140R8121R0001 Amendment 0001_2.docx

140R8121R0001 Amendment 0001 A&E Services IDIQ

A. Project Title:

B. Receipt of Qualifications: The hour and date of receipt of proposals is hereby extended to 4:30 pm (MST) on March 5, 2021.

C. Description of Changes:

1- This amendment provides Request for Qualification questions and answers beginning on page 3. Questions and answers are provided for informational purposes and are incorporated as part of this Request for Qualifications.

2- This amendment adds the following attachments:

a. Attachment 1: Statement of Work

b. Attachment 2: Past Performance Questionnaire Form

c. Attachment 3: Past Performance Questionnaire Instructions D. Third Party: If you have given a copy of this Request for Qualifications to someone else, please forward this amendment accordingly.

Answers to Questions Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 140R8121R0001

1. Page 2 – Scope of Work: Last sentence states, “See the attached Statement of Work for a detailed description…”. We could not find the attachment in the RFQ. Is this in error? Please clarify.

Answer: The Statement of Work with a detailed description of the possible A-E and Professional Services task orders has been posted to the BETA SAM site as an attachment to this amendment.

2. Page 5 – Evaluation Factor (2)…Submission requirements: 1st paragraph, last sentence…” Projects that are substantially compete (at least 80% construction complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.” Was it intended to state (at least 80% design complete)? Many of our projects are 100% design complete but have not yet begun construction due to funding availability and nothing we can control. A five-year limit on projects is somewhat constraining in this regard. Also, many consulting projects are studies that never get constructed but are nonetheless critical to infrastructure operations. This has a huge impact on our ability to be successful in this evaluation factor. Please clarify.

Answer: The intent of the sentence was to allow submission of design projects that were substantially complete.

Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.

3. Page 6 – Evaluation Factor (3)…Submission requirements: As we understand, Section H shall not exceed four (4) pages in length to address all required factors. This will be difficult. Therefore, we request at least four additional pages. Please confirm.

Answer: The request to increase the number of pages evaluated in Section H to eight (8) pages is acceptable.

Language Revision Incorporated as part of this amendment: Narratives shall be included on SF-330, Part I, Section H. Multiple sheets of Section H form, not to exceed eight (8) sheets, may be included. If multiple sheets are used, indicate “Sheet x of x” above the date box toward the bottom right hand corner of the fillable space. Information provided in Section H will be used to evaluate multiple Factors, eight (8) sheet limit is inclusive of information provided for all factors. In other words, a maximum of eight (8) Section H sheets will be evaluated.

4. Page 7 – Evaluation Factor (4)…Submission requirements: 1st paragraph…we understand that you want a minimum of three (3) PPQs overall for this factor. And, a minimum of one (1) PPQ per Team Member firm. So, for example, if we have a JV (two firms) and five (5) firms as sub-consultants to the JV, you are expecting to see seven (7) PPQs. Correct? Are these PPQs intended to relate to the submitted projects in Section F? Please note, not all the firms may have projects included in this proposal submittal even though a PPQ appears to be required. Please confirm.

Answer: In the example provided, Reclamation would expect seven (7) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ’s). The PPQ’s submitted are not required to relate to the submitted projects in Section F.

5. Page 9 – Questions and Answers: “…package should include one (1) original and four (4) copies of your completed SF330.” Yet, in the paragraph below that it states, “…Electronic commerce method (email) is authorized…” and goes on to state, “Please mail your package to…”. We are confused about an electronic submission or mailing an original and copies or both. Please clarify Answer: Each Firm has the option to submit their SF 330 Electronically or via mail. It’s the choice of the Firm as long as it is received by the due date / time.

6. Page 6 – Scheduling and Capacity (F and H), 3rd bullet: “General organizational reporting structure for key personnel identified in SF- 330, Part I, Section G.” Will you accept SF330, Part I, Section D – Organizational Chart to meet this requirement? Or would you prefer we also include a copy of the org chart in Section H? This will be a challenge given page limitations on Section H. Please clarify.

Answer: See response to Question 15 where we allow Org charts elsewhere

7. Page 7 – Past Performance (H), Submission requirements. 1st paragraph: “At least one Past Performance questionnaire, Attachment 1, should be submitted for all Proposed Team members (including Prime, J.V. Partners and Subcontractors) identified in SF- 330, Part I, Section C.” We could not find the attachment in the RFQ. Is this in error? Please clarify.

Answer: A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site as an attachment to this amendment.

8. Page 7 – Past Performance (H), Submission requirements. 3rd paragraph: Does this mean you will accept CPARS assessments in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaire, if one is available? Please clarify.

Answer: CPARS assessments and completed Past Performance questionnaires will be used to evaluate A-E subcontractors’ past performance. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

9. I'm writing regarding the services mentioned above. I would like to confirm if the effort mentioned above considered as new requirement or are there incumbent contracts? If there is an incumbent vendor, would you be able to provide the contract details (such as: Vendor Name, Contract Number, Award Date, Value)?

Answer: This is a new requirement, there is not an incumbent contractor.

10. Scope of Work Please provide the Statement of Work referenced in RFQ section “SCOPE OF WORK”.

Answer: The Statement of Work with a detailed description of the possible A-E and Professional Services task orders has been posted to the BETA SAM site as an attachment to this amendment.

11. Evaluation Factor 1, Professional Qualifications. The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) calls for Principal Designer/Architect of Record and Project Architect/Project Manager. Architecture is not mentioned in the Scope of Work, specialized experience areas in Factor 1, or Factor 2 experience areas. Please confirm that an Architect is not required and that the Principal Designer and Project Manager roles can be filled by Professional Engineers.

Answer: The Statement of Work with a detailed description of the possible A-E and Professional Services task orders has been posted to the BETA SAM site. Architecture is one of the services listed. There could be task orders that require an Architect as the principle designer.

12. Evaluation Factor 2 Specialized Experience. Please confirm this factor will be evaluated only using information presented in Section F.

Answer: The information provided in SF-330, Part 1, Section F will be the primary sources of information used to evaluate the Offeror’s Specialized Experience. However, information provided in other Parts of the SF-330 form may also be included in the evaluation.

13. Evaluation Factor 2 Specialized Experience (Section F). The RFQ requires a maximum of 8 relevant projects may be submitted. The criteria also states: “At least one project demonstrating relevant experience (SF-330, Part I, Section F) should be submitted for each firm proposed in SF-330, Part I, Section C.” To try and fully meet the diverse, multi-discipline requirements of the program and to provide the best value to the government while meeting typical Small Business Goals, we have created a team with a number of subcontract partners (exceeds 8). Please confirm that a project description is not needed from every team member and Section F projects may include contracts and/or programs that best demonstrate the collective experience of the team for the requested services.

Answer: The request to submit at least one project for each firm is to help the evaluation board determine the abilities of each firm presented in the proposal. Without specific project information related to the specialized experience presented, the board may not be able to confirm the information and the offeror may receive a less favorable rating for this project. In addition to project specific information, any additional information regarding contracts and/or programs will be considered. Teams with multiple subcontractors will not be held to the 8-project maximum requirement. Offerors may submit a maximum of 8 projects, or a maximum of 1 project for each subcontractor, which ever is greater.

14. Evaluation Factor 2 Specialized Experience. The RFQ requires demonstration of diverse, multi-discipline, wide range of experience that must be addressed in Factor 2 and requires us to demonstrate experience of each of the firms included in Section C; additionally, the RFQ emphasizes repeat business as demonstrated through the projects. Please confirm that we can use contracts and/or programs as projects in Section F to meet the diverse wide range of requirements.

Answer: See response to Question 13.

15. Evaluation Factor 3 Scheduling and Capacity. The RFQ states the organizational reporting structure for key personnel in Section G should be discussed in Sections F and H. Given the page limitations on Section H, please confirm that we can address this requirement in Section D, Organization Chart.

Answer: To supplement the information provided in Section H, Organization Charts in Section G or Part I, Section D will also be used for evaluation of Factor 3. Unless provided elsewhere, organization charts should include the number of employees by group.

16. Evaluation Factor (4) Past Performance. RFQ requests at least 1 past performance questionnaire for all proposed team members and a minimum of 3 past performance questionnaires (Attachment 1). We have a diverse, multi-member team to meet the diverse, multi-discipline, wide range of experience requested, please confirm we do not have to provide past performance questionnaires for every team member. Please also provide the Attachment 1 form and confirm we may collect questionnaires and include them as attachments to the SF330 or submit them directly to Reclamation.

Answer: The number of Team Members listed in SF-330, Part I, does not change the requirement. At least one Past Performance questionnaire should be submitted for all proposed team members (including Prime, J.V. Partners and Subcontractors). Proposed Team Members without Past Performance questionnaires or CPARS ratings will receive a Neutral rating.

A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template (Attachment 1) with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

17. Evaluation Factor 4 Past Performance (PPQ). The RFQ instructs offerors to “document recent awards, commendations, and/or other performance evaluations” but “do not submit copies.” Please confirm a brief table or written summary of awards, etc. in Section H is acceptable.

Answer: A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site. Offeror’s should use the posted template to document past performance.

18. RFQ Instructions (P9). States “Your package should include 1 original and 4 copies of your completed SF-330.” Given current COVID restrictions, we request this be an electronic submittal and the government requires only 1 Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) submittal.

Answer: Each Firm has the option to submit their SF 330 Electronically or via mail. It’s the choice of the Firm as long as it is received by the due date / time. For electronic submissions only 1 submittal is required.

19. Small Business Goals. The RFQ does not include any requirements related to small business goals for large business offerors. Please confirm if the previous goal of 15% of contract value to be subcontracted will still apply?

DOI Subcontracting

20. Additionally, the Section F requirement for demonstrating specialized experience of firms identified in Section C precludes the inclusion of more than a few subcontractors. Please confirm the contract will not include specific goals for large business subcontracting to small businesses. If the contract will include small business goals, please confirm we may include small businesses in Section C to meet these requirements but are not required to include projects in Section F for each of these firms. Alternatively, assuming that there is no adjustment to the Section F requirements, please confirm the selected contractors may later add small business subcontractors for specific task orders to meet small business requirements.

Answer: The contract will require small business goals for large businesses, and as long as the Large Business can meet the Small business goals in the proposal that will satisfy the small business requirement.

See question 19

21. Subcontractors/Teaming Members Please confirm we will have the opportunity to add teaming members/additional subcontractors to our team during the course of the contract. Given this is an IDIQ, and the full scope of Task Orders and potential specialized services is unknown, we would like the opportunity to add members as needed to meet specialized areas, small business subcontracting goals, and for non-professional services such as drilling, surveying, laboratory testing, and other non-professional services as needed at the task order level.

Answer: If subject matter experts for the specialized experience are different than key personnel previously identified, submit resumes for additional team members under SF- 330, Part I, Section E. These additional team members will be considered key personnel and subject to the same Statement of Assurance described below. It is the offerors responsibility to clearly indicate to the Evaluation Board through the SF-330 which team member(s) possess(es) which specialized skills. This must be provided by the designated due date and time.

22. SF330 Format The standard GSA form for the SF330 is an electronic version made to ease the insertion of information. May we use this form?

The RFQ requires a significant amount of information in Section H, including key personnel assurances, narrative regarding scheduling and capacity, past performance information, details regarding knowledge of 17 states, and a description of quality and management plans. The four-page limit is not sufficient to address all these factors. To provide the evaluators with adequate information, we request up to 10 pages for Section H.

Answer: The electronic version of the SF 330 can be used to submit your qualifications.

The page limit to Section H has been increased to eight (8) pages.

23. Due Date. Given question response and additional input and clarification requested that could have a large impact on the proposal, we request Reclamation extend the due date at least 2 weeks.

Answer: The new response date is March 5, 2021 at 4:30 pm (MST)

24. Ref Evaluation Factor 2 Specialized Experience: We are considering proposing several subconsultants (more than 10) on our team to cover all service areas listed on the Statement of Work. Due to the limited number of Section F projects (8) allowed by the solicitation, we request that it not be required to include one Section F project for each firm proposed in SF-330, Part I, Section C.

Answer: The request for at least one project demonstrating relevant experience for each Team Member remains. Teams with multiple subcontractors will not be held to the 8-project maximum requirement. See the response to Question 13 for further clarification.

25. Ref Evaluation Factor 2 Specialized Experience: It states, “Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% of construction complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.” Do Section F projects need to be 80% construction complete in the last 5 years? Would completed studies, CRBs, designs, and other project work that did not result in a construction project be acceptable Section F projects?

Answer: The intent of the sentence was to allow submission of design projects that were substantially complete. The list of relevant projects could also include professional services contracts such as consultant review boards, risk analysis and any other projects with design or professional services component. See revised language below.

Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.

26. Due to shipping delays occurring all over the country, we request this be an electronic submittal.

Answer: See Question 18

27. Ref Evaluation Factor 1 Professional Qualifications: What will the role/responsibilities of the Principal Designer/Architect of Record be on this contract?

Answer: The Statement of Work with a detailed description of the possible A-E and Professional Services task orders has been posted to the BETA SAM site. Since task orders could require engineering and architecture, the scope of work could require the principle designer to be an Architect.

28. Question: With reference to a statement on Page 5 (under the heading Evaluation Factor (2) Specialized Experience (SF-330, Part I, Section F), can you clarify the requirement that all projects submitted in Section F must be “substantially complete (at least 80% of construction complete)”. Comment: In many cases, applicable planning, or evaluation projects we’ve completed can take years and not result in construction, and construction for designs we’ve completed may be delayed for years. We suggest that the requirement for 80% construction complete be eliminated or revised to be “substantially complete”.

Answer: The intent of the sentence was to allow submission of design project that were substantially complete. The list of relevant projects could also include professional services contracts such as consultant review boards, risk analysis and any other projects with design or professional services component. See revised language below.

Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.

29. Question: Is it acceptable to provide more than 8 project descriptions (section F) to demonstrate our team’s similar experience? Alternatively, could the Government modify or eliminate the requirement that states, “At least one project demonstrating relevant experience (SF-330, Part I, Section F) should be submitted for each firm proposed in SF-330, Part I, Section C”? Comment: As a small business and to provide breadth and depth for services potentially needed on this IDIQ contract, we need multiple subcontractors. We would typically include projects demonstrating experience of “key” subcontractors (ones with a large role on the team), but not all subcontractors.

Answer: The request for at least one project demonstrating relevant experience for each firm in the team remains. Teams with multiple subcontractors will not be held to the 8-project maximum requirement. Offeror’s may only submit projects for “key” subcontractors, however, if the Offeror does not clearly identify each of the subcontractors’ capabilities, the offeror may receive a less favorable rating for this project. See response to Question 13 for additional information.

30. Question: Will you modify the page limit in Section H to more than 4 pages? Comment: Given that 5 of the 6 evaluation criteria will consider information in Section H, and because of the extent of information requested, 4 pages does not provide sufficient space for much “additional information”. In our opinion, 10 to 15 pages would provide sufficient space to allow for more complete responses to the requested information.

Answer: The page limit to Section H has been increased to eight (8) pages.

31. Question: Will you consider a CPARS rating as a past performance questionnaire?

Answer: CPARS assessments and completed Past Performance questionnaires will be used to evaluate A-E subcontractors’ past performance. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

32. Question: Is there a single PPQ form that you would like us to use and can you provide it? Comment: It appears that Attachment 1 (PPQ) was not provided with the RFQ, as mentioned.

Answer: CPARS assessments and completed Past Performance questionnaires will be used to evaluate A-E subcontractors’ past performance. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

33. Question: Are both paper copies and an email submission required? Comment: If not, please indicate a preference, or if there is no preference and that either medium is equally acceptable.

Answer: We will accept electronic or paper copies as long as they are received by the due date and time. We do not require both.

34. Question: Given the time frame between the planned responses to questions and the submittal date for the SF-330, will you postpone the deadline to March 5, 2021, or to another date to provide sufficient time to adjust our submittal to question responses? Delay for two additional weeks.

Answer: See question 23

35. The RFQ requires Past Performance questionnaire, Attachment 1 for all Proposed Team members (including Prime, J.V. Partners and Subcontractors) identified in SF- 330, Part I, Section C. This is a time critical activity and different agencies have different Past Performance forms. Please provide the Attachment 1 Reclamation requires for this IDIQ solicitation as soon as possible.

Answer: A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template (Attachment 1) with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

36. The RFQ states SF- 330 Parts I & II and supporting documentation shall be 8.5"x11" single-sided pages with font not to be smaller than 11 pt. Please confirm graphics such as organization charts or maps are excluded from this requirement.

Answer: Confirmed. The font limitation need not apply to graphics.

37. The RFQ indicates electronic commerce method is authorized, but also states a requirement to mail the SF330 package to Building 67. Are both electronic and hard copies required? If hard copy is required, will the Federal Center allow direct delivery of the SF330 packages to Building 67, and is this acceptable in lieu of postal mail if delivered by 4 pm MST 2/19?

Answer: See question 33

38. Will Reclamation be posting the Attachment 1 past performance questionnaire?

Answer: A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

39. May respondents provide an existing CPARS performance evaluation in lieu of a completed past performance questionnaire?

Answer: CPARS assessments and completed Past Performance questionnaires will be used to evaluate A-E subcontractors’ past performance. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

40. We ask that Reclamation reconsider the instruction “Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% of construction complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.” This procurement is not for construction; frequently, A-E contractors have no role in any construction that may result from their designs. Moreover, professional services assignments (e.g., environmental studies) may be unrelated to construction projects. We suggest that the instruction be replaced with: Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% of A-E or professional services complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.

Answer: The intent of the sentence was to allow submission of design project that were substantially complete. The list of relevant projects could also include professional services contracts such as consultant review boards, risk analysis and any other projects with design or professional services component. See revised language below.

Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.

41. I have read through the referenced solicitation and did not see any requirements for large businesses to commit to subcontracting (minimum percentages) to small businesses including those with socio-economic certifications. Nor did I see that this type of commitment and past performance in meeting commitments to small business goals would affect evaluation scoring. Including these in solicitations is a strong motivator for large businesses to commit to and then work to meet the federal small business goals. Will the firms that are selected for the unrestricted IDIQ awards be required to meet the federal small business goals? And, if so, will it be a percentage of the overall contract or a percentage of only the total dollars subcontracted? The latter falls short of the overall federal small business goals, but we have seen instances where firms are allowed to calculate it that way. Can you please clarify this for us? first question pertains to the requirements of the relevant projects included in our SF-330, Part I, Section F. The RFQ requires the following:

Answer: See response to Question 19

The small business percentages for large business will have to comply with the DOI standard within the specified category.

· At least one project demonstrating relevant experience (SF-330, Part I, Section F) should be submitted for each firm proposed in SF-330, Part I, Section C. Demonstrating prior shared work experience between proposed team members may result in a more favorable rating.

As a small business, this requirement would be very challenging to meet. To meet all of the discipline and licensure requirements across Reclamation’s 17-state region, it is likely that our firm will need to be supported by a robust team of subconsultant partners. While we have previous work experience with much of our proposed team, it will be very difficult to demonstrate the relevant experience of all of our subconsultant team members in just four to eight example projects. Would Reclamation consider removing this requirement from Section F?

Answer: To promote small businesses to compete, please provide evidence of your relevant specified discipline to meet the requirement. We realize that a small business may not be able to provide relevant past experience for each discipline, and submissions relevant to only one or more services is acceptable. Please provide evidence of previous contracts that you worked on.

42. Our second question also pertains to the requirements of the relevant projects included in our SF-330, Part I, Section F. The RFQ requires the following:

· Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% of construction complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.

How does this requirement apply to projects where construction is not required, such as consultant review boards, risk analysis, dam safety, and professional services (Specifications, Cost Estimating, Value Engineering / Planning, Inspection Services)?

Answer: The intent of the sentence was to allow submission of design project that were substantially complete. The list of relevant projects could also include professional services contracts such as consultant review boards, risk analysis and any other projects with design or professional services component. See revised language below.

Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.

43. Can Reclamation please clarify what is meant by the project type “Consultant Review Boards”? (Listed under page 2, Scope of Work section)

Answer: A Consulting Review Board (CRB) consists of one or more independent technical experts that review and provide an expert technical opinion on a Reclamation design, evaluation, analysis and/or construction project. CRB team members are subject matter experts that possess a depth and breadth of experience and extensive knowledge on the technical area of expertise that is required for each requirement.

The Statement of Work with a detailed description of the requirements of a CRB has been posted to the BETA SAM site.

44. Under Evaluation Factor 4, the RFQ requires the submission of a Past Performance Questionnaire and references Attachment 1. I do not see Attachment 1 included with the notice. Can Reclamation provide this document?

Answer: A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

45. The submission instructions on page 9 are not clear. Can Reclamation confirm that one electronic submission containing a single PDF of our SF-330 package is sufficient, and no physical mailed copies are required?

Answer: See response to question 18

46. On page 2 under Scope of Work and page 7 under Past Performance of the solicitation, there are references to an attached Statement of Work and an Attachment 1. Please provide both items as they were not included with the solicitation.

Answer: The Statement of Work with a detailed description of the possible A-E and Professional Services task orders has been posted to the BETA SAM site.

47. Is SF-330 Part I, Section H limited to 4 pages?

Answer: The page limit to Section H has been increased to eight (8) pages.

48. Are we allowed to submit CPARS evaluations in place of Attachment 1, Past Performance questionnaires?

Answer: No. CPARS assessments and completed Past Performance questionnaires will be used to evaluate A-E subcontractors’ past performance.

1. The beta.sam.gov posting lists Staci Stevens as the primary point of contact, but the posted RFQ Word doc names Victor McCoy as the same. To whom should we direct any additional questions and final submission?

Answer: All questions and final submission should be directed to the Point of Contact Victor McCoy.

1. Page 7 of the posted RFQ document outlines instructions for completing the past performance questionnaire (Attachment 1). Where can we access this attachment or, if it is yet to be issued, when can we expect posting of Attachment 1?

Answer: A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

49. Under the Submission Requirements on Page 7 of the attached document it states, “at least one Past Performance questionnaire, Attachment 1, should be submitted for all Proposed Team members.”

Answer: A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

50. I unfortunately cannot locate the “Past Performance questionnaire, Attachment 1” in the documents/attachments provided for this solicitation on the SAM website (please see attached screenshot).

Answer: A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

51. Can you please let me know where the Past Performance questionnaire, Attachment 1 can be found for this solicitation?

Answer: A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

52. See the attached Statement of Work for a detailed description of the possible A-E and Professional Services

Answer: The Statement of Work with a detailed description of the possible A-E and Professional Services task orders has been posted to the BETA SAM site.

53. Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% of construction complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.

Answer: The intent of the sentence was to allow submission of design project that were substantially complete.

Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.

54. a maximum of four (4) Section H sheets will be evaluated.

Answer: The page limit to Section H has been increased to eight (8) pages.

55. At least one Past Performance questionnaire, Attachment 1, should be submitted for all Proposed Team members (including Prime, J.V. Partners and Subcontractors) identified in SF- 330, Part I, Section C. A minimum of three (3) Past Performance questionnaires shall be submitted under this solicitation regardless of the number of firms identified in SF-330, Part I, Section C

Answer: CPARS assessments and completed Past Performance questionnaires will be used to evaluate A-E subcontractors’ past performance. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template with instructions have been posted to the BETA SAM site.

56. a maximum of four (4) Section H sheets will be evaluated.

Answer: The page limit to Section H has been increased to eight (8) pages.

57. Your package should include one (1) original and four (4) copies of your completed SF-330. The Electronic commerce method (email) is authorized in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c) (3) (ii), and the SF-330 Packages shall be sent to vmccoy@usbr.gov . The email method is not instantaneous, so please factor the time after the point of entry for Government security filtering processes. Please mail your package to Bureau of Reclamation | Department of Interior | Acquisition Operations Branch Attention: Victor McCoy, 6th and Kipling Bldg.67, 5th Floor Room 581 Denver, CO 80225-0007. Please mark on the outside of your package with Solicitation Number 140R8121R0001. Again, A-E Firms’ Request for Qualification (SF330) packages must have a post mark of February 19, 2021 before or at 4:00 PM Mountain Standard Time (MST) to be considered for this A-E Qualification Based process.

Answer: See response to question 23

58. Can you further define what responsibilities a Consultant Review Board would have pursuant to this contract?

Answer: A Consulting Review Board (CRB) consists of one or more independent technical experts that review and provide an expert technical opinion on a Reclamation design, evaluation, analysis and/or construction project. CRB team members are subject matter experts that possess a depth and breadth of experience and extensive knowledge on the technical area of expertise that is required for each requirement.

The Statement of Work with a detailed description of the requirements of a CRB has been posted to the BETA SAM site.

59. For Evaluation Factor (2) Specialized Experience (SF-330, Part I, Section F) it states that “Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% of construction complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.” If our firm was only contracted to do the design of the project, and our design portion of the project is 100% complete, are we able to use that as one of our projects for this section even if the construction has not yet begun or if construction is not yet 80% complete?

Answer: Yes. The intent of the sentence was to allow submission of design projects that were substantially complete, not construction projects.

Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% complete) may be used to demonstrate qualifications.