B08.03 Requests for Information with Government Responses 13AUG2025.pdf

• In the B08.02 PWS Apdx B_SMS Assembly Development document, there are screenshots from Builder of some of the assemblies and their makeup. One of the documents provided shows the names of the assemblies and their folder/work breakdown structure but does not show the makeup of the assemblies. Will the actual member data from Builder also be provided? The PWS mentions that the assemblies will need to be built in MII from scratch. If the intent is to build them without knowledge of the makeup in Builder so that they are created with a “fresh set of eyes”, we understand that intent and will operate accordingly. We ask because having the data from Builder would offer two advantages to the government. Firstly, per section 3.2.3, it’s indicated that the contractor must “make (and document) assumptions” and “may contact the COR for guidance”. Having the makeup from Builder may help guide those assumptions and reduce the need to reach out for guidance. We understand the desire to have minimal government intervention and believe this would help make that happen. Secondly, it will reduce the time it takes to create the assemblies and help save the government time and money.

Government Response: The question refers to the solicitation document “showing the names of the assemblies and their folder/work breakdown structure”. Our response presumes the document referred to is the Appendix A (.xlsx) file of the solicitation.

If so, then yes, the expectation is for the awardee to fully develop the assembly (represented by each row of the file) as specified in para. 3.2.4-3.2.7 of the PWS.

However, it’s unclear what you mean by “member data” in BUILDER in the question. Each row in Appendix A represents all the data available from BUILDER for a contractor to develop project item assemblies for each component replacement action. If the question is referring to data and processes that were previously used to develop costs for each component replacement action, that data is proprietary and unknown to the Government. Even if it were known, it could not be shared in accordance with the previous provider’s data licensing agreement.

• Section 3.2.9 indicates that each submittal must be a single MII file (.mlp). With 4202 assemblies, each containing multiple project items, this effort will result in a rather large .mlp file. In our experience, files this large are difficult to work with and can cause delays in standard operation and particularly when trying to save. Is the government open to recommendations on how to break the files into smaller sections organized my type of assembly to optimize usability?

Government Response: While developing the assemblies, the contractor is free to break the work into as many separate .mlp files as necessary to allow for easier and more streamlined development. However, prior to final submission, the Government requests that these separate files be combined and submitted as a single .mlp file. An amendment to the PWS will be issued clarifying this allowance. See revisions at PWS subparagraph(s): 3.2.9.

• Is it the Government's intention for all of the requirements listed in the Instructions to Offerors to be submitted within one pdf? Or should we include the price (including SF1449, amendments, reps & certs) in one volume, and all of the technical requirements in a separate volume?

Government Response: While the Government did not prescribe a specific format for proposals, emphasis was placed on the content itself. Offerors may organize submissions into two volumes:

Volume I, Technical; and Volume II, Pricing.

• Section 3.4.d. Includes a requirement to perform independent technical reviews by experienced architects or engineers (as appropriate). Can this review be performed by an experienced cost engineer or cost estimator?

Government Response: The purpose of involving experienced architects or engineers is to ensure that the assemblies are complete and developed in accordance with the appropriate building codes (beyond being merely “constructable”). If the experienced cost engineers/estimators are sufficiently credentialed and experienced to provide these reviews, the Government will consider this approach. The proposal must explain how these personnel are sufficiently credentialed and experienced. Regardless, the reviews must remain independent (not performed by the same personnel who create the assemblies). An amendment to the PWS will be issued clarifying this allowance. See revisions at PWS subparagraph(s): 3.4.d.

• The Evaluation Confidence Ratings table allocates a "high confidence" rating for "will use a team with experienced cost engineers who are familiar with the MII/MCACES application to develop project item assemblies and detailed construction cost estimates." However, the PWS doesn't include a requirement to develop cost estimates. Can the government please clarify this requirement?

Government Response: Having “a team … familiar with the MII/MCACES application to develop project item assemblies…” is not a requirement of this contract. However, those offerors who demonstrate this competency may be given a high confidence rating on the technical proposal evaluation since this competency demonstrates a level of familiarity with the systems and applications needed to perform successfully on this contract. The language of the confidence ratings will be modified for additional clarity. See revisions within the Evaluation Confidence Rating(s) Table within the “Continuation of FAR 52.212-2” in the Addendum to Evaluation - Commercial Product and Commercial Services section.

• Our company has been researching this opportunity with teaming partner which specialize in Mii projects. With the current demand of 4202 assemblies in 225s, that effort is considerably challenging. To avoid the risk of under performing, we perceive and recommend an updated Period of Performance to: 1 base year and one 6-month option period. This will provide optimum performance and delivery of assemblies that pass inspection and meet approval the first time. Is this a consideration and update the procurement team is willing to accept?

Government Response: The period of performance of this contract is driven by higher-level programmatic requirements and does not have much room for adjustment. However, after re-evaluating at the delivery schedule, we will amend it to allow 270 days to for the contractor to submit the final deliverable (60 additional calendar days to perform the work). An amendment to the PWS will be issued with the revised delivery schedule. See revisions at PWS subparagraph(s): 2.3, 3.6.1, and the period of performance information.