Amendment 0001.pdf

W912WJ26RA013 – SYNOPSIS AMENDMENT 0001

The synopsis is adjusted, as per attached document with updates in red.

1. The synopsis contains the following language: “If the Offeror is a JV, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity.” To accommodate new JVs, would you consider modifying the language to add that “If no JV shared experience is available, offerors may submit projects performed by either JV partner.”

Per the synopsis “If the Offeror is a JV, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity.” If the partners have completed projects together under the JV entity, then those projects should be included. This is not saying that the only projects allowed to be submitted by the JV are ones that the partners have done as part of the JV entity. Note that experience of the JV performing work as an entity may be rated more highly than separate experience by a single partner.

2. In reference to the SETC (Section 3(a) of the synopsis): Do military construction projects referred to in 3(a)(2) count as Federal projects for 3(a)(1) as long as they are >$15M or does the district mean for us to offer a non-military federal project(s) >$15M to be in compliance with 3(a)(1)?

Yes, military construction projects that are >$15M count as federal projects for 3(a)(1).

3. Acknowledging that larger and more complex projects are favored by the district, does the >$15M threshold apply to all projects in the SETC or just 3(a)(1)?

The >$15M threshold applies only to projects under 3(a)(1).

4. In reference to the relevancy of the top 5 projects, per Section 4 Submission Requirements:

Does the District define relevancy for the first five section F projects as addressing one project for each category of the SETC 3(a)(1) thru 3(a)(5) in order, or is relevancy left to the contractor to define and rank their top five projects with the 10 total projects capturing the SETC at least once?

The relevancy is left up to the Contractor to define and rank their top five (5) projects within the 10 projects capturing each of the Specialized Experience and Technical Competence sub-criteria at least once.

5. Under (b) Professional Qualifications (pgs 3-4), the synopsis requires resumes for the following key personnel:

- Mechanical (Large Pump Systems) Engineer

- Mechanical (Hydraulics/Gate Structures) Engineer

Would it be acceptable to provide a Registered Civil Engineer to fill each of these two roles?

Majority of our largest pump station as well as hydraulics/gate structure projects are led by Civil Engineers specializing in the design and construction of the respective systems. This is often due to the multidisciplinary design approach required deliver such projects.

Section 3(b). Professional Qualifications, subsection (1) Line “Mechanical (Large Pump Systems) Engineer” has been revised to “Mechanical/Civil (Large Pump Systems) Engineer” and subsection (1) Line “Mechanical (Hydraulics/Gate Structure) Engineer” is revised to “Mechanical/Civil (Hydraulics/Gate Structure) Engineer”. The resumes will be evaluated in the context of Professional Qualifications criterion stated within the Synopsis.

6. Considering the Memorial Day holiday/long weekend schedule, we would like to request an extension of the submission due date by a week – not later than 2:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time on 12 June 2026. Kindly let us know if possible.

Response date is extended until June 9th, 2026 @ 2pm EDT.

7. Page 3, Specialized Experience & Technical Competence states “Projects shall be listed in order of relevance to the work to be done under this contract as determined by the firm (see Section 3.d below).” Section 3.d is Past Performance; could you please confirm what is meant by “relevance to the work done under this contract?” Should we order the projects by the number of Exceptional Past Performance references, or by scope items, and if the latter, which scope items are of priority and how does the NE District rank the importance of Civil Works Infrastructure projects as compared to Vertical/Military Construction projects?

We consider relevant projects as completed projects that indicate that the firm can successfully complete future design work and other work that falls under this IDIQ scope.

Project order is determined by the Contractor. Per the synopsis under 3. Selection Criteria, “The selection criteria and each sub-criteria are listed below in descending order of importance.” Please refer to the sub-criteria in Section 3(a) to see the order of importance of project work.

8. Page 6, Knowledge of Locality states “with a focus on the six (6) New England states.” Can we add NY to this list, to accommodate the mission at West Point, and given that it is called out in page 1, Contract Information, “Work will primarily be performed within the boundaries of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) New England District (ME, MA, NH, CT, VT, RI, and NY);” and page 4, Civil and Geotechnical Engineers (registered in at least one of the six New England States or NY)?

U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY has been added to the list of locations that fall under Knowledge of Locality.

9. Page 7, Volume of DoD A-E Contract Awards: as this information can sometimes include a few pages, can this section be omitted from the 65-page limit?

Volume of DoD A-E Contract Awards must be part of the 65-page limit.

10. Regarding the requirements for Commissioning Specialist, the synopsis states this role is “defined as architect or engineer” but professional registration is not required. Because professional registration is not required, can we provide a resume for a commissioning professional who is not an architect or an engineer but is a Certified Commissioning Authority with extensive experience commissioning military facilities?

Per the Synopsis, a Commissioning Specialist is defined as architect or engineer to serve as individual ensuring compliance with commissioning requirements for design or construction phases (professional registration not required). While registration is not required, we are still requiring the commissioning specialist to be an architect or engineer.

11. Regarding the definition of "complete" and the Section F requirement to provide "month/year the firm’s work started and completed broken out by design phase and construction phase", please confirm that if a firm was contracted to provide only design services, the project will be deemed complete even if construction is not complete. For example, if our scope of work was development of a DB RFP, it is possible that we would not be involved during construction.

Part 3(a) of the Synopsis states: “Projects in which the firm’s primary work (planning, full design as the A-E for a DBB procurement or the Designer of Record (DOR) on a D-B contract, or development of the RFP for a D-B procurement) was completed within the last 10 years will be given greater consideration and those projects in which the firm’s primary work has not yet been completed will be given less consideration”. In that context, we are defining “complete” as the firm’s primary work as designers, even if they had a role during construction. Nevertheless, we do want information on when design and construction was completed as quoted in the question.

12. We request that 9-point font be allowed for tables and graphics within the SF330, Part I.

Per Synopsis 4. Submissions Requirements: “Font size for data entry cells shall not be less than 10 font”.

13. Reference Section 3(a) Synopsis states that “projects in which the firm’s primary work has not yet been completed will be given less consideration.” Please confirm that “completed” refers to completion of the firm’s primary design scope (i.e., completion of bid/construction documents or final design deliverables), and not completion of construction.

Please refer to Question 11.

14. Reference Section 3(a)

Synopsis states that projects completed within the last 10 years will receive greater consideration. Please confirm that the 10-year period is measured from the solicitation submission due date of 5 June 2026.

Yes, the 10-year period is measured from the solicitation submission due date of June 9th, 2026.

15. Reference Submission Requirements/Due Date Due to the proximity of industry conferences and the holiday preceding the submission deadline, the Offeror respectfully requests the Government consider extending the submission due date by one week. An extension would allow Offerors additional time to coordinate with subconsultants, obtain outstanding PPQ responses, review responses to PPIs, and incorporate any necessary revisions into their submissions, thereby enhancing overall proposal quality and competition.

Please refer to Question 6.

16. Reference Section 1 and 3(h) To assist Offerors in developing meaningful small business participation strategies in accordance with Section 3(h), does the Government intend to establish target small business subcontracting goals for this contract? If so, please provide the anticipated percentage goals by category, if available.

The Government does not intend to establish or provide target small business subcontracting goals for this contract. In accordance with Section 3(h), offerors are expected to identify small business team members. Offerors are required to propose their own challenging, realistic, achievable, and attainable goals. These goals shall be measured as a percentage of the total anticipated subcontracting effort based on their technical approach and market research.

17. What is meant by this procurement is being solicited in accordance with the FAR 36 Revolutionary Overhaul? Those changes are currently pending approval.

Please see class deviation 2026-O0019.

18. While project designs will result in various permitting requirements and resource mitigations, will the NEPA and permitting be run by USACE or another contract?

Permitting and compliance will be the responsibility of the firm.

19. Is the Lead Cyber Systems Security Engineer identified at the MATOC level intended to satisfy the personnel qualification requirements of UFGS 25 05 11 for individual task orders that invoke that specification, or does the Government intend for these to be separate roles?

The Lead Cyber Systems Security Engineer does not need to meet the qualification requirements of UFGS 25 05 11. Specific requirements will be aligned with the then-current guidance at the task order level.

20. If the Lead Cyber Systems Security Engineer and the UFGS 25 05 11 qualified individual are intended to be separate roles, will the personnel certification and qualification requirements associated with UFGS 25 05 11 be identified within each individual task order RFP, or will compliance be required based on the version of UFGS 25 05 11 in effect at the time the task order is issued?

Please refer to Question 19.

21. May the same individual serve in both capacities (MATOC key personnel and task order

UFGS 25 05 11 cybersecurity personnel), provided that individual holds the certifications required by the applicable UFGS edition at the time of task order award?

Please refer to Question 19.

22. Given the emphasis of Civil Works and flood risk reduction, would the Government consider including resumes of key personnel for coastal engineering?

Per the Synopsis, Coastal Engineer is not one of the key disciplines, so no resume is necessary.

23. For the “Lead Cybersystems Security Engineer” position, please clarify whether the Government intends to require compliance with DoD cyberspace workforce qualification requirements under DoDM 8140.03 and/or any legacy DoD 8570.01-M baseline certification category, and, if so, identify the applicable DCWF work role code(s) and proficiency level (or legacy 8570 category/level). "

Specific requirements will be aligned with the then-current guidance at the task order level.

24. We assume the Government will accept any of the qualification pathways permitted for that role and level under DoDM 8140.03 (e.g., certification, education, DoD/commercial training, or experience qualification process). If this is not the case, please identify the specific pathway that is required or preferred.

Please refer to Question 23.

25. Will the Government accept two-page resumes for Section E key personnel submissions?

There is no limit to the number of pages a firm can include per resume, as long as Part I does not exceed 65 pages.

26. Will the Government accept two-page project descriptions for Section F submissions?

There is no limit to the number of pages a firm can include per project description, as long as Part I does not exceed 65 pages.

27. If offerors include resumes for additional personnel beyond those specifically identified in the solicitation as key personnel, will the Government review and evaluate those resumes, and if so, how will those additional personnel be considered during the evaluation process?

We will evaluate the resumes required by the Synopsis. Should Offerors submit resumes for non-key personnel or other labor categories within the submission page limit they will not be evaluated in the context of the Professional Qualifications criterion but will be reviewed as part of the overall submission.

28. Is there a page limitation to Section H?

No, as long as Part I does not exceed 65 pages.

29. Will Part IIs count towards the 65-page limitation?

Per the Synopsis under PIEE Proposal Submission Instructions, the SF330, Part I, shall have a page of limit of 65 pages. Part II does not count towards the 65-page limitation.

30. Given the anticipated volume and potential impact of RFI responses on team composition, project selection, and proposal development, as well as the upcoming holiday weekend occurring within the proposal development period, will the Government consider extending the proposal due date by fourteen (14) calendar days following release of the final RFI responses to allow offerors adequate time to incorporate the Government’s clarifications into their submissions?

31. Within Part 3. Selection Criteria, Part 1.b. Professional Qualifications: Would the USACE accept a Civil Engineer in lieu of a Mechanical Engineer for Large Pump Systems? Civil engineers would have experience in storm water pumping stations, municipal water distributions, and wastewater pumping stations.

Section 3(b). Professional Qualifications, subsection (1) Line “Mechanical (Large Pump Systems) Engineer” has been revised to “Mechanical/Civil (Large Pump Systems) Engineer”.

32. Within Part 3. Selection Criteria, Part 1.b. Professional Qualifications: Would the USACE accept a Civil Engineer in lieu of a Mechanical Engineer for Hydraulics / Gate Structures. A civil transportation engineer would have experience installing gate structures utilizing hydraulics for projects that include entrance structures.

Section 3(b). Professional Qualifications, and subsection (1) Line “Mechanical (Hydraulics/Gate Structure) Engineer” is revised to “Mechanical/Civil (Hydraulics/Gate Structure) Engineer”.

33. Within Part 3. Selection Criteria, Part 2. Professional Qualifications: “The firm will need to demonstrate applicable professional registration in those locations within the task order proposal”. Would the USACE prefer this information in an appendix of the solicitation response or would the USACE prefer firms provide proof of professional registration for each individual on a for each task order.

The firm only needs to list professional registration within the key personnel’s resume.

34. We request clarification regarding the evaluation criteria identified in Section 4, Submission Requirements, paragraph 5, for SF330 Part I, Section F projects. The requirements states that a project must be a single task order or contract and not an IDIQ. However, is it acceptable to include more than one task order covering consecutive work at the same location under the same contract?

Yes, this is acceptable.

35. When will the Government release an addendum to provide answers to the questions submitted? Since some questions may include substantive clarifications affecting proposal development, will the Government consider extending the proposal submission deadline to allow Offerors adequate time to incorporate these responses?

36. Will the Government allow an 11x17 formatted Section D- Organizational Chart count as one (1) page since the solicitation includes 20 key personnel?

Per the Synopsis, 11” x 17” (single side) pages count as two (2) pages.

37. The synopsis asks that specific disciplines "have professional registration in any state by time of award." Please indicate if professional registration in Canada would be sufficient in lieu of a US state. If that is not acceptable, then including a statement that "professional registration in a US state has been initiated and will be acquired prior to award. " will not be considered a deficiency in evaluation of the proposal.

No, a professional registration in Canada is not sufficient.

Per the Synopsis Section 3(b)(1), all proposed personnel are required to have professional registration in any state by time of award.