ATTACHMENT 9_Solicitation Questions_12.30.2025.docx

FA469026R0003

Travel Pay Processing Question and Answers

1. Would the Government please confirm the type of certifications required for the Project Manager? Currently the PWS states, "Documentation of manager or supervisory training certification must be reflected on the selectee’s resume."

a. The Government acknowledges the language in the PWS regarding a manager or supervisory training certification. This requirement is being removed from the Performance Work Statement (PWS) via amendment to resolve conflicts with the evaluation criteria.

Therefore, the Government confirms that no specific type of certification is required for the Program Manager position to be considered technically acceptable. The evaluation of the proposed Program Manager will be based exclusively on the experience requirement outlined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, which is a minimum of one year of experience managing a staff of 18+ personnel in a production-based environment within the last five years.

2. Page 3 of 43 SF 1449 Supplies or Services & Prices or Cost, Page 7 Delivery or Performance compared to Attachment 5

a. CLIN 0001 References Travel Pay Processing Quantity for the Contract PM - 12 Months vs CLIN 0001 on attachment 5 tab BASE YEAR FY26 is for Financial Services Technician Quantity 444 Job

b. CLIN 0002 Travel Pay Processing Quantity 444 Job vs CLIN 0002 on attachment 5 Project Manager 12 months

c. CLIN 0003 OT Quantity 500 each vs CLIN 0003 on attachment 5 1396 hrs

d. CLIN 1001 References Travel Pay Processing Quantity for the Contract PM - 12 Months vs CLIN 1001 on attachment 5 tab OPTION YEAR 1 FY27 is for Financial Services Technician Quantity 444 Job

e. CLIN 1002 Travel Pay Processing Quantity 444 Job vs CLIN 1002 on attachment 5 Project Manager 12 months

f. CLIN 1003 OT Quantity 500 each vs CLIN 1003 on attachment 5 1396 hrs The government acknowledges comments received and has addressed within the solicitation documents

3. I would like to verify the information on Attachment 5 Tab 6-MO EXT, since the information currently referenced in pages 3 or 7 of SF 1449 does not align to the information in Attachment 5.

a. The Government confirms that the Bid Schedule (Attachment 5) has been updated with corrected information for Tab 6-MO EXT. Offerors shall utilize the most recently issued version of Attachment 5, Tab 6-MO EXT, for their proposal submissions. Any information on pages 3 or 7 of the SF 1449 that does not align with the updated Attachment 5 should be disregarded.

4. Question: Does the ordering period need to be updated to reflect the changes made on SF 30 Summary of changes Block 14.

a. Yes, the ordering period in SF 1449 will be updated to reflect the changes made in Block 14 of the SF 30 Summary of Changes. The Government will issue an amendment 2 to clarify the correct ordering period in SF 1449 to align with the dates revised. Offerors should always refer to the latest amendment for the most accurate information.

5. Box 10 of SF 1449 stated that this solicitation is 100% set aside for WOSB. Can the government please confirm if this solicitation is set aside for SBA-certified WOSB, self-certified WOSB, EDWOSB, and SDVOSB?

a. The Government confirms this solicitation is a 100% set-aside exclusively for Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB). To be eligible for award, an offeror must be certified by the Small Business Administration (SBA); self-certification is not sufficient for this requirement. This eligibility includes SBA-certified Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Businesses (EDWOSB), as they are a subset of the WOSB program. As previously clarified, any reference to Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) is a typographical error and that designation is not applicable to this WOSB set-aside.

6. Can the government please confirm how many past performance references are required and also if we can use non-government contracts as past performance?

a. The Government confirms offerors are permitted to submit up to six (6) of their most relevant past performance references. In response to the second part of your question, yes, both government and non-government (commercial) contracts may be used as past performance references. The solicitation, on Page 38 of Attachment 8, explicitly states that offerors may provide relevant contracts performed for "Federal agencies and commercial customers."

7. Can the government please also confirm that the project manager is not required to work on-site and will be able to telework?

a. All work must be performed on site at Ellsworth AFB.

8. What labor category and code for the 37 people?

a. The Government cannot mandate the specific labor category offerors must use in their proposals. It is the offeror's responsibility to map the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to the appropriate occupations in the Service Contract Act (SCA) Directory of Occupations for the applicable Wage Determination.

For the purposes of guidance, the 01013 - Accounting Clerk III category appears to be an appropriate classification for the Financial Services Technician positions. This level typically involves maintaining ledgers, balancing and reconciling accounts, and handling more complex assignments requiring significant experience and judgment. These duties align with the PWS requirements for processing travel vouchers, understanding complex travel regulations, and, for certain technicians, balancing travel accounting transactions daily. Offerors should carefully review the PWS task requirements against the official SCA descriptions to propose the labor categories they determine are most appropriate for the 37-person workforce.

Additionally, as referenced in the solicitation, FAR Clause 52.222-42 (Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires) provides a crucial benchmark. This clause lists the wage rates the government would pay its own Federal employees (on the General Schedule or "GS" scale) to perform this work. While this does not dictate the SCA category you must propose, it serves as an official guideline on the level of complexity and value the Government associates with these tasks.

Offerors should use both the functional guidance (e.g., the Accounting Clerk III suggestion) and the pay-level guidance from Clause 52.222-42 to inform their analysis. Ultimately, offerors must carefully review the PWS task requirements against the official SCA descriptions to propose the labor categories they determine are most appropriate for the 37-person workforce.

9. Would you consider extending the due date because of the holiday season? Some customers may be on break during the time they would need to fill out the customer questionnaire.

a. T The Government will be extending the solicitation through January 7th.

10. Would like to know if in lieu of PPQS, would the Government allow submission of CPARS?

a. Yes, the Government will accept CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) records in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). Offerors may submit relevant and recent CPARS reports for evaluation as part of their past performance volume. Offerors should ensure any submitted CPARS reports are for contracts that meet the recency and relevancy criteria defined in the solicitation and that the information provided is complete and demonstrates their ability to perform the required effort.

11. Due to the holiday season, we have multiple CORs that are out of office until January 9th. As this submission is currently due January 5th, the timing would not allow us to have the requested PPQs submitted in time.

a. The Government understands the challenges the holiday season may present in contacting references. As has been clarified in previous responses to this solicitation, the Government will accept Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) records in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs).

Offerors who anticipate difficulty in obtaining completed PPQs by the submission deadline due to the unavailability of their references are strongly encouraged to submit their relevant and recent CPARS reports for those contracts instead. This provides a direct and timely method for offerors to meet the past performance submission requirements.

Currently, the proposal submission deadline of January 5th remains unchanged.

12. Exhibit 1 is referenced in the RFP, PWS, and previous Q&A responses; however, it does not appear to be included in the solicitation package or posted materials. Can the Government please provide Exhibit 1, or confirm whether it will be released as part of an amendment?

a. Due to the size/quantity of the training materials included in Exhibit 1, it will be provided to the awardee after the award.

13. Clarification on Past Performance Questionnaire Letter (Attachment 2). Could the Government please clarify how the offeror is expected to track questionnaire completion if the respondent’s identity cannot be disclosed?

a. The Government clarifies that offerors are responsible for sending out the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to their identified references and exerting their best effort to track whether a response has been submitted for each specific contract reference.

While the identity of the individual completing the questionnaire will remain confidential and will not be disclosed to the offeror, the Government will, upon request, confirm whether a PPQ has been received for a particular contract reference. This allows offerors to track which of their requested PPQs have been successfully submitted to the Government, without compromising the anonymity of the respondent.

Offerors should direct inquiries about PPQ receipt to the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist listed in the solicitation.

14. Signature Line on Attachment 3 (Past Performance Questionnaire). The Past Performance Questionnaire Letter (Attachment 2) requires a signature.

a. The Government acknowledges the discrepancy noted by the offeror. The instruction in the Past Performance Letter (Attachment 2) is correct; a signature is required from the reference provider. The omission of a formal signature block in the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) is an oversight in the document.

To satisfy this requirement, the individual completing the questionnaire shall sign, print their name and title, and date the form at the end of the document. This will be accepted by the Government as fulfilling the signature requirement.

15. Conflicting Attachment References for the Past Performance Questionnaire. Could the Government please confirm which attachment is the correct and final version of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire? What is the full address for the place of performance?

a. Attachment 3 is the correct Questionnaire form. The performance location will be located at Ellsworth AFB, SD 57706

16. Per PWS, page 4, section 1.2 - Please confirm the resulting contract is a twelve (12) month base with twelve (12) month option year and optional six (6) month extension.

a. This contract is for 1 base year (12 months), 1 Option Year (12 months), and 6-month extension.

17. Ref. Attachment 3, PWS references in column B on each tab – The PWS sections referenced in Attachment 3 do not align with the information in the PWS, also there is no section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 in the PWS. Can we get an updated Attachment 3 or PWS?

a. Attachment 3 is the Past Performance Questionnaire. No references to the PWS are listed with in the Past Performance Questionnaire.

18. Ref. Attachment 5 – Please update the CLIN numbers so they align with the RFP. Per the RFP CLIN 0001 is for the PM in Attachment 5 CLIN 0001 is listed as the Technicians.

a. Attachment 5 is updated.

19. The overtime CLIN 0003 hours in Attachment 5 do not match the CLIN 0003 hours in the RFP, please send out an updated Attachment 5.

a. The Government acknowledges the discrepancy between the quantity for CLIN 0003 listed in the original Attachment 5 and the main RFP.

To clarify for all offerors, the correct quantity for CLIN 0003, Overtime, is 500 units (hours).

The solicitation will be amended to incorporate a revised Attachment 5 reflecting this correction. All offerors shall use this quantity of 500 hours when calculating their price for CLIN 0003 to ensure a uniform basis for the Total Evaluated Price.

20. Ref. SF 1449 and SAM.gov - The RFP has the WOSB box checked but with the Amendment 0001 update the information in SAM was changed to: This is a 100% set-aside for Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB); to include WOSB/EDWOSB/SDVOSB. Please update SAM.gov and confirm this is total WOSB.

a. The Government confirms that this solicitation, FA4690-26-R-0003, is a 100% set-aside exclusively for Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB).

The reference to "SDVOSB" in the SAM.gov notice for Amendment 0001 was a typographical error and should be disregarded entirely. An entity's status as an SDVOSB is not applicable to this WOSB set-aside. The Government will correct the notice on SAM.gov to remove the erroneous reference. To be eligible for award, an offeror must be a certified Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB).

21. Ref. RFP page 38 and 41, Subfactor One Quality Control – ‘The quality control plan, as mentioned in the Paragraph 2.2 of the PWS’. There is no mention of the quality control plan in PWS 2.2. Can you please either update the RFP or the PWS?

a. The reference on Page 38 of the solicitation, which points to "Paragraph 2.2 of the PWS" for Quality Control Plan requirements, is an error.

The correct and applicable section in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) that outlines the requirements for the Quality Control Plan is Paragraph 4.4. Offerors shall refer to PWS Paragraph 4.4 when developing and submitting their Quality Control Plan for evaluation under Volume II, Technical Factor, Subfactor One. The solicitation will be amended to correct this reference.

22. Ref. RFP page 38 and 41, Subfactor Two – ‘manpower needed for this requirement IAW PWS Paragraphs 2.1 and 3.0 thru 3.1.2.’There is not a section 3.1.2 in the PWS, please update the PWS or the RFP.

a. RFP has been changed to reflect the correct PWS sections 3.0-3.4 and PWS sections 5.0- 5.2. Section 2.0 reference has been deleted from “Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan”.

23. Ref. RFP page 38-39 PPQ’s – Will you accept CPARS in lieu of PPQ’s?

a. Yes, the Government will accept CPARS records in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) under certain conditions.

Offerors may submit CPARS reports for contracts that fall within the recency and relevancy criteria outlined in the solicitation (Attachment 8, Volume III, Past Performance Factor). If an offeror chooses to submit CPARS reports instead of, or in addition to, PPQs, those CPARS reports will be evaluated as part of the offeror's past performance submission.

However, offerors are still encouraged to ensure all past performance information provided is complete and adequately demonstrates their ability to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation.

24. Ref. RFP page 38, ‘(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Five (5) Years’. Can we submit past performance for contracts that are ongoing and completed or only completed contracts?

a. The government will review 6 past performance contracts for the past performance evaluation. On-going contracts may be submitted for past performance evaluations.

25. Ref. RFP, page 42, D), ‘A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts.’ Ref. RFP, page 38, (a), ‘Using the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 6) provide no more than six (6) of the most relevant contracts performed’ Are we to provide three (3) or six (6) past performance references?

a. The Government confirms that the reference on Page 42 of the RFP to "three (3) submitted contracts" contains a typographical error and is hereby superseded.

The correct instruction is found on Page 38 of the RFP. Offerors are permitted to submit up to six (6) of their most relevant contracts for the past performance evaluation. The Government will perform a recency and relevancy determination for all submitted contract references, up to this maximum of six.

26. Ref. RFP, page 42 in reviewing the relevancy of past performance, will the ratings be combine to come up with an average rating or will each rating be a standalone comparison? For example, if two are ‘Very Relevant’ and one is just ‘Relevant’ will we receive a rating of ‘Very Relevant’ or if it’s not done as an average if we were to receive two ‘VR’ and one ‘Relevant’ would you move onto the next contractor that has 3 ‘VR’?

a. The Government's evaluation of the Past Performance factor is not conducted by averaging the relevancy ratings, nor is it a direct comparison as described in the offeror's example. The evaluation is a comprehensive, qualitative assessment intended to determine an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

The process is as follows:

· Individual Assessment: Each contract reference (up to six) is individually assessed for recency and then assigned a relevancy rating (Very Relevant, Relevant, etc.) based on the definitions in the solicitation.

· Holistic Review: The evaluation team then considers all this information in its totality. The team looks at the number of relevant contracts, the degree of relevancy of each, and—critically—the quality of the contractor's performance on those contracts as documented in Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and CPARS.

· Confidence Rating Assignment: Based on this holistic assessment, the Government assigns a single, overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating (e.g., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, etc.) to the offeror. A mix of 'Very Relevant' and 'Relevant' references, if demonstrating a strong history of quality performance, could still result in a 'Substantial Confidence' rating. The evaluation considers the entire picture to predict future success.

Per the evaluation procedures outlined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, this process is conducted sequentially, beginning with the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. The Government does not conduct a side-by-side comparison of offerors’ relevancy ratings as suggested in the example.

27. Ref. RFP, page 38, ‘Relevant contracts include comprehensive data processing in a production environment that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in the Performance Work Statement. AND ref. RFP page 42, ‘The Contract Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Travel-pay Processing Services.’ Please confirm and amend the RFP with which information will be taken into account to determine ‘Relevancy’ data processing in a production environment or the instant acquisition, Travel-pay Processing Services? Keep in mind the latter gives the incumbent an unfair advantage.

a. The Government confirms that both statements referenced by the offeror are correct and will be used in concert to determine relevancy. The two statements are not in conflict but rather provide a complete picture of the relevancy assessment.

The statement on Page 42, which refers to the "instant acquisition, Travel-pay Processing Services," establishes the specific scope of the required effort. This is the benchmark against which past performance will be measured.

The statement on Page 38, which defines relevant contracts as including "comprehensive data processing in a production environment," provides the broader context for what the Government considers to be similar work.

To be clear, while past performance involving the specific complexities of "Travel-pay Processing Services" would be considered highly relevant, the Government's relevancy evaluation is not limited exclusively to that specific type of work. The Government will consider an offeror's past performance on contracts for other forms of comprehensive data processing in a production environment to be relevant, provided that the offeror can demonstrate how that experience is similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements of this PWS.

This approach ensures a fair competitive environment by allowing offerors who may not be incumbents, but who possess directly applicable process-driven experience in similar production environments, to demonstrate their capabilities and receive a favorable relevancy rating. Therefore, no amendment to the RFP is necessary as the current language provides for a comprehensive and equitable evaluation of relevancy.

28. Ref. RFP, page 40, ‘Step 2 - Evaluate technical proposals for technical acceptability.’ AND ref. RFP page 40, (2) ‘The Government reserves the right to consider higher-priced proposals if the technical benefits outweigh the price difference, as long as the proposal offers the best value.’ The two statements above are contradictory. Are we to achieve an ‘Acceptable’ rating on the technical proposal meaning, the proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements or will there be a change in the evaluation of the technical proposal to change it to an adjectival rating to account for the weighted benefits in the technical proposal?

a. To clarify, the evaluation methodology will be conducted precisely as detailed in the five-step process outlined on RFP Page 40, under "Proposal Evaluation."

The Technical factor (Volume II) will be evaluated on a strict Acceptable / Unacceptable basis, as defined by the Technical Rating Method table on RFP Page 41. A proposal must receive a rating of "Acceptable" in all technical subfactors to be eligible for further consideration and award. There will be no qualitative ranking of technical proposals beyond this pass/fail determination.

The language on Page 40, paragraph (2), stating the Government may "consider higher-priced proposals if the technical benefits outweigh the price difference," is hereby clarified. For this specific solicitation, the "technical benefits" are encompassed by meeting the "Acceptable" standard. The true tradeoff, as described in the Basis for Contract Award, will occur between Past Performance and Price for all offerors who have been deemed technically acceptable.

Therefore, the Government confirms that there will be no change to the evaluation of the technical proposal. It will remain an "Acceptable / Unacceptable" evaluation, and no adjectival ratings will be assigned to weigh technical benefits in a tradeoff.

29. Ref. RFP page 37, section 1.5, ‘Pages shall be single spaced with 1.5 spacing.’ Are the proposals to be single spaced or multiple spacing at 1.5?

a. The Government acknowledges the conflicting language regarding line spacing in Attachment 8, Page 37, Paragraph 1.5.

The phrase "Pages shall be single spaced with 1.5 spacing" contains a contradiction. The correct and required line spacing for all proposals is single spacing. All offerors shall prepare their proposals using single-spaced lines. All other formatting requirements outlined in Paragraph 1.5, such as font size and margins, remain in effect.

30. Ref. RFP page 38, section (b) under Volume II, ‘If technical subfactors are used, they should be kept to a minimum.’ Please advise what is meant by this. Does this mean we are to keep our responses in technical to only addressing the basics for the subfactors to receive an Acceptable in the evaluation and not address any benefits or advantages?

a. The statement on Page 38, Section (b), reading, "If technical subfactors are used, they should be kept to a minimum," is internal guidance for the Government in structuring the solicitation and is not instruction to offerors on the level of detail to provide in their proposals.

Offerors should instead be guided by the explicit instructions for Volume II, which state that a proposal must "provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements."

To receive an "Acceptable" rating, a proposal must demonstrate a "sound, compliant approach" and a "thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements." A proposal that only addresses "the basics" may fail to provide sufficient detail and risks being considered Unacceptable.

While the technical evaluation is not a best-value tradeoff and will not be assigned adjectival ratings, explaining the benefits or advantages of your proposed approach is an effective way to provide the "convincing rationale" the solicitation requires. Your goal should be to clearly and comprehensively detail your approach, ensuring the Government has a thorough understanding of your plan to successfully perform the work outlined in the PWS.

31. Ref. RFP, page 39, (b) If this is a first-time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts. If the teaming arrangement is with an affiliate or ‘sister company’ then I would assume a list of past and present relevant contracts lists would not be required, correct?

a. If the offeror intends to rely on the past performance of an affiliate or "sister company" to demonstrate its capability, then a list of that affiliate's past and present relevant contracts is required.

The Government's evaluation will be guided by the language on Page 41 of the RFP, under Section d, (1) General, which states:

"The Government will take into account past performance information regarding... affiliates... if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror's past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement..."

For the Government to consider an affiliate's past performance, the offeror must first submit that past performance (i.e., the list of relevant contracts) for evaluation. Secondly, the offeror must explain how that affiliate will be meaningfully involved in the performance of this contract. Simply being an affiliated company is not sufficient on its own. Therefore, you must treat the affiliate as a teaming partner for the purposes of the past performance submission and provide the required contract information.

32. If this requirement does not change how many should be included on this list and how much / what information is required?

a. The requirement stands. If an offeror relies on the experience of an affiliate or "sister company," that entity's past performance must be submitted following the same rules as the prime offeror. Any contracts provided for the affiliate will count toward the combined proposal limit of six (6) total references. For each contract submitted, the offeror must provide all of the information detailed in the "Comprehensive List of Recent and Relevant Contracts" section found on Page 38 of the RFP.

33. What occupation code in the Wage Determination should be used for the Financial Service Technicians, 01013 Accounting Clerk III?

a. The Government cannot mandate the specific labor category offerors must use in their proposals. It is the offeror's responsibility to map the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to the appropriate occupations in the Service Contract Act (SCA) Directory of Occupations for the applicable Wage Determination.

For the purposes of guidance, the 01013 - Accounting Clerk III category appears to be an appropriate classification for the Financial Services Technician positions. This level typically involves maintaining ledgers, balancing and reconciling accounts, and handling more complex assignments requiring significant experience and judgment. These duties align with the PWS requirements for processing travel vouchers, understanding complex travel regulations, and, for certain technicians, balancing travel accounting transactions daily. Offerors should carefully review the PWS task requirements against the official SCA descriptions to propose the labor categories they determine are most appropriate for the 37-person workforce.

Additionally, as referenced in the solicitation, FAR Clause 52.222-42 (Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires) provides a benchmark. This clause lists the wage rates the government would pay its own Federal employees (on the General Schedule or "GS" scale) to perform this work. While this does not dictate the SCA category you must propose, it serves as an official guideline on the level of complexity and value the Government associates with these tasks.

Offerors should use both the functional guidance (e.g., the Accounting Clerk III suggestion) and the pay-level guidance from Clause 52.222-42 to inform their analysis. Ultimately, offerors must carefully review the PWS task requirements against the official SCA descriptions to propose the labor categories they determine are most appropriate for the 37-person workforce.

34. Ref. PWS page 5, Section 2.3 and 2.4, ‘The Multi-Functional Team representatives (MFT) shall consist of the following individuals: Functional Manager, Contracting Officer, Contract Administrator, Resource Advisor, Quality Assurance Program Coordinator, Contract Officer Representative, and Contract Program Managers (PM)/Technical Experts.’ What are the ‘Team Building Meetings’?

a. In reference to PWS Sections 2.3 and 2.4, the 'Team Building Meetings' are periodically scheduled, recurring meetings between the Government's Multi-Functional Team (MFT) and the Contractor's management. The purpose of these meetings is to maintain a collaborative partnership and ensure open lines of communication. The agenda for these meetings is intended to be strategic and may include, but is not limited to, holistically reviewing contract performance, discussing upcoming operational requirements, identifying potential challenges, and proactively seeking resolutions to ensure a successful partnership. These meetings are distinct from routine technical interchange or daily quality assurance meetings.

35. From the list of individuals above which would be the contractor, just the Contract Program Manager? Are the Financial Service Technicians included in this meeting also?

a. From the list of individuals identified as making up the Multi-Functional Team (MFT), the contractor representatives are the "Contract Program Managers (PM)/Technical Experts." This role is typically filled by the contractor's on-site Program Manager and may include other key contractor personnel or subject matter experts as designated by the contractor and as appropriate for the meeting's agenda. All other listed positions are Government personnel.

Regarding the second part of your question, the Financial Service Technicians (FSTs) are not required attendees for these Team Building Meetings. These meetings are intended for management and oversight personnel from both the Government and the contractor to discuss programmatic and strategic-level issues, not for the entire workforce. The Contractor's Program Manager is expected to represent the performance, concerns, and interests of the FST workforce during these sessions.

36. What is the purpose/expectation of Multi-Functional Team Building Meetings?

a. The purpose of the Multi-Functional Team Building Meetings is to foster a collaborative partnership between Government and contractor management through regularly scheduled, strategic-level discussions. The intent is to review overall performance, proactively address upcoming challenges, and collaboratively resolve any high-level issues to ensure the long-term success of the contract, as opposed to addressing day-to-day operational tasks.

37. Ref. PWS page 9, Section 6.1, confirming there are no certification requirements for the IT Level II access? Is this a new contract or is there an incumbent contractor?

a. There are no certification requirements for IT Level II access. There is an incumbent contractor.

38. If there is an incumbent, will the Government provide the incumbent contract number, contract amount and incumbent contractor name?

a. LEO TECH LLC, 7501 Memorial PKWY SW STE 113, Huntsville, AL 35802, Contract #: FA469024C0005

39. If there is an incumbent, how many FTEs are currently working on the contract?

a. 26

40. If there is an incumbent, are all positions currently filled? If not, how many vacancies exist?

a. No, not all positions are currently filled. Currently, there are 11 vacancies.

41. Will this contract be fully funded or is this contract awaiting funding?

The Government confirms that this contract is fully funded.

42. What specific certification(s) are expected by the Government for the Program Manager position, if any?

a. The Government acknowledges the previous discussion regarding the Program Manager qualifications. To eliminate any ambiguity, the requirement for "Documentation of manager or supervisory training certification" will be removed from the Performance Work Statement (PWS) via amendment 2.

Therefore, for the purpose of proposal submission and evaluation under Volume II, Technical Factor, Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan, the Government will evaluate the Program Manager based solely on the following measure of merit, as stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2:

"Provide a resume demonstrating one Program Manager with a minimum of one year experience managing a staff 18+ personnel in a production-based environment. The one-year experience shall be within the past 5 years."

No specific certifications are required for the Program Manager position for proposal evaluation

43. What is the specific address for the Place of Performance, if available?

A. 2700 Doolittle Dr. Ellsworth AFB SD 57706

44. Beyond the Staffing Plan and Quality Control Plan, what information does the Government request as part of the technical capability overview (Volume II)?

a. The Government directs the offeror's attention to Attachment 8, specifically the "ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, Section c. Volume II, Technical Factor" and the "ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, Volume II - Written Technical Proposal."

These sections explicitly state that the technical evaluation will be conducted based on two subfactors only:

1. Subfactor One: Quality Control Plan

2. Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan No other information is requested for the Technical Capability volume. The evaluation of Volume II will be confined to assessing the acceptability of the offeror's submitted Quality Control Plan and Staffing Plan against the measures of merit described in the solicitation.

45. Is a signed Letter of Commitment required for the proposed Program Manager?

a. No, a signed Letter of Commitment is not required for the proposed Program Manager.

46. The release of the Q&A portion will fall very close to the current submission date, made even tighter due to the holiday schedule. Does the Government plan to extend the deadline for submission? The current due date falls just after two major federal holidays. Will the Government consider extending the due date?

a. The Government will be extending the solicitation through January 7th.

47. The RFP instructions for “Subfactor One: Quality Control Plan” state that the corresponding Quality Control Plan is mentioned in the PWS Section 2.2. However, the current PWS has section 2.2 as “Federal Holidays”, while the Quality Control mention is in the PWS section 4.4. Can the Government place clarify that PWS Section 4.4 is the Quality Control Plan reference the RFP instructions is referring to?

a. RFP has been changed to reflect the correct PWS section 4.4.

48. The RFP instructions for “Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan” state to refer to PWS sections 3.0 through 3.1.2. Currently, there is no PWS Section 3.1.2.

a. RFP has been changed to reflect the correct PWS sections 3.0-3.4 and PWS sections 5.0- 5.2. Section 2.0 reference has been deleted from “Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan”.

49. Can the Government place clarify which sections in the PWS offerors should refer to when developing their response to Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan?

a. Reference PWS sections 3.0-3.4 and section 5.0 and 5.2.

50. The RFP instructions refer to an “Exhibit 1”, which outlines the training topics. There is no attachment for Exhibit 1 within the attachments on SAM.gov.

a. Due to the size/quantity of the training materials included in Exhibit 1, it will be provided to the awardee after the award.

51. Will the selected contractor be given access to current training systems, materials, and processes?

a. Yes, current training systems, materials, and processes, listed as Exhibit 1, will be provided to awardee.

52. Can contractors submit a PPQ for a contract that has been in progress for 6 months?

a. Yes.

53. The RFP instructions and Attachment 5 refer to a "Project Manager", whereas the PWS refers to a "Program Manager". Can the Government please clarify whether the job title is Project Manager or Program Manager?

a. RFP instructions and Attachment 5 have been corrected to reflect consistency among documents with “Program Manager”.

54. Could the government please provide clarification as to the basis for minimum rates applicable to the FST in this contract. We note this contract is subject to the (1) 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards (Aug 2018) (41 U.S.C. chapter67). In the prior solicitation the government identified Accounting Clerk III as the relevant labor category. There is no identified WD labor category in this solicitation. We note the Statement for information only regarding Employee Class, Monetary Wage and Fringe Benefits. To ensure offerors are compliant, please clarify.

a. The Government cannot mandate the specific labor category offerors must use in their proposals. It is the offeror's responsibility to map the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to the appropriate occupations in the Service Contract Act (SCA) Directory of Occupations for the applicable Wage Determination.

For the purposes of guidance, the 01013 - Accounting Clerk III category appears to be an appropriate classification for the Financial Services Technician positions. This level typically involves maintaining ledgers, balancing and reconciling accounts, and handling more complex assignments requiring significant experience and judgment. These duties align with the PWS requirements for processing travel vouchers, understanding complex travel regulations, and, for certain technicians, balancing travel accounting transactions daily. Offerors should carefully review the PWS task requirements against the official SCA descriptions to propose the labor categories they determine are most appropriate for the 37-person workforce.

b. Additionally, as referenced in the solicitation, FAR Clause 52.222-42 (Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires) provides a benchmark. This clause lists the wage rates the government would pay its own Federal employees (on the General Schedule or "GS" scale) to perform this work. While this does not dictate the SCA category you must propose, it serves as an official guideline on the level of complexity and value the Government associates with these tasks.

Offerors should use both the functional guidance (e.g., the Accounting Clerk III suggestion) and the pay-level guidance from Clause 52.222-42 to inform their analysis. Ultimately, offerors must carefully review the PWS task requirements against the official SCA descriptions to propose the labor categories they determine are most appropriate for the 37-person workforce.

55. Please explain the Sections that contractor employees will support on this contract. We anticipate that the contractor personnel will provide services to the the Travel Relocation Section and the Travel Accounting Section. Is there guidance at this time as to the likely breakdown in FSTs supporting the respective Sections?

A. The contractors will support the relocations section only.

56. Interim Secret processing workflow (Day 1 access): Please confirm the Government’s required Interim Secret (Tier III) processing workflow for contractor personnel, including: (a) who sponsors/initiates eApp/SF-86 submissions (host base IPO vs AFIMSC/FMFK Security Manager), (b) whether identity/fingerprinting steps apply to all personnel and how/where those are completed, (c) typical lead times from submission to Interim eligibility, and (d) how incumbent reciprocity/verification is handled (i.e., whether existing eligibility/access can be verified without re-initiation).

A. FMFK Security Manager initiates eAPP. b. fingerprinting applies to all personnel who require eAPP/completed at Wing/IP office. c. average of 14 days lead time from submission to eligibility (this can vary depending on applicant response times and Wing/IP workload. d. applicants with current clearance verified through DISS by FMFK Security Manager.

57. Exhibit 1 availability (training-topic list ambiguity): The Q&A contains conflicting statements about Exhibit 1 availability (provided prior to proposal submission vs not provided until award). Please confirm when Exhibit 1 will be provided and what topic list offerors should use to develop the training plan for evaluation if Exhibit 1 is not provided prior to submission.

a. The Government confirms that Exhibit 1, which consists of the complete Government-Furnished Training Material, will not be provided to offerors prior to contract award. Due to the extensive volume of the material and its nature, it is not practical for public release during the solicitation phase.

As part of the Staffing Plan, the offeror must also include a comprehensive approach to employee training. The training will be evaluated based on the offeror's ability to provide an effective plan for the orientation and proficiency training of Financial Service Technicians (FSTs) to meet the requirements of the PWS.

58. Travel Accounting Government-provided training scope: RFP states FSTs assigned to the Travel Accounting section will receive Government-provided training. Please confirm: Does Government-provided training fully satisfy formal training requirements for those FSTs, or is the contractor still responsible for formal materials/OJT/proficiency tracking for Travel Accounting personnel?

a. Any reference within the solicitation documents, including the Performance Work Statement (PWS), to Government-provided training for Financial Support Technicians (FSTs) or to PWS Section 3.5 is incorrect and should be disregarded. PWS Section 3.5 has been deleted via amendment 2. The responsibility for all training, for all functional areas including Travel Accounting, rests exclusively with the contractor. The contractor shall be responsible for providing all formal training, materials, On-the-Job Training (OJT), and proficiency tracking to ensure all personnel meet the requirements of the PWS.

59. Relocation section training: Please confirm whether the Government provides any training for the Relocation function (if applicable), or if contractor-developed training (using Government-furnished materials) is expected for all Relocation training components.

A. The Government currently provides training for the Relocations section. The Contractor will need to develop and maintain a training program.

60. Voucher assignment mechanism: Please confirm how vouchers are assigned upon receipt (e.g., system/queue rules, automated routing logic, or lead technician triage/assignment). If automated, can the Government describe the routing rules/priority logic at a high level?

A. The vouchers are assigned through automatic routing on a first come, first serve basis.

61. FST occupation code / WD labor mapping: Please confirm whether Financial Services Technician (FST) positions are covered under SCLS/Wage Determination and provide the designated Occupation Code and labor category mapping used for evaluation/pricing.

a. The Government cannot mandate the specific labor category offerors must use in their proposals. It is the offeror's responsibility to map the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to the appropriate occupations in the Service Contract Act (SCA) Directory of Occupations for the applicable Wage Determination.

For the purposes of guidance, the 01013 - Accounting Clerk III category appears to be an appropriate classification for the Financial Services Technician positions. This level typically involves maintaining ledgers, balancing and reconciling accounts, and handling more complex assignments requiring significant experience and judgment. These duties align with the PWS requirements for processing travel vouchers, understanding complex travel regulations, and, for certain technicians, balancing travel accounting transactions daily. Offerors should carefully review the PWS task requirements against the official SCA descriptions to propose the labor categories they determine are most appropriate for the 37-person workforce.

Additionally, as referenced in the solicitation, FAR Clause 52.222-42 (Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires) provides a crucial benchmark. This clause lists the wage rates the government would pay its own Federal employees (on the General Schedule or "GS" scale) to perform this work. While this does not dictate the SCA category you must propose, it serves as an official guideline on the level of complexity and value the Government associates with these tasks.

Offerors should use both the functional guidance (e.g., the Accounting Clerk III suggestion) and the pay-level guidance from Clause 52.222-42 to inform their analysis. Ultimately, offerors must carefully review the PWS task requirements against the official SCA descriptions to propose the labor categories they determine are most appropriate for the 37-person workforce.

62. Please confirm the appropriate health and welfare rate for this contract is $5.09?

a. Yes, the Government confirms that the correct Health and Welfare (H&W) fringe benefit rate is $5.09 per hour. This rate is in accordance with Wage Determination 2015-5367, Revision 30, which is incorporated into the solicitation. Offerors should use this rate for their price proposals.

63. Please indicate the respective dates of hire for incumbent FST employees (sanitized) currently on this contract, relative to the requirements for PTO eligibility under the SCLS.

9/29/2025

10/20/2025

9/22/2025

8/11/2025

8/11/2025

7/28/2025

7/14/2025

7/14/2025

6/30/2025

6/9/2025

5/6/2025

5/5/2025

1/20/2025

12/30/2024

12/2/2024

11/4/2024

11/4/2024

6/10/2024

6/10/2024

6/10/2024

2/26/2024

11/1/2023

6/26/2023

5/30/2023

8/20/2020

64. Since the issue date for ‘delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the Schedule can commence on February 1st 2026, please confirm the government intends to have employees commence work on this contract on that date or at a future date. If a date after February 1, 2026, please identify when work commencement is required.

a. The Government directs offerors to the amendment issued on December 17, 2025. This amendment officially adjusted the contract's period of performance. The correct date for work to commence under this contract is January 25, 2026. This date supersedes any other dates referenced in the original solicitation documents regarding the start of delivery or task orders.

65. In relation to the overtime requirements, Attachment 5 lists a quantity of 1396 hours for CLIN 0003, while the Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs Table on page 3 of Attachment 8 lists 500 units. Will the Government please clarify the specific quantity offerors must use for CLIN 0003 to ensure a uniform basis for the Total Evaluated Price?

a. The Government acknowledges the discrepancy between the quantity for CLIN 0003 listed in Attachment 5 and Attachment 8. For this solicitation, offerors shall use the quantity specified in the "Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs Table." The correct quantity for CLIN 0003, Overtime, is 500 units (hours). All offerors must use this quantity of 500 hours when calculating their price for CLIN 0003 to ensure a uniform basis for the Total Evaluated Price. The quantity of 1396 hours listed elsewhere has been deleted.

66. In relation to the "Financial Service Technician" (FST) labor category described in PWS Section 5.1, will the Government please identify the specific Service Contract Act (SCA) Occupation Code from Wage Determination 2015-5367 that is considered most appropriate for this role?

a. The Government cannot mandate the specific labor category offerors must use in their proposals. It is the offeror's responsibility to map the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to the appropriate occupations in the Service Contract Act (SCA) Directory of Occupations for the applicable Wage Determination.

For the purposes of guidance, the 01013 - Accounting Clerk III category appears to be an appropriate classification for the Financial Services Technician positions. This level typically involves maintaining ledgers, balancing and reconciling accounts, and handling more complex assignments requiring significant experience and judgment. These duties align with the PWS requirements for processing travel vouchers, understanding complex travel regulations, and, for certain technicians, balancing travel accounting transactions daily. Offerors should carefully review the PWS task requirements against the official SCA descriptions to propose the labor categories they determine are most appropriate for the 37-person workforce.

Additionally, as referenced in the solicitation, FAR Clause 52.222-42 (Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires) provides a crucial benchmark. This clause lists the wage rates the government would pay its own Federal employees (on the General Schedule or "GS" scale) to perform this work. While this does not dictate the SCA category you must propose, it serves as an official guideline on the level of complexity and value the Government associates with these tasks.

Offerors should use both the functional guidance (e.g., the Accounting Clerk III…