76 - RFI Response Log General Solicitation 13_Jan 26.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 63 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SABER IDIQ
- Solicitation number
- FA486125R0003
About this file
The file is a Request for Information (RFI) log for the Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract, Solicitation Number FA486125R0003. The solicitation is a HUBZone-restricted competitive procurement for design and construction projects at Nellis Air Force Base, Creech Air Force Base, Range 63, Point Bravo, and Nellis Test and Training Range, with a maximum ceiling of $185 million over five years. Task orders will range from $15,000 to $4,000,000 and cover diverse construction activities including carpentry, road repair, roofing, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, and other infrastructure projects.
The RFI log contains 108 questions and responses addressing various solicitation aspects, including design requirements, past performance submissions, pricing coefficients, Gordian Construction Task Catalog (CTC) usage, system licensing fees, performance locations, and clarifications on technical requirements. Key highlights include confirmation that eGordian will be used for project estimating, contractors must account for SABER system license fees within their estimated coefficient, task orders may require concurrent performance across multiple locations, and a Level 1 design will be acceptable for the seed project. The proposal due date was extended to February 5, 2026, and the contract will be awarded to a single HUBZone-qualified firm.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 126 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFI LOG
| FA486125R0003 |
| SABER IDIQ 2025 |
| Please use RFI log for questions pertaining SABER Solicitation and related attachments. |
| INSTRUCTIONS: All columns A through F must be filled out in order to be considered responsive. | |
| Must state the document in question, document, etc. in column E and F. | |
| Please read the SABER SOW and all solicitation docs thoroughly before submitting an RFI. | Below For Internal Government use only(section below will only be used between government offices. No Contractors will receive the information below) |
| ITEM | DATE SUBMITTED | QUESTION | SOW or DOCUMENT (INCL SECTION #, or PAGE, DWG SHEET, ETC.) | Additional notes | Offerors: | Official Response | |
| 1 | 6-Oct-25 | The Solicitation references “R.S. Means or eGordian,” while the SABER SOW 25 SEP 25 specifies the “Gordian Construction Task Catalogue (CTC).” Can the Government confirm that the CTC within the eGordian system is the required pricing basis for all task orders? | Solicitation Sec L-4.3.1(c) and SOW Sec 2.3 | The documents use differing terminology for pricing systems, and offerors need confirmation to ensure coefficient accuracy and compliance. | PEC | eGordian will be used on to prepare SABER seed project estimate (Solicitation, Section L-4.3.1) as well as the CTC on the SABER program. References to any other estimating software will be removed if it has not already been completed. | |
| 2 | 6-Oct-25 | Can the Government confirm that eGordian licensing and system access will be provided under the Government’s existing agreement with Gordian, and that the contractor is not responsible for license purchase or Government training costs? | SOW § 2.3 and Solicitation L-4.3.1(c) | PEC | There is no cost for Offerors to use Gordian to prepare seed project cost estimate during Solicitation phase. However, awardee will be responsible for fee structure (5% up to $6M; 1.95% thereafter) as Amended in Attachment 01 SABER SOW and for the life of the contract. | ||
| 3 | 6-Oct-25 | Will the Government issue task orders requiring concurrent performance at both Nellis and Creech AFB? | SOW Sec 9.0 – Work Coordination and Phasing | PEC | Yes; this will be added to the SABER SOW. Additionally work may be required to concurrently be completed with NTTR. | ||
| 4 | 6-Oct-25 | The “Highest Technically Rated Offeror” language suggests qualitative ranking, but no clear scoring ratios are provided. Will the Government provide weighting or relative importance of technical, past performance, and price in the HTRO evaluation? | Solicitation Sec M – Evaluation Factors for Award | PEC | The Government will determine best value based on an objective assessment and validation of the Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO); (Solicitation, M-1.0). The Government intends to award to one (1) Offeror who is validated as the highest technically rated, with a fair and reasonable evaluated price. | ||
| 5 | 28-Oct-25 | Is the Site Visit mandatory or not? | The site visit was not mandatory. | ||||
| 6 | 29-Oct-25 | Section L 4.2.2 limits offerors to no more than six (6) contracts or task orders total for consideration under the Past Performance Volume. The Self-Scoring Worksheet, however, includes multiple tabs (Tabs 1–6) with space for numerous entries under each tab. | |||||
| Please confirm if the intent is for offerors to submit a total of no more than six contracts or task orders across all tabs combined, even if multiple tabs are applicable, or if offerors should populate each applicable tab with all relevant examples even if this results in more than six total entries. | Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) | ||||||
| Section L 4.2.2 and Attachment “Self-Scoring Worksheet” | PEC | Attachment 3 Self Scoring Matrix and Section L -4.2.2 have been amended to match. | |||||
| 7 | 29-Oct-25 | Section L 4.2.2 does not specify whether the six contracts or task orders must all be of the same type. Please confirm if offerors may distribute the six examples across different tabs (e.g., three SABER task orders, one SABER annual, one design-build, and one general construction). | Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) | ||||
| Section L 4.2.2 and Attachment “Self-Scoring Worksheet” | PEC | Attachment 3 Self Scoring Matrix and Section L -4.2.2 have been amended to match. | |||||
| 8 | 29-Oct-25 | The Self-Scoring Worksheet includes multiple tabs that may not apply to every offeror. Please confirm if non-applicable tabs should be left blank or labeled “N/A.” | Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) | ||||
| Section L 4.2.2 and Attachment “Self-Scoring Worksheet” | PEC | Attachment 3 Self Scoring Matrix and Section L -4.2.2 have been amended to match. | |||||
| 9 | 29-Oct-25 | Section M indicates the Government will verify and score based on substantiated CPARS ratings. Please confirm if the Government will consider points only from the six contracts or task orders submitted in accordance with Section L 4.2.2 when validating the Self-Score. | Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) | ||||
| Section L 4.2.2 and Attachment “Self-Scoring Worksheet” | PEC | Attachment 3 Self Scoring Matrix and Section L -4.2.2 have been amended to match. | |||||
| 10 | 3-Nov-25 | Self-Scoring Spreadsheet: Tab 3 MACC & MATOC Annual Assessment Scoring: Virtually all MACC and MATOC Master Contracts are not assessed with an Annual CPAR evaluation. CPAR evaluations are typically provided at the Task Order Level. Request that Self Scoring Spreadsheet Tab 3 scoring be revised to reflect how master MACC and MATOC Contracts are evaluated. We can provide a listing of MACC and MATOC Contracts that the Company has won over the requested period of performance. | Self-Score Worksheet, Tab 3 | Northwind | MACC & MATOCC Contracts fall under Multiple IDIQ Annual if rated annually(Tab 3) or Multiple IDIQ rated per task Order (Tab 4). Please enter as applicable. Both Tabs do not need to be filled out. | ||
| 11 | 3-Nov-25 | None of the documents in this section were provided within the solicitation except as-builts of building 10250 that contain fire alarm info. Please Provide. | Attachment 44 SABER SOO section 3 | Northwind | Attachments were uploaded in Amendment 06. | ||
| 12 | 3-Nov-25 | Considering that a contractors Estimated Coefficient is an adjustment factor applied to the Estimated Annual Amount, can the government provide the values for the Estimated Annual Amount for each line item? This will help ensure an even evaluation across all competition. | Solicitation Section L-4.4.1; Attach. 2 - Price Schedule | Northwind | Addresseed in an amendment with an updated Price Schedule | ||
| 13 | 3-Nov-25 | The Attachment 2 - Price Schedule Contains Unit Price Line Items that the contractor is to price for each year. To allow for contractors to account for assumed economies of scale based on quantity, can the government please provide the Estimate Quantity for each unit price line item. This will also help ensure an even evaluation across all competition. | Solicitation Section L-4.4.1; Attach. 2 - Price Schedule | Northwind | Addresseed in an amendment with an updated Price Schedule | ||
| 14 | 3-Nov-25 | In accordance with the guidance set by the Gordian SABER CTC (Big Note), the contractors Estimated Coefficient (Adjustment Factors) are to include "Business Costs" and "Project Related Costs". These costs can include certain capital expenses and other revenue based costs that can only be properly predicted by knowing the Estimated Annual Amount that the adjustment factor is to be applied to. Please provide the Estimated Annual Amount and Estimated Quantities for each line item contained in the Attachment 2 - Price Schedule. | Solicitation Section L-4.4.1; Attach. 2 - Price Schedule | Northwind | Addresseed in an amendment with an updated Price Schedule | ||
| 15 | 3-Nov-25 | Per RFP Section L-4.2.2, Contract Information Sheet, third paragraph, we are to ‘Provide no more than six contracts or task orders total.’ However, per 45-Attachment_Contract Information Sheet, the instructions are to ‘Complete this form for every completed Contract Reference (Base Contract or Task Order) mentioned in the Self Scoring Matrix.’ Due to the discrepancy between the RFP Section L requirements and the Contract Information Sheet, can the government please clarify if we are to complete only six (6) Contract Information Sheets, or do we need to complete one for every contract and task order within the Self Score Worksheet (possible 102)? | RFP Section L-4.2.2, Contract Information Sheet, and 45_Attachment - Contract Information Sheet | Northwind | Attachment 3 Self Scoring Matrix and Section L -4.2.2 have been amended to match. | ||
| 16 | 3-Nov-25 | Would the contractors detailed scope of work be adequate for the design analysis | SABER SOW section 1.4.11.3.2 | Northwind | See Attachment 01, SABER SOW, 1.4.11.3.2 for requirements of an acceptable Design Analysis | ||
| 17 | 3-Nov-25 | Would the calculations requested under the HVAC section of the SOO require additional funding? Design level 2 description doesn't require HVAC calculations. | SABER SOW section 1.4.11.8 additional design | Northwind | The Honor Guard Building Seed Project 10250 is being changed to a Level 1 design per Section L and M. - Yes, nominal costs incurred to demonstrate estimated cooling load used to size proposed HVAC unit may be included in the renovation proposal. | ||
| 18 | 3-Nov-25 | Upon outreach to the Gordian point of contact listed in L-4.3.1, Gordian provided a proposal that detailed their "SABER System License Fees" which are as follows: |
- "5% of the value of the work ordered up to $6,000,000 of cumulative Job Orders" -"1.95% of the value of work ordered after $6,000,000 of cumulative Job have been issued through the system."
| Please confirm that the 1.95% license fee will be applied to any job orders issued after a $6,000,000 cumulative total SABER IDIQ value regardless of ordering period. | EGordian Price Proposal; Solicitation Section L-4.3.1 | Northwind | Confirmed. Gordian's system license fee will be incorporated as an Attachment in an Amendment | |
| 19 | 3-Nov-25 | Upon outreach to the Gordian point of contact listed in L-4.3.1, Gordian provided a proposal that detailed their "SABER System License Fees" which are as follows: |
- "5% of the value of the work ordered up to $6,000,000 of cumulative Job Orders" -"1.95% of the value of work ordered after $6,000,000 of cumulative Job have been issued through the system."
| Please confirm that contractors are to account for "SABER System License Fees" within their Estimated Coefficient amount. | EGordian Price Proposal; Solicitation Section L-4.3.1 | Northwind | Confirmed. Contractors are advised to account for SABER System License fees within their estimated coefficient amount. | |
| 20 | 3-Nov-25 | Upon outreach to the Gordian point of contact listed in L-4.3.1, Gordian provided a proposal that detailed their "SABER System License Fees" which are as follows: |
- "5% of the value of the work ordered up to $6,000,000 of cumulative Job Orders" -"1.95% of the value of work ordered after $6,000,000 of cumulative Job have been issued through the system."
Therefore if the contract spent a total of $10 Million in the first ordering period the cost to the contractor for that system would compute to (6000000*.05) + (4000000*.0195) = $378,000 worth of license fees to be accounted for within the contractors estimated coefficient.
| Those fee's seem higher than usual, please confirm that is the correct fee structure. | EGordian Price Proposal; Solicitation Section L-4.3.1 | Northwind | Fee structure is confirmed. | |||
| 21 | 3-Nov-25 | To allow for all subcontractors and vendors sufficient time to ask Pre-Bid RFI's after the site walk please extend the RFI Deadline from 11/3/2025 to 11/10/2025. | Amendment 2 - Summary of Changes; Solicitation Section L-5 | Northwind | If an additional RFI period is approved, it will be addressed in a future amendment. | |
| 22 | 3-Nov-25 | Attachment 2 Price Schedule Line Item(s) 000#AM reference Attachment 1 paragraph 1.30.4 in the SOW. Please confirm this reference should be paragraph 1.29.4. | Attachment 1 - SOW | Northwind | Confirm. Price Schedule will amend Line Item 000#AM to reference Attachment 01, paragraph 1.29.4. | |
| 23 | 3-Nov-25 | Attachment 1 SOW Paragraph 1.1.2.30 defines Restricted Work Area. In that definition the paragraph reads "Contractor provided escorts are not allowed." Attachment 2 Price Schedule Line Item(s) 000#AM are requiring pricing for Contractor Provided Escorts. Please advise whether Contractor Provided Escorts are allowed and expected, or not. If not, please revise the price schedule accordingly. | Attachment 1 - SOW; Attachment 2 - Price Schedule | Northwind | Will revise SOW 1.1.2.30 to clarify restricted areas v. controlled areas | |
| 24 | 3-Nov-25 | If all required escorts for all restricted areas are to be accounted for in Attachment 2 Price Schedule Line Item(s) 000#AM, please confirm that no security escort related costs are to be included in any of the "Restricted Area Standard Working Hours" estimated coefficients across all ordering periods. | Attachment 2 - Price Schedule | Northwind | Coefficient should only account for difference in productivity compared to unrestricted work area. Escorts will be included/excluded on by-TO basis. | |
| 25 | 3-Nov-25 | Task 4 contained in Attachment 1 - SOW Table 3 Performance Time lists the response times required for the contractor to submit the Design/Proposal. Please confirm that the calendar days provided for Task 4 are to be applied after contractors receipt of Government RFI Responses. | Attachment 1 - SOW Table 3 Perofrmance Time | Northwind | Correct - task 4 timeline begins upon contractor receipt of government RFI responses. | |
| 26 | 3-Nov-25 | Please confirm this contract is exempt from any local form of Gross Receipt Taxes. | Attachment 1 - SOW | Northwind | No this should be included in coefficient; This has been added to the SABER SOW 1.4.9.1.1 | |
| 27 | 3-Nov-25 | Will this contract require any payment/performance bonds or other surety protections for any of the cost proposal, design, or hazmat survey related costs contained in Attachment 2 - Price Schedule? | Attachment 2 - Price Schedule | Northwind | Upon award, awarded SABER contractor will be required to execute construction of seed project to meet the minimum guarantee (Solicitation, M-4.2). Necessary performance and payment bonds and other surety protections will need to be furnished prior to constrsuction. Task orders of the same magnitude awarded within the SABER program would necessitate furnishing those same bond protections. | |
| 28 | 3-Nov-25 | Will this contract be exempt of any local sales/use taxes or shall those costs be accounted for within the contractors Estimated Coefficients? | Attachment 1 - SOW 1.4.9.1.1; Attachment 2 - Price Schedule | Northwind | This should be accounted for in the coefficient. | |
| 29 | 3-Nov-25 | Attachment 1 - SOW 1.4.9.1.1 states that the "contractors price coefficient must include the following:...Employee payroll taxes, insurance, and fringe benefits...". Page 22 of the CTC states that The CTC unit Prices include "Labor Costs...include fringe benefits...taxes...insurance...". Please confirm which statement is correct as they appear to contradict each other. | Attachment 1 - SOW 1.4.9.1.1; Gordian CTC | Northwind | Fringe benefits and medicare taxes are in the labor costs included in the unit prices. |
All taxes and insurance should be included in the adjustment factor.
| 30 | 3-Nov-25 | Attachment 1 - SOW 1.4.9.1.1 states that the "contractors price coefficient must include the following:...Quality Control..." The Gordian CTC contains a broad array of line items contained in 01 45 Quality Control. Please confirm that there will be no restricted items contained within CTC section 01 45 Quality Control. | Attachment 1 - SOW 1.4.9.1.1; Gordian CTC | Northwind | Price coefficient is meant to capture overhead, general administrative cost….including Gross receipt. |
| 31 | 3-Nov-25 | Please confirm there are no specific priced line items contained within the Gordian CTC that are not allowed for any reason to be used when creating cost proposals. Understanding that line item applicability will be negotiated on a task order basis. | Gordian CTC | Northwind | Confirm. However, upon receipt of Contractor's task order proposal, the Government will review the proposal for completeness and accuracy. After evaluation, the Government will negotiate with the Contractor the appropriateness of selected line items, quantities required for all pre-priced and non-pre-priced items, all non-pre-priced costs, and the performance time (Attachment 01- SABER SOW, 1.4.12.1). |
| 32 | 3-Nov-25 | “Request confirmation of the applicable Buy American Act. The interpretation of the |
applicable Buy American provision is FAR 52-225-9 Buy American-Construction Materials (Oct 2022), notwithstanding the threshold amount, noted in FAR 25.1102(c), of $6,708,000, activating incorporation of FAR 52.225-11. Per FAR Part 25.401(a)(1), acquisitions set aside for small business are an exception to the applicability of FAR Part 25.4 Trade Agreements, therefore 52.225-11 Buy American-Construction Materials under Trade Agreements (Nov 2023) would not be applicable to this Solicitation and resulting award(s).”
| Northwind | Yes; the clause shall be included in Amendment 10. | ||||||
| 33 | 11/3/25 | What is the estimated average number of task orders to expect per year on this SABER | SABER SOW | Souza | See revised amendment with an updated Price Schedule. | ||
| 34 | 11/3/25 | What is the estimated average value of the task orders on this SABER | SABER SOW | Souza | See revised amendment with an updated Price Schedule. | ||
| 35 | 11/3/25 | Can the Superintendent, Quality Control Manager (QCM), and Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) be the same person? | SABER SOW | Souza | The ktr is responsible for providing the level of manning that ensures all contract terms are met without exception. The specific manning structure is at the ktrs descretion. | ||
| 36 | 11/3/25 | Will a full-time QCM be required for all projects? | SABER SOW | Souza | No, ref para 1.25.2 | ||
| 37 | 11/3/25 | Will a part-time QCM be required for all projects? | SABER SOW | Souza | Yes | ||
| 38 | 11/3/25 | Will a full-time SSHO be required for all projects? | SABER SOW | Souza | No, ref para 1.25.2 | ||
| 39 | 11/3/25 | Will a part-time SSHO be required for all projects? | SABER SOW | Souza | Yes | ||
| 40 | 11/3/25 | Can the full-time or part-time (depending on previous RFI answers) QCM cover multiple projects at one time? | SABER SOW | Souza | Yes | ||
| 41 | 11/3/25 | Can the full-time or part-time (depending on previous RFI answers) SSHO cover multiple projects at one time? | SABER SOW | Souza | Yes | ||
| 42 | 11/3/25 | Can the Superintendent cover multiple projects at once? | SABER SOW | Souza | The ktr is responsible for providing the level of manning that ensures all contract terms are met without exception. The specific manning structure is at the ktrs descretion. | ||
| 43 | 11/3/25 | Please confirm if project under $35,000 will require a bond | SABER SOW | Souza | Projects under $35K will not require performance or payment bonds. | ||
| 44 | 11/3/25 | 15. | What is the estimated distribution of work across all locations covered on this SABER | SABER SOW | Souza | See revised amendment with an updated Price Schedule. | |
| 45 | 28-Oct-25 | Is the Site Visit mandatory or not? | Souza | Site visit was not mandatory. | |||
| 46 | 3-Nov-25 | How often will the eGORDION CTC line-item pricing be updated? | General | DNI | The CTC is updated annually. This will included in the SABER SOW in a future amendment. | ||
| 47 | 3-Nov-25 | How will escalation be addressed under the SABER contract? Will coefficients be adjusted annually? | General | DNI | Escalation under the SABER contract will not be separately addressed because it is a Firm Fixed Price contract. By definition, FFP contracts place the risk of cost growth—including escalation—on the contractor. The agreed-upon coefficients are established at award and remain fixed for the duration of the contract. They are not adjusted annually. Any changes to pricing would only occur if specifically authorized through a contract modification, but routine escalation or annual coefficient adjustments are not permitted under the FFP structure. | ||
| 48 | 3-Nov-25 | Will NPP’s be allowed for items such as Shielded CAT-6 and Monaco LOC/RDU’s that are not found in the eGORDION CTC? | General | DNI | Yes, within the established parameters for non-priced items | ||
| 49 | 3-Nov-25 | Conduit assemblies do not include assemblies for Communication or Fire Alarm. Will those be accepted as component line items? | General | DNI | Yes, if an assembly line item with appropriate conduit material/size, and wire type/size for communications or fire alarm application, then component line items may be used instead. | ||
| 50 | 3-Nov-25 | How will contracting prefer to address when a line item in the CTC is too low in either labor, equipment, or material costs? | General | DNI | Upon receipt of Contractor's task order proposal, the Government will review the proposal for completeness and accuracy. After evaluation, the Government will negotiate with the Contractor the appropriateness of selected line items, quantities required for all pre-priced and non-pre-priced items, all non-pre-priced costs, and the performance time (Attachment 01- SABER SOW, 1.4.12.1). | ||
| 51 | 3-Nov-25 | Will the government please define the dollar range of task orders for this project? | General | DNI | See Attachment 01- SABER SOW, 1.4.4.2 for Project Magnitude Ranges | ||
| 52 | 3-Nov-25 | Will the government review CPARs under $750k? | Solicitation L-4.2.3 | DNI | This will be addressed in amendment 6 with revised section L | ||
| 53 | 3-Nov-25 | Per the solicitation "The Government will only accept project CPARS reports of construction projects of $750K or greater in accordance with FAR 42.1502(e).". Does this mean based on the wording of this statement, the government is not accepting projects below $750k? | Solicitation L-4.2.3 | DNI | The Government will consider CPARS for projects less than $750K. This is amended in Section L and Attachment 3 Self Score Matrix. | ||
| 54 | 3-Nov-25 | On most SABER JOC SATOC IDIQ contracts, we typically have not seen an overall annual evaluation issued by our customers. Will a PPQ be acceptable in leiu of CPARS providing annual evaluations? | General | DNI | Please utilize Attachment 4 PPQ to provide past performance information for contracts that have not been rated in CPARS (Section L-3.2.3.3). | ||
| 55 | 3-Nov-25 | Based on the self-scoring worksheet, it appears Tab 1 SABER Annual is to be utilized to capture overall performacne for a 1-year period. Can an offeror that has been performing a 5-year SABER type contract utilize each performance year as a work sample totaling 5 different annual ratings under Tab 1? | General | DNI | Yes; Contracts can have different annual periods entered. This will be clarified in future amendment in Section L-4.2.1. Self Scoring Matrix. | ||
| 56 | 3-Nov-25 | Can offerors enter under Tab 1 the master or overall SABER type contract in addition to utilizing individual task orders issued under the same or similar SABER contract under Tab 2 entry? | General | DNI | Both a base contract can be utilized in Tab 1 and task orders off the base contract can be utilized in Tab 2. | ||
| 57 | 3-Nov-25 | On the self-scoring sheet, are we to provide 25 work samples per tab or 25 overall? | General | DNI | Attachment 3 Self Scoring Matrix and Section L -4.2.2 have been amended to match. | ||
| 58 | 3-Nov-25 | If we have more examples than the self-scoring template is currently populated with, will the government accept adding additional tabs (Tab 1A, Tab 1B, etc.) to further identify experience and gather additional points? | General | DNI | No. | ||
| 59 | 10/28/25 | 1. Background |
Section L-4.3.1 of the solicitation requires the Offeror to submit a “complete Level 2 Design” for the Seed Project RKMF240010 – Renovate Honor Guard, Building 10250, in accordance with Attachment 01 (SABER Specifications SOW, Section 1.4.11.3) and Attachment 45 (Statement of Objectives).
While the contractor fully understands and supports the intent of this requirement — to evaluate each offeror’s technical understanding and design-build capability — it has been determined that submission of a complete Level 2 design at the proposal stage is not feasible without extensive site investigations, Government coordination, input, and access to project data that are not yet available to offerors.
2. Request for Clarification – Level 2 Design Feasibility A Level 2 design, as defined in Attachment 01, Section 1.4.11.3, includes PE-stamped drawings, detailed calculations, and full system coordination (architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, and communications).
Producing this level of design requires:
| • | Field verification of existing utilities and systems. |
| • | Coordination and approval by Government design and safety officials. |
| • | Input from the Base Civil Engineer, Fire Protection Engineer, and Communications personnel; and |
| • | Access to Government-furnished technical data not available pre-award. |
Because these coordination steps cannot occur prior to contract award, developing a complete Level 2 design is impossible within the constraints of the proposal period.
Additionally, as noted by our licensed design firm and teaming partner:
“It would be impossible to develop a compliant Level 2 design without direct communication with the customer, and additional time would be required to complete such a design.”
Accordingly, the contractor respectfully recommends that the Government authorize and accept a Level 1 design submission in lieu of a full Level 2 design for proposal evaluation.
A Level 1 design will:
| • | Provide complete conceptual drawings and narratives addressing all required disciplines. |
| • | Demonstrate a clear understanding of the project intent per the Statement of Objectives; and |
| • | Include sufficient technical detail and assumptions to support a compliant cost proposal in eGordian. |
This approach ensures technical adequacy and cost realism while remaining within the feasible and allowable scope of pre-award design work.
3. Request for CAD Files – Level 1 Design Development To accurately prepare the Level 1 design submission, the contractor requests that the Government provide AutoCAD (.dwg) files for the existing as-built drawings and site utilities for Building 10250.
The currently provided PDF as-builts and conceptual layouts cannot be used for scaled CAD integration or layering of proposed system modifications. Access to the native CAD files will enable:
| • | Accurate depiction of existing conditions, |
| • | Proper alignment of proposed improvements, and |
| • | Multidisciplinary coordination to ensure that the design submission fully aligns with the Government’s objectives and technical expectations. |
4. Summary of Requests
| 1. | Confirm that a Level 1 design submission will satisfy the technical evaluation requirement under Section L-4.3.1 in lieu of a complete Level 2 design, due to the coordination and Government input required to produce a compliant Level 2 package. | ||||||
| 2. | Provide the available AutoCAD (.dwg) base files for Building 10250 and surrounding utilities to support accurate Level 1 design development. | Attachment 01 (SABER Specifications SOW, Section 1.4.11.3) and Attachment 45 (Statement of Objectives). | Souza | ||||
| 2 | Amendment addressing Level 1 sufficing as a design for Seed Project will be completed. | ||||||
| 2. | No CAD file is available. | ||||||
| 60 | 31-Oct-25 | What is the estimated percentage or relative volume of task orders expected to occur at each primary performance location--Nellis AFB, Creech AFB, and the NTTR? | SABER SOWS 25 SEP 25, 1.2.2 | Section L requires offerors to demonstrate sufficient management and QC staffing capacity, but the solicitation and SOW do not indicate the anticipated task-order concurrency or distribution by installation. Understanding the approximate workload mix is essential for accurate resource planning, labor pricing, and coefficient determination. | PEC | See revised amendment with an updated Price Schedule. | |
| 61 | 31-Oct-25 | Please confirm whether the Government will permit the same Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, or Safety Officer to be assigned concurrently to multiple small task orders that are occurring within close proximity and do not individually require full-time oversight. If overlap is permissible, please clarify any limitations or approval requirements (e.g., total number of concurrent projects, geographic proximity, or task complexity thresholds) that would apply. | SABER SOW 25 SEP 25, 1.2.2 | The SABER SOW requires each task order to have designated on-site supervision, safety, and quality control personnel, but does not specify whether these positions must be dedicated full-time per project or may be shared when scope and risk permit. | PEC | The ktr is responsible for providing the level of manning that ensures all contract terms are met without exception. The specific manning structure is at the ktrs descretion. | |
| 62 | 31-Oct-25 | What onboarding or training is provided for the Gordian system and what is the anticipated award and onboarding timeline? | SABER SOW 25 SEP 25, 1.3.7 | PEC | There is an initial 30 calendar day start-up period following SABER IDIQ contract award. Contractor shall have all equipment and personnel in place and available to fully execute all requirements of this contract following the 30-calendar day "start-up" period. See Attachment 01 SABER SOW, 1.3.7 | ||
| 63 | 31-Oct-25 | Will an estimated dollar value of each task order be given along with the RFP for that task order? | SABER SOW 25 SEP 25, 1.4.2 | PEC | When ordering design and or cost proposal services, such notification will include a project number, project title, statement of objectives, general scope of work, magnitude of project; See Attachment 01, SABER SOW, 1.4.2.1 | ||
| 64 | 31-Oct-25 | Is there a template available for the contractor to use when providing a detailed scope of work for a Joint Scope Meeting? | SABER SOW 25 SEP 25, 1.4.2.1 | PEC | No. | ||
| 65 | 31-Oct-25 | Will Gordian attend every joint scope meeting / site visit? | SABER SOW 25 SEP 25, 1.4.6 | PEC | No. | ||
| 66 | 31-Oct-25 | Section 1.4.9.1.2 references a document called "The Big Note", please provide a copy of this document. | SABER SOW 25 SEP 25, 1.4.9.1.2 | PEC | “The Big Note” is what Gordian calls the user’s guide to the CTC | ||
| 68 | 31-Oct-25 | The solicitation and SABER SOW establish that coefficients are fixed for the contract duration, and that the Gordian Construction Task Catalog (CTC) will be updated annually. However, material costs in some trades (e.g., electrical wire, mechanical equipment, asphalt, metals) can experience rapid, unforeseen fluctuations within a catalog year. Please confirm the process for addressing such situations when a CTC line item’s pre-priced value no longer reflects current market conditions. | SABER SOWS 25 SEP 25, 1.4.9.2 | May the contractor submit substantiation (e.g., current vendor quotes, market indices) to request that the Government treat that line item as a Non-Pre-Priced (NPI) item for that task order? | PEC | This is a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract. As such, the contractor assumes maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and any resulting profit or loss. While the Contracting Officer (CO) will review any proposed adjustments, they will be subject to a high level of scrutiny due to the nature of the FFP agreement | |
| 69 | 31-Oct-25 | What is the typical or estimated turnaround time from Joint Scope Meeting to Job Order issuance? | SABER SOWS 25 SEP 25, 1.1.12.2 | PEC | There is no reference to joint scope meeting. See Attachment 01- SABER SOW, 1.4.5 Performance Time for performance time table | ||
| 70 | 31-Oct-25 | The solicitation incorporates multiple layered documents that contain technical requirements. Please confirm whether the contractor should base scope interpretation on the CTC and SABER Technical Specifications, or if other referenced codes and standards (e.g., IBC, NEC, UFC, UFC 1-200-01, etc.) are expected to govern in the event of conflicting details or performance criteria. | CTC and SABER Technical Specifications | Clarifying which document governs when discrepancies arise is essential for accurate pricing, design compliance, and consistent execution of task orders. | PEC | Any discrepancies between code or standards provisions and the contract documents shall immediately be brought to the Contracting Officer's attention, and the more stringent requirements shall apply unless otherwise directed. See Attachment 01- SABER SOW, 1.18.2 | |
| 71 | 31-Oct-25 | Please clarify whether all task orders, regardless of value, require 35% / 65% / 95% design reviews, or if simplified submittal procedures may be used for low-dollar or emergency orders. | SABER SOW, Design Procedures | PEC | 35% / 65% / 95% designs are not specified in the SOW. The design levels are specified as Level 0, Level 1 and Level 2 with specific magnitudes. They are specified in the SOW 1.4.11.1 thru 1.4.11.3. | ||
| 72 | 31-Oct-25 | Please confirm that 99 CES is the official inspection/acceptance authority for all task orders under this SABER, or whether authority may delegate to other squadrons (e.g., 820 RHS). | SABER SOW | SF30 Block 12 in Amendment 0001 names 99 CES, but the SOW references multiple agencies for inspection. | PEC | 99CES is the main stakeholder for SABER projects as most of the estimated task orders will fall under Nellis AFB purview; Creech AFB and NTTR would provide CE roles for their respective projects at their field locations. | |
| 73 | 3-Nov-25 | Per Section L.2 Proposal Format and Submission. It states that offerors are to submit an electronic copy via DoDSafe and a hard copy to be hand-delivered. Would the government consider revising the submission to just an electronic submission to allow for the most competitive pricing on the seed project? Many subcontractors will wait until a few hours before submission to provide a price, but if we mandate that they give a price a full day before submission (to ensure we have a printed copy ready for submission), offerors may not be able to provide the most competitive pricing available. | Solicitation, Section L.2, page 43 of 57 | Submission formatting | Eklutna | No; both versions are required Per Section L.2 | |
| 74 | 3-Nov-25 | Per Section L-4.1.4 Contract Provisions/Clauses offerors are to complete any fill-ins clauses as applicable including reps and certs, akcnowledgements, and statements. Can the government please clarify if offeror are to also complete the clauses located in Section I as well as Section K? | Solicitation Section I - Contract Clauses, page 12 of 57. | Eklutna | If there are any applicable sections, please complete Section I | ||
| 75 | 3-Nov-25 | Per section L-4.2 Technical Experience, the self-rated matrix is provided in Excel. Are offerors to submit the self-rated document in excel format, or are we allotted to PDF the excel and include it in the Technical Experience volume? | Solicitation page 45 of 57, paragraph L-4.2 | Submission formatting | Eklutna | The Self Scoring Matrix should be submitted in Excel Format. | |
| 76 | 3-Nov-25 | On the self-scoring matrix, columns F, I and J on each tab are left blank. There are no instructions provided on what the government would like the offerors to include in these column cells. Can the government please clarify if offerors are to complete these cells, and if so, what needs to be included in these cells. | Attachment 3 - Self Score Worksheet SABER_23 Sept 2025 | Eklutna | Columns F and Columns I are to be left Blank. File Names for Reference should reference any Contract Information Sheets, CPARS or PPQs. These instructions will be included in an amendment in Section L of the Solicitation. | ||
| 77 | 3-Nov-25 | What level of CMMC will be required to comply with at time of proposal submission? | General (no SOW or DIV Reference) | Eklutna | Not applicable at this time because solicitation was issued o or after November 10, 2028 in accordance DFARS 252.204-7025 and applicability DFARS 204.7504(b) | ||
| 78 | 3-Nov-25 | With the loss of government personnel because of the ongoing government shutdown, can offerors submit previously completed PPQs or the first page of a PPQ after due diligence was performed to try and obtain a PPQ from a government representative? | Solicitation page 45 of 57, paragraph L-4.2 Technical Expereince ( Factor 1) | Eklutna | Solicitation proposal date was extended in Amendment 06 to 5 Feb 2026 at 2:30 PM. | ||
| 79 | 3-Nov-25 | Please confirm all design fees associated with a task order will not be covered under the contractor's coefficient or priced via the CTC | No SOW or DIV Reference | Eklutna | Contractors will be awarded a task order for a design/fee proposal, and another task order upon acceptance of design/fee proposal for construction (Attachment 01- SABER SOW, 1.4; 1.5). Contractors are also advised to submit coefficient pricing taking into account Gordian's fee structure. | ||
| 80 | 3-Nov-25 | Will the awarded contractor be required to hold a Nevada contractor's license? | No SOW or DIV Reference | Eklutna | Yes according to Nevada State Contractors Board Contracting without a license is a crime. Please see link for further details "https://www.nvcontractorsboard.com/investigations/contracting-without-a-license-is-a-crime/" | ||
| 81 | 3-Nov-25 | Will the contractor be allowed a space on the base for a construction office? | No SOW or DIV Reference | Eklutna | There will be no area on the base specified for a construction office. This will be added to SABER SOW in future amendment. | ||
| 82 | 3-Nov-25 | Can the government extend the question period for one week to allow contractors to coordinate the information received at the site visit with subcontractors and designers and obtain the necessary questions to be submitted? | No SOW or DIV Reference | Eklutna | See Question 21. | ||
| 83 | 16-Oct-25 | Attachment 3 - Self Score Worksheet has six tabs, with space for a total of 102 work samples across the tabs. However, L-4.2.2 Contract Information Sheet states that we are to "provide no more than six contracts or task orders total." Please clarify how many projects we are expected to include in Attachment 3. Are we limited to a total of six, per L-4.2.2? If we are not limited, please confirm that we should provide a Contract Information Sheet for each project we include. | Attachment 3; L-4.2.1; L-4.2.2 | Equa Solutions | This will be fixed and clarified in future amendment in Section L | ||
| 84 | 16-Oct-25 | In Attachment 3- Self Score Worksheet, if we list an overall IDIQ SABER in Tab 1, are we also allowed to include specific task orders from that SABER in Tab 2? | Attachment 3; L-4-2.1 | Equa Solutions | Both a base contract can be utilized in Tab 1 and task orders off the base contract can be utilized in Tab 2. | ||
| 85 | 23-Oct-25 | Questions 2 - Price Schedule 23 September 25 | |||||
| 1. | The price schedule asks for estimated quantities as noted in the price schedule for each level type proposal and magnitude (see example attached and note below), will government be providing the number of designs and estimates required at this level?. This action will not only clarify but also provide a level playing field for all bidders. | ||||||
| 2. | Will government also provide the many Levels of Cost proposal with magnitudes Attachment 2 – Price Schedule as detailed in the and each area e.g., Nellis, Creech and Creech AFB, Range 63, and Point Bravo, must have its own costs as detailed in the solicitation documents. As we understand each one of these will need to be quantified. |
1.4.9.1.7 Cost differences due to location:
Due to the remote locations of Creech AFB, Range 63, and Point Bravo, an increase in labor, transportation and other costs is expected. To account for these price differences, the Contractor shall use location-specific design fees and coefficients. One set of design fees and coefficients shall be used exclusively for projects at Nellis AFB, and another set of design fees and coefficients shall be used exclusively for projects at Creech AFB, Range 63, and Point Bravo.
Example Level Type
| Level 0, Level 0 revised, Level 1, Level 1 revised, level 2, Level 2 revised, Magnitude value, Estimated quantity | Price Schedule | N/A | Equa Solutions | Estimates will be addressed in future amendment in updated Price Schedule. | |||
| 86 | 23-Oct-25 | From time of seed Project walkthrough to the formulation of questions to the Q & A, we are concerned that there may be inadequate time to formulate questions (3 working days) for the Q & A from the seed project walkthrough to the close date for questions. Could this timeline be extended to a more thoughtful approach to questions. | Solicitation | N/A | Equa Solutions | If the Government issues additional RFIs for the SABER IDIQ solicitation, please monitor SAM.gov for updates. | |
| 87 | 23-Oct-25 | Can the Government clarify if it is the government’s intention for a Level 2 design phase as noted in Per section 4.3.1a as other sections as noted below make no reference to design. If Level 2 design is required, the period to produce these drawings from the seed project walkthrough would only be a 3 weeks’ (post walk based upon the timelines provided to complete drawings before submittal). As we understand Level 2 drawings would normally be given 90 days post site walk per section per section 1.4.5 of the SABER SOW excluding question etc.. |
Subfactor 1 Technical proposal.
The following states design required
| 1. | Per section 4.3.1a a complete level 2 design is required per the SABER SOW. |
| 2. | The following sub section 1.4.11.3./ section 1.4.11.3.1 does indicate how drawings are to be provided with a full list of requirements. |
Yet the following has no mention of design required
| 3. | Section 4.3.1b-d makes no mention of design drawings. | SOW | N/A | Equa Solutions | It will be Level ;Please refer to Section L and M of solicitation. | ||
| 88 | 23-Oct-25 | The Statement of Work specifies software, training and equipment we are to provide to the government in reguards to EGordian. Will this training and equipment as well as the license seats for the government be additional charges from EGordian in addition to the 5% billing fee on each project awarded. | SOW, Price Schedule | N/A | Equa Solutions | Training is free of charge and is provided by eGordian. This information will be updated in the SABER SOW in future amendment. | |
| 89 | 23-Oct-25 | We have been requested to propose a coefficient rate for a two-tier structure under a $185 million, five-year SABER contract. The software providers have proposed a payment structure consisting of 5% for the first $6 million in awarded estimates, followed by a 1.95% rate applied to the remaining balance of the $185 million total contract value. |
However, the solicitation specifies that only a single coefficient is to be provided. Please would government provide clarification on the following
| 1. | How should we address the breakpoint between the 5% and 1.95% payment tiers within the single coefficient requirement? | ||||||
| a. | Example coefficient breakpoint X ($1 to $6,000,000.00) | ||||||
| b. | Example coefficient breakpoint $185,000,000 minus $6,000,000 (breakpoint 5%) = $179,000,000 (breakpoint (1.95%) | ||||||
| 2. | If government requires the coefficient as one rate and since the solicitation requires a single coefficient, we need clarification on how to account for the transition between the 5% and 1.95% payment tiers within one rate. | Price Schedule | N/A | Equa Solutions | See revised Attachment 02 Price Schedule | ||
| 90 | 23-Oct-25 | Due to the government shutdown, SAM.gov is experiencing significant delays in processing updates to registrations. We respectfully request an additional extension to the proposal due date to ensure that we have enough time to process SAM.gov update prior to the submission date. | Solicitation | N/A | Equa Solutions | Solicitation proposal date was extended in Amendment 09 to 5 Feb 2026 at 2:30 PM in Block 13 a. | |
| 91 | 23-Oct-25 | Due to the government shutdown, many of our project points of contact are on furlough and are unable to complete past performance questionnaires. We respectfully request an additional extension to the proposal due date to accommodate these delays. | Solicitation | N/A | Equa Solutions | Solicitation proposal date was extended in Amendment 09 to 5 Feb 2026 at 2:30 PM in Block 13 a. | |
| 92 | 23-Oct-25 | We have contacted EGordian to request the training that is necessary to enable our team to put together a proper estimate for the seed project. EGordian has informed us that they will not provide that training until during or after the seed project walkthrough. This places a significant burden on us to be trained in the system with adequate time to prepare a seed project proposal. Can the Government please provide an additional extension to the proposal submission date to accommodate this requirement, or otherwise assist us in obtaining this necessary training? | Solicitation | N/A | Equa Solutions | Solicitation proposal date was extended in Amendment 09 to 5 Feb 2026 at 2:30 PM in Block 13 a. | |
| 93 | 3-Nov-25 | What CMMC level is required for this contract award? | Solicitation Pages 12, 39, 44 and 54; DFARS 252.204-7003; 252.204-7008; DFARS 252.204-7012; DFARS 252.204-7020; DFARS 252.225-7048; FAR 52.212-1(e); FAR 3.104-4; FAR 52.204-23; FAR 52.204-25 | The Federal Government released updated CMMC requirements on September 10, 2025, stating that CMMC Level 1 Self Assessment will be required of contractors beginning on November 10, 2025 with full CMMC/NIST SP 800-171 Level 2 compliance mandated on new contracts beginning in 2026. Because the CMMC certification is somewhat in a state of flux at this time, please clarify the following questions relating to CMMC and NIST SP 800-171. | Equa Solutions | Not applicable at this time because solicitation was issued o or after November 10, 2028 in accordance DFARS 252.204-7025 and applicability DFARS 204.7504(b) | |
| 94 | 3-Nov-25 | Is CMMC certification needed at time of proposal or only at contract award? | Solicitation Pages 12, 39, 44 and 54; DFARS 252.204-7003; 252.204-7008; DFARS 252.204-7012; DFARS 252.204-7020; DFARS 252.225-7048; FAR 52.212-1(e); FAR 3.104-4; FAR 52.204-23; FAR 52.204-25 | The Federal Government released updated CMMC requirements on September 10, 2025, stating that CMMC Level 1 Self Assessment will be required of contractors beginning on November 10, 2025 with full CMMC/NIST SP 800-171 Level 2 compliance mandated on new contracts beginning in 2026. Because the CMMC certification is somewhat in a state of flux at this time, please clarify the following questions relating to CMMC and NIST SP 800-171. | Equa Solutions | Not applicable at this time because solicitation was issued o or after November 10, 2028 in accordance DFARS 252.204-7025 and applicability DFARS 204.7504(b) | |
| 95 | 3-Nov-25 | Will a third-party CMMC assessment be required, or is self-assessment acceptable? | Solicitation Pages 12, 39, 44 and 54; DFARS 252.204-7003; 252.204-7008; DFARS 252.204-7012; DFARS 252.204-7020; DFARS 252.225-7048; FAR 52.212-1(e); FAR 3.104-4; FAR 52.204-23; FAR 52.204-25 | The Federal Government released updated CMMC requirements on September 10, 2025, stating that CMMC Level 1 Self Assessment will be required of contractors beginning on November 10, 2025 with full CMMC/NIST SP 800-171 Level 2 compliance mandated on new contracts beginning in 2026. Because the CMMC certification is somewhat in a state of flux at this time, please clarify the following questions relating to CMMC and NIST SP 800-171. | Equa Solutions | Not applicable at this time because solicitation was issued o or after November 10, 2028 in accordance DFARS 252.204-7025 and applicability DFARS 204.7504(b) | |
| 96 | 3-Nov-25 | What evidence of ongoing CMMC compliance must be submitted (e.g., assessment reports, training records)? | Solicitation Pages 12, 39, 44 and 54; DFARS 252.204-7003; 252.204-7008; DFARS 252.204-7012; DFARS 252.204-7020; DFARS 252.225-7048; FAR 52.212-1(e); FAR 3.104-4; FAR 52.204-23; FAR 52.204-25 | The Federal Government released updated CMMC requirements on September 10, 2025, stating that CMMC Level 1 Self Assessment will be required of contractors beginning on November 10, 2025 with full CMMC/NIST SP 800-171 Level 2 compliance mandated on new contracts beginning in 2026. Because the CMMC certification is somewhat in a state of flux at this time, please clarify the following questions relating to CMMC and NIST SP 800-171. | Equa Solutions | Not applicable at this time because solicitation was issued o or after November 10, 2028 in accordance DFARS 252.204-7025 and applicability DFARS 204.7504(b) | |
| 97 | 3-Nov-25 | Is there a grace or ramp-up period for achieving the required CMMC level? | Solicitation Pages 12, 39, 44 and 54; DFARS 252.204-7003; 252.204-7008; DFARS 252.204-7012; DFARS 252.204-7020; DFARS 252.225-7048; FAR 52.212-1(e); FAR 3.104-4; FAR 52.204-23; FAR 52.204-25 | The Federal Government released updated CMMC requirements on September 10, 2025, stating that CMMC Level 1 Self Assessment will be required of contractors beginning on November 10, 2025 with full CMMC/NIST SP 800-171 Level 2 compliance mandated on new contracts beginning in 2026. Because the CMMC certification is somewhat in a state of flux at this time, please clarify the following questions relating to CMMC and NIST SP 800-171. | Equa Solutions | Not applicable at this time because solicitation was issued o or after November 10, 2028 in accordance DFARS 252.204-7025 and applicability DFARS 204.7504(b) | |
| 98 | 3-Nov-25 | Are all 110 security controls of NIST SP800-171 required, or only a subset? If so, which ones? | Solicitation Pages 12, 39, 44 and 54; DFARS 252.204-7003; 252.204-7008; DFARS 252.204-7012; DFARS 252.204-7020; DFARS 252.225-7048; FAR 52.212-1(e); FAR 3.104-4; FAR 52.204-23; FAR 52.204-25 | The Federal Government released updated CMMC requirements on September 10, 2025, stating that CMMC Level 1 Self Assessment will be required of contractors beginning on November 10, 2025 with full CMMC/NIST SP 800-171 Level 2 compliance mandated on new contracts beginning in 2026. Because the CMMC certification is somewhat in a state of flux at this time, please clarify the following questions relating to CMMC and NIST SP 800-171. | Equa Solutions | Not applicable at this time because solicitation was issued o or after November 10, 2028 in accordance DFARS 252.204-7025 and applicability DFARS 204.7504(b) |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .