25R0024 AE MAC RFIs.pdf

RFI

No. Reference Question Government Response

We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

This is a follow on contract to the existing (N3943020D2241/ N3943020D2242/ N3943020D2243/ N3943020D2244/ N3943020D2245/ N3943020D2246/ N3943020D2247/ N3943020D2248/ N3943020D2249) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Multiple Award Contract (IDIQ-MAC) for Architect-Engineer (A- E) services for design and engineering services for Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants (POL) systems, and supporting facilities at various locations, worldwide.

Section: Selection Criteria Subsection: Criterion 1- Specialized Experience (SF 330, Part I, Section F) Submission Requirements Para: 2 Page: 6

What constitutes project completion? If the design of a project has been completed, bid, and awarded (design phase is complete), but the government awarded a bid option for PCAS services, can the project be submitted to demonstrate POL design experience even though the construction phase is ongoing?

A fully-completed and awarded design of a Design-Bid-Build project can be regarded as completed design project. Submit a PPQ if a final CPARS is not available.

Section: Selection Criteria Subsection: Criterion 1- Specialized Experience (SF 330, Part I, Section F) Submission Requirements Para: 2 Page: 6

If a “Final” CPARS/PCAS has not been completed but the project is 99% complete, with only closeout documentation remaining, would referencing the project being complete and “BOD” issued in the SF330 be considered an acceptable form of capturing project completion?

If only closeout documentation remains, please submit a PPQ if your firm does not have a final CPARS for the project your firm is referencing.

Section: Selection Criteria Subsection: Criterion 1- Specialized Experience (SF 330, Part I, Section F) Submission Requirements Para: 3 Page: 7

Can projects that were performed by current key staff members while employed at a previous firm be included?

No. All projects provided in the SF 330 must be completed by the actual office/branch/regional office/individual team member proposed to manage and perform work, either as the prime contractor or subcontractor.

Section: Selection Criteria Subsection: Criterion 2- Professional Qualifications (SF 330, Part I, Section E and G, Part II) Para: 5, bullet 3 Page: 9

Please confirm the Program Manager must possess API certifications, since this role is primarily managerial in nature. Would it be more appropriate for these certifications to be held by the staff who are performing the technical duties (e.g. discipline leads and project engineers)?

For the Program Manager position, a current P.E. license and/or API certifications are preferred but not required.

Section: Selection Criteria Subsection: Criterion 5- Commitment to Small Business (SF 330, Part I, Section H) Para: 2 Pages: 13 & 14

If a small business is going to utilize large business for some efforts, would the Government be able to provide the format that the information should be submitted in? Section states SB must submit similar information in relation to a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Any format that includes the required information is acceptable. If you would like, you may start with and tailor the Small Business Subcontracting Plan template for your needs.

Section: Selection Criteria Subsection: Criterion 1-Specialized Experience (SF330, Part 1, Section F) Para: 1, bullet 4 Page: 6

Would specialized experience included in this section include fence-to-fence facility inspections or Project Planning Studies? If not, would the government be able to provide examples that would meet this requirement?

Specialized experience would include the facility inspections and project planning studies and other services on a DoD POL facility that requires A-E knowledge and skills. Examples would include projects identified on the prior A-E POL contracts.

Experience that demonstrates a greater level of expertise relevant to the anticipated work under this contract may be rated more favorably than other projects.

Section: Selection Criteria Subsection: Criterion 2- Professional Qualifications (SF 330, Part I, Section E and G, Part II) Submission Requirements Para: 2 Page: 10

Document states a minimum of four personnel should be identified and includes program manager twice. Is the second reference to the program manager intended to be the project manager? If not, could clarification please be provided?

The second reference to a Program Manager should be Project Manager.

The sentence should read:

At a minimum, four personnel should be identified – a program manager, and at least one of each of the following: discipline lead, project manager, and project engineer.

9 Procurement Approach; Page 2 of 10

How will the Navy administer competition of individual task order solicitations with respect to the small business reserve? Will competition be based upon estimated value magnitude (e.g., < $500,000), by geographic region (CONUS v.

OCONUS), and/or other criteria?

Navy administration of small business task order competition will be based on geographical location specifically CONUS. The contracting officer will issue the sources sought to small businesses for work to be performed in CONUS. If two or more small businesses can perform the effort, the task order will be reserved for small business. All planned OCONUS projects are competed as full and open to all MAC holders.

N3943025R0024 Follow A-E MAC

Criterion 1 - Specialized Experience (SF 330, Part I, Section F); Page 4 of 10

Synopsis states, "Proposals demonstrating specialized experience in the following areas may be evaluated more favorably: Experience with the services more frequently anticipated under this contract." Should Offerors understand that the task order services bulletized at the top of Page 4 are listed in descending order of frequency or are these six types of services considered to be equally frequent?

Refer to bullets on synopsis page 5 for evaluation criterion 1 - Specialized Experience.

Criterion 2 - Professional Qualifications (SF 330, Part I, Section E and G, Part II); Page 5 of 10

It is understood that the Project Manager is one of four key personnel roles required to be identified (Program Manager, Discipline Lead, Project Manager, Project Engineer). Is the Project Manager required to possess a current Professional Engineer (P.E.) license if filling no other key personnel roles (Program Manager, Discipline Lead, Project Engineer)?

For the Program Manager position, a current P.E. license and/or API certifications are preferred but not required.

Criterion 2 - Professional Qualifications (SF 330, Part I, Section E and G, Part II); Page 6 of 10

Is the Project Manager required to possess P.E. licenses if they are filling the Project Manager role and another key personnel role (e.g., Discipline Lead)?

Personnel must meet all the requirements of each role they will perform.

Criterion 2 - Professional Qualifications (SF 330, Part I, Section E and G, Part II); Page 6 of 10

Is proof of current P.E. license required for each of the four key personnel roles (Program Manager, Discipline Lead, Project Manager, Project Engineer)?

P.E. preferred for PGM.

Not required for Project Manager and Project Engineer.

Yes for Discipline Lead.

Criterion 4 - Past Performance (SF 330, Part I, Section H); Page 7 of 10

For projects submitted for the purposes of demonstrating acceptable past performance, must the projects be 100% complete with Final CPARS or are Interim CPARS evaluations acceptable?

Submit Final CPARS or PPQ.

Interim CPARS will not be evaluated.

Contract Ceiling – On p. 2, Description, paragraph 2: “The aggregate value of all Task Orders issued under the contracts resulting from this solicitation must not exceed $145,000,000 (not per awardee).”

Can you confirm whether the $145M ceiling is the total shared capacity across all awardees, or if there is any cap per awardee?

Yes, the $145M is the shared capacity for all Awardees

Small Business Reserve – On p. 2, Description: “…an unrestricted acquisition, with a reserve for small businesses. A minimum of three awards will be made to small business firms.”

Will task orders be competed across all awardees regardless of business size, or will some be set aside specifically for small business awardees?

Market research will be performed for each Task Order and the results of this research will determine if the Task Order will be set aside for small business firms.

Supporting Facilities – On p. 2, Description: “Support facilities include all utilities that supply POL systems and structures, building and associated equipment that directly support POL System operation.”

Can you clarify whether supporting facilities always include utilities, security infrastructure, and site prep, or if scope is limited to direct fuel system support?

This is task order dependent. Individual task orders may include utilities, security infrastructure, and other facilities that are located at a fuel facility and support fuel operations.

On p. 8, the solicitation directs firms to submit the SF 330 package via email.

Could you confirm the maximum file size allowed for email submissions? If the SF 330 and required attachments exceed that size, will the Government provide an alternate method such as DoD SAFE (Safelink) or another secure file transfer option?

The maximum file size allowed for email submissions is around 25 MB.

The government will provide an alternate method such as DoD SAFE (Safelink) for large file size transfers (up to 8 GM or 25 files). Refer to Amendment 01 for further instructions.

Project Completion Window – Criterion 1, p. 4: “Projects must have been completed within the last five (5) years from the posting date… Projects not completed will be excluded.”

Can projects be submitted if design/inspection phases are complete, but construction is ongoing?

A fully-completed and awarded design of a Design-Bid-Build project can be regarded as completed design project. Submit a PPQ if a final CPARS is not available.

Partial Scope Projects – Criterion 1, p.

4: “…specifically indicate the value of the work performed as a subcontractor… Identify the specific roles and responsibilities performed…”

Are projects eligible if our role was limited (e.g., inspection only or design only), or must each project show full life-cycle POL services?

Projects are eligible if the firm was served as a subcontractor, such as a inspection subcontractor or a design subcontractor.

PE License Location – Criterion 2, p. 5:

“Provide current proof of PE registration as part of resume submittal package.”

Will a PE license from any U.S. jurisdiction be acceptable, or must it be from the state where the office/branch is located?

A current P.E. license is acceptable.

Dual Roles – Criterion 2, p. 5–6: “At a minimum, four personnel should be identified – a program manager, and at least one of each of the following:

discipline lead, program manager, and project engineer.”

Can one individual serve in multiple roles (e.g., Program Manager and Project Manager) if qualified?

A firm's proposal may indicate that an individual is qualified for multiple roles.

Subcontracting Goals – Criterion 5, p.

7: “FY25 goals: SB 40%, WOSB 9%, SDVOSB 5%, etc.”

Are these goals considered mandatory minimums for large business subcontracting plans, or aspirational targets evaluated qualitatively?

The goals are not mandatory minimums.

A-E Registration – SF 330 Requirements, p. 8: “…contracts for architect-engineer services may only be awarded to firms permitted by law… Firms must submit proof that they are permitted by law… If a firm is in a jurisdiction that does not require A-E firm registration, the firm must provide proof eligibility to practice.”

Is A-E firm registration required in all U.S. states where task orders may be issued, or only in the firm’s home jurisdiction?

A-E firm registration is required in all U.S. states where the professional services are being performed or where the constructed facility is located. Refer to SAES section C. A-E Services(General).Refer to Amendment 01 for copy of the SAES.

On p. 8, SF 330 Requirements: “…If a firm is in a jurisdiction that does not require A-E firm registration, the firm must provide proof eligibility to practice (e.g., a summary explaining eligibility under the laws of that jurisdiction).”

Our firm has more than 225 offices worldwide. To meet this requirement, would it be acceptable to submit a single consolidated proof of eligibility at the corporate level, rather than separate documentation for each individual office location?

Yes. Submit a single consolidated proof of eligibility at the corporate level. Location specific requirements will be requested at the task order level.

OCONUS Licensing – Additional Info,

p. 9: “Participants… should anticipate having to comply with various Status of Forces Agreements that will be defined on each task order.”

For OCONUS work, will NAVFAC provide guidance/support for host-nation licensing, or must contractors independently obtain all necessary credentials?

NAVFAC will provide some guidance and support for host-nation licensing, but contractors are ultimately responsible for obtaining the necessary credentials.

On p. 5, Criterion 2, the solicitation requires “proof of the current P.E.

licenses for all key personnel,”

For meeting this requirement, would scanned copies of the actual licenses be required, or would official state board license verification screenshots be acceptable as proof?

Both are acceptable.

On p. 5, Criterion 2 states: “Discipline Leads are responsible for design development of the discipline areas that they are currently registered in as a Professional Engineer (P.E.)… Their experience and current registered discipline areas must match the technical content of the task order.”

Could you clarify whether a Discipline Lead must hold a specialty license in every case, or if a Professional Engineer (P.E.) license in the applicable discipline is sufficient? For example, would a structural engineer holding a P.E.

(but not an S.E.) be eligible to serve as the lead structural engineer? Similarly, would a licensed P.E. with relevant fire protection experience (but not an FPE designation) be eligible to serve as the lead fire protection engineer?

Their experience and current registered discipline areas must match the technical content of the task order. Review synopsis page 6 for Discipline Leads requirements.

29 Small Business Requirement Since the proposal submission date falls in October and ISR submission runs from Oct. 1 through November 14, can you confirm that ISR submitted during the spring 2025 reporting period would be considered the most recent?

Confirmed. Spring 2025 is the most recent reporting period.

30 Solicitation Attachments Can the Government provide an official downloadable SAES (RFP) document (e.g., PDF) in addition to the website posting, or should the website posting be considered the official SAES?

Please refer to Amendment 01 which includes the Statement of A-E Scope (SAES).

31 Classification

The solicitation classifies this requirement under PSC C1NA — Architect and Engineering Services for Construction of Fuel Supply Facilities — which typically applies to design and construction of new facilities. However, the discussion also references repair, renovation/modernization, and integrity assessments, which are generally categorized under PSC Z2NA — Repair or Alteration of Fuel Supply Facilities.

In evaluating past performance, will the Government consider design and construction of new fuel supply facilities to carry greater relevancy than repair, alteration, or modernization projects, or will both be considered of comparable weight?

It depends on the types of projects. Experience in repair, renovation/modernization, and integrity assessments will be weighted more for A-E inspection projects; Experience in design and construction of new facilities will be weighted more for construction projects.

32 Description

The solicitation specifies that multiple-discipline design engineering services are required, including mechanical, civil, structural, electrical, fire protection, architectural, waterfront, and environmental disciplines. The description also references “control systems” within supported projects. However, the requirement does not explicitly identify control systems engineering or facility-related control systems cybersecurity expertise, both of which are critical for the design and post-construction award services (PCAS) of DoD POL systems.

Will the Government require that AE firms include subject matter experts in control systems engineering and control systems cybersecurity to ensure complete and technically competent support for the design and construction oversight of DoD POL facilities?

No. Discipline leads or subject matter experts in control system or control system cybersecurity is not a requirement of the basic A-E IDIQ contract.

Individual task orders may have additional requirements.

33 Description

The solicitation identifies multiple-discipline design engineering services, including mechanical, civil, structural, electrical, fire protection, architectural, waterfront, and environmental. The description also references “control systems” within supported projects; however, the requirement does not explicitly identify control systems engineering or facility-related control systems cybersecurity, both of which are critical for the design and post-construction award services (PCAS) of DoD POL systems.

In the evaluation of professional qualifications and specialized experience, will the Government recognize the inclusion of control systems and control systems cybersecurity subject matter experts as a strength or significant strength?

If so, could the Government clarify which licenses, certifications, or professional credentials (e.g., Controls Systems PE, GICSP, CISSP, CISM) would be considered most relevant in establishing such a strength?

The proposal key personnel will be evaluated on professional qualifications, competence, and experience in providing services to accomplish the tasks required under this contract.

Review Criterion 2, synopsis pages 5 through 7 that details key personnel and support personnel requirements.

34 Description

The solicitation references API and STI inspections, specifically citing API 653 and API 570, but does not identify certification requirements for inspectors. The requirement also includes fuel pipeline inspections and cathodic protection system inspections, which would typically require additional industry-recognized credentials. However, the solicitation does not clarify whether these qualifications will be considered in the evaluation of offerors.

In the evaluation of professional qualifications and specialized experience, will the Government recognize the inclusion of certified inspectors with applicable credentials as a strength or significant strength?

If so, could the Government clarify which certifications it considers most relevant, such as API 653 (Aboveground Storage Tank), API 570 (Piping), API 1169 (Pipeline Construction Inspection), STI SP001 (Aboveground Tank Systems), NACE/AMPP CP1–CP4 (Cathodic Protection), or other comparable industry standards?

Review Criterion 2, synopsis pages 5 through 7 that details key personnel and support personnel requirements.

35 Criterion 1

The solicitation’s Criterion 1 references experience at POL facilities located OCONUS but does not clarify whether this requirement applies specifically to OCONUS-foreign locations, OCONUS-nonforeign locations, or to particular Geographic Combatant Commands and their respective Areas of Responsibility (AORs). The absence of this clarification creates uncertainty regarding how specialized experience and past performance in different OCONUS regions will be evaluated.

In the evaluation of specialized experience and past performance, will the Government recognize the inclusion of past performance and working history within specific OCONUS-foreign AORs as a strength or significant strength? If so, could the Government provide additional detail on how geographic location and AOR relevance will be weighted or rated in the evaluation?

The synopsis states: Proposals demonstrating specialized experience in the following areas may be evaluated more favorably:

States) locations or foreign countries listed in the synopsis

Experience working in relevant geographic locations is one factor of many that will be considered.

36 Description

The solicitation references the requirement for Design-Build (DB) contracts but does not reference Design-Bid-Build (DBB) contracts. Considering DBB contracts also require the preparation of fully developed plans and specifications, detailed cost estimates, DD Form 1391 development, and post-construction award services (PCAS), all of which demonstrate specialized design and engineering capability.

In the evaluation of specialized experience and past performance, will the Government consider DB contracts to carry greater relevancy than DBB contracts, or will both delivery methods be evaluated as comparable in demonstrating an AE firm’s qualifications?

The government anticipates that more task orders will be Design-Build than Design-Bid-Build, but both kinds are important. Evaluations will consider the complexity, type of facility, location, discipines, and other factors of what is submitted.

37 Selection Criteria

The solicitation includes only a brief paragraph summarizing the source selection criteria but does not provide the complete selection criteria document or reference to the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements for AE evaluations. Without the full source selection criteria, offerors lack clarity regarding how proposals will be evaluated, which directly affects their ability to structure responses in alignment with the Government’s evaluation factors.

In accordance with FAR 36.6, which requires evaluations based on established AE selection criteria, could the Government please provide the complete source selection criteria for this procurement?

Additionally, will the Government extend the proposal submission deadline to allow offerors sufficient time to incorporate the full criteria into their proposals once provided?

The Government has provided the complete source selection criteria for this procurement. The deadline to submit the SF 330 will be extended from 17 October 2025 to 27 October 2025. Refer to Amendment 01.

38 Criterion 1

The solicitation establishes a five-year period of performance (POP) for inspections, design, planning, and post-construction award services (PCAS), and identifies the estimated total contract value. However, the solicitation does not specify the anticipated number of inspections, designs, or planning efforts, nor does it identify the expected project locations during the POP.

Furthermore, the criteria state that “proposals demonstrating specialized experience in the following areas may be evaluated more favorably: experience with the services more frequently anticipated under this contract.” Without an estimate of the anticipated workload, offerors lack the information necessary to demonstrate relevant specialized experience, to assess capacity requirements, and to allocate appropriate resources. It is understood that within DLA-E's Facility Maintenance Program (FMP) and MILCON programs these projects are likely already programmed.

In the evaluation of specialized experience, capacity, and past performance, could the Government provide an anticipated estimate of the scope of work — including work types, relative quantities, and general locations — expected during each year of the POP for this IDIQ?

Refer to SAES for work types. Synopsis page 12 lists past TO locations.

Refer to Amendment 01 for of SAES.

39 Submission Requirements

The solicitation does not include a requirement for submission of a management approach or technical approach, which are commonly required elements for AE IDIQ proposals. In addition, the solicitation does not establish page limitations or provide technical detail regarding what should be included in the proposal beyond the organizational chart. However, without defined submission requirements, offerors may present proposals with inconsistent levels of detail, creating potential inequities in the evaluation process.

In the evaluation of design approach, management strategies, and quality control under FAR 36.6, could the Government provide a more detailed outline of proposal submission requirements, including the expected management and technical approach elements as well as applicable page limitations, to ensure a consistent and equitable basis for evaluation?

The solicitation includes a requirement for submission of a management approach or technical approach. In addition, the solicitation establishes page limitations or provide technical detail regarding what should be included in the proposal.

40 Submission Requirements

The solicitation does not include attachments that establish engineering and construction service fee schedules for the geographic regions covered under this contract. However, without standardized fee guidance by region, cost proposals may vary significantly at the task order level, creating uneven evaluation criteria and potential inequities among offerors.

In the evaluation of capacity, specialized experience, and management approach, could the Government provide a standardized bidding form or fixed fee schedule that identifies regional support requirements and associated labor categories/costs for the geographic areas covered under this IDIQ?

This is not a request for price proposal. Labor Categories have been provided in the synopsis.

41 Description

The solicitation does not include information regarding how task order proposals will be evaluated under this IDIQ. However, without defined evaluation procedures, offerors lack the ability to tailor their SF 330 submissions and proposal narratives to address the Government’s key discriminators.

In the evaluation of capacity, specialized experience, past performance, and management approach, could the Government clarify the evaluation methodology that will be applied at the task order level?

Specifically, will the Government publish task order-specific evaluation criteria, and if so, how will those criteria be weighted in relation to the base IDIQ evaluation factors?

Each task order will have a task order evaluation plan (TOEP) to describe the proposal evaluation factors and weights.

42 Selection Criteria

The solicitation includes DoD fuel system design and construction services that are also performed by other execution agents such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). However, the selection criteria do not specify whether past performance on NAVFAC contracts will be rated more favorably than comparable contracts executed under USACE or AFCEC.

In the evaluation of specialized experience and past performance, will the Government evaluate contracts performed for NAVFAC, USACE, and AFCEC on an equivalent basis, or will NAVFAC-specific past performance be given greater consideration in the evaluation?

The synopsis does not indicate greater consideration solely for NAVFAC-specific past performance.

Experience with POL projects on Navy or Marine Corps installations may be evaluated more favorably.

43 SF330 Submission Requirements

The solicitation requires support for contracts in OCONUS foreign locations and notes that offerors should anticipate compliance with Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), to be defined at the task order level. However, the solicitation does not establish clear baseline requirements for visas, work authorizations, or citizenship, which creates uncertainty in how capacity and past performance in OCONUS environments will be evaluated.

In the evaluation of capacity, specialized experience, past performance, and geographic knowledge , could the Government clarify the following:

(1) whether the Government will provide SOFA visas for contractors awarded task orders;

(2) whether prime contractors will be required to obtain Schengen visas to support work within the European Union;

(3) whether subcontracting team members will be required to hold citizenship in the host nations or unions where task orders are executed; and

(4) if such visas or citizenship are not required, how SF 330 submissions will be evaluated when they include provisions for resident personnel in OCONUS foreign work areas?

Refer to SAES section A (A4)(b) Travel: Performance under this contract may require travel by Contractor personnel at the Task Order level.

Travel may include trips to foreign countries. If travel is required, the Contractor is responsible for making all arrangements for Contractor personnel. The Contractor is responsible for obtaining visas, passports, international driver’s licenses and any other documentation required to perform their work.

Travel costs will be established as part of the overall firm-fixed price during task order negotiations.

44 Selection Criteria

The solicitation does not clearly identify how small business participation will be evaluated at either the base IDIQ level or the task order level. Recent executive orders and policy guidance emphasize Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which may affect how small business participation is weighted in federal source selection processes.

In the evaluation of capacity, management approach, and past performance, could the Government clarify how small business participation will be considered in the source selection criteria for this contract? Specifically, will small business participation be evaluated as a strength or significant strength relative to large business participation, and will the weighting of small business factors differ between the IDIQ award evaluation and individual task order evaluations?

The inquiry includes multiple questions that relate to the solicitation's selection criteria numbers 3, 4 and 5.

The solicitation's Selection Criteria relates to the base IDIQ. The solicitation does not include selection criteria for future task orders.

The solicitation clearly identifies Commitment to Small Business as selection criteria. Criterion 5, Commitment to Small Business, is the 5th most important factor in terms of weighting. Criterion 5 is designed to credit commitment to small business performance for similar contracts of relative size that utilize the various types of small business firms identified in the criterion.

To be clear, Commitment to small business will not be an evaluation factor/criterion at the task order level.

Solicitation Selection Criteria 3 and 4 address Program Management, Capacity, and Location and Past Performance, respectively. The Criteria does not identify small business participation and is not a consideration under criteria 3 and 4.

45 Submission Requirements

The solicitation states that “the following attributes may be more favorably evaluated: demonstrated capability to perform work in OCONUS locations.”

However, this statement does not provide clear guidance on what constitutes a demonstrable capability within the context of a proposal submission. Without further elaboration, offerors may be uncertain as to whether the Government expects past performance examples, organizational capacity to deploy resources OCONUS, demonstration of in-place agreements (e.g., SOFAs, host-nation approvals), or other indicators of capability.

In the evaluation of specialized experience, past performance, capacity, and geographic knowledge, could the Government clarify how offerors are expected to demonstrate “capability to perform work in OCONUS locations,” and what specific factors will be evaluated most favorably?

Offerors should present any relevant data to support capability to perform in OCONUS locations.

46 Description

The solicitation includes requirements for construction support but does not reference the applicable Government standards for safety. However, without defined safety requirements, offerors cannot accurately demonstrate the qualifications of their personnel, the adequacy of their safety programs, or the resources needed to ensure compliance during contract execution.

In the evaluation of professional qualifications, capacity, and design/management approach, could the Government provide the detailed safety standards and requirements that will apply to personnel and construction support under this contract (e.g., EM 385-1-1, OSHA, DoD or NAVFAC-specific safety programs)?

Individual task orders may have specific safety and health requirements.

From synopsis page 7: In SF 330, Section E block 18, Identify any American Welding Society (AWS), Association of Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP), American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT), American Petroleum Institute (API), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) EM 385-1-1 Safety and Occupational Health (SOH) requirements, and any other applicable certification of all team members as it relates to the scope of this contract.

47 Description

The solicitation includes requirements for construction support but does not reference applicable Government standards for quality control, nor does it provide a Quality Assurance and Surveillance Plan (QASP). Without defined quality requirements, offerors cannot demonstrate the adequacy of their quality control programs, the qualifications of assigned personnel, or the management strategies necessary to ensure compliance.

In the evaluation of design approach, management, quality control, and professional qualifications, could the Government provide the detailed quality standards, requirements, and QASP expectations that will apply to personnel supporting this contract?

Individual task orders will include specific requirements for quality control and oversight. Refer to synopsis and SAES for quality control requirements. Refer to Amendment 01 for SAES.

48 Description

The solicitation does not reference the specific requirements for inspections of POL tanks, POL pipelines, and POL cathodic protection systems. However, without clear reference to applicable API and industry standards, offerors cannot accurately demonstrate specialized experience, professional qualifications, or past performance relevant to these critical systems.

In the evaluation of specialized experience, professional qualifications, and past performance, could the Government clarify which API and industry standards will apply to the inspection of POL tanks, pipelines, and cathodic protection systems? Additionally, will the Government identify which certifications (e.g., API 653 for aboveground storage tanks, API 570 for piping, API 1169 for pipeline inspection, STI SP001 for tank systems, and NACE/AMPP CP certifications for cathodic protection) will be considered of higher relevancy in the evaluation?

Refer to requirements in the SAES and synopsis. Refer to Amendment 01 for SAES.

Individual task orders may have other requirements tailored to the specific scope.

ACQR5976130_Amendment1 - Description

The solicitation establishes an AE IDIQ for DoD POL systems but does not describe how task order evaluations will be conducted or how work will be distributed among awardees. However, under the previous AE IDIQ, one contractor reportedly received more than 60% of the awarded task orders, raising concerns regarding fair opportunity, balanced workload distribution, and the Government’s ability to fully leverage the specialized experience and capacity of multiple firms.

In the evaluation of capacity, specialized experience, and past performance under FAR 36.6 — and consistent with the fair opportunity provisions of IDIQ contracting — could the Government clarify how task order proposals will be evaluated to ensure equitable distribution of work?

Specifically, will evaluation procedures incorporate considerations such as workload distribution, demonstrated capacity, or prior task order awards when determining future assignments?

The Government will consider all relevant factors when evaluating task order proposals to determine the most qualified.

ACQR5976130_Amendment1 - Description

The solicitation establishes an AE IDIQ for DoD POL systems but does not describe how task order evaluations will address workload distribution among awardees. Under the previous AE IDIQ, a single contractor reportedly received more than 60% of task orders, creating a potential single point of failure and elevating risk to mission assurance. Furthermore, if future task order evaluations place disproportionate emphasis on small business participation without balancing other critical factors such as specialized experience, technical competence, and demonstrated capacity, there is a risk of disadvantaging other qualified firms and limiting the Government’s ability to sustain mission readiness.

In the evaluation of capacity, specialized experience, and past performance under FAR 36.6, could the Government clarify how task order awards will be evaluated to both promote fair opportunity and mitigate mission assurance risk?

Specifically, will the evaluation methodology incorporate considerations such as workload distribution, contractor capacity, and mission-critical expertise when determining task order assignments?

The Government will consider all relevant factors in determining task order assignments.

51 Selection Criteria

The solicitation includes OCONUS-foreign locations within EUCOM that will require subcontractor support. Some countries impose unique government oversight requirements for contractor vetting and for the execution of repair and inspection work. For example: (1) Italy requires compliance with the Anti- Mafia Code (Codice Antimafia), including contractor vetting to prevent the engagement of prohibited organizations; (2) Germany requires inspections performed under the Technischer Überwachungsverein (TÜV) codes; and (3) the United Kingdom requires implementation of a Safe System of Work, coordinated through a Coordinating Authorising Engineer (CAE) with support from independent Authorising Engineers (AE) and Authorised Persons (AP).

However, the solicitation does not clarify how offerors will be evaluated in relation to these country-specific requirements.

In the evaluation of specialized experience, past performance, capacity, and geographic knowledge, could the Government provide additional detail on how compliance with country-specific requirements will be assessed? Specifically, will past performance demonstrating experience with these oversight frameworks (e.g., Codice Antimafia, TÜV, UK Safe System of Work) be considered a strength or significant strength in the evaluation?

Past performance in OCONUS locations may be evaluated more favorably.

Individual task orders may have location-specific requirements.

52 Criterion Is it a requirement for A-E Contractors to have an internal ASNT TC-1A NDT Program to perform applicable methods of NDT for pipeline and storage tank Inspections in accordance with API and ASNT requirements?

Yes for POL Pipeline and Storage Tank inspections.

53 Submission Requirements For key personnel holding multiple PE licenses across different states, does the agency require proof of certification for all states?

One active P.E. license is acceptable.

54 Criterion If a project has been completed and closed out for more than 6 months but remains in the 'interim' CPAR phase, will it be considered a completed project?

For completed projects, submit a final CPARS if available. If a final CPARS is unavailable, then submit a PPQ.

55 Selection Criteria What value and quantitative selection criteria does the government have in evaluation of internal/self-performance vs subcontracted execution?

Given identical experience and qualifications, self-performance may be slightly preferred over subcontractor.

SF 330 Submission Requirements – email submittal; Contacts & PPI deadline (pp. 15-16)

Please confirm that email is the ONLY accepted submission method for the SF

330. If file size exceeds email limits, may offerors use PIEE or DoD SAFE as an alternative transfer method?

The maximum file size allowed for email submissions is around 25 MB.

The government will provide an alternate method such as DoD SAFE (Safelink) for large file size transfers (up to 8 GM or 25 files). Refer to Amendment 01 for further instructions.

SF 330 Submission Requirements – Part I page limit 50; Org chart 11×17 allowed (pp. 14-15)

Does the 50-page Part I limit replace any section-level page caps (e.g., per-resume or per-section)? Please also confirm that the single 11×17 organizational chart counts as one page and is in addition to the 50 pages.

In accordance with the instructions, Part I must not exceed 50 single-sided 8.5 by 11 inch pages. However, the single 11×17 organizational chart is in addition to the 50 pages.

Criterion 1 – Specialized Experience, 4–6 projects completed within 5 years;

performed by proposed office/team

(pp. 6-8)

Will substantially complete projects (physical work complete, final admin closeout pending) be considered ‘completed’ for recency purposes?

Either a completed CPARS or a completed PPQ will be acceptable as a project completion.

Criterion 3 – Worldwide performance

(pp. 11-12, 16)

For OCONUS work, are offerors expected to demonstrate in Section H existing in country teaming/resources now, or will TO specific plans suffice with a description of worldwide reach?

Offerors should present any relevant data to support the capability to perform in OCONUS locations.

Criterion 2 – PE licensure and certifications (pp. 8-10)

Are certifications such as API 653/570, AWS, AMPP, and ASNT considered mandatory minimums for key roles, or ‘preferred’ qualifications that enhance evaluation scoring?

Relevant certifications are preferred.

61 Criterion 5 – Template usage (p. 14) For large businesses, will alternate subcontracting plan formats be rejected if they contain all FAR/DFARS elements, or is the Government template mandatory for compliance?

Any format that includes the required information is acceptable. If you would like, you may start with and tailor the Subcontracting Plan template for your needs.

Proof permitted by law to practice A/E;

JV agreement submittal (p. 15)

Please confirm that proof the firm is permitted by law to practice A/E (per FAR 36.601

4(b)) and, if applicable, the executed JV agreement are required with the initial SF

330 submission and are treated as compliance items.

Proof of permission to practice A/E (per FAR 36.601-4(b)) is required with the initial SF-330 submission and is treated as a compliance item.

Failure to provide this proof can lead to elimination from consideration.

If applicable, an executed Joint Venture (JV) agreement is required with the initial SF-330 submission and is treated as a compliance item.

Failure to include the JV agreement may result in elimination from further evaluation.

SF 330 Part II – prime and subcontractors; JV mechanics (pp. 10, 15)

Do all subcontractors (each firm) require a separate Part II?

While a full Part II for every subcontractor firm may not be explicitly required, providing qualifications of key personnel from significant subcontractors is strongly recommended to strengthen the proposal and demonstrate a well-qualified team.

Security Requirements – SBU level;

SECNAV M5510.30 & DoD 8570.01

M

(p. 5)

Are there any anticipated cyber requirements (e.g., CMMC level) applicable at base contract or task order level for this MAC?

There are no explicit mentions of specific CMMC levels applicable at the base contract or task-order level for this MAC.

However, the requirement to protect CUI and the potential need for access to DoD IT systems strongly suggest that contractors will need to implement cybersecurity measures that align with DoD standards.

Scope – SAES/criteria updates and DoD fuel criteria support (pp. 4-5)

Will a Scope of A E Services (SAES) or equivalent attachments (e.g., DB/DBB design deliverables, SUCCESS cost estimating requirements, EM

385 APP

submittals) be issued by amendment or incorporated by reference? If changes are planned, please summarize material differences from the prior vehicle.

Refer to Amendment 01 for SAES.

66 Scope How does the government anticipate differentiation of task orders and RFTP issuance between large business and small business?

The government anticipates differentiating TO/RFTP issuance primarily through the use of small business set-asides and subcontracting requirements, while also considering factors such as geographic location and firm capabilities. The specific approach will depend on the individual TO requirements and the government's assessment of the available qualified small businesses. Both large and small businesses will be evaluated on their commitment to small business participation, incentivizing all firms to promote small business involvement in the contract.

67 Selection Criteria

The solicitation does not describe how task orders will be evaluated with respect to contract thresholds for small businesses versus other business types. In addition, it is unclear whether task order evaluations will account for each contractor’s existing workload and active contracts with the agency.

However, without this information, offerors cannot fully understand how their capacity and resource availability will be assessed at the task order level. In the evaluation of capacity, past performance, and management approach, could the Government clarify how task order proposals will be evaluated in relation to business size thresholds, and whether contractor workload and ongoing contract commitments will be considered in the task order evaluation process?

The Government will consider all relevant factors in determining task order assignments.

68 Submission Requirements

For Discipline Lead resumes, can the Government clarify what specific disciplines they require for submission (e.g., mechanical, civil, structural, electrical, fire protection, environmental, etc.) and whether all must be provided with PE licensure and relevant DoD POL system experience?

Refer to synopsis Criterion 2 - Professional Qualifications, page 6, for Discipline Lead requirements.

At least one Discipline Lead is required.

69 Selection Criteria Does providing additional disciplines beyond the minimum required add value to the proposal? Will firms be evaluated more favorably if more disciplines are included?

Additional relevant disciplines may be considered favorably.

The totality of the firms' relevant professional qualifications (various disciplines, depth of knowledge, experience, etc.) will be considered to determined the most favorable.

Solicitation Instructions, Criterion 2 – Submission Requirements

Instructions state that “At a minimum, four personnel should be identified – a program manager, and at least one of the following: discipline lead, program manager, and project engineer. Please confirm that the second reference to program manager should say “project manager.”

The second reference to a Program Manager should be Project Manager.

The sentence should read:

At a minimum, four personnel should be identified – a program manager, and at least one of each of the following: discipline lead, project manager, and project engineer.

Solicitation Instructions, Criterion 3 – Submission Requirements

Instructions state to “Provide an organizational chart for the team …” and that “All information for Criterion 3 must be submitted in the SF 330, Part I, Section H. Should offerors also submit an organization chart in Part I Contract-Specific Qualifications, Section D – Organizational Chart of Proposed Team?

Please provide organizational chart under Part I Contract-Specific Qualifications, Section D. It is not necessary to include the chart in Section H.

Solicitation Instructions, Criterion 4 – Past Performance

Instructions state that, “If a CPARS has been completed for a project, simply provide the correct contract number and if applicable, the task order number.”

Instructions also state that CPARS do not count against the 50-page limit.

Please confirm that only correct contract/task order numbers are required and that physical copies of CPARS are NOT required.

It is confirmed that for projects where a CPARS has been completed, only the correct contract/task order numbers are required, and physical copies of the CPARS are NOT required.

Solicitation Instructions, Criterion 2 – Submission Requirements

Instructions state to “Provide proof of the current P.E. licenses for all key personnel.” However, a PE isn’t listed as a requirement for the Project Manager. Please confirm that a PE is NOT required for the Project Manager.

P.E. preferred for PGM.

Not required for Project Manager and Project Engineer.

Yes for Discipline Lead.

Solicitation Instructions, Criterion 1 – Submission Requirements

Instructions state that “Projects must have been completed within the last 5 years.” Please confirm that Design Complete constitutes project Completion.

For a completed project, submit a final CPARS or a PPQ if a final CPARS is unavailable.

Solicitation Instructions, General Information

Will the Government consider providing a two-week extension from the current due date (Oct. 17) to allow firms additional time to develop comprehensive proposal submissions.

The deadline to submit the SF 330 will be extended from 17 October 2025 to 27 October 2025. Refer to Amendment 01.

Solicitation Instructions, Criterion 2 – Submission Requirements

Instructions say to “Provide proof of the current P.E. licenses for all key personnel.” Please confirm whether offerors are required to submit proof for all states in which they are licensed or just one state to confirm they have an active license.

One active P.E. license is acceptable.

Copy