QA_ResponsesAug2026.pdf

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

DATE of

REPLY

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE

AMEND.

REQD?

The Past Performance section on page 4 requires work from the Northwestern part of the US, yet the special notice is for the upper Midwest to include states such as Nebraska and Kansas.

Can the government please confirm that any past performance within the states included in the special notice are acceptable and relevant to this opportunity??

Past performance within the states included in the special notice are acceptable and relevant.

Amend with the following language "Federal and State land management agencies within the states covered by this notice during the past (3) years."

YES

Within section 2 on page 3, a number of engineering services are listed as services the proposing firm must provide. Does the government expect to see a resume in section E for each of those disciplines?

The government expects to see information demonstrating ability and capacity to perform the work included in the notice.

NO

Can the government please define the difference between the river mechanics/hydraulics engineering services and the hydraulic engineering/hydrology services and does the government expect to see resumes for both?

The two topics may be covered within the same resume. River mechanics/hydraulics engineering is intended to cover river/stream behavior while hydraulic engineering/hydrology services is intended to cover water movement across landscapes and infrastructure

NO

A large majority of the specialized experience is relating to bridges. But one bullet on page 3 requires “Provide airport engineering capabilities for heliports, airstrips, or fire depots.”

These types of structures are also not covered in the typical projects section on page 1. Is this an accurate requirement? Can the government please define how much weight in the evaluation of proposals will be placed on these capabilities as they are massively different from the other specialized experience required?

Delete " Provide airport engineering capabilities for heliports, airstrips, or fire depots"

YES

Under Capacity on page 4, can the government please define what a “very short turnaround window” is?

Although the definition of a short turnaround may vary by project, it is common for the USFS to request engineering services that require site visits within 48 hours.

NO

Under selection criteria, 5 areas are listed. But under the evaluation factors, only 4 are present. #5, Location, is not. Can the government please confirm that they are not evaluating offerors locations in regard to the upper Midwest states listed in the special notice?

Add the following evaluation factor:

5.Location Experience in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project where applicable..

YES

Are PPQs and CPARS utilized to fulfill the requirements in part 4 of page 4 allowed to be included in an appendix after the Part IIs of the SF 330 and therefore not used against the page count?

CPARS, PPQs do not count against page limit

NO

Can the Government provide an estimated breakdown of anticipated task orders by discipline (bridge inspection, bridge design, AOP structures, roadway design, water/wastewater systems, geotechnical, environmental, surveying, etc.)?

Each of the five categories—AOP design, bridge design, bridge inspection and load rating, roadway design, and water/wastewater—has accounted for approximately 15% of all task orders over the past five years. The remaining 25% falls under the “Other” category.

NO

Will bridge inspection, load rating, and bridge-related engineering services constitute the majority of anticipated task order dollars under this IDIQ, or are civil/site, water, wastewater, and transportation projects expected to represent comparable workload?

see response above in row 13

NO

Q&A LOG

(A-E) CIVIL STRUCTURAL IDIQ FOR NORTHERN & CENTRAL STATES OF INTERIOR US

SPECIAL NOTICE 1240LN26R0001

The solicitation states under the “Submission Requirements” section that "The current SF 330 must be used and may be obtained from the following web site: Standard Form 330 - Architect-Engineer Qualifications (gsa.gov)." The current SF-330 is a fillable PDF form. Can you confirm that firms may use their own versions of these forms as long as the font size and margins comply with the current SF 330?

"The current SF 330 must be used and may be obtained from the following web site:

Standard Form 330 - Architect-Engineer Qualifications (gsa.gov)."

NO

For specialized services such as rope-access inspections, underwater inspections/ROV services, UAV inspections, NDE services, and SPRAT/IRATA-certified personnel, does the Government require these capabilities to be included on the proposed team at time of SF330 submission, or may they be added later through task-order-specific subcontracting arrangements

See response on row 7

NO

Is there an incumbent(s) for this requirement? If so, can the government please provide who those contractors are?

This is a new requirement. Incumbents for this specific requirement, do not exist. However, a previous contract covered MT, ND, SD, and ID. The awardees of the previous contract covering MT, ND, SD, and ID were Great West Engineering, DJ&A, TD&H Engineering, and Robert Peccia and Associates (RPA) Engineering.

NO

Can the government please provide more information on the requirement “Provide highly complex, unique bridge designs for which there are no existing code provisions” on page 3?

Delete "Provide highly complex, unique bridge designs for which there are no existing code."

YES

Page four, submission requirements: font size is specified as no smaller than 12-point font.

However, the SF330 form uses a 10-point font, and the font size cannot be modified within the form. May respondents use the 10-point font utilized by the SF330 form?

Yes, when completing SF330s, respondents may use the 10-point font default established in the SF330 form

NO

Page four, submission requirements: page size is specified as “shall be 8 ½” x 11”. May firms use an 11” x 17” page for the organizational chart?

Yes

NO

The solicitation states under the “Submission Requirements” section that "All fonts shall be at least 12 point or larger and pages shall be 8 ½” x 11”. The SF-330, Part I forms have default fonts embedded that range from 9 to 10 pt. Can the default font sizes found in the SF- 330 forms be used?

Yes, when completing SF330s, respondents may use the 10-point font default established in the SF330 form

NO

Could an 11x17 sized sheet be used for the organizational chart, and if so, can it count as a single page?

Yes

NO

Page 1 states “The total amount for the contracts shall not exceed $8M.” Will the government please confirm that this ceiling is per IDIQ, and not the total amount for all contracts combined?

The combined MATOC ceiling shall not exceed $40M.

YES