Synopsis QA 1-27-2021.pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

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.

Question 1: Will a PRI 2 DD1391, executed as a Task Order under a NAVFAC design contract, including detailed Site Engineering Investigations (Topo, Geotech and utility survey), 15% Concept Design and Program Cost Estimate be considered as a viable Section F project for this solicitation? If so, would such a project be scored on par or less favorably when compared to a DB RFP or DBB project?

Answer 1: Yes, a PRI 2 DD1391 task order will be considered as a viable Section F project for this solicitation. The Offeror must determine what types of projects that fall under “Primary A-E services” best demonstrate the proposed team’s specialized experience and technical competence. Please ensure the Criterion 2 “Submission requirements” and “Additional requirements” on page 3, are met.

Question 2: Can offerors elect to identify Key Personnel beyond those specifically identified in the solicitation?

Answer 2: Yes. Please note that resumes are counted in the 40-page limitation.

Question 3: The synopsis requires all firms to be registered in SAM at the time SF330s are submitted in response to the synopsis. We are considering the formation of a new Joint Venture (JV) made up of firms currently registered in SAMs. The new JV will not be registered before the SF330 submission date but will be registered prior to award. Please confirm that if all JV partners are registered in SAMs the intent for Sam registration is met and the new JV will be eligible for award.

Answer 3: The JV entity must be registered in SAM at the time SF330s are submitted in response to this synopsis.

Question 4: Since Primary AE services typically require licensed professionals in Civil, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and other disciplines to prepare their respective areas of design and produce discipline-specific signed drawings / construction documents, should their resumes be provided as part of Key Personnel? When included, these resumes would mailto:eley.decuba@navy.mil allow NAVFAC to evaluate the composition, experience, and capability of the proposer's team to perform Primary AE and Secondary AE services. Please confirm that such resumes will be considered if submitted.

Answer 4: Resumes for other disciplines of professionally registered engineers may be submitted as Key Personnel and may be considered. Please note that resumes are counted in the 40-page limitation. Ensure the requirements for "key personnel" in Criterion 1 are met.

Question 5: Criterion 2 indicates 4 minimum requirements. However, it does not indicate if more than the minimum would be rated higher. We would expect that it would not since it is to the government’s benefit to have a diversity of project size, project type and project services.

Please clarify if higher rating would be given to projects exceeding the minimum.

Additionally, please clarify if lower rating will be given to projects that are less than $25 million construction value.

Answer 5: A maximum of ten (10) recently completed projects may be submitted. A higher rating may be given for Offeror's submitting more than the minimum (Additional) requirements.

Reference Synopsis, Criterion 2, "Submission requirements" and "Additional requirements" for more information. A minimum of three (3) projects shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience as the primary Designer of Record (full plans & specs) on a project with a construction cost of $25,000,000 or greater. The Offeror must determine what additional types of projects that fall under “Primary A-E services” best demonstrate the proposed team’s specialized experience and technical competence. Please ensure the Criterion 2 “Submission requirements” and “Additional requirements” on page 3, are met.

Question 6: Criterion 2 requires a project example where the fee is more than $4 million as a prime contractor for the listed primary AE services. Would a project be found relevant if an offeror demonstrated this project type through experience where the offeror was a subconsultant? For example, the subs role was to lead tasks that are considered primary AE services under this solicitation and their fee was greater than $4 million.

Answer 6: If the Offeror performed requirements listed as primary A-E services as a subconsultant, and the Offeror's fee was greater than $4 million, the project may be considered relevant.

If the Offeror, acting as the prime A-E, plans to use the experience of a subconsultant (a firm other than the Offeror), to meet the $4 million fee requirement, the project may be considered not relevant.

Question 7: Criterion 2 – Specialized Experience & Technical Competence says that “firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating projects completed in California.” Since NAVFAC SW’s AOR also includes UT, CO, NV, NM, and AZ, would you also consider completed projects in those states more favorably?

Answer 7: There are additional ways that firms may be considered more favorably than just submitting projects completed in California (see Criterion 2, Item 2 of 3 under the section heading "Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following:") Items 1 of 3 and 3 of 3 may help a firm be rated more favorably also.

Question 8: Will resumes be evaluated if they are beyond the key personnel disciplines listed in

Criterion 1 (i.e. mechanical, electrical, and civil engineers, etc.)?

Answer 8: Resumes for other disciplines of professionally registered engineers may be submitted as Key Personnel and may be considered. Please note that resumes are counted in the 40-page limitation. Ensure the requirements for "key personnel" in Criterion 1 are met.

Question 9: All criteria have submission requirements except Criterion 6, Small Business. Is there anything else desired beyond the DRAFT SB Subcontracting Plan and ISRs?

Answer 9: Please follow the requirements of Criterion 6 - Commitment to Small Business. The

Government will evaluate proposals based on: (A) Past performance in utilization of small business concerns, and (B) Participation of small business concerns for this requirement.

Reference Criterion 6 of the Synopsis for more detailed information. This Synopsis was previously updated to provide the Small Business Subcontracting Plan template as an attachment.

Question 10: Please confirm the JV Agreement is not included in the page count. (the page limit does not include the Organizational Chart, ISRs, certificates, PPQs, licenses, or the draft subcontracting plan, as required by the Small Business Subcontracting criterion, nor does the page limit include cover sheets or dividers).

Answer 10: The JV agreement is not included in the page count.

Question 11: Will projects within NAVFACSYSCOM Southwest AOR be rated the same as projects in

California? If not, would you consider rating projects at MCAS Yuma the same as projects in California due to its close proximity to San Diego, CA?

Answer 11: There are additional ways that firms may be considered more favorably than just submitting projects completed in California (see Criterion 2, Item 2 of 3 under the section heading "Firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following:") Items 1 of 3 and 3 of 3 may help a firm be rated more favorably also.

Question 12: As mentioned in the solicitation, is NAVFACSYSCOM Southwest going to provide

Attachment B, Small Business Subcontracting Plan template?

Answer 12: Yes. This Synopsis was previously updated to provide the Small Business Subcontracting

Plan template as an attachment.

Question 13: The solicitation states the following: The organizational chart in Section D may be one (1) page single-sided 11 by 17 foldout, using 11 point font or larger. Does this mean it's also excluded from the Times New Roman restriction?

Answer 13: Yes. The Organizational Chart in Section D is excluded from the Times New Roman restriction.

Question 14: Can we include metrics on the cover, tabs, and divider pages? The solicitation states not

“substantive information”, please define.

Answer 14: Please do not include metrics on the cover, tabs, and divider pages.

Question 15: Are SF 330 Part II included in the 40-page limit?

Answer 15: SF330 Part II is not included in the 40-page limit.

Question 16: The RFP states that example projects “demonstrating relevant design experience at Navy and Marine Corps military installations” may be considered more favorable. Further, “Projects completed in California” may also be considered more favorable. The net result of the two requirements is that Navy/Marine projects completed in California will receive higher consideration than a Navy Project outside California or a California Project that was not performed for a Navy/Marine Installation. While in both cases the offeror demonstrates equal experience, a bidder that has the two requirements satisfied under a single project receives a higher consideration. The problem with this, is that only the recent incumbents can achieve the highest score since ALL Navy/Marine projects in California were performed by the current or recent NAVFAC SYSCOM IDIQ contract holders rendering other firms, which may otherwise be equal or even better qualified, to be at a competitive disadvantage. FAR part 36.602-1(a)(5), which coincides with Criterion 5, provides that the location scoring criteria should not be applied if the criterion does not leave “an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project.”

Given the nature and size of this opportunity, we hope the Government would agree that this may not leave an appropriate number of qualified firms. Will the Government consider revising Criterion 5 due to the negative impact on the competitiveness of this procurement?

Answer 16: Contractors shall comply with the Synopsis Requirements.

Question 17: The RFP indicates that potential Task Orders could be for new construction or renovations. Are New Construction Designs evaluated similar to Renovation/Repair projects?

Answer 17: Contractors shall comply with the Synopsis Requirements.

Question 18: The RFP indicates that Non-relevant information will not be considered. Resumes of personnel performing only support services (as listed in this contract) are not required and will not be considered. For a multi-discipline IDIQ such as this, lead civil, structural, mechanical, electrical and other engineers are also required and considered part of the core design team and not “personnel performing only support services”. Please confirm that only the listed key personnel in the RFP (Program Manager; Design Quality Control Manager (DQCM); Sustainable Design Manager (see definitions); and three (3) Project Managers/Task Order Managers) will be evaluated and no additional resumes are required or intended to be evaluated.

Answer 18: Additional resumes may be submitted and may be considered. See response to Question #2. Please note that resumes are counted in the 40-page limitation.

Question 19: Please provide examples of military projects that would fall under the following:

“commercial”; “institutional”; ”operational”; and ”training” categories listed in the RFP.

For example, would an Administrative Office (HQ) building be categorized as Commercial, Institutional or Operational?

Answer 19: Examples of commercial and institutional projects are: Airport building construction, Office building construction, Arena construction, Parking garage construction, Barrack construction, Prison construction, Farm building construction, Radio and television broadcast studio construction, Fire station construction, Religious building (e.g., church, synagogue, mosque, temple) construction, Grain elevator or bin construction, Restaurant construction, Hospital construction, School building construction, Hotel construction, Shopping mall construction, Indoor swimming facility construction, and Warehouse construction. Types of projects that may be submitted for operational and training facilities are those that support a specific function or mission of the Client.

Question 20: Criterion 2 explicitly states the category is “specialized experience & technical competence.” However, the second subfactor under this section allows for more favorable consideration if a firm has “Projects completed in California.” This detail regarding project locations is not consistent with the spirit and category of Criterion 2, which has little bearing on location. In fact, this requirement conflates scoring Criterion 5’s category, which does concern location.

Answer 20: Contractors shall comply with the Synopsis Requirements.

Question 21: By keeping the subfactor of “projects completed in California” in Criterion 2, not only would a prospective bidder receive points for both Criterion 2 and 5 by having location specific experience, it makes Criterion 5’s location equally weighted as Criterion 2’s technical expertise requirement. As stated in the Selection Criteria, Criterion 2 is weighted more favorable than Criterion 5. According to FAR part 36.602-1(a)(5), “(5) Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project;

provided, that application of this criterion leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project”. The location factor as currently defined by this RFP clearly creates an advantage to the very few recent and current Incumbents and will not leave an appropriate number of qualified firms to compete for this contract. Please consider removing the second bullet in Criterion 2 regarding “Projects completed in California” which is already addressed in Criterion 5?

Answer 21: Contractors shall comply with the Synopsis Requirements.

Question 22: The RFP criteria 5 requires: “the submission of (3) “final” or “most recent” Individual

Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) for similar contracts of relative size which show compliance with utilizing the various types of small business firms noted above”. In the case of a Joint Venture will each individual JV partner required to submit (3) ISRs, total

(6) or the total of (3) for all JV members would suffice the RFP requirements

Answer 22: Each individual JV partner is required to submit three (3) ISR's each, for a total of six (6)

ISRs.

Question 23: On one four Federal projects the client elected to issue multiple modifications to our initial scope of work under the same contract (same contract number). The initial and some subsequent modifications are 100% complete however, the client is continuing to issue additional modifications. Can the initial and the completed modifications be presented as a single project under section F. The issued modifications are not separate task orders. The issued modifications all refer to the same overall project.

Answer 23: A design project may be deemed complete, even if modifications continue to be issued, if it meets the definition of a Complete Project as defined in the Synopsis. The initial and completed modifications may be presented as a single project under Section F if they meet the definition of a Complete Project as defined in the Synopsis.

Question 24: Selection Criteria 2 indicates that firms may be considered more favorably by demonstrating the following: (1) Projects demonstrating relevant design experience at Navy and Marine Corps military installations and (2) Projects completed in California. Is the intent that an Offeror’s submitted past performance examples may be rated higher if they are either Navy/Marine projects OR projects completed in California? If projects are both Navy/Marine Corps projects AND completed in California, with those be scored even higher? Does this mean knowledge of primary geographic area is rated for both Criteria 2 and Criteria 5?

Answer 24: Contractors shall comply with the Synopsis Requirements.

Question 24: Both Criteria 2 and Criteria 5 weigh an Offeror’s experience/knowledge of projects in the

NAVFACSYSCOM Southwest AOR, specifically projects in California. Given the dramatic climatic and population density variations within the AOR (e.g. remote/desert environments in MCAGCC Twentynine Palms and MCAS Yuma vs. coastal/marine/urban environments of NB San Diego), are there specific factors or design considerations that are being evaluated that make projects in the AOR more relevant?

Answer 25: Contractors shall comply with the Synopsis Requirements.