Attachment 9 - Amendment 3 QA FA452826R0002.pdf

FA4528-26-R-0002

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 1 of 39

Questions and Answers – Minot AFB MACC IDIQ

1. Reference Attachment 5, Section M, para 4.2.1; Attachment 4, Section L, para 3.2.2

Section M establishes $1,000,000 as the minimum project value for the relevancy assessment.

Section L, para 1 anticipates task orders ranging from $500 to $10,000,000, and the SOW contemplates major construction within the Weapon Storage Area, Missile Storage Area, and airfield environments.

A $1,000,000 relevancy floor is an order of magnitude below the upper end of anticipated task orders. Will the Government consider either (a) raising the relevancy floor to better align with anticipated task order magnitude, or (b) retaining the $1,000,000 floor for the

Relevant/Somewhat Relevant/Not Relevant determination while additionally requiring that at least one submitted project meet or exceed a higher threshold — for example $5,000,000 — in order to receive a "Relevant" rating?

Our concern is that an offeror whose entire recent portfolio consists of projects near the

$1,000,000 floor may receive the same relevancy credit as an offeror who has delivered projects at the magnitude the MACC will actually order, which may not give the Government an accurate predictor of performance on larger, more complex task orders.

An alternative approach would be to create a pool of GCs for task orders under $1,000,000 and a separate pool for GCs over $1,000,000. We have seen this strategy employed on other AF

MACCs recently. Each pool could consist of 5 GCs and the <$1M pool could be oriented towards those GCs who operate at that scale and are optimized to execute sub-$1M task orders.

The same is true for the pool of GCs with task orders over $1M.

Answer: See Amendment 3, Attachment 5 Section M para 4.2.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.1.2 and

4.2.1.3. Attachment 4 Section L para 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.1.1, 3.2.3.1.2

2. Reference Attachment 4, Section L, para 3.2; Attachment 5, Section M, para 4.2

Neither Section L nor Section M specifies a minimum or maximum number of past performance projects to be submitted, nor a minimum number of projects required to support a given

Performance Confidence Assessment.

Will the Government establish a minimum number of recent, relevant projects — i.e. 3 or 5 — required to support a rating of Substantial Confidence? Absent a stated minimum, the

Government may receive submissions of widely varying depth that are difficult to compare on a consistent basis.

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 2 of 39

3. Reference Attachment 5, Section M, para 4.2.1.2; Attachment 1, SOW paras 20–22

Section M para 4.2.1.2 states that the assessment of complexities "will also consider performance in secure or controlled access environments and in locations with challenging logistical or weather conditions." The SOW establishes that a substantial portion of MACC work will occur within the Weapon Storage Area, Missile Storage Area, and airfield/flightline, and imposes

Entry Authorization List processing of up to 30 days, base access requests of at least 10 days, airfield waiver timelines of up to 12 weeks, U.S. citizenship requirements for restricted-area personnel, and uncompensated delays for restricted-area entry and egress.

Given that these access constraints materially affect schedule performance and are not encountered on conventional commercial or non-installation federal work, will the Government clarify the weight assigned to secure and controlled-access experience within the relevancy assessment? Specifically, may an offeror with no demonstrated performance in a secure or controlled-access environment receive a "Relevant" rating?

Answer: No weight will not be assigned to secure and controlled-access experience within the relevancy assessment.

4. Reference Attachment 1, SOW paras 7–13 (Title I Types A/B/C and Title II services)

The SOW requires the Contractor's Design Team to be fully capable of Title I (Types A, B, and

C) and Title II services, including GIS-format deliverables, structural plans sealed by a registered

Structural Engineer, and fire protection plans sealed by a registered Fire Protection Engineer.

Sections L and M do not require an offeror to identify its A-E teaming partner or demonstrate design-build capability at the MACC level. Will the Government consider requiring offerors to identify a committed A-E team member and demonstrate recent design-build performance, given that design-build task orders are expressly contemplated under this vehicle?

Answer: Not all task orders will require the use of design services. If required, it would be defined in the project requirements at the task order level.

5. Reference Attachment 5, Section M, para 1.2.1; Attachment 2, MACC Ordering Guide, para

5.2.2

Section M para 1.2.1 states the Government intends to award a target of ten (10) contracts, along with a pool of vendors that may be on-ramped at a later date, and reserves the right to award fewer or more than ten.

The Ordering Guide establishes a robust on-ramp mechanism: the CO periodically assesses pool capacity, task order participation rates, and overall performance, and may on-ramp from the established vendor pool at any time without requiring those vendors to re-compete. This

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 3 of 39 mechanism appears designed to allow the Government to restore competition quickly if participation falls.

Given that the Government retains this ability to expand the pool on demand and without a new solicitation, we recommend the Government consider awarding a smaller initial number of contracts — for example five (5) to seven (7) — to the highest-rated offerors, holding the remainder in the vendor pool. This would allow the Government to calibrate the pool to actual task order volume over the first ordering year and on-ramp additional holders only if demonstrated demand supports them, rather than committing to ten contracts before the first

FOPR is issued. From the industry perspective, maintaining a presence and office in/around

Minot AFB is more feasible and attractive when there is a pool size of 5 versus 10. With the ability to on and off-ramp, the Government can exercise that right if any of the 5 primes in the pool aren’t sufficiently participating in bidding the task orders or is not performing satisfactorily.

A pool size around 5 primes would also enhance our ability to invest in the best staff, keep them employed in Minot, and make the right level of investment into servicing this MACC.

We are currently tracking other AF MACCs with typical pool sizes ranging from 4 prime contractors to 7 on the higher end of what we are typically seeing across the AF MACCs that have recently been published.

Answer: Section M para 1.2.1 gives the Government flexibility in the number of awardees.

6. The Ordering Guide provides that a contractor may be off-ramped for "failure to participate," defined as repeatedly failing to submit an acceptable responsive proposal, and requires written justification to the CO for each FOPR not bid.

Will the Government clarify how the participation standard will be applied in relation to pool size? Where a large number of holders (currently 10) compete for each task order, individual holders face a low probability of award per proposal, which can reduce voluntary participation over time. Offerors would benefit from understanding whether the Government will consider the number of eligible competitors per FOPR, or a holder's win rate, when assessing whether a pattern of no-bids constitutes failure to participate.

Answer: Participation failure is defined in para 5.2.1 of the ordering guide. Pool size and number of awardees is not a factor in participation failure.

7. Attachment 2, MACC Ordering Guide, paras 3.2 and 5.1, and Appendices A, B, and C

The Ordering Guide at para 3.2 states that the source selection methodology for each task order will be determined by the Contracting Officer based on the complexity and risk of the requirement, that the Government reserves the right to use any combination of evaluation factors, that price will always be an evaluation factor, and that the specific factors and their relative importance will be detailed in each FOPR. Appendix A confirms that both Lowest Price

Technically Acceptable (LPTA) and Best Value Trade-Off (BVTO) are contemplated.

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 4 of 39

To support capacity planning, teaming decisions, and the development of the Project

Management Plan required under Factor 1, we respectfully request clarification on four related points.

(a) Criteria governing the LPTA / Best Value Trade-Off election. Please provide the general criteria, thresholds, or categories of requirement it anticipates will drive the selection between

LPTA and Best Value Trade-Off? For example, will the Government identify categories of task order — such as those exceeding a stated dollar threshold, those involving design-build delivery, or those with work located within the Weapon Storage Area, Missile Storage Area, or airfield/flightline environment — for which a Best Value Trade-Off is expected to be the presumptive methodology?

(b) Past performance as a task order evaluation factor. Appendix A identifies Technical

(Acceptable/Unacceptable) and Price as the evaluation factors. Past performance is not listed.

The Ordering Guide references CPARS performance at para 5.1, as a basis on which the

Contracting Officer may restrict a holder from competing, and at para 5.2.1, as grounds for off-ramp.

Please confirm whether an awardee's demonstrated performance under this MACC — including

CPARS ratings, schedule performance, safety record, and quality of closeout on prior task orders

— will be evaluated as a factor in the award of subsequent task orders, or whether performance history will function solely as a restriction and off-ramp mechanism? Currently, contractors can only be excluded from competition at the task order level based on past performance. There does not seem to be an indication that technical approach and past performance could enhance the proposal as is typically the case in a BVTO.

(c) Technical rating scheme under a Best Value Trade-Off. Appendix A provides for a Technical rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Where the Government elects a Best Value Trade-Off for a given task order, will the Technical factor be evaluated using a comparative merit rating scheme that permits a tradeoff against price? Under a binary Acceptable/Unacceptable technical rating with no past performance factor, offerors would have difficulty identifying what non-price discriminator the Government would trade against price.

Generally, the technical pass/fail rating would represent an LPTA approach vice BVTO.

Relatedly, Appendix A identifies a single Technical factor rated Acceptable/Unacceptable, while

Appendix B's sample technical proposal format identifies three factors — Factor 1 Technical

Approach and Understanding, Factor 2 Project Schedule, and Factor 3 Project Management. Will the Government reconcile these, and confirm whether Factors 2 and 3 are separately rated?

Answer: Appendix A is an example of a Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR). This criteria may or may not be used.

8. Past Performance Quantity

Question: Section L and Section M define recency, relevancy, and quality requirements for past performance submissions but do not specify the number of past performance projects required.

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 5 of 39

Can the Government please confirm whether there is a minimum or maximum number of past performance projects that offerors must submit for evaluation?

9. CPARS / Past Performance Format

Question: Section M states that the Government may independently obtain CPARS and other data. Should offerors attach CPARS reports or only provide project narratives?

10. Past Performance Format

Question: Section L does not specify formatting requirements for Part II – Past Performance.

Can the Government clarify whether Part II has a page limit, required structure, or required data fields?

11. Section L, Paragraph 3.2 – Past Performance does not specify a minimum or maximum number of projects to be submitted. Please clarify.

12. Please clarify the required information and format for each past-performance project submitted under Part II.

3.2.3.1.2, 4.1.1

13. Section M states that projects valued at $1 million or greater will be considered for relevancy, while the relevancy assessment considers similarity of scope, magnitude, and complexity. Please clarify whether projects of greater magnitude within the anticipated $500–

$10 million task-order range will be considered more relevant than otherwise comparable projects closer to the $1 million minimum threshold.

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 6 of 39

14. Please confirm whether there is a page limitation for Part II – Past Performance.

15. For past performance performed under an IDIQ, MACC, SABER, MATOC, or similar vehicle, should offerors submit individual task orders as separate projects, the underlying IDIQ contract as a single project, or may either approach be used?

Answer: See Amendment #1 Attachment 4 Section L para 3.2.2.1., 3.2.3.1.2 and 4.1.1 and

16. Section L Paragraph 3.2.1 states that the Government will consider past performance regarding “teaming arrangements that may perform aspects of the requirement.” Please clarify whether an offeror may submit past-performance projects performed by a proposed subcontractor/team member and, if so, how many, and how the Government will assess the relevance of that experience relative to projects performed by the prime offeror.

17. [We have] been approached by a Total Small Business Set-Aside contractor that has done federal work in the past and is looking to pair/partner with us to pursue this MACC. My question is; If we pursued this partnership, would it fall under the U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA) Mentor-Protégé Program or the Department of Defense (DoD) Mentor-Protégé Program

(MPP).

Answer: Please see RFO 52.219-14

18. Section L paragraph 3.1 imposes a strict, all-inclusive 20-page limit on Part I that expressly includes the cover page, table of contents, indices, appendices, and supporting data. Please confirm whether the following are counted against the 20 pages: (a) the signed SF 1442; (b) signed amendment acknowledgements (SF 30); (c) Attachment 7, the Financial Responsibility

Authorization Letter; (d) Section K representations and certifications; and (e) a transmittal or cover letter. If any of these are counted, we respectfully request that they be excluded, as they are administrative documents rather than technical content.

Answer: These would not be included in the 20-page limit

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 7 of 39

19. Please confirm that the 20-page limit applies only to Part I - Technical Proposal, and that Part

II - Past Performance is not subject to that limit.

20. No page limit is stated for Part II - Past Performance. Will the Government establish a page limit for Part II, either overall or per project submitted? If none is established, please confirm that offerors may determine the appropriate length.

21. Please confirm the preferred file naming convention and whether Part I (full), Part I

(redacted), Part II, and the administrative documents should be transmitted as separate attachments in a single email, or as separately identified emails.

Answer: No naming convention required

22. Block 13a establishes a due time of 09:00 AM “local time” on 28 September 2026. Please confirm that “local time” means Central Time at Minot AFB, North Dakota, and confirm whether the operative timestamp is the time the email is sent by the offeror or the time it is received by the Government mail server.

Answer: Correct, central time; See Amendment #1 block 13 for changes. In accordance with RFO 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial

Services (Deviation 2026-O0038)” para (c), the operative timestamp is the time the email is received by the Government.

23. Please confirm that an 11″ x 17″ foldout used for a chart, table, or diagram counts as a single page against the 20-page limit.

Answer: Yes, per the Solicitation, Attachment 4 – Section L, para 4.1.1

24. Under “Key Personnel & Oversight,” Factor 1 requires “identification and responsibilities of the Site Superintendent.” Does the Government require a named individual and a resume, or a description of the position, its qualifications, and its responsibilities within the offeror’s management structure? If a resume is required, does it count against the 20-page limit?

Answer: Per section M Factor 1: At a minimum, the plan must detail the Offeror's approach, methodology, and operational controls for managing and delivering the following critical submittal elements including preconstruction and project closeout

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 8 of 39

25. Factor 1 names only the Site Superintendent, while SOW paragraph 4.a requires the key personnel list to include the Program/Project Manager, Quality Control Manager, Project

Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer, and alternates for each. Please confirm whether the Government expects Part I to address only the Site Superintendent, or all key personnel identified in the SOW. Will an offeror that addresses additional key personnel be evaluated unfavorably for exceeding the stated criterion?

Answer: Please refer back to Section M factor 1: At a minimum, the plan must detail the

Offeror's approach, methodology, and operational controls for managing and delivering the following critical submittal elements including preconstruction and project closeout

26. Factor 1 requires plans for “comprehensive equipment and facility training for Government personnel.” The Statement of Work does not define training requirements, durations, formats, or deliverables. Please identify where these requirements are defined - we assume Attachment 3 - or provide the standard the Government will use to evaluate this element.

27. Factor 1 references “beneficial occupancy and handover/training for Government personnel.”

Please confirm whether the Government expects the technical proposal to address the DD Form

1354 (Interim and Final) process, and whether any additional beneficial occupancy documentation is expected at the IDIQ level.

28. Section M states the proposal must demonstrate “a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required at Minot AFB.” Given that no seed project is included and no project-specific requirements are provided, please clarify how this understanding is to be demonstrated and evaluated at the IDIQ level.

Answer: Please refer back to Section M Factor 1: This Factor is satisfied when the Offeror provides a comprehensive Project Management Plan that demonstrates comprehensive administrative capability to execute all contract requirements on schedule and in accordance with established quality standards as defined in the specifications and EM 385

1-1. At a minimum, the plan must detail the Offeror's approach, methodology, and operational controls for managing and delivering the following critical submittal elements including preconstruction and project closeout.

Section L Factor 1 states: Project Management Approach – offeror will propose a comprehensive plan addressing administrative capabilities and the following preconstruction and closeout submittals as defined in the specifications and EM 385 1-1 for: site superintendent, safety plan, quality control plan, red-line and as-built drawings, Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 9 of 39 equipment/ facility training, quality control management prefinal punchlist, beneficial occupancy and handover/training for Government personnel, and warranty binder.

29. Section L does not state a minimum or maximum number of past performance projects to be submitted. Please specify the number of projects the Government wishes to receive, or confirm that the number is at the offeror’s discretion.

30. Will the Government provide a required past performance project data sheet, questionnaire, or Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) template? If not, please confirm the minimum data elements the Government wishes each project narrative to contain (for example: contract number, customer and POC, value, period of performance, scope description, and relevancy rationale).

3.2.3.1.2, 4.1.1 and Attachment 10 Past Performance Portfolio

31. Should offerors submit CPARS reports, Past Performance Questionnaires completed by customer references, or reference contact information alone? If questionnaires are acceptable, will the Government provide a form and a submission address?

32. Where an offeror has performed multiple task orders under a single IDIQ or MACC for the same customer, may the aggregate value of those task orders be presented as a single relevant project, or must each task order be evaluated individually against the $1,000,000 threshold?

33. Attachment 8 requires a signed Consent Letter for each “Major Subcontractor” or “Teaming

Partner” proposed to perform key aspects of the MACC requirements. Please define “Major

Subcontractor” for this purpose - for example, by percentage of work, dollar threshold, or criticality of trade. Is a Consent Letter required for a subcontractor whose past performance is not being submitted for evaluation?

Answer: See Amendment #3, Attachment 4 Section L para 5.1.2

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 10 of 39

34. Given that no task orders and no defined scopes of work exist at the IDIQ level, will the

Government accept Consent Letters from teaming partners the offeror anticipates using, recognizing that the actual subcontractor mix will be determined at each task order?

Answer: Answer: See Amendment 3, Attachment 5 Section M para 4.2.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2,

4.2.1.2 and 4.2.1.3. Attachment 4 Section L para 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.1.1, 3.2.3.1.2, 4.1.1, 5.1.2 and Attachment 10 Past Performance Portfolio.

Attachment 8 is an administrative consent letter. Attachment 8 is only required if an offeror proposes a subcontractor or teaming partner and wishes the Government to consider that partner’s past performance history accessible by the methods outlined in the revised Sections L and M. Where applicable, completed consent setters should be submitted as standalone files in the submission email (either as a single, combined PDF or as separate PDFs). The standalone files do not count against the 20-page limit.

35. The Quality Control Manager must hold a bachelor’s degree in a construction-related field and five years of QCM experience. Will the Government consider substituting additional years of directly relevant QCM experience, or a recognized certification such as USACE Construction

Quality Management for Contractors, in lieu of the degree requirement?

Answer: Please see EM 385-1-1. Please refer to Section L Factor 1 states: Project

Management Approach – offeror will propose a comprehensive plan addressing administrative capabilities and the following preconstruction and closeout submittals as defined in the specifications and EM 385 1-1 for: site superintendent, safety plan, quality control plan, red-line and as-built drawings, equipment/ facility training, quality control management prefinal punchlist, beneficial occupancy and handover/training for

Government personnel, and warranty binder.

36. The Design Team Lead must be a registered and licensed Architect in the State of North

Dakota, and each engineering discipline stamping plans must be licensed in North Dakota.

Please confirm that North Dakota licensure is required only at the time of design performance under a design-build task order, and is not required at the time of IDIQ proposal submission.

Answer: Licensure requirements must hold appropriate licenses at time the work is performed.

37. Block 13b reads “An offer guarantee is, is not required” with no clear indication of which applies. Please confirm whether a bid guarantee (offer guarantee) is required with this proposal, and if so, the required form and amount. This affects offer responsiveness and requires resolution before submission.

Answer: Bonding and Big guarantee is not required on the IDIQ; however, we must keep the solicitation marked for bid guarantee so it will flow to the project specific task orders where bonding and bid guarantee may be required.

38. Section L paragraph 1 states task orders are anticipated to range from $500 to $10,000,000.

FAR 52.216-19 in Section I establishes a maximum single-item order of $25,000,000 and a

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 11 of 39 maximum combination-of-items order of $35,000,000. Please confirm the minumum/maximum value of any single task order that may be issued under this MACC.

Answer: The minimum for the IDIQ awardees is $500 and maximum single order would be

$25M and combined $35M.

39. Paragraph (b)(1) states the required CMMC level is “Not applicable to the base IDIQ contract,” while paragraph (d) directs the offeror to provide CMMC unique identifiers in the proposal. Please confirm whether CMMC UIDs must be submitted with this IDIQ proposal, and whether the omission of CMMC UIDs would be treated as a material omission that cannot be cured by clarification.

Answer: The required CMMC level will be specified at each individual task order level.

Since a CMMC level is not required on the IDIQ itself, offerors are not required to submit any CMMC unique identifiers (UIDs) with their IDIQ proposal. Accordingly, the omission of CMMC UIDs from the IDIQ proposal will not be treated as a material omission. Future task order solicitations will specify the required CMMC level, and awardees will be required to provide the requisite CMMC UID at the task order level to be eligible for task order award.

40. The solicitation applies RFO Part 12 and provisions 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 (Commercial

Products and Commercial Services) to a construction acquisition issued on an SF 1442 under

RFO Part 36. Where the instructions in Attachment 4 (Section L) and the instructions in 52.212-

1 differ, please confirm that Attachment 4 governs.

Answer: Section L of the SF 1442 states “See Attachment 4 – Section L – Instructions to

Offerors.” Where instructions in Attachment 4 differ from the general provisions of RFO

52.212-1, the specific instructions in Attachment 4 – Section L govern and take precedence.

41. Please confirm that performance and payment bonds are required at the task order level, based on the individual task order value, rather than against the $500,000,000 IDIQ ceiling.

Please also confirm whether the Government has established a minimum aggregate bonding capacity that an offeror must demonstrate to be found responsible.

42. Attachment 7 requires the offeror to name its bank and surety and authorize the Government to contact them directly. Please confirm the timeframe in which the Government anticipates making these contacts, so that offerors may give appropriate advance notice to their institutions.

Answer: After receipt of proposal and during the evaluation phases for determining contractor responsibility.

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 12 of 39

43. Block 11 states performance must begin within 30 calendar days and be completed within

3,650 calendar days after award or notice to proceed, and describes the period as “mandatory negotiable.” Please confirm that this reflects the overall ten-year ordering period and that individual task order periods of performance will be established in each FOPR.

Answer: Correct, this is for a 10-year ordering period and the individual task orders would have their individual period of performance for each task order specific project.

44. Section I addresses DD Form 254 requirements conditionally. Please confirm whether a DD

Form 254 will be issued at the IDIQ level, or only at task orders involving classified information, and whether any facility clearance or personnel clearance is required for IDIQ award.

Answer: If DD Form 254’s are required, it would be defined at the task order level and not on the IDIQ.

45. Please confirm whether offerors must complete and return the Section K representations and certifications with the proposal, or whether the annual representations and certifications maintained in SAM.gov may be incorporated by reference under FAR 52.204-19 and DFARS

252.204-7998 Alternate A.

Answer: Please see RFO 52.204-7 “System for Award Management—Registration

(DEVIATION 2026-O0043))” and R-DFARS 252.204-7998 “Alternate A, Annual

Representations and Certifications (DEVIATION 2026-O0043)”. Offerors must complete and include any Section K Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements in their proposals that either differ from or are not otherwise included in their active System for

Award Management registration at the time of their offer submission. Offerors should submit these additional Section K Representations, etc. as a standalone file(s) in their submission email. The additional Section K Representations, etc. will not count against the

20-page limit.

46. The Government intends to award a target of ten contracts “along with a pool of vendors that may be awarded contracts via on-ramping procedures at a later date.” Please clarify how many offerors the Government anticipates placing in the pool, whether pool members will be notified of their status, and how long pool membership remains valid.

Answer: The number of pool vendors is unknown. Pool members will be notified and duration would be for the life of the contract.

47. Where pool members share the same confidence assessment rating, the Ordering Guide provides for a public random selection. Please confirm that pool members will be notified in advance of any such selection event and given the opportunity to observe.

Answer: Yes, pool members would be notified in advance and could be observed in person or via TEAMS or other electronic method.

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 13 of 39

48. Please confirm the anticipated format, location, and date of the Post-Award Conference, and whether virtual attendance satisfies the requirement to earn the $500 minimum guarantee.

Answer: Virtual attendance satisfies the requirement.

49. The SOW requires base access information to be submitted a minimum of ten days prior to requiring access. Please confirm the current typical processing time for base passes and CACs at

Minot AFB, and whether any recent policy changes affect that timeline.

Answer: This is the correct timeline at the present moment. The processing timelines can change at any time without notice. Please note for restricted areas, processing time can be

30-45 days and can also change at any notice.

50. The SOW states the Contractor will not be provided on-base administrative or management space, and that no permanent on-base storage area will be made available. Please confirm whether temporary laydown and staging areas will be assigned at each task order at no cost to the

Contractor.

Answer: Laydown areas would be in the task order level.

51. As-built survey deliverables are required in AutoCAD conforming to Minot AFB CAD standards and USACE CAD Standards v6.2, and in ESRI geodatabase format. Will the

Government provide the Minot AFB CAD standard and any base-specific GIS data schema to awardees, and are these available to offerors prior to proposal submission?

Answer: Yes, will provide any and all standards and schema available.

52. The as-built requirements reference drawing data delivered in “UTM 12N” while survey work is to be tied to WGS 84, UTM 14N. Please confirm the correct UTM zone for deliverables at Minot AFB.

Answer: Will be further defined at task order level and is not required for the IDIQ.

53. Is there a bid bond/bonding capacity letter requirement? On the SF 1442 number 13b, it states a bid bond is required, but there is no mention of it again. If it is required, could you please clarify how much we should be the MACC contract for?

54. Section L, paragraph 3.1 establishes for Part I "a strict, all-inclusive limit of 20 pages, which applies to all components of the submission—including introductory elements (cover page, table of contents, and indices) and supplementary files (appendices and supporting data)." Paragraphs

5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 then require three further documents: a redacted and sanitized copy of Part

I, a completed Attachment 7, and a signed acknowledgment of each amendment.

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 14 of 39

Please confirm whether the redacted and sanitized Part I, the completed Attachment 7, the signed

SF 1442 and any signed SF 30 amendment acknowledgments count against the 20-page limit of

Part I. If they do not, please confirm they should be submitted as separate files, and state whether each belongs with Part I, with Part II, or as a standalone attachment to the submission email.

Answer: The redacted and sanitized Part I, completed Attachment 7, the signed SF 1442, and any signed SF 30 amendment acknowledgements should be submitted as standalone files in the submission email (either as one combined PDF or as separate PDF files). The standalone files do not count against the 20-page limit.

55. The Section M evaluation criteria at paragraph 3.2 require the Project Management Plan to detail the offeror's approach to, among other elements, "Safety Plan: A project-specific Accident

Prevention/Safety Plan" and "Quality Assurance: A comprehensive Quality Control (QC) Plan."

The solicitation states at page 1 that there is no seed project included with this solicitation, and

Section M paragraph 2.1 states that price will not be evaluated at the MACC level.

Please clarify whether Part I should contain the offeror's narrative description of its approach, methodology and operational controls for producing these plans, or whether the Accident

Prevention Plan and Quality Control Plan documents themselves are to be submitted with the proposal. If the documents themselves are required, please clarify what a "project-specific" plan should be specific to, given that no project or task order exists at the time of MACC award, and confirm whether those documents count against the 20-page all-inclusive limit at Section L paragraph 3.1.

Answer: Section L Factor 1 states: Project Management Approach – offeror will propose a preconstruction and closeout submittals as defined in the specifications and EM 385 1-1 for: site superintendent, safety plan, quality control plan, red-line and as-built drawings,

56. Section L paragraph 3.1.1 and the Section M evaluation criteria at paragraph 3.2 both identify the Factor 1 key personnel element as "Key Personnel & Oversight: Identification and responsibilities of the Site Superintendent." Attachment 1, Statement of Work, paragraph 4.a states that "the list of key personnel must include: Program/Project Manager, Quality Control

Manager, Project Superintendent, SSHO, and those position alternates," and paragraphs 4.b through 4.e set qualification requirements for each.

Please confirm whether Part I must identify by name and qualification all four positions listed at

Statement of Work paragraph 4.a, or whether identification of the Site Superintendent alone satisfies Factor 1, with the remaining key personnel identified at the time of individual task order award

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 15 of 39 preconstruction and closeout submittals as defined in the specifications and EM 385 1-1 for: site superintendent, safety plan, quality control plan, red-line and as-built drawings,

57. Section L paragraph 3.2.2 states that "to be considered relevant, projects must have a value at or above $1,000,000," and Section M paragraph 4.2.1 states that "projects with a value at or above $1,000,000 will be considered for the relevancy assessment."

Where an offeror submits a multiple award or single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite

Quantity contract as a past performance project, please clarify whether the Government will assess the value of that project as the aggregate value of all task orders performed under the contract, as the value of an individual task order, or as the contract's ceiling value.

58. Section L paragraph 3.2 states that the past performance evaluation will consider "the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance," and Section M paragraph 4.2.1.1 provides for a relevancy rating of "Somewhat Relevant," defined as an effort involving "some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires."

Please clarify whether projects valued below $1,000,000 are excluded from the past performance evaluation entirely, or whether such projects may be considered as context under the criteria at

Section L paragraph 3.2 and may receive a relevancy rating of Somewhat Relevant

59. Block 13b of the SF 1442 issued with this solicitation is marked to indicate that an offer guarantee is required. The solicitation does not state the amount or form of that guarantee, Section L contains no instruction concerning it, no SF 24 or equivalent form is included among the attachments, and FAR 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, does not appear in the clause list at the solicitation's incorporation-by-reference table. Section M paragraph 2.1 further states that price will not be evaluated at the MACC level, and no priced offer is solicited at the MACC level.

Please confirm whether an offer guarantee is required with this proposal. If it is required, please state the required amount or the basis on which the amount is to be computed, the acceptable form or forms, and the paragraph of the solicitation that governs it. If it is not required, please confirm that block 13b of the SF 1442 will be corrected by amendment.

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 16 of 39

60. Block 12a of the SF 1442 is marked to indicate that the contractor must furnish performance and payment bonds, and block 12b specifies 10 calendar days after award. FAR 52.228-15, Performance and Payment Bonds—Construction, is incorporated by reference. Section L paragraph 1 states that the Government will award a minimum guarantee of $500 for attending the post-award briefing, and Section M paragraph 2.1 states that price will be evaluated at each individual task order level.

Please confirm whether performance and payment bonds are required within 10 calendar days of award of the MACC IDIQ contract itself, or within 10 calendar days of award of each individual task order. If bonds are required at MACC IDIQ award, please state the penal sum or the basis on which it is to be computed.

Answer: After task order award

61. Block 17 of the SF 1442 requires the offeror to enter amounts for the work to be performed.

There is no seed project included with this solicitation, Section M paragraph 2.1 states that price will not be evaluated at the MACC level, and Section L paragraph 1 states that the guaranteed minimum over the life of the contract is $500.

Please state what the offeror should enter in block 17, AMOUNTS, of the SF 1442.

62. Section L paragraph 4.1.1.6.1 provides that "email size must not exceed 10 MB. If the proposal is more than 10 MB, please submit as email 1 of 2, etc," and that "the offeror must request and obtain an acknowledgement of receipt for electronic submission."

Where a proposal is transmitted in more than one email, please confirm that timeliness is determined by the Government's receipt of the final email in the sequence, and clarify whether the required acknowledgment of receipt is a condition of a proposal being considered received, or an administrative confirmation issued after the fact. Please also state the Government's preferred method for an offeror to request that acknowledgment.

Answer: Timeliness for proposals transmitted via multiple emails is determined by the receipt timestamp of the final email in the sequence. In accordance with RFO 52.212-1(c), offerors are solely responsible for ensuring that all elements of their proposal are received at the designated office by the specified deadline. The Government's acknowledgment is an administrative confirmation issued after the fact and is not a condition of receipt or

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 17 of 39 evaluation. If confirmation is not received within 48 business hours of submission, offerors should request status via a direct email to: 5CONS.PKA-C.MACC@us.af.mil.

63. Section M paragraph 1.2.1 states that the Government intends to award "a target number of ten (10) contracts to the most qualified small businesses along with a pool of vendors that may be awarded contracts via 'on-ramping' procedures at a later date." Section M paragraph 3.1 rates

Factor 1 on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis, and Section M paragraph 4.5 assigns a single integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The offeror understands ten to be a target rather than a fixed quantity, and that the Government may award more or fewer. Where the

Government awards to fewer than all offerors who are rated Acceptable under Factor 1 and assigned the same Performance Confidence Assessment rating under Factor 2, please describe the basis on which the Government will select among those equally rated offerors. Please also clarify whether an offeror who is technically acceptable but not selected for initial award is placed in the on-ramping pool automatically, and what criteria will govern a later on-ramp award.

Answer: Section M para 1.2.1 gives the Government flexibility in the number of awardees.

64. Section L, Paragraph 3.2 provides the requirements for Part II – Past Performance; however, we could not identify a minimum or maximum number of projects to be submitted. Please clarify the number of past performance projects offerors should provide.

65. Please clarify what information/documentation the Government would like offerors to submit for each past performance project. For example, should offerors provide a project description, contract number, contract value, period of performance, location, scope, customer point of contact, and performance rating?

66. Section L establishes a 20-page limitation for Part I – Technical Proposal. We could not identify a corresponding page limitation for Part II – Past Performance. Please confirm whether

Part II has a page limitation and, if so, identify the applicable limit.

67. Section L, Paragraph 3.2.3 permits ongoing projects to qualify as recent. For an ongoing project, is there a minimum percentage of completion or amount of work performed required for the project to be considered relevant past performance?

mailto:5CONS.PKA-C.MACC@us.af.mil

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 18 of 39

68. Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2.1 states that complexity will consider performance in secure or controlled-access environments. Please clarify whether experience in a secure or controlled-access environment is required for a project to be considered relevant, or whether this characteristic is used only to determine the degree of relevance.

Answer: Experience in a secure or controlled-access environment is not a mandatory requirement for a project to be considered relevant. Per Section M paragraph 4.2.1.1, the

Government will perform an "independent determination of relevancy" in accordance with the Relevancy Assessment Table. Per Section M paragraph 4.2.1.2, "the assessment of complexities will also consider performance in secure or controlled access environments and in locations with challenging logistical or weather conditions" to determine if the effort involved "similar," "some," or "little or none" of the scope, magnitude, and complexities required by this solicitation.

69. Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2.1 also states that challenging logistical or weather conditions will be considered when assessing complexity. Please confirm whether projects performed in northern climates or under severe winter conditions may receive greater relevance consideration when otherwise similar in scope and magnitude.

Answer: Experience in a specific climate or weather condition is not a mandatory requirement for a project to be considered relevant. Per Section M paragraph 4.2.1.1, the

Government will perform an "independent determination of relevancy" in accordance with the Relevancy Assessment Table. Per Section M paragraph 4.2.1.2, "the assessment of complexities will also consider performance in secure or controlled access environments and in locations with challenging logistical or weather conditions" to determine if the effort involved "similar," "some," or "little or none" of the scope, magnitude, and complexities required by this solicitation.

70. Section L, Paragraph 5.1.1 requires one redacted and sanitized Part I Technical Proposal removing company and personnel identifiers. Please confirm that the redaction requirement applies only to Part I and that Part II – Past Performance should identify [company name] and the entities/personnel associated with the submitted past performance.

71. Section L states that the 20-page Part I limit includes the cover page, table of contents, indices, appendices, and supporting data. Please confirm whether the Government requires a cover page and/or table of contents, or whether offerors may omit these items to maximize the space available for the Project Management Approach.

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 19 of 39

Answer: As stated in Section L, paragraph 3.1, the 20-page limit for Part I is "all-inclusive" and applies to all components of the submission, including "introductory elements (cover page, table of contents, and indices)." The solicitation does not explicitly require the submission of a cover page or table of contents; however, if an offeror chooses to include these introductory elements, they will be counted against the 20-page limit.

72. Section L, Paragraph 5.1.2 requires Attachment 7 – Financial Responsibility Authorization.

Please confirm that Attachment 7 is submitted as separate additional documentation and does not count toward the 20-page Part I Technical Proposal limitation.

Answer: The Financial Responsibility Authorization should be submitted as a standalone file in the offeror’s submission email. The standalone Financial Responsibility

Authorization will not count against the 20-page limit.

73. SF1442, Block 13 indicates offerors should submit "Original + 1 copy." Given that this is an electronic submission, please confirm whether a single electronic copy satisfies this requirement, or clarify how the "Original + 1 copy" instruction applies to electronic submissions.

Answer: Submitted as a clean copy and a redacted copy

74. Section L and M reference a "comprehensive Quality Control (QC) Plan, including procedures for QC management and the execution of the pre-final punch list" as part of the

Factor 1 submission. Appendix B1, Section 01 45 00.00, Paragraph 3.2.1 further outlines the minimum contents required in the QC Plan. Given the 20-page all-inclusive limit for Part I, which must also address the remaining Factor 1 elements, it does not appear feasible to address all minimum contents of Section 01 45 00.00 in full detail within the available space. Please clarify whether the Government intends for offerors to submit a high-level summary of their QC approach and methodology within the stated page limit, or a fully detailed QC Plan addressing each minimum content item in 01 45 00.00, outside of the page limit.

preconstruction and closeout submittals as defined in the specifications and EM 385 1-1 for: site superintendent, safety plan, quality control plan, red-line and as-built drawings, occupancy and handover/training for Government personnel, and warranty binder

75. Section L and M reference "a project-specific Accident Prevention/Safety Plan" as part of the

Factor 1 submission. Furthermore, Attachment 3, Specification 01 35 26, Paragraph 1.8.1 outlines the extensive criteria required for the Accident Prevention Plan, including the need for it to be job specific. However, no seed project has been identified at this stage of the solicitation, and no pricing or task-order-specific scope is required with the proposal response. Please clarify whether the Government intends offerors to submit a generic/standard Accident

Prevention/Safety Plan reflecting the firm's general safety program and methodology, given that a project-specific plan cannot be developed without an identified project.

Attachment 9, Q&A, Page 20 of 39 preconstruction and closeout submittals as defined in the specifications and EM 385 1-1 for: site superintendent, safety plan, quality control plan, red-line and as-built drawings,

76. Section L and M reference “A project-specific Accident Prevention/Safety Plan” as part of the Factor 1 submission. Furthermore, Attachment 3, Specification 01 35 26, Paragraph 1.8.1 outlines the extensive criteria required for the Accident Prevention Plan. Considering the 20-page limit for Part I, including all introductory components, and the remaining items to be addressed in Factor 1, offerors do not have space to provide a “A project-specific Accident

Prevention/Safety Plan.” Will the government accept a high-level summary of our Accident

Prevention/Safety Plan to achieve an Acceptable Rating?

preconstruction and closeout submittals as defined in the specifications and EM 385 1-1 for: site superintendent, safety plan, quality control plan, red-line and as-built drawings,

77. Section L and M reference "a project-specific Accident Prevention/Safety Plan" as part of the

Factor 1 submission. Given the 20-page all-inclusive limit for Part I, which must also address the remaining Factor 1 elements, it does not appear feasible to provide a fully project-specific Safety

Plan within the available space — particularly given that no seed project has been identified.

Please clarify whether the Government intends offerors to submit a high-level summary of their

Accident Prevention/Safety Plan approach and methodology to achieve an Acceptable rating for this Factor.

preconstruction and closeout submittals as defined in the specifications and EM 385 1-1 for: site superintendent, safety plan, quality control plan, red-line and as-built drawings,

78. Section L, Paragraph 3.2 Part II – Past Performance requires relevant projects to have a value at or above $1,000,000 and be ongoing or performed…