Attachment 5 - RFI Log for A-E IDIQ 7-30-25.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA488725R0005
About this file
This document is a Request for Information (RFI) Log for a Multidisciplinary Architectural-Engineering (A-E) Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract issued by the 56th Contracting Squadron at Luke Air Force Base. The solicitation (FA488725R0005) seeks three Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) contractors to provide A-E services for multiple Arizona military facilities, with a 5-year ordering period and a total ceiling value of $25,000,000. The contract will cover design services including Mechanical, Electrical, Fire Protection, Civil, Structural, and Architectural disciplines for projects at Luke AFB, Davis-Monthan AFB, Barry M. Goldwater Range, and other locations in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area.
The RFI Log contains 47 questions and responses addressing key solicitation details, including licensing requirements, teaming arrangements, project experience criteria, and submission guidelines. Significant changes from the original solicitation include removing the specific Arizona licensing requirement, clarifying key personnel qualifications, and extending the proposal due date to August 12, 2025. The contract guarantees a minimum award amount of $2,500, and firms will be selected based on demonstrated qualifications through a comprehensive evaluation process that considers factors such as professional qualifications, specialized experience, past performance, and location.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
| REQUEST FOR INFORMATION LOG | |
| CONTRACT #: FA488725R0005 | PROJECT # / TITLE: A-E IDIQ |
| TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR | TO BE COMPLETED BY GOVERNMENT | ||||||||
| RFI # | DATE | DOCUMENT | SHEET / PAGE / PARA | DISCIPLINE (If Applicable) | QUESTION / ISSUE | RESPONSE DATE | RESPONSE | POC | |
| OFFICE SYM | NAME | ||||||||
| 1 | 6/26/25 | Attachment+8+-+Section+L+A-E+6-18-25 | Sheet 4 of 12, paragraph L.2.14 | All diciplines | The paragraph states "Final design documents shall be stamped by the engineer or architect of record, registered to practice the particular professional field in the state of Arizona." Is it acceptable to respond to the RFI while applying for reciprocity of the professional license from our home State to the State to Arizona? The reciprocity process takes an avarage of 4-6 weeks to obtain, and should be ready by the time of award and/or when Volume III is due. | 7/30/25 | U.S. licensure is required for stamping disciplines, as well as for Project Managers and Program Managers. An Arizona license is no longer required to compete for this IDIQ. However, it may be required at the task order level for certain projects. Firms that have initiated the reciprocity process for an Arizona license are encouraged to submit proof that the process has begun. This proof can be submitted with your current license in SF 330, Part I, Section H. It will not count against the page limit. See Section L. paragraph L.2.14, L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1. for updated language. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles |
| 2 | 6/26/25 | Attachment+8+-+Section+L+A-E+6-18-25 | Sheet 9 of 12, paragraph L.5.2.1. | All diciplines | Similarly to above, this paragraph states "In addition, all key personnel shall have Arizona Professional Engineer licenses in their related fields. Firms must provide a copy of the license and issuing organization for such personnel." Can proof of the reciprocity application be provided in lieu of the license, if the process is delayed beyond the submittal deadline? | 7/30/25 | U.S. licensure is required for stamping disciplines, as well as for Project Managers and Program Managers. An Arizona license is no longer required to compete for this IDIQ. However, it may be required at the task order level for certain projects. Firms that have initiated the reciprocity process for an Arizona license are encouraged to submit proof that the process has begun. This proof can be submitted with your current license in SF 330, Part I, Section H. It will not count against the page limit. See Section L. paragraph L.2.14, L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1. for updated language. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles |
| 3 | 6/26/25 | Attachment+8+-+Section+L+A-E+6-18-25 | Sheet 9 of 12, paragraph L.5.2.2. | All diciplines | The paragraph states "Relevant past projects cost should be in the range of $75,000 - $2,500,000." Will a higher cost range disqualify a submittal or the past project? | 7/30/25 | A higher cost range will not disqualify the past project. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles |
| 4 | 6/26/25 | Attachment+8+-+Section+L+A-E+6-18-25 | Sheet 9 of 12, paragraph L.5.2.2. | All diciplines | The Paragraph states "All projects provided in the SF 330 must be completed by the actual office/branch/regional office/individual team member proposed to manage and perform work under this contract." Is it acceptable for the submitting team member and firm principal to have performed the project under a previous employer, if they were the lead design professional on the project? | 7/30/25 | Yes, it is acceptable to provide experience from a previous firm. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter |
| 5 | 6/26/25 | Attachment+1+-+AE+IDIQ+LUKE+SOW+-+4-24-25 | Sheet 17 of 38, 5.0 through 7.13 | All diciplines | As this is a multidiciplinary submittal, are all diciplines required to be SDVOSB, or only the prime / or majority of the team? If most of the work is to be performed by the SDVOSB, would that depend on the Task Order (TO) scope of work, and what diciplines it will involve, and would the diciplines involved differ from one TO scope of work to another? | 7/30/25 | Only the prime contractor is required to be SDVOSB. However, FAR clause 52.219-14 - Limitations on Subcontracting will apply to the IDIQ as a whole, including all subsequent task orders. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles |
| 6 | 6/27/25 | Attachment 8 - Section L A-E 6-18-25.pdf | Page 2/Paragraph L.2.2 | "Teaming/Partnering Offerors: If the offer is based on a |
teaming/partnering relationship, the Offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of
| the teaming/partnering relationship." Are letters of intent (LOIs) from proposed subconsultants considered acceptable in lieu of full teaming agreements for the purpose of the SF330 submission? | 7/30/25 | For Teaming/Partnering Offerors - A letter of intent (LOI) is acceptable for submission during Phase 1 of the selection process, but a fully executed teaming agreement needs to be provided before award. Please see Attachment 8, Section L, para. L.2.2 and Section L, Table 4.3. for additional information. No page limits are associated with this requirement. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | |
| 7 | 6/27/25 | Attachment 8 - Section L A-E 6-18-25.pdf | Page 2/Paragraph L.2.2 | "Teaming/Partnering Offerors: If the offer is based on a |
teaming/partnering relationship, the Offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of
| the teaming/partnering relationship." Do teaming agreements/letters of intent count toward the SF330 page limits? | 7/30/25 | No, teaming agreements/letters of intent do not count toward the SF330 page limits. Please see Attachment 8 - Section L, para. L.2.2. and Table L.4.3. for additional information. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | ||||||
| 8 | 6/24/25 | Attach 1 - AE IDIQ LUKE SOW | Is a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification level 2 required for contractors receiving government facility data under this contract? | 7/30/25 | Not required for award of IDIQ but may be required for individual task orders. This will be specified in the task order solicitation if it's required. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | |||
| 9 | 6/24/25 | Attach 1 - AE IDIQ LUKE SOW | SOW para 3.9.8.4. Sustainable Infrastructure and Operations. | Paragraph indicates the use of LEED system criteria. Wouldn’t a reference to UFC 1-200-02 High Performance Sustainable Buildings Requirements be more appropriate in lieu of the LEED reference? | 7/30/25 | Yes, LEED is not required but UFC 1-200-02 and all other UFCs required to be followed. See SOW paragraph 3.9.8.4. and 5.3.2. to review this change. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | ||
| 10 | 6/24/25 | Attach 1 - AE IDIQ LUKE SOW | SOW para 4.3. | This paragraph discusses aerial photograph/LiDAR. We do not see reference to FAR 52.240-1 or its inclusion into the solicitation. Please verity FAR 52.240-1 compliance is required if authorized UAV systems are used to accomplish aerial photography/LiDAR. Para 7.11 also addresses aerial imagery. | 7/30/25 | Compliance is required, FAR 52.240-1 was added to the solicitation and will be in the final awarded contract(s). | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | ||
| 11 | 6/24/25 | Attach 1 - AE IDIQ LUKE SOW | SOW para 5.4.4. Construction Support. | Request expanded definition of this requirement as this action could also cover Title II type actions but with burden placed on the designer without compensation. This could result in higher bids to cover designer long term risk. We think the intent is for errors and omissions type corrections but is currently undefined as such. | 7/30/25 | Only required for errors and omissions type corrections. See SOW para. 5.4.4. for updated language. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | ||
| 12 | 6/24/25 | Attach 1 - AE IDIQ LUKE SOW | Part C, para 9.0. | Paragraph states working with Secret and Top-Secret documents is possible (and requiring the related personnel security checks). What are the minimum requirements for bidders to meet this section as a firm may never see a classified project but is very likely to see CUI type related data? | 7/30/25 | We currently do not have any projected classified projects. However, if a future project requires higher security protocols, it will be addressed at the Task Order level and specified in the Task Order solicitation. There is no minimum requirement for bidders to meet this section of the SOW. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | ||
| 13 | 6/24/25 | Attach 1 - AE IDIQ LUKE SOW | Part E, TO Award Procedures and Requirements. | Stated procedure requires all contract awardees to submit both quals (Volume 1) and fees (Volume 2) for all TO RFPs. Our experience with TO RFPs that selections are via a two-step process that the second step, (Volume 2), is only requested from the initial technical selectee. This approach will lessen the administrative burden on the non-selected small business as fee proposals are only generated by selected firm. Would Luke AFB consider a two-step process verses a single, two volume, procedure? | 7/30/25 | For Task Order Award Procedures (Only) - No, 56 CONS will request Volume 1 - Technical (Qualificatioins), and Volume 2 - Price at the same time in an effort to streamline the task order award process. Task orders will be awarded in accordance with the Brooks Act and the evaluation steps outlined in SOW paragraph 14.3. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | ||
| 14 | 6/24/25 | Attach 1 - AE IDIQ LUKE SOW | SOW Para 15.1. | Please define “FOPR”. We assume it is “Fair Opportunity Proposal Request.” | 7/30/25 | Correct, FOPR is an acronym for Fair Opportunity Proposal Requst. See SOW paragraph 15.1 for clarification/definition. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | ||
| 15 | 6/24/25 | Attach 1 - AE IDIQ LUKE SOW / Attach 9 section M | Attachment M, Para M.3.4.2, Factor 2, Specialized Experience and Attachment 1, SOW, Para 3.0. | The SOW lists several environmental capability requirements; however, the evaluation criteria does not list any environmental experience as relevant. Request confirmation that it was Luke AFB’s intent not to include any representative environmental projects for Factor 2 submission. | 7/30/25 | Correct, it was Luke's intent not to include any environmental projects | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | ||
| 16 | 6/24/25 | Attach 1 - AE IDIQ LUKE SOW | SOW Para 11.5. Professional Emplouyees | Will all professional employees performing technical services required a state registered license/credential. Some of the credentials and licenses are not state specific. 11.5.1. Also states all the Prime Contractor's PMs shall by RAs, PEs, AICPs or REMs - does this apply to every PM? | 7/30/25 | U.S. licensure is required for stamping disciplines, as well as for Project Managers and Program Managers. An Arizona license is no longer required to compete for this IDIQ. However, it may be required at the task order level for certain projects. See Section L. paragraph L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1. for updated language. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | ||
| 17 | 6/24/25 | Attach 9 section M | pg. 4-5 Para M.3.4.1. Factor 1 - Professional Qualifications | The last paragraph states that all key personnel shall have Arizona Professional Engineer licenses in their related fields. Does this apply to the non-engineering roles including the key Project and Program Manager? Would the government consider other relevant credentials (e.g., PMP, CEM, LEED AP, etc.) for the Program Manager or Project Manager? | 7/30/25 | A Project Manager or Program Manager shall be an RA or PE. U.S. licensure is required for Project Managers and Program Managers. See Section L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1 for updated language. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | ||
| 18 | 6/24/25 | Attach 7 Joint Venture Disclosure | Last line of disclosure | The end of this disclosure states, "A copy of each teaming agreement must be provided with your price proposal." To clarify, is the government requesting copies of all teaming agreements from each teaming partner, or only the Joint Venture Agreement between the joint venture partners? Is this disclosure only applicable to be included in Volume III - Pricing Proposal (Required from Selected Firms Only) or Volume I - Technical Proposal? | 7/30/25 | Attachment 7 Joint Venture Disclosure is only required for Joint Ventures. If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering relationship, the Offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. See Section L.2.2 Joint Venture Offerors and Teaming/Partnering Offerors for specific guidance. See Attachment 7 Joint Venture Disclosure for updated language. Joint Venture and Teaming partner agreements go in Volume I Technical Proposal, see Section L Table 4.3. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | ||
| 19 | 6/24/25 | Attach 8 - Section L | Para L.2.2. Joint Venture Offerors and Teaming/Partnering Offerors | As an SDVOSB, we’re concerned about the overall duration, particularly if the procurement cycle extends beyond 12 months. This paragraph indicates that SDVOSB JV contracts require SBA BOS review. However, it's our understanding the SBA will only review and approve JVAs for 8(a) sole source contracts. Please confirm this and if there is a special arrangement with the SBA regarding this procurement. Will this review process potentially delay the procurement timeline? Based on our recent past experience, similar review processes have typically been completed within a 12-month window. Is the government anticipating a similar timeline for this effort? | 7/30/25 | Correct, the SBA will only review and approve JVAs for 8(a) sole source contracts. No SBA pre-approval is required, unless it's also an 8(a) JV or you're seeking SBA Mentor Protégé recognition. However, the JV must meet SBA regulatory requirements (13 CFR 125.18 & CFR 125.8) at time of proposal submission and may be audited or protested (see Section L, para. L.2.2. for update language). We do not have a special arrangement with the SBA regarding this procurement nor do we believe it's necessary. We do not anticipate a delay to the procurement timeline based on this information. Firms shall contact the SBA directly if they need detailed information regarding JVAs and Mentor Protégé recognition. | 56 CONS/PKB | Mary Peetz and Jesse Searles | ||
| 20 | 6/24/25 | Attach 8 - Section L | Para L.2.2. Joint Venture Offerors and Teaming/Partnering Offerors | Is it acceptable if Offerors provide the additional documentation being requested after Section H? | 7/30/25 | Please provide the JV and Teaming/Partnering Agreements in section H. This information will not count toward any page limits. See updated language in Section L, para. L.2.2. and Section L, Table 4.3. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | ||
| 21 | 6/24/25 | Attach 8 - Section L | Para L.4.8. Electronic Offers Required | Due to the timing of this solicitation coinciding with the federal holiday during the week, we respectfully request an extension of the submission deadline to July 30. | 7/30/25 | The proposal due date has been extended. Please refer to the new due date provided in the amendment. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | ||
| 22 | 6/24/25 | Attach 1 - AE IDIQ LUKE SOW | pg 29 para 11.8. Program Management and 11.9. Project Management | Regarding the Personnel Management Requirements outlined in Sections 11.8. and 11.9., will the government please clarify whether alternate Program and Project Managers are required to be identified at the proposal stage, or only after contract award during the execution phase? | 7/30/25 | Alternates are not required at the proposal stage. This information will be collected after award of the IDIQ. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | ||
| 23 | 6/27/25 | Att 9 Section M | Pg 5, M3.4.1 | Key Disciplines | If the prime contractor is licensed in Arizona does the sub-contractor have to be licensed in Arizona as well or will another states PE or Architects license be acceptable? And will the Air Force accept pending applications? | 7/30/25 | U.S. licensure is required for stamping disciplines, as well as for Project Managers and Program Managers. An Arizona license is no longer required to compete for this IDIQ. However, it may be required at the task order level for certain projects. Firms that have initiated the reciprocity process for an Arizona license are encouraged to submit proof that the process has begun. This proof can be submitted with your current license in SF 330, Part I, Section H. It will not count against the page limit. See Section L. paragraph L.2.14, L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1. for updated language. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | |
| 24 | 6/27/25 | Att 1 SOW & Att 8 Section L | Att 1: Pg 29 & Att. 8: Pg 9, L.5.2.1 | Key Disciplines | Are the alternates for key positions also required to be licensed in Arizona? | 7/30/25 | U.S. licensure is required for stamping disciplines, as well as for Project Managers and Program Managers and alternates for key positions. An Arizona license is no longer required to compete for this IDIQ. However, it may be required at the task order level for certain projects. Firms that have initiated the reciprocity process for an Arizona license are encouraged to submit proof that the process has begun. This proof can be submitted with your current license in SF 330, Part I, Section H. It will not count against the page limit. See Section L. paragraph L.2.14, L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1. for updated language. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | |
| 25 | 6/27/25 | Solicitation | Pg 10, Section I | N/A | Will FAR 52.219-27, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, SDVOSB Concerns, be fully implemented such that at least 50% of the services must be performed by SDVOSBs or VOSBs? | 7/30/25 | Yes, FAR 52.219-27 will be fully implemented. In addition, FAR clause 52.219-14 - Limitations on Subcontracting will apply. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | |
| 26 | 6/27/25 | Att 8 Section L & Att 9 Section M | Att 8: Pg 9, L.5.2.1 & Att 9: Pg 3, M.3.2.2 | Key Disciplines | Given that Attachment 9 defines relevancy as projects involving any combination of Mechanical, Electrical, Fire Protection, Civil, Structural, and Architectural Engineering Services, would it be acceptable to include additional resumes for Fire Protection, Structural, and Architectural disciplines? | 7/30/25 | Only Key Personnel resumes specified in Section L.5.2.1 will be evaluated. Specific disciplines and personnel that must be included in key personnel are: Project Manager, Program Manager, Civil Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, and Electrical Engineer. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | |
| 27 | 6/24/25 | Attachment 9 - Section M A-E IDIQ 6-18-25 | Page 5 | General | Concern: The solicitation requires all key personnel to hold an Arizona PE or SE license. We believe this is unnecessarily restrictive. FAR 52.236-25 (Registration of Designers) states that architects or engineers “Architects or engineers registered to practice in the particular professional field involved in a State, the District of Columbia, or an outlying area of the United States shall prepare or review and approve the design of architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, civil, or other engineering features of the work.” Federal facilities are governed by the Government’s own AHJ; therefore, project personnel typically need a U.S. license – not a project-state license – unless a specific justification exists. We agree that a Structural Engineer stamping drawings may need Arizona registration (e.g., local seismic code nuances). However, extending that requirement to Project Managers, Program Managers, Mechanical Engineers, and Electrical Engineers—who will design to UFCs and can address local code through reference—is, in our view, beyond the FAR requirement. Request for Clarification / Relief: 1.) Please provide the statutory or mission-critical basis for requiring Arizona licensure for every key individual. 2.) If no such basis exists, we request the Government revise the RFP so that only stamping disciplines (e.g., Structural) must hold an Arizona license, in line with FAR 52.236-25. 3.) Should an amendment be issued, we respectfully request a brief proposal-due-date extension so teams can adjust staffing matrices. We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your guidance. | 7/30/25 | U.S. licensure is required for stamping disciplines, as well as for Project Managers and Program Managers. An Arizona license is no longer required to compete for this IDIQ. However, it may be required at the task order level for certain projects. See Section L. paragraph L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1. for updated language. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | |
| 28 | 6/26/25 | Attachment 8 | ||||||||
| L.5.2.1. Factor 1 – Professional Qualifications | Page 9 of 12 | Project Manager; Program Manager | The solicitation states: “all key personnel shall have Arizona Professional Engineer licenses in their related fields”. Does this requirement apply to the Project Manager and Program Manager disciplines, or will a PE in any state for these disciplines be acceptable? | 7/30/25 | U.S. licensure is required for stamping disciplines, as well as for Project Managers and Program Managers. An Arizona license is no longer required to compete for this IDIQ. However, it may be required at the task order level for certain projects. See Section L. paragraph L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1. for updated language. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | |||
| 29 | 6/26/25 | Attachment 8 | ||||||||
| L.5.2.1. Factor 1 – Professional Qualifications | Page 9 of 12 | All | The solicitation states: “all key personnel shall have Arizona Professional Engineer licenses in their related fields”. Is it acceptable for a person’s AZ licensure to be pending at the time of proposal submittal, or will reciprocity be allowed if they hold the active licensure in other states? | 7/30/25 | U.S. licensure is required for stamping disciplines, as well as for Project Managers and Program Managers. An Arizona license is no longer required to compete for this IDIQ. However, it may be required at the task order level for certain projects. Firms that have initiated the reciprocity process for an Arizona license are encouraged to submit proof that the process has begun. This proof can be submitted with your current license in SF 330, Part I, Section H. It will not count against the page limit. See Section L. paragraph L.2.14, L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1. for updated language. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | |||
| 30 | 6/26/25 | Attachment 9 | ||||||||
| M.3.4.5. Factor 5 – Location | Page 6 of 8 | General | The solicitation states: “Google Maps will be used to determine distance from the offeror’s SAM registered address to Luke AFB." While our firm has hundreds of offices nationwide, we have consolidated the number of SAM registrations to a more manageable number. Will the government consider revising this requirement to using the addresses for the offices listed in Section C and the associated Part II forms? | 7/30/25 | The requirement has been revised to use the address for the prime contractor's office (or Managing Partner's office under JV agreements) listed in the SF330. The Government will use the office address provided in the SF330, Part I, Section H. Please see Attachment 8 - Section L, Table 4.3., para. L.5.2.5., L.5.2.5.1. and Attachment 9 - Section M, para. M.3.4.5. for updated information. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | |||
| 31 | 6/26/25 | Attachment 8 | ||||||||
| L.5.2.2.1. Factor 2 Submission Requirements (SF 330, Part I, Section F) | page 10 of 12 | General | The solicitation states, "the projects shall have been completed within the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation." Please confirm if the definition of completed is intended for design or construction services. For example, is it acceptable to use the date of completion for the design services performed under the contract if construction is still pending? | 7/30/25 | Yes, it is acceptable to submit design projects if construction is still in progress. See Section L, para. L.5.2.2.1., L.6.2., and Section M, para. M.3.4.2. for additional information. | 56 CES/CENM and 56 CONS/PKB | Kevin Porter and Jesse Searles | |||
| 32 | 6/24/25 | Attachment 9 - Section M A-E 6-18-25 | Page 5 | Project Manager/Program Manager | It is referenced that "In addition, all key personnel shall have Arizona Professional Engineer licenses in their related fields." - For the Project Manager and Program Manager roles, can these personnel be licensed Architects in the state of Arizona, rather than licensed engineers? | 7/30/25 | Licensed architects are acceptable for Project and Program Managers. See Section L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1 for updated language. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | |
| 33 | 6/25/25 | Attachement 9 | Page 5 of 8 Para 2 | - Project Manager |
- Program Manager
- Civil Engineer
- Mechanical Engineer
- Electrical Engineer In addition, all key personnel shall have Arizona Professional Engineer licenses in their related fields. Firms must provide a copy of the license and issuing organization for such personnel. Copy of license shall not be counted as part of the page limitation.
| Will we be disqualified if not all key personnel have AZ license? | 7/30/25 | U.S. licensure is required for stamping disciplines, as well as for Project Managers and Program Managers. An Arizona license is no longer required to compete for this IDIQ. However, it may be required at the task order level for certain projects. Firms that have initiated the reciprocity process for an Arizona license are encouraged to submit proof that the process has begun. This proof can be submitted with your current license in SF 330, Part I, Section H. It will not count against the page limit. See Section L. paragraph L.2.14, L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1. for updated language. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | |
| 34 | 6/25/25 | Attachement 9 | Page 5 of 8 Para 2 | - Project Manager |
- Program Manager
- Civil Engineer
- Mechanical Engineer
- Electrical Engineer In addition, all key personnel shall have Arizona Professional Engineer licenses in their related fields. Firms must provide a copy of the license and issuing organization for such personnel. Copy of license shall not be counted as part of the page limitation.
| It’s unusual to have a requirement like this on top of the mileage requirements, can this requirement be removed to say any U.S. state licensing is acceptable. | 7/30/25 | U.S. licensure is required for stamping disciplines, as well as for Project Managers and Program Managers. An Arizona license is no longer required to compete for this IDIQ. However, it may be required at the task order level for certain projects. Firms that have initiated the reciprocity process for an Arizona license are encouraged to submit proof that the process has begun. This proof can be submitted with your current license in SF 330, Part I, Section H. It will not count against the page limit. See Section L. paragraph L.2.14, L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1. for updated language. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | |
| 35 | 6/25/25 | Attachement 9 | Page 5 of 8 Para 4 | Recency is defined as active contract performance during the five (5) years preceding the date of |
issuance of this solicitation.
| Does this mean projects need to be design completed? | 7/30/25 | Correct, design complete within the last 5 years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Additionally, ongoing design projects may be used if they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or Non- Federal Government equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage). See Section L, para. L.5.2.2.1., L.6.2., and Section M, para. M.3.4.2. for additional information. | 56 CES/CENM and 56 CONS/PKB | Kevin Porter and Jesse Searles | |
| 36 | 6/25/25 | Attachement 9 | Page 5 of 8 Para 4 | Recency is defined as active contract performance during the five (5) years preceding the date of |
issuance of this solicitation.
| Does this mean projects need to be construction completed? | 7/30/25 | Submitted projects do not need to be construction complete, only design complete. Ongoing design projects may be used if they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or Non- Federal Government equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage). See Section L, para. L.5.2.2.1., L.6.2., and Section M, para. M.3.4.2. for additional information. | 56 CES/CENM and 56 CONS/PKB | Kevin Porter and Jesse Searles | |
| 37 | 6/25/25 | Attachement 9 | Page 5 of 8 Para 4 | Recency is defined as active contract performance during the five (5) years preceding the date of |
issuance of this solicitation.
| Does this mean projects need to be design and construction completed? | 7/30/25 | Submitted projects do not need to be construction complete, only design complete. Ongoing design projects may be used if they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or Non- Federal Government equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage). See Section L, para. L.5.2.2.1., L.6.2., and Section M, para. M.3.4.2. for additional information. | 56 CES/CENM and 56 CONS/PKB | Kevin Porter and Jesse Searles | |
| 38 | 6/25/25 | Attachement 9 | Page 5 of 8 Para 4 | Recency is defined as active contract performance during the five (5) years preceding the date of |
issuance of this solicitation.
| Are we allowed to submit projects that are construction in progress? Is there a % that needs to be completed to count? Such as 35%, 50%, 65%, 95%. | 7/30/25 | Submitted projects do not need to be construction complete, only design complete. We are not concerned about the construction percentage complete at all. Ongoing design projects may be used if they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or Non- Federal Government equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage). See Section L, para. L.5.2.2.1., L.6.2., and Section M, para. M.3.4.2. for additional information. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | |||||
| 39 | 6/25/25 | Is there an overall page count? Font style, size, file size requirement. | 7/30/25 | Page counts are designated within solicitation documentation. Please reference Attachment 8 - Section L, para. L.4.3., Table 4.3. for additional details. There is no overall page limit. Please reference Attachment 8 - Section L, para. 4.4. for font size. There is no specified file size limitation. Please reference Section L, para. L.4 through L.4.10. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | |||
| 40 | 6/25/25 | Are cover page, table of contents, transmittal allowed or required. | 7/30/25 | Yes, a cover page and table of contents is required. Please reference Attachment 8 - Section L, para. L.4.3., Table 4.3. for additional details. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | |||
| 41 | 6/25/25 | Can the submission be in color and include rendering/ images or is this a black and white submission only. | 7/30/25 | No preference on color or black/white. Please reference Attachment 8 - Section L, para. L.4 through L.4.10. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | |||
| 42 | 7/3/25 | Section M Evaluation Factors for Award | M.3.4.5 Location | To be competetive, would the government consider extending the locality requirements to 1500 miles for key personnel? | 7/30/25 | Locality requirements will not be extended. However, firms located beyond the 500 mile radius are not excluded from consideration. The loaction factor is one of several evaluation factors and will be considered in balance with the others as outlined in the solicitation. | 56 CES/CENM and 56 CONS/PKB | Kevin Porter and Jesse Searles | |
| 43 | 7/3/25 | Does the government intend to award based on specialty category as follows: (1) Architectural/Structural, (2) Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing, (3) Civil similar to the previous 56 CONS IDIQ Architect-Engineer (A-E) Contract? | 7/30/25 | The Government intends to issue a Multidisciplinary Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the three (3) most highly qualified firms. See Section L.1.2. for updated language. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | |||
| 44 | 7/3/25 | Section L | 5.2.1 | “… all key personnel shall have Arizona Professional Engineer licenses in their related fields.” Is a Registered Architect acceptable for the Project Manager & Program Manager roles? | 7/30/25 | Yes, registered architect is acceptable for Project and Program Manager roles. See Section L.5.2.1. and Section M.3.4.1 for updated language. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | |
| 45 | 7/3/25 | Section L | 5.2.1 | “Specific disciplines and personnel that must be included in key personnel are: - Project Manager, - Program Manager, - Civil Engineer, - Mechanical Engineer, - Electrical Engineer.” Can an Architect and Structural Engineer also be submitted as key personnel to cover the scope described in L.1.1. | 7/30/25 | Only Key Personnel resumes specified in Section L.5.2.1 will be evaluated. Specific disciplines and personnel that must be included in key personnel are: Project Manager, Program Manager, Civil Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, and Electrical Engineer. | 56 CES/CENM | Kevin Porter | |
| 46 | 7/10/25 | Attachment 6 - Pricing Worksheet | Does pricing have to be completed at this stage? Usually, the pricing exercise is only for the firm(s) selected. | 7/30/25 | No, pricing is not required during Phase 1 of the IDIQ award process. Please reference Attachment 8, Section L, Paragraph L.4.1. for additional details. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles | ||
| 47 | 7/23/25 | Solicitation Amendment 0001 | Solicitation Amendment 0001 incorporated DFARS provision 252.204-7019 - Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements. Can the Government confirm the Basic Assessment must be completed and posted to the SPRS prior to contract award, and not the solicitation due date? | 7/30/25 | Yes, the Basic Assessment must be completed and posted to SPRS prior to contract award. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jesse Searles |
Solicitation: FA488720REC01 Attachment 5: RFI Log Date: 15 June 2020
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .