AMENDMENT 0001 1-27-21.pdf

AMENDMENT 0001 – DATED JANUARY 27, 2021

Synopsis: N62473-21-R-1018 Synopsis Issuance Date: January 6, 2021 CS/Email: Eley DeCuba, eley.decuba@navy.mil

Subject: MULTI-DISCIPLINE ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES INDEFINITE

DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY CONTRACT, UNRESTRICTED, FOR

RENOVATION/REPAIR OR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES AT SUPPORTED

INSTALLATIONS UNDER NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYTEMS COMMAND

SOUTHWEST AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY IN ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO,

NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH, AND AS OTHERWISE APPROVED.

The purpose of this Amendment is to:

1. Replace the original Synopsis with a conformed Synopsis, via the following attachment:

N62473-21-R-1018 Synopsis_Conformed 1-27-21.pdf

2. Provide Answers to Questions via the following attachment:

Synopsis QA 1-27-2021.pdf

3. Provide RFI responses as follows:

RFI 1: Are the three architects required to be on staff with the Prime offering firm also required to be submitted as Key Personnel?

Response 1: Yes. Please see changes to Synopsis, Criterion 1, first and second paragraphs.

RFI 2: Please define “Superior” in terms of performance ratings under Criterion 3 of the solicitation.

Response 2: The word "Superior" has been replaced with the word "Higher." Higher performance ratings on relevant projects may be considered more favorably in the evaluation. Please see changes to Synopsis, Criterion 3, end of first paragraph.

RFI 3: The synopsis identifies planning and programming documents as both Primary and

Support AE Services. Please confirm that validation documents and investigations for Region/FEC level DD1391s associated with typical SAES scopes are considered Primary AE Services. As primary AE services, please confirm these SAES scopes for project types identified in the synopsis would be considered relevant projects to demonstrate Criterion 2 —Specialized Experience & Technical Competence.

Response 3: Please see changes to Synopsis, end of page 1, "Support A-E services" section.

"Preparation of planning and programming support documents" has been deleted, since this service is already listed in the "Primary A-E services" section. Regional/FEC level DD1391 documents and investigations associated with typical SAES scopes are considered Primary A-E Services and may be considered relevant projects to demonstrate Criterion 2 - Specialized Experience & Technical Competence. Please ensure the Criterion 2 “Submission requirements” and “Additional requirements” on page 3, are met.

mailto:eley.decuba@navy.mil

RFI 4: According to Criterion 3 of the synopsis, Superior performance ratings on relevant projects may be considered more favorably in the evaluation. Would NAVFAC consider defining more clearly the meaning of superior ratings in terms of CPARs and PPQ ratings? For example, are Exceptional ratings found more favorable than Very Good ratings or are both considered Superior ratings?

Response 4: The word "Superior" has been deleted and replaced with the word "Higher." Higher performance ratings on relevant projects may be considered more favorably in the evaluation. Please see changes to Synopsis, Criterion 3, end of first paragraph. An Exceptional rating may be considered more favorable than a Very Good rating. A Very Good rating may be considered more favorable than an Acceptable rating, and so on.

RFI 5: Criterion 2 – Specialized Experience & Technical Competence says that “firms may be considered more favorable by demonstrating projects demonstrating relevant design experience at Navy and Marine Corps military installations.” NAVFAC SW also manages military construction projects at Travis AFB. Would projects performed for NAVFAC at Travis AFB also be considered more favorably?

Response 5: Reference Criterion 2 of Synopsis for revised statement. Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following: 1. Projects demonstrating relevant design experience at Military Installations in the NAVFAC SW Area of Responsibility (AOR).

RFI 6: Solicitation is clear on key personnel. It also adds at least 3 architects in addition to key personnel. Is it a requirement to have resumes for at least 3 additional staff architects in Section E?

Response 6: Yes. Please see changes to Synopsis, Criterion 1, first and second paragraphs. The three

(3) additional Architects (employees of the prime A-E firm) are considered to be Key Personnel.

RFI 7: In many cases, NAVFACSYSCOM is responsible for MILCON on Air Force Bases. Will projects done at an Air Force Base for/under contract with NAVFACSYSCOM be evaluated at the same level as Navy/Marines project?

Response 7: Reference Criterion 1 & 2 of Synopsis for revised statements regarding projects being located at Navy and Marine Corps installations. The statement now mentions Military Installations in the NAVFAC SW Area of Responsibility (AOR).