personnel résumés and project examples.

However, the overall project must be 100% complete with all primary deliverables accepted by the client.

Offerors must clearly identify the specific task order numbers for each phase and are reminded that the 60-page limit applies to the entire submission, inclusive of these entries. This has been previously addressed; see Question 5 on the reply dated March 19, 2026. The 60-page submission limit is firm.