FINAL_Attachment_Phase I_Govt Responses.pdf

Worldwide D/B and Construction IDIQ

RFP 19AQMM25R0207

Questions & Responses

No. Questions Responses 1 We recently reviewed the current solicitation and noted the single project requirement of $8 million. We would like to respectfully request your consideration regarding the impact of this threshold on small business participation.

Historically, task orders and project values for similar contracts have been more accessible to small businesses. An $8 million single project requirement introduces a significant barrier to entry— particularly for firms like ours that are committed to self-performing the work and building long-term federal capabilities. This threshold not only limits opportunities for capable small businesses but also inadvertently encourages reliance on joint ventures with large firms.

While JV structures can be valuable, they often dilute the small business development intent of federal set-aside programs. We kindly ask that you consider adjusting the single project value requirement or including a tiered evaluation approach that would allow qualified small businesses with strong performance histories, albeit on slightly smaller projects, to compete. A more inclusive approach would better align with the government’s goals to expand and support the capacity of small, woman-owned firms within the federal contracting ecosystem. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we would be happy to provide further details or documentation to support our request.

The single project value of $8M listed in the Phase I – Minimum Mandatory Requirements remains unchanged. For Category 1 – the single project value is 32% of the total Small Business Set Aside of $25M and is based on current projects and potential forecasted work. Any awardee will require to have the capability to complete not only small projects but up to $25M projects as part of the Category I – Small Business Set Aside and the project value of $8M is reflective of this requirement.

Note: If an offeror has a project that would satisfy the single project value but is not substantially complete at the time of Phase I submission but will be prior to award, then the offeror would be considered conditionally eligible.

Additionally, this program will incorporate On-Ramp/Off-Ramp procedures in accordance with Department of State clause. See Amendment 0001.

2 IAW this solicitation, questions may be submitted through 27 June. I have a quick question on the Facility Clearance requirements. It is understood that the prime contractor and/or any JV partners require a FCL at the Secret level as minimum. The question is will subcontractor and subconsultants also require a facility clearance? If

At the IDIQ only the Prime or Joint Venture will be sponsored at the IDIQ award. Any subcontractor or consultants that require sponsorship would be task order and requirement specific and may be sponsored at that point.

yes, will DOS also sponsor firms down to the sub level for facility clearance as well?

3 Question regarding Category 1 Small Business Set Aside instructions, page 5:

Offeror needs to provide information demonstrating that it has successfully completed in the United States or on a Federal Contract abroad a construction contract or subcontract involving work of the same general type and complexity as the solicited project with a value of at least $8 million.

Does the $8M minimum refer to a single construction effort / task order or could that minimum be satisfied by the ceiling amount awarded on a MACC?

The $8M minimum refers to a single construction effort.

4 RFP page 5, ‘For Certification # 4 of the Statement of Qualifications’ states that ‘To demonstrate performance of similar construction work for Omnibus Act purposes, the offeror needs to provide information demonstrating that it has successfully completed… solicited project with a value of at least $50 million.’ However, page 1 indicates that Category 2 task orders will be valued at $25M+ which is only 50% of the minimum stated past performance project value of $50M.

Therefore, companies that have completed projects less than $50M but in the range of what will be anticipated to be competed, will be unfairly and likely inadvertently excluded. To remedy this, we request that the minimum project value be lowered to $20M. Projects valued at $20M+ are comparable experience to demonstrate ability to scale because $20M+ represents less than a 20% difference from the anticipated $25M+ task order size, therefore justifying a $20M+ minimum task order value to meet MRR #1.

In reference to RFP page 5, ‘For Certification # 4 of the Statement of Qualifications’ which requires project experience valued at $50M+, The single project value of $50M listed in the Phase I – Minimum Mandatory Requirements remains unchanged. For Category 2 – the single project value is 50% of the task order limitation of $100M and is based on current projects and potential forecasted work. Any awardee will require to have the capability to complete not only projects in the $25-$30M but up to the $100M task order limitation.

Note: If an offeror has a project that would satisfy the single project value but is not substantially complete at the time of Phase I submission but will be prior to award, then the offeror would be considered conditionally eligible in Phase 1 and could advance to Phase 2. To be deemed fully eligible prior to award any project relied on would be required to be substantially complete prior to award.

Additionally, this program will incorporate On-Ramp/Off-Ramp procedures in accordance with Department of State clause. See Amendment 0001.

other than small businesses that have ‘graduated’ or recently exceeded the small business threshold that compete in the mid-range tier of projects ($20-$50M range) will be excluded from competition, even though they have the demonstrated experience to compete for and execute projects in the same range of the anticipated project size of category 2. Due to the long term of the contract, one (1) year Base Period + nine (9) one (1) year options; other than small mid-tier companies will be excluded for a significant duration and cannot compete in either the SB set-aside pool or the unrestricted, lowering competition from otherwise qualified and capable firms.

In reference to RFP page 5, ‘For Certification # 4 of the Statement of Qualifications’ which requires project experience valued at $50M+ and completed either in the US or abroad, it is important to consider the key differences in work completed in the US versus abroad.

Specifically, that projects completed in the US (and for DOD customers) historically cost more than projects of similar size and scope completed abroad. Therefore, a $50M project completed CONUS could be of comparable size and scope complexity to a $20M project OCONUS, factoring in recent inflation and other impacts.

Lowering the minimum dollar threshold and evaluating based on similar in complexity, would ensure greater competition from qualified and capable firms.

In reference to RFP page 5, ‘For Certification # 4 of the Statement of Qualifications’ which requires project experience valued at $50M+ and completed either in the US or abroad, a project completed 5 years ago prior to global inflation, workforce shortages, and an exiting of contractor base, would also support the argument that a $20M project completed 5 years ago would very likely cost nearly $30M today, using commonly referenced sources for calculating Federal construction inflation including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS). For reference, the cumulative compounded escalation calculator shows an average increase over the past 5 years of 36–40%. Lowering the minimum dollar threshold to $20M would ensure that companies that have demonstrated successful performance of contracts at that value, would be comparable to the Unrestricted category 2 contract values anticipated under this program.

In reference to RFP page 5, ‘For Certification # 4 of the Statement of Qualifications’, we request expedited relief in this area. Due to the restrictive nature of the MRR #1 requirement, and due to the nature of the decisions that affected contractors will be required to make in order to compete within the stated timeline for the Phase 1.

5 What type of contract will this be? (Best Value / Firm Fixed Price / Etc)

Or, will there be a Unit Price Book used?

If a Unit Price Book, what will be specified for this contract?

If a Unit Price Book, what Software will be specified for this contract?

This IDIQ will be solicited a firm-fixed-price multiple-award IDIQ and evaluated as Best Value.

Not applicable. The IDIQ will establish labor categories and labor rates but all further work will be competed at the task order level.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

6 Although we qualify as a Small Business, we conditionally meet the requirements for Category 2 – Full & Open MMR under the subject IDIQ solicitation. We are currently considering submitting a response under this category as well.

In parallel, we are exploring the possibility of submitting a proposal as part of a Joint Venture (JV) to pursue higher-value projects. While we did not find any restrictions in the solicitation, could you please confirm whether there are any limitations on submitting multiple proposals—one independently and one as part of a JV?

There are no limitations in submitting multiple proposals provided that the Offeror whether a standalone entity or Joint Venture meets the minimum requirements. If submitting separate proposal as a Prime and JV, then the proposals should identify the Offerors as separate entities with distinct Unique Entity Identifier (UEIs).

The basis of evaluation and award will be addressed as part of Phase II – Request for Proposal.

Additionally, the solicitation notes that the Department of State intends to award up to seven IDIQ contracts. In the event that only one award slot remains, how should an offeror indicate a preference between their submissions for consideration?

We appreciate your guidance on these points as we finalize our strategy.

7 We intends to submit a proposal package for the subject IDIQ solicitation under the Small Business category. We have also been in discussions with a Small Business certified as HUBZone, SDVOB, and WOSB regarding the establishment of a Mentor-Protégé Program, which we believe could provide added value to the Government.

However, we were not anticipating the release of this IDIQ so soon.

Would it be possible to grant a two-week extension? We believe this additional time would allow us to complete the necessary steps with SAM.gov and the SBA.

Please see Amendment 0001 for revised proposal due dates.

8 In regards to Category 2 proposals, can the Government please clarify the difference in past performance requirements between Phase I and Phase II submissions? In Phase I, the offeror is required to demonstrate completion of a contract or subcontract with a value of $50 million. In Phase II, it is stated that the offeror generally will be required to demonstrate technical experience by identifying four (4) comparable projects of similar size, scope and complexity, previously performed by the Offeror as a Prime. Do all four projects in Phase II have to individually meet the value provided in the Phase II requirements or will it be considered acceptable for the combination of all four projects to meet the requirements (ex: two projects meet size standards along with scope and complexity and two projects meet scope and complexity only).

As stated on page 4, Phase II criteria are separate and distinct from the US Person eligibility criteria relative to the Omnibus act under Phase I. Additional information regarding comparable projects for Phase II – RFP will be included in the instructions and evaluation criteria.

9 Additionally, the Phase I requirement allows for subcontracts to be considered but Phase II requirements seem to imply only Prime contracts will be considered. Can you please confirm subcontracts meeting all requirements will be considered acceptable for Phase II?

We believe it is in the best interest of the Government to allow a combination of four projects meeting requirements in totality and to allow subcontracts to be considered for Phase II as it will promote competition resulting in lower overall costs to the Government.

As stated on page 4, Phase II criteria are separate and distinct from the US Person eligibility criteria relative to the Omnibus act under Phase I. Additional information regarding comparable projects for Phase II – RFP will be included in the instructions and evaluation criteria.

10 Can a team member’s past performance be utilized in Phase II if a Prime/Sub relationship is established, including design and/or construction partners?

The Phase 2 criteria will be issued with the Phase 2 Solicitation.

However, generally the Department does not consider prior project examples performed by subcontractors when evaluating technical capabilities based on similar, relevant project experience.

11 Regarding the Past Performance requirements in both Phase 1 and Phase II for the Full and Open Category 2, would the Government accept a cumulative total of $50M across multiple projects rather than a single project with a minimum value of $50M?

See response to question #4.

12 Our company is a Small Business with a $28M design-build construction contract that is 63% complete and a $38M design-build construction contract with a 2027 completion date. As a small business we are seeking to grow and compete in the full and open category but are prohibited based on the current qualification requirements. Given this, would OBO consider lowering the minimum Phase I and Phase II Past Performance project threshold to $25M and minimum 50% complete, given $25M is the minimum project value on the Full and Open contract? This would allow current small/medium size businesses with capabilities to perform within the Full and Open anticipated Task Order value in Category 2 an opportunity to qualify and compete for this contract.

13 Will the Government allow an opportunity for questions during Phase

II?

Yes, questions will be allowed and encouraged during Phase II.

14 Phase I, Section 3.A, – Omnibus Act Certification #4 (MMR #1) Please clarify whether there is a defined recency threshold for the $8 million construction project(s) required under Omnibus Act Certification #4. For example, must the project(s) have been completed within a specific number of years (e.g., five years), or will any completed project meeting the value and complexity requirements be acceptable regardless of completion date?

For Phase I – MMR eligibility, there is no recency requirement with respect to the similar federal construction project meeting complexity and dollar value requirements. For Certification #4, the project(s) relied on need to be substantially complete by the time of award.

NOTE: The Phase 2 requirements are discrete and generally include recency requirements for projects relied upon to demonstrate an Offeror’s technical capabilities.

15 Phase I, Section 3.A – Omnibus Act Certification #4 (MMR #1) Could you please clarify whether a Joint Venture, which is NOT formed under a mentor-protégé agreement, can rely on the past performance of the non-managing partner to meet the $8 million experience requirement under Omnibus Act Certification #4? Or does the qualifying project need to be attributed to all entities, the joint venture entity as a whole, or is a mentor-protégé joint venture necessary?

If the Joint Venture entity is established as a formal JV, it can rely on the prior projects performed by the JV itself or performed by the JV partner entity that is completing the certifications and seeking to satisfy the U.S. person Criteria under Certification #4 of the Omnibus Act.

As outlined in the certification pamphlet “[t]o be considered a “qualified United States joint venture person,” every joint venture must have at least one firm or organization that itself meets all the requirements of a U.S. person listed in Section 402. If a Joint Venture (JV) is formed, the company having 51 percent or greater interest in the JV must be the one completing the pamphlet.

16 Phase I, Category 1 Small Business Set-Aside If a Category 1 Set-Aside company (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone) is selected and awarded one of the seven IDIQ contracts designated for that socioeconomic category, will all subsequent task order proposal requests (TOPRs) issued under that IDIQ be limited to the same socioeconomic set-aside category? Or will task orders be competed

No, Task Order Proposal Requests (TOPRs) will not be issued to the same socioeconomic category for every requirement. The goal is to ensure an equitable and fair playing field.

The Phase II – RFP will outline the task order proposal request competition requirements. Generally, task orders under Category I – Small Business will be competed among one socioeconomic among all Category 1 IDIQ awardees, regardless of set-aside designation?

subcategory but may be more than one depending on market interest, security requirements, etc.

17 RFI#1

We are planning on submitting a response to the Minimum Mandatory Requirements Phase 1 for two (2) categories.

19AQMM25R027_SDV

19AQMM25R027_SB

Please advise whether we should send two responses, or only one response indicating both subcategories.

As stated on page 2 of the Phase I – MMR, for purposes of the Omnibus Act adequate competition will be assessed for the Category 1 Small Business Set aside as a whole rather than for each socioeconomic category. Therefore, only one submission is required for Category I – SB.

18 RFI#2

Regarding MMR#1, we understand that only one project needs to be submitted at this stage. Please confirm

Correct, for Phase I – MMR, the minimum is one project that meets the complexity and dollar requirement.

19 RFI#3

We are submitting as a recently organized Joint Venture under a Mentor-Protégé Agreement. We plan on including in TAB B the Incorporation of the Protégé (which is more than 5 years) and a copy Joint Venture Agreement to satisfy the requirements of 402 (c)(2)(C).

Please confirm that this is the correct approach or whether any other information is required.

Confirmed.

20 RFI#4

We are submitting as a recently organized Joint Venture under a Mentor-Protégé Agreement. We plan on using the name of the managing venturer as the US Participant is for Certification

Please confirm that this is the correct approach.

It is up to the offeror to determine the naming convention of the JV.

The requirement is for JV to be registered in SAM.gov and to provide the Offerors Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) with its proposal.

21 RFI#5

Reference Paragraph 3.B Security Clearance Requirement MMR #2 (page 6 of 9), the first paragraph states “In order to be eligible to receive award and perform under this contract, the eligible or

An IDIQ contract will not be awarded to any offeror who does not have at minimum a Secret FCL with Secret safeguarding; the overall requirement is for a Top Secret FCL with Secret safeguarding.

conditionally eligible offeror including formal Joint Venture offerors meeting MMR #1, must possess a Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) Secret facility security clearance (FCL) with Secret safeguarding capability, issued in accordance with the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), DoD 5220.22-M prior to award.” Current FCL holders with safeguarding will pass this MMR. Offerors without an FCL will be eligible for sponsorship for an FCL or upgrade from S to TS. Please confirm that current FCL holders, at the S or TS level, will be sponsored for safeguarding and will pass this MMR.

However, DOS will sponsor the firm if the Offeror is identified as eligible or conditionally eligible in Phase 1.

22 What is the anticipated ratio of cleared/classified vs. unclassified work?

There is no anticipated ratio of classified vs. unclassified work. In general, there is typically some type of clearance requirement.

Awardees are required to be cleared for both types of work.

23 Can a parent company’s experience be used if the offeror is a wholly owned subsidiary, but not part of a formal JV?

No, any experience used by a wholly owned subsidiary must be through a formal JV to determine eligibility for Phase I - MMR. The Department of State does not recognize de facto JV.

24 What is the minimum documentation required to validate the 5-year business history under Certification #3?

As set forth in the Statement of Qualification pamphlet, an Offeror must provide evidence of its incorporation or legal organization as an Attachment. As stated in the pamphlet, materials can include copies of original items such as certificates of incorporation, partnership agreements, resolutions of boards of directors, etc.

25 Is electronic submission of the Statement of Qualifications allowed, or must a signed hard copy be submitted?

Only electronic submissions will be accepted. The Government will not accept hard copies.

26 Would the Government be open to evaluating Offerors who have completed multiple concurrent or sequential projects of at least $15- 25 million each, performed under similar conditions (e.g., overseas, secure environments, or design-build structures), as an alternative or equivalent to a single $50 million project, for the purposes of demonstrating relevant experience?

27 Can the Government confirm whether a firm may leverage a/multiple $50 million commercial construction project—of similar type, scope, and complexity—as qualifying past performance under Certification #4, particularly if the firm also holds a consistent record of Federal construction projects in the $15–$25 million range? This clarification would help determine whether commercial experience at the required threshold, supplemented by relevant Federal work, is acceptable for demonstrating capability under the Omnibus Act requirement.

28 Can you confirm that an FCL possessing clearance is required, or will a Top Secret non-possessing clearance meet the requirement?

See response for question #21.

29 If an FCL possessing clearance is required, is it Secret or Top Secret?

30 If an FCL possessing clearance is required, what are the network requirements?

As stated in Phase I – Section 3B, after the successful offeror selected for contract award must possess or obtain an Information System (IS) approved by DCSA for processing classified information up to the Secret level. Performance on this contract will require access to the Department’s ProjNet-C, for receipt and transmission of all classified information, and a DCSA approved classified IS for processing classified information. Additional information may be identified in Phase II – Request for Proposal and the DD254.

31 Our company possesses a TOP SECRET Facility Clearance but not Secret safeguarding. We understand the solicitation requires a "minimum of a Secret Facility Clearance with Secret safeguarding."

Assuming that Coho CM meets other Phase I MMR requirements, would the Government be willing to sponsor our company for the necessary Secret safeguarding given our existing TOP SECRET Facility Clearance?

32 Given that this opportunity falls under NAICS code 236220 – Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, with a $45M annual receipts size standard, would the Government consider reducing the minimum project value requirement for a single completed contract or subcontract from $8 million to $6 million, specifically for offerors qualifying under Small Business Set-Aside socio-economic categories?

The single project value of $8M listed in the Phase I – Minimum Mandatory Requirements remains unchanged. For Category 1 – the single project value is 32% of the total Small Business Set Aside of $25M and is based on current projects and potential forecasted work. Any awardee will require to have the capability to complete not only small projects but up to $25M projects as part of the Category I – Small Business Set Aside and the project value of $8M is reflective of this requirement.

33 Alternatively, or in addition to the previous question, would the Government consider allowing offerors to demonstrate performance by evaluating multiple completed construction contracts or subcontracts with values that, in the aggregate, reach or exceed $45 million, provided they are of the same general type and complexity as the solicited project?

See response for question #4.

34 Google Drive Submission Details: Proposals must be uploaded to Google Drive and shared with EDIT permission to the specified fan.gov email addresses.

Question: Are there any specific naming conventions for the two required PDF files (Statement of Qualifications and Phase I Proposal) when uploaded to Google Drive, or any maximum file size limitations for the shared files? What is the recommended method for an offeror to verify that their electronic submission via Google Drive was successfully received and accessible by the Contracting Officers before the July 17, 2025 deadline?

On page 9 of the Phase I – MMR as amended, the email subject must solicitation number and project name: 19AQMM25R0207, Worldwide D/B Construction IDIQ – CAT 1. For file documentation, DOS would recommend the following file name convention:

Company/JV Name_Category1_FileName

Reminder, the current deadline is August 1, 2025 as extended per Amendment 001.

35 Page 5 of the RFP states: "To the extent the Offeror anticipates proposing two or more entities in Phase II and/or will rely on related entities to perform under the IDIQ contract and/or to meet the stated requirements of the Solicitation, the Offeror should be structured as a formal JV or Prime/ Subcontractor and the Offeror itself (formal JV or Prime) and must be registered in SAM.gov." If an offeror anticipates proposing two or more entities in Phase II as a Prime/Subcontractor relationship, how should offerors demonstrate that relationship in Phase I?

Specific to Phase 1, the Prime Offeror, whether a standalone entity or Joint Venture, must meet the Phase 1 eligibility criteria.

Subcontractor experience is not relevant for Phase I – MMR.

It is up to each Offeror to determine the structure of its proposal and whether to propose as a Prime/Subcontractor or Joint Venture.

If an offeror anticipates proposing as a Prime/Subcontractor relationship, then the offeror may only submit one proposal in response to Category I – Small Business and/or Category II – Full and Open.

The Phase 2 criteria will be issued with the Phase 2 RFP. However, generally the Department does not consider prior project examples performed by subcontractors when evaluating technical capabilities based on similar, relevant project experience; however, the specific criteria will be outlined in the Phase 2 RFP.

36 Are offerors permitted to cite construction experience (under Certification #4) performed by a proposed subcontractor to support the prime contractor's experience?

No, with respect to US Person eligibility under the Omnibus Act, the Offeror (legal entity) whether standalone entity or formal Joint Venture completing the certifications must itself meet all of the criteria to establish “US person” eligibility. Subcontractor experience is not relevant for Phase I – MMR. See also response #15.

37 The 2025 Omnibus Statement of Qualifications CAT1 SB document does not include Sections 7 and 8 of the 652.236-72 Statement of Qualifications for the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act. Are offerors to assume that sections 7 and 8 of this Act, including all clauses and definitions, apply to this opportunity?

No, to correspond to updates in the Omnibus Act established in the 2025 NDAA, the Department updated the 2025 Statement of Qualifications and the DOSAR. The 2025 NDAA removed certain requirements and Sections 7 & 8 are no longer applicable. The Statement of Qualifications attached to this Phase I – Minimum Mandatory Requirement contains the updated Omnibus Act requirements, and these updates were also reflected in an internal DOSAR update via a deviation.

38 3.C. Active Entity Registration on SAM.gov – MMR #3 “Prime Offerors, including any offeror organized as a joint venture, must have an active SAM.gov registration at the time of Phase I proposal submission and throughout the procurement process. This is a pass/fail evaluated area. A proposal from any offeror whose registration is not active in SAM.gov at the time of Phase I proposal submission will be rejected and their Phase I submission will not be evaluated. Any Offeror that has been determined to be eligible or conditionally eligible as a “U.S. Person” or “U.S. Joint Venture Person” under MMR #1 (Omnibus Act), must be registered in SAM as the same legal entity at the time of Phase I submission and throughout the procurement process. If the Offeror certifies that it is a Joint Venture to meet the Omnibus Act requirements, the Joint Venture must be the entity registered in SAM.gov at the time of Phase I submission and throughout the procurement process.”

Many seasoned small-business OBO contractors who are preparing Mentor-Protégé Joint venture’s for this IDIQ are will not be compliant (i.e. the Joint Venture is in SAM.gov) because this follow-on contract is nearly a year from its solicitation date. This unnecessarily precludes OBO of JV entities that cannot get SBA approval in 1.5 months. Only previous existing Mentor Protégé Joint Ventures would make this deadline.

1. IF the Omnibus Act requires all Joint Ventures be in fully adjudicated ad in SAM.gov to be eligible for competition by Phase 1 submission, then Phase 1 has been released far too early in relation to the timeline of final solicitation. Will the Government cancel and re-release Phase one closer to RFP release, in order to capture all appropriate competition for companies creating MP Joint ventures for this opportunity?

No, DOS will not cancel and resolicit the requirement at a later date as the timeline is established to meet award milestones and program needs.

The Phase I – MMR requirement is for the JV to established and have an active registration in SAM.gov. DOS is not mandating the use of Mentor-Protégé JV and that is an offeror decision. If the offeror decides to utilize a Mentor-Protégé JV, it must meet the Phase 1 MMR requirements by the established deadline. The Department has included similar language regarding the SAM registration requirements for entities organized as a Joint Venture for several years. This Phase 1 language does not represent a new requirement.

2. IF all submitted Joint Ventures that are submitted are to be SAM.gov prior to Phase 1 submission, will the government allow two US companies with active Facility Clearances/Safeguarding to submit as teammates on Omnibus Phase submission, if their JV is still pending SBA approval? Will these companies be able to submit when the approved Joint Venture at RFP release?

3. Can a pending Mentor Protégé JV submit under Phase 1 with Protégé Organization as Prime Contractor and Mentor Organization as Subcontractor, and be eligible to bid with the Mentor Protégé once at RFP release in 2026?

39 Will “HUBZone” awardees be able to receive and bid on “Small Business” track opportunities?

Yes, in Phase II – RFP . However, as stated in Phase I – MMR, for purposes of the Omnibus Act adequate competition will be assessed for the Category 1 Small Business Set aside as a whole rather than for each socioeconomic category.

40 Will the government allow the use of Subcontractor past performance under Certification #4?

See response to question #35.

41 As Phase 1 is Pass/Fail evaluation, can you please confirm whether the Offeror is required to submit only one similar project under Certification #4 (Tab C)—completed or substantially completed—in order to meet this requirement?

The solicitation notes that if a project is not substantially complete at the time of Phase 1 submission, it must be completed by the time of contract award. Can you confirm that, provided the project is complete by the contract award date and we clearly identify the expected completion date in our submission, the Offeror would still be considered for advancement to Phase 2?

Yes, the Offeror is allowed to submit only one project that meets the dollar value listed in Phase I - MMR.

Yes, if the project is not substantially complete, the offeror would be considered conditionally eligible and considered for Phase II if it is anticipated that the project will be substantially complete by the projected award date. In order for a conditionally eligible offeror to receive an IDIQ award, the offeror must demonstrate reasonable expected substantial completion of the contract relied on in Phase 1 by contract award. For informational purposes only, the anticipated IDIQ award date is Summer 2027, but this is subject to change.

42 Certification 4 – The offeror must demonstrate experience on similar projects in terms of type, complexity, and value.

Is there a limit to the number of past performance projects we should provide for this certification?

No, there is no limit to the number of similar projects an offeror should provide. The only requirement is to present at least one project of the same general type and complexity as the solicited project at the value listed in the Phase I – MMR.

43 Regarding the Small Business Set-Aside (Category 1): Can a single firm submit bids under multiple socioeconomic categories (e.g., 8(a), HubZone, Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Woman- Owned Business) within the Small Business Set-Aside for this IDIQ contract, or is a firm restricted to one socioeconomic category for submission?

Yes, in response to the Phase II Solicitation. However, as stated in Phase I – MMR, for purposes of the Omnibus Act adequate competition will be assessed for the Category 1 Small Business Set aside as a whole rather than for each socioeconomic category.

44 Regarding the Statement of Qualifications: Can a contractor include information related to the consortium formed for the proposal, specifically providing past performance details for both the prime contractor and the subcontractors?

See above response to Question 35.

45 Regarding the Statement of Qualifications: Can a contractor include information related to the consortium formed for the proposal, specifically providing past performance details for both the prime contractor and the subcontractors?

See above response to Question 35.

46 Regarding Certification #4 of the Statement of Qualifications: For demonstrating performance of similar construction work under the Omnibus Act, should the $8 million project value refer to the portion of the work that was self-performed by the bidder, or can it include the overall value of the project contract?

See the Certification #4 instructions and information requested. The project value should refer to a project performed by the Prime Offeror completing the certification. Certification #4 should indicate their involvement of the total project value (“If the prospective offeror’s participation was as a partner or co-venturer, indicate the percentage of the project performed by the prospective offeror”).

47 2025 Omnibus Statement of Qualifications_CAT1_SB - Certification # 1: "The organization seeking eligibility is [ ] incorporated, [ ] legally organized under the laws of (state) . ATTACHMENT REQUIRED (Tab A)" It seems logical to include Certificates of Organization here but those are already being asked for in Tab B- Certification #3. Please clarify what specific documentation is required or desired for Tab A (and if we need to repeat the Certificates of Organization twice).

See response to question #24.

48 Final_2025 Phase I MMR_CAT1_SB - 4. Closing Deadline for Submissions - GOOGLE/FAN DRIVE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: (page 8) - "Please UPLOAD the Phase I proposals (with both PDF files) to your Google Drive..."

Can you clarify what is meant by 'both PDF files'?

See Amendment 0002. Language removed.

49 2025 Omnibus Statement of Qualifications_CAT1_SB - Certification # 4: (page 5) - "one or more similar projects completed or substantially completed or that is expected to be completed or substantially complete at the time of contract award by the prospective offeror."

If a parent or affiliate company—not part of a formal joint venture—is the contract-holding entity that performed a qualifying project (with partnership of the Offeror), can its past performance still be used under Certification #4?

No, a qualifying project must be from either the prime Offeror – either as a standalone entity or formal JV. With respect to US Person eligibility under the Omnibus Act, the Offeror (legal entity) whether standalone entity or formal Joint Venture completing the certifications must itself meet all the criteria to establish “US person” eligibility. Subcontractor and/or affiliate (not as part of a formal JV) experience is not considered under Phase I – MMR. See response #15.

50 2025+Omnibus Statement of Qualifications_CAT1_SB - Certification # 4: (page 4) - "(Material can include such items as certificates of incorporation, partnership agreements, resolutions of boards of directors, etc.)" Please clarify what specific documentation is required or desired for Tab B (and if we need to repeat the Certificates of Organization twice).

. See response to question #24.

51 Final_2025 Phase I MMR_CAT1_SB Phase II (page 4) - "an Offeror will be required to demonstrate technical experience by identifying four

(4) comparable projects of similar size, scope and complexity" May Offerors reuse the same past performance project(s) presented in the Phase I Omnibus SOQ (Certification #4) in their Phase II technical proposal, or is there an expectation that Phase II submissions include different or additional experience?

Phase I MMR requirements are distinct from Phase 2. The Phase 2 – RFP will outline all of the technical experience and past performance requirements and evaluation criteria. As appropriate, the Offeror may (but is not required to) rely on the same project example(s) provided in Certification #4 in responding to Phase 2;

however, additional information may be required in the Phase 2 RFP.

52 Final_2025+Phase+I+MMR_CAT1_SB - Phase II (page 4) - "an Offeror will be required to demonstrate technical experience by identifying four (4) comparable projects of similar size, scope and complexity" If an Offeror submits Phase I as a single small business entity (not a formal joint venture), will they be allowed in Phase II to include non-JV teaming partners on their technical proposal team and rely on those teaming partners’ past performance experience to meet the requirement to identify four (4) comparable projects?

Excluding the Architecture & Engineering (A&E) design team technical experience , the requirement to submit project examples to demonstrate technical capabilities is generally limited to the prime Offeror or JV and project examples [performed by subcontractors or affiliates (unless in a formal JV) are not considered. However, Phase II – RFP will outline all of the past performance requirements.

53 Final_2025+Phase+I+MMR_CAT1_SB - Phase II (page 4) - “comparable projects of similar size, scope, and complexity” Will the Government provide additional clarification on what qualifies as “comparable projects of similar size, scope, and complexity” for purposes of the Phase I or Phase II past performance requirement?

As stated on page 4, Phase II criteria are separate and distinct from the US Person eligibility criteria relative to the Omnibus Act under Phase I. Additional information regarding comparable projects for Phase II – RFP will be included in the Phase 2 instructions and evaluation criteria.

54 Our reading of the brief is that Phase 1 submission is a Statement of Qualifications (MMR#1), Security Clearance Requirements Confirmation (MMR #2), and an active SAM.gov registration (MMR #3) for the Prime contractor/builder applicant. We’d like to confirm that no qualifications are requested for the design team.

Correct, Phase II – RFP will outline the requirements for the Design team.

55 The brief states that “this IDIQ is available for use Department-wide to include but is not limited to the Bureaus of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO), and Political-Military Affairs.” Can you provide a few examples of the types of facilities that may be a part of this IDIQ?

Generally, this IDIQ will provide design and/or construction services to overseas diplomatic missions including but not limited to US Embassies, Consulates, Annexes, Warehouses, and Embassy Owned Residences. The project scope listed on Page 2 of the Phase I – MMR lists the type of design and/or construction services included under this IDIQ.

56 For Certification #4 are there any project templates teams should be using for presentation of project relevancy

Offerors should present the information in an appropriate format to address the required information outlined in Certification #4 Bullet Points a-g.

57 For Solicitation 19AQMM25R0207 can you share with me who the current incumbents are?

The current incumbent IDIQ holders are:

Constructure-Trison JV GRK Bhate JV

TI-SDC JV

Venesco Aimcon Design Build, LLC HSU Development International Construction Services Sea PAC Engineering Bhate Environmental Associates EG Designbuild Spectrum Electrical Services Tidewater, Inc Futron, Inc High Sierra Contracting JV Navigator International Vortex Spectrum LLC (VSJV Relyant Global Horizon Construction Group

Inspection Experts, Inc Meltech Corporation Trison Construction Inc Bering Straits Information Technology Northwind Engineering Olgoonik Logistics BL Harbert Desbuild Inc Framaco International

58 Can we respond as a JV where each member of the JV has a TS/FCL?

Our JV partner is also SDVOSB.

Yes, an offeror may respond as a JV. See response for question #21 regarding FCL sponsorship.

59 Both TS and Secret are listed as being required. Can we use Secret cleared personnel to perform work or will TS be required?

As stated in the response to question #21, an IDIQ will not be awarded to any offeror who does not have at minimum a Secret FCL with Secret safeguarding; the overall requirement is for a Top Secret FCL with Secret safeguarding.

Additionally, each Task Order Proposal Request will delineate the security requirements related to that specific requirement and location.

60 Safeguarding is a requirement. We do not have safeguarding now but could pursue if the DD254 provided requires it and if DOS will wait until we secure it. Alternatively, we have a design partner well known to OBO and DOS that does have safeguarding; can the safeguarding requirement be met by a subcontractor where we provide CAGE Code and safeguarding credentials?

See response to question #21, the safeguarding requirement cannot be met by a subcontractor.

61 Should we include Past Performance from our Design Engineer Subcontractor or just for construction projects?

See responses to questions 10, 35 and 36.

62 Regarding Certification #4 of the Statement of Qualifications (Page 5):

The solicitation states that, “To demonstrate performance of similar construction work for Omnibus Act purposes, the offeror needs to provide information demonstrating that it has successfully completed

Yes, non-federal work completed in the United States is acceptable to determine eligibility for Certification #4.

in the United States or on a Federal Contract abroad a construction contract or subcontract involving work of the same general type and complexity as the solicited project with a value of at least $8 million.”

Could the Department of State please clarify whether construction work successfully completed in the United States under non-federal (e.g., state, local, or private sector) contracts may also be considered acceptable for the purposes of meeting this requirement?

63 Regarding Certification #4 of the Statement of Qualifications (Page 6):

The solicitation states: “To the extent the Offeror anticipates proposing two or more entities in Phase II and/or will rely on related entities to perform under the IDIQ contract and/or to meet the stated requirements of the Solicitation, the Offeror should be structured as a formal JV or Prime/Subcontractor and the Offeror itself (formal JV or Prime) must be registered in SAM.gov.”

Could the Department of State please clarify whether past performance from sister entities, affiliates, or proposed subcontractors will be considered acceptable and responsive to the requirements outlined in the Statement of Qualifications?

See responses to questions 35 and 36.

64 Business Licensing Requirements:

Will IDIQ contract holders be required to obtain a local business license or legal registration in each country where future Task Orders are issued? If so, will this requirement apply at the IDIQ level or on a Task Order–specific basis?

Phase II – RFP will outline any general requirements regarding business licensing. Future Task Order Proposal Requests will delineate requirement and country specific requirements. Generally, contract holders will be required to obtain a local business license/legal registration in order to do business and request Value Added Tax reimbursement.

65 Bonding Requirements:

Could the Department of State please clarify the bonding requirements for IDIQ contract holders? Specifically, will a blanket bond be required for the base contract, or will bonding be determined on a Task Order–by–Task Order basis depending on the scope, location, and nature of the work?

Phase II – RFP will outline the bonding requirements and DOS may request evidence of the ability to obtain bonding. Bonding will be required at the task order level and generally it is 100% of the task order price for performance and payment bonds.