Amd_0004_Summary_and_Q-A_FA4600-26-R-0004.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS, 55TH WING (ACC)

OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, NEBRASKA

Relentless & Ready

AMENDMENT 0004 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: 12 June 2026

1. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT

The purpose of Amendment 0004 to the subject Combined Synopsis/Solicitation is to provide official Government responses to timely questions received from industry regarding the solicitation requirements (See Section 2 below).

All other terms and conditions of the solicitation, as conformed in Amendment 0003, remain unchanged.

2. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (Q&A)

Q1. Is there any incumbent/recompete or is this a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

A: This is a brand-new requirement for a new, consolidated suite of multi-disciplinary A- E IDIQ Single Award Task Order Contracts (SATOCs). There is no direct incumbent contractor or single recompete contract associated with this solicitation.

Historically, the Government has procured similar architect-engineer and design services at Offutt AFB through a variety of localized, standalone contracts. Because there is no single predecessor vehicle, there is no primary award number to provide.

Q2. As instructed to use the Government’s SF 330 Form - the SF 330 Form does not require 1-inch margins in the Govt template. Can this 1-inch margin requirement on all Pages be dismissed?

A: The 1-inch margin requirement remains in effect for all narrative, supplemental, and custom-generated pages (such as Sections E, F, G, and H) to ensure readability and fair enforcement of page limits. However, the Government will accept the standard, default margins native to the GSA SF330 template strictly for the standardized form blocks (e.g., Sections A through D). Offerors shall not shrink margins on narrative pages to circumvent page limits.

Q3. For Section F projects where the offeror served as a subconsultant and the project has a finalized CPARS evaluation under the prime consultant's contract, should the offeror provide any CPARS documentation as part of its submission? Additionally, for past performance verification in Section H, should the offeror provide the Government client contact, the prime consultant contact, or both?

A: The Government retrieves CPARS directly from the official database; offerors are not required to submit printed CPARS documentation with their SF330. However, because CPARS evaluations are issued to the Prime Contractor and may not explicitly detail a subconsultant's performance, an offeror submitting a project where they served as a subconsultant is highly encouraged to provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or a formal performance reference letter from the Prime Contractor. For past performance verification contacts, the offeror should provide the contact information for the Prime Consultant (as their direct client for that project) and may also provide the Government client contact for full transparency.

Q4. Under Primary Factor 4 (Knowledge of the Locality), will recent project experience at Offutt AFB, within Nebraska, and within the Omaha metropolitan area be considered more relevant than experience at other Air Force installations with similar mission requirements and UFC criteria?

A: Yes. While experience at other Air Force installations demonstrates valuable knowledge of Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and general DoD standards (which is evaluated under Primary Factor 1: Specialized Experience), Primary Factor 4 specifically evaluates the firm's practical understanding of local and state building codes, local permitting authorities, and regional geological/soil conditions specific to eastern Nebraska. Therefore, recent successful project experience at Offutt AFB, the Omaha metropolitan area, or the surrounding local region will be evaluated more favorably under this specific geographic factor.

Q5. Under the Small Business Subcontracting Commitment secondary factor, is identification of proposed small business team members and their anticipated disciplines sufficient, or does the Government expect offerors to provide estimated percentages of work by teammate?

A: To receive the most favorable consideration under this secondary tiebreaker factor, offerors should provide more than a simple list of names and disciplines. Offerors should clearly document their commitment by providing estimated percentages of work (e.g., percentage of the total subcontracted effort or estimated percentage of fee) designated for various categories of small businesses.

Q6. Under Primary Factor 5 (Capacity to Accomplish the Work), will the Government evaluate both current available staff resources and demonstrated historical workload management performance, or will greater emphasis be placed on one of these considerations?

A: The Government will evaluate both components as a holistic assessment of capacity, and the solicitation does not place a greater sub-emphasis on one over the other. The Government will evaluate the offeror's current staff availability and present workload to ensure immediate capacity to take on new work, while concurrently evaluating the firm's historical track record of managing multiple projects simultaneously to validate their ability to absorb the anticipated IDIQ task orders. Offerors should adequately address both aspects in their narrative.

(End of Questions and Answers)