B01_Attachment_9_Amendment_Eight_Questions_Received_121625_and_During_Industry_Day_10.pdf

Questions received on or after December 16, 2025, and during Industry Day:

1. Task Order Not Referenced in IDIQ’s Section F Submission:

It is understood that any Task Order description submitted in Section F should not be referenced or described in the IDIQ’s Section F submission. Could USGS confirm if this interpretation is correct and clarify if there are any exceptions or additional considerations?

2. Task Order Contains a Clear and Distinct Scope Not Duplicative of the IDIQ:

The guidance states that the Task Order must contains a clear and distinct scope that is not duplicative of the IDIQ. Given that Task Orders issued as part of an IDIQ contract must include services that are within the scope of that IDIQ, we would not be able to use any Task Order as a separate Project F description if this criteria is to be met. Further, typical IDIQ contracts often require similar services (such as ground control surveys, data acquisition and processing, product development, etc.) across multiple Task Orders, could USGS clarify what constitutes a “distinct” scope in this context? Is it acceptable to provide a detailed Task Order description in Section F, even if the services overlap with those described in the IDIQ, as long as the Task Order itself is not referenced in the

IDIQ’s Section F submission?

3. Task Order is Independently Relevant to Section F:

The requirement that the Task Order be “independently relevant to Section F” is somewhat ambiguous, especially since IDIQs often have overlapping requirements for multiple Task Orders. Could USGS clarify what is meant by “independently relevant”? Is it permissible to submit a Task Order description in Section F that was awarded under an

IDIQ, in addition to the IDIQ contract description, provided the Task Order description stands alone and is not referenced in the IDIQ’s Section F submission?

Response: To clarify questions 1 through 3 the revision will read as follows: If an IDIQ contract is listed as a Section F project, a Task Order issued under that IDIQ may be submitted as a separate Section F project, as long as it meets the period of performance criteria listed above and below and it is not referenced or described in the IDIQ’s Section

F submission.

4. Will USGS require the contractor to task for satellite data, or will this solely be processing from existing satellite data provided by USGS?

Response: The GPSC5 specifies having the ability to process geospatial data from existing satellite data. There is not a requirement for the contractor to acquire via satellite.

5. Do you see any CMMC (Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification) language or requirements throughout the life of GPSC5?

Response: At this time there is no requirement from the Department of the Interior for contractors on DOI or associated Bureaus to have a Cybersecurity Maturity Model

Certification. Should DOI change this requirement the USGS would work with the

Department to understand requirements for implementation.

6. Is there a breakdown of the excepted budgets for 3DEP versus 3DHP projects? Are 3DEP and 3DHP collections expected to coincide or be separate areas? Slash projects?

Response: The Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 and beyond has not been approved by

Congress, so there is no breakout for 3DEP and 3DHP projects.

7. Will USGS require the contractor to task for satellite data, or will this solely be processing from existing satellite data provided by USGS?

Response: The GPSC5 specifies having the ability to process geospatial data from existing satellite data. There is not a requirement for the contractor to acquire via satellite.

8. Do you anticipate much sonar based bathymetry?

Response: We anticipate the possibility of an increase in sonar-based path imagery compared to the GPSC4 projects.

9. When requesting a copy of the completed PPQ for a section F project, we were informed by USGS that instructions were explicit. They don't want to send the forms while the procurement is active.

Are you ensuring that USGS PPQ evaluators are aware that they must provide them?

Offer with the completed copy of the PPQ form to include the offer submission.

If so, could you confirm that USGS will be providing copies of completed PPQ forms to offers before the response date?

Response: USGS will only provide the completed PPQ’s to the offers prior to the response date for completed projects/Task Orders or an Active IDIQ’s. If a PPQ was sent to USGS for an Active project (meaning Active Task Order) the PPQ cannot be completed as the project is not complete.

10. With the holidays coming and more amendments coming, can you extend the proposals due dates to the end of January?

Response: The Due date has been extended through January 30, 2026. Responses shall be submitted via Email to GPSC5@usgs.gov by 5:00pm ET, January 30, 2026.

11. Can you confirm 10 firms total will be selected? Could you indicate how many small business versus large business? Historically, we have seen six large business and four small business IDAQ awarded.

Do you see any changes for GPSC5?

Response: We do not anticipate seeing any changes for GPSC5.

However, it is all dependent on the submissions and the submissions of what we get, so there is a high probability. It'll be very much like GPSC 4 so, but keep in mind it's all dependent on what we receive.

12. It would be greatly appreciated if the USGS would consider extending the due date two weeks to the end of January considering the recent government shutdown and holidays.

Would the USGS consider extending?

Response: The Due date has been extended through January 30, 2026. Responses shall be submitted via Email to GPSC5@usgs.gov by 5:00pm ET, January 30, 2026.

13. The response requires PPQs even if CPARS are available for every project in Section F.

There is at least one USACE District that will not complete a PPQ if requested and relies on only CPARS for past performance evaluations. For firms that are strong with USACE mailto:GPSC5@usgs.gov mailto:GPSC5@usgs.gov and have projects exemplifying qualifications performed for USACE, this presents a challenge since we would not be able to use those projects that best represent the firm’s qualifications in the Section F. Would the USGS consider not requiring a PPQ if a CPAR is available?

Response: If a project or IDIQ has an interim or final CPARS rating, the PPQ does not need to be submitted. The synopsis has been updated to reflect this change.

14. The industry day expounded upon descriptions of equipment as important for grading the proposals. What constitutes a good description of say aircraft and sensors? Would manufacturer, model and general nomenclature be sufficient or are narrative descriptions required?

Response: Listing the manufacturer, model and general nomenclature will be sufficient.

15. Can the government please confirm the font size to use on all sections of the SF 330?

Response: Font size shall be no less than 10 in Times New Roman Font. This has been added to the synopsis.

16. Paragraphs under Qualifications Minimum Requirements: The second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs all list services required. However, there is a distinction in paragraphs three (i.e. for large business) and four (i.e. for small business). Do the second and fifth paragraphs apply to both business classes? Response: The second and the fifth paragraphs apply to both business classes as they list the required services for both classes.

If yes, then why have the business classes, since all the services apply to both business classes and there is no distinction? Response: There is a distinction of large and small businesses in regard to the types of data collected. The business classes are also separated due to the fact they will be evaluated separately.

17. Paragraphs under Qualifications Minimum Requirements on the services and data to be collection. During the Industry Day presentation USGS emphasized that the 3D programs will be heavily used under this contract. Should these services be specifically mentioned here so all submittals comply with the same requirements?

Response: Per the Qualification Minimum Requirements, the services listed encompass the services required from the various 3D programs.

18. Seventh paragraph under Qualifications Minimum Requirements: This paragraph states:

“Work shall be performed with a quality system that complies with ANSI/ISO/ASQC

9001:2015 family of standards,…”. Please clarify that “complies” does not mean

“certified”?

Response: Complies does not mean certified.

19. Ninth paragraph under Qualifications Minimum Requirements: This paragraph requests:

“The contractor shall express their interest in providing priority service for new data captured under a state-of-emergency,…”. Paragraph 13, also addresses the Emergency

Tasks and has similar requirements (slight differences). Several items:

1st – suggest the two paragraphs be combined since the majority is duplicated, but clearly state the requirements, since there are differences (i.e. within hours or days vs within a few hours).

Response: Paragraph nine was revised to remove the emergency tasks as it was duplicative, however requirements cannot be listed as they are determined by each Task

Order.

2nd – If you keep the items in paragraph 9, then refer to paragraph 13 for providing the information (i.e. Section H).

Response: Paragraph nine was revised to remove the emergency tasks as it was duplicative.

3rd – What Factor do we express our interest in providing the emergency tasks?

Response: There is no specific Factor this would fall under but would be included in the additional information in Section H.

20. Pricing paragraph: Minor clarification to this sentence: “There is a mandatory 23% minimum acceptable small business goal for each contract awarded.” Please add “…for each large business contract awarded.”

Response: Updated the synopsis to reflect for each large business contract awarded.

21. Evaluation Criteria: This addresses the “Factors”, which are all in Section H, but there is nothing to address how the Sections A thru G are evaluated. Are we to assume that these

Sections are not evaluated on an equal basis to Section H Section H is for additional information If not, then how are they to be evaluated, since the Evaluation Criteria for

Section H is very detailed, and give the order of importance, but no mention of Sections

A thru G. Please clarify the importance, since that will allow all submittals to comply with the requirements?

Response: The Evaluation Factors A-F are listed in descending order of importance and are the only thing that is evaluated. The various Sections of the SF330 are to be filled out and completed and are not evaluated. If we receive an incomplete SF330, the offer will be deemed non-responsive.

22. Evaluation Criteria; Factor A: As we read this paragraph you do not want any CPARS submitted in the entire submittal. Please clarify that is a correction interpretation?

Response: CPARS will be pulled by the Government and does not need to be submitted.

23. Evaluation Criteria; Factor A: A couple of clarifications, since there still appears to be differences in the solicitation:

7th Paragraph states: “A PPQ must be accompanied by each project listed in Section F.”

6th Paragraph states: “Completed Task Orders must have a final rating in CPARS or a

PPQ submitted.” (emphasis added to “OR”).

2nd Paragraph states: “If an active IDIQ does not have an interim or final rating in

CPARS, a PPQ must be submitted.”

We understand that if a CPARS is not available then a PPQ must be submitted. Please clarify if you want a PPQ for each project listed in Section F or if there is a final CPARS then no PPQ is required?

Response: If a project or IDIQ has an interim or final CPARS rating, the PPQ does not need to be submitted. This has been updated in the synopisis.

24. Evaluation Criteria; Factor A: Another clarification:

The 4th paragraph states: “IDIQ’s must have a period of performance that falls within the last five years. (e.g. 2018 – 2023, or 2022 – 2027, etc.)”

The 7th paragraph states: “Projects and PPQs submitted must be for projects (Active and

Completed IDIQ’s and Completed Task Order’s/Individual Projects) that have a Period of

Performance that falls within the dates starting on or after January 1, 2020, and ending on or before December 31, 2025.”

Do you want only projects that fall within the 1/1/2020 to 12/31/25 time frame?

Response: We have changed all areas of Factor A to include “Period of Performance that falls within the last five years. (e.g. 2018 – 2023, or 2022 – 2027, etc.)” We have also revised other dates that are highlighted in Factor A to reflect these date ranges.

25. Evaluation Criteria; Factor A: Many of our clients with completed projects, have submitted a PPQ to our firm and resist filling out additional PPQs, especially one that is different from that agencies’ form. Will you consider allow proposals to include PPQs that are different from your form, but allow you to gauge the past performance with their form?

Response: Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the customer references cited in

Section F of the SF330 receive, complete, and return the Attachment 1 Past Performance

Questionnaire (PPQ) (provided with the synopsis).

26. Evaluation Criteria; Factor C: We understand you are going to evaluate Sections E and H for Factor C. You require the following: “Total team shall be submitted to Section H and titled “Additional Information Factor C.” There is not a specific listing of personnel, which means each firm must guess as to the specific disciplines and number of persons for each discipline. This puts a firm that does not guess correctly at a disadvantage.

Please make a specific list of key personnel you want to evaluate for this submittal?

Response: Each firm will be submitting a different listing of personnel within each

Team. The specific disciplines submitted will vary with each submission. The synopsis provides a list of those professions we are seeking qualifications for.

27. Evaluation Criteria; Factor D: Since Section H is page limited, we request the requirement for the firms’ information on quality certification and awards be excluded from the page count. There was an earlier Q&A on this, which does appear to have made it to this paragraph, which said to list in a tabular form. Please confirm that a tabular form is adequate and not provide the actual awards, etc.?

Response: This will not be removed from the page count in Section H. Tabular form is adequate.

28. Evaluation Criteria; Factor C: There is not mention or reference to Section D. Do you want to see the organization chart in Factor C?

Response: No. “Evaluation Factor C” is different from the SF330 form, which requires the Organizational Chart in Section D of the SF330. Evaluation criteria and sections of the SF330 are not the same.

29. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: This requires all teaming arrangements be included, but do not say if goes within Section H? If yes, then will these be excluded from the page count?

Response: Synopsis has been updated to say” “Teaming agreements shall be submitted as a table or list in Section H and titled “Consortium/Teaming Arrangement”. Teaming arrangements are included in the page count.

30. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: All offerors must submit a complete SF330, which includes Part I; Sections A through G. However, you do not specify a page limitation.

This could put some firms at and advantage, for example Section E if a firm uses one-page resumes, where another firm uses five-page resumes with many project details.

Response: While the synopsis does not specify an overall page limitation for the SF330 submission, firms should adhere to the standard format and intent of the SF330. Each section is designed for concise, relevant information rather than lengthy narratives. The

SF330 instructions recommend one page per key individual. This ensures consistency and fairness across submissions. Our evaluation will focus on the quality and relevance of the information provided, not the volume. Excessively long resumes or additional pages beyond what is necessary will not provide an advantage. We encourage all offerors to follow the standard SF330 guidance and keep submissions clear and concise.

31. Another interpretation is that since Section E is to be evaluated with Factor C then it falls within the 75 page limit. Please clarify the page limits on Sections E and F, since those will put all firms on an equal basis.

Response: As stated above, while the synopsis does not specify an overall page limitation for the SF330 submission, firms should adhere to the standard format and intent of the

SF330. Each section is designed for concise, relevant information rather than lengthy narratives. The SF330 instructions recommend one page per key individual for Section E.

This ensures consistency and fairness across submissions. Our evaluation will focus on the quality and relevance of of the information provided, not the volume. Excessively long resumes or additional pages beyond what is necessary will not provide an advantage.

We encourage all offerors to follow the standard SF330 guidance and keep submissions clear and concise. Per the SF330 for Section F, it states 10 projects.

32. As of this date (Dec. 31st) we have not seen any answers to questions raised during the

Industry Day, nor any amendments issued. We recommend a time extension to the due date. We suggest the time extension be at least three weeks after your amendments and answers to the Q&A (including those up to Dec. 31st).

Response: Due date has been updated to January 30, 2026.

33. During the Industry Day we did not understand the comment about Section H being a separate attachment. Does this mean a separate electronic file from the other parts of the

SF330? Please clarify about files sizes for each and how to submit together or independently.

Response: Section H shall be a separate electronic file from the other parts of the SF330 no greater than 75 pages. Files sizes shall be no more than 25MB per email. If more than one email needs to be sent to accommodate file size, please send multiple emails with the files and reference how many emails shall be received for the complete SF330 package.

This has been updated on the amended synopsis.

34. Could you inform us of file size limits and file type expectations for submission contents?

Response: Files sizes shall be no more than 25MB per email in pdf files. If more than one email needs to be sent to accommodate file size, please send multiple emails with the files and reference how many emails shall be received for the complete SF330 package.

This has been updated on the amended synopsis.