RFI log -ACM MACC 25 November 2025.pdf

RFI # RFP Part # Chapter or

Section Sub-Section # CLARIFICATION REQUEST RFI reason from

KTR's Perspective

Comment [fill out if "Other" was chosen, specify reason(s)]

RFI Topic most closely relevant to:

Government Response DATE RECEIVED DATE TO KTR Amendment

Number

1 Part 1 Factor 1 Technical Approach and Factor 2 Experience

Page 9, under Factor 1 Technical Approach, the RFP states to provide teaming agreement or letters of commitment "for any subcontractors that will be proposed as completing work."

However, under Factor 2 Experience, it states "The Offeror may NOT utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience."

Given the specialty nature of the work, ACM, we suggest the Navy allows at least one (1) project from a subcontractor (modular for example) in Factor 2, as long as offerors provide a letter of commitment and demonstrate the subcontractor will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

Conflicting Information

Contracting Factor 2 requirements remain unchanged. Factor 2 states: "The Offeror may NOT utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor unless the following applies:" see exceptions in solicitation.

11/18/2025

2 Part 1 Chapter-1 Factor 2 Exp states: The Offeror may NOT utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor unless the following information applies as a Small Business, etc. However if the offeror is a Large Business can it can use ACM vendors as part of its project experience?

Intent needs clarification

Contracting For Factor 2 Construction Experience, Large Business Offerors may not utilize the experience of a subcontractor, including ACM Vendors. Refer to Factor 2 Experience on page 10 of the solicitation.

11/18/2025

Section 00 21 00, Proposal Submission Requirements, para 4. Financial Questionnaire and the Financial Questionnaire Form. The solicitation and Form require the Financial Questionnaire “to be completed and submitted by financial institution”. Our financial institution has a policy that precludes them from completing a client/ owner’s form or questionnaire nor in communicating with the client/owner by email or other means.

a. As permitted on other recent NAVFAC SW RFPs (e.g., N6247323R1214; IDIQ MACC for Demolition Projects at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard), please revise the instructions in the RFP and the Financial Questionnaire Form to allow the Offeror to submit the Financial Questionnaire to the Navy directly when signed by an authorized representative of the Offeror and supported by a letter from the Offeror's financial institution on its own letterhead.

b. Please confirm the Offeror may, in lieu of the financial institution, submit the completed Financial Questionnaire package via email by the due date of Phase One.

Section 00 21 00, Proposal Submission Requirements, para 4 has been revised. 9/25/2025 1

Section 00 21 00 – Instructions. The term ‘ACM Vendor’ is used in multiple sections of the solicitation (BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS; 2. DEFINITIONS and 4. EVALUATION FACTORS) and in Exhibit B, item 8. The term is not defined.

a. Please confirm the term ‘ACM vendor’ is in fact synonymous with the term ‘subcontractor,’ which is used in the definition for CONTRACTOR TEAMING ARRANGEMENT and is also a defined option in the Offeror’s Team Consent Form

1. The definition of an ACM Vendor is: A subcontractor or supplier whose primary role is the fabrication, assembly and/or installation of the ACM method for a project.

2. An ACM Vendor is considered a major subcontractor/teaming partner.

The Offeror shall submit an Offeror's Team Consent Form for the ACM Vendor(s) identified in their proposal.

Per page 7 of the solicitation, Alternative Construction Methods (ACM) is defined as: A construction method that offers innovative approaches to building, often prioritizing sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and speed of construction compared to traditional methods of construction. ACM may include, but are not limited to, modular components, offsite prefabricated construction, tension fabric structures, and pre-engineered metal or fiber reinforced panel buildings.

9/25/2025

ACM is defined as Alternative Construction Methods in the solicitation title and throughout the RFP, except in two locations, listed below.

(ACM) to Alternative Construction Methods (ACM).

a. SF1442 project title has been corrected.

b. Section 00 73 01, Item 5. Description of Work has been corrected.

9/25/2025 1

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE BIDDING KTR

SOLICITATION: N62473-25-R-3426

NDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY UNRESTRICTED MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, AND REPAIR OF COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES USING ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS (ACM) AT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, UTAH, COLORADO, AND NEW MEXICO

DOCUMENT DATE: 12 SEPT 2025

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE GOV'T

Section Sub-Section # CLARIFICATION REQUEST RFI reason from

KTR's Perspective

Comment [fill out if "Other" was chosen, specify reason(s)]

RFI Topic most closely relevant to:

Government Response DATE RECEIVED DATE TO KTR Amendment

Number

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE BIDDING KTR

SOLICITATION: N62473-25-R-3426

NDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY UNRESTRICTED MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, AND REPAIR OF COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES USING ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS (ACM) AT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, UTAH, COLORADO, AND NEW MEXICO

DOCUMENT DATE: 12 SEPT 2025

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE GOV'T

We note that prior notices to industry Cross Laminated Timber was noted as an ACM methodology.

Further in recent testimony NAVFAC Chief Engineer stated “In Congressional testimony, Hamilton said the new facility will use a hybrid mass timber exterior envelope consisting of cross-laminated walls and diaphragms. "DOD has expressly acknowledged the applicability of CLT with the creation of a guide specification," Hamilton said. "As the CLT construction industry matures, CLT may prove more competitive and could be utilized more broadly in DOD construction."

Is CLT an ACM NAVFAC will accept? If so, will you expand the construction projects to six?

Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) is an acceptable form of ACM.

The number of construction projects allowed for Factor 2, Experience will remain unchanged with a maximum of five (5) projects.

9/25/2025

Part 1

Section 01 20 00 Phase 1 FACTOR 2 states relevancy criteria for ACM projects to be within the last seven years and over $15M USD.

Due to the infrequency of relevant projects in the market truly using ACM, we request that the relevancy period is extended to 15 years.

The relevancy period will remain unchanged. Relevant projects shall be 100% complete (see definition on page 7 of the solicitation under "Definitions") within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

9/25/2025

Section 01 20 00 Phase 1 FACTOR 2 states relevancy criteria for ACM projects to be within the last seven years and over $15M USD.

Due to the fact that ACM projects as defined in the governments part as "..modular components, offsite prefabricated construction, tension fabric structures, and pre-engineered metal or fiber reinforced panel buildings.." typically result in lower overall construction costs, we request the relevancy threshold lowered to $10M USD

The relevancy threshold will remain unchanged. Relevant projects shall have a minimum construction cost of $15 million. 9/25/2025

9 Part 1 Chapter-1 Factor 1

Factor 1 requires contractors to provide their "primary ACM vendor(s)". Please confirm this is not mandatory for Offerors who are not teaming with ACM vendors at the MAC level and/or offering that ACM vendor's experience as a JV or designer under Factor 2. Given the multiple types of ACM available, the different types of projects anticipated under this MAC, the number of ACM vendors, and the geographical coverage of this MAC, many offerors will choose ACM vendors as subcontractors at the task order level.

Intent needs clarification

Contracting You may provide primary ACM vendor for Factor 1, if applicable to your Team Composition and Management, however, it is not required. ACM vendor(s) are required to be identified for each project under Factor 2.

11/18/2025

10 Part 1 Chapter-1 Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

PER the PIEE Solicitation page for this solicitation (N62473-25-R-3426), there is a box to checked stating that, "A Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) must be attached to offer submissions in accordance with FAR Clause 52.223-3. There is no reference to this requirement in the Solicitation. Is the MSDS required to be submitted?

Intent needs clarification

Other/Unsure That box is unchecked, therefore, a Material Safety Data Sheet is not required. 11/18/2025

11 Part 1 If an Offeror’s existing interim or final Design-Build CPARS evaluation does not include an evaluation of design by the Government, please confirm that a Design PPQ will be accepted.

Intent needs clarification

Page 12 of the solicitation states, "If there are no Final or Interim CPARS evaluations, submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (Exhibit C) for each respective project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience."

11/18/2025

1. Exhibit A, Offeror Team Composition and Management; Exhibit B, Design Experience Project Data Sheet – Design Firm; and Exhibit B, Construction Experience Project Data Sheet – Offeror.

a. Please confirm the Offeror may remove the instructional information contained in the second row of each Exhibit to maximize the available space to supply the requested information within the defined page limitations.

You may remove the instructional information in the second row of each Exhibit. 11/18/2025

On page 11/12 of 66, "Design Experience" Section, the requirement states, "Block 8 of Exhibit "B" must include the following: 1) ACM used; 2) ACM vendor(s); 3) ACM impact to the project's budget and schedule; and 4) logistics impacts and mitigations if off-site construction, fabrication or assembly was used." Regarding the "ACM Vendor", could you please confirm if this is mandatory for projects led by the design team, given that vendor selection is typically a responsibility of the contractor? For Design-Bid-Build projects, it may be difficult for the Designer to provide this information.

The requirement remains unchanged. ACM Vendor is a mandatory requirement for evaluation purposes for all projects under Design Experience.

11/18/2025

Page 8, Item 2 – The RFP defines “100% complete” for a construction project as “the facility is completely constructed and ready for the intended use”.

a) Please confirm a project in which the construction of the facility has been fully completed, accepted by the owner, and is in active use for its intended purpose, but where our company continues to provide other post-construction services under the same contract fully meets the RFP definition of “100% complete construction project” for the purposes of this solicitation.

b) Will the Government confirm that the presence of ongoing operation & maintenance services (for example) does not disqualify the project, provided that all construction activities were completed, inspected, and ready for the intended use?

a. As stated in the question, the language"the post-construction construction services under the same contract" is a vague statement. Per the definition of "100% Complete", for construction projects, the facility is completely constructed and ready for use. For design projects, 100% complete does not include any Post Construction Award Support (PCAS).

b. Confirmed. Ongoing operation and maintenance services does not disqualify a project when it is in compliance with the definition of "100% complete" with the facility completely constructed and ready for intended use.

11/18/2025

Section Sub-Section # CLARIFICATION REQUEST RFI reason from

KTR's Perspective

Comment [fill out if "Other" was chosen, specify reason(s)]

RFI Topic most closely relevant to:

Government Response DATE RECEIVED DATE TO KTR Amendment

Number

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE BIDDING KTR

SOLICITATION: N62473-25-R-3426

NDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY UNRESTRICTED MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, AND REPAIR OF COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES USING ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS (ACM) AT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, UTAH, COLORADO, AND NEW MEXICO

DOCUMENT DATE: 12 SEPT 2025

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE GOV'T

15 Part 1 Instructions to Offerors / Evaluation Criteria

We are requesting clarification on the following evaluation criteria for project experience as cited in the RFP: Factor 2: Experience, (1) Construction Experience, Additional minimum submission requirements includes the following statement: Submit at least two (2) relevant projects that demonstrate experience in design-build construction (see definition).Factor 2: Experience, (2) Design Experience, Additional minimum submission requirements includes the following statement: Submit at least two (2) relevant design projects that demonstrate the design team’s experience in design-build construction (see definition).The RFP definition of design-build is as follows: DESIGN-BUILD: Refers to combining design and construction in a single contract with one contractor. Design-build projects require design of the project by a licensed professional (i.e. engineer, architect). Projects that only require shop drawing level effort are not design-build projects. See FAR 36.102.

Our Request for Information (RFI) is as follows: We are seeking clarification on the evaluation criteria for project experience in the RFP.

Specifically, we would like to know if the government will consider and evaluate experience gained from projects executed using the Engineer Procure Construct (EPC) method as equivalent to experience from design-build projects when assessing our qualifications. For context, the EPC method is defined as a project delivery approach where a single contractor is responsible for the entire project scope from design to completion, delivering a fully operational facility to the client.

The Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) delivery method is considered an equivalent to the Design-Build method when it includes the design of the project by a licensed professional (i.e. engineer, architect). If the project's design is not included in the EPC contract, then it is not considered an equivalent to the Design-Build method. Refer to page 10 of the solicitation.

11/18/2025

00 21 00 - Instructions

FACTOR 2:

EXPERIENCE

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be 100% complete (see definition) within the past seven (7) years (see definition) of the date of issuance of this RFP.

This requirement is very limiting. Please consider increasing the timeframe to 10 years.

Other; Please specify in the next column

Requirement limits competition

The requirement for projects submitted within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP remains unchanged. The definition of "seven year period" is contained on page 7 of the solicitation.

11/18/2025

17 Part 1 Chapter-1 Factor 2-Design Exp. and Offeror Experience

On Exhibit B - Offeror, Question 8 asks "If project is design-build, provide a detailed description of the design effort". On Exbibit B - Designer Form, Question 8 asks "Provide a detailed description of what work your firm self-performed on this project".

Did these questions get reversed on the Designer Form vs. the Offeror Form?

Intent needs clarification

Revised Exhibit B - Offeror and Designer is provided in the attached with updated language in Block 8. 11/18/2025

18 Part 1 Chapter-1 SF1442 cover If there is a government shutdown will the due date be extended?

Intent needs clarification

The proposal due date was extended to 04 December 2025. See revised SF1442. 11/13/2025 4

19 Part 1 Chapter-1 00 45 00 The Reps and Certs in the solicitation under Sec 00 45 00 differ from the Word document provided with the solicitation. Please confirm if we are to only provide the completed Word document or if we should provide the provisions from the solicitation.

Conflicting Information

Contracting Confirmed. Complete the Word version of the Reps and Certs provided with the solicitation. 11/18/2025

20 Part 1 Please confirm if the Offeror has a qualifying project completed under the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) delivery method that the Government will evaluate this project type similar to a Design-Build project.

Intent needs clarification

Design Build projects are defined as combining design and construction within a single contract action. If the Construction Management firm and Design firm were contracted separately, the project would not be considered similar to a Design-Build project. See definition on page 7 of the solicitation.

11/18/2025

21 Part 1 If an Offeror has a qualifying project with an interim CPARS that has a "marginal" rating on one evaluation item which was then corrected to a "satisfactory" rating in the Final CPARS, please confirm that the Final CPARS will take precedence and the project will be evaluated as having a "satisfactory" rating for that evaluation item.

Intent needs clarification

CPARS will be checked during the evaluation phase of the solicitation. Both Interim and Final CPARs ratings are considered as long as it has been submitted and finalized in the CPARS system after receipt of proposals and at the time the evaluations are conducted. As stated in the solicitation: “the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through CPARS using all CAGE/UEI numbers of the Offeror’s Team, inquiries of owner representative(s), SAM.gov, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.” Solicitation pp.12-13.

11/18/2025

In Addendum 2, it was stated that the purpose of the amendment was to revise Instructions to Offerors, revise the Financial Questionnaire and provide responses to RFIs. Responses to RFIs were not included as a part of this amendment. Can you please provide the RFI responses, and an extension to the deadline to allow for adjustment of our response based on the RFI responses?

Responses to outstanding RFIs are provided herein. 11/18/2025

23 Part 1 Factor 2

Consistent with Construction Experience, the Design Experience portion of the factor requires Offerors to discuss 1) ACM used; 2) ACM vendor(s);

3) ACM impact to the project's budget and schedule; and 4) logistics impacts and mitigations if off-site construction, fabrication or assembly was used. For DBB projects where the Offeror was the LDF/DOR but not the constructor, must this information be provided? The Offeror may not be able to get this information from the constructor.

Intent needs clarification

Contracting See RFI #13. 11/18/2025

Section Sub-Section # CLARIFICATION REQUEST RFI reason from

KTR's Perspective

Comment [fill out if "Other" was chosen, specify reason(s)]

RFI Topic most closely relevant to:

Government Response DATE RECEIVED DATE TO KTR Amendment

Number

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE BIDDING KTR

SOLICITATION: N62473-25-R-3426

NDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY UNRESTRICTED MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, AND REPAIR OF COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES USING ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS (ACM) AT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, UTAH, COLORADO, AND NEW MEXICO

DOCUMENT DATE: 12 SEPT 2025

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE GOV'T

1. The new due date is Nov 18, 2025 at 5 PM EST----will you do another Amendment for this date?

2. There is a HUB Zone preference. Do you also have a preference for Veteran or SDVOSB or small businesses?

3. Do you want the proposal response template in the below format?

Cover letter Factor 1 - Technical Approach, Factor 2 - Experience, Factor 3 - Past Performance, Factor 4 - Safety;

Factor 5 - Technical Solution (based on Proposed Task Order 0001);

Factor 6 - Small Business Participation;

Factor 7 - Price (based on Proposed Task Order 0001).

4. Do you want details on new AI software and 3D printing solutions that we use and will offer?

5. It looks like the contract will be issued and payments will be through PIEE. Is this correct?

Contracting

1. An amendment was issued via Amendment 0004 to extend the proposal due date.

2. There is no Veteran, SDVOSB, or Small Business preference.

3. There is no required proposal structure. See proposal submittal requirements in the solicitation.

4. This is not required per the solicitation factors.

5. Awarded contracts will be posted on EDA. Any payments for projects will be processed via WAWF as instructed in the WAWF clause of each Task Order.

11/18/2025

25 Part 1 Chapter-1 Paragraph 5 (Restrictions on Participation)

Please confirm whether firms (including affiliates) that assisted NAVFAC in developing this base MACC RFP (N62473-25-R-3426) are restricted from participating as a prime contractor, JV member, Lead Design Firm, or ACM vendor. Does the restriction in paragraph 5 apply only to specific task orders or also to the base MACC? Will NAVFAC issue a list of restricted firms?

Intent needs clarification

Contracting

The restriction detailed in Paragraph 5 on page 54 of the solicitation only applies for specific task orders where a private firm assists NAVFAC in the development of the requirements package.

As no private firms assisted in the development of the Basic Contract, there will not be a list of restricted firms for the contract.

11/18/2025

26 Part 1 Chapter-1 Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors

Please confirm whether NAVFAC will identify and submit the necessary UFC waivers prior to Phase Two RFP release so Offerors can accurately price the seed project and future task orders in alignment with ACM objectives. The NAVFAC ACM Industry Brief (17 Sept 2025) stated waivers would be considered where prescriptive UFC requirements conflict with ACM and result in significant cost or schedule savings (> $1M or >5%) without compromising fire/life safety or code compliance. Based on our review, the following UFCs directly conflict with ACM delivery methods (offsite prefabrication, modular components, PEB, TFS, CLT):

1) UFC 1-200-01 DoD Building Code – prescriptive construction types and material assumptions limit modular/PEB/TFS flexibility;

2) UFC 1-200-02 High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements – prescriptive envelope and HVAC paths may not align with factory-built modules;

3) UFC 3-101-01 Architecture – detailed finish and dimensional standards restrict standardized modular layouts;

4) UFC 3-301-01 Structural Engineering – prescriptive detailing assumes conventional framing, conflicts with proprietary modular/PEB connections and tension fabric systems;

5) UFC 3-410-01 HVAC Systems – on-site mechanical room sizing and distribution requirements conflict with modular plantrooms and plug-and-play systems;

6) UFC 3-501-01 Electrical Engineering – prescriptive wiring and distribution methods conflict with integrated modular electrical systems;

7) UFC 3-600-01 Fire Protection Engineering – prescriptive fire barriers and sprinkler layouts may not accommodate TFS or modular assemblies;

8) UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards – progressive collapse and standoff criteria assume conventional construction;

9) UFC 4-010-05 SCIF/SAPF – prescriptive acoustic/TEMPEST shielding requirements may require alternate tested modular assemblies.

Please confirm you agree with this assessment and that NAVFAC will process these waivers early so Offerors can develop compliant, cost-effective ACM solutions. We are happy to provide a white paper or schedule a meeting to discuss further if needed.

Intent needs clarification

Contracting Any UFC waivers will be handled at a Task Order level and will be performed by NAVFAC. 11/18/2025

27 Part 1 Chapter-1 Paragraph 2 – Proposal Submittal Requirements

Please confirm whether NAVFAC will consider extending the Phase One proposal due date by four weeks. This extension is necessary to incorporate significant changes introduced by Amendments 0001 and 0002, including revised Financial Questionnaire procedures requiring coordination with financial institutions, updated instructions for Team Consent Forms, and clarification of ACM definitions. These changes directly impact compliance and require additional time to align multiple stakeholders critical to NAVFAC’s ACM and industrialized construction objectives. Additionally, given the current government shutdown and potential furloughs impacting timely review and processing, an extension would help ensure Offerors can deliver the most complete, competitive, and high-quality proposals that best reflect NAVFAC’s intent for innovation, speed, and cost efficiency.

Intent needs clarification

Contracting The proposal due date was extended to 04 December 2025. See revised SF1442. 11/13/2025 4

Section Sub-Section # CLARIFICATION REQUEST RFI reason from

KTR's Perspective

Comment [fill out if "Other" was chosen, specify reason(s)]

RFI Topic most closely relevant to:

Government Response DATE RECEIVED DATE TO KTR Amendment

Number

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE BIDDING KTR

SOLICITATION: N62473-25-R-3426

NDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY UNRESTRICTED MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, AND REPAIR OF COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES USING ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS (ACM) AT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, UTAH, COLORADO, AND NEW MEXICO

DOCUMENT DATE: 12 SEPT 2025

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE GOV'T

28 Part 1 Chapter-1 Factor 2 – Experience

Please confirm whether the definition of “vehicle maintenance facility” for Factor 2 relevancy includes facilities for vehicles such as marine craft, aircraft (e.g. aircraft maintenance facility), and amphibious vehicles. Several federal definitions (e.g., 40 CFR 85.1703) classify vehicles as self-propelled equipment designed for land, air, or water use. These facilities share the same functional intent (maintenance, repair, and servicing of complex vehicles) regardless of the operating environment. Please confirm such facilities are considered “vehicle maintenance facility” to demonstrate relevant experience, consistent with the solicitation’s examples of relevant construction projects.

Intent needs clarification

Contracting For the purposes of this solicitation, the term "vehicle maintenance facility" includes marine, aircraft, and amphibious vehicle maintenance facilities.

11/18/2025

29 Part 1 Chapter-1 Factor 3 – Past Performance

Please confirm whether an Owner’s Representative or Construction Management firm, acting under delegated authority from the Owner, is acceptable to sign a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). This is a common industry practice for private-sector projects where Owners outsource day-to-day project oversight to CM firms. These representatives typically manage all aspects of design and construction, maintain direct knowledge of performance metrics, and are contractually empowered to evaluate contractor performance.

Intent needs clarification

Contracting An Owner's representative or Construction Management firm is acceptable to sign the PPQ as long as said firm is not a part of the Offeror's Team for this contract. This would be considered a conflict of interest.

11/18/2025

30 Part 1 Chapter-1

Factor 2 – Experience and Factor 3 – Past Performance

Please confirm whether Offerors may submit up to (5) separate Exhibit B and Exhibit C entries for ACM vendors to demonstrate their relevant experience and past performance, and that these submissions would not count toward the (5) project maximum for construction experience and

(5) project maximum for design experience currently applied to the Offeror and Lead Design Firms.

NAVFAC’s ACM Industry Brief emphasized that successful implementation of ACM and industrialized construction requires early alignment of multiple stakeholders, including specialized fabricators and modular system providers. These vendors are not traditional subcontractors. They are critical partners whose capabilities directly impact NAVFAC’s ability to achieve faster delivery, cost savings, and standardized solutions. Evaluating their experience and past performance will give NAVFAC confidence that the proposed team can deliver on ACM objectives. Without this flexibility, Offerors cannot fully demonstrate the integrated team approach NAVFAC requested.

Intent needs clarification

Contracting There is no separate requirement for ACM Vendor experience. Per page 12 of the solicitation, "The Government will only review five (5) projects for construction and five (5) projects for design. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience and five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered."

11/18/2025

31 Part 1 Chapter-1

00 73 01 – Contract Type/Performance Special Contract Requirements

Please confirm whether Davis-Bacon Act (Construction Wage Rate Requirements) applies to offsite fabrication facilities dedicated to a project under this MACC. The Department of Labor’s recent rule expanded coverage to “secondary construction sites,” which may include modular or prefabrication plants established or dedicated primarily for a federal contract. If applicable, please clarify: (1) what criteria NAVFAC will use to determine if an offsite plant qualifies as a secondary construction site; (2) whether Offerors should include Davis-Bacon wage compliance costs for factory labor in Phase Two pricing; and (3) what documentation NAVFAC expects for compliance. This clarification is essential for accurate pricing and compliance planning for ACM projects.

Intent needs clarification

Contracting

Please refer to the Department of Labor (“DoL”) regulations at 29 C.F.R. Parts 1 and 5. As provided by the DoL regulations, the Davis-Bacon Act applies to certain construction, performed at both primary construction sites and secondary construction sites. Whether it applies to “offsite fabrication facilities dedicated to a project under this MACC”, depends on whether the offsite fabrication facilities constitute a “secondary construction site”.

As defined by the DoL regulations, a “secondary construction site” is: “any other site(s) where a significant portion of the building or work is constructed, provided that such construction is for specific use in that building or work and does not simply reflect the manufacture or construction of a product made available to the general public, and provided further that the site is either established specifically for the performance of the contract or project, or is dedicated exclusively, or nearly so, to the performance of the contract or project for a specific period of time. A “significant portion” of a building or work means one or more entire portion(s) or module(s) of the building or work, such as a completed room or structure, with minimal construction work remaining other than the installation and/or final assembly of the portions or modules at the place where the building or work will remain. A “significant portion” does not include materials or prefabricated component parts such as prefabricated housing components. A “specific period of time” means a period of weeks, months, or more, and does not include circumstances where a site at which multiple projects are in progress is shifted exclusively or nearly so to a single project for a few hours or days in order to meet a deadline.”29 C.F.R. 5.2. As a result, an Offeror will have to prove that a significant portion of the seed project will be constructed at the secondary construction site (and then transported to the place where the CDC will remain), and that the construction is for specific use in the building and does not simply reflect the manufacture or construction of a product made available to the general public. An Offeror will also have to prove that the secondary construction site was established specifically for performance of the seed project, or is dedicated exclusively for performance of the seed project for a finite period of time. If an Offeror plans to utilize a secondary construction site in the performance of the seed project, then Davis-Bacon Act wages will apply to the construction work performed at that secondary construction site, and Offerors are encouraged to bid accordingly. Please refer to the DoL regulations for Davis- Bacon Act compliance requirements.

11/18/2025

32 Part 1 Factor 1

The factor states: "If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name and address is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/ subsidiary/ parent/LLC/LTD firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract on Exhibit A." Please confirm the Offeror can use experience from an Offeror's office with a separate address (i.e. a branch of the Offeror, same name, in a different state) without discussing in the narrative for Factor 1, as this experience is the Offerors, not an affiliate/subsidiary/etc.

Intent needs clarification

Contracting This statement refers to clerical differences in an Offeror's name that is not exactly as stated on the SF 1442."

"The Offeror is still responsible for clearly demonstrating that the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent/LLC/LTF firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract.

11/18/2025

Section Sub-Section # CLARIFICATION REQUEST RFI reason from

KTR's Perspective

Comment [fill out if "Other" was chosen, specify reason(s)]

RFI Topic most closely relevant to:

Government Response DATE RECEIVED DATE TO KTR Amendment

Number

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE BIDDING KTR

SOLICITATION: N62473-25-R-3426

NDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY UNRESTRICTED MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, AND REPAIR OF COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES USING ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS (ACM) AT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, UTAH, COLORADO, AND NEW MEXICO

DOCUMENT DATE: 12 SEPT 2025

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE GOV'T

33 Part 1

Section 00 21 00 Instructions - Factor 2: Experience Part 2. DEFINITIONS, states that ALTERNATE CONSTRUCTION METHODS (ACM) are as follows: … “A construction method that offers innovative approaches to building, often prioritizing sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and speed of construction compared to traditional methods of construction. ACM may include, but are not limited to, modular components, offsite prefabricated construction, ....”

For the purposes of evaluating relevant experience will NAVFAC consider a large new construction project involving both Multi-Family Residential buildings and Single-Family housing that entailed design oversight, extensive use of a large variety of off-site manufactured modular components, multiple off site fabrication facilities, and innovative approaches to building, that can be demonstrated to have placed extreme priority on cost-effectiveness, expedited speed of construction and sustainability compared to traditional methods of construction. The reference project contract was extremely restrictive of the work that could be constructed on-site so all fabrication and modular component and other manufacturing was conducted off site wherever possible.

Only the portion of the project scope that pertains to Multi-Family Residential buildings would be considered relevant. As stated on page 10 of the solicitation, "For this solicitation, new construction and/or repair of single family homes will not be considered relevant."

11/18/2025

If "Others" -include info under Column E Clarification Request if Others include info under Column E

As a follow up the Sept 10th final rule , please confirm if the Offeror is required to implement NIST SP 800-171, and be fully compliant (all 110 controls) at the time of bid submission. Would the DoD CIO be open to requests to vary from NIST SP 800-171, consistent with DFARS 252.204- 7012(b)(2(ii), and/or certify this project at CMMC Level 1?

Intent needs clarification

Other/Unsure

Contractors are required to comply with all requirements of DFARS 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (Deviation 2024-O0013). Refer to DFARS 252.204-7012(b)(2)(ii)(B) which states "(B) The Contractor shall submit requests to vary from NIST SP 800-171 in writing to the Contracting Officer, for consideration by the DoD CIO. The Contractor need not implement any security requirement adjudicated by an authorized representative of the DoD CIO to be nonapplicable or to have an alternative, but equally effective, security measure that may be implemented in its place."

11/18/2025

If "Others" -include info under Column E Clarification Request if Others include info under Column E

Please confirm that there will be no CMMC or CUI documents/requirements for the seed project in Phase II.

Intent needs clarification

Other/Unsure Confirmed. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification or Controlled Unclassified Information will not be required for the seed project in Phase II.

11/18/2025

Government response to RFI#13 published with AM05 states that Exhibit B for Design Experience must provide the names of ACM Vendors.

However the definition provided for 100% design complete clearly notes that PCAS is not included.

"For design projects: 100% plans and specifications signed off by an Architect-Engineer and ready for construction with final cost estimate. Does not include any Post Construction Award Support (PCAS)."

RFP instructions state: "Projects submitted for the design team shall be 100% complete (see definition) within the past seven (7) years (see definition) of the date of issuance of this RFP. For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. The design completion date shall reflect the date that plans and specifications were complete, signed off by an Architect-Engineer, and approved for construction, and does not include architect/engineering services during construction. Projects which are not 100%complete as of the date of issuance of this RFP shall not be considered."

For projects submitted under Design Experience which meet the RFP definition and comply with RFP instructions, but for which construction has not begun and/or identification of ACM Vendors has not been made by the construction firm yet, please consider revising the response to RFI#13 regarding 100% design complete projects for which ACM Vendors have yet to be selected/finalized.

The requirement remains unchanged. ACM Vendor is a mandatory requirement for evaluation purposes for all projects under Design Experience. Refer to RFI #13.

11/25/2025

Section Sub-Section # CLARIFICATION REQUEST RFI reason from

KTR's Perspective

Comment [fill out if "Other" was chosen, specify reason(s)]

RFI Topic most closely relevant to:

Government Response DATE RECEIVED DATE TO KTR Amendment

Number

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE BIDDING KTR

SOLICITATION: N62473-25-R-3426

NDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY UNRESTRICTED MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, AND REPAIR OF COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES USING ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS (ACM) AT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, UTAH, COLORADO, AND NEW MEXICO

DOCUMENT DATE: 12 SEPT 2025

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE GOV'T

RFI (pre-award) Form_For KTR