W912DS26RA003 RFIs 1-33.pdf

W912DS26RA0003 RFI Responses

Questions that may be of general interest to all Offerors 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 Offerors “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, this is Section E

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

• Or does it mean we may provide one two-page resume per discipline (i.e., 25 resumes, two pages each? 25 Lead personnel, the extra 25 pages can be used for additional backup support

• 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?

Correct

2. For small business participation, is there a target percentage for each category or an overall goal? Currently, as we are in the market research phase, we have not formally established those goals. We will be putting these values together based on historical data from eSRS, Industry input, and a market analysis.

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. We will be issuing a 7 calendar day extension.

5. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

• 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? If it may fall under both criteria but the board will decide where to place this project.

• Is there a preference for full design projects or should we provide at least one DB RFP project? There is no preference, it is what you think will be your best representation of your capabilities

6. Qualified Registered Professional Personnel

• It appears that projects shown on resumes do not need to be construction complete. Is that correct? Yes

• If so, are construction complete projects preferred? I would say this is a yes

• Regarding Past Performance, should we provide CPARS and if so, are those excluded from the page count. No need to provide individual CPAR’s ratings, a summary table is good enough. All the eval summaries are pulled from CPARS and are tabulated along with a summary matrix for all firms and their subs.

7. We are forming a new JV and associated UEI for this effort. (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 you will need a new UEI by award, but not needed when you submit your SF330

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

Yes

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

10. Can we submit significantly construction complete (over 80% construction complete) projects in Section F? Yes, but needs to be noted

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. Yes, they are acceptable but, may not rank as high as compared to a project 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. They will be considered, but they won’t rank as high compared to projects that are construction complete after Sept. 2017.

• 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.

Sorry, the lead person must have a PE and/or RA license

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

Selection Criteria C. Individual performance ratings outside of CPARS will be considered but CPARs is the golden rule where all the past performance is measured against.

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

Not sure on this one. I would so it should be in addition to a PE/RA, not inclusive of it.

• How will ongoing construction projects be evaluated? They will be evaluated and rated/ranked compared to other projects that are construction complete.

• Would the District consider projects that are 65-90% substantially complete? See response #3 above.

• For the Lean Six Sigma discipline, what specifically does the District want to see or emphasize from this discipline? Not sure on this one.

• 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? No, as stated in the synopsis, PE is required and CCP/CPE is a strength (plus).

• What distinction is the District making between “Industrial Engineer” and “Industrial/Process Engineer”? An Industrial Engineer = “How do we make the entire system work better?”, and a Process Engineer = “How do we make this specific process or line work better?”

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

• 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, it’s still valid.

• 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? There are

25 required disciplines, there are plenty of pages available to submit more info if needed for Section E.

• 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? No need to provide individual CPAR’s ratings, a summary table is good enough. All the eval summaries are pulled from CPARS and are tabulated along with a summary matrix for all firms and their subs.

• Would the District consider excluding CPARS and PPQs from the page count limitation so that we can provide them in a comprehensive appendix? No need to provide individual CPAR’s ratings, a summary table is good enough. I’m the CPARS focal point, before the AE selection meeting starts, I pull all the eval summaries and create a summary matrix for all firms and their subs.

• Will PPQs be evaluated the same as CPARS? They will be evaluated and rated/ranked along with CPARS.

14. 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 need to provide individual CPAR’s ratings, a summary table is good enough. All the eval summaries are pulled from CPARS and are tabulated along with a summary matrix for all firms and their subs.

15. Clarification on Section F Project Requirements

• 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

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, this is ok.

16. 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? A PE Is still required. As stated in the synopsis: “Cost Engineering (P.E.

required. Those with CCP/CPE certification will be considered a strength)”

17. 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.

The selection board will evaluate and determine if their experience/credentials are acceptable.

In addition, a professional with AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners), RLA (Registered Landscape Architect), and/or PLA (Professional Landscape Architect) registrations can typically be acceptable for a master planner role, especially in planning, land development, or urban design contexts. These certifications are highly respected in their respective fields and are often seen as valuable qualifications for planning roles that require expertise in land use, site planning, and environmental design.

However, the exact acceptability may depend on the specific organization or project requirements. Some roles may prioritize a PE (Professional Engineer) or RA (Registered Architect) for technical reasons, but in many planning and design contexts, the AICP, RLA, or PLA credentials are more than sufficient.

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

The terminology varies by state, but the underlying qualifications and responsibilities are the same. If a job description or professional requirements specifically mentions one over the other, it's usually about state-specific terminology, not a difference in qualifications. In most cases, both PLAs and RLAs can perform the same duties in landscape architecture and planning. It's always a good idea to check the specific licensing requirements for the state or jurisdiction you're working in, but in general, PLA and RLA are interchangeable for landscape architect roles.

19. 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. This is ok.

20. 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? This is ok.

blockedhttps://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Business-With-Us/Engineering-Division/ blockedhttps://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Business-With-Us/Engineering-Division/ blockedhttps://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Business-With-Us/Engineering-Division/ blockedhttps://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Business-With-Us/Engineering-Division/

21. 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. Yes, it is.

22. 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. This is ok, see RFI # 17

23. 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 need to provide individual CPAR’s ratings, a summary table is good enough. All the eval summaries are pulled from CPARS and are tabulated along with a summary matrix for all firms and their subs.

• 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. The requirements for Infrastructure and New Facility Example Projects explicitly state that "each Example Project shall represent a different 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

24. It’s a bit difficult 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. RFI #24: Applies to all ten projects

25. 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 official 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. This isn’t restrictive. We are using NAN/NAD boundaries as a guide to use firms that are familiar with working in this region.

26. 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. No change is needed. Construction complete is a metric used to evaluate against other designs that are not yet construction completed.

27. 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. At this stage of the synopsis its not practical. See RFI #33

28. 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. Original response date is Nov 05, 2025 2:00 PM EST. See RFI #33.

29. Please increase page count for projects (Sec F); one page is not sufficient to address all the criteria required. You can use Section H for additional pages.

30. There is a requirement for PE or RA license for the Master Planner; please change to the industry standard of AICP Certification. See RFI #17.

31. 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. The primary selection criteria are listed in the synopsis. There are additional strengths listed that will be used for evaluation purposes: On all ten (10) Example Projects, the government may consider the following strengths for evaluation purposes:

Projects demonstrating experience working at military installations within NAN boundaries.

Projects demonstrating experience working with NYDEC and NJDEP in obtaining environmental permits.

Projects demonstrating experience with Sustainable Design and achieving LEED Silver or better.

Projects demonstrating experience developing or updating PAX/DD1391.

Projects demonstrating experience utilizing a Design Quality Control Plan Projects demonstrating experience in permitting, real estate actions, NEPA documentation, and other agency coordination tasks.

32. 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. No change is needed. Replacement/repairs are needed as a separate category

33. Please extend the submission date at least two weeks due to the government shutdown. A one week extension to 12 Nov. will be issued with this amendment.