Synopsis Amendment 0004.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 0004 – 18 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 Friday, 04 October 2024 NLT 2:00

PM EDT.

III. PPI deadline extension.

I. Pre-Proposal Inquiry Responses

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)

Revised Response: The Government rescinds its response to Question 6 in Amendment 0001.

Please submit in accordance with the Synopsis.

Question 17. In your response to Question 14, it stated that Design-Bid-Build projects' completion date should be the date that construction was completed. Will a design-bid-build project that is design complete within the past 7 years but has not been constructed receive equal consideration as a constructed project? (Reference: Amend 0002, P1)

Response: Yes, a design-bid-build project that is design complete within the past 7 years but has not been constructed will receive equal consideration as a constructed project.

Question 18. Recently, an amendment was issued with responses to questions regarding the

Multi-Discipline Engineering Services contract to provide MEP services under solicitation number N4008524R2674. We would appreciate your review of the following answer provided as a response to question 6. Respectfully request reconsideration of your response to Question 6.

Since this solicitation is for a small business contract to provide MEP services, limiting the

Section F projects to only include work as a prime AE firm, restricts competition and is not consistent with other solicitations issued by NAVFAC commands. Since our firm is Designer of

Record for the MEP portion of the projects we have performed as a subcontractor to another firm, we believe this meets the wording and intent of Criterion 1 and should be considered relevant experience that is permitted in Section F. The initial response provided, if enforced, restricts all firms that typically provide the required engineering services as a subconsultant to A-

E firms from responding unless they have been awarded a Prime contract. So, if firms have not been awarded a Prime contract and this wording is provided as criteria on future solicitations then those firms would be unable to respond and would never be able to win a similar contract in the future. Also, we have relevant experience as the Prime A-E Designer of Record for a

Design-Build contractor that meets the criteria of project types noted within the solicitation. As you know, the Design-Build contractor holds the contract with the government. So, we would like to confirm that acting as the Prime A-E Designer of Record for that project complies with the solicitation criteria even though the Design-Build Contractor held the contract with the government? Please advise. (Reference: Amend. 1 Question 6 Response)

Response: Revised response to Question 6 included in this Amendment.

Question 19. The pdf document attached to the Sam.gov notice on 12 September appears to contain the same information as in the original pdf solicitation posted on 16 August. Is there a newer pdf modified solicitation forthcoming? (Reference: Amd. 2 and SAM.gov)

Response: PDF document was attached of the original Synopsis due to a glitch between PIEE and SAM.gov and the PIEE Amendment posting erased the original information. PDF was included as an attachment should the information be erased again.

Question 20. Request reconsideration of your response to Question 6. Since this solicitation is for a small business contract to provide MEP services, limiting the Section F projects to only include work as a prime AE firm, restricts competition and is not consistent with other solicitations issued by NAVFAC commands. Since our firm is Designer of Record for the MEP portion of the projects we have performed as a subcontractor to another firm, we believe this meets the wording and intent of Criterion 1 and should be considered relevant experience that is permitted in Section F. The initial response provided, if enforced, restricts all firms that typically provide the required engineering services as a subconsultant to A-E firms from responding unless they have been awarded a Prime contract. So, if firms have not been awarded a Prime contract and this wording is provided as criteria on future solicitations then those firms would be unable to respond and would never be able to win a similar contract in the future. (Reference:

Criterion 1 Submittal Requirements)

Response: Revised response to Question 6 included in this Amendment.

Question 21. Also, we have relevant experience as the Prime A-E Designer of Record for a

Design-Build contractor that meets the criteria of project types noted within the solicitation. As you know, the Design-Build contractor holds the contract with the government. So, we would like to confirm that acting as the Prime A-E Designer of Record for that project complies with the solicitation criteria even though the Design-Build Contractor held the contract with the government? Please advise. (Reference: Criterion 1 Submittal Requirements)

Response: As indicated under Criterion 1 of the Synopsis experience as the Prime AE Designer preparing Design-Build RFP contract packages is one of the areas of similar relevant experience indicative of the work that will be required under the contract, and as such, that experience may be used. Per the Synopsis, “If the firm was the Designer of Record on a design-build, the design portion of the project must be clearly stated as Design Completion Date and have been completed within the seven (7) years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this Synopsis to qualify as demonstrating design experience.”

Question 22. Can previously completed PPQs be submitted if they are completed on the same

NAVFAC/USACE form as provided as Attachment 1 for this solicitation? (Reference: Page 7, Criterion 3, Paragraph 2)

Response: Yes

Question 23. For a Design-Build project, as the A/E Designer of Record, it is typical that the

Design-Build Contractor is the A/E's Client for the project. Is it acceptable for the PPQ to be completed by the Design-Build Contractor or must it be completed by the Government Point of

Contact? (Reference: Page 7, Criterion 3, Paragraph 2)

Response: For a Design-Build project it is acceptable for the PPQ to be completed by the

Design-Build Contractor. Under PPQ Section 2. "Work Performed As ", please indicate "Sub-contractor".

Question 24. Amendment 0002, response to PPI Question #14 indicates, "if the project is

Design-Bid-Build, then the Completion Date should be the date that construction was completed." The next sentence indicates, "if the project is still under construction, state

"ONGOING" for the Completion Date. Then below, enter the percentage under Project is % completion (as of submission due date)." If we submit a Design-Bid-Build project for which the design is fully completed, construction is ongoing, and we indicate the completed construction percentage as you've indicated, will this project be considered less favorably than a project for which construction is complete? If it would be considered less favorably, it is not clear why the

Completion Date for a Design-Build project is permitted to be the DESIGN completion date

(without being considered less favorably), but for a Design-Bid-Build project, Construction must be completed, or we will be penalized. (Reference: Page 7, Submission Requirements, Paragraphs 1 and 4)

Response: No, a Design-Bid-Build project for which the design is fully completed, construction is ongoing, and completed construction percentage is indicated, will NOT be considered less favorably than a Design-Build project for which construction is complete. For Design-Build projects, the reason the project completion is the date the design is completed is that the A-E's contract for project design services has been completed at that point in the delivery of a Design-

Build project. On a Design-Bid-Build project, the A-E's contract for services typically extends beyond completion of the project design.

II. The SF330 submission due date has been extended to Friday, 04 October 2024 NLT 2:00

PM EDT.

III. The deadline receipt of PPIs from Offerors has been extended to Friday, 20 September

2024 NLT 2:00PM EDT. PPI’s received after this time may not receive a response.

-End of Amendment-