Synopsis Amendment 0001_N6247324R0274_Posted 4-12-24.pdf

Subject: N6247324R0274; INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY

ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF U.S. NAVY

AND MARINE CORPS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS AT

VARIOUS LOCATIONS, PRIMARILY IN CALIFORNIA, NEVADA AND ARIZONA

DESCRIPTION: ALL INFORMATION NEEDED FOR INTERESTED PARTIES TO

SUBMIT A STANDARD FORM (SF) 330, ARCHITECT-ENGINEER QUALIFICATIONS, IS

CONTAINED HEREIN. THERE IS NO SEPARATE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

PACKAGE TO DOWNLOAD.

SYNOPSIS AMENDMENT 0001

Date: 12 April 2024

1. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide answers to all RFIs received in response to the subject synopsis as follows:

Question 1: Is there is an incumbent contract or contractor associated to the requirement. If any, please provide the contractor's name and contract number.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The proposed procurement is intended to be a follow-on to the existing Contract N62473-16-D-2401, which was procured by NAVFAC SW through full and open competition and awarded to MANTECH-AECOM Joint Venture.

Question 2: Criteria 1 and 4 from the synopsis reference security clearances and classified information. If the responding Firm is an unpopulated Joint Venture, is it acceptable that all classified work to be issued under this IDIQ be performed only by the JV’s Managing Partner

(i.e., the partner that controls more than 50 percent of the JV), if only the managing partner entity holds an active Facility Clearance (FCL) and maintains active cleared personnel?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The arrangement described is acceptable.

Question 3: We notice the similarities in this SAES and the recently previously awarded Range

Sustainability SAES (single award IDIQ) N62473-21-D-2212 with a ceiling of $100M and which ends 4/12/28. Is it the Navy’s intention to have two IDIQs in place for the same purpose of providing NEPA and related services for training and testing operations?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The subject procurement will add additional capacity for NEPA and related services for training and testing operations, among other requirements, in order to meet the Navy mission. Due to uncertain procurement times and the need to avoid gaps in available contract capacity, so as to be able to meet mission requirements, it is the Navy’s intention to have contracts with overlapping periods of performance.

Page 1 of 3 Amendment 0001 for N6247324R0274

Question 4: Under Selection Criterion 1 (Professional Qualifications, the Government states: “The personnel qualifications of the prime contractor’s key personnel will be weighted more heavily than those of a subcontractor(s)’s key personnel.”

In the subsequent paragraph, the Government states that key personnel “be an employee of the prime A-E firm.” Given the importance of small business commitment and participation, will the

Government please confirm that while prime contractor key personnel “will be weighted more heavily,” subcontractor key personnel qualifications will still be evaluated?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Subcontractor key personnel will still be evaluated as part of the overall submittal.

Question 5: Under Selection Criterion 1 (Professional Qualifications), the Government states: “SF330, Part I, Section H can be utilized to expand on resumes of key personnel. Total maximum pages for this criterion shall not exceed twenty-four

(24) pages single sided. Any pages over this limit will not be considered”

Under Selection Criterion 2 (Specialized Experience and Technical Competence), the Government states: “All information for Criterion 2 shall be submitted in the

SF330, Part I, Section F. SF330, Part I, Section H can be utilized to expand on the maximum ten (10) projects submitted. Total maximum pages for this Criterion shall not exceed twenty (20) pages single sided. Any pages over this limit will not be considered.”

Will the Government please confirm that Section H page limits associated with Selection

Criterion 1 and 2 are dependent on total page count in Sections E and F, respectively?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is an error in both criteria. The contractor should limit supporting material for Criterion 1 to 24 pages in Part I, Section G. Supporting material for

Criterion 2 should be limited to 20 pages in Part I, section F. No additional pages for these criteria should be added to Section H.

Question 6: Under Selection Criterion 2 (Specialized Experience and Technical Competence), the Government states: “Provide a minimum of five (5) NEPA projects completed or substantially completed within the past five years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this notice that best demonstrate specialized experience of the proposed team in the areas outlined herein. Note that projects older than five (5) years will not be considered and one project may be able to reference and meet multiple sub-criteria outlined below. A maximum of ten (10) completed projects may be submitted.”

Will the Government please clarify whether a higher number of projects will be evaluated more favorably?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Submittals will be evaluated based on the range and depth of relevant experience shown by the representative projects which are submitted. A submittal with a

Page 2 of 3 Amendment 0001 for N6247324R0274 higher number of projects listed will not automatically be evaluated more favorably than a submittal with fewer projects.

Question 7: Under Selection Criterion 3 (Past Performance), the Government states: “SUBMIT

A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION FOR EACH PROJECT UNDER CRITERION 2. IF A

COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, the PPQ (Attachment A) included in this notice is provided for the firm or its team members to submit to the client for each project included under Criterion 2. A completed CPARS can be a completed INTERIM CPARS or

CPARS marked FINAL. Projects not meeting this requirement will be excluded from consideration in the evaluation.”

Will the Government please clarify whether projects that are complete but only have an interim

CPAR should also request and submit a PPQ for the remaining period of the project?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: A PPQ is only necessary if no CPARS of either type (interim or final) is available for the project in question. An interim CPARS evaluation is considered

“complete” and is acceptable on its own for this purpose.

Question 8: Under Selection Criterion 5 (Commitment to SB), the Government states: “In support of (A), all firms shall provide historical data on utilization of SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZoneSB, SDVOSB and HBCU/MI. Large Businesses shall submit three “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. If ISRs are not FINAL or MOST RECENT they will not be considered. If subcontracting goals were not met, provide an explanation. If ISRs were not applicable to the similar contracts noted, large businesses shall submit other documentation which shows their utilization of the various types of small business firms for the contracts.”

Will the Government please confirm that A-E Firm’s responses to part (A) should be included in

Section H? If inclusion in Section H is intentional, is there a page limit associated?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: If subcontracting goals were not met, provide an explanation. If

ISRs were not applicable to the similar contracts noted, large businesses shall submit other documentation which shows their utilization of the various types of small business firms for the contracts. Any and all explanations should be included in Section H and limited to a maximum of 5 pages total.

Contracting Officer

Page 3 of 3 Amendment 0001 for N6247324R0274