N44255-18-R-5018_PPIs-_Amendment_01_dated_5-9-19.pdf

PPI Question Response 0001 Given the Memorial Day holiday on Monday, May 27, 2019, and potential concerns with shipping an receipt of proposals in that timeframe, will the government consider a proposal extension until June 3, 2019?

There is no change to the SF 330 due date.

0002 Other than medical, no other specific building types appear to be included in the solicitation. Can you elaborate on whether there is any preference for various building types?

Additionally, can you confirm whether building projects and infrastructure projects, such as a water treatment plant, are deemed of equal relevance under this solicitation?

The Government does not have a preference regarding building types.

Infrastructure projects and building projects are deemed of equal relevance.

0003 Please further elaborate on the extent and types of Environmental services may be required under the contract.

Are the anticipated services limited to design for the removal of building and infrastructure related asbestos and lead materials? Is POL- contaminated soils and related lab testing anticipated? Is environmental planning, e.g., NEPA services anticipated? Might any of these services be required in-water on at the waterfront?

Anticipated environmental services are expected to include inspection, laboratory testing, and preparation of drawings and/or specifications to support remediation of found hazardous materials on a project site. Environmental planning services such as NEPA are not anticipated.

0004 Under Criterion 1, page 3 of 10, “Preparation of a Planning Study;” since this service is identified separately from DB RFP and DBB Plans and Specifications, please confirm that a project whose entire scope was a related to pre-design planning, such as site analysis and preparation of DD1391 packages, will be scored equivalently with these other more traditional design phase services.

Yes, planning studies will count as project experience similar to a design-bid-build or design-build package. See Amendment 01 of the synopsis.

0005 Can you provide an example of “an abbreviated description of performance requirements,” reference Page 1 of 10 of the solicitation? This service is described as one of those expected to be provided under engineering and design services.

This is a generic term for preliminary studies/narratives where the Government desires a very preliminary cost estimate for future projects that may have little developed project information.

0006 The Key personnel listing, Criterion 2, page 4 of 10, does not specifically identify the need for project or Task Managers other than the Contract Project Manager. Is this

The list of key personnel as described in Criterion 2 has been revised. See Amendment 01 of the Synopsis.

N44255-18-R-5018 Amendment 01 PPI Responses purposeful or an oversight? Our assumption is that this role is equivalent to the Lead DOR role. Please confirm or clarify.

0007 Reference Criterion 3, Past Performance on page 5 of 10 - Please confirm that the most recently completed CPARS, if any, meets the intent of this statement, and that the term “completed” is not intended to convey that every project shall have a "final" CPARS. As you are aware, many projects that are design complete have “interim” CPARS ratings due to extended periods of performance under the contract task order to cover PCAS/construction phase services.

Please confirm the same understanding for PPQs.

The Government will accept the most recently completed CPARS and/or PPQ.

0008 Regarding the solicitation references between the Selection Criteria and the relevant Sections of the SF330, we noted that none of the Criterion reference typical SF330, Part I, Section D, Organization Chart. We further note that Criterion 5 does require an organization chart along with discussion of the contract management plan in Section H.

We typically provide a full org chart in Section D and a modified org chart in Section H.

For compliance purposes, please clarify whether the Organization Chart is to be shown in Section D and Section H - Criterion 5 or only in Section H.

The organization chart is included in Section D of the SF330. An additional org chart may be added for Criterion 5 if desired, or the offeror may refer back to Section D.

0009 Criterion 1 (page 3, paragraph 3, bullet 2) states that firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating projects where design fees were between $4,000,000 and $10,000,000. In some instances, the design effort may have been a different task order than the PCAS effort. Please confirm it is acceptable to add the total effort of the two tasks orders together (design and PCAS) to determine if the total fees were within the $4,000,000 to $10,000,000 range.

It is acceptable to add together separate contracts or task orders to determine overall project total design fee.

See revised Synopsis. If a project includes multiple contracts or task orders, note them in the project narrative portion of the form.

0010 Criterion 2 (page 4, paragraph 4) of the synopsis lists five key personnel categories. Please confirm that a single individual can fulfill multiple categories (i.e. the same individual can be

No. A single individual may not fulfill multiple categories.

the Contract Project Manager and the Lead Design Quality Control Manager).

0011 Criterion 2 (page 4, paragraph 4, bullet 4) of the synopsis lists five key personnel categories. Category 4 says “Lead Designers of Record (DOR) (Max of 4)”. Please confirm the intent is these individuals are the lead DOR for each task order, and not the DOR from each discipline.

The list of key personnel as described in Criterion 2 has been revised. See Amendment 01 of the Synopsis.

0012 The synopsis does not include any SF330 Part II requirements. Please confirm SF330 Part II information is not required.

SF330 Part II is required. See Amendment 01 of the Synopsis.

0013 File: Multi-Discipline_AE_Synopsis_Dated_4-26-19.doc, page 3 of 10, Selection Criteria, Criterion 1 paragraph 2, subparagraph 2.

This sections states that the selection committee will be “consider (the offeror) more favorably by demonstrating the following: Projects where Offeror was the Prime Architect- Engineer and design fees were between $4,000,000 and $10,000,000.”

1) Can you please confirm that this is meant to be “Design Fee” and not “Construction Fee”

2) If we can only show projects that are below this range will the projects be considered to not meet the criteria?

3) Is there a minimum Design or Construction Fee that projects must meet to be considered similar? If so what is that minimum fee.

1) Yes, this is meant to be the fee paid to produce design documents for the project (planning, drawings and specification, or requests for proposal). It is not meant to be the construction value of the project.

2) No. The project will meet the criteria if it is any of the three types of projects in the Criterion 1 list.

3) There is no minimum fee, however the task order range for this contract is $500,000 to $10,000,000.

0014 File: Multi-Discipline_AE_Synopsis_Dated_4-26-19.doc, page 3 of 10, Selection Criteria, Criterion 1 paragraph 4.

This paragraph states that all projects provided in the SF330 “must be completed by the actual office/branch/regional office/individual team member proposed to manage and the perform work under this contract”

1) Will only projects where the Architect, Mechanical, Electrical Engineers, etc. were all the same as the individuals

1) No. Criterion 1 is focused on a firm’s projects so the reference to individual team members has been removed; see Amendment 01 of the Synopsis. A firm will demonstrate experience by submitting any of the three types of projects in the Criterion 1 list.

2) By completing Section C, E, F and G, the projects and the Key personnel should overlap in these sections, and per the Synopsis Criterion requirements.

being proposed for this contract be acceptable? As an example: if I’m proposing Architect A and he has only worked on 7 of the 8 projects provided, is the 8th project considered unacceptable, and if the Mechanical Engineer has only worked on 5 of the 8, are those three that they did not work on then unacceptable?

2) Is this true for office branches as well since it would be difficult for a firm with multiple offices and cross office teams to meet this criteria.

0015 1. On Page 3, Criterion 1 of the Multi-Discipline AE Synopsis, is the $4,000,000 to $10,000,000 design fee inclusive of fees for construction support services (PCAS) and modifications?

If the range does not include PCAS, we request the range be lowered to $2,000,000 to $10,000,000. We recommend the values include mods.

2. On Page 3, Criterion 1 of the Multi-Discipline AE Synopsis, what is your definition of a completed project? Can we use a project that is at the final design stage pending government acceptance of the final submittal? Please provide a definition of project completion to be clear to all Offerors.

3. On Page 4, Criterion 2 of the Multi-Discipline AE Synopsis, please define the difference between Lead Discipline vs.

Lead Designers of Record. What was the intent of separating these into two groups? Can you provide which discipline DORs you would like presented?

1) The value does include PCAS service and all modifications to represent the total value of services provided. See Amendment 01 of the Synopsis.

2) A completed project is one that the firm considers their (and any other consultants’) effort to produce the final design deliverable essentially finished.

3) The list of key personnel as described in Criterion 2 has been revised. See Amendment 01 of the Synopsis.