KWRD20-00-89 - Follow on to RFI Question Responses.pdf

You don't often get email from

From: ODOM, JODIE M CIV USAF AETC 49 CONS/PKB To: SEAMON, JOHN T CIV USAF AETC 49 CONS/PKB Cc: HOPKINS, PETER L CIV USAF AETC 49 CONS/PKB; SIEDSCHLAG, NORMAN J CIV USAF AETC 49 CES/CEN Bcc: lindsay.edwards@md-le.com; kristina@mcclain-yu.com; sbhola4@bgov.com; Dannym@knitstudious.com;

smrfq@kpaul.com; Bigger, Sarah; lisa.avila@sba.gov; Jeff Zellner; shansen@innovaArchitects.com; Jason Goodman; marissarodriguez@tribal.one; Vanessa Whitehorse

Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] KWRD20-00-89 - Follow on to RFI Responses Date: Thursday, April 18, 2024 10:55:00 AM

See below for Answers to more questions.

V/r, Jodie Odom

49 CONS/PKB

Holloman AFB, NM 88330 575-572-0660

Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 3:34 PM To: ODOM, JODIE M CIV USAF AETC 49 CONS/PKB <jodie.odom@us.af.mil>; SEAMON, JOHN T CIV USAF AETC 49 CONS/PKB <john.seamon.1@us.af.mil> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] KWRD20-00-89 - Follow on to RFI Responses

I understand the window to ask questions has closed, however, I would like to suggest a review of the government responses to the RFIs that was posted today.

The below responses result in more follow-on questions and do not clarify the government’s intent:

RFI Question #5. The response for this question is that both a 10 page response and a full SF330 (unlimited pages is required.) This is in direct conflict with second paragraph of the solicitation under section 4. Which states “Responses to this RFQ are limited to up to 10 pages. Any pages submitted in excess of the ten (10) pages will neither be reviewed nor considered by the government.”

It is still unclear if the government wants a SF330 submission as Paragraph C. States “Do not submit resumes of individuals”.

Then in RFI #7, the response is to include resumes.

ANSWER: These are two separate pdf files. The 10-page limit is on the RFQ response only. There is not a limit on the SF330. DO NOT SUBMIT resumes of individuals.

Question 18 asked for clarification on two interpretations on the schedule, and the answer was simply “yes” and did not clarify if it is in agreement with the former or the later interpretation.

ANSWER: The days are added to total 148 days. This will be 148 days of the total possible 12 month Period of Performance.

mailto:jodie.odom@us.af.mil mailto:john.seamon.1@us.af.mil mailto:peter.hopkins@us.af.mil mailto:norman.siedschlag@us.af.mil mailto:lindsay.edwards@md-le.com mailto:kristina@mcclain-yu.com mailto:sbhola4@bgov.com mailto:Dannym@knitstudious.com mailto:smrfq@kpaul.com mailto:Sarah.Bigger@wilsonco.com mailto:lisa.avila@sba.gov mailto:jzellner@designgroupnm.com mailto:shansen@innovaArchitects.com mailto:jgoodman@thesparrowgroupnm.com mailto:jgoodman@thesparrowgroupnm.com mailto:marissarodriguez@tribal.one mailto:vwhitehorse@designgroupnm.com

Question 22 is a legal question. The 1391 attached states the project will be D/B, which would likely preclude this designer from the follow on work.

ANSWER: This is the Design portion of a possible Design/Build project. This depends on funding.

The build portion may end up being a MILCON project depending on funding and magnitude of the project.

A full (unlimited page) SF330 response is greatly different than a 10 page summary of experience/capacity/etc response. Please verify a full SF330 is required for this RFQ in addition to the referenced 10 page response document. Question 6 alludes to this, because Section H would typically address the experience, capacity, schedule, etc that does not fit into Section E or F. It is confusing to preparers to ask for a section H and this additional 10 page document when it has not been clarified how the content is different, and Section H is unlimited and the other is capped. Note SF330s for multiyear IDIQ contracts typically have a page maximum. This assists both the government reviewers and creates a level field for the contractors.

Prior to receiving the RFI responses today, our firm was under the impression the response was limited to 10 pages. The response today answer differently, yet the conflicting language that states otherwise has not been struck or removed to help clarify the solicitation in its entirety.

I appreciate your consideration is clarifying the requirements for the response.

ANSWER: All questions have been clarified to the best of the government’s ability. There is no reason to strike anything within the solicitation. The solicitation addresses answers are found in the attached Questions and Answers document. This e-mail will be attached as well. No further clarification will be offered at this time.