Questions and Answers 6982AF25R000016 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION IDIQ 05 06 2026.pdf

6982AF25R000016

Construction Inspection IDIQ

5/6/2026

Questions Answers

1. We have a question regarding the RFQ requirements, the RFQ states that firms must be licensed to practice A&E services could you please clarify what specific licenses are required beyond an individual Professional Engineer (PE) license for providing engineering services?

The RFQ requires that firms be licensed to practice architect-engineer (A&E) services within at least one of the states served by CFLHD. Beyond individual Professional Engineer (PE) licenses, this refers to a state-level Engineering Firm License or a Certificate of Authorization (COA). Firms responding to the RFQ must specify the Engineering Firm License, Certificate of Authorization, or other state-issued approval that permits the Firm to practice architecture and engineering (A&E). Include the license number(s) and the state(s) of issuance.

2. Section 3.2.2 of the RFQ reads: "Firms that have the qualifications to perform the services described in this RFQ and wish to be considered for contract award shall submit a qualifications package to include a Standard Form 330 (SF 330) Architect-Engineer Qualifications, parts I and II, as well as a written response to the evaluation factors 1-5 outlined in RFQ Attachment A - Evaluation Factors."

However, Attachment A lists only Evaluation Factors 1–3. Please clarify how many Evaluation Factors there are.

Please see amendment A001 to RFQ #6982AF25R000016.

3. The RFQ requires submission of both an SF-330 and a written response to the Evaluation Factors. Evaluation Factor 2 (Personnel Qualifications) and Evaluation Factor 3 (Past Performance) correspond directly to information requested in SF-330 Section E (Resumes of Key Personnel) and Section F (Example Projects Which Best Illustrate Proposed Team’s Qualifications for this Contract), respectively. In fact, Evaluation Factor 2 specifically states, “The Firm shall submit these qualifications using the Standard Form 330 (SF- 330), clearly demonstrating each individual’s capability to perform the required construction inspection services and to meet all performance expectations associated with the contract.” How are these two responses (the information provided in the SF-330 and the information provided in the Evaluation Factor narrative) supposed to be different or similar? Should the Evaluation Factor narrative response reiterate what is stated in the corresponding SF-330 section?

The narrative responses serve as a supplement to the structured data in the SF 330. Firms are to address all evaluation items within the SF 330 while providing the information in the sequence required by Attachment A.

Written responses to the Evaluation Factors should be included alongside the SF 330 as part of a single, integrated qualifications package.

4. Should the written responses to the Evaluation Factors be provided as a separate document, or included

Written responses to the Evaluation Factors should be included alongside the SF 330 as part of a single, integrated within the SF-330 as Section H - Additional Information? Also, is the Attachment A chart intended to be included in the submission as a cover sheet for the Evaluation Factor response?

qualifications package. Firms may input information deemed necessary into SF 330 Section H – Additional Information. The Attachment A chart is intended to be included in your submission, but it functions more as a navigational index or reference table rather than just a cover sheet.

5. How many proposed staff does CFLHD expect to see included in Section E of the SF-330? Is there a target range or minimum/maximum number of personnel the Government prefers for COTAs and/or CIs?

The Government does not provide a specific target range or a numerical minimum/maximum for the number of personnel to be included in Section E of the SF 330. Firms should offer sufficient staff to meet the requirements of

CFLHD.

6. On Page 20 of the RFQ , it states that “documentation submitted to identify contracts will not be counted toward the total page limit.” Can you clarify what type of documentation this refers to and/or what CFLHD is expecting to see as far as this documentation?

While your written narrative responses for up to ten (10) projects will count toward the 50-page limit, the actual CPARS reports or equivalent performance documentation from non-federal agencies will not count toward that total.

This allows you to provide full, unedited performance reports to validate your experience without sacrificing space for your technical qualifications.

7. Can you also please confirm when responses to questions are anticipated to be issued?

Please see RFQ Section 4.6. Communications.

8. Is there any incumbent/recompete or this is a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

Please see https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/business/ae-services/contract-holders for information regarding incumbent contract holders.

Questions received on 4/15/2026

9. Our firm intends to submit a proposal under this solicitation as a Joint Venture formed pursuant to an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement. The Mentor-Protégé Agreement will remain active through the proposal submission date but is scheduled to expire prior to contract award. Can you please confirm whether the Joint Venture will still be considered eligible and evaluated as a small business under the Mentor-Protégé Program for this procurement, provided it was properly certified and compliant at the time of proposal submission?

Please see 13 C.F.R. § 121.404 and applicable rules for the SBA Mentor-Protégé program.

10. With our acknowledgement of amendments, do we include only the first page (SF 30 form) in our submittal, or would you like the entire document included? (e.g., Amendment 1 - 80 pages).

Firms should include the signed first page of Standard Form 30 for each amendment to acknowledge receipt, rather than the entire amendment package.

11. Do amendments have a mandatory location in the document, or is their placement at our discretion?

There is no mandated location for the placement of amendments within your submission.

12. Section 3.2 Submission Format, 3.2.3 (pg 11). In the list of pages that do not count toward the 50 pages, please advise if the following can be included with our

The RFQ specifically excludes cover letter, tab dividers, amendments to this RFQ, and back cover. Additionally, supporting materials in an appendix, such as maps, graphs, and charts, are excluded.

https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/business/ae-services/contract-holders https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/business/ae-services/contract-holders submittal and whether or not they count towards the 50 page count:

-Graphical Cover -Table of Contents

13. Attachment A - Evaluation Factors Form (pg. 17) Does Attachment A have a mandatory location in the document, or is its placement at our discretion?

There is no mandated location for Attachment A within your submission.

14. Evaluation Factor 3 asks to provide a list of up to ten

(10) construction inspection services contracts awarded to the firm and completed within the past six

(6) years. Does the 6-year requirement apply only to the completion date?

Yes. The completion date must fall within the six-year window preceding the proposal due date.

15. Can SF 330 Part IIs be excluded from the page limit? No. SF 330 Part II cannot be excluded from the page limit.

Part II will be excluded towards the 50-page limit.

16. In Attachment A, Evaluation Factor 3 asks to provide “15. Past performance documentation from the client agency.” Many client agencies do not provide this information. Would a client letter of recommendation for staff who worked on that project be acceptable?

Individual staff letters of recommendation do not fulfill the requirements for Past Performance documentation under Evaluation Factor 3.

Questions received on 4/16/2026

17. The RFP Attachment A, Evaluation Factor 3, says

“Provide a list of up to ten (10) construction inspection services contracts awarded to the firm and completed within the past six (6) years…”. (Underline added for emphasis). Please verify that individual Task Orders under IDIQ Contracts qualify as a “contract” in this context.

Yes. For the purposes of Evaluation Factor 3, the Government will consider individual Task Orders issued under an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract or Master Service Agreement (MSA) as separate “contracts.” Offerors should ensure that each Task Order listed includes its own unique project description, specific dollar value, and a completion date within the required six-year period.

18. The RFP Attachment A, Evaluation Factor 3, asks for 15 pieces of information for each project. It also states," Documentation submitted to identify contracts will not be counted toward the total page limit."

Please clarify if items 1-15 will not be included in the 50-page count? Should this additional material be submitted on the SF330Section F pages or in the separate appendix that will not be included toward the maximum page count?

The 15 required data points for each project (e.g., project name, value, dates, etc.) are considered part of the core evaluation criteria and will count toward the 50-page limit if included in Section F of the SF330. However, "documentation" such as actual contract awards, CPARS reports, or project completion certificates submitted to verify those 15 points will be considered "supporting documentation" and will not count toward the page limit.

These should be placed in a separate, clearly labeled Appendix.

19. RFP section 3.2.4 states “All documentation should be in an 8.5 x 11 inch electronic format…”. Can the Origination Chart, which is required to be included as an attachment in 3.2.5, be presented in an 11 x 17 inch electronic format?

Please adhere to the requirement specified in RFQ Section 3.2.4.

Questions received on 4/17/2026

20. Does CFLHD want to see SF 330 Section E Resumes only for the prime firm, or should subcontractor resumes be included as well?

Please see instructions for SF 330, Part I, Section E.

21. Similarly, for SF 330 Section F Example Projects, does CFLHD want to see projects only performed by the prime firm, or those performed by subcontractors?

The Government intends to evaluate the qualifications and experience of the entire proposed team in accordance with SF 330. Accordingly, Section F example projects may be performed by the prime firm, joint-venture partners, or key subcontractors to demonstrate the collective capability of the team. The evaluation of operational capacity will similarly consider the total size of the workforce, inclusive of both prime and subcontracted personnel.

22. I understand the prime has to fill out SF 330 Part IIs for each branch office that will be involved in performing the work. Do subcontractors also have to provide?

Yes. Please see instructions in SF 330.

23. Section 3.2 Submission Format, 3.2.3 (pg 11). In this statement, “Please note that SF 330s are not required for all subcontractors, subconsultants, or joint venture partners.”

Please confirm that all you want from our subconsultants are their names to appear on SF330 Part I, Section C, Blocks 9,10 and 11, Section D Organization Chart, and by name, brief company description, and resources in the Evaluation Factor criteria responses in Section H?

The Government requires a separate SF 330 Part II for every firm and branch office performing a key role on the proposed team. Subconsultants must be formally identified in Part ISection C. Proposal Team. Additionally, subconsultant personnel must be included in Part I, Section D. Organizational Chart of Proposed Team andPart I, Section EResumes of Key Personnel Proposed for this Contract, to demonstrate technical qualifications. You must also account for subcontracted personnel when describing your firm's total operational capacity under Evaluation Factor 1.

24. Section 3.2 Submission Format, 3.2.3 (pg 11). In this statement, “Please note that SF 330s are not required for all subcontractors, subconsultants, or joint venture partners.”

Do you require an SF 330 Part II for our subconsultants? If so, are theirs and the prime firm’s SF 330 Part II included in the page count?

Please see response to Question #22.

All portions of the SF 330, including the Part IIs for the prime and subcontractors, are included in the 50-page limit.

25. Additional Services and Other Classifications (OC)

RFQ Section 2.1.3 Additional Services: Are the additional services described in this paragraph considered “Other Classifications (OC)” as define in Section 2.5? Is it our discretion what positions we define as OC, such as, Scheduler Reviewers, Corporate Contract Manager (CCM), Off-site Project Office Assistant?

The Additional Services defined in Section 2.1.3 are categorized as Other Classifications (OC), with specific qualifications established on a case-by-case basis per individual Task Order. Evaluation Factor 2 requires the submission of professional qualifications specifically for COTA, CI-I, and CI-II positions. Corporate or administrative roles cannot be defined as OCs and must be treated as indirect overhead costs rather than direct contract charges.

26. Evaluation Factor (EF) #3 – Attachment A Per the SF 330 instructions*, it states that projects can be ongoing and a narrative is required to explain the completion status; however, EF #3 states instruction state the projects have to be COMPLETED in the past 6 years. Please confirm if we can include ongoing projects in SF330 Part F and in our response to EF #3.

*SF 330 Section F Instructions Year Completed. Enter the year completed of the professional services (such as planning, engineering study, design, or surveying), and/or the year completed of construction, if applicable. If any of the professional services or the construction projects are not complete, leave Year Completed blank and indicate the status in Brief Description of Project and Relevance to this Contract (block 24).

While the standard SF 330 instructions permit ongoing projects, Evaluation Factor 3 of this solicitation specifically requires contracts that were completed within the past six years. Therefore, all projects submitted for this factor must demonstrate a final completion date within that window to satisfy the requirement for successful performance.

Questions received on 4/20/2026

27. Evaluation Factor (EF) #3 – Attachment A

Do the 10 projects have to be AWARDED in the past 6 years or just completed in the past 6 years?

Please see response to Question # 14.

Questions received on 4/22/2026

28. RFI dated 4.15.26, Q&A #3 and 4. Please clarify

"alongside the SF330 as part of a single integrated qualifications package". Is Attachment A. Evaluation Factors response to be provided as a separate document? If it is intended to be a separate document, is it included in the 50-page submission limit?

Your submission must be in electronic file format that includes both the Standard Form 330 (Parts I and II) and your written responses to the Evaluation Factors.

Questions received on 4/24/2026

29. RFP, Attachment A, Evaluation Factor 1 says: “Identify the number of staff who currently hold Professional Engineer (PE) licenses, and specify the Engineering Firm License, Certificate of Authorization, or other state-issued approval that permits the Firm to practice architecture and engineering (A&E). Include the license number(s) and the state(s) of issuance.” (Bold and Underlining added for emphasis)

Please provide both the license number and State of Issuance for all Employees, Engineering Firms and Subs if applicable.

Questions Received on 4/27/2026

30. For the Construction Inspection Services RFQ, Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance requires CPARS. If CPARs are not available what should be provided in lieu of?

Provide relevant past performance for projects performed commercially as applicable for this RFQ.

31. Is there a PPQ available? Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) has been added as an attachment to the RFQ.

Questions Received on 4/29/2026

32. The amendment to this solicitation (SF 30) requires acknowledgment in Block 19 of the SF 1442. Please provide the executed SF 1442 for inclusion with our submission.

Reference to the SF 1442 has been removed from the SF

30. Please acknowledge the amendment itself.

33. To address the evaluation factors, do we duplicate sections E and F in section H or just provide added write ups?

Please follow the procedures as stated in the RFQ and SF 330.

34. In the Q&A document posted on 4/24, the Answer to Question 25 states "The Additional Services defined in Section 2.1.3 are categorized as Other Classifications (OC), with specific qualifications established on a case-by-case basis per individual Task Order. Evaluation Factor 2 requires the submission of professional qualifications specifically for COTA, CI-I, and CI-II positions. Corporate or administrative roles cannot be defined as OCs and must be treated as indirect overhead costs rather than direct contract charges."

Evaluation Factor 2 requires resumes for the COTA, CI-I, and CI-II positions to evaluate technical competence.

Would you prefer resumes provided only for the COTA, CI-I, and CI-II positions, or would you allow a firm to submit resumes for additional staff, such as Corporate Contract Manager (CCM), hiring, and training?

Questions Received on 4/30/2026

35. We understand the back cover is excluded from the page count. Please confirm whether the front cover of submittal (different from the cover letter) is included in the 50-page limit.

Cover pages are excluded from the 50-page limit.

36. With the number of questions asked to date and additional information required (specifically Past Performance forms), we would like to request an extension for the due date.

The response due date will not be extended.

37. Response to Question #35 stated that a cover page is excluded from the 50-page limit. However, Amendment No. 2 , paragraph 3.2.4, does not have that indicated. Do we go by what the question response is or by the updated RFQ in Amendment No.

2?

Please see RFQ paragraph 3.2.3.

38. Past Performance Questionnaire.

Does this form get sent to the references for each of the 10 projects identified in SF 330 Section F or just ones we choose?

Are we to indicate in our response which references we have requested for a performance review?

Please see RFQ pages 19 and 20, Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance.

39. To address the 15 items for Evaluation Factor 3 (Q&A response #3), is it permissible to expand the one-page form of the SF 330 Section F to be 2 pages, as long as we consider them to be part of the overall 50-page count?

Follow the instructions in Attachment A.

40. In our questions submitted on 4-20-2026, I’ve reviewed the latest round of Q&As and did not see a response to Q1 below.

Q1. Font and Size Requirements

Section 3.2.4. We understand that the Evaluation Factor responses require a minimum of 10 pt. Times New Roman. Is it permissible to use smaller font sizes and font types for charts, maps, tables, organization chart, photo captions, Part H headings, and headers/footers?

No.

41. I submitted four questions on 4/15/26 but have not seen a response to my question #2. I have brought that question forward for your consideration. The other questions I submitted have been answered by responses to similar questions in the Q&A documents to date.

2. Are proposers allowed to recreate the Attachment A

- Evaluation Factors form for ease of incorporation?

Follow the instructions in Attachment A.

Questions Received on 5/1/2026

42. Is it permissible to include bookmarks and hyperlinks in our submittal to guide the reviewers to the Evaluation Factors, particularly in Attachment A where we are indexing responses to certain areas in the document, as well as in Section H to refer the reviewers to different Sections of the SF 330 Part I?

This is with the understanding that hyperlinks would only be within the document and not to an external addresses for additional information.

Yes

43. I am reaching out on behalf of our team regarding RFQ 6982AF25R000016 for Construction Inspection IDIQ services. We are currently in the process of obtaining our Engineering Firm registration (A&E firm license) and anticipate completion shortly.

We would like to request clarification on whether firms that are actively pursuing and nearing completion of their A&E firm registration may still be considered eligible for submission if the registration is finalized after the May 11th due date.

Our team fully meets the personnel qualifications outlined in the RFQ and has the capability to perform the required construction inspection services across the stated regions. We are working to ensure full compliance with all firm-level licensing requirements and want to confirm how this timing may impact eligibility.

Firms must hold a valid license to practice A&E in at least one of the states within the CFLHD geographic region at the time of the May 11, 2026 submission deadline. Because firms are required to provide their license numbers and states of issuance within the response, eligibility cannot be established for registrations finalized after the due date.

44. RFQ Section 3.2.3 states that submissions must not exceed 50 pages, with certain items excluded from the page count (e.g., cover letter, tab dividers, amendments, and back cover). Please confirm SF 330 Part II company forms are also excluded from the 50-page limit.

Please see response to question #15.

45. The RFQ indicates that written responses to the

Evaluation Factors should be included as part of a single, integrated qualifications package and notes that firms may place information within SF 330 Section H

– Additional Information. Please confirm the Government is requesting Evaluation Factor responses to be incorporated directly and only within SF 330 Section H.

CFLHD is not requiring Evaluation Factor responses to be placed only within SF 330 Section H. You should provide a single integrated package where the SF 330 and supplemental narratives work together to address the factors in sequence, using Attachment A to index the specific page numbers for the Evaluation Team.

46. Amendment A002 added a PPQ. The directions included on the PPQ state to email the PPQ “to all references listed above”. Also, there’s a sentence that says the questionnaire shall be utilized in the evaluation of…each past performance evaluation:

Evaluation Factor 3 reads in part, “Past performance documentation from the client agency. For federal contracts this should be from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS)”

Can you please verify that the PPQ form is only intended for past performance on projects that do not have a CPARs? If there is a CPARs rating, then no PPQ is necessary?

A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is attached for optional use to support projects that lack CPARS documentation. It is the firm's responsibility to ensure that past performance is verifiable, whether through CPARS or the provided PPQ format.

47. In light of the addition of a new PPQ form, PSI requests an extension on the due date to give clients adequate time to complete the form.

The submission deadline remains May 11, 2026. The PPQ was provided as a courtesy to facilitate the documentation of past performance where CPARS are unavailable; since it is an optional supplement rather than a universal requirement for all projects, an extension is not deemed necessary.

Received on May 6, 2026

48. CFLHD recently extended the due date for the subject RFQ to May 15 in response to a question re: giving clients adequate time to complete the PPQ form.

However, the PPQ form itself still instructs clients to submit the form by the old deadline (May 11): "Please return the completed questionnaire to Central Federal Lands Highway Division, via email to Douglas Whitcomb at cflcontracts@dot.gov, to arrive not later than by 2:00 pm MDT, May 11, 2026." Is the deadline for PPQ responses also being extended to May 15?

Yes.

49. In question 46 of the latest Q&A, you mention the provided PPQ form is optional. We have already collected relevant documentation of past performance from our other clients, and some will not fill out a form that is not their own. Please confirm relevant past performance documentation, such as client-specific forms and other PPQs (not CPARs or your provided PPQ) are acceptable.

Yes.

50. Could you please provide the geographic location(s) where work will be performed under this contract?

See RFQ Page 13, Paragraph 4.3 Geographic Location of Work

NOTE: All questions must be sent to the appropriate email address stated in the RFQ for them to be considered and answered. Unauthorized communication with Government employees may disqualify your response to the

RFQ.

mailto:cflcontracts@dot.gov