Synopsis_GAES_-_Category_4_-_March_1,_2019.pdf

General A-E Services for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Center

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Document Type: Solicitation Solicitation Number: W912DY-19-R-0035 Posting Date: March 1, 2019 Response Date: April 1, 2019 by 10:00 am Central Standard Time NAICS Code: 541330 Engineering Services Product Service Code (PSC): C211- Architect & Engineering Services - General

CONTRACTING OFFICE ADDRESS: US Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Center, P.O. Box 1600, Huntsville, AL 35807-4301

II. DESCRIPTION

CONTRACT INFORMATION. This is not a Request for Price Proposal (RFPP). This is a

Request for Capability Statement. This procurement is for Architect & Engineering (A-E) services and will be procured in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.6, A-E Services procedures and Selection of A/E Statute.

The U.S. Army Engineering and Support, Huntsville Center (CEHNC) intends to procure four (4) suites of a firm, fixed-price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) for General A-E Services (GAES). Work will be issued by negotiated firm-fixed-price or labor-hour task orders. The Period of Performance (POP) is a one (1) year base with four (4) one-year options, for a total of five (5) years. The total IDC contract value shall not exceed a shared capacity $49 million. The small business size standard for NAICS 541330 is $15M. The Government’s minimum obligation shall not exceed the minimum guarantee of $1,000.00 for the life of each contract. The capacity will be shared between all four categories and there will be one statement of work (SOW) for the entire IDC.

When CEHNC conducted market research to maximize small business usage, many A-E forms showed relevant experience in multiple Functional Areas; therefore the A-E services will be divided into four (4) categories covering (7) Functional Areas (FAs). There is not an incumbent for this requirement.

THIS NOTICE IS FOR CATEGORY 4 ONLY (see Project Information).

The Government intends to solicit separate submissions for each of the four (4) categories identified below. Separate submissions are required for each category. Therefore, contractors shall submit a SF330 for each category to be considered for award in the various categories. The following is the tentative schedule for each of the categories to be solicited:

Categories Synopsis Open Date Synopsis Close Date

Category 1 - General November 2018 January 2019

Category 2 – Cyber February 2019 March 2019

Category 3 – Various Specialties September 2018 October 2018

Category 4 – Cost March 2019 April 2019

*NOTICE: For details on each of the Categories, please see Project Information below. The capacity is shared between all four categories.

The main activities that comprise the source selection process for this A-E IDC:

1. Public Announcement.

2. Receipt of SF330 Data.

3. Conduct Pre-Selection Evaluation Board (if needed).

4. Conduct Source Selection Evaluation Board (i.e. interviews, ranking, report etc.)

5. Approval of Selections.

6. Issuance, Evaluation, and Negotiation of Price Proposals (Request for Price Proposal).

7. Preparation of Contract Award Documents.

a. After the evaluation of qualifications has taken place and a determination of the most highly qualified firms has been made, the Government will issue a Request for Pricing Proposal for review and negotiation as needed for an award. If negotiations are not successful with an A-E firm, negotiations will be conducted with the next most highly qualified firm, and so on, until the anticipated number of A-E contracts are awarded.

b. If a small business is anticipated to receive an IDC award, the Contractor shall adhere to FAR

52.219-14 – “Limitations on Subcontracting”. If an “other than” small business is anticipated to receive contract award under these IDC suites, an acceptable small business subcontracting plan shall be submitted prior to award of the basic contract. It will be incorporated into the contract and set forth an agreement that Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women Owned Small Business (WOSB), HUBZone Small Business, Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB), and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the performance of the contract.

III. PROJECT INFORMATION: The Contractor(s) shall provide engineering and architectural services primarily in support of USACE Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville programs. These services may include but are not limited to the following seven (7) functional areas (FA): (1) General Military Facilities Design/Studies to include but not limited to Architectural and Engineering designs, drawings, plans, specifications (all major disciplines to include AT/FP), Design-Build RFP development; bid document preparation, Design criteria development, Construction Cost Estimation/Schedule Preparation, Facility condition surveys/studies; testing; HAZMAT surveys; GIS surveys; engineering forensics, Value Engineering Studies, Specification updates and policy input, Design reviews, Independent Technical Reviews (ITR) support, Site planning, Facility Planning, Economic Analysis, Construction Cost Estimating, Construction Phase Support (2) Facility Commissioning to include but not limited to Fundamental, enhanced, and retro-commissioning and post-occupancy validation HVAC, electrical, plumbing, control systems (3) Facilities Cybersecurity to include services primarily related to real property facility systems (HVAC, controls, etc.) and NOT related to personal property or non-installed equipment (4) Facility High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) Studies/Design (5) Facility Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), Reliability, Availability, & Maintainability (RAM), and TEMPEST Analyses (6) General Military Facility Cost Engineering/Estimating to include but not limited to Planning estimates, parametric estimates, and detail estimates, Reviewing cost portions of DD1391 documents, Development of schedules and project controls documentation (7) Explosives and Blast Engineering to include but not limited to Development of Explosive Safety Plans, Explosives effects/mitigation, Protective construction, Explosives safety studies/reports.

a. Based on the market research, the Government made the determination that seven (7) FAs would be combined in the following four (4) categories:

Categories Functional Areas

1 – General FA 1. General Military Facility Design/Studies FA 2. Facility Commissioning

2 – Cyber FA 3. Facility Cybersecurity

3 – Various Specialties

FA 4. Facility High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) Studies/Design FA 5. Facility Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM), and Tempest Analyses FA 7. Explosive and Blast Engineering

4 – Cost FA 6. General Military Facility Cost Engineering/Estimating

b. The Government anticipates each category will have up to three (3) firms for the small sub-suite

(small businesses) and three (3) firms for the unrestricted sub-suite. The following is the number of firms per sub-suite on the GAES IDC. The A-E Firms shall identify clearly which sub-suite they are proposing on and proposal for other categories other than the highlighted one below are not being accepted at this time.

Categories # of A-E Firms for Each Sub-Suite (Estimate)

1 – General 3 Small

3 Unrestricted

2 – Cyber 3 Small

3 Unrestricted

3 – Various Specialties

4 – Cost 3 Small

IV. LOCATION. Projects for this requirement include the following areas: United States and its

Territories, Afghanistan, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. It is anticipated that a majority of the work will be performed in the office of the A-E firms.

V. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS. When on a military installation, the Contractor and all associated sub-contractors employees shall:

a. Comply with applicable installation, facility and area commander installation/facility access and local security policies and procedures (provided by Government Representative). The Contractor shall also provide all information required for background checks to meet installation access requirements to be accomplished by installation Provost Marshal Office, Director of Emergency Services or Security Office. Contractor workforce

b. Comply with all personal identity verification requirements as directed by DoD (Department of Defense), Headquarters Department of Army (HQDA) and/or local policy. In addition to the changes otherwise authorized by the changes clause of this contract, should the Force Protection Condition

(FPCON) at any individual facility or installation change, the Government may require changes in the Contractor security matters or processes. Additional security requirements may apply such as those required to fulfill OPORD 2013-74 (Integrating Antiterrorism (AT) and Operations Security (OPSEC) into the USACE Acquisition Process).

VI. SELECTION CRITERIA. The source selection process for this acquisition will evaluate the following primary selection criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance. The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

A. PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA

Criteria Description

Criteria 1 Specialized Experience & Technical Competence

Criteria 2 Professional Qualifications

Criteria 3 Past Performance

Criteria 4 Capacity

Criteria 5 Knowledge of Locality

1. Criteria 1: Specialized Experience & Technical Competence

1.1 AE Firms competing in the unrestricted category will submit eight (8) projects that demonstrate the proposed team’s recent and relevant experience in in general military facility cost engineering/estimating. AE Firms competing in the small business category will submit five (5) projects that demonstrate the proposed team’s recent and relevant experience in in general military facility cost engineering/estimating.

1.2 Key projects may be performed by the prime contractor, joint-venture partners, or key subcontractors that are being proposed as team members on this proposal. A key subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor where there is a demonstrated history of project partnership where they have performed (and are anticipated to perform) at least 20% of the overall effort on a project.

1.3 The Offeror shall provide a sufficient amount of information to allow for a clear evaluation of the items listed below.

1.4 A summary of the overall project may be submitted, however, the material shall be clear to highlight the specific work that the proposing team directly performed for each project.

1.5 Each project will be submitted using SF330 Part I, Section F form (no more than one (1) page) per project.

1.6 The A-E Firm should not submit a base contract IDC as a project example.

For a submitted project to be considered ‘recent’, it must have been completed within the last five

(5) years. This does not include the completion of any associated construction projects, only the completion date of the portion of the project related to FA6, General Military Facility Cost Engineering/Estimating. Otherwise, the key project will not be considered ‘recent’ and will not be acceptable for further evaluation.

1.7 Relevancy of key projects will be evaluated in terms of: project complexity, customer and project type (of equal importance).

a. Project complexity: Large, complex projects will be more relevant than smaller, less complex projects. Projects related to the design of new facilities will be considered more relevant than projects that are part of the design of additions, alterations, or renovations of existing facilities.

b. Project types: Projects demonstrating experience in cost estimation and cost engineering associated with design and construction of new facilities or major renovations will be deemed more relevant than those associated with facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization projects. Projects demonstrating experience with the use of Tri-Service

Automated Cost Engineering Systems (TRACES) will be deemed more relevant than projects where these systems are not used. The TRACES modules include the following:

Micro-Computer Aided Cost Estimating System Second Generation (MII):

Parametric Cost Estimating System (PACES)

Cost Book/Unit Price Book (UPB

Area Cost Factors (ACF)

Historical Analysis Generator (HII)

Cost Risk Analysis (Crystal Ball)

c. Customer: DOD projects will be considered more relevant than other federal and private sector projects. Other federal projects will be considered more relevant than private sector projects.

2. Criteria 2: Professional Qualifications

Using SF330 Part I, Section E, the Firm shall submit two (2) resumes for each of the following key personnel:

i. Project Manager

ii. Cost Engineer

It is requested that the Firm not submit any resumes beyond what is being requested. It is recommended instead that the personnel be reflected in the organization chart with appropriate certifications/registrations annotated.

2.1 The Cost Engineers should have at least 8 years’ experience in the field of cost engineering and shall be certified as either a Tri-Service Certified Cost Engineer (CCE) or Tri-Service Certified Cost Consultant (CCC) and/or an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Certified Cost Professional (CCP) or Certified Estimating Professional (CEP). A cost engineer with both a Tri- Service Certification and AACE Certification will be looked upon more favorably than a cost engineer with only a Tri-Service Certification or an AACE Certification.

2.2. The submitting A-E Firm shall provide a Certificate of Authorization, equivalent certification, or (otherwise) a letter explaining why the firm may, by law, practice architecture and/or engineering in at least one state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States as required by FAR 36.601-4(b).

2.3. The A-E firm shall submit a matrix that demonstrates each key person and the key project that they have participated in using SF330 Part I, Section G.

2.4. The A-E firm shall submit an organization chart of the proposed team that clearly demonstrates the team and organizational relationships among key personnel, delineates responsibility, and identifies for which firm each person directly works. This org chart should be no greater than 11x17 and may not exceed one (1) page using SF330 Part I, Section D.

2.5. The Government will evaluate the relevant experience and career longevity of the key personnel relative to the scope of this requirement with greater consideration given to the key personnel team who has: (1) had a longer career of having specialized in relevant projects and (2) demonstrated a history of having worked together on the key projects listed.

a. Lack of a Certificate of Authorization will constitute non-responsiveness and will constitute an unsatisfactory rating for this criteria.

2.6. Criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5 will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating methodology:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Adjective Description

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

3. Criteria 3: Past Performance

3.1 Past Performance will be evaluated primarily upon official information available about the key projects that have been submitted under the Specialized Experience & Technical Competence criteria.

3.2 For key projects performed for the U.S. Government, the A/E Firm shall provide a copy of the final signed performance evaluation from the A/E Firm Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). For non-Federal Government projects, the A/E Firm must solicit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to be completed by a customer representatives who was directly involved in the oversight of the firm’s work. These questionnaires must include instructions to send the responses directly to the Contracting Officer responsible for this acquisition. The PPQs document that should be used is located in Appendix A.

3.3 The government reserves the right to evaluate past performance evaluation information from any other relevant sources for recent and relevant projects performed by the prime A/E Firm, key sub-contractors and joint venture partners. The Government may elect to consider any credible and reliable information obtained from other sources. In the event that adverse past performance information is obtained from the PPQ or other sources, the firm will have the opportunity to respond to any adverse information received which it had not had a previous opportunity to comment.

3.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements and delivering high quality products and services as indicated by that Offeror's record of past performance.

a. In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and its proposed key subcontractors. The prime contractor(s) and proposed key subcontractor(s) will be assessed individually, and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the Offeror’s Past Performance rating.

b. For prime contractors or key subcontractors whose firms are divided into severable segments

(i.e. division, group, unit, etc.) the past performance will only be evaluated as it relates to those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

3.5 Past Performance references will be reviewed to determine the relevancy of the past performance information. Past performance must have occurred within the five years prior to the closing date of this solicitation and be similar in scope and complexity to be considered relevant. The evaluation will use four levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below. More relevant past performance will be treated as a stronger predictor of future success and will therefore have more influence on the overall performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating methodology:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4. Criteria 4: Capacity

The A-E firm should provide a logical narrative explanation (with charts or other aids as necessary) to analytically demonstrate their capacity to perform the following additional workload above and beyond other work projected to be performed during the period of performance of this IDC. This information will be provided in SF330 Part I, Section H.

4.1 For firms proposing as large (unrestricted) businesses:

a. Provide specific details on your current and projected capacity to perform the ADDITIONAL workload of two (2) relevant task orders with a total combined fee of $700k over a 6-month period.

b. Provide specific details on your current and projected capacity to perform the ADDITIONAL workload of a single task order with a fee of $1M over a 12-month period.

4.2 For firms proposing as small businesses:

a. Provide specific details on your current and projected capacity to perform the ADDITIONAL workload of two (2) relevant task orders with a total combined fee of $300K over a 6-month period.

b. Provide specific details on your current and projected capacity to perform the ADDITIONAL workload of a single task order with a fee of $500k over a 12-month period.

More consideration will be given to firms who can effectively demonstrate a greater capacity to effectively handle additional workload.

5. Criteria 5: Knowledge of Locality

The A-E firm shall provide a logical narrative explanation (with charts or other aids as necessary) to demonstrate their familiarity with having worked (or ability to work) in multiple geographic locations. This information will be provided in SF330 Part I, Section H.

5.1. Greater consideration will be given to the A-E firms with the capability to perform work in diverse locations rather than only having experience in one geographic area due to the geographical diversity anticipated of the task order requirements.

5.2. If two (2) or more firms are technically equal, the secondary criteria will be used as “tie-breakers” and the final ranking of firms decided.

SECONDARY SELECTION CRITERIA

The table below shows secondary criteria in descending order of importance includes:

Criteria Description

Criteria 6 Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation

Criteria 7 Volume of DoD Contract Awards

6. Criteria 6: Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the extent of participation of small businesses (including SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB). The greater the participation, the greater the consideration will be given.

a. Firms that are “other than” a small business concern proposing shall include an estimated percentage of involvement of each SB category.

Small Businesses submitting as the prime A-E will automatically be given the highest level of consideration for this criteria.

b. The following clauses will be incorporated into the resultant contracts:

FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns

FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages- Subcontracting Plan

FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting

DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

7. Criteria 7: Volume of DoD Contract Awards

a. The A-E firm shall provide a statement of the volume (expressed in total number of contracts) of DOD A-E contract awards or contracts that have been active in the last 12 months). The objective is to ensure an equitable distribution of DOD A-E contracts among qualified firms, including small business concerns.

b. Contract awards may be obtained from CPARS, and verified and updated during the interviews with the most highly qualified firms.

VII. JOINT VENTURE /MENTOR- PROTÉGÉ AND SUBCONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS:

When proposing as a joint venture,

a. All members of the joint venture shall provide a draft written agreement designating one (1) firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the submission from further consideration.

b. If this is an 8(a), HUBZone, or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned joint venture, the Offeror should ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124, 13 CFR Part 125, and 13 CFR Part 126 respectively.

c. When proposing key subcontractors (those expected to perform at least 20% of the overall effort for this IDC), proposing firms shall submit a letter of commitment signed by the subcontractor verifying the subcontractors commitment for the duration of the IDC.

VIII. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

Interested parties are to:

a. Submit One (1) SF330 (see Engineering Pamphlet (EP 715-1-4, Competing for A-E Contracts Awarded by USACE)) for instructions on completing your submission. (Appendix B – Blank

SF330)

b. The SF330 and supporting information shall be submitted in 3-ring binder(s)

c. The tabs for the binder(s) shall be as follows:

Tab 1 – SF330 Form in its entirety (Part I & II) Tab 2 – SF330 Supporting Documents (reference documents which are included in the page count) Tab 3 – Documents excluded from page count (For example: cover letter, section tabs, abbreviation/acronym page letters of commitment, the certificate of authorization, and PPQs/PPIR/CPAR reports)

Firms shall submit one original copy of their submittal with four (4) additional copies, for a total of five (5) printed copies.

d. Each binder submitted shall include a CD/DVD ROM containing a complete copy of the contents of that respective binder. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the

CD/DVD ROM and all files contained therein are readable, complete, and accessible without password.

i. The digital files shall be provided in a word searchable PDF format.

ii. Each disc should be externally labeled with the volume(s) number(s), date, solicitation number and the Offeror’s name. Self-extracting .exe files are prohibited.

If the electronic copy and hard copy of the submission differ, the hard copy will govern.

Zip disks are not permitted.

e. The SF330 Part 1 shall not exceed 60 pages, including no more than ten (10) pages for Section H. Each side of a sheet of paper is considered one page; use no smaller than Arial or New Times Roman 10-font type; and a page number should appear at the bottom of each page (along with the submission revision number for the amended page, if amended).

f. Paper Parameters - Paper parameter and font restrictions do not apply to the SF330 form.

Margins: Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1”

Gutter: 0”

From Edge: Header, Footer – 0.5”

Page Size: Width – 8.5”

Page Size: Height – 11”

g. The following pages are excluded from the 60 page count: cover letter, section tabs, abbreviation/acronym page, letters of commitment, the certificate of authorization, and PPQs/PPIR/CPAR reports. Ensure to include the DUNS number and email address of the point of contact in Part I, Section H. Offerors shall register in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submission of SF330s. Pages exceeding the allowable page count will not be evaluated. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. Double-sided printing is preferred.

This notice and the solicitation will be issued in electronic format only. Paper copies of the notice and solicitation will not be available.

h. Other methods of requesting this notice or the solicitation will not be honored. The solicitation will be posted to FedBizOpps. Firms can search for the solicitation under Solicitation Number: W912DY-19-R-0035. Offerors can register on the FedBizOpps site for the vendor collaboration tool so that possible partnerships and subcontracting opportunities may be identified.

It is the offeror’s responsibility to check FedBizOpps site as necessary for any posted changes to this solicitation and all amendments.

i. A project-specific design quality control plan shall be prepared and approved by the Government as a condition of contract award, but is not required with this submission.

j. In Section H, indicate the estimated percentage involvement of each firm on the proposed team.

No additional project information will be given to firms during the announcement period.

IX. Submissions shall be submitted to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Center

CEHNC-CT-PREAWARD

ATTN: Sharla R. Andrews / Therisa Means / Kijafa T. Johnson-Cooper 5021 Bradford Drive NW Huntsville AL 35816

a. Hand carried submissions shall be dropped off at the same location proposals are to be submitted for this acquisition. The mailroom entrance is located at the back of the building and is clearly marked from the outside. The mailroom personnel will receive the packages, date stamp, x-ray as appropriate and contact the person identified on the package. Hours of operations for the mailroom hours is 0800-1500 Central Time, Monday-Friday, excluding federal holidays.

b. Hand carried submissions shall be date stamped by the mailroom personnel by the specified due date and time.

c. FACSIMILE OR EMAIL TRANSMISSIONS ARE UNACCEPTABLE.

The penalty for making false statement in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

THIS NOTICE IS FOR RESPONSES TO CATEGORY 4 ONLY.

X. Questions in reference to this notice are to be submitted to the Government by Monday, March 11, 2019 by 2:00 PM Central Time via ProjNet (www.projnet.org) using Bidder Inquiry Key: FY4R8E- GS94E6. Responses to the questions will be posted on FBO.

XI. Point of Contacts:

Sharla Andrews (Contract Specialist) Office Number: (256) 895-7429 Sharla.R.Andrews@usace.army.mil

Therisa Means (Contract Specialist) Office Number: (256) 895-1128 Therisa.A.Means@usace.army.mil

Kijafa T Johnson-Cooper (Contracting Officer) Office Number: (256) 895-1614 Kijafa.T.Johnson-Cooper@usace.army.mil mailto:Sharla.R.Andrews@usace.army.mil