FBO_PreSol_Q_and_A_Apr_17,2019.pdf

Additional Pre-Solicitation Questions and Responses - continued:

W912DW19R0020, $85.0M Multiple Award Multi-Discipline Architect-Engineer (A-E) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts, Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Question 25: Regarding Criterion H, Primary Criterion E – Past Performance: The solicitation states that we can include Past Performance Questionnaires for Section F projects. All of our Section F projects are DOD projects; should we include CPARS for these projects?

Response 25: Primary Criterion E – Past Performance on DoD and other contracts states: “CPARS is the primary source of information on past performance. CPARS will be queried for each Prime/JV submitting an SF330. Each project in Section F of the SF330 shall include project owner's contact information.”

The Government does not require submittal of the CPARS records in the A-E SF330. Copies provided will count against the page limitation. Official records of the Government are the source for this criterion’s evaluation. Contact info, including contract /task order numbers and summary ratings, noted in the Section F example project’s text may aid the Government in locating the specific CPARS evaluation.

Question 26: Does NAICS 541330 – Engineering Services preclude a proposal team that is primed by an architectural firm and has engineering subconsultants? Obviously the proposed team would consist of prime and consultants that meet all the requirements for each of the disciplines.

Our question: For the small business contract, will the government look less favorably on a proposal that has the architect as the prime consultant and uses engineering consultants to round out their team? The issue is we want to pursue one of the small business contracts and we are teamed with a small business architect but the engineering team is large business.

There is some confusion in the A-E community on the use of NAICS 541330 vs 541310 and who should prime the proposal. The issue is compounded when the Set Aside includes a Small Business contract.

Must the NAICS code match the prime proposer to meet the small business requirements?

Response 26: The FBO posted NAICS code of 541330 does not prevent firms with other primary codes from competing. An entity can add additional NAICS codes to the System for Award Management System (SAM) website at https://www.sam.gov/sam.

Categorized Small Business firms (competing in Small Business arena), must perform at least 51% of the work. Selection Criterion for Small Business firms is based on primary Criterion A-E and secondary Criterion H. Secondary Criterion F and G do not apply to Small Business.

For the purpose of this procurement, a concern is considered a small business for NAICS 541330 if its annual gross receipts are $15 million or less. Otherwise, it is considered other-than-small business.

https://www.sam.gov/sam

Question 27: I have a few questions for clarification (reference Question 2 and Question 14):

* Am I reading it correctly that it is NOT required for the firms to include the CPARS because the government will be pulling the information from the system?

* In addition, submitting PPQs to support the section F projects, in lieu of a CPARS is also not required?

* If required, or the firm the elects to include the information, can the CPARS and PPQs for our Section F projects be in an appendix?

Response: Refer to Response 25. Copies of CPARS are not required in the SF330.

Primary Criterion E – Past Performance on DoD and other contracts states: “The offerer may (emphasis added) also include past performance information (Past Performance Questionnaires) for the 10 example projects described in Section F.” PPQs are useful if the A-E has not received CPARS ratings for the example project, but are not a requirement for each example project.

Refer to Response 2 regarding PPQs. The Government will allow exclusion of PPQs provided for example projects from the page limitation.

Refer to Response 25 for copies of CPARS. Copies of CPARS provided by the A-E will count against the page limitation.

Question 28: The solicitation limits the resumes being reviewed to a max of 23, and the number of projects being reviewed to 10. Probably for efficiency a number of teams will have 1 page resumes and 1 page projects. If we assume a max of 2 sheets for sections A-C, and 2 sheets for Section D Org Chart, and 1 page for Section G matrix, then for SF330 Sections A thru G there is potentially 23+10+2+2+1 = 38 pages. That leaves 42 potential pages remaining to the 80 page limit. Since there is this overarching 80 page limit to the SF330 Part I, we would like to request that the 15 page limit be lifted on the SF330 Section H, so the 80 page limit remains the governing factor. Or at the very least raise the Section H limit to 20 pages so the selection criteria can be more properly addressed.

Response 28: The submittal requirements (total of 80 printed pages, with Section H limited to 15 pages, and Part II excluded from the limit) remain unchanged. Refer to Question/Response #27, which also allows the exclusion of PPQs submitted for the 10 example projects from the page limit.