FARM III Industry QandAs_4 Dec 25.pdf

Q # Question Response 1 We realize the Draft Statement of Work (SOW) is similar to the previous FARM SOW’s, does the Government anticipate vast changes in the SOW before the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) release?

The Government does not anticipate significant changes to the Draft SOW provided with Request for Information (RFI) #1. An updated Draft SOW has been posted to SAM.gov as a Special Notice on 4 December 2025.

2 Regarding Integrated Scheduling, to what extent will the contractor be involved in the process? While the SOW mentions coordination with the Government representative, we believe that deeper contractor involvement could benefit both parties. This would help ensure that all scheduling options are fully explored and reduce the need for

The FARM III contractor's involvement in the Integrated Scheduling process will be dependent on the task order (TO)-specific requirements document.

3 3D modeling software is widely used to produce design drawings from a multitude of platforms – Plant 3D, Revit, Inventor, etc. The SOW refers to utilizing AutoCAD 2013 format for design and as-built drawings. Has the Government considered broadening the range of acceptable software tools? Would it be permissible for the contractor to use alternative software, provided that all final deliverables are submitted in a 2D AutoCAD format?

The Government does not intend to direct the contractor to use a specific drawing package, but does need to ensure that AEDC has the ability to open, review, and revise the delivered drawing files. This would require that the delivered drawing files be fully compatible and editable by AutoCAD 2018 or later. The updated Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 December 2025, Section 3.5.2 has been slightly revised to clarify that the AutoCAD 2018 requirement applies specifically to drawing deliveries.

4 The SOW references the use of professional engineering services but does not explicitly state that drawings or other engineering documents need to be stamped by a professional engineer. Can the Government clarify the intent of the use of professional engineering services?

The updated Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 December 2025, Section 4.1, states that professional engineering services, if required, will be specified in the individual TO requirements document. Also SOW Attachment 2, Section A2.4 states that Final Design drawings "shall be 100 percent complete, stamped, and signed by the appropriate registered discipline that performed the design. Registration shall be in the state in which the work is located."

5 How does the Government define Automated Data Processing Systems (ADPS)? Based on the context, it appears to refer to software used for design calculations. If that is correct, are there any specific ADPS tools that AEDC prohibits from being used in design work?

The Draft FARM III SOW Section 3.3.4 defines that an ADPS is anything used to support the design analysis. The Government does not have any restrictions on systems or software packages that can be used as long as the contractor provides the information specified in the subsections below.

6 The energy and environmental requirements listed in Section 3 appear to mainly center around traditional building construction. Are these requirements able to be tailored to fit the TO being executed to ensure best value for the Government?

The Draft FARM III SOW Section 3, Design, is intended to describe the overarching design process, but the Government does not intend to require this full process for every TO. Individual TOs may be tailored based on the Government’s assessment of the effort’s cost, schedule, complexity, and risk factors.

7 For fixed-price TOs, will all design reviews be required? Based on our experience, additional reviews can introduce scope changes that significantly impact both schedule and budget. When requirements are well-defined at the outset, we recommend limiting the number of formal reviews and incorporating “over-the-shoulder” reviews to allow the Government to monitor progress. This approach supports a more streamlined and efficient design phase.

The Draft FARM III SOW Section 3, Design, is intended to describe the overarching design process, but the Government does not intend to require this full process for every TO. Individual TOs may be tailored based on the Government’s assessment of the effort’s cost, schedule, complexity, and risk factors. Specifically, FARM III SOW 3.9 states, "Design submittal requirements for individual units of work are specified in the TO and should comply with the following requirements for each type of submittal. The contractor shall electronically submit each submittal in a file type and media format defined by the Government in the TO unless otherwise specified." SOW 3.9.2 also states, "Design submittal requirements are described in Attachment 2. The TO will identify tailoring of design submittal content, if necessary. Design submittals shall be made at the 30 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent, and final design stages or as stated in each TO."

8 During the one-on-one discussion, the 80% proposal rate was addressed, and the Government clarified that it is not a strict requirement. Could this be formally revised in the SOW to reflect that flexibility?

The 80% proposal rate has been removed from the updated Draft FARM III SOW dated 4 December 2025.

9 Can the Government provide a preliminary draft of the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) evaluation criteria?

The Government is providing a draft HTRO scoring matrix and associated instructions as part of RFI #2, in an effort to gain industry feedback on the proposed evaluation criteria.

10 Does the Government have an updated list of potential projects and is there an estimated on the breakout of the potential work (design/build, The Government does not have a list of potential projects at this time.

11 The SOW does not indicate the timeline for a typical TO from RFP to award. Can the Government please provide the timeline?

There is no standard Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR)-to-award timeline for FARM TOs; the timeline varies significantly based on specific aspects of the individual TOs (e.g., complexity of the work required by the TO, whether it is competed as Lowest Price Technically Acceptable versus full trade off, etc.). Some TOs could be awarded in as little as 30 days, while others may take 6+ months.

12 The review periods outlined for design reviews appear appropriate for standard design projects. However, for fast-track TOs, we would like to understand whether the timeframes specified in the Draft SOW for Government review can be expedited.

The Draft FARM III SOW Section 3.9 is intended to describe the standard timeline for the Government review process, but the Government does not intend to require this full process for every TO. As stated in SOW 3.9.3, "The time required by the Government to review submittals made by the contractor under this contract will be negotiated on each TO."

13 Will the contractor be responsible for sampling and testing for asbestos and lead or will the Government provide asbestos survey results from Arnold AFB, and other geographically separated units, if requested?

In the event that the Government has asbestos or lead sampling results, those results will be provided as part of the FOPR release process. When the presence of asbestos or lead is unknown, the FARM III contractor shall follow the SOW. The Draft FARM III SOW Section 4.9 states, "When required by the TO, check for lead-based paint and develop project documents for abatement and/or encapsulation. Take adequate number of paint samples and test for the presence of lead-based paint. The contractor shall submit results of lead-based paint sampling to the Government for verification and record keeping purposes." SOW Section 4.10 states, "Due to the age of facilities, asbestos may be present in many projects executed under this contract. If specific asbestos requirements are known, they will be identified in the TO. Site investigations should be conducted to determine extent of asbestos abatement required IAW SOW 3.8.3." SOW Section 3.8.3 states, "The contractor is responsible for determining existing site conditions and coordinating new work with existing conditions, IAW FAR 52.236-3, Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting the Work."