RFIS Set 1 PDF.pdf

RFI Number RFI Response

5 1. Section 00 21 00, page 7. The solicitation states that questions must be submitted to the KO via email. It also states that “Answers to pertinent questions will be posted on the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Website.” Is there to be any kind of notification that answers have been posted? And do you intend to post responses separately or only with official Amendments?

The contract specialist or KO will notify contractors who have submitted RFIs via email when responses have been posted. Answers will be posted to PIEE and SAM. If responses to question warrant an Amendment to the Solicitation, an Amendment will be posted. If no Amendment is required, responses will be posted separately.

3. Section 00 22 00, page 14. Item 4.0 TECHNICAL VOLUME indicates that there is a 15 page limit total for the full Technical Volume of the proposal. This seems to include the Past Performance projects, the Management Plan, the Schedule Narrative, and the schedule (bar chart) itself. Is this accurate? Also, Item 4.2.1 on page 14 states that each new project must start on a new page, which further impacts the 15 page limit. Lastly, can you please clarify what “there may be limits imposed at the tab level” specifically means?

There is no page limit for past performance and does not go against the 15 page limit in the Technical Proposal. Follow the instructions contained within Item 4.0 TECHNICAL VOLUME.

Please clarify if the language "there is no page limitation for this submission" specifically refers to the PPQs, or if the entire Factor I Past Performance section is exempt from the overall 15-page limit on the Technical Volume, identified in Section 4.1 The Past Performance section is exempt from the overall 15-page limit on the Technical Volume.

Please confirm that past performance on any projects of similar scope/size to the Mt. View microgrid project is acceptable, and that Factor I is not limited to "past performance information on ERCIP projects" Past Performance are for any projects of similar scope/size and not limited to ERCIP projects. See Amendment 0001.

9 Please confirm that the Preaward Survey is not required at the time of proposal submittal, as stated on page 45 of the RFP, and, relatedly, please clarify that Tab 6 of Volume II should only include a statement from the Offeror. Further, please clarify if such a statement can include the experience and past performance of the contractor team, not just that of the Offeror.

Preaward Survey is not required at time of proposal submittal. Tab 6 of Volume II should only include a statement from the offeror. Information in the statement must be in regard to the offeror. See FAR Part 9.

17 Please clarify what the "Dredging Plant and Equipment Schedule" referenced in the instructions for Tab 3 is. This is an error and has been removed in Amendment 0001.

18 Please confirm that the prime contractor must have completed at least one of the projects submitted in fulfillment of Factor 1 of this RFP, not "Factor 2," as is currently written.

The prime contractor must have completed at least one of the projects submitted in fullfilment of Factor 1. This section of the solicitation has been revised in Amendment 0001.

26 Request extension to proposal bid day. See Amendment 0001.

In W9123826RA016_MICROGRID_Solicitation_for_Posting document, there are FAR clauses referenced, but the FAR clause sections themselves are not included. Please advise what FAR clauses are applicable, and share the detailed requirements associated with the applicable clause. In the solicitation document, there are FAR clauses referenced, but the FAR clause sections themselves are not included. Also, like we saw for Ft Buchanan, both clauses 11 and 12 are referenced, which conflict. - Should we make an assumption about which one we are assuming to proceed, or do we “take exception” until they clarify? - There is a requirement on the MV equipment for arc-resistant, but because we don’t know which FAR clause is applicable, it’s not clear whether we’d be able to provide this as we’d be manufacturing in Mexico. BAA clauses 52.225-9 and 52.225-11.

FAR clause 52.225-9 is not included, nor applicable, to the solicitation. FAR clauses 52.225-11 and -12 are both included, and applicable to the solicitation. Both are incorporated by reference as no exceptions are being made to the Buy American statute. These clauses do not conflict per their prescriptions.

41 Please clarify if DFARS Clause 252.232-7006 Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions is included in this contract. It does not appear to be listed in the Solicitation, outside of the aforementioned reference. If Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions are not applicable/included in the Solicitation, please clarify the invoicing process.

The procurement will not utilize WAWF for invoice processing. Instructions for invoicing will be provided to the successful offeror.

Factor 1, Past Performance, requires offerors to provide past performance information on ERCIP projects. Please clarify whether submitted projects must have been formally funded through the Department of Defense Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP), or whether projects with similar energy resilience, microgrid, energy generation, energy storage, or utility infrastructure scope performed under other funding sources will be considered acceptable.

See response to Question 8.

51 Please confirm whether CPARS evaluations and PPQs submitted under Factor 1, Past Performance, count toward the 15-page Technical Volume limit. See response to Question 7.

The solicitation requires offerors to provide past performance information on ERCIP projects. Please clarify whether submitted projects must have been formally funded through the Department of Defense Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP), or whether projects with similar energy resilience, microgrid, energy generation, energy storage, or utility infrastructure scope performed under other funding sources will be considered acceptable.

See response to Question 8.

55 Please confirm whether CPARS evaluations and PPQs submitted under Factor 1, Past Performance, count toward the 15-page Technical Volume limit. See response to Question 7.

In the Solicitation re: page 14 under 4.2 "Tab 1 of the Technical Proposal...", it appears that a paragraph "4.2.2." is missing between "Submission Requirements" and "Evaluation Criteria." Typically there is a paragraph here related to size, scope, relevancy, etc. Can we expect to receive a revision of this portion in the form of an Amendment, or in another form?

This is a typo, there is no missing paragraph. See Amendment 0001.

Entering Island Mode:

The contractor is responsible for selecting microgrid components that meet the requirements in the specifications and drawings.

Will the BESS be configurable to run in parallel with the PCC for soft transition into islanded mode?

The project specification indicates a qualified system operator investigates and examines state of conditions before going to energization and islanded mode. Is the intent to await confirmation from a human operator before entering microgrid mode? As specified in section 01 11 00 paragraph 1.2.1, the desired end state is “a fully usable and complete smart microgrid system that is capable of managing itself, operating autonomously in island mode or grid connected, and seamlessly connecting to and disconnecting from the electric utility grid for the exchange of power.”

Returning to Grid Connected Mode Proj Spec indicates sys operator initiates go to grid or the automatic reconnection function. Will the automated function reconnect without human confirmation?

Section 26 37 13 Microgrid Control System also states “…automatic transition from grid-connected to islanded mode… resynchronization and reconnection to grid-connected mode from islanded mode…”

70 The Offerors respectfully request that USACE consider extending the proposal deadline to allow teams sufficient time to refine their bids based on any pending responses to the questions that have been submitted to USACE to date.

See Amendment 0001.

71 Regarding the simple bar chart or P6 schedule required in Tab 3 of the Technical Volume, please clarify if this schedule is included in or excluded from the overall 15-page limit for the technical volume.

Please also clarify if 11x17-inch page layouts may be used for the schedule bar chart. This layout is typically easier to read for schedules. (Section 00 22 00, § 4)

See response to Question 7. The solicitation states to only use 8 1/2” x 11” electronic pages.

81 With regard to the US Army 63rd Readiness Div ERCIP MG, is it possible for us to request an extension to the proposal date of Monday 29 JUN? See Amendment 0001.

98 17. What defines a relevant project for the purposes of evaluation under Factor 1?

Projects must be of similar size and/or scope. See Amendment 0001.

99 18. For Volume I-Technical Proposal, do CPARS/PPQs count toward the 15-page limit? See response to Question 7.

131 7. Given the project’s technical complexity, coordination with subcontractors, anticipated short timeline to receive and integrate RFI responses, we respectfully request the Government consider an extension of the proposal due date.

See Amendment 0001.

141 4. Would the government consider an extension to the proposal due date, commencing from the release of the final RFI responses? Such as extension would allow sufficient time for offerors to review all clarifications and develop complete and accurate pricing?

See Amendment 0001.

142 1. General: Volume I: Is the page limit for Volume I Technical, Factors 2 & 3 a total of 15 pages with no further delineation of page requirements for either Factor 2 or Factor 3? See response to Question 7.

143 1. General: Volume II, Tab 6: Since this information is filled out and provided upon request from the Government, do we need to include Tab 6; or include with a statement that we will provide upon request?

See response to Question 9.

6. The solicitation requires offerors to provide past performance information on ERCIP projects. Please clarify whether submitted projects must have been formally funded through the Department of Defense Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP), or whether projects with similar energy resilience, microgrid, energy generation, energy storage, or utility infrastructure scope performed under other funding sources will be considered acceptable.

See question 8.

154 7. Please confirm whether CPARS evaluations and PPQs submitted under Factor 1, Past Performance, count toward the 15-page Technical Volume limit. See response to Question 7.

156 9. We are requesting a 2 week extension to provide adequate estimating once the aforementioned questions are answered. 2 week minimum is requested to account for the federal government office closures around the July 4th weekend.

See Amendment 0001.

7. General-Volume I: Please clarify if projects near construction completion are allowed.

Projects near construction completion are allowed so long as the projects demonstrate the offeror’s ability to successfully perform this requirement based on the offeror’s record of relevant past projects, and the documented level of satisfaction of each project owner.

Request for Information and Responses Set #1 (6/17/2026)