Questions from Industry and Responses.pdf

Item # Document Page # / Section Requirement/Statement Industry Question Answer

1 General The solicitation establishes a new IDIQ contract for partnering facilitation services but does not reference any existing or incumbent contractor arrangements.

Question: Is there an incumbent contractor providing facilitation services? If so, what is the incumbent contractor name, current contract number, contract value, and contract expiration date?

This information would help offerors understand the scope and scale of historical services and inform pricing strategies.

There is no incumbment.

2 ITO Pg 1; B.i.4 "Facilitator Rates"

Question: The solicitation requires submission of "Facilitator Rates" but does not specify the labor categories or rate structure. Should offerors provide rates for a single "Partnering Facilitator" category as referenced in the PWS, or are there multiple facilitators expected? Additionally, should rates be provided for each contract year (base plus two option years)?

The contractor should provide a single facilitator rate for the "Partnering Facilitator" referenced in Part 5 of the SATOC PWS to be used on future Task Orders.

Yes, a single facilitator rate should be provided for each contract year, as well as the escalation rates. (See Attachment B.)

3 ITO Pg 1; B.i.4

The instructions require offerors to submit "Facilitator Rates" and state that the Government will evaluate "proposed hourly rates for the labor categories provided in the Price Schedule". However, no list of labor categories or a Price Schedule template has been provided for the base IDIQ contract.

Could the Government please provide the required list of labor categories (e.g., Senior Facilitator, Junior Facilitator, Program Manager, etc.) and the Price Schedule template to be used for submitting hourly rates for the base contract and its option years?

Amendment 0001 was released to clarify that there is only one labor catogory, the Facilitator. The submitted hourly rate should be the rate for the Partnering Facilitator mentioned in Part 5 of the PWS. Attachment B - Price Schedule was also uploaded with Amendment 0001 for the Example Project Price Schedule that will incorporate those other labor categories when executing a Task Order.

4 ITO Pg 1 "Offers and all supporting material are due no later than 02:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (PST) on Wednesday, 17 September 2025."

Question: The solicitation specifies "Pacific Standard Time (PST)" for the September 2025 due date, but PST is typically used November through March, while Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) is used April through October. Can you confirm whether the due time is 2:00 PM PST or PDT?

Solicitation updated to PDT.

5 ITO

Pg 1; B.i.3 vs Sample TO

"Price for the Seed Task Order"

Question: The Sample Task Order shows CLINs 0001-0005 with different scopes and venues (contractor provides venue for CLINs 0001-0002, government provides for CLINs 0003-0005). Should the "Seed Task Order" pricing include all CLINs 0001-0005, or only specific CLINs? Additionally, should pricing account for the different venue responsibility arrangements between CLINs?

Previously provided Attachment B - Price Spreadsheet reflects the correct CLINs and CLIN titles from the Example (Sample) Task Order. The pricing requested in Volume I and entered on Attachment B should be for all CLINs and each individual CLIN must account for the specific venue arrangements required by the Example (Sample) Task Order PWS.

6 52.212-2 Pg 50; (2)a & b

a) "The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed hourly rates for the labor categories provided in the Price Schedule" and

b) "Provide a price breakdown by CLIN"

Question: The solicitation references a "Price Schedule" with specific labor categories and requests CLIN breakdowns, but no standardized price schedule format or CLIN structure is provided.

What is the required format and structure for the price proposal, including specific labor categories and CLIN organization?

We've updated the solicitation with Attachment B - Price Sheet.

7 52.212-2 Pg 47

Solicitation statement: The section requires both "two (2) pages per project submission" with detailed descriptions and also states "Information outlined in Attachment A, Offeror Experience Form.

The offeror must address all items included in Attachment A."

Question: Should offerors provide a 2-page narrative description for each project in addition to completing the Offeror Experience Form (Attachment A), or should the Offeror Experience Form be completed within the 2-page limit per project? If both are required, does the 2-page limit apply only to the narrative portion, with the Experience Form being additional pages?

Contractors can either use the Offeror Experience Form to provide information about its past projects, or they can use their own narrative format. If they choose to use their own narrative format, they must submit the "information outlined in the Offeror Expeirence form, and address all items in that form."

No more than 2-pages can be submitted per project.

8 52.212-2 Pg 47

The Basis of Award states, "The Government reserves the right to award to an offeror providing other than the lowest price offer based on the technical merits of the Offeror's proposal".

However, the solicitation only requires the submission of two volumes: Volume 1 - Price and Volume 2 - Past Performance. The evaluation factors are explicitly listed as "(i) Past Performance" and "(ii) Price"

Question: Given that no technical proposal or volume is requested, could the Government please clarify what constitutes the "technical merits of the Offeror's proposal" and explain how these merits will be evaluated? Is the Government intending to assess technical merit based on information contained within the Past Performance volume?

Technical merit will be assertained from the Past Performance Evaluation. Submitted projects should demonstrate the breadth and depth of the offeror’s experience performing work similar in size, scope and complexity (their techncial merits) to the work described in the PWS of this solicitation. Projects will be evaluated on their recency and relevancy of the project’s similarity (in terms of size, scope and complexity) to the work described in the PWS of this solicitation.

9 52.212-2 Pg 47; (a) "IAW FAR 13.106, 'Solicitations are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor.'"

Question: While the USG provided detailed evaluation methodologies for both Past Performance and Price factors, the relative importance between these two factors is not specified.

In the source selection decision, how will an offeror with "Substantial Confidence" in Past Performance but a higher price be evaluated against an offeror with "Neutral Confidence" but the lowest price? Will the award decision prioritize one factor over the other, or are they considered equally important?

This soliciation is released using FAR Part 13 - Simplified Acquisition Proceedures. Per the solicitation, and IAW FAR 13.106, "Solicitations are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor."

10 52.212-2 Pg 47 The solicitation states, "Offerors must limit the description of these projects to two (2) pages per project submission"

Question: Please clarify if the two-page limit per project applies only to the Offeror's Experience Form (Attachment A), or if it also includes the associated CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). For example, if a CPARS report is 5 pages long, would that be acceptable to submit alongside the 2-page project description?

The 2-page limit per project applies only to the Offerors Experience Form or contractor's preferred narrative format.

CPARS and PPQs do not count towards the overall page count. A 5-page CPARS report alongside a 2-page project description is acceptable.

11 52.212-2 Pg 47; (a)

"The contract award will be made to the offeror providing the most advantageous value to the Government" and "IAW FAR 13.106, 'Solicitations are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor.'"

Question: While detailed evaluation methodologies are provided for both Past Performance and Price factors, the relative importance between these factors is not specified. In making the source selection decision, how will trade-offs be evaluated when one offeror has superior past performance but higher pricing compared to another offeror with lower past performance ratings but more competitive pricing?

This soliciation is released using FAR Part 13 - Simplified Acquisition Proceedures. Per the solicitation, and IAW FAR 13.106, "Solicitations are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor."

12 52.212-2 Pg 47; (1)

"To be evaluated, projects must have completed within seven (7) years of the date this solicitation is issued. Projects that are ongoing may be submitted if performance has been underway for at least 1 year."

Question: For ongoing projects that meet the 1-year performance requirement, what documentation should be provided regarding current performance status, and how will the government evaluate incomplete projects compared to fully completed projects?

IAW the solicitaion, the contract award date must be included for all project submittals; CPARS and/or PPQs should corroborate the award date. As the solicitation was release 03 Sept 2025, contract award date needs to be 03 Sept 2024 or earlier. Partially completey projects will be evaluated the same way as fully completed projects - for recency, relevancy against this soliciation requirements, and performance thus far.

13 52.212-2 Pg 48;

"If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project.

Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available"

Question: If a CPARS evaluation for a recent and relevant project exists but is still in draft format or awaiting final government sign-off, may the offeror submit a PPQ for that project to ensure the Government has timely performance feedback for evaluation?

Yes, this can be submitted for evaluation.

14 FAR Clauses Pg 41 & 42

Clause 52.216-22(d) requires the contractor to complete any order issued during the effective period of the contract. The IDIQ ordering period is a maximum of three years. The price proposal only requests facilitator rates for the base and two option years.

Question: If a task order is issued near the end of the final option year with a 12-month period of performance, this work would extend into a fourth year for which no rates have been established. What labor rates should the contractor assume will be used for any performance that occurs after the expiration of the final IDIQ ordering period?

The final option year's rates (OY2) will apply.

15 52.212-2 Pg 48;

"The Government intends to give greater consideration to offers that demonstrate experience providing partnering and facilitation services to government agencies such as USACE and experience large multi-million-dollar construction projects with multiple stakeholders."

Question: The solicitation indicates a preference for USACE and large construction project experience but doesn't specify how this preference will be applied in the evaluation process. Will this preference be considered during the relevancy rating determination (Very Relevant, Relevant, etc.), or will it be applied as a separate consideration during the overall past performance confidence assessment?

Experience on USACE projects and large multi-million-dollar construction projects with multiple stakeholders would be reflected in the relevancy portion of the evaluation.

16 52.212-2 Pg 48;

"The Government intends to give greater consideration to offers that demonstrate experience providing partnering and facilitation services to... large multi-million-dollar construction projects with multiple stakeholders"

Question: Could the Government please provide a more specific definition or a dollar range for what it considers a "large multi-million-dollar construction project" for the purposes of evaluating past performance relevancy (e.g., over $25M, over $50M)?

Large, multi-million-dollar contruction projects mean $50M+.

17 PWS Pg 2; 1.5.1

"The Partnering Facilitator must have a minimum of five (5) years' experience...within the last 10 years". The PWS also states to "Provide a one-page biography...for proposed Facilitators with Task Order proposals". The base solicitation does not explicitly request resumes or biographies.

Question: How does the Government intend to verify that offerors meet the mandatory 5-year facilitator experience requirement at the time of the base IDIQ contract award? Should offerors submit a biography for a proposed lead facilitator with the base proposal to demonstrate compliance, and if so where should this information be provided given the absence of a technical volume?

Once awarded, contractors will need to provide the resume of their Facilitator expected to work on the Task Orders as one of the Submittals. If the Facilitator does not meet the requirements posed in the PWS, the contract will be cancelled.

18 PWS Pg 2; 1.5.1

Both the PWS and Sample Task Order state that the contractor must maintain the same Partnering Facilitator for all sessions within a task order unless an alternative is approved by the Contracting Officer

Question: In the event the approved facilitator becomes unavailable for reasons beyond the contractor's control (e.g., illness, family emergency, resignation), what is the Government's required process and anticipated timeline for the review and approval of a substitute facilitator with equal or greater qualifications?

It is recommended that the Contractor submits an alternative Partnering Facilitator the the Contracting Officer at Contract Award to have an approved substitute in case of the event the approved facilitator becomes unavailable. If this is done at the beginning of the Contract, the review can be done in the same timeframe as other submissions.

19 PWS Pg 7; 1.5.1 "The Partnering Facilitator must have a minimum of five (5) years' experience conducting corporate partnering sessions of groups of up to 50 people or greater within the last 10 years."

Question: The requirement specifies "corporate partnering sessions," but the work involves government/contractor partnering for USACE projects. Will experience facilitating government-contractor partnering sessions, construction project partnering, or other non-corporate partnering be considered equivalent to "corporate partnering sessions"?

Yes, all the examples given would be considered equivalent to "corporate partnering sessions".

20 PWS Pg 11; 5.3.1

The facilitator's preparatory work includes "project specific document reviews... [and] phone interviews with participants from the partners". The success and timeliness of this work depend on receiving documents and access to personnel from the Government.

Question: To ensure we can meet the deliverable deadline for the final agenda (due one week prior to the workshop), what is the latest date the Government will provide all necessary project documents and a list of personnel for interviews following the issuance of a task order?

This will be communicated on a task order basis and may change due to nature of urgecy for some user groups.

For purpose of evaulation, it can be assumed the Government will deliver the Contractor applicable project documents and list of personnel 14 days of task order award.

21 PWS Pg 16; 5.3.1

"The Government may take up to one (1) week to review and comment on the draft agenda" and "Once the initial draft agenda is approved by the government, the Facilitator has one (1) week to finalize the Initial Partnering Session Agenda."

Question: The PWS requires the Initial Partnering Session Agenda to be "finalized and approved by the COR at least one (1) week prior to the Initial Partnering Session." However, if the government takes the full week to review and the contractor takes the full week to finalize, this could result in a 2+ week process. How should contractors plan session scheduling to accommodate these review timelines, and is there flexibility in these timeframes for urgent or time-sensitive projects?

There may be flexibility in timelines on a task order by task order basis. The variety of possible user group for this Contract will yield a range of flexibility. For purposes of evaluation, use the timelines given in the base contract.

22 PWS Pg 20; 5.6

"The Government may take up to one (1) week to review and comment on the draft agenda" and "Once the initial draft agenda is approved by the government, the Facilitator has one (1) week to finalize the Initial Partnering Session Agenda."

Question: The PWS requires the Initial Partnering Session Agenda to be "finalized and approved by the COR at least one (1) week prior to the Initial Partnering Session." However, if the government takes the full week to review and the contractor takes the full week to finalize, this could result in a 2+ week process. How should contractors plan session scheduling to accommodate these review timelines, and is there flexibility in these timeframes for urgent or time-sensitive projects?

See above response in Question 21.

Sample Task

Order Pg 1; 1.1

"The four partner organizations are: USACE, USACE the end user, Design Build (DB) Contractor Team and the Dredging Subcontractor"

Question: Please clarify the distinction between "USACE" and "USACE the end user." Are these two separate and distinct commands or divisions within USACE that may have differing objectives, or does this simply refer to USACE in its capacity as the contracting agency and the ultimate facility user?

USACE and USACE the end user refers to USACE as the contracting agency/project management team and USACE the end user as the ultimate facility user. Sometimes USACE the end user can be referred to as the Operating Project.

Sample Task

Order pg 2; 1.3

"The partnering venue will be secured... by the Government for CLINS 0003 to 0005"

Question: For workshops where the Government is providing the venue, can you provide the minimum facility specifications that will be met, such as seating capacity for up to 50 participants, availability of A/V equipment (projector, screen, speakers), and space for breakout sessions?

The Government will provide a venue that includes seating capacity for 50+ people, A/V equipment and space for break out sections.

Sample Task

Order Pg 3; 2.1.a

Sample TO statement: "The Government and DB Contractor may take up to one week to review and comment on the draft agenda"

The Sample Task Order includes the "DB Contractor" in the agenda approval process, while the main PWS only references government/COR approval. Question: Will future task orders typically include contractor parties in the approval process, and should this review timeline account for coordinating with multiple approving parties?

Future Task Orders could include Contractor parties in the approval process. The review timeline does account for the coordination with multiple approving parties.

Sample Task

Order Pg 3; 2.d

Sample TO statement: "The Partnering Facilitator must have a minimum of five years of experience conducting corporate partnering workshops of groups larger than 25 people"

Question: This differs from the main PWS requirement of "up to 50 people or greater." The Sample TO specifies "larger than 25 people" while the main PWS could be interpreted as requiring experience with groups of exactly 50+ people. Which standard applies - experience with 25+ or 50+ people?

The main PWS requirement of "up to 50 people or greater" applies.

Sample Task

Order Pg 1-7

Solicitation statement: "This task order is intended to be used for selection of the IDIQ awardees" and "each offeror is to prepare and submit a price proposal (Volume II) that reflects that offeror's pricing for the PWS herein"

Question: The Sample Task Order contains several specifications that differ from the main PWS requirements (session durations, reporting timelines, venue responsibilities, approval processes).

For pricing purposes, should offerors follow the Sample Task Order specifications exactly as written, or should pricing reflect the main PWS requirements where discrepancies exist?

Additionally, will future task orders follow the Sample TO format and requirements, or will they adhere to the main PWS specifications?

Follow the main PWS requirements where discrepancies exist.

Future Task Orders will adhere to the main PWS specifications and will follow the Sample Task Order format.

Sample Task

Order Pg 3; 2.1.b

"The Partnering Facilitator must facilitate a two day 16-hour Initial Partnering Workshop for up to 50 Project Team personnel". This section covers two separate initial meetings: CLIN 0001 (Intergovernmental Pre-Award) and CLIN 0002 (Government-DB Post Award).

Question: Please clarify if the "two day 16-hour Initial Partnering Workshop" refers to 16 hours for each of the initial workshops (CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002), for a total of 32 hours, or if it refers to a combined total of 16 hours for both workshops (e.g., one 8-hour day for each)?

The two day 16-hour Initial Partnering Workshop refers to 16 hours for each initial workshops, for a total of 32 hours.

Sample Task

Order Pg 2 & 6; 1.4 & 5.0

Section 1.4 states, "One trip is anticipated... for each of the Workshops for a total of up to four (4) trips". However, the Workshop Prep description and the schedule outline at least six distinct workshop periods.

Question: Could the Government please clarify the discrepancy between the four (4) anticipated trips and the six (6) scheduled workshop periods? Are some workshops intended to be held virtually, or are some trips meant to cover multiple sessions?

The Intergovernmental Partnering Sessions and the Government-DB Contractor Partnering Sessions will occur consecutively to one another. This would account for the four anticipated trips rather than the six.

Sample Task

Order Pg 4; 2.1.c

The section lists items (4) through (8) under the "Reports/Deliverables" heading. However, items like "(5) Formation of a cohesive partnership..." and "(6) Individual development..." appear to be workshop goals or outcomes, not tangible, submittable deliverables.

Question: Please clarify if items (4) through (8) under Section 2.1.c are formal, written deliverables that must be submitted, or if they are descriptions of the intended outcomes of the workshop that will be documented within the main Workshop Report.

These are both desciptions of the intended outcomes of the workshop as well as actions that will need contuniues facilitation by the Contractor. The method by which these are delivered is up to the contractor but can be demonstrated through tools such as surveys or interviews.

Sample Task

Order Pg 4 & 6; 2.1.c(3) & 3.0

"The Draft Report must be transmitted within two weeks following the Initial Partnering Workshop". Page 6 states: "Draft Reports. Submitted within 7 calendar days of the conclusion of Workshop.

Question: Could the Government please clarify the correct submission deadline for Draft Workshop Reports? Is it two weeks (14 calendar days) or 7 calendar days after the conclusion of a workshop?

Submission of the Draft Report for the Initial Workshop must be within 7 calendar days from the conclusion of the Initial Workshop.

Sample Task

Order Pg 5; 5.0

The schedule lists CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0005. CLINs 0004 and 0005 are for Option Years 2 and 3 of the task order. The main solicitation instructions only state to submit "Price for the Seed Task Order"

Question: Should offerors provide pricing for all five CLINs listed in the Sample Task Order schedule, including the option years (CLINs 0004 and 0005), or only for the base period work (CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003)?

See Attachment B - Price Sheet

33 Attch-4 WD PWS Pg 2; WD Pg 1-

The PWS requires a "Partnering Facilitator" with a minimum of five years of high-level corporate partnering experience. The provided Wage Determination (2015-5563) does not list a "Facilitator" or a directly comparable labor category.

Question: Can the Government please advise which SCA labor category from the provided Wage Determination is considered the most applicable equivalent for the "Partnering Facilitator" role? If no direct equivalent exists, will the Government require a conformance request (SF-1444) post-award?

The SCA labor category that can be considered the most applicable equivalent for the "Partnering Facilitator" role would be 30000 - Technical Occupations.

34 N/A N/A N/A From the PNW USACE leadership team, what does success look like after the first session and at the end of the 12 months of performance?

Performance will be evaluated using each individual Task Order’s Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. Reference Part 7 of the SATOC PWS.

35 N/A N/A N/A What are their initial thoughts on their immediate, mid-term, and long-term goals for the Project Team?

The Project Team will change with each Task Order. Reference the Partnering Playbook: Building Strong Relationships Across the Construction Project Delivery Life Cycle on page 22 of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation for more information on the purpose and applicability of Partnering Sessions. .

36 N/A N/A N/A Are there existing obstacles to achieving success?

Cultural barriers, project team barriers, and organizational barriers (reference the Partnering Playbook).

37 N/A N/A N/A What experience does this group have with behavioral assessments?

It should be assumed the potential users of this Contract have little exposure to behavioral assessments due to the variety of users groups

38 N/A N/A N/A What is the age of this group (newly formed or well established with rotating members)? If older, has this group had facilitation services before?

It will depend on the task order and participating parties.

Attendees in partnering sessions may include diverse groups of stakeholders in addition to the contract parties such as cost sharing public sponsors, other federal agencies (OFA), state and local governments, industry, and others as required to execute a project.

39 N/A N/A N/A What is the education level of group participants?

It will depend on the task order and participating parties, as mentioned above.

40 N/A N/A N/A Can you clarify what percentage of sessions may be virtual vs. in-person?

This will be decided on a task order by task order basis. For the sample task order, assume all 4 workshops will be in person.

41 N/A N/A N/A How frequently will the group size be 50?

This will be decided on a task order by task order basis. This contract is anticipated to have a mix of different group size needs (10 people up to 50 people) based on each user group needs and will be communicated per task order. It should not be assumed every task order will have a group size of 50 people.

42 N/A N/A N/A Can you confirm the preferred platform for virtual sessions (e.g., MS Teams, WebEx)?

MS Teams. USACE no longer uses WebEx.

43 N/A N/A N/A Is there a required format/template for the Initial Partnering Session report and final deliverables?

No. Only required content.

44 N/A N/A N/A How many personnel will be required to support this effort?

Your firm will have to determine how many people it will take to execute each task order, and maintain the base contract. One facilitator is required to attend each partnering session. Other required personnel, such as the ”contract manager” noted in PWS Section 1.5.10, can be found in the PWS.

45 N/A N/A N/A Is this a new requirement, or a recompete? If it is a recompete, could you please share the incumbent contract details.

This is a brand new requirement.