Questions and Answers 6 April 2020.pdf

1) On page 4 it is stated that ‘Criteria (H)-(J) below are secondary and will only be used as “tie breakers” among technically equal firms.’ We could not find these secondary criteria. Are these still valid or have these criteria removed from the Solicitation?

Note: Criteria H-J are secondary criteria and will only be used as “tie-breakers” among firms which are rated as technically equal after the interview phase of the selection process. The secondary selection criteria, in descending order of importance, are:

(H) Geographic proximity in relation to the projects and the Alaska District Headquarters in Anchorage.

(I) Volume of DoD contract awards in the last 12 months.

(J) The extent of participation of SB, SDB, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), and minority institutions (MI) in the proposed contract team, measured as a percentage of the total anticipated contract effort, regardless of whether the SB, SDB, HBCU, or MI is a prime contractor, subcontractor, or joint venture partner; the greater the participation, the greater the consideration.

2) On page 3 it is stated that a ‘certified welding/engineer inspector’ is a required discipline. Does this mean either a Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) who is also a degreed engineer or is a CWI sufficient?

- a Certified Welding Inspector satisfies the requirement.

3) On page 5, Criteria (F) states ‘Knowledge of locality and military POL facilities in Alaska.’ This requirement may unduly restrict competition, as it would appear only the incumbent contractor can meet this criteria. Will the Government change this criteria to ‘Knowledge of military or private sector POL facilities in Alaska.’

as we are amending anyway change (F) to Knowledge of locality and POL facilities in Alaska, both private and military

4) We note that the RFP states that “The 6/04 edition of the SF330 MUST be used, and may be obtained from the Government Printing Office …”. We also note per FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-2(b) that SF 330 (6/04) has been revised at least twice with the current revision reflecting “STANDARD FORM 330 (REV. 8/2016)”. Please confirm that the USACE, Alaska, CEPOA-CT indeed mandates we use the earlier and revised SF 330 (6/04).

AMENDMENT change reference to 8/16 version of the SF330 - note the date is in multiple places link in (4) is wrong as well -- should be ... https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/architect-engineer-qualifications ...

5) We note that under Selection criterion (A) 3) that the RFP calls for a “… NACE certified Cathodic Protection Specialist, surveyor; …” Does the term “surveyor” here apply to systems’ corrosion surveillance or to geospatial surveying capability?

Surveyor as registered professional (geospatial)

6) Concerning experience with DoD POL design, studies, and analyses, does design, maintenance and modification to non-DoD POL facilities currently employed/used by the DoD apply?

non-DOD experience will be considered, though DoD experience will be considered more relevant

7) Concerning experience with DoD POL design, studies, and analyses, does design, maintenance and modification to previous-DoD POL facilities currently employed/used by other Federal Agencies apply?

non-DOD experience will be considered, though DoD experience will be considered more relevant

8) Is there a page limit to the response? If yes, what is the breakdown by cover letter, Parts I and II, exhibits, etc.

there is no specific page limitation

9) At this time we are unable to make significant progress on the response due to confirmation of which forms to use, length, number of example projects, etc. Can a 2-week extension be considered?

New due date is 29 April 2020

10) Secondary evaluation criteria (I) states ‘Volume of DOD contract awards in the last 12 months.’ Please confirm this means award for all DOD projects that are on-going in the last 12 months.

Correct