Solicitation W9127N26QA122 A0001 - Qs and As Final.pdf

Solicitation W9127N26QA122 – NWP Operations CAD Drawing Vectorization BPA

Questions Received as of 27 JUL 2026

(There are duplicated questions on this list. In an effort to get all questions captured and this list to my technical team and contractors, I have included all comments received).

• Solicitation is posted at :

https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/33f16805eb254e628f5b379e1f8e617d/view

• Current closing date is 30 JUL 2026 at 4:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time.

• Amendment A0001 for released- 28 JUL 2026 Extends the solicitation closing date to 5 August at

4:00 PM PDT.

• Please reference the updated documents:

o A1 – NWP Operations Bid Schedule CAD Vectorization Services REV 1 (Excel Worksheet) o A3 – NWP Operations PWS CAD Vectorization Services REV 1 (PDF) o Reference Addendum 52.212-1 as a typo was corrected there.

o A4 – NWP Operations BPA CAD Vectorization Services Terms & Conditions

Q1: Is there any incumbent/recompete or is this a brand-new project

A1: This is a new requirement and project.

Q2: Drawing complexity/size and the per-drawing price. Attachment A1 (Bid Schedule) prices each drawing as a single "EACH" unit by turnaround time, while PWS §9.0 indicates source material ranges from ANSI A hand sketches to dense ANSI F multi-discipline sheets. Will the Government consider sub-tiers by drawing complexity and/or sheet size within the pricelist? If a single flat EACH price per turnaround tier is required, how would the Government prefer offerors should account for the wide range of drawing complexity in that price?

A2: USACE is defining the drawing complexity as follows: COMPLEXITY – LOW, MED, HIGH. Examples of the three drawing complexities will be uploaded to this amendment SAM.gov publishing on 7/29/2026.

Q3:Estimated quantities and historical distribution. The "Drawing Quantity" fields in Attachment A1 are shown as TBD. To support reasonable and consistent pricing, can the Government provide (a) the estimated annual quantity of drawings, and (b) the approximate historical distribution of orders across the six turnaround tiers and across drawing sizes and disciplines (civil / structural / mechanical / electrical)?

A3: The purpose of this BPA would be to streamline getting drawings vectorized in a timely manner. Of the USACE Portland District Operating Projects (Willamette Valley being only one of the projects) – WVP has thousands of drawings requiring conversion. In the last two years, over 400 have been done on individual purchase orders. Having this vehicle will increase the government’s ability to vectorize more https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/33f16805eb254e628f5b379e1f8e617d/view drawings in smaller batches as needed. This BPA is open for use for the entire district rather than just the Willamette Valley Project.

Q4: Representative sample drawings. Would the Government be able to provide one or two representative sample source files (e.g., a typical scanned PDF/TIFF and, if applicable, a redline example) so offerors can calibrate pricing to the actual level of effort? Any sample marked for offeror reference only would be helpful.

A4: USACE is defining the drawing complexity as follows: COMPLEXITY – LOW, MED, HIGH. Examples of the three drawing complexities will be uploaded to this amendment SAM.gov publishing on 7/29/2026.

Q5: Deliverable format split. PWS §4.0 and §9.0 reference both Bentley MicroStation CONNECT (.dgn) and AutoCAD (.dwg) deliverables. Approximately what percentage of the anticipated work is expected to be delivered in MicroStation CONNECT (.dgn) versus AutoCAD (.dwg)?

A5: USACE is phasing out the use of MicroStation. I believe all drawings will be requested in AutoCAD moving forward.

Q6: PWS §5.0 requires proof of insurance within five days of award but does not specify coverage types or minimum limits. Can the Government confirm the required insurance types and minimum limits, the certificate holder, and any additional-insured wording it expects?

A6: This is a template hold-over and not necessary in this requirement. This has been removed from PWS, A3 REV 1 uploaded on the 28 JUL amendment A0001.

Q7: The Addendum to 52.212-1 (Item 4) directs offerors to enter pricing on "Attachment 1 – BPA Test and Sampling Pricelist," while Item 5 requires a completed "Attachment 1 – BPA Bid Schedule." The attachment provided with the solicitation is labeled "Attachment A1 – Bid Schedule."

• Can you confirm that the Attachment A1 Bid Schedule (Timeline / Drawing Quantity / Unit / Est. Unit Price / Est. Total) is the correct and only pricing document required?

• Another related question: should offerors leave the "Drawing Quantity" and "Est. Total" columns as TBD, or will the Government provide estimated quantities for evaluation purposes?

A7: Please complete only the D6-D8, D14-D16, D18-D20, D22-D24 & D26-D28 on each calendar year tab within the Excel spreadsheet titled A1 – NWP Operations Bid Schedule CAD Vectorizations Services.

The Drawing Quantity will be provided with each Call as it is provided the agreement holders to provide pricing. The Estimated Total will be calculated then as well, when the Quantity is provided for pricing.

Addendum 52.212-1 (item 4) has been revised to reflect the proper attachment title.

Please reference the RFO FAR Part 12-201-1 (e) (3) (https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-12#FAR_12_104) for further definition on a Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA) – if there are additional questions.

Q8: Please provide a recommendation on how to estimate the total cost per turnaround time request.

We are asking for clarification on what “TBD” in the amount column means as that would determine the level of effort and subsequently, pricing.

A8: USACE will be aligning the drawing complexity descriptions (addressed in A2 & A4 above) and will work to get large bundle call orders solicited with as much lead time as possible. However, there are times when large bundles may require a quick turnaround time. The quoting contractor should think through the differing complexities in the turnaround requests.

Q9: Billable "drawing" definition. A1 prices by "EACH" drawing. Is a single-sheet file one unit? How is a multi-page PDF or multi-sheet set counted, one drawing or one per sheet?

A9: Each electronic CAD drawing produced would be a unit. If there are multiple sketches to be placed on a drawing, this will be captured in the complexity tier.

Q10: Source file legibility. The PWS sets no minimum quality standard for furnished files. How are illegible or heavily degraded files handled: clearer copy provided, excluded, or addressed as a change under PWS 11.5?

A10: Some of our drawings are extremely hard to read. USACE will commit to reviewing the drawing prior to submitting, and in the instance the winning call order contractor cannot read the drawing – that contractor must inform the call officer. The call officer, Contracting Officer and contactor will determine the path forward.

Q11: Pricing vs. size/complexity. A1 varies price only by turnaround. May unit price also varies by drawing size (ANSI A to F) or complexity, or is a single flat per-drawing rate per turnaround tier required?

A11: See A4

Q12: Workload characterization. Can the Government describe the drawings in the initial Calls:

approximate age, typical source condition, predominant sheet sizes and disciplines, and estimated first-year volume?

A12: WVP alone has thousands of drawings to vectorize, this is a Portland District vehicle, likely the possibility of 600 drawing conversions in total.

Q13: Scope per drawing. Do all Calls require a full redraft to the CAD standards in PWS 9.0 and the Call Order Form, or do some involve varying conversion of existing compliant CAD files?

A13: Mostly this vehicle will be submitting .Tifs and .pdfs for conversion, so full redraft.

Q14: Government-furnished standards. Will the Government provide the current USACE CAD standard and NWD supplement seed files (ERDC/ITL TR-24-3) at award or Call placement?

https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-12#FAR_12_104 https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-12#FAR_12_104

A14: Yes, a link will be provided.

Q15: PWS requires the contractor's software to remain current with Bentley MicroStation CONNECT, AutoCAD 2023, and AutoCAD 2025, and notes that call orders will specify either .dgn or .dwg deliverable format. May a BPA holder maintain AutoCAD capability only and perform call orders designated for AutoCAD (.dwg) format, or is MicroStation capability required of all BPA holders at time of award?

A15: USACE is phasing out the use of MicroStation. Likely, all drawings will be requested in AutoCAD moving forward.

Q16: Would AutoCAD LT 2025 satisfy the AutoCAD software requirement for 2D vectorization deliverables? AutoCAD LT produces the same native .dwg output for 2D drafting.

A16. Yes, but this may limit call opportunities.

Q17: PWS paragraph 11.3 references an invoicing threshold of $25,000, while other sections of the PWS and the Terms and Conditions reference $2,500. Could you confirm the correct threshold.

A17: This is a typo, the current threshold in USACE is $2,500.00. The Army has updated the GPC cardholder’s services threshold under a formal agreement to $25,000.00. However, USACE and NWP are still formulating how this will be exercised, so for now USACE GPC Services threshold under a BPA is at $2,500.00 but it will change in the near future to the $25,000.00.

Q18: The RFP lists that projects can be completed in either MicroStation or AutoCAD. Does the contractor need to have both systems?

USACE is phasing out the use of MicroStation. I believe all drawings will be requested in AutoCAD moving forward.

Q19: I have just signed up for the sam.gov contracting and I have not received my actual CAGE code back from SAM yet.

A19: You can submit a quote however, if your registration is not active in SAM by the time the solicitation closes, we will not be able to accept it.