Amendment 0006 QAs - 10.21.2026.pdf

Amendment 0006 Q&A – 10.21.2026

The following serves as the government’s responses to all CMMC-related inquiries:

The Government clarifies that solicitation requirements regarding the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) are updated via Amendment [0006].

Pursuant to DFARS 252.204-7025(b)(1), the required CMMC status prior to award of the basic IDIQ contract is CMMC Level 2 (Self-Assessment):

1. Final vs. Conditional Level 2 Status:

In accordance with CMMC program guidelines (32 CFR Part 170), the Government will accept either a Final OR Conditional CMMC Level 2 (Self-Assessment) status posted in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) prior to contract award. An offeror with an active Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) meeting the minimum CMMC score thresholds (valid for up to 180 days) satisfies the pre-award eligibility requirement for IDIQ award.

2. Applicable Clauses & Provisions:

The following clauses & provisions apply to this solicitation:

DFARS 252.204-7012 (Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting)

DFARS 252.204-7021 (Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Requirements)

DFARS 252.204-7025 (CMMC Level Notice Provision)

DFARS 252.240-7997 (NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements)

3. No Third-Party Audit Required Pre-Award:

Offerors are not required to possess or submit a third-party C3PAO certification prior to contract award.

4. Submission Instructions:

Offerors are required to provide their CMMC Unique Identifier(s) (CMMC UIDs) and associated SPRS posting details proving active Final or Conditional CMMC Level 2 (Self) status within Volume I, Tab 3 (Representations and Certifications / Section K) of their proposal.

# Question / Inquiry Response

1 Section L 6.1.3 p. 7 of 10 seems to provide conflicting guidance on submitting Volume II:

“Offerors are requested to submit Volume II (Substantiating Documentation) as a single, consolidated PDF file organized with native electronic PDF bookmarks (bookmarks shall replicate physical dividers or tabs). To accommodate file size constraints, offerors should submit Volume II as multiple separately bundled PDF files organized and labeled by Technical Experience ID (e.g., 'Volume II - ID 3 - Documentation.pdf').”

Please clarify how Volume II is to be structured for submittal. Due to size constraints, we strongly recommend allowing for multiple PDF files.

The solicitation explicitly permits both submission structures. Offerors may submit Volume II (Substantiating Documentation) as either a single consolidated PDF file with electronic bookmarks, or as multiple, separately labeled PDF files organized by Technical Experience ID (e.g., 'Volume II - ID 3 - Documentation.pdf') to accommodate email file size limitations. The choice of file structure is at the discretion of the offeror, provided all other Section L submission instructions are met.

2 Could the Government please extend the proposal deadline five business days to October 22? With October 12 being a holiday, the Amendment documents and extensive Q&A leave offerors a limited window to review the details, reassess proposal strategy, and update their submissions. Additional time would help ensure proposals are complete and compliant with the current requirements.

Proposal due date is now 30 Oct 26: 3:00 EDT

3 For Volume II, we humbly encourage the Government to reconsider allowing a simple reference matrix within each scored item's tab.

Each scored item requires offerors to demonstrate multiple elements, sometimes through a chain of supporting documents. A matrix limited to the requirement element, supporting document, and page number would provide the required roadmap without adding narrative or new evidence.

The Government declines to revise the solicitation. To ensure a strictly objective, fair, and equal evaluation for all competitors, offerors shall not submit separate project matrices, reference roadmaps, or explanatory narratives within Volume II. The Government-provided Attachment 5 (Self-Scoring Worksheet) is the sole authorized matrix for cross-referencing and linking claimed technical experience to supporting document page numbers. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests solely with the offeror to ensure that the submitted contract files and records clearly and legibly substantiate each claimed scoring element without the need for supplementary narrative.

4 Responses to Questions 103 and 157 require an affiliate whose Technical Experience is submitted to be proposed as a subcontractor or teaming partner and provide a Letter of Commitment demonstrating “meaningful involvement,” while Response to Question 46 states that offerors are not required to identify teaming or subcontractor arrangements in the proposal.

Can the Government please reconcile these responses and clarify why a Letter of Commitment is required for an affiliate proposed as a subcontractor, but not for other proposed subcontractors? Additionally, because Section L does not appear to address Letters of Commitment, please identify where the letter should be submitted and the minimum content required to demonstrate “meaningful involvement.” Further, will the Government please amend Section L to provide these proposal instructions?

The Government clarifies and reconciles the responses as follows:

1. Clarification of Response to Question 46: To enable the Government to evaluate technical experience and enforce the 51% Prime / 49% Subcontractor threshold under Section M, Paragraph 2.4, offerors must identify all proposed first-tier subcontractors and joint venture members in Volume I (Contract Documentation).

2. Teaming Agreements & Letters of Commitment: For any proposed subcontractor (affiliated or non-affiliated) whose technical experience is claimed in Volume II (Attachment 5), the offeror must provide a signed Teaming Agreement, Subcontract Agreement, or formal Letter of Commitment in Volume I.

3. Affiliate Meaningful Involvement Standard:

Under established procurement principles (and in accordance with Responses 103 and 157), experience from an affiliated entity under common ownership may only be credited under the Subcontractor ('S') category if the proposal demonstrates that the affiliate will be meaningfully involved in contract performance.

The Letter of Commitment or Teaming Agreement in Volume I must clearly describe the specific resources (e.g., personnel, specialized equipment, facilities, or technical management systems) that the affiliate will commit to contract execution.

Section L, Paragraph 5.2 will be amended to explicitly list Teaming Agreements / Subcontractor Letters of Commitment in the Volume I outline.

5 Section L, 5(c), requires submission of a Government concern and a “Government-approved redacted” Corrective Action Plan.

Responses to Questions 18 and 36 from the Q&A however, provide additional guidance regarding documentation to substantiate Government approval/acceptance that is not specified in Section L.

Given that Section L does not prescribe a particular form of Government approval or require evidence of formal closure, can the Government confirm that official Government correspondence acknowledging receipt of a Corrective Action Plan is sufficient to satisfy the “Government-approved” requirement in Section L, 5(c), where the Government did not issue separate formal approval or closure documentation?

No. Mere acknowledgment of receipt does not constitute Government approval or acceptance of a Corrective Action Plan. To satisfy the requirements of Technical Identification 5(c), the submitted documentation must demonstrate substantive Government approval, acceptance, or closure of the plan (e.g., via formal letter, email concurrence, or QASP closure record). In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof remains solely with the offeror.

6 Given the high volume of offeror questions and Government responses, which included several significant clarifications to proposal requirements, some of which require offerors to obtain and review additional supporting documentation beyond what was identified in the original RFP, will the Government please extend the proposal submission deadline by one additional week, to October 22, to provide offerors sufficient time to fully incorporate the Government’s responses and submit complete and compliant proposals?

Proposal due date is now 30 Oct 26: 3:00 EDT

7 We respectfully request an extension for the subject proposal to 10/22/2026 to allow offerors sufficient time to address answers to questions and accommodate the Monday 10/12/2026 holiday.

Proposal due date is now 30 Oct 26: 3:00 EDT

8 Regarding the Government Facility Clearance security information required in the Self Scoring Technical Capability Worksheet, Question ID #1: Would the following answer, on letterhead, with CAGE code, and signed by FSO, be adequate to earn a score of “Pass” without providing so much information the answer is required to be “controlled” or CUI?

“I confirm that Coho Consulting Group, LLC (CAGE code XXXXX) meets the FCL requirements for this proposal. This information can be verified via the official system of record, National Industrial Security System (NISS).”

Yes. An unclassified verification letter on corporate letterhead signed by the Facility Security Officer (FSO) or authorized corporate official, citing the offeror's CAGE code and confirming active Facility Security Clearance status, is acceptable. Stating on company letterhead that the entity possesses an active Secret (or higher) FCL does not in itself constitute Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). In all cases, the Government will independently verify active Secret FCL status directly in the National Industrial Security System (NISS) using the CAGE code provided.

9 Would you be willing to provide a Self Scoring Technical Capability Worksheet (Attachment 5) Excel file that allows the column width and row height to be adjusted? With the column width and row height locked, it is difficult to read the responses in Column 9, Supporting Documentation, as well as the totaled scores in rows 48-51.

The instructions in the Solicitation, Section L, reference columns by letter, but the Excel spreadsheet (Attachment 5) that was provided uses numbers to identify the columns. Would you be willing to correct this issue with an updated Attachment 5?

We updated the spreadsheet in amendment 0006 to allow offerors to make the column wider. Also, check your settings. Go to File > Options > Formulas > Then make sure R1C1 Reference Style is unchecked.

10 One of the PWS’ we need to submit as supporting documentation contains CUI material. Can I submit via email if I encrypt the document or email?

The Government acknowledges that some Performance Work Statements (PWS) or supporting documents contain Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and cannot be submitted through standard, unencrypted proposal channels.

To demonstrate the required experience without compromising information security, the Government will accept the following alternative, unclassified methods of verification in Volume II:

Sanitized / Redacted Deliverables: A heavily redacted version of the SOW/PWS where all CUI, proprietary information, and sensitive operational details have been completely removed. The redacted version must still show enough unclassified technical context to substantiate the specific scoring element being claimed.

Government CO/COR Validation Letter: A signed letter on official letterhead from the cognizant Contracting Officer (CO) or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) validating the relevant experience (e.g., contract number, period of performance, and specific technical tasks performed).

CPARS Reports: Extracting and submitting the unclassified portions of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report for the relevant contract, provided it contains sufficient detail to substantiate the claimed criteria.

Administrative Government Verification Sheet:

In addition to, offerors may submit a 'Government Verification Sheet' within that section's tab identifying the contract number, the specific row claimed, and an active Government Point of Contact (PCO, ACO, or COR Name, Title, and official Government

Email Address). The Government reserves the right to contact the listed POC to verify the claimed experience, but is under no obligation to conduct extensive outreach. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the onus remains entirely on the offeror to ensure the listed POC is accurate and responsive; if the Government is unable to verify the claim, points will not be validated.

11 If the Government issues a further amendment correcting Section L 3.2 and the Volume I outline in L 5.2 regarding SBA joint venture approval (see Question 7), we respectfully request that the proposal due date be extended to allow offerors to incorporate those changes, by not less than [seven (7)] calendar days after that amendment is issued.

Proposal due date is now 30 Oct 26: 3:00 EDT

12 Please indicate where in Volume I offerors are meant to provide the requested CMMC UIDs.

13 Please confirm that (a) the executed JVA and the SBA letter approving the underlying Mentor- Protégé Agreement satisfy the Volume I requirement, (b) no separate SBA JV approval notice is required, and (c) Section L 3.2 and the Volume I outline will be conformed by amendment. Because offerors cannot obtain an SBA JV approval, we request that the corrective amendment be issued no later than [October 12, 2026].

Confirmed.

(a) Submission of the fully executed Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and the SBA letter/notice approving the underlying Mentor- Protégé Agreement (MPA) satisfies the Volume I submission requirement.

(b) In accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 124.513 and FAR 52.219-18(c), no separate, pre-award SBA Joint Venture approval notice is required for competitive awards.

(c) Section L, Paragraphs 3.2, 5.2, and 5.2.3 are conformed via Amendment [0006] to remove all legacy references to pre-award SBA Joint Venture approval. The Government will evaluate the JVA for regulatory compliance during the responsibility determination phase

14 Please confirm (a) whether the H.4 comparative analysis must address only the offeror and its JV members, or also proposed subcontractors and the parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the JV members; (b) what level of analysis is expected at the basic IDIQ level when no task order has been issued; and (c) whether a certification that no actual or potential OCI exists is acceptable where none applies.

The Government clarifies that in accordance with the introductory text of Clause H.4, the OCI comparative analysis requirements apply strictly to future post-award task order competitions and do not apply to the basic IDIQ solicitation.

Offerors are not required to submit an OCI comparative analysis, OCI mitigation plan, or OCI certification in Volume I with their basic IDIQ proposal. All pre-award OCI evaluations will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5 based on the standard Representations and Certifications submitted in Volume I.

Section L is conformed via Amendment [0006] to clarify that no OCI Comparative Analysis submission is required with the basic proposal.

15 Please confirm the set-aside basis for this acquisition, which of these clauses and their representations apply, and whether the limitations-on-subcontracting clause 52.219- 14(g) is the only subcontracting limit that applies to the JV.

The Government confirms that this acquisition is a 100% Competitive 8(a) Set-Aside. FAR Clause 52.219-6 (Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside) was included in error and is deleted via Amendment [0006]. The subcontracting limitation is governed strictly by FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (Deviation 2026-O0038). For Joint Ventures, the 8(a) partner must perform at least 40% of the work performed by the JV itself, in accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 124.513(d).

16 If the offeror were to be a joint venture with one member that holds an active Top Secret FCL, while the JV itself and its other member hold active Secret FCLs, please confirm that the JV may submit the 5.2.5 Statement of Interest and be included in the TS pool based on the member’s TS FCL, and which CAGE code(s) the proof should reference.

The Government clarifies the Facility Security Clearance (FCL) requirements for Joint Venture (JV) offerors as follows:

1. No Standalone JV FCL Required Pre-Award:

In accordance with Directive-type Memorandum (DTM) 24-004, Facility Security Clearance Requirements for Covered Joint Ventures, an unpopulated Joint Venture offeror is not required to possess an active Secret FCL under its own standalone CAGE code at the time of proposal submission to be eligible for IDIQ award.

2. Clearance of Performing Members: Under the DTM 24-004 'Covered JV' standard, the FCL requirement is fully satisfied at proposal submission if all joint venturers that will perform classified work possess active FCLs at the appropriate level (Secret or higher) verified in NISS.

3. Performance Restrictions: If a Joint Venture partner entity holds only a Secret FCL, that partner's personnel are strictly prohibited from performing or accessing work at a higher classification level (e.g., Top Secret) under any resulting task order. On any task order requiring Top Secret access, only personnel from the Top Secret-cleared member entity may perform the classified tasks.

4. FCL Verification & CAGE Submission: The Government will independently verify active clearance status in the National Industrial Security System (NISS) using the CAGE codes of the member entities performing the classified work. Offerors shall submit an unclassified verification letter on corporate letterhead signed by their Facility Security Officer (FSO) confirming their CAGE code, active FCL level, and Cognizant Security Office within Volume I.”

17 Please confirm the intended ordering period, the intended end of the period of performance, and which clause text controls.

The ordering period for the master IDIQ is five

(5) years (01 December 2026 through 30 November 2031). The overall period of performance for the completion of task orders issued under the contract may extend through 30 November 2032 (60-month base plus 12-month task order execution), or through 31 May 2033 if the six-month extension under FAR 52.217-8 is exercised. The solicitation clause text and Section F CLIN dates are correct and govern.

18 Please confirm (a) whether travel billed under CLINs 0008 and 6008 is treated as an ODC subject to the Attachment 12 ceiling rate; (b) how the ceiling applies to ODCs incurred by subcontractors and JV members, including whether their indirect burdens must fall within the single ceiling rate; and (c) that the ceiling is applied to the actual ODC cost at the task order level and that, consistent with Section L 5.2.6, no other rates or fees may be added.

The Government clarifies the application of the Attachment 12 ODC Indirect Burden and Handling Rate ceilings as follows:

(a) Confirmed. Travel and other direct costs billed under ODC CLINs 0008 and 6008 are treated as Other Direct Costs (ODCs) and are subject strictly to the proposed Attachment 12 Not-To-Exceed (NTE) handling rate ceilings.

(b) Application to Subcontractors & JV Members: The Prime Offeror's proposed single consolidated NTE ODC handling rate (Attachment 12) represents the absolute maximum indirect burden the Government will pay on any ODC incurred under the contract, regardless of whether the ODC is incurred directly by the Prime, a JV member, or a subcontractor. The Government does not regulate the internal accounting structures or proprietary indirect rates of subcontractors;

however, any subcontractor indirect burdens applied to ODCs must be resolved within the Prime’s single consolidated NTE ceiling rate. No cumulative, stacked, or compounded handling rates that exceed the Prime's proposed NTE ceiling will be accepted by the Government.

(c) Confirmed. The proposed handling rate ceiling is applied strictly to the actual cost of the ODC at the task order level. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 5.2.6, no other rates, fees, or profit/fee may be applied to ODC CLINs.

19 Please confirm which standard the Government will apply in evaluation: (a) the contract-based standard in Section L 4.3, under which an event on an ongoing contract qualifies, or (b) the event-based five-year standard in row New-33. If (b), please confirm Section L 4.3 will be conformed by amendment.

Confirmed. To be eligible for scoring, the specific experience or event being claimed (e.g., the date a vacancy was filled or a person was placed) must have occurred within the five

(5) years preceding the RFP release date (21 August 2026). Section L, Paragraph 4.3 is amended via Amendment [0006] to resolve any conflict and conform with this standard.

20 Please (a) confirm that, under Section M Table 1 and Section 2.4, an Acceptable rating requires both a validated score of at least 1,740 points and the pooled 51% prime threshold; (b) confirm that cells L49 and E2 will be conformed to the amended 51% pooled test, or advise how JVs should complete the worksheet in their absence; and (c) advise how offerors should present the P/S split before Government validation, for example in a separate table, without altering protected worksheet cells.

"The Government clarifies the Attachment 5 (Self-Scoring Worksheet) mechanics as follows:

(a) Confirmed. Technical acceptability under Section M requires both a validated score of at least 1,740 points and compliance with the Prime/Subcontractor percentage thresholds.

Cell L49 has been corrected via Amendment [0006] to ensure the 'YES' (Acceptable) rating is mathematically conditioned upon meeting both requirements.

(b) Worksheet Protection: The Joint Venture selector in Cell E2 has been removed to simplify the worksheet. Joint Venture partners (Mentor and Protégé combined as the Prime) shall both enter 'P' (Prime) in Column H.

External subcontractors shall be entered as 'S' (Subcontractor). The revised L49 formula and background sum cells (L50/L51) are fully conformed via Amendment [0006].

(c) Presenting the P/S Split: Offerors are not required to submit separate tables or modify protected worksheet cells. The Prime ('P') and Subcontractor ('S') percentage columns are designed to calculate automatically during Government evaluation. Offerors must only populate standard, unprotected input cells (Column D and Column H) as instructed. The Government will validate the final Prime/Subcontractor percentages based on those entries."

21 Please confirm that a proposal submitted by multiple, sequential emails in the format required by Section L 2.1.2 is timely if every email is received in the designated Government inbox before 10:00 a.m. EDT on 15 October 2026, and whether the Government will confirm receipt of each email.

The Government confirms the following regarding electronic proposal submissions:

Submission Deadline: In accordance with the due date extension formally established in Amendment [0006], all proposals must be received in the designated Government inbox no later than Monday, 30 October 2026, at 3:00 PM Eastern Time.

Timeliness of Multi-Part Emails: Confirmed. In accordance with FAR 15.208, for a proposal submitted via multiple sequential emails to be considered timely, every sequential email comprising the complete proposal package must be fully received by the Government email gateway server prior to the closing deadline. If any portion of the proposal is received after 3:00 PM Eastern Time, the entire proposal will be deemed late and will not be evaluated.

Confirmation of Receipt: The Government will endeavor to send an individual, courtesy email confirming receipt of each sequential email received (e.g., confirming receipt of 'Email 1 of 3,' 'Email 2 of 3,' etc.) as soon as practicable.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit their proposals well in advance of the closing deadline to mitigate any network or gateway transmission delays.

22 Section L.4.3 (Contract References) states:

“Supporting documentation submitted shall specifically identify the requirement being claimed in the Self-Scoring Worksheet.” Since Offerors are not able to provide any narrative or change/add to contractual documentation, how exactly does the Government want Offerors to identify, in the supporting documentation, the requirement being claimed?

Offerors are permitted and encouraged to apply highlighting, outlining, or digital margin tags within their submitted contract documentation to assist evaluators in readily locating the specific passages tied to the Self-Scoring Worksheet ID. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests solely with the offeror.

23 Since some documents included with Volume I will be very long (such as Joint Venture Agreements), please confirm that Volume I can be submitted as separate files, with the longer documents submitted as separate attachments.

Yes, offerors may submit longer contractual agreements (such as Joint Venture Agreements, Teaming Agreements, or letters of commitment) as separate, clearly labeled PDF attachments within their Volume I email submission.

24 Section L.6.1.3 (Supporting Documentation) states: “All contracts being utilized as supporting documentation shall include, at a minimum, the front page of the contract award and clear language showing subsequent pages are tied to that front page.” However, contract award documents are not uniformly formatted, and subsequent pages frequently do not contain a contract number or other identifying information explicitly linking them to the front page, even when the pages are part of the same official contract document. As a result, this requirement may be impracticable to satisfy for certain contracts without modifying the original contract documentation.

Will the Government consider removing the requirement for explicit language linking subsequent pages to the front page and instead permit offerors to submit relevant contract documentation in its original format, provided the documentation reasonably supports verification of the contract and the self-scoring element being claimed?

The Government declines to remove or modify the contract page-linkage requirement. To ensure the authenticity of the evaluation, subsequent pages of a SOW, PWS, or task order must be clearly traceable to the award front page. Subsequent pages containing the official contract number, task order number, or identical system-generated header/footer information satisfies the requirement to prove the pages are tied to the award front page.

25 Section L.6.1.3 (Supporting Documentation) instructs offerors to submit Volume II as a single, consolidated PDF file, but also states that multiple PDF files should be submitted by Technical Experience ID to accommodate file size constraints. Please clarify whether Volume II should be submitted as one consolidated PDF or as multiple PDFs organized by Technical Experience ID?

To accommodate email file size limitations, offerors may submit Volume II (Substantiating Documentation) as multiple, separately labeled PDF files organized by Technical Experience ID (e.g., 'Volume II - ID 3 - Documentation.pdf'). If submitted as a single PDF, the file must be organized using native electronic PDF bookmarks.

26 If Volume II is submitted as multiple PDF files organized by Technical Experience ID, please confirm that the requirement for native electronic PDF bookmarks does not apply to each individual PDF file (since each file will only contain documentation for one scoring element).

Confirmed. If Volume II is submitted as multiple, separately bundled PDF files organized by Technical Experience ID (e.g., a standalone PDF containing only the documentation for ID 2), native electronic PDF bookmarks are not required within those individual, single-element files.

27 Section L.5.2.2 (Representations and Certifications) references Section K; however, there does not appear to be a section explicitly labeled as “Section K” within the solicitation.

Could the Government please clarify where Section K is located and confirm whether the representations and certifications beginning on page 57 constitute Section K?

The Government confirms that the representations, certifications, and other statements beginning on page 57 of the conformed solicitation constitute Section K.

Section L, Paragraph 5.2.2 is amended via Amendment [0006] to clarify this reference.

28 Could the Government please identify the specific provisions and clause numbers that require solicitation-specific fill-ins or separate submissions beyond the annual Representations and Certifications available in SAM.gov? This clarification will help ensure offerors complete and submit all required documentation in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

The solicitation is clear and speaks for itself.

The Government will not compile an exhaustive list of individual clauses requiring fill-ins for offerors. It is the sole responsibility of the offeror to thoroughly review the solicitation (including Section K, Section I, and all instructions) to identify, complete, and submit all required representations, certifications, and clause fill-ins.

29 Due to confidentiality and contractual restrictions, our subcontractor is prohibited from releasing additional supporting documentation such as contract award documents, Statements of Work (SOWs),Performance Work Statements (PWSs) or offer letters, to substantiate its experience providing certain labor categories required under this solicitation, even in redacted form.

As an alternative, the subcontractor has provided a contract summary from USAspending.gov including the contract number, contract value, description, and award history, as well as a redacted Project Status Report and resumes.

Would this documentation be acceptable to demonstrate and validate the specific experience claimed on the Self-Scoring Worksheet, in accordance with Section L, 6.1.3 of the solicitation?

The solicitation is clear and speaks for itself. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests solely with the offeror to provide verifiable documentation. General public database summaries (such as USAspending.gov) and employee resumes do not independently constitute sufficient, verifiable proof of technical experience or contract performance. If a subcontractor is contractually restricted from releasing proprietary documents, the offeror may utilize the Administrative Government Verification procedure (outlined in Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3) to provide a verifiable Government Point of Contact (PCO, ACO, or COR) who can independently confirm the performance.

30 The solictation number is not updated in Section L. Can the government confirm that the new solicitation number is

SFA239626RB0080005?

The official solicitation number is FA2396-26-R- B008. All amendments are issued under this solicitation number (e.g., Amendment 0005, Amendment 0006, etc.)

31 In Block 10.g, it states that the contractor will require access to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) information, while Block 13 notes: “Contractor requires a (NATO-approved computer network or standalone system).”

1. Will the Government please clarify if the contractor staff will require access to a NATO approved system within a Government or Government provided facility, or if the Contractor is required to have a NATO facility clearance with an approved computer network or standalone system?

2. If the Contractor must provide the NATO approved system, is there a requirement to outline, document, and submit an accreditation package to obtain that approval for either a network or standalone system

The Government clarifies the NATO security requirements as follows:

Contractor personnel requiring access to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) information will perform their duties onsite within a Government or Government-provided facility.

The Government will provide all necessary access to NATO-approved computer networks, systems, or standalone workstations as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). The contractor is not required to possess, develop, accredit, or submit an accreditation package for a proprietary, contractor-hosted NATO computer network or standalone system."

through the formal Communication and Information Systems (CIS) Security Accreditation Process that is governed by NATO’s Security Committee directives?

32 The Government previously confirmed that Volume II will be evaluated strictly on the objective substantiating historical documentation identified in Section L, paragraph 6.1.3, and that Offerors should not submit separate proposal narratives, explanatory essays, or written justifications.

To facilitate the Government’s review of the objective supporting documentation, may an Offeror provide a concise crosswalk identifying the relationship between the Government’s labor-category titles in Attachment 5, Section 3, and the Offeror’s corresponding labor-category titles and supporting records? For example, where the Government labor category is 3(p): Public Health Specialist and the Offeror’s applicable labor category is Epidemiologist, the crosswalk would identify the Offeror’s proposed labor-category title and briefly reference the corresponding duties, qualifications, and supporting documentation demonstrating that the duties performed are similar or substantially aligned.

The crosswalk would be limited to an objective mapping of labor-category titles to the applicable supporting documentation. It would not introduce new substantiation, provide a

The Government declines to permit separate labor-category crosswalks or mapping matrices. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1, the evaluation of Volume II is strictly objective and based solely on historical source documentation; offerors shall not submit separate narratives, explanatory essays, or custom crosswalk tables. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests with the offeror to ensure that the submitted contemporaneous contract records (such as the contract PWS, position descriptions, or task orders) clearly demonstrate that the placed individual performed the specialized functional duties required by the Attachment 5 category.

narrative justification, or request consideration of information beyond the documentation permitted under Section L, paragraph 6.1.3.

Please confirm whether Offerors may submit such a concise labor-category crosswalk solely to identify and organize the relevant supporting documentation, and whether the Government will review the crosswalk for that limited purpose when determining whether the submitted documentation supports the applicable labor category and self-score.

33 The solicitation states: “All contracts being utilized as supporting documentation shall include, at a minimum, the front page of the contract award and clear language showing subsequent pages are tied to that front page.”

For contracts performed by an Offeror as a subcontractor, the Offeror may not possess the prime contractor’s Government contract award document, including the prime contract’s award front page. Please confirm the acceptable documentation an Offeror may submit to substantiate subcontract performance in such circumstances.

Specifically, may an Offeror submit the following, as applicable, in lieu of the prime contract’s Government award front page:

1. The executed subcontract or subcontract award document between the prime contractor and the Offeror, including its cover or award page;

2. Subcontract modifications, task orders, statements of work, or other documents that clearly link the Offeror’s subcontract effort to the relevant prime contract;

3. A prime contractor-issued subcontractor award notification, work authorization, purchase order, or similar document identifying the Offeror, scope, and period of performance; and/or

4. Other objective business records, such as invoices, payment records, or prime contractor confirmation, that substantiate the Offeror’s performance under the subcontract.

Please also confirm whether the Offeror must provide the prime contract award’s front page when that document is not in the Offeror’s possession or control, provided that the submitted subcontract documentation clearly identifies and substantiates the Offeror’s subcontract performance.

Where an offeror or proposed teaming partner claims experience performed as a first-tier subcontractor and does not possess the prime contractor’s master award front page, the offeror may substantiate the experience using the fully executed subcontract agreement cover page, subcontract task orders, subcontract Statements of Work (SOW), and corresponding performance/invoicing records, provided the documentation clearly traces the work to the ultimate Federal Government customer and an underlying Federal contract.

34 Managed travel arrangements for contract employees in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). Offeror shall substantiate its experience completing all travel requirements IAW JTR for contracts awarded by the Federal government." Will the government consider Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) in lieu of JTR?

No. Technical Identification 5(b) specifically evaluates experience managing travel arrangements in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) is not an acceptable substitute. The evaluation criteria will remain as published.

35 Section L and Section M, as clarified in the final Q&A, require offerors to substantiate experience recruiting and placing qualified personnel for the Federal Government under a qualifying Federal contract.

Please clarify whether an offeror may claim Technical Identification 3 experience for the following circumstances, provided the offeror submits contemporaneous documentation demonstrating the individual’s qualifications, recruitment, placement/onboarding, and performance:

1. United Nations contract experience: The offeror recruited and placed a qualified aerospace medicine physician under a direct contract awarded by the United Nations. May this experience be claimed for the applicable Technical Identification 3 labor category?

2. Grant-funded experience: The offeror recruited and placed a qualified individual under a grant awarded by Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences . May this grant-funded experience be claimed for the applicable Technical Identification 3 labor category?

If either type of experience is eligible, please identify the minimum supporting documentation required to validate the claim, such as the award instrument, statement of work, evidence of the offeror’s performance role, documentation of recruitment and placement, proof of the individual’s qualifications, and a verifiable customer point of contact.

If either type of experience is not eligible, please confirm whether the applicable

Neither United Nations contracts nor Federal grant-funded awards are eligible for technical experience scoring under Technical Identification 3. All qualifying technical experience must have been performed under a U.S. Federal Government procurement contract, task order, or first-tier subcontract traceable to a U.S. Federal Government contract award.

Technical Identification 3 experience must have been performed under a U.S. Federal procurement contract, task order, or subcontract traceable to a U.S. Federal contract award.

36 Technical IDs 3(s) and 3(t) award points only for recruiting and placing specified personnel onsite at a Federal agency in Ohio. The Government has clarified that comparable experience outside Ohio does not qualify for partial credit. Question: Please explain the nexus between prior recruiting and placement experience specifically within the State of Ohio and successful performance under the contemplated IDIQ. Would the Government consider revising these criteria to permit equivalent Federal recruiting and placement experience performed in other geographic locations, particularly where the offeror can demonstrate successful recruiting and placement of similarly specialized personnel in austere, remote, high-cost, low-density, OCONUS, or otherwise difficult-to-recruit locations? Such experience may provide an equal or greater indication of an offeror’s ability to recruit and place scarce, highly specialized personnel than prior performance limited to a single state. Limiting credit solely to Ohio may exclude otherwise highly relevant recruiting experience and disproportionately favor firms with prior incumbent or local performance without necessarily demonstrating superior nationwide staffing capability.

The Government’s acquisition and evaluation strategy is finalized. The evaluation criteria, geographic parameters, and point values set forth in Sections L and M represent the Government’s defined minimum requirements to support the 711th Human Performance Wing mission in Ohio and will not be modified. No partial credit or geographic substitutions will be considered.

37 Would the Government consider permitting full credit where an offeror demonstrates recruiting and placement of the same or substantially similar specialized personnel at any Federal installation, with additional consideration for locations demonstrating comparable or greater recruiting difficulty than Ohio?

The Government declines to revise the criteria.

Experience performed outside of Ohio will not be awarded credit under Technical Identification 3(s) or 3(t).

38 For Technical ID 3(s), would the Government consider qualifying prior experience recruiting and placing board-certified physicians with military medicine experience at Federal facilities outside Ohio, particularly where the placement involved similarly scarce

The requirement for onsite placement at a Federal agency in Ohio under Technical Identification 3(s) remains unchanged.

specialties or more challenging recruiting conditions?

39 For Technical ID 3(t), please clarify why the geographic location of the Program Manager’s placement in Ohio is necessary to demonstrate the offeror’s capability to recruit a Program Manager possessing APDP/PMP/PjMP qualifications, military research program experience, and cost/schedule/performance analysis experience. Would the Government consider allowing equivalent qualifying placements at any Federal military research organization regardless of state?

The requirement for onsite placement at a Federal agency in Ohio under Technical Identification 3(t) remains unchanged.

40 For Technical ID 3(a), Flight Medicine Physician Performing Human Research, and Technical ID 3(b), Flight Medicine Physician Performing Education, please confirm whether each criterion is evaluated on an all-or-nothing basis. If an Offeror demonstrates recruiting and placement of a qualified Flight Medicine Physician whose duties included substantial human research or education responsibilities, but the supporting documentation does not show that those duties comprised the entirety of the physician’s role, will the Government award full points, partial points, or zero points?

Additionally, will the Government accept substantially similar aviation medicine or aerospace medicine physician experience where the documented duties clearly include human-subject research, research protocol support, instruction, training, or education, even if the contractual labor category title does not expressly state “Flight Medicine Physician Performing Human Research” or “Flight Medicine Physician Performing Education”?

The Government clarifies the evaluation of Technical Identifications 3(a) and 3(b) as follows:

Each criterion is evaluated on an all-or-nothing basis; no partial points will be awarded. To receive full points, the offeror must substantiate that the placed Flight Medicine Physician performed the required human research or education functions. Those duties were not required to comprise 100% of the individual's role.

An exact match of the contractual labor category title is not required. Documented functional duties govern eligibility. Verifiable aerospace or aviation medicine physician experience clearly demonstrating performance of human research or education functions satisfies the criteria.

41 Please confirm that a physician need not have been recruited under an exact labor category titled “Flight Medicine Physician Performing Human Research/Education,” provided the substantiating documentation demonstrates the individual was a qualified flight/aerospace medicine physician and actually performed the

Confirmed. An exact contractual labor category title match is not required, provided the substantiating documentation clearly demonstrates that the placed individual was a qualified flight/aerospace medicine physician who performed the required human research or education functions.

required human research or education functions.

42 Section M and Attachment 5 assign fixed point values to individual Technical Experience criteria, and the Government has stated in Q&A that no partial credit is available for comparable experience outside Ohio under Technical IDs 3(s) and 3(t). Question: Please confirm whether this same all-or-nothing scoring methodology applies to all scored Technical Identification criteria and sub-elements in IDs 2 through 5. Specifically, if the supporting documentation substantiates only a portion of the stated requirements for a criterion, will the Government award zero points for that criterion, or may the Government award partial points? If partial points are permitted, please identify the methodology the Government will use to calculate them.

Confirmed. In accordance with Section M, Paragraph 3.1, 'Partial points will not be awarded.' All scored Technical Identification criteria and sub-elements in IDs 2 through 5 are evaluated on an objective, all-or-nothing basis.

If the supporting documentation substantiates only a portion of the stated requirements for a specific line item, zero points will be validated for that line item.

43 If a PWS or other supporting documentation contains CUI, will the Government please provide an alternate way to submit the particular documentation?

The Government acknowledges that some Performance Work Statements (PWS) or supporting documents contain Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and cannot be submitted through standard, unencrypted proposal channels.

To demonstrate the required experience without compromising information security, the Government will accept the following alternative, unclassified methods of verification in Volume II:

Sanitized / Redacted Deliverables: A heavily redacted version of the SOW/PWS where all CUI, proprietary information, and sensitive operational details have been completely removed. The redacted version must still show enough unclassified technical context to substantiate the specific scoring element being claimed.

Government CO/COR Validation Letter: A signed letter on official letterhead from the cognizant Contracting Officer (CO) or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) validating the relevant experience (e.g., contract number, period of performance, and specific technical tasks performed).

CPARS Reports: Extracting and submitting the unclassified portions of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report for the relevant contract, provided it contains sufficient detail to substantiate the claimed criteria.

Administrative Government Verification Sheet:

In addition to, offerors may submit a 'Government Verification Sheet' within that section's tab identifying the contract number, the specific row claimed, and an active Government Point of Contact (PCO, ACO, or COR Name, Title, and official Government Email Address). The Government reserves the right to contact the listed POC to verify the claimed experience, but is under no obligation to conduct extensive outreach. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the onus remains entirely on the offeror to ensure the listed POC is accurate and responsive; if the Government is unable to verify the claim, points will not be validated.

44 Please confirm how Column I should cite documentation when Column II is split into multiple PDFs (for example, file name, bookmark name, and page number), and that this format satisfies L.6.1.2.2.

Confirmed. When Volume II is submitted as multiple, separately bundled PDF files, citing the specific PDF File Name, Technical ID section, and specific Page Number(s) within Column I of Attachment 5 fully satisfies the cross-referencing instructions of Section L, Paragraph 6.1.2.2.

45 Please confirm (a) whether the Contracting Officer may seek clarification of minor or clerical errors (e.g., Column H or I entries, or a missing SF30) without trating it as negotiations;

(b) what standard the Government will use to evaluate the JVA, and whether it is pass/fail;

and (c) whether a deficiency can be cured.

The Government clarifies the evaluation procedures as follows:

(a) In accordance with FAR 15.202(a)(2), the Contracting Officer may, at their sole discretion, initiate clarifications to resolve minor clerical errors or apparent clerical mistakes without conducting discussions or negotiations. However, in accordance with Section M, Paragraph 2.3, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without negotiations. Offerors should not assume they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct any omissions.

(b) The Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis during the pre-award responsibility determination for compliance with the mandatory provisions of 13 C.F.R. § 124.513.

(c) Material deficiencies or omissions in technical substantiation cannot be cured without opening negotiations under FAR 15.204-2. Proposals containing unresolved deficiencies will be rated Unacceptable.

46 Please indicate where in Volume I offerors are meant to…