Clarifications_Amend0001_N3943027R5001.pdf

RFI Responses for Solicitation N3943027R5001 (ESEC II) 10/15/2026

No. Reference Question Response 1 Synopsis, general The posted SAES is titled ESEC_II_SAES_Draft_30sept26. Is this the final SAES for this solicitation?

The SAES v. 9/30/26 is the version current for the ESEC opportunity. The Contracting Office reserves the right to update the SAES, but will publish any revisions to SAM for public viewing, until an award is made (or cancellation issued).

2 Synopsis, general

Please confirm the deadline, submission address, and required format for solicitation questions, and how responses will be distributed to interested firms.

The Contracting Office did not anticipate to have a formal RFI exchange for this opportunity, where firms will be ranked by their SF330 qualifications for the most-highly-qualified selection process. The Contracting Office reserves the right to not answer any question submitted in regards to the Synopsized Opportunity for updating SF330 documentation.

The Contracting Office has not yet issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) anticipated for this opportunity, in accordance with applicable Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) procedures (40 USC Ch. 11), with Environmental Engineering firms still to be reviewed for selection.

3 Synopsis, and SAES A6–A7, p.

8; C1, pp.

9–10.

Given the anticipated FFP/CPFF task-order mix, please clarify how basic-contract hourly/service rates apply to each order type, which incremental-funding provisions apply, and how escalation, specialty labor, and OCONUS costs will be negotiated.

This procurement is being conducted in accordance with 40 U.S.C. Chapter 11 (the Brooks Act) and FAR Subpart 36.6, which utilize Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) procedures for Architect-Engineer (A&E) services. Under these procedures, the Government evaluates prospective firms solely on their professional qualifications, specialized experience, capacity, and past performance as demonstrated in the submitted SF330. Consequently, inquiries regarding pricing, detailed cost proposals, or specific technical design solutions are not applicable to this phase of the solicitation.

4 SAES

A2.b and A2.d, pp.

4–5; A4, p.

6; D5, pp.

13–14.

Will RDT&E and pilot task orders define acceptance around approved protocols, defensible data, and documented findings, including unsuccessful technology outcomes? Please clarify the approval process and lead time for non- ELAP research laboratories.

Same as No.3 response

5 SAES

A4.a.C–D,

p. 6; G1, p.

19.

Please define responsibility for characterization, temporary storage, generator designation, transportation, and disposal of investigation- and pilot-generated waste, including PFAS, radioactive, and mixed waste. What work is authorized while awaiting a hazardous-drill-spoil disposal modification?

Same as No.3 response

6 SAES

A2.b–d,

pp. 4–5;

H.n, p. 21;

Appendix 1, p. 23.

For web tools, models, and software deliverables, will task orders specify hosting, security authorization, accessibility, source-code delivery, maintenance, and data/software rights?

How will pre-existing contractor tools be distinguished from contract-funded development?

Same as No.3 response

7 SAES A2,

p. 3;

A4.a.A–B,

p. 6;

Appendix 1, pp. 23– 24.

Please reconcile the prohibition on full-scale remedial construction with Title II management, including subcontract award and management, MEC removal/treatment methodologies, and operation-support examples. Which activities may the A-E perform or subcontract, and which are limited to advisory or oversight services? Please define the incidental-construction approval threshold or test.

Same as No.3 response

8 SAES

A4.a.E, pp.

6–7; D2.a– b and D2.f,

pp. 11–12.

Will task orders establish the number of Government and regulator review cycles, consolidated comment packages, reviewer sequence, and review/response periods? How will additional cycles, conflicting comments, changed direction, or delayed approvals be addressed in scope, schedule, and fee adjustments?

Same as No.3 response

9 SAES

A4.a.G,

pp. 7–8.

How will ongoing contract-level program management, consolidated reporting, transition support, and SME availability be funded: a dedicated order, individual orders, or another mechanism? What minimum staffing or availability is expected between task orders?

Same as No.3 response

10 SAES B1,

p. 9; C2– C3, pp.

10–11.

For a delegated task order, is separate PCO approval required after an authorized ordering contracting officer issues a modification? Please define the approval sequence and responsible officials for scope, cost, schedule, and funding changes.

Same as No.3 response

11 SAES D2,

pp. 11–12;

D6.f–h, pp.

16–17; E– G, pp. 17– 20; I–J, pp.

21–22.

Please confirm that construction-oriented deliverables, design milestones, and monitoring provisions apply only when expressly identified in a task order.

Please resolve bracketed alternatives and confirm applicable analytical methods, including the methods listed in G3.c.

Same as No.3 response

12 SAES

D6.a, pp.

14–15.

Please reconcile the task/site-specific citizenship language with the statement that all service and support personnel must be U.S. citizens. Clarify applicability to off-site analysts, laboratories, subcontractors, and OCONUS personnel, and identify required information-system safeguards, cybersecurity clauses/certifications, and compliance timing.

Same as No.3 response

13 SAES

A2.c, p. 5;

A4.a.A, p.

6;

Appendix 1, p. 24.

Please identify applicable organizational conflict-of-interest restrictions and mitigation requirements for independent reviews, procurement-document development, and QA assignments.

Could this work restrict the awardee, JV members, affiliates, or subcontractors from pursuing subsequent design or remediation work at supported sites?

Yes, prospective offerors are advised that performance under this contract involves work that is subject to the restrictions of FAR Subpart 9.5 (Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, OCCI) and FAR 36.209 (Construction Contracts with Architect-Engineer Firms). Specifically, any firm (including the prime contractor, Joint Venture partners, affiliates, or subcontractors) that prepares specifications, work statements, or procurement documents under this contract will be precluded from competing on subsequent design or remediation contracts resulting from those documents. For independent reviews and QA assignments, the awardee will be required to submit an OCCI Mitigation Plan for Contracting Officer approval prior to award/performance to resolve any potential impaired objectivity. Complete OCCI mitigation plans are not required with the initial SF330 submittal but will be required prior to final contract or task-order award.

14 SAES A2,

p. 2.

Synopsis Selection Criteria

(SSC) 1

The SAES requires SMEs with advanced degrees, while the notice states that advanced degrees will be favored. Are advanced degrees mandatory or an evaluation preference? Please define qualifying degrees and whether equivalent experience is acceptable.

The offeror should aim to put their best-possible qualifications into the SF330 submittals; the objective of the Contracting Office is to utilize QBS, prior to issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the highest-rated firm. Advanced degrees in the synopsis documents are attributable to professional qualifications required for the Environmental Engineering services found within the SAES. Advanced degrees are one possible area of qualification where offerors may differentiate themselves in the pursuit of being ranked the most-highly-qualified, among many others.

15 SSC 1 Synopsis states: “The PGM and PMs should have a degree in engineering (environmental, civil, chemical, or related), or geological sciences, professional registrations in at least one state of the United States, and at least five (5) years of experience…” For the Project Managers, does certification as a Project Management Professional (PMP), which carries with it a certification number from the Project Management Institute and is gained through testing and maintained through annual training, count towards a registration?

Same as No. 14 response

16 SSC 1 Please confirm that proposers are able to modify the standard SF 330 Section G form to include [synopsis] matrix typically not found in Section G. And if so, can the [synopsis] required 12 pt. font size and 1-inch margins be reduced to fill in this information?

Confirmed, font size is reduced to 10 point, and 1-inch margin requirements are stricken due to SF330 margin constraints.

The offeror should take care that all charts, graphs, spreadsheets, and/or graphics are clear and legible in the Qualifications submittals. The use of font sizes should not contribute to obfuscating the intent of the page limitation, as either a fair standard for offerors' opportunity to present, or to the Contracting Office evaluators' time needed to review for qualifications.

17 SAES A2,

p. 2; D1.b,

p. 11.

SSC 1

At what point must proposed personnel be employed by or committed to the offeror and available: SF 330 submission, basic contract award, or task-order award? What commitment documentation and substitution requirements apply?

Proposed key personnel must be employed by or committed to the offeror (via a signed Letter of Commitment for non-employees) at the time of the SF330 submission, and they must remain available through basic contract award.

Unauthorized key personnel substitutions prior to contract award are prohibited and may result in disqualification.

18 SAES

D1.b, p.

11; A2, p.

2. SSC 1

Please confirm whether all seven required specialty SMEs must be employees of the prime contractor. Do employees of JV members or affiliated companies qualify, and may subcontractor SMEs supplement the required prime personnel?

Please make all organizational and employment arrangements as clear as practicable, for reviewers. The Contracting Office is not specifying the best teaming or partnership agreements prior to SF330 updates, under the premise that this direction would be potentially unique to different offerors and may also change over time, and the intention is to allow for the most-highly-qualified submittals from industry. However, the Contracting Office is specifying Small Business Subcontracting requirements, as well as professional qualifications for Environmental Engineering, for legal compliance of future orders and products.

19 SSC 1 The notice encourages fewer résumés when personnel fulfill multiple roles but requests a minimum of seven SME résumés, one PGM, two PMs, and three allied personnel. May one individual and résumé satisfy multiple required roles, including multiple SME specialties, or are distinct individuals required?

Yes, a single individual may satisfy multiple required roles, provided that their single résumé in Section E clearly demonstrates they meet the qualifications for each designated role.

20 SSC 2 Please reconcile the requirement for projects completed within seven years of proposal submission with the past-performance requirement for projects performed within seven years of synopsis issuance. Are completed task orders under ongoing IDIQs eligible?

How are completion and recency determined for grouped task orders, and is ongoing project work eligible?

Please utilize the October 1st synopsis issuance for the purposes of calculating seven years per the Selection Criteria.

The Contracting Office has not yet issued an RFP; the request for SF330 Qualifications is made for administrative convenience, to ensure up-to-date qualifications may be evaluated for selection per QBS procedures.

21 SSC 2,

SSC 3

Please clarify how prime, subcontractor, JV-member, affiliate, and predecessor-company experience will be credited under specialized experience and past performance, and what documentation is required to establish attribution and the proposed team’s involvement.

Same as No.18 response

22 SSC 1,

SSC 2,

SSC 3

May a project performed primarily by a proposed subcontractor or teaming partner be included among the 10 Section F specialized-experience projects? If so, will subcontractor CPARS or PPQs be accepted for those projects?

Please make all organizational and employment arrangements as clear as practicable, for reviewers. Offerors are not prohibited from submitting subcontractor information as CPARS or PPQs, within the overarching restrictions provided in the synopsis, but it is up to the offeror to make clear both the attribution of the past performance, and its merit as part of the capabilities statements.

23 SSC 1 Please confirm whether one individual may fulfill more than one required SME or key allied personnel role.

Yes, an individual may fulfill more than one required Subject Matter Expert (SME) or key allied personnel role, provided they meet the qualifications for each designated role. As stated in the solicitation, providing fewer than thirteen (13) resumes is encouraged if the proposed personnel are qualified to fulfill multiple roles.

24 SCC 2 Selection Criterion (2) requires "per project (size 12 Calibri with a minimum of 1” margins on the top, bottom, and sides)." Does this apply only to the Section F project pages? Will the Government accept 10-point font and the native SF330 form margins, as allowed under previous SF330 submissions for this program for other sections?

Confirmed, 10-point font is acceptable. The offeror should take care that all charts, graphs, spreadsheets, and/or graphics are clear and legible in the Qualifications submittals. The use of font sizes should not contribute to obfuscating the intent of the page limitation, as either a fair standard for offerors' opportunity to present, or to the Contracting Office evaluators' time needed to review for qualifications.

25 SCC 2 May tables, figures, and the organizational chart use a font smaller than 12 point?

Same as No. 24 response

26 SSC 2,

SSC 3

[SCC 2] says projects completed within seven years "from the date of the offeror’s proposal"; [SCC 3] says "from the issuance of this synopsis." Which date governs?

Please utilize the October 1st synopsis issuance for the purposes of calculating seven years per the Selection Criteria.

The Contracting Office has not yet issued an RFP; the request for SF330 Qualifications is made for administrative convenience, to ensure up-to-date qualifications may be evaluated for selection per QBS procedures.

27 SSC 3 Are Contractors required to provide all interim CPARS or just the final or most recent CPARS for each of the ten projects listed in Specialized Experience?

Submittals should contain the most-recent CPARS record to indicate the project and administrative data. The Contracting Office should be able to obtain older records from CPARS, and shall use the CPARS database for evaluation of all considered firms.

28 SSC 5 For an other-than-small offeror, does the 20% "prime and first tier" goal mean first-tier subcontracting only, as clarified under N3943021R2201 (Q&A #9)?

Confirmed. For an other-than-small (large business) prime offeror, the 20% prime and first-tier small business participation rate must be achieved entirely through subcontracting to first-tier small business concerns.

29 SSC 5 Criterion (5) requires Attachment B, Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy, but it is not posted. Please post Attachment B and its page limits.

Attachment B should have been posted with synopsis, and is posted now. It is a template for aligning subcontracting plans to percentages of performance and is meant to help compliance for Small Business Subcontracting requirements.

30 SSC 5 Please provide Attachment B, Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy. Criterion 5 refers to page limits in Attachment B but also states that the criterion has no page limit. Please clarify the applicable limits for the strategy and supporting reports.

Same as No.29 response

31 SSC 5 The solicitation states the following: "The

NAVFAC subcontracting program targets, expressed as percentage of total subcontracted work are estimated: Small Business: 40%, HubZone: 3%, Small Disadvantaged Business: 5%, Service- Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business: 3%, and Woman-Owned Small Business: 9%. Since the instructions state “of total subcontracted work” and not “of total award to the prime”, please confirm that these %s apply to the Subcontracting Plan and not the Subcontracting Participation Plan.

Same as No.29 response

32 SCC 5 The solicitation requires that we include ISRs for the 10 projects that we are listing in Section F of our proposal.

However, the projects are task orders under master agreements. Our ISRs include cumulative data from all task orders under the master agreements.

Would submitting ISRs that are representative of the cumulative task orders meet the requirements of the proposal? Because the ISRs are now reported in SAM, is it sufficient to reference the UEI# and contract # in lieu of including actual ISRs in the proposal?

SAM format for ISRs is the preferred format, but any legacy ISRs that may still be relevant may be provided to support QBS evaluations. EXWC preference is to provide a copy of ISR as part of the submittal, to ensure the offeror has provided the information they choose to submit. EXWC does reserve the right to pull more information from the Government's databases (e.g. CPARS) as part of the QBS evaluations to be performed.

33 SSC 2,

SSC 3,

SSC 4,

SSC 5,

SSC 6

Section H [defined by] the following page limits: (SSC 2) Specialized Experience:

Percentage of Involvement - No stated limit; (SSC 3) Past Performance:

CPARS/PPQs only (no narratives) - No page limit; (SSC 4) Capacity to Execute - Limited to 2 pages; (SSC 5) Small Business: Attachment B + ISRs - No page limit; (SSC 6) Geographic Location

- Limited to 2 pages. Please confirm the page counts listed above are correct.

Additionally, [Offeror] respectfully requests that two (2) additional pages be allowed in Section H for a team introduction / summary.

Please follow the instructions in each SSC, including the directives for each SF330 Section and as directed herein, in addition to the SF330 Instructions. Continuation Pages for SF330, each Section, can be found at the GSA Forms Library (http://gsa.gov/forms/) for use.

Please do not add sections or pages, not identified in the SF330 instructions, unless the synopsis instructions (or these clarifications to the synopsis) specifically request the information for QBS evaluation.

34 Historic Record

May offerors include up to two projects that are at least 80% complete, as allowed under N3943021R2201 (Q&A #8)?

The Contracting Office will allow no more than two projects that are at least 80% complete. The remaining eight must be complete.

35 Historic Record

Consistent with the 2020 (ESEC I) answers to questions, will EXWC allow offerors to submit at least two of the 10 Section F projects at 75% or greater completion?

Same as No.34 response

36 Historic

Record Consistent with the 2020 (ESEC I) answers to questions and the SF330 form’s 0.5-inch margins, will EXWC allow matching document margins?

Confirmed. Margin requirements are stricken due to SF330 margins restrictions.

37 Historic Record

Consistent with the 2020 (ESEC I) answers to questions, will EXWC allow 10-point Calibri font so the resumes and PDs can adequately detail the scope elements?

Confirmed. Font size is set to 10.

38 Historic Record

Consistent with the 2020 (ESEC I) answers to questions, will EXWC allow 9- or 10-point font in tables and figures, including the organizational chart?

Same as No. 16 response