Questions and Answers-4MAR26.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W51AA126RA0002
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers log documenting 60 inquiries from potential offerors regarding the Tobyhanna Army Depot FY26 Multiple Award Task Order Construction (MATOC) solicitation W51AA126RA002. The document tracks questions submitted between February 8 and March 3, 2026, along with government responses, and reflects three amendments issued during the solicitation period (Amendment 0001 on February 12, Amendment 0002 on February 25, and Amendment 0003 on March 4).
Key clarifications provided through the Q&A process include: (1) Proposal submission procedures were significantly revised via Amendment 0001, removing DoD SAFE requirements and directing offerors to email proposals directly to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter; (2) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) must be submitted using Attachment 3 Rev.1 and sent to both government contacts, with CPARS or previously completed PPQs explicitly not acceptable as substitutes; (3) The bonding capacity requirement of $5 million single project and $30 million aggregate was reaffirmed despite multiple requests for reduction, with no flexibility granted; (4) The relevancy requirement limiting past performance to NAICS code 236220 contracts was maintained despite requests to accept broader construction NAICS codes; (5) TCR and DART safety data requirements were updated via Amendment 0002 to reflect the most recent five completed calendar years (CY2021-CY2025); (6) Amendment 0003 clarified CMMC Level 2 certification requirements and extended the proposal due date; (7) No seed project will be provided; (8) Design-build task orders will be included in the MATOC; and (9) Site visits are limited to one scheduled session with no individual visits permitted. The government confirmed its intent to award contracts to all qualifying offerors meeting minimum technical and performance standards.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W51AA126RA002 Amendment 0003.pdf | ||
| W51AA126RA002 Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| Questions and Answers-25FEB26.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 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 | |
| 33 | 2/25/26 | We just reviewed Amendment 02 and would like to note that the revised clause requiring CMMC Level 2 is a fairly significant change. Is there any flexibility to the CMMC Level 2 requirement? | Refer to Amendment 0003 that clarifies CMMC requirement and extends proposal due date. | ACC/DPW | ||||
| 34 | 2/26/26 | L | 2.4 | Section L.2.4 references an Introductory Page. Into which volume(s) should Offerors place the introductory page? | One Introductory Page can be placed at first page of Volume I. | ACC | ||
| 35 | 2/26/26 | M | 3.3 Subfactor- B | Please clarify whether an offeror that does not have TCR and/or DART data for one or more of the five required years may remain eligible for consideration by affirmatively stating that the data does not exist and providing a detailed explanation, as allowed under Section L, or whether the absence of complete data for all five years (CY2021, CY2022, CY2023, CY2024, and CY2025 – per Amendment 0002, dated 2/25/2026) will result in an Unacceptable rating under Section M. There is no clarification to Section M provided in Amendment 0002 | Refer to Amendment 0003 that clarifies TCR/Dart Date in Section M | ACC | ||
| 36 | 2/26/26 | L | 2.3 | SF1442 block 13, item a states, “Sealed offers in original and copies…” However, Section L, paragraph L.2.3 indicates one digital copy should be provided for each volume. Can the government please confirm that one digital copy of each volume is acceptable? | Confirmed Digital Copies are required/acceptable | ACC | ||
| 37 | 2/26/26 | L | 2.1 | “Offerors shall include a "File Description" for each file uploaded. Given that proposals are now required to be submitted via email as PDF attachments, can the government please confirm that a File Description is no longer required, as this was associated with the DOD SAFE upload portal? | See Amendment 0003 for updated instructions | ACC | ||
| 38 | 2/26/26 | L | 2.4 | Regarding Section L, paragraph L.2.4 Introductory page, the requirement states, “This page does not count towards page limits.” Is it the government’s intention that an offeror include this Introductory Page within each volume, or provide one single Introductory Page as a separate PDF, outside of the required volumes? | One Introductory Page can be placed at first page of Volume I or as a separate PDF. Either is acceptable | ACC | ||
| 39 | 2/26/26 | L | 3 | Section L, paragraph 3.0 states, “Each volume shall consist of a Table of Contents, a Summary Section containing a brief abstract, and the Narrative discussion.” Regarding Volume III, can the government confirm the “narrative discussion” consists of Section A, Section K and Joint Venture Requirements? | Please Refer to L.3.3 VOLUME III - SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS for contents of Volume III | ACC | ||
| 40 | 2/26/26 | L | 3.2.3 | Section L, paragraph L.3.2.3 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), bullet three states, “The offeror must also email a list of all POCs who were sent a questionnaire to the same email addresses by the proposal due date.” Please clarify whether the government intends for offerors to submit this list as a separate email outside of the proposal submission or include the list within the proposal itself to satisfy this requirement? | Providing the list as a separate email outside of the proposal submission or including the list within the proposal itself is acceptable | ACC | ||
| 41 | 2/27/26 | L | 2.3 | May we include a Cover Letter and Acronym list? | One Introductory Page can be placed at first page of Volume I or as a separate PDF. Either is acceptable | ACC | ||
| 42 | 2/27/26 | L | 2.3 | Does TOC and Summary Page count in 50 the page limits? | Refer to Section L.2.3 Volume and Page Limits | ACC | ||
| 43 | 2/27/26 | I | To ensure companies have the ability to meet the task order response requirement, will there be a bonding single project limit requirement to meet the maximum size project of $100-mil? | Please Refer to 52.216-19 Order Limitations in the RFP and Section L.3.1.1 Section 1 - Subfactor 1: Bonding Capacity and M.3.2 Subfactor A: Bonding Capacity | ACC | |||
| 44 | 3/2/26 | M | 2.2 | What pricing should be entered into in Section B Supplies and Services and Prices and Costs Matrix on the submitted Proposal given no seed project? | Refer to Section M1.1 Source Selection Process and M2.2Cost/Price | ACC | ||
| 45 | 3/2/26 | M | 2.2 | Within proposal pricing, it states that when subcontractors are used, provide evidence of competitive quotations. What are examples of evidence and if it is quotes from other subcontractors for the same scope how many additional quotes are necessary to be deemed competitive? | Refer to Section M1.1 Source Selection Process and M2.2Cost/Price | ACC | ||
| 46 | 3/2/26 | Will any of the task orders be designated as CUI or FCI requiring a CMMC Level 2 Certification? | Refer to Amendment 0003 that clarifies CMMC requirement. | ACC | ||||
| 47 | 3/2/26 | If a contractor achieves CMMC Level 2 auditing during the MATOC period, will they be open to then bidding on CMMC Level 2 task orders or will they be restricted to the CMMC Level of the contractor at bidding of the MATOC? | Refer to Amendment 0003 that clarifies CMMC requirement. | ACC | ||||
| 48 | 3/2/26 | L | 3.2.3 | Can we use CPARS or previously submitted PPQs for past performance? | 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 | ||
| 49 | 3/2/26 | L | 1.2 | We are requesting a DoD SAFE link for proposal upload next week. | 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 | ||
| 50 | 3/2/26 | We would like to please request a "drop-off" code for the following job. | ACC | |||||
| 51 | 2/18/26 | |||||||
| 52 | 2/18/26 | M | 3.2 | In reference to Amendment 0001, Questions and Answers – 12 FEB 26, #6; and solicitation requirement(s) L.3.1.1 and M.3.2, the solicitation requirement for Bonding seems to be out of line with comparable MATOC requirements by the federal government for construction projects for this size installation. The bonding requirement for small businesses (Construction Companies that provide Construction Services for Federal Contracts) geographically is well above most construction companies within a 50 miles radius of Tobyhanna. The solicitation requirement contradicts FAR 52.228-15. The solicitation's own incorporated clause defines "original contract price" for IDIQ contracts as the minimum guarantee, which is $200 which is what is guaranteed if no contracts are awarded to that firm on the MATOC for a participating year. The $5M bonding gate at the IDIQ level conflicts with how FAR actually structures construction bonding. According to SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Program Limits, the $30M aggregate exceeds what most Small Business firms can obtain even with SBA Surety Bond Guarantee support ($9M/$14M individual limits), which directly contradicts the program Congress created to help small businesses compete. We request that you re-consider the bonding capabilities to a $1,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00 or provide justification as to why you a requiring a $5,000,000.00 to $30,000,000.00 aggregate, and if you do reconsider the requirement and change the requirement to a more relevant amount that you extend the proposal due date by a minimum of three weeks. We request this extension because, even though we meet all other MATOC requirements stated in the solicitation, we cannot in good faith start the bid/proposal process unless this requirement is modified, which has significantly taken away from the proposal development timeline because we are uncomfortable starting the bid/proposal with the mandatory requirement written as such. | Please Refer to Section L.3.1.1 Section 1 - Subfactor 1: Bonding Capacity and M.3.2 Subfactor A: Bonding Capacity. Please Refer to Amendment 0003 for details regarding proposal due date extension. | ACC | ||
| 53 | 3/2/26 | L | 1.2 | We would like to please request a "drop-off" code for the following job | 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 | |||
| 54 | 3/2/26 | Confirm the bid date and time listed above are unchanged. | Please Refer to Amendment 0003 for details regarding proposal due date extension. | |||||
| 56 | 3/2/26 | Requesting the following information: - Plan holders list/bidders list,Pre-bid Attendance List | Refer to SAM.gov posting for all applicable attachments and amendments | |||||
| 57 | 3/3/26 | Have you issued an additional addendum after addendum (3)? If so, please attach them to this response. | Refer to SAM.gov posting for all applicable attachments and amendments | |||||
| 58 | 3/3/26 | L | 1.2 | Could you please provide the appropriate drop-off/access code and any additional instructions necessary to ensure timely and compliant submission?If this information is available within the solicitation posting on SAM.gov, we would appreciate guidance on the specific section to reference. | 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 | |||
| 59 | 3/3/26 | L | 1.2 | Our team intends to submit a proposal for the Tobyhanna Construction MATOC FY26. Would you be able to provide us with a "drop-off" code for the 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 | |||
| 60 | 3/3/26 | L | 1.2 | Requesting the access code to test the DoD safe site for our proposal submission on the Tobyhanna army depot 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 |
&G &G image1.png image2.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .