Synopsis Amendment 0003_N6247324R0274_Posted 4-22-24.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 0003

Date: 22 April 2024

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

Question 9: Criteria 1 and 2 - Where the words “military construction” are used, please confirm that Enhanced Use Lease or other NEPA actions involving significant construction on DON/federal property or in support of DON would also apply vs. a narrow interpretation of military construction as a MILCON/MCON P-XXX project.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The phrase “military construction” is used in the general sense to mean work on physical facilities which support military activities. It is not intended to be limited to the official definition of a MILCON.

Question 10: Criterion 1- The SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS state “Provide the following:

(a) list of names of each proposed key personnel to be assigned to this contract. 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.”

a. Please specify where the requested, (a) list of names of each proposed key personnel (with the additional information noted) is to be located; as an introduction/at beginning of Section E, at end of Section E, or in Section H under Criterion 1? Does this list count as part of the maximum pages identified or can a separate single (1) page, be used for this list?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Information on key personnel should be included in Section E. Note that in response to Question 24 below, the number of resumes pages allowed is increased to 27. However, a summary list would count towards the limit.

b. Is Section H for this criterion only to be used for discussion of the 8 Key Personnel (in addition to resumes) or is the intent that it can be used to expand on Key Personnel to include qualified back-up/other essential team members?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The reference to Section H for this criterion is an error. Key personnel resumes should be included in Section E. Also note that in response to Question 24, the number of key personnel is increased to 9.

c. Is it the intent of the page limit that the combination of key personnel resumes in Section E and additional Section H Criterion 1 information be limited to the total of 24 pages between Sections E and H or is Section E limited to 24 pages?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The reference to section H was an error. Key personnel qualifications should be included in section E. Note that in response to Question 24, the page limit for resumes is increased to 27.

d. The Criterion 1 Sections E/G/H reference and language indicating resumes shall be limited to 3 pages each and total pages shall not exceed 24 pages is confusing.

Additional clarification about the distribution of pages between Sections E/G/H would help offerors provide information as the Navy intends.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The limit referenced in this criterion applies to Section E, personnel resumes. Note that in response to Question 24, the page limit has been increased to 27. Section G, the matrix identifying which personnel worked on the representative projects, does not count toward the 27-page limit. The reference to Section H for this criterion was an error.

Question 11: Criterion 2- The SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, 1st paragraph states.

“Projects that demonstrate experience with military operations and construction (especially Department of the Navy) in the Southwest Region, especially California, may be evaluated more favorably”.

a. Please confirm (or clarify) that projects which demonstrate either military operations or construction, or both military operations and construction, may be evaluated more favorably.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This statement was not intended to automatically elevate projects which involve both construction and operations over those which only involve one or the other. To clarify, projects which involve military operations and/or construction may be evaluated more favorably.

Question 12: Criterion 2 - Please confirm reference to DUNS should be changed to UEI.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Reference to DUNS number should be replaced by UEI.

Question 13: Criterion 2 last paragraph 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.”

a. The first part of the sentence stating all information shall be submitted in Section F conflicts with the last part of the sentence indicating Section H can be utilized. Please confirm that both sections F and H can be used.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The reference to Section H was an error. This information should be included only in Section F.

b. If Section H can be used, does the language mean Section H can only be used for additional discussion of the Section F projects or is it intended to be used to expand on other projects beyond those in Section F to present the offeror’s overall experience?

c. If Section H can be used, is the intent that the combination of projects submitted in Section F and additional discussion in Section H for projects be limited to a total of 20 pages between the two sections?

d. The Criterion 2 Sections F/H reference and language indicating total maximum pages shall not exceed 20 pages is confusing. Additional clarification about the distribution of pages between Sections F/H would help offerors provide information as the Navy intends.

Question 14: Criterion 3 - Please clarify where the 1 single-sided page per project that firms may submit to provide information on problems encountered and corrective actions taken or adverse past performance issues should be included, in Section H or behind SF330 Part II document and CPARs/PPQs?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: If a firm wishes to provide additional information or context for past evaluations (CPARS/PPQ) the extra page should be included behind Part II with the relevant evaluation.

Question 15: Criterion 3 - Can firms include other relevant CPARS information for Criterion 3 in Section H?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Per Criterion 3: Submission Requirements, “Firms may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Criterion 2. Firms may also address any adverse past performance issues. This information shall not exceed one single-sided page per project submitted in Criterion 2.”

Question 16: Criterion 4 - Please confirm the Organization Chart is to be attached as 1 page in Section D and not intended to be fully repeated in Section H.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is correct. The organization chart should be included in Section D. It is not necessary to duplicate it in Section H.

Question 17: Criterion 5 - Are the ISRs and draft Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be included in Section H or as attachments after Section H?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please submit as attachments after Section H.

Question 18: Criterion 5 - Please confirm where the explanation(s) if subcontracting goals were not met should be included?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please see Question 8 response.

Question 19: Criterion 5 - Can firms include other relevant SB information for Criterion 5 in Section H?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please limit use of Section H for explanations addressing subcontracting goals that were not met; or 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 but limited to a maximum of 5 pages total.

Question 20: Due to the substantive nature and number of questions and how answers will affect proposal preparation, we respectfully request NAVFAC extend the submission date by 20 days following the answers to questions.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Synopsis Amendment 0002 extended the submission date to 30 April 2024 NLT 2:00pm local San Diego time.

Question 21: Is there safeguarding required at the contractor location?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Most projects will not require handling sensitive or classified materials, but occasionally it will be necessary. Therefore, firms must have the ability to safeguard project materials appropriately when required.

Question 22: There does not seem to be a category for NEPA Specialists. Would a NEPA Specialist fall under the Lead Military Operations Specialist personnel category?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: A separate category for NEPA Specialist is appropriate. The text below describes the duties of the Lead NEPA specialist. In consideration of this additional category, the number of pages allowed for resumes of key personnel is increased to 27 (3 for each of 9 individuals).

• Lead NEPA Specialist – Expertise includes in-depth knowledge and experience with implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and related laws and regulations.

Responsibilities include writing and reviewing NEPA documents, coordinating with subject-matter experts and agencies on anticipated impacts and guiding projects from requirements development and pre-planning through final approval.

Question 23: Criterion 2- The SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, 1st bullet identifies the requirement for at least two EISs and states, “Projects demonstrating environmental planning experience in military (and especially Department of the Navy) operational training or testing will be evaluated more favorably.” As written, more favorable consideration for this type work substantially restricts competition considering NAVFAC SW has a separate 7-year IDIQ in place (preceded by a similar NAVFAC PAC IDIQ) specifically for these type actions.

a. Will NAVFAC consider omitting the last sentence of the EIS requirement that evaluates only operational training or testing more favorably? More favorable consideration is noted earlier in the SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS for experience with military operations (which includes training or testing) and construction.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The revision to Criterion 2- The SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS is as follows:

Remove: “Projects demonstrating environmental planning experience in military (and especially Department of the Navy) operational training or testing will be evaluated more favorably.”

•A minimum of two (2) projects must demonstrate the ability to complete an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) and associated consultation documents for relevant and complex projects that meet all NEPA/Executive Order 12114 requirements. If the proposal does not demonstrate experience with at least two (2) EIS level documents, the proposal will not be evaluated. Projects demonstrating environmental planning experience in military (and especially Department of the Navy) operational training or testing will be evaluated more favorably.

b. Will NAVFAC also consider expanding the timeframe for projects to 8 years?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Navy agrees to expand the timeframe to 8 years.

Question 24: We seek clarification on whether the government allows the application of sister company past performance records in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the FAR, SBA regulations, and precedents established by the GAO. Specifically, will the government consider the past performance records of a prime contractor's sister subsidiaries, owned by the same Native Hawaiian Organization, who will be meaningfully involved with contract performance as a named subcontractor?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: For your own past performance submission, please follow the instructions under "SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS" in the Synopsis regarding past performance. Regarding your question on what other items will be considered, as stated in the Synopsis, "[i]n evaluating past performance, the Government may consider information provided in Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) or Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for Criterion 2 projects and information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, federal databases and other references, as well as publicly available information." The Government will conduct its past performance review in accordance with the Synopsis and all applicable statutes and regulations.

Contracting Officer