N6247824R5046_QA_MOD2.pdf

N62478-24-R-5046

May 8, 2024

Ques.

No.

Question Response Mod No.

1 On Pages 3 and 4 of 15, CRITERION 1, the Solicitation indicates that the firm must have experience with three (3) Recent, Relevant Civil projects and three (3) Recent, Relevant Electrical projects, which adds up to 6 projects. Later on Page 5 of 15, under CRITERION 1 Submission Requirements, the Solicitation asks for a maximum of ten (10) projects. Please clarify if NAVFAC requires a maximum of 6 or 10 total projects for Section F.

(Criterion 1) The synopsis requires a maximum of 10 projects, but a minimum of three (3) recent, relevant Civil projects, where at least one is for new construction and at least one is for repair/renovation; and three (3) recent, relevant Electrical projects, where at least one is for new construction and at least one is for repair/renovation. Language for Criterion 1 (originally on page 3 of 15) has been revised from:

“1) Three (3) recent, relevant Civil projects, where at least one is for new construction and at least one is for repair/renovation, and

2) Three (3) recent, relevant Electrical projects, where at least one is for new construction and at least one is for repair/renovation:”

to:

“1) Provide a minimum of three (3) recent, relevant Civil projects, where at least one is for new construction and at least one is for repair/renovation, and

2) Provide a minimum of three (3) recent, relevant Electrical projects, where at least one is for new construction and at least one is for repair/renovation:”

The synopsis has been revised. See Synopsis Modification No. 2.

2 Page 5 of 15. Criterion 1, Submission Requirements, states that services for "Recent Relevant Projects" must be completed "immediately preceding the date of issuance of this notice."

[Project related information redacted.] Since these are 100% design complete, without final approval, would these projects be accepted in meeting submission requirements?

(Criterion 1) Language for Criterion 1 (originally on page 5 of 15) for Submission Requirements has been revised from:

“Provide a maximum of ten (10) “Recent Relevant Projects” with design and engineering services completed within the past ten (10) years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this notice that best demonstrate specialized experience of the proposed team in the areas outlined above….”

to:

“Provide a maximum of ten (10) “Recent Relevant Projects” with design and engineering services completed or substantially completed within the past ten

(10) years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this notice that best demonstrate specialized experience of the proposed team in the areas outlined above. If any of the professional services are substantially completed, provide the substantial completion date and justify how the project is considered substantially completed in Block 24. “Brief Description of Project and Relevance to this Contract”. Sufficient information to determine the date

No.

Question Response Mod No.

of completion of the projects must be included in the project description or the project will not be considered….”

Note: A design is considered “complete” once the Government has signed the drawings and specifications. “Substantial completion” is the stage when a design or construction project is deemed sufficiently completed to the point where NAVFAC can use it for its intended purpose.

3 On Page 4 of 15, CRITERION 1, the Solicitation states "Each feature listed above does not have to be in a single project scope. For example, the firm may have a single project that included water distribution systems and a wastewater collection systems, however, the water distribution system and wastewater collection system must each be at least approximately $20M or more in estimated construction costs/awarded construction costs in order for it to be considered as a recent relevant project."

Based on DoD and municipal industry experience, the example as written does not represent an attainable combination of types of utility projects, especially for renovation projects.

We suggest the example sentence be deleted from the Solicitation because the Government's intent of having 3 Civil projects (new and reno) and 3 Electrical (new and reno) and demonstrating an ability to design a variety of utility types is clearly communicated in the Solicitation.

(Criterion 1) Language for Criterion 1 (originally on page 4 of 15) has been revised from:

“Each feature listed above does not have to be in a single project scope. For example, the firm may have a single project that included water distribution systems and a wastewater collection systems, however, the water distribution system and wastewater collection system must each be at least approximately $20M or more in estimated construction costs/awarded construction costs in order for it to be considered as a recent relevant project.”

to:

“Each feature listed above does not have to be in a single project scope. If a single project has multiple relevant features, the firm must provide the dollar value of each relevant feature.”

i.e. A firm lists Example Project #1 that has a $25M construction cost, with $3M water distribution, $3M wastewater collection, $2M storm drainage, and $5M secondary distribution systems. Since this project is over the ~$20 million required “new” construction value and has indicated the associated dollar value for each civil feature, the project may be considered a relevant project to demonstrate experience in water distribution, wastewater collection, storm drainage system and secondary distribution system.

4 CRITERION 1 on Page 3 of 15 clearly states that “Each project’s construction cost shall be approximately $20 million or more, with the services completed within the past ten (10) years, exclusive of Post Construction Award Services (PCAS)." We believe that this requirement by itself should be sufficient to qualify a project as a “Recent Relevant Project”.

(Criterion 1) The example provided in the criterion was not intended to limit the ability for firms to demonstrate their specialized experience in recent relevant projects by needing to have experience in mega-type projects. Firms will need to demonstrate experience in recent relevant projects that are similar to those anticipated under this $249M contract, as stated in the

Question Response Mod

Further, we request that the project example on page 4 of 15 be deleted in that it states each feature, i.e., wastewater collection system and water distribution system if in one project be $20M each to qualify as “recent relevant project”. It is atypical for one project to include two such features at $20M estimated construction costs each, and it contradicts the overall Navy’s intent that an entire project should be $20M in estimated construction cost to qualify as a recent relevant project.

Except for single purpose facilities (e.g., Water Treatment Facility, Power Plant), on a typical DoD new construction, the aggregate value of the multiple features is a fraction (typically 18 to 25%) of the overall construction value. So a project to have a $20M construction cost for a SINGLE feature would require firms to have MEGA projects as all of their Criterion 1 projects.

criterion. Language for Criterion 1 (originally page 3 of 15) has been revised from:

“Each project’s construction cost shall be approximately $20 million or more, with the services completed within the past ten (10) years, exclusive of Post Construction Award Services (PCAS).”

to:

“Each project’s construction cost shall be approximately $20 million or more for new construction or approximately $15 million or more for repair/ renovation/alteration, with the services completed within the past ten (10) years, exclusive of Post Construction Award Services (PCAS).”

Language for Criterion 1 (originally page 4 of 15) for the example has also been removed – see response to Question #3 above.

(Criterion 2) Language for Criterion 2 under para. 2 for Special Instructions (originally page 8 of 15) has also been updated to reflect changes to the new construction and repair/renovation/alteration thresholds.

5 On Page 3 of 15, CRITERION 1, the Solicitation indicates that Recent Relevant projects shall be approximately $20M or more for both new construction or renovation. Based on DoD industry experience, renovations are rarely exceed $20M worth of construction and limits industry's ability to meet NAVFAC's requirements of demonstrating renovations in CRITERION 1 projects. We ask that NAVFAC consider allowing renovation projects approximately $15M or greater in construction cost as Recent Relevant projects.

(Criterion 1) A repair, renovation, alteration project with a construction cost of $15 million or more is acceptable.

Language for Criterion 1 (originally on page 3 of 15) for the repair/renovation/alteration threshold has been revised – see response to Question #4 above.

6 On Page 6 of 15, CRITERION 1, the Solicitation states that a task order on an IDIQ contract is considered a project. It is not uncommon for the government to separate AE work under multiple task orders due to limited government funding for a single large project, but the design work accomplished through the multiple task orders is for the same project and same location to accomplish the overall mission. Is a single project that

(Criterion 1) In the event that a single project’s design was executed over multiple task orders, those task orders may still be considered a single project. Identify the Basic contract and task order numbers in the Part I Section F form for that project.

Language for Criterion 1 (originally page 6 of 15) for Submission Requirements has been revised to include the following red text:

Question Response Mod No.

was completed under three separate task orders due to government funding limitations be a valid project?

“Projects shall be submitted on the SF330 at Part I, Section F and Attachment

(A) Specialized Experience and shall be completed projects…. Instead, list relevant task orders or standalone contract awards that fit within the definition above. If a single project is executed over multiple task orders, provide all contract and task order numbers in the Part I, Section F form for that project.

The Government will not evaluate information provided for an IDIQ contract….”

7 On Page 6 of 15, CRITERION 2, the Solicitation indicates "All key personnel must be licensed in their specific discipline…" Key personnel are required for Fuels/POL Engineer and for Geotechnical Engineer, but there are generally no "specific" licenses for these disciplines. Please confirm that applicable engineering licenses (e.g., mechanical engineering or civil engineering) are appropriate for Fuels/POL Engineer and Geotechnical Engineers.

(Criterion 2) Language for Criterion 2 (originally on page 6 of 15) has been revised from:

“….Specific disciplines that must be included in key personnel are Principal-in-Charge, Civil, Electrical, Telecom, Fuels, Petroleum/Oils/Lubricant, Architect, Structural, Mechanical, Fire Protection, and Geotechnical. All key personnel must be licensed in their specific discipline, with the exception of the Structural Engineer, which can be a licensed Civil Engineer if a State does not issue licenses in Structural engineering. For experience of proposed key personnel, see Criterion 1 for the definition of “recent relevant projects” and types of design/engineering services.”

to:

“….Specific disciplines that must be included in key personnel are Principal-in-Charge, Civil, Electrical, Telecommunications, Fuels, Petroleum/Oils/Lubricant, Architect, Structural, Mechanical, Fire Protection, and Geotechnical. All key personnel must be licensed in their specific discipline, with the exceptions of the following: A Structural Engineer can be a licensed Civil Engineer if a State does not issue licenses in Structural engineering; the Fuels, Petroleum/Oils/Lubricant Engineer can be a licensed Civil or Mechanical Engineer; and the Geotechnical Engineer can be a licensed Civil Engineer. The Telecommunications Engineer must be a Registered Communication Distribution Designer (RCDD). If a key person is not licensed in their specific discipline, the SF330 must clearly provide evidence that a licensing State does not issue licenses in that particular discipline; if it is not clearly evidenced in the SF330, the key person will be considered to not have met the licensing requirement in their own discipline, even though they are licensed. For experience of proposed key personnel, see Criterion 1 for the definition of “recent relevant projects” and types of design/engineering services.”

Question Response Mod No.

Note: Evidence of licensing for key personnel can be provided per instructions provided in SF330 Submission Requirements (originally on page 14 of 15).

8 PAGE 9 of 15. CRITERION 3. Submission Requirements. The Solicitation states: "Submit a 'Completed' CPARS/ACASS Evaluation for each project under Criterion 1."

It is common for design projects performed by AE firms to receive Interim CPARS from the Government throughout the delivery process, yet sometimes Government clients do not always issue a 'Final' CPARS in the system. Will NAVFAC accept the most current 'Interim' CPARS rating received for a completed project as meeting this submission requirement for past performance?

(Criterion 3) Since interim CPARS typically reflects a firm’s performance for a 12-month period and may not cover performance for the entire project duration, firms must submit ALL completed (interim and if available, a final) CPARS for each project. Furthermore, if the Government is able to retrieve CPARS from the CPARS database for the contracts/task order numbers provided in the SF330, the Government will evaluate the project’s past performance based on all evaluations found in the CPARS database in order to evaluate the firm’s entire performance of the project. Language for Criterion 3 (originally page 9 of 15) for Submission Requirements has been revised from:

“SUBMIT A COMPLETED CPARS/ACASS EVALUATION FOR EACH

PROJECT UNDER CRITERION 1.”

to:

“SUBMIT ALL COMPLETED INTERIM AND, IF AVAILABLE, A FINAL

CPARS EVALUATION FOR EACH PROJECT UNDER CRITERION 1.”

9 On Page 14, under "SF330 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS", the solicitation states "The SF330 Parts I and II shall not exceed 80 pages single-sided 8.5 x 11 inch pages. The page limit does not include the SF330 Part II…". Please clarify that SF330 Part IIs do not count towards the 80 page limitation.

(SF330 Submission Requirements) The SF330 Part II does not count towards the page limitation.

Language for SF330 Submission Requirements (originally page 14 or 15) has been revised from to remove Part II from the page count and increase the page count, from:

“The SF330 Parts I and II shall not exceed 80 pages single-sided 8.5 x 11 inch pages….”

to:

“The SF330 Part I shall not exceed 100 pages single-sided 8.5 x 11 inch pages….”

Question Response Mod No.

10 On Page 14, under "SF330 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS", the solicitation states "The SF330, Part I, Section D organizational chart may be one page single sided, 11 x 17 foldout, using 11 point font or larger (font limitations do not apply to graphics, captions, or tables)." Please confirm that a single 11x17 foldout counts as one page towards the page limitation.

(SF330 Submission Requirements) The SF330, Part I, Section D, one-page, single-sided 11x17 foldout counts as just one page towards the page limitation.

11 Page 5 of 15, Item 6, CRITERION 1. If a Section F project is submitted where the Prime was the DB DOR as allowed on Page 4 of 15 (see middle paragraph), please confirm that a DB DOR would not be scored equivalently to a DBB DOR project, even if performed as a Prime?

(Criterion 1) It is not common for an A-E firm to be a Prime DB DOR, unless the A-E firm partners with a construction contractor, for example, where the JV team is comprised of a JV partner that is a construction contractor and a JV partner that is an A-E firm. Even if the A-E firm was the Prime for a DB construction contract and was the DB DOR, the Prime is still the DB DOR for the project. The criterion states that “Projects performed as a prime A-E or prime JV partner(s) for a DBB contract will be considered more favorable than experience performed by the firm as a sub-consultant or as an A-E Designer of Record (DOR) for a DB contract.”

12 On page 3 of 15, under CRITERION 1 - Specialized Experience (SF330, Part I, Section F and Attachment (A)) the solicitation states that firms will be evaluated on specialized experience in performance of services of “Recent Relevant Projects” that are similar to those anticipated under this contract through evaluation of experience in:

1. Military Construction (MILCON) DD Form 1391

2. Functional Analysis and Concept Development (FACD)/Concept Design Workshops (CDW)/Design Charrettes

3. Design-Build (DB) Request for Proposal (RFP) construction

4. Design-Bid-Build (DBB)/Final Design construction documents

5. Engineering Studies and Reports

Question: Please confirm the five service elements listed on Page 3 are all that will be scored in the CRITERION 1 projects?

(Criterion 1) Firms will be evaluated on their experience in the service types listed in the criterion. The five (5) service types has been reduced to four (4) service types. Language for Criterion 1 (originally page 3 of 15) has been revised to remove “5. Engineering Studies and Reports” and reflects only these four (4) service types:

1. Military Construction (MILCON) DD Form 1391

2. Functional Analysis and Concept Development (FACD)/Concept Design Workshops(CDW)/Design Charrettes

3. Design-Build (DB) Request for Proposal (RFP) construction documents

4. Design-Bid-Build (DBB)/Final Design construction documents

Further clarification is provided on the types of services and features that firms need to demonstrate. Language has been added to Criterion 1 after the 11 features on page 4:

“Firms do not need to demonstrate experience in all four (4) types of services (i.e. DD1391, FACD, etc.), nor need to demonstrate experience in all 11 types of civil (3) and electrical (8) features. In order to be evaluated as having minimally met Criterion 1, the firm must demonstrate that they have sufficient civil and electrical design experience in “Recent Relevant Projects” from any of the projects that the firm submits….”

Question Response Mod No.

13 On Page 11 of 15, CRITERION 6, Sustainable Design. Because NAVFAC now requires all new general building construction projects to follow the latest version of the UFC 1-200-02, “High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements” (HPSB), will NAVFAC accept the inclusion of HPSB Checklists to demonstrate certified projects with third-party Guiding Principles compliance? If so, can those checklists be presented in an attachment and excluded from the page counts?

(Criterion 7) (Note, question #13 referenced Criterion 6 which pertains to Firm Location.) For Criterion 7 for Sustainable Design, HPSB checklists may be included to demonstrate the firm’s experience in applying sustainability concepts but will not be considered as showing evidence of a project’s certification. Any HPSB checklists provided with the SF330 shall be included in Part I, Section H and will count towards the page limitation.

14 On Page 12 of 15, CRITERION 8, Commitment to Small Business. The Solicitation indicates NAVFAC FY2024 subcontracting goals. However, on another Solicitation for NAVFAC Washington (N4008024R7460) issued 2 days after this Solicitation, it indicated different percentages for NAVFAC SB "Subcontracting" goals for FY2024. Please confirm that this NAVFAC Hawaii Solicitation has the correct "Subcontracting" percentages, so that we can make sure our SB plan is compliant.

(Criterion 8) The percentages originally listed in Criterion 8 differs from NAVFAC Washington, as NAVFAC Hawaii (NFH) Prime contracting goals were provided. Language for Criterion 8 (originally page 12 of 15) has been updated for FY24 small business subcontracting goals rather than NFH’s Prime contracting goals, from:

FY2024

SB 33.75%

HubZone 9.25%

SDB 23.50%

WOSB 3.85%

SDVOSB 5.40%

to:

FY2024

SB 40%

HubZone 3%

SDB 5%

WOSB 9%

SDVOSB 5%

15 Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template - For Paragraph 9, to be consistent with the current version of FAR 52.219-9(d)(9), may we please replace the text from:

a. “Contractor Name agrees that the FAR clause 52.219-8 entitled "Utilization of Small Business Concerns " will be included in all subcontracts which offer further subcontracting opportunities, and all subcontractors, except SB concerns, that receive subcontracts in excess of $750,000 ($1,500,000 for construction) will be required to adopt plans that comply with the requirements of the clause at 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.”

(Criterion 8) For consistency, please utilize Attachment (E), Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) that was provided in the notice even though the SBSP template (version May 2022) has not been updated with the current version of the FAR.

Question Response Mod No.

to “[Firm name redacted] will include FAR clause 52.219-8 of this contract entitled "Utilization of Small Business Concerns" in all subcontracts that offer further subcontracting opportunities, and [Firm name redacted] will require all subcontractors (except small business concerns) that receive subcontracts in excess of the applicable threshold specified in FAR 19.702(a) on the date of subcontract award, with further subcontracting possibilities to adopt a subcontracting plan that complies with the requirements of the clause at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.”?

16 Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template - For Paragraph 11, part c., to be consistent with the current version of FAR 52.219-9(d)(11)(iii), may we please replace the text from:

a. “On a contract-by-contract basis, records on all subcontract solicitations over $150,000 and indicating for each solicitation:”

to “Records on each subcontract solicitation resulting in an award of more than the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in FAR 2.101 on the date of subcontract award, indicating:”?

(Criterion 8) For consistency, please utilize Attachment (E), Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) that was provided in the notice even though the SBSP template (version May 2022) has not been updated with the current version of the FAR.

17 Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template - For Paragraph 11, part d., to be consistent with the current version of FAR 52.219-9(d)(11)(iv)(D), may we please replace the following text from:

a.“frequency of accessing SAM.”

to “Veterans service organizations.”?

(Criterion 8) For consistency, please utilize Attachment (E), Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) that was provided in the notice even though the SBSP template (version May 2022) has not been updated with the current version of the FAR.

18 The solicitation requires projects provided in Section F must meet “design and engineering services [is] completed within the past ten (10) years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this notice.” We ask that design and engineering services for Section F can be completed prior to the due date for the SF 330 package.

(Criterion 1) Language for Criterion 1 (originally on page 5 of 15) for Submission Requirements has been revised for Section F projects – see response to Question #2 above.

19 If 10 total projects are allowed for Section F, please consider expanding the page count to 100 pages for Part I (excluding Part IIs).

(SF330 Submission Requirements) Language for SF330 Submission Requirements (originally page 14 or 15) has been revised to increase the page count - see response to Question #9 above.

20 We rely on our specialty telecommunications sub-consultant for their expertise. For criterion 1, to demonstrate telecomm

(Criterion 1) Telecommunications experience can be demonstrated either through the firm itself or from the firm’s telecommunications sub-consultant.

Question Response Mod No.

experience, are we able to submit telecomm projects from our sub-consultant? Or will the project not be considered because it was not performed by us?

Language for Criterion 1 has been added on page 4 (before the Favorable Items section) to clarify who must be the one to have experience and to allow firms to submit telecommunications projects that were performed by the firm’s sub-consultant:

“NOTE: Experience performed by the firm in the capacity/role as the Prime A- E or as a sub-consultant will only be considered. Experience from a firm’s sub-consultant(s) will not be considered, except for experience in “Telecommunications systems for facilities”. Firms will only be allowed to submit project(s) for “Telecommunications systems for facilities” that were performed by either the firm itself or the firm’s sub-consultant in order to demonstrate experience for this criterion. Projects not meeting these requirements will be excluded from consideration in the evaluation.”

21 How is DoD volume of work determined? (Criterion 9) Language for Criterion 9 (originally on page 13 of 15) has been updated to clarify where award data is retrieved from and specific instructions for firms that are part of other JV firms that received DoD contracts, to primarily add the following:

“If a firm was part of another JV that received a contract, provide the UEI for that JV which received the contract and the firm’s percentage of the JV’s dollars awarded.”

For example, Firm A was part of another JV called ABC JV, which received an Army contract for $50M as the Prime; Firm A will need to provide ABC JV’s UEI and Cage information and also provide Firm A’s revenue percentage in ABC JV; if ABC JV received $21M out of $50M in awards to date and Firm A’s revenue percentage is 33.3%, then Firm A is considered to have received $7M in DoD awards for that particular contract.