W912EP25R0009 - Amendment 0004 - Clarifications and Responses - 20250902.pdf

Clarifications and Responses

Through Amendment 0003 for W912EP25R0009

Canaveral Sector Gates

01. Regarding the change in Amendment 0003 from 15 years to 5 years for the

Recency of Past Performance. A request to reinstate the 15-year standard.

a. Please see Amendment 0004, which reinstates the 15-year window for recency of Past Performance.

02. Regarding form PPQ-0 for Past Performance, can offeror’s forward customer responses?

a. Yes. Per the original RFP, Section M, Past Performance, the PPQ-0 is required for any projects for which a completed CPARS is unavailable. Per the instructions on PPQ-0, “USACE requests that the client completes this questionnaire and submits directly back to the offeror.” Further in the instructions, it states, “However, questionnaires may be submitted directly to USACE.”

b. Amendment 0003 added Section L, Instructions to Offerors, which added, “The offeror shall email to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire.” This aligns with the original RFP language, which stated, “The POC provided on those forms will be contacted to verify the past performance ratings provided.”

03. Regarding the requirement for obtaining permission from subcontractors, can this permission be provided via email correspondence?

a. Yes.

04. Please clarify the documentation requirements regarding small business status.

a. Per the original RFP, FAR Clause 52.204-8 was included. Additionally, FAR clause 52.204-7 was incorporated by reference in the original RFP.

These requirements were not changed by Amendment 0003.

05. Regarding the “Cost Section,” the instructions seem to indicate that the CLIN

Costing items must now be submitted in Excel Format.

a. The original RFP requirement stated, in Section M, “Schedule of Prices must be completed and returned.” The original RFP also stated, “No pricing information should be contained in any other volume of this proposal.” Amendment 0003 added Section L, Instructions to Offerors, which clarified the format for submissions, “All price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in

Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel.”

06. Clarification regarding “all information shall be confined to the appropriate file.”

Please explain what this requirement means in practice.

a. Amendment 0003 added Section L, Instruction s to Offerors, which provides submission requirements, with Volume descriptions and limitations, if applicable. Each Volume should be separated and titled accordingly.

b. For example, pricing information is prohibited form being included in any other volume, per the original RFP.

07. Clarification regarding Volume II submission, Section 3, Subcontracts. Please confirm what is required by “citing the applicable PWS subparagraph number.”

a. Please see Amendment 0004, which removes that language. The requirement is intended to outline how the work will be completed by the offeror’s proposed team, including assigned performance to subcontractors, and for compliance with Limitations on Subcontracting

(FAR 52.219-14).

08. Regarding Volume II, Past Performance, Section 6, we request that USACE provide a list of bidders for this solicitation.

a. USACE will not provide a list of bidders. This requirement relates to the

PPQ-0, which is intended to provide the Source Selection Team with

Points of Contact to verify Past Performance Ratings. Providing a POC with another contractor’s facility introduces a potential conflict of interest, and is, therefore, discouraged.

09. Regarding compliance with 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns, can you please confirm whether compliance with FAR 52.219-8 for our team is satisfied?

a. Offeror’s SAM registration, along with the completed 52.204-8, will be verified upon receipt of proposals. Additionally, please see Volume II, Section 3.

10. Clarification requested regarding cost and pricing information.

a. Both the original RFP and Amendment 0003 state that Certified Cost and

Pricing Data are not required. However, the original RFP required a

Schedule of Prices, along with a Firm-Fixed Price per CLIN. Amendment

0003 clarified that “information other than certified cost pr pricing data may be provided in contractor format provided that sufficient data is made available.” Per point 5 above, all price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel

Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel.

11. We are unable to locate the referenced file for Certifications and

Representations.

a. Please refer to the RFP, FAR 52.204-8, which is fillable.

12. Clarification on the newly added requirement of a Structural Engineer. Can the

Engineer of Record and the Structural Engineer be the same individual?

a. Please see Amendment 0004, which removes a separate requirement for

Structural Engineer, as the Engineer of Record must have a structural engineering background.

13. Clarification regarding the Qualifications of Engineer of Record, specifically about licensing.

a. The Offeror’s proposed Engineer of Record can serve as the responsible licensed professional for supplier provisions.

14. Request an extension for due date of proposals to allow offerors to respond.

a. See Amendment 0004, which extends proposal due dates.

15. Request confirmation that this revision is not intended to limit or constrain offerors’ protest rights under FAR Part 33.

a. None of the Amendments are intended to impair an Interested Party’s right to protest under FAR Part 33.

16. Regarding FAR 52.246-18 (ALT IV), Warranty of Supplies of a Complex Nature:

a. What is the rationale for including this warranty clause at this late stage of the solicitation process?

i. This clause replaces the Warranty requirement from the original

RFP, Volume II, Section 01 78 02, page 5. This Clause is more appropriate, as the clause applies specifically to supplies and covers the same 12-month period.

b. Is this clause standard for FRP sector gates, or does it reflect a unique requirement for this procurement?

i. A Warranty similar to this clause has been included in other procurements for FRP gates.

c. How will the Government distinguish between contractor responsibility and

Government-Furnished Property, particularly when modifications or integration work is performed?

i. No Government-Furnished Property is included with this requirement.

17. Amendment 0003 updated Section M to indicate that projects demonstrating VIP fabrication with steel hinges and/or pintles in marine environments will be more favorably rated. Why was this evaluation criterion added so late in the procurement process, after six months of established requirements?

a. This statement is consistent with the original RFP language, which stated in Section M, under Factor 3: Past Performance. The table below 3.1.3, element 7, states “projects where this VIP work with steel hinge and/or pintle coupled to the VIP gates will more favorably rated.” The

Government has consistently indicated that strengths will be favorably rated. Amendment 003 did not “update” this. Past Performance submittals that meet minimum requirements will still be evaluated IAW the solicitation’s stated evaluation approach.