Questions and Answers-25FEB26.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W51AA126RA0002
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers log for the Tobyhanna Army Depot FY26 Multiple Award Task Order Construction Contracts (MATOC) solicitation W51AA126RA002. The document addresses 32 questions submitted by potential offerors between February 8-25, 2026, with government responses provided by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACC) and Directorate of Public Works (DPW). Key clarifications include: proposal submission has been changed from DoD SAFE to direct email to Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter per Amendment 0001; the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) must use the prescribed Attachment 3 form and cannot be substituted with CPARS reports; bonding capacity requirements of $5,000,000 single project and $30,000,000 aggregate remain unchanged; past performance contracts may now include Federal, State, Local Government, or commercial contracts for NAICS 236220 or similar services; and the MATOC will include design-build task orders. The government confirmed it intends to award contracts to all qualifying offerors meeting the minimum "Acceptable" rating across all evaluation factors, with no separate site visits permitted beyond the scheduled February 19 visit.
The Q&A log also clarifies that there is no "seed project" provided with the solicitation; TCR and DART safety rate data should reflect the most recent five completed calendar years (CY2021-CY2025) per Amendment 0002; past performance projects must meet the five-year recency requirement even if at 95% completion; and NAICS code 236220 relevancy requirements with contracts of $350,000 or greater remain the requirement, though offerors may submit projects from various construction NAICS codes to demonstrate breadth of experience. The proposal due date of March 9, 2026 was not extended despite requests. The Q&A document serves as a formal record of solicitation clarifications and does not address specific products or services required, which are detailed in the main RFP.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W51AA126RA002 Amendment 0003.pdf | ||
| Questions and Answers-4MAR26.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W51AA126RA002 Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| Questions and Answers-20FEB26.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MATOC Site Visit Attendance Sheet 19.FEB.26.pdf | ||
| Questions and Answers-18FEB26.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Questions and Answers-12FEB26.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 3- Past Performance Questionnaire Rev.1.pdf | ||
| MATOC Site Visit Agenda 19.FEB.26.pdf | ||
| W51AA126RA002 Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3- Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1- FY26 MATOC SOW.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2- TYAD MASTER SPECIFICATIONS-IDG.pdf | ||
| Solicitation - W51AA126RA002.pdf |
Show all 14
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
Sheet1
| Question and Answer Log | ||||||||
| Project Name: Tobyhanna FY26 MATOC | ||||||||
| Solicitation W51AA126RA002 | ||||||||
| Question | Date | Page # | Section | Para# | QUESTION | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | RESPONSE PROVIDED BY | |
| 1 | 2/8/26 | 4 | 4 | Please let me know if there is a designated Q&A period or formal channel for questions related to this solicitation. | Reference page 4, section 4 of the RFP for information regarding question and answers format/submission | ACC | ||
| 2 | 2/9/26 | 3,4 | 3 | I want to send a member of my team to come for the site visit so that we can fully evaluate and submit a competitive bid. Please advise | Reference page 3, section 3 of the RFP for information regarding site visit registration process | ACC | ||
| 3 | 2/10/26 | 101 | L | 1.2 | the link on page 101 of the solicitation under L.1.2 (https://safe.apps.mil). Clicking the link took me to a broken page; however, typing in the link manually took me to a page that works took me to contains a notice that says: “DOD SAFE is NOT to be used for contract solicitation or proposal submission. Use the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) for time-sensitive submissions.” Does this mean that PIEE is being using to upload bids for this solicitation? | All DoD Safe requirement/language has been removed from the solicitation via amendment 0001 and replaced with instructions to email all proposal files directly to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter. See updated section L.1.2 | ACC | |
| 4 | 2/10/26 | The site visit is scheduled for February 19th, which more questions will be developed at the site visit. With that said, RFI’s/Questions will not be answered until a few days after that. We request an extension because we cannot start the bid/proposal process unless this requirement is modified and however long that takes to the get answer will take away the proposal development timeline because we are uncomfortable starting the bid/proposal with the mandatory requirement written as such. | The proposal due date will not be extended at this time. Offerors are encouraged to submit questions early in the process and monitor the SAM.gov posting for updates. | ACC | ||||
| 5 | 2/10/26 | 100 | L | 3.2.3 | The following section states (pg.100): L.3.2.3 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ): For each of the three contracts, the offeror must send a PPQ to the client’s POCs for completion. | |||
| Do the contracts for the Past Performance Questionnaire need to be a federal contract, or can they be a commercial contract? | Updates have been made to sections L3.2.3 and M 4.0 as they now state "Federal, State, Local Government or commercial contracts for the same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 236220" | ACC | ||||||
| 6 | 2/10/26 | 99 | L.3.1.1 | Subfactor 1 | The following section states (pg.99): L.3.1.1 Section 1 - Subfactor 1: Bonding Capacity Provide verification of a single project bonding threshold of at least $5,000,000 and an aggregate bonding threshold of at least $30,000,000. This verification shall be a signed letter from your chosen. | |||
| Does this mean that you need at least/minimum a $5 million-dollar minimum bonding amount for a single project and a 30$ million-dollar aggregate bonding amount. Experience at TYAD during the current MATOC has some projects that are in the 100-to-500-thousand-dollar range. The $5,000,000.00 if I am interpreting it correctly seems excessive and would eliminate many potential small businesses or start up set aside status companies, please clarify. | Confirmed that verification of single project bonding threshold of at least $5,000,000 and an aggregate bonding threshold of at least $30,000,000 is required. | ACC | ||||||
| 7 | 2/10/26 | 105 | L | 3.3.3 | Page 105 of the solicitation under L.3.2.3 says PPQs should be emailed to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter. Page 1 of Attachment 3 – PPQ instructs POCs to email PPQs only to Justin Marino in a letter from Mr. Matthew Chase. Can we edit the letter to include a requirement for POCs to email the PPQ to Mr. Brian Souter as well? | See Revised Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire Rev.1 that now includes instructions to email completed PPQs to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter. | ACC | |
| 8 | 2/11/26 | Do you have an agenda for the 19FEB Site Visit for the FY26 Construction MATOC? | See Site Visit Agenda Attached to SAM.gov posting | ACC | ||||
| 9 | 2/11/26 | Will you be providing an overview of the proposed MATOC program and potential projects, or discussing any specific projects? | See Site Visit Agenda Attached to SAM.gov posting | ACC | ||||
| 10 | 2/11/26 | Hope all is going well with both of you. Just wondering if you expect to add more documents to SAM for the subject solicitation. We usually expect a “seed project” but I’m not sure if you were going to post one. I see that the offers are due by March 9, 2026. I just want to make sure I’m not missing anything. For your convenience, I’ve attached the link to the SAM solicitation page just to show you what I’m seeing online. | There will not be a "seed project" for this requirement. | ACC | ||||
| 11 | 2/11/26 | I was reading through the specs to find out how to get a pass to enter the base ( Here we have DBIDS for Camp Lejeune) and I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction to get a Temp pass/ Base Access. The link provided in the spec no longer works. | Reference page 3, section 3 of the RFP for information regarding site visit registration process. If an offeror is awarded a base contract/task order that requires base access, contractors/visitors must submit a 648C background check that corresponds with their associated projects. From there the contractor can work the assigned COR, and submit an application for a contractor badge. | ACC/DPW | ||||
| 12 | 2/12/26 | 101 | L | 1.2 | The solicitation indicates that a DoD SAFE “drop-off” code is required for non-DoD offerors without a Common Access Card (CAC). It further states that requests must be submitted at least fourteen (14) days prior to the proposal due date, and that the provided code is valid for only fourteen (14) days. To ensure compliance with the submission requirements, please confirm whether offerors should request the drop-off code exactly fourteen (14) days prior to the proposal due date, and whether the code expiration is time-stamped to the specific hour of issuance. For example, if a code is issued at 8:00 AM on Day -14 and the proposal is due at 1:00 PM on the due date, will the code remain valid through the full submission window? | All DoD Safe requirement/language has been removed from the solicitation via amendment 0001 and replaced with instructions to email all proposal files directly to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter. See updated section L.1.2 | ACC | |
| 13 | 2/11/26 | 105 | L | 3.2.3 | Will the Government allow offerors to submit completed CPARS evaluations in lieu of, or in addition to, the required Attachment 3 – Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)? In some instances, points of contact for recent and relevant projects may have retired or are no longer employed with the agency, and obtaining PPQ responses may present a hardship for otherwise qualified past performance references. | Section L3.2.3 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) which states "For each of the three contracts, the offeror must send a PPQ to the client's POCs for completion.". Also Section M 4.0 states The Government will review this information and may also use data from other sources (e.g., CPARS, interviews) to assess performance quality. Submission of completed CPARS in lieu of PPQs is not acceptable . | ACC | |
| 14 | 2/12/26 | 105 | L | 3.2.3 | Will a Final CPARs be accepted from the Offeror in lieu of the prescribed PPQ? | Section L3.2.3 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) which states "For each of the three contracts, the offeror must send a PPQ to the client's POCs for completion.". Also Section M 4.0 states The Government will review this information and may also use data from other sources (e.g., CPARS, interviews) to assess performance quality. Submission of completed CPARS in lieu of PPQs is not acceptable . | ACC | |
| 15 | 2/12/26 | May a previously completed USACE/NAVFAC Form-0 PPQ be submitted by the Offeror? | Section L3.2.3 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) which states "For each of the three contracts, the offeror must send a PPQ to the client's POCs for completion.". Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire Rev.1 must be used as stated in the solicitation. | ACC | ||||
| 16 | 2/12/26 | A site visit is slated for February 19th. As there is no seed project and pricing related to this solicitation, is it the Government’s intent to provide a general installation visit of facilities related to the SOW? | There will not be a seed project for this requirement. Refer to the Site Visit Agenda Attached to SAM.gov posting for more information on content of the site visit. | ACC | ||||
| 17 | 2/13/26 | Bonding Capacity verification of a single project bonding threshold of at least $5,000,000 and an aggregate bonding threshold of at least $30,000,000. This is a huge requirement and will force most Smalls to partner with Large companies to achieve. This seems counter to the idea of a Small Business, Minor Construction MATOC. Is it possible to get this requirement lowered to allow more participation? | See Question 6, verification of single project bonding threshold of at least $5,000,000 and an aggregate bonding threshold of at least $30,000,000 is required. | ACC | ||||
| 18 | 2/13/26 | We see this project posted on Construct Connect however we can not find it on the PIEE site. Is it somewhere else? We are interested and would like to acquire the plans and be able to bid. | This solicitation and related documents are not in the PIEE module. All information and attachements can be found on the SAM.gov posting. | ACC | ||||
| 19 | 2/17/26 | Requesting “drop-off” code to drop proposal at DOD Safe site. Please provide. Thanks. | See Question 3. All DoD Safe requirement/language has been removed from the solicitation via amendment 0001 and replaced with instructions to email all proposal files directly to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter. See updated section L.1.2 | ACC | ||||
| 21 | 2/19/26 | 104 | L | 3.2 | The solicitation section L.3.2 VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE defines relevancy as "services performed as the prime contractor under NAICS code 236220 with a total contract value of $350,000 or greater." We understand that the MATOC is 236220 and that is a good catchall NAICS for a MATOC. However, there are planned projects such as a sidewalk replacement and U-Parking Area Asphalt Replacement that would be NAICS 237310 or 237990 because they are horizontal construction. There is also electrical work and there could be other underground utilities such as water, storm, or sewer under NAICS 237110. Could the Government remove the requirement for 236220 from relevancy and replace that with "construction contracts similar to the potential projects"? This would allow us to submit projects that vary in their scopes to show our full capabilities rather than 236220, which only captures vertical construction. Many qualified contractors will have a variety of projects under the various construction NAICS codes rather than just 236220. This will allow the DPW to ensure contractors have a breadth of experience rather than only more narrow experience under 236220 as well. | Refer to Section L.3.2 of the soliciation which states "Relevancy is defined as services performed as the prime contractor under NAICS code 236220 with a total contract value of $350,000 or greater." This remains unchanged. | ACC | |
| 22 | 2/19/26 | 3 | A | 3 | Would it be possible to coordinate an alternate site visit? We appreciate your consideration and are happy to provide any additional information needed. | See Section A page 3 paragraph 3 of the solicitation “This solicitation includes a single scheduled site visit for all interested Offerors to attend. The Government will not consider any requests for separate or individual site visits.” | ACC | |
| 23 | 2/20/26 | 101 | L | 1.2 | Can I get a Drop of code for the Tobyhanna MATOC? | See Question 3. All DoD Safe requirement/language has been removed from the solicitation via amendment 0001 and replaced with instructions to email all proposal files directly to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter. See updated section L.1.2 | ACC | |
| 24 | 2/20/26 | 105 | L | 3.2.3 | Section L.3.2.3 of the Solicitation requires PPQs from past clients for completed projects. Will the Government accept Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) reports for completed Government projects in lieu of PPQs? | Section L3.2.3 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) which states "For each of the three contracts, the offeror must send a PPQ to the client's POCs for completion.". Also Section M 4.0 states The Government will review this information and may also use data from other sources (e.g., CPARS, interviews) to assess performance quality. Submission of completed CPARS in lieu of PPQs is not acceptable . | ACC | |
| 25 | 2/20/26 | 01 33 16.00 99 | The Master Specifications include sections 01 33 16.00 99 “Design Data (Design After Award)” and 01 33 16.10 99 “Design Submission Requirements Manual.” Please confirm the MATOC will included design-build task orders. | Yes, this MATOC will include design-build task orders. | DPW | |||
| 26 | 2/20/26 | Please provide any proprietary subcontractors utilized at TYAD for building systems, including HVAC DDC controls, fire alarm, communications, security, etc. | Any proprietary subcontractors would be identified on a task order basis if applicable | DPW | ||||
| 27 | 2/23/26 | L | 3.1.2 Subfactor 2 | In the solicitation, Section L.3.1.2, Section 2 – Subfactor 2: Safety Program, it states that offerors shall provide TCR and DART rates for the five (5) previous calendar years (CY2020, CY2021, CY2022, CY2023, and CY2024). Since it is now 2026, should we instead provide TCR and DART rates for CY2021, CY2022, CY2023, CY2024, and CY2025 (i.e., the most recent five completed calendar years), rather than including CY2020? | TCR and DART rate Data required has been updated to the most recent five completed calendar years CY2021, CY2022, CY2023, CY2024, and CY2025. See Amendment 0002 for details | DPW | ||
| 28 | 2/23/26 | 124 | M | 4.1 | For Past Performance, “Recency,” can a project at 95% completion be submitted? | Refer to the definition of Recency in the solicitation Section M.4.1, "Recency: A contract is considered recent if it was awarded within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation." | ACC | |
| 29 | 2/23/26 | 105 | L | 3.2.3 | In the event a Government project contact no longer works at the same installation, activity, or agency, can a CPARS substitute for a PPQ? This has been problematic in the past. | Section L3.2.3 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) which states "For each of the three contracts, the offeror must send a PPQ to the client's POCs for completion.". Also Section M 4.0 states The Government will review this information and may also use data from other sources (e.g., CPARS, interviews) to assess performance quality. Submission of completed CPARS in lieu of PPQs is not acceptable . | ACC | |
| 30 | 2/23/26 | 101 | L | 1.2 | ||||
| We are requesting a drop off code for the Tobyhanna Construction MATOC FY26 solicitation that is valid up through 3/9/26 at 1 PM. | See Question 3. All DoD Safe requirement/language has been removed from the solicitation via amendment 0001 and replaced with instructions to email all proposal files directly to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter. See updated section L.1.2 | ACC | ||||||
| 31 | 2/24//2026 | 101 | L | 1.2 | Requesting a drop off code for the submission of the MATOC 2026 Solicitation via DoD safe service site. | See Question 3. All DoD Safe requirement/language has been removed from the solicitation via amendment 0001 and replaced with instructions to email all proposal files directly to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter. See updated section L.1.2 | ACC | |
| 32 | 2/25/26 | 121 | M | 1.2 | Please confirm that you will be making an award to every qualified submitter for the subject RFP . | Reference Section M.1.2 Basis for Award/Qualifying Offerors: "IAW FAR 2.101, a qualifying offeror is defined as, "an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technicallyacceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(D))". The Government intends to award contracts to all "qualifying offerors." To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for all evaluation factors. Failure to provide the information requested in all volumes may render the Offeror's proposal incomplete and result in an unacceptable rating and/or proposal. An acceptable proposal indicates an understanding of the minimum technical and performance requirements. A proposal receiving a technically "Unacceptable" rating in any non-price factor will not be considered qualifying. An unacceptable proposal does not meet the minimum technical and performance requirements and is un-awardable." | ACC |
&G &G image1.png image2.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .