Amendment 0003_N4008422R0064.pdf

N4008422R0064 INDEFINITE DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) CONTRACT FOR

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES FOR MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PROJECTS AT

VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON U.S NAVY SUPPORT FACILITY (NSF) DIEGO GARCIA,

BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY (DG BIOT).

Solicitation Number: N40084-22-R-0064 Amendment 0003

1. The purpose of this amendment is to provide answers to submitted questions as follows:

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

RFQ reads: “Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following: (ii) Projects conducted within the DG BIOT geographic area associated with this contract.”

Question: The solicitation is written to allow only those firms with recent experience within the DG BIOT geographic area to receive a more favorable rating subsequently limiting competition to those firms working through the current and previous contracts.

Since there are many locations with similar considerations and constraints, but only a very limited pool of Offerors with recent and relevant work in Diego Garcia, will NAVFAC FE consider expanding the geography to locations in tropical environments similar to Diego Garcia to allow for a larger competitive pool?

Criterion #1 has been revised as follows:

Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following:

(iii) Key personnel experience within the DG BIOT geographic area or areas with similar tropical island environments.

Please see the yellow highlighted text noted in "Attachment 1 22R0064_Synopsis_Rev1"

RFQ reads: “Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following: (iii) Key personnel experience within the DG BIOT geographic area associated with this contract.”

Question: Since there are many locations with similar considerations and constraints, but only a very limited pool of Offerors with recent and relevant work in Diego Garcia, will NAVFAC FE consider expanding the geography to locations in remote tropical environments similar to Diego Garcia to allow for a larger competitive pool?

Criterion #2 has been revised as follows:

Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following:

(ii) Projects conducted within the DG BIOT geographic area or areas with similar tropical island environments.

Please see the yellow highlighted text noted in "Attachment 1 22R0064_Synopsis_Rev1"

RFQ reads: “Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following: (iv) Key personnel from the prime contractor will be evaluated more favorably than that of their subcontractor.”

Question: Since there is an extremely limited pool of Offerors who provide the full list of services listed internally, will NAVFAC FE consider removing more favorable evaluation for key personnel that are from the prime contractor to allow for a larger competitive pool?

Offerors are not limited to only key personnel from the prime contractor. The synopsis language will not be removed, however the verbiage is revised for consistency as follows:

Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following:

(iv) Key personnel from the prime contractor may be evaluated more favorably than that of their subcontractor.”

Please see the yellow highlighted text noted in "Attachment 1 22R0064_Synopsis_Rev1"

RFQ reads: “Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following: (v) Key personnel that have participated in a large percentage of projects submitted in SF 330, Section F (Criterion 2). High percentage is considered key personnel which are listed on five (5) or more Criterion 2 projects meeting the project requirements outlined in Criterion 2.”

Question: Due to the extreme narrow allowance in the solicitation for more favorable projects within the Diego Garcia BIOT area, the pool of Offerors who will be able to provide resumes where the key personnel worked on five of the 10 projects presented in Criterion 2 will be limited to current and previous contractors.

To increase competition, will NAVFAC FE consider removing more favorable evaluation for this factor?

With regard to projects within the DG BIOT geographic area, please see the response to questions #1 and #2 above. Offerors are not limited to key personnel that worked on five of the ten projects presented in Criterion 2.

The synopsis language will not be removed or altered.

RFQ reads: “The PPQ shall be from the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for the contract administration or from the facility owner/user.

It shall not be from the prime contractor on a project nor shall it be from a prime contractor to a subcontractor.”

Question: In the recent past, NAVFAC personnel have been unwilling to prepare and return PPQs to us. We believe it may be a NAVFAC policy not to fill out PPQs. This is a dilemma for many A-E firms that are submitting relevant projects where they were the DOR for a DB contractor or a key subconsultant to another A-E prime firm. There is no CPARS for the A-E firm in these instances, and they need a PPQ to show their past performance. If we cannot get a PPQ from NAVFAC personnel, would it be reasonable to submit a PPQ filled out by the DB Contractor, a CPARS for the DB Contractor or Prime A-E firm where we were DOR or key subconsultant that mentions our firm, in addition to the first page of the PPQ according to the solicitation as follows: If the firm is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the response date set forth in this notice, firms should complete and submit with their responses the first page of the PPQ, Attachment 4, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Will NAVFAC FE attempt to contact NAVFAC personnel to fill out the PPQ?

A PPQ filled out by the DB Contractor is NOT acceptable.

A PPQ / CPARS for the DB Contractor or Prime A-E firm where your firm was the DOR or key subconsultant IS acceptable as long as your firm's role and responsibilities are clearly identified.

If the firm is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the response date set forth in the synopsis, firms should complete and submit with their responses the first page of the PPQ, Attachment 4, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The government may use the information provided to contact the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for the contract administration or from the facility owner/user.

RFQ reads: “Criterion #4: Past Performance (SF330, Part I, Section H) Firms will be evaluated on past performance with Government agencies and private industry in terms of work quality, compliance with schedules, cost control, and stakeholder/customer satisfaction. Evaluating past performance and experience will include information provided in Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) or CPARS for Criterion 2 projects and may include customer inquiries, evaluation of information contained in Government databases, and other information available to the Government including contacts with points of contact in other criteria.

NOTE: Past performance information for projects listed under Criterion 2 may be given greater weight than information for other projects. Past performance of the prime firm or Joint Venture partners will be evaluated more favorably than that of subcontractors.”

Question: How will Offerors who are only able to provide a performance evaluation for some but not all projects in Criterion 2 be rated? (i.e., will this criterion be rated on a points basis for each evaluation or just acceptable/unacceptable for providing some evidence of past performance on projects in Criterion 2?)

Criterion #4 has been revised as follows:

"NOTE: Past performance information for projects listed under Criterion 2 may be given greater weight than information for other projects. Past performance of the prime firm or Joint Venture partners may be evaluated more favorably than that of subcontractors.”

Submission of a CPARS evaluation or a PPQ is required for each project included under Criterion 2.

As noted in the response to RFI #5, If the firm is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the response date set forth in the synopsis, firms should complete and submit with their responses the first page of the PPQ, Attachment 4, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Per the synopsis: "Firms will be evaluated on past performance with Government agencies and private industry in terms of work quality, compliance with schedules, cost control, and stakeholder/customer satisfaction. Evaluating past performance and experience will include information provided in Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) or CPARS for Criterion 2 projects and may include customer inquiries, evaluation of information contained in Government databases, and other information available to the Government including contacts with points of contact in other criteria."

RFQ reads: “Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating sustainable design and development practices in projects submitted as part of the SF330, Section F, performed for the Department of Defense (DoD).”

Question: We were only able to identify a single project that has been LEED certified in Diego Garcia over the past 10 years. Based on this, there is only one project that could potentially receive more favorable consideration for a LEED-certified project that also meets the requirements for favorable consideration in Criterion 2. Will NAVFAC FE consider removing or altering this language to expand eligible demonstration of sustainable design and development from the evaluation to provide for a larger competitive pool?

The synopsis does not specify that LEED certified projects are required to be considered more favorably under this criterion.

The synopsis language will not be removed or altered.

Question: Requesting Section F Project Narrative sheets be two pages. We saw that resumes may go to two pages & understand there is an overall 50 page limit.

The synopsis does not specify a page limitation for Section F.

2. The synopsis is hereby revised. Please see the yellow highlighted text noted in "Attachment 1

22R0064_Synopsis_Rev1"

3. All other synopsis provisions remain unchanged.