Attachment 4 - QnA-101124.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8903-24-R-0099
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document related to a draft synopsis for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Architect-Engineering services at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The document contains 42 questions submitted prior to an industry day event and 15 questions submitted afterward, along with the Air Force's responses.
Key details addressed include: clarifications on teaming partner restrictions (limiting firms to participating on no more than two teams), removal of certain key personnel requirements (Lead Weapons Safety Expert, Lead Communications Specialist), updates to evaluation criteria for business relationships between primes and teaming partners, and formatting requirements for SF330 submissions. The Q&A confirms this will be a small business set-aside with approximately six awards anticipated and a total contract ceiling of $930M. Questions were due by July 17, 2024, with the formal synopsis expected to be reposted in August 2024. SF330 submissions will be due 30 days after the formal synopsis posting. The contract will support FSRM and MILCON Title I and II projects, with individual task order limits between $2,500 and $10M.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| AEGUAM_IDIQ_Synopsis-Revised 112624 Draft Posted 122624.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 3 - QnA-073124.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| DRAFT AEGUAM_IDIQ_Synopsis-Revised 073124.pdf | ||
| AEGUAM_IDIQ_DRAFT Synopsis-070224.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - QnA.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 2 - Sample PPQ.pdf |
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
| Q# | Question/Comment | Document/ | |
| Para Reference: | AIR FORCE RESPONSE AS OF 07/31/24 | AF REVISED RESPONSE (if applicable, updated responses are highlighted in yellow) |
& RESPONSE TO POST-INDUSTRY-DAY Q'S
1 The evaluation criteria are structured to favor mature mentor-protege JVs. If this is not the government's intent, consider adjusting the teaming requirements to open this IDIQ to more local SB competition. In its current state, project thresholds and team experience requirements at a level most local AEs will not be competive. For example Page 8 of the draft synopsis states "Where an Offeror’s narrative demonstrates a history of strong business relationships between the Prime and its teaming partners, if applicable, the initial rating will remain the same. However, a lower rating may be assigned where the business relationships between the Prime and its teaming partners are less developed. Note that the Government considers that the larger the number of teaming partners used, the higher the risk of unsuccessful control and coordination by the Prime." However, page 9 of the draft synopsis states "If the proposed Key Person is employed by a Teaming Partner, the Government will also evaluate the Business Relationship narrative from Criterion (1) with that Teaming Partner and will consider the Key Person minimally acceptable if that Teaming Partner has at least two-years of active experience (within the last 5 years) performing at least two projects with the Prime during that timeframe."
Page 9 requirements appear to be in direct conflict with the flexibility offered on page 8. Page 9 requirements will greatly limit the number of small businesses who can reasonably compete for this IDIQ. The high number of MILCON projects and emphasis on high dollar value work will force SBs to form teams, oftentimes with large businesses with whom they have relationships, but not many will have a minimum of 2 years experience on at least two projects in the last 5 years. The evaluation method on Page 9 favors mentor proteges for whom SBs have more than two years execution experience with a Large Mentor (likely a mentor-protege JV that is at least 3-4 years old given the time needed to win and complete the work), and disfavors local SBs who have yet to take part in the mentor-protégé program, thus restricting them (or greatly reducing their odds) from fair competition in winning one of only six seats on this MATOC. Synopsis Page 8 and 9 The Business Relationship narrative is NOT intended to favor MP JV arrangements. The intent is to give more consideration to Teams that have worked together previously, in whatever business relationship that entailed (Teaming Partner to a Prime, Sub-contractor to a Prime, A JV arrangment, etc - the type of relationship doesn't mattter, but rather knowing that the Proposed Team has worked together previously in some manner demonstates that they can work together. Ensuring Proposed Teams have experience working together reduces the risk of the relationship failing, and demonstrating a longer relationship reduces that risk even further, hence more consideration given to teams that have a longer/stronger history of working together - even if in a Prime to Sub or Prime to Teaming Partner relationships. MP JVs and/or JV relationships do not provide more weight than other business relationships.
That said, we agree that evalating a minimum number of years is overly complex. Therefore, note the following update within Key Personnel Qualifications, Criterion 2:
"If the proposed Key Person is employed by the Prime or a Small Business Teaming Partner, greater consideration will be given than Key Personnel submitted by an Other-Than-Small (Large Business) Teaming Partner. The Government will also evaluate the Business Relationship narrative from Criterion (1) with that Teaming Partner and will consider the Key Person minimally acceptable if that Teaming Partner has completed at least two projects with the Prime during the last 10 years, with more consideration given to a Prime to Teaming Partner relationship that has a greater number of projects or years of experience working together."
| 2 | Please check the ceiling value of this IDIQ, and if correct, consider opening this contract to more than 6 SBs. AE Next has 39 contract awards to large and small businesses across a 10 year/$2B ceiling IDIQ, averaging $51.2M in wins per contract holder over 10 years. This contract has 6 SB awards across a 10 year/$930M IDIQ, averaging $93M in wins per contract holder over 10 years. This is extremely high ceiling for a small business on one contract, and SBs will have difficulties executing at this level of effort. Additionally, this contract could drive an oligopoly on Guam, where these 6 contract holders will limit market access and drive competition out of business. | Synopsis Page 1-2 | Results from Market Research supported award to approximately 6 firms. However, the AF may award to more or fewer firms, depending on the results of the evaluation. Further, on-ramping will be allowable in future years. |
| 3 | Synopsis states key personnel must be assigned to the same role for every task order under this contract. This is impracticalto maintain over the life of the IDIQ. For example, a single Project Manager would be unable to fill the workload of an average of $9.3M/year in designs awarded on this IDIQ. Add in the fact that AE firms need their staff to work across multiple projects with multiple clients to remain gainfully employed, and it will be impossible to guarantee any company can meet this staffing requirement. Consider revising this requirement to allow flexibility in execution. Most design TO RFIs ask for a staffing plan and that will help the government select most qualified AE at execution while elimintaing the need for AEs to submit, and the government to approve, multiple exceptions to this requirement throughout the life of the IDIQ. | Synopsis page 9 | Synopsis updated to read as follows: "The individuals filling the role of each of the following positions are considered programmatic key personnel that provide oversight and internal quality control of design efforts for their associated disciplines for all Task Orders." |
After award, if the contractor needs to replace a key person identified in their originally submitted SF330, the contractor must replace that individual with someone of equal or greater experience and qualifications, for approval by the Contracting Officer.
| 4 | Page 9 of the SOW starts a new paragraph for design personnel. Are they supposed to be key personnel or are only the PM, Construction Inspector, Weapons Safety Expert, and Communications/IT Engineer the key personnel, as identified on the previous paragraph? | Synopsis Page 9 | Synopsis updated to reflect that all positions in sub-paragraphs a. through k. are considered Key Personnel. | Synopsis updated to reflect that all positions in sub-paragraphs a. through i. are considered Key Personnel. |
| 5 | What is a "Lead Weapons Safety Expert" and what role will this person be expected to fill on the contract? This a position we have not seen before on an AE IDIQ and it is not defined in the synopsis | Synopsis Page 9 | Synopsis updated to change this Key Person to a "Lead Ordnance Specialist". Specific qualifications are included in the revised synopsis. |
| UPDATE: THIS KEY PERSON REMOVED FROM SYNOPSIS. | |||
| 6 | Page 4 of the synopsis specificies how a Title II project with multiple construction projects can qualify as "complete" if at least one of the projects is complete: "...where a single Title II contract or Task Order covers multiple construction projects, at least one of those construction projects must have been completed." Can the same rule be applied for Title I designs where a single task order covers multiple designs for multiple complete and usable construction projects? | Synopsis Page 4 | Yes. Synopsis updated. "...where a single Task Order or Contract covers multiple Title I designs (i.e. for multiple facilities), at least one of those facility designs must have been completed and the narrative shall ONLY describe the completed portion of the work. |
| 7 | The following question is regarding the limitation of a maximum of TWO (2) firms specializing in Project Management, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Fire Protection Engineering, Architectural, Structural Engineering and Title II Construction Inspection Services. |
In comparison to Hawaii and the mainland U.S., Guam has considerably less Architectural and Engineering companies that have the necessary expertise to manage projects of this nature. Limiting to a maximum of TWO (2), puts Guam firms at a disadvantage. For example, a Prime may need to resort to using a Sub that is less qualified if the ideal company is already committed to two teams. To ensure that teams with Guam-based companies are made up with the most qualified companies, can the limitation to TWO (2) be removed or can an exception to this rule be made for small Guam-based companies? PRIME OFFEROR SUBMISSION AND USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS: Limiting to two teams does not put Guam firms at a disadvantage. It ensures that multiple Guam SB firms are more likely able to get a contract, even if one Guam firm (or perhaps a LB Teaming Partner) has higher qualifications. If a substantially-highly-qualified firm teams with multiple Primes, then each of those Primes will have the most highly qualified proposal, and will likely bump out the not-quite-as-qualified firms from receiving an award. It also poses a mission risk as there would then be a limited number of firms ultimately available to execute the work, since the same teaming partners would be on all or most basic contract awards – and as confirmed by the firms that submitted these questions, there are a LIMITED number of AE firms on Guam. There is a high risk of mission failure if the project workload is spread across a limited number of firms.
Further, selections at the Task Order level also require us to select the Most Highly Qualified firm (there is NO price consideration in AE actions), and thus if all or most Prime contractors on the basic contract have the same Teaming Partners, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate one Prime Team over the other, thus hindering competition.
| 8 | Recommend projects submitted by the prime are evaluated higher than projects submitted by subcontractor teaming partner. | Paragraph A.2, Completed Projects | Synopsis updated for each Criterion. Projects, Key Personnel, and Knowledge of Locailty when demonstrted by the Prime Offeror and any Small Business Teaming Partners may be given higher considertion than that provided by a Large Business Teaming Partner. |
| 9 | We agree with limiting firms to participating with two teams. This will result in teams self-selecting the best teaming and create a diversified pool of offerors which will facilitate contract awards and task order selections. | PRIME OFFEROR SUBMISSION AND USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS | Thank you. |
| 10 | Some DBB Title I task orders include Title II services after the design has been completed. In this case the contract is not complete but the design is complete. We suggest adjusting the definition of a "Completed Projects" to, ""Completed projects" means the firm performed and finished the A-E contract or task order for design and/or Title II construction support services; or have substantially completed the Title I design under an A-E contract or task order within the past ten years from the date this synopsis was posted." The RFP may be excluding very relevant and recent experience from consideration by saying the contract must be complete instead of design complete. | Paragraph A.2, Completed Projects | Synopsis updated to include the following, "Further, where a Task Order or contract includes both Title I and Title II services, the firm can submit the Title I portion if it is complete, even if the Title II is not yet complete, but shall only describe the completed Title I portion in the narrative." |
| 11 | Knowledge of Locality instructions in the first paragraph of page 10 of the RFP does not state the number of pages allowed to be submitted. | Section H, Criterion (3) KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOCALITY SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:, pg 10 | Synopsis updated to reflect a limit of TWO pages for this criterion. |
| 12 | Will firms/JVs be required to have a facility level clearance or cleared personnel under this contract? If so, we recommend that the RFP require Offerors to state their eligibility to provide cleared personnel and obtain a Facility Clearance as a Prime or at the JV level in their RFP response. | General Comment | Facility Level Clearance qualifications will be requested, as applicable, at the Task Order Level. If a limited number of awardees do not have the appropriate clearance, the Task Order Contracting Officer may allow firms to propose teaming partners that are not already approved but that meet the clearance requirement. These additional teaming partners must be approved by the Corporate Contracting Officer and will only be allowed for specific task orders with clearance requirements. |
No change to the synopsis.
13 Please clarify the qualifications required for the Lead Weapons Safety Expert. Part 1, Sections D and E, CRITERION (2) PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, pg 9 Synopsis updated to change this Key Person to a "Lead Ordnance Specialist". Specific qualifications are included in the revised synopsis.
| UPDATE: THIS KEY PERSON REMOVED FROM SYNOPSIS. | |||
| 14 | Draft asks for offeror to provide in section H "current and valid customer points of contact (name, position/role, email, and phone numbers) for each project submitted in Criterion (1)". This information is required in the Section F forms in block 23. Is this required to be provided in Section H also? We would recommend not duplicating this requirement in two places. | SECTION H, CRITERION (5) PAST PERFORMANCE | Section H requirement removed. Information is only required in Section F. |
| 15 | Is there a direction on font type or size allowed? | General Comment | Synopsis updated:" All SF330 submissions shall be drafted on 8 ½ x 11 page size, but submitted in digital, pdf format. For all submission requirements below, adhere to the page count identified within each specific Criterion. Any pages submitted beyond the page limit identified will not be evaluated. Ensure a minimum font size of Times New Roman 11 or greater for all narratives. Charts and tables, if used, can use a smaller font size. Organizational charts can exceed the 8 ½ x 11 Page size. Combine SF330 Parts I and II into a single pdf document. |
| 16 | Are tabs, dividers, Part IIs counted in the max page count? | General Comment | Adhere to the page count maximums stated in each individual selection criterion. There is no overall max page count. |
| 17 | Is a cover letter counted in the page count? | General Comment | Adhere to the page count maximums stated in each individual selection criterion. There is no overall max page count. |
| 18 | Lead Weapons Safety Expert. Can the government provide additional specifics/criteria/licensure that they are looking for in this position. What is the anticipated scope of services the government desires this role to handle? | SF 330, Part 1, Sections D and E, Criterion (2) Professional Qualfications - Page 9 | Synopsis updated to change this Key Person to a "Lead Ordnance Specialist". Specific qualifications are included in the revised synopsis. |
| UPDATE: THIS KEY PERSON REMOVED FROM SYNOPSIS. | ||||
| 19 | Lead Communications/IT Engineer. Can the government provide additional specifics/criteria/licensure that they are looking for in this position. What is the anticipated scope of services the government desires this role to handle? | SF 330, Part 1, Sections D and E, Criterion (2) Professional Qualfications - Page 9 | Synopsis updated to identify two separate individuals: A Lead Communications Specialist and a Lead Controls Engineer. Specific qualifications for both are included in the revised synopsis. | UPDATE: THIS KEY PERSON REMOVED FROM SYNOPSIS. |
| 20 | Are there any specific formatting requirements (font limitations, page size, page count, etc.?) | N/A | Synopsis updated:" All SF330 submissions shall be drafted on 8 ½ x 11 page size, but submitted in digital, pdf format. For all submission requirements below, adhere to the page count identified within each specific Criterion. Any pages submitted beyond the page limit identified will not be evaluated. Ensure a minimum font size of Times New Roman 11 or greater for all narratives. Charts and tables, if used, can use a smaller font size. Organizational charts can exceed the 8 ½ x 11 Page size. | |
| 21 | The draft synopsis notes that 'The following applies to each Title I project submitted: The higher the value of the project, the more consideration that may be given'. Please define and expand what the government deems as 'value'. Does that refer to design fee value? Construction cost value of a project? | SF 330, Part 1, Section F, Criterion (1) Specialized Experience and Technical Competence - Page 8 | The Project narratives must include either the Estimated Cost of Construction at time design was completed, or the Actual Construction Cost. Accordingly, the synopsis has been updated to reflect that, "1) | The higher the Estimated or Actual Cost of the design’s resultant Construction project, the more consideration that may be given." |
| 22 | Under section A2, p4. of 11, the following is state: "Title II Services include construction phase credentialed architectural and engineering support services…" Please define "construction phase credentialed architectural and engineering support services. | SF 330, Part 1, Section A.2- Page 8 | See updated definition of Title II services in the synopsis. |
"Construction phase" means A-E services to provide Quality Assurance support (on the Government's behalf) for a separate construction project/contract.
"Credentialed AE support services" are services conducted by Professional Architects/Engineers to review technical construction submittals (Div 01 Submittals, material submittals, shop-drawings, As-builts, accuracy of design calculations, etc.)
| 23 | Under Evaluation Method, p9, it states: "If the proposed Key Person is employed by a Teaming Partner, the Government will also evaluate the Business Relationship narrative from Criterion (1) with that Teaming Partner and will consider the Key Person minimally acceptable if that Teaming Partner has at least two-years of active experience (within the last 5 years) performing at least two projects with the | |
| Prime during that timeframe." Please clarify how a business relationship between the Prime and Teaming Partner on projects that may not be related to the Key Person would result in a rating of minimally acceptable from a technical perspective. | SF 330, Part 1, SF 330, PART 1, SECTIONS D AND E, CRITERION (2) PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, p.9 | A stronger relationship between the Prime and the Teaming Partner means less risk that the two businesses will stop working together, and thus less risk that the Key Person that works for the Teaming Partner will also leave the contract. Therefore, ensuring the Teams have worked together on at least two projects within the last 10 years will serve to be the minimum relationship requirement. |
Note that the "two-years of active experience" requirement has been removed from the synopsis. It now reads, "If the proposed Key Person is employed by a Teaming Partner, the Government will also evaluate the Business Relationship narrative from Criterion (1) with that Teaming Partner and will consider the Key Person minimally acceptable if that Teaming Partner has completed at least two projects with the Prime during the last 10 years, with more consideration to a Prime to Teaming Partner relationship that has a greater extent of experience working together.
| 24 | In order to provide detailed project descriptions, we are requesting a two-page limit for the Section F Project Description. | Pg. 6 Submission Requirements/Project Experience | No change to the synopsis. Limit submission to one page. |
| 25 | In SF330 Part 1 Section H, Criterion (3) Knowledge of the Locality refers to "JRM". Recommend the term JRM be replaced with specific geographic locations, such as Guam, CNMI, FSM, and Palau. Recommend Locality include CNMI, FSM, and Palau because A-E work in these locations is more relevant to Andersen AFB projects than worldwide saltwater environments between 30 deg N and 30 deg S. Alternatively, if JRM is to be retained as a contract term, then add JRM to Definitions para A.2 with specific geographic locations. | Pg 10 SF330 Part 1 Section H, Criterion (3) Knowledge of the Locality | Synopsis revised to include a defintion of Joint Region Marianas (JRM). |
| 26 | Under the Rating Definition for Criterion (3), Knowledge of Locality, JRM is omitted from the Outstanding rating, but specifically included in the rankings for Very Good, Good, and Satisfactory. Was this intentional or an oversight? Recommend including JRM in the Outstanding rating as well. | Rating Definition for Criterion (3), Knowledge of Locality | Synopsis Definitions Updated as follows: |
"Outstanding: Overall exceptional knowledge of locality. Demonstrates exceptional Title I experience in Guam, and some Title I experience at other JRM locations as well. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are well-developed.
Very Good: Overall substantial knowledge of locality. Demonstrates exceptional Title I experience in Guam with no Title I experience at other JRM locations, OR has some Title I experience in Guam and some Title I experience in other JRM locations as well. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are reasonably well-developed, or better."
| 27 | SF330 Part 1 Section F, Project Experience states that "At least two Title I projects shall be for FSRM Design, and at least four Title I projects shall be for MILCON planning or design." Is there a reason planning projects were omitted from consideration for FSRM? Recommend re-wording to "SF330 Part 1 Section F, Project Experience. "At least two Title I projects shall be for FSRM planning or design, and at least four Title I projects shall be for MILCON planning or design." | SF330 Part 1 Section F, Project Experience | FSRM planning is not a typical requirement and is not expected on this IDIQ. Synopsis remains unchanged. |
| 28 | Reference Section F Evaluation Method item c. MEC/UXO. Military Munitions Response (MMR) Services projects where MEC activities are performed in accordance with current DoD policies, including DOD Explosive Safety Board (DDESB) guidance, require the same skills and qualifications as the MEC/UXO requirements currently listed in Section F. Can we use applicable DoD MMR projects in Section F to demonstrate qualifications for MEC/UXO activities? | Page 9 Section F Evaluation Method item c. | Yes, Experience can include Military Munitions Response (MMR) Services projects where MEC activities are performed in accordance with current DoD policies, including DOD Explosive Safety Board (DDESB) guidance. Synopsis updated. |
| 29 | Recommend Evaluation Method for Title II projects use a graduated rating scale. Title II work involves a wide range of complexity and mission impacts, and an Offeror’s qualifications should be rated beyond a simple scale of Acceptable/Unacceptable. For consistency with the other rating criteria, recommend keeping the same ranking system of "Outstanding/Very Good/Good/Satisfactory". | Page 8 Section G/Title II | The Air Force is satisfied with a pass/fail evaluation for Title II. No change to the Synopsis. |
| 30 | The ‘Business Relationships’ requirement for Criterion 1 and Criterion 2 aligns with firms that have mentor protégée relationships – this verbiage will limit competition to other Small Business firms. Will the government consider removing the ‘Business Relationships’ requirement when evaluating SF330 Sections E and F? | AEGUAM Synopsis - 070124 |
- B. Selection Criteria (page 5 of 11)
- Section F, Submission Requirement, paragraph 4 (page 6 of 11)
- Sections D and E, Submission Requirements, Evaluation Method (page 9 of 11)
| See Response to Question #1. | ||||
| 31 | What is the page limit for Section H? | AEGUAM Synopsis - 070124 | ||
| Section H, Submission Requirements (page 10 of 11) | Follow the page limit guidelines within each Criterion. | |||
| 32 | Could you please clarify whether a formal teaming agreement is required in the SF 330 submission if key personnel from the teaming partners will be utilized? The initial and last statements in the paragraph seem to be contradictory, and your guidance would be greatly appreciated. | PAGE 3 - If Teaming Partners are used for the primary disciplines identified in the SF 330, PART 1, SECTIONS D | Synopsis is correct. The Formal Teaming Arrangements are NOT required with submission of the SF330. IF your firm is selected as one of the Most Highly Qualified Firms and sent a Request for Proposal (RFP) (an RFP is different than this Synopsis request to submit an SF330), only then will you submit the Teaming Arrangements. | |
| 33 | Could you please clarify which positions, in addition to the Construction Inspector, will be required to be onsite for the entire duration of the project? | PAGE 6 - Proposed Team (1 page): In one page or less, the Offeror shall identify their proposed team, inclusive of | For purposes of the SF330 evaluation of the basic contract, we are only evaluating the Lead Construction Inspector. Requirements and subsequent Selection of Title II Services will be defined at the Task Order Level. For the Proposed Team narrative, only include the Disciplines identified in the narrative requirements. See updated Synopsis. | |
| 34 | Can UFC compliant Foreign Military Sales projects designed and constructed under the US Corps of Engineers agency considered equal to DoD? | A.2 Definitions page 4 paragraph 1 | Yes, But only if the project design followed DoD UFC Design Criteria. Project narratives need to be clear as to what design standards were utilized. Synopsis updated at Definition of a DoD Facillity. | |
| 35 | Please define the minimum qualifications required for the weapons safety expert. | Page 9 paragraph 1 Key Personnel list | Synopsis updated to change this Key Person to a "Lead Ordnance Specialist". Specific qualifications are included in the revised synopsis. |
| UPDATE: THIS KEY PERSON REMOVED FROM SYNOPSIS. | |||
| 36 | The submission requirements for the knowledge of locality state that the "narrative, not to exceed pages,", but it does not provide a page count. Please specify the page limit. | Page 10 paragraph 1 | Synopsis updated. |
| 37 | Prime Offerors and Teaming Partners have a limit of two teams they can submit as either prime or subs. Please confirm this only applies to the eight disciplines listed and that companies with services like cost estimating, surveying, planning, cyber security, interior design, geotechnical, or other roles can support more than two teams? | Page 2 paragraph 6 | Confirmed. |
| 38 | Please define the minimum qualifications required for the weapons safety expert. | N/A | Synopsis updated to change this Key Person to a "Lead Ordnance Specialist". Specific qualifications are included in the revised synopsis. |
| UPDATE: THIS KEY PERSON REMOVED FROM SYNOPSIS. | |||||
| 39 | a. Please advise of the page limitations for Section H. b. Please advise of the page limitations for the SF330 Part I and Part II proposal response. | N/A | Page Limitations are defined within each Criterion. | ||
| 40 | Please advise if Part I and Part II are to be combined into a single .pdf document. | N/A | Yes, Combine Parts I and II into a Single pdf document. Synopsis updated. | ||
| 41 | Does Section SF 330, SECTION H, CRITERION (3) KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOCALITY – have a page limit? | SECTION H, CRITERION (3) KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOCALITY | Yes. Synopsis updated. | ||
| 42 | The solicitation limits consultants to 2 teams. Due to the small market in Guam and the limited number of consultants that support the Guam market, limiting teams from brining in the available local knowledgeable consultant firms may cause undue cost and time impacts on contracts awarded. We request that this limit of consultants be removed from the solicitation. This also will ensure that the local engineering firms are able to participate on more teams creating additional opportunities for them to win work that ultimately is in their specific market and area of expertise. | PG 2 - PRIME OFFEROR SUBMISSION AND USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS: | See Response to Question #7. | ||
| THE QUESTIONS BELOW WERE SUBMITTED AFTER INDUSTRY DAY WAS HELD. | |||||
| 43 | Please advise if the Section D organizational chart can be placed on a 11x17 sheet. | SF 330, PART 1, SECTIONS D AND E, CRITERION (2) PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS | |||
| SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: | Yes. Synopsis updated on previous draft and remains unchanged. | ||||
| 44 | Please confirm the maximum number of projects allowed for each Section E resume, we may have misunderstood at the forum on August 1st indicated a maximum of ten projects are allowable per resume, which conflicts with the draft RFP which states a maximum of five projects are allowed. | Resumes shall be limited to 5 projects per key person. Only submit one resume per position. | |||
| 45 | Please confirm Outstanding rating for Knowledge of Locality required JRM experience outside Guam | Confirmed. | |||
| 46 | Lead ordinance specialist MEC is not be a key discipline requiring a resume; while this is a requirement for portions of AE services (e.g. site survey/geotech), it is more critical to GCs as you get into project execution; these capabilities can be brought on where needed for AE services & not the key discipline discriminator that warrants resume. | This Key Person is removed from the synopsis. However, note that Criterion 1 will now include submission of a design project where the design team (Prime or Teaming Partner) were required to follow MEC procedures when performing the design (can be on a design-only contract/task order, or a design-build contract/task order). If you propose a teaming partner that specializes in MEC procedures, that firm can team with any number of Prime Offerors on this synopsis (they are not limited to participating on two SF330s). | |||
| 47 | Please consider the Communications Specialist could be RCDD vs the IT/network system operator | Communications Specialist removed. See revised synopsis. | |||
| 48 | Please confirm if the Title II is included in the 2-Team limit | Confirmed. No change to the synopsis. | |||
| 49 | Will additional consideration be given to firms or resumes with Secret or Top Secret clearance | No. | |||
| 50 | I would like to offer the following comment/recommendation regarding the draft statement that says “..a firm may propose as a to no more than TWO (2) Prime Offerors..” |
For a contract this size, most if not all Prime Offerors will include on their team two (2) or more firms for each of the disciplines to be proposed. This redundancy for larger MATOCs is crucial since it allows each Prime Offeror ability to select who will either has the best credentials to respond to a task order RFP or who has the capacity at that specific time to do the intended work.
Our experience has been the team selected in response of a task order RFP will weigh heavily primarily on the experience for that type of RFP on the Prime Consultant.
For these reasons, in order to provide maximum participation especially for small business teaming partners, we would recommend the current restriction not apply to small business teaming partners for any discipline. Essentially, this would allow any small business firm for any discipline(s) to be a teaming partner on more than two teams.
This would allow for maximum small business participation on this contract.
Please note that we are a large business and this potential revision does not affect us in any way for this intended small business MATOC.
| Your consideration would be deeply appreciated. | Paragraph “PRIME OFFEROR SUBMISSION AND USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS: | See synopsis for updates to teaming partner relationships and requirement to use who you propose for each discipline at the TO level. | |
| 51 | On page 7 within the Projects Experienced section, third paragraph, it states that applicants must have Title I projects including at least four MILCON planning or design work projects. |
We believe that is overly restrictive because the Air Force has not done a MILCON project in over 10 years, nor is there any contractors that we know of who is a small business, that could say they have done 4 MILCON projects within the last 10 years because MILCON projects are normally over $10 million each.
Therefore we believe it’s overly restrictive and not relative to capabilities of current small businesses. We request that this requirement be removed. On page 7 within the Projects Experienced section, third paragraph While the Air Force has not executed a large number of MILCON projects, both NAVFAC and USACE have done so. Projects do not need to be for Air Force.
The Air Force will be executing a large number of MILCON planning and conceptual design projects at Andersen AFB over the next several years, and thus it is imperative that we have firms with MILCON experience. The sources sought responses confirmed that SB firms have MILCON experience. No change to the synopsis.
| 52 | 1. | Lead ordnance specialist – consider removing from key personnel. As discussed on the call, this type of personnel is not used extensively during design. A drilling sub-consultant or survey team might need this expertise on the team, but the main design team does not normally use this expertise. When it is required within a task order, we certainly will use this type of personnel. | Key Person removed from the synopsis. | |||
| 53 | 2. | Lead communications specialist – consider a separate cybersecurity specialist key personnel qualification. As discussed on the call, the qualifications in the Draft Synopsis were more for a cybersecurity specialist. Security+ and CISSP are cybersecurity credentials. Another option is to not list cybersecurity specialist as key personnel. Cybersecurity is incredibly important; however, most designs for facilities include systems that will tie into an existing system. For example, a renovated building will get new a building automation system that integrates into an existing basewide EMCS that should already be secured. Another example is adding a water tower to an existing basewide SCADA that should already be secured. Cybersecurity is an extensive effort when a new system is installed/established. New basewide EMCS, SCADA, ICS, etc. are examples of systems needing large efforts. During the design phase, Cybersecurity is important as part of the RMF process with AFCEC, but it requires much more involvement during installation because that is when you have details on devices, configurations, scans, etc. Design phase normally provides schematics, and the construction/installation phase provides details that are submitted as shop drawings and cut sheets. | ||||
| a. | As discussed on the call the specific qualifications for a comm specialist we recommend is RCDD (Registered Communications Distribution Designer). | Key Personnel | Key Person removed from the synopsis. | |||
| 54 | 3. | Lead controls engineer – Draft Synopsis references an electrical engineer and SCADA. When SCADA systems are used to control water production and distribution systems, they can be led by a mechanical engineer. For EMCSs and building HVAC controls, mechanical engineers normally are the controls engineers. We recommend considering to not specify a discipline (electrical, mechanical) for this qualification. | ||||
| a. | Another option is not listing this as key personnel. Design of SCADA devices or building controls includes schematics and sequence of operations, while the construction/installation phase will provide detailed shop drawings and cut sheets. The construction/installation phase also will coordinate closely with cybersecurity during the authority-to-operate process. | Key Personnel | Synopsis updated to allow any engineering discipline to serve in this role. "Electrical Engineer" changed to "licensed engineer". | |||
| 55 | Part II’s – Can you confirm that multiple Part II’s can meet these numbers from the Table 1? We want to confirm that it is not expected that one Part II (from one company) should have all the disciplines shown in Table 1. | Page 12 SF 330, PART II, BLOCK 9, CRITERION (4) CAPACITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK | Confirmed. The Part II's from the Prime and each Teaming Partner can be used to meet the Capacity requirement. | |||
| 56 | ||||||
| 57 | ||||||
| 58 | ||||||
| 59 | ||||||
| 60 | ||||||
| 61 | ||||||
| 62 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .