SYNOPSIS AMENDMENT 0001.pdf

SYNOPSIS AMENDMENT 0001

FOR

SYNOPSIS N3319125RF051

INDEFINITE DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY CONTRACT FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

SERVICES FOR PLANNING, DESIGN, AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR VARIOUS

FACILITY TYPES LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE NAVFAC EURAFCENT AOR

The purpose of this Amendment 0001 is to:

1) Extend Proposal Due Date to 16 June 2025, 1500 hours Central European Summer Time (CEST)

2) Provide Responses to Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) received to date

1. PROPOSAL DUE DATE

The Proposal due date has been changed from Monday, 2 June 2025 at 1500 hours Central European Summer Time (CEST) to Monday, 16 June 2025 at 1500 hours Central European Summer Time (CEST).

2. PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES

1 The SAM posting and the attendant PIEE link are seemingly in contradiction of each other. Please clarify status of this posting; is it cancelled or an active call for SF330s with a due date of 6/2/2025?

SAM notice N3319125RF050 has been deleted. The correct notice number is N3319125RF051

2 Criterion 1 - Specialized experience. Can you confirm that a project which includes both new facility design and multi-discipline renovation elements will be considered relevant but can only be identified as meeting the criteria for either a new facility design project or a multi-discipline renovation project, and not both, as specified in the synopsis page 7 of 14.?

Correct

3 Criterion 1 - Specialized experience. The NOTE on synopsis page 8 of 14 states, “if there are no projects performed by the joint venture, projects must be submitted for each joint venture partner, not to exceed a total of six (6) projects.” Please confirm a JV may submit up to ten (not 6) design and planning projects in accordance with Criterion 1 - Specialized Experience.

That is correct. This JV sentence is changed to, “if there are no projects performed by the joint venture, projects must be submitted for each joint venture partner, not to exceed a total of ten

(10) projects.”

4 Criterion 1 - Specialized experience. In order to demonstrate the full depth/breadth of capabilities in successfully executing large complex projects and full programs that our Clients awarded as a series of Task Orders, we need the ability to present the entire SOW successfully completed. We would list each/every Task Order and provide CPARs for each included in the Project Description. Please confirm that Section F Project Descriptions are permitted to encompass more than one Single Task Order IF multiple Task Orders were completed under the same master IDIQ contract for one unique complex project/program with efforts leading to the completion of a specific requirement.

Per the synopsis, "For submittal purposes, a task order on an IDIQ contract is considered a project, as is a stand-alone contract award. Do not submit an IDIQ contract as an example project. Instead, list relevant task orders or stand-alone contract awards that fit within the definition above. The Government will not evaluate information provided for an IDIQ contract.

Examples of project work submitted that do not conform to this requirement will not be evaluated."

5 Criterion 1 - Specialized experience. Based on the large number of section F projects (up to 10) please increase the page limitation of Part 1 from 75 to 85 pages.

Page limitation of Part 1 will remain at 75 pages.

6 Criterion 1 - Specialized experience. Please confirm when satisfying the submission requirements for either new facility design or multi-discipline renovation Criterion 1 Design projects that projects demonstrating full plans and specifications delivered under the Design Build procurement method will be considered equivalent to full plans and specifications delivered under the DBB procurement method.

Confirmed. Full Plans and Specifications developed as part of the design phase of an RFP will be considered "Full Design Projects" to demonstrate design experience.

7 Criterion 2 - Professional Qualifications. Clarify that resumes should cite project-specific experience relevant to the services required under this contract, and that this experience should be recent, within the past ten years? The synopsis currently states a seven-year limit, which conflicts with the ten-year limit for Section F projects.

This sentence has been changed to, "cite recent (within the past ten (10) years) project-specific experience in work relevant to the services required under this contract;"

8 Criterion 3 - Past Performance. Please confirm CPARS do not count against Part I page limitation.

Criterion 3 has been removed from the page limitations. CPARS and PPQ past performance documentation is NOT accounted for in the page limitation, and should be an attachment to the SF330, Part 1, Section H.

9 Evaluation Criteria. Please confirm that Criterion 1 projects and Criterion 2 resumes from subconsultants will be considered equivalent to those provided by the firm submitting the SF330.

Projects and Resumes from subconsultants will be considered equivalent to those provided by the firm submitting the SF330. Per the synopsis, firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating key personnel participation on the submitted projects.

10 PAGE 10 of 14. CRITERION 3. Submission Requirements. The Solicitation states: "IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment (A)) included in this notice is provided for the firm or its team members to submit to the client for each project included under Criterion 1." An Attachment A was not included on the PIEE link or Solicitation notification posting for SAM.gov. Could you please provide Attachment A?

"Attachment A" is posted with Amendment 0001.

11 PAGE 10 of 14. CRITERION 3. Submission Requirements. The Solicitation states:

"Submit a 'Completed' CPARS Evaluation for each project under Criterion 1." It is common for Task Order projects performed by AE firms to receive Interim CPARS from the Government throughout the delivery process, yet sometimes Government clients do not always issue a 'Final' CPARS in the system. Will NAVFAC accept the most current 'Interim' CPARS rating received for a completed project as meeting this submission requirement for past performance?

Yes. NAVFAC will accept the most current 'Interim' CPARS rating received for a completed project as meeting this submission requirement for past performance.

12 PAGE 10 of 14. CRITERION 3. Submission Requirements. "SUBMIT A COMPLETED

CPARS EVALUATION FOR EACH PROJECT UNDER CRITERION 1." For clarification, will NAVFAC accept both CPARS and PPQ past performance documentation as an Attachment to the SF330?

Per CRITERION 3 - Submission Requirements: "IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE,….Completed PPQs should be submitted with your SF330." "DO NOT SUBMIT

A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE."

See response to PPI #8

13 PAGE 13 of 14. SF330 Submission Requirements. The Solicitations states: "the page limit does not include ISRs, certificates, PPQs, licenses, nor does the page limit include cover sheets, dividers, or other requested documentation (e.g., joint venture agreement, proof of AE firm registration)." Because PPQs are mentioned in this quote, we assume that CPARS also excluded from the page limit. Please confirm that CPARS are not counted towards the Part I page limit.

See response to PPI #8

14 PAGE 9 of 14. CRITERION 2. Professional Qualifications. Under submission requirements, it states: "Resumes are limited to one page each and should indicate:

professional registration (including registration/certification number), certification, licensure and/or accreditation in appropriate disciplines; cite recent (within the past seven

(7) years) project-specific experience in work relevant to the services required under this contract;" Criterion 1 projects allow 10 years experience to demonstrate professional qualifications that have worked on relevant, recent projects. We ask that NAVFAC consider changing the 7 year requirement for resumes to 10 years, thereby matching the Criterion 1 requirements.

See response to PPI #7

15 PAGES 7-8 of 10. SELECTION CRITERIA 1. Specialized Experience. Please clarify how will NAVFAC evaluate firms that submit less than the maximum ten (10) allotted for both design and planning project examples as compared to firms submitting a total of ten (10) projects. The Solicitation states the following: Pg. 7 - It states: "Provide a maximum of six

(6) design projects"; Pg. 8 - It states: "Provide a maximum of four (4) planning projects";

Pg. 8 - It also states: "Submit a minimum of two (2) planning projects, with at least one (1) from the Primary planning services outlined above."

Firms will be evaluated based on demonstrated specialized experience, not on the number of projects submitted.

16 We would like to feature a recent NAVFAC EURAFCENT project demonstrating specialized experience; however, the project deliverables include CUI markings. May we submit a generic project description that contains no CUI for the Section F project and provide the full project description with CUI markings in a separate email to the contracting officer?

Project submittals with generic project descriptions to eliminate CUI is preferred and acceptable.

Full project description with CUI is not necessary.

17 Does NAVFAC anticipate classified work under this contract? If so and upon contract award, a DD254 will be required by NAVFAC for any AE firm to perform classified work.

NAVFAC does not anticipate classified work under this contract.

18 We request a 10 day extension to the current 2 June 2025 SF330 submission date.

Proposal due date has been extended to 16 June 2025, 1500 hours Central European Summer

Time (CEST)

19 We are preparing our response to Solicitation No. N3319125RF051, “Architect-Engineer Services for Planning, Design, and Engineering Services for Various Facility Types Located Throughout the NAVFAC EURAFCENT AOR,” and respectfully request clarification on the evaluation of experience under Criterion 1 – Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. Specifically, if a subcontractor included in our proposed team has an executed teaming agreement with our JV firm and is proposed to perform significant and relevant work under this contract, can projects completed by that subcontractor—where their specific roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated—be included and evaluated under the Specialized Experience criterion? Additionally, we would appreciate confirmation that the use of such subcontractor projects, when submitted in accordance with these expectations, would not be evaluated less favorably than projects performed solely by the prime or joint venture entity. We believe this approach appropriately reflects the intent of Criterion 1, which is to assess the capabilities of the entire proposed team that will deliver the contract.

See response to PPI #9

20 In some instances DoD clients award DB RFP deliverables for full facility renovation projects, and after the DB RFP deliverables are completed, the client determines at a later date that their acquisition strategy needs to change and they order a DBB package. If this was accomplished under two separate contracts with the same design firm, please confirm that a design firm can profile both deliverables under one section F project fulfilling both the requirement to demonstrate a DB RFP and a DBB renovation project as long as each deliverable (DB RFP and DBB packages) were design complete in the last 10 years?

It is up to the offeror to determine the most relevant projects to demonstrate specialized experience as defined in the synopsis. Any completed design or RFP may be submitted, however firms may be considered more favorably when experience includes a variety of facility types.

21 Please consider extending the SF330 due date to 9 June. There are many inquiries awaiting response that significantly influence our submission material for sections E, F and G as well as our teaming arrangements.

See response to PPI #18

22 We wanted to understand if, should we be to team up in a Joint Venture with other firm/s, having the JV registered with its own UEI and CAGE number is required, or only the JV agreement would be necessary and any of the members could present the proposal through

PIEE.

The JV shall be registered with its own UEI and Cage code.

23 Criterion 2 states that “Engineers and Architects must be licensed in their respective disciplines.” We request confirmation that this includes professional registration in any U.S. state or an equivalent recognized international body. In many European countries, formal licensure does not exist as it does in the U.S.; instead, individuals are legally qualified to practice based on accredited degrees and national regulations. Can the Government confirm that such individuals will be considered to meet the licensure requirement? In these cases, we propose to include the qualifying degree in the resume as evidence.

Engineers and Architects must be licensed in their respective disciplines. This does not limit to only United States vs. an equivalent recognized international body. Fire Protection Engineers must be registered professional engineers who have passed the fire protection engineering written examination administered by the NCEES.

24 Please confirm that a PPQ previously filled out can be reused for this submission. Also, please post the Attachment A document.

Firms may submit a PPQ previously submitted under a different Notice/RFP (legible copies are acceptable) as long as it is on the same form as posted with this Synopsis.

"Attachment A" is posted with Amendment 0001.

25 Respectfully request an extension of at least 30 days for the submission of our proposal in response to the NAVFAC EURAFCENT A-E IDIQ solicitation

26 Criterion 1 – Planning Criteria page 5 & Planning Project Submissions page 8. The Combined Synopsis/Solicitation requires a minimum of 2 and maximum of 4 planning projects. The planning services to be evaluated are from the NAVFAC LANT Worldwide Planning IDIQ scope, are robust across the entire spectrum of Navy planning services (6 areas), and include services like Global Shore Infrastructure Plans (GSIP), Integrated Product Support (IPS) Plans, and many other planning services. This is a significant adjustment to past EURAFCENT AE IDIQs; there was no way industry could have anticipated this focus on planning nor an industry “heads” up that this level of planning services would be included for SF330 evaluation. This adjustment without a sources sought “heads up” and <30 days to submit an SF330 greatly impacts offeror team make up and limits competition. In addition, the SF330 submission requirements indicate offerors must provide a CAGE and submit via PIEE (which requires CAGE). The time to obtain a CAGE for a Joint Venture varies significantly and is being impacted by ongoing government personnel changes. It will be nearly impossible for a firm to make any teaming changes (forming a JV) to address the more broad scope of services and obtain a CAGE.

Question: In light of above, will NAVFAC respectfully extend the due date by 45 days to allow firms/teams to adjust to these unexpected requirements and get fully registered in

SAM?

27 Given that RFI responses have not yet been received, would the government consider extending the RFI closure deadline to one week following the issuance of the first amendment? This would provide offerors sufficient time to review the responses and request any necessary clarifications.

28 Given that RFI responses have not yet been received, would the government consider extending the final submission deadline to June 16th to ensure adequate time for offerors to incorporate any new information into their proposals?

29 Would you please confirm the official issue date of the N3319125RF051 synopsis?

SAM.GOV indicates 7 May, but PIEE illustrates 2 May.

Official issue date of the N3319125RF051 synopsis is 2 May 2025.

(End of SYNOPSIS AMENDMENT 0001)