Synopsis Amendment 0001.pdf

N40085-24-R-2674 INDEFINITE QUANTITY/INDEFINITE DELIVERY CONTRACT FOR

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES FOR MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND

PLUMBING IN SUPPORT OF PROJECTS PRIMARILY LOCATED IN THE MARINE

CORPS AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY

AMENDMENT 0001 – 05 SEPTEMBER 2024

The purpose of this amendment is to provide:

I. Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) responses

II. The SF330 Submission Due Date has been extended to 23 September 2024 NLT 2:00 PM

EDT.

III. PPI Deadline

I. Pre-Proposal Inquiry Responses

Question 1. Can a sub-consultant use the Prime Architect's CPAR? If not, does the sub-consultants PPQ need to go to the Prime Architect or the POC at the Government for Military

Section F Projects? Who completes the PPQ? (Reference: Criterion 3 – Past Performance, Page

14, Paragraph 3)

Response: No, a sub-consultant should not use a Prime AE's CPARS evaluation(s). Only the

Offerer (the Prime AE firm who submits the SF 330) is required to submit past performance information in the form of a CPARS evaluation or a PPQ. If the Offerer is a joint venture, then the JV should submit past performance information for projects submitted under Section F of the

SF 330 that were completed as the Prime AE firm. If the projects submitted under Section F of the SF 330, were completed separately by one or the other of the JV partners, then the JV partner who was the Prime AE should submit past performance information for those projects submitted under Section F of the SF 330. As indicated on by the instructions on the PPQ form, the Client completes the PPQ.

Question 2. The title and the information provided prior to Criterion 1 is focused primarily on mechanical, electrical and plumbing services. Criterion 1 lists seven specific areas of demonstrated experience that appears to be civil engineering or heavy multi-discipline AE services such as design of antiterrorism and security projects such as installation security fencing, entry control facilities, lighting, and other force protection measures, versus mechanical, electrical and plumbing services. Please confirm the focus of this solicitation is primarily a mechanical, electrical and plumbing services IDIQ. (Reference: Pages 1-9)

Response: The Synopsis clearly states that "Prospective A-E firms, will primarily perform mechanical and electrical design services under the contract;" which is the primary purpose of the requirement, however, there are other types of A-E design services, such as the design of antiterrorism and security projects such as the design of security fencing, entry control facilities, lighting, and other force protection measures that may be required under this contract.

Question 3. With respect to Criterion 1, third most favorable evaluation: Given this is a MEP AE contract, should projects showing primarily mechanical, electrical, or plumbing projects with incidental other disciplines that are typical of these types of contracts be given more consideration over multi-discipline efforts? (Reference: Criterion 1, Page 8, last bullet on page)

Response: As stated in the Synopsis, firms submitting projects showing experience completing projects that include multi-disciplined efforts will be considered more favorably.

Question 4. Page 10 states that Offerors shall have acted as the designer of record on submitted projects. In addition, the offeror must demonstrate experience with design-build request for proposal preparation. These two requirements are conflicting as there is no designer of record for preparation of a design-build request for proposal. We understand that this contract will require the preparation of design-build RFPs. If so, will more consideration be given to working for the government preparing a design-build RFP, versus being the AE2 designer of record for the contractor implementing the RFP? If more preference is given to preparing the RFP, recommend

Criterion 1 Submission requirements “Offerors shall have acted as the designer of record on submitted projects” be clarified as being the designer of record for design-bid-build projects, and having prepared the RFP for design-build RFPs, but not being the designer of record for the design-build project. (Reference: Criterion 1, Page 10, Paragraph 4)

Response: On the contrary, there is a Designer of Record for Design-Build projects, which is the

AE firm who prepares the DB RFP. The Synopsis states that “All engineering and design services shall comply with the most current edition of FC 1-300-09N Navy & Marine Corps

Design Procedures, and other requirements as indicated on the Whole Building Design Guide

Web Site" which includes the following requirements:

00 00 00 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1.1 Definitions

Designer of Record (DOR): Licensed architect/engineer working as subcontractor to or partner with prime Contractor who provides design for this contract.

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS SECTION 01 33 10.05 20 DESIGN

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

1.6.3 Designer of Record Certifying Authority the Designer of Record (DOR), as registered and defined in FC 1-300-09N, is the design certifying authority. The DOR accepts responsibility for design of work in each respective design discipline, by stamping and approving final construction drawings submitted to the Government approval authority.”

Question 5. Will full design services performed for the Government be considered more favorable over full design services performed for construction contractors? (Reference: Criterion

1)

Response: The Synopsis clearly states the considerations by which firms will be considered more favorably.

Question 6. Please clarify if a project designed by a subconsultant may be submitted when the subconsultant was the DOR – a security fencing project, entry control facilities or other force protection measures projects as examples. We can see where the government would favor projects where the offeror participated. If the use of projects from a subconsultant is not permitted, the criterion unnecessarily advantages joint ventures and limits competition.

(Reference: Criterion 1, Page 10)

Response: The Prime A-E is the Designer of Record under contract by the government is ultimately responsible for the services & deliverables provided by his sub-consultants. A project submitted under Section F of the SF 330 will only be considered if it was completed by the

Prime AE firm, not his sub-consultants.

Question 7: Please confirm whether the "offeror" refers to the prime firm only or the entire design team? (Reference: Criterion 1, Page 10)

Response: Prime firm only.

Question 8. We request an extension of at least 1 week to incorporate the RFI responses.

(Reference: N/A)

Response: Deadline for receipt of RFI/PPI submissions is 13 September 2024 2:00 P.M. EDT.

Question 9. The types of A-E services that may be required for this contract include "High voltage and low voltage electrical systems." Please clarify how NAVFAC defines high voltage and confirm that the scope is not expected to include medium voltage projects. (Reference: Page

3)

Response: Electrical voltage systems are defined by United Facilities Criteria found under the

Whole Building Design Guide.

Question 10. The solicitation indicates that relevant projects shall demonstrate several characteristics, including that the "Offeror shall have acted as the designer of record on submitted projects." This refers to a role typically associated with signing and sealing final construction documents. Does this preclude the submission of projects that demonstrate experience with preliminary site analysis or facility planning studies (two of the seven specialized experience areas that our projects must address) if the project did not progress to the full design phase? (Reference: Criterion 1 Submittal Requirements, Page 5)

Response: Experience providing a preliminary site analysis or facility planning studies alone does not represent a completed project. Only projects which have been completed in accordance with the Criterion 1 Specialized Experience submission requirements will be considered.

Question 11. The submission requirements include an 'organization chart for the team.' This appears to be the same organization chart required in SF330 Section D, Organization Chart of

Proposed Team. May we reference Section D in our response to Criterion 5 in Section H, or alternatively may we use an 11x17 sized page to present the org chart in Section H, Criterion 5?

(Reference: Criterion 5 Submission Requirements, Page 8)

Response: In your response to Criterion 5 in Section H, you may include the organization chart in Section D and make reference to it.

Question 12. The solicitation states that "The organization chart may be one-page 11x17 foldout, using 11-point font or larger…" Does this refer to the organization chart in the SF330 Section D, or the organization chart requested in Criterion 5, or both? (Reference: SF-330 Submittal

Requirements, Page 9)

Response: In your response to Criterion 5 in Section H, you may include the organization chart in Section D and make reference to it.

Question 13. Would NAVFAC consider extending the due date for the submittal by one week?

(Reference: SF-330 Submittal Requirements, Page 9)

Response: Submittal due date has been extended to 23 September 2024.

II. The SF330 Submission Due Date has been extended to Monday, 23 September 2024

NLT 2:00 PM EDT.

III. The deadline receipt of PPIs from Offerors is Friday, 13 September 2024 NLT 2:00PM

EDT. Responses to RFI’s received after this time may not receive a response.

-End of Amendment-