RFI_Responses_1_thru_5_-_N62473-14-R-0007_-_Feb_24.pdf

February 24, 2014 - RFI Question and responses for N62473-14-R-0007 – Indefinite Quantity Contract for Structural Architect-Engineer Services, Small Business Set-Aside, Project At Various Locations, But Not Limited To California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, new Mexico, and Utah.

Question #1: Criterion 3 - Capacity requires that the offeror demonstrate that they have sufficient capacity to accomplish the work in the required time frames. This solicitation indicates that the maximum contract value may not exceed $10,000,000 for the aggregate total, and the maximum value for individual task orders is $3,500,000. In addition, the solicitation indicates that there is no dollar limit per year, and that multiple task orders may be awarded with similar completion schedules. For a small business prime to self-perform at least 50% of the work would imply that only the largest of the small businesses would be able to show sufficient capacity. It is therefore unclear how much capacity is required of the offeror. Does the offeror need to demonstrate the capacity to accomplish the unlikely scenario where $10,000,000 will be ordered in one single year, or some lesser amount?

Answer: It is the offerors business decision on how to address the submission requirements.

However, it is an unlikely scenario to perform $10,000,000 in a single year. Criterion 3 instructs the offeror to exhibit their firm’s capacity to accomplish the work in the required time. Please refer to the synopsis of the submission requirements for guidance.

Question #2: Are there any requirements that the key personnel of the sub-consultants be located in the same office?

Answer: No, there are no requirements that the key personnel of the sub-consultants be located in the same office.

Question #3: Is the submission requirement to list the names and information for key subcontractors (design sub- consultants – structural and non-structural) of the team in Part 1, Section C and their team role in the Part 1, Section D Organization Chart, but not to submit their respective Part 1, Section E resumes if they have any role other than Primary Structural Engineering Services?

Answer: The proposed team (prime and proposed sub-consultants) should be identified in Part I Section C and on the Section D organization chart. Per Criterion 1, resumes are not required for key personnel whose roles are performing only secondary services or support services.

Evaluation will be based on the qualifications and experience of the proposed key personnel in primary and secondary structural engineering services.

Question #4: Is the submission requirement to list the involvement of key subcontractors (design sub-consultants – structural and non-structural) of the team listed in Part 1, Section C in the Example Projects Part 1, Section F and Section G (which in Blocks 26 and 27 references Section E resume for the team member) even though a Section E resume is not to be submitted for that key subcontractor (design sub-consultant) of the team? If so, are disciplines other than structural engineering that are team members to be used in Part 1, Section F and Section G?

Answer: In Criterion 2, Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, experience in preparation of the primary and secondary structural engineering services will be evaluated.

Section F includes blocks for identification of other team members, as identified in Section C, that were also involved in the project.

Question #5: MSWord versions of the SF330 form have historically used different size fonts and in some cases have used 10 point or larger font for the answer input cells of each block and smaller than 10 point font for the standard titles of each block. Is this acceptable or shall all fonts of all portions of the SF330 be 10 point minimum? If the Attachment SF_330_form[1].pdf is used, the fonts will be smaller than the 10 point minimum. Is this acceptable?

Answer: Per the synopsis, the minimum font size is 10 to ensure that the document is legible.