N62473/N6247319R1219RFIs_and_Answers.pdf

RFI Questions and Responses

N62473-19-R-1219 IDIQ CONTRACT FOR COST ENGINEERING, VALUE

ENGINEERING, AND SCHEDULING A-E SERVICES AT VARIOUS

MILITARY INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN THE NAVFAC SW AOR:

CA, AZ, NV, CO, NM, AND UT

Question # 1: How does the Department of Navy expect to procure CM services for this project?

Response # 1: The purpose of this solicitation is to award an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite

Quantity (IDIQ) contract for Cost Engineering, Value Engineering, and Scheduling task orders. Any construction management services for any individual project will be performed by the Construction Contractor and will not be a part of this solicitation.

Question # 2: Is there an incumbent for the solicitation?

Response # 2: There is not an incumbent for this synopsis.

Question # 3: The solicitation was released prior to Easter/Passover weekend, a time of year that corresponds with spring break from schools and resulting vacations for many staff members that are needed to support our proposed response. As a result, we respectfully request that the proposal due date be extended by two calendar weeks (to May 29).

Response # 3: Proposal due date remains unchanged.

Question # 4: Please define project examples for facility types: institutional; industrial; and operations/training.

Response # 4: Examples, but not limited to, are; institutional-warehouse; industrial-assembly plant; operations/training-indoor firing range.

Question # 5: Please confirm our understanding that a maximum of five resumes are to be included in the entire proposed response, all of which correspond to key personnel.

Response # 5: Under Criterion 1, resumes for key personnel are limited to five (5). All key personnel required per the criterion must be addressed within these resumes.

Question # 6: Four key personnel titles are identified as requiring a resume in Section E. Of those, the value engineer is not required to be an employee of the prime firm.

ENGINEERING, AND SCHEDULING A-E SERVICES AT VARIOUS

MILITARY INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN THE NAVFAC SW AOR:

CA, AZ, NV, CO, NM, AND UT

Please clarify whether the fifth key personnel resume may come from a subcontractor, or must it come from the prime firm?

Response # 6: All key personnel requirements are stated in the criterion.

Question # 7: Criterion 2 instructions indicate that all information must be included in Section F.

There is no such indication for Criterion 1, but the Criterion 1 heading does not indicate Section H in parentheses like Criteria 3-6 do. Please confirm that additional information for Criterion 1 may be included in Section H.

Response #7: Information concerning Criterion 1 shall be limited to Section E and

Section G.

Question # 8: Please confirm that primary “Designer of Record” is synonymous with providing professionally stamped full design and specifications documents through the Design-Bid-Build process.

Response # 8: The Designer of Record provides professionally stamped, full design and specification documents through the Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build process.

This contract does not require design services.

Question # 9: The Criterion 6 heading indicates Section H in parentheses, but the instructions indicate that firms do not submit data for this factor.

Please confirm that the reference to Section H in the Criterion 6 heading is an error and that firms are not to submit data for this factor.

Response # 9: Offerors are not required to submit any data for Criterion 6 - Volume of

Work.

Question #10: In Section F, preceding or in addition to the 10 required projects, would the government consider information presented in a relevance matrix or narrative that summarizes key information about the 10 Section F projects?

Response #10: All information for Criterion 2 should be submitted in the SF-330, Part

I, Section F. The Government WILL NOT consider information submitted in addition to Part I, Section F in evaluation of Criterion 2.

ENGINEERING, AND SCHEDULING A-E SERVICES AT VARIOUS

MILITARY INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN THE NAVFAC SW AOR:

CA, AZ, NV, CO, NM, AND UT

Question #11: Please confirm whether a subcontracting plan is required at the time of SF 330 submission.

Response #11: A subcontracting plan is not required for this solicitation.

Question #12: Criterion 2 instructions state that all Section F projects "must be completed by the actual office/branch/regional office/individual team member proposed to manage and perform work under this contract identified in SF-330, Part I, Section C."

Please confirm that this includes the plural (offices, branches, members) and that projects may be included from any office of the prime or subcontractors as long as the office(s), branch(es), or member(s) are included in Section C.

Response #12: Projects may be included from any office of the prime or subcontractors as long as the office(s), branch(es), or member(s) are included in Section C.

Question #13: Regarding Criterion 1, under submission requirements, the RFQ states that the

Program Manager shall be a professionally registered engineer/architect. As a firm that specializes in cost and schedule expertise, our firm and staff are either certified in their field of practice and/or license as general contractors. Would that suffice to meet this role? (Page 3)

Response #13: The requirements set in Criterion 1 shall remain as stated. The Project Manager shall be a professionally registered engineer or architect.

Question #14: Under the SF-330 Submission Requirements section around practicing services according to law, we are a firm that operates under licensed general contractors.

Will you consider this in addition to licensed A/Es? (Page 9)

Response #14: Per FAR 36.601-4(b) this contract may only be awarded to firms permitted by law to practice the professional of architecture or engineering.

Question #15: It is our understanding that Value Engineers are not typically design engineers and do not pursue a PE registration, rather their registration is a Society of American Value Engineers (SAVE) Certified Value Specialist (CVS). Is the Value Engineer considered a registered engineer with only the SAVE CVS?

Response #15: See change in solicitation.

ENGINEERING, AND SCHEDULING A-E SERVICES AT VARIOUS

MILITARY INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN THE NAVFAC SW AOR:

CA, AZ, NV, CO, NM, AND UT

Question #16: Would a PE with a PMP be considered as an equivalent to an AACE PSP and/or an AACE CFCC; and would a PE with a PMP be considered as meeting the requirement for the Scheduler?

Response #16: A PE with a PMP would not be considered as an equivalent to an AACE PSP and/or an AACE CFCC; and would not be considered as meeting the requirement for the Scheduler.