FARM III Draft RFP Atch B RFI 2 Questions and Answers.pdf

Q# Question Response 1 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: How were the Element Weight

Factors developed for the scoring matrix provided as Request for Information (RFI) 2 Atch 1? Are they based upon the planned work associated with FARM III or the major upcoming needs at AEDC?

The weight factors for the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) Scoring Matrix are based on both expectations to execute similar work in the coming years as well as items that have proven difficult to execute in recent years.

2 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: In the Offeror Proposed Self-Score Point Column is the intent to input a number (i.e.,1-4, 1-5) in each row that we have work samples or are we supposed to input the work sample identifier (i.e., WS1-WS20)?

In the Section L Attachment L-4 FARM III Scoring Matrix, Offerors shall input a number (e.g., 1-4 for rows 8-17) in Column D titled "Offeror Self-Proposed Score Points" that represents the number of work samples referenced for each element. Specific work samples that are used to self-assign points for each element are to be identified in the Section L Attachment L-3, Cross Reference Matrix.

3 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: For each subcategory there is a Maximum Self-Score Points, however; it was unclear on how we score ourselves. Can the Government provide clarity on how offerors self-score?

Numbers are assigned by the Offeror according to the number of work samples provided in the proposal that demonstrate experience with a particular element. For example, if an Offeror wants to use three work samples to demonstrate experience working with large pressure vessels (≥ 2000psig; ≥ 10K gallons), the Offeror would enter "3" in cell D10. If an Offeror wants to use one work sample to demonstrate experience with large pressure vessels, the Offeror would enter "1" in cell D10.

4 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: The elements and categories do not exactly map with those listed under ‘Mechanical’ in the Draft Statement of Work (SOW) dated 4 Dec 25 on pages 2-3. Was this purposeful or are they supposed to match?

The element weights and categories for the HTRO Scoring Matrix were developed based off of the major capabilities listed in the FARM III Draft SOW pages 2-3. The Government deliberately specified descriptors for each subcategory that would represent more challenging efforts and that could be objectively quantified.

5 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: The elements and categories do not align with those listed under ‘Electrical’ in the Draft SOW dated 4 Dec 25 on page 3. Was this purposeful or are they supposed to match?

Please see response to Q4.

FARM III

FA9101-26-R-B011

Draft RFP Cover Letter Attachment B

6 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: Section 1.3 does not appear in the Draft SOW dated 4 Dec 25 as the others do on page 3. Was this omission intentional?

The Facility Renovations section of the HTRO Scoring Matrix was developed based on the nature of work covered by the FARM III SOW and similar work that has been regularly accomplished via FARM task orders (TOs) in the past.

7 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: Currently, the design element in Section 1.4 carries the lowest weight, despite the fact that numerous TOs involve substantial design work across all three identified TO types. Should this element receive a higher rating, as inadequate design could lead to project failure?

The updated HTRO Scoring Matrix, provided with the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) as Atch 6_L-4, has been revised to increase the Weight Factor for "Total number of design and construction services on a single contract/TO" from 1 to 3.

8 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: Would the Government consider creating a separate scoring element dedicated solely to design?

We believe your intent is to recognize industry’s strong capability in delivering high quality designs, especially for solutions which have greater complexity requiring innovative technical considerations.

As stated in Section 1.2 of the Draft SOW dated 19 Feb 26, the types of FARM III projects "generally include the Design/Build, Construction, and Two-Phase Design/Build…".

As the FARM contract vehicle is not typically used for "design only" efforts, the HTRO Scoring Matrix does not include a separate scoring category dedicated solely to design.

9 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: Section 1.4 mentions project management, development, and design. Could an element be added for developing project requirements that lead to design and build efforts? This would tie in with the Two-Phase Design Build approach.

As FARM III is intended to be utilized to acquire project design and construction services, as opposed to a requirements development effort, the Government does not intend to add a requirements development category to the HTRO Scoring Matrix.

FARM III

10 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 1.2: Can work samples be submitted where the company performed the majority of the work but was not the prime on the contract? We have several projects where we have teamed with other entities serving as the prime to satisfy contractual obligations, but we have performed the majority of the work.

The Work Sample Qualifications description provided in Section L-3.2.1.2 of the Draft RFP Atch 6 has been updated to reflect that work samples can be used where the Offeror performed work as a subcontractor, provided that as the subcontractor, they were responsible for the work described in the Scoring Matrix criterion. For example, if an Offeror was a subcontractor on an effort that required installing air ducting >36 inches diameter and 150 psig and they were subcontracted to perform that work, they could use that as a work sample for M1 on the HTRO Scoring Matrix. However, if an Offeror was a subcontractor on that same effort but was not responsible for the air ducting installation, they could not use that as a work sample.

11 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 1.2: Can the five-year work completion be expanded on efforts that are deemed more complex and relating to test facilities? Due to the limited nature of that work, efforts may only be performed every decade and the five-year window may limit the ability to show relevant work samples.

In an effort to keep the HTRO Scoring Matrix criteria as objective as possible, there will be no criteria that would open up the possibility of determining "levels of complexity."

Likewise, including a criterion related to executing work in test facilities would likely introduce a subjective element, where the Government would have to determine whether the work sample involved test facilities similar to AEDC's. Also, the Government cannot include a criterion specific to executing work in AEDC test facilities, as that would introduce issues with unfair competitive advantage. The five-year work completion requirement will apply to all work samples submitted.

FARM III

12 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 1.2: We understand the need for applicable work samples from Department of Defense (DoD) installations. Can an additional category be added that qualifies sample work on other Government installations such as National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE), and other federal installations that utilize either Unified Facilities Criteria guidance or other government criteria to conduct work that is more stringent than criteria used in non-federal work?

In an effort to keep the HTRO Scoring Matrix criteria as objective as possible, the HTRO Scoring Matrix section

3.2.2.4 and associated Section L-3.2.2.4 instructions will relate to DoD installations only.

13 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 2: As noted above, can additional categories be added to reflect other potential work samples that would support AEDC’s mission including complex design build efforts and test facility modifications and renovations? We believe these categories would fit in well as additional work samples for consideration.

Please see response to Q11.

14 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 2.2: The electrical systems noted in the scoring matrix do not match the system noted in the SOW. Is this intentional? Additionally, the Instrumentation, Data, and Controls (ID&C) categories are not in the scoring matrix.

Please see response to Q4.

15 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 2.3: Could additional categories be added to reflect on mission critical renovations and upgrades for test facilities?

Please see response to Q11.

16 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 2.4: Would you consider adding DoD or NASA Installations or other federal facilities such as DOE and NASA?

Please see response to Q12.

FARM III

17 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 2.4: To earn three points, a construction work sample must have a value of at least $31M.

Does this requirement apply to each individual work sample we submit, or only to the combined ‘Total dollar value of construction services projects supporting DoD Installations’ section of the matrix?

Each work sample submitted for the HTRO Scoring Matrix Sections 3.2.2.1-3.2.2.3 will earn either one, two, or three points based off its dollar value. The total score for Section

3.2.2.4 is the sum of those points. Consider the following scenario: An Offeror has 20 work samples. WS1-WS18 all have values greater than $31M, therefore representing 18 samples worth 3 points each, resulting in 54 points. WS19 is valued at $12M, which would be worth 2 points. WS20 is valued at $250K, which would be worth 1 point. The total that should be input into cell D34 would be 57.

18 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 2.5: While this criteria supports and benefits efforts that include design and engineering, the maximum points allowed are only 1,000, and the weighted element score of 50 significantly limits its impact on the overall score. Would the Government consider increasing the weight of this element to place greater emphasis on design work?

Please see response to Q7.

19 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 2.6: The current Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPAR) ratings and bonus structure appear to favor traditional Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) engineering work, without providing additional credit for design/build or test facility projects. In line with previous requests for expanded categories, would the Government consider adding bonus points for work performed on test facilities, similar to those provided for building renovations?

The CPARS section of the HTRO Scoring Matrix can only reference work samples that have been submitted for Sections 3.2.2.1-3.2.2.3. Please see response to Q11 regarding criteria specific to test facilities.

20 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 6: Could the roadmap referenced be included as an appendix to the proposal without counting toward the page limit, or would it be considered part of the page count?

Page limits for the elements of each proposal volume are defined in Section L-2.3.1.1 of the Draft RFP Atch 6. The Organizational Structure Change History "roadmap" does not have a page limitation.

FARM III

21 Reference Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 Dec 25, Section 1.2:

The major capabilities listed in the SOW do not match directly with the Categories found in the HTRO scoring matrix. Is this intentional and can be considered to indicate categories that the Government feels are more important for the FARM III contractors to hold?

Please see response to Q4.

22 Reference Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 Dec 25, Section 2.4:

We understand the importance of the scheduling process and coordination of the required outages. Does the Government typically have outage windows identified for the TOs prior to release that can be used for bidding purposes or does the contractor need to state their planned outage window in their TO proposals? The concern is that a reduced outage window may adversely affect the quoted TO pricing.

Outage requirements will be dependent on the scope of work specific to a TO. In cases where the Government has a defined outage window in which the TO work can occur, that window should be clearly identified in the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR). If there is no outage window identified in the FOPR but the contractor's approach will require an outage to complete the work, that should be clearly articulated in the contractor's response to the FOPR.

23 Reference Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 Dec 25, Section 2.5:

Is the expectation for the contractor to only provide agenda and other documents for meetings that they host and/or plan?

Section 2.5 of the FARM III Draft SOW dated 19 Feb 26 has been revised to clarify the Government's expectation for the contractor to provide agenda and other documents for meetings that they host.

24 Reference Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 Dec 25, Section 2.9.11: For design/build projects, will the Government require approval of equipment submittals for items included in the contractor’s design? Once the design documents are approved, the contractor should be able to proceed. Requiring approval of both the design and the equipment submittals could significantly extend the TO schedule.

The Air Force standard is to pre-approve all equipment regardless of it being a Design/Build project. Some TOs and Project Managers may allow parallel submission of design milestones and equipment purchases.

25 Reference Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 Dec 25, Section 3.5.2:

Based on the Q&A response and this section, it appears the Government does not currently require a 3D model of design work or modified systems. Is that a correct assumption?

Typically, the Government does not require 3D models.

However, it is possible that some TOs may have a 3D model requirement in some instances.

FARM III

26 Reference Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 Dec 25, Section 3.9.8:

If further inputs or concept refinements are introduced during the final design submittal, will corresponding cost and schedule adjustments be permitted?

This will be dependent on the circumstances specific to the project design effort, and whether the input is related to deviations from the requirements defined in the TO.

27 Reference Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 Dec 25, Section 3.10:

Could the Government clarify the purpose of requiring cost estimates for TOs after they have been awarded as firm-fixed-price?

Section 3.10 of the FARM III Draft SOW dated 19 Feb 26 has been revised to add the following clarification: "This section applies only to TOs that are capability design only or the first phase of a two-phase design/build effort."

28 Reference Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 Dec 25, Section 4.14.1: Please clarify if the dig permit is a part of the Master Work Permit?

The dig permit is not part of the Master Work Permit. Dig permits expire, and extensions can be requested when required. Air Force PMs will work with the contractor to ensure these are in place and approved as needed.

29 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: It appears that a formula may be missing from Cell F8. Could the Government please confirm whether a formula is intended for this cell and, if so, provide clarification?

The Draft RFP Atch 6_L-4 includes formulas for Column F, "Offeror's Total Self-Score Initial Points."

30 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: The Scoring Matrix currently includes fields for five projects. Please confirm whether the Government is requesting CPARS information for only 5 projects, or whether offerors may submit CPARS data for up to 20 projects, consistent with other portions of the instructions.

Section 3.2.2.6 of the HTRO Scoring Matrix allows for a maximum of five CPARS/CPARS Equivalent submissions. It is up to the Offeror to determine which of the work samples included in Sections 3.2.2.1-3.2.2.3 they want to include in Section 3.2.2.6. This is consistent with the instructions provided in Section L-3.2.2.6 of the Draft RFP Atch 6, which states that of all work samples submitted, the Offeror can submit up to five CPARs.

FARM III

31 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: The Scoring Matrix appears to allow for a total possible score of 73 points across all categories.

However, the instructions indicate that a maximum of 20 total points is required across the Mechanical Systems, Electrical Systems, and Facility Renovations subcategories. Please clarify the rationale for limiting the scoring of these major scope elements to a relatively small portion of the total available points.

The Government elected to limit the total number of work samples that an Offeror could submit to establish a more manageable evaluation, as the Government will be required to validate each of the scores submitted by eight (or more) Offerors. The Government anticipates that 20 or less work samples will provide an accurate assessment of an Offeror's overall experience with FARM III-like efforts.

32 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 1: Would the Government consider providing relief from the stated 200-page limit to allow offerors to submit sufficient documentation and supporting evidence to substantiate proposed scores?

The 200-page limit applies only to work sample supporting evidence. The contract/TO does not need to be provided in its entirety to be part of the work sample, only the signature page and pages including validating information for the work sample shall be provided. Page limits for the elements of each proposal volume are defined in Section L-2.3.1.1 of the Draft RFP Atch 6.

33 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2, Section 2.6: Would the Government consider allowing submission of a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) that is already on file in lieu of CPAR documentation?

As defined in Section L-3.2.2.6 of the Draft RFP Atch 6, Offerors will not be permitted to submit Past Performance Rating Forms when CPAR data is available in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). If there is no CPAR available, the Offeror is permitted to complete and submit the Section L Attachment L-5, Past Performance Rating Form.

34 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2: Although a Cross-Reference Matrix was referenced, it was not included with RFI No. 2. We respectfully request that the Government provide the matrix along with detailed completion instructions.

A draft version of the Cross Reference Matrix is provided as Draft RFP Atch 6_L-3.

35 Reference RFI 2 Atch 2: Please clarify whether CPAR submissions are considered more favorable than Past Performance Rating Forms for evaluation or bonus-point purposes.

Please see response to Q33.

FARM III

36 Please clarify the italized sentence below, as it does not make sense in the context of counting points associated with paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5: For the purposes of developing a score for Paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5, offerors shall determine score based on utilizing the work samples submitted for construction service categories (Paragraphs 2.1-2.3). For these sections, a single work sample may be used for multiple construction categories and subcategories; each use of the work sample counts toward the allotted 20.

An Offeror may have executed a project that would count toward multiple categories within the scoring matrix. For example, an Offeror may have completed a large High Pressure Air requirement and that single project might meet the scoring criteria for multiple subcategories: M2, M3, E1, and E2. Though potentially submitting a single Work Sample, if a point was awarded to each of the 4 subcategories, then this would count as 4 of the maximum 20 work samples allotted. For sections 3.2.2.4 and 3.2.2.5, the Offeror would include the points earned by that work sample for each category for which it was applied.

37 Reference RFI 2 Atch 1: Is it the intent of the Government to perform a HTRO Matrix for each TO proposal? This would be the preferred method, especially as the self -scoring assessment could vary greatly depending on the relevance of past project experience - especially for contractors with experience in the multiple work disciplines (Mechanical, Electrical and Facility Renovations).

Currently, there is no plan to utilize the HTRO method as a means to award TOs. HTRO is suitable in situations where cost/price is not a significant factor for award (i.e., onboarding contractors onto a multiple award IDIQ). Price will become a more significant factor in TO awards, and therefore the Government will utilize either an LPTA or best value tradeoff method as defined in FOPRs specific to each TO as described in Section 1.3 of the FARM III Draft SOW dated 19 Feb 26.

FARM III