Question and Answers 3-10.pdf
PDF 106 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Architecture and Engineering IDIQ - Edwards AFB
- Solicitation number
- FA930126R0004
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document dated 3/10/26 addressing evaluation criteria for a Total Small Business Set-Aside procurement under an Architectural NAICS code.
The document addresses a specific inquiry regarding the "Highly Qualified" rating under Criterion 1 and whether primary disciplines must be maintained as in-house staff at the prime firm level or if they may be provided through committed consultant partners. The Government's response clarifies that the requirement for in-house staffing of primary disciplines is intentional. By mandating that core expertise be provided by direct employees of the prime firm rather than subcontractors or consultant partners, the Government achieves greater assurance of quality control and team stability, ensuring that the expertise presented in the proposal will be consistently dedicated to the project throughout performance. The Government acknowledges that if no small business can meet this stringent requirement, all offerors will operate on a similar competitive basis, elevating the importance of other evaluation criteria in the selection process. The overarching objective is to ensure high levels of performance and accountability on the contract.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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
Question and Answers 3/10/26
• The Government’s previous response indicates that the requirement for a “Highly Qualified” rating under Criterion 1 will remain limited to firms that maintain separate in-house staff for each of the listed primary disciplines. Given that this procurement is issued as a Total Small Business Set-Aside under an Architectural NAICS code, and that multidisciplinary A-E teams commonly include specialized engineering consultants identified in the SF330, could the Government clarify the basis for requiring these disciplines to be maintained as in-house staff at the prime firm level in order to achieve the “Highly Qualified” rating? Specifically, is the Government’s intent that firms whose teams include the required disciplines through committed consultant partners will be inherently less competitive in the evaluation under Criterion 1 than firms maintaining those disciplines as direct employees? Understanding this intent will help potential offerors determine whether their team structure aligns with the Government’s evaluation approach and whether participation in this procurement is appropriate.
o By mandating that the primary disciplines be staffed by direct employees of the prime firm, the government gains greater assurance of quality control and team stability. It ensures that the core expertise presented in the proposal is the same expertise that will be dedicated to the project from start to finish. This gives the government confidence that the team they evaluated and selected is the team that will actually perform the work.
o If no small business can meet this stringent in-house requirement, it effectively means that all offerors will be evaluated on a similar playing field in that regard, and other evaluation criteria will become more critical in the selection process.
The government's intent is to ensure a high level of performance and accountability on its contracts.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .