Sources Sought Q and A.docx

Q&A Response No extension past 8 Oct 26.

1. Teaming. May two small businesses respond as one team, with the teammate's capability cited in the Section 2 answers? Should the teammate also submit its own Section 1–3 response, or is a single team response preferred for the small-business adequacy assessment?

· Yes, a joint response is acceptable. Providing a response indicating the responsibility for each and their small business relationship or category is information we would appreciate knowing.

2. Facility clearance. Does the Government anticipate requiring an appropriate Facility Clearance at Sources Sought response, proposal submission, contract award, or only before performance requiring classified access? For currently uncleared subcontractors selected to perform classified work, does STARCOM anticipate direct GCA sponsorship or sponsorship through the cleared prime?

· FCL will be required once contract is awarded, not for proposal submission.

3. Cyber in the training environment. PWS 3.4 names cyber among the capabilities to be integrated into exercises, while 3.7 treats cybersecurity only as protection and administration of the training infrastructure. Does the 392 CTS intend for cyber warfare to be represented as an operational effect inside the constructive environment (BattleLab, PWS 3.6), so that cyber actions against space systems and ground segments produce mission effects the training audience must detect and distinguish from faults? Is embedded-system or bus-level cyber representation of interest? Is the "external cyber exercise infrastructure" in 3.7.2 a government system or a contractor responsibility?

· Yes, the requirement owner wants active, constructive cyber effects.

4. Contractor-provided M&S. Section 1 and PWS 3.4 contemplate "contractor-provided" and "contractor and cloud-based" M&S platforms; PWS 3.2 limits new M&S to capabilities "provided by the Government." Please confirm whether a contractor-provided M&S platform, approved under PWS 2.8.2, may be proposed in the technical approach, and whether 2.8.2 approval is decided before or after award.

· Yes, contractor-provided M&S may be proposed.

5. Data rights. Will the RFP distinguish contract deliverables (unlimited rights, PWS 2.8.1) from contractor-provided commercial computer software, which DFARS 227.7202 directs the Government to acquire under the license customarily provided to the public, and from other-than-commercial software under DFARS 252.227-7014? Will the Government set a decision window for 2.8.2 approval requests?

· On a case-by-case basis. If your firm has proprietary software that would be beneficial to note in your response.

6. Page limits. Please confirm that the 10-page Section 2 limit and 3-page Section 3 limit are inclusive of tables and figures, and that the 9-point table minimum applies to table text only (headers, notes).

· This is accurate. Please respond with this understanding.

7. Award structure. Is the IDIQ anticipated as single or multiple award? If single award, will the Government consider an on-ramp or a distinct task area for M&S capability enhancement (PWS 3.6) so specialist firms can compete at the task-order level?

· If you have a recommendation, please indicate choice and the rationale for that reasoning.

8. Ordering period. Section IV states five years and the September 22nd update states seven. Which governs?

· 5-year base with 2 option years.

9. White Cell baseline. To make "reduce White Cell manpower requirements" measurable, will the Government release current White Cell controller counts per FLASHPOINT and per large-scale exercise, or the incumbent's hours by labor category, with the RFP?

· The government plans to provide workload indicators.

10. CMMC. What CMMC level (DFARS 252.204-7021) does the Government anticipate requiring at award, and will it apply to subcontractors with no CUI access?

· The government will require a plan to obtain the highest CMMC level at award.

11. SAP access. Is SAP-accessed cleared contractor staff required from day one of the contract, or after the system is built?

· The government anticipates SAP cleared staff at award.

12. Places of performance. If Delta 11 relocates to Kirtland AFB, do on-site positions follow the unit? Are distributed Space Battle Laboratory sites places of performance?

· Primarily Schriever Space Force Base, but multiple CONUS and OCONUS location.

13. Teaming facilitation. Will the Government hold an industry day, publish an interested-vendors list, or otherwise facilitate teaming between large and small respondents before the RFP?

· The government is planning an industry day later.

14. NAICS. The Government invited rationale for an alternative NAICS. Would the Government consider 541511 or 541715 for an M&S enhancement task area if one is created, with 541330 retained for the base requirement?

· This is an RFI/sources sought; the government seeks all recommendations along with the rationale for each suggestion.

15. OCI. Given PWS 3.1.4 (coordination of RDT&E and acquisition matters with SSC and OTTI), will the Government publish its expected OCI mitigation framework with the RFP? TBD