ACP DB II CAPABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE (RFI2).pdf
PDF 123 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ACCESS CONTROL POINT PROGRAM DESIGN BUILD II -- RFI(2) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W912DY-20-R-0045
About this file
This document contains a capability questionnaire for a multiple award task order contract (MATOC) to provide design-build construction services in support of Access Control Points (ACPs) across the United States. The services will include surveying problem areas, evaluating and recommending solutions, developing and implementing work plans, and providing support throughout the design process. The Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Support Center in Huntsville is the contracting agency.
The questionnaire asks respondents to describe relevant experience, capability to work in different states and territories, and preferences regarding regional breakouts into six, four, or two regions. Respondents are also asked to specify the number of regions and task orders they could support. Information is requested on potential barriers in the statement of work and whether it is appropriately restrictive or broad.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| ACP DB II SOW .pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ACCESS CONTROL POINT PROGRAM DESIGN BUILD II
CAPABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE (2)
W912DY-20-R-0045 (Formally known as W912DY-19-R-0016)
1. Provide a brief capability narrative indicating your firms experience and qualifications with similar type services as listed in the Statement of Work (SOW).
2. Does your company have the ability to work in the following areas (select all that may apply):
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming District of Columbia Puerto Rico Other US Territories
3. Rank your company’s preference of regional breakout (1 being most preferred, 3 being least preferred).
OPTION 1: SIX REGIONS (as defined below)
Region 1: Maryland, Virginia, New York, Kentucky, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia
Region 2: Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi
Region 3: Colorado, Washington, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin
Region 4: Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada
Region 5: Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico
Region 6: Other US Territories
OPTION 2: FOUR REGIONS (as defined below)
Region 1: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, South Dakota, Wisconsin
ACCESS CONTROL POINT PROGRAM DESIGN BUILD II
CAPABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE (2)
W912DY-20-R-0045 (Formally known as W912DY-19-R-0016)
Region 2: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Region 3: Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico
Region 4: Other US Territories
OPTION 3: TWO REGIONS (as defined below)
Region 1: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Alaska, Hawaii, Other US Territories
Region 2: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Puerto Rico
4. Would your company prefer the regions be broken out differently? If so, provide your region breakout preference.
5. If the MATOC included the Six, four, or two region options, how many regions would your company consider participating in for a solicitation:
1 region 2 regions 3 regions 4 regions 5 regions all regions regardless of locations? Please provide a brief rationale for your choice.
6. Would your company prefer one MATOC that included all regions or separate MATOCs for each region? Please explain.
7. Based on the region breakouts listed above, is Option 1 too broad (i.e. should the regions be broken out further)? Please provide a brief rationale.
8. What are some potential barriers in the SOW that may be limiting competition for this requirement? Please provide SOW section number with explanation.
9. Is the SOW too restrictive or too broad? Please provide rationale.
10. Our firm is capable of performing the following number of task orders simultaneously:
1 order 2-5 orders 6-10 orders 11-15 orders 16-20 orders
21-30 orders 30+ orders simultaneously.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .