WOOKIE MACC_RFI Responses_20250228.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE

SPACE LAUNCH DELTA 30

28 Feb 2025

FROM: 30 CONTRACTING SQUADRON/PKA

1515 Iceland Ave.

Bldg. 8500, Rm 150 Vandenberg SFB, CA 93437-5212

SUBJECT: Response to Requests for Information (RFI): Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) Program, Vandenberg SFB

1. Reading through the RFP the FARS are silent on Section 15.305 concerning DFARS Section

865. Stating, “The Federal Government has amended the DFARS to implement section 865 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 (Pub. L. 118- 31). Section 865 requires DoD contracting officers to consider relevant past performance of affiliate companies of small business concerns during the evaluation of past performance in response to a competitive solicitation.” Is it acceptable to assume that the above DFAR Section 865 is included in this RFP?

Gov. Response: Per FAR 15.304(3)(i) past performance is a required evaluation for requirements that exceed the SAT threshold that are negotiated and competitively awarded.

Within that section at FAR 15.304(3)(iii) it is stated that “Past performance need not be evaluated if the contracting officer documents the reason past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition.” The Contracting Officer determined that it is in the best interest of the Government to proceed without including past performance as an evaluation factor and documented the determination within the contract file.

2. Wasn’t sure you knew of this new change. The WOOKIE notes we are to have an SBA approved [joint venture] JV; however, it seems that they will only ‘review and approve’ to pursue sole source 8(a) sole source. (https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/joint-ventures)

Gov. Response: That is partially accurate but does not tell the full details. In accordance with 13 CFR 124.513(a)(2) “A joint venture agreement is permissible only where an 8(a) concern lacks the necessary capacity to perform the contract on its own, and the agreement is fair and equitable and will be of substantial benefit to the 8(a) concern. However, where SBA concludes that an 8(a) Participant brings very little to the joint venture in terms of resources and expertise other than its 8(a) status, SBA will not approve the joint venture to receive an 8(a) sole source contract and will find the joint venture to be ineligible for a competitive 8(a) award if it is determined to be the apparent successful offeror.” Given this, it is correct they will not approve an 8(a) JV on an 8(a) competitive set-aside, but they will still review the JV to ensure that the 8(a) brings something meaningful to the JV before determining it eligible for award.

3. Will the Government consider adding a location category for Vandenberg SFB specifically, or award higher points for Santa Barbara County?

Gov Response: No, a specific location category for Vandenberg will not be added. However, in order to achieve maximum points, work at Vandenberg would need to be included as it is the only military base within Santa Barbara County, and thus the only location that would meet all four (4) scoring elements within Section II for the Number of Design-Build Projects as Prime Contractor category.

4. Will the Government consider awarding additional points (1,000-2,000) to Offerors who are not in a joint venture, or who are in a joint venture with another small business?

Gov Response: No additional points will be provided for offerors who are not in a joint venture.

5. If an individual is qualified for multiple positions, can their resume be submitted for more than one position, for example, PM and Superintendent?

Gov Response: Yes, as long as an individual meets the qualification requirements in the WOOKIE MACC Statement of Work paragraph 17.1, they may be used in more than position.

6. Due to the uniqueness of SCIF construction, can a SCIF be included as a relevant project if it is designed and construction has started?

Gov Response: Yes, SCIF projects could be included as relevant projects as long as they meet the requirements in Section L paragraph L-2 subparagraph 2.2.1.6.

7. We do not see any references to Attachments J.10 through J.15 other than them being listed in Section J and included in the solicitation package. What is the purpose of these documents and do offerors need to submit any/all of them completed or acknowledged with the proposal?

Gov Response: Attachments 10-15 are attachments to the WOOKIE MACC Statement of Work (see page 40 of the SOW).

8. Regarding the limit of 80 pages for Volume II - Technical, we do not think that is enough space to include the materials necessary to substantiate the scoring of all projects. The contract documents, PWS, and other project documentation are all very long documents and do not lend themselves to simply 'excerpting' pertinent substantiation content. For example, to substantiate the cited project value and that it includes the given scope scoring element such as "Electrical" or "Mechanical" at a minimum requires 2 pages, and if there were modifications to the price, that requires additional pages to show those issued officially via a contract modification. Recommend, that to alleviate this issue, we recommend that the pages used to substantiate the self-scoring of the projects be exempt from page count. This would enable offerors to provide the backup information needed such that it is easily decipherable by the Government reviewers that the score is valid.

Amended Gov Response: The Government has decided to permit the inclusion of project SOWs as Appendix 1, Project Specific Statements of Work to Attachment 6, Relevant Experience Project Template. The appendix SOWs will not count against the 80-page count maximum. Solicitation Section L and M have been updated to include guidance on the appendix SOWs.

Please ensure that the narrative references the SOW information as required in the below text, which is stated on Attachment 6 for cross-referencing purposes. Documentation that is not included in the SOW can be included in the narrative through excerpts of the documentation. The information in the narrative is restricted to 2 pages per project, with a 60-page maximum (not including Appendix 1). Attachment 6 has been updated to clarify the note regarding the narrative requirements and references to SOW appendix items and to allow contractors to delete the note in place of their narrative text. The new note reads as follows:

Note: Use the narrative block to explain the rationale supporting your claim.

Your narrative should include the identification/explanation of the excerpts of documentation that substantiate the self-scored claims. Offeror shall provide excerpts in the narrative of Contract, Task Order, and/or Award documentation that substantiates the ratings in ATT 05_Volume II_HTRO Self-Scoring Worksheet. Statements of Work (SOW) can be included in Appendix 1, REP SOW. The appendix does not have a page limit, nor does it count to the 80-page limit for Volume II. The Offeror shall include identification of SOW references/titles, page number section/paragraph headings in the narrative for cross referencing purposes.

9. We understand and appreciate that in Section I, a given project may be used to satisfy examples of experience across more than one category (e.g., mechanical and electrical).

However, in Section II, the instructions limit the number of projects that can be counted as performed in Santa Barbara County, the State of California, etc. to only the ones used in Section I. The Section II scoring uses multiplication, so if, for example, one offeror is able to meet all Section I requirements with 20 projects and another with the max of 30, then there is potential for unfair scoring in Section II.

As an example, in the above scenario, assume that all projects in Section I for each offeror were performed in the State of California, the offeror who was able to complete Section 1 with 20 projects could only score a max of 125 x 20 = 2500pts, whereas the offeror who used 30 projects to complete Section I could earn a max of 125 X 30 = 3750pts. Counting Section II points by only using Section I projects then puts some offerors whose projects are arguably more complex and/or larger in a position where they cannot possibly score the same amount of points as another offeror who uses 30 projects.

We recommend two potential ways to resolve this situation:

1.) Allow the offeror who is able to satisfy Section I requirements by "double-counting" projects to be able to do the same for the Section II scoring...so the max for everyone submitting would be 3750 points, which is a level playing field then.

2.) Allow offerors to count other projects performed that meet the same eligibility criteria of recent/relevant, etc. but that are not in Section I to go towards the Section II scoring and place a limit of 30 projects max since that is the max for the number of projects in Section I.

Gov. Response: It is the Government’s intent to limit the projects submitted for the self-scoring to 30, and for the submitted projects to be utilized for Sections I, II and III. This is in accordance with the Solicitation Section M, subparagraph 2.2.1.7 “The same projects listed in Section I: Relevant Experience Projects section of the Self-Scoring Worksheet shall be utilized for the offeror's response to Section II: Number of Design-Build Projects as Prime Contractor and Section III: Experience in Complex Projects sections of the Self-Scoring Worksheet.”

The Government is utilizing Section I to allow contractors to showcase the breadth of their project portfolio and how it meets key experience types relevant to Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) requirement needs. The contractors must carefully consider what they use to meet these requirements as the projects are utilized for Sections II and III. While the contractor can submit less than 30 projects, that can impact their scoring for Sections II and III. The Government finds a larger breadth of experience/portfolio to be of higher value in this acquisition. The Government will not change these requirements.

10. Please confirm projects from affiliated companies of the offeror under the same parent corporation are allowable for use on Attachment 05 Self Scoring Worksheet and Attachment

06 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION.

Gov. Response: Only projects from prime contractors or Joint Venture team partners acting as prime contractors on the projects will be considered.

11. According to the solicitation, this MACC will include both design/build and design/bid/build projects. Having past experience on design/build projects is important for successful execution using that delivery method. It is clear that this is an important evaluation criteria. Section II of the scoring worksheet specifically asks for past performance information on projects that were design/build and in section M evaluation criteria past experience on design/build projects is described as a tiebreaker if scores are equal. Executing construction projects using a design/build model requires specific skill sets for the prime general contractor and the design consultants. Positive relationships, culture, and the ability to work together as a team are critical for the prime contractor and lead designer to execute successful projects. Therefore, would you consider adding a write up for the proposed design team partners as an additional technical evaluation criteria?

Gov. Response: The Government will not add proposed design team partners as a factor. The Government does not see value in examining teaming partners when there is not a firm arrangement as seen in a Joint Venture.

12. Will the Government consider a 3-week extension to give time to process the February 20 th pre-proposal conference?

Gov. Response: No, an extension will not be issued to the proposal due date.

13. Is there a dollar value range/limit/minimum for the projects presented in past performance?

Gov. Response: There is no dollar value requirement for projects utilized in Section I, Relevant Experience Projects.

14. Do all 30 projects need to be design-build?

Gov. Response: Section I, Relevant Experience Projects does not require the projects to be design-build efforts, but the projects utilized in Section I are used in Section II, Number of Design-Build Projects as a Prime Contractor and Section III, Experience in Complex Projects. Section II specifically requires projects to meet the requirement 2.2.1.8.1 “Design-build projects are defined as projects where the prime contractor performed as the prime contractor for both the design phase and construction phase of a project. The design phase shall include completing a 100% design as defined in the WOOKIE MACC SOW and could have been done either internally by the prime contractor or through a subcontract with a firm that utilized registered architects or engineers in the preparation of the design.” To submit projects in Section I that do not meet the above requirement may impact the scoring in Section II.

15. Section IV Staffing – are resumes requited for this section? It is unclear. Also, what documentation is needed to support the qualification requirements?

Gov. Response: For Section IV, Staffing, simplified resumes listing the employing company, position title held and start and end date of employment along with certifications held with their expiration is sufficient for the Government to validate the self-scoring for this section.

The required qualifications are detailed in Attachment 1, SOW in paragraphs 17.1 (Project Manager), 17.1.1 (Superintendent), and 17.1.2 (Quality Control Manager).

16. Can the team utilize affiliate, parent and sister company experience in the relevant experience sections?

Gov. Response: The Government will not accept projects from affiliate, parent, or sister companies, only projects from the prime contractor or Joint Venture partners acting as primes on their projects will be considered.

17. What is the frequency of TO's per year?

Gov. Response: There has been historically between 10-12 projects per year, but the quantity may increase due to forecasted expansion of the USSF or decrease due to budget cuts.

18. Is there a cap on dollar value awarded to each GC per year or for entire program?

Gov. Response: There is no dollar value cap on each contractor, nor is there a ceiling for each year of the contract, there is only the ceiling for the total IDIQ program value of $525,000,000.00.

19. If a specific work is large and the contract amount exceeds $25M, is the Government to provide two (2) Task Orders to the same contractor?

Gov. Response: No, the Government will not split the requirement to circumvent the TO ceiling value of $25M. Projects that exceed the TO ceiling will not be competed/awarded using the WOOKIE MACC IDIQ.

20. If two 8(a) contractors form a Teaming Agreement to pursue this opportunity, would that arrangement be acceptable?

Gov. Response: Teaming Agreements will not be considered, only Joint Venture partnerships will be permitted.

21. Will there be a list of bidders beforehand?

Gov. Response: No, there is no official bidder list, nor will a list of offerors be included upon contract award notice as it is not required by FAR 15.503(b), Postaward notices.

22. Follow-up on RFI 01 Please confirm projects from affiliated companies of the offeror under the same parent corporation are allowable for use on Attachment 05 Self Scoring Worksheet and Attachment 06 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND

DESCRIPTION.

Gov. Response: Only projects from prime contractors or Joint Venture team partners acting as prime contractors on the projects will be considered. The Government will not accept projects from affiliate, parent, or sister companies.

23. Is there a minimum qualifying score on each of the categories?

Gov. Response: There is no minimum score requirement for Self-Scoring Worksheet Categories I – VI.

24. How do we validate that personnel meet requirements and number of employees?

Gov. Response: For Section IV, Staffing, simplified resumes listing the employing company, position title held and start and end date of employment along with certifications held with their expiration is sufficient for the Government to validate the self-scoring for this section.

The required qualifications are detailed in Attachment 1, SOW in paragraphs 17.1 (Project Manager), 17.1.1 (Superintendent), and 17.1.2 (Quality Control Manager).

25. The instructions for personnel contradict what you stated. The instructions explicitly state:

"Unless otherwise identified in a TO SOW, the superintendent and QCM shall not be the same person." Does this mean that even if someone is qualified for both roles, they cannot serve in dual positions on Task Order (TO) contracts?

Gov. Response: The instructions in proposal submissions for the WOOKIE MACC IDIQ are separate from the requirements for Task Orders (TO). For the self-scoring worksheet Section IV, Staffing, employees may be submitted for scoring for each category type that they are qualified for. For example, an employee with Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager qualifications can be submitted for both categories in the self-scoring worksheet. The requirements for TOs do not allow for multiple roles to be filled by one employee without permission from the Contracting Officer. This permission is given on a case-by-case basis and may be rescinded at their discretion.

26. Due to the uniqueness of SCIF construction, can a SCIF be included as a relevant project if it is fully designed and construction has started? Meaning it would not be 50% construction complete?

Gov Response: Projects may only be submitted if they meet the requirements stated in Section L paragraph L-2 subparagraph 2.2.1.6. The requirements will not be changed to accommodate SCIFs with 50% or less construction completion.

27. ATT 6 says to include the identification/explanation of the excerpts of documentation that substantiate the information to include identification of document references/titles, page numbers, section/paragraph headings, as applicable – what type of evidence do you consider to be validation? The Technical proposal is limited to 80 pages, which does not allow room for the evidence/validation – would you please extend the page count to include the validation documents?

Gov. Response: The Government has decided to permit the inclusion of project SOWs as Appendix 1, Project Specific Statements of Work to Attachment 6, Relevant Experience Project Template. The appendix SOWs will not count against the 80-page count maximum.

Solicitation Section L and M have been updated to include guidance on the appendix SOWs.

Please ensure that the narrative references the SOW information as required in the below text, which is stated on Attachment 6 for cross-referencing purposes. Documentation that is not included in the SOW can be included in the narrative through excerpts of the documentation. The information in the narrative is restricted to 2 pages per project, with a 60-page maximum (not including Appendix 1). Attachment 6 has been updated to clarify the note regarding the narrative requirements and references to SOW appendix items and to allow contractors to delete the note in place of their narrative text. The new note reads as follows:

Note: Use the narrative block to explain the rationale supporting your claim.

Your narrative should include the identification/explanation of the excerpts of documentation that substantiate the self-scored claims. Offeror shall provide excerpts in the narrative of Contract, Task Order, and/or Award documentation that substantiates the ratings in ATT 05_Volume II_HTRO Self-Scoring Worksheet. Statements of Work (SOW) can be included in Appendix 1, REP SOW. The appendix does not have a page limit, nor does it count to the 80-page limit for Volume II. The Offeror shall include identification of SOW references/titles, page number section/paragraph headings in the narrative for cross referencing purposes. You may remove this note.

28. It was stated several times during the Industry day that past performance of affiliate companies will not be considered. However, the RFP states that, source selection will be, “performed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)”.

DFARS 215.305.(C) states, “When evaluating the past performance of an offeror that is a small business concern in response to a competitive solicitation, contracting officers shall consider relevant past performance information provided for affiliates of the offeror.” Based on this source selection method, it is unclear why affiliate past performance will not be considered. Please provide further justification or legal basis for why affiliate past performance will not be considered.

Gov. Response: As stated in the Gov. response in Question 1 above, the Contracting Officer determined that it is in the best interest of the Government to proceed without including past performance as an evaluation factor and documented the determination within the contract file. The information within Section I, II, and III are experience evaluations which the Government finds to be sufficient to examine a contractor’s capabilities.

29. Based clarifications provided in the Preproposal Conference on the number of projects and score this is a very significant effort to provide 30 projects write up for a SB 8a with limited staff, we request to give adequate time to prepare a complete and compliant proposal the due date be extended by three (3) weeks.

Gov. Response: An extension will not be issued to the proposal due date. The draft solicitation was posted on SAM.gov with the synopsis on 24 Jan 2025 and an earlier iteration of the draft solicitation was posted on 7 Oct. 2024 in a presolicitation notice/request for industry feedback. The draft solicitations and attachments have had few changes since the posted dates compared to the current solicitation, with the 30 project maximum projects remaining consistent throughout. The Government finds the advanced publication of drafts and the 30-day solicitation timeline to be sufficient advanced notice of the requirement for small businesses to prepare their proposals.

30. Volume II if less than 60 pages are used for 30 projects can the remaining pages be used to substantiate other required information up to the total of 80 pages?

Gov. Response: The 80-page maximum applies to Volume II, Technical. Vol. II includes the following:

Attachment 6, Relevant Experience Projects (2 pages per project with a max of 60 pages)

Section IV, Staffing (with simplified resumes for each employee as detailed in responses to Questions 15 and 26 above)

Section V, Aggregate Bonding Capacity (letter from their surety company, stating the offeror's bonding capacity)

Section VI, Contractor California General Contractor's License (copies of the CA General Contractor's Class A and/or Class B license)

As a note, Attachment 6, relevant Experience Projects will now be allowed to have an appendix for SOWs of referenced projects that is NOT included in the 2 pages per project count, nor the 80-page Volume II page count.

31. 2.2.1.9 Discusses 5 tasks, as noted on the score sheet, but this section lists only 4 tasks – mechanical, electrical, civil and Structural/ Architectural. Is there a 5th task or should this be changed to 4 tasks, 3 tasks, or 2 tasks?

Gov. Response: The tasks at 2.2.1.9.1 through 2.2.1.9.4 are not limited to their category names (Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, or Structural/Architectural). The tasks that the score sheet is referring to are the tasks under the category names, for example, the Mechanical category tasks are HVAC, Interior Plumbing, and Fire Suppression. There are a total of 23 individual tasks for Section III.

32. Is the offeror required to provide design firm resumes for architects and engineers who will provide design services for task orders?

Gov. Response: No, we are not evaluating design firms nor their employees, resumes for these individuals will not be considered.

33. Are resumes required for the contractor's key roles of Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Project Manager?

Gov. Response: Resumes or career briefs demonstrating experience supporting the employee’s qualifications as Project Managers, Superintendents, and/or Quality Control Managers will be accepted for validation of Section IV self-scoring. The required qualifications are detailed in Attachment 1, SOW in paragraphs 17.1 (Project Manager),

17.1.1 (Superintendent), and 17.1.2 (Quality Control Manager).

34. During the WOOKIE MACC Industry Day on February 20, 2025, it was mentioned that a

Prime Contractor can utilize a Teaming Partner's past experience as part of their submittal if a Team Agreement is provided. Can the Government confirm that this is the correct understanding of the information presented and which section of the proposal the Team Agreement would be inserted?

Gov. Response: Only Joint Venture partnerships will be considered, other teaming arrangements, affiliate, parent, and sister company experience will not be accepted. Please refer to Section L, Paras 2.2.1.6, 2.2.1.10, 2.2.1.11, and 2.2.1.12 for explicit instructions on what will be accepted from a joint venture or joint venture partner for each self-scoring section.

35. Response request for information dated February 19th, 2025, states under item 1, “The

Contracting Officer determined that it is in the best interests of the Government to proceed without including past performance as an evaluation factor and documented the determination within the contract file.” Further down in the document, it states under item 9, “It is the Government’s intent to limit the projects submitted for the self-scoring to 30”…” The Government finds a larger breadth of experience/portfolio to be of higher value in this acquisition”. It is clear from the questions and requirements under the Solicitation that past performance is a significant requirement for scoring. As asked under question 1 in accordance with 215.305 item C, it is stated that “When evaluating the past performance of an offeror that is a small business concern in response to a competitive solicitation, contracting officers shall consider relevant past performance information provided for affiliates of the offeror”. We would like to request a second review of the question in regard to affiliates of the offeror being allowed as it relates to past performance and project submittal.

Gov. Response: As stated in the Gov. response in Question 1 above, the Contracting Officer determined that it is in the best interest of the Government to proceed without including past performance as an evaluation factor and documented the determination within the contract file. The information within Section I, II, and III are experience evaluations which the Government finds to be sufficient to examine a contractor’s capabilities.

36. We are requesting a two-week extension; we are a small business and need more time to gather all the project information.

Gov. Response: An extension will not be issued to the proposal due date.

37. Per the SOW Par. 17.1, contractors are to have an SSHO on each Task Order that meet the minimum requirements per the EM 385-1. Please confirm the following: (a) Are the SSHOs included in the "staffing" portion of the Cost Proposal since they are included as a position in the SOW Par 17.1?

Gov. Response: Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Project Manager are the only labor categories that the Government will consider or evaluate for the Price Proposal, SSHO will not be added as an evaluated position.

38. Per the SOW Par. 17.1, contractors are to have an SSHO on each Task Order that meet the minimum requirements per the EM 385-1. Please confirm the following: (a) In the Cost Proposal there is no line item for the SSHO position. Will there be a revised Cost Proposal that will include the SSHO position or are we to assume to capture the SSHO cost in each Task Order?

Gov. Response: Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Project Manager are the only labor categories that the Government will consider or evaluate for the Price Proposal, SSHO will not be added as an evaluated position. The SSHO position could be included as a separate cost on each task order, however, as most task orders will be awarded on the basis of Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable methodology, the SSHO position is typically authorized to be dual hatted with either the Site Superintendent or Quality Control Manager role.

39. Due Date - Given the complexity and extensive documentation required for the Self-Scoring Worksheet, would it be possible to extend the submission deadline by at least 30 days? This additional time would help ensure the highest quality and accuracy of submissions, ultimately benefiting the overall evaluation process.

Gov. Response: An extension will not be issued to the proposal due date. The draft solicitation was posted on SAM.gov with the synopsis on 24 Jan 2025 and an earlier iteration of the draft solicitation was posted on 7 Oct. 2024 in a presolicitation notice/request for industry feedback. The draft solicitations and attachments have had few changes since the posted dates compared to the current solicitation, with the 30 maximum relevant experience projects remaining consistent throughout. The Government finds the advanced publication of drafts and the 30-day solicitation timeline to be sufficient advanced notice of the requirement for small businesses to prepare their proposals.

40. Relevant Experience Projects (Section 2.2.1.6) - Would it be possible to extend the timeframe for Relevant Experience Projects to within the past ten (10) years from the date of solicitation? Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its lasting effects in recent years, many solicitations were canceled or postponed, resulting in fewer awarded projects during that period. Expanding the window would allow for a more comprehensive demonstration of experience while still ensuring relevance to the scope of work.

Gov. Response: The Government will not expand the recency timeframe from the current five (5) year requirement.

41. Self-Scoring Worksheet – Section I, Category 3 - Regarding the requirement for asbestos abatement, hazardous material, and/or lead-based paint abatement experience specifically “in California,” would it be possible to revise this to remove the geographic limitation? These materials pose risks nationwide, and broadening this requirement would allow highly qualified firms with extensive experience in hazardous material abatement to be properly evaluated.

Gov Response: The Government will not change this requirement. While hazardous material abatement poses a risk nationwide, California has unique requirements from most other states. The intent of the category as defined is to gauge the experience a contractor has in working with these specific requirements in California.

42. Mandatory Submission Requirements (Section L, Paragraph 2.1) - Section L, Paragraph 2.1 states: "To be eligible for award, the Offeror must adhere to the directions and submit the following information under Volume I - Executed Contract Documentation and Price Proposal." This suggests that Paragraphs 2.1.1 – 2.1.8 function as Pass/Fail criteria, meaning that failure to provide any required documentation would result in the proposal being deemed non-responsive. For example, if an Offeror were to omit their SBA Validation documentation or an executed SF1442, they would be considered non-responsive. Please confirm whether this interpretation is correct for all items listed under these paragraphs.

Gov Response: Although the solicitation refers to responsive and nonresponsive proposals, the concept of responsiveness is not applicable to negotiated procurements conducted under FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation procedures. Where a proposal submitted under a negotiated procurement fails to meet a material requirement of the RFP, it is unacceptable, not non-responsive. As stated in Section M, para. 1.2. “The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a).” The items listed in Section L, 2.1 are considered “material requirements”, failure to supply the required information/documentation will render the contractor’s proposal as “unacceptable”. To ensure clarity on this issue the solicitation language using “responsiveness” and “non-responsive” will be changed to conform to FAR Part 15 language of “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable”.

43. SBA Review of 8(a) Joint Ventures (Amendment 01, Question 2) - Amendment 01, Question 2, and its response suggest that while the SBA does not formally approve an 8(a) JV for competitive set-asides, they still review the JV to determine whether the 8(a) entity brings meaningful resources and expertise. How should an Offeror document that the SBA has conducted this review and provided confirmation that the 8(a) entity contributes substantially to the JV? Additionally, is there a specific process or timeline for obtaining such confirmation before proposal submission?

Gov Response: The SBA will not review an 8(a) Joint Venture (JV) for a competitive 8(a) procurement unless the 8(a) JV is selected as an apparent awardee. Upon determination of the apparent awardees, the contracting office will submit a request to the SBA for an eligibility determination on the apparent awardees. At this time the SBA will conduct its eligibility review which will include reviewing the terms of the 8(a) JV. In accordance with the Partnership Agreement between the Department of Defense and the SBA this review should be completed within five (5) working days. If the SBA determines an apparent awardee ineligible, the firm will be determined not responsible and the Government would resume evaluations in accordance with Section M, paragraph M-2, subparagraph 2.0 Step 5.

An offeror considering forming an 8(a) JV for this solicitation would need to submit with its proposal a letter from the SBA validating its 8(a) status and a copy of its proposed Joint Venture Agreement.

44. We reached out to our SBA BOS regarding the question/answer for RFI #2 on the RFI responses dated 19 Feb 25 (see below) and received this clarification:

“Please let our office know, no later than 5 working days after the joint venture submits its offer for a competitive solicitation. (Please include the name of the joint venture entity, its CAGE code and UEI number, and a list of all prime contracts awarded to the joint venture including award dates and contract number.) SBA will then update the joint venture’s profile in the Dynamic Small Business Search to include the 8(a) joint venture certification status.”

Please confirm that the 30 CONTRACTING SQUADRON/PKA will accept this process.

Gov Response: Our office requests that joint venture agreements be submitted to the SBA prior to submission of its offer. While some offices may accept submission of joint venture agreements after an offer is submitted, others may not. The safest option to ensure a proposed joint venture agreement is received and will be processed by its BOS is to submit the joint venture agreement is submitted prior to submission of an offer.

45. Are the responses provided to RFIs submitted during the draft RFP phase considered binding and applicable to the final RFP? If there are discrepancies between the final RFP and prior RFI responses, which takes precedence?

Gov Response: The Requests for Information (RFIs) and responses for the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) were provided for informational purposes only. The final released RFP and these RFIs take precedence.

46. Self-Scoring Worksheet, Section VI: Contractor has a California General Contractor's License requires offerors to “select yes or no from the drop-down for a Type A License and Type B License.” Can an Offeror use a California General Contractors License held by an employee of the offeror for scoring purposes, or must the company itself hold the license?

Gov Response: Licenses must be registered in the prime contractor’s name or in the case of a joint venture registered in the name of either joint venture partner.

47. Please confirm that hard copy submissions are not required and that electronic submissions alone are acceptable for proposal submission.

Gov Response: Hard copy submissions are not required. Offerors may submit offerors via hard copy/paper version or an electronic copy. Offerors should review Section L paragraph L-1, subparagraphs 1.6.2 and 1.6.6 for notes regarding the constraints submitting offerors through either format.

48. May fonts within headers and footers be less than 11 pt font?

Gov Response: Smaller font, no smaller than 6 point may be used for headers and footers

49. For each Relevant Experience Project, we must provide validation of the completion date (or percent complete), the scope relevant to the Relevant Experience category (under Category I), the location if being used for Category II, and the additional scope areas if being used for Category III (as many as five different scope areas). For most projects, it would be impossible to show all of this information in two pages. For a typical project, we will likely need to provide the first page of the award document and/or modification, as well as extracted pages from the scope of work/PWS to show each of the scope areas (for Category I and Category II). While a CPARS may provide some of this information in two pages, it’s unlikely that it would address all of it (and not all projects will have a CPARS). We understand that the Government has stated that it will not adjust the page count limitations;

however, we respectfully ask again that the Government consider expanding or removing the page limitation requirement so that Offerors can provide all of the documentation needed to validate our scoring.

Gov Response: The Government has decided to permit the inclusion of project SOWs as Appendix 1, Project Specific Statements of Work to Attachment 6, Relevant Experience Project Template. The appendix SOWs will not count against the 80-page count maximum.

Solicitation Section L and M have been updated to include guidance on the appendix SOWs.

Please ensure that the narrative references the SOW information as required in the below text, which is stated on Attachment 6 for cross-referencing purposes. Documentation that is not included in the SOW can be included in the narrative through excerpts of the documentation. The information in the narrative is restricted to 2 pages per project, with a 60-page maximum (not including Appendix 1). Attachment 6 has been updated to clarify the note regarding the narrative requirements and references to SOW appendix items and to allow contractors to delete the note in place of their narrative text. The new note reads as follows:

Note: Use the narrative block to explain the rationale supporting your claim. Your narrative should include the identification/explanation of the excerpts of documentation that substantiate the self-scored claims. Offeror shall provide excerpts in the narrative of Contract, Task Order, and/or Award documentation that substantiates the ratings in ATT 05_Volume II_HTRO Self-Scoring Worksheet. Statements of Work (SOW) can be included in Appendix 1, REP SOW. The appendix does not have a page limit, nor does it count to the 80-page limit for Volume II. The Offeror shall include identification of SOW references/titles, page number section/paragraph headings in the narrative for cross referencing purposes.

You may remove this note.

50. If the Government maintains the two-page limit per Relevant Experience Project, how will projects be evaluated if we are unable to validate all required relevancies within the allowed page limitation? Will the project receive partial credit, or will it be disqualified from scoring in that category?

Gov Response: The Government will review the narratives provided in Attachment 6 and any Statements of Work included in Appendix I to validate an offeror’s self-rated score. If the Government is unable to validate a Relevant Experience Project meets the criteria for a category that project’s score for that category will be adjusted down to zero (0) points. No partial credit will be applied (e.g. an offeror will get either 1000 points or zero (0) per project in Section I).

51. Please confirm that the required REP Template (Attachment 6) is excluded from page limitation for each Relevant Experience Project.

Gov Response: Page 1 of Attachment 6 which contains the instructions can be deleted by offerors. If it is left in the final submission, it will not count towards the page limit. All other pages of Attachment 6 are to be completed by the offeror and will count toward the page limit.

52. Please confirm whether PPQs are an acceptable form of documentation for verifying REPs?

Gov Response: No, past performance questionnaires (PPQs) are not an acceptable form of documentation for verifying REPs. Offerors shall use the Attachment 6 template to provide the details of each REP and a narrative explaining how the project meets the category definitions.

53. RFP Section L-2, 2.2.1.11, states, “[…] offerors shall select the bonding capacity currently possessed from a drop-down of three (3) choices: Equal to $60M but less than $90M, Equal to or Greater Than $90M but less than $120M, or Equal to or Greater Than $120M”.

The point allocations in the Self-Scoring Sheet appear to favor larger companies and JVs, making it difficult for an 8(a) offeror to remain competitive. In the best interest of the Government, to maximize competition on the IDIQ contract and support competitive bids, we respectfully request that the Government consider adjusting the scoring criteria to better account for the bonding limitations of smaller businesses.

Gov Response: The Government has adjusted this section to reduce the bonding capacity point scale. The new options are “Equal to $60M but less than $75M”, “Equal to $75M but less than $90M”, and “Greater Than $90M”.

54. Per RFI Response #28, the Government has stated that Volume II has an 80-page limit, with 20 pages allocated for staffing, bonding, and licensing documentation. Would the Government allow offerors to use any remaining pages from this 20-page allocation for other sections in Volume II.

Gov Response: No, if the 20-page allocation for staffing, bonding and licensing is not used, the remaining pages cannot be used for other sections as the REPs are limited to two (2) pages per REP.

55. We respectfully request an extension of the proposal due date by 2 weeks to allow sufficient time to properly assemble all required documentation and incorporate RFI response.

Gov. Response: An extension will not be issued to the proposal due date.

56. If a person has the qualifications to fulfill the requirements for 2 of the positions, can they be used for both and be counted as one for each of the positions. (i.e. qualified as QCM and superintendent or Project Manager and superintendent)

Gov Response: Yes, as long as an individual meets the qualification requirements in the WOOKIE MACC Statement of Work paragraph 17.1, they may be used in more than position.

57. If a project includes the requirements for multiple categories, can it be used to represent both those categories (i.e. has fire suppression and heating and ventilation). If so, how does this effect the scoring in section II. Do you get to count the project each time it is used such as if a project has the two categories and used for both and if in California and bases does it count as two (2) for each California and bases?

Gov Response: If a project meets the requirements for multiple categories, it can be reused in Section I. However, a project reused in Section I will not be double scored in Sections II and III as those sections evaluate quantities of unique (non-reused) projects.

58. "Reference 2.1.4 Chapter 3 - Joint Venture Agreements:

In lieu of a 'Joint Venture Agreement' being submitted to the SBA prior to the initial bid date, would an executed 'Teaming Agreement' submitted by an active 8(a) offeror be acceptable?"

Gov Response: No, for purposes of evaluation a Teaming Agreement is not equivalent to a Joint Venture Agreement. In a Teaming Agreement the Government makes award to only one of the teaming partners and no contractual relationship is made between the Government and the other partner(s). Due to this lack of contractual privity the experience of Teaming Agreement partners is not being considered as the Government cannot ensure the Teaming Agreement partners participation throughout the life of the contract.

A Joint Venture Agreement instead creates a separate entity that is comprised of all partners.

Award would be made to that separate entity creating a contractual agreement between the Government and all partners for the life of the contract. This contractual relationship is what allows the Government to hold all partners liable to the terms and conditions of the contract while a Teaming Arrangement the Government can only hold the awarded partner liable.

59. "Per FAR 52.207-6 Solicitation of Offers from Small Business Concerns and Small Business Teaming Arrangements or Joint Ventures (Multiple-Award Contracts): ""(i) For civilian agencies, may include two business concerns in a mentor-protégé relationship when both the mentor and the protégé are small or the protégé is small and the concerns have received an exception to affiliation pursuant to 13 CFR 121.103(h)(3)(ii) or (iii).""

Please confirm that the above reference applies to this solicitation and confirm whether a Teaming Agreement for a mentor-protege relationship is acceptable in lieu of a JV, given that the protege is an active 8(a) business."

Gov Response: The referenced paragraph of the clause does not apply to this acquisition as the Department of Defense is not a civilian agency. Offerors may submit a Teaming Arrangement or Mentor-Protégé Agreement, however, for the purposes of evaluation the Government will only be evaluating the experience of the prime contractor or 8(a) Joint Venture partner as these are the only parities with which the Government will form a contractual relationship.

60. Does the teaming partner need to be an 8(a), or can it be a small business? What about a large business?

Gov Response: Only an 8(a) company or an 8(a) Joint Venture can submit for this requirement. For an 8(a) Joint Venture, at least one of the partners must be an 8(a) company.

Please speak with your BOS to determine any constraints on the other partner.

61. Can a teaming partner's experience / capabilities be used to supplement our own?

Gov Response: No, a teaming partner’s experience cannot be used to supplement your own for purposes of evaluation unless they are part of the Joint Venture.

62. Can a joint venture use past performance projects from a different joint venture in its past performance portfolio for consideration?

Gov Response: Experience can only be provided for projects where the 8(a) company or its joint venture partner were the prime contractor

63. Clarification Request – Attachment 06 Relevant Past Performance Experience Project Template:

The template states that offerors shall provide excerpts from contracts, task orders, or award documentation within Volume II, highlighting relevant details. Please clarify whether actual contract documents are required or if a brief project explanation suffices. Given the two-page limit per project, additional pages may be needed if full contract documents are necessary.

Gov Response: The Government has decided to permit the inclusion of project SOWs as Appendix 1, Project Specific Statements of Work to Attachment 6, Relevant Experience Project Template. The appendix SOWs will not count against the 80-page count maximum.

Solicitation Section L and M have been updated to include guidance on the appendix SOWs.

Please ensure that the narrative references the SOW information as required in the below text, which is stated on Attachment 6 for cross-referencing purposes. Documentation that is not included in the SOW can be included in the narrative through excerpts of the documentation. The information in the narrative is restricted to 2 pages per project, with a 60-page maximum (not including Appendix 1). Attachment 6 has been updated to clarify the note regarding the narrative requirements and references to SOW appendix items and to allow contractors to delete the note in place of their narrative text. The new note reads as follows:

Note: Use the narrative block to explain the rationale supporting your claim. Your narrative should include the identification/explanation of the excerpts of documentation that substantiate the self-scored claims. Offeror shall provide excerpts in the narrative of Contract, Task Order, and/or Award documentation that substantiates the ratings in ATT 05_Volume II_HTRO Self-Scoring Worksheet. Statements of Work (SOW) can be included in Appendix 1, REP SOW. The appendix does not have a page limit, nor does it count to the 80-page limit for Volume II. The Offeror shall include identification of SOW references/titles, page number section/paragraph headings in the narrative for cross referencing purposes.

You may remove this note.

64. In the Response to Requests for Information (RFI): Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) Program, Vandenberg SFB. Question 1 was asked in response to affiliate companies “Past Performance”. The response stated that “The Contracting Officer determined that it is in the best interests of the Government to proceed without including past performance as an evaluation factor and documented the determination within the contract file”.