Amd_0001_Summary_and_Q-A_FA4600-26-R-0004.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

55TH MISSION SUPPORT GROUP (ACC)

OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, NEBRASKA

Combat Support Starts Here!

AMENDMENT 0001 TO COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION

Solicitation Number: FA4600-26-R-0004 Project Title: Architect-Engineer (A-E) Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts for Offutt AFB, NE Date of Amendment: 11 May 2026

1. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT

The purpose of Amendment 0001 to the subject Combined Synopsis/Solicitation is to accomplish the following:

A. Answer Industry Questions: Provide official Government responses to questions received from industry regarding the solicitation requirements (See Section 2 below).

B. Extend the Due Date:

• The Government acknowledges that the clarifications provided in this amendment, particularly the firm requirement to possess an active NIST SP 800-171 self-assessment score in SPRS at the time of submission, may require additional administrative lead time for offerors to ensure compliance.

• To promote maximum competition among small businesses and allow adequate time for offerors to refine their teaming arrangements based on the finalized Key Personnel requirements, the Government is extending the deadline for receipt of SF330 submissions.

• The new deadline for receipt of all SF330 submissions is 10 June 2026 at 3:00 PM

Central Time.

• Please note: The deadline for receipt of questions has passed and will not be extended. No further questions will be accepted or answered.

C. Revise Combined Synopsis/Solicitation: Revise the main Combined Synopsis/Solicitation document to:

• Clarify that the mandatory Geographic Requirement applies solely to the Offeror (Prime Contractor/Joint Venture), and not to proposed subconsultants.

• Clarify that the Cybersecurity Compliance requirement is a current NIST SP 800-171 self-assessment score posted in SPRS and mandate the inclusion of CAGE codes and UIDs on the SF330 Cover Page.

• Explicitly define the required Key Personnel disciplines that must be submitted for evaluation in each respective pool.

• Explicitly prohibit the submission of a single, combined SF330 package for multiple pools.

D. Replace Statements of Work (SOWs): Provide a complete and wholesale replacement of the

Statements of Work for Pool 1: Specialized Engineering & Consulting, Pool 2: Mechanical & Electrical Engineering, Pool 3: Civil and Structural Engineering, and Pool 4: Architecture and Renovation.

• Due to significant reformatting for clarity and the incorporation of detailed technical requirements to ensure consistency across the program, the original SOWs for Pool 1, Pool 2, Pool 3, and Pool 4 are hereby rescinded. They are replaced in their entirety by the "Conformed Copy" documents attached to this amendment. Offerors shall base their proposals solely on the requirements outlined in these revised SOWs. There is no highlighting in the attached SOWs, as they are complete replacements.

A conformed copy of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (with changes highlighted in yellow, along with clean, replacement copies of the SOWs for Pool 1, Pool2, Pool 3 and Pool 4, are provided as separate attachments to this notice on SAM.gov.

All other terms and conditions of the original Combined Synopsis/Solicitation remain unchanged.

2. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (Q&A)

Q1. What is the official solicitation number for this Combined Synopsis/Solicitation?

A: The official solicitation number is FA4600-26-R-0004. This number has been added to the header of the conformed Combined Synopsis/Solicitation document.

Q2. If the Offeror is a properly formed Joint Venture submitting a single SF 330, is the requirement for a full service, nonresidential design office within a 200 mile radius of Offutt AFB required to be met by the small business JV partner specifically, or may the requirement be satisfied by either Joint Venture member?

A: Yes. For a properly formed Joint Venture (JV) submitting as the Offeror, the 200-mile geographic office requirement may be satisfied if either official member of the Joint Venture maintains a full-service, non-residential design office within the specified radius.

Q3. In the case of a small business prime contractor proposing a qualified multi firm team, may this requirement be satisfied by a key teaming partner or subconsultant that maintains a full service design office within the specified 200 mile radius?

A: No. The Prime Contractor is the "Offeror." To satisfy the mandatory pass/fail requirement in Section 4.1.b, the Prime Contractor itself must possess and maintain the full-service, non-residential design office within the 200-mile radius of Offutt AFB. An office belonging solely to a subcontractor or teaming partner will not satisfy this mandatory requirement for the Offeror.

Q4. Can the location requirement for Pool 3 be met through a key subconsultant or teaming partner with a qualifying office inside the 200-mile radius, or whether the office must be owned and identified directly by the prime offeror?

A: No. The Prime Contractor itself must possess and maintain the full-service, non-residential design office within the 200-mile radius of Offutt AFB. This applies to all pools.

Q5. Does the mandatory geographic office requirement (Section 4.1.b) apply only to the Prime Contractor, or must all proposed subconsultants/teaming partners also have an office within the 200-mile radius?

A: The mandatory pass/fail geographic requirement in Section 4.1.b applies only to the Offeror (the Prime Contractor or the Joint Venture entity) submitting the SF330. While the Offeror must possess a full-service, non-residential design office within the 200-mile radius to be eligible for award, they are permitted and encouraged to propose subconsultants or teaming partners located outside of this radius to ensure the most highly qualified team is assembled for the specific pool.

However, the Government expects the local Prime Contractor to manage these subconsultants effectively to meet all on-site and response-time requirements outlined in the synopsis.

Q6. Does the mandatory CMMC Level 2 Certification requirement (Section 4.1.c) apply only to the Prime Contractor, or must all proposed subconsultants/teaming partners also possess CMMC Level 2 at the time of submission?

A: First, to clarify the requirement as amended in Section 4.1.c of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation: The Government is requiring a current, active Summary Level Score in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) reflecting a self-assessment against the NIST SP 800- 171 framework at the time of submission.

For the purposes of this mandatory pass/fail submission requirement, it applies only to the Offeror (the Prime Contractor or the official Joint Venture entity). Offerors shall explicitly list their CAGE code and any applicable SPRS/CMMC unique identifier(s) (UIDs) clearly on the Cover Page of their SF330 Part I submission.

Regarding Subconsultants/Teaming Partners: Offerors are advised of the flow-down requirements during contract performance. The Prime Contractor will be responsible for ensuring that any subconsultant or teaming partner who will process, store, or transmit Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) during the execution of task orders also meets the appropriate cybersecurity safeguarding requirements (including NIST SP 800-171/SPRS scores and future CMMC requirements) prior to receiving such CUI. Subconsultants who will not handle CUI are not required to maintain SPRS scores or CMMC certification at the time of submission or performance.

Q7. Will the Government please confirm that an offeror wishing to be considered for multiple pools need only to submit a single SF330 response accompanied by a cover letter identifying the pool(s) of work for which the firm requests consideration?

A: No. As stated in Section 6.2 of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, if an Offeror wishes to be considered for more than one pool, they shall submit a completely separate, standalone SF330 Part I and Part II package for each respective pool.

The Government will establish separate evaluation boards for each pool. Therefore, each submission must be a complete, self-contained document tailored specifically to the scope of that individual pool. A single, combined SF330 proposing on multiple pools will be deemed non-compliant.

Example: If an Offeror is proposing on Pool 1 and Pool 3, they must submit two distinct emails:

one containing a 50-page SF330 tailored to Pool 1, and a second email containing a separate 50-page SF330 tailored to Pool 3.

Q8. The combined synopsis/solicitation states that offerors shall submit a maximum of five project examples per pool. For clarification, if an offeror submits a single SF330 for consideration under multiple pools, please provide the Government's preferred approach for presenting project examples... May the same project example be referenced for multiple pools when the project scope is applicable and overlaps the pools for which the offeror is seeking consideration?

A: First, the Government must correct the premise of the question. As stated in Section 6.2, Offerors shall NOT submit a single, combined SF330 for multiple pools. An Offeror must submit a completely separate, standalone SF330 package for each pool they wish to be considered for. Therefore, there is no need to delineate projects within a single document; all five (5) projects in the Pool 1 SF330 submission will be evaluated solely for Pool 1.

Regarding the re-use of projects: Yes. If an Offeror is submitting separate SF330 packages for multiple pools (e.g., submitting for Pool 2 and Pool 4), they may use the same project example in both submissions, provided the project is relevant to the scope of each respective pool. However, Offerors are strongly encouraged to tailor the Section F project narrative within each separate submission to highlight the specific engineering disciplines relevant to that particular pool.

Q9. Will the Government please identify the key personnel roles / resumes that are required to be submitted in Section E? Please include required disciplines, minimum qualifications, or role-specific evaluation criteria.

A: Yes. The Government is amending Section 5, Factor 2 (Professional Qualifications) of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation to include a definitive list of required Key Personnel disciplines for each evaluation pool. Offerors shall provide a resume in SF330, Part I, Section E for each of the key personnel disciplines listed for the specific pool(s) they are proposing on. Minimum qualifications are not being specified beyond what is implied by the professional title (e.g., a Professional Engineer must hold a P.E. license). The evaluation will be a subjective assessment of the competence and experience demonstrated in the provided resumes. Please review the conformed Combined Synopsis/Solicitation document attached to this amendment for the complete list of required disciplines.

Q10. Would you consider relaxing the CMMC requirement to minimum of Level 2 self-certified by time of award? You might ask for offerors to submit with their SF330 a statement they are on track to satisfy this requirements NLT your anticipated award date…9/30/26. Perhaps you’ve already determined through your market research there will be adequate competition among small businesses who have achieved Level 2 self-certification, but if not, you may be overly limiting the industry response you’ll receive.

A: No. The Government will not relax the submission requirement. The Government established this requirement at the time of submission to ensure a highly efficient evaluation process and to eliminate unacceptable schedule risks associated with offerors attempting to achieve compliance during the source selection phase. Statements indicating an offeror is "on track" to satisfy the requirement will not be accepted. Submissions that do not meet the requirement at the stated closing date and time will be deemed non-compliant and ineligible for evaluation.

Q11. We noted the CMMC Level 2 self-assessment requirement for the Offutt AFB A/E Services IDIQ.

Our understanding is that third-party Level 2 certification is not required until November 2026. Can the Air Force confirm whether this requirement will remain in place for this solicitation?

A: The Government acknowledges the phased implementation timeline for mandatory third-party CMMC assessments. To clarify the requirement stated in Section 4.1.c of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation: The Government is not requiring a formal, third-party CMMC Level 2 certification (C3PAO assessment) at the time of submission.

However, in accordance with current DoD policy regarding the safeguarding of Covered Defense Information, the Offeror (Prime Contractor or official Joint Venture entity) shall possess a current, active Summary Level Score in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) reflecting a self-assessment against the NIST SP 800-171 framework.

The Contracting Officer will verify the presence of a current, active NIST SP 800-171 self-assessment score in SPRS during the initial compliance review. Section 4.1.c of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation has been updated to reflect this clarification.

Q12. We are working towards our self-certification of CMMC level 2. When this solicitation was first announced, we did not realize that we would need to have the self-certification completed at time of submittal. Can the timeline for the SF330 submission be pushed back two to three weeks to help offerors time to complete the CMMC level 2 self-assessment?

A: The Government will not waive or reduce the cybersecurity requirement. As clarified in previous answers and in Section 4.1.c of the amended solicitation, the requirement is for a current, active Summary Level Score in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) reflecting a self-assessment against the NIST SP 800-171 framework. This remains a mandatory, pass/fail requirement at the time of submission.

However, the Government acknowledges that this requirement requires administrative lead time for offerors to complete the self-assessment and for the score to populate in SPRS. To promote maximum competition among small businesses and allow adequate time for compliance, the Government is extending the deadline for receipt of SF330 submissions by 30 days.

The new deadline for receipt of all SF330 submissions is 10 June 2026 at 3:00 PM Central Time.

Q13. What constitutes a "full-service" design office for the purposes of the geographic requirement? Will an office with disciplines related to only one of the Pools suffice?

A: For the purposes of this solicitation, a "full-service" design office is defined as an established, non-residential office that is staffed with permanent, full-time employees of the Offeror and possesses the necessary resources and technical capability to manage A-E contracts and perform a significant portion of the design work for the specific pool being proposed.

An office that only contains administrative or marketing staff is not considered a "full-service" design office. The Government must be able to verify that the office has the technical staff and project management capabilities relevant to the pool for which the firm is submitting. For example, an offeror submitting for Pool 3 (Civil & Structural) must have an office with resident civil/structural engineering and project management capabilities; it is not required to have architects or mechanical engineers at that specific location.

Q14. We ask that you consider changing the CMMC requirement to "...at the time of award." This already seems to be indicated under 8. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS (b)(1). Please clarify.

A: The Government acknowledges the apparent conflict between the language in Section 4.1.c and the general provision text in Section 8. The Government hereby clarifies that the more restrictive requirement stated in Section 4.1.c takes precedence and governs this solicitation.

The requirement is that the Offeror shall possess a current, active Summary Level Score in SPRS reflecting a NIST SP 800-171 self-assessment at the time of submission. This is a mandatory, pass/fail requirement. The Government will not relax this requirement or extend the deadline.

The Government has established this more restrictive condition to ensure a highly efficient evaluation process and to eliminate unacceptable schedule risks associated with offerors attempting to achieve compliance during the source selection phase. Submissions that do not meet this requirement at the stated closing date and time will be deemed non-compliant and ineligible for evaluation.

Q15. I previously held a TS/SCI clearance while working on the USSTRATCOM HQ SCIF but have since started my own firm and no longer hold an active clearance. Am I required to have a TS/SCI clearance at the time of submission to be eligible for this contract?

A: No. The Government confirms that an Offeror and its proposed personnel are NOT required to possess an active security clearance at the time of submission to be eligible for award of the base IDIQ contract.

The base IDIQ contract is unclassified. Security clearance requirements will be determined at the individual Task Order (TO) level. If a specific TO requires access to classified information, a DD Form 254 (Contract Security Classification Specification) will be issued with that TO. The successful awardee will then be responsible for ensuring their personnel obtain the required clearances in accordance with the DD 254 prior to beginning work on that specific task.

Offerors and individuals with past, relevant experience working in secure environments (e.g., on SCIF/SAPF projects) or holding previous security clearances are strongly encouraged to detail this experience in their SF330 submission, specifically in Part I, Section E (Resumes) and Section F (Project Examples). This demonstrated experience in high-security projects is a key indicator of technical competence and will be considered during the evaluation.

Q16. Section 5 indicates "The evaluation of relevance will consider the similarity in project size, scope, and complexity to the work anticipated at Offutt AFB." Can you provide information on what the work at Offutt AFB is anticipated to be so we can select appropriate relevant experience?

A: The Government will not provide a list of hypothetical or anticipated individual task orders.

The complete and official definition of the anticipated scope and complexity of work for each specific pool is provided in the Statement of Work (SOW) for that respective pool. Offerors must review the SOW for the pool(s) they are proposing on to determine the appropriate project examples that demonstrate their capability to perform the described services.

Q17. Regarding Pool 4 – Architecture & Renovation Services: Should firms responding to Pool 4 include identified engineering subconsultants as part of their submission? Additionally, will the absence of listed engineering or specialty consultants negatively impact the evaluation of qualifications for Architecture & Renovation Services under Pool 4?

A: Yes, firms responding to Pool 4 MUST include their proposed engineering subconsultants.

The absence of required engineering disciplines will negatively impact the evaluation and may result in the submission being deemed unqualified.

While Pool 4 is led by architectural services, it is intended for comprehensive renovation projects.

The Prime Architect is expected to propose and manage a complete, multi-disciplinary team capable of executing all aspects of a whole-building renovation.

As stated in Section 5, Factor 2 (Professional Qualifications), the Government requires resumes for specific Key Personnel. Offerors proposing on Pool 4 cannot ignore the engineering requirements simply because it is an architecture-led pool. The SOW for Pool 4 explicitly lists the supporting engineering disciplines that the Prime Contractor must be capable of providing. The Offeror’s SF330 submission must demonstrate the full capability of the proposed team (Prime and Subconsultants) to meet the comprehensive requirements of the Pool 4 SOW.

Q18. The limit for the entire IDIQ contract is listed at $49 million; is there a limit on the size of individual Task Orders per this contract?

A: The Government confirms that the total ordering ceiling for each IDIQ contract is $49,000,000, as stated in Section 2 of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation. There is no separate, pre-determined dollar limit on the size of individual task orders. The Government reserves the right to issue task orders of any dollar value up to the full remaining capacity of the contract ceiling.

Q19. In regard to the requirement to be CMMC Level 2 Self-certified, this is a recent federal requirement which takes a substantial effort, and cannot be completed by the submittal date. In light of this, may we be able to submit our qualifications along with a plan and schedule for achieving the CMMC Level 2 Self-certification, with the understanding that if selected, no task orders that require CUI can be given to us until that is completed?

A: No. The Government will not accept a plan or schedule for future compliance in lieu of the mandatory requirement.

As established in Section 4.1.c of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, possessing a current, active Summary Level Score in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) reflecting a self-assessment against the NIST SP 800-171 framework is a mandatory, pass/fail requirement at the time of submission.

The Government requires this foundational cybersecurity compliance upfront to ensure all awardees are immediately capable of executing the sensitive requirements of this IDIQ program.

Awarding a contract with the stipulation that the firm cannot handle CUI until an undetermined future date is not in the Government's best interest and introduces unacceptable programmatic risk.

Please note that the Government is granting a 30-day extension to the submission deadline (as detailed in this Amendment) to provide industry with additional administrative time to ensure their SPRS records are active. No further relaxation of this requirement will be considered.

Q20. For projects without finalized CPARS evaluations, please confirm whether the information identified for SF330 Part I, Section H is sufficient for evaluation purposes, or if the Government will also accept or require supplemental Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs).

A: The Government confirms that providing the specific information outlined in Section 5 (Selection Criteria, Factor 3) within SF330, Part I, Section H is sufficient for evaluation purposes for non-CPARS projects.

The Government will not require, accept, or evaluate supplemental Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) or formal letters of recommendation. Offerors shall adhere to the formatting and information requirements established in the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation.

Q21: Please confirm whether there is a page limitation applicable to individual SF330 Part I, Section E resumes, or whether resumes are only subject to the overall 50-page limitation for SF330 Part I.

A: The Government confirms there is no mandatory page limit for an individual resume submitted in SF330 Part I, Section E. Resumes are constrained only by the overall 50-page limitation for the entire SF330 Part I submission. Offerors may format and allocate their 50 pages at their discretion to best present their qualifications.

Q22: Please confirm whether there is a page limitation applicable to individual SF330 Part I, Section F project examples, or whether project example pages are only subject to the overall 50-page limitation for SF330 Part I.

A: Similar to the guidance for Section E, there is no mandatory page limit for an individual project example submitted in SF330 Part I, Section F. Project examples are constrained only by the overall 50-page limitation for the entire SF330 Part I submission and the maximum limit of five (5) project examples per pool. Offerors may format and allocate their 50 pages at their discretion.

Q23: Section 7 of the Synopsis states, "...the prime contractor must perform at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel with its own employees." For an IDIQ with a diverse A-E pool, it is difficult to commit to a prime performing 50 percent of the contract. The typical requirement is for 50 percent or more to be performed by a Small Business. Please confirm the requirement.

A: The Government confirms that the requirement stated in Section 7, which incorporates RFO 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, remains in effect and will be strictly enforced at the contract level.

However, the Government directs the Offeror's attention to the "Similarly Situated Entity" provisions within RFO 52.219-14(e)(1). Under this clause, for services, the prime contractor will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities.

What this means for Offerors: A small business prime contractor may meet the 50% performance requirement by combining the cost of personnel incurred by its own employees with the cost of personnel incurred by any first-tier subcontractor that qualifies as a "similarly situated entity" (i.e., a subcontractor that is also a small business concern under the NAICS code assigned to this procurement). Work performed by subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities (e.g., large businesses) cannot exceed 50% of the contract amount.

Offerors are responsible for structuring their proposed teams to ensure compliance with RFO 52.219-14 over the life of the IDIQ contract.

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENT

Offerors MUST acknowledge receipt of Amendment 0001 by including a statement of acknowledgment (e.g., "Receipt of Amendment 0001 is hereby acknowledged") on the Cover Page/Letter of their SF330 Part I submission.

Failure to acknowledge this amendment may result in the submission being deemed non-compliant and ineligible for evaluation.

(End of Amendment Summary)