A.02.11.03_W912HV19R0001_Questions_and_Government_Responses.pdf

W912HV‐19‐R‐0001 Questions and Government Responses

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Japanese professional acceptable alternatives to U.S. professional qualifications for Mechanical Engineer and Electrical Engineer is indicated as 1st Class Kenchikushi (Setsubi Sekkei). Our understanding is that the 1st Class Kechikushi Setsubi Sekkei qualification is for Japan registered architect.

The Japanese professional acceptable alternatives to U.S. professional qualifications have been revised as part of Amendment 0002

Will the Japanese alternative Kenchiku Setsubishi be acceptable for Mechanical Engineer?

The Japanese professional acceptable alternatives to U.S. professional qualifications have been revised as part of Amendment 0002

Will the Japanese alternative Dai Sanshu Denki Shunin Gijutsushia or Ikkyu Denki Sekou Kanrigishi be acceptable for Electrical Engineer?

Only those qualifications listed in the NOP are acceptable.

Under Selection Criterion B ‐ Professional Qualifications, one of the required disciplines is SDD Accredited Professional. For this discipline, the solicitation mentions a Third Party Certification Professional in the following rating systems: Guiding Principles, USGBC LEED, and CASBEE, and that professional accreditation in all three is required. Does a single person have to hold all three of these certifications, or is it permissible to show two professionals that each hold one or two, as long as all three certifications are covered among the two professionals?

The requirements for SSD Accredited Professional have been revised as part of Amendment 0002.

Under Selection Criterion C ‐ Past Performance, it says that past performance evaluations will be retrieved through PPIRS, and that a PPQ can be used to provide or supplement a firm's past performance with other than US Government clients. Under Submission Requirements, it says that CPARS reports and PPQs are not counted in the page limit. If a project included in Section F does not yet have a CPARS report, do we need to submit a completed PPQ for the project? If a Section F Project does have a CPARS report already in the system, do we still need to include a copy of the CPARS report with our submission?

As stated in Secction C of the Notice of Procurement, "Any credible, documented information on past performance may be considered, but the Government is not required to seek other information on past performance if none is available through PPIRS. "

The solicitation states that we should not repeat information from Sections A‐G of the SF330 in Section H. Is this statement in reference to not repeating Section F project information in Section H? If not, what exactly does this statement mean?

The referenced sentence, near the end of section 4 of the NOP, has been deleted as part of Amendment 0002.

7 Is it permitted to submit Section D Organizational Chart on an 11x17 sheet? All pages within the submittal shall be standard 8.5 x 11 pages.

In paragraph 3.a.1 (Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, Sub‐Criterion (1)) the synopsis states that contractors should show their “Experience in performing engineering services in support of US MILCON and SRM projects in JAPAN as the Designer of Record (DOR) for requirements identified in paragraph 2”. Paragraph 2 lists Host Nation (HN) Construction, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) in addition to US MILCON and SRM Projects. Is it the government’s intent to evaluate US MILCON, SRM, HN and FMS type projects as listed in Paragraph 2?

All relevant past experience will be considered.

Response Date for this solicitation states 19 October 2018. Can we get an extension until 26 October 2018? Response date has not been extended. Bid as advertised.

It states in section 3.a. SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE, Sub‐ criterion (3): “Example projects must be current with contract completion dates within six (6) years of the closing date for this announcement.” Is the CONTRACT completion date referring to the design completion or construction completion date? CONTRACT completion date refers to the completion date for the A‐E services contract.

Please clarify under section 3.b. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, Key personnel 14) SDD Accredited Professional requirements. What are the 3 certification options? Also, can all 3 professional accreditation/certifications be fulfilled with more than one key personnel or must one individual possess all 3 accreditations?

The requirements for SSD Accredited Professional have been revised as part of Amendment 0002.

Is there any classified task orders contemplated for execution under these IDIQs? The solicitations states that there are secure data operations in the types of projects. All project types listed under Paragraph 2 are contemplated. Specific project requirements cannot be provided at this time.

The solicitations states that it is anticipated that there will be Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programs considered for these IDIQs. Can you please clarify what kind of projects are anticipated. We understand that the sensitive nature of the projects may not allow this clarification.

Services related to Foreign Military Sales are contemplated but specific project requirements cannot be provided at this time.

The solicitation states that the preparation of DD1391s and master planning efforts may be included. Should certified planners be included as part of the key personnel?

Only the key personnel listed in section 3b. of the Notice of Procurement are requested.

If projects are passed 65% design completion but not completed yet, will interim evaluations or PPQs be required? Will these projects be considered less favorable if they are not completed or without evaluations?

The information related to Selection Criteria 3.a., Sub‐Criteron (1) has been revised as part of Amendment 0002 to provide an explanation related to projects that are incomplete or without evaluations

The solicitations states that the Japanese equivalences are as follows:

‐ Mechanical Engineer =1st Class Kenchikushi (Setsubi Sekkei);

‐ Electrical Engineer =1st Class Kenchikushi (Setsubi Sekkei);

‐ Communication Engineer =1st Class Kenchikushi (Setsubi Sekkei);

In previous solicitations, the Japanese equivalences were as follows:

‐ Mechanical Engineering = 1st Class Kankouji Sekou Kanrigishi

‐ Electrical Engineering = 3rd Class Denki Shunin Giutsusha

‐ Communication Engineering = 3rd Class Denki Shunin Gijutsusha /

Tsuushinkannkeishikakushou

Do the previous Japanese equivalences still apply?

Our Japanese team members are also asking if JED will allow the following licenses for the mechanical and electrical engineers.

(1) Mechancial Engineer: Kenchiku Setsubishi (建築設備士).

(2) Electrical Engineer: Dai Sanshu Denki Shunin Gijutsushia (第３種電気主任技) or Ikkyu Denki Sekou Kanrigishi (一級電気工事施工管理技士)

Please see the response to questions 1 and 3.16

We would like clarification as to who qualifies as an SDD Accredited Professional per the proposal. Is a person with USGBC LEED accreditation acceptable to be considered an SDD Accredited Professional?

The requirements for SSD Accredited Professional have been revised as part of Amendment 0002.

Page 6 of Pre‐solicitation, states” SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. Architect‐Engineer firms that meet the requirements described in this announcement are invited to submit five (5) hard copies and one (1) CD (electronic format that is searchable in pdf) of:

a. Standard Form 330 Part I (section A through I), Architect‐Engineer Qualifications, Contract‐Specific Qualifications for the prime A‐E and all proposed sub‐consultants.

b. Standard Form 330 Part II, Architect‐Engineer Qualifications, General Qualifications (the prime A‐E and all proposed sub‐consultants must submit current SF 330 Part II).

Can A‐E firms submit the 5 copies + 1 CD submission of Part 1 and Part II in a joint package, or are we required to submit the Part I and Part II sections separately?

SF 330 Part I and Part II shall be submitted together as a single document.

The Notice for Procurement states, “In the event of the offeror is a JV, the offer must be accompanied by the original copy of the Joint Resolution of the Boards of Directors of the firms composing the JV.” Our firm does not require a resolution by the Board of Directors in order to enter into a JV agreement. Question 1a: Will a copy of the JV agreement signed by individuals with vested authority suffice?

Question 1b: Does this information fall outside the 120‐page limit?

Section 1 in the Notice of Procurement has been revised as part of Amendment 0002 to clarify that JV documentation is not required as part of the SF 330 submission.

Please confirm that in the Selection Criteria listed in paragraph 3.a Sub‐criterion (1) at the second bullet, the USACE JED will evaluate offerors’ experience in performing studies, surveys, and other efforts as listed in this bullet in support of USACE JED preparation of Design Build RFPs, but NOT the preparation of comprehensive Design Build RFPs for projects in Japan. If the requirement is for comprehensive RFP packages for DB projects, please consider allowing offerors to demonstrate such experience performed outside Japan.

Sub‐criterion a.(1) has been revised as part of this amendment.

Is it intended that the Environmental Engineer be an accomplished designer in one or more of the Environmental Engineering fields typically associated with water, wastewater, air pollutants, or solid waste management, or is it intended that this individual be accomplished in the performance of environmental impact studies and reviews and the preparation of associated reports?

The government will not differentiate between the two types of work.

The solicitation states that the submission shall not exceed 120 standard 8.5 X 11 pages.

Will a 11 X 17 paper size be allowed for the larger tables and charts such as the organizational chart?

If so, will the 11x17 page be counted as 1 or 2 pages?

All pages within the submittal shall be standard 8.5 x 11 pages.

The RFP states: Key personnel in each discipline shall be registered in the appropriate professional field. Professionals shall possess current registration to practice in the United States or its territories. Japanese professional acceptable alternatives are noted.

The Government will evaluate each individual’s education, training, registrations, certifications, overall and relevant experience, and longevity with the firm.

This criterion primarily focuses on the qualifications of the key personnel for the contract and not the quantity of personnel, which is addressed under the "capacity to accomplish the work" criterion.

Emphasis will be placed on longevity with the firm and participation in the example projects provided under SF330 Section F.

What is considered to be an acceptable registration or certification for the Environmental Engineer?

There is no stated registration or certification requirement for Environmental Engineer.

The RFP states: Key personnel in each discipline shall be registered in the appropriate professional field. Professionals shall possess current registration to practice in the United States or its territories. Japanese professional acceptable alternatives are noted.

The Government will evaluate each individual’s education, training, registrations, certifications, overall and relevant experience, and longevity with the firm.

This criterion primarily focuses on the qualifications of the key personnel for the contract and not the quantity of personnel, which is addressed under the "capacity to accomplish the work" criterion.

Emphasis will be placed on longevity with the firm and participation in the example projects provided under SF330 Section F.

What is considered to be an acceptable registration or certification for the Facilitator?

There is no stated registration or certification requirement for Facilitator.

Given that only 10 projects are allowed in Section F, but the solicitation lists 25 project types, is there a preference or priority for some project types over others? There is no preference or priority for the projects contemplated under this procurement.

We have a project that required a multi‐year schedule for its completion. We were issued separate tasks to complete subsequent phases of work for a single facility: Code 0 (Charrette and DD1391 preparation) Code 3 (Preparation of Design Directive), Code 2 (Design to 35%), and Code 6 (Final Design).

Given that each task order was issued for the continuance of the project at the same location for the same client, can these task orders be featured as a single project despite its multi‐year funding and subsequent multi task order contractual obligations?

This task order series would demonstrate a broader range of service delivery on a single facility than if we are only allowed to feature one task order that illustrates only a single phase of the work.

Reference Sub‐criterion a.(3), For purposes of evaluating selection criteria, the use of the term “project” means a single undertaking executed via a single‐award contract or task order. A “project” is not considered a cumulative effort of single‐award contracts or task orders. An Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) / Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract is not considered a project on its own, but a task order awarded under an IDC or IDIQ would be considered to be a single “project”.

The RFP says: “Specify the total volume of all DoD work awarded to the firm in the last 24 months, to include prime(s) as well as significant subcontractors receiving greater than $500,000 in contract awards. Include stand‐alone or indefinite delivery contract (IDC) task orders issued by DoD agencies within 24 months of NOP closing. Do not include the potential value of an IDC nor options which have not been exercised.”

What criteria should be used to determine if a subcontractor is “significant?” Is the direction “those receiving greater than $500,000 in awards” referring to subs who are receiving that award amount directly from the US government under other contracts, or does it refer to those consultants to whom the Prime expects to award greater than $500,000 of the work expected to be performed under this contract if the prime is selected?

We are a large business with many DOD IDIQ contracts, each of which include the performance of multiple task orders. With the timeframe defined as the past 24 months, we would expect the table listing these tasks to exceed 5 pages, and perhaps more when combined with the task orders awarded to our subconsultants. Is it permissible to include this information in an appendix that does not count toward the page count limitation?

The term "significant subcontractors" refers to any subcontractor receiving greater than $500,000 in DoD contract work either as a prime or subcontractor within 24 months of NOP closing. The Government is requesting the offeror to specify the total volume of all DoD work awarded in the last 24 months ‐ we do not require the information to be broken down into individual projects or task order. The Government may confirm the contract award data via available contracting and performance evaluation data bases.

Under Selection Criteria D, Capacity to Accomplish the Work, the solicitation states to list the full potential value of any current indefinite delivery contracts that a firm has been awarded. Are you interested in our total capacity of awarded contracts or our remaining capacity available on these awarded contracts?

Correction: This is actually Selection Criteria e not d. Please provide the total value of any DoD indefinite delivery or stand‐alone contract awarded within 12 months of NOP closing.

For indefinite delivery contracts, we are interested in the total potential contract value; not awarded task order values.

Under the Key Personnel requirements for the SDD Accredited Professional, would you please confirm the three certification options for which professional accreditation is required?

The requirements for SSD Accredited Professional have been revised as part of Amendment 0002.