FA4621-18-R-0002_-_Synopsis_Q&A__1-15_(13_Mar_18).pdf

Architectural & Engineering (A&E) Services

FA4621‐18‐R‐0002

MAFB Response Date: 13 March 2018

Questions & Answers #1‐15

QUESTION #1 ‐ I noticed this is "100% set aside for small business concerns" but also requires the Cover Letter to include business type (large business, small business, small disadvantaged business, 8(a)‐ certified small disadvantaged business, HUBZone small business, woman‐owned small business, veteran‐ owned small business, service‐disabled veteran‐owned small business). Is this simply a "small business" set‐aside or will certified 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, etc. businesses be given a preference during the selection process? Is the goal to award to a small business or a small disadvantaged business?

ANSWER #1 ‐ This is a total small business set‐aside. Preference will not be given based on socioeconomic group nor small disadvantaged business.

QUESTION #2 ‐ Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past? If available, please provide the incumbent contract number. If you are unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

ANSWER #2 ‐ We have awarded contracts that have performed similar work. Current incumbent contract numbers are FA4621‐12‐D‐0005 and FA4621‐12‐D‐0006.

QUESTION #3 ‐ There is no mention of Part IIs for our subconsultants. Do you want them?

ANSWER #3 ‐ Yes. Paragraph 2 of the SF 330 General Instructions requires that firms “Prepare a separate Part II for each firm that will be part of the team proposed for a specific contract and submitted with Part I. If a firm has branch offices, submit a separate Part II for each branch office that has a key role on the team.”

QUESTION #4 ‐ If yes, do they count toward the 25 page (50 double sided) limit?

ANSWER #4 – Yes. Part II for the subconsultants/subcontractors will count towards the 25‐page (50 double‐sided pages) limit.

QUESTION #5 ‐ In II. Evaluation (1) Professional Qualifications, there are several disciplines you want included. We are assuming we need to include resumes for each of these disciplines, but were curious what you are wanting for the Survey Crew. Do you want actual resumes for the Survey Crew or can we address this in the Section H?

ANSWER #5 ‐ If individuals in the Survey Crew are considered key personnel, they will need a resume per Section E. Otherwise, you may address this in Section H.

QUESTION #6 ‐ If you do want them included in Section E, what specialties, specifically?

ANSWER #6 ‐ If Section E of the SF 330 is used to highlight resumes of the survey crew that will work on the contract, please follow instructions in Section E, including providing information on any professional qualifications and projects that are relevant to this solicitation.

QUESTION #7 ‐ There is no date, design completion percentage or construction completion percentage limitation referred to for the Section F projects. We have projects that can encompass all of the noted project types but would require allowing construction complete in the last 10 years, since the DoD has mostly focused on SRM contracts the past few years. Is this acceptable?

ANSWER #7 – Yes. However, keep in mind that per Evaluation Criteria #3 in the Pre‐Solicitation Notice (Synopsis), the Government's evaluation of past performance will consider the offeror's recent and relevant past performance.

QUESTION #8 ‐ Regarding the PPQ requirement: For several of our projects, we have already acquired PPQs from our Customers. Can we submit those to you ourselves, or do we need to ask them to re‐do them in your format and send directly to you?

ANSWER #8 ‐ Other PPQs will be evaluated, but please recognize that other PPQs may not address all areas/questions on the MAFB PPQ. The PPQ at Attachment #2 is specific to MAFB, and per Response Procedures in the Synopsis, must be sent directly from the customers/references to Melinda.Forgit.1@us.af.mil. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact, or valid phone numbers on any PPQs or evaluations could result in a lower rating.

QUESTION #9 ‐ Since this is a pre‐solicitation for FA462118R002, are we to move forward with sending in our qualifications that is due on April 2, 2018?

ANSWER #9 ‐ In accordance with Response Procedures in the Synopsis, you must send all of the required information requested by the announcement no later than 2:00 p.m. CST on April 2, 2018. A separate request for proposal will be asked of the most highly qualified firms prior to negotiations.

QUESTION #10 ‐ Our NAICS is 541330 and 541690. Do we qualify to submit a bid?

ANSWER #10 – To be eligible for award as a small business, an offeror must represent in good faith that it is a small business under the applicable NAICS code and size standard at the time of the written representation. The applicable NAICS and size standard for this acquisition is 541310 and $7.5M, respectively. Please refer to www.sba.gov or your local U.S. Small Business Administration office for any additional questions or information on determining business size.

QUESTION #11 ‐ Is this an on call requirement? (This question has been posed by multiple firms.)

ANSWER #11 – No, this is not an on‐call requirement. This is an Indefinite‐Delivery, Indefinite‐Quantity (IDIQ) requirement that will contain individual task orders, including Title II inspection services. Each task order will have specific periods of performance and defined scopes of work. Although this is not considered an on‐call requirement, the Title II inspection services task orders will require the A‐E contractor to be available to perform inspection services throughout the duration of the task order period of performance. While Title II inspection services are typically scheduled in advance, on occasion some inspection services may require the A‐E contractor to respond more promptly.

QUESTION #12 ‐ Regarding Item 3 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ). Can the posting be changed to allow for the submittal of CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) ACASS or CCASS ratings for a relevant project in lieu of the provided Attachment 2 PPQ form? We understand that this is our government representatives preferred approach. Obtaining new PPQ forms from our government representatives for each pursuit becomes overly taxing on their time.

ANSWER #12 – In accordance with the SF 330 General Instructions, “The information used to evaluate firms is from this form and other sources, including performance evaluations, any additional data requested by the agency and interviews with the most highly qualified firms and their references.”

Therefore, it is not necessary for the Government to amend the FBO posting, but other PPQs, CPARS, ACASS or CCASS evaluations may be submitted and will be considered. However, please recognize that the information provided from other PPQs or evaluations may not address all the areas/questions on the MAFB PPQ.

QUESTION #13 ‐ Regarding Item 3 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ). Can the posting be changed to allow for the submittal of government representatives' previously executed NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ‐0) for a relevant project in lieu of the provided Attachment 2 PPQ form? We understand that this is our government representatives preferred approach. Obtaining new PPQ forms from our government representatives for each pursuit becomes overly taxing on their time. I have attached the template of Form PPQ‐0 for reference.

ANSWER #13 ‐ While we understand this concern, the NAVFAC/USACE form does not replace the PPQ that is attached to this notice since it may not address all the survey questions in the MAFB PPQ. You may submit the NAVFAC/USACE questionnaire, but note the Response Procedures of the Synopsis state that the PPQs “should be completed in full…and submitted directly by the references.” As such, other PPQs must be submitted directly to Melinda.Forgit.1@us.af.mil.

QUESTION #14 ‐ Since we have worked so much for the Federal Government, we have a number of CPARS evaluations rated overall Very Good or Exceptional. Would these CPARS evaluations be acceptable to submit in lieu of the PPQs? We feel confident that the Project Managers for our governmental projects would provide a good recommendation via the PPQ, but we would prefer not to burden them with additional work if the existing CPARS evaluations are acceptable.

ANSWER #14 – As stated in Question #12, other PPQs, CPARS, ACASS or CCASS evaluations may be submitted and will be considered. However, please recognize that the information provided from other PPQs or evaluations may not address all the areas/questions on the MAFB PPQ.

QUESTION #15 ‐ Per the solicitation, Architect‐Engineer Services IDIQ, Solicitation Number: FA4621‐18‐ R‐0002, it states, “Questionnaires completed by a prime contractor on behalf of a subcontractor, or vice versa, should not be submitted.”

1. Does the prime only need to submit PPQ or should our subconsultants submit as well?

2. Should PPQ’s only be submitted to agencies as clients or can we submit to a prime firm if we were a subconsultant?

ANSWER #15 – (1) The Government will consider recent and relevant past performance of the prime and subcontractors, so PPQs should be submitted for subconsultants as well. (2) PPQs can only be requested from clients for whom your firm was the prime or subconsultant; prime contractors cannot complete PPQs for subconsultants. PPQs must be sent directly from the customers/references to Melinda.Forgit.1@us.af.mil.