AE23POL Questions and Answers - 8 July 2022.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA890322R0048
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for architect-engineer services for petroleum, oil, and lubricant facilities. The Air Force Civil Engineer Center is seeking to award multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts with a total ceiling of $500 million to support the Defense Logistics Agency's worldwide fuels infrastructure mission. Approximately 14 firms are expected to receive awards, including five set aside for small businesses. Services will include Title I and Title II design and engineering support at petroleum, oil, and lubricant facilities worldwide for the Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and allied partners. The basic contracts will have a 10-year ordering period with pre-negotiated labor rates. Task orders will range between $2,500 to $5 million. Questions were accepted until July 8, 2022 and proposals are due July 25, 2022.
View the file
Other files
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
Sheet1
| AE23POL Question and Answers | |||
| DUE DATE: 8 July 2022 | |||
| NAME | DATE | QUESTION | Answer |
TETRATECH (Shane P) 28-Jun-22 SOW was not attached to Synopsis. Will you be attaching? No, follow the requirements of the synopsis and SF-330 submission.
| Robert and Co (Nicole Miles ) | 28-Jun-22 | For our relevant projects, may we submit PPQs that have already been completed by a Government representative familiar with the project as part of our SF-330 submittal vs having a new one completed and forwarded directly to you? | Yes, refer to Amendment 03. |
| If we can use current PPQs, this would really help limit the amount of redundant work needed from the Government representatives. | Yes, refer to Amendment 03. |
Burns And McDonnell 29-Jun-22 Regarding “USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS: Offerors are also advised that while teaming partners are permitted, they are not encouraged nor desirable.” and “SMALL BUSINESS SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Additionally, a firm may not serve as a Teaming Partner to more than one Prime Contractor.” - Please clarify the definition of “teaming partner”. Does teaming partner mean a joint venture or similar arrangement and not sub consultants. We are concerned that limiting sub consultants to just one prime firm will limit opportunities for small business firms. Q: Does teaming partner mean a joint venture or similar arrangement and not sub consultants.
Answer: Teaming (pg 17 of synopsis): Contractor teaming arrangements are defined as (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.
Question: We are concerned that limiting sub consultants to just one prime firm will limit opportunities for small business firms.
Answer: The purpose behind this requirement is to identify firms that are truly DoD POL AE firms and not AE firms that are subcontracting or extremely limited in their in-house DoD POL capability.
Please reference pg 3, 15, and 19 of the synopsis.
(Susan Dalton) Please confirm that teaming agreements are required for all sub consultants. Teaming agreements are required for all planned sub consultants. Per synopsis page 16, "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 SF330 submittal."
| In what section of the submittal should teaming agreements be provided? | The teaming agreements will be submitted in the RFP stage after the selection of the Most Highly Qualified Firms. |
| Due to the instruction to submit via SAFE if PIEE is not functioning, please confirm that is acceptable to submit a SAFE request July 20-22. | Yes. |
| Please confirm that cover letter is not included in page count. | The cover letter (page) does not count. |
Page 19: The SF 330 Part 1 is limited to 30, 8.5" x 11" pages, not including Past Performance Questionnaires/CPARS/ACASS reports, cover page, tabs/page dividers or table of contents. For the organizational chart, one 11” x 17” page may be used in lieu of an 8.5" x 11".
Argus Consulting (Matt Hendry) 1-Jul-22 Argus Consulting has several 1099 employees that are used on a as needed basis for specific DOD project tasks. In regard to our organic capacity, can we assume that we are authorized to include our 1099 Employees for capacity purposes. These are not Teaming partners, they are 1099 employees of Argus? No, 1099 employees shall not be counted for the synopsis. Please only submit organic employees and teaming partners only for the SF-330 process.
Synopsis pgs 16-17: 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 SF330 submittal. The statement shall also list all team members. Contractor teaming arrangements are defined as (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.
| Argus Consulting’s current staff has significant experience from previous employment at OCONUS locations. Can we identify these geographic locations on our chart as “previous experience” due to the current staffs previous experience? | Yes | |
| 7/5/22 | In the synopsis is states that we are only allowed to submit 3-5 previous projects for evaluation. Many of the previous task orders have been specific single task items such as CP Inspection, API 653 OOS, API In- service inspections, STI Inspection, Title II Services and Design work. If only 5 projects are allowed this only allows the AE to submit five projects for the 6 types of work being solicited. If the most highly qualified firms can be determined with only 5 previous projects then no changes are requested. If not will AFCEC consider increasing the relevant project experience to 8 projects? | No changes will be made. Please follow the synopsis's instructions. |
HDR (Peggy Porter) 8-Jul-22 Please provide clarification: If an entity submits as a prime, can they also be listed as a named teaming partner as a subcontractor to another prime? No.
Synopsis Pg 16: Teaming/Joint Venture Agreements: Each contractor may only receive a maximum of one prime contract award per MATOC. A contractor may not receive a prime contract award and a JV award. Further, a firm may not serve as both a Prime Contractor AND a Teaming Partner with another firm. Additionally, a firm may not serve as a Teaming Partner to more than one Prime Contractor.
| AECOM (Chris Patterson) | 8-Jul-22 | Please confirm the 10 pt. font requirement is for the SF330 Part I and not the SF330 Part II. | See amendment 4. SF-330 Part II is no longer required for this synopsis; however, may be required after the selection of the most highly qualified (MHQ) firms. |
| Page 2 of the solicitation lists that Coast Guard installations will be covered under this program; however, page 9 states POL facilities will not include the Coast Guard. Please confirm the Coast Guard will not be supported by this contract | Coast Guard installations may be covered under this MATOC; however, the Coast Guard installations now fall under DHS, and not DoD so although they are a POL Facility, they are no longer a DoD POL Facility. |
Do not use Coast Guard projects, unless you can confirm the project followed the same procedures as the DoD specifications, namely UFC 3-460-01.
Can past performance documents (CPARS/PPQs) be submitted as an appendix to Section H instead of imbedded within Section H? Yes, see amendment 3
Pg 14: Otherwise CPARS and PPQs shall be submitted with the SF-330 packet and will not count against the overall page count.
SF330: H. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
30. PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE AGENCY. ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NEEDED.
General Submission Requirements in the solicitation limits Part IIs to just one page for the Prime and just one page per teaming partner. If we have more than one office listed in Section C for the Prime and teaming partners, we would not be in compliance with the SF330 guidelines by submitting just one Part II for all offices. Please confirm one page Part IIs can be provided for each office listed in Section C. See amendment 4. SF-330 Part II is no longer required for this synopsis; however, may be required after the selection of the most highly qualified (MHQ) firms.
TetraTech (Keri Lucas) 7-Jul-22 I am inquiring about the PIEE solicitation system for the subject opportunity. How do I go about uploading our proposal when the time comes to the PIEE Solicitation system? PIIE Proposal Training: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml
PIEE Proposal Management: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Proposal_Manager.pdf May I also receive the DOD Safe information to upload the proposal? Yes, please request a drop-off prior to submission due date.
| Brokenbrough (Suzanne Wolfe) | 6-Jul-22 | I received a notification that the above referenced solicitation has been updated. When I view in both SAM and PIEE it states | Fixed |
| “ - Updated file named AE23POL Synopsis dated 24 Jun to AE23POL Synopsis dated 5 Jul 2022.- See the yellow highlighted sections in AE23POL Synopsis dated 5 Jul 2022 to see the specific changes made to address submitting already completed PPQs prior to this synopsis for Criterion 3. *Visit 'https://piee.eb.mil/sol/xhtml/unauth/search/oppMgmtLink.xhtml?solNo=FA890322R0048' to obtain more details.” | Fixed | ||
| However within the attachments the synopsis is dated 24 Jun and the revisions per the update do not appear to be included, eg Synopsis dated 5 Jul 2022 per the update. | Fixed | ||
| Should we expect to see an updated synopsis uploaded? | Fixed |
| Pond (Dan Brown) | 8-Jul-22 | Will interim CPARs be considered for qualifications on active task orders that the original scope of work has been completed yet task order extended more than 2 years for on-going TI & TII contracts? Some active Title I and Title II task orders have been extended beyond their initial “completion” date. These extensions have pushed any previous task orders beyond the “5-year completion” window and outside the range of applicability. | Although the task order may still be open, IAW the synopsis, projects are individual projects such as a design that has been completed and accepted by the Government; and therefore that project or completed projects would be considered the complete portion that the CPARS/PPQ would cover. |
| Underlined notes indicate pipeline integrity testing will NOT be considered under this MATOC, however API 570 are included within the work examples provided in “2. Definitions” for Title II. Are these scopes anticipated or intended for personnel qualifications for TII oversite? | Question: Is PIT anticipated or intended for personnel qualifications for Title II Services? |
Answer: Not for the purposes of the SF-330; however, after the establishment of the IDIQs, Title II may include this as a requirement.
Question: Is API570 anticipated or intended for personnel qualifications for Title II Services?
Answer: It may be used for the purposes of the SF-330; and, after the establishment of the IDIQs, Title II may include this as a requirement.
The synopsis identifies a vast scope within the example work definitions and places extreme value on in-house capabilities, however the requested list of personnel seems condensed. Is it the execution intention to identify each entities in-house qualifications? Would you consider expanding the list of resumes to include resumes for API and NACE specialists for corrosion, integrity, coatings, & fire protection. Key personnel are at the corporate level, while the listed resumes suggested will be necessary at the task order level for specific requirements. The intent is to identify the MHQ DOD POL firms, and those additional positions are considered unnecessary to make that determination.
https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Proposal_Manager.pdf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .