Attachment 6 - Questions and Answers.pdf

Solicitation 1305M325R0014 – Attachment 6 – Questions and Answers

# Question Answer

Based on our internal review of the regulations related to Small Business Set Asides, we have reached the conclusion that an Other Than Small Business' only option for participating in the EPIC program as a prime would be as part of a joint venture with a small business in a mentor protégé arrangement. Can you please confirm whether this an accurate interpretation of the regulations?

13 CFR 125.8 (a) specifies that a joint venture of two or more business concerns may submit an offer as a small business for a Federal procurement so long as each concern is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract, or qualify as small under one of the exceptions to affiliation set forth in 13 CFR 121.103(b). An SBA-approved mentor-protege Joint Venture (MPJV) is one of the exceptions to affiliation detailed in 13 CFR 121.103(b)(6). For an award to a MPJV, the MPJV itself is the prime contractor. The regulations governing joint ventures formed under SBA MPP are explained in detail in 13 CFR 125.8 and 13 CFR 125.9. Alternatively, an Other Than Small Business concern may be included as part of a Prime/Subcontractor teaming arrangement (ref. FAR 9.601(2)) provided their participation aligns with applicable limitations on subcontracting (ref. FAR 52.219-14 Deviation).

I had seen the solicitation closes on 08/12/2025, generally how long would you say it takes before an award can be expected, would it likely be around January or February 2026? NOAA is targeting award in Q2 of FY26.

Regarding the period of performance - Would it be a five year ordering period, or one base year and four one-year option periods?

Per the solicitation, this IDIQ is expected to have a five year ordering period.

Could the Government please confirm if size 9 font is acceptable for graphics and tables?

Graphics and tables with font no smaller than size 9 point are considered "easily readable" in accordance with the solicitation.

Could the Government please confirm the preferred font type for graphics? Font type is at the Offeror's discretion.

Please confirm that the cover letter and table of contents do not count toward any page limits.

A table of contents is allowable within the cover letter - which does not have a page limit. If a separate Table of Contents is included within the Technical Capability Narrative, it is subject to the applicable Technical Capability Narrative page limit.

Will the Government evaluate more favorably contractors who provide 5 TCPs over those who provide fewer than 5?

Evaluation of TCPs will depend on the size, scope and complexity of the TCPs in terms of their relevance to the subject requirements. An Offeror with fewer than 5 TCPs may not necessarily be evaluated less favorably than an Offeror with 5 TCPs if their TCPs are more relevant to the subject requirements than the Offeror with 5 less-relevant TCPs.

8 Can one TCP come from a subcontractor?

Yes, there is no limit to how many TCPs can come from a subcontractor, provided the reliance on team members' qualifications to the same extent post-award would not conflict with applicable limitations on subcontracting.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/part-125/section-125.8#p-125.8(a) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/section-121.103 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/part-121#p-121.103(b)(6) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.8 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.9 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/subpart-9.6#FAR_9_601__d643e21

In Section 8.2.2 “TCP Supporting Documents,” does the contractor need to provide only one of the documents listed under (a), (b), or (c) to be considered compliant?

The contractor is responsible for providing as much contract documentation as is necessary to verify the data entered into Attachment 3 is accurate. If the contract award (which typically includes the PWS) demonstrates all of the claimed elements, there would be no need to submit any other supporting documents (e.g., as detailed in (c)).

Can a contractor submit a TCP in which they are part of a joint venture and act as the Mentor within that JV?

Yes, however, the contractor may only claim credit for the portion of the TCP that the Mentor performed.

Is there a minimum number of TCPs the contractor can provide? No.

Can the Government please confirm if it is acceptable for contractors to tag the required information in the TCP Supporting Documents?

This is in addition to completing all required fields in Attachment 3.

No, contract documentation should not include "tags." The reference column in Attachment 3 can include information to direct the evaluators towards the corresponding criteria element within the contract support documents. Please limit information entered in this column to 100 characters. To the extent that narrative information is provided, Offerors may use the Technical Capability Narrative to provide narrative explanation of the TCPs - note that the page limit for the Technical Capability Narrative has been increased to twelve (12) pages.

Section 4.11 states “IDIQ level Key Personnel, as designated in the Key Personnel clause CAR 1352.237-75, are required to support the EPIC program on a full-time basis, provided their positions are fully funded under a task order.”

Please confirm if an Offeror's technical approach is to provide one or more key personnel on a less than full-time basis (in order to leverage cost efficiencies and provide the best and most senior resources required to make the program successful) that this approach is compliant with CAR 1352.237-75 for both proposal and execution purposes.

The PWS language has been updated to reduce the minimum level of effort for Key Personnel to 50%. The PWS requires four key personnel. For one SME to qualify as key personnel, a 50% commitment to the program across all TOs, if funding is sufficiently provided, is expected. Therefore, the government expects a joint level of effort no less than two FTEs across the four identified key personnel that can span all TOs. Exceptions can be approved by the COR on a case by case basis.

Attachment 3 requires Offerors to specify for each experience reference the number of FTE in each EPIC SOW area. Can the Government please explain how this information will be evaluated, e.g. number of FTE in each area increases Offeror evaluation scores for depth and breadth?

The FTE numbers will not be "scored," but will be evaluated qualitatively within the context of the project description and other supporting documents to help the Government understand the depth of experience in that particular functional area for that project performance. NOAA recognizes that the supporting contract documentation may not conclusively verify the exact level of effort (e.g., that 3.5 FTEs were dedicated to supporting advanced user support exclusively).

Please confirm that documents required by Phase I Volume 5 -Compliance are for the Prime Offeror only and not required of subcontractors.

This understanding is correct. However, If the contractor is leveraging the qualifications of non-prime team members (e.g., subcontractors, JV members) in Volume I, this section shall address how the specific team member(s)’ qualifications will be leveraged during performance in compliance with applicable limitations on subcontracting. In order to address compliance with applicable limitations on subcontracting, the Prime would need to identify each team member's size in accordance with the applicable size standard for the NAICS code the prime contractor assigns to the subcontract.

Offerors often game sample task order pricing to submit lower pricing than what is planned for execution. Would NOAA consider adding a price realism analysis to Task Order 1 evaluation, including language endorsed by the GAO informing Offerors that if their price is unrealistic that it may result in rejection of their proposal?

Alternatively, would NOAA consider an IDIQ rates only price evaluation and no evaluation of Task Order 1 pricing to remove the risk of gamesmanship?

Under the Technical Approach Factor, the Government will evaluate the Technical Solution for TO1, specifically the extent to which their proposed technical approach to executing the work outlined in the TO1 PWS is likely to result in successful achievement of the TO1 PWS objectives. As part of the Technical Solution for TO1, Offerors will be required to provide "A full, itemized list of all labor categories, equipment, software, licenses, warranties, and miscellaneous other direct cost items proposed in support of its technical solution. The Offeror shall include item descriptions, quantities/levels of effort, and line item specifications, but shall NOT include any price information in this section." Should an Offeror propose levels of effort or other resources that are insufficient to accomplish the TO1 requirements, this would be evaluated less favorably under the Technical Approach consideration as opposed to from a Price Realism perspective.

Can a NOAA Project Manager/COR complete the PPQ instead of the Prime Contractor representative if the TCP project submitted was for work completed as a subcontractor under a Prime vendor?

No, the "customer" in the case of a subcontract is the prime contractor. The NOAA PM/COR does not have privity of contract with the subcontractor and therefore is not in a position to evaluate subcontractor past performance. Note that a lack of past performance will be evaluated as neutral. Offerors may advise prime contractors who they've previously worked with that 13 CFR 125.11(c) requires prime contractors to provide past performance evaluations for its subcontractors within 15 calendar days of the request.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/part-125/section-125.11#p-125.11(c)

The Chief Scientist - Earth System Modeling role appears to be new compared to EPIC1. Can the government clarify if this role is intended to be a high-level strategic role that interacts with senior leaders across NOAA and the weather enterprises or more technical. What is the difference between the Chief Scientist - Earth System Modeling role and the Chief Systems Architect role?

The government expects that the Chief Scientist - Earth System Modeling has domain expertise and demonstrated experience in Earth System Modeling development with a solid understanding of scientific drivers of coupled Earth system modeling approaches to improve Earth system prediction. In addition to co-lead the contract work items with the contract leadership team, the chief scientist is expected to help improve the communication between engineers and scientists, both internal and external to the program. The position would help translate strategic and tactical requirements from the scientific community into EPIC work plans and activities. The position would also participate as an EPIC representative on UFS Working Groups and Cross-Cutting Teams, as appropriate.

Interactions with senior leaders across NOAA and the weather enterprise (i.e. other federal agencies, academia, industry) are expected through these venues. The government expects that the Chief System Architect focuses more on the engineering aspects of the program. The position description of the Chief System Architect and the Chief Scientist - Earth system Modeling can be found in rows 9 and 24 of Tab B of the Attachment 5 - Pricing Schedule.

Will the government consider allowing subcontractors to share proprietary and confidential TCP documentation directly with the government instead of through the Prime Offeror as it may contain sensitive information?

No, an Offeror's proposal must be complete. The solicitation does not require any information of a sensitive enough nature that it could not reasonably be shared between two business concerns who are partnering to support the EPIC program requirements.

Para. NOAA Acquisition Manual 1330-52.227- 70, para. 3, pg. 23 - The RFP (pg. 23) requests a Data Management Plan up to two pages describing data handling aligned with NOAA guidance, while detailed data management tasks appear in TO1 PWS. This plan is not indicated in the Phase 1 or Phase 2 Instructions to Offerors.

Question: Should the Data Management Plan be included in Phase 1 or Phase 2 proposals, and may it be excluded from page limitations?

The solicitation has been updated to include the Data Management Plan pursuant to NOAA 1330-52.227-70 (not to exceed two (2) pages) in the Phase 1 submissions under Volume V as a compliance item.

Para. 5. Page Size and Font Limitations, pg. 56 - Would the Government please allow a smaller, but readable, font size for tables?

Graphics and tables with font no smaller than size 9 point are considered "easily readable" in accordance with the solicitation.

Para. 8. Instructions for Phase 1, pg. 57 - Due to file size limitations and potentially voluminous documentation, may bidders submit TCP Supporting Documentation as one or more Appendices to Volume I, and as freestanding files? i.e. "Appendix A to Volume I - TCP1"

Yes. Note that TCP supporting documentation is not subject to the Volume I page limitations. However, Offerors are encouraged to only submit the minimum supporting documents necessary to demonstrate the claimed element.

Para. 8. Instructions for Phase 1, pg. 57 and Para

9. Instructions for Phase 2, pg. 59 - "Would the Government please confirm that Offerors may include a cover page and table of contents that are excluded from any given page limitations?

A table of contents is allowable within the cover letter - which does not have a page limit. If a separate Table of Contents is included within the Technical Capability Narrative, it is subject to the applicable Technical Capability Narrative page limit.

Para. 8.3 Volume V - Compliance Items, pg. 58 - "For Volume V, does the Government want bidders to include the entire solicitation, or only the three items mentioned: SF1449, SF30s, required Reps and Certs?

The Contractor may just submit the signature page of the SF1449 and SF30 and the portions of the solicitation that include representations and certifications. Alternatively, if an Offeror would prefer to submit the entire solicitation document, that would also be considered acceptable.

Para. 8.3 Volume V - Compliance Items, pg. 58;

Para. 1. General Information and Instructions, pg.

55 - "Would the Government please confirm that Government documents (e.g., SF30s, SF33s, or RFP document fill-ins (such as Reps and Certs)) should not be altered except to fill in required information (i.e…no proposal related headers or footers)?"

The contractor may submit proposal related headers or footers on these documents at their discretion (e.g., if it facilitates document organization), but is not required to.

Para. 9. Instructions for Phase 2, pg. 59 - "Would the Government please confirm if the term "foundational capabilities" specifically refers to the 11 bulleted items in the EPIC IDIQ PWS, Para. 3. Objectives and Scope, pg. 4; i.e., from "Project Management"" to ""Machine Learning (ML) for NWP"?" Confirmed.

Para. 9 (incl. several sub items), pgs. 59-60 - "Would the Government please confirm if the terms "foundational capabilities", "foundational elements", and "foundational functions" are effectively synonymous and Offerors should draw no distinctions between them when understanding and responding to the associated proposal instructions?" Confirmed.

Para. 9.0 Instructions for Phase 2, pg. 59, and Para. 9.2.3 Quality Control Plan (QCP), pg. 60 - "The current Para. 9. Instructions for Phase 2 (under Volume II, item 3. Quality Control Plan), includes sub-items "b. Organizational Structure" and "b. Staffing Plan, including Key Personnel Resumes" (two section "b"s) as explicit parts of the Offeror's Quality Control Plan (QCP) that "will be incorporated into the resultant award" (also per 9.2.3.b and 9.2.3.c). In our experience and practice, per ISO 9001:2015/ASQ 9100 Quality certifications and doing QCPs on other NOAA contracts, those two elements are not part of a standard QCP and subject to the associated QC procedures (e.g., subjecting an Offeror's "proposed corporate structure" to monitoring and governance under the EPIC's QCP).

Question: Would the Government consider removing the two items from under Para. 9.2.3 Quality Control Plan (QCP), and placing them under a new Para. such as "9.2.4 Organizational Structure and Staffing Plan"?"

The RFP has been updated to state that "The successful Offeror’s Quality Control Procedures (section (a) below) will be incorporated into the resultant award." However, Offerors should be aware that Key Personnel will be incorporated into the contract via clause CAR 1352.237-75 Key personnel. (APR 2010). Accordingly, Key Personnel resumes govern any substitutions of Key Personnel post-award given that the replacements for key personnel must possess qualifications equal to or exceeding the qualifications of the personnel being replaced, unless an exception is approved by the Contracting Officer.

Para 9.2.1. Technical Solution for the IDIQ, pg.

59; and Para. 9.2.2. Technical Solution for TO1,

pg. 60 - "Para. 9.2.1 instructs Offerors to "provide their proposed approach to executing the work outlined in the IDIQ PWS." and Para. 9.2.2 instructs Offerors to provide "proposed technical approach to executing the work in the TO1 PWS". This could be interpreted as the Government intending Offerors to provide technical approach responses to technical areas such as code management in both 9.2.1 and 9.2.2

- which we do not believe is the case.

Question: In response to Para. 9.2.1, would the Government please confirm that the intent is for Offerors to address 9.2.1 sub-items a., b., and c.

and not all the technical areas redundant of Para.

9.2.2?

The government expects that technical approach in response to TO1 will focus on ensuring a smooth transition and continuity of existing work under the existing EPIC contract, while the proposal approach at the IDIQ level shall focus on long-term goals and technical pathways to achieve it starting from TO1.

Para. 9.2.1 Technical Solution for the IDIQ pg.

59… and … 9.2.2 Technical Solution for TO1,

pg. 60 - Responding to the 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 instructions, and referenced IDIQ and TO1 PWS, requires awareness about the current EPIC architecture components, such as hardware and software (e.g., CI/CD pipeline tools), and associated licenses and warranties, supported platforms (incl Tier 1 platforms), supported compilers, applications and other PWS-specified technical data. This information is known to incumbent contractors and only limited information is currently available to non-incumbent Offerors.

Question: Would the Government please make a comprehensive Bidders Library of such information available to all Offerors with at least 4 weeks to reasonably understand and assess such information prior to commencing Phase 2?

The government has amended TO1 PWS with an additonal appendix to show EPIC architecture in its current status. The government strongly encourages the offerors to review the appendices and submit questions to identify gaps for additional clarifications. NOAA has provided as much publicly releasable information as possible via the additional of Appendix VIII to the TO1 PWS.

Para. 9.2.2 Technical Solution for TO1, pg. 60 - Per 9.2.2.b., per the requirement to provide "A full, itemized list of all… software, licenses, warranties, and miscellaneous other direct cost items proposed in support of its technical solution".

Question: Would the Government please clarify if the requested full, itemized list is meant to include only new software, licenses, warranties and other ODCs beyond what currently exists in the EPIC architecture that are part of an Offeror's solution?

- Or is it meant to also include currently used and required software etc., such as GitHub and Jenkins, that is specified in the TO1 PWS's Appendices?

The list is intended to include currently used and required software, as well as any new software, licesnses, etc. proposed by the Offeror to accopmlish the work.

Para 8.2.3 Technical Capability Narrative , pg. 58 and Para 3. Evaluation Criteria, Factor 1:

Technical Capability, pg. 63 - Per the Evaluation Criteria for Factor 1 (Page 63), would the Government please confirm that the Factor 1 evaluation per Table 1 (page 64) is primarily focused on the Offeror addressing the specific Technical Capability Area Definitions in Attachment 3 (first tab) versus the similar information in IDIQ PWS or the TO1 PWS?

This understanding is correct - the Attachment 3 tab is more general to allow for similar relevant experience (i.e., not directly in support of the EPIC program but similar in scope), whereas the IDIQ and TO1 PWS are specifically tailored to supporting

EPIC.

General Para. 9. Contract Type, pg. 21 - Would the Government please provide a list of Government Furnished Property (GFP) that will be provided to the contractor to perform the duties of Task Order 1 (TO1), per the TO1 PWS?

- Note… The Solicitation, per Page 15 (Government Furnished Property) states that GFP will be "designated at the task order level". There is no GFP associated with TO1.

Para. 4.3.1.1, pg. 6 - Since TO1 is Firm Fixed Price (FFP), it is necessary to bound the level of effort required to accurately allocate FTEs to support the performance of 4.3.1.1. The current language of "Supports at least five Tier-1 platforms…" does not create an upper bound.

Question. Would the Government please update the language of this requirement to create an upper bound so that Offerors may price the FFP TO1 more effectively, such as using the phrasing "Supports up to five Tier-1 platforms..."?

The contractor is required to support at least five (5) platforms, at a minimum. If the contractor is able to support more than five platforms, that would be taken into consideration during past performance evaluation (e.g., could contribute towards a rating associated with exceeding the Government's minimum standards). Should the Government require additional platform support beyond what the contractor could reasonably accomplish in a Firm-Fixed-Price environment, the task order may be modified bilaterally - or a separate task order issued - to accommodate such a change.

Para. 3 Objectives and Scope, bullet Machine Learning (ML) for NWP, pg. 5 - To address ML for NWP, is the Government's expectation that the EPIC contractor will provide pointers to UFS/NOAA Analyses and data products? … Or directly provide the analysis and data products in a publicly accessible database?

The government expects a combination of pointer/products depending on the data sources. This is exceptionally true when format conversation is required to use conventional NOAA data for ML purposes. The offerers are strongly encouraged to review https://epic.noaa.gov/ai/eagle-overview for the current status of this NOAA-wide effort.

Section 8 – Instructions for Phase 1 - Could the government consider extending the phase - 1 submission deadline by two weeks to better align our proposal with the specified requirements?

NOAA has extended the Phase 1 submission deadline to 4:00 PM Eastern Time on Friday, August 15, to ensure Offerors have at least three (3) weeks to finalize proposals after this amendment is released. A longer extension is not feasible at this time to preserve the possibility for extensions in Phase 2 submissions, if needed.

Section 8 and Section 9 – Proposal Formatting - Could the government clarify if landscape orientation is permitted for sections of the proposal?

Landscape orientation is permitted for sections of the proposal at the Offeror's discretion.

Section 8 and Section 9 – Volume I/II Requirements - Could the government clarify if the inclusion of an appendix is permitted?

Appendices are permitted but are subject to the page limitations corresponding to that proposal section.

https://epic.noaa.gov/ai/eagle-overview

Sections 8 and 9 – Cover Letter and Volume Page Limits - The solicitation specifies that a cover letter is permitted in the proposal submission.

Could the Government please confirm whether a separate cover page (distinct from the cover letter) is also permitted, and whether either the cover letter and cover page will count against any stated page limitations for the Technical Approach or Technical Capability Narrative?

The cover letter does not have a page limit. Offerors should not submit a separate cover page (distinct from the cover letter) in their proposal. Any necessary information (e.g., for organization or administrative purposes) should be included in the cover letter. Unless explicitly excluded in the solicitation, any information included in the Technical Approach or Technical Capability Narrative will be counted towards the applicable page limits.

Attachment 2 – TO1 PWS, Section 2.3.4: Earth System Model - The solicitation’s Earth Systems Model requirement appears to be highly specific and may align closely with the incumbent contractor’s proprietary tools or institutional knowledge. Could the Government please clarify whether it is open to innovative, equivalent approaches from other Offerors, or whether this requirement is intended to ensure continuity with the incumbent’s solution?

The government is not able to find a section 2.3.4 in TO1 PWS.

Nevertheless, the Earth system model applications in TO1 PWS refer to applications under the Unified Forecast System modeling framework. While the government encourages innovative solutions to continuously improve UFS throughout the contract, the focus of TO1 is to ensure continuity of software infrastructure, software engineering, and advanced user support to EPIC supported applications. Additional information on UFS can be found at https://ufs.epic.noaa.gov.

Solicitation 1305M325R0014, Section 9.3 – Volume III: Past Performance - The solicitation references requirements related to Earth Systems Modeling. Would the Government consider past performance involving related scientific modeling domains—such as atmospheric or meteorological model development under programs like NOAA’s—as relevant, particularly where the work involved large-scale environmental data, model validation, and operational forecasting support?

Yes, the government considers Earth system modeling projects in all related scientific modeling domains to be relevant.

Solicitation 1305M325R0014, Section 9.3 – Volume III: Past Performance - Would the Government accept past performance focused on a component of Earth Systems Modeling (e.g., atmospheric, oceanic, or land-surface modeling) as relevant, even if the work did not cover full-system Earth Model integration?

Yes, the government considers Earth system modeling projects in all related scientific modeling domains to be Relevant.

Attachment 2 – TO1 PWS, Section 2.3.4: Earth System Model - Is the Government open to the use of modern, open-source Earth system modeling frameworks (e.g., CESM, WRF, FV3) that meet functional objectives but differ in architecture or origin from the incumbent’s tools?

No, the proposal shall focus on providing support to the Unified Forecast System. Additional information on UFS can be found at https://ufs.epic.noaa.gov.

https://ufs.epic.noaa.gov/

Attachment 2 – TO1 PWS, Section 2.3.3: EPIC Enhancements - Could the Government clarify the scope of enhancements expected to the EPIC system? Are enhancements limited to UI/UX and functionality upgrades, or do they also include backend architecture redesign and scientific algorithm integration?

The enhancements can be related to UI/UX and functionality upgrades, or backend architecture redesign and scientific algorithm integration as long as they help fulfill EPIC's mission.

Attachment 2 – TO1 PWS, Section 2.3.4: Earth System Model - Does the Government anticipate or require the Earth system modeling capabilities to be cloud-native or containerized to support CI/CD pipelines, scalability, or integration into NOAA’s enterprise IT infrastructure?

The ESM capabilities shall be platform agnostic and portable to both NOAA and external on-prem and cloud HPC platforms.

Attachment 2 – TO1 PWS, Section 2.3.4: Earth System Model - Could the Government clarify whether the proposed solution is expected to ingest and process real-time environmental data (e.g., satellite, radar, observational), and if so, what protocols and latency expectations apply?

The government does not expect the proposed solution to ingest and process real-time environmental data.

Solicitation 1305M325R0014, Section M.3 – Evaluation Factors for Award - Will the Government evaluate proposed Earth system models based on their scientific accuracy, validation history, and ability to meet NOAA’s predictive performance goals? If so, can the Government share any preferred metrics or benchmark datasets?

The evaluation factor for award will focus on technical capability and the soundness of proposed technical approach relevant to the PWS, in which scientific accuracy, validation, and predictive performance are not listed as requirements.

Solicitation 1305M325R0014, Section 9.2 – Volume II: Technical Capability Narrative - Would the Government allow the inclusion of representative simulated model outputs or visualizations (e.g., ensemble forecasts, climate diagnostics) to demonstrate system capability, or would such material be considered outside the page limits?

The proposal can include model outputs or visualization, as long as they are within the required page limit.

Attachment 2 – TO1 PWS, Section 2.3.4: Earth System Model - Is there a requirement for proposed systems or models to be interoperable with NOAA's High Performance Computing (HPC) or Research and Development Supercomputing Systems (RDHPCS)? If so, are there specific technical standards or interfaces that must be supported?

The proposed technical approach for the modeling system shall be interoperable with NOAA RDHPCS and a few other platforms. Offerers are strongly encouraged to go over the spackstack documentation to understand the current approach and preconfigured platforms supported by EPIC: https://spack-stack.readthedocs.io/en.

https://spack-stack.readthedocs.io/en https://spack-stack.readthedocs.io/en

TO1 PWS Section 4, Tasks; and Section 5, Deliverables - Will the Government provide the estimated level of effort required for Task Order 1 (TO1), including labor categories, labor hours, or FTEs?

Offerors should use their subject matter expertise and business judgement to determine the appropriate labor mix to support the TO1 requirements.

RFP, Section 8.2.1. Attachment 3 - Technical Capability Projects Summary, Page 57 - In Column C, are respondents allowed to provide narrative context for the supporting documents included within the TCP?

The reference column in Attachment 3 can include information to direct the evaluators towards the corresponding criteria element within the contract support documents. Please limit information entered in this column to 100 characters. To the extent that narrative information is provided, Offerors may use the Technical Capability Narrative to provide narrative explanation of the TCPs - note that the page limit for the Technical Capability Narrative has been increased to twelve

(12) pages.

RFP, Section 8.2.1 (d) Page 57 - “For offers from joint ventures, a minimum of one TCP must be provided from each joint venture member (Ref.

13 CFR 125.8(e)… . Offerors relying on the technical capabilities of non-prime team members under this factor, if selected for award, will be required as a condition of award to subcontract to those team members a workshare commensurate with their proportion of the proposed IDIQ…” For clarification, will NOAA please affirm that in a SBA approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture, the “offeror” TCP may include past performance of parent companies and other affiliates, so long as the proposal fully explains and supports use of the referenced contract for the proposed effort (e.g., shared workforce, management, facilities, or other resources), as well as explains the relationship between the offeror and the other legal entity?

Yes, an Offeror may include the qualifications of parent companies and/or affiliates, so long as the proposal fully explains and supports the use of the referenced qualifications for the proposed effort (e.g., shared workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) as well as explains the relationship between the Offeror and the other legal entity. However, the successful Offeror will need to comply with applicable limitations on subcontracting (reference FAR Deviations

52.219-14 LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING (SEP

2021) (DEVIATION SEP 2021)). Per the solicitation evaluation criteria, the Government will consider the relevant experience, expertise and qualifications of the Offeror and its proposed teaming partners (e.g., proposed first-tier subcontractors or Joint Venture members), including the extent that these qualifications can be leveraged in compliance with applicable limitations on subcontracting. The solicitation (FAR 52.212-1 addendum) has been updated to clarify this.

RFP, Section 8.2.1. Attachment 3 - Technical Capability Projects Summary, Page 57 - When describing the TCP criteria, the RFP states that we can use “A single-award IDIQ, including all funded task orders issued against it,” but does not mention the use of multiple-award IDIQs and all funded task orders issued against them.

Are offerors allowed to use multiple-award IDIQs for their TCP submissions? To increase competition, we recommend that the TCP submission allows for the use of a multiple-award IDIQ contract with multiple task orders.

The reason a single-award IDIQ, including all TOs issued against it, is permitted to count as a single project is that generally under a SA-IDIQ, the work across multiple TOs is often closely and integrally related so the collection of TOs represents a coordinated effort or "project." Under a Multiple- Award IDIQ, the TOs are issued competitively and therefore represent distinct scopes of work that are not so integrally related they could reasonably be considered the same "project."

Accordingly, TOs under multiple award IDIQs are considered distinct projects.

RFP, Section 8.2.2. TCP Supporting Documents Page 58 - Does NOAA have a desired naming convention for the TCP supporting documents to ensure easy identification of the supporting material?

There is no required naming convention. However, NOAA encourages Offerors include similar naming conventions across support documents for the same project for consistency and indicate what type of document it is in the title - e.g., TCP1 Award, TCP1 Labor Mix, etc.) so NOAA can easily distinguish between documents for different projects.

RFP, Section 9.4. Volume IV: Price Page 61 - Can the Government please provide further detail as to the make-up of the $250,000 identified as “Other Direct Costs (ODCs) including travel, supplies such as printing, IT equipment, and other materials necessary for Performance” so that Offerors can appropriately evaluate the possible need for additional amounts?

In lieu of providing details, we recommend making the $250,000 a plug number for all offers in the ODC CLIN for the evaluation of total price.

Per the solicitation, Offerors may assume a $250,000.00 CLIN will be included in the TO1 award for Other Direct Costs (ODCs) including travel, supplies such as printing, IT equipment, and other materials necessary for performance.

ODCs are variable and not known at this time, so it's not possible for NOAA to provide a complete list. Offerors may propose a different CLIN amount for ODCs if they deem this amount to be insufficient to cover the anticipated ODCs, but should clearly document the basis of the proposed ODCs, in such a case. For all intents and purposes, the $250,000 is a plug number for all offers in the ODC CLIN.

TO1 PWS Sections 4.3.5.3 & 4.3.6.6, Pages 7, 8 - “Resources provided by NOAA and partners” were mentioned in PWS section 4.3. Please clarify what those resources entail. Are there limitations/stipulations regarding what resources are available/required across task orders? If yes, what are those limitations/stipulations?

Currently, the resources provided by NOAA and partners include the following: NOAA on-prem and cloud R&D HPC systems (i.e., Hera, Orion, Hercules, Ursa, Gaea C6, NOAA cloud HPCs, see user guidaces at https://docs.rdhpcs.noaa.gov/systems) and NCAR HPC system Derecho (https://www.cisl.ucar.edu/capabilities/derecho). The contract team is expected to work with the EPIC program team and NOAA Partner (e.g., NCAR) to update computing requests on an annual basis and adjust the estimates on a quarterly basis to secure the allocations. All TOs share the same allocations.

TO1 PWS Sections 4.5.3. & 4.5.4, Page 11 - Is the contractor responsible for the Scientific validation of community developed code or just providing the tools and capabilities that enable data validation at science level?

The contractor is responsible for integrating tools and capability to enable verification and validation for EPIC supported applications, in collaboration with UFS scientific teams.

IDIQ PWS Sections 3, 4.2, 5, & 10, Pages 5, 6, 7, & 12 - What are the “foundational functions” of EPIC? Are they the 4 “strategic outcomes” listed in Section 3, the 11 “key elements” listed there, EPIC’s “7 investment areas,” or something else?

The foundational function are the 11 key elements listed in Section 3.

https://docs.rdhpcs.noaa.gov/systems) https://www.cisl.ucar.edu/capabilities/derecho

IDIQ PWS Section 4.2, Page 6 - “Innovative solutions to improve model performance”: is model performance synonymous with forecast skill? Or should we [also] consider other dimensions of model performance (e.g., runtimes, resource utilization [e.g., CPU time, memory], versatility, interoperability)?

The model performance can be model computational performance and forecast skill. The objective of such enhancements shall be enabling a public-facing testing and development environment that leverages on-premise and cloud high-performance computing resources provided by NOAA and partners, as stated in the PWS.

IDIQ PWS Section 5. Deliverables, Page 23 - There is a reference to a “Performance Requirement Statement” in “Section 9;” we recommend changing this to a “Performance Requirement Summary” in “Section 10” to match the table of contents item 10.

Thank you, this reference has been updated in the revised IDIQ

PWS.

IDIQ PWS Section 10. Performance Requirement Summary, Page 11 - There is a reference to deliverables listed in “Section 6;” we recommend changing this to “Section 5.”

Thank you, this reference has been updated in the revised IDIQ

PWS.

IDIQ PWS Section 5. Deliverables, Pages 7-9 - The 2nd column of the deliverables table, titled “Time or Frequency,” mentions a “plan following the proposal” but doesn’t state when to deliver this plan — is it at project kickoff? And are these 6+ individual plans or a comprehensive plan? Are these plans separate from the clearly stipulated “comprehensive report annually” for each of these deliverables, featuring online artifacts, PowerPoint slides, documents, etc.?

The schedule to deliver plans in section 5 shall be proposed in the transition plan as required in 4.2, acknowledging that plans requested in the 4.2-4.10 shall use the existing plans from the incumbent as the starting point. All these plans will be shared with the awardee during the transition period. Please note that the timeline for submission of the referenced transition plan has been updated to 60 days post-award.

IDIQ PWS Section 5, Pages 7-10 - The 2nd column of the deliverables table (“Time or Frequency”) seems to specify not just the timing of many/most deliverables, but also their nature and content. Are these descriptions of deliverables normative, or merely informative or illustrative?

The descriptions in the referenced table are considered performance requirements.

IDIQ PWS Section 5, Pages 7-10 - In the 3rd column of the deliverables table, the list of media/formats for several deliverables uses “and” and “or” in an ambiguous manner, e.g., should “...and Power-Point...” be “...or Powerpoint...”

(i.e., illustrative examples)? Or will certain products or formats be required for some or all of these deliverables?

The 3rd column shows how the deliverables were communicated under the current contract. The government will provide guidance with regard to the medium/format once the final project management software is chosen, aiming at simplifying paperwork as much as possible.

RFQ pg. 55 - On page 55 of the RFQ, item 6 instructs offerors to submit Phase I response materials electronically to the listed Government POCs via their email addresses. Given the significant volume of materials that each offeror will be submitting for Phase I, the Government POCs email may not be capable of receiving this high volume. Will the Government provide an alternative method for submission (e.g., portal) that would be more conducive to high-volume, multi-offeror submissions?

Offerors with proposal documents exceeding the 10MB limit may submit their proposals through Kiteworks, a secure FedRAMP authorized file-sharing service approved for NOAA to use. Kiteworks generally allows individual attachments up to 10 GB. Offerors using Kiteworks for proposal submission must include their entire Phase I proposal in the Kiteworks submission. If Kiteworks is utilized, Offerors must email Gwendolynn.Boyle@noaa.gov and Grace.Parker@noaa.gov at least 3 business days prior to proposal submission deadline indicating the email address(es) of the POC(s) responsible for submitting a proposal on behalf of the Offeror. NOAA will send an email message to the designated email address(es) via Kiteworks. After creating a Kiteworks account, the Offeror must then reply back to the NOAA-generated message with the proposal documents attached.

It is the Offeror's sole responsibility to ensure timely submission of proposals whether submitted directly through email or through Kiteworks. Offerors are encouraged to submit proposals in advance of the proposal submission deadline to ensure receipt.

RFP 8.2.2 - The RFQ states, “To be considered ‘official’; supporting contract documents, the documents must have been either provided by or accepted by the Government or client point(s) of contact.” Many deliverables are submitted without formal acceptance from the Government (e.g., PowerPoint presentations, white papers).

How do Offerors substantiate that such items have been “accepted by the Government”?

If a deliverable was provided to the customer without a formal notification of acceptance, the contractor should provide any available evidence of submission to the customer (e.g., email submission, calendar invite showing the attachment was shared, screenshot of uploaded document into shared platform, etc.). In such instances, the Offeror's Volume I Technical Capability Narrative shall include an attestation from the Offeror (or corresponding team member) that the deliverable was provided to and accepted by the customer. The RFP has been updated to clarify this.

May we revise the hours in the proposed labor categories in Attachment 5 to more closely reflect our anticipated team structure or should we stay exactly within the proposed labor categories?

The hours in Tab A. Pricing schedule may not be altered, as the IDIQ Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is being calculated based on those quantities consistently for all Offerors, and adjusting the Quantities would skew the comparability of TEPs. Offerors may propose whatever labor mix they deem appropriate for Tab C - TO1 Pricing, e.g., to reflect a specific team structure.

Is there a recommended ticket/SCRUM management collaboration platform or may we propose alternatives?

The incumbent uses the Atlassian suite (JIRA and Confluence for agile project management). The government is open to evaluate other options if it allows easy transition and is in compliance with NOAA IT security requirements.

Is this grant responsible for the budget for EPIC-managed cloud platform, software, and computing cycles or does cloud/platform/software funding come from elsewhere? Are there limits to software license fees for the program within this proposal?

The contractor is not responsible for securing computational resources, but is expected to work closely with the government to provide estimates of computing needs on an annual basis and update the spend plan on a quarterly basis. The incumbent uses free-tier COTS software as much as possible. Estimated software cost is below $100K per year under the correct contract but the government is open to new options if proposed software acquisition can improve performance with reasonable cost.

In Phase 1 should we provide the actual pricing for an initial schedule of services/supplies in the SF-1449 Page 1 document, or wait for Phase 2 with detailed pricing submittal?

Pricing information should not be submitted in Phase 1. When pricing information is submitted in Phase 2, it should not be included in the SF1449 CLINs, but on the Attachment 5 provided with the solicitation.

Is the mention of Raytheon in the Digital & Social Media Specialist description in Attachment 5 a typo/oversight or does the selected contractor really need to liaise with the Raytheon team in particular?

Yes, this information was inadvertently left in from the incumbent contract labor category descriptions and has since been removed in the revised Attachment 5.

Will the new contractor have access to all the previously generated EPIC resources, webpages, documentation, pipelines, and containers?

Yes, the incumbent will be required to transfer everything developed under the EPIC contract to the awardee.

Will there be a transition period at the end of the current contractor’s tenure (i.e. in early 2026) where the future EPIC contractor can see/learn the operation of the current EPIC infrastructure?

Yes, a transition period will be built into the current contract to allow a smooth transition.

Do all subcontractors need to be small business concerns as a 100% small business concern set-aside?

No, subcontractors need not be small business concerns, however, the successful Offeror will need to comply with applicable limitations on subcontracting (reference FAR Deviations 52.219-14 LIMITATIONS ON

SUBCONTRACTING (SEP 2021) (DEVIATION SEP 2021)).

Per the solicitation evaluation criteria, the Government will consider the relevant experience, expertise and qualifications of the Offeror and its proposed teaming partners (e.g., proposed first-tier subcontractors or Joint Venture members), including the extent that these qualifications can be leveraged in compliance with applicable limitations on subcontracting.

Page 56 - Instructions to Offerors - Section 5.

Page Size and Font Limitations - The Government indicates that Offerors shall use 12 point font, with no reduction permitted except for organizational charts or other graphic illustrations, or in headers/footers. Can the Government please confirm that Offerors may also use a reduced font size for text boxes and tables?

Graphics and tables with font no smaller than size 9 point are considered "easily readable" in accordance with the solicitation.

If "text boxes" as detailed in the question are part of graphics, they are also permitted to be smaller than 12 point font per the solicitation.

Page 57 - Instructions to Offerors - Section 8.1.

Cover Letter. - Can the Government please advise if there is a page limit to the cover letter? There is no page limit associated with the cover letter.

Page 57 - Instructions to Offerors - Section 8.

Page Limit - Can the Government please advise if the 8 page limit for the Technical Capability Narrative is inclusive of a table of contents page?

The Volume I Technical Capability Narrative page limit has been increased to twelve (12) pages. A table of contents is allowable within the cover letter - which does not have a page limit. If a separate Table of Contents is included within the Technical Capability Narrative, it is subject to the Technical Capability Narrative page limit.

Page 58 - Instructions to Offerors - Section 8.2.2 TCP Supporting Documentation - The Government states that for each TCP included in Attachment 3, the Offeror must also submit official supporting contract documentation substantiating the evaluation elements claimed.

Can the Government confirm that "evaluation elements claimed" refers to the information requested in rows 7-11 (pasted below)?

Total Funded Value to date Total Value* (including options that may still be exercised) Period of Performance Start Date Period of Performance End Date (current -including only active/exercised options) Overall Period of Performance End Date* (including options that may still be exercised)

The evaluation elements claimed in Attachment 3 also relate to the Technical Capability Areas and corresponding levels of effort. NOAA recognizes that the supporting contract documentation may not conclusively verify the exact level of effort (e.g., that 3.5 FTEs were dedicated to supporting advanced user support exclusively). The FTE estimates will be evaluated within the context of the project description and other supporting documents to help the Government understand the depth of experience in that particular functional area for that project performance.

Page 61 - Instructions to Offerors - Section 9.4 Volume IV: Price - The Government indicates that the total evaluated price (TEP) will be automatically calculated for each Offeror based on multiplying an anticipated number of hours for each standard labor category and summing up the total per year. Will the Government please consider providing a fair and reasonable price range for the TEP that Offerors are required to bid within? A price range ensures price realism and minimizes the delivery risk for NOAA.

Offerors should use their subject matter expertise and…