70RTAC25R00000010_0001_Vendor Questions and Responses on Final RFP.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Final Solicitation for Cellular Wireless Managed Services (CWMS) 3. 0 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 70RTAC25R00000010
About this file
This document is a Vendor Questions and Responses file for the Department of Homeland Security's Cellular Wireless Managed Services (CWMS) 3.0 solicitation. The contract is a 10-year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) with a total ceiling value of $3,066,613,353.66, seeking comprehensive cellular wireless management services for DHS components. Key details include a two-phase proposal submission process, with Phase 2 invitations anticipated for December 3, 2025, and requirements for a carrier-agnostic web portal with FedRAMP authorization, mobile device management, service desk support, and inventory management.
The solicitation includes specific requirements for device upgrades (10-18 month refresh cycle), zero-cost smartphone devices no older than one iteration behind current manufacturer offerings, and a management portal with distinct, customizable instances for each DHS component. Offerors must demonstrate past performance as the prime contractor, provide carrier commitment letters, and submit detailed management approach and web portal capability responses. The contract will support wireless services across various device types including smartphones, tablets, eSIMs, and data devices, with a focus on comprehensive lifecycle management and consolidated billing for DHS.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 70RTAC25R00000010_0001_RFP Continuation Pages.pdf | ||
| 70RTAC25R00000010_0001_Attachment 1_Statement of Work.pdf | ||
| 70RTAC25R00000010_0001_Attachment 3_Pricing Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 70RTAC25R00000010_0001_SF30.pdf | ||
| 70RTAC25R00000010_Attachment 2_PPQ.pdf | ||
| 70RTAC25R00000010_Attachment 1_Statement of Work.pdf | ||
| 70RTAC25R00000010_Attachment 3_Pricing Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 70RTAC25R00000010_Attachment 4_Vendor Questions and Responses on Draft RFP.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 70RTAC25R00000010.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
CWMS 3.0 Q&A
| Vendor Questions and Responses | ||||||
| CWMS 3.0 FINAL RFP | ||||||
| No. | Document Title | Section & Subsection | Page(s) | Question/Comment | Government Response | |
| 1 | Header | N/A | 6 | The headers starting on page 6 reference this as a Draft RFP. Is this the final solicitation or a DRAFT? | It is a typo. This is the final solicitation. | |
| 2 | Past Performance | 4.1.2.5 | 11 | Given the governments stated ceiling value of this contract ($3,066,613,353.66), most if not all offerors will be utilizing major subcontractor(s). Will the government consider allowing past performance from a major subcontractor instead of just from the offeror, especially if it’s a prime contract past performance held by a major subcontractor? | All past performance examples shall reflect work performed by the offeror (Prime). The government considers the prime contractor's experience to be essential to the success of the contract. | |
| 3 | Past Performance | 2.5 | 20 | The evaluation states “past performance evaluation will assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s likelihood of successful performance based on how well the offeror has performed on recent and relevant contracts/orders.” Given the size of the contract ($3,066,613,353.66), it seems important for the government to also evaluate major subcontracts (e.g. >=20% workshare) since their performance would have a great impact on the offerors ability to perform. As such, we recommend that the government request a past performance from any offeror’s major subcontract who has a commitment of 20% workshare or grater. | See Response #2. | |
| 4 | RFP 2.0 Proposal Submission | 1 | 6 | Please provide the anticipated date or timeframe for bidder notifications regarding Phase 2 invitations. | December 3, 2025. Please note that this date is subject to change. | |
| 5 | RFP 4.1.1 Phase 1, Volume 1 – Written Submission | 1 | 8 | Will the Government allow a cover letter to be included for Phase 1 Volume 1 and Phase 2 Volume 2 and Volume 3 submissions? | A cover sheet shall be included for Volume 1, Volume 2, and Volume 3 as instructed in the RFP Sections 4.0, 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2.1, and 4.1.3.1. | |
| 6 | RFP 4.1.1.5 (Factor 2 – Carrier Commitment Letters) | Table, #1 | 9 | Because FirstNet is operated by AT&T, will DHS accept a single AT&T letter explicitly covering both AT&T and FirstNet, or does DHS require a separate FirstNet‑specific commitment letter? | A separate commitment letter from FirstNet is required. | |
| 7 | RFP 4.0 Proposal Format and Contents | |||||
| 4.1.2.4 Factor 3: Management Approach | Table, Phase 2 Written Submission, #4 | 7, 10 | To enable the Government to effectively assess offerors’ solutions, differentiating approaches, and demonstrated value across the 15 distinct topics listed below, would the Government consider increasing the page limit from 10 pages to at least 15 pages? |
1. How core and optional services will be met
2. How onsite labor will be provided for MDM
3. How onsite labor will be provided for in-building cellular
4. Experience supporting federal or corporate clients
5. Describe PMP
6. Describe TMP
7. Ability to perform TEMS processes
8. Ability to procure carrier services and devices
9. Ability to perform asset and inventory management
10. Ability to perform invoicing and auditing services
11. Demonstrated experience supporting clients for TEMS services
12. Step-by-step approach to reduce program costs and implement efficiencies
13. How service level compliance will be measured, assessed, and reported
14. Risk management methodology
15. How carrier relationships will affect service delivery- domestic and international. We will increase the page limit to 15 pages to allow for more thorough and detailed responses.
| 8 | RFP 4.0 Proposal Format and Contents | |||||
| 4.1.2.4 Factor 3: Management Approach | 1 | 10 | Please clarify if Transition Services is to be included in the Management Approach response. If so, would the Government consider adding page count of 3-5 pages as transition-in services are essential? | The offeror's Factor 3 submission shall describe key elements and outlines of efforts, features, and contents that will be addressed in the Transition Management Plan. The page limit has been increased to 15 pages for Factor 3. | ||
| 9 | RFP 23.0 (FAR Clauses – incorporation of FAR 52.219‑14); Pricing Template (Attachment 3) | 1 | RFP pp. 31–32; Pricing Template | Please confirm that Limitations on Subcontracting (LOS) will be assessed per task order on labor CLINs, excluding pass‑through carrier services, hardware, and licensing from the LOS calculation base. | FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (OCT 2021) (Deviation 22-02) applies to this contract and resultant task orders as a whole, not on a CLIN-by-CLIN basis. | |
| 10 | SOW 2.3.2.5 Invoicing | 1 | 10 | The solicitation references “pass-through of carrier invoices.” For avoidance of doubt, please confirm the intended billing treatment: does the Government require carrier charges to be billed strictly at the actual amounts invoiced by the underlying carrier with no contractor-applied indirects, or may the contractor bill in accordance with its approved Disclosure Statement, applying disclosed/approved indirect rates (e.g., G&A and/or a material-handling/ODC added) to such pass-through costs? | The invoice must include the actual costs for services or devices charged by the carriers or vendors. | |
| 11 | SOW 2.4 (Management Portal); 5.5 (Table of Deliverables) | SOW 2.4, paragraph 1; SOW 5.5 (Table of Deliverables, Items 18–19) | 10–12; 21 | Please clarify the intended portal readiness milestones—what should be production‑ready by Day 30 (Portal Ordering Capability; Electronic Data Transfer Capabilities) vs. complete by Day 60 (full portal availability) after IDIQ award. | The offeror shall provide the processes for meeting the management portal requirements within 30 days of the award and ensure full implementation within 60 days. | |
| 12 | SOW 2.4.1 (Security Requirements); SOW 2.6.1 (Transition‑In) | SOW 2.4.1 paragraph 1 | 11; 12–13 | Please confirm (a) that 'FedRAMP In Process' for the web portal must exist by IDIQ award (not proposal), (b) what evidence DHS will accept at award (e.g., FedRAMP Marketplace listing URL, Agency Sponsor letter, PMO acknowledgment), and (c) that 'In Process' applies to the portal product itself (not only the hosting platform). | (a) ”FedRAMP Authorized" or "FedRAMP In Process" for the web portal must exist at the time of proposal submission for Phase 2. |
(b) DHS will accept either the Marketplace listing URL or a confirmed Agency Sponsor letter as proof.
(c) "FedRAMP Authorized" or "FedRAMP In Process” applies to the portal. The hosting platform must be FedRAMP Authorized at the time of proposal submission for Phase 2.
| 13 | SOW 2.4.1 (Security Requirements) | 1 | 11 | Will DHS accept FIPS 140‑3 validation (modules and ciphersuites) as meeting or exceeding the requirement for FIPS 140‑2 at the SSL/TLS layer? | Yes, you can use FIPS 140-2 or FIPS 140-3 standards. |
| 14 | SOW 2.4.2 (Interface Requirements); 2.6.1 (Transition‑In) | SOW 2.4.2 paragraph 1; SOW 2.6.1 paragraph 1, bullet 1 | 11; 12–13 | To support transition planning, please identify initial target systems for early integration at HQ and first‑adopter Components (e.g., ServiceNow, PRISM, Pegasys, Concur, HR systems, MDM platforms). | The specific systems will be determined at the task order level. The web portal must be able to receive or share data through various methods, including data dumps, batch transfers, APIs, or e-Bonding. |
| 15 | SOW 2.5 (Service Desk Support); 8.1 (Service Levels & SLAs) | SOW 2.5, paragraph 1; SOW 8.1 Service Levels | 12; 22–25 | Please confirm which baseline SLA targets apply at the IDIQ level (e.g., ASA ≤ 45 sec; Abandon ≤ 3%; FCR ≥ 80%) and which may be tailored by Component task order. Also, will after‑hours support be treated as optional services only? | The Service Level Agreements (SLAs) apply exclusively to individual task orders. They are effective only during core business hours and do not apply to the overall IDIQ contract and cannot be changed. |
| 16 | SOW 2.6.1 (Transition-In) | Paragraph 1, bullet 4 | 12–13 | Please confirm that the Government’s intent is (a) the Offeror’s web portal is listed on the FedRAMP Marketplace as “In Process” (or Authorized) by the time of IDIQ award, (b) the interim DHS ATO will be issued at award contingent on that listing and the portal operating on a FedRAMP-authorized platform, and (c) the final DHS ATO is expected within 12 months after award. Please also confirm that “In-Process” must be for the portal product itself, not solely the hosting environment. | (a) 'FedRAMP Authorized" or "FedRAMP In Process" for the web portal must exist at the time of proposal submission for Phase 2. |
(b) An interim ATO will be issued at the time of IDIQ contract award contingent on if the offeror’s web portal is FedRAMP Authorized" or "FedRAMP In Process" and the hosting platform FedRAMP authorized.
(c) FedRAMP “In-Process” is permissible for the portal product. The hosting platform must be FedRAMP Authorized at the time of proposal submission for Phase 2.
| 17 | SOW 2.6.1 (Transition-In) | Paragraph 1, bullet 1 | 12–13 | For planning and pricing accuracy, please clarify the Government’s intended migration approach for existing wireless services: Does the Government anticipate (a) porting existing numbers to new contractor-established Billing Account Numbers (BANs) via mobile number portability, (b) executing a Change of Financial Responsibility (COFR) on current agency BANs, or (c) a hybrid by component/agency? | The government requires only (a). New BANS should be established by the contractor. This outlines which contractor is responsible for what accounts so that the former contractor can close out their account in full. |
| 18 | SF‑1449 Schedule; Attachment 3 (Pricing Template); RFP 22.1 (Price Adjustments) | RFP 22.1 paragraph 1 | RFP pp. 2–4; 12–13; 31; Pricing Template | Please confirm the mechanism and frequency for updating IDIQ price lists over the 10‑year term (e.g., annual economic price adjustment, technology refresh discounts, or CO‑approved adjustments upon market changes). | Please see the updated RFP Section 22.0. |
| 19 | Attachment 3_Pricing Template- Labor Descriptions | n/a | Pricing Template | The current description for the Mobility Technician position appears closely aligned with that of the Project Manager, with similar responsibilities related to project oversight, systems analysis, and planning. To ensure clarity and alignment with intended duties, would the Government like to modify or refine the MDM Lead description to emphasize its specific focus on mobile device management functions—such as policy administration, mobile security compliance, lifecycle management, and device enrollment/support, instead of broader project management and application development responsibilities? | The mobility technician and project manager share similar responsibilities; however, the project manager is required for large, complex projects. There is no designated MDM Lead position. The offeror may choose the positions they consider suitable to meet MDM requirements for each individual task order. |
| 20 | Attachment 3_Pricing Template-Core Services (CLIN 1) |
MDM Services (CLIN 2) Services & Hardware (CLIN 3A) Licensing (CLIN 3B)
| n/a | Pricing Template | The pricing template requests “annual unit price” for each CLIN but does not reference any quantities. To ensure accuracy and consistency across offerors, would the Government please confirm whether pricing should reflect a fixed per-unit rate only, or if offerors may propose volume-based or quantity-tiered discounts that reflect economies of scale? | The offeror should assume that the Government is purchasing a single license. Volume-based or tiered discounts do not apply. | ||
| 21 | Attachment 3_Pricing Template-Tabs Procurement and Number of Orders | n/a | Pricing Template | Please clarify the quantities in Procurement represent the DHS and Component task order procurements by quarter by Government Fiscal Year and the Number of Orders represent the total number of catalog orders by month by calendar year. | Draft Response: The Procurements tab (Attachment 4_Vendor Questions and Responses on Draft RFP) represents activities for all DHS Components and includes the following equipment: Air Card, Android, Blackberry, Cell Phone, Data Device, Embedded, Hotspot, iPhone, Laptop, Machine to Machine, Modem, Other, Pager, Satellite Data Device, Satellite Phone, Secure Device, Smart Phone, Tablet, and Wearable. |
| 22 | 70RTAC25R00000010 - Attachment+3_Pricing+Template | Services & Hardware (CLIN 3A) | Instructions | "3. Device Offerings shall include no early termination fees. All warranty and device exchanges will not be returned to the carrier. Service plans shall include a 10 to 24 month refresh schedule and provide a low or zero cost smartphone device that is no older than 1 iteration behind the current manufacturer device offerings." While the RFP requests better service pricing, the cost of standard smartphones has been on the rise for the past several years and is expected to continue to increase for the duration of this contract. At the same time, end users are keeping their devices longer without impact to their overall wireless experience. In order to continue providing DHS with an N-1 device and the best possible service pricing, we need to reduce the frequency of upgrades to a fully subsidized device. As such, we request a standard upgrade cycle of 24 or 36 months for CWMS 3.0. | Carriers are meeting the current requirements, so DHS will not change the maximum refresh cycle time period at this time. If market conditions change, we will review and address this as needed. We do not expect these requirements to change anytime soon. |
| 23 | 70RTAC25R00000010 - Attachment+3_Pricing+Template | Services & Hardware (CLIN 3A) | Instructions | The price sheet says no or low cost device. SOW say "provide a low or zero cost smartphone device that is no older than 1 iteration behind the current manufacturer device offerings". Can DHS update the statement of work as well as the Price Sheet to also reference a "no or low cost" N-1 device? | The SOW states "Zero cost smartphone device option no older than 1 iteration behind the manufacturer’s device offerings." There is an error in the pricing template. It should state 'zero-cost smartphone device' instead of 'low or zero cost smartphone device.' The word 'low' has been removed." |
| 24 | SOW | 3.1.1 Carrier Terms and Conditions | 15 | Carrier Terms and Conditions of the SOW stipulates a 10 to 18 month upgrade eligibility refresh cycle, while the document entitled "70RTAC25R00000010 - Attachment+3_Pricing+Template" requires a 10 to 24 month refresh schedule. Can DHS please clarify final upgrade interval so that it is consistent across all documents? | The pricing template contains an error. It should state a refresh schedule of 10 to 18 months. The previous reference to 24 months has been updated to 18 months. |
| 25 | RFP | Section 4.1.1.4 | 9 | The instructions state that the offeror—as the Prime Contractor, or all Teaming Partners proposed in a Joint Venture (JV) or Mentor Protégé response—must demonstrate a current active Facility Clearance at the Top Secret level. Could you please confirm whether this requirement extends to every individual person supporting the contract (e.g., all onsite contractors or personnel), or if it applies solely to the Prime Contractor and Teaming Partner organizations holding the clearance? | The facility clearance level (FCL) is for the company(ies), not individuals. The FCL requirement identified in the solicitation package means that every company that makes up the JV (all Teaming Partners proposed in a Joint Venture (JV) or Mentor Protégé ) must have the applicable FCL granted by DCSA at the same or higher level required by the contract. |
| 26 | RFP, 4.1.2.4 Factor 4: Web Portal Capability | Page 11 of 86 | May we submit the video submission through a hosted Vimeo solution rather than YouTube?. |
• YouTube retains broad, transferable rights to uploaded content including the ability to sublicense and monetize.
• Vimeo’s enterprise-grade platform offers significantly stronger safeguards for proprietary content, including password protection, download restrictions, and domain-level privacy controls.
• Vimeo’s terms of service limit its license strictly to operating the hosting service, with no rights to distribute, modify, or promote the content beyond our intent.
• This ensures our submission remains secure, confidential, and fully under our control, while still meeting the SOW’s intent for a direct video link and access instructions.
| • We are confident this approach aligns with the agency’s commitment to data security and responsible vendor engagement. | In accordance with the RFP, please submit the video through YouTube. | |||||
| 27 | SOW, 1.2 SCOPE | Page 5 of 36 | Does DHS anticipate a specific growth rate or trajectory in the number of managed lines over the contract term that Offerors should account for in scalability planning? | DHS does not expect a specific growth rate or trajectory. The solution must be able to support all DHS lines of service. | ||
| 28 | SOW, 2.5 SERVICE DESK SUPPORT | Page 12 of 36 | Can DHS clarify the level of support expected for the "limited after-hours support" (e.g., emergency-only support vs. Tier 1 functionality) to help Offerors appropriately plan staffing levels and escalation protocols? | Each task order will specify the requirements for after-hours support, if applicable. | ||
| 29 | Pricing Template | Licensing (CLIN 3B) tab | Please confirm columns E and F are formatted correctly. These columns appear to be formatted for a date submission only but appear to require a price and a percentage figure respectively. | The columns were previously formatted incorrectly due to an oversight. The issue has now been resolved, and the columns are correctly formatted. | ||
| 30 | Instructions, 4.1.2.4 Factor 3: Management Approach | (numbered list) | Page 10 of 86 | The solicitation instructions state, “The offeror shall describe how all core services and optional services identified in the SOW will be met.” This requirement asks offerors to address the entirety of the 36-page SOW and 9 focused questions within a 10-page limit for Factor 3: Management Approach. Given the scope of requirements in the SOW, please consider increasing the page limit for Factor 3: Management Approach to 20 pages so that offerors can better articulate their approach. | See Response #7. | |
| 31 | Instructions, 4.2.1.1 Video Submission Requirements | (bulleted list) | Page 14 of 86 | The government provides 30 minutes for the portal demo. Given the breadth and detailed nature of the 11 criteria we must address, please consider extending the maximum video length to 45 minutes in order to allow offerors to fully demonstrate the capabilities of their portal. | The government believes a 30-minute session is sufficient to complete the portal demonstration. | |
| 32 | Attachment 4: Vendor Questions and Responses on Draft RFP | N/A | Service Tickets tab | In the Service Tickets tab of Attachment 4: Vendor Questions and Responses on Draft RFP, please provide a break down of the number of service tickets by those associated with SOW Section 2.5 – Service Desk Support and those related to Optional Services such as SOW Section 3.2 – Mobile Device Management (MDM) Services. This will assist offerors to properly price core and optional services. | DHS will not be providing metric break downs. | |
| 33 | Attachment 3: Pricing Template | N/A | Sample Order tab | In Attachment 3: Pricing Template – Sample Order tab, the T-Mobile eSIM Services Bundle notes that “All eSIMs will be used to provide free in-flight coverage only.” Please clarify what is meant by “free in-flight coverage.” This information is needed to allow offerors to properly price this element. | T-Mobile offers free in-flight Wi-Fi with select service plans. This feature provides unlimited Wi-Fi access during your flight, allowing you to stay connected while in the air. | |
| 34 | Attachment 3: Pricing Template | N/A | Sample Order tab | In Attachment 3: Pricing Template – Sample Order tab, under the T-Mobile eSIM Services Bundle, please clarify whether the eSIM services will be used for cell phones, smartphones, and/or data-only devices (e.g., MiFi or tablets). This information is needed to allow offerors to properly price this element. | T-Mobile in-flight services will be used on smartphones only. | |
| 35 | Attachment 3: Pricing Template | N/A | CORE Services (CLIN 1) tab - Wi-Fi Devices | In the tab titled CORE Services (CLIN 1), the CLIN 1 pricing table includes a line item(s) for “Wi-Fi Devices.” To allow offerors to price more accurately since different device types have different price points, please clarify what types of devices or services are considered Wi-Fi devices (e.g., hotspots, cradle points, laptops) versus cellular devices (e.g., phones, smartphones). | All devices are purchased without a service plan. No interaction with a carrier is needed—only device lifecycle management is required. For example, this includes iPads without a service plan. | |
| 36 | SOW, 2.3.1.2 INVENTORY MANAGEMENT | 1 | Page 8 of 36 | The SOW states, “and asset tag if applicable using DHS Component asset tags.” To allow offerors to properly size their logistics teams, please provide an estimated percentage of DHS phones that will require asset tags based on historical and estimated future volumes. | Plan for all DHS devices to require an asset tag. However, low-cost devices like basic flip phones and hotspots typically do not require asset tags. Each DHS component has specific tagging requirements. | |
| 37 | SOW, 2.3.1.3 SHIPPING | 1 | Page 8 of 36 | The SOW states, “Government will provide a shipping vehicle to be used if available.” Please clarify what is meant by “shipping vehicle” (e.g., a government-provided shipping contract for device shipments such as DHS contract with a shipping entity such as FedEx or UPS), and whether the associated shipping costs are paid by DHS. This will allow offerors to price core services more appropriately. | The term "shipping vehicle" refers to a government contract that provides reduced shipping rates. For example, the Next Generation Delivery Services (NGDS) II contract can be used to access these discounted rates. Under this arrangement, the contractor is responsible for covering all costs associated with using the contract and will include those charges in the monthly consolidated invoice submitted to DHS components. | |
| 38 | SOW, 2.4 MANAGEMENT PORTAL | 1 | Page 10 of 36 | The SOW states, “The portal shall provide a single web-based, carrier-agnostic interface for DHS to control and manage its cellular wireless program across the department, including a distinct, customizable instance for each Component based on requirements specified at the task order level.” Please clarify the existing identity and access management (IDM) solution that enables DHS and its Components to access their respective “distinct, customizable” instances within the “single web-based” management portal. | The management portal will be required to authenticate through the DHS Authortative Portal. This will require a technical lead with administrative credentials to work with a DHS SSO engineer to integrate your solution. |
Dhs_Auth_Portal@hq.dhs.gov.
| 39 | SOW, 3.1.1 Carrier Terms and Conditions; Attachment 3: Pricing Template - Services and Hardware (CLIN 3A) tab | (bulleted list) | Page 15 of 36 | The SOW references a “10- to 18-month upgrade eligibility refresh cycle,” while Attachment 3: Pricing Template – Services and Hardware (CLIN 3A) specifies a “10- to 24-month refresh schedule.” Please clarify which refresh cycle applies. | See Response #24. |
| 40 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Please confirm if the government anticipates awarding one or more initial task orders concurrently with the IDIQ contract award. Clarifying this will enable offerors to more accurately develop their transition approach. | No, the government does not anticipate awarding task orders concurrently with the IDIQ contract award. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .