Solicitation_1605AE-25-R-00001_Amend_0001.pdf

(x)

1605AE-25-R-00001

x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

Washington DC 20210

JCAS

N-4643 200 Constitution Ave, NW Job Corps Acquisition Services US Department of Labor

02/13/20260001

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

01/28/2026

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to provide answers to questions received as well as a copy of the sign-in roster from the previously scheduled site visit.

Additionally, the following changes are made to the solicitation:

Section A, SF 1442, Block 13b, regarding an offer guarantee, does not apply to this solicitation, nor does it apply to the seed project.

Section C.8, is changed as follows. In the Project Manager requirement c.), strike the following language: "with a minimum of three (3) years' experience on vertical construction renovations"

Continued ...

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Paul M. Seivert

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

TEL: EMAIL: (202) 595-6866 SEIVERT.PAUL.M@DOL.GOV

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 36

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

1605AE-25-R-00001/0001

Section I.1, FAR Clause 52.211-12, Liquidated

Damages-Construction (Sep 2000) is hereby incorporated into the solicitation by reference.

Section L.8.3, Factor 1 is changed as follows:

Architect - The architect shall have at a minimum a Bachelor's degree from an accredited school in

Architecture or Architectural Engineering. The architect must hold a current registration. Must possess a minimum of seven (7) years Architecture experience, with a minimum of three (3) years' experience on work that is similar in nature and scope to the project. The architect must have working knowledge of applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and guidance as they apply to the region specified.

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

Solicitation 1605AE-25-R-00001 Amendment 0001

Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001

Job Corps Design-Build MATOC Solicitation

Questions and Answers:

General

1. Please confirm whether updated wage determinations issued after MATOC award but prior to individual task order award will apply to those task orders, and whether price adjustments will be allowed to account for such changes. Source Reference:

Attachment J.4 – Wage Determination VA20260171 Solicitation_1605AE-25-R-00001 DOL Response: The provided wage determination only applies to the seed project.

Wage determinations will be provided with each Task Order Request for Proposal applicable to the project for which a proposal is requested.

2. Please confirm whether the MATOC includes minimum self-performance requirements (percentage of work to be self-performed by the Prime), and whether such requirements apply uniformly across all task orders. Source Reference:

Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001 – Contract Terms DOL Response: As this is a total small business set-aside, the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor do not apply. However, FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, is included in this solicitation. This clause includes limits on performance by other-than-small business subcontractors.

3. Please clarify whether small business participation goals are evaluated at the MATOC level, the task order level, or both, and whether failure to meet proposed percentages on future task orders affects MATOC standing. Source Reference:

Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001 – Small Business Requirements DOL Response: This is a total small business set aside, and does not include any small business participation goals. Contractors will be subject to the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting. Compliance will typically be evaluated at the task order level. However, continuous concerns, spanning multiple task orders, may warrant further consideration at the MATOC level.

4. Please clarify the extent of authority delegated to the Engineering Support Contractor (ESC) and the A/E, particularly regarding acceptance of work, direction of changes, and schedule impacts. Source Reference: Attachment J.3 – Sample Seed Task Order SOW J.3 Sample Seed Task Order SOW

DOL Response: Any architect-engineer (A-E) firms under design-build projects would be subcontractors of the MATOC contract holder; therefore, their authorities would be established by the prime contractor. The Engineer Support Contractor (ESC) consists of contractor support personnel that assist the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Contracting Officer (CO) in administering the contract and subsequent task orders. ESC personnel do not have the authority to make decisions, nor do they have the authority to issue direct or make changes to the contract or task orders. The COR’s delegated authorities will be explained in a COR Delegation Memo, provided after the award of a task order. Further clarifications on the roles and responsibilities of the CO, COR, and ESC will be discussed at the kickoff meeting for each task order.

5. Please confirm whether the MATOC includes on-ramp or off-ramp provisions allowing addition or removal of contractors during the contract term. Source Reference: Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001 DOL Response: This MATOC does not include any on-ramp or off-ramp provisions.

However, removal of contractors may be performed via FAR 52.249-2, Termination for the Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price) – Alternate I, or FAR 52.249-10 Default (Fixed-Price Construction) should a situation develop that warrants the use of such clauses.

6. Please identify circumstances under which the Government may withhold payment, including administrative deficiencies, documentation issues, or schedule noncompliance. Source Reference: Attachment J.7 – SOV Checklist J.7 SOV Checklist attachment Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001 DOL Response: Section F.7 explains that “the CO may withhold approval of progress payments until the Contractor submits the required schedule or schedule revision”. FAR 52.222-7, Withholding of Funds, explains scenarios in which the Contracting Officer may withhold payments due to failure to properly pay laborers.

Otherwise, the Contracting Officer may retain funds in accordance with the conditions included in FAR 52.232-5, Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts. Additionally, Section G.11 of the solicitation explains that “An amount of two (2) percent of the Task Order value will be retained and reflected in the Schedule of Values”.

Section A

7. SF1442, block 1b is marked “Yes”, indicating that an offer guarantee is required.

However, Section L, paragraph L.8.3, Volume III Price and Pro-Forma Information does not instruct offerors to provide a bid guarantee. Can the government please clarify if a bid guarantee is required for the Sample/Seed Task Order?

DOL Response: Please disregard this marking. An offer guarantee is not required for the initial MATOC proposal, nor will it be required for the seed project proposal.

However, offer guarantees may be required in Task Order Requests for Proposals.

Section C.8.0

1. Section C.8.0. For Project Manager, Section C, paragraph 8.0, item c) requires “A minimum of ten (10) years of Project Management experience, with a minimum of three (3) years’ experience on vertical construction and renovations.” However, the requirements specified for a Project Manager in Section L in paragraph L.8.3, Factor 1 Technical Approach, only require ten (10) years of related project management experience. Can the government please clarify if the 3 years of vertical construction and renovation experience are also required?

DOL Response: The Project Manager (PM) shall possess a minimum of ten (10) years of project management experience. A minimum of three (3) years of vertical construction experience (within the 10 years) is required only when the scope of the task order includes vertical construction. For task orders limited to horizontal construction, vertical construction experience is not required.

2. Solicitation item #8 details Project Manager requirement. Please confirm if the PM must meet all four points or if meeting one point satisfies the requirement.

DOL Response: The Project Manager (PM) must satisfy minimum qualification requirements (c) and (d) and must also meet either qualification (a) or (b).

Section C.8.1

1. Section C.8.1. Solicitation item #8.1 details Design Manager requirement. Please clarify the difference between the Project Manager and Design Manager requirements. Do we need to provide separate managers for each position, or can the Project Manager serve as a Design Manager?

DOL Response: The Project Manager may also serve as the Design Manager provided the individual meets all minimum qualifications and possesses the requisite technical expertise for both roles. If these requirements are not met, the positions shall remain separate.

Section C.8.2

1. Section C.8.2. For Architect, Section C, paragraph 8.2, item c) requires “A minimum of seven (7) years Architecture experience, with a minimum of three (3) years’ experience on work that is similar in nature and scope as the project.” However, the requirements specified for an Architect in Section L, paragraph L.8.3, Factor 1 Technical Approach, only require a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited school in Architecture or Architectural Engineering and a current registration. Can the government please clarify if a minimum of seven (7) years of Architecture experience, with a minimum of three (3) years’ experience on work that is similar in nature and scope as the project is also required?

DOL Response: The requirement for the Architect is a minimum total of seven (7) years Architecture experience. Within the total years of experience, the Architect must have a minimum of three (3) years’ experience in work that is similar in nature and scope as the project is also required.

Section C.8.3

1. Solicitation item #8.3 details Contractor Quality Control (CQC) manager requirements. Can a Project Manager serve as a Contractor Quality Control (CQC) manager?

DOL Response: No.

2. Deso the CQC manager need to meet all five points or does meeting one point satisfy the requirement?

DOL Response: The CQC manager must meet all five (5) of the requirements.

Section C.8.4

1. Solicitation item #8.4 details Site Safety and Health Office (SSHO) requirements.

Can a superintendent serve as a Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO). Do the SSHO need to meet all four points or does meeting one point satisfy the requirement?

DOL Response: The Superintendent may also serve as the Site Safety Health Officer provided the individual meets all minimum qualifications and possesses the requisite technical expertise for both roles. If these requirements are not met, the positions shall remain separate.

Section E.4

1. Section E.4. Please clarify whether final acceptance is based on as-built condition or strict conformance to approved design documents where field-directed changes occurred. Source Reference: Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001 DOL Response: Final acceptance shall be based on the as-built condition of the work and its compliance with the approved contract documents. Field-directed changes are not permitted unless formally reviewed and approved through a written RFI or contract modification authorizing deviation from the approved design.

Section F.5

1. Please confirm which delay types are considered excusable only versus excusable and compensable, including but not limited to Government review delays, access restrictions, utility shutdown delays, and differing site conditions. Source Reference: Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001 – Contract Clauses DOL Response: We are unable to provide an exhaustive list of which delays will be considered excusable. However, as Section F.5 of the solicitation explains “the Contractor will be allowed time, not money, for excusable delays”. Differing site conditions will be handled in accordance with Section H.25 and FAR 52.236-2.

Government delays will be handled in accordance with Section H.26 and FAR 52.243-4.

2. Please clarify whether adverse weather days are pre-allocated in the contract duration or whether weather impacts beyond historical norms will qualify for schedule adjustment. Source Reference: Attachment J.6 – CPM Schedule Checklist J.6 CPM Checklist attachment DOL Response: Section F.5 of the solicitation explains that “unusually severe weather” is an example of an excusable delay, which would permit the Contracting Officer to grant the Contractor “time, not money”. However, Contractors are subject to the requirements of FAR 52.236-3, Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting the Work. Contractors must ensure their schedules account for “uncertainties of weather, river stages, tides, or similar physical conditions at the site”. Therefore, additional time requested due to weather must be supported by a comparison of the experienced weather to established norms (typically over the past 10 years) to demonstrate that the weather experienced is “unusually severe”.

Section F.7

1. Please confirm whether the Government requires use of Primavera P6 specifically for CPM schedule submissions, or whether other CPM-compliant scheduling software (e.g., Microsoft Project) is acceptable at the proposal stage. Additionally, confirm the required native file format for schedule submission with the proposal.

Source Reference: Attachment J.6 – CPM Schedule Checklist J.6 CPM Checklist attachment DOL Response: The Contractor may use either Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project.

Native file format is the schedule software file.

2. Attachment J.6 requires recovery schedules when negative float exceeds thresholds. Please confirm whether acceleration or recovery efforts directed by the Government will be treated as constructive acceleration and eligible for equitable adjustment. Source Reference: Attachment J.6 – CPM Schedule Checklist J.6 CPM Checklist attachment DOL Response: Potential Offerors are reminded of the requirements of Section F.7 of this solicitation and FAR 52.236-15, Schedules for Construction Contracts.

Section F.7 explains that “If the Contactor falls behind an accepted schedule, the Contractor shall take steps necessary to improve its progress or overcome delays and ensure completion of the work with the contract time, without additional cost to the Government”. FAR 52.236-15 explains that “If, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, the Contractor falls behind the approved schedule, the Contractor shall take steps necessary to improve its progress, including those that may be required by the Contracting Officer, without additional cost to the Government”.

3. Please clarify ownership of total float in the CPM schedule. Specifically, confirm whether float is for the exclusive benefit of the Government, the Contractor, or shared on a first-come, first-served basis. Source Reference: Attachment J.6 – CPM Schedule Checklist J.6 CPM Checklist attachment Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R- 00001 DOL Response: The project owns the float. The float can be used by the Government, Contractor, or any third party involved in the project.

4. Please confirm whether delays in baseline schedule approval beyond contractual review periods will result in automatic schedule relief, and whether work may proceed pending approval without waiver of rights. Source Reference: Attachment J.6 – CPM Schedule Checklist J.6 CPM Checklist attachment DOL Response: Any such delays will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if they are excusable, the fault of the Government, or the fault of the Contractor. The Contracting Officer will then take appropriate action based upon their determination.

Section G.17

1. Please confirm the order of precedence among the following documents in the event of conflicts: Base Solicitation, MATOC contract document, Sample Seed Task Order SOW, JCH-814 Guidelines, CPM and SOV Checklists, External reference documents linked via solicitationattachments.com. If not already defined, please provide the Government’s intended hierarchy. Source Reference: Solicitation No.

1605AE-25-R-00001 Attachment J.3 – Sample Seed Task Order SOW J.3 Sample Seed Task Order SOW DOL Response: Section G.17 of the solicitation lists the order of precedence that will be used for this acquisition and subsequent task orders.

Section H.4

1. Can you please clarify if contractors on the MATOC will be required to bid on all task orders in the region they select?

DOL Response: There are no such requirements included in this MATOC.

2. We would like to confirm whether task orders will be divided by specific regions or areas, and if contractor selection will be made per area. Additionally, we seek clarification on whether preference or consideration will be given to firms that demonstrate the capability to perform work nationwide, including in U.S. territories, Alaska, and Hawaii.

DOL Response: In accordance with Section H.4, the “Contracting Officer will issue a Task Order Request for Proposal (RFP) to the MATOC IDIQ awardees for the Regional MATOC which covers the project location”. No preference will be given regarding the ability to perform in multiple regions at the MATOC or task order level.

Section H.8

1. Please confirm whether oral directives, meeting minutes, or email instructions from the CO, COR, ESC, or A/E may constitute a constructive change, and the proper method for preserving entitlement. Source Reference: Solicitation No. 1605AE-25- R-00001 DOL Response: Please refer to Section H.8 of the solicitation for explanation of what will be considered a construction change.

Section H.11.1.5

1. Please confirm whether warranties commence at Substantial Completion or Final Acceptance, and whether partial acceptances may trigger warranty periods for discrete work elements. Source Reference: Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001 DOL Response: Section H.11.1.5 of the solicitation explains that the “one-year warranty period” is “after Final Acceptance”. There is the possibility that partial acceptance may trigger a warranty period. This will be addressed at the task order level, if contemplated prior to award, or in accordance with FAR 52.236-11, Use and Possession Prior to Completion.

Section H.16

1. Additionally, please confirm whether Liquidated Damages (LDs) apply to task orders issued under the resulting MATOC. If LDs are applicable, please identify: -The dollar amount per calendar day or percentage of contract value, and -The contract section or clause where LDs are defined. This clarification is requested to ensure Offerors properly account for bonding and schedule risk in their proposals.

DOL Response: Liquidated damages (LDs) will typically be applicable to the task orders issued under this MATOC. Information regarding the LDs applicable to a task order will be included in the Task Order Request for Proposal. The daily rate for LDs applicable to the seed project is $613.14. The applicable clause is FAR 52.211-12, Liquidated Damages-Construction (Sep 2000) which has been incorporated into the solicitation by reference in Amendment 0001.

Section H.25

1. Please confirm the specific notice requirements (timing and content) for claims related to differing site conditions, delays, or changes, and whether failure to strictly comply results in waiver of entitlement. Source Reference: Solicitation No. 1605AE- 25-R-00001 – Contract Clauses RFI-033 – Constructive Change Recognition DOL Response: For differing site conditions, Section H.25 requires that notice be provided no later than “30 calendar days after the discover of the conditions upon which the request for an equitable adjustment is based”. The section also warns that “if such notice is provided after the conditions are disturbed by the contactor, then no equitable adjustment shall be made”. For delays, Section F.7 requires that “notice shall be given promptly, and not more than 10 calendar days following the first occurrence of event giving rise to the delay or prospective delay”. As for changes, FAR 52.243-4, Changes, explains that “no adjustment for any change… shall be made for any costs incurred more than 20 days before the Contractor gives written notice as required”. Failure to comply with these notification requirements may result in waiver of entitlement.

Section H.26.1.2

1. Please clarify whether the Government has established maximum allowable percentages for overhead, profit, general conditions, or subcontractor markups for future task orders under the MATOC, and whether these limits apply to the Sample Seed Task Order pricing. Source Reference: Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001 – Pricing Provisions DOL Response: Section H.26.1.2 explains that the “percentages for overhead and profit shall be negotiated (at the task order level)”. There are no established maximums for such percentages; however, they will be evaluated for reasonableness.

Section I.1

1. Section I.1. Please confirm whether individual task orders may be partially terminated for convenience and how demobilization, sunk costs, and fee will be handled. Source Reference: Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001 – Termination Clauses DOL Response: Contracts awarded under this solicitation, as well as task orders awarded under those contracts, may be terminated for convenience in accordance with FAR 52.249-2, Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price) – Alternate I. Any termination settlements will be handled in accordance with that clause as well as Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) Part 49.

Section L.5

1. We do plan to attend the site visit on Tuesday. In the meantime, are you able to release any available construction plans, such as as-builts, for review prior to the visit?

DOL Response: As-Builts for the Building 4 Plumbing Renovations Old Dominion Job Corps Center Dated 05/06/2024 and Building 4 Dormitory Renovation Old Dominion Job Corps Center Dated 6/23/2022 will be added and can be found at http://www.solicitationattachments.com/olddominionbldg4 for reference only.

2. Would the Government consider hosting a virtual site visit or providing alternative accommodations for offerors interested in regions located far from Virginia?

DOL Response: The Government will not host a virtual site visit.

3. Will there be another site visit scheduled for this project?

DOL Response: Another site visit will not be scheduled for this project.

4. Was this site visit Mandatory?

DOL Response: The site visit is not mandatory.

5. Would you be able to share the attendee list from the site visit held yesterday for the above opportunity?

DOL Response: The site visit sign-in list is included with Amendment 0001 of the solicitation.

Section L.7.1

1. Considering the recent government shutdown, will the government extend the deadline for submission of questions beyond the current 2/6/2026 deadline?

Additional time would be greatly appreciated. Will this RFP be a CUI rated project? If so, please provide the process requirements.

DOL Response: The Government will not extend the due date for questions.

Section L.7.2 http://www.solicitationattachments.com/olddominionbldg4

1. We respectfully request a brief extension of the proposal due date, given that the original site visit, as we understand, was cancelled. This additional time will allow us to address any questions that may arise from a rescheduled site visit, should one be set, and to evaluate the responses to the questions submitted herein. This brief extension will ensure we can thoroughly assess all pertinent information and submit a complete and well informed proposal.

DOL Response: The Government does not intend to extend the due date for proposals.

Section L.8.1

1. Regarding General Instructions, indicates: ‘Offerors shall label sections and subsections to match the Factors and Subfactors listed in this section.’ We understand that the Table of Contents will not count toward the allowable page limit. Please also confirm that section and subsection divider pages are likewise excluded from the page count.

DOL Response: Divider pages, if used, will not be considered in the page count as long as such divider pages contain only section and/or subsection titles. Any divider pages containing additional information, necessary for the evaluation of factors (e.g.

texts, charts, etc.), will be considered in the page count.

2. Solicitation, Section L.8.1, General Instructions Will the Government please clarify if a title/cover page can be included with the proposal and if it will be excluded from the page count?

DOL Response: Title pages, if used, will not be considered in the page count as long as such title pages contain only section and/or subsection titles. Any title pages containing additional information, necessary for the evaluation of factors (e.g. texts, charts, etc.), will be considered in the page count.

3. Section L, L.8.1 General Instructions, paragraph 5. Color states, “Submit text as black writing on a white background.” We understand the government requires offeror proposals to be provided using black font on a white background. Can the government please confirm whether it is acceptable for offerors to include cover pages with color photographs and branded elements, including logos?

DOL Response: The inclusion of color photographs and branded elements (including logos) is acceptable. However, no preference will be given for the use of elaborate color schemes or photos.

4. PDF p. 111, 5. Color. May Offerors use color in headers, graphics, tables, charts, and callout boxes without violating formatting restrictions?

DOL Response: Offerors may use color in headers, graphics, tables, charts, and/or callout boxes. However, no preference will be given for the use of elaborate color schemes.

5. Please confirm how strictly page limits will be enforced, including treatment of tables, graphics, resumes, and appendices. Source Reference: Solicitation No.

1605AE-25-R-00001 – Proposal Instructions DOL Response: Section L.8.1 explains the following: “Page limitations established in each are of consideration shall be strictly adhered to, as pages which exceed the limit will not be reviewed by the technical evaluators”.

Section L.8.2

1. Section L.8.2. Section L, paragraph L.8.2 indicates Electronic Copy Via E-Mail;

however, SF1442 block 13 states, “Original + 1 copy.” Can the government please confirm that only one “Electronic Copy” is required for each volume?

DOL Response: One (1) electronic copy is sufficient.

2. Section L, L.8.2, Cover Letter states, “All proposals must include a cover letter that includes the following information.” Can the government please confirm that the cover letter is outside and separate from the three required volumes?

DOL Response: The cover letter is not included in any of the page limitations.

However, the cover letter will only be reviewed for the information listed in Section L.8.2. Any additional information included in the cover letter will not be considered or reviewed.

Section L.8.3 – Factor 1

1. Reference is made to Sections L and M of the solicitation. Please confirm that the sample/seed task order is not required to be addressed within the Technical Approach narrative.

DOL Response: The Seed Task Order is not required to be addressed in the technical approach narrative of the Design Build MATOC.

2. Reference is made to Section L.8.3, Volume I, Factor 1, “Offeror’s Organization for the Project,” which requires submission of proposed Architect qualifications. As the Offeror maintains working relationships with multiple architects across various regions, please clarify what information the Government expects to be submitted for the proposed Architect under this section. Should the Offeror identify a single Architect of Record for the proposal, or may the Offeror describe a regional architectural support approach without naming specific firms for all regions?

DOL Response: The offeror shall submit the qualifications of all the Architectural firms intended to be partnered with on the D/B MATOC.

3. Vol I, Factor 1, Offerors Organization for the Project (RFP Pg. 112) - Is it acceptable for the Project Manager and the Scheduler to dual hat?

DOL Response: No.

4. Section L, paragraph L.8.3, Factor 1 Technical Approach states, “Resumes for key personnel not currently employed by the Offeror must indicate that the proposed key personnel intend to accept the position if the Offeror is selected for award.”

Further, this section states the page limit as “ 2 pages per resume, plus 1 additional page per letter of intent (if applicable).” If proposed personnel are employees of the Offeror, please confirm that a letter of intent is not required.

DOL Response: Yes, if the proposed personnel are employees of the offeror, a letter of intent is not required.

5. Further, this section states the page limit as “ 2 pages per resume, plus 1 additional page per letter of intent (if applicable).” Are Letters of Intent required for design personnel (i.e., Architect and Design Manager) who will be employed by our A/E subcontractor and will not be requested to accept a position and become an employee of the offeror?

DOL Response: No.

6. Further, this section states the page limit as “ 2 pages per resume, plus 1 additional page per letter of intent (if applicable).” Are Letters of Intent required for subcontractor personnel (i.e., Scheduler) who will not be requested to accept a position and become an employee of the offeror?

DOL Response: No.

7. Section L, paragraph L.8.3, Factor 1 Technical Approach, Quality Control Manager states, “The QC Manager shall have at least seven (7) years of construction related experience, with a minimum of two (2) years of experience as a Quality Control Manager and must possess a current USACE “Construction Quality Management for Contractors” Certification. Additionally, the QC Manager shall have at a minimum a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited school in Construction Management, or related field (e.g. Architecture, Engineering, etc.).” Can the government please clarify if an equivalent number of years of experience may be substituted for the Bachelor’s degree in Construction Management, or related field?

DOL Response: The experience requirement as stated is what is required and cannot be modified.

8. Section L, paragraph L.8.3, Factor 1 Technical Approach states, “At a minimum, resumes shall include... types of experience by years…” Can the government clarify which types of experience they would like offerors to detail within the personnel resumes? If examples can be provided, it would be helpful.

DOL Response: “Types of experience by year” means the offeror must break down the experience into categories of work and indicate how many years the personnel have in each category. The Government wants to verify that key personnel have experience in the specific required areas (e.g., vertical construction, design-build) and that their experience aligns with the solicitation scope.

9. PDF p. 112, Offerors Organization for the Project. Please confirm that the Key Personnel qualification requirements listed in Section L override any other listed requirements for the purposes of proposal submission and evaluation.

DOL Response: The key personnel requirements listed in Section C of the solicitation override any other listed requirements, including those found in Section L.

10. PDF p. 112, Offerors Organization for the Project. Please confirm that the listed positions are for the contract as a whole, not individual task orders.

DOL Response: Yes, the prescribed positions are for the DB MATOC as a whole.

11. PDF p. 112, Offerors Organization for the Project. Given the project sizes anticipated under this MATOC, may the Scheduler position be dual hatted with another role (e.g., Project Manager) if the individual meets all qualifications?

DOL Response: No.

12. PDF p. 112, Offerors Organization for the Project. Will the Government accept a statement of availability/intent signed by the employer for key personnel, or are individual signed letters of intent required for each proposed person?

DOL Response: The offeror must submit a signed letter of intent. The Government’s review of the qualifications will be based on the letter of intent indicating that the individual (SME) will work on the project upon award.

Section L.8.3 – Factor 2

1. Reference to Section L.8.3, Factor 2 states that “at least one project shall have a constructed value between $5MM and $10MM.” Please confirm whether a project with a constructed value exceeding $10MM satisfies this requirement.

DOL Response: Yes. It is acceptable if one or more of the five projects exceed $10 Million in constructed value.

2. Please confirm that offerors are not required to demonstrate past performance within the specific geographic region(s) selected on the Regional Coverage Form, provided the offeror demonstrates relevant design-build and construction experience of similar scope, size, and complexity.

DOL Response: The past performance shall be within the United States. Specific regional past performance is not required.

3. Vol I, Factor 2, D-B and Construction Experience (RFP Pg. 112-113) states “At least one project shall have a constructed value between $5-10 million” - Would the Government please consider lowering the project magnitude for this project to $1-5 million? This value coincides with the projected task order range of $2K - $10M provided on page 32, and also the seed project $1-5 million estimated magnitude (RFP Pg. 114).

DOL Response: At least one project must exceed $5 million in value.

4. Factor 2 – Design-build and Construction Experience requirement states to provide “at least one project shall have a constructed value between $5-10 million.” Does not having a project of this magnitude disqualifies a contractor from pursuing this opportunity or are there other qualifications that can substitute this?

DOL Response: Lacking past performance of a project valued at more than $5 million may warrant an unfavorable rating for this factor.

5. For Offerors proposing MATOC regions other than the region in which the sample task order is located, please clarify whether the Government expects identification of actual local subcontractors for the sample task order, or whether representative or assumed subcontractor relationships are acceptable solely for purposes of demonstrating pricing structure and execution approach.

DOL Response: Offerors only need to identify local subcontractors for Old Dominion if they are seeking to be part sample task order. If they are not seeking to be part of the sample task order, then we only need the qualification of their DB Team (Project Manager, Design Manager, etc.)

6. Additionally, please confirm whether the absence of pre-existing subcontractor relationships in the sample task order region will negatively impact proposal evaluation for Offerors not pursuing award in that region.

DOL Response: Absence of pre-existing subcontractor relationships within Region 2 will not negatively impact proposal evaluation for Offerors pursuing awards outside of Region 2.

7. PDF p. 113, DB Construction Experience. May Offerors submit relevant projects performed by their A/E design partner as part of the experience/past performance requirements?

DOL Response: This factor contemplates the evaluation of construction experience. A/E design partner experience will not be considered relevant construction experience.

8. PDF p. 113, DB Construction Experience. Will the Government consider extending the project completion window to 7 years to allow the submission of more comprehensive relevant design-build experience?

DOL Response: No.

9. PDF p. 113, DB Construction Experience. Will the Government consider CMAR projects with substantial preconstruction design involvement as meeting the solicitation’s definition of “Design Build” experience?

DOL Response: No.

10. PDF p. 113, DB Construction Experience. Please confirm that Design-Build Additions to existing buildings will count as renovations rather than new construction for the purpose of past experience evaluation.

DOL Response: Design-Build additions will count as new construction.

11. PDF p. 114, DB Construction Experience. Proposal evaluation requirements under FAR Part 15 – Contracting by Negotiation (more specifically DFAR 215.305(a)(2)(C)) affirms "contracting officers shall consider relevant past performance information provided for affiliates" on DOD procurements. Please confirm the experience of affiliates (sister, parent, subsidiary, or other associated company) of the offeror or a JV team member will be accepted for as long as a commitment of the affiliate's meaningful involvement is provided.

DOL Response: The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFAR) does not apply to Department of Labor acquisitions. Experience of affiliates of a JV team will be considered provided the offer includes a Joint Venture Agreement or Signed Statement of JV Intent.

12. PDF p. 114, DB Construction Experience. If company A is the Mentor in the offeror JV company AZ, and company A previously served in a similar role in JV company AQ, can company A submit the experience of company AQ as representative of their overall experience?

DOL Response: Yes. However, the roles and responsibilities of “company A” must be made clear to facilitate evaluation of such experience.

13. Factor 2- Design-Build and Construction Experience: Can past performance for a teaming partner be submitted if there is a Teaming Agreement in place? If so, should a copy of the Teaming Agreement be submitted with the Pro-Forma information?

DOL Response: Yes. A copy of the Teaming Agreement must be included in the offer.

14. In regard to Section L, Factor 2- Design-Build and Construction Experience, page 113 of solicitation - may we also utilize past experience from our design firm to meet the required 3 design-build projects?

DOL Response: No.

Section L.8.3 – Factor 4

1. Can CPARS be used rather than PPQ's?

DOL Response: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are not required. Rather, they offer the opportunity for offerors without CPARS assessments to have their past performance considered/evaluated. In fact, it is preferable that a PPQ not be submitted if a CPARS assessment for the same project already exists.

2. L.8.3 Proposal Contents – Factor 4 – PPQ: Would it be acceptable to submit previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) in lieu of obtaining new PPQs?

DOL Response: A previously completed PPQ may be considered provided it comes directly from the customer/assessor. The intent of these PPQs is to receive honest and candid feedback on the performance of offerors; therefore, it is preferred that such PPQs come directly from the customer.

3. Regarding past experience submissions, Section L.8.3, Volume ii, Factor 4, in cases where a CPARS is not available, may we provide a completed questionnaire from the client evaluating our performance, even if it differs from the attached J1 form, as long as it includes the relevant information?

DOL Response: PPQs differing from the format included in this solicitation may be considered.

4. Reference to Section L.8.3, Factor 4 states that “offerors are not required to submit anything for this factor.” If CPARS records are available for the projects submitted under Factor 2, please confirm whether offerors should refrain from submitting any additional past performance information with the proposal.

DOL Response: The items listed in Section L.8.3 Factor 2 allow offerors without CPARS assessments to have their past performance considered and evaluated.

Offerors with a history of CPARS assessments need not submit any additional information for their past performance to be considered/evaluated.

5. Section L, paragraph L.8.3, Volume II Past Performance, Factor 4, Past Performance requires “Completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) emailed directly to the Contract Specialist (see Section J for template). If a report is available at CPARS.gov, a PPQ is not required.” If a CPARS report is unavailable and the reference does not confirm that the PPQ was submitted to the Contract Specialist, can the government please clarify how offerors should proceed? For example, should offerors include a copy of the requested PPQ with our proposal submission as evidence of the request to complete the PPQ?

DOL Response: The Government will not consider PPQs that are submitted by the offeror. The Government has no ability to ensure that references submit their PPQs in a timely manner. Additionally, the Government will not advise offerors how to handle the hypothetical scenario discussed in this question.

6. Attachment J.1 – Past Performance Questionnaire requires third-party respondents to submit completed questionnaires by February 27, 2026. Please confirm whether questionnaires received after the proposal due date but before evaluation begins will be considered, given Offerors do not control third-party response timing.

Source Reference: Attachment J.1 – Past Performance Questionnaire J.1 Past Performance Questionnaire DOL Response: The Government may consider PPQs received after the proposal due date.

Section L.8.3 – Factor 5

1. If an offeror does not select Region 2 (Philadelphia) on the Regional Coverage Form, please confirm that the offeror is not required to submit pricing for the sample/seed task order and is not required to furnish a bid bond associated with that task order.

DOL Response: Pricing must be evaluated in such a solicitation, so all offerors, inclusive of those with no interest in Region 2, must submit pricing for the seed project to facilitate a price evaluation. No bid bond is required to be submitted.

Price is the least important factor for selection of MATOC awardees, but a critical factor in selecting the awardee of the seed project task order. Offerors not interested in Region 2 are asked to provide a price proposal to facilitate the required price evaluation. Such prices will be briefly evaluated for price reasonableness;

however, as such offerors are ineligible for award of the seed project, there is no risk to the offeror of their proposed price becoming obligatory.

2. The solicitation requires Offerors to submit pricing and technical information for a sample task order located in Monroe, Virginia, which is within Job Corps Region 2, while Offerors may elect to compete for only one MATOC region, such as Region 4 (Dallas). For Offerors proposing solely for Region 4, the sample task order location represents a geographic area in which the Offeror would not be eligible for award and does not maintain established local subcontractor or supplier relationships.

Please clarify how the Government will ensure that Offerors proposing only Region 4 are not disadvantaged in the evaluation of price, technical approach, subcontracting strategy, or overall scoring due to the sample task order being located outside their selected MATOC region.

DOL Response: Offerors proposing only Region 4 (or any other region outside of Region 2) will not be considered for award of the seed project task order. As for receiving an awarded IDIQ under a regional MATOC, price is the least important factor. Offerors will be competing against other offerors interested in the same region, with the most important factors being the non-price factors. The price proposal submitted for the seed task order project will have little impact on the selection of regional MATOC awardees.

3. Seed Project Pricing: May offerors include a list of assumptions/exclusions made in the development of their price to demonstrate a comprehensive submission to the Government?

DOL Response: Yes, offerors may include a list of assumptions/exclusions made in the development of the pricing.

4. Please confirm whether pricing submitted for the Sample Seed Task Order will be evaluated for realism only or used as a comparative evaluated price affecting MATOC award decisions. Additionally, please clarify whether the Seed Task Order pricing is intended to establish binding rates or coefficients for future task orders under the MATOC. Source Reference: Attachment J.3 – Sample Seed Task Order SOW J.3 Sample Seed Task Order SOW Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001 DOL Response: The Government will not evaluate the realism of any prices proposed. Rather, prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. This MATOC does not include any binding rates or coefficients for task orders. As such, it is important to note that rates negotiated on one task order will have no impact or relevance on another task order.

5. The solicitation documents include “J.4_Schedule_of_Values_(SOV)_Checklist.pdf.”

Given that Section L does not include any instructions for completing an SOV with the proposal response, can the government please confirm that the SOV is a post-award deliverable and the checklist attachment will be used to support preparation of the post-award deliverable?

DOL Response: The Schedule of Values is a Post Award Deliverable.

6. Please confirm whether Offerors are permitted to include material price escalation assumptions within the Sample Seed Task Order pricing, and how escalation will be treated for future task orders issued under the MATOC. Source Reference:

Solicitation No. 1605AE-25-R-00001

DOL Response: The price for the seed project task order, and for all task orders will be firm, fixed-price. Offerors may build escalation into their prices; however, adjustments will not be made to prices, after award, solely due to escalating costs.

8. Should the cost template proposal be submitted in the native Excel document or a

PDF?

DOL Response: In the case of the price proposals, PDF files are not acceptable.

Provide in the Excel format.

Section L.8.3 – Pro Forma Information

1. Can the Government please confirm that only one proposal will need to be submitted for the regions we are interested in and not separate proposals for each individual MATOC region?

DOL Response: Only one (1) proposal is required, and the same proposal can be considered for multiple regions, depending upon the selections made by the Offeror in Attachment J.2, Regional Coverage Form.

Section M.3

1. Please confirm whether the sample/seed task order included in the solicitation represents an actual project that the Government intends to award following establishment of the MATOCs.

DOL Response: In accordance with Section M.3, the Government anticipates the award of one (1) task order, for the seed project, under the Region 2 MATOC.

2. The solicitation states that award of the seed task order will be based on lowest price among Region 2 MATOC awardees. Please confirm whether a contractor must first be selected as a Region 2 MATOC awardee in order to be eligible for award of the seed task order, regardless of pricing.

DOL Response: To be eligible for award of the seed project task order, an Offeror must first be selected as a Region 2 MATOC awardee.

3. How many contractors do you anticipate awarding for each region?

DOL Response: The Government intends for each region to be competitive, with at least two (2) awardees per region.