RFI Responses.pdf

1. Solicitation Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award subsection [c.] requires the contractor to either have in-house A&E capability or to partner with an all-inclusive A&E firm that has a fire protection engineer on staff. It’s not typical for an A&E firm to have a fire protection engineer on staff. It’s common that an A&E firm has a relationship or consults with a fire protection engineer. This requirement will disqualify otherwise qualified bidders thus diminishing the pool of competitively priced proposals. Would the government consider altering the qualification requirements to allow for contractors who partner with A&E firms to consult with a fire protection engineer as long as they meet the requirement of having at least two fire alarm system designs within the past 5 years?

We will be keeping the requirement for either the construction company or A&E firm to have a fire protection engineer on staff.

2. If known, what is the expected start date for construction?

No earlier than June 1st, 2026.

3. Page 22 of the solicitation says, “The Government will evaluate the past performance of the firm on its three most recent DoD or other contracts using Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) categories.”

However, part of the evaluation is relevancy. In order to ensure that the evaluated projects are relevant, we kindly request the ability to select three projects from our recent past performance that will be most relevant, rather than having to use the three most recent projects.

Each company can submit projects for past performance evaluation. As relevancy is a component, reviewing projects that are not relevant just because they are recent is unfair.

As we did not define recency, we will label a contract being “recent” and acceptable for submission as within the past 5 years.

4. Please clarify if interim CPARS will be evaluated or if only final CPARS will be evaluated.

Only final CPARS will be evaluated.

5. Page 27 of the solicitation says there will be a site visit on November 3, while SAM.gov says the site visit will be on October 31. Please provide clarification regarding the date of the site visit.

The site visit will be on Nov 3rd. For any that are wishing to attend, just let me know and I will meet the attendees at the base visitor’s gate to obtain day-passes.

6. Page 22 of the solicitation says that self-evaluations “must adequately show reasoning for the apparent scores, including CPARS reports, and any documentation for relevancy.” Please clarify what is meant by “documentation for relevancy.” Would a project description clearly showing how a submitted project aligns with the relevancy criteria (on the table on page 24 of the solicitation) suffice?

Project description or SOW description would work. I apologize for the unclear wording.

7. Please kindly consider removing the requirement for Idaho Contractor Registration from the solicitation (listed on pg. 27).

This requirement will be lifted.

8. General Contractor Lic Requirement: Please clarify this requirement, is it required for this project, as it's usually not required on Federal Installations.

The Idaho contractor registration will be removed. I am unaware of a requirement for a general contractor license.

9. Design A/E firm Past Experience for the proposal: Seeking clarification if the Design Firm will be scored for the proposal.

For past performance and delivery timeline, only the prime contractor will be scored. Past performance for the A&E firm may be submitted in lieu of one CPARS report.