Attachment 8_2026 JBER MACC Q and A.pdf

Question Government Response

1 Will the Government consider removing the solicitation from the 8(a) program? 1 No

2 Are non 8(a) small businesses eligible for an award? 2 No

Attachment 4: Volume II, Technical Definitions states; Projects must have been completed no more than 60 months prior to the date of proposal submission. Can this be extended to 84 months?.

3 No

For Volume II – Technical, Chapters 1 and 2, will past performance submitted by an offeror’s teaming partner and/or their contracted design firm be evaluated? Currently, the language for the self-scoring matrices, evaluation II, III, and IV, only uses 'Prime Contractor'.

The Government will not be evaluating past perfomance, but will validate relevent experience. As stated in Section L-1, 1.3, "Subsidiaries and predecessors under the same corporate umbrella will be considered the same 8(a) firm."

"Teaming arrangements" and other such agreements with entities that do not meet this criteria will be considered subcontractor relationships only. The solicitation requires the offeror to have been the Prime contractor.

Within Solicitation RFP, Section L-1 instructions, 1.3 states “Subsidiaries and predecessors under the same corporate umbrella will be considered the same 8(a) firm.” Please confirm that past performance of subsidiaries and predecessors, under the same corporate umbrella as the current 8(a)/Offeror, can be used as past performance and as such be submitted as a Relevant Experience Project (REP).

5 See Answer 4.

6 Please confirm we should document the meaningful relationship between subsidiaries and predecessors on past performance within the Executive Summary Sheet. 6

The Government will not be evaluating past perfomance, but will validate relevent experience. The relationship between the offeror and any subsidiaries or predecessors may be documented on the executive summary (1 page limit). Any information beyond the 1 page limit may be included in the narative section of the relevant REP (2 page limit per project).

Within Attachment 2 Relevant Experience Project (REP) Template, the first page for each project includes Prime Contractor Name. If using experience of subsidiaries or predecessor under the same corporate umbrella as the current 8(a)/Offeror, please clarify if that prime contractor name is used, or the current 8(a)/Offeror?

The Offeror shall record the Name of the prime contractor respective to the project being described. If the name differs from the offeror's name, this should be clearly explained (refer to Answers 4 and 6).

FA500026R0001

2026 JBER MACC

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Attachment 1 Statement of Work, Section 01000 1. Contract Description identifies anticipated scopes of work including airfield pavement, roads, and paving. However, these scopes do not appear to be reflected in the REP Category listings in Section I.

Please clarify whether these scope elements are expected to be performed under this contract. If so, please advise under which REP Category offerors should demonstrate relevant project experience and past performance for these types of work.

Please review the Statement of Work (SOW) to become familiar with the scope of the contract opportunity. Please follow the instructions for each attachment in accordance with Section L of the solicitation. Interested Offerors are requested to provide relevent experience in the categories listed in Attachments 2, 4, and 5.

Within Attachment 5 Self-Scored Worksheet, Section II, offerors score their numbers of projects on location as well as in regard to military/federal facility. For military projects in Alaska that are south of the 60th parallel (Shemya for example), please clarify where they would score in Section II?

9 Section L-2, Volume II, Paragraph 1.8.1.4.2 Each REP will fall into only 1 of the 3 categories. See revised Attachment 5, Self-Scored Worksheet, Section II.

10 Please clarify the expected award date for this solicitation. 10 The Government anticipates awards will be made on 1 July 2026, but that date is an estimate only and is subject to change.

With the existing MACC, is it expected that MACC will be used exclusively until the contract ceiling is hit, or is it expected this new contract will become engaged after July 1, 2026 as outlined in the contract delivery schedule?

11 The Government reserves the right to use either either contract once the award has been made.

Solicitation Section B states the potential task orders are to be between $2,000 and $20,000,000. In completing the REP template for past projects, relevant projects will be targeted by scope per the template. There is no commentary on relevant project/task order contract sizes. It appears a proposer could submit (24) each $2,000 dollar projects and be compliant with the past performance. With a contract of this size, should the REP projects be of a larger scale? We would assume at a minimum a mix of larger projects would be relevant. Please clarify if (magnitude) scale of projects should be addressed in the RFP and subsequent scoring.

12 No change to the solicitation will be made in response to this question.

If profit and overhead are not to be included in the burdened rates for Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Project Manager, when are they provided? Or are they negotiated?

13 If profit and overhead are negotiated, it will be at the task order level.

14 Is there a time limit for past performance projects? Or past performance performed at any time in the firms’ past allowed? 14

The Government will not be evaluating Past Performance. Relevant Experience Projects must have been completed no more than 60 months prior to the date of proposal submission as indicated on page 1 of Attachment 4.

15 Would the USAF consider lowering the aggregate bonding threshold to 15M, as this is a solicitation for Small Business? 15 No change to the solicitation will be made in response to this question.

L-2, 1.8 Volume II Technical, Relevant Experience Projects: Is an Offeror permitted to submit past performance from a sister subsidiary or affiliated entity, provided the proposal demonstrates meaningful involvement? Specifically, will the Government consider such references if the Offeror explains the relationship and its participation in the work?

16 See Answer 4.

Can the Government clarify the evaluation and validation process for the Self-Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 5), specifically how proposed scores may be adjusted during evaluation if supporting documentation or narrative justification is deemed insufficient? Additionally, what criteria will be used to determine whether a claimed score is accepted, partially credited, or not credited?

The government will validate the Self Scored Worksheet in accordance with Section M of the solicitation. Refer to Section M-2, 1.1.2.2. Scores will not be partially credited.

Can the Government clarify how overtime costs for Government inspection personnel will be implemented and billed to the Contractor when work is performed outside of standard duty hours (e.g., nights, weekends, or holidays)? Specifically, please confirm the applicable billing methodology, rate structure, minimum charge increments, and whether advance approval is required prior to incurring such costs.

18 That sentence has been removed from the SOW. See Attachment 1, SOW Rev. 01, dated 7 April 2026.

Attachment 4 REP Categories #2 Electrical requirements state “e.g. electrical lines from 12.5k V to 34.5k V” to qualify for this category. Please verify that standard distribution transmission line of 12.47k V will qualify in this category.

19 This category definition has been revised to 12kV to 35kV. See revised Attachments 2, 4, and 5.

Attachment 5 Self Scored Worksheet Section III has a line item and points for “7 or more tasks”. Attachment 2, REP Project Summary Template form, Section III has a drop-down listing for only 7 Tasks. Section L Paragraph 1.8.2.6 states “The narrative shall clearly state what tasks(s) is/are represented in accordance with the definitions provided in Attachment 4_Technical Definitions.” In the Contractors 2 page narrative, can the contractor site additional Tasks not in the Attachment 4_Technical Definitions list or listed on the Project Summary Sheet but relevant to the project and cross referenced to the REP SOW in Appendix 1?

20 Though additional work may be described in the REP narrative, the maximum score for complexity is reached with 7 tasks.

The solicitation states that “a single contract or task order may be used as a project in Section I up to two (2) times.” However, the solicitation does not clearly define how projects utilized more than once in Section I are evaluated in Sections II, III, and IV (e.g., project count, complexity, and design-build experience scoring).During the MACC 2026 Virtual Site Visit, the Government indicated that a project used twice may only be counted once for scoring purposes in Sections II, III, and IV, and that additional credit may be limited to certain categories (e.g., Categories 2, 3, and 4).Can the Government clarify how projects used more than once in Section I are evaluated in Sections II, III, and IV? Specifically, will a project referenced multiple times be counted once or multiple times for scoring purposes, and is there a limitation on which categories may receive additional credit from the same project?

In accordance with Section L-2, 1.8.1.4, "All projects referenced in Section II, III, and IV must be included in the Relevant Experience Projects supplied in Section I. No additional projects will be allowed in Section II, III, and IV beyond what is already listed in Section I. A single contract or task order may be used as a project in Section I up to two (2) times." In sections II, III, and IV no duplication is permitted. A project or its tasks used twice in Section I can only be counted once in each of the subsequent sections.

Attachment 4, Section I states: “Projects must have been completed no more than 60 months prior to the date of proposal submission.” Additionally, RFP FA500026R0001, Section L-2, Para 1.0.1 states: “Questions and answers will be provided in a subsequent solicitation amendment.”

Question: Since the proposal due date is fluid and subject to change via amendments, will the Government please consider revising Attachment 4 with RFP issuance date for the recency of past performance projects to ensure all offerors are evaluated on a level playing field, as they are measured against a single, fixed point in time? Measuring against RFP issuance date would preclude situations where contractors who submitted early are at a disadvantage compared to those who have extra time to complete projects and include them as recent experience.

22 The proposal due date is changed to 24 April. See block 13 on page 1 of the solicitation.

If a single project was performed in multiple locations, and only one of the locations is above 60th parallel, does this project satisfy the requirement of “projects on a military base/federal Government facility in Alaska and north of the 60th parallel”?

23 Yes.

Eareckson Air Station is located on Shemya Island in the Aleutian Islands and is often included in Arctic operations as a key, remote Arctic defense hub. Are projects performed in this location considered “projects on a military base/federal Government facility in Alaska and north of the 60th parallel”?

24 See Answer 9.

Please clarify the definition in REP Category. When the technical definition calls out “main purpose”. Can the scope of work be a significant portion of the work? Example being - a project that has multiple facets which all have significance to the task order.

Or does the project need to be primarily singular in objective? Example being a singular objective project with none/other facets primarily only being support to the primary objective?

25 Yes, the definitions state that the main purpose "must involve."

Please confirm that special interest project include projects that had to involve soil remediation example being the presence of PCBs/PFOS and also include soil testing and monitoring in potential in contaminated areas?

26 Yes.

27 Please confirm that the attachment 4 technical definitions govern the definitions for the categories on the excel sheet? 27 Confirmed.

28 Will the Government consider increasing the project completion date from 60 months to 72 months for project experience? 28 See Answer 14.

Please confirm whether there is a minimum dollar threshold for relevant project experience, equal to the current simplified acquisition threshold, $350,000 (RFO FAR 2.101, Definitions)?

29 There is no minium dollar threshold for Relevant Experience Projects

For project task experience – Engineered Facility Renovation Task – please clarify what significant modifications and upgrades include. Would tenant improvements that were a significant/primary task on the project meet this category?

30 If those tenant improvements fit the definition given in subsection 4 of Attachment 4.

31 For project task experience – if a category is not in the scope of work can/should additional documentation be provided for verification 31 SOWs are the best way to substantiate experience, but other documentation may be provided in the REP Appendix.

Section L-2, 1.7.6.3 instructs offerors to enter fully burdened hourly labor rates for the Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Project Manager (Attachment 7).

Section M-2, 1.1.4.1 states that price proposals will be evaluated by reviewing hourly rates for the Program Manager, Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager.

Please clarify whether the Government intends “Program Manager” (Section M) to be the same position as “Project Manager” (Section L/Attachment 7), or whether offerors should provide a Program Manager rate in Attachment 7 in lieu of (or in addition to) a Project Manager rate.

32 Section M-2, 1.1.4.1 has been revised to "Project Manager" for consistency with Section L and Attachment 2.

For validation of Relevant Experience Projects (REPs) and Self‑Scored Worksheet claims, may Section I REPs include projects where the offeror performed as a subcontractor?

33 No. See Revised Attachment 5, Self-Scored Worksheet. The offeror shall have performed as Prime Contractor on all REPs.

Section L-2, 1.7.6.3 instructs offerors to enter fully burdened hourly labor rates for the Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Project Manager (Attachment 7).

Section M-2, 1.1.4.1 states that price proposals will be evaluated by reviewing hourly rates for the Program Manager, Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager.

Please clarify whether the Government intends “Program Manager” (Section M) to be the same position as “Project Manager” (Section L/Attachment 7), or whether offerors should provide a Program Manager rate in Attachment 7 in lieu of (or in addition to) a Project Manager rate.

34 See Answer 32.

35 What percentage of task orders are anticipated to be design-build versus construction-only? 35 This information cannot be reasonably assessed at this time.

36 What are the most common project types anticipated (facilities, utilities, airfield, etc.)? 36 The statement of work (SOW) includes the general types of work anticipated by the Government at the time of solicitation.

37 Will subcontractor experience be considered, or must all REP submissions be from the prime contractor? 37 See Answer 33.

38 Will the Govt. consider the past performance of Teaming partners or only of the Prime 38 See Answer 4.

REP Category 3 includes “Contaminated Soil,” while the REP Category Definitions note that soil remediation is addressed under Category 10. To ensure we categorize our past performance correctly, please confirm which REP Category—3 or 10—should be used for projects involving contaminated soil remediation.

39 Soil remediation is addressed in category 10 of the document.

Solicitation Section 1.8.2.4 states that project specific Statement of Work (SOW) shall contain only SOWs for the submitted REPs. Many of our past-performance SOWs included separate Modification documents, in some cases multiple Mods. To ensure we comply with the submission requirements, can we append the associated Mod documents to the SOWs for reference within the REP narratives?

40 Yes. Modification and contract documents are permitted to be included in the Appendix. See Revised Sec. L-2, 1.8.2.2 and 1.8.2.4.

Several of our REPs are from non-Federal projects, and the SOWs provided by those clients do not fully describe the work category or tasks we intend to reference for this solicitation. To ensure accurate cross-referencing within the REP narratives, is it acceptable for Offerors to supplement or modify these SOWs to further explain the work performed, or must the SOWs be submitted exactly as originally issued?

41 Offerors are not permitted to modify the SOWs to substantiate their claims in the REP template or their self-scores. See Answer 40.

Some of our REPs include design‑build components; however, the overall project scope was not fully design‑build. For example, the SOW may include design engineering for electrical and communications systems, while the remaining scope (such as civil work) was performed using prescriptive construction methods. Based on the Attachment 4 Technical Definitions provided—which describe Design‑Build as a single, fixed‑price contract that combines architectural‑engineering services and construction—will projects with partial design‑build elements be considered Design‑Build for the purposes of this solicitation, or must the entire project have been delivered under a full design‑build contract?

42 The intent of the definition given in Att 4 is for full design-build projects.

43 Section L1.8.2 of the RFP (pg 31-32 of 40) describes the relevant experience project template. Must the relevant experience projects be 100% complete? 43 Yes. Refer the definition of a "Project" in Attachment 4, Technical Definitions.

Please confirm that Appendix 1, Project Specific Statements of Work are to be submitted in Volume II – Technical, Chapter 2 following Attachment 2_Relevant Experience Project Template.pdf.

44 Confirmed.

Section L – Instructions, Conditions, & notices to Offerors or Quoters L-1 General Instructions paragraph 1.3 states “Subsidiaries and predecessors under the same corporate umbrella will be considered the same 8(a) firm.” Should individual subsidiaries under the same corporate umbrella submit individual proposal packages or should their efforts be instead combined into one unified proposal response incorporating REPs from each contributing subsidiary?

45 Each family of companies is only permitted to submit one (1) proposal.

Section 1.5.4 requests that a cover letter be included on each volume, clearly identifying the company name, solicitation number, and volume number. Section 1.7.1 requests an Executive Summary. This section is limited to one (1) page. Please confirm these two pages are considered different.

46 Confirmed. These are 2 different pages.

Attachment 4 states: “Projects must have been completed no more than 60 months prior to the date of proposal submission.” Given that several current JBER TOs are in progress, will the Government please clarify that that “Projects must have been completed no more than 60 months prior to the date of proposal submission or ongoing.”

47 See Answer 14

For the Ballistic Windows, Active Vehicle Barriers, Traffic Check Houses, and/or Control Points (for Federal Facilities), will the Government accept electric gates/fencing under this definition?

48 Yes , only if it relates to the definition given in Att 4.

For the Ballistic Windows, Active Vehicle Barriers, Traffic Check Houses, and/or Control Points (for Federal Facilities), will the Government accept bollards as Active Vehicle Barriers under this definition?

49 No.

Page 31 of the RFP states: “A single contract or task order may be used as a project in Section I up to 2 times,” however there is no incentive to do that since you would then be forfeiting a chance for points in sections II, III, and IV. Given that this means each offeror will be aiming to submit 24 individual projects at 3 pages each in addition to supporting SOW documentation, will the government please consider an extension due to the volume of content required to meet the instructions?

50 The proposal due date is changed to 24 April. See block 13 on page 1 of the solicitation.

51 Please confirm that the highest total score would be 57,600 points. 51 Confirmed.

52 Would the Government consider adding a category for projects in Alaska but below the 60th parallel? 52 The Self-Scored Worksheet has been revised.

Will the Government clarify that if they do not add a category for projects in Alaska but below the 60th parallel, then projects that are below the 60th parallel can be submitted in the first category (Projects on a Military Base / Federal Government Facility in the United States (excluding Alaska))

53 See Answer 52.

54 Would the Government release a recording of the Pre-Proposal Conference? 54

A recording of the Pre-Proposal Conference is uploaded with Amendment 01 for informational purposes only. If any information communicated in the Pre-Proposal Conference conflicts with the Solicitation, including Amendment 01 and its revised attachments, the Solicitation takes precedence.

55 Will the Government release the Q&A responses from the Pre-Proposal Conference? 55 No questions were permitted at the Pre-Proposal Conference. All questions and answers are provided in this document.

Page 29 paragraph 1.7.4 & page 32 paragraph 1.8.1.4 indicates that JV''s are accepted on this project. The SBA will not approve a JV until a contract in contemplated. If a new JV is contemplated to propose on this project, we will not have projects performed by the "Offeror" but will need to utilize projects that have been performed by the individiual entities. Paragraph 1.8.1.4.4 1. indicates to enter the number of project for which the Offeror was the prime. Please confirm that newly formed JVs are able to use past performance from both organizations as the JV will be the Prime Offeror.

56 Confirmed. REPs performed by either of the JV partners is allowed.

RFP Paragraph 1.8.2.2 & Attachment 5 Self-Scored Worksheet – RFP 1.8.2.2 “The Offeror may submit up to 24 projects.” The Self-Scored Worksheet not only shows a total of 24 projects highlighted in orange, but it also shows a limited number of projects for each of the categories, i.e. – Category 6. Fire Suppression, Fire Alarm and/or Mass Notification Systems Repair, Replacement, Upgrade, or Installation shows only 2 projects that can be entered. QUESTION: Can the number of projects for each of the categories include more projects per category than what is shown on the Self-Scoring Worksheet, as long as the total number of projects does not exceed 24?

The maximum number of projects in each category is indicated by the number of project lines available in that category. The maximum number of Projects in a category cannot be increased by an offeror.

RFP Paragraph 1.8.1.4.1 Section I Item 2) Fill in all applicable blocks in columns C&E. Columns C & E are not highlighted orange and are not fillable. QUESTION:

Shall we assume that wherever Columns C & E is referenced in Paragraph 1.8.1.4.1 that we shall replace the wording with Columns B & D

58 Offerors are instructed to fill in the orange boxes in columns B & D. Sectionsl L & M are revised.

Due to the volume of information required, the potential number of REPs (up to 24), and the level of coordination necessary to ensure accuracy and completeness, we respectfully request an extension to May 6, 2026.

59 The proposal due date is changed to 24 April. See block 13 on page 1 of the solicitation.

The RFP states that we must include a header with specific information, however Attachment 2 is a protected document that does not allow the headers or footers to be modified. How are we to add the required header information into the protected Attachment 2?

60 Section L-2, 1.5.4, has been revised to eliminate the requirement for a header on the REP Template.

Due to the rigor of this proposal, would the Government consider extending the due date by two weeks (14 days) to Wednesday, May 06? Project selection and finding supporting documents to include in the Appendix is proving to be more time than anticipated.

61 The proposal due date is changed to 24 April. See block 13 on page 1 of the solicitation.

Due to the maximum allowed projects of up to 24 and to widen the options of project selection can the criteria for relevant experience be reduced to at least 50% constructed?

62 See Answer 14.

Due to the maximum allowed projects of up to 24 and to widen the options of project selection can the criteria for relevant experience be expanded to projects completed in the last 84 months?

63 See Answer 14.

Can we use a JV project if we aren’t proposing with the JV and we are not the managing partner, but are doing a large percentage of the work?

64 The specific role in question is not clear. The offeror must have been the Prime contractor.

If an offeror is planning to team with another firm, does the teaming agreement need to be included within the proposal? Where in the proposal should offerors include the teaming agreement?

65 See Answer 4.

Currently, the REP Form (Attachment 2), the table is locked to not allow copying and pasting. This prohibits offerors from putting the required form on the required headers and footers (as stated in Section 1.5). Can the government reissue this form to allow offerors to place these forms on the required headers and footers?

66 See Answer 60.

For new FOPR’s on this contract, can a design firm be granted a waiver to participate in the design-build process if they had previous concept or 35% design participation via an agreement outside of this contract or associated with a particular A&E IDIQ?

To show transparency and promote fairness, can the design firm be required to provide any supporting concept or 35% design documents to be shared with the other seat holders? Please note, 35% design and final design are always significantly different.

67 Any potential Organizational Conflict of Interest will be addressed at the task order level IAW RFO 9.5 on a case by case basis.

68 Will a contractor laydown area larger than the previous 100’ x 100’ be allowed under this contract? If so, what will be the parameters? 68 No.

Would the Government consider extending the proposal submission deadline from 4/22 at 1:00pm AKST? This would allow for more thorough preparation of a compliant and competitive proposal.

69 The proposal due date is changed to 24 April. See block 13 on page 1 of the solicitation.

70 Please clarify whether a single project may be submitted across multiple categories listed in Section II. 70 No.

71 Please confirm whether a project that is more than 50% complete will be accepted in the self-scoring worksheet. 71 See Answer 14.

The solicitation currently requires that relevant project experience be limited to projects completed within the last five (5) years. Would the Government consider extending this timeframe to include projects completed within the last seven (7) years to better reflect the depth and breadth of contractor experience?

72 No change to the solicitation will be made in response to this question.

There seems to be a discrepancy between the column letters enumerated in the instructions for the Self-Scoring Worksheet and the actual column function in the worksheet. Could the Government please clarify the instructions for completing the drop downs?

73 See Answer 58.

The solicitation includes both FAR and NAF provisions. Please clarify whether resulting Task Orders will be governed by FAR-based appropriated fund contracting, NAF contracting rules, or a combination thereof; and, if a combination is intended, identify the applicable clauses by CLIN and the order of precedence in the event of conflict.

When required, NAF funding will be disclosed on future FOPRs. Questions relating to a specific task order's CLIN structure or terms and conditions will be addressed at the task order level.

Can the Government clarify how “meaningful participation” (SOW §01000.4.5.1) will be evaluated in relation to proposal submission expectations, particularly given the varying levels of effort required for individual FOPRs (e.g., quick response vs.

complex design-build with design development and detailed pricing)?

The purpose of the referenced paragraph is to encourage strong competition at the task order level. The Contracting Officer will consider the broader context when determining whether Awardees are meaningfully participating on the contract, and any concerns will be addressed to the Contractor's Program Manager.

Will the Government consider the level of effort associated with each FOPR when assessing participation to ensure that small business 8(a) contractors are not disproportionately impacted by cumulative proposal costs?

76 See Answer 76.

77 Regarding the above-referenced solicitation, please clarify what is to be included in Appendix 1, Project Specific Statements of Work. Is the format at our discretion? 77

Appendix 1 is for Statements of Work any official contract documentation between the offeror and their Client that substantiates the offeror's self-score (e.g. a modification, RFI adding or clarifying work, etc.) for the submitted REPs. See Solicitation Sec. L-2,

1.8.2.4. The Government expects SOWs and other documents in Appendix 1 to be

Is the intent that each REP will also have its full scope described in Appendix 1, and then the narrative section of Attachment 2 will direct the evaluator to the portions of the project scope that pertain to the relevant category?

Yes.

79 Is an Appendix 1 mandatory, if the narrative provided on Attachment 2 sufficiently describes the relevance of the project? 79 An Appendix is not required, but is recommended.

Section IV: Experience as a Design-Build Prime Contractor Please confirm that Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR/CM@R), and Design-Assist project delivery methods will be weighted equally with Design-Build in Section IV, provided proposers can demonstrate early contractor involvement, design team collaboration, and/or the provision of delegated design services.

80 No

81 Do we have to have all 10 categories to be considered for award? 81 No. There is no minimum number of REPs to be eligible for award.

82 How many categories can we apply to a single project? 82 Section L, L-2, 1.8.1.4.1(1) of the solicitation states that "a single contract or task order may be used as a project in Section I up to two (2) times."

Do individual categories (1 through 10) have to be stand alone to use or can they be part of a larger project? Some categories say incidental is allowed and some do not.

Please clarify.

83 Where incidental is allowed, it is explicitly stated in Attachment 4, Technical Definitions.

84 What would the government consider as incidental for a specific category? 84 Where incidental work is allowed, the task does not have to be a primary purpose of the contract.

85 We understand the maximum points is 24,000. What is the minimum points to be considered for award? 85 The maximum possible score is 57,600. The minimum score to be considered for award is more than 0 points. See Solicitation Section M-2, 1.1.2.5.

If we use an SOW for project examples do you want the entire SOW of just the pages we reference? To submit entire project SOW’s would be very large files to submit.

Please clarify.

Files up to a total of 8GB can be submitted on DODSAFE. Submit entire documents for government validation of self-scores. Section L, L-2, 1.8.2.6 of the solicitation requires requires SOW title, page number, section, and paragraph to be cross-referenced for work documented in offerors completed Attachment 2, REP Template.

87 Number of Projects (Attachment 5) – Part 2 Do we use only projects listed in Part 1 or can we use projects not listed in Part 1? 87 Section L, L-2, 1.8.1.4.1 of the solicitation states that only projects listed in section I may be used in sections II. III, IV.

88 Experience in Complex Projects (Attachment 5) – Part 3 Do we use only projects listed in Part 1 or can we use projects not listed in Part 1? 88 Section L, L-2, 1.8.1.4.1 of the solicitation states that only projects listed in section I may be used in sections II. III, IV.

89 In reference to Attachment 7, is this to include all overhead, fringes, etc. The only cost not included would be profit. Please confirm. 89 The criteria for fully burdened hourly labor rates can be found in the solicitation in

Section L-2, 1.7.6.4.

90 Would the government consider allowing us to use a longer lookback instead of 5 years for projects? 90 See Answer 14.

What category would new construction of a facility fall under? We see certain individual items mentioned like windows or fire suppression but do not see where a new building would be listed.

91 The new construction could satisfy any of the categories in the self scoring scoring worksheet provided they meet the definitions

Does the government anticipate an extension once the questions are answered via amendment? May we have a minimum of 14 working days to prepare our proposals once we have answers to questions?

92 The proposal due date is changed to 24 April. See block 13 on page 1 of the solicitation.

Attachment 2- Relevant Experience Project Template Section III Task Selection seems to be missing some of the associated REP categories.

For example, 3. HAZMAT – only Civil: Environmental Remediation is represented in the drop-down menu. Asbestos abatement, Hazardous Material, PCB and/or Lead Based Paint Abatement are missing. Would the government consider adding it under

4. Structural/Architectural as a drop-down menu item?

Would the government consider adding items from the Special Interest Project section (like NEPA or NHPA) to the task selection drop down menu?

No change is being made to the solicitation in response to this question. In the example given (3. HAZMAT) and all other REP template categories, all associated tasks are included in the drop-down for offerors to select if they were within the scope of the REP scored.

Attachment 4- Technical Definitions: In general, General Contractors do not perform REP Category 2. as the “main purpose” of the project. Would the government consider modifying the language to include the work to be “included” in the project?

No change to the solicitation will be made in response to this question.

Attachment 4- Technical Definitions: Would the government consider modifying “main purpose of the project” to “included in the project work” or “the project must involve” for REP Categories 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8.

No change to the solicitation will be made in response to this question.