QA for posting -Amendment 0004 - 10.06.26.pdf

Final Q&A – 10.05.2026

Row

Question / Inquiry Ruth's Recommended Final Response

1 Given the multiple-award IDIQ structure and the fact that not all Task Orders or personnel will necessarily require access to classified information, would the Government consider removing the active Secret FCL as an IDIQ-level pass/fail requirement…

An unpopulated Joint Venture is not required to hold an active Secret FCL under its own CAGE code at the time of proposal submission, provided the member entities possess the required clearances. Section L and Section M are amended via Amendment [0004] to reflect this clarification.

2 The SF 1449 indicates that offers are due 9 September 2026 at 3:00 p.m.; however, Section

2.1 of Section L does not specify the proposal due date. Can the Government please update Section L…

The proposal due date and time are being extended. The revised date and time will be formally established in Amendment [0004] to the solicitation, which will harmonize SF 1449 and Section L.

3 Section 3.4 does not appear to specify a deadline for submitting questions regarding the solicitation. …can the Government please confirm the date and time by which questions must be submitted?

The formal solicitation (FA2396-26-R- B008) represents the Government's complete and finalized requirements.

Offerors are instructed to submit any questions or clarification requests regarding current requirements in accordance with the deadline for questions as established via the formal solicitation to include within the details of the announcement.

4 The deadline for written questions and the date responses will be published. The solicitation states neither.

The formal solicitation (FA2396-26-R- B008) represents the Government's complete and finalized requirements.

Offerors are instructed to submit any questions or clarification requests regarding current requirements in accordance with the deadline for questions as established via the formal solicitation to include within the details of the announcement.

5 The maximum total attachment size the Government can receive, and whether DoD SAFE or another Government transfer service is authorized…

As established in Section L, Paragraph 2.1, DoD SAFE is not authorized; all proposals must be submitted via email. The Government email gateway enforces a maximum size limit of 20 MB per email.

Transmission across multiple, sequential emails is permitted. Each email subject line must follow the standardized format:

‘FA2396-26-R-B008 - [Offeror Name] - Proposal Submission - Email [X] of [Y]’.

6 The governing offer due date and time, which differs between Standard Form 1449, Block 8 and Section L 2.1.

The proposal due date and time are being extended. The revised date and time will be formally established in Amendment [0004] to the solicitation, which will harmonize SF 1449 and Section L.

7 Will the Government accept a task order award document, or a task order specific Performance Work Statement, as substantiation where that task order documents the experience claimed?

Yes. The Government will accept individual Task Order award documents (e.g., DD Form 1155, SF 1449, OF 347, or standard task order modification documents) and task order-specific Performance Work Statements (PWS) / Statements of Work (SOW) as valid substantiating documentation, provided the specific task order independently meets all applicable criteria (e.g., relevant period of performance, technical scope, and dollar thresholds). The exclusion in Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3 applies strictly to the overarching, parent Multiple Award IDIQ basic ordering vehicle, not to discrete task orders issued under that vehicle.

8 How does a joint venture employing no personnel of its own satisfy that requirement, and will the Government sponsor a joint venture offeror's clearance?

An unpopulated Joint Venture is not required to hold an active Secret FCL under its own CAGE code at the time of proposal submission, provided the member entities possess the required clearances. Section L and Section M are amended via Amendment [0004] to reflect this clarification.

9 May an offeror claim the experience of an affiliate that will perform no work under this contract, and if so what documentation establishes the relationship?

No. Technical Experience claimed in Volume II (Attachment 5) must be substantiated by the entity or entities committed to performing the work under the contract. In accordance with established procurement principles, the Government will not credit the technical experience of an affiliated entity unless that entity is proposed as a subcontractor or teaming partner with meaningful involvement in contract performance, as demonstrated in the proposal.

10 Which document will the Government accept as proof of the date a vacancy began?

The Government does not prescribe a specific format for documenting a vacancy start date. As stated in Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3 of the solicitation, ‘The burden of proof rests with the Offeror to provide substantiating documentation that is sufficient to validate the self-score.’ To receive points for Technical Identification 4(a), an offeror must submit verifiable and credible records that, in the Government's judgment, are sufficient to substantiate the entire 15-business-day hiring timeline.

This includes clear evidence of both the date the vacancy began and the date the position was filled. The offeror is responsible for selecting and providing the appropriate documentation from its records to meet this requirement.

11 How should a joint venture offeror complete Column H so the Government can verify the 40 percent requirement, and should each member's substantiation be coded ‘P’?

The % requirements outlined in Sections L and M will be revised. Enter ‘P’ for both the Mentor/Managing Member experience and for the Small Business Protégé experience to enable automated calculation threshold under Section M, Paragraph 2.4. The ‘PS’ designation in the Column H header is an artifact and is hereby removed.

12 Please confirm that a completed 52.212-3 satisfies this requirement, and identify any additional fill-in provisions expected in Volume I.

The Government confirms that a completed copy of the offeror's annual Representations and Certifications from SAM.gov (incorporating FAR 52.212-3) satisfies the Volume I, Section K requirement. Offerors must also complete any unique, solicitation-specific fill-in representations and certifications included in Section K of the RFP. The duplicative bullet points in Section L, Paragraph 5.2 are consolidated via Amendment [0004].

13 Please confirm whether those questions and answers were published and where offerors may obtain them, or whether the Government intends to release them under this solicitation.

The formal solicitation (FA2396-26-R- B008), as amended, represents the Government's complete and finalized requirements and supersedes all prior pre-solicitation notices, draft materials, and

Industry Day informational exchanges. The Government does not intend to publish historical Industry Day questions. All offerors will be evaluated solely against the criteria established in the formal solicitation. Offerors are instructed to submit any questions or clarification requests regarding current requirements in accordance with the formal Q&A procedures outlined in Section L.

14 Attachment 5 states 815 available points for Technical Identification 3 and 900 for Technical Identification 5… Please confirm the maximum available score, and that 1,740 remains the acceptability threshold.

The Government confirms that the maximum available score across all elements is 2,240 points (Technical Identification 3 = 690 points; Technical Identification 5 = 700 points). The references to 815 and 900 points were legacy section header artifacts and have been removed. The minimum acceptability threshold remains unchanged at 1,740 validated points under Section M, Paragraph 2.5.

15 Where the prime offeror is an SBA-approved 8(a) joint venture that also proposes a subcontractor, how do these thresholds apply to points substantiated by that subcontractor?

The % requirements outlined in Sections L and M will be revised. Enter ‘P’ for both the Mentor/Managing Member experience and for the Small Business Protégé experience to enable automated calculation threshold under Section M, Paragraph 2.4.

16 Must an offeror show that each claimed person was placed, or does recruiting evidence alone earn the points?

Offerors must demonstrate that qualified personnel were both recruited and successfully placed (onboarded into performance). Evidence of recruiting activities alone (e.g., job postings, candidate pipelines, or contingent offers without placement) is insufficient to substantiate claimed points. Section M, Paragraph 3.3 is updated via Amendment [0004] to conform with Section L, Paragraph 6.2 to read: 'Experience recruiting and placing qualified personnel.

17 Must the claimed locations fall under a single concurrent period of performance, or may locations supported across multiple contracts within the five year look back be aggregated?

The claimed geographical locations must fall within a single concurrent period of performance (i.e., overlapping/simultaneous performance).

Offerors may not aggregate non-concurrent locations across sequential, separate years within the five-year look-back window. Section M, Paragraph 3.3 and Attachment 5 govern this requirement.

Section L, Paragraph 6.2 will be updated via Amendment [1979] to conform with Section M and Attachment 5 by inserting the qualifier: 'during the same period of performance.

18 Will the Government accept documents in which the issuing Government office and contract number remain visible while individual names are removed, and must a Government point of contact be identified for verification?

If the offeror determines it is in the offeror’s best interest to redact Personally Identifiable Information (PII) relating to individual contractor employees (e.g., employee names, personal contact information), then that is allowable.

However, to enable the Government to validate the claimed points: 1. The Contract Number, Issuing Government Agency/Office, and dates must remain clearly visible and unredacted. 2. The documentation must clearly substantiate both the formal Government-issued concern and the official Government approval/acceptance of the Corrective Action Plan. 3. Offerors must provide a verifiable Government Point of Contact (PCO, ACO, or COR) in the substantiating package. 4. In order to have documentation utilized to verify the points claimed, the documentation shall clearly still identify the company who received the award.

19 Please confirm whether the named disciplines are exhaustive or illustrative, and identify what establishes specialization (degree, position description, or work performed).

The named disciplines within Section L, Paragraph 6.2 and Section M, Paragraph

3.3 define the specific functional fields evaluated. The Government evaluates eligibility based on documented functional duties, not solely on an exact match of the contractual labor category title. Equivalent LCATs are allowable, provided the offeror submits documentation demonstrating the individual performed the specialized functional duties required by the criterion.

20 Section H 2.3 requires no vacancy exceed 10 consecutive business days, while PWS 2.3.2 uses 15 business days. Which standard governs?

The Government confirms that a conflict exists between different clauses in Section H. The governing standard for both contract performance and proposal evaluation is 15 consecutive business days. To resolve this conflict, Section H, Paragraph 2.2 and Paragraph 2.3 are hereby amended via Amendment [0004] to replace all references to '10 business days' with '15 business days' to align with PWS Paragraph 2.3.2, the Services Summary, and Section H.10.

21 For a non-personal services task order performed in Ohio, must the healthcare provider hold an Ohio license, or is any US jurisdiction license acceptable?

For requirements requiring licensure for medical personnel, the licensure is dependent on whether the requirement is personal services or non-personal services. PWS paragraph 2.2.1.1, Personal Services, and PWS paragraph 2.2.2.1, Non-Personal Services, are correct in defining the licensure requirement.

22 Which compliance measurement option applies under paragraph (f)(1) (by base/option period or by individual order)?

The Clause will be updated accordingly in the Amendment.

23 Will the Government consider extending the offer due date to not earlier than 14 calendar days after publishing responses to offeror questions?

The proposal due date and time are being extended. The revised date and time will be formally established in Amendment [0004] to the solicitation, which will harmonize SF 1449 and Section L.

24 Please confirm whether supporting documentation must be duplicated for every individual row claimed. If duplication causes files to exceed email limits, may offerors submit Volume II via DoD SAFE or multiple sequential emails?

In accordance with Section L, Paragraph

6.1.3 and Section M, Paragraph 3.1, cross-referencing between tabs is prohibited;

supporting documentation must be duplicated and filed under each respective claimed row tab. To accommodate resulting file size limitations, offerors are authorized to submit Volume II as multiple separately labeled PDF files organized by Technical Experience ID, or via multiple sequential emails. DoD SAFE is not authorized.

25 When an offeror checks a box in Column D, the score does not automatically populate Column

The Government acknowledges the formula and checkbox discrepancies in the initial Attachment 5 Self-Scoring

G. Will a corrected worksheet with functioning formulas be issued?

Worksheet. An updated, fully functioning Attachment 5 workbook will be issued via Amendment [0004]. Offerors must use the corrected Attachment 5 released with Amendment [0004] for their proposal submissions."

26 Please confirm that the point value awarded is identical whether marked 'P' or 'S', and clarify how 'PS' is treated in calculating Prime and Subcontractor percentages.

The point value awarded for a successfully validated technical experience criterion is identical regardless of whether it is substantiated by the Prime ('P') or a Subcontractor ('S'). The 'PS' designation is an artifact and is removed. Offerors shall enter 'P' for Prime and 'S' for Subcontractor. Joint Venture offerors shall select 'YES' in Cell E2, and code both Mentor experience and Protégé experience as 'P' to enable automated calculation of the prime threshold under Section M, Paragraph 2.4.

27 Please confirm whether point values and formulas in Attachment 5 are correct and that 1,740 remains the required minimum validated score.

The Government confirms that the maximum available score across all evaluation elements is 2,240 points (Technical Identification 3 = 690 points;

Technical Identification 5 = 700 points).

The references to 815 and 900 points were legacy section header artifacts and have been removed. The minimum acceptability threshold remains unchanged at 1,740 validated points under Section M, Paragraph 2.5.

28 Please confirm that criteria 3(s) and 3(t) may be satisfied through qualifying experience at any Federal agency located in Ohio, and clarify if

The requirement in Technical IDs 3(s) and 3(t) for experience at a 'federal agency in Ohio' may be satisfied by qualifying partial credit is available for similar experience outside Ohio.

experience performed onsite at any U.S.

Federal Government agency, installation, or facility located within the state of Ohio.

No partial credit is available for comparable experience performed outside of Ohio, as the Self-Scoring Worksheet is evaluated on a strict, objective basis.

29 Confirm whether ID 3 is 690 or 815 points, and whether ID 5 is 700 or 900 points."

The Government confirms that the maximum available points for Technical Identification 3 is 690 points, and the maximum for Technical Identification 5 is 700 points. The total maximum available score across all elements is 2,240 points.

Legacy header references to 815 and 900 points have been removed in the revised Attachment 5.

30 Please confirm that offerors are not required to populate or modify hidden columns (F, K, M–P), and clarify which fields offerors must complete versus those calculated by the Government.

Confirmed. Offerors are not required—and are strictly prohibited from—populating or modifying hidden calculation columns (including Columns F, K, and M–P).

Offerors are only required to populate the unprotected input cells (e.g., Column D checkboxes, Column H Prime/Sub/JV designations, and Cell E2). The Government will use the protected calculation columns to validate self-scores and calculate compliance percentages during evaluations.

31 Should Blocks 23 and 24 on the SF 1449 be left blank or marked 'N/A' since no cost proposal is requested?

Confirmed. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 7.0, no cost or pricing data is requested at the basic IDIQ level, with the exception of the binding Travel G&A Rate ceiling. Offerors should leave Blocks 23 and 24 of the SF 1449 blank or enter 'N/A'.

32 Please specify the CMMC level required for award of the basic IDIQ given that the blank was not filled in.

DFARS 252.204-7021 and 252.204-7025 have been filled in Amendment [0004].

33 May an offeror rely on qualifying experience performed by an affiliate under common ownership/control that is not proposed as a subcontractor or JV member?

No. Technical Experience claimed in Volume II (Attachment 5) must be substantiated by the entity or entities committed to performing the work under the contract. In accordance with established procurement principles, the Government will not credit the technical experience of an affiliated entity unless that entity is proposed as a subcontractor or teaming partner with meaningful involvement in contract performance, as demonstrated in the proposal. Uninvolved affiliates may not be used to substantiate points.

34 When does the 15-business-day vacancy-fill period begin and what constitutes the position being 'filled'?

The 15-business-day timeline is measured from the date the vacancy occurred to the date the replacement candidate was successfully placed (e.g., hired and onboarded). In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests solely with the offeror to provide verifiable documentation substantiating both the start and end dates.

35 Does 'filled within two weeks' mean performance began within two weeks of award, and can incumbent transitions be used?

Yes, ‘filled a position’ means the qualified employee must have successfully begun performance (been placed/onboarded) within 2 weeks of contract or task order award. The Government confirms that successful incumbent employee transitions or retentions may be used to substantiate this criterion, provided the offeror can supply verifiable documentation demonstrating the incumbent was successfully placed/onboarded on the offeror’s contract within the two-week timeframe.

36 What constitutes Government approval (email, signed letter, closure record, or CPARS)?

The Government does not prescribe a single exclusive format for documenting approval of a Corrective Action Plan.

Acceptable evidence may include a formal signed letter, official email correspondence from the PCO/COR indicating approval, or a formal system record (e.g., a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan closure record) showing the action as closed and accepted. The burden of proof rests with the offeror.

37 What documentation is sufficient to demonstrate that Government/Contractor Relations Training was provided to all employees?

The Government does not prescribe a specific document format. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests with the offeror.

38 Please clarify whether the due time is 10:00 a.m. EST or 3:00 PM EDT.

The proposal due time is clarified to be 3:00 PM Eastern Time. Section L, Paragraph 2.1 is amended via Amendment [0004] to resolve this discrepancy and harmonize the closing time with the SF 1449 and the SAM.gov posting.

39 The posted Attachment 5 is password protected/locked, but Section L states locked

The restriction in Section L, Paragraph

6.1.2.1 applies strictly to offeror-imposed worksheets will not be evaluated. Will an unlocked version be issued?

password protection or locking. Offerors shall submit the Government-provided Attachment 5 workbook with its standard structure and cell protections intact.

Section L is updated via Amendment [0004] to clarify this, and a cleaned version is issued.

40 Cell G44 references G13 instead of the FCL gate at G9, and Prime/Sub ranges in L50/L51 differ. Will a corrected file be issued?

The Government acknowledges the formula discrepancies identified in Attachment 5. Cell G44 is corrected to properly reference the FCL gate at Cell G9, and Cell L51 is corrected to capture rows 11 and 12 in the subcontractor sum. A corrected Attachment 5 worksheet is issued via Amendment [0004]."

41 Attachments 1, 2, 4, and 7 cite different or prior-year solicitation numbers. Please confirm all attachments apply to FA2396-26-R-B008.

Confirmed. All documents, attachments, and exhibits published under solicitation FA2396-26-R-B008 (and subsequent amendments) are current and fully applicable to this acquisition.

Typographical discrepancies in document headers or footers referencing prior-year or draft solicitation numbers are administrative artifacts and do not alter the applicability of the requirements.

42 Clause H.4 requires an OCI comparative analysis with the offer, but Section L Volume I does not list it. Is this required with the proposal?

The Government confirms that the OCI comparative analysis required by Clause H.4 is a mandatory submission with the proposal. Section L, Paragraph 5.2 (Volume I Organization) is amended via Amendment [0004] to include a new required tab for the OCI comparative analysis and mitigation plan (if applicable).

43 Must all three conditions (a, b, and c) be met by the same individual?

"The Government confirms that for Technical Identification 3(t) (Program Manager), a single proposed individual must meet all three sub-criteria (a, b, and c). In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests with the offeror to provide verifiable documentation substantiating the program manager's experience for all claimed qualifications."

44 May the same contract substantiate both 5(e) and 5(f) if it covered both research laboratory and IT/educational services?

The Government confirms that Technical Identification 5(e) and 5(f) are not mutually exclusive. An offeror may use a single contract to substantiate experience for both elements, provided that the contract's scope and the substantiating documentation clearly demonstrate performance in both distinct service areas (i.e., 'research laboratory' services and 'IT, Educational, Transcription, or Audiovisual' services). In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the documentation must be duplicated and submitted separately under each tab.

45 Will offerors lacking a recent OFCCP Notice of Compliance be evaluated under standard FAR

22.805 pre-award clearance procedures rather than disqualified?

The Government acknowledges that the DOL National Pre-Award Registry has been decommissioned. Offerors should submit a copy of their most recent OFCCP compliance evaluation closure letter, or, if not recently evaluated, a statement certifying current compliance with

EEOC/OFCCP requirements. Offerors who do not possess a current letter will not be disqualified; the Contracting Officer will initiate standard manual pre-award clearance procedures in accordance with FAR 22.805 for the apparent successful offeror.

46 Will the Government provide a secure upload portal (such as DoD SAFE) to accommodate large submission files?

As established in Section L, Paragraph 2.1, DoD SAFE is not an authorized submission method. All proposals must be submitted via email in accordance with the solicitation instructions. Transmission across multiple, sequential emails is permitted to accommodate file size limitations.

47 Clarify the discrepancy between the stated maximum points (2,565) and calculated item sum (2,240).

The Government confirms that the maximum available score across all evaluation elements is 2,240 points (Technical Identification 3 = 690 points;

Technical Identification 5 = 700 points).

The references to 815 and 900 points were legacy section header artifacts and have been removed. The minimum acceptability threshold remains unchanged at 1,740 validated points under Section M, Paragraph 2.5.

48 NISS-generated FCL letters are marked CUI and require encrypted transmission. May offerors provide an unclassified verification letter on company letterhead or submit via DoD SAFE?

To avoid transmitting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) over unencrypted channels, offerors may submit an unclassified verification letter on corporate letterhead signed by their Facility Security Officer (FSO) confirming their CAGE code, active Secret FCL level, and Cognizant Security Office. The Government will independently verify active Secret FCL status in NISS using the CAGE code provided. DoD SAFE is not authorized.

49 Please clarify limitations on file size, use of ZIP files, multiple sequential emails, and confirmation of receipt.

Government email gateways enforce a strict limit of 20 MB per email. Offerors are advised to keep total attachments under 15 MB per email. Transmission across multiple sequential emails is permitted using the standardized subject format.

Compressed ZIP files are not recommended due to gateway security filters. The Government will courtesy-confirm receipt of proposals via email.

50 Will experience and past performance of parent, subsidiary, or sister companies be evaluated if there is a firm commitment for meaningful involvement in performance?

The Government will evaluate and credit qualifying Technical Experience from an affiliated entity (parent, subsidiary, or sister company) only if that entity is formally proposed as a subcontractor or teaming partner demonstrating meaningful involvement in performance.

Because the affiliate is a separate legal entity, its experience must be coded as Subcontractor ('S') experience in Attachment 5 and is subject to the 49% subcontractor maximum.

51 Clarification requested on vacancy fill definitions, what constitutes an 'instance' for ID 4(b), and the standard for redacting sensitive PII in HR records.

The Government clarifies: (1) For ID 4(a), vacancy fills are measured from the vacancy occurred date to the onboarding date. (2) For ID 4(b), an 'instance' is one position filled within 14 calendar days of award. (3): “If the offeror determines it is in the offeror’s best interest to redact Personally Identifiable Information (PII) relating to individual contractor employees (e.g., employee names, personal contact information), then that is allowable.

However, to enable the Government to validate the claimed points: a. The Contract Number, Issuing Government Agency/Office, and dates must remain clearly visible and unredacted. b. The documentation must clearly substantiate both the formal Government-issued concern and the official Government approval/acceptance of the Corrective Action Plan. c. Offerors must provide a verifiable Government Point of Contact (PCO, ACO, or COR) in the substantiating package. d. In order to have documentation utilized to verify the points claimed, the documentation shall clearly still identify the company who received the award.

52 Please reconcile the SAM.gov notice stating questions should not be encrypted with Section L 3.4 requiring encrypted emails.

The Government clarifies that question submissions via email do not need to be encrypted or password protected, superseding the requirement in Section L,

3.4. No additional action is required for

questions already submitted.

53 Will the Government allow an unpopulated JV to satisfy the Secret FCL requirement if all JV members hold active clearances, in accordance with 13 CFR § 121.103(h) and GAO decision InfoPoint LLC (B-419856)?

An unpopulated Joint Venture is not required to hold an active Secret FCL under its own CAGE code at the time of proposal submission, provided the member entities possess the required clearances. Section L and Section M are amended via Amendment [0004] to reflect this clarification.

54 Confirm that PWS (FA2369-26-R-B008), Section M (FA2396-25-R-B003), and CDRLs (FA2396-25- R-B003) apply to FA2396-26-R-B008.

Confirmed. All documents, attachments, and exhibits published under solicitation FA2396-26-R-B008 (and subsequent amendments) are current and fully applicable to this acquisition.

Typographical discrepancies in document headers or footers referencing prior-year or draft solicitation numbers are administrative artifacts.

55 Please specify the contemplated contract type left blank in the provision.

The Government contemplates award of a Multiple-Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Task Orders issued under this IDIQ may be Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) or Time & Materials (T&M). The clause fill-in is updated via Amendment [0004].

56 Please specify the required CMMC level left blank in the clause.

DFARS 252.204-7021 and 252.204-7025 have been filled in Amendment [0004].

57 Confirm that mission-essential designations will be established solely at the Task Order level.

Mission-essential functions will be identified solely at the individual Task Order level.

58 Confirm funding availability and applicability of the blank allotment schedule.

Funding will be obligated at the individual Task Order level. The basic IDIQ contract does not establish a funding allotment schedule.

59 Confirm whether this clause applies and the deadline for requesting additional wage determinations.

Wage determinations under the Service Contract Labor Standards will apply at the individual Task Order level based on the specific place of performance identified for that order. Clause 52.222-49 does not require a fill-in at the basic IDIQ level.

60 Clarify whether any personal services compensation caps or special IDIQ-level documentation apply.

No IDIQ-level compensation caps are established in the basic contract.

Compensation for personal services will be established and evaluated on a per-task-order basis in accordance with all applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and agency-level policies.

61 What specific curriculum or topics must be covered to satisfy this criterion?

The Government does not approve or prescribe a specific curriculum for this requirement. As stated in Section L, Paragraph 6.2, Government/Contractor Relations Training includes, at a minimum, the laws and ethics governing the relationship between government personnel and non-personal services contract employees. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests with the offeror to provide documentation sufficient to prove that its training program covers these topics and was provided to its employees.

62 Requesting an extension to the proposal submission due date.

The proposal due date and time are being extended. The revised date and time will be formally established in Amendment [0004] to the solicitation, which will harmonize SF 1449 and Section L.

63 Please clarify the regulatory basis under 13 CFR § 121.103(h)(5) and FY2020 NDAA § 1629 for requiring the JV entity itself to hold an FCL.

An unpopulated Joint Venture is not required to hold an active Secret FCL under its own CAGE code at the time of proposal submission, provided the member entities possess the required clearances. Section L and Section M are amended via Amendment [0004] to reflect this clarification.

64 Clarify the basis for requiring the protégé to account for 40% of total evaluated points versus 40% of work performed by the JV under 13 CFR § 125.8(c).

The % requirements outlined in Sections L and M will be revised. Enter ‘P’ for both the Mentor/Managing Member experience and for the Small Business Protégé experience to enable automated calculation threshold under Section M, Paragraph 2.4.

65 Requesting permission to submit proposals via DoD SAFE.

As established in Section L, Paragraph 2.1, DoD SAFE is not authorized; all proposals must be submitted via email. The Government email gateway enforces a maximum size limit of 20 MB per email.

Transmission across multiple, sequential emails is permitted. Each email subject line must follow the standardized format:

‘FA2396-26-R-B008 - [Offeror Name] - Proposal Submission - Email [X] of [Y]’.”

66 Will the Government permit a company submitting as a Prime to also participate as a Subcontractor on another team?

A company who is proposing as a prime offeror in one proposal may appear as a subcontractor on multiple teams of other proposals submitted by other prime offerors.

67 Requesting revision of Section 5.2.3 since SBA no longer approves individual JVAs for competitive procurements.

For this competitive acquisition, the Government will evaluate the submitted Joint Venture Agreement for compliance with the requirements of 13 CFR 124.513.

Section L, Paragraph 5.2.3 is amended via Amendment to clarify this requirement.

68 Clarify what constitutes Government/Contractor relations training documentation and whether all PTO/leave hours must be reported as “vacancy” hours in monthly reports.

1. Regarding training documentation, the Government does not prescribe a specific format. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests with the offeror to provide documentation sufficient to prove that its training program covers the required topics.

2. Regarding vacancy reporting, offerors are directed to PWS Paragraph 3.5.1, which defines the scope of hours to be reported as a ‘vacancy’.

69 Please clarify how this requirement is consistent with Section 1629 of the FY2020 NDAA and 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(5)... If the Mentor and Protégé each possess the required FCL, please confirm that the JV will be eligible for award without an FCL issued to the JV entity itself, or revise Sections L and M accordingly.

An unpopulated Joint Venture is not required to hold an active Secret FCL under its own CAGE code at the time of proposal submission, provided the member entities possess the required clearances. Section L and Section M are amended via Amendment [0004] to reflect this clarification.

70 Will an OCI identified at the basic contract level bar award of the IDIQ, or is OCI assessed only at the task order level with mitigation handled there?

An OCI identified at the basic contract level will not automatically bar an offeror from receiving the basic IDIQ award. The purpose of the IDIQ-level OCI comparative analysis is to evaluate the offeror’s mitigation strategy and establish a baseline. OCI will be assessed, mitigated, and enforced at the individual Task Order level. A contractor barred from a specific Task Order due to an unmitigable OCI remains eligible for the basic IDIQ contract and other future Task Orders.

71 Will the Government accept Past Performance references from affiliated entities (such as Alaska Native Corporation sister companies) of an offeror?

This Government is not evaluating past performance in this solicitation. The Government will evaluate and credit qualifying Technical Experience from an affiliated entity (such as an ANC sister company) only if that entity is formally proposed as a subcontractor or teaming partner, with the affiliate having meaningful involvement in contract performance.

72 Does the Government have a secure file-transfer capability… or if email remains… what is the maximum allowable message… and may an offeror submit through multiple sequential emails?

As established in Section L, Paragraph 2.1, DoD SAFE is not authorized; all proposals must be submitted via email. The Government email gateway enforces a maximum size limit of 20 MB per email.

Transmission across multiple, sequential emails is permitted. Each email subject line must follow the standardized format:

‘FA2396-26-R-B008 - [Offeror Name] - Proposal Submission - Email [X] of [Y]’.

73 Would the Government revise this requirement to allow an unpopulated JV to satisfy the FCL requirement through documentation demonstrating that each JV member performing classified work possesses the required active

FCL…?

An unpopulated Joint Venture is not required to hold an active Secret FCL under its own CAGE code at the time of proposal submission, provided the member entities possess the required clearances. Section L and Section M are amended via Amendment [0004] to reflect this clarification.”

74 Attachment 1 (PWS) references solicitation number “FA2369-26-R-B008,” while the SF 1449 and remaining attachments cite “FA2396-26-R- B008.” Please confirm the correct solicitation number.

Confirmed. The official solicitation number is FA2396-26-R-B008. The reference to ‘FA2369-26-R-B008’ in the PWS header is a typographical error. The PWS and all published attachments are current and fully applicable to this acquisition.

75 Section M (Attachment 4) and the CDRLs (Attachment 2) reference a prior solicitation number, “FA2396-25-R-B003,” in their footers.

Please confirm these documents apply to

FA2396-26-R-B008.

Confirmed. All documents, attachments, and exhibits published under this solicitation are current and fully applicable. Typographical discrepancies in document footers referencing prior-year or draft solicitation numbers are administrative artifacts and do not alter the applicability of the requirements to

FA2396-26-R-B008.

76 Please confirm that complete supporting documentation must be duplicated for every individual row claimed… If duplication causes files to exceed limits, may offerors submit via DoD SAFE or multiple emails?

The Government confirms that in accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, if an offeror uses the same supporting documentation for more than one row on the Self-Scoring Worksheet, the documentation must be duplicated and submitted separately for each respective row. As established in Section L, Paragraph 2.1, DoD SAFE is not authorized; all proposals must be submitted via email. The Government email gateway enforces a maximum size limit of 20 MB per email. Transmission across multiple, sequential emails is permitted. Each email subject line must follow the standardized format: ‘FA2396- 26-R-B008 - [Offeror Name] - Proposal Submission - Email [X] of [Y]’.

77 When an offeror selects/checks the applicable box in Column D, the corresponding point value does not appear to automatically populate… will the Government issue a corrected Attachment 5 with functioning formulas…?

The Government acknowledges the formula discrepancies in the Attachment 5 Self-Scoring Worksheet. An updated, fully functioning Attachment 5 workbook will be issued via Amendment . Offerors must use the corrected Attachment 5 released with Amendment for their proposal submissions.

78 Please confirm whether the point value awarded for a technical experience criterion is the same regardless of whether the supporting experience is identified as Prime (“P”) or Subcontractor (“S”).

Confirmed. The point value awarded for a successfully validated technical experience criterion is identical regardless of whether it is substantiated by the Prime (‘P’) or a Subcontractor (‘S’). The ‘P’ and ‘S’ designations are solely used to calculate compliance with the 51% Prime / 49% Subcontractor threshold requirement in Section M, Paragraph 2.4.

79 Please clarify how experience identified as “PS” is treated in calculating the Prime and Subcontractor percentages…

The % requirements outlined in Sections L and M will be revised. Enter ‘P’ for both the Mentor/Managing Member experience and for the Small Business Protégé experience to enable automated calculation threshold under Section M, Paragraph 2.4. The ‘PS’ designation in the Column H header is an artifact and is hereby removed.

80 Section L states that Offerors shall substantiate experience “recruiting and placing” personnel for the Federal Government under Criterion 3.

Amended Section M states that Offerors shall demonstrate experience “recruiting” qualified personnel for Criteria 3(a)–3(r), while 3(s) and 3(t) specifically require recruiting and placing.

Offerors must demonstrate that qualified personnel were both recruited and successfully placed (onboarded into performance) for all elements under Technical Identification 3. Evidence of recruiting activities alone without placement is insufficient. Section M, Please clarify whether Federal placement experience is required for Criteria 3(a)–3(r), or whether substantiated Federal recruiting experience alone is sufficient.

Paragraph 3.3, is updated via Amendment [0004] to conform with Section L, Paragraph 6.2 by consistently using the phrase 'Experience recruiting and placing qualified personnel' for all applicable sub-elements.

81 Some of the FARS/DFARS clauses are blank.

Can the Government please review the clauses and provide the information. As example, 52.216-19 Order Limitations has empty fill-ins that are needed to designate the minimum and maximum amounts that orders will have under the IDIQ.

The Government will review Section I and provide the required clause fill-ins, including the minimum and maximum order limitations for FAR 52.216-19, via Amendment [0004].

82 The PWS section 6.1 references direct hour reporting annually at http://www.ecmra.mil.

This is no longer an active website and reporting of hours is now done in SAM. Can the Government please remove the clause or modify it to reference SAM.

PWS Paragraph 6.1 is amended via Amendment [0004] to remove references to the decommissioned eCMRA system and reflect that contractor manpower reporting must be completed annually via the System for Award Management (SAM.gov).

83 Can the Government please clarify if requirement is still needed since EO 14173 was revoked and the URL provided (https://ofccp.dol-esa.gov/preaward/pa_reg.html) does not work.

The Government acknowledges that the DOL National Pre-Award Registry has been decommissioned. Offerors should submit a copy of their most recent OFCCP compliance evaluation closure letter, or, if not recently evaluated, a statement certifying current compliance with EEOC/OFCCP requirements. Section L, Paragraph 5.2.4 is updated via Amendment [0004].

https://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecmra.mil https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fofccp.dol-esa.gov%2Fpreaward%2Fpa_reg.html https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fofccp.dol-esa.gov%2Fpreaward%2Fpa_reg.html

84 Will the government please consider removing the DFAR 252.226-7001 Utilization of Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns. (APR 2019)? This clause would restrict our ability to utilize vendors of choice, and as the Prime, all funding will flow through an Indian-Owned Economic Enterprise.

The Government declines to remove DFARS 252.226-7001. This clause does not restrict an offeror's ability to utilize vendors of choice; rather, it provides a regulatory framework for potential incentive payments when utilizing qualifying Indian Organizations and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns.

85 Will the Government confirm that this list is illustrative rather than exhaustive, and that Offerors may submit other forms of official, verifiable documentation (including but not limited to officially accepted pricing document or formal contract modifications) to properly substantiate their claims?

The list of examples provided in Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3 is illustrative, not exhaustive. The Government will accept other forms of official, contemporaneous documentation provided they are sufficient to independently verify and validate the claimed experience.

86 To ensure the protection of subcontractor proprietary and competitively sensitive data, will the Government permit subcontractors to submit their supporting documentation directly to the Contracting Officer?

No. The Prime Offeror is solely responsible for submitting a complete, integrated proposal package, which must include all substantiating documentation for any proposed subcontractors. The Government will not accept separate proposal volumes submitted directly by subcontractors.

87 Can the Government confirm that a task order-level SOW, issued as a discrete competitive action under a multiple-award IDIQ, is acceptable as supporting documentation for the Self-Scoring Worksheet — even where the parent IDIQ's base PWS would not be?

Confirmed. An individual Task Order awarded under a Multiple Award IDIQ (and its specific PWS/SOW) is an eligible technical-experience reference. The exclusion in Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3 applies strictly to the overarching parent Multiple Award IDIQ basic ordering vehicle.

88 Where a single contract document package is used to substantiate multiple Technical IDs, must a physically complete, separately tabbed duplicate copy of the full document package be included under each respective Technical ID tab — or is it sufficient to include the document package once and cross-reference its tab location?

In accordance with Section L, Paragraph

6.1.3 and Section M, Paragraph 3.1, cross-referencing between tabs is prohibited.

Supporting documentation must be duplicated and filed under each respective claimed row tab to permit independent evaluation.

89 On July 13, 2026, the Department announced the immediate suspension of CMMC Phase II requirements… Please provide direction on addressing CMMC.

DFARS 252.204-7021 and 252.204-7025 have been filled in Amendment [0004].

90 May an offeror rely on qualifying experience performed by an affiliate under common ownership/control that is not proposed as a subcontractor or JV member?

No. The Government will evaluate and credit qualifying Technical Experience from an affiliated entity only if that entity is formally proposed as a subcontractor or teaming partner with meaningful involvement in contract performance demonstrated in the proposal. Uninvolved affiliates may not be used to substantiate points.

91 For ID 4(a), please clarify when the 15-business-day vacancy-fill period begins… and what event constitutes the position being “filled.”

As established in previous responses, the 15-business-day timeline is measured from the date the vacancy occurred to the date the replacement candidate was successfully placed (e.g., hired and onboarded). In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests solely with the offeror to provide verifiable documentation substantiating both the start and end dates.

92 For ID 4(b), please clarify whether “filled a position within two weeks of contract award” means the employee must have begun performance within two weeks of award.

Additionally, may successful incumbent employee transitions/retentions be used to substantiate this criterion?

Yes, ‘filled a position’ means the qualified employee must have successfully begun performance (been placed/onboarded) within 2 weeks of contract or task order award. The Government confirms that successful incumbent employee transitions or retentions may be used to substantiate this criterion, provided the offeror can supply verifiable documentation demonstrating the incumbent was successfully placed/onboarded on the offeror’s contract within the two-week timeframe.

93 ID 5(c) requires both a redacted Government concern and a Government-approved corrective action plan. Please clarify what constitutes Government approval—for example, is an email accepting the corrective action, closure correspondence, or CPARS documentation sufficient, or is a formally signed approval required?

“The Government does not prescribe a single exclusive format for documenting approval of a Corrective Action Plan.

Acceptable evidence may include a formal signed letter, official email correspondence from the PCO/COR indicating approval, or a formal system record (e.g., a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan closure record) showing the action as accepted. The burden of proof rests with the offeror.“

94 For a contract that began before the five-year lookback date but continued performance within the five-year period, may the contract be used in its entirety for substantiation, or must the claimed experience be specifically demonstrated as occurring within the five-year period?

Section L, Paragraph 4.3 Contract References states ‘All information submitted as substantiating evidence must be ongoing or completed within the last five years as of the date of this RFP release.’ Experience claimed from that contract may be used for substantiation, provided the specific experience or event being claimed occurred during the actual active period of performance.

95 For ID 5(d), what documentation is sufficient to demonstrate that Government/Contractor Relations Training was provided to all employees? Will the Government accept the training material together with employee training rosters/completion records, or is Government acknowledgment also required?

The Government does not prescribe a specific document format. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, the burden of proof rests with the offeror.

Submitting the training curriculum alongside verifiable employee training rosters or completion records is generally considered a highly acceptable method to substantiate this requirement. Official Government acknowledgment is not required to validate the contractor’s internal training.

96 Does the Government desire only one reference per line item?

The Government requires sufficient documentation to definitively validate the claim. While a single comprehensive document (such as a Task Order PWS) may suffice for some elements, offerors may submit multiple referenced documents (e.g., an award form, a SOW, and a COR email) to substantiate a single line item if necessary to meet their burden of proof.

97 Will every Task Order clearly…