SAVES HWSW QA Amendment 0009 20260715.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 75 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 697DCK-25-R-00302
About this file
This file is a Quality Assurance (QA) amendment tracking document for the SAVES Hardware and Software Screening Information Request (SIR 697DCK-25-R-00302). The document tracks amendments 0001 through 0009 for the FAA's Strategic Sourcing for the Acquisition of Various Supplies and Equipment (SAVES) procurement, which is a DOT-wide strategic sourcing initiative administered by the FAA's Office of Acquisition and Business Services (ACQ) and Information and Technology Services (AIT). The procurement supports the FAA's Office of Finance and Management and covers commercial IT hardware and software products including servers, switches, storage arrays, network devices, personal computing devices (workstations, laptops, tablets, thin clients), computer peripherals, audio/visual equipment, large screens, touch screens, scanners, projectors, desktop printers, multi-functional devices, cloud-based services from Original Equipment Manufacturers, and product-based services for IT asset lifecycle management including asset recovery, disposition, and warehousing. The FAA intends to award approximately eight (8) multiple-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts.
The solicitation has undergone multiple proposal deadline extensions due to a government shutdown and subsequent amendments addressing questions and clarifications. Key deadline milestones include: Amendment 0001 extended the due date to September 30, 2025; Amendment 0002 extended it to October 21, 2025 with a government shutdown extension to November 21, 2025; Amendment 0003 extended to January 12, 2026; Amendment 0004 to January 16, 2026; Amendment 0006 to June 24, 2026 with questions due by May 27, 2026; and Amendment 0007 extended to July 7, 2026. Proposal submissions should be directed to Dawn.A.Bloome@faa.gov, Kristin.T.Frantz@faa.gov, and Shannon.Kincaid-Toncray@faa.gov. The amendments progressively addressed government questions, provided conformed copies of the solicitation, and published questions and answers throughout the procurement process.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 65 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question Number | Reference SIR Section | Reference SIR Subsection and Paragraph Number | Quote Specific SIR language in question | Question | Suggested resolution (if applicable) | Government Answers | OPR | Vendor | CO Concur/Revise Re-write | |
| (if applicable) | ||||||||||
| 1 | Attachment 2A, 2B and 6 | Unprotected hidden tabs were found in Attachment 2A, 2B and 6 | See amendment for updated Attachment 2A, 2B and 6 removing the unprotected hidden tabs. | AIT | CACI idt. | |||||
| 2 | Section L | L.11.2.1(b), Subfactor 2 - OEM Authorization Relationship and Letters of Authorization | Offerors must have established authorization relationships with the following OEMs. | The list includes F5 Networks – an OEM that is not approving new authorized or approved sellers and has not approved new sellers since the release of the final RFP in August 2025. As a result, competition is severely limited to only offerors who had relationships before release of the RFP. | To ensure full and open competition from all responsible sources, respectfully recommend that F5 be removed from the mandatory list. | The Government will not remove F5 Networks from the Tier 1 OEM list. The requirement remains unchanged as F5 products are vital to meeting the agency's core operational and technical requirements. | ||||
| Based on Government market research—including an evaluation of active contract vehicles such as NASA SEWP—there is a sufficient number of small businesses that possess active F5 OEM authorizations to ensure a highly competitive environment. | AIT | Strategic Communications, LLC | ||||||||
| 3 | SECTION M | SECTION M.3.2 | Offerors must provide Past Experience in accordance with Section L using Attachment 4 | IS A NEW EMAIL REQUIRED FROM PAST PERFORMANCE OFFICE OR DOES ORIGINAL SUBMITTED EARLIER SUFFICE | Yes, a new Attachment 4 - Past Experience Information Sheet is required. In accordance with Amendment 0006, new proposals will be required from all Offerors, including those who have previously submitted proposals. | ACQ | Mvation Worldwide, Inc. | |||
| 4 | SECTION M | SECTION M.3.1 | The Offeror must demonstrate authorized reseller relationships for all required Tier 1 OEMs listed in Attachment 3A | DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE UPDATED LOAS OR DO ORIGINALLY SENT EARLIER SUFFICE | In accordance with Amendment 0006, new proposals will be required from all Offerors, including those who have previously submitted proposals. Offerors can use previous documentation submitted; however, they must resubmit it as a new proposal and it is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure it complies with the changes in this Amendment. | ACQ | Mvation Worldwide, Inc. | |||
| 5 | 697DCK-25-R-00302/ 0006 | Page 2 of 106, Item 3 | "New proposals will be required from all Offerors, including those who have previously submitted proposals. Offerors who have already submitted must resubmit complete proposals that incorporate the changes outlined in this amendment. Additionally, Offerors who did not participate in the initial bidding process may submit a bid." | Based on Amendment 0006 Item 3 requiring Offerors to resubmit complete proposals, can the Government confirm whether previously submitted PPQs/Past Performance Questionnaires must also be resubmitted as part of the revised proposal package, or whether previously submitted PPQs will remain valid and be retained for evaluation? | Allow original Past Performance Questionnaires | In accordance with Amendment 0006, new proposals will be required from all Offerors, including those who have previously submitted proposals. A new Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire is required for submission. Offerors may submit previous PPQs if they meet all the current SIR requirements. | ACQ | August Schell Enterprises, Inc. | ||
| 6 | Section L | L.10.1 Proposal Volume Page/Limitation Chart | Attachment 6 is referenced throughout the solicitation; however, it does not appear to be identified within the proposal volume/page limitation chart. | Attachment 6 is referenced throughout the solicitation; however, it does not appear to be identified within the proposal volume/page limitation chart. Can the Government confirm whether the omission of Attachment 6 from the proposal volume and page limit instructions was intentional, or if Attachment 6 should be included as part of a specific proposal volume? | Clarify whether Attachment 6 is required for submission and, if so, identify the applicable proposal volume and whether it counts toward page limitations. | See Amendment 0009, Attachment 6 (Schedule B CLIN/OEM List) is evaluated as part of the initial Conformance Review and the Volume III Cost/Price evaluation. In accordance with SIR Sections B and L.11.2.4, the FAA will verify that the proposed minimum discount percentages listed in Attachment 6 are identical to the discounts proposed in Attachment 2A (Small Business Price Model) or Attachment 2B (Unrestricted Price Model). | ACQ/AIT | August Schell Enterprises, Inc. | ||
| 7 | Section M | M.2.1.(1) Evaluation Criteria (Total Evaluated Discounted Spend) | “Total Evaluated Discounted Spend” | Section M references evaluation of “Total Evaluated Discounted Spend”; however, the methodology for determining whether proposed pricing is considered complete, reasonable, balanced, or otherwise acceptable is unclear. Can the Government clarify how Total Evaluated Discounted Spend will be calculated and what specific evaluation criteria will be used to assess pricing acceptability? | Clarify the methodology, formulas, and evaluation standards that will be applied to determine pricing completeness, reasonableness, balance, and overall acceptability for Total Evaluated Discounted Spend. | Per Section B.3 Pricing Terms, Pricing for each CLIN will be established at the delivery order level and must adhere to the minimum discount specified. In addition to the minimum discount, proposed delivery order pricing must not exceed the lowest available price offered on any other Government Ordering Vehicle (e.g., GSA FSS, NASA SEWP) or the Contractor’s current commercial catalog. | ACQ/AIT | August Schell Enterprises, Inc. | ||
| 8 | Attatchment 6 | Min Discount Tab/ Column B | “Offerors must propose a minimum discount percentage for each OEM listed in Attachment 6” | Attachment 6 appears to require Offerors to propose discounted pricing across approximately 756 OEMs/products. Can the Government clarify how Offerors are expected to obtain and validate discounted pricing for such a large number of OEMs at the proposal stage, particularly where Offerors may not yet have active pricing agreements or engagement with every OEM listed? | Offerors are not expected to secure active pricing agreements with all 756 OEMs prior to proposal submission. If an Offeror does not currently have an active pricing agreement or does not wish to offer a discount for a specific OEM, the Offeror must enter "0" (zero) in the minimum discount column. To ensure proper spreadsheet functionality and evaluation, a numerical value (even zero) must be entered for every OEM listed. | ACQ/AIT | August Schell Enterprises, Inc. | |||
| 9 | Attatchment 2A | Price Evaluation Small Business Tab/ Proposed OEM Discount column | “Offerors must propose a minimum discount percentage for each OEM listed in Attachment 2A” | Attachment 2A appears to require mandatory entries for all OEM discount fields. However, when an Offeror enters “0%” in the "Proposed OEM Discount" column, the spreadsheet does not calculate a value in the “10 Year Estimated Contract Value” column, which appears to impact the Total Evaluated Discounted Spend calculation and could result in inaccurate totals. Can the Government clarify whether this is a spreadsheet/formula issue and provide guidance on how Offerors should complete Attachment 6 when proposing a 0% discount? | Clarify whether the spreadsheet calculation issue is intentional or requires correction and confirm the proper method for completing Attachment 2A when a proposed OEM discount is 0%. | See Amendment 0009 for the updated Attachments 2A and 2B which have been revised to update the total column calculation. | AIT | August Schell Enterprises, Inc. | ||
| 10 | Section L | L.11.2.1 Factor 1, Techincal, (b) Subfactor 2 | Offerors must have established authorization relationships with the following OEMs: Tier 1A (Small Business): Adobe, Cisco, Dell, F5, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Lexmark, Okta, ProofPoint, Redhat, ServiceNow, Splunk, Tanium, and Xerox | Previous versions of the solicitation noted that HPI authorization was desired rather than HPE. Please confirm that FAA requires HPE authorization rather than HPI. | Confirm HPE instead of HPI. | HPI is the correct OEM, HPE will be removed from the Tier 1A and 1B lists and moved to Tier 2. | AIT | DISYS Solutions Inc. | ||
| 11 | Section L | L.11.2.1 Factor 1, Techincal, (b) Subfactor 2 | Offerors must have established authorization relationships with the following OEMs: Tier 1A (Small Business): Adobe, Cisco, Dell, F5, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Lexmark, Okta, ProofPoint, Redhat, ServiceNow, Splunk, Tanium, and Xerox | Are small businesses required to be authorized for all OEMs listed in Amendment 6? Previous versions of the solicitation required a minimum number of authorizations rather than "ALL." | Confirm if requirement applies to ALL OEMs listed in Teir 1. | Yes, the small businesses must provide LOA's for all OEM's listed in Tier 1. See Amendment 0009, Section L.11.2.1(b) the FAA will accept formal Letters of Authorization (LOAs) or verified partner credentials issued directly by the OEM, an authorized Team Partner, or an OEM-authorized Tier 1 Distribution Aggregator, provided that the submission satisfies the strict verification requirements outlined in SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). Xerox has been removed from Tier 1A list. | AIT | DISYS Solutions Inc. | ||
| 12 | Section L | L.11.2.1 Factor 1, Techincal, (b) Subfactor 2 | Offerors must have established authorization relationships with the following OEMs: Tier 1A (Small Business): Adobe, Cisco, Dell, F5, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Lexmark, Okta, ProofPoint, Redhat, ServiceNow, Splunk, Tanium, and Xerox | If offerers do not have authorzation for all listed Teir 1 OEMs, are they unable to propose to the soliciation? | Confirm whether or not Small Businesses are eligible if they are not authorized by all Tier 1 OEMs | Per Section M.3. 1 Subfactor 2: The Government will evaluate Attachment 3A (Small Business) or Attachment 3B (Unrestricted), as applicable, based on the requirements in SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). To be considered acceptable, the submission must meet the following criteria: |
| - | Tier 1 OEM Relationships (Required): The Offeror must demonstrate authorized reseller relationships for all required Tier 1 OEMs listed in Attachment 3A or Attachment 3B. | ||||||||
| The credentials may be issued directly by the OEM, an authorized Team Partner, or an OEM-authorized Tier 1 Distribution Aggregator, provided that the submission satisfies the strict verification requirements outlined in SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). | AIT | DISYS Solutions Inc. | |||||||
| 13 | Section M | M.3.A Factor 1 - Technical Evaluation, Subfactor 2: OEM LOAs | Tier 1 OEM Relationships (Required): The Offeror must demonstrate authorized reseller relationships for all required Tier 1 OEMs listed in Attachment 3A or Attachment 3B. | If an offer is ineligble to propose based on the new requirement of having authorization with all Teir 1 OEMs, and therefore does not submit a proposal, will they be eligible to submit a proposal in the future if the FAA, through the evaluation process, does not find 6 eligible small businesses capable of meeting this requirement? | Please elaborate on the process if there are not 6 eligible small businesses that can meet the new Teir 1 OEM requirement. | Per Section G.4.2 On-Ramping The Government may consider, at its sole and absolute discretion, conducting an open-season/on-ramp as either Small Business or Unrestricted at any time during the life of the program to admit new companies (and/or Award additional pools) into the contract, if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government. | ACQ/AIT | DISYS Solutions Inc. | |
| 14 | Section L | L.11.2.3 Factor 3, Past Performance Questionnaire | Offerors must submit either a Past Performance Questionnaire in accordance with Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or a Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation for the Past Performance reference submitted in response to SIR Section L.11.2.2 above. | Will PPQs submitted before Amendment 6 was issued be accepted, or is a new PPQ required? | Clarify if previously submitted PPQs will be accepted. | In accordance with Amendment 0006, new proposals will be required from all Offerors, including those who have previously submitted proposals. A new Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire is required for submission. Offerors may resubmit previous PPQs if they meet all the current SIR requirements. | ACQ | DISYS Solutions Inc. | |
| 15 | Section L | L.11.2.1 FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL, (b) Subfactor 2 - OEM Authorization, Tier 1 - Required OEMs | "Offerors must have established authorization relationships with the following OEMs: | ||||||
| Tier 1A (Small Business): Adobe, Cisco, Dell, F5, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Lexmark, Okta, ProofPoint, Redhat, ServiceNow, Splunk, Tanium, and Xerox." | As a small business, we no longer have all required OEMs listed in the new update of the solicitation. Will you consider 50% of the required OEMs? | Please consider requiring 50% or more of the OEMs for small businesses. | Amendment 0009, Section L.11.2.1(b) the FAA will accept formal Letters of Authorization (LOAs) or verified partner credentials issued directly by the OEM, an authorized Team Partner, or an OEM-authorized Tier 1 Distribution Aggregator, provided that the submission satisfies the strict verification requirements outlined in SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). Xerox has been removed from Tier 1A list | ACQ/AIT | Dynamic Systems | ||||
| 16 | Section L | L.11.2.1 FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL, (b) Subfactor 2 - OEM Authorization, Tier 1 - Required OEMs | "Offerors must have established authorization relationships with the following OEMs: | ||||||
| Tier 1A (Small Business): Adobe, Cisco, Dell, F5, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Lexmark, Okta, ProofPoint, Redhat, ServiceNow, Splunk, Tanium, and Xerox." | Small businesses often face challenges and high costs in maintaining direct OEM partnerships across the full range of required manufacturers, whether independently or through a joint venture. In many cases, small businesses have established relationships with select OEMs, but not all 13 identified in the requirement. As an example - supporting both Adobe and F5 typically requires a broad and diverse set of capabilities that may not be practical for many small businesses to maintain directly. |
| Would the FAA consider allowing offerors to leverage OEM authorization relationships held by distribution partners or subcontractors to satisfy these requirements? | First allow a subset of the required OEM relationships as suggested in our question 1, or secondarily allow for Distribution partners or subcontractor partners to hold the OEM authorization. | Amendment 0009, Section L.11.2.1(b) the FAA will accept formal Letters of Authorization (LOAs) or verified partner credentials issued directly by the OEM, an authorized Team Partner, or an OEM-authorized Tier 1 Distribution Aggregator, provided that the submission satisfies the strict verification requirements outlined in SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). Xerox has been removed from Tier 1A list | AIT | Dynamic Systems | |||||
| 17 | Past Experieince | L.11.2.2 FACTOR 2, PAST EXPERIENCE INFORMATION: | "One (1) past performance example cited is a contract similar to SAVES IT HW/SW, which was active within the last three (3) years before the SIR’s release date" | Please confirm the SIR release date. The SIR original release date (August 07, 2025) or the updated SIR release date (May 13, 2026)? | The SIR release date is August 07, 2025. Please ensure that the past performance example cited was active within the three years prior to this date. | ACQ | Dynamic Systems | ||
| 18 | Past Experience | L.11.2.3 FACTOR 3, PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE: | "Offerors must submit either a Past Performance Questionnaire..." | Can we use previous customer-submitted PPQs for the updated SIR response if they meet all current SIR requirements? | Please accept previously submitted PPQs. | In accordance with Amendment 0006, new proposals will be required from all Offerors, including those who have previously submitted proposals. A new Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire is required for submission. Offerors may resubmit previous PPQs if they meet all the current SIR requirements. | ACQ | Dynamic Systems | |
| 19 | L.11.2.4 Volume III, Cost/Price | L.11.2.4 | The Government intends to compete future requirements at the delivery order level, the discounts proposed in Section B (Attachment 6) must remain in effect for the full 10-year contract period. | Given that OEM reseller programs, authorization levels, rebates, incentives, and discount structures are routinely adjusted based on annual sales volume, certifications, market conditions, and OEM business strategies, please clarify how the Government expects Offerors to guarantee fixed minimum discounts for a 10-year period when OEMs themselves generally do not provide 10-year pricing or discount guarantees. | Revise the requirement to allow annual or periodic refreshes of OEM discount schedules during contract performance, subject to Government review and approval. | See Amendment 0009 for updated Section G.4.2 Technical Refresh. | AIT/ACQ/AGC | GovSmart, Inc. | |
| 20 | G.3 ORDERING PROCEDURES | G.3.3 | 9. "No bids" are required. | Please clarify whether there will be any mandatory/minimum bid rate applicable to awarded contractors at the task order level. | Do not require a minimum bid rate. | There is no mention of a mandatory or minimum bid rate that is applicable to awarded contractors at the delivery order level in the SIR. However, the FAA would like to highlight language from the SIR, "Pricing for each CLIN will be established at the delivery order level and must adhere to the minimum discount specified. In addition to the minimum discount, proposed delivery order pricing must not exceed the lowest available price offered on any other Government Ordering Vehicle (e.g., GSA FSS, NASA SEWP) or the Contractor’s current commercial catalog. The Government reserves the right to request supporting documentation, including data other than certified cost or pricing data, to verify price reasonableness at the delivery order level." | ACQ | GovSmart, Inc. | |
| 21 | L.11.2.4 Volume III, Cost/Price | L.11.2.4 | The Government intends to compete future requirements at the delivery order level, the discounts proposed in Section B (Attachment 6) must remain in effect for the full 10-year contract period. | If an OEM materially changes its partner program, reseller tier structure, distribution model, or commercial pricing methodology during the contract term, will contractors be permitted to adjust the proposed minimum OEM discount percentages accordingly? | Allow contractors to request modifications to minimum discount percentages upon documented OEM programmatic or pricing changes beyond the contractor’s control. | See Amendment 0009 for Minimum Discount Percentage Guidelines for Established OEMs under Section G.4.2. | AIT | GovSmart, Inc. | |
| 22 | G.4.3 TECHNICAL REFRESH | G.4.3 | FAA anticipates performing a Technology Refreshment process on a quarterly basis for the addition of new OEMs/products, the deletion of OEMs/products identified in Schedule B, OEM list, and/or adjustment of OEMs/products as necessary. | Please clarify how minimum discount requirements will apply to newly added OEMs that were not included in the original proposal pricing model or Attachment 6 at time of award. | See Amendment 0009 for Minimum Discount Percentage Guidelines for New OEMs under Section G.4.2. | AIT | GovSmart, Inc. | ||
| 23 | L.11.2.4 Volume III, Cost/Price | L.11.2.4 | The Government intends to compete future requirements at the delivery order level, the discounts proposed in Section B (Attachment 6) must remain in effect for the full 10-year contract period. | Please clarify how the Government will assess whether proposed discounts are realistic and sustainable over a 10-year period, particularly where OEM margins may materially change over time. |
The solicitation does not require Offerors to lock in fixed dollar amounts or static price caps for a decade. Because the fixed minimum discount percentage applies directly to an OEM's current, floating commercial MSRP or standard price list, the contract natively absorbs market-driven pricing adjustments, product overhauls, and catalog restructures. As an OEM shifts its commercial margins or list prices over time, the underlying baseline moves, while the minimum percentage discount floor remains constant.
| ACQ/AIT | GovSmart, Inc. | ||||||||
| 24 | L.11.2.4 Volume III, Cost/Price | L.11.2.4 | The Government intends to compete future requirements at the delivery order level, the discounts proposed in Section B (Attachment 6) must remain in effect for the full 10-year contract period. | Section I includes "3.2.4-2 FIXED-PRICED CONTRACTS WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT-STANDARD | |||||
| SUPPLIES" clause permitting pricing adjustments tied to established commercial pricing. How does this clause reconcile with the requirement to maintain fixed minimum OEM discounts for the entire ten-year contract period? | See Amendment 0009 , this clause has been removed as it was not applicable. | ACQ | GovSmart, Inc. | ||||||
| 25 | L.11.2.4 Volume III, Cost/Price | L.11.2.4 | The Government intends to compete future requirements at the delivery order level, the discounts proposed in Section B (Attachment 6) must remain in effect for the full 10-year contract period. | Given the large number of OEMs identified in Attachment 6, how does the FAA anticipate contractors administratively managing and validating compliance with fixed minimum discounts across potentially hundreds of OEMs over a ten-year period? | The FAA expects contractors to manage this broad ecosystem by integrating the fixed minimum discounts into their delivery-order quoting systems. The government will continuously validate this compliance through strict multi-vehicle price-ceiling checks, mandatory pricing data submissions, and a formalized quarterly technical refresh process that baseline and verify OEM list pricing over the 10-year lifecycle. | AIT | GovSmart, Inc. | ||
| 26 | M.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY | L.11.2.4 | The Government intends to compete future requirements at the delivery order level, the discounts proposed in Section B (Attachment 6) must remain in effect for the full 10-year contract period. | Please describe how Attachment 6 is being evaluated. | …. | See Amendment 0009, Attachment 6 (Schedule B CLIN/OEM List) is evaluated as part of the initial Conformance Review in Volume I and the Volume III Cost/Price evaluation. In accordance with SIR Sections B and L.11.2.4, the FAA will verify that the proposed minimum discount percentages listed in Attachment 6 are identical to the discounts proposed in Attachment 2A (Small Business Price Model) or Attachment 2B (Unrestricted Price Model). Any discrepancy between these attachments may result in the proposal being rejected and not considered for award. | ACQ/AIT | GovSmart, Inc. | |
| 27 | M.4 BASIS FOR AWARD | M.4 (A) | The Government anticipates awarding up to nine (9) contracts: up to six (6) awards to Offerors reserved under | ||||||
| the Small Business Pool and up to three (3) awards to Offerors under the Unrestricted Pool; however, the actual number of awards, to Small Businesses and Unrestricted Offerors, may be more or less than this number. | Given the size and diversity of the federal ITVAR marketplace, please explain the FAA’s rationale for limiting the Small Business pool to only six awardees over a potential 10-year ordering period. | The FAA should consider increasing the number of initial Small Business awards or provide additional detail supporting how six awardees were determined to be sufficient to ensure long-term competition, pricing pressure, supply chain redundancy, broad OEM representation, and reduced protest risk. | The Government does not intend to modify this requirement. The Government has considered the size and diversity of the marketplace in determining the number of anticipated awards. While the SIR specifies up to six awards in the Small Business Pool, this number is designed to balance the need for competitive pricing and performance with the administrative efficiency of managing multiple contracts. | ||||||
| ACQ | GovSmart, Inc. | ||||||||
| 28 | L.11.2.1 FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL | L.11.2.1 | Tier 1A (Small Business): Adobe, Cisco, Dell, F5, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Lexmark, Okta, ProofPoint, | ||||||
| Redhat, ServiceNow, Splunk, Tanium, and Xerox. | Please confirm HPE correct (and not HPI) | HPI is the correct OEM, HPE will be removed from the Tier 1A and Tier 1B and moved to Tier 2. Xerox has been removed from Tier 1A | AIT | GovSmart, Inc. | |||||
| 29 | L.11.2.1 FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL | L.11.2.1 | Tier 1A (Small Business): Adobe, Cisco, Dell, F5, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Lexmark, Okta, ProofPoint, | ||||||
| Redhat, ServiceNow, Splunk, Tanium, and Xerox. | Among the companies who have merged, will you accept a single LOA? For example, Cisco owns Splunk and Xerox owns Lexmark. Which entity should the LOA come from? | No, See Amendment 0009, Offerors must submit a separate Letter of Authorization (LOA) and a dedicated OEM Point of Contact (POC) for each distinct OEM brand listed in Tier 1 of Attachment 3A/3B, regardless of corporate mergers or parent-subsidiary relationships. |
Cisco and Splunk: Offerors must submit one LOA/POC for Cisco and a separate LOA/POC for Splunk.
Xerox and Lexmark: Offerors must submit one LOA/POC for Lexmark, Xerox has been removed from Tier 1A list.
| The LOA must come from the specific entity/brand being authorized and must meet the requirements of SIR Section L.11.2.1(b), indicating the offeror's ability to supply the full breadth and depth (or a specific subset) of that specific OEM’s technology. A single combined LOA will only be acceptable if it is legally issued by the parent corporation and explicitly names, details, and authorizes the offeror for both distinct product lines/brands, and provides verifiable federal sales POCs capable of validating the authorization for both entities. | AIT | GovSmart, Inc. | |||
| 30 | M.3.1 FACTOR 1 -TECHNICAL EVALUATION | M.3.1 | Letters of Authorization (LOA): Each Tier 1 relationship must be supported by an LOA. An LOA is technically acceptable only if it indicates the ability to supply the Government with either… | Please confirm that Letters of Authorization (LOAs) issued by authorized distributors, acting on behalf of the OEM, will be considered acceptable for purposes of meeting the OEM authorization requirements. |
| Certain OEMs do not issue LOAs directly to resellers. Instead, they designate authorized distribution partners to manage and validate reseller channel relationships on the OEM’s behalf. | See Amendment 0009, the FAA will accept formal Letters of Authorization (LOAs) or verified partner credentials issued directly by the OEM, an authorized Team Partner, or an OEM-authorized Tier 1 Distribution Aggregator, provided that the submission satisfies the strict verification requirements outlined in SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). | AIT | GovSmart, Inc. | ||
| 31 | Section M and Attachment 3A | M.3.1 Subfactor 2: OEM Authorization Relationship and Letters of Authorization | |||
| Attachment / Reference: Attachment 3A – "OEM Authorization Relationship Small Business 20260429.xlsx" | Tier 1 OEM Relationships (Required): The Offeror must demonstrate authorized reseller relationships for all required Tier 1 OEMs listed in Attachment 3A or 3B. | In practice, Attachment 3A’s Instructions indicate Column A lists the OEMs that require coverage, while Tier‑2 entries are optional/not evaluated. To expand small business viability for competition and reflect real‑world small‑business channel participation, would FAA revise the Small Business requirement from “all” to a threshold, such as: | |||
| Authorization for a **minimum of seven (7) Tier‑1 OEMs | Tier‑1 OEM Relationships (Required):For the Small Business pool, the Offeror must demonstrate authorized reseller relationships for a minimum of seven (7) Tier‑1 OEMs | The Government does not intend to modify this requirement. See Amendment 0009, the LOA must come from the specific entity/brand being authorized and must meet the requirements of SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). | AIT | Blue Tech Inc. | |
| 32 | Section M and Attachment 3A | M.3.1 Subfactor 2: OEM Authorization Relationship and Attachment 3A – "OEM Authorization Relationship Small Business 20260429.xlsx", Instructions tab (definition of “Authorized reseller”) | Authorized reseller: a reseller who is known by the OEM and the OEM has verified that the reseller is considered by them to be an authorized or approved reseller of all items, or subset of items. | Attachment 3A defines “Authorized reseller” as a reseller known by the OEM and verified by the OEM and requires an LOA attachment and OEM POC details. Many Tier‑1 OEMs formally delegate partner authorization to their master distributors, and do not provide direct autorization to resellers. Will FAA accept a distributor‑issued authorization letter explicitly citing OEM delegation, paired with OEM validation, as equivalent to an OEM LOA for Attachment 3A? This would assume the offeror provides: |
- The distributor letter referencing the OEM’s delegation and the scope (“all” or “subset”);
- An OEM partner‑portal certificate/screenshot or OEM emailbconfirming our authorization status; and
| - The OEM POC name, email, and phone (as required in Attachment 3A Columns D–F) | For OEMs that formally delegate partner authorization to a master distributor, FAA will accept a distributor‑issued authorization letter that cites the OEM delegationand is accompanied by OEM validation (portal certificate or OEM email), with OEM POC provided for verification. Such documentation is equivalent to an OEM‑signed LOAfor purposes of Attachment 3A. | See Amendment 0009, the FAA will accept formal Letters of Authorization (LOAs) or verified partner credentials issued directly by the OEM, an authorized Team Partner, or an OEM-authorized Tier 1 Distribution Aggregator, provided that the submission satisfies the strict verification requirements outlined in SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). | AIT | Blue Tech Inc. | |||||
| 33 | L.11.2.1 FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL | (b) Subfactor 2 - OEM Authorization Relationship and Letters of Authorization: | Tier 1 - Required OEMs | Regarding Letters of Authorization previously submitted in January: Is there a requirement for the signature date of a Letter of Authorization. For example, must it be dated within twelve months of the submission date of June 24th? | Or can bidders who submitted in January reuse/recycle their existing signed Letters of Authorization? | In accordance with Amendment 0006, new proposals will be required from all Offerors, including those who have previously submitted proposals. Offerors can use previous documentation submitted; however, they must resubmit it as a new proposal. However, offerors are responsible for ensuring the documentation submitted complies with this Amendment. | ACQ | Impres Technology Inc | |
| 34 | L.11.2.1 FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL | (b) Subfactor 2 - OEM Authorization Relationship and Letters of Authorization: | Tier 1 - Required OEMs | The solicitation requires bidders to submit Letters of Authorization (LOAs) from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). In practice, many OEMs authorize and fulfill partner channel relationships exclusively through their authorized distributors, rather than issuing LOAs directly to resellers. Will Letters of Authorization issued by an OEM's authorized distributor on behalf of the OEM be accepted as satisfying this requirement? | See Amendment 0009, the FAA will accept formal Letters of Authorization (LOAs) or verified partner credentials issued directly by the OEM, an authorized Team Partner, or an OEM-authorized Tier 1 Distribution Aggregator, provided that the submission satisfies the strict verification requirements outlined in SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). | AIT | Impres Technology Inc | ||
| 35 | L.11.2.1 FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL | (b) Subfactor 2 - OEM Authorization Relationship and Letters of Authorization: | Tier 1 - Required OEMs | Amendment 6 requires Offerors to have established authorization relationships with all Tier 1A OEMs. Will the FAA permit a small business prime to satisfy OEM authorization requirements it does not independently hold through a teaming arrangement with an authorized subcontractor? If so, please confirm whether the subcontractor's authorization letter must be included in the proposal and whether any minimum workshare or contractual commitment is required. | See Amendment 0009, the FAA will accept formal Letters of Authorization (LOAs) or verified partner credentials issued directly by the OEM, an authorized Team Partner, or an OEM-authorized Tier 1 Distribution Aggregator, provided that the submission satisfies the strict verification requirements outlined in SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). | ACQ/AIT | Impres Technology Inc | ||
| 36 | L.11.2.1 FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL | (b) Subfactor 2 - OEM Authorization Relationship and Letters of Authorization: | Tier 1 - Required OEMs | The requirement for established authorization relationships with all 13 Tier 1A OEMs may materially restrict the pool of eligible small business Offerors. Has FAA confirmed through market research that a sufficient number of qualified small businesses exist to ensure adequate competition as required under FAR 19.502-2? | If not, will FAA consider modifications such as allowing teaming to satisfy authorization requirements, accepting provisional LOAs, or narrowing the OEM list to preserve the integrity of the set-aside? | See Amendment 0009, the FAA will accept formal Letters of Authorization (LOAs) or verified partner credentials issued directly by the OEM, an authorized Team Partner, or an OEM-authorized Tier 1 Distribution Aggregator, provided that the submission satisfies the strict verification requirements outlined in SIR Section L.11.2.1(b). Market research indicates there is a sufficient number of capable small businesses possessing these established OEM relationships to ensure robust, meaningful competition. Xerox has been removed from Tier 1A list. | AIT | Impres Technology Inc | |
| 37 | Section B and Section L | L.11.2.4 Volume III Cost/Price/Section B.3 Pricing Terms | “Offerors must propose a minimum discount percentage for each OEM listed in Attachment 6” and “proposed delivery order pricing must not exceed the lowest available price offered on any other Government Ordering Vehicle” | Attachment 6 appears to require a single minimum discount percentage for each OEM; however, OEM pricing and discount structures typically vary significantly by product, configuration, licensing model, quantity, and transaction type. Additionally, Section B.3 requires delivery order pricing not exceed the “lowest available price” on another Government Ordering Vehicle. Can the Government clarify how Offerors should establish a single OEM-level minimum discount where discounts vary materially across product lines and transactions? Specifically, should Offerors base the proposed OEM discount on the lowest available discount, an average/representative discount, or another methodology. | The methodology used to determine the single, fixed minimum discount percentage for each OEM in Attachment 6 is at the business discretion of the Offeror. The FAA will not dictate whether Offerors utilize a lowest available discount, a weighted average, or an alternative corporate pricing strategy. | AIT/ACQ | August Schell Enterprises, Inc. | ||
| 38 | Section L | L.11.2.1 OEM Authorization | Lexmark and Xerox are listed separately within the OEM authorization and pricing requirements. | Lexmark and Xerox are listed separately within the SIR for OEM authorization and pricing purposes; however, Xerox has acquired Lexmark and the companies now operate under common ownership. Can the Government clarify whether Offerors must provide separate Letters of Authorization (LOAs) and separate Attachment 6 pricing/discount entries for Lexmark and Xerox, or whether a single OEM authorization relationship and/or pricing structure may satisfy both requirements where supported by the OEM? | Clarify whether Lexmark and Xerox will be treated as separate OEMs or as a combined authorization/pricing relationship for purposes of Attachment 3 and Attachment 6 compliance. | Offerors must submit a separate Letter of Authorization (LOA) and a dedicated OEM Point of Contact (POC) for each distinct OEM brand listed in Tier 1 of Attachment 3A/3B, regardless of corporate mergers or parent-subsidiary relationships. |
| Xerox and Lexmark: Offerors must submit one LOA/POC for Lexmark, Xerox has been removed from Tier 1A list. | AIT/ACQ | August Schell Enterprises, Inc. | ||
| 39 | Volume II - Technical | L.11.2.1 Factor 1, Technical, (b) Subfactor 2 - OEM Authorization Relationship and Letters of Authorization | Offerors must have established authorization relationships with the following OEMs: |
Tier 1A (Small Business): Adobe, Cisco, Dell, F5, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Lexmark, Okta, ProofPoint, Redhat, ServiceNow, Splunk, Tanium, and Xerox.
Tier 1B (Unrestricted): Adobe, APC, APPIAN, Cisco, Dell, F5, HPE, Lexmark, Okta, ProofPoint, Red Hat,
| Salesforce, ServiceNow, Splunk, Tanium, Xerox, and ZSCALER. | In Section L.11.2.1(b) under Tier 1A and Tier 1B, the list of required OEMs includes "Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)". However, in prior amendments this was corrected to HP, Inc. (HPI). Could the Government please clarify whether offerors are required to provide a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) or HP, Inc. (HPI)? | Please confirm that an LOA from HPE is required, not from HPI? | HPI is the correct OEM, HPE will be removed from Tier 1A and 1B and moved to Tier 2. | AIT | Affigent, LLC |
| 40 | Volume II - Technical | RFQ Amendment 0006 Continuation Sheet, p.2 |
L.11.2.3 Factor 3, Past Performance Questionnaire "3. New proposals will be required from all Offerors, including those who have previously submitted proposals. Offerors who have already submitted must resubmit complete proposals that incorporate the changes outlined in this amendment. Additionally, Offerors who did not participate in the initial bidding process may submit a bid.
| "The Offeror must ensure that the Past Performance reference provides responses to all items listed on the PPQ. The PPQ must be completed and signed by the Offeror’s customer. The Offeror must complete items 1 through 8 on page 2 (Part Two) of Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), for the example provided. The Offeror must forward the questionnaire to the contract customers to provide feedback. There is no page limit associated with the questionnaire submission. The Offeror must instruct customers to complete the PPQ (review items 1 through 8 on page 2 and complete items 9 through 14, along with the ratings) and return it to the Government Point of Contacts at Dawn.A.Bloome@faa.gov and Kristin.T.Frantz@faa.gov by the deadline for proposal submissions." | In light of Amendment 0006 requiring complete proposal resubmissions, are offerors required to have their customers re-sign, re-date, and re-submit a new Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire by the new June 24, 2026 deadline? Alternatively, will the Government allow and evaluate the exact same PPQ that was previously signed and submitted by the customer for the January 2026 deadline? | Please confirm that previously submitted PPQs from the January deadline remain valid for evaluation, provided the reference contract example has not changed. | In accordance with Amendment 0006, new proposals will be required from all Offerors, including those who have previously submitted proposals. A new Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire is required for submission. Offerors may resubmit previous PPQs if they meet all the current SIR requirements. | ACQ | Affigent, LLC | ||||
| 41 | Volume II - Technical | L.11.2.2, Past Experience Information, Attachment 4, C.7. | 7. Total value of orders issued within 12 months of proposal as it directly pertains to the OEM (reference Sec L.11.2.2) | Attachment 4 - Past Experience Information Form_20260512.docx, item C.7 requires offerors to list order values "as it directly pertains to the OEM (reference Sec L.11.2.2)". However, Sec L.11.2.2 does not list a specific OEM. Which OEM(s) should offerors report on this line? | Please confirm that the "as it directly pertains to the OEM (reference Sec L.11.2.2)" language in item C.7 is obsolete and should be removed from Attachment 4? | See Amendment 0009 for the updated Attachment 4 removing language "as it directly pertains to the OEM". | AIT | Affigent, LLC | |
| 42 | Volume II - Technical | L.11.2.2, Past Experience Information, Attachment 4, C.7. | 7. Total value of orders issued within 12 months of proposal as it directly pertains to the OEM (reference Sec L.11.2.2) | Attachment 4 - Past Experience Information Form_20260512.docx, item C.7 provides only a single text line for a response. Should offerors provide a cumulative dollar value for all OEMs combined? | Please confirm that a single cumulative total is acceptable. | Confirmed, a single cumulative total is acceptable. | AIT | Affigent, LLC | |
| 43 | Volume III - Cost/Price | L.11.2.4, Volume III - Cost/Price, Attachment 2A/2B | "The worksheet lists specific OEMs and their projected spending for a 10-year period. Offerors must provide a percentage discount for every OEM listed.... The Government intends to compete future requirements at the delivery order level..." | Section L.11.2.4 requires offerors to complete Attachment 2A/2B by providing a single percentage discount per each OEM. However, major Tier 1 OEMs utilize completely different discount structures across their internal lines of business . How does the Government recommend offerors provide a single discount per OEM, when the OEMs themselves provide varying discounts across their product lines? | Please revise the Price Model Evaluation Worksheet (Attachment 2A/2B) to allow offerors to propose separate discount percentages by product line per OEM. | The Government does not recommend or mandate a specific internal methodology for how Offerors calculate their single, fixed OEM-level discount percentages. Determining how to consolidate varying sub-product line discounts into a single OEM-level discount is a corporate business decision that rests solely with the Offeror. | AIT | Affigent, LLC | |
| 44 | Volume III - Cost/Price | L.11.2.4, Volume III - Cost/Price, Attachment 2A/2B | "These proposed discounts will be evaluated based on their application to the projected spend for each OEM over a 10-year period." | Given that OEM discounts may vary by product family and are subject to change based on commercial pricing practices and market conditions, will the Government consider allowing product-family-specific discounts and a shorter discount hold period (or periodic refreshes) in lieu of a single OEM-wide discount held fixed for the full 10-year period? | Please consider allowing product-family-specific discounts and a shorter discount hold period (or periodic refreshes) in lieu of a single OEM-wide discount held fixed for the full 10-year period. | No, the Government will not consider allowing product-family-specific discounts or a shorter discount hold period. The requirement remains as stated in per the SIR. | AIT | Affigent, LLC | |
| 45 | Volume III - Cost/Price | L.11.2.4, Volume III - Cost/Price, Attachment 2A/2B | "These proposed discounts will be evaluated based on their application to the projected spend for each OEM over a 10-year period." | Given that each OEM encompasses multiple lines of business with widely varying market discounts, applying a single discount percentage to all product lines would create unbalanced or unrealistic pricing. Who does the Government anticipate will establish or approve a single discount percentage per OEM? And how does the Government envision such a broad discount being applied without causing unbalanced or unrealistic pricing? | Please confirm that the proposed single OEM discount is strictly a macro-level metric for IDIQ evaluation purposes, and confirm that delivery order-level competitions will allow for product-specific pricing? | The single Minimum Discount Percentage proposed for each OEM in Attachment 6 (and mirrored in Attachment 2A/2B) is a contract-level metric used for the baseline IDIQ evaluation and to establish a permanent pricing floor. |
| Per Section B of the solicitation, future requirements will be competed at the delivery order level. While pricing for each individual delivery order CLIN must strictly adhere to (or exceed) the mandated minimum discount floor established at the IDIQ contract level, the delivery order competition process allows for product-specific pricing. | AIT/ACQ | Affigent, LLC | |||||||
| 46 | Volume III - Cost/Price | L.11.2.4, Volume III - Cost/Price, Attachment 2A/2B | "The worksheet lists specific OEMs and their projected spending for a 10-year period. Offerors must provide a percentage discount for every OEM listed.... The Government intends to compete future requirements at the delivery order level..." | Section L.11.2.4 requires offerors to complete Attachment 2 by providing a percentage discount per each OEM. Please confirm the proposed discounts must be Discount Off List (DOL), calculated against MSRP? | Please confirm the proposed discounts must be Discount Off List (DOL), calculated against MSRP? | See Amendment 0009, the single minimum discount percentage proposed for each OEM in Attachment 6, and mirrored in the Price Model Evaluation Worksheet (Attachment 2A or 2B), must be must be based directly on the Original Equipment Manufacturer's (OEM) current, officially published Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) or their standard published commercial price list. | AIT/ACQ | Affigent, LLC | |
| 47 | Volume III - Cost/Price | L.11.2.4, Volume III - Cost/Price, Attachment 2A/2B | "The worksheet lists specific OEMs and their projected spending for a 10-year period. Offerors must provide a percentage discount for every OEM listed.... The Government intends to compete future requirements at the delivery order level..." | Please confirm that the discounts proposed per OEM in Attachment 2 should not include volume discounts, as there is no commitment or guarantee of any level of revenue per OEM. | Please confirm that the discounts proposed per OEM in Attachment 2 should not include volume discounts. | Confirmed. The single minimum discount percentage proposed for each OEM in Attachment 6 (and mirrored in Attachment 2A/2B) should represent the baseline, non-volume-dependent discount floor and should not incorporate volume-specific or tiered discounts that rely on revenue commitments or specific order quantities. | AIT | Affigent, LLC | |
| 48 | Section G - Contract Administration Data | G.3.3 RFQ/RFI REQUEST PROCESS | 5. All quotes must indicate the validity period (minimum of 30 days). | Due to ongoing industry supply constraints, OEMs are no longer providing quotes with 30-day validity. As a result, vendors are unable to assume the risk of holding pricing for that duration without OEM support. Accordingly, Vendor respectfully requests that the FAA revise the requirement to state: “All quotes must indicate the validity period provided by the OEM.” | Vendor respectfully requests that the FAA revise the requirement to state: “All quotes must indicate the validity period provided by the OEM.” | See Amendment 0009, Section G.3.3 RFQ/RFI REQUEST PROCESS updating the quote validity to add if industry conditions or OEM policies prevent a 30-day validity, vendors must clearly specify the validity period provided by the OEM and include documentation of the OEM's policy. | ACQ/AIT | Government Acquisitions, Inc. (GAI) | |
| 49 | Section L - Instructions,Conditions, and Notices to Bidders | 3.2.4-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1996) | The FAA contemplates award of a firm fixed price mulitple award IDIQ contract resulting from this Screening Information Request. | Given that pricing is based on a discount-from-list structure, and OEMs are not holding pricing firm for the duration of the contract, will the FAA confirm that vendors will only be held to a fixed discount and not a fixed price. | Confirmed, Offerors will be held to the established fixed minimum discount percentage. as per Section B.3, while the Government intends to compete future requirements at the delivery order level, the proposed minimum discounts will remain in effect for the entire 10-year period. In addition to the minimum discount, proposed delivery order pricing must not exceed the lowest available price offered on any other Government Ordering Vehicle (e.g., GSA FSS, NASA SEWP) or the Contractor’s current commercial catalog. | ACQ/AIT | Government Acquisitions, Inc. (GAI) | ||
| 50 | Attachment 4-Past Experience Information Form_20260512 | ATTACHMENT 4 - PAST EXPERIENCE INFORMATION SHEET | Provide a separate completed form for the contract/task order/program submitted. | Will the FAA please confirm that Vendors are only required to complete Attachment 4 - Past Experience Information Form and are not required to submit an additional form as only one (1) past performance example is required in vendor proposals? | Vendor respectfully recommends removing the sentence: "Provide a separate completed form for the contract/task order/program submitted. " to ensure all vendors submit only one Attachment 4 document without a separate completed form for the the the contract/task order/program submitted. Or, please confirm that there is no separate completed form to be submitted with proposals. | See Amendment 0009, for the updated Attachment 4 removing the language, provide a separate completed form for the contract/task order/program submitted". | AIT/ACQ | Government Acquisitions, Inc. (GAI) |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .