Attachment 1 - Government Responses.pdf

EASTERN REGIONAL ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING (ERAE) SYNOPSIS

80GRC024R0006 Amendment 0001

Attachment 1 – Government Responses

Released: August 2, 2024

Question 1 (Q1). Would you consider extending the submission deadline?

Response 1 (R1). The submission deadline remains August 22, 2024.

Q2. Regarding PPQs on page 9, per the instructions, firms must request customers submit their completed questionnaires via e-mail to arrive no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on August 22, 2024. If for some reason, the customer returns the PPQ to after date/time, is there a buffer period where the government would still accept those questionnaires?

R2. The submission deadline for PPQ’s is August 22, 2024.

Q3. Regarding page limitations, the SF330 response is limited to 40 pages. We request that SF330 Part I and II not be included in the page limitation.

R3. The SF330 Parts I and II as well as any “Extra Section of the SF330” submitted will be included in the

40-page limitation, per Section VII of the Synopsis.

NOTE: Only the fillable pages of the SF330 are considered in the page limit. NOT the Instructions pages.

Q4. According to the RFP, the following documents are excluded from the 40-page limitation

(Submission transmittal cover pages, tab pages, tables of contents, signed amendments (if applicable), licensure/accreditation copies, copies of Section I from submitted PPQs, and completed CPARS evaluations). Can the SF330 Part II also be included in the exclusion list?

R4. See R3.

Q5. Please exclude Part II pages from the 40-page count limit. Including Part II in the page count limit prevents bidders from filling out our teams with highly qualified teaming partners, particularly small businesses.

R5. See R3.

Q6. We respectfully request to remove the Part IIs from the 40-page limit.

R6. See R3.

Q7. Regarding page counts, if the government does not want to exclude Part IIs from the page count, could the government extend the page count to 50 pages?

R7. See R3.

Q8. Regarding page counts, currently the government has only allowed 40 pages for the SF330 Part I and Part IIs. Assuming we provide the minimum required pages in Part I, this includes: 1 page for

Sections A-C, 1 page for Section D, 15 pages for Section E, 15 pages for Section F, 1 page for Section G

(assuming firms are allowed to alter the form in Word to add additional columns instead of using a second page), and 1 page for Sections H-I. Already, without any Part IIs, firms are using a minimum of

34-35 pages. Since we need to provide Part IIs for every relevant office location for every team member, firms will certainly be over the page count. Instead, can the government confirm that Part IIs will be excluded from the page count?

R8. See R3.

Q9. Given the comprehensive list of services, facility types, and systems with qualifications requested to be demonstrated in both Evaluation Factors 1 and 2, we ask for an additional 10 pages, bringing the page limit to 50 pages.

R9. See R3.

Q10. The requirement for 15 resumes and 15 projects leaves only 9 pages for Section H. We respectfully request the page limitation for Parts I and II be increased to 50 pages.

R10. There is no requirement for 15 projects. Under the “Specialized Experience” evaluation criteria on

Page 6 it states firms should, “provide no more than fifteen (15) projects in Section F of the SF 330.” In other words, 15 projects is a maximum, not a requirement.

Q11. Considering required pages is already at 35 pages to address Sections A-D (minimum 3 pages), Section E (minimum 15 pages for resumes), Section F (minimum 15 pages for projects), Section G

(minimum 2 pages), there is not adequate pages to address Section H as well as the necessary pages for

Part IIs for multiple offices and subconsultants. Please consider removing the Part IIs from the page count and/or increasing the page limit.

R11. See R3 and R10.

Q12. Due to the number of projects allowed, fifteen, may Section G also be excluded from the pages count as we will need to submit two pages to accommodate the number of projects.

R12. See R3.

Q13. The submission page limitations states, “The submission must include SF 330 Parts I and II, together which shall not exceed 40 pages.” The SF330 instruction states that Part II should be provided for each firm that will be part of the proposed team. To meet small business requirements, we intend to have several teaming partners shown in section D. We request that Part II be excluded from the page count.

R13. See R3.

Q14. Would it be acceptable to provide the organizational chart on an 11x17 page? If so, would that count as one page or two?

R14. Please provide the Organizational Chart in accordance with Section VII of the Synopsis. The

Organizational Chart is included in the 40-page limitation.

Q15. We would like to request permission for Section D, Organizational Chart of Proposed Team, be an

11x17 inch document size and counted as a single page.

R15. See R14.

Q16. Given the finite space available in the blocks to enter information in the fillable format SF330 template, would the government allow bidders to include an acronym list exclusive of the 40-page count limit? SF330 packages for NASA typically include numerous acronyms, and spelling these out consumes valuable, limited space on the fillable SF330 pages.

R16. Yes, an acronym list would be considered an exclusion from the 40-page limitation.

Q17. May the copy of the Joint Venture (JV) agreement be excluded from the page count?

R17. Yes, a Joint Venture (JV) agreement would be considered an exclusion from the 40-page limitation.

Q18. Regarding page 7, capacity to accomplish multiple task order, does the following description

“Provide a table indicating, for each project submitted under “Specialized Experience,” which key personnel listed under professional qualifications were part of the design team for that project, in order to demonstrate a history of the proposed team members (and firms) working together.” pertain to

Section G of the SF330 form?

R18. Section D of the SF330 is used to identify key personnel that are part of the A-E team. Section G of the SF330 is used to identify key personnel on example projects. Section H of the SF330 is used to provide additional information not covered in Sections A-G.

Q19. Regarding SF330 fillable forms, the directions are clear that the SF330 forms cannot be modified.

The directions indicate that the native font of the forms is Times New Roman 12pt font. The version that was downloaded with the RFP does not have this font style as the default. Will a new version be provided?

R19. The default font and font size in the SF330 provided as Attachment 4 to the Synopsis shall be used by Offerors. Synopsis Amendment 0001 updates the font requirements for pages submitted in addition to the fillable SF330 Parts and Extra Sections. These supplemental pages shall now use Calibri 11-point font, to align with the Synopsis, Attachment 1: Past Performance Questionnaire and Attachment 2:

Synopsis Provisions (fill-ins provided with qualifications).

Q20. If you have an additional pdf SF 330 form that you would like us to use, that has the TR 12 font embedded, please send that in an addendum.

R20. See R19.

Q21. The SF 330 form does not automatically fill in as Times Roman 12 font, it’s more like Arial 10. We have TR 12 as a font on our computer system, and we have been trying to work within the requirements, but the native fill in is not Times Roman 12.

R21. See R19.

Q22. In VIII, Submission Instructions, it states any submissions that have altered the SF 330 Sections A-H in any way will be considered nonresponsive and will not be considered for selection. The SF330 form provided with the solicitation is defaulting to an Arial font with 10-point type, but stated in the solicitation as New Times with 12-point type, (Page 11). Please confirm if we should use the font consistent with the SF330 from default setting.

R22. See R19.

Q23. Page 11 of the synopsis includes the following: “Note: The form natively uses Times New Roman font with 12-point type with a set cell size.” The fillable cells in the form as downloaded from sam.gov are not set to Times New Roman. Given the prohibition on altering the font, please confirm that the format of the form as provided is correct.

R23. See R19.

Q24. The SF330 template issued with the RFP cannot be edited in any fashion, i.e., we cannot add pages for Sections E or F. Since the requirement is for 15 resumes and 15 projects, we need to be able to insert these pages. Can the government either (1) issue this file again with the ability to add pages, or (2) allow us to use a standard SF330 template and use that without modifications regarding colors, etc.

R24. There is no requirement for 15 projects. Under the “Specialized Experience” evaluation criteria on

Page 6 it states firms should, “provide no more than fifteen (15) projects in Section F of the SF 330.” In other words, 15 projects is a maximum, not a requirement.

Additional fillable forms entitled “Extra Section C, E, F, G, H for SF 330” are available from the GSA.gov website. Firms may download these forms and use them to provide additional information for each applicable section. Any Extra Section pages submitted will be included in the 40-page limitation.

Q25. Regarding the format for Section H, please confirm that the signature page of Section H (Blocks 31-

33) shall be the standard form. For the remainder/supplemental pages, they may be edited in Microsoft

Word with photo and tables as described in the RFP on page 11.

R25. Correct.

Q26. Please allow graphics on the pages of Section H that don't have Section I on the bottom to use a

10-pt font.

R26. Information provided in the fillable SF330 should be in its native font and font size. Information provided to supplement the fillable PDF shall be in accordance with Sections VII and VIII of the Synopsis.

Q27. For Section F, there is room in part 25 to list six firms. If six firm names are not required, then can the A-E remove some rows to allow more space in part 24 for project details?

R27. The SF330 may only be edited to add fillable text in the provided text boxes. The default format shall not be modified.

Q28. Regarding Part II fillable form page 11, many firms have more employee disciplines (box 9) and firm experience types (box 10) than the fillable PDF form allows. Can the government confirm it would be acceptable for firms to use in-house or word versions of the Part II form if extra lines are needed to convey full resources and/or experience?

R28. Once Offerors exhaust the available space on the fillable SF330 Part II, they may use the “Extra

Part 2 of SF330” available for download on the GSA.gov website or their own document in accordance with Synopsis Sections VII and VIII as modified in Amendment 0001 to provide additional information.

Q29. The SF 330 pdf form also does not allow the cells at the bottom of a project page Section F to be deleted for consultants that worked on the project and that would be included in this response. Hence taking up a lot of space that is essentially blank and could be used to provide the requested information.

R29. See R27.

Q30. Would the government be open to accept a Word version of the SF 330, with no modification to block, sizes, font size?

R30. Offerors shall leave the SF330 in its native format (PDF).

Q31. We are submitting as a Prime (lead firm) for the ERAE contract and will have several subconsultants who will be providing Section F projects. To avoid confusion when completing Section 1 of the PPQ, we are advising our subconsultants to list our name in the first block (A-E Team Name) then in parenthesis put their name as subconsultant. Is this approach acceptable?

R31. This is acceptable.

Q32. On page 10 the synopsis states, "The Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) must be included in

Block 30 of the SF 330.” Can an Employer Identification Number (EIN) be used in place of a TIN?

R32. Yes.

Q33. In reference to Item 2, specialized experience and technical competence in the types of work required. We would respectfully like to request that the requirement for the 15 project examples from the last 6 years be amended to 15 projects from the last 10 years for small businesses submitting a response to this solicitation.

R33. There is no requirement for 15 projects. Under the “Specialized Experience” evaluation criteria on

Page 6 it states firms should, “provide no more than fifteen (15) projects in Section F of the SF 330.” In other words, 15 projects is a maximum, not a requirement.

The Government agrees to extend the evaluation period from the immediate six (6) years from the date of this synopsis to 10 (ten) years from the date of this synopsis for all businesses. See Synopsis

Amendment 0001.

Q34. Will completed projects from more than six years ago be considered? The SF 330 form does not stipulate a ‘completed by’ cutoff date for submitted projects.

R34. See R33.

Q35. The SF330 form is limited to 10 projects. Please consider the 15-project maximum to a maximum of 10 projects.

R35. If an Offeror chooses to submit more than 10 projects, they shall use the “Extra Section G of the SF

330” form available on the GSA.gov website.

Q36. From Submission Requirements, Page 11 confirm amount of projects, the verbiage in the synopsis references 1-15 Section F Specialized Experience projects, however, the Section G Matrix has a maximum of 10 projects, instead of the 15 allowed. Can the government confirm the maximum amount of projects required? If we show 15 projects, would a Word version of the SF-330 be allowed to provide the information for those extra projects without altering format parameters?

R36. See R35.

Q37. For design-build projects submitted as experience, is it acceptable to use the date of construction completed as the final date when showing experience within the last six (6) years?

R37. Yes this is acceptable.

Q38. Page 6 states “All projects must be ongoing or completed within six (6) years from the date of this synopsis.” Does “ongoing” meaning an awarded project in design, but not yet constructed, or must the project be fully designed and in construction phase?

R38. An “ongoing” project should at least be at the point where the design is substantially complete.

Q39. If an offeror has completed projects for NASA and would like to include those projects in our SF

330, we will need individual NASA employees to provide the Past Performance Questionnaire. Are they precluded from responding to the Past Performance Questionnaire?

R39. NASA employees are not precluded from completing Past Performance Questionnaire(s) in response to this Synopsis.

Q40. Some government clients will not complete a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and require their contractor to use the official CPARS. Will there be an impact on the evaluation if a Past

Performance project does not have a client submitted PPQ, but does have a submitted CPARs?

R40. As stated in the synopsis, Firms must request customers submit their completed questionnaires. If a completed CPARS evaluation is available for a project identified in Section F of the SF 330, it must also be submitted with the completed SF 330 package. NOTE: The CPARS evaluation is not a substitute for a completed PPQ. If a Firm complies with the instructions in the synopsis, but no PPQ is received for a project, the Offeror’s past performance score as it relates to that project will not be negatively impacted therefore.

Q41. If a contractor is submitting multiple Past Performance projects from the same client, may we lessen the burden on the client by setting up one PPQ covering those projects so the client can evaluate them on one PPQ?

R41. No, Offerors shall submit one PPQ per project identified in Section F in accordance with Section V of the Synopsis.

Q42. The RFP states that a PPQ must be submitted directly to NASA for every project in Section F. The

RFP for the Western Region IDIQ did not require PPQs unless a CPARS was unavailable. Please confirm if this is correct and if NASA would consider changing the requirement to use existing CPARS for projects featured in Section F.

R42. See R40.

Q43. Will NASA determine which firms are a "small business" (with revenue under the threshold identified in the RFQ Synopsis #80GRC024R0006) based on the submitted Part IIs, or do firms need to be certified as a small business?

R43. The Small Business Standard for this acquisition is $25.5M (NAICS code (541330)). It is the responsibility of the offeror to correctly certify their business size in SAM.gov.

Q44. Is licensure in Ohio, Virginia, and Maryland required at the time of the submission or can reciprocal licensure be completed after award?

R44. Licensure in all three states is required at the time of qualification submission.

Q45. Page 3 states “A-E firms shall be required to perform and execute work with professionals certified/licensed in the state of the NASA Center where the work is performed.” If a firm is licensed in every state and we employ responsible professionals in each discipline, some but not all, licensed in each state (OH, MD, VA), do our professionals need to obtain additional licensure in specific states to qualify?

R45. See R44.

Q46. The synopsis on page 5 states, "Moderate emphasis is placed on a firm's senior scheduler with accreditation through the Project Management Institute ..." Is a scheduler with a Project Management

Professional (PMP) certification issued by the Project Management Institute acceptable to satisfy the moderate emphasis instruction?

R46. As long as there is a scheduler at the firm with the PMP certification, this would be acceptable.

Q47. Page 5 states “Submission of personnel qualifications shall indicate professional licensure coverage in Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia or how permitting actions in each of those states will be accomplished in order to meet the intent for state-regulated permits. The A-E firm must provide proof of licenses or professional accreditations for key personnel as part of the submission.” Are ALL professional disciplines listed above required to be licensed in the 3 states or are you simply asking to list who has licensure in each of the states?

R47. The Government is requesting a list of licensed disciplines in each state.

Q48. Page 5 states “Submission of personnel qualifications shall indicate professional licensure coverage in Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia or how permitting actions in each of those states will be accomplished in order to meet the intent for state-regulated permits. The A-E firm must provide proof of licenses or professional accreditations for key personnel as part of the submission.” What does

“permitting actions” refer to? If NASA is a federal reserve, is there a requirement for State or local permitting? If so, could this be covered by other professionals (not the primes on the list) who work in the firm and are licensed in that state?

R48. Permitting actions refers to, for example, activities during construction administration. Yes, this could be provided by another employee of the firm or a subcontractor licensed in the state.

Q49. Page 5 states “One (1) Architect AIA with demonstrated design and ESDC experience of architectural systems.” Is it correct to assume you mean the architect must be a Licensed Architect (LA or RA) in the states. (“AIA” is a professional membership designation, not certification of licensure).

R49. Synopsis Amendment 0001 updates this language to read: “One (1) licensed or registered Architect with demonstrated design and ESDC experience of architectural systems.”

Q50. Page 5 states “One (1) Control Systems Electrical Engineer PE with demonstrated experience with control systems (HVAC, lighting).” Can the Control System professional be a Mechanical Engineer vs. an

Electrical Engineer?

R50. Mechanical and/or Electrical Engineer PE is acceptable.

Q51. From Scope of Services Additional Experience, please provide more detailed information on what is encompassed under ‘Hazard Assessment’ in the context of a project.

R51. As requested in accordance with the applicable task order, the A-E shall develop a hazard assessment which involves identification of hazards in a noted area. Once hazards are identified, mitigation measures shall be proposed for each hazard.

Q52. Regarding single.zip file naming convention: File naming requests to include the name of the firm and subcontractor name (if applicable) in the file name. Should all subcontractor names be included in the file if more than one is proposed?

R52. If possible, abbreviate subcontractor’s names so all can fit within the file name. If this is not possible, firms may list as many subcontractor names as the system will allow.

Q53. Regarding single.zip file contents, should both Volume I (Contract Information) and Volume II

(SF330 Qualifications) be placed in the same .zip file?

R53. Yes.