QA_ANAD_FORGE_II_RPP_Amendment5.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 132 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers (QA) worksheet for Amendment 5 of the Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) FORGE II Other Transaction Authority (OTA) Request for Project Proposal (RPP) W91QEY-26-R-A002. The worksheet documents government responses to industry questions submitted during the solicitation process and serves as a reference document for prospective contractors preparing proposals. As of June 30, 2026, this amendment provides the Government's final responses to all remaining industry questions and incorporates resulting updates into RPP documents. The file includes guidance relevant to the two primary projects: the Component Remanufacture Facility (CRF) and the Vehicle Paint Facility (VPF), as well as information regarding 19 optional Repair and Maintenance (R&M) projects provided for informational purposes only.
Key submission requirements include a revised proposal due date of July 2, 2026, at 11:00 PM PDT, with mandatory completion and submission of attachments 0009 (ANAD Affirmation of Business Status Certification) and 0010 (ANAD OCI Disclosure Form). The procurement is issued by the Mission & Installation Contracting Command (MICC) Theater Support Center (TSC) under Other Transaction Authority, with primary contact Jennifer Hastedt (Agreements Officer) and agreements specialists Winston Franks, Lori Swade, and Jessica Ecker. Critical clarifications provided address facility requirements, equipment specifications, hazardous materials handling, and project-specific technical parameters across both main projects and optional work. A site visit was conducted on June 10, 2026, with sign-in documentation included in the record.
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
QA
| ANAD FORGE II - Question & Answer Log | ||||||
| AO: Jennifer Hastedt, jennifer.l.hastedt2.civ@army.mil | ||||||
| Q # | Subject | Attachment or # RFP Section | Document Paragraph # | Question/Comment | A # | Answer |
| 1 | Conflict of Interest | Rejection of Proposals | 4.7 c | Would a firm that participated in the planning and conceptual design of any facilities under this OTA be considered to have an organizational conflict of interest, and therefore be ineligible to pursue the project? | 1 | Potential organizational conflicts of interest are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If a potential vendor believes it may have an organizational conflict of interest, please contact the Agreements Officer at usarmy.jbsa.acc-micc.mbx.tsc-div1@army.mil. The email should include why the vendor believes it may have an organizational conflict of interest as well as the proposed mitigation. The proposed mitigation should include if the non-public information was subsequently made publicly available, if the proprietary information is no longer proprietary, or other mitigation rationale. |
| 2 | General | Please advise whether firms that may have prepared plans and/or other materials included in this solicitation “for informational purposes only” will be subject to any organizational conflict of interest (OCI) restrictions that would preclude their participation in this procurement in a support role (e.g., designer-of-record, design consultant, or subcontractor) to a prime offeror or whether such participation would be permissible with appropriate mitigation measures. If there will be any restrictions, please identify the nature of those restrictions and any required mitigation or disclosure obligations. | 2 | Firms that ONLY participated in preparing plans, conceptual designs and other materials that were published with the draft RPP MAY be eligible to submit a proposal. It is highly suggested firms review the answer to question 1 and request an OCI determination. | ||
| 3 | General | Based on our review of the solicitation documents, Offerors do not appear to have sufficient information to reasonably develop a complete and responsible FFP proposal for the full scope of construction. Specifically, key foundational information typically required to quantify construction costs is not currently provided, including but not limited to: |
| • | Comprehensive site survey data identifying existing conditions (e.g., utilities, grading, geotechnical conditions) |
| • | Record/as-built drawings for existing facilities |
| • | Hazardous materials surveys for any structures anticipated to be renovated or demolished |
| • | Program of Requirements (POR) or equivalent documentation defining required systems (e.g., electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and specialty systems) |
In the absence of this information, Offerors must rely on assumptions that introduce significant uncertainty. This condition inherently increases pricing risk, which may result in:
| 1. | Inflated proposals to account for unknowns, or |
| 2. | Increased likelihood of scope gaps, change orders, and post-award disputes |
Either outcome may not be in the best interest of the Government or Offerors and may limit the Government’s ability to effectively evaluate proposals on a best-value basis.
Recommended Approach
To better align with the current level of project definition while still enabling meaningful competition and evaluation, we respectfully suggest the Government consider revising the pricing structure as follows:
| • | Publish the budget. |
| • | Require Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP)proposals for: |
| o | Design services |
| o | Construction management/general conditions |
| o | Overhead and profit/fee |
| • | Require Offerors to establish an Estimated Cost of Work (ECW) using the budget less FFP amounts. |
Under this approach, Offerors would compete on:
| • | Technical capability and design approach |
| • | Efficiency of design and management pricing |
| • | Maximization of value within the available ECW |
This structure would allow the Government to more clearly evaluate which Offeror provides the greatest value by comparing the remaining construction dollars available after accounting for design, general conditions, and fee.
Design-to-Budget Framework If this approach is adopted, we recommend the solicitation require the selected Offeror to:
| • | Provide iterative cost estimates throughout the design phase |
| • | Submit narratives identifying opportunities for value optimization, scope alignment, and cost control |
| • | Actively manage the design to ensure the project can be delivered within the established ECOW |
Off-Ramp Consideration As an additional safeguard, the Government may consider incorporating an “off-ramp” provision allowing for termination or re-scoping if the Offeror is unable to develop a design that can be constructed within the available ECW. This mechanism would:
| • | Protect the Government from proceeding with an unaffordable design | |||||
| • | Maintain competitive leverage | |||||
| • | Encourage disciplined cost control during design development | 3 | The Government is using a build to budget model and will provide the CLIN Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for each of the four (4) MILCON projects. The RPP will provide the FFP estimate for each option R&M and Equipment CLINs. If the optional R&M and Equipment CLINs are exercised, the Government and successful offeror with negotiate the FFP upon exercising the CLIN. | |||
| 4 | Resilient Design | Draft RPP | Is there a requirement for resilient design in the proposal such as passive design, Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), energy retrofits or onsite energy generation and will proposals that feature specific resilient design features be evaluated more favorably? | 4 | Not required but will be viewed favorably. Follow the general UFC guidance for passive strategies and LCCA. Anniston is in the process of installing back up power for the entire installation through a separate contract, so on site energy generation not required (unless offerors can provide renewable options). CRF will require backup power for the Tornado Shelter only per the 35% design. Since the initial proposal deals with New Construction only, energy retrofit discussion not applicable unless mentioned in the context of future potential R&M projects. | |
| 5 | LEED Standards | Draft RPP | Is there a requirement for any of the three main buildings (excluding the 2 storage bays) to be designed to a specific LEED standard and will be proposals that feature LEED capabilities be favored more favorably? | 5 | LEED certification is not required for any of the four MILCONs. However, any energy conservation measures proposed in the proposal will be viewed favorably. | |
| 6 | Past Performance | Draft RPP | Is the government not evaluating past performance as part of this OTA? If past performance is being evaluated: | |||
| o | Will the government confirm that any past performance for DoD/DoW Design-Build projects is acceptable as long as it is recent? | |||||
| o | What is the recency requirement for past performance for design-build projects? 7 years is normally industry standard. | |||||
| o | Does the government have a standard Past Performance Questionnaire they require proposers to use? | |||||
| o | For past performance for the design team, can the PPQ be used if design is complete even if construction is not? | |||||
| o | Will the government please confirm that place of performance is not something that is weighted more favorably? | 6 | Past Performance is not being evaluated as an OTA criteria. Follow the RPP proposal instructions. | |||
| 7 | Environmental Permitting | Draft RPP | Environmental permitting was somewhat discussed during the site visit. Can the government please confirm that environmental permitting is being completed by the installation/government and not the contractor? | 7 | The Company will be responsible for all permits. The Government will assist, as needed, with information required for the permits. The Company will submit Stormwater permitting and copy ANAD Environmental on submission. The Company will prepare Air Permitting and coordinate with ANAD Environmental for submission. | |
| 8 | Geotechnical Investigations | Draft RPP | Geotechnical investigations was also discussed briefly. Can the government please confirm this is being completed by the government and not the contractor? | 8 | All relevant geotechnical information the Government team possesses, will be released with the RPP. The offeror will need to conduct the geotechnical information/surveys if the Government does not already possess the information. |
Please note the CRF facility 35% design is sited at a location that is no longer being utilized. The site visited on Industry Day is the correct site the CRF will be constructed on.
9 Key Personnel Draft RPP Will the government please define what positions they consider to be key personnel? 9 RPP 5.3: Key personnel are defined as:
Design-Build Project Manager Project Superintendent Construction Quality Control (QC) Manager Site Safety & Health Officer (SSHO) Design QC Manager
| 10 | Schedule / Period of Performance (PoP) | Draft RPP | 5.4.4 | 5.4.4 says “A construction schedule that shows the maximum number of projects completed within one calendar year from project award,”. Is this correct? The draft RPP speaks to 60 months for PoP but the government is requesting schedules to finish buildings within a year? | 10 | RPP has been amended to 5.4 - Milestone Schedule: Offerors’ project proposals will be evaluated for the offeror’s realistic milestones. The language referencing "the maximum number of projects completed within one calendar year from project award" was deleted. |
| 11 | Utility Infrastructure | Draft RPP | 5.4.6 | 5.4.6 refers to utilities in the state of Washington it appears. At the site visit, the Chief of Staff spoke to Anniston controlling its own utilities. Will the government please confirm that all utility infrastructure interruptions will be through the Anniston garrison and/or DPW? | 11 | The RPP clarifies the applicable utilities. Utility interruptions must be coordinated with the ANAD DPW. |
| 12 | UFC Waivers & Assumptions | Draft RPP | 5.3.3 | During the industry day, it was said that any suggestions to changes to UFCs be submitted as quickly as possible so that waiver requests could get staffed and possibly approved. 5.3.3 requests that proposals also include UFC change recommendations for cost and time savings. Will the government please define if they want proposals built with or without those suggested changes submitted in the proposal incorporated into the plan? | 12 | Offerors are expected to propose UFC exemption or exceptions to be utilized to decrease agreement costs and decrease time to complete construction projects. However, proposals should assume the UFCs will not be approved by construction start. Recommendations for UFC sections to be eliminated or altered for cost or time savings shall not include management approach content and are not included in the page limit. (RPP Section 3.1, 4.2, 5.3) |
| 13 | Architecture Evaluation | Draft RPP | Is the government evaluating architecture in the proposal? | 13 | Architectural design must meet Installation Design Guide requirement, which are included in the RPP. | |
| 14 | Architecture Evaluation | Draft RPP | If the government is evaluating architecture, what aspects will be evaluated more favorably? | 14 | Architectural design must meet Installation Design Guide requirement, which are included in the RPP. | |
| 15 | CMMC Levels | Draft RPP | Your current documents indicate that contractors are to comply with the CMMC program. Can you tell us if you are just requiring compliance with the document security measures or are you requiring certification? If certification is required, is it Level 1 or Level 2? | 15 | The RPP will detail the CMMC levels and what specifics, if any, need to be Level 1, Level 2, or none. The same for CUI markings. |
The successful awardee must be self-certified CMMC Level 2 by 30 September 2026.
| 16 | Missile Project | Draft RPP | Could you confirm the location of the laydown yard for the missile project? | 16 | The intended location is the flat area to south of the project site. | |
| 17 | Environmental Permitting | Draft RPP | Are there any environmental, wetland, or wildlife concerns associated with any of these projects? | 17 | No environmental, wetland or wildlife concerns. NEPA documentation (Environmental Assessment) has been completed by the government for 3 of the 4 MILCONs. 4th Environmental Assessment on track for completion by end of Aug. 2026. As stated elsewhere, Contractor responsible for any permits required. | |
| 18 | Utility Infrastructure | Draft RPP | What are the requirements for the utility tie-ins across all projects? | 18 | Utility disruptions must be coordinated with ANAD DPW. | |
| 19 | Bonding | Draft RPP | Will bonding be required for the entire contract amount, or will it be broken down per individual building? | 19 | It is acceptable to have bonds on each project instead of one overall agreement bond. Any fluctuation in the contract maximum value will require the bond to match dollars for dollars. (RPP Section 2.9) | |
| 20 | Hazmat | Draft RPP | Have hazmat surveys been conducted for this project, and if so, will they be released to the public? | 20 | Hazmat survey reports have been included for some facilities in the RPP. For the facilities to be demolished as part of the CRF, please assume that some asbestos and lead paint abatement will be required. | |
| 21 | Paint Facility | Draft RPP | Is a dedicated exhaust fan required for the paint facility to meet ventilation and safety standards? | 21 | Dedicated exhaust fans are required for the paint booths. ovens, and paint storage and mixing areas. | |
| 22 | Paint Facility | Draft RPP | Will the paint specifications and technical requirements be provided for our review? | 22 | Yes, with the RPP. | |
| 23 | General | Draft RPP | How will scope changes be handled after Award? | 23 | Scope changes will be handled through Agreement modifications. The proposals will be incorporated by reference into the Agreement. | |
| 24 | Architecture Evaluation | Draft RPP | What can AE firms do differently than the USACE when executing this work? | 24 | The Government anticipates similar performance from A&E firms that they provide to USACE. Fast tracking design reviews and construction may be different and construction may begin before 100% design completion with a "Limited Notice to Proceed" from the Agreements Officer. The Agreements Officer is open to UFC waiver suggestions. | |
| 25 | UFC Waivers & Assumptions | Draft RPP | How do we submit suggestions for changes to the UFC? | 25 | Offerors are expected to propose UFC exemption or exceptions to be utilized to decrease agreement costs and decrease time to complete construction projects. Recommendations for UFC sections to be eliminated or altered for cost or time savings shall not include management approach content and are not included in the page limit. (RPP Section 3.1, 4.2, 5.3) | |
| 26 | Funding | Draft RPP | Do you have funding in house? | 26 | The MILCON projects will be fully obligated upon Agreement award. | |
| 27 | Security Clearance | Draft RPP | What specific security clearances and site access permissions are required for these projects? | 27 | See RPP Section 3.4 and 3.5. All employees required to gain access will require at least a background check. At this time, security clearances are not anticipated. | |
| 28 | CRF | Draft RPP | What is the production process flow for CRF? | 28 | Refer to 35% design | |
| 29 | CAAD | Draft RPP | Will the baseline CAAD files be released? | 29 | Yes, with the RPP. | |
| 30 | Base Access | Draft RPP | What will the base access be for the projects? | 30 | See answer in column J. | |
| 31 | Options | Draft RPP | How will Options be used in the evaluation? | 31 | The MILCON projects will be fully obligated upon Agreement award. The R&M Project and Equipment are options, which may be exercised in the future. | |
| 32 | Steel Yard | Draft RPP | How will the steel yard be relocated? | 32 | Government will relocate any government owned material (steel) from site, if required. | |
| 33 | Facilities | Draft RPP | Compared to the other facilities (missile maintenance - 240 pages, paint - 238 pages) the remanufacture facility (17 pages) and paint facilities (8 pages) appear to be missing a great deal of information. Can you please confirm that all available information has been provided and if not please provide? | 33 | All relevant information the Government team possesses, will be released with the RPP. | |
| RPP QUESTIONS & ANSWERS | ||||||
| 34 | General | RPP | Page 1 | One request for clarification, the SAMs notice states the response is due on the 29 JUN, and the RPP attachment cover states 27 JUN, can you please confirm 29 JUN is correct? | 34 | 29 June at 0700 CT is the correct time. The due date and time were updated in Amendment 0002. |
Per amendment 0004, RPP due date is now 2 July 2026 at 11pm PST.
35 R&M Project Pricing RPP 3.3/5.6.1 Section 3.3 notes 'prior to the option being exercised, the USG and Company will negotiate a price for the R&M project or equipment purchase'.
Section 5.6.1 notes 'it is expected the Companies will utilize the USG provded ALIN price for all ALINs except for the two (2) R&M projects.'
Please specifically identifty the two (2) R&M projects referenced in 5.6.1 and/or confirm pricing intent (3.3 or 5.6.1). 35 The language in 5.6.1 will be removed when we update the RPP. Thank you for pointing this out.
Offers should utilize the USG ALIN price for all ALINs.
36 Bonding RPP 2.9 1) Can we plan on staging the 630 million dollar bond over the proposed 5 year schedule? (Spreading out the 630 M over the 5 year term and essentially a more accurate value for the work done each year)
| 2) | How do we get access to the controlled files? Is there any confidential or CMMC level restrictions with this information? | |
| 36 | 1) No. The surety letter must explicitly validate your capacity to cover the total aggregate program ceiling from the outset. However, the RPP provides flexibility in execution: you are not required to secure a single, massive bond on day one. Instead, you may bond individual projects, ensuring alignment with your Management Approach for the MILCON and R&M projects. Ultimately, your surety letter must prove that your aggregate limit and remaining bond capacity are sufficient to handle the total project ceiling and any anticipated impacts. |
2)The documents are available by logging into SAM.gov and requesting access to the documents. Per the SAM.gov posting, please verify in your document access request that your company is able to receive and secure a digital document that is marked official use only. One document is marked For Official Use Only.
Once you request access to the documents on SAM.gov, I will receive an email to grant you access.
37 CMMC Certification RPP 7. Terms and Conditions Section 7, Terms and Conditions of the RPP, states that the successful awardee must be self-certified at CMMC Level 2 by September 30, 2026. Given the complexity, cost, and duration associated with achieving CMMC compliance, we respectfully request that the Government consider revising this requirement to require evidence of CMMC Level 2 certification as part of the proposal submission.
Requiring certification at the time of proposal would eliminate uncertainty surrounding an offeror's ability to achieve compliance after award and would better protect the Government from schedule, performance, and cybersecurity risks. Given the critical nature of CUI protection and the substantial effort required to attain CMMC Level 2 certification, verification prior to award provides the highest level of confidence that the selected contractor can successfully execute the project from day one.
If the Government elects to maintain the current requirement, we respectfully recommend that additional consideration/strengths be given to offerors that have already achieved CMMC Level 2 certification at the time of proposal submission, as this demonstrates a proven ability to meet the program's cybersecurity requirements and reduces execution risk. 37 See Answer # 15.
The successful awardee must be self-certified CMMC Level 2 by 30 September 2026.
38 PLA Requirements RPP 7. Terms and Conditions Section 7, Terms and Conditions of the RPP, identifies a requirement for the project to be performed under a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) pursuant to Executive Order 14063, Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects.
While this procurement is being conducted under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) rather than as a FAR-based construction contract, it is common under traditional Federal construction procurements for the Government to require offerors to submit an executed PLA with their proposal or require the apparent successful offeror to provide an executed PLA prior to award (e.g., FAR 52.222-33, Alternate I).
To reduce risk to the Government, we respectfully request that the RPP be revised to require submission of an executed PLA with the proposal or, at a minimum, from the apparent successful offeror prior to award. Requiring a successfully negotiated PLA prior to award would eliminate uncertainty regarding an offeror's ability to satisfy this contractual requirement and provide the Government with greater confidence that all material conditions of award can be met without post-award negotiations, delays, or performance impacts.
If the Government elects to maintain the current requirement, we respectfully recommend that additional consideration be given to offerors that provide an executed PLA at the time of proposal submission, as this demonstrates a proven ability to satisfy the requirement and reduces overall execution risk to the Government.Section 7, Terms and Conditions of the RPP, identifies a requirement for the project to be performed under a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) pursuant to Executive Order 14063, Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects.
While this procurement is being conducted under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) rather than as a FAR-based construction contract, it is common under traditional Federal construction procurements for the Government to require offerors to submit an executed PLA with their proposal or require the apparent successful offeror to provide an executed PLA prior to award (e.g., FAR 52.222-33, Alternate I).
To reduce risk to the Government, we respectfully request that the RPP be revised to require submission of an executed PLA with the proposal or, at a minimum, from the apparent successful offeror prior to award. Requiring a successfully negotiated PLA prior to award would eliminate uncertainty regarding an offeror's ability to satisfy this contractual requirement and provide the Government with greater confidence that all material conditions of award can be met without post-award negotiations, delays, or performance impacts.
| If the Government elects to maintain the current requirement, we respectfully recommend that additional consideration be given to offerors that provide an executed PLA at the time of proposal submission, as this demonstrates a proven ability to satisfy the requirement and reduces overall execution risk to the Government. | 38 | PLA language has been removed from the RPP and is no longer applicable to this requirement. | |||
| 39 | Proposal Page Count | RPP Section 4 | 4.2 | Section 4.2 states that the Technical Volume shall consist of the Management Plan, Milestone Schedule, and Added Value and is limited to sixty (60) pages. The same section further states that resumes and UFC recommendations are excluded from the page limitation. |
Section 5.4 requires Offerors to provide milestone schedules for each of the four (4) facilities, including design milestones, notices to proceed, and beneficial occupancy dates. To meaningfully demonstrate schedule realism, sequencing, concurrency, critical path logic, procurement strategy, and overall program execution, Offerors may elect to provide CPM schedules, Gantt charts, milestone matrices, or similar scheduling exhibits.
Given the size, complexity, and multi-project nature of this program, Offerors may require significant schedule content to adequately demonstrate compliance with Section 5.4. Similar to the exclusion provided in Section 4.2 for resumes and UFC recommendations, the Government should consider excluding CPM schedules, schedule graphics, milestone matrices, and similar scheduling exhibits from the 60-page limitation. 39 The page limits remains unchanged
| 40 | RPP | RFIs are currently due on 6/5, prior to the scheduled site walk on 6/10, which prevents proposers from submitting informed questions based on actual site conditions and coordinated subcontractor input. Please extend the RFI due date to two days following the site walk (6/12) so that site observations and subcontractor feedback can be properly incorporated, improving accuracy and reducing downstream risk to the Government. | 40 | Under RPP Amendment 03, the deadline for submitting industry questions was extended to June 15, 2026, at 06:00 AM EDT (05:00 AM CDT). This allowed offerors to submit formal questions following the June 10, 2026, site visit. Per Amendment 0004, proposal due date is extended until 2 July 2026 at 11:00 PM PDT. | ||
| 41 | RPP | Industry requests to extend the proposal due date to July 12 to allow more complete participation and coordination, resulting in more accurate, competitive, and executable OTA proposals for the Government. This allows for full engagement past the July 4th holiday period and 250th Celebration of our Nation. | 41 | To ensure successful execution and award within Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26), the current schedule does not allow a long extension. Amendment 0004 extends the proposal due date until 2 July 2026 at 11:00 PM PDT. | ||
| 42 | CRF Phase II Demo | CRF | Page 2, 3.1, Phase II | The documents state the contractor may be required to relocate displaced operations resulting from demolition, but do not define this scope. Please clarify whether this includes only utility relocations or also requires relocation of building occupants, functions, equipment, or temporary facilities, and identify the associated locations and limits of responsibility. | 42 | Offeror is only responsible for relocation utilities associated with demolition only. However the contractor will be required to add pricing to relocate displaced parking area to be utilized for CRF as laydown space. |
| 43 | Bid Validity | RPP 4.1 | The RPP currently requires proposals to remain valid for 210 days, which will limit subcontractor participation due to market volatility and long‑term pricing risk, including but not limited to critical MEP Equipment. To encourage broader competition and more reliable trade pricing, would the Government consider reducing the proposal validity period to 120 days? | 43 | RPP updated - proposals will remain valid for 90 days. | |
| 44 | Points of Contact for Public Works and private utilities | RPP - Attachment 0001 | para 3.1 | The contract documents require the contractor to coordinate with ANAD Public Works and utility companies to locate, shut off, cap, and disconnect all utilities, but no points of contact are identified. Please provide the specific ANAD DPW and private utility company points of contact for electrical, water, sewer, gas, and communications to support execution of this requirement. | 44 | The points of contact will be provided to the successful offeror after Agreement award. |
| 45 | Certified Industrial Hygienist | RPP Attachment 0001 | para 3.1 | Please confirm whether the General Contractor is responsible for engaging a third‑party CIH to support hazardous materials monitoring, documentation, and clearance activities. | 45 | Any hazardous material monitoring required as part of construction or demolition effort shall be performed by a certified entity hired by the Prime Contractor |
| 46 | Building Demolition | RPP Attachment 0001 | para 3.1 | Attachment 0001 describes demolition requirements but do not identify the specific buildings to be demolished or their locations. Please confirm which existing buildings are included in the demolition scope and provide plan references, building numbers, or site locations for each. | 46 | B-120 and B-122 are required to be demolished as part of CRF. Site selection is final and demolition is confirmed. |
| 47 | Equipment Procurement | RPP Attachment 0001 | para 3.2 | Please confirm that no specific equipment assumptions, layouts, sizes, loads, or utility requirements are required for pricing beyond general accommodation in the CRF design. | 47 | There are no specific equipment assumptions. |
| 48 | UESC | RPP Attachment 0001 | A-101 | Please confirm that all items identified as UESC in drawings are user‑furnished and user‑installed and that the Contractor is not required to include any cost in the base bid for procurement, installation, or associated equipment scope beyond general facility accommodation. | 48 | Offerors shall only include design and construction costs for the building. Offerors shall not include the cost to procure or install the equipment. |
| 49 | CRF Door Clarifications | RPP Attachment 0001 | A-010 and A-601 | No door tag is labeled for the door to the left of door number 123 on the overall floor plan. Please confirm if this door number is 135A. | 49 | Yes, Door number is 135A |
| 50 | USACE routing vs 2808a AMC-direct | RPP header W91QEY (CEHNC); 2808a analysis | N/A | Is FORGE II routed through USACE Huntsville Center (CEHNC) as execution agent for 2808a, OR 2808a AMC-direct (CEHNC as contracting venue only)? | 50 | AMC is the Design and Construction Agent. |
ACC MICC is the Contracting Agent.
USACE does not have Design and Construction Agent, or Contracting authority on this project.
10 USC 2808a authority will be used.
| 51 | ICN scope at CRF and Paint | HQ AMC OIB Memo v1.6; Q2 | Levels 0-2 (FRCS) or production-floor OT (ICN) | Does production-floor OT (manufacturing/process control systems) at CRF and Paint route through (a) USACE CSC-MCX as FRCS, (b) Tobyhanna AMC ICN CoE as ICN per HQ AMC OIB Memo v1.6, or (c) both? | 51 | The answer is (b) Tobyhanna AMC ICN CoE as ICN per HQ AMC OIB Memo v1.6. However, the ICN is not fully established at ANAD at this time. Estimated Q1 FY27. |
| 52 | AO appointment for FORGE II FRCS | AR 25-2 Sec. 2-25; Q2 AMC G2/G6 merged organization | N/A | Is there a specific AO appointment for FORGE II FRCS - HQ-AMC G2/G6 (CIO Daniel Q. Bradford SES), JMC G6, or ANAD G6? Per AR 25-2 Sec. 2-25 categorization level drives appointment. | 52 | Currently, there is not an ANAD FORGE II FRCS. Specific Government points of contact will be provided to successful Offeror after Agreement award. |
| 53 | Government CIA assignments per facility | UFC Sec. 3-2.2 CoA 2; UFC Appendix D Sec. D-2 | Per facility | Has Government determined CIA (Confidentiality/Integrity/Availability) impact ratings for FRCS at CRF, MMF, and Paint? If not, is UFC Sec. 3-2.2 Course of Action 2 (Design to L-L-L) acceptable as price-floor posture, with mod-trigger for higher AO-assigned ratings? | 53 | This will be explored during the Design / Development Phase in subsequent design stages. |
| 54 | 2808a A-E fee cap policy | 10 U.S.C. 2808a (PL 119-60 signed 18 Dec 2025); DFARS 236.606-70 (10% cap eff. 16 Sep 2024 per NDAA FY24 Sec. 2881) | N/A | Will Secretary of the Army, SECDEF, or USACE GC impose the DFARS 236.606-70 10% A-E fee cap on 2808a OTAs as internal policy, despite statutory silence? | 54 | FAR/DFARS clauses do not apply to OTAs. |
| 55 | CMMC L2 RPP Sec. 7 date discrepancy | 32 CFR Part 170 Sec. 170.3; Q5 ACTIVE CHALLENGE | N/A | RPP Sec. 7 cites 'CMMC Level 2 - required by 30 September 2026.' This date is NOT in 32 CFR Part 170 Sec. 170.3 phase-in plan (Phase 1 = 10 Nov 2025; Phase 2 = 10 Nov 2026). Is the RPP date (a) Army-specific milestone, (b) end-of-FY26 fiscal reference, or (c) transcription error? | 55 | The RPP CMMC Level 2 self-certification date of 30 September 2026 is specific to this RPP only. It is not a transcription error. |
| 56 | Equipment-Package Interface envelope acceptance | UFC Sec. 2-1.3.2; RPP Sec. 3.3 | Levels 0-2 with vendor-equipment interface | Confirm DoR designs FRCS network architecture, control infrastructure, utility/power/exhaust hooks, and Designer CCI envelope for Option-ALIN 0006 (CRF Equipment $110M / Paint $85M / MMF $32M) per spec-release-before-option-exercise timing in RPP Sec. 3.3. Vendor-equipment delegated-design pattern per UFC Sec. 2-1.3.2. | 56 | Refer to 35% design and UFC requirements |
| 57 | CRF industrial information systems scope | RPP Sec. 3.2 CRF brief verbatim | Production OT backbone (Level 2 supervisory + Level 3 IIS if DoR-scoped) | RPP Sec. 3.2 CRF brief lists 'building systems (fire protection and alarm systems, cyber security, building and industrial information systems, and Energy Monitoring Control Systems (EMCS) connections).' Confirm 'industrial information systems' refers to: (a) MES-class OT backbone designed by DoR within cyber design scope, OR (b) equipment-vendor-supplied within Option-ALIN 0006 scope. | 57 | This issue will be further clarified during the design phase. However, the successful Offeror will be responsible for ensuring all information system design requirements and implementation is included within the scope of the construction project. |
| 58 | CRF industrial engineering design support scope | RPP Sec. 3.2 verbatim | Levels 0-2 + IIS | RPP Sec. 3.2 states DoR shall 'provide industrial engineering design support to determine industrial equipment requirement, cost and process layout for the new CRF facility.. no plan to procure or install equipment as part of this contract.' Confirm scope: does this include OT/cyber design for equipment INTERFACE (utility hooks, network drops, control panels, fire suppression interlocks) in base fee, OR separate line? | 58 | Proposal shall include all supporting infrastructure for planned equipment to include structural foundations, mechanical, electrical, plumbing as well as Operational Technology (OT) networking and cyber security design for equipment interface. |
| 59 | Owner-Representative A&E coordination | SOO Sec. 1.1 verbatim | All FRCS platforms | SOO Sec. 1.1 establishes separate Government-side A&E firm as 'owner representative' overseeing the DB prime. Does Contractor coordinate cyber design with this owner-rep A&E at each design submittal (35% Validate / 65% / 95% / 100%), or only with AO/AOR? Does owner-rep A&E perform parallel cyber design review? | 59 | Offeror will coordinate all design to include cyber design with the 'owner-rep' A&E at each design submittal. One of the primary responsibilities of the owner-rep is to perform design reviews. Design reviews will involve the owner rep and multiple other stake holders from the government side. |
| 60 | AT/FP-driven ESS scope at non-MMF facilities | SOO Sec. 3.2.2; UFC 4-010-01 | ESS Levels 0-2 if applicable | SOO Sec. 3.2.2 mandates AT/FP compliance for ALL facilities. For CRF and Paint, does this trigger ESS / Electronic Security System cyber design scope (networked access control, IDS, CCTV), or is AT/FP limited to architectural/structural standoff? | 60 | There will be no requirement for ESS Cyber design within the scope for CRF , Final Paint, Storage Buildings. However ESS will be required within the THADD Facility Scope. |
| 61 | Platform Inclusion | FORGE_II_Scope_Summary Sec. 2 discipline list | UFC Sec. 2-2 Levels 0-2 per cyber-bearing facility | 3 of 4 base facilities cyber-in-scope (CRF, MMF, Paint). Confirm Storage Facility (ALIN 0004) explicitly excluded - no networked control systems. | 61 | There will be no requirement for network capability within the Storage Facility(s) |
| 62 | FRCS Track - USACE CSC-MCX | UFC 4-010-06; ER 1110-1-8174 | UFC Sec. 2-2 Levels 0-2 | Please confirm DoR designs facility-related control systems per UFC 4-010-06 + UFGS 25 05 11 under default USACE CSC-MCX authority (assumed USACE-routed per W91QEY solicitation header). | 62 | Yes, DOR is responsible for design & implementation of facility related control systems. The control systems must integrate with the existing base Energy Monitoring & Control System (EMCS). |
| 63 | ICN Track - Tobyhanna AMC ICN CoE | HQ AMC OIB ICN CoE Memo v1.6 public summary | Production-floor OT | DoR assumes Tobyhanna AMC ICN CoE per HQ AMC OIB Memo v1.6 operates as helpdesk + collaboration hub (NOT mandatory design-review gate analogous to CSC-MCX). Please confirm that DoR coordinates production-floor OT with depot G6 as system owner; ICN CoE consultation carried as small allowance in base. | 63 | Yes, ANAD will consult with the ICN CoE Tobyhanna via the CMB process. |
| 64 | CIA Impact Level - CoA 2 | UFC Sec. 3-2.2 CoA 2; UFC Appendix D Sec. D-2 | N/A | UFC Sec. 3-2.2 Course of Action 2 - Design to LOW-LOW-LOW as price-floor LPTA-equivalent posture absent Government CIA assignment. Operational basis for higher CIA (24/7 depot operations, AMC OIB CITE-designated facility) documented but not priced. Confirm that AO determines final per UFC Sec. 3-2.1. | 64 | See answer to question 53. |
| 65 | Scope Limit - Designer not Implementer | UFC Sec. 1-2; UFC Sec. 2-1.3.2; AR 25-2 | N/A | Please confirm that DoR performs OT cyber DESIGN per UFC 4-010-06 only. RMF execution, ATO process, MFA/CSP/AAL 2 configuration, FIPS 140-3 deployment, vulnerability scanning, ISSM credential coordination EXCLUDED per UFC Sec. 1-2 and Sec. 2-1.3.2 (installer scope). | 65 | DOR shall be responsible for Cyber Design. The Government is expecting turn key agreement to encompass all requirements to ensure a complete and useable facility. |
| 66 | CMMC L2 - Contractor IT Overhead | 32 CFR Part 170 Sec. 170.3; analysis | N/A | DoR's CMMC L2 certification is firm IT overhead per 32 CFR Part 170, NOT designer deliverable scope. Phase 1 active since 10 Nov 2025; Phase 2 begins 10 Nov 2026. CMMC L2 adds NO scope to UFGS 25 05 11 spec deliverable (parallel, non-overlapping regimes). | 66 | CMMC Level 2 is required to view Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). CUI documents are anticipated to be utilize by the successful Offeror. See Answer 55. |
| 67 | ECB Application | ECB 2026-6 scope; ECB 2022-2 Rev 1 covers MILCON | N/A | ECB 2022-2 Rev 1 (20 Sep 2023) carried defensively (assumes USACE-routed execution per W91QEY). Confirm ECB 2026-6 (9 Feb 2026) NOT applicable - Civil Works only; ANAD is MILCON. | 67 | Not applicable. |
| 68 | AO Chain | AMC G2/G6 merged; AR 25-2 Sec. 2-25; SOO Sec. 1.1 | N/A | Please confirm HQ-AMC G2/G6 (CIO Daniel Q. Bradford, SES) is AO for HIGH-categorization FRCS, with delegation to JMC G6 (ANAD reports through Joint Munitions Command) for MODERATE. ANAD G6 may hold AO for LOW. SOO Sec. 1.1 confirms AMC overall lead. | 68 | See Answer 52. |
| 69 | Equipment-Package Interface Spec - CRF | UFC Sec. 2-1.3.2; RPP Sec. 3.2 'no plan to procure or install equipment as part of this contract' | Levels 0-2 + interface | Please confirm: DoR designs FRCS network architecture, control infrastructure, utility/power/exhaust hooks, Designer CCI envelope for Option-ALIN 0006 CRF Equipment ($110M) per RPP Sec. 3.2 industrial engineering scope. 30 hrs in base. Vendor-equipment delegated-design pattern per UFC Sec. 2-1.3.2. | 69 | Offeror shall be responsible for all network architecture, control infrastructure, and utilities design to comply with Government approved specifications. |
| 70 | Optional Equipment Cyber Scope | RPP Sec. 3.3; RPP Table 2 | Vendor-equipment interface | Please confirm Cyber design for Option-ALIN 0006 Equipment packages is INTERFACE-ONLY per A-014/A-015/A-016. Government procures, installs, connects, tests equipment per RPP Table 2; vendor implements cyber per DoR-tailored CCI envelope. | 70 | Offeror shall be responsible for all network architecture, control infrastructure, and utilities design to comply with Government approved specifications. |
| 71 | Furniture and Fixture (F&F) Optional ALIN | Amendment 1 Sec. 1 | N/A | Please confirm networked F&F items (smart conference equipment, A/V) not assumed to require FRCS cyber scope absent explicit Government direction. F&F typically architectural/MEP-coordinated, not OT cyber-driven. | 71 | Concur |
| 72 | 2808a implementing guidance | Q1; PL 119-60 | N/A | Please confirm if any internal HQDA / USACE / CEHNC implementing memoranda for 2808a issued between 18 Dec 2025 and bid date? | 72 | Our approach aligns directly with 10 U.S.C. § 2808a and the FY 2026 NDAA. This project falls under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) guidelines rather than standard FAR clauses and will comply with any specific higher headquarters implementing guidance. |
| 73 | Tobyhanna ICN Memo v1.6 full text | Q1 | N/A | Please provide full text of HQ AMC OIB ICN CoE Memo v1.6 (public link returns 403 ). | 73 | Direct link: https://www.tobyhanna.army.mil/Portals/50/HQAMC%20OIB%20ICN%20Center%20of%20Excellence%20Memo%20v1_6.pdf |
| 74 | Post-v1.6 ICN guidance | Q2 | N/A | Has HQ AMC issued superseding ICN cyber design guidance after v1.6 memo? | 74 | No guidance issued after V1.6 |
The project's cyber and industrial control network (ICN) design complies with the established standards of the HQ AMC OIB ICN Center of Excellence Memo v1.6.
| 75 | DFARS cyber clause flow-down | Q3 CMMC analysis | N/A | Confirm which DFARS cyber clauses (252.204-7012 / 252.204-7021 / 252.204-7025) flow down in FORGE II OTA and at what stage (award vs phase-in). | 75 | This project will be Awarded under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a Other Transaction Authority (OTA); therefore, standard FAR and DFARS procurement clauses do not apply by operation of law and are not included in the Agreement's Terms & Conditions. |
| 76 | CUI determination | Q3 | N/A | Confirm Government has determined which project design data is CUI per 32 CFR Part 2002 (non-delegable Government determination). | 76 | Many documents are controlled access. The prospective prime Offerors requesting document access on SAM.gov, must verify they are able to receive and secure a digital document that is marked official use only or controlled unclassified information. |
| 77 | CEHNC 2808a designer brief | Q2 | N/A | CEHNC internal implementation memo, FAQ, or designer brief for 2808a OTAs. | 77 | The 10 U.S.C. § 2808a authority permits the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville (CEHNC) to enter into non-FAR agreements for facility construction and repair projects—encompassing planning, design, engineering, prototyping, piloting, and physical execution. |
| 78 | UFGS 40 60 00 Process Control applicability | Q3; UFGS 40 60 00 (May 2020); UFC 4-010-06 (covers ALL networked FRCS including process-control) | Production OT (UFGS 40 60 00) + Building FRCS (UFGS 25 05 11) | UFGS 40 60 00 (Process Control, May 2020) is the most directly applicable spec for production-floor industrial OT - separate from UFGS 25 05 11 (building FRCS). For CRF (process zones: disassembly/cleaning/welding/machining/chemical/electroplating/hydraulic/paint) and Paint (NFPA 33 booth process control), does DoR tailor UFGS 40 60 00 in addition to UFGS 25 05 11? Under Design-Build delivery, this affects which UFGS sections DoR delivers AS the GC builds in parallel. | 78 | This question will need to be answered in subsequent design development stage. USG will seek recommendation from the DoR after Agreement award. |
| 79 | DoDI 5000.90 §3.4 foreign sourcing exclusion | DoDI 5000.90 (31 Dec 2020) §3.4; Q2 | N/A | DoDI 5000.90 §3.4 requires alternatives to foreign sourcing of components from commercial companies owned/influenced by adversarial foreign governments. Does this apply to OT equipment selection (PLCs, HMIs, DDC controllers, network switches) for Option-ALIN 0006 at CRF/MMF/Paint? Under Design-Build, DoR specifies vendor-equipment envelope BEFORE Government procures - Designer CCI envelope must include foreign-sourcing exclusion language in UFGS 25 05 11 tailored spec. | 79 | No equipment will be purchased under Option ALINs until exercised. Any equipment purchases will be approved by the Government prior to purchase and will meet all applicable regulations, statutes, and rules. |
| 80 | AMC OIB MIP technical implementing guidance for LOE 4 | Q1; AMC OIB MIP public references | N/A | Has AMC published any OIB Modernization Implementation Plan (MIP) technical implementing guidance for Line of Effort 4 (Network/Cyber) beyond the Tobyhanna ICN CoE Memo v1.6? 15-year USD 18B+ OIB MIP exists publicly at strategic level (army.mil/article/288829) but technical A/E-facing requirements not surfaced. Under Design-Build, designer obligations must be known at proposal to scope cyber design coordination cycles. | 80 | See answer 74. |
| 81 | UFC 3-560-01 cyber crossover | Q3 (flagged to verify) | N/A | Confirm UFC 3-560-01 (Electrical Safety, Operations and Maintenance) current issuance date and any cyber crossover provisions for FORGE II electrical scope. | 81 | Current issuance date for UFC 3-560-01 is listed as 13 MAR 202 in Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). This is the latest version. |
| 82 | UFC 3-810-01 scope verification | Q3 (flagged to verify) | N/A | Verify UFC 3-810-01 (issued 1 Sep 2025) title and scope - flagged but did not capture full title. Confirm applicability to FORGE II. | 82 | This UFC document provides technical criteria and outlines technical requirements relating to Environmental Engineering. It is primarily intended for building demolition, building renovation, and facility construction projects many of which are applicable to the FORGE OTA |
Some UFC 3-810-01 requirements may not be relevant to Forge II and may not apply. For those that do apply, any UFC waivers requested by the offeror will be addressed post agreement award.
| 83 | UFGS 28 16 00 IDS cyber cross-ref | Q3 | ESS Level 0-2 | Confirm UFGS 28 16 00 (Intrusion Detection Systems) cyber cross-reference status. Same caveat as RFI-033. | 83 | IDS is applicable. | |
| 84 | UFGS 26 09 23 Lighting Controls cyber cross-ref | Q3 | Levels 0-2 if networked | Confirm UFGS 26 09 23 (Lighting Control Devices) explicit cyber cross-reference status. intel package lists as INTEGRATE if networked but no explicit cross-ref surfaced. | 84 | No cyber security interface requirements are necessary for lighting systems for these projects | |
| 85 | TACOM-specific OT cyber design standard | Q5 (negative public finding) | N/A | Confirm any TACOM-specific OT cybersecurity design standard for vehicle remanufacturing process equipment at CRF (TACOM mission). Q5 resolved to NEGATIVE FINDING in public sources - command-specific tailoring happens via project RFP not via published standards. | 85 | All OT cybersecurity will be in accordance with published ICN policy from ICN CoE Tobyhanna. | |
| 86 | JMC-specific OT cyber standard (Anniston Munitions Center co-located) | Q5; ANAD/ANMC co-location | N/A | Anniston Munitions Center (ANMC) is co-located at ANAD and is one of JMC's major facilities (per applicable regulation #08). Confirm any JMC-specific OT cyber standard that may apply to FORGE II if scope touches munitions production OT. | 86 | All applicable regulations are cited in the RPP. | |
| 87 | Tobyhanna ICN CoE A/E-facing technical standards | Q5; sweep #09 Q1 inference | N/A | Confirm whether Tobyhanna ICN CoE has published or is preparing any A/E-facing technical standards for OIB production OT design (beyond the Memo v1.6 which is internal-facing helpdesk language). | 87 | See answer 74. | |
| 88 | HVAC General | UFC 3-410-01 Chapter 2 | UFC 3-410-01 Chapter 2 required duct leakage testing for all pressurized ductwork. In civilian facilities per IMC, ductwork leakage testing is only required for high pressure ductwork. Would a deviation from the UFC requirements be considered to not require duct leakage testing for low pressure ductwork in non-critical spaces? This would accelerate the commissioning/testing phase at the conclusion of construction. | 88 | No, please adhere to the UFC. There is potential maintenance concerns with eliminating testing and commissioning requirements. Offeror may include UFC suggested changes/deviations as part of its proposal. | ||
| 89 | HVAC General | UFC 3-410-01 | UFC 3-410-01 prohibits the use of airside economizer in the climate zone of this project. However, airside economizers are common practice in commercial facilities with appropriate monitoring and safeties. Would a deviation be considered for the use of airside economizer on systems serving non-critical spaces? Airside economizer offer low initial cost opportunities for significant operational savings on non-critical systems or facilities where waterside economizer is found non-viable through the LCCA. | 89 | Short answer: Adhere to UFC Guidance. Offeror may include UFC suggested changes/deviations as part of its proposal. | ||
| 90 | Roof Design | CRF Building: Drawings SK-4 | Current design does not include extensive platforms and safety systems required for 13 large air handlers installed on a sloped roof. Would and alternative flat roof design be considered to simplify the installation and maintenance of the large critical systems? | 90 | The Government is not interested in entertaining flat roof design systems. Therefore, provisions to safely maintain equipment systems must be implemented within the design. | ||
| 91 | Packaged Rooftop Units | 01 10 10 Spec. | |||||
| Page 98 | Current design is based on variations of central heating and cooling plants. Utilizing large industrial packaged rooftop heat pump units with hot gas reheat, humidification, gas heating, and packaged controls could offer reduced system first cost and expedited construction timelines. Would this system type be considered as an alternative? | 91 | No, the government is not interested in rooftop packaged systems for these projects. Additionally, Anniston has a sole source authorization to procure and install heating and cooling plant equipment manufactured by TRANE. | ||||
| 92 | HVAC Redundancy | CRF Building HVAC General | Are there any HVAC system redundancy requirements for the CRF facility? | 92 | No | ||
| 93 | HVAC Redundancy | GMMF Building HVAC General | Are there any HVAC system redundancy requirements for the GMMF facility? | 93 | No | ||
| 94 | Air Handler energy savings | Vehicle Paint | |||||
| M-106 | The ERU selected for the Area E air handler is low CFM, and based on the drawings provided, there is no clear source for the design exhaust CFM provided. Energy savings will be minimal compared to the additional first cost, maintenance cost, and construction time. Would an alternative solution with the ERV removed be considered? | 94 | Yes | ||||
| 95 | Paint Booth Basis of design | Vehicle Paint | |||||
| M-103 | Has a basis of design for the paint booths been selected that can be provided? | 95 | Yes, Please refer to Amendment 2. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .