Questions 2027 McConnell MACC Amendment 1.pdf

Questions 2027 McConnell MACC:

1. We are preparing for the mock assessment scheduled for 9/21. Our C3PAO audit is not yet on the books…anticipating October timeline. Can the CMMC Level 2 requirement be waived for this opportunity, so we can submit our proposals? Please advise as soon as possible.

The solicitation will be updated to reflect CMMC Level 2 (Self) as the requirement. Per the Class

Deviation 2026-O0025, Revision 3 released in Sep 2026, Contracting Officers are to “Collaborate with requiring activities to remove or revise the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

(CMMC) requirements in new and existing solicitations and contracts in accordance with the

Department of War Chief Information Officer’s memorandum…” which “Permits requiring activities to include CMMC Level 1 (Self) and CMMC Level 2 (Self) assessments in all procurement requests and requirement documents.”

2. Section J – List of Attachments – I have the list in the solicitation, but can’t find the actual documents. Am I missing something or do I need to make another request

Please request the solicitation documents through email to Lt Johnson and Christina Muth please see the sam.gov posting for more information.

3. Section L, L.2.1 Organization: There is a reference to the PPPQ here and it is an attachment.

Is this the NAVFAC PPQ? Section L.2.5.3 has a reference to PPQ vs PPPQ. Is there a difference?

It is not a reference to the NAVFAC PPQ. The attached Past Performance PPPQ is functionally identical to a standard PPQ. However, it has been customized internally to focus on critical performance details specific to our contract operations at McConnell AFB.

4. Section L.2.5.3.1 – General: The RFP states:

“Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on up to seven (7) completed or current contracts….”

We understand that an individual task order could be considered a “contract”, but normally a stand-alone contract is just that a contract. Likewise, a MATOC, JOC or

SABER are contracts. Please define what you consider a contract and/or a project

All listed items are considered contracts. Offerors may cite IDIQ contracts or individual task orders/projects or contracts as past performance citations and may provide PPPQs (or CPARS) for either IDIQ contracts or project contracts. It is important to note though, as indicated in Section

M.3.2, “Projects with a similar contract type and magnitude (such as MACC/MATOC, SABER, JOC Firm Fixed Price ID/IQ contracts) using terms and conditions similar to those set forth in this solicitation (i.e. Liquidated Damages, Material and Workmanship, and Warranty of Construction to name a few)” is one of the important factors which will be considered during the past performance evaluation.

5. Section L.2.5.3.2: Recent is described within the last three years. We request you consider a longer period and change to seven years, since many of the larger projects take two to three years to complete. Likewise, in the paragraph on Relevant, you reference MATOCs, JOC and SABER contracts, which normally have a duration of five and sometimes as long as seven years.

We deem three years as an adequate amount of time to understand past performance and to obtain the most recent and relevant information.

6. Section L.2.5.3.2: Relevant paragraph – several questions:

1st – Two projects must be design-build with a project magnitude between $2,000 and

$10,000,000. We wanted to make sure there was not a typo on the $2,000, since not many projects are procured at that level. Did you intend $2,000,000?

There is no typo, we meant $2,000.00

2nd – Complexity is defined as….large design-build task orders… Due to the wide range of $2K to $10M, what do you consider as large? $8M? $6M? $4M? Need to clarify so all firms are complying with the same definition of “large” vs trying to guess.

Any design-build task order greater than $2,000.

3rd – The RFP states:

“Complexity is defined as the ability to perform and manage several, large design-build task orders at the same time, and/or the ability to successfully perform and manage multi-discipline task orders of a similar magnitude to that described in the solicitation.”

To comply with this request, do the concurrent task orders have to be several of the seven (7) projects listed in L.2.5.3.1? If not, then can the proof to show concurrent task order be provided in additional pages (say two)?

It must all be within the seven (7) task orders or ten (10) if you are submitting as a JV.

4th – The RFP states:

“Relevant contracts that include work performed on multiple large design-build projects/multi-disciplined task orders simultaneously, on a military installation or experience as a prime contractor and/or joint venture involving Job Order Contracting (JOC), Multiple Award Task

Order Contracts (MATOC) and Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering (SABER) construction contracts will be considered "More Relevant."

We are confused with the description of contracts, which reference above MATOCs, JOCs and

SABERS, versus individual task orders. Are you intending Offerors submit multiple task orders under one contract and count it as one “relevant contract”? If not, then the RFP needs to be clarified to define a project as an individual task order or further define what you intend.

This statement is not intended to define contracts as being JOC, MATOC, SABER type contracts.

This is to state that those types of contracts will be considered “More Relevant” not to define what is considered a contract. Contractors can submit an IDIQ base contract and can also submit individual task orders under that base contract.

7. Section L.2.5.3.3 – Past Performance: The RFP states:

“Past performance on contracts that expired more than three years prior to the date of the posted solicitation will not be evaluated.”

If the intent is to evaluate contracts, such as MATOCs, then that contract could have expired more than three years ago, but individual task orders may have been completed within the last three window. Is your intent to evaluate “contracts” or task orders for past performance?

Task orders are contracts. We will evaluate either with the understanding that MATOC and JOC’s are more relevant than task orders.

8. Section L.2.5.3.3 – Past Performance, paragraph b. – You reference a “company point of contact information to include…” This implies we were working as a subcontractor. Is that your intent? Or did you mean the client POC, since “c” asks for the name and address of customer or government agency.

Also, what different information are you looking for in “c” vs “d”, since “d” has the KO et al listed?

Paragraph b is requesting that you indicate the point of contact for the information that is being provided by the company the questionnaire is about. We are not implying you are a subcontractor, whatever company has shown the past performance will be shown.

Paragraph C is looking for the government agency that the work was performed under while

Paragraph D is asking for information on the individual customer contacts (CE, CONS, Etc.).

9. Section L.2.5.3.3 – Past Performance, paragraph starting with “Send RFP Attachment B…”:

Several questions on this paragraph:

1st – The RFP states: “If necessary, each project may use multiple PPPQs for one (1) project (one for each individual reference).” It has been our experience that trying to get PPQs from one individual at an agency is difficult. Trying to get from multiple people will be nearly impossible, especially since many of the personnel that know the project details have left or retired. We are assuming the word “if necessary” allows us some latitude. Please confirm?

We will evaluate what is received, whether it is one or multiple. The submission of the request to multiple people can be beneficial in ensuring that some level of response is provided.

2nd – The RFP states:

“Also, PPPQs will only be accepted from Project Owners or their authorized representatives.

PPPQs will not be accepted from Prime Contractors, Subcontractors, or Manufacturers.”

If a project we have selected is one where we were a major subcontractor, this implies we cannot use it. Please clarify, since this will restrict competition to only contractors that have prime contracts and cannot use a project where they were major subcontractor.

You can use it as a subcontractor and can still submit it to a government agency/property owner if they are comfortable completing it for the work you performed on the Government contract.

3rd – We have requested PPQs (the NAVFAC PPQ) from our clients and have received a copy.

However, we have been told numerous times that you (contractor) have a PPQ and they don’t have time to complete another one. Please consider changing this paragraph to allowing us to include PPQs (NAVFAC PPQ) that have been completed and signed by our client.

We will not, our PPPQ is tailored to the information that we deem necessary for the projects on

McConnell AFB.

4th – In the last paragraph you reference a “questionnaire”, which we assume you mean the PPQ.

Please confirm?

Confirmed, we mean the PPPQ.

10. Section L, L.2.5.3.4 -Past Performance for Teaming Arrangements/JV: This paragraph allows ten references. Does this mean that TA/JV’s can submit ten projects? Does this provide

TA/JV an advantage by allowing more projects that could score higher?

Yes, TA/JVs may submit ten projects. This does not provide TA/JVs an advantage because we are looking at both companies. RFO 9.104-3(c)(2) requires that “For a prospective contractor that is a joint venture, consider the past performance of the joint venture. If the joint venture lacks past performance, consider the past performance of each party to the joint venture.”

11. Section M.3.2 – Past Performance, 2nd paragraph: The RFP states:

“A confidence assessment rating is assigned through an analysis of the offeror's recent, current, and relevant performance.”

When you use “current” do you mean a project that is in construction can be used? Recent, as explained in Section L, implies that the project was performed within the last three years. Please clarify if a project needs to be 90% complete, 70% complete, 50% complete or what per centage of completion is acceptable?

Later in (i) Recency Assessment you indicate “substantial progress”. Please define what stage of completion is substantial progress?

Substantial progress is not easy to define, as each contract is different. A defined percentage would not accurately reflect the intent, as smaller projects would require that a larger percentage of the work be accomplished, while for very large projects a smaller percentage of the work could equate to the same level of actual progress. For this situation, you should consider substantial progress to be enough effort that your customer for that contract can answer at least half of the questions on the PPPQ with relevant responses (not N/A).

12. Section M.3.2 – Past Performance; (ii) Relevancy Assessment; item 1: This implies a project is an entire contract, such as one of the three types listed. If that is not the intent, then please provide a definition for project and contract, which will allow all offerors a complete understanding of your intent and what to submit.

The similar contract type is also listed later in this section in paragraph “1. Projects with a similar…”

The intent of this statement is to highlight what will be considered in the determination of relevancy and past performance confidence, not to limit the contract type. Many different forms of contracts/task orders can be considered, but when looking at the submitted projects, the listed items in this section will be considered in determining their relevancy and ultimately past performance confidence.

13. Section M.3.2 – Past Performance; Determining Relevancy; There are several questions on the subparagraphs:

3. Dollar value/threshold of requirement. This could be interpreted as the amount of the task order or the total contract amount. If there is a threshold, then please define what that amount is.

Any contracts over $2,000 could be considered relevant

Projects on which offeror and proposed design firm(s) have previously work together. We did not see any reference for us to name or include information about the design firm in Section L. If we missed something, then please direct us to the requirement, since you are making it a part of the evaluation, which we need to know what details to include for the design firm?

If the contractor is planning to team with a design firm, then the teaming information should be contained in the Teaming/Joint Venture section. If the contractor is not planning to team with a design firm, they should ensure that their past performance demonstrates their ability to properly select and manage design firms for different projects/contracts.

14. . Section M, M.3.2 Past Performance, (ii) Relevancy Assessment, Item 7 assesses relevancy based on "Projects on which offeror and proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together." However, Sections L and M contain no requirement to identify a proposed design firm or submit related past performance information. Please confirm this criterion is not applicable to this project, or clarify where in Section L this submission requirement is addressed.

If the contractor is planning to team with a design firm, then the teaming information should be contained in the Teaming/Joint Venture section. If the contractor is not planning to team with a design firm, they should ensure that their past performance demonstrates their ability to properly select and manage design firms for different projects/contracts.

15. The solicitation lists two deadlines for questions. Section H, Paragraph H.8.0 indicates 14

September at 2:00 p.m. for questions asked at the Conference and Site Visit. Section L, Paragraph

L.4 indicates all questions should be submitted no later than close of business five business days after the September 10 site visit, which would be September 17. Can the Government please clarify whether the 14 September deadline applies only to questions asked during the conference and site visit?

There are multiple question due dates. The 14 Sep 2026 due date is to get all questions in from the site visit so they may be answered in a timely manner. The second due date has been adjusted to 21 Sep 2026, which is the final due date to allow for follow-up questions, final questions, etc.

Any questions asked after 21 Sep 2026 may not be responded to.

16. Section L.3 states that submission via electronic mail or facsimile is not authorized and that proposal packages shall be mailed or hand-delivered. However, DFARS 252.215-7012 states that the cost portion of the proposal shall be submitted via electronic mail. Please clarify whether offerors may submit the Seed Project Pricing Schedule (Attachment 9) via email per DFARS

252.215-7012 if all other response items are provided as stated in Paragraph L.3

Contractors shall provide price proposal as part of the proposal package which shall be mailed or hand-delivered. Clause information in the solicitation will be updated to reflect electronic submission for Task Orders as Task Order proposals will be required to be provided electronically.

17. Section L, Paragraph L.2.1 states, “…one (1) electronic CD containing the three (3) sections/parts as defined in the table below.” However, the table provided in L.2.1 indicates one

CD should be provided for Volume I and one CD should be provided for Volume II, but no CDs are required for the Cover Page. Can the government please clarify the CD requirements?

We only need one CD which should contain all volumes

18. The RFP incorporates DFARS 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity

Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, and specifies a CMMC Level 2 C3PAO (third-party) certification requirement. As of July 13, 2026, the Department of War issued a suspension of CMMC Phase II implementation, which paused the November 10, 2026 third-party assessment milestone and directed contracting officers to amend active solicitations accordingly. Given this memo, can the government please confirm that the Level 2 C3PAO (third-party) requirement is not required and clarify if it will be revised to a Level 2 self-assessment requirement (or removed) consistent with DoW's implementation guidance.

with requiring activities to remove or revise the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

(CMMC) requirements in new and existing solicitations and contracts in accordance with the

Department of War Chief Information Officer’s memorandum…” which “Permits requiring

19. Section L, DFARS 252.204-7025, Paragraph (d) – CMMC Unique Identifier(s) requires offerors to provide the CMMC unique identifier(s) (CMMC UIDs) issued by SPRS as part of the proposal response. Can the Government please clarify where within the proposal response the

CMMC UID(s) should be provided, since no fill-ins are required to be completed within Section

L

Information should be provided on the cover page with the Prime Contractor’s relevant contract information, cage code, UEI, etc.

20. Section L, Paragraph L.2.3 – Disclosure Markings: Paragraph L.2.3 states that disclosure markings “should be contained in the Header and Footer Sections of the Page within 1/2 and inch point of the Margin.” Can the Government confirm that this should read “within 1/2 an inch of the

Margin” rather than “within 1/2 and inch point of the Margin”?

All margins are required to be at least one-inch margins. The point of this statement is to indicate that the required Disclosure Markings must be placed between the half inch effective margin and the required 1-inch Margin to ensure Disclosure markings are effectively printed on each page.

21. Section L, Paragraph L.2.3 – Disclosure Markings: Paragraph L.2.3 states that disclosure markings “should be contained in the Header and Footer Sections of the Page.” Can the

Government please confirm whether disclosure markings may be included in the footer section only, or whether markings are required to appear in both the header and footer sections of each page?

They should appear in both the header and footer

22. Section L, Paragraph L.2.5.3.2 defines Recent as “projects performed within three (3) years from issuance month of this solicitation.” However, Paragraph L.2.5.3.3 states that, “Past performance on contracts that expired more than three years prior to the date of the posted solicitation will not be evaluated.” Can the Government please clarify which date should be used to determine the project recency: the solicitation issuance month (August 2026) or the solicitation posted date (August 17, 2026)?

August 2026

23. If the Government's answers to submitted questions are released after the question submission deadline, will Offerors be permitted to submit follow-on/clarifying questions in response to those answers?

The purpose of having multiple question and answer due dates was to allow for follow-on/clarifying questions in the final questions, which is why the initial questions were requested by

14 Sep, the Final questions date has been updated to 21 Sep.

24. Section L, Paragraph L.2.5.3.3, Past Performance Contract Submission Requirements states that offerors may submit a CPARS in lieu of a Past/Present Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) and instructs offerors to “attach the evaluation to the questionnaire with the relevant solicitation number.” When attaching a CPARS evaluation to the questionnaire, does the Government still require the offeror to complete Section 1 and Section 2 of the PPPQ, or does the CPARS evaluation fully satisfy those sections?

Offeror should complete section 1 and section 2.

25. Section L, Paragraph L.2.5.3.3, Past Performance Contract Submission Requirements states that offerors may submit a CPARS in lieu of a Past/Present Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ).

Can the Government clarify the submission method for the CPARS/questionnaire package?

Specifically, should the CPARS evaluation and questionnaire be submitted directly via email from the offeror to the point of contact identified in Section L.1.1.2?

Offeror shall submit the CPAR input directly to the 22nd Contracting Squadron office to the personnel listed on the PPPQ before the official closing date and time of the solicitation.

26. L.2.2 Page Size and Format, states: Pages shall be typed with 1.5-line spacing. Except for any reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall not be less than 12-point

Times New Roman font with margins of at least 1" on all sides.

Will you accept the font in tables and graphics to be a minimum of 10-point font instead of the required 12-point font?

No, all text size unless contained in an excepted document shall be no less than 12 point font.

27. L.2.2 Page Size and Format, states: Pages shall be typed with 1.5-line spacing. Except for

Times New Roman font with margins of at least 1" on all sides.

Is the line spacing in tables and graphics required to be 1.5 spacing?

No, line spacing shall be 1.5 spacing.

28. L.2.2 Page Size and Format, states: Pages shall be typed with 1.5-line spacing. Except for

Times New Roman font with margins of at least 1" on all sides.

Do the cover page and the cover letter require 1.5-line spacing or will you accept single line spacing for the letter?

Yes, the cover page/cover sheets shall be 1.5-line spacing. With regards to a cover letter, there is no requirement for submission of a cover letter. If a cover letter is elected to be submitted, the format of the cover letter shall be the same as the volume in which it is contained.

29. L.2.1 states that the Past Performance Volume is limited to 21 pages maximum. Will you allow additional pages (more than 21) in the Past Performance volume if the offeror is including a teaming partner’s past performance in addition to seven (7) Past Performance contracts from the offeror?

As indicated in Section L.2.5.3. “Volume II - Past Performance (Page Limit: 21, excluding PPQs and Teaming/Joint Venture Information)” this indicates that there is no page limitation on

Teaming/Joint Venture information and it does not count towards the page limit of 21 pages for the Past Performance Volume. Page limitation remains at 21 pages for the Past Performance information excluding the Teaming/Joint Venture information. If all references include the Joint effort/teaming partner, seven shall be included in the past performance section and the remaining three shall be included in the teaming section.

30. Section L.2.5.3.2 Recent and Relevant Requirements (pages 61-62) states that “At least two

(2) listed contracts must include design-build construction projects with a project magnitude between $2,000 and $10,000,000.” Given that the solicitation defines relevant projects by scope, complexity, and magnitude of similar work elements, will the Government consider and accept past performance examples where the project magnitude exceeds $10,000,000 (e.g., greater than

$10M), provided the project fully meets or exceeds all other stated requirements for recency and relevancy?

Offerors are not precluded from submitting task orders with a project magnitude in excess of the

$10,000,000, as long as “…at least two (2) listed contracts must include design-build construction projects with a project magnitude between $2,000 and $10,000,000.”

31. It is our understanding that the Department of Defense has temporarily suspended implementation of certain CMMC Phase II requirements, including CMMC Level 2 third-party assessments, while additional guidance and implementation requirements are being finalized. The solicitation currently identifies CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) as a requirement. Given that offerors may not yet have access to the final requirements or a clear path to obtaining the required third-party certification, please clarify whether the Government anticipates revising this requirement in light of the current DoD guidance and, if so, what, if any CMMC level and assessment type offerors will be required to have for this acquisition.

with requiring activities to remove or revise the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

(CMMC) requirements in new and existing solicitations and contracts in accordance with the

Department of War Chief Information Officer’s memorandum…” which “Permits requiring

32. The solicitation requires offerors to hold their proposal pricing for a minimum of 245 calendar days. Given the volatility of construction material and subcontractor pricing, many subcontractors are unwilling to hold firm pricing for that length of time, which may require offerors to include significant contingencies and could negatively affect price competitiveness.

Would the Government consider reducing the required proposal acceptance period for the seed project, or otherwise clarify whether offerors may update seed-project pricing prior to award if subcontractor or material pricing changes during the 245-day acceptance period

No, the Government will not consider reducing the acceptance period for the seed project and does not intend to allow updates if material pricing changes.

33. We don’t see that a Period of Performance for the seed project is included. Could you please provide that POP

300 days

34. According to Section H. 8.0 Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit – the solicitation limits attendance at the pre-proposal conference/site visit to four individuals per offeror. Given the number of distinct trades required for the seed project, this restriction materially limits an offeror’s ability to have the appropriate subcontractors inspect the site conditions, develop informed pricing, and obtain multiple competitive bids within each trade. Would the Government consider increasing the number of attendees permitted per offeror, or allowing subcontractors to attend separately from the prime contractor’s four-person limit, to support more complete and competitive pricing

No, limitation of four is per contractor. Subcontractors may register themselves as attendees if they wish to attend.

35. Whether the entire B412 and B1099 drawing/specification packages are to be treated as CUI, or only the individual sheets specifically marked CUI.

Contractors are responsible for the handling and protection of CUI documents. With regards to

CUI compliance, please refer to NIST SP 800-171 Security Controls and 252.204-7012.

36. Whether offerors may print and bring hard copies of the Government-provided CUI documents to the September 10, 2026 pre-proposal conference/site visit for reference, and whether any specific transport or handling requirements apply

37. Whether offerors may provide applicable CUI drawings/specifications to prospective subcontractors and suppliers for estimating purposes prior to award and, if permitted, what safeguarding or verification requirements must be satisfied before providing those documents.

38. If electronic transmission to prospective subcontractors or suppliers is permitted, please identify the required security standard or approved method for transmitting the CUI documents.

39. “Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on up to seven (7) completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government, and private) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the Specifications.” Please advise on what qualifies as “current.” If able to utilize active contracts, please clarify what the percentage complete requirements will be for active projects.

Current contracts in this usage is “a contract that has been awarded and is not yet complete.”

There is no percentage of work that is required to be completed to be considered a current contract. Defining contracts by a percentage of work completed is not really an appropriate method. Since a percentage is based on the overall size of the contract a smaller contract would demonstrate less performance to achieve a higher percentage of work completed while a larger contract completing the same amount of work would be a significantly lower percentage. When considering the best projects to include, you should consider substantial progress to be enough effort that your customer for that contract can answer at least half of the questions on the PPPQ with relevant responses (not N/A).

40. In the DFARS Clauses Incorporated by Full

Text (252.204-7025), it states that a CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) status is required prior to award. In light of the DoW's July 13, 2026 suspension of CMMC Phase 2 (mandatory third-party assessment) requirements, please confirm whether this solicitation's Level 2

(C3PAO) requirement remains in effect as written, or whether a current CMMC Level 2 self-assessment in SPRS will be accepted in its place.

with requiring activities to remove or revise the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

(CMMC) requirements in new and existing solicitations and contracts in accordance with the

Department of War Chief Information Officer’s memorandum…” which “Permits requiring

41. Please clarify the deadline for contractor questions/RFIs. A deadline of 2:00 p.m.

September 4 is mentioned in the SAM notice and in Section H.8.0. Section H.8.0 also notes that “Any questions asked during the conference and site visit shall be submitted in writing to the points of contact noted above NLT 14 September at 2:00 p.m.” And it appears as though COB September 17 is the ultimate deadline because Section L.4 Questions says that “all questions should be submitted to the

Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist no later than close of business five (5) business days after the site visit

There are multiple question due dates. The 14 Sep 2026 due date is to get all questions in from the site visit so they may be answered in a timely manner. The second due date, which has been updated to 21 Sep 2026 is intended to be the final due date to allow for follow-up questions, final questions, etc. Any questions asked after 21 Sep 2026 may not be responded to.

42. Section L.3 requires proposal packages to be mailed, or hand delivered, and does not authorize electronic submission. The solicitation process utilizes secure electronic file transfer for controlled contract documents and security/badging information.

Would the Government consider amending the solicitation to permit electronic proposal submission via DoD SAFE or another Government-authorized secure file-transfer method? This would provide a secure and documented means of proposal delivery while reducing the administrative burden and delivery risks associated with physical proposal packages.

No, we do not intend to allow for electronic submission. The proposal method of submission was selected based on risks with the award process.

43 . Also, in our review of the solicitation I saw in section I that the CMMC Level 2 C3PAO audit is required for the PoP of the contract. With the rollout being paused as of July 2026 will this be amended to remove until the review board makes a determination?

with requiring activities to remove or revise the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

(CMMC) requirements in new and existing solicitations and contracts in accordance with the

Department of War Chief Information Officer’s memorandum…” which “Permits requiring

44. B412: Drawing CS501 detail 2 indicates installing a lime stabilized subgrade. I’m being advised that for this small footprint of asphalt repair that a lime stabilized subgrade is not the best application. Suggest adding another 2 inches of thickness to the asphalt and another 2 inches of thickness to the subgrade and install geogrid fabric under subgrade. This would be much easier to accomplish, about the same cost and provide same durability as lime stabilization.

This is an acceptable change

45. B412: Key notes 1,2,3,4,5,7 and 8 all use the term “repair” loosely and the drawings do not define how these repairs are to be made. For many of these cracks, mudding / sanding / finishing / painting over the top of the cracks could be interpreted as “repaired”. Is mudding / sanding / finishing and painting over these cracks the intent or is a more in-depth repair envisioned?

That is the intended repair, note that all walls that are affected are to have the entire wall repainted. See IN-601

46. B1099: Key notes 1,2 and 3 all use the term “repair” loosely and the drawings do not define how these repairs are to be made. For many of these cracks, mudding / sanding / finishing / painting over the top of the cracks could be interpreted as “repaired”. Is mudding / sanding / finishing and painting over these cracks the intent or is a more in-depth repair envisioned?

That is the intended repair, note that all walls that are affected are to have the entire wall repainted.

47. B412: Where key notes 1,2,3,4,5,7 and 8 occur, is a localized paint job over the repair acceptable or shall any walls that have a repair note be painted corner-to-corner to make sure there is no noticeable difference where new paint is on top of existing paint?

Walls that are affected are to have the entire wall repainted. See IN-601

48. B1099: Where key notes 1,2,3, occur, is a localized paint job over the repair acceptable or shall any walls that have a repair note be painted corner-to-corner to make sure there is no noticeable difference where new paint is on top of existing paint?

Walls that are affected are to have the entire wall repainted.

49. B412: Sheet AE130 Detail A1, there are 2 instances of note 16 shown – should these notes actually be note 15 since the control joints at these 2 locations have failed?

Note 16 on AE130 shall read as the following:

REMOVE PAINT, FROM DOOR FRAME TO 5'-0" in all directions from the door frame for the

CMU wall DOWN THE WALL. CLEAN CMU WALL OF ANY MOLD, MILDEW OR

BIOLOGICAL GROWTH. PREP CMU WALL TOT RECEIVE NEW BLOCK FILLER.

INSTALL NEW BLOCK FILLER ON CMU WALL. PAINT ENTIRE WALL.

See zone 13C for keynote 15 on AE-130.

50. B412: Drawing AD112 note D.7 notes to remove the top ½” of concrete or thickness required to install flowable fill to level the floor. Suggest revising the requirement from flow-fill to an epoxy floor leveling compound. This will be better suited for such a thin application, provide better adhesion to the remaining concrete and be a better substrate for the new flooring adhesives.

The intended product is to be a cementitious self-leveling underlayment. The contractor is to submit on the material prior to use for government review.

51. B412: Sheets AE112 / AE114, since the underslab drain installation occurs in the lower level and the flooring in these rooms gets replaced is it acceptable to stockpile the excavation spoils inside the rooms (010 / 011 /018)?

Yes, ensure to protect area where spoils are being kept. For 018, do not block means of access to mechanical equipment. Additionally, contractor shall protect the existing mechanical equipment within 018. Any mechanical-related issues that happen during the contractor’s stockpiling of spoilage will result in the contractor being the party responsible in repairing or fixing the issues.

52. B412: Can Elevator 016 shown on AE114 be used for the construction effort?

Yes, the elevator may be used. If the elevator is used, it must not be overloaded. The contractor is responsible for protecting the interior from damage. Any elevator-related issues that happen during the contractor’s use will result in the contractor being the party responsible in repairing or fixing the issues.

53. B412: Note 14 on AE114. Please confirm the sump cover pit is all that is getting replaced and the existing sump pump and associated piping is to remain?

Yes, just the sump pump cover is to be replaced. Keynote D.5 is in error. AD114, D.5 should read

“remove sump pump cover”

54. B412: Note 20 on AD102 seems to be missing a word(s) between “DEEP” and “WITH”.

What is the new item we are installing with this note?

Note 20 should be: "INSTALL NEW 12" WIDE X 6" DEEP TRENCH DRAIN WITH 1/16" PER

FOOT SLOPE, AND CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB".

55. B412: The diagonal hatching shown at the top left corner of sheet AE114 states “new trench drain and concrete slab”. Please verify whether this is or is not to be interpreted as a new floor level steel trench drain (example picture below)? I assume the intent of this hatching is to continue the underslab drain line shown on AE112 to the sump pump and patch back the slab and not install a steel trench drain, but the note is interpretable.

Reference spec section 33 40 00: Provide modular trench drains consisting of plastic sections.

Provide trench with width and invert slope as indicated on the drawings.2.3.8.1

Grates Utilize ductile iron or stainless steel trench grates. At trench drains inside of the building, provide heel proof stainless steel grates. Attach trench grates to sections as recommended by the manufacturer.

56. B1099: Dwg AE101 note 11 – can a detail of the required hand railing be provided?

Yes, see Q&A Attachment 1. Contractor to provide shop drawings for government review before fabrication.

57. B1099:There are electrical outlets inside of existing Airlock 116, will these need to be replaced with the installation of the new walls? If not, does the circuitry need to be demo’d back to source?

All electrical outlets/ports need to be replaced with the installation of the new walls

58. Can the drawings/specifications be shared with the subcontractors as they aren't marked by

CUI?

Contractors are responsible for the handling and protection of documents, please refer to NIST SP

800-171 Security Controls and 252.204-7012.

59. B1099 (AE101 - Detail 9) The sidewalk will need to get rerouted as there are AHU lines in the current pathway

Remove the sidewalk requirement and grade area to prevent water buildup next to building, see

Q&A Attachment 1

60. B1099 - Some of the soffits need reattached as they are hanging in areas. Will be part of the scope to repair?

No, this is out of scope.

61. It is our understanding that we are responsible for moving furniture throughout. Will the government remove the books (Library), computers/monitors from desks, and personal affects?

Yes, the Government will remove all loose items before the contactor takes responsibility

62. The solicitation identifies CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) as the required CMMC level and states that the required status must be in place prior to award. Current Department CMMC implementation guidance suspends Phase II requirements and provides that, during the suspension, requiring activities may designate CMMC Level 1 (Self) or CMMC Level 2 (Self), but may not designate CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO). Please confirm the CMMC level applicable to this solicitation and whether the solicitation will be amended to remove the CMMC Level 2

(C3PAO) requirement. Please also clarify whether the applicable CMMC requirement will apply to award of the base MACC and Seed Project, or whether CMMC requirements will be established at the individual task-order level based on the information to be processed, stored, or transmitted.

with requiring activities to remove or revise the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

(CMMC) requirements in new and existing solicitations and contracts in accordance with the

Department of War Chief Information Officer’s memorandum…” which “Permits requiring

63. Sections L.2.5.3.2 and M.3.2 provide greater relevancy consideration for past performance efforts performed within 550 miles of McConnell AFB. Would the Government consider revising the solicitation to clarify that projects performed beyond 550 miles of McConnell AFB will not receive reduced relevancy solely due to geographic location when the project is otherwise highly relevant in scope, magnitude, complexity, and performance environment?

: Performance with 550 miles may be evaluated as more relevant; however, the Government does not intend to decrease a relevancy rating for performance outside of that radius.

64. Drawings AE111–AE112, Lower Floor Plan Notes 1–5, call for repair of cracks in the gypsum wallboard; however, the extent or limits of the vertical cracks and damaged areas are not identified. Please confirm whether the scope requires full wall repair and painting in accordance with the Finish Schedule on IN601, or only localized repair and painting. If localized, please provide the limits of work.

The entire area is the intended repair, note that all walls that are affected are to have the entire wall repainted. See IN-601

65. Drawings AE121–AE130, First Floor Plan Notes 1–5, call for repair of cracks in the gypsum wallboard; however, the extent or limits of the vertical cracks and damaged areas are not identified. Please confirm whether the scope requires full wall repair and painting in accordance with the Finish Schedule on IN601, or only localized repair and painting. If localized, please provide the limits of work.

66. Demolition Drawing AD114, Demo Note 5, calls for removal of the sump pump and sump pump cover, while Drawing AE114 calls for installation of a new sump pit cover. Please confirm whether the scope includes only a new sump pit cover or both a new sump pit cover and new sump pump. If a new sump pump is required, please provide the applicable specifications and requirements.

Just the sump cover is all that is getting replaced.

67. Please confirm proposals shall be mailed to the address listed under section L.1 section f.

That is correct.

68. Please confirm there should be one (1) CD provided as stated by narrative even though the table in L.2.1 shows two separate CD references for Volumes 1 and 2.

Correct only one (1) CD shall be provided

69. On page 67 of 73 of the solicitation 252.215-7012 Requirements for Submission of Proposal via Electronic Media is included and directs offerors to submit the cost portion of the proposal via

“electronic mail” – please confirm how offerors should submit their proposals as this is in direct conflict with earlier submission instructions.

Contractors shall provide price proposal as part of the proposal package which shall be mailed or hand-delivered. Clause information in the solicitation will be updated to reflect electronic submission for Task Orders as Task Order proposals will be required to be provided electronically.

70. Please confirm a bid bond is not required as stated in the SF 1442 box 13.b. This is in direct conflict with page 65 of 73 of the solicitation where 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee is included and required submission of a bid bond.

A Bid Bond is required, and the SF 1442 Box 13.b will be updated to reflect this.

71. In section L.2.5.1 Cover Page, instruction state to include on the cover page, the “SAM

Profile”. Since this is an extensive pdf print out from Sam.gov, does the Government mean for the offeror to confirm it’s active registration and up to date profile is active on Sam.gov?

By SAM Profile, we are looking for the SAM Unique Entity Number associated with your SAM

Registration.

72. In section L.2.5.1 Cover Page, instruction state to include on the cover page, the “Key

Personnel”. Does the Government intend the offerors submit an organizational chart for this contract or list of all key personnel – or does it want the offeror to designate the authorized points of contact, contacts authorized to negotiate, or some other specific point of contact? If key personnel is correct, please provide a list of those positions and what contact information is requested if any.

By Key Personnel, at a minimum, we are looking for the names of the Program Manager and

Quality Assurance Manager that will be responsible for the MACC contract efforts.

73. In regard to the submission of PPQs vs. CPARs, the solicitation states “In lieu of a

Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, if a project is currently available in the (CPARS), the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System contractor may attach the evaluation to the questionnaire with the relevant solicitation number and submit directly to the 22nd Contracting

Squadron office before the official closing date and time of the solicitation.” Does the government wish the contractor to complete the first three pages of the PPQ, attach the CPAR and email directly (outside of including in the paper and CD copies) to the POCs listed in the solicitation?

Offeror should complete section 1 and section 2.

74. Would the Government consider revising the recency requirement from three (3) years to five

(5) to promote greater competition and allow offerors to demonstrate experience successfully managing multiple concurrent design-build task orders under the same IDIQ contract within the required 550-mile radius?

We deem three years as an adequate amount of time to understand past performance and to obtain the most recent and relevant information.

75. Section I states that the CMMC Level 2 C3PAO audit is required for the PoP of the contract.

With the rollout being paused as of July 2026 and this solicitation being issued after the pause went into effect (8/17/26) will this be amended to remove until the review board makes a determination?

with requiring activities to remove or revise the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

(CMMC) requirements in new and existing solicitations and contracts in accordance with the

Department of War Chief Information Officer’s memorandum…” which “Permits requiring

76. B-1099 – Sheet AE101 shows new sidewalk on the east side of the building leading from room 118. During the site visit it was noticed there is existing MEP piping in this area. Should the contractor still anticipate placing concrete as designed, or alter the route to just south of the

External MEP equipment?

Remove the sidewalk requirement and grade area to prevent water buildup next to building, see

Q&A Attachment 1

77. B-1099 Sheet AE101- Note 12 for The west door in room 120. Please confirm that no seals are to be added or replaced as part of the hardware replacement.

No seals are designed to be replaced.

78. B-1099 - Please confirm that the contractor is not required to provide a Temporary Ante

Room.

No Temporary Ante Room required

79. B-1099 - Is there a testing report showing the current ESD flooring resistance?

No existing test reports for the ESD

80. B-1099 – Please confirm the CMU wall is not part of the gravity or lateral force resisting system of the structure.

The CMU wall on AE-401 is not part of the structure. See Q&A Attachment1 for photos

81. B-1099 – Are the handrails to be painted steel, or aluminum.

Painted steel. See attachment 1

82. Should the posts be cored and installed, or surface mounted?

The railing should not be surface mounted. See Q&A Attachment 1

83. B-1099- Please clarify if Sodding or Seeding is required around the perimeter adjacent to the new concrete.

Seeding is required. See Q&A Seeding specifications

84. B-1099 – are there any systems that are sensitive to vibration? Will the user verify operation of all systems prior to work starting?

The users and contractor shall determine existing conditions/verify equipment prior to construction.

85. B-412-S-101/ D7 – Please identify the space on the west side of the CMU sheer wall to be repaired.

See D7 on S101. D7 calls out detail J15 for a more detailed repair area.

86. B412- S-101/J15 - Please provide an elevation to the Bond beam.

Exact elevation is unknown; bond beam is approximately 20-24 feet from hallway floor.

Contractor to determine exact height after project is awarded.

87. B412-S-101/D15 – Note: Slab joints to match existing. Should this be interpreted that the contractor shall cut back to existing joints, or only when within a specified dimension of an existing joint?

This is referring to the perpendicular slab joints to the new pipe work that need to be matched/continued. Additionally, cut back to parallel slab joints if they within 12 in of intended cut lines.

88. B412- Please provide Finish floor elevations for room 011 and 018.

Floor elevation for 011 is 86’. Room 018 is unknown, Contractor to match the existing floor in surrounding areas.

89. B-412 – Will the elevator be available for use to remove materials?

during the contractor’s use will result in the contractor being the party responsible in repairing or

90. Please clarify the available working time period for B412.

Per SOW: 2.2.3. The contractor shall not conduct work within the basement of building 412 between the period from February 10th to July 1st. For out of cycle testing, the user will schedule, in advance, 5 days within a month period. The days are unlikely to be in a row and intended to be once a week. During those days work is allowed from 1300 onward.

91. B-412 – are there any systems within the work area that are sensitive to vibration?

No

92. B-412 – Will the library/ Bookstore be required to remain in operation during work?

Yes

93. B-412 – Will the contractor be required to stay within the phasing plan for the patch repairs and painting? Or can they move ahead to continue that scope?

Phasing is required in classrooms, contractor can request to move ahead of the schedule in the classrooms but this accelerated timeline may get denied depending on users needs.

94. B-412-AE130/A9 – note 15 above the racquet ball roof. Please provide photo of the existing expansion joint to be replaced

See Q&A Attachment 1

95. B-412-AE130/A1 – Note 16. Should “5’-0” down the hall” be interpreted as 5’-0” of full wall height, or only 5’-0” perimeter from the door frame?

Note 16 on AE130 shall read as the following:

REMOVE PAINT, FROM DOOR FRAME TO 5'-0" in all directions from the door frame for the

CMU wall DOWN THE WALL. CLEAN CMU WALL OF ANY MOLD, MILDEW OR

BIOLOGICAL GROWTH. PREP CMU WALL TOT RECEIVE NEW BLOCK FILLER.

INSTALL NEW BLOCK FILLER ON CMU WALL. PAINT ENTIRE WALL.

See zone 13C for keynote 15 on AE-130.

96. Option 1 is identified as “Repair Foundation B1099,” but the B1099 SOW does not specifically identify structural foundation repair within the listed scope. Please identify the drawing sheets and details that define the required structural foundation repairs and clarify the limits and extent of work to be included in Option 1.

Option 1 for the 1099 project is repairing damage caused by foundation issues as well as prevention of…