QnA 10 3 2025.pdf

Questions and Answers during Advertisement for RFP:

Expedited California Road & Bridge Construction MATOC, Volume I

September 18, 2025

Questions Response 1 Are offerors permitted to submit road construction projects performed by sister subsidiaries/affiliate companies to meet the evaluation criteria identified Technical Evaluation Factor 1?

No, assuming the subsidiary/affiliated company is not performing the work as prime contractor.

2 If a small business was a partner in a joint venture that held the prime contract with the government, does that experience qualify as "prime contractor" experience for Factor 1, regardless of the partner's percentage share in the joint venture?

Refer to FAR 15.305 and 13 C.F.R. § 125.11.

3 For projects completed by a small business as part of a Mentor- Protégé joint venture compliant with 13 C.F.R. §125.9 and §125.8, can the small business protégé include this experience as qualifying "prime contractor" experience under Factor 1?

Refer to FAR 15.305 and 13 C.F.R. § 125.11.

4 Given the significant increase in project value requirements to $15M+ contracts compared to similar previous solicitations, would the agency consider adjusting this threshold to ensure adequate small business participation and competition?

See Amendment A001 posted on SAM.gov

5 Will joint venture experience where the offeror was part of the prime contracting entity be considered qualifying "prime contractor" experience under Factor 1 evaluation criteria?

Refer to FAR 15.305 and 13 C.F.R. § 125.11.

6 Would the agency consider whether the $15M minimum project value requirement may inadvertently exclude qualified small businesses with extensive relevant experience in similar environments but on smaller-scale projects?

See Amendment A001 posted on SAM.gov

7 Factor 1 requires firms to have been "the prime contractor," while Factor 3 explicitly recognizes joint venture partner experience. This inconsistency penalizes small businesses who gained qualifying experience through SBA Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures—the federal government's own prescribed pathway for small business development. We request that Factor 1 be modified to recognize experience from Mentor-Protégé and

Refer to FAR 15.305 and 13 C.F.R. § 125.11.

other qualifying joint ventures where the small business performed meaningful work.

8 Technical Evaluation Factor 1, Relevant Experience, instructs Offerors to provide a brief narrative as a “prime contractor” over the past six years, however Technical Evaluation Factor 3, Past Performance indicates that the Government “may” consider past performance information “for the offeror and team members.”

Given the set-aside designation for Small Business, the relevant experience/past performance magnitude and associated criteria requirements, this can be prohibiting for Offeror participation.

Would the Contracting Team kindly consider use of relevant experience and past performance for Factors 1 and 3 to include strategic partnerships (i.e. use of subcontractor experience/past performance) provided a general partnership agreement can be provided?

Experience as a subcontractor does not qualify as prime contractor experience.

October 3, 2025

9 RFP page A-10 indicates Volume I proposals are limited to 20 single-sided pages, excluding a few select sections (e.g., SF1442, Past Performance Questionnaires, Bonding Capacity Letter and the Authority to Bind Certificate). Can the government please clarify whether Covers, Title Pages, Table of Contents, and Section Divider pages, provided solely for organizational purposes, are also excluded from the page limit?

The 20 page limit exclusions are listed in A-10. Other pages not listed in the exclusions count towards the 20 page limit.

10 Regarding the Offeror’s Bidder Information Form, Section 7a requests information to be listed for the owner, partners, officers and directors. Furthermore, 7b indicates to “Attach resumes of these key personnel, as well as the on-site project manager(s) and superintendent(s)…” Can the government please clarify if the intent of the 7b statement is for offerors to provide resumes for all owners, partners, officers and directors, IN ADDITION to the

Yes, that is the intent.

key personnel positions of on-site project manager(s) and superintendent(s)?

11 Instructions on the Bidder’s Information Form state, “If the prospective bidder is a joint venture or general partnership, a separate Bidder's Qualifications form shall be provided individually for each joint venture participant or partner.” Given this is a two-page form with required resume attachments, can the government please confirm that the Bidder’s Form and continuation pages are excluded from the 20-page limit specified for Volume I on RFP page A-10?

The 20 page limit exclusions are listed in A-10. Other pages not listed in the exclusions count towards the 20 page limit.

12 Regarding the Offeror’s Bidder Information Form, section 7, if offerors are required to include resumes for all owners, partners, officers and directors in addition to the key personnel positions of on-site project manager(s) and superintendent(s), this could result in numerous resume attachment pages. Can the government please confirm all resume attachments are excluded from the 20-page limitation specified for Volume I on RFP page A- 10?

The 20 page limit exclusions are listed in A-10. Other pages not listed in the exclusions count towards the 20 page limit. Resumes need not be lengthy and are encouraged to be concise.

13 RFP page A-10 clearly states that Past Performance Questionnaires (Appendix 1) are excluded from the 20-page limit for Volume I. Since Technical Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance allows the use of CPARS evaluations, can the government please confirm that CPARS evaluations are also excluded from the Volume I page limit?

CPARS evaluations are a past performance document and are excluded from the 20 page limit.