RFIs W912DS26RA003_Responses (1).pdf

W912DS26RA003

MATOC for General Architect Engineering Services RFI Responses

Questions that may be of general interest to all OƯerors and/or the Government and that are not readily answered by the proceeding changes will appear below. These questions may have been paraphrased or altered to represent several questions regarding the same subject and/or simply revised to clarify and simplify the question(s). Questions and answers are issued to the OƯerors “for information only” and do not revise the solicitation, plans or specifications.

1. We are preparing our submission and would appreciate clarification regarding the resume section. The RFP states that we may include 50 pages for resumes covering 25 disciplines. Could you please confirm:

Correct, as per the “Submission Requirements” Section E is limited to 50 pages.

A. Does this mean we should provide two resumes per discipline (i.e., 50 resumes in total, one page each)?

No. One resume for each listed key disciplines is required and must be included in Section E. The submission may include additional resumes if desired.

B. Or does it mean we may provide one two-page resume per discipline (i.e., 25 resumes, two pages each)?

No. Resumes should be limited to one page per individual. Section E is limited to 50 pages but does not need to be 50 pages. The submission may include additional resumes if desired. The AE firms submitting packages have the option to utilize these pages as they prefer to provide the required information as requested.

C. Alternatively, can we mix and match (e.g., some disciplines with two one-page resumes, others with one two-page resume), as long as we do not exceed the 50-page total?

Resumes should be limited to one page per individual. Refer to the “Supplemental Information” link provided.

2. For small business participation, is there a target percentage for each category or an overall goal?

There is no specific target percentage for small business participation. The extent of small business participation is part of the secondary selection criteria, which will be measured as a percentage of the total estimated eƯort. Refer to the secondary selection criteria portion of the solicitation for details.

3. If a project is completed in the month of September 2017, will it be considered?

Yes.

4. The RFP requires significant coordination and compilation of detailed project examples, personnel resumes/credentials, and compliance documentation, necessitating additional time to ensure accuracy and completeness. Could we request a ten-business day extension? As we believe that the way the questions are answered may directly impact our approach, team composition, and proposal content.

The submission deadline will be extended.

5. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

A. Regarding the requirements for Infrastructure type projects, can Utility Central Plant Upgrades/Repairs include a new central utility plant – since a new facility would be an upgrade?

Yes. A new Central Plant would be considered an upgrade. You can identify the project with the category type under which you wish it to be considered.

B. Is there a preference for full design projects or should we provide at least one DB RFP project?

The submission packages may include whichever projects best represent the requirements identified and the firm’s capabilities. There is no requirement to provide a DB RFP example. As design experience is emphasized in the primary selection criteria, full designs as part of Design-Bid-Build contracts will be rated more favorably.

6. Qualified Registered Professional Personnel

A. It appears that projects shown on resumes do not need to be construction complete. Is that correct? If so, are construction complete projects preferred?

Concur, projects shown on resumes do not need to be construction complete. The preference on the resume projects is to demonstrate the individual’s overall and relevant experience in the submitted role (key discipline).

B. Regarding Past Performance, should we provide CPARS and if so, are those excluded from the page count.

There is no requirement to provide individual CPARS evaluations. A summary table of past ratings is suƯicient. CPARS evaluation summaries will be pulled from the CPARS system as part of the selection panel’s evaluation of the packages. The AE firms may provide letters of recommendation from customers in Section H of the SF330 as noted in selection criteria “c”.

7. We are forming a new JV and associated UEI for this eƯort. (Not sure what a GOV shutdown does to the UEI assignment process if anything.) Are we good to go if we have a UEI by award or do we have to have it before submission?

Yes, the new UEI would be required by award, but is not required to submit the SF330 for consideration.

8. Can we submit DB RFP projects in Section F, where we were AE1 and prepared the DB

RFP?

9. Can we submit an Aircraft Taxiway/Apron Repairs & Upgrades project in Section F under the “Infrastructure Type Designs”─“Road/Parking Replacement/Repairs” project category?

Yes. You can identify the project with the category type under which you wish it to be considered.

10. Can we submit significantly construction complete (over 80% construction complete) projects in Section F?

Yes, but note it as such on the project information sheet.

11. For the relevant project experience section, can you confirm whether projects that have completed the design phase but not yet construction are acceptable? Based on the context, it seems that design completion may meet the intent, but we’d appreciate clarification.

You may submit a project where the design is complete and not the construction, but it will not rate as high as compared to projects where construction is completed.

12. Is it acceptable to submit projects for which the design was completed after September 2017, but construction has not been completed? Selection Criteria A.

You may submit a project where the design is complete and not the construction, but it will not rate as high as compared to projects where construction is completed.

13. Would it be possible for the following role, not to require a PE license but to be supported by 10+ years of experience and other credentials: Master Planner.

Selection Criteria B

No. The senior project personnel for the Master Planner key discipline will require a P.E. or R.A. for this MATOC. Other registrations will be considered as additional strengths.

14. Please confirm PPQs are acceptable for projects where a CPARS has not been issued.

Selection Criteria C

Yes, PPQs may be provided in Section H to support selection criteria “c”.

15. Will the District consider an AICP in lieu of a PE or RA for the Master Planning discipline?

16. How will ongoing construction projects be evaluated?

You may submit a project where the construction is not complete, but it will not rate as high as compared to projects where construction is completed.

17. Would the District consider projects that are 65-90% substantially complete?

Yes, construction that is substantially complete will be considered, but note it as such on the project information sheet.

18. For the Lean Six Sigma discipline, what specifically does the District want to see or emphasize from this discipline?

A Lean Six Sigma professional certification combines Lean principles with Six Sigma methodologies to enhance process improvement and quality management skills. The key discipline is requested to demonstrate involvement on design and/or construction projects with the mindset for improving processes, eliminating waste, reducing variation, and support quality and eƯiciency.

19. For the Cost Engineer discipline, the solicitation lists a PE as required and a CCP/CPE as a strength. Can the District clarify if a PE is mandatory, or if a CCP/CPE alone is acceptable? Is a Cost Engineer with a CCP/CPE evaluated as equal to a PE?

PE is required for the Cost Engineer key discipline. A CCP/CPE will be considered as an additional strength.

20. What distinction is the District making between “Industrial Engineer” and

“Industrial/Process Engineer”?

Both Process and Industrial Engineers are responsible for improving eƯiciency and quality in manufacturing and production. Industrial/Process Engineers are responsible for designing, developing, implementing, and optimizing industrial processes, looking at the specific processes and how the layout or placement of equipment aƯects eƯiciency and the flow of products. Industrial Engineers provide industrial equipment designs to support the manufacturing or production processes, with a more comprehensive look for how the entire system or multiple processes work together.

21. Given the scope to be covered, would the District consider increasing the number of allowable Section F pages to two each?

No. Section F is limited to 10 pages (1 page per project).

22. The supplemental information on the USACE New York District website is dated 4 May

2017. Can the District confirm that this is the correct document referenced in the solicitation synopsis?

Yes, this is the correct supplemental information link.

23. Please confirm the page limit for Section E resumes. While the supplemental information specifies a one-page limit per resume, the overall 50-page limit exceeds the number of required disciplines. Would the District consider allowing two-page resumes?

No. Resumes should be limited to one page per individual. Section E is limited to 50 pages but does not need to be 50 pages. The submission may include additional resumes if desired. The AE firms submitting packages have the option to utilize these pages as they prefer to provide the required information as requested.

24. Should only the final project CPARS be provided or can both the final project CPARS for the construction and the last project CPARS for the design be provided reflecting the project performance for the entire project?

Yes, both can be provided to reflect the project performance. Note that there is no requirement to provide individual CPARS evaluations. A summary table of past ratings is suƯicient. CPARS evaluation summaries will be pulled from the CPARS system as part of the selection panels evaluation of the packages. The AE firms may provide letters of recommendation from customers in Section H of the SF330 as noted in selection criteria “c”.

25. Would the District consider excluding CPARS and PPQs from the page count limitation so that we can provide them in a comprehensive appendix?

No, the information included in Section H will not be excluded from the page count limitation. Note that there is no requirement to provide individual CPARS or PPQ evaluations. A summary table of past ratings is suƯicient. CPARS evaluation summaries will be pulled from the CPARS system as part of the selection panels evaluation of the packages. The AE firms may provide letters of recommendation from customers and PPQs in Section H to support selection criteria “c”.

26. Will PPQs be evaluated the same as CPARS?

Yes, PPQs will be evaluated and rated/ranked along with CPARS.

27. Past Performance – Does the government want us to include past performance

(PPQs and CPARS) in our proposal? If so, can they go in an Appendix where the pages are not counted?

No, the information included in Section H will not be excluded from the page count limitation. Note that there is no requirement to provide individual CPARS or PPQ evaluations. A summary table of past ratings is suƯicient. CPARS evaluation summaries will be pulled from the CPARS system as part of the selection panels evaluation of the

28. Clarification on Section F Project Requirements

A. We would like to confirm the eligibility criteria for projects listed in Section F.

Specifically, can projects where the design phase is complete, but construction is currently underway be submitted?

Yes. You may submit a project where the construction is not complete, but it will not rate as high as compared to projects where construction is completed.

B. Inclusion of Planning / DD Form 1391 / Study Projects: We would also like to confirm whether it is acceptable to include Planning, DD Form 1391, or Study projects in Section F that do not have a directly associated construction component.

Yes. You may submit a planning or study project, but it will not rate as high as compared to projects that included design and construction.

29. We are requesting, based on similar contracts and requirements with comparable USACE AE MATOCs for consideration of Cost Engineer (Estimator) to be evaluated equally with the currently stated solicitation criteria where there individual has a CCP only and a minimum of 10 years of MII Experience and a minimum of 5 years’ experience within the NAN AOR, 5 years of experience within the NAD AOR and those building types identified within the solicitation.

This is in lieu of the stated requirement of “Cost Engineering (P.E. required. Those with CCP/CPE certification will be considered a strength).” The cost estimating industry and cost estimators specializing in pre-construction services are not typically holders of a P.E.

They typically hold Certifications in cost estimating and this is inclusive of consulting firms as well as the largest construction management companies in the U.S.

Could USACE also define CPE, as there are multiple uses of this acronym in the industry?

PE is required for the Cost Engineer key discipline. A CCP/CPE will be considered as an additional strength. A CPE is a Certified Professional Estimator as oƯered by the American Society of Professional Estimators (ASPE). A CCP is a Certified Cost Professional.

30. For b. Professional Qualifications, please confirm a professional with AICP, RLA, and/or PLA registrations (in lieu of PE/RA) is acceptable for the master planner role.

31. For b. Professional Qualifications, please confirm PLA is equivalent to RLA for the landscape architect role. Some states designate PLA instead of RLA.

Yes, the PLA and RLA are interchangeable for landscape architect role. The terminology varies by state, either designation is acceptable for the Landscape Architect key discipline.

32. The Supplemental Information linked in the solicitation (“Supplemental information on the SF 330 is posted on the NY District USACE website:

https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Business-With-Us/Engineering-Division/”.) states “Use Font type Arial, Font size 9”. For legibility purposes we are requesting that USACE allow 10-pt font, in addition to the 9-pt.

Yes, this is ok. Consider the guidelines for font size on the Supplement Information as a minimum. The SF-330 will not be evaluated diƯerently for using other font styles or sizes as long as the information is legible.

33. The Supplemental Information linked in the solicitation (“Supplemental information on the SF 330 is posted on the NY District USACE website:

https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Business-With-Us/Engineering-Division/”.) states “Use Font type Arial, Font size 9”. Will USACE allow the use of a condensed font, such as Arial Narrow or Proxima Nova Condensed?

Yes, this is ok. The SF-330 will not be evaluated diƯerently for using other font styles or sizes as long as the information is legible.

34. The solicitation lists "Research & design facilities (Armament, Munitions and Communications)" under Project Information.

Please confirm if a radar facility is considered within the scope of "R&D Communications facilities" for the purpose of submitting a Section F example project.

Confirmed. A radar facility would be considered as a communications facility.

35. Under section “b. Qualified registered professional personnel in the following key disciplines” for the Master Planner discipline it requests that they have a “(P.E. or R.A.

required). The AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners) certification is the most recognized and common professional certification for planners working on federal projects.

We respectfully request that you evaluate/rate AICP individuals equivalent to those with PEs and RAs.

36. The Past Performance section mentions CPARS and allows for Letters of Recommendation in Section H of the SF 330.

Please clarify the submission requirements for CPARS/PPQs (if any) and confirm that if submitted, the CPARS/PPQ reports DO NOT count against the 85-page total limit.

No, the information included in Section H will not be excluded from the page count limitation. Note that there is no requirement to provide individual CPARS or PPQ evaluations. A summary table of past ratings is suƯicient. CPARS evaluation summaries will be pulled from the CPARS system as part of the selection panels evaluation of the

37. Under the “3. SELECTION CRITERIA: a. Specialized experience and technical competence” the solicitation indicates that the “government may consider the following strengths.”

Please confirm how these items may be evaluated in the Section F projects.

In rating the strengths of the example projects, the selection panel with consider projects with one or more of the “additional strengths” as a stronger example.

38. The requirements for Infrastructure and New Facility Example Projects explicitly state that "each Example Project shall represent a diƯerent project type." The same restriction is not explicitly stated for the four (4) required Building Renovation Example Projects (which list eight eligible facility types).

Please confirm whether it is permissible to submit multiple Renovation Example Projects of the same facility type.

Yes, this is permissible.

39. It’s a bit diƯicult to see where sections start and stop in the SETC section as published on SAM.gov. The last section (in quotes below) either applies to new projects or all ten projects.

"The above requested projects shall also demonstrate the A/E’s abilities with all of the following:

• Planning and scheduling management of fast-track designs,

• Working on military installation projects,

• Prepare Cost estimates using MII and PACES, (The cost estimator and/or the subcontractor should demonstrate familiarity with the changing dynamics of the current construction market in the Tri-state New York Area with particular emphasis on the Southern New Jersey),

• Preparing drawings in AutoCAD and AutoCAD Revit,

• Experience in the ability to provide a QA/QC plan indicating how the prime plans to manage their team to ensure that quality products are prepared. Demonstrate ability to produce quality designs. Evaluation will be based on the firm's design quality management plan (DQMP) and will consider the management approach, coordination of disciplines, management of subcontractors and quality control procedures.""

The information applies to all ten example projects. In compilation, the 10 example projects together should demonstrate the A/E’s abilities to do those items.

40. Also, it is very restrictive, requiring fast track designs, only military installations (which eliminates National Guard, non-DoD (including Federal), and stand-alone facilities, and cost estimating only in the Tri-state area. If that's the case, we don’t believe this is fair and open competition because only firms on current or previous NAN contracts/executing NAN task orders will be able to meet the requirements. Additionally, the limitation of fast-track designs will severely limit good projects; there really aren’t that many in USACE nor NAN by the oƯicial Code 3 definition, certainly not by four firms (i.e., even if it just applies to the three new projects, that means NAN has issued at least three fast track directives for 12 projects in this time period—at that assumes no actual competition with others). The district will also limit the ability to see projects elsewhere in the US to see the most complex projects. We recommend that you change it to state that all those things are weighted more, but not compliance criteria/requirements.

These are not restrictive criteria for each project. In compilation, the 10 example projects together should demonstrate the A/E’s abilities to do the stated 5 bulleted items. Projects will not be disqualified for not meeting all or any of those abilities. Additionally, the other 6 bulleted items are considered “additional strengths” during the evaluation only. Again, projects will not be disqualified for not meeting all or any of those additional strengths.

41. The requirement to show all projects fully constructed means that there's not a design that will be evaluated that is within three years. Looking for construction complete shows it was constructed successfully but that’s also evaluating the Gc’s performance, to a degree as well as only allowing the district to evaluate dated designs and ratings when you could look at more relevant and current designs. We recommend you change the requirement to “successfully” bid, which could be validated through SAM.gov or FPDS.

Requirement will not be changed. As noted in other RFI responses, “substantial complete” for construction will also be considered, but the project information sheet should be indicated as such. Additionally, performance ratings for both the design and construction portions of the project may be submitted to reflect the full project performance.

42. Please utilize ProjNet for Questions & Answers for full transparency. It's actually a requirement for USACE and will reduce repeat questions plus allow us to see others Q&As and vice versa.

Suggestion noted for future.

43. Please clarify the questions due date which Is not stated in the solicitation. Also, related to that, please ensure there are at least two full weeks after the questions are answered and an amendment is issued before proposals are due. This allows submittals to be adjusted for compliance and changes.

The submission deadline will be extended with the provided responses.

44. Please increase page count for projects (Sec F); one page is not suƯicient to address all the criteria required.

45. There is a requirement for PE or RA license for the Master Planner; please change to the industry standard of AICP Certification.

46. The scoring of projects isn’t clear. Please clarify if the project will only be evaluated for the primary category (reno, infrastructure, or new) or if a project will be weighted more when it also includes elements of the other categories.

Section F shall include 10 example projects. Each project information sheet should be identified with the category under which the project will be evaluated. Four example projects shall represent whole or partial renovation projects. Three example projects shall represent Infrastructure designs. Three example projects shall represent Designs for new facilities. Projects will not be weighted more if they include elements from other categories.

47. The second category of projects (Infrastructure Design, Sec F.) are all restricted to replacement and repairs. New construction is much more complex for many of these, such as road and parking repairs or replacement. Please broaden this requirement to allow for new construction as well.

The language is not meant to restrict new construction. New construction projects under the infrastructure category will be considered equally with the upgrades and repairs. All projects have unique complexities regardless of new/upgrade/repair.

48. Please extend the submission date at least two weeks due to the government shutdown.

49. For the subject opportunity, we were wondering if the SF330 Section F. projects could be partially designed projects? Also, for the renovation projects the construction cost seems too high. Would you consider construction value projects in the $1M+ range for renovations since new construction range for projects is over $10M. We respectfully request a 2 week extension on the proposal due date

Partially completed designs will not be considered.

The scope of this MATOC is for “large scale or more complex projects typically with a construction cost of approximately $10M or greater” as indicated in the “Project Information” section. Therefore, the “$10M or greater” requirement for the renovation project construction cost will remain.

50.

Question RFP section/page Date Submitted

Since DB projects are not issued CPARS, is it acceptable to submit PPQs as an appendix to the response?

Selection Criteria C 28-Oct

Would it be possible to increase the page limit to 100 pages?

Section 4: Submission requirements

28-Oct

Yes, PPQs may be provided. Note that there is no requirement to provide individual CPARS or PPQ evaluations. A summary table of past ratings is suƯicient. The AE firms may provide letters of recommendation from customers and PPQs in Section H to support selection criteria “c”.

No, the page limitation of 85 pages will remain for the Section I portion of the SF330.

Section dividers, front and back covers, cover letter, and Part II of the SF 330 don’t count towards overall page limit.

51. Will USACE NY District allow 2 pages for each project in Section F, without penalty?

52. Under Item 3. SELECTION CRITERIA, Primary Selection criteria, a. Specialized experience and technical competence, the following is being asked for:

Submit at least three (3) Example Projects in SF-330 Section F that demonstrates experience with the following: Infrastructure type designs that include at least one of the listed infrastructure elements as a substantial part of the design.

Please confirm if the infrastructure elements mentioned above are referring to the project types listed in the infrastructure section: Road/Parking Replacement/Repairs; Utility Infrastructure Replacement/Repairs; Utility Central Plant Upgrades/Repairs; and Retaining Wall Upgrades/Repairs.

If not, please provide a list of infrastructure elements USACE is wanting to be included in the infrastructure projects.

Yes, those are the infrastructure elements.

53. Will a formal Amendment be issued?

54. What is the last day to ask questions?

The deadline for submitting questions has been extended to 07 November 2025.