N6247826R5058_QA_MOD3.pdf

N62478-26-R-5058

July 27, 2026

Ques.

No.

Question Response Mod No.

1 On Page 4 of 18, Criterion 1 states “Each feature listed above does not have to be in a single project scope. If a single project has multiple relevant features, the firm should provide the construction dollar value of each relevant feature and must meet the specified construction cost thresholds individually.”

Based on DoD and municipal industry experience, the example as written will make it very challenging for most firms to meet this criterion, especially for renovation projects.

We suggest the example sentence be replaced with the language, as similarly provided in Synopsis N62478-24-R-5046 Modification No. 2

(Criterion 1) Language for Criterion 1 (originally on page 4 of

18) has been revised from:

“Each feature listed above does not have to be in a single project scope. If a single project has multiple relevant features, the firm should provide the construction dollar value of each relevant feature and must meet the specified construction cost thresholds individually.”

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 should provide the construction dollar value of each relevant feature.”

i.e. A firm lists Example Project #1 that has a $25M new construction cost inclusive of $5M water pump station, $4M wastewater collection, $3M storm drainage system, $7M secondary distribution systems and other items. Because this project is over the ~$20 million required total “new” construction value and has indicated the associated dollar value for each civil and electrical feature, the project may be considered a relevant project to demonstrate experience in water distribution systems including pump stations, wastewater collection and treatment systems including pump stations, storm drainage systems, and secondary distribution system.

The synopsis has been revised. See Synopsis Modification No. 1.

No.

Question Response Mod No.

2 On page 6 of 18. Criterion 1, Submission Requirements, states "Provide a maximum of ten (10) “Relevant Projects” with design and engineering services completed or substantially completed within approximately the past ten (10) years as of the closing date 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.'"

Would a DB RFP that has completed the 90% design submittal, including the Design Review Meeting, be considered substantially complete?

(Criterion 1) A DB RFP that has completed the 90% design submittal, including the Design Review Meeting, would NOT be considered substantially complete. Substantially completed is defined as at a minimum the Final Design submittal must have been submitted to the client for acceptance.

The synopsis has been revised with the definition of substantially completed. See Synopsis Modification No. 2.

3 Regarding Civil Feature #1 Water distribution systems including pump stations, does this feature include treatment? Or does only Feature #2 Wastewater collection and treatment systems including pump stations include treatment?

Confirming Civil Feature #1 does not include water treatment. Confirming Civil Feature #2 is Wastewater collection and treatment systems including pump stations.

4 With the NAVFAC Enterprise leaning on alternative delivery methods, such as accelerated design build, why would Design Bid Build projects weigh more heavily over Design Build. Recommend DBB and DB carry equal weight.

Synopsis will remain as is in regards to Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build requirements and evaluation.

5 Industry devoted considerable resources to preparing proposals to the predecessor solicitation issued in 2024. That procurement was canceled without selection and without a detailed explanation regarding the basis for cancellation. Following two years of procurement inactivity, the requirement has now been reissued with substantial revisions to the evaluation criteria and submission requirements. AE Firms and Joint Ventures (JV) must effectively restart their capture, teaming, project qualification, and compliance efforts from the beginning. The reissued solicitation is not a simple refresh of the prior procurement. Rather, it includes significant changes affecting how firms must demonstrate qualifications. These changes require firms to reassess project selection strategies, key personnel assignments, teaming relationships, and compliance approaches. In many cases, projects that were previously responsive may no longer satisfy the revised evaluation framework. Many prospective competitors are pursuing the opportunity through joint venture structures and large consultant teams. This challenge is particularly significant because the revised solicitation now

(SF330 Submission Requirements) SF 330 deadline is revised to Wednesday, 02 September 2026 at 2:00 PM Hawaii Standard Time (HST). See Synopsis Modification No. 3.

No.

Question Response Mod No.

requires a more detailed demonstration of technical experience than the predecessor version. To maximize fair and open competition, an extension would be in the best interest of the Government because it would promote broader and more robust competition among interested and qualified firms and JVs. Given the two-year interval between the canceled procurement and the reissued solicitation, as well as the substantial revisions to the evaluation criteria, we respectfully request that NAVFAC Hawaii extend the submission deadline from August 14, 2026, to September 30, 2026. A six-week extension would provide industry sufficient time to fully address the revised requirements while ensuring the Government receives the highest quality submissions and maintains a fair and competitive procurement environment.

6 To ensure maximum competition and allow industry to deliver the highest quality proposals, we respectfully request a 4-week extension of the submission deadline to 9 SEPTEMBER.

The combination of the lengthy time-lapse since the original procurement, the rapid nature of this re-solicitation, and updates in the current synopsis requires firms to re-evaluate teaming structures and joint ventures. This modest extension directly offsets recent industry resource shifts (including staffing adjustments and corporate acquisitions) that occurred during the government's delay. Granting this additional time will allow offerors to align their absolute best capabilities with the new requirements, resulting in a strong pool of fully compliant, highly competitive, and superior proposals that deliver the best value to the Government.

(SF330 Submission Requirements) SF 330 deadline is revised to Wednesday, 02 September 2026 at 2:00 PM Hawaii Standard Time (HST). See Synopsis Modification No. 3.