QnA 9 18 2025.pdf
PDF 387 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Expedited California Road & Bridge Construction
- Solicitation number
- 6982AF25R000003
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers document for a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an Expedited California Road & Bridge Construction Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC), dated September 18, 2025. The solicitation is set aside for small businesses and focuses on road and bridge construction projects. Key points of discussion in the Q&A include clarifications around prime contractor experience requirements, specifically addressing how joint venture, subsidiary, and Mentor-Protégé joint venture experiences can be counted toward evaluation criteria. Potential bidders raised concerns about the $15M minimum project value requirement, which they argue might inadvertently exclude qualified small businesses with relevant but smaller-scale experience. The contracting agency consistently directs respondents to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305 and 13 C.F.R. § 125.11 for guidance on qualifying experience, and has posted Amendment A001 on SAM.gov addressing some of the raised concerns.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment A003.pdf | ||
| Amendment A002.pdf | ||
| QnA 10 16 2025.pdf | ||
| QnA 10 3 2025.pdf | ||
| Amendment A001 .pdf | ||
| 6982AF25R000003.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
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.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .