Amendment0001.pdf

N62470-23-R-9010 Amendment 0001

The following pertains to this Amendment:

Revised proposal due date RFI Questions and answers

CURRENT: Architect-engineer firms that meet the requirements described in this announcement are invited to submit their SF 330 to Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, Atlantic, Code ACQ21, Attn: Kimberly King, Contract Specialist, 6506 Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23508-1278. Responses received by the Government by 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on 26 January 2024 will be considered.

REVISED: Architect-engineer firms that meet the requirements described in this announcement are invited to submit their SF 330 to Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, Atlantic, Code ACQ21, Attn: Kimberly King, Contract Specialist, 6506 Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23508-1278. Responses received by the Government by 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on 31 January 2024 will be considered.

RFI QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

QUESTION 1: Criterion 1 Submission Requirements state “At least three (3) of the five projects submitted must be in the principal geographic areas of this contract (Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, Navy Region South East, Naval District Washington, and Navy Region EURAFCENT).” It is nearly impossible to cover all four geographic areas with just three task order level projects (i.e., we are not allowed to use an IDIQ as one of our projects). Is it the Government’s preference that at least three of the five submitted projects be in at least three of the four principal geographic regions or can all three projects be in one of the four regions and the other two projects be outside of these Navy regions?

ANSWER 1: Three of the submitted projects need to have taken place within the principal geographic areas identified. Other/additional projects can be submitted that are within these regions or outside of these regions at the discretion of the Offeror. The Offerors must decide which projects best fulfill the requirements of the proposal with respect to experience and ability to complete work within the principal geographic areas.

QUESTION 2: With all else being equal, will any scoring preference be given to teams with proposals that represent all four principal geographic areas within the five allowable projects?

ANSWER 2: The ability to execute projects within the four principal geographic areas of the contract is preferred based on Criteria 1 Submission Requirements.

QUESTION 3: With all else being equal, will a proposal that includes one Navy OCONUS project performed in Navy Region EURAFCENT be given any preferential scoring compared to a proposal with one OCONUS project performed in an Army or Air Force base?

ANSWER 3: No. As stated in the RFP, preference may be given if work can demonstrate experience performing work in accordance with DOD/Navy policy and guidance and demonstrate experience performing work on DOD installations.

QUESTION 4: Since Navy Region EURAFCENT water projects have only gone through this NAVFAC vehicle for over a decade, a clear competitive advantage exists for a team that includes the incumbent company (or incumbent teaming partner) when it comes to OCONUS project experience within Navy. Will the Government ensure that, with all else being equal, no scoring preference will be given to a team with Navy OCONUS work versus a team with DOD OCONUS work performed at a non-Navy facility located anywhere in Africa, Europe, or Asia?

ANSWER 4: The statement that “Navy Region EURAFCENT water projects have only gone through this NAVFAC vehicle” is factually untrue, as there are other contracts that are used, have been used, and available for use to complete “Navy Region EURAFCENT water projects.” As stated in the RFP, Criterion 1 may preferentially consider experience performing work in accordance with DOD/Navy policy and guidance and experience performing work on DOD installations.

QUESTION 5: With all else being equal, will any scoring preference be given to a team with a proposal where all five projects are at Navy installations versus a team with a proposal that has only three projects at Navy installations?

ANSWER 5: As stated in the RFP, Criterion 1 may preferentially consider experience performing work in accordance with DOD/Navy policy and guidance and experience performing work on DOD installations.

QUESTION 6: Can an IDIQ level contract be utilized as a relevant project in a resume especially if it is for an individual fulfilling the role of a program manager?

ANSWER 6: Yes

QUESTION 7: The instructions for SF330 Section E Resume Block 19 states, “If any of the professional services or construction projects are not complete, leave Year Completed blank and indicate the status in Brief Description and Specific Role (block (3)).” Does NAVFAC want us to follow this instruction rather than inserting, “Ongoing” and/or “N/A” in this block?

ANSWER 7: Please follow the instructions provided.

QUESTION 8: The instructions for SF330 Section F projects Block 22 states, “Enter the year completed of the professional services (such as planning, engineering study, design, or surveying), and/or the year completed of construction, if applicable. If any of the professional services or the construction projects are not complete, leave Year Completed blank and indicate the status in Brief Description of Project and Relevance to this Contract (block 24).” Does NAVFAC want us to follow this instruction rather than inserting, “Ongoing” and/or “N/A” in this block?

ANSWER 8: Please follow the instructions provided.

Question 9: Paragraph 4 under Criterion 3 Past Performance Submission Requirements states, “Firms may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Criterion 1 Specialized Experience. Firms may also address any adverse past performance issues, but this information shall not exceed four singled-sided pages in total. Is the four-page limit just for these items or does it include all of the Past Performance Section?

ANSWER 9: The four-page limit applies to the information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Criterion 1 Specialized Experience and any adverse past performance issues firms would like to address.

QUESTION 10: Paragraph 4 under Criterion 1 Specialized Experience Submission Requirements includes the following, “For submittal purposes, a task order on an IDIQ contract is considered a project, as is a stand-alone contract. Do not submit an IDIQ contract as an example of a completed project. Instead, list relevant task orders or stand-alone contract awards that fit with the definition above.” In which SF330 section should we include the list of relevant task orders or stand-alone contract awards in order to ensure the list is evaluated?

ANSWER 10: The only projects that should be submitted for this criterion is the (up to) five projects “that were completed or substantially completed within the five years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this notice that best demonstrate specialized experience of the proposed team in the areas outlined” in Criteria 1 of the synopsis. Do not submit a list of additional projects in addition to these (up to) five projects. Lists of projects from IDIQs, stand-alone contracts, and other projects not being submitted to reflect the specialized experience will not be reviewed or considered.

QUESTION 11: The Submission Requirements for Criterion 1 states “At least three (3) of the five projects submitted must be in the principal geographic areas of this contract (Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, Navy Region South East, Naval District Washington, and Navy Region EURAFCENT).” Will NAVFAC’s evaluation favor a contractor that presents projects performed in all four (4) of the stated geographic areas relative to a contractor that presents projects which have been performed in only three (3) of the four (4) geographic areas?

ANSWER 11: The ability to execute projects within the four principal geographic areas of the contract is preferred based on Criteria 1 Submission Requirements.

QUESTION 12: The Submission Requirements for Criterion 1 states “At least three (3) of the five projects submitted must be in the principal geographic areas of this contract (Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, Navy Region South East, Naval District Washington, and Navy Region EURAFCENT).” All other things being equal, will projects performed for the DOD, but not Navy, within the stated principal geographic areas be scored the same as Navy projects performed within the stated principal geographic areas?

ANSWER 12: As stated in the RFP, Criterion 1 may preferentially consider experience performing work in accordance with DOD/Navy policy and guidance and experience performing work on DOD installations.

QUESTION 13: Criterion 1, paragraph 2, states that “Firms may be rated more favorably by demonstrating the following: experience performing work in accordance with DOD/Navy policy and guidance….“ All other things being equal, will projects performed according to DOD policy and guidance, but not Navy policy and guidance, be scored the same as Navy projects performed according to Navy policy and guidance?

ANSWER 13: As stated in the RFP, Criterion 1 may preferentially consider experience performing work in accordance with DOD/Navy policy and guidance and experience performing work on DOD installations. The other areas of potential preference identified in the synopsis are related to specific projects and do not indicate a potential reference for work conducted for the Navy versus the other DOD services. All other things being equal, projects for Navy and other DOD services will be scored the same.

QUESTION 14: Please allow a font size of 10 for all tables/matrices, graphs, call out boxes, and exhibits.

ANSWER 14: Font size 10 for tables/matrices, graphs, call out boxes, and exhibits is acceptable.

QUESTION 15: The above-referenced solicitation has a long-standing incumbent (approx. 15 years) and the current Criterion 1 submission requirements present a significant advantage to this incumbent. Specifically, the submission requirements that limit presentation of specialized project experience to the past 5 years, as well as indicating higher scoring for Navy and USMC projects executed in the principal geographic areas of the contract give the incumbent a distinct advantage over other contractors. It is simply not possible for contractors to compete fairly given based on the current Criterion 1 submission requirements (i.e., the incumbent has been the sole provider for the Navy and USMC for the past 10-15 years). Further, it’s worth noting that compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as implemented by the Navy in CONUS and OCONUS locations, requires water system assessments (e.g., sanitary surveys, source water assessments/wellhead protection planning, etc.) at a frequency between 3-5 years depending on the kind of assessment, type of system (groundwater, surface water, etc.), and location. Given the limited frequency of some of these SDWA requirements, the long tenure of the incumbent, and the Criterion 1 submission requirements, it is again not possible to fairly compete. Therefore, we request:

a. the project experience ‘window’ of SF330 project descriptions be expanded from 5 years to either 10 or 15 years.

b. That firms “will” be rated more favorably if projects were performed according to “DoD/Federal policy and guidance” rather than restricted to DoD/Navy policy and guidance”.

ANSWER 15: There are inaccuracies both directly stated or could inferred in the comment that need to be addressed:

The statement that the selection board will give “higher scoring for Navy and USMC projects executed in the principal geographic areas of the contract” misrepresents what is stated in the synopsis. As stated in the RFP, Criterion 1 may preferentially consider experience performing work in accordance with DOD/Navy policy and guidance and experience performing work on DOD installations. There is no statement that definitively says preference will be provided to projects nor, if preference is given to work for Navy/DOD projects, is there a statement that work for Navy and USMC will be rated higher than work performed for other DOD components. The Navy reserves the right to not provide any preference for work for any entity or location, public or private.

The statement that “the incumbent has been the sole provider for the Navy and USMC for the past 10-15 years” is factually untrue, as there are other contracts that are used, have been used, and available for use to complete projects relevant to this contract.

The Navy is not the only DOD component operating within the geographic regions covered by Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, Navy Region South East, Naval District Washington, and Navy Region EURAFCENT.

The “window” for experience will not be expanded beyond 5 years. The Navy reserves the right to not provide any preference for work for any entity, public or private. The projects submitted for Criterion 1 should best demonstrate the ability to meet the specialized experience required to successfully execute this contract. Work performed within the past five years helps demonstrate the understanding and application of current regulations and requirements.

The synopsis will not be changed to indicate that any favor will be given. In addition, the indication that preference may be given to DOD/Navy policy and guidance will not be changed to “DOD/Federal policy and guidance.” While there are differences between the DOD services in how projects are delivered, those differences are not as significant as projects delivered across the entire Federal Government.

QUESTION 16: There are numerous subject matter experts (SMEs) with specialized institutional knowledge and extensive experience completing projects for NAVFAC Atlantic who are former employees of the incumbent firms and have moved to other consulting firms more than 5 years ago. These SMEs still have relevant and unique experience advantageous to the Navy; however, under current Criterion 2 submission requirements, this direct experience with the Navy won’t be considered because it exceeds the past 5 years requirement. Further, these SMEs have experience executing projects related to the CWA and/or SDWA over the past 5 years for other federal agencies, but because NAVFAC’s evaluation gives favor to work performed at Navy installations, the long-term incumbent will continue to look more favorable relative other SMEs with recent and relevant experience. Therefore, we request:

c. the project experience ‘window’ on key personnel resumes be extended from 5 years to either 10 or 15 years.

d. That key personnel resumes “will” be rated more favorably if projects were performed according to “DoD/Federal policy and guidance” rather than restricted to DoD/Navy policy and guidance”.

ANSWER 16: The statement that “NAVFAC’s evaluation gives favor to work performed at Navy installations” is inaccurate and does not correctly represent the content of the synopsis.

The only indication of potentially providing favor to work for any entity is included in Criterion 1 and states that firms may be rated more favorable for work performed in accordance DOD/Navy policy and guidance and for work conducted at DOD facilities. While the Navy is certainly part of DOD, the Navy is not the only DOD component and the Navy is not the only DOD component with installations.

The experience “window” for recent experience will remain at five years. Work performed within the past five years helps demonstrate the understanding and application of current regulations and requirements.

The synopsis will not be changed to indicate that any favor will be given for work for any entity.