Synopsis Questions and Answers Updated 07-10-2025.pdf

W9128F25RA069 - Q&As

1. With respect to this solicitation (W9128F25RA069), are you able to tell me who the incumbent is? Is there an interested vendors list for this solicitation?

The prior contract was a SATOC with RJH Consultants from Englewood, CO.

2. <Contractor name removed> is going after SOL# W9128F25RA069, Geotechnical AE services MATOC – however within the RFP is states it’s a Small Business set aside – however in Gov-Win it states it’s UR. Can you please verify which is correct. We appreciate the clarification.

There are two solicitations for similar services posted. W9128F25RA069 is a total small business set-aside and W9128F25RA070 is unrestricted.

3. Please confirm intention to award three (3) IDC contracts, rather than one, as indicated in reference #1 above.

The intent is to award 3 contracts that share the $12.5 million in ordering capacity.

Those 3 contracts will constitute the MATOC.

4. We request the following components be excluded from the 75-page limit to ensure firms have sufficient space to fully address Evaluation Criteria a–e:

• Cover Sheet

• Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) / CPARS

• SF 330 Part IIs

• Joint Venture Agreement

Given that our JV agreement is over 40 pages (in order to meet all SBA requirements), and PPQs would potentially be 20+ pages, excluding these elements would allow firms to provide a more complete and competitive response without compromising the clarity or quality of the technical content.

Cover Sheet, Part II of the SF 330, Joint Venture Agreement and Past Performance Submittals will not count towards the 75 page limit.

5. Please consider amending the synopsis to allow for the inclusion of professional services projects completed within the past ten (10) years from the date of the solicitation, rather than limiting eligibility to projects with professional services completed since 2020.

This adjustment would enable small businesses to present a broader and more representative portfolio of specialized expertise and technical competence. For examples, we have a concern with our experience with periodic levee inspections.

Given that more than five years have passed since the last periodic levee inspections were contracted, expanding the timeframe would allow for the inclusion of more pertinent and comparable work examples.

The timeframes in the solicitation will remain unchanged.

6. Please confirm you require either CPARS or PPQs for submitted Section F projects, for Criterion a. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence Yes, some type of client evaluation (CPARS, PPQ, or equivalent) for projects in subparagraph 3(a) are required as part of the Past Performance evaluation.

7. Please confirm that since this is a Total Small Business Set Aside that the small business or similarly situated is 50%+ of the IDC total contract dollar amount.

This is a 100% total small business set-aside. The resulting contracts will contain FAR Clause 52.219-14 “Limitations on Subcontracting”.

8. Please clarify if there is any size limit to the electronic files transmitted to the district via email.

Submitted files should be limited to 10 MB to ensure delivery. If a second email is necessary, that is acceptable.

9. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence (SF 330, Part I, Section F & G):

“Should this read "Section F & H"?

The language is correct. Section G: Key Personnel Participation in Example Projects will showcase the 10 example project from Section F: Example Projects.

10. As we review the synopsis, we wanted to confirm on point of clarification regarding the area of responsibility. While the solicitation notes that the contract is intended for the Omaha and Kansas City Districts, it also states that the services may be provided “for other districts within Northwestern Division Area of Responsibility.”

Can you please confirm whether this MATOC is intended for use across the entire USACE Northwestern Division, or if its use is limited to Omaha and Kansas City Districts only?

The MATOC will be utilized predominantly in the Missouri River basin, Omaha District and Kansas City District. The MATOC will allow USACE districts in Portland, Seattle, and Wall Walla to place orders as well.

11. In addition to my question below, I have one about the “Key Disciplines.” You list the number of resumes needed for each discipline, is this number a minimum or a total allowed?

Minimum

W9128F25RA070 - Q&As

1. I was reviewing the Special Notice released for W9128F25RA070 INDEFINITE

DELIVERY CONTRACT (IDC) FOR GEOTECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE-ENGINEERING

(A-E) SERVICES FOR OMAHA DISTRICT, US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS on June 23, 2025. I was hoping you might be able to inform me if this is a new effort or if there was a previous contractor that performed these requirements? If the latter, would you be able to inform me of the Contract # used for these services?

The incumbent contractor is AECOM Technical Services of Los Angeles, CA. The contract number is W9128F21D0015.

2. Overlapping scope. USACE is required to compete task orders under all MATOCs that have overlapping scopes. Omaha District has a draft synopsis under reference number, W9128F25RA029, for its Unrestricted A-E IDC that includes much of the scope identified in this synopsis. How does the District intent to compete Geotech task orders using this tool? Will Geotech only task orders be issued under this tool and design and Geotech together under the upcoming unrestricted tool? Will the District issue Geotech only task orders under resulting contract?

A: The Omaha District will follow all USACE policies when determining which acquisition tool will be utilized. Specifically, the Directors’ Policy Memorandum, Updated Procedures for the Selection of Task Orders on Architect-Engineer IDCs published on 09 March 2023 which requires small business be given first consideration. The small business MATOC will be considered first for all contracted geotechnical requirements including design. When appropriate, a request for supplemental information will be issued. Historically, the majority of task orders placed under prior set-aside contracts for the similar services have been for levee inspections, levee design, and geotechnical investigations..

3. Overlapping scope. USACE is required to compete task orders under all MATOCs that have overlapping scopes. After reviewing your responses posted on SAM, Olsson reviewed the scope of W9128F25RA070. Given the scope is identical to this one, how does the District intent to determine which contract tool will be used? Is there a dollar threshold where task orders will be competed under this tool? In what situation would this tool not be considered and work sent directly to the Unrestricted SATOC?

A: When two or more Indefinite Delivery Contracts (IDCs) contain the same or overlapping scopes of work, the District will comply with the ordering procedures outlined in EP 715-1-7, ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTING IN USACE, FAR 16.505(b)(1), any Small Business set-aside considerations as well as the Directors’ Policy Memorandum, Updated Procedures for the Selection of Task Orders on Architect-Engineer IDCs published on 09 March 2023 which outlines the Task Order Requirement Notice (TORN) and selection processes. In regard to geotechnical requirements, USACE will always consider in-house performance first, when the requirement cannot be met internally, then external acquisition strategy will be considered. The unrestricted SATOC will be considered only when small business MATOC capacity is insufficient or when the complexity or risk of the geotechnical requirement is significant. There is no stated dollar threshold for this consideration.

4. Synopsis states, "All projects cited shall identify start/complete dates, project size (cost and scope), and professional fee." For Section E. Resumes and Section F.

Example Projects, the SF 330 form only requires completion dates. Please clarify if USACE intends to require start dates in addition to the SF330-required completion dates.

A: For Section E the year in which the Professional Services were completed as well as the Construction completion date (if applicable) is required. If construction is still ongoing, state “ongoing” in lieu of an end date. For Section F, both the start and end date is required. If the project is still ongoing, state “ongoing” in lieu of an end date.