75N98026R00062_Questions_Answers_Amendment_P00002_0002.pdf

75N98026R00062 – Vendor Questions/Responses Attachment 4 – Base & OY Tabs

Question: The solicitation states a single contract awardee. Will it be a T&M award or is this a BPA? Also, the pricing references mapping to GSA schedule rates but we do not see any reference to this being a GSA issued solicitation. Can the government please confirm that this is not a GSA solicitation? And assuming that's the case clarify the need to use GSA labor category rates?

Response: This will be a Labor-Hour award and confirm this is not a GSA solicitation.

Attachment 4 has been updated to clarify the labor categories needed.

Attachment 1 – Pg 1 – Background and Purpose

Question: The SOW references that this is a consolidation of contracts- "The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) are combining requirements under this contract to achieve operational efficiencies, realize economies of scale, and reduce duplication of effort while supporting complementary and intersecting research portfolios.

Other Institutes with similar needs may also be able to access." Can the government please provide the name of the current contractors performing the work along with the associated contract numbers?

Response: There is not an incumbent on this work as it is a new requirement. Related or predecessor contract numbers, to the extent applicable, are provided for informational purposes only and do not define the scope, level of effort, staffing approach, or transition requirements for this solicitation.

Related/predecessor contract numbers: NINDS Contract Nos. 75N95025P00037; NIBIB Contract No. 75N92023C00025. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, pricing template, and Government Clarification Sheet in preparing proposals.

Attachment 1 – Pg 1-8 – All

Question: The SOW does not indicate any specifics on labor category requirements (education levels, certification, years of experience) and uses terms like "may include". The pricing sheet indicates that hours are to be bid by labor category. Can the government provide more details as to the qualifications of the current staff and the anticipated staffing needs per year for this new contract? As written, the SOW is inadequate to properly scope the workload involved.

Response: Please see the Government Clarification Sheet, which provides estimated annual hours by participating IC, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes.

The Government will not provide qualifications of incumbent or current staff. Offerors are responsible for proposing personnel with the education, experience, certifications, and technical qualifications necessary to successfully perform the requirements described in the SOW. The Government is not prescribing specific labor-category qualifications beyond the solicitation requirements.

The estimated hours, approximate FTE equivalents, and planning assumptions are provided for pricing and evaluation purposes only and do not represent guaranteed staffing levels, fixed positions, or a required labor mix. This requirement is primarily advisory, change management and analytical support, not a large staff-augmentation model. The Government requires subject matter expertise in both scientific and administrative operational and change management support and a vendor to provide subject matter expertise in support of implementing scientific federal advisory committees (e.g.

Parkinson’s) and external working groups recommendations in scientific programs and organizational change management. This requirement is project-based, and offerors should propose an approach that is scalable, flexible, and capable of supporting changing priorities across the participating ICs.

RFP – Pg 31 – Personnel Plan

Question: Please provide the number of key personnel resumes required as the solicitation references a Program Manager or Project Lead and senior leads with demonstrated experience in a number of areas but it is not clear how many resumes are expected and what positions are key.

Response: The Government requires subject matter expertise in both scientific and administrative operational and change management support and a vendor to provide subject matter expertise in support implementation of scientific federal advisory committees (e.g. Parkinson’s) and external working groups recommendations and priorities. The Government is not prescribing a specific number of key personnel resumes or specific positions that must be designated as key personnel. Offerors shall identify any personnel they consider key to the successful performance of the requirement and submit resumes for those individuals in accordance with the solicitation instructions. At a minimum, offerors should ensure their proposal demonstrates adequate leadership, program management, and senior technical expertise to perform the SOW requirements.

References to a Program Manager, Project Lead, and senior leads describe anticipated leadership and subject matter expertise needs and do not mandate a fixed number of key personnel positions.

RFP – Pg 30 – Evaluation

Question: The document RFP_75N98026R00062 contains a completed FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services clause but there is also a separate document entitled "Attachment_2_Technical_Evaluation_Factors". The documents do not perfectly align with what information is being evaluated. For example, Within the RFP_75N98026R00062 under b. Personnel Plan the first bullet says: "The proposed staff have experience and qualifications appropriate for satisfactory performance of the work required under this requirement" but this bullet is not part of the Attachment 2 document. The same occurs under Technical Approach. The RFP document lists "The proposal demonstrated a thorough understanding of and capability to perform the requirements of the statement of work." whereas Attachment 2 does not. There are similar issues within Past Performance section as the RFP document discusses risk whereas Attachment 2 does not. Please clarify the evaluation factors for Volume I and II.

Response: The RFP has been updated to reflect what evaluation factors will be used.

RFP – Attachment 2, pg. 8 – Section F

Question: Section F contains other important evaluation notes but some of these requirements aren't addressed within the FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services clause- specifically the last three bullets. Where should bidders address these bullets within their response and are they included in page count?

Response: The RFP has been updated to reflect the evaluation factors that will be used.

Offerors shall follow the solicitation, as amended, including Attachment 2 and any applicable proposal submission instructions.

Attachment 2 – Pg 8 – Section H

Question: Section H includes several required attachments. 1) Item 4 Transition-In Plan and item 8 Quality Assurance Plan are often long (5 -20 pages) each. Can the government clarify if these items are to be submitted with the proposal response? If yes, do they count towards the Volume I page count? Or is the intent for the bidder to just describe its process and approach to these requirements withing Volume I? 2) Item 5 states "up to three past performance references and/or CPARS" but no past performance reference is provided.

What should bidders use to meet this requirement if they do not have CPARS? 3) Section H includes Item 9 "OCI disclosure and mitigation narrative, if applicable" - is this to be included as a separate attachment? And is it part of the page count for any volumes- if so, which one?

Response:

1. Transition-In Plan and Quality Assurance Plan: Offerors shall address the Transition- In Plan and Quality Assurance Plan as part of Volume I - Technical & Management.

The Government is not expecting lengthy standalone plans. Offerors should describe their proposed process and approach within Volume I, and the content counts toward the Volume I page limitation unless otherwise stated in the solicitation.

2. Past Performance References/CPARS: If CPARS are not available, offerors may provide up to three past performance references from previous customers. Offerors should provide sufficient information for the Government to evaluate relevant past performance, such as contract/order number, customer name, point of contact, period of performance, contract value, scope of work, role performed, and relevance to this requirement. The Government may use questionnaires or other reasonable means to verify past performance information.

3. OCI Disclosure and Mitigation Narrative: The OCI disclosure and mitigation narrative, if applicable, shall be included in Volume I and shall count toward the Volume I page limitation. If no actual, potential, or apparent OCI exists, the offeror should state that no such OCI has been identified.

RFP – Pg 26-27 – Instructions to Offerors

Question: Within FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services of the RFP document are requirements for "(4) A technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the requirements in the solicitation. This may include product literature, or other documents, if necessary; and (10) Past performance information, when included as an evaluation factor, to include recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar items and other references (including contract numbers, points of contact with telephone numbers and other relevant information);"- should bidders reflect these requirements within Volume I and II respectively?

Response: Yes. Offerors may address the technical description within Volume I and past performance information within Volume II, consistent with the solicitation instructions and Attachment 2.

RFP – Pg 32 – Evaluation

Question: Page 32 states that "If the proposal does not include a completed HHS "Section 508 Product Assessment Template" (hereafter referred to as the "Template"), which demonstrates that EIT products and services proposed support applicable Section 508 accessibility standards, or, if the completed "Template" included in the proposal is considered "noncompliant," and the Government determines the proposal to be considered further for award, or if the Government holds discussions with the selected source (for sole source acquisitions), the offeror will be afforded the opportunity to further discuss, clarify or modify the "Template" during discussions and in the Final Proposal

Revision (FPR). If the "Template" is still considered "noncompliant" by the Government after discussions, the proposal may not be considered further for award." but there is no 508 compliance clause in the SOW and its unclear what product bidders should use to complete this template. Can more information be provided?

Response: This language has been removed from the RFP as it was conflicting with Attachment 2 and the SOW.

Attachment 2 – Pg 6 – Past Performance

Question: Attachment 2 says "In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those individual contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFQ. The Government also reserves the right to give greater consideration to an individual Offeror’s past performance information rather than the combined past performance information of an Offeror and its associates using teaming arrangements." Is past performance limited to only the Offeror or can teaming partner past performance also be included?

Response: Past performance is not limited to the prime Offeror. Offerors may include past performance information for proposed teaming partners, subcontractors, or other associates when the information is relevant to the work described in the solicitation.

However, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to past performance information for the prime Offeror and to contracts deemed most relevant to the requirement. Offerors should clearly identify which entity performed each referenced contract, that entity’s role, the scope of work performed, and how the experience is relevant to the proposed approach and workshare under this requirement.

Question: For the clinical and Scientific Support task area how many labs will be supported and for the clinical and Scientific Support task area how many clinical care teams will be supported and for the clinical and Scientific Support task area how many patient support teams will be supported?

Response: Please see the Government Clarification Sheet, which provides estimated annual hours by participating IC, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes.

The Government is not providing a fixed number of labs, clinical care teams, or patient support teams. This requirement is intended to provide flexible, project-based advisory, analytical, programmatic, and coordination support within the estimated annual level of effort. The Contractor is not expected to operate laboratories, provide clinical care, manage patient support teams, or assume Government program operations unless expressly stated in the SOW or directed within the scope of the contract. Actual assignments will be directed by the Government and may vary based on program needs, priorities, funding availability, and evolving IC needs.

Question: We understand the NIH suffered many Rif's and other staff losses in the last year. How many FTE's and contractors remain in place to support the mission in NIBIB and

NINDS?

Response: The Government will not provide internal staffing levels, RIF-related information, or the number of Government FTEs or contractors currently supporting NIBIB or NINDS. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, and Government Clarification Sheet for pricing and proposal preparation. This requirement is primarily advisory and analytical support and does not require offerors to replicate current Government or contractor staffing levels. Offerors remain responsible for proposing a staffing approach and labor mix sufficient to perform the SOW within the estimated annual level of effort.

Question: How many extramural research programs are active in each institute? How many are planned for the upcoming fiscal year? and how many intramural research programs are active in each institute? How many are anticipated for the upcoming fiscal year?

Response: Please see the Government Clarification Sheet, which provides estimated annual hours by participating IC, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes. This requirement is project-based, and offerors should propose an approach that is scalable, flexible, and capable of supporting changing priorities across the participating ICs.

Information regarding NIH grants, awards, projects, and related funding data is publicly available through NIH RePORTER at: https://reporter.nih.gov/. The Government is not providing additional program, application, or approval counts for this solicitation. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, and Government Clarification Sheet for pricing and proposal preparation.

Question: Understanding 2025 was an outlier, how many grant applications were received in 2024 versus 2025 for each institute? How many were approved in 2024 versus 2025 for each institute?

Response: Please see the Government Clarification Sheet, which provides estimated annual hours by participating IC, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes. This requirement is project-based, and offerors should propose an approach that is scalable, flexible, and capable of supporting changing priorities across the participating ICs.

Information regarding NIH grants, awards, projects, and related funding data is publicly https://reporter.nih.gov/ available through NIH RePORTER at: https://reporter.nih.gov/. The Government is not providing additional program, application, or approval counts for this solicitation. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, and Government Clarification Sheet for pricing and proposal preparation.

Question: In support of Translational Research Programs how many initiatives are currently in place? How many are planned for the upcoming fiscal year? Also, how many Translational Research Programs are in place currently? How many are planned for the upcoming fiscal year?

Response: Please see the Government Clarification Sheet, which provides estimated annual hours by participating IC, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes.

The Government is not providing a fixed number of current or planned translational research initiatives or programs. This requirement is project-based, and offerors should propose an approach that is scalable, flexible, and capable of supporting changing priorities across the participating ICs.

Support may be required across NINDS, NIBIB, and NIEHS, and projects may span multiple scientific, programmatic, analytical, operational, coordination, and advisory areas.

Offerors should demonstrate the ability to adjust resources, expertise, and level of effort as Government-directed projects evolve during performance. The specific number, timing, and scope of projects may vary based on Government direction, program priorities, funding availability, and the estimated annual level of effort.

Question: In the effort to consolidate support services for NIBIB and NINDS will change management assessments and regulatory reviews be completed for both institutes in their entirety or only a portion of each? If only a portion of each can you clarify which programs will be reviewed and how many FTE's are currently in those programs?

Response: The Government will not provide internal staffing levels, RIF-related information, or the number of Government FTEs or contractors currently supporting NIBIB or NINDS. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, and Government Clarification Sheet for pricing and proposal preparation. This requirement is primarily advisory and analytical support and does not require offerors to replicate current Government or contractor staffing levels. Offerors remain responsible for proposing a staffing approach and labor mix sufficient to perform the SOW within the estimated annual level of effort.

Question: Can the government confirm if the technical proposal page limit is 30 or 40 pages? (reference "Request for Proposal Document, section 6.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION page 3 and " EVALUATION CRITERIA & INSTRUCTIONS" document page 1)

Response: 30

Question: Will contractor personnel be expected to support ongoing existing initiatives, or is the contractor expected to help establish and operationalize new programs and coordination structures?

Response: Please see the Government Clarification Sheet, which provides estimated annual hours by participating IC, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes.

Contractor personnel may be required to support ongoing initiatives and new or evolving programs, coordination structures, processes, and activities, as directed by the Government. This support is primarily advisory and analytical in nature and may include planning, coordination, monitoring, documentation, program evaluation, change management, workflow analysis, process improvement, and development of tools, reports, and supporting documentation. Offerors should propose an approach that supports continuity of ongoing work as well as flexible support for new or evolving Government-directed requirements within the estimated annual level of effort.

Question: Are there any anticipated minimum education or certification preferences for proposed SMEs supporting translational research, organizational assessment, or change management activities?

Response: The Government is not prescribing minimum education or certification requirements for proposed SMEs beyond the requirements stated in the solicitation.

Offerors are responsible for proposing personnel with the education, experience, certifications, and technical qualifications necessary to successfully perform the SOW requirements, including translational research support, organizational assessment, analytical support, advisory support, and change-management activities. The Government will evaluate proposed personnel and staffing approaches in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. Certifications or advanced education may be considered where relevant to the proposed role and the requirements being supported, but no specific certification or degree is mandated unless otherwise stated in the solicitation.

Question: Is there an incumbent contractor currently performing similar services under an existing contract vehicle?

Response: There is not an incumbent on this work as it is a new requirement. Related or predecessor contract numbers, to the extent applicable, are provided for informational purposes only and do not define the scope, level of effort, staffing approach, or transition requirements for this solicitation.

Related/predecessor contract numbers: NINDS Contract Nos. 75N95025P00037; NIBIB

Contract No. 75N92023C00025. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, pricing template, and Government Clarification Sheet in preparing proposals.

Question: Which page limit applies to Volume I – Technical & Management (30 or 40 pages)?

Response: 30

Question: What is the required minimum font size for tables, graphics, organizational charts, and figures?

Response: The minimum font size for tables, graphics, organizational charts, and figures is 10-point font. Text must be legible and readable when printed on standard 8.5 x 11-inch paper. Graphics, tables, organizational charts, or figures that are not legible may not be evaluated.

Reference Document/Section: Attachment 2 Evaluation Criteria – Page 1 Para 5

Question: Up to 3 CPARS (and Past Performances) are asked to be submitted. One of the most similar Past Performance we would like to use is our contract for NIH, but we do not have CPARS recorded for this contract, can we go ahead and submit this Past Performance as one of the three Past Performances we use in this proposal? In absence of CPARS, will the Government consider our Past Performance for evaluation?

Response: Yes. In the absence of CPARS, offerors may submit a relevant past performance reference as one of the up to three past performance submissions. The Government will consider past performance information submitted by the offeror, including relevant NIH experience, even if CPARS are not available. Offerors should provide sufficient information for the Government to evaluate relevance and performance quality, including contract or order number, customer name, point of contact, period of performance, contract value, scope of work, role performed, and relevance to this requirement. The Government may verify past performance through customer questionnaires or other reasonable means.

Reference Document/Section: GENERAL

Question: Please provide the Level of Effort for this requirement. Level of Effort in terms of number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) expected to be put on the work during base year of performance and also Total Annual Hours required to perform the tasks.

Response: Please see the Government Clarification Sheet, which provides estimated annual hours by participating IC, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes.

For pricing purposes, offerors shall use the estimated annual hours, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative project-based support examples in the Government Clarification Sheet. The estimates are provided for pricing and evaluation purposes only and do not represent guaranteed hours, staffing levels, fixed positions, labor mix, or distribution of work.

This requirement is primarily advisory and analytical support rather than staff augmentation. Offerors may propose full-time, part-time, or fractional staffing models, provided the proposed labor mix and level of effort align with the estimated annual hours and support the SOW requirements. Actual staffing mix, project assignments, and level of effort may vary based on Government direction, program priorities, funding availability, and evolving IC needs.

Reference Document/Section: GENERAL

Question: Can we request the inputs on Incumbent Company’s name; their Contract Number and the Total Awarded Value of their contract?

Response: There is not an incumbent on this work as it is a new requirement. Related or predecessor contract numbers, to the extent applicable, are provided for informational purposes only and do not define the scope, level of effort, staffing approach, or transition requirements for this solicitation.

Related/predecessor contract numbers: NINDS Contract Nos. 75N95025P00037; NIBIB Contract No. 75N92023C00025. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, pricing template, and Government Clarification Sheet in preparing proposals.

Reference Document/Section: GENERAL

Question: Shall we assume this project type to be a Firm Fixed Price (FFP)?

Response: This will be a Labor-Hour award.

Reference Document/Section: GENERAL

Question: Can we request the Government for giving us additional week’s time for submission of this bid? We request for a week’s extension, please.

Response: This RFP due date has been extended via Amendment P00001 from May 19th to June 5th.

Question: None of the solicitation documents appear to specify an explicit level of effort (e.g., labor categories, hours, or FTEs) or provide implicit workload indicators (such as the number or frequency of required reports, deliverables, or events). As a result, offerors lack sufficient information to develop a staffing plan that is reasonably grounded in the Government’s actual requirements. This absence of context requires offerors to independently estimate quantities and workload assumptions without a common baseline, which may place non incumbent offerors at a competitive disadvantage relative to an incumbent with prior knowledge of the effort required. To support fair and equitable competition, could the Government provide additional information or clarifications regarding workload drivers or expected levels of effort?

Response: Please see the Government Clarification Sheet, which provides estimated annual hours by participating IC, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes. This requirement is project-based, and offerors should propose an approach that is scalable, flexible, and capable of supporting changing priorities across the participating ICs.

The Government will not provide internal staffing levels, RIF-related information, or the number of Government FTEs or contractors currently supporting NIBIB or NINDS. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, and Government Clarification Sheet for pricing and proposal preparation. This requirement is primarily advisory and analytical support and does not require offerors to replicate current Government or contractor staffing levels.

Offerors remain responsible for proposing a staffing approach and labor mix sufficient to perform the SOW within the estimated annual level of effort.

Question: Can the government confirm that the scope of this contract is limited to supporting “the National Plan to End Parkinson's” as stated on page 1 of the SOW and does not include support other parts of NIBIB or NINDS as implied by the reference to the “NIH HEAL Initiative” on page 3 under section 2.2?

Response: No. The scope is not limited solely to the National Plan to End Parkinson’s. The requirement supports the National Plan to End Parkinson’s, but the SOW also includes broader scientific, translational research, analytical, programmatic, operational, advisory, and consolidation support activities for NIBIB, NINDS, NIEHS, and potentially other Institutes or Centers with similar needs. The Contractor’s role is to provide support, analysis, recommendations, coordination, documentation, and subject matter input to assist Government-led decision-making within the scope of the SOW.

Question: RFP 75N98026R00062, Part 1 Section 2.0 (Brief Description, p.2) indicates that NIBIB and NINDS are combining their requirements under this contract, but it provides no details on any incumbent contract(s) or whether any portion of the SOW is outside the current scope. Can the Government identify the incumbent contract number(s) and number of incumbent contractor personnel to be transitioned, and clarify if any SOW requirements represent new tasks not performed under the incumbent(s) so that offerors can address these in the Transition-In Plan?

Response: There is no incumbent as this is a new requirement. Vendors are encouraged to rely on the solicitation requirements in preparing their proposals.

Related/predecessor contract numbers: NINDS Contract Nos. 75N95025P00037 and;

NIBIB Contract No. 75N92023C00025. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, pricing template, and Government Clarification Sheet in preparing proposals.

Question: Attachment 1 – Statement of Work, Section 6.0 (Place of Performance, p.7) states “Work shall be performed remotely and/or at NIH facilities, as directed by the Government.” Could the Government clarify the anticipated breakdown of on-site vs.

remote staffing under the new contract, and confirm whether Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be provided to remote personnel (to ensure offerors price equipment and support appropriately)?

Response: The Government will not provide internal staffing levels, RIF-related information, or the number of Government FTEs or contractors currently supporting NIBIB or NINDS. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, and Government Clarification Sheet for pricing and proposal preparation. This requirement is primarily advisory and analytical support and does not require offerors to replicate current Government or contractor staffing levels. Offerors remain responsible for proposing a staffing approach and labor mix sufficient to perform the SOW within the estimated annual level of effort.

Question: RFP 75N98026R00062, Factor II (Staffing Plan) requires a “labor-category-to-task-area mapping table identifying labor categories, hours or level of effort, ... for the three task areas.” However, Attachment 4 – Pricing Template does not include fields to break out hours by task area (it only collects labor categories, rates, and total hours). Please confirm that offerors are not required to allocate hours by task area in the price proposal and that any breakdown of hours/LOE by task should only be provided in the staffing matrix or technical proposal, per the instructions or provide an updated pricing template.

Response: Offerors shall complete the pricing template as provided and shall not modify the pricing template unless directed by the Government through amendment. Offerors should provide the labor-category-to-task-area mapping, including hours or level of effort by task area, in the staffing matrix and/or technical proposal in accordance with Attachment 2. The staffing matrix should be consistent with the offeror’s proposed labor mix and price proposal.

Question: Attachment 1 – Statement of Work, Section 4.0 (Deliverables and Reporting, p.7) states that “Deliverables shall be provided as specified under each task” and that “regular status reports” will be submitted “as requested.” However, no specific deliverable list or reporting schedule is provided. Can the Government share the current work plan or deliverables schedule from the incumbent effort, and clarify the expected frequency and format of recurring status reports (or other routine deliverables) under the new contract?

Response: The Government will not provide internal staffing levels, RIF-related information, or the number of Government FTEs or contractors currently supporting NIBIB or NINDS. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, and Government Clarification Sheet for pricing and proposal preparation. This requirement is primarily advisory and analytical support and does not require offerors to replicate current Government or contractor staffing levels. Offerors remain responsible for proposing a staffing approach and labor mix sufficient to perform the SOW within the estimated annual level of effort.

Question: Attachment 2 – Technical Evaluation Factors, Factor I (Technical Approach) directs offerors to include “measurable performance indicators or service standards” for each task area, yet the SOW does not list any performance metrics or service levels. Could the Government provide the current performance metrics or service standards used in the incumbent contracts being consolidated?

Response: There is no current incumbent as this is a new requirement. This requirement is project-based, and offerors should propose an approach that is scalable, flexible, and capable of supporting changing priorities across the participating ICs.

Related/predecessor contract numbers: NINDS Contract Nos. 75N95025P00037 and;

NIBIB Contract No. 75N92023C00025. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, pricing template, and Government Clarification Sheet in preparing proposals.

Offerors shall propose measurable performance indicators or service standards appropriate to their technical approach, the SOW requirements, the advisory and analytical nature of the requirement, and the estimated annual level of effort. Proposed metrics may address areas such as timeliness, quality of deliverables, responsiveness, milestone tracking, risk reporting, stakeholder coordination, status reporting, and completion of Government-directed activities. The Government will evaluate the proposed performance indicators or service standards in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

Question: Attachment 1 – Statement of Work (Task 2.3) refers to supporting “IC efforts at consolidating scientific, management and research administration in a multi-IC service center approach.” Also, RFP 75N98026R00062, Part 1 Section 2.0 mentions “participating Institutes and Centers” in this requirement. Could the Government clarify what consolidation efforts are being contemplated since there is limited public information available on NIBIB’s consolidation efforts, and specify which NIH Institutes/Centers are “participating” in this contract?

Response: NIBIB intends to change its internal management and research operations. It is also looking to strengthen scientific partnerships with NIH and is examining whether its extramural science programs require a different organization to address the rapid changes in health technology. NIBIB supports ethics in three other Institutes, and moving to a service-center model requires change management support. The Institutes also anticipate that NIH-based laboratories may be closing due to staffing changes and therefore require organizational assessments and change management services to support those efforts.

The Government will not provide internal staffing levels, RIF-related information, or the number of Government FTEs or contractors currently supporting NIBIB or NINDS. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, and Government Clarification Sheet for pricing and proposal preparation. This requirement is primarily advisory and analytical support and does not require offerors to replicate current Government or contractor staffing levels.

Offerors remain responsible for proposing a staffing approach and labor mix sufficient to perform the SOW within the estimated annual level of effort.

Question: RFP 75N98026R00062, Part 1 Section 2.0 (Brief Description, p.2) notes that this contract supports “the National Plan to End Parkinson’s.” Are there any known key milestones, deadlines, or program events relevant to the National Plan or the participating Institutes that should be factored into offerors’ proposed timelines since there is limited information on the public website? Identifying any such critical dates will help ensure our proposed project plan aligns with them.

Response: The first committee meeting is June 29. The Government is not seeking any logistical support for which milestones would be relevant at this time. Please see the clarification statement. Offerors should propose a flexible project management approach capable of supporting Government-directed milestones, meetings, briefings, stakeholder coordination, implementation tracking, advisory support, analytical support, and deliverables during performance. Actual timing and priorities may vary based on Government direction, program needs, funding availability, and evolving IC requirements.

Question: Attachment 1 – Statement of Work (Sections 2.1–2.3) delineates three distinct Task Areas: (1) Clinical & Scientific Support, (2) Translational Research Program Support, and (3) Consolidation Support. For work that spans multiple task areas, how will the Government assign or categorize such tasks to avoid overlap or duplication especially if a particular work request involves elements of more than one task area?

Response: For work that spans multiple task areas, the Government will provide direction during performance regarding task assignment, priorities, and reporting expectations.

Offerors should propose a management approach that avoids duplication, tracks work by task area where practicable and supports integrated performance across the three SOW task areas. The Contractor will be expected to coordinate work, maintain appropriate documentation, and provide advisory and analytical support to Government-led decision-making without performing inherently governmental functions.

Question: Who is the current incumbent and please share the past award/contract notice number?

Response: There is no current incumbent as this is a new requirement. This requirement is project-based, and offerors should propose an approach that is scalable, flexible, and capable of supporting changing priorities across the participating ICs.

Related/predecessor contract numbers: NINDS Contract Nos. 75N95025P00037; NIBIB Contract No. 75N92023C00025. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, pricing template, and Government Clarification Sheet in preparing proposals.

Question: Should offerors proof they are WOSB in the proposal submission, if so, how does the Government prefer this to be done?

Response: Offerors are not required to submit separate documentation to demonstrate WOSB status with their proposal. WOSB eligibility will be verified through the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) and applicable SBA certification systems. Offerors are responsible for ensuring their representations and certifications are current and accurate at the time of proposal submission.

Question: RFP Document, Page 31: Can the Government provide the historical labor category utilized and the number of hours for each (FT or PT or percentage). Or the anticipated labor cat and level of effort during each POP.

Response: Please see the Government Clarification Sheet, which provides estimated annual hours by participating IC, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes. This requirement is project-based, and offerors should propose an approach that is scalable, flexible, and capable of supporting changing priorities across the participating ICs.

Offerors should use the solicitation, pricing template, and Government Clarification Sheet for proposal preparation. Offerors remain responsible for proposing the labor categories, qualifications, staffing approach, and labor mix necessary to perform the SOW within the estimated annual level of effort. Attachment 2 requires offerors to provide a labor-category-to-task-area mapping table identifying labor categories, hours or level of effort, primary responsibilities, and how staff will be applied to the three task areas.

Related/predecessor contract numbers: NINDS Contract Nos. 75N95025P00037; NIBIB Contract No. 75N92023C00025. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, pricing template, and Government Clarification Sheet in preparing proposals.

Question: SOW Document, Page 3: What is the estimated number for clinical trials or programmatic research to be supported?

illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes.

Offerors should propose a flexible, scalable approach capable of providing analytical and advisory support to external and internal scientific research and management program areas within the estimated annual level of effort.

The Contractor is not expected to operate clinical trials, laboratories, or Government programs unless expressly stated in the SOW or directed within the scope of the contract.

Question: Attachment 2, Page 1: For Volume II it states "(up to 3 references; CPARS may be provided and do not count against this limit)' are offerors expected to write-out content of Past Performance that are in CPARS or just make reference to it?

Response: Offerors may provide CPARS and/or up to three past performance references. If CPARS are provided, offerors may reference the CPARS; however, offerors should also provide enough information for the Government to assess relevance to this requirement, including the contract/order number, customer, period of performance, scope, magnitude, complexity, role performed, and relevance to the SOW. CPARS do not count against the limit of up to three past performance references.

Question: Attachment 2, Page 3: Does the Government have expectation of the qualifications and/or background the Key Personnel?

Response: The Government is not prescribing specific degrees, certifications, or years of experience for Key Personnel beyond the requirements stated in the solicitation. Offerors shall propose Key Personnel with qualifications, experience, and technical expertise appropriate to perform the SOW. At a minimum, offerors should demonstrate adequate leadership, program management, senior technical expertise, and subject matter expertise to support advisory, analytical, programmatic, operational, and change-management activities within the estimated annual level of effort. The Government will evaluate proposed personnel and staffing approaches in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

Question: Attachment 2, Page 8: Does the 'Quality Assurance Plan' count towards the 30-page limit of Vol 1 ? Or can it be an Appendix (not counting towards page limit).

Response: The Government is not expecting lengthy standalone plans. Offerors shall provide a description of their proposed Transition-In Plan and Quality Assurance Plan approach within Volume I - Technical & Management. The response should describe the offeror’s process, approach, key activities, timelines, review controls, communication methods, risk mitigation, quality assurance procedures, and role-separation controls sufficient for the Government to evaluate the proposed approach. The Quality Assurance Plan content counts toward the 30-page limit for Volume I unless otherwise stated in the solicitation. Resumes, CPARS, cover page, table of contents, and the completed pricing template do not count against the page limits.

Question: RFP Document, Page 3: States 40 Page Limit for the Technical proposal, but Attachment 2 states 30 Pages. Which does the Government prefer?

Response: 30

Question: Organizational Conflict of Interest / Contractor Role Separation Requirements (Part 2 – Evaluation Factors and applicable OCI provisions) Please clarify whether subcontractors holding active SBIR/STTR awards, R01 grants, or other NIH-funded research awards from NINDS, NIBIB, or other NIH Institutes related to Parkinson’s disease or neurological disorders would be considered organizational conflicts of interest that are automatically disqualifying. Alternatively, will proposed OCI mitigation strategies be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of the proposal evaluation process?

Response: Subcontractors holding active SBIR/STTR awards, R01 grants, or other NIH-funded research awards are not automatically disqualified.

Offerors are responsible for identifying and disclosing any actual, potential, or apparent Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI), including any OCI concerns involving proposed subcontractors or teaming partners. Proposed OCI mitigation strategies will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as part of the proposal evaluation process.

The Government will consider the nature of the proposed work, the entity’s role on this contract, access to nonpublic information, potential impaired objectivity, potential unequal access to information, and any proposed mitigation measures. The Contractor must maintain appropriate separation between contractor support and Government decision-making.

Question: (Organizational Conflict of Interest / Future Research Participation) Please clarify whether participation under this contract as a subcontractor providing subject matter expertise, clinical/scientific advisory support, translational research support, or related analytical services would restrict or preclude that subcontractor from submitting future SBIR/STTR applications, R01 applications, or other NIH research grant proposals to NINDS, NIBIB, or other NIH Institutes in related scientific or programmatic areas. If restrictions apply, please specify the applicable duration, scope, and any required mitigation measures.

Response: Participation under this contract as a subcontractor does not automatically restrict or preclude that subcontractor from submitting future SBIR/STTR applications, R01 applications, or other NIH research grant proposals.

However, actual, potential, or apparent Organizational Conflicts of Interest will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Any restrictions or mitigation measures would depend on the nature of the subcontractor’s role, the work performed, access to nonpublic information, involvement in developing requirements or evaluation materials, potential impaired objectivity, and the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures.

Offerors are responsible for identifying and disclosing any actual, potential, or apparent OCI and proposing appropriate mitigation measures. The Contractor must maintain appropriate separation between contractor support and Government decision-making.

Question: Can the Government identify any incumbent or predecessor contractors (including contract numbers) currently supporting these or similar requirements for NINDS and/or NIBIB? If transition and knowledge transfer are required, will coordination with an incumbent contractor be facilitated, and can the Government identify those contractors?

Response: Please see the Government Clarification Sheet, which provides estimated annual hours by participating IC, approximate FTE equivalents, planning assumptions, and illustrative examples of potential project-based support for proposal preparation and pricing purposes. This requirement is project-based, and offerors should propose an approach that is scalable, flexible, and capable of supporting changing priorities across the participating ICs.

There is no incumbent because this is a new requirement. There is no longer a transition plan required; that was included because of administrative oversight. Transition and knowledge transfer from related contracts will be facilitated by the Government.

Related/predecessor contract numbers: NINDS Contract Nos NINDS Contract Nos.

75N95025P0003.; NIBIB Contract No. 75N92023C00025. Offerors shall rely on the solicitation, SOW, pricing template, and Government Clarification Sheet in preparing proposals.

Question: Can the Government provide an estimated total contract value or anticipated ceiling for this requirement, including base and option periods?

Response: The Government will not disclose incumbent contractor information. Vendors are encouraged to rely on the solicitation requirements in preparing their proposals.

Question: Does the Government envision this requirement primarily as staff augmentation, advisory/analytical support, or a hybrid model? If hybrid, can the

Government clarify the expected balance between steady-state staffing and project-based tasking?

Response: This requirement is advisory and analytical and does not require offerors to replicate current Government or contractor staffing levels. Offerors remain responsible for proposing a staffing approach and labor mix sufficient to perform the SOW within the estimated annual level of effort.

Question: (Section 6.0 Proposal Submission & Attachment 2 - Technical Evaluation Factors Section A.4. ( pgs. 3 of 78 & 1 of 8)) The RFP states, "The technical proposal must not exceed 40 pages in length" but the Technical Evaluation Factors states, "Volume I – Technical & Management: 30 pages maximum (tables and graphics count)."

Can the Government confirm the applicable page limit for Volume I – Technical & Management and clarify whether the 40-page limit governs?

Response: 30 pages

Question: (1.0 Introduction (pgs.2 of 78)) Is the anticipated contract a multi-year IDIQ? If so, does the Government anticipate separate task orders to support different NIH IC needs (e.g., NINDS, NIBIB, and others), and will the Government consider multiple awards?

Response: The anticipated…