N6247826R5058_QA_MOD4.pdf

N62478-26-R-5058

August 5, 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.

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.

7 Criterion 3 – Past Performance (SF330, Part I Section H and Attachment C, Submission Requirements requires the firm to “Submit all completed Interim and/or Final CPARS for the project when available.”

a. If the project has a Final CPARS, it is required only to provide the FINAL evaluation or are we to provide all evaluations (interim and final) for each project?

b. If we were the DOR (subconsultant) for a Design-Build Contract, do you want the Prime contractor for that contract to complete Attachment C or will the CPARS for that contract be acceptable?

(Criterion 3)

a. Provide all completed Interim and Final CPARS that are available.

b. If the Firm was the Design-Build Designer of Record for a project, submit a PPQ for the Firm and do not submit the CPARS for the Prime Construction Contractor. The PPQ must be signed by the project client (not the Prime Construction Contractor).

8 Criterion 2 – Professional Qualifications (SF330, Part I, Sections E & G and Attachment (B)), Submission Requirements requires the firm to

(Criterion 2) The three-page limit applies to each key personnel resume (SF330, Section E form). Attachment B, Question Response Mod No.

“Provide resumes for all proposed key personnel that illustrate experience in the work proposed under this contract. Resumes are limited to three (3) pages---” Please clarify what is limited to 3 pages and if it limited to three pages per person. (IE: Is SF330 Section E limited to 3 pages for the Civil, Electrical, Telecommunications and Fuels/POL key personnel?)

Key Personnel Resume Supplemental Information for key personnel does not count towards the three-page limit.

9 Criterion 1 – Specialized Experience, Subsection Specified Design/Engineering Services. ““Specified Design/Engineering Services” shall have been completed or substantially completed within the past ten

(10) years as of the closing date of this notice. Services that are on-going will not be considered.” – Please clarify the difference between substantially completed services and on-going services. If the contract includes construction administration services with the design services, will that contract be considered if the design is accepted and the construction is underway?

(Criterion 1) Substantially completed is defined as at a minimum the Final Design submittal must have been submitted to the client for acceptance. Services (i.e. DBB or D-B RFP) shall be exclusive of Post Construction Award Services (PCAS).

10 Criterion 1 – Specialized Experience, Subsection Specified Design/Engineering Services states Include the following type of project “1. Military Construction (MILCON) DD Form 1391 for “Relevant Projects.””. Please confirm if that this type is the preparation of the DD Form 1391 and not the design of that project that is specified on the DD Form 1391.

(Criterion 1) Confirming these are services to prepare or validate a MILCON DD1391 document. This does not include planning level DD1391s or DD1391s for non- MILCON projects.

11 Under the SF330 Submission Requirement, the firm must submit a completed SF330 package. Please confirm that the submission should be in the order of the SF330 and the supplemental attachments and not provided in the order of the criterion?

(SF330 Submission Requirements) Confirming submissions should follow the order of the SF330 template and follow instructions for placement of supplemental attachments indicated in the synopsis.

12 Under the SF330 Submission Requirement of the synopsis, the Firms must submit proof that they are permitted by law to practice the professions of architecture or engineering as required by FAR 36.601- 4(b). What section should we place our A-E firm’s registration?

(SF330 Submission Requirements) Registration information may be included at the end of the SF330 document.

13 General: Will there be any CMMC or security clearance requirements for any of the task orders?

Mandated CMMC level requirements will be applied to the IDIQ basic contract at the required compliance dates. Security clearance requirements will be indicated with each project task order request for proposal.