QnA Combined - 031524.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8903-AE24DORMS
About this file
This synopsis announces a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) solicitation for Architect-Engineering (A-E) Title I, Title II, and other A-E services primarily for Department of Defense (DoD) dormitory facilities worldwide. The Air Force Installation Contracting Center and Air Force Civil Engineer Center seek to award an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity MATOC to three to five small businesses, with a $49 million ceiling shared among awardees. The ordering period consists of a three-year base and two-year option. Task orders will be firm-fixed price and negotiated, with labor rates incorporated into the basic contract. Offerors must submit Standard Form 330 responses by March 14, 2024 for consideration. Selection criteria in descending order are specialized experience and technical competence, professional qualifications, capacity to accomplish work, past performance, and knowledge of locality. The scope includes Title I and Title II design and construction support services for DoD dormitory renovations, repairs, and replacements globally.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| AE24DORMS Synopsis - 031524.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - QnA.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| PPQ USACE NAVFAC Standard - Copy.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/Paragraph Reference: | Air Force Response |
| 1 | Is “Teaming Partner” considered a subconsultant to the Prime or JV? Or does this refer to a JV Partner? If it is a subconsultant, then that would require EVERY sub to be in an exclusive teaming arrangement to include Geotech, cost estimators, etc which isn’t typical. | “PRIME OFFEROR SUBMISSION AND USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS: A Firm shall only propose one time – a Firm can either serve as a Prime Offeror, or as part of aJV-Prime Offeror, or as a Teaming Partner to another prime. A Firm cannot be part of a JV-Offeror and also submit as another Prime or Teaming Partner to another Prime. A Firm also cannot submit as a Teaming Partner to more than one Prime. Conversely, a Firm cannot propose as both a Prime and a Teaming Partner to another Prime. In the case where one Firm is represented on multiple SF330’s, the Offerors submitting those SF330’s may be excluded from evaluation/consideration. Where a Firm has affiliated, sister, and/or a parent companies within it’s overall organization, if any engineering resources are shared within, among, or across that organization, those individual companies are considered part of the same “Firm”, and thus shall not be part of more than one SF330.” | SEE UPDATED LANGUAGE IN THE SYNOPSIS: |
"THIS PARAGRAPH APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING DISCIPLINES/FIRM TYPES ONLY: Project Management, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Interior Design, Structural Engineering, and Title II Construction Support Services. A Firm specializing in and proposing to perform any of these disciplines on this resultant contract shall only propose one time"
Accordingly, the specialty disciplines identified in this synopsis, such as Fire Protection Engineering, Cost Estimating, and Scheduling, DO NOT REQUIRE EXCLUSIVITY. Furthermore, any engineering disciplines not specifically identified for submission in the selection criteria of this synopsis need NOT include a Teaming Arrangement, and DOES NOT require exclusivity (i.e. Cybersecurity, Geo-Technical services, etc).
| 2 | Can a relevant project include both Title I and Title II services? Or is a separate project that only includes Title II services required? | Project Experience (1 page per project): Offerors shall submit a minimum of two and up to five Title I and Title II project descriptions of relevant and completed projects (see definitions above), not to exceed one page per project, by the Prime Offeror. Each Offeror shall submit at least one project for Title I services and at least one project for Title II services. | A relevant project may include Title I and Title II services as along as the project meets the definitions of "project" and "relevant project." Clearly delineate the work / scoped performed for Title I and Title II Services to enable evaluation team to discern the work performed |
| 3 | Would a Title II project for a non-dormitory Air Force facility still be considered relevant for Section F? | "General Information:... These A-E Services for dormitory and vertical construction facilities include Title I, Title II, and other associated A-E services with a total contract ceiling of $49M, shared among all contract holders." and "Definitions:... "Project" defines work performed pursuant to ONE SPECIFIC TASK ORDER of an IDIQ type contract or a C-Type CONTRACT. This definition does not consider an IDIQ type of basic contract, in and of itself, as a project. A single, stand alone, site-specific contract represents another definition for "Project." For the purposes of this evaluation, a “project” means a Department of Defense (DoD) dormitory facility A-E project (not construction). “Project” also denotes the design portion of a Design-Build (DB) construction contract or task order where the Offeror (A-E firm) for this synopsis served as the designer of record (DOR) for the design package in the DB project where the Government accepted the 100% design in that DB effort." and "Relevant Project" includes Title I, Title II, and Other A-E services for DoD Dorm facilities meeting the definition of “project” above. The specific definitions of Title I, Title II, and Other A-E services are as follows: " | Yes, a Title II project for a non-dormitory Air Force facility may be considered relevant as long as the Title II services performed support a vertical construction project. Note the following update to the evaluation method within Criterion 1: |
"e. The greater the extent and breadth of experience performing Title II projects where the Offeror provided construction-phase credentialed architectural and engineering support services, the higher the rating that may be assigned, noting that Title II experience of Air Force Dormitories will provide greatest consideration, followed by DoD Dormitories, and then other vertical facility (building) construction (in that order.) While “other vertical facility construction” is not included in the definition of a ‘relevant’ project, for purposes of evaluating Title II experience, the Government will consider non-dormitory vertical facility (building) construction as well. Do not include projects for Title II services for civil/horizontal construction (roadways, paving, airfields, pipelines, electrical distribution, etc, as this type of work will not considered and thus will not contribute toward your rating.)
| 4 | Would it be feasible for the Government to commence answering questions before the deadline? We are committed to delivering a high quality and informed response and believe that early clarification would allow Offerors adequate time to tailor responses to meet AFCEC's needs. Thank you for considering our request. | No |
| 5 | Is is possible to get a list of the firms that responded to the Sources Sought back in July? | No |
| 6 | We are looking at having a subcontractor underneath us to help with the large amount of |
Structural Engineering needed and was wondering what percentage of our subcontract can we have others perform who are NOT SDB or SB while still maintaining the 100% SB/SDB credit for our subcontract amount to the General Contractor or our direct contract with the Government.
| We would be serving a Commercially Useful Function still and our subcontractor would be reporting to us and under our direction under our control. Please let me know what questions you have so I can provide the answer. | See Limitations in Subcontracting requirements identified in FAR Clause 52.219-14 (October 2022). Also note the narrative requirement identified in Criterion 1. | ||
| 7 | For the resumes required, can someone be used in more than one role if they meet the qualifications for both roles? | SF 330, PART 1, SECTIONS D AND E, CRITERION (2) PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS |
| SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: | An individual may serve in the role of no more than two disciplines if they hold the appropriate qualifications for those roles. Synopsis updated. | ||
| 8 | There is a requirement for a lead construction inspector. What will be the role of this person? Will this person be required to be onsite at all times during construction or would this person just need to be available as needed at the site to review construction at certain times as defined by the contracting officer? | SF 330, PART 1, SECTIONS D AND E, CRITERION (2) PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS |
| SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: | Each key person (including the Lead Construction Inspector) is responsible for the execution, management, and quality control of their specific area of expertise/discipline and must be assigned to each task order to oversee the work, with the Lead Project Manager responsible for overall Task Order management. Synopsis updated. | ||
| 9 | Regarding the SF330 Forms, it appears the current forms expire in a couple weeks, prior to the due date. Should we use | ||
| the current forms (linked below) or await new publications? | In accordance with OMB Control Number: 9000-0157, the Air Force acknowledges that the most recent SF330 expired on 2/29/2024. Accordingly, Offerors may choose to submit their SF330 in accordance with the expired version, or any latest, updated version, so long as submissions address each selection criteria identified in this synopsis. Synopsis revised. | ||
| 10 | Would the government consider expanding the Section F projects page limitation from 1 page to 2 pages to allow for more detailed project write-ups? | No. Limit each project description to one page. Use SF330 Section F, to capture project descriptions. | |
| 11 | Can the same project example be considered relevant for both Title I and Title II |
services? And if so, can these examples be allowed to have up to two pages to adequately
| describe the services provided? | PROJECT EXPERIENCE |
| “Each Offeror shall submit at least one project for Title I services and at least one project for Title II services.” | A relevant project may include Title I and Title II services as along as the project meets the definitions of "project" and "relevant project." |
If a project includes both Title I and Title II services, you may treat each action separately, so describe the Title I services as one project with a maximum of one page, and the Title II services as a separate project with its own maximum of one page. Synopsis revised.
| 12 | Will you be publishing everyone’s questions with answers? | Yes | |
| 13 | “System Commissioning is listed in the definition of Title I Services. Typically, commissioning is performed by a third party independent of the Title I or Title II services performed by the design team. Is the system commissioning limited to the generation of specifications for the requirements of the commissioning of a task order, or is a commissioning plan and | ||
| other commissioning services required to be part of the Title I services?” | The Government limits system commissioning to the generation of appropriate commissioning specifications (Title I Services). |
Note that the question appears irrelevant to the selection criteria submission requirements and evaluation method.
14 For the various narrative requests including Proposed Team, Experience with LCCA, and Management of schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business Relationships, is there a
| particular order we should submit these in relation to the two-five project descriptions? | Section: SF 330, PART 1, SECTION F, CRITERION (1) SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE ANDTECHNICAL |
| COMPETENCE | Provide narrative submissions for Criterion 1 in Section H. Synopsis revised. |
(Project descriptions will still go in Section F).
15 Solicitation states to submit CPARS and PPQs “in the same email transmittal as the SF330…” Does this infer that we should not include the PPQs and CPARS within the primary
| SF330? And if so, do you prefer the PPQs and CPARS to be submitted as one PDF or separate? | Section: SF 330, PART 1, SECTION H, CRITERION (4) PAST PERFORMANCE | All PPQs/CPARS should be combined into a single pdf document. The SF330 should be its own separate pdf document. Include both documents in the same email or DoD SAFE transmission. Synopsis updated. | ||
| 16 | Please explain why experience under a USAF BPA is preferable to identical experience under a USAF IDIQ? Processes and procedures to execute a task order and to execute the work are identical. We request that this arbitrary evaluation criteria be eliminated from the Evaluation Method. | Criterion 1, Under the Evaluation Method, the RFP states: Offerors that demonstrate Title I services associated with AF Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA) for FF&E packages for any type of AF facility – required by UFC 3-120-10 Interior Design and UFGS 12 00 01.00 20 Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment, the higher the rating that may be assigned. | The use of USAF Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) is required by UFC 3-120-10 and UFGS 12 00 01.00. As such, The AF mandates use of specific AF BPA's for ordering of furniture and equipment. Accordingly, AE firms must design to the FF&E available on those BPA's, and the resultant construction contractors must then purchase the FF&E using those AF BPA's. As such, AE firms familiar with the AF BPA's will be of less risk to the AF in executing their designs, and thus may receive a higher rating for that specific experience, as identified in the selection criteria evaluation method. | |
| 17 | There is no language in the solicitation requiring offerors to submit Part II of the SF 330 form. Please clarify if we are to submit SF 330 Part IIs for our team with the submittal. | The SF330 Part II is not a requirement for this synopsis. Synopsis updated. | ||
| 18 | Please provide guidance on requirements for SF330 Part I, sections A-C | Please reference SF330 Specific Instructions for Section A, Contract Information, Section B, Architect-Engineer Point of Contact, and Section C, Section C. Proposed Team. |
Ensure the information provided in the SF330 PART 1, SECTION C, directly aligns with the information provided in your response to Selection Criterion 1, proposed team narrative in Section H).
| 19 | Please provide guidance on requirements for SF330 Part I, section G | Please reference SF330 Specific Instructions for Section G, Key Personnel Participation in Example Projects. | |
| 20 | Please provide guidance on requirements for SF330 Part II | The SF330 Part II is not a requirement for this synopsis. Synopsis updated. | |
| 21 | For Section H Past Performance, is a narrative expected in addition to client POCs and PPQ or CPARS? If so, what is page limitation? | Anouncement Section H, Criterion (4) Past Performance | No narrative is required in Section H, Past Performance. Ensure client POC's are provided for each project submitted in Criterion 1. |
| 22 | Are offerors allowed to submit the SF330 and Past Performance information as two separate emails to stay under 8MB per email? | Anouncement Section H, Criterion (4) Past Performance | All PPQs/CPARS should be combined into a single pdf document. The SF330 should be its own separate pdf document. Include both documents in the same email or DoD SAFE transmission. If the email is expected to exceed 8MB, contact the CO and CS AT LEAST TWO DAYS prior to the due date to coordinate an effective submission methodology (a DoD SAFE Link). Synopsis updated. |
| 23 | Are airman lodging facilities considered equivalent to dormitories in terms of relevant experience? | The Government maintains the following defintions for Department of Defense (DoD) and Air Force dormitory facilities: "Department of Defense (DoD) dormitory facilities" includes dormitory facilities located on a United States DoD installation (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force, Air National Guard, or Air Force Reserve bases). This definition does not include facilities on a Coast Guard base, NASA location, or other federal, commercial, or private facility. DoD dormitory facilities include those components included in the Air Force Category Code 721312. “Air Force dormitory facilities” follow the same definition as “DoD dormitory facilities,” except that the facilities are exclusive to the Air Force." | |
| 24 | The submission requirement states that this section must describe the PRIME’s experience. Can the Offeror include its teaming partners' experience and locality knowledge in their narrative? | Anouncement Section H, Criterion (5) Knowledge of the Locality | Yes, Teaming Partner experience will be considered. See revision in the synopsis and note the application of strength of relationship with any applicable Teaming Partners. |
| 25 | Please confirm the Government wants to see FF&E, LCCA, Proposed Team, and Management of Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business Relationships narratives in Section F as opposed to Section H | Announcement Section F, Criterion (1) Specialized Experience and Technical Competence | Provide all required narratives from Selection Criterion 1 (Proposed Team, FF&E, LCCA, and Management of Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business Relationships) in Section H. Synopsis updated. |
| 26 | "Completed projects" are defined as projects finished within the past 10 years. In another section CPARS for submitted projects must be completed within the Past five (5) years. Request one or the other be changed for consistency | Announcement Definitions and Section H, Criterion (4) Past Performance | The Past Performance Criterion requires the Offeror to submit a CPARS or PPQ for each project submitted in Criterion 1, which allows projects completed within 10 years. The Government may *also* evaluate other relevant CPARS that we may pull from the PPIRS system, but if we do, we will only go back 5 years. Language clarified in the synopsis. |
| 27 | Please confirm that all the requirements that follow NOTICE OF SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSE TO INITIAL DORM DESIGN TASK ORDERS are intended for the Most Highly Qualified firms and should not be submitted in the initial SF330 | NOTICE OF SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSE TO INITIAL DORM DESIGN TASK ORDERS | Confirmed. DO NOT provide a response to this section in the SF330 submittal. This section is to provide general information for Offerors selected as the Most Highly Qualfied to be prepared to respond to Request For Qualifications (RFQs) for initial task orders projects for FY24/FY25. |
| 28 | Instructions appear inconsistent between Section F and Sections D and E. Section F is limited to projects by the Prime Offerer, while Section E may include resumes from Teaming Partners. Request the ability to use Team Partner projects in Section F, albeit at a lower consideration than projects performed by the Prime Offerer. This would give the Offerer the option to tie more resume experience to Section F projects. | Section F, Project Experience, "Offerers shall submit … project descriptions … by Prime Offerer." |
Section E, Sections D and E, Criterion (2) Professional Qualifications; Submission Requirements: proposed key personnel shallen be current active employees of their respective firm (Prime or Teaming Partner..." SF330 Section D captures the organizational chart - an 11x17 format acceptable for the organizational chart.
Use SF330 Section E to provide project examples that support the proposed key personnel in a specific role.
Use SF330 Section F to provide project examples by the Prime Offeror and/or its teaming partners.
29 Section F appears prejudicial towards smaller teams. Request this statement be modified or removed so the Offerer can present the team it feels is best able to succesfully deliver the necessary services while also meeting FAR 52.219-14 requirements. Many SBs are experienced in and adept at meeting the SB self-performance requirements, and these SBs should be allowed to present their management approach in the SF330 for equal Government consideration. Section F, Evaluation Method, "Note that the government considers that the larger the number of team partners used, the higher the risk of unsuccessful control and coordination by the Prime" Offerors are allowed to propose in any manner they feel best represents their Team. The statement, however, remains accurate.
For Criterion 1 Proposed Team Narrative (now submitting in Section H), only identify Prime and Teaming Parnters identified for the diciplines specified in that section. Do not include other diciplines or identify other consultants/sub-consultants except those diciplines specified in this section.
For reference, refer to section on Prime Offeror Submission and Use of Teaming Partners on page 2-3 of synopsis.
Also see response to question 1.
30 Please clarify if projects and past performance will be assessed over a 5-year or a 10-year period. The instructions list both time periods. If the instructions are correct as provided, should Offerers provide performance reports for projects completed in the past 6 - 10 years? Definitions: "Completed Project means the firm finsihed the task order for design and/or construction support services with the past ten years".
| Section H, Criterion (4) Past Performance, Submission Requirements: "the Government may consider … CPARS … for any relevant project compelted by the Prime within the past five (5 ) years" | The Past Performance Criterion requires the Offeror to submit a CPARS or PPQ for each project submitted in Criterion 1, which allows projects completed within 10 years. The Government may *also* evaluate other relevant CPARS that we may pull from the PPIRS system, but if we do, we will only go back 5 years. Language clarified in the synopsis. | |||
| 31 | Please clarify how this provision complies with 13 CFR 121.103 (b)(2) regarding Tribally Owned, Alaska Native Corporations, and Native Hawaiian Organizations. Typically, a tribally owned entity may draw from the experience of sister companies if they will have meaningful involvement in project execution. However, this provision does not imply affliliation and, in an effort to maximze competition, sister companies are often allowed to pursue an opportunity and seperate and distinct entities. | General Information; Prime Offeror and Use of Team Partners "Where a Firm has affiliated, sister, and/or a parent companies within it's overall organization, if any engineer resources are shared within, among, or across the origanization, those individual companies are considered part of the same "Firm" and thus shall not be part of more than one SF330. | A Prime can use experience from an affiliated firm. However, that Affiliate cannot then duplicate their own experience (or that of the Prime Offeror) in a separate Prime Offeror SF330, or as a Teaming Partner to another Prime's SF330. Affiliate experience is acceptable for a Prime, so long as that Prime and/or its Affliliate don't also submit as part of another Offeror's SF330. Alternatively, your firm's Affiliate can provide its own SF330, but then cannot use your firm's experience if you also submit as a Prime or Teaming Partner. | |
| 32 | Will the Government amend the definition of "Air Force" and "DoD Dorm Facilities" to include Air Force Category Codes 721311, 721313, 721314, 721315, 721316, 721321, 721322, 721421, 723610, 724415, 724417, & 730771? | RFP Definitions, "Air Force" and "DoD Dorm Facilities" | The Government maintains the following defintions for Department of Defense (DoD) and Air Force dormitory facilities: "Department of Defense (DoD) dormitory facilities" includes dormitory facilities located on a United States DoD installation (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force, Air National Guard, or Air Force Reserve bases). This definition does not include facilities on a Coast Guard base, NASA location, or other federal, commercial, or private facility. DoD dormitory facilities include those components included in the Air Force Category Code 721312. “Air Force dormitory facilities” follow the same definition as “DoD dormitory facilities,” except that the facilities are exclusive to the Air Force." | |
| 33 | Will the Government extend the definition of "Completed Projects" period of performance to the past 15 years?" | RFP Definitions, "Completed Projects" | No, the Government will not expand the "Completed Projects" definition to the past 15 years. Definition of "Completed Projects shall remain as defined in the Synopsis. | |
| 34 | Will the Government allow current/on-going project experience if the design in <50% completed? | No, the Government will not allow current/on-going project experience if the design <50% completed. Definition of "Completed Projects shall remain as defined in the Synopsis. | ||
| 35 | Can the Construction Inspector's 10-years' & 3-years' on site experience include non-DoD projects? | RFP Definitions | The Construction Inspector (Title II) must demonstrate at least 10 years of experience in the construction industry, to include at least 3 years of experience performing DoD construction projects as an on-site Quality Control Manager, onsite Construction Manager, or an onsite Project Engineer. Synopsis updated. | |
| 36 | Please confirm that there is no overall submission page limitt. | There is no overall submission page limit. Individual Selection Criterion have page limitations identified in synopsis. | ||
| 37 | Please confirm that Section D (Org Chart) can be submitted in 11x17 format. | Yes, an 11x17 format acceptable for the organizational chart associated with SF 330 Section D. | ||
| 38 | Please confirm if Part Iis are required? If yes, should they be submitted as part of the SF-330 email or under separate cover similar to the CPARS/PPQs? | SF330 Part II is not required for this synopsis. Synopsis updated. | ||
| 39 | Can we submit more than 1 resume for the Key Personnel specified? | SF-330 Part 1, Sections D & E, Criterion (2) Professional Qualifications | No. Identify only one individual to serve as your Lead for each position. | |
| 40 | Can we submit resumes for roles other than those Criterion 2 such as Cost Estimators, Schedulers, Fire Protection, Geotech, Environmental, & Hazardous Materials Engineering? | SF-330 Part 1, Sections D & E, Criterion (2) Professional Qualifications | Only provide resumes for Lead Personnel identified in Selection Criterion 2. The Government will only evaluate the key personnel specified. |
Where applicable, the Government reserves the right to request resumes for other disciplines such as Cost Estimators, Schedulers, Geotech, Environmental, and Hazardous Materials at the task order level.
| 41 | Should responses to the Initial Dorm Design Task Orders be included as part of Section H? | Notice of Submission Requirements for Response to Initial Dorm Design Task Orders | DO NOT provide a response to this section in the SF330 submittal. This section is to provide general information for Offerors selected as the Most Highly Qualfied to be prepared to respond to Request For Qualifications (RFQs) for initial task orders projects for FY24/FY25. |
| 42 | Please confirmj that responses to the Initial Dorm Design Task Orders consist of 2 pages per installation/task order (max 8 pages) outlining Knowledge of Locality (1 pg) and Capacity (1 pg). | Notice of Submission Requirements for Response to Initial Dorm Design Task Orders | DO NOT provide a response to this section in the SF330 submittal. |
A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THESE PROJECTS WILL BE SENT OUT TO THE FIRMS SELECTED AS THE MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED.
For EACH LOCATION to which your firm has interest (IF SELECTED as a MHQ firm), you will have one page to describe your knowledge of locality and one page to describe your capacity.
| 43 | Will the Government kindly extend the submission due date/time to a minimum of 14 days after all RFI responses are posted? | SF330 due date is updated to 1400 on Monday, March 25 at 1400 Central Time. | |
| 44 | Can the Government please confirm that portions of Criterion 1 , specifically the 2 pages for "Proposed Team", 1 page for "Experience with LCCA", 1 page for "Experience with FF&E", and 3 pages for Management of Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business Relationships" belong in Section H and not in Section F of the SF 330. | Selection Criteria: |
SF 330, Part 1, Section F, Criterion (1) Submission Requirements Provide all narrative submissions for Criterion 1 in Section H. Synopsis revised.
(Project descriptions will still go in Section F).
45 QUESTION: Should the proposed team be identified as part of the SF 330, Section D for the organizational chart? On page 7, the solicitation identifies the need for an organizationa chart.
This section of the solicitation states, "In one page or less, the Offeror shall identify their proposed team, inclusive of the Prime Contractor and any teaming partners required to perform work under the resultant contract, to include the size status of each Teaming Partner (SB or Other than SB, in accordance with NAICS 541330):. For each of the following Disciplines, identify the name of the firm that is proposed to perform those services: Project Management, Construction Inspection (On-site Title II), Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Interior Design, Structural Engineering, Fire Protection Engineering, Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), Fixed Furniture and Equipment (FF&E) design services, Construction Cost Estimating, and Construction Schedule Development/Analysis." Solicitation - SF 330, Part I, Section F, (p. 5) Yes, an 11x17 format acceptable for the organizational chart associated with SF 330 Section D.
Also complete Section C, and ensure it aligns directly to the "Proposed Team" narrative required in Criterion 1 (that now goes in Section H). Synopsis revised.
46 QUESTION: Should SF 330, Section F, identify past project experience only as per the template? Solicitation - SF 330, Part I, Section F, (p. 5) Section F is to be used for Project Samples/descriptions required by Criterion 1.
All Criterion 1 Narratives go into Section H. Synopsis revised.
| 47 | QUESTION: Should the second page that requests a narrative entitled "Compliance with FAR 52.219-14" be requested under SF 330, Section H? | Solicitation - SF 330, Part I, Section F, (p. 5) | Yes. All Criterion 1 Narratives go into Section H. Synopsis revised. |
| 48 | Would the government consider expanding the Section F projects page limitation from 1 page to 2 pages to allow for more detailed project write-ups? | Project Experience-Received 2/26 at 14:44 | No. |
| 49 | Would the government consider extending the due date 1 week, to March 21? | General Information- Received 2/26 at 14:44 | Yes. SF330 due date revised to Monday, March 25 at 1400 Central Time. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .