AE_Next_Contractor_Questions_and_Responses_(08_Aug_2019).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 59 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8903-19-R-0097
About this file
This is a synopsis for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity multiple award task order contract for architect-engineer services. The Air Force Civil Engineer Center seeks to award contracts to support worldwide design and construction with a total program ceiling of $2 billion to be shared among all contract holders. Services include Title I, Title II, and other architect-engineer support. The Air Force, Army, Navy and others will utilize these contracts for military construction, sustainment and modernization programs. Proposals are due by September 3, 2019 and will be evaluated for four pools of work: airfield infrastructure, facilities, general infrastructure, and a combination of facilities and general infrastructure. Incumbent contracts include those under the AE13DCS program.
Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| AE_Next_Synopsis_(22_Aug_2019).docx | DOCX document | |
| AE_Next_Synopsis_(08_Aug_2019).docx | DOCX document | |
| AE_Next_Sow_(08_Aug_2019).docx | DOCX document | |
| AE_Next_Synopsis_(18_July_2019).docx | DOCX document | |
| AE_Next_SOW_(16_July_2019).docx | DOCX document | |
| AE_Next_Synopsis_(16_July_2019).docx | DOCX document | |
| AE_Next_Synopsis_(16_July_2019).docx | DOCX document | |
| AE_Next_SOW_(16_July_2019).docx | DOCX document |
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
Questions
| QUESTION # | SOLICITATION QUESTIONS | RESPONSES | Response Required Synopsis or SOW Change |
| 1 | Our primary NCIS is related to Petroleum but we do have existing joint venture relationships in place with construction and engineering enterprises who will perform the work on our behalf. Do we qualify as such and we will be willing to submit our JVAs for review when we submit our offer. | The government does not determine what NAICS code offeror qualify for. | No |
| 2 | It said that there are 4 scenarios and I did not find the descriptions of each one. Can you please advice where do I find them so we can prepare our response accordingly. |
| The four scenarios are detailed as “Pools.” They are listed as follows: 1. Airfield Infrastructure; 2. Facilities; 3. General Infrastructure; and 4. Facilities & General Infrastructure. Please reference Synopsis pages 7 and 8. | No | ||
| 3 | The place of performance listed as Worldwide and San Antonio Texas. Can you please elaborate what other countries are involved beside United States? | Please review the definition of "Worldwide" described on page 7 of the Synopsis. | No |
| 4 | With respect to Criterion 5 Capacity, what is the revenue requirement for the protégé in an SBA approved ASMPP or 8a mentor-protégé Joint Venture? These mentor-protégé joint ventures are between a small business protégé and a large business mentor, and it is very rare for the small business to have an average annual revenue of $3M. | For 8(a) and ASMPP JVs, the protégé must be considered a small business under the NAICS/Size standard associated with the requirement. The current NAICS 541330 with a size standard of $15M. | No |
| 5 | We are currently a SB contract holder under the AE13-DCS contract through our mentor-protégé JV, and we do not generate an annual average of $3M in revenue. This requirement for each prime entity of a JV to have an annual average revenue of $3M will automatically preclude us from qualifying, unless it does not apply to the protégé in a mentor-protégé JV. | For 8(a) and ASMPP JVs, the protégé must be considered a small business under the NAICS/Size standard associated with the requirement. The current NAICS 541330 with a size standard of $15M. | No |
| 6 | If one firm is proposing for two different pools as a member of two different Joint Ventures, is it necessary to disclose that in the cover letter per page 2 of the Synopsis, last line (continued on next page)? | Yes, the Offeror must clearly state the choice of competition(s) (Pool 1, Pool 2, Pool 3, or Pool 4) in the cover letter with their submittal. Any firm may compete under more than one competition and under differing teaming arrangements only if clearly state in the cover letter. Please reference Synopsis pages 2 and 3. | No |
| 7 | At the “task order level”, does this mean a firm can only support the maximum number of prime firms per Pool during the proposal phase or at the task order level once selected? For example, Pool 1 indicates a maximum of 4 teaming arrangements. Does this limit Crawford to only supporting 4 prime proposals for Pool 1 in its entirety? | In accordance with the synopsis, a teaming partner may only compete with the maximum number of prime contractors per pools. Each Offeror may only receive a maximum of one Prime contract per pool. SOW has been revised to allow Primes to use non-named teaming partners at the task order level. Please reference revised SOW paragraph 14.b. | Yes |
| 8 | What contract value should Offeror’s assume when establishing small business commitments as required under Criterion 6? | Criteria 6 has been deleted from the Synopsis. Therefore, a small business commitment document / subcontracting plan will not be required with the SF330 submission. However, those firms that are downselected and received an RFP, will be required to submit a subcontracting plan / small business participation committment document as required. The requirement will be included in the RFP. | Yes |
| 9 | Is an official “Small Business Subcontracting Plan” required for this proposal, or just narrative on how Offeror’s will meet the goals (Criterion 6)? If a full Plan is required, will it go against the page count for Section H (see page count exclusions on the last line of Page 3 of the Synopsis)? | Criteria 6 has been deleted from the Synopsis. Therefore, a small business commitment document / subcontracting plan will not be required with the SF330 submission. However, those firms that are downselected and received an RFP, will be required to submit a subcontracting plan / small business participation committment document as required. The requirement will be included in the RFP. | Yes |
| 10 | Are ACASS/CPARS/PPQ evaluations supposed to be attached in Section H as part of Criterion 3, or at the end after Part IIs and just referenced in Section H (page 17 of Synopsis)? | ACASS/CPARS evaluations must be submitted in accordance with SF 330, Part I, Section H, and Criterion (3) Past Performance. PPQ's are not required. All references to PPQ's have been removed from the Synopsis. | Yes |
| 11 | Are you striving to determine if Offerors have worked for a COCOM, or just interested in whether they've worked in the geographic region the COCOM is responsible for (#2 under Criterion 4, page 18 of the Synopsis)? | The Government is interested in Offeror’s who have performed the requisite A-E work within geographic locations. Please reference Criterion (4) of the synopsis. | No |
| 12 | Does “original” copy of proposal mean it requires wet ink signatures (first paragraph on page 4 of the Synopsis)? | The original copy of the proposal can be signed electronically or wet ink signature. The copies of the proposals do not require signatures. The General Submission Requirements in the synopsis has been revised accordingly. | Yes |
| 13 | Are there incumbents currently performing these requirements? If yes, are you able to provide a list, along with the related contract and expiration dates? | The AE13DCS begins expiring in July 2020. The website for industry to research additional information is www.fpds.gov. The contractor numbers for AE13DCS include: FA8903-15-D-0001, FA8903-15-D-0002, FA8903-15-D-0003, FA8903-15-D-0004, FA8903-15-D-0005, FA8903-15-D-0006, FA8903-15-D-0007, FA8903-15-D-0008, FA8903-15-D-0009, FA8903-15-D-0010, FFA8903-15-D-0011, FA8903-15-D-0012, FA8903-15-D-0013, FA8903-15-D-0014, FA8903-15-D-0015, FA8903-15-D-0016, FA8903-15-D-0017, FA8903-15-D-0018, FA8903-16-D-0001, FA8903-16-D-0002, FA8903-16-D-0003, FA8903-16-D-0004, FA8903-16-D-0005, FA8903-16-D-0006, FA8903-16-D-0007, FA8903-16-D-0008, FA8903-16-D-0009, FA8903-16-D-0011, FA8903-16-D-0012, FA8903-16-D-0013, FA8903-16-D-0014, FA8903-16-D-0015, FA8903-16-D-0016, FA8903-16-D-0018, FA8903-16-D-0019, FA8903-16-D-0020, FA8903-16-D-0021, FA8903-16-D-0022. | No |
| 14 | Can you provide the anticipated date of award for this solicitation? | Our estimated timeframe for award is July 2020. | No |
| 15 | How will this solicitation affect the current A-E13 DCS Suite of contracts? Is it anticipated the contracts from this solicitation will overlap with the A-E13 DCS Suite of contracts by more than one year? | The government intends to continue using the AE13DCS contracts through the end of their ordering period - provided ceiling is available. | No |
| 16 | Can you provide how much work has been awarded to date under the current A-E13 DCS Suite of contracts? | No. | No |
| 17 | In the Document "Synopsis" dated 16 July 2019, Figure 1 on page 2 of 20 indicates a Shared Program Ceiling of $1.5B. We assume the shared ceiling is actually $2.0 Billion as stated elsewhere in the solicitation documents. Is this correct? | The shared ceiling is $2B. Figure 1 in the synopsis has been revised to reflect the $2B program ceiling. | Yes |
| 18 | In the Document "Synopsis" dated 16 July 2019, on page 2 of 20 there is a statement "Complex United States requirements will be awarded under the worldwide Full and Open contracts." Generally, all projects must be set aside for small businesses as long as the "Rule of Two" can be met. What is the anticipated process that will be followed to determine if there are two small businesses that can perform any complex work? | Please reference the Ordering Procedures in the SOW (paragraph 14). Request for Qualifications (RFQ's) will be issued at the task order level. The responses to these RFQ's will determine the most highly qualfied firms and will determined if the set-aside or full &open pools are appropriate. The Rule of two does not apply for this solicitation. | No |
| 19 | On July 17, 2019 the Small Business Administration issued a rule changing the small business size standard to $16.5 million effective August 19. The solicitation should be changed to reflect this. | If and when the size standard changes, an amendment will be issued to revise the size standard. | No |
| 20 | The Small Business Administration is also supposed to perform an overall evaluation of the size standard in 2019. Assuming the current $16.5 million size standard changes, what size standard will be applicable to this contract? The size standard at the response to the solicitation, or the size standard at contract award, or will it potentially fluctuate over the 10-year period of performance? We believe the application of small business size standards are different if the firm is working as a prime contractor or a sub-contractor – can you clarify this? | If and when the size standard changes, an amendment will be issued to revise the size standard. After award, the size standard will remain the same for the life of the contract. Small Business size standards are the same for both prime contractors and sub-contractors. The NAICS and size standard is based on the predominance of the work being performed. It is possible that a subcontractor would have a different NAICS and size standard than what we are using for the prime contract. | No |
| 21 | In the Document "Synopsis" dated 16 July 2019, on page 5 of 20 there is a statement ". . . the Government seeks to contract with A-E firms . . . regardless of their geographic knowledge or type of A-E services in which the specialize." This statement appears to be in contradiction with selection criteria 4: "Knowledge of the Locality" where demonstration is required of places the firm has worked and will be used as a selection criteria. Could the confusing statement be removed, or the selection criteria modified? | The contradicting sentence in the "Intent" section of the Synopsis has been deleted for clarity. | Yes |
| 22 | In the Document "Synopsis" dated 16 July 2019, on page 6 of 20 there is the statement "Task orders awarded during a fiscal year will utilize that fiscal years rates for the entire duration of the task order." This concept is reinforced in the Document "Statement of Work" dated 16 July 2019 in paragraph 15. We recommend the concept be modified to use rates established for a Fiscal Year for the work estimated to be completed in that fiscal year. This would provide fairer pricing to the Air Force and the consultant firms. If the concept is maintained as currently stated, we are assuming standard labor rates will be negotiated based on some escalation to reflect the high likelihood of work being performed in Fiscal Years beyond the year of the award. | No changes made to the Synopsis or SOW. | No |
| 23 | In the Document "Synopsis" dated 16 July 2019, on page 18 of 20 there is the statement "a narrative and map that identifies the number of and specific U.S. States the Offeror has performed A-E services". On page 7 of 20 the document provides the definition: "United States" is defined as the all 50 U.S. States and Territories". It seems the description for the narrative and map should cover the U.S. States and Territories, which would then also include Washington, D.C., Guam and other US possessions. This would then be the same as the area covered by the contract. | Criterion (4) in the synopsis has been modified to include U.S. Territories. | Yes |
| 24 | In the Document "Synopsis" dated 16 July 2019, on page 18 of 20 there is the statement "a narrative and map that identifies the number of and specific U.S. States the Offeror has performed A-E services". Should the map include just the work of the prime contractor, or should it include the work of sub consultant team members that are a part of the team also? | The Offeror consistents of the Prime and Teaming Partner. Definition for Offeror has been added to the synopsis for clarity. | Yes |
| 25 | In the Document "Statement of Work" dated 16 July 2019, on page 8 of 12, paragraph 15 there are several terms that are somewhat similar that it would be beneficial to be clearly defined. These include "composite labor rates", "fully burdened labor rates", "composite rate". The solicitation asks for a composite rate structure that combines prime direct rates and rates that include profit for sub consultants. This isn’t a standard way of looking at the rate structure in our industry, and it is important the desires of the Government are clearly expressed. | The question is unclear. Please clarify your question. | No |
| 26 | In the Document "Statement of Work" dated 16 July 2019, on page 9 of 12, paragraph 15.e. the language is confusing regarding rates if a FAR 52.217-8 extension is exercised. The reference to FY22 seems specific, and infers the FY22 rates will be used through the remainder of the contract extension. FAR 52.217-8 may be an incorrect reference, as it states the extension shall not exceed 6 months. | SOW has been revised to reflect 5 year after award (in lieu of FY22). | Yes |
| 27 | In the Document "Statement of Work" dated 16 July 2019, on page 9 of 12, paragraph 15.f it states "All subcontracted effort over $2,500 shall be competed . . . ." Any work performed by one of our teaming partners will be executed under subcontract. We don't believe it is the intent to have subcontracted A-E services competed, particularly if only one team member is qualified to perform the work. Should this paragraph be reworded to better describe what is actually desired? | This section does not apply to their named teaming partners. SOW paragraph 15.f.i has been revised accordingly. | Yes |
| 28 | In the Document "Statement of Work" dated 16 July 2019, on page 9 of 12, paragraph 15.f is confusing. It infers that any work that does require a Professional Engineer to "stamp" a final product cannot be subcontracted out. Should this paragraph be reworded to better describe what is actually desired? | No changes made to the Synopsis or SOW. | No |
| 29 | In the Document "Synopsis" dated 16 July 2019, on page 5 of 20 there is the statement under ORDERING PERIOD AND CONTRACT TYPE "Labor rates for all ten years will be negotiated prior to award of a contract". Some comments: |
a. It is extremely hard to project the cost of labor for the next 10 years. Could some reasonable labor adjustment index be utilized to adjust rates annually or at least at the 5 year option point? This would protect industry from actual rates increasing significantly above the negotiated escalation, and also protect the Government from over paying if rates don't increase as negotiated at the outset of the contract. A suggested index would be the "Table 2. Seasonally adjusted: Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries, by ownership, occupational group, and industry" issued by the U.S. Department of Labor utilizing the "Professional, scientific, and technical services" group. It can be obtained at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t02.htm.
b. Elsewhere, the solicitation states that "On Ramping" may be executed in the future. Firms joining the contract this way may have an advantage in reaching a fair and reasonable pricing through negotiations since their base line direct labor rates will be established at some future date, which may not be reflective of the projected adjustments negotiated by initial awardees prior to the start of the contract. An option might be to renegotiate rates for all existing contract holders if an on-ramp opportunity is provided.
| No changes made to the Synopsis or SOW. All labor rates for the labor categories defined in the SOW will be negotiated prior to award of a contract. | No | ||
| 30 | Regarding potential future on-ramping, will prime contract holders be allowed to propose potentially different teams (key staff and sub consultant team members) in a response to the on-ramp opportunity in the same Pool they currently hold a contract? | No. A firm may only be the Prime for one contract per pool. | No |
| 31 | Will there be any provision for debriefs after selection of Task Order providers. Debriefs are an important tool to ensure firms are presenting qualification in a way that resonates with the Government’s selection process. | The government will follow the rules and regulations in the FAR, DFARS and AFFARS for debriefings. | No |
| 32 | Will updates of the SF330 information be allowed on an annual (or some other) basis? The current A-E13 DCS contract principally utilizes submitted SF330 to make selections, so a regular update of information is needed over the potential 10 year term of a contract. | Yes. This is consistent with FAR 36.603(d). | No |
| 33 | How USAF and/or USACE will be procuring design services for Tyndall. Is this solicitation intended to be used for that work? Also, can you clarify what it means to say that both SB and Unrestricted are being solicited (will you award both under each “pool”)? | The question is unclear. Please clarify your question. | No |
| 34 | On Part I, Section C, “Proposed Team” – May we include additional firms we would like to utilize for depth and to cover specialized services even though we will not be including any resumes from their firms? If yes, should we also include those firms’ Part IIs? | No, only those firms proposed on the team should be included in the SF330's. | No |
| 35 | How will AFICA address the use of specialty services which might be required in each contract (i.e. environmental, geotechnical engineering, value engineering, topographic/surveying, corrosion engineering, etc.)? | The question is unclear. Please clarify your question. | No |
| 36 | For small business participation, does “small business” also apply to all Home State certified small businesses registered at SAM.gov? | The Department of Defense does not recognize “Home State Certified Small Businesses.” | No |
| 37 | On page 11 of 20, Table 3, it denotes the Number of Key Project Submissions. For Pool 4 the Title I and Other A-E Services seems to be a combined box denoting a maximum “Total number of Key Projects” as “5” for Facilities and “3” for General Infrastructure and then the “Other A-E Services Projects” as “1” each for both Facilities and General Infrastructure. Are the 2 total ”Other A-E Services Project” in addition to the 8 maximum projects outlined in the “Total (max)” column for a total of 10 maximum projects or is included as part of the 8 maximum projects requested for “Title I and Other A-E Services” category? To ask another way, if you add in the Title II column, are there 12 or 14 maximum projects allowed? Please clarify the meaning of the Table. | The maximum allowable number of projects for Pool 4 is 12 (7 Facilities + 5 General Infrastructure). Table 3 has been revised/color coded for improved clarity. | Yes |
| 38 | Throughout the document, but in particular on page 18 of 20, the requirements for Criterion 6 reference a “Small Business Participation Commitment Document.” Is this a specific document being requested (i.e. a separate attachment) or can this be developed in this portion of section H of the SF330 response. If it is a separate document, does it count against the page count? And please provide document format. | Criteria 6 has been deleted from the Synopsis. Therefore, a small business commitment document / subcontracting plan will not be required with the SF330 submission. However, those firms that are downselected and received an RFP, will be required to submit a subcontracting plan / small business participation committment document as required. The requirement will be included in the RFP. | Yes |
| 39 | For Pool 4, is a Subcontracting plan required to be submitted with the SF330? | Criteria 6 has been deleted from the Synopsis. Therefore, a small business commitment document / subcontracting plan will not be required with the SF330 submission. However, those firms that are downselected and received an RFP, will be required to submit a subcontracting plan / small business participation committment document as required. The requirement will be included in the RFP. | Yes |
| 40 | Page 10 of 20, item “l. Completed projects” notes the project must be “completed in the past five (5) years or is 80 percent complete for Title I and Other A-E Services and 50% complete for Title II Services…” Should the last “and” be an “or”? Please clarify the meaning of this sentence. | Yes. Synopsis definition for "Completed Projects" has been revised accordingly. | Yes |
| 41 | Is there a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template to use in lieu of CPARS/ACASS reports if none exist for the AE NEXT solicitation? If so, please provide. | No. All references to PPQ's have been removed from the synopsis. | Yes |
| 42 | In Table 3, Required Number of Key Project Submissions, Pool 2, are we allowed 6 total projects (4 Title I and Other A-E Services, plus 2 Title II projects); or 7 total projects (4 Title I, 1 Other A-E, and 2 Title II projects)? | The total number of allowable projects for Pool 2 is 6. (4 Title I + 2 Title II). Table 3 has been revised/color coded for improved clarity. | Yes |
| 43 | Per the synopsis Section A, “a teaming partner may only compete with the maximum number of Prime contractors per pool as follows: |
Pool 1: maximum of 4 teaming arrangements Pool 2: maximum of 3 teaming arrangements Pool 3: maximum of 3 teaming arrangements Pool 4: maximum of 4 teaming arrangements.
As there are relatively few Small Business cost-estimating firms with expertise in cost estimating/scheduling of large military projects, many firms use them. Does this limitation apply to firms that will be providing Scheduling and Cost Estimate as sub consultants?
| In accordance with the synopsis, a teaming partner may only compete with the maximum number of prime contractors per pools. Each Offeror may only receive a maximum of one Prime contract per pool. SOW has been revised to allow Primes to use non-named teaming partners at the task order level. Please reference revised SOW paragraph 14.b. | Yes | ||
| 44 | The SF330s are currently due Sept 3, 2019, the day after a major national holiday (Labor Day). Would the Government kindly consider extending the deadline date to Friday September 6, 2019? This will allow our staff to spend time over the holiday with their families and do a final QA/QC, print, collate and verify the delivery of hard copies from September 3rd through the 6th. | No. The submission due date remains the same. | No |
| 45 | The construction cost requirement on page 14 under C. Selection Criteria (Evaluation Method), d. Pool 4: Facilities, iii.b for major renovation projects ($30M) is high based on historical spend on prior DCS contracts. It is our experience that construction values under the current DCS contracts are much lower than $30M; higher values would have the undesired consequence of limiting the competition. We request that AFCEC replace the $30M value with a range of $15-$20M. | No, the value requirement remains unchanged. | No |
| 46 | Table 3 requires one Other A-E Services project in each of the four pools. It is unclear whether the one Other A-E Services project will count as one of the minimum Performed by Prime projects. Please clarify. | If one "Other A-E Services" project is submitted and it was performed by the Prime: that project counts as 1 of the 4 allowed for that category and counts as 1 of the 2 required to be performed by the Prime for that category. Table 3 has been revised/color coded for improved clarity. | Yes |
| 47 | It is stated on page 3 under General Submission Requirements that Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs)/CPARS/ACASS reports do not count towards the page limitations. On page 17 under Criterion 3 Past Performance, the requirements only address CPARS and ACASS evaluations with no mention of PPQs. It is possible that some projects submitted in Section F will not be complete and may not have interim or final evaluations in the CPARS system. Please clarify the use of PPQs in Criterion 3 and provide an appropriate form for use. | All references to PPQ's have been removed from the synopsis. PPQ's will not be used for this acquisition. | Yes |
| 48 | Page 18, Criterion 6 Small Business Participation Commitment Document does not indicate where the document should be included. Should it be included as part of Section H or as a separate document? Please advise. | Criteria 6 has been deleted from the Synopsis. Therefore, a small business commitment document / subcontracting plan will not be required with the SF330 submission. However, those firms that are downselected and received an RFP, will be required to submit a subcontracting plan / small business participation committment document as required. The requirement will be included in the RFP. | Yes |
| 49 | It is unclear what the acronym EUM on page 10 stands for. There are several possible definitions. Please clarify. | This should be EULs (Enhanced Use Lease). The Synopsis and SOW have been revised accordingly. | Yes |
| 50 | Scope of work clause --15 (f) (i) indicates that “all subcontracted work over $2500 shall be competed unless published price…”) Please clarify that if we propose to sub out more than $2500 of work to one of our named Teaming Partners, do we still need to compete the work? | This section does not apply to their named teaming partners. SOW paragraph 15.f.i has been revised accordingly. | Yes |
| 51 | What is the total contract value to be assumed when preparing the subcontracting plan? | Criteria 6 has been deleted from the Synopsis. Therefore, a small business commitment document / subcontracting plan will not be required with the SF330 submission. However, those firms that are downselected and received an RFP, will be required to submit a subcontracting plan / small business participation committment document as required. The requirement will be included in the RFP. | Yes |
| 52 | Is there a page limitation on the Small Business Participation Commitment Document? And should it be part of Section H or in a separate document? | Criteria 6 has been deleted from the Synopsis. Therefore, a small business commitment document / subcontracting plan will not be required with the SF330 submission. However, those firms that are downselected and received an RFP, will be required to submit a subcontracting plan / small business participation committment document as required. The requirement will be included in the RFP. | Yes |
| 53 | Will questions asked via email be compiled into one list and distributed with answers via FBO, or will the questions asked by each firm be answered via email only back to that firm? | The questions asked via email will be compiled into one list and distributed with answers via FBO. | No |
| 54 | Are we able to provide intros to sections E and F to keep all information for Criteria 1 and 2 contained within the sections where it will be evaluated? | Yes. However, please note that page limitations still apply. | No |
| 55 | Are the acronym list and teaming agreements REQUIRED or ALLOWED? | Teaming agreements are not required to be submitted with the SF330's. However, the cover letter must confirm that the agreements are in place. Submission of Teaming agreements will be required at the RFP stage (reference "RFPs" in the synopsis). Acronym list is optional but it does not count towards page limitation. The general submission requirements have been modified in the synopsis to remove "teaming agreements" as part of submission requirements for clarity. | Yes |
| 56 | Are we required to submit executed teaming agreements in the instance we are proposing as a JV, or are you asking we provide teaming agreements for all subcontractors identified in our Cover Letter and A-C? | Teaming agreements are not required to be submitted with the SF330's. However, the cover letter must confirm that the agreements are in place. Submission of Teaming agreements will be required at the RFP stage (reference "RFPs" in the synopsis). Acronym list is optional but it does not count towards page limitation. The general submission requirements have been modified in the synopsis to remove "teaming agreements" as part of submission requirements for clarity. | Yes |
| 57 | Are we able to provide two resumes per discipline in Pool 4 if their competencies are held in either facilities or general infrastructure but not both? For example, if we have an Electrical Engineer who is an SME in facilities and an Electrical Engineer who is an SME in infrastructure, are we allowed to include both resumes? | No, for all pools, only one person may be proposed for each key personnel position. Criterion (2) in the synopsis has been modified for clarify accordingly. | Yes |
| 58 | For large business pools 1 & 4: What is the difference between the Small Business Participation Document and The Small Business Subcontracting Plan? Are we required to submit a subcontracting plan with our proposal? Are these documents excluded from the page count? | Criteria 6 has been deleted from the Synopsis. Therefore, a small business commitment document / subcontracting plan will not be required with the SF330 submission. However, those firms that are downselected and received an RFP, will be required to submit a subcontracting plan / small business participation committment document as required. The requirement will be included in the RFP. | Yes |
| 59 | Is the total program ceiling $2B or $1.5B (both are shown in the Synopsis document)? | The shared ceiling is $2 Billion. Figure 1 in the synopsis has been revised to reflect the $2B program ceiling. | Yes |
| 60 | What is the significance of the terminology between Pools 1, 2 & 3 with Small Business Reserve in Pool 1 vs Small Business Set Aside in Pools 2 & 3? | Small Business set aside is when a specific scope of work or work at specified dollar value is being set aside for small businesses. Small Business reserve is when the scope of work can not be broken apart. All firms compete equally at the task order level. Pool 1 will include both small and large businesses with no small business set asides. Pools 2 and 3 are total small business set asides and will therefore only include small businesses. | No |
| 61 | Are there any specific performance evaluation forms that are required for non-Federal projects in Section F (per page 17 of the Synopsis)? | No, use standard Industry business practices. | No |
| 62 | Are we limited to one resume per Key Personnel/Discipline (per Table 4 on page 16 of the Synopsis)? | Yes. For all pools, only one person may be proposed for each key personnel position. Criterion (2) in the synopsis has been modified for clarify accordingly. | Yes |
| 63 | The synopsis states “Teaming/Joint Venture Agreements: Each contractor may only receive a maximum of one prime contract award per pool per group” |
We have been approached by a small business that wants to form a JV with us for the UR Pool 1 opportunity. They also indicate they intend to pursue the SB Reserve under Pool 1 at the prime level.
Based on the above excerpt from the synopsis it appears they will not be allowed to hold a SB Reserve Prime contract and a UR Prime contract (as part of a JV).
Can you confirm/clarify?
| That is correct, each contractor may only receive a maximum of one prime contract per pool. | No | ||
| 64 | In the Synopsis, under General Submission Requirements (bottom of pg 3 of 20), there is a reference to Past Performance Questionnaires not counting towards the page limits; however, there is no mention of Past Performance Questionnaires in the Past Performance requirements. Please confirm whether Past Performance Questionnaires should be included for projects that do not have a CPARS/ACASS rating available. | All references to PPQ's have been removed from the synopsis. PPQ's will not be used for this acquisition. | Yes |
| 65 | Also in the General Submission Requirements (bottom of pg 3 of 20), there is a reference to teaming agreements not counting towards the page limits; however, under RFPs (on pg 6 of 20), it is stated that ‘firms that are determined to be the most highly qualified will be issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to submit composite labor rates…’ and at the end of this same section states that ‘All firms selected as the most highly qualified, will be required to provide applicable teaming and/or JV agreements with their response to the RFP.’ Please confirm that teaming/JV agreements are not required to be submitted with the SF330 proposal. | Teaming agreements are not required to be submitted with the SF330's. However, the cover letter must confirm that the agreements are in place. Submission of Teaming agreements will be required at the RFP stage (reference "RFPs" in the synopsis). The general submission requirements have been modified in the synopsis to remove "teaming agreements" as part of submission requirements for clarity. | Yes |
| 66 | The General Submission Requirements on Pg 4 of the Synopsis states: |
‘SF330 Part II is limited to one page for the prime per branch office being utilized, (Joint Ventures may have one page per company), and one page per teaming partner. Additional pages beyond the maximum stated will not be evaluated.’
Please clarify whether one Part II per JV and teaming partner branch offices is required, or whether Part IIs should be provided for all JV partner and teaming partner branch offices being utilized.
| There are no overall page limitations to Part II. Part II should include all JV partners and teaming partner branch offices utilized. | No | ||
| 67 | Would the Air Force consider allowing 11x17 sized pages in Section H, if counted as 2 pages towards the page count, for figures such as the worldwide map required in the full & open pool submissions? | No. | No |
| 68 | Would the Air Force consider a smaller that 10 point font, if legible, for figures and graphics? | No. | No |
| 69 | C. Selection Criteria (pg 10 of 20 of the Synopsis), states that Criteria 1 through 4 are listed in the descending order of importance and Criteria 5 and 6 will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. This suggests that Criteria 1 through 4 will be evaluated on something other than an acceptable/unacceptable basis; however, the Evaluation Method for Criterion (3) Past Performance (pg 17 of 20 of the Synopsis) states: |
‘To be acceptable an Offeror’s over all past performance project portfolio rating must be rated as Satisfactory or better. If rating cannot be determined, then the Offeror will be acceptable.’
Please confirm whether Criterion (3) will also be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.
| Section C of the synopsis has been revised to reflect "The Selection Criteria are listed in descending order of importance. Selection criteria 3, 4 and 5 will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis." | Yes |
| 70 | We noted that there are several places in the Synopsis that refer to what defines a project, which appear to be somewhat unclear or inconsistent regarding the use of multiple task orders: |
Pg 7, item 2 c. "Project" is defined as work performed pursuant to ONE SPECIFIC TASK ORDER of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract. An IDIQ type contract, in and of itself, is NOT considered a project. "Project" is also defined as a single, stand alone, site-specific contract. For the purposes of this evaluation a project is a A-E project (not construction).
Pg. 10, item 2 l. "Completed projects" are defined as those in which the firm's performance of the task for which it was hired were completed within the past five (5) years or is 80 percent complete for Title I and Other A-E Services, and 50% complete for Title II Services, from the date this synopsis was posted. Do not list an IDIQ contract as an example of a “completed project”. Instead, list the relevant completed task order(s) or single/standalone contract.
Pg 12. If a project included both Title I and Title II services, the project will count against both project type totals. The project does not have to be submitted twice, but must clearly identify both types of services.
If Title II services were provided for construction of a specific facility or general infrastructure project, but the work spanned multiple, time-related task orders (rather than a single, project-related task order), may we combine all related task orders as a Section F project?
| No. | No |
| 71 | On Page 15 iii. D. the Synopsis states: ‘Projects that include a seismic assessment and renovation of the seismic structural lateral system, in compliance with ASCE-41.’ |
Please confirm that a project must involve both an assessment AND a renovation to qualify. We suggest changing ‘seismic assessment and renovation’ to ‘seismic assessment and/or renovation’ since each action demonstrates similar skills, capabilities, and complexities.
| Concur. Synopsis Criterion (1) has been modified accordingly. | Yes | ||
| 72 | Under the Submission Requirements for Criterion (2) Professional Qualifications, item 1 (pg 16 of 20 of the Synopsis), it states that ‘Key personnel must have at least 10 years of design experience in their respective discipline.’ Please consider removing the reference to ‘design’ or clarify that key personnel who are not in a design discipline, such as Construction Inspectors, are not required to have 10 years of ‘design’ experience if they have more than 10 years providing construction inspection services. | Synopsis Criterion (2) has been revised, requiring 10 years of expereince in their respective discipline. | Yes |
| 73 | Item 1 (pg 16 of 20) further states that ‘For Pool 4, a single Key Person per discipline may be submitted for both Facilities and General Infrastructure if competency is demonstrated for both types of work.’ |
Please clarify whether this applies to every discipline (specifically, Lead Architect, Lead Historic Preservation Architect, and Lead Interior Designer) for General Infrastructure work. Also, please confirm that we may submit more than one resume for each Key Personnel Discipline to meet the full requirements of Pool 4.
| Yes. For all pools, only one person may be proposed for each key personnel position. Criterion (2) in the synopsis has been modified for clarify accordingly. | Yes |
| 74 | The Evaluation Method for Criterion (3), item 4.d.i (pg 14 of 20 of the Synopsis) states: |
d. Pool 4: Facilities AND General Infrastructure:
i. A greater extent and breadth of experience in a variety of code jurisdictions; projects located within the United States versus projects outside of the United States that met host nation standards and/or DoD design and construction standards.’
This paragraph seems to say that for Pool 4, projects within the U.S. that show a variety of code jurisdictions will score more highly then projects outside of the U.S. that met host nation and DoD standards. Please confirm or clarify the intent of this paragraph including how projects outside of the U.S. that met host nation and DoD standards are weighted relative to projects within the United States.
| Synopsis 4.d.i has been revised to clarify this issue. | Yes |
| 75 | Criterion 6 on pg 19 of the Synopsis states the following for small business goals: |
Small Business 15% of total contract dollars Small Disadvantaged Business 5% of total subcontracting dollars Woman Owned Small Business 5% of total subcontracting dollars HUBZone Small Business 3% of total subcontracting dollars Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 3% of total subcontracting dollars Please confirm that the totals (both for contract dollars and total subcontracting dollars) would be calculated as total U.S. contract/subcontracting dollars since it is stated that work performed in foreign countries is not applicable to these goals.
| Criteria 6 has been deleted from the Synopsis. Therefore, a small business commitment document / subcontracting plan will not be required with the SF330 submission. However, those firms that are downselected and received an RFP, will be required to submit a subcontracting plan / small business participation committment document as required. The requirement will be included in the RFP. | Yes | ||
| 76 | On pg 3 of the General Information, a limit is placed on the number of teams, by pool, on which a teaming partner can complete. We believe that this restriction could impact the ability for unrestricted pools to meet small business goals, particularly for services that have historically been performed by a small number of highly qualified small businesses. Will the Air Force consider lifting this requirement for small business teaming partners. | In accordance with the synopsis, a teaming partner may only compete with the maximum number of prime contractors per pools. Each Offeror may only receive a maximum of one Prime contract per pool. SOW has been revised to allow Primes to use non-named teaming partners at the task order level. Please reference revised SOW paragraph 14.b. | Yes |
| 77 | Please clarify the total contract ceiling for this program. The FBO announcement states a shared value of $2.0B, while Figure 1, AE DCS Next Pool Structure states a shared program ceiling of $1.5B over a 10-year ordering period. | The shared ceiling is $2 Billion. Figure 1 in the synopsis has been revised to reflect the $2B program ceiling. | Yes |
| 78 | The solicitation states that the projects submitted under Criterion 3, Past Performance shall be completed in the past five years. If we have a project that is older than five years, but meets all the project criteria for Pool 3, as listed on page 14, will the project be evaluated? | No, If the project is older than five years it will not meet the requirement for a "completed project". | No |
| 79 | The project criteria for Pool 3 on page 14 require that we show projects with a construction cost of no less than $2 M. If we have a project that is less than $2 M, but meets all of the other project criteria, will the project be evaluated? | No, if the project does not meet the minimum requirements, it will not be acceptable. | No |
| 80 | On Table 3: Required Number of Key Project Submissions under the subheading Title I and Other A-E Services it lists that the max project for Other A-E Services is one (1). Just to clarify, does this mean that we must submit one (1) Other A-E Services project or can we submit four (4) Title I projects? | There is NO minimum number of Other A-E Project submissions. A firm may submit zero Other A-E Services projects and 4 Title I projects. | No |
| 81 | Per page 12 of the Synopsis (dated 18 July 2019), we can submit one project that covers both Title I & Title II services and it would count against both project type totals. If we submit a project that covers Title I and Title II services, are we allowed 2 pages for the project description or is it to remain 1 page? | Yes, you may submit one project that covers both Title I & Title II services and it would count as TWO projects (against both project type totals). As a result, two pages are allowed in this case. | No |
| 82 | Will D-B construction projects, where the offeror served as designer of record (DOR), be acceptable to submit as Section F projects? For example, in the past 5 years a preponderance of DOD hangar designs were completed as part of D-B construction projects. Is there a reason why AE design accomplished under D-B construction contracts would not equally demonstrate the same competence and qualifications for the required work under AE Next? | Yes, as long as the A-E services for the project meet the definition(s) in the synopsis for Title I, Title II, or Other A-E Services. | No |
| 83 | Would you consider allowing submittal of section F projects for full depth runway designs completed over the past 10 years. Full depth runway design is not a frequent DOD requirement, so very few firms will have had the opportunity to complete this type of design within the past 5 years. | No. | No |
| 84 | Since Pool 1 covers a worldwide geography, will it be important to demonstrate a “greater extent and breadth of experience in a variety of code jurisdictions; projects located within the United States versus projects outside of the United States that met host nation standards and/or DoD design and construction standards,” similar to the Pool 4. Evaluation Criteria? | No. | No |
| 85 | Would the Government consider allowing projects which are greater than 80% design complete as of the proposal submittal date (September 3, 2019) instead of the RFP solicitation date. | No. | No |
| 86 | Will you please clarify Table 3 in your synopsis? Specifically, does 1 project under “Other A-E Services” count towards the 5 MAX for “Facilities” and the 3 MAX for “General Infrastructure”? In other words, are we to submit 5 Total Facilities projects, comprised of 4 Title I and 1 Other A-E? Or, are we to submit a total of 6 Title 1 and Other A-E Services, comprised of 5 Title I and 1 Other A-E? | For Pool 4, the maximum number of Other A-E Services projects is 1. If an Other A-E Services project is submitted, it will count towards the 5 allowable facilities projects. Table 3 has been revised/color coded for improved clarity. | Yes |
| 87 | What criteria will be used to determine composite labor rates? | The question is unclear. Please clarify your question. | No |
| 88 | Will the Government allow the submission of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) if no CPARS is available, or if the Section F project(s) was completed for a non-federal agency? | All references to PPQ's have been removed from the synopsis. PPQ's will not be used for this acquisition. | Yes |
| 89 | Will the Government allow less than 10pt font for tables, captions and graphics? | No. | No |
| 90 | Will the Government allow the use of up to four 11x17 paper, in addition to Section D, Organization Chart? | No. | No |
| 91 | Will the Government allow Section F projects to be expanded to 2 pages, so that we may include all the relevant features and services required by the Solicitation? | No. | No |
| 92 | Would the Government allow an extra page in Section E, so that we may provide a summary of our key team members? | No. | No |
| 93 | Would the Government allow an extra page in Section F, so that we may provide a summary of our relevant projects? | No. | No |
| 94 | Please clarify whether a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required in the Appendix? | Criteria 6 has been deleted from the Synopsis. Therefore, a small business commitment document / subcontracting plan will not be required with the SF330 submission. However, those firms that are downselected and received an RFP, will be required to submit a subcontracting plan / small business participation committment document as required. The requirement will be included in the RFP. | Yes |
| 95 | We respectfully request a two-week extension of the proposal deadline to allow enough time to prepare submittals for more than one Pool. We also anticipate answers to questions may significantly impact the project requirements, thereby revising our Section F projects and resumes. | No. The submission due date remains the same. | No |
| 96 | What format would you prefer the 1-9 questions to be answered? Is there a certain form that you prefer to be used? | This question appears to be in response to old RFI - the government is not requesting responses to this RFI at this time. | No |
| 97 | I noticed that page 5 of the solicitation shows questions 1-7. With narrative responses being requested for items 1-9, can you please instruct me to questions 8 and 9? | This question appears to be in response to old RFI - the government is not requesting responses to this RFI at this time. | No |
| 98 | Regarding the due date, I see references to being due on two different dates, April 15, 2019 and September 3rd, 2019. As it is now July, I assume the due date is September, but would like official confirmation. | This question appears to be in response to old RFI - the April 15, 2019 due date was for a previous RFI and the government is not requesting responses to this RFI at this time. Submissions of SF330 in response to this solicitation is September 3, 2019. | No |
| 99 | On Page 2 of 20, the last two sentences on this page say, “Offeror must clearly state the choice of competition(s) (Pool 1, Pool 2, Pool 3, or Pool 4) in the cover letter with their submittal. Any firm may compete under more than one competition and under differing teaming arrangements only if clearly stated in the cover letter.” Does this mean if an offeror is on multiple teams, preparing responses for multiple pools, that all of those arrangements must be clearly delineated in the cover letters for each pool proposal? | Yes, this is correct. | No |
| 100 | On Page 3 of 20, General Submission Requirements, the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says, “The prime firm shall provide a statement in the cover letter confirming executed teaming agreements are in place for all team members as part of the SF 330 submittal.” Then, the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph reads, “Past performance Questionnaires/CPARS/ACASS reports, acronym list, cover letter, tabs/page dividers, teaming agreements or table of contents do not count against the page limitation.” Those two sentences indicate we are required to submit teaming agreements for all team members with our SF 330 submittal. The announcement doesn’t say how they should be submitted, we plan to include them as an appendix to our SF 330, please confirm that is acceptable. | Teaming agreements are not required to be submitted with the SF330's. However, the cover letter must confirm that the agreements are in place. Submission of Teaming agreements will be required at the RFP stage (reference "RFPs" in the synopsis). The general submission requirements have been modified in the synopsis to remove "teaming agreements" as part of submission requirements for clarity. | Yes |
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 .