FA890319R0097_ AE Next Pool 2 QA Submission 2.pdf

Question # Question Answer

Under General Submission Requirements, Page 3 of the RFP, please confirm if offerors should provide a CD/DVD of the entire submission and if so where it should be mailed to. Or if the electronic copy should only be provided in Adobe PDF format via the email addresses shown on page 3. If offerors are to only submit an Adobe PDF via email, are there any size limitations to the PDF? Please refer to the synopsis Section C

Table 4, Required Key Personnel (pages 11-12) ask for the following personnel to be included in Section E:

Lead Program Manager, Lead Project Manager, Lead Architect, Lead Mechanical Engineer, Lead Civil Engineer, Lead Structural Engineer, Lead Electrical Engineer, Lead Scheduler, Lead Cost Estimator

Page 9 of the Statement of Work lists the following additional personnel required for this pool:

Lead Historic Preservation Architect, Lead Fire Protection Engineer, Lead Interior Designer, Lead RCDD, Lead Construction Inspector

Will resumes for these additional personnel listed in the SOW be required for submission in Section E of the SF330? Please refer to the synopsis Section C

If an Offeror performs a project under multiple contracts/task orders (for example, planning charrette of a facility under task order 1, conceptual design of the same facility under task order 2, full design under task order 3) can these tasks be combined into a single project? Please refer to section B. 2. c. Project

Will projects be relevant if the prime contractor was a subcontractor to a team member included in our submission?

For Example:

Contractor A will be the Prime & Contractor B will be a sub for AE Next Pool 2. Under a previous effort, Contractor A was a sub to Contractor B. If that previous effort was submitted, would effort be considered as a prime project?

Yes. As stated in the synopsis "Offerors must have performed at least 50% of the design services by overall design contract value. It is not required for the offeror to have performed the role of Prime for the submitted projects." In addition, please take careful attention to the definition of "Completed projects" (Section B.2.i)

5 Is it possible to submit just for structural sub consultant services? All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the synopsis. Failure to do so risks being removed from consideration/evaluation.

I am inquiring about the subject solicitation, FA8903‐19‐R‐0097 ‐ IDIQ MATOC ‐ Pool 2 Facilities ‐ Small Business. As we begin assembling our team, we are wondering if the USAF is looking for and planning to award contracts to smaller localized teams throughout the United States, or if you are looking for teams, led by a Small Business, with nationwide capabilities for immediate response if necessary. Any insight or information would be helpful as we assemble our team.

Per the solicitation this requirement is being awarded to support the “United States.” United States is defined as all 50 U.S. States and Territories." "Pool 2 is limited to United States requirements only."

On pg. 3 the synopsis states that all SF330 submissions shall be delivered electronically and provides a website, but lists an email address along with the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialists email addresses. Is there a website for offerors to upload the submittal? Additionally, it also asks that offerors submit one (1) CD/DVD of the entire SF330 in an electronic format, but does not disclose a mailing address. Please clarify if this bid to be submitted electronically via email as well as mail delivered on a CD/DVD by April 19? If it is to be submitted electronically, is there a maximum limit for the file size (e.g., 10MB)? Please see posted synopsis amendment dated (29 March 2021) regarding electronic submissions.

For Criterion 3 Past Performance the submission requirements state offerors may submit industry equivalent performance documents.

Does the government consider a Past Performance Questionnaire as an equivalent performance document? Past Performance Questionnaires are NOT acceptable.

In the SOW it states the Project Manager shall have a minimum bachelor’s degree in engineering and notes the engineering fields as civil, structural, electrical or mechanical in the synopsis. Will engineering fields outside of those listed, such as fire protection or geotechnical be acceptable; or a master’s degree in one of the specific engineering fields noted in the synopsis be acceptable?

Yes, it is acceptable for Program and Project Managers to have engineering‐related degrees other than those listed.

Criterion 1 Evaluation Method lists three examples of stronger relevant projects including item 3., which states, “Title I & Title II projects with greater complexity including the following elements…” however, Other A‐E is not mentioned. Will the Other A‐E project be evaluated using the same elements for Title I and Title II projects?

Offerors that can demonstrate stronger relevant projects (Title I, Title II & Other A&E projects) will have a higher likelihood of being determined most highly qualified.

In meeting the set‐aside requirements for the re‐solicitation, will the Government consider a company’s status on the original solicitation date (16 July 2019) or the re‐solicitation date (18 March 2021)?

Recommend consulting with your Small Business representatives for guidance. Note this effort is a recompete of the previous cancelled synopsis (FA8903‐19‐R‐0097) and is not considered a new effort/requirement. To help clear possible confusion, the solicitation number for this synopsis has been changed from FA8903‐19‐R‐0097 to FA8903‐19‐R‐0097 Amendment.

In “General Submission Requirements,” in one place it states to “Please submit one (1) CD/DVD OF THE ENTIRE SF 330 SUBMISSION in electronic format.” A few sentences down, it states that “All SF‐330 submissions shall be delivered electronically, no later than 3:00 PM, CT on 19 April 2021,” and lists a website and emails to send them to. Will you please clarify whether or not we are to send a CD, and if so to whom/where? Please see posted synopsis amendment dated (29 March 2021) regarding electronic submissions.

Regarding the Synopsis under “SF 330, PART 1, SECTION F, CRITERION (1) SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE, Evaluation Method, a. Facilities ii. Major Renovation projects: We respectfully request you change the $15M minimum construction cost of a renovation project to $10M minimum. Considering this is a solicitation for Small Business Set‐Aside, it would be very unusual for a small business to have received a task order of that magnitude. The $15M minimum construction cost of a renovation project will remain unchanged.

Regarding the Synopsis under “SF 330, PART 1, SECTION F, CRITERION (1) SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE, Table 3: Required Number of Key Project Submissions, we respectfully request that if a project includes both Title I and Title II services, that it does NOT count against both project type totals. Limiting projects to six total projects on what is the heaviest weighted criteria is already limiting considering the variety of project types you are looking for. We feel you will get a better feel for a firm’s capabilities if offerors are allowed to utilize all six projects, regardless of which services are included. The Required Number of Key Project Submissions will remain unchanged.

Regarding the Synopsis under “SF 330, PART 1, SECTIONS D & E, CRITERION (2) PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS and the Statement of Work, under “PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE” there is a disconnect in the resumes you want to include in the SF 330 and what is required in the SOW. We respectfully ask that you add the following resumes to the SF 330 submittal requirements: Lead Historic Preservation Architect, Lead Fire Protection Engineer, Lead Interior Designer, Lead Registered Communications Distribution Designer, and Lead Construction Inspector so that you have a better understanding of the depth of the teams you will be evaluating.

Submit Key Personnel in accordance with Table 2 of the synopsis. In regards to this evaluation, if there is a discrepancy between the Synopsis and SOW, the synopsis takes precedence.

Page 8, Section C. Selection Criteria: Is "office/branch/individual team member considered the same as the definition of "offeror"? Yes

Page 7, Other Services: Should the tasks Drawing reviews and Preparation of O&M Manual be considered Title I services in lieu of Other Services? No

General: Is this re‐solicitation open only to those firms or offerors who originally submitted for Pool 2? No.

Page 9: RFQ states, "Clearly indicate the type of project submission (i.e. Title I Facilities)" Does the type of project submission designation need to be within the Section F Title Block to count as clearly indicated?

"Clearly indicated" is a general term. Project submissions should be submitted in a way that the average reviewer will be able to easily identify the type of project it is. (either Title I, Title II or Other A&E).

Page 11, Paragraph 3.a.iii states: "Projects for facilities that are eligible for inclusion but not listed as a National Historic Landmark or Other historic designation DO NOT have greater complexity than projects for facilities that are not historic." Please clarify what this statement means? Projects that are listed as National Historic Landmarks (NHL) or other historic designation will be considered for greater complexity.

Page 11: Will Section D ‐ Organization Chart be part of your Criterion 2 ‐ Professional Qualification evaluation? Organizational charts will not be used for evaluation

Page 12: Will only past performance ratings for the projects we submit for Criterion 1 be considered during the Criterion 3 ‐ Past Performance evaluation?

The government reserves the right to evaluate any available past performance documentation for any relevant project within the past 5 years from the date of this synopsis was issued.

Page 13: For Criterion 5 ‐ Capacity to Accomplish the Work, may the Offeror's annual AE revenue exceed an average of $3M over the last 3 years to be acceptable? Yes. The $3M is the "floor" / minimum.

SECTION E: Key Personnel required on page 9 of the SOW is more than the Key Personnel listed on page 11 of the Solicitation ‐ Criterion 2. Do we submit only the 9 lead Key Personnel resumes listed on page 11 of the Solicitation ‐ Criterion 2? or do we submit all 14 lead Key Personnel resumes listed on page 9 of the SOW?

Submit Key Personnel in accordance with Table 2 of the synopsis. In regards to this evaluation, if there is a discrepancy between the Synopsis and SOW, the synopsis takes precedence.

Page 10 of 13, paragraph 3: Will the one “Other Services” project be evaluated using the evaluation criteria on page 10 of 13 paragraph 3.a.i through vii? Yes.

The SOW lists a required number of years of experience for certain key personnel (10 years’ program management experience for the Program Manager, 8 years’ project management experience for the Project Manager, etc.) Should this experience be shown through the Block 19 Relevant Projects in the Section E resume for each person, or will the numbers shown in Block 14 be sufficient to demonstrate experience? Block 14 should list the number of years experience.

Page 12 of the Synopsis lists the criteria for evaluation of the Key Personnel resumes – item #3 mentioned Professional Registration/Licensing/Certification (state/entity, date of issuance). If a member of our staff is licensed in several states, will we need to list the date of issuance for each state? Proposals should be submitted in accordance with the synopsis

Page 3 of the Synopsis states that submissions shall be delivered electronically, but also asks Offerors to “submit one (1) CD/DVD OF THE ENTIRE SF330 SUBMISSION in electronic format.” Could you please clarify whether CD/DVD submissions are also required? Please see posted synopsis amendment dated (29 March 2021) regarding electronic submissions.

Page 4 of the Synopsis references hand‐deliveries. Could you please confirm that hand‐delivered submissions are not required?

Due to current real world conditions, hand delivered submissions will not be accepted.

Page 11‐12 of the Synopsis lists (9) key personnel but the SOW lists (14) lead personnel. Could you please clarify whether we are to submit the (9) key personnel from the Synopsis or the (14) lead personnel from the SOW with our SF330?

Submit Key Personnel in accordance with Table 2 of the synopsis. In regards to this evaluation, if there is a discrepancy between the Synopsis and SOW, the synopsis takes precedence.

We understand that these RFPs are restricted to only Pool‐2 Facilities. We are a SB and SDB A‐E firm located in North Carolina with excellent credentials. Our average gross revenue for the past 3 years have been approximately within $ 1.0 Million. On your RFP page 13 of 13, it states the 3‐year average revenue of A‐E to be $3 Million. Does that qualify us or not to participate as a Prime Contractor? Criterion 5 clearly states what is required to receive a satisfactory rating. The Government will not pre‐evaluate offerors.

In case, we bring in another firm to Joint Venture with us to participate; does that firm also have to be Small Business? Does the total average gross revenue for the two businesses (part of JV) need to be less than $16.5 Million? If not, can one business be large business to support the SB in this JV? Are there any restrictions or limitations on these JV or teaming structures?

For the purposes of this synopsis, the term "Offeror" refers to the Prime and, if applicable, their teaming partner(s) or Joint Venture firm(s) that submit a SF330 in response to this synopsis. “Contractor teaming arrangements” are (1) a partnership or joint venture between two or more companies or (2) an agreement for a specific Government opportunity between a potential prime contractor and one or more companies that are potential subcontractors. At time of proposal the "Offeror" needs to be certified SB per the size standard of $16.5M. Please refer to the synopsis on the restrictions or limitations on these JV or teaming structure.

Table‐ 4, states resumes of only one key personnel in each discipline required: Should we show additional and backup personnel resources available in the organization chart or in a staff matrix or under capacity chart, or not required? Proposals should be submitted in accordance with the synopsis

34 Do you mind sharing the information on incumbent teams on current or previous contracts? The predecessor contracting effort is title AE 13 DCS

Do we need to contact the Ombudsman to get some answers or just your office? If need to contact the Ombudsman, kindly provide, name, phone number, and email. Ombudsman Contact information is provided in the synopsis

36 Can projects that are Design Build qualify as a project? Acceptable projects at defined in the synopsis 37 Section H of the SF330 has a 10 page limit. Being CPARS and CCASS or lengthy, can we add this information as an Addendum Refer to page limitations and exemptions in the synopsis regarding page count

Due to the extra challenges concerning administrative staffing during the Pandemic resurgence, is it possible for the Government to extend the due date by 3 weeks? Amendment 2 has extended the submission due date to 27 April 2021.

We have several projects that speak well to this solicitation. Is it possible to increase the timeframe for completed project from 5 to 8 years? The timeframe for completed projects remains unchanged

40 Do we need to submit full CPARS in Section H, or can we provide a table with the scores? Proposals should be submitted in accordance with the synopsis 41 If full CPARS are required in Section H, will that count against our page limit? Refer to "General Submission requirements" regarding page limitations and exemptions 42 Do CPARS need to be available for each project or can we submit a PPQ instead? Past Performance Questionnaires are NOT acceptable.

Historic Preservation Project, Section i. and ii: Is there any chance the Government could relax the constraints on the historic preservation project within the AE Next Pool 2 resolicitation? We've contacted at at least 10 different historic preservation firms and none of them are able to meet the $7M section requirement within he last five years. We are receiving messages that there are not that many section 106 projects of that size available and the language seems restrictive. During the previous Pool 2 solicitation (which we were successful) we had found 1 firm wh could meet the requirement, but the one project they have met the $7M section 106 requirement is now older than 5 years. We've contacted additional firms who are also not able to meet the requirement. Is there any chance the Government could either remove the section 106 language or change the requirement to allow for historic preservation projects completed within the last 10 years? Historic Preservation Project, Section I and II remains unchanged

Can you please verify the meaning of "Sub", and "you may not participate on more than three (3) Prime teams": “To minimize performance risk, encourage diversity, and maintain integrity of competition at the task order level, a teaming partner may only compete with a maximum of three (03) teaming arrangements. This does not limit the total number of teaming partners that a Prime may propose."

"Sub" = subcontractor ""you may not participate on more than three (3) Prime teams" = you may not participate on more than three (3) Prime teams

In the statement of work document it says “an individual may perform more than one role if they hold appropriate qualifications for all roles." …but then it mentions we can only have the one person for each key personnel role position.

Please clarify and explain.

“an individual may perform more than one role if they hold appropriate qualifications for all roles." = Employee A can be both a Lead Scheduler & Lead Cost Estimator if they hold appropriate qualifications for both roles.

"one person for each key personnel role position" = Employee A & B cannot both be submitted as the Lead Scheduler (regardless if they have the appropriate qualifications for both roles.

If we have a teaming agreement with an additional A‐E firm, can the Prime employ the Lead Program Manager Role, and the Teaming Partner employ the Lead Project Manager Role? Please clarify and explain. Offerors can arrange their team to best suit their needs. The Government will not comment on how offerors should be organized

Based on the evaluation criterion (5): Can we demonstrate the capacity to accomplish the work, (A/E) average revenue between the Prime and Teaming Partner? Or does the Government this to be demonstrated by the Prime? Offeror's proposals should be submitted in accordance with the Synopsis.

We would like clarification on the limitations that have been set in the synopsis. On page 2, third paragraph down it states: "To minimize performance risk, encourage diversity, and maintain integrity of competition at the task order level, a teaming partner may only compete with a maximum of (03) teaming arrangements. This does not limit the total number of teaming partners that a Prime may propose". Later in the synopsis the term 'offeror' refers to the Prime, their teaming partner(s) or JV firm(s). If a firm is submitting as a prime on three separate contracts, are they allowed to act as a sub consultant to a different Prime and not have that count in their three contract limit? At most, an entity can be a part of 3 proposals. Regardless of Prime/subcontractor/teaming partner relationship

Now that we have begun receiving teaming agreements from our subs, is the maximum of the three teaming arrangements now only apply to Pool two or in total if some of our subs were teams that competed on Pool 1 and Pool 3? Pool 2

We are small DBE firm and registered to SAM and looking for the teaming opportunity with larger firm for above mentioned RFQ. Do you have any contact list of the participants whom we can approach? Unfortunately, we do not.

In Amendment 2, it states that the due date is changed to April 29, 2021, but in the Q&A (and on sam.gov) it shows the due date has been changed to April 27, 2021. Could you please confirm which is correct? Please refer to the 29 April 2021 due date of Amendment 2

2. In Amendment 2, it states that the synopsis number for this solicitation has been changed to “FA8903‐21‐R‐0015,” but in the Q&A it states that it has been changed to “FA8903‐19‐R‐0097 Amendment.” Could you please confirm which is correct so we can correctly update our forms?

Please respond with the new solicitation number FA8903‐21‐R‐0015. It is acceptable to refer to the previous solicitation number, i.e. FA8903‐21‐ R‐0015 (Formaly FA8903‐19‐R‐0097).