Amend_01_Qs_and_As.pdf

70Z05018RENVES200, USCG ENV Engineering Services IDIQ MATOC Amendment 01 Questions and Responses

1. Are the Qs and As posted with the Final Synopsis to be considered a part of the

Final Synopsis?

Answer: The Qs and As posted with the Final Synopsis are considered supporting and clarifying information to the Final Synopsis. If there are inconsistencies between the Qs and As documents and the Final Synopsis as amended, the Final Synopsis as amended shall govern.

2. This section states the SF-330 must include Joint Venture documentation. Where in the submission should this documentation be located; after the Part II forms?

Answer: After Part II forms is acceptable.

3. Please confirm the requirement is for a "Hydrologist" vs a "Hydrogeologist".

Answer: The résumé submitted shall state “Hydrologist” which was selected to align with the function codes in the SF 330. The qualifications of the person provided could be for either position and will be considered to meet the criteria.

4. Please clarify definition of a project. Will USCG allow a "project" to include multiple Task Orders at a single location?

Answer: See the definition of project added to the amended synopsis.

5. Where would you like the tab for the Past Performance (PPQs and CPARS) be located in the Part I submission? Immediately following the Section F project profiles, immediately following Section H, or after the Part IIs?

Answer: After Section F project profiles is acceptable.

6. Standard page margins for SF-330 form are 1/2" on all sides. Is this acceptable?

Standard font size for fillable GSA SF-330 form is 10 point for text entries. Please clarify if GSA SF-330 forms converted to MSWord require 11 point or 10 point fillable text.

Answer: 1/2" margins are acceptable. 11 pt. font for all content added by the firm; default font size as included in the SF 330 forms available from GSA is acceptable.

7. Page 6 of 10, Section 3.1, Paragraph 1: In response to Question 10 from the Draft

Synopsis Comments and Responses document, it appears language has been added to Section 3.1 of the Final Synopsis to limit bidders for this procurement to only registered/licenses engineering firms. Specifically, Section 3.1 has been revised to state “Provide information that demonstrates the firm is a registered/licensed engineering firm. Provide proof that the firm and its proposed team are permitted by law to practice the profession of engineering.” Our firm is not a

70Z05018RENVES200, USCG ENV Engineering Services IDIQ MATOC Amendment 01 Questions and Responses registered/licensed engineering firm. However, our firm is currently providing a vast amount of compliance, restoration and liabilities, planning, and sustainability and training support similar to the Description of Work for numerous Federal government clients. In our experience, the vast majority of this work can be successfully completed by a firm that is not a registered/licenses engineering firm. In cases where work does require an engineering license, our firm has numerous Professional Engineers on staff or our teaming partner AE firms will complete the work.

As it will significantly impact our teaming strategy for this opportunity, can you clarify if firms other than registered/licenses engineering firms can bid on this solicitation. Specifically, is it reasonable to assume a prime firm can be rated as “most highly qualified” in Step One (Slate) without being a registered/licensed engineering firm?

Answer: As defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR 36.601-4), professional services of an engineering nature are defined by State law. The U.S. Coast Guard requires direct privity of contract with firms who can comply with State laws and have appropriate credibility with State regulatory authorities. An offeror need not be licensed/registered as an engineering firm in every state to submit a SF 330 for this requirement. A prime firm who is not licensed or registered in any state as an engineering firm would fail to meet the Professional Qualifications Criteria and their SF330 would not be considered any further and would not be considered for advancing in Step One.

8. Must the prime for the small business reserve be licensed to perform engineering services? Other federal contracting agencies have awarded A-E contracts to firms not licensed as engineering firms. If the small business prime must be licensed, may it be licensed to perform engineering services in any state? This licensing requirement may restrict small business competition for a contract whose scope is much broader than engineering, as evidenced by the requested key personnel and scope.

Answer: Yes, the small business must be licensed/registered in a state as an engineering firm, but need not be licensed in every state.