FM FIAR Sources Sought Responses_Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA701426_FMF_FIAR
About this file
This document is a sources sought response spreadsheet for a Department of the Air Force Financial Management - Financial Improvement & Audit Remediation (FIAR) contract opportunity. The procurement will provide audit and audit system remediation services for SAF/FM (Air Force and Space Force General Fund), Air Force Material Command (Working Capital Fund), and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. The contract is expected to be a base year plus four option years (60 months total), with an anticipated Firm Fixed Price structure. Key objectives include supporting financial statement reporting, audit remediation, and achieving an unmodified (clean) audit opinion by December 2028.
The sources sought responses indicate the government has not finalized its acquisition strategy, but is seeking industry feedback on potential contract approaches. Potential work includes developing financial statements, performing reconciliations, supporting internal controls, conducting training, and providing strategic communications across multiple assessable units. The government is considering various acquisition strategies, including potential small business set-asides or multiple award approaches. Contractors will need personnel with expertise in financial audit, internal controls, data analytics, and enterprise risk management, with some roles requiring security clearances. The response deadline for vendor questions and feedback was 1700 hours on 10SEP2025, with the responses to be emailed to the contracting officer.
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Vendor Inquiries
| Question / Comment | DAF Response |
| Weeking clarity on the staffing. They indicated providing up to 90 laptops. Based on how the PWS is written, we interpret that key personnel are considered as any individual who will serve as a PM, Deputy PM, Lead, etc. type roles. In addition, those individuals need to be within 50 miles of NCR or Wright-Pat, unless authorized by the COR. The PWS references “secure personnel” will perform tasks in a secure environment but do not specify what type of roles are considered “secure personnel.” However, they do highlight which sections of the PWS align with in-person support and specifically state there are 17 cubicles at Wright-Pat for AFMC support and 35 cubicles at JAB for SAF/FM and DSCA support. | Key Personnel are defined by PWS Section 17 as: Lead or Partner/Director/Executive labor categories. Secure personnel are personnel with the required clearances to assist / recommend audit solutions on Classified Activities. |
| How will the government define success for “accelerated audit opinions” (modified vs. clean)? | The FY24 NDAA mandates an unmodified (clean) audit opinion by December 2028. |
| Will we be responsible/allowed to staff surge requirements (e.g., audit season, financial reporting deadlines, PBC’s) | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. The intent is a Firm Fixed Price contract. |
| Is support expected to be fully onsite, hybrid, or remote for SSC, SAF/FM, AFMC, and DSCA locations? | As indicated in the PWS, certain locations require on site personnel. Other locations can be a mixture of onsite or remote. |
| How will dependencies on third parties (DFAS, other service providers) be managed? Will OMNI be held accountable if DFAS or another external provider fails to meet deadlines or provide documentation? (This is an issue we currently struggle with) | The contractor will not be held accountable for items outside of its control (i.e. reliance on DFAS for processing transactions). The contractor would not be held accountable should a 3rd party (DFAS) not provide documentation. |
| How will contract performance be evaluated when material weaknesses persist due to factors outside contractor control (e.g., legacy system limitations)? | The contractor should develop recommended compensating controls as outlined as part of the beginning to end support (PWS Section 1.2) |
| Will there be overlap with other ongoing FIAR contracts, and how will roles/responsibilities be coordinated? | There could be overlap with current FIAR contracts, roles and reasonability's will be outlined should the situation arise. |
| Per the DAF Audit Roadmap, the DAF has a material weakness over Entity Level Controls, but it's not explicitly mentioned in the PWS. We recommend the Government include ELC within scope of the contract if the intention is to achieve a clean audit opinion. | PWS Section 1.2 : Scope "This contract will provide audit and audit system remediation services for beginning-to-end support as it relates to audit remediation, sustainment, and financial statements reporting and analysis for the following customers: SAF/FM (United States Air Force (USAF) and United States Space Force (USSF) for the Department of the Air Force General Fund (GF); Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) for the Working Capital Fund (WCF); and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) for the DAF Title 22 Security Assistance Accounts (SAA)". Entity Level Controls is included as part of the beginning to end support as it relates to audit remediation and sustainment. All AUs in scope are listed in Appendix F. |
| PWS Task 5 explicitly mentions remediation of asset reporting but does not mention other financial statement line item areas like liabilities (Accounts Payable, Payroll), obligations, revenue, or expenses where the DAF may have a material weakness target on the Audit Roadmap or an Accelerated Audit Plan may exist. The DAF should include these tasks within the PWS scope if the intention is to achieve a clean audit opinion. | PWS Section 1.2 : Scope "This contract will provide audit and audit system remediation services for beginning-to-end support as it relates to audit remediation, sustainment, and financial statements reporting and analysis for the following customers: SAF/FM (United States Air Force (USAF) and United States Space Force (USSF) for the Department of the Air Force General Fund (GF); Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) for the Working Capital Fund (WCF); and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) for the DAF Title 22 Security Assistance Accounts (SAA)". Entity Level Controls is included as part of the beginning to end support as it relates to audit remediation and sustainment. Please see Appendix F listing out the Assessable Units in scope of this contract. |
| Can the Government clarify whether specific legacy systems (e.g., DEAMS, DAI, or other ERP platforms) will be in-scope for audit remediation support? | Systems corrections are not in scope of this contract. The DEAMS SSAE 18 is specifically covered under the systems support contract. Service Provider system CUEC responsibilities is specifically covered in 2.1a.7 & 2.1b.5. |
| Will vendors be expected to provide SME-level support for ERP control design/testing (e.g., SAP, Oracle) or is that expected to be in-sourced by the agency? | ERP control/testing is performed by the system program office. |
| Will the Government consider issuing multiple awards (e.g., task order-based IDIQ) or is this anticipated to be a single award vehicle? | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. |
| Will the Government accept commercial sector SOX/ICFR audit remediation experience (as performed by CPA and audit firms) as relevant past performance in lieu of DoD contract history? | Commercial experience demonstrates an understanding of necessary concepts. DOD experience demonstrates a specific ability to apply those concepts in this environment. |
| For VOSB-certified small businesses, is there a preference or scoring advantage for teaming with other socioeconomic status holders (e.g., 8(a), WOSB)? | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. |
| Section 1.3 describes separate opinions for USSF and DAF financial statements, suggesting those entities will have distinctly presented financial statements. Section 5.0, Task 4, second paragraph states that "USAF and USSF are combined under one set of DAF GF statements and footnotes". Will the Government confirm that sets of financial statements to be presented in the DAF AFR beginning with FY2026? | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. |
| General question: Can the Government confirm that Task 1 covers operational (non-financial) controls in addition to controls over financial reporting? If the answer is yes, this task addresses non-financial controls, will the Government confirm that DAF leadership will be sufficiently engaged in establishing non-financial control objectives that align with DAF mission or other relevant stakeholder priorities? Or can the Government confirm that the contractor is responsible for identifying such objectives? | Task 1 covers operational (non-financial) controls in addition to controls over financial reporting. DAF leadership is engaged in establishing non-financial control objectives aligned with DAF mission and other priorities through the Enterprise Risk Management effort managed by SAF/AME. |
| Will the Government require written recommendations for governance bodies regarding other SOA deliverables to be submitted, or solely the Risk Profile, OMW template, and GAO FRM Framework Assessment? | Any recommendation must be submitted in writing for the governance bodies to consider them. This can vary based on the issue from a slide presentation to a point paper or a fully staffed Enterprise Task Management Software Solutions (ETMS2) (formerly "TMT") package. |
| Will the Government require development of additional RMIC Training modules, or updates to existing modules, or both? | The extent of the updates to the existing training modules will depend on the changes to the guiding documents (e.g. OMB Cir No. A-123, Green book, etc.), changes to the governance process, and reporting requirements. The modules are recorded in a way to allow updates to portions of the training. |
| Can the Government clarify whether SoA reporting and CAP for A-123 deficiencies will be a deliverable, as this is not listed in Appendix B? | The SOA deliverables are on row 3 of appendix B. Rows 7-19 reflect the entries in the enterprise Governance Risk and Compliance (eGRC) application that do include the CAPs. This is further described in 2.1a.6.2, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 2.1a.3. |
| Will the Government expect a Service Provider Assessment Template, Service Provider Assessment Feedback, and Service Provider Assessment Timeline to be developed for each SOC 1 Report obtained, per Section 2.1a.7.3? | Yes. The assessment template is developed by the Service Provider Team and completed by each assessable unit in coordination with the Service Provider Team, the FIAR IT Team, and the Service Organizations in their end-to-end business process. The assessment feedback is completed by the Service Provider Team and addressed by the assessable units. The timeline is the developed by the Service Provider Team and outlines the assessment timeline done by the DAF for all service organizations that may impact financial reporting and financial systems. Reference Para 2.1a.7.3 thru 2.1a.7.12. |
| Will the Government expect a SOC Monitoring Report to be developed for each SOC 1 Report obtained, per Section 2.1a.7.3? | A monitoring report is performed for each SOC report that is relied upon by the DAF. |
| Is the six-week timeline to develop CAPs inclusive of required approval chains? If so, please provide those expected approval timelines. | The OPR is required to start the remediation process by designing and finalizing a CAP within six weeks of the signed SID within eGRC. See Department of the Air Force Audit Remediation Process Guide |
| Will evaluation of post-implementation effectiveness of CAPs be coordinated with the AFAA and RMIC program? | There is validation conducted prior to closing any SID and prior to submitting the NFR closure memo. |
| Are stakeholders updating milestones status directly in the ODCFO database or coordinating updates through the support of this contract? | They are coordinating updates through the support of this contract. |
| To help avoid a potentially protracted question phase, will the Government further define the required Key Personnel with position titles, LCAT detail, etc. in the final solicitation? | Key Personnel are defined by PWS Section 17 as: Lead or Partner/Director/Executive labor categories. Strategy and RFPs have not been created/approved. The government understands the importance of communicating Labor Category Summaries/Standards/Qualifications to ensure personnel supplied by this contract. |
| Please confirm that the Clearance Requirements stated in Section 22.7 apply only to the Prime Contractor and not to its subcontractors. | The government will amend the facility clearance requirements as defined by the PWS. |
| Would like to understand the current DAF FIAR acquisition approach and timeline estimates | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy & Schedule. When achieved we will share with Industry. |
| How the DAF intends to continue prioritization of critical areas on its audit roadmap across the General and Working Capital Funds to include Space Force and DSCA-related audit milestones | All critical areas are a priority as the DAF progresses towards an unmodified opinion in FY28 |
| Potential evaluation criteria of how firms may be assessed | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy. Once achieved it is the intention to post a draft RFP for Industry feedback. That will contain evaluation methodology details. |
| PWS section 2.1a Task 1a states: "In FY25, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was implemented to detail 24 Air Force Audit Agency (AFAA) personnel through August 2027 directly to SAF/FMF in support of the RMIC/A-123 program. A key provision of the MOA allows either party to terminate the agreement with written notice. This option shall be exercised by the government if the MOA is terminated to ensure continuity of these critical services from the contractor if AFAA support is unavailable." Can the Government provide clarification on the contractor's expectations should this option be exercised to provide up to 24 FTEs or provide capability coverage equivalent to critical functions? Can the Government provide details on the roles and responsibilities, location and clearance requirements, and whether any activities currently performed by the AFAA personnel are inherently governmental or reserved for Government personnel? | If the MOA termination option is exercised, the contractor will be expected to provide capability coverage equivalent to the critical functions currently performed by AFAA personnel, rather than direct replacement of 24 FTEs. Details regarding roles, responsibilities, location, and clearance requirements are outlined in the PWS. Since the current AFAA personnel operate in support roles under government leadership, the activities they perform are not inherently governmental functions and are appropriate for contractor performance. |
| PWS section 4.11 states the contractor "shall…provide a helpdesk to answer questions from personnel regarding the use of the automated audit remediations tools." Can the Government clarify and expand on the nature, scope, availability and tier of help desk support required and which automated audit remediation tools are supported? | The nature and scope of questions will relate to access, permissions, and/or user functionality within the DAF automated audit remediation tools. The team supporting this effort should be available during normal duty hours outlined in PWS 14.1.1. |
| PWS section 5.1.10 states: "Complete reconciliation to ensure Financial Statements and footnotes in the AFR reflect/reconcile with Defense Departmental Reporting System (DDRS) official versions. Deliverable: Reconciliation of DDRS financial statements and footnotes to AFR". Can the Government provide a list of all of the trial balance reviews and the DDRS reconciliation suite analysis? Additionally, can the Government provide a list of which feeder systems to DDRS are required for a reconciliation in an effort to present one consolidated Unadjusted Trial Balance (UTB) to Adjusted Trial Balance (ATB) from the general ledger(s) all the way to the AFR? | A listing of deliverables is outlined within the PWS, DDRS reconciliation analysis examples will be provided in the Bidders library. |
| PWS section 5.3 states: "Note: This task will be supported by the contractor at the DAF level, USAF-only level, and USSF-only level." Can the Government clarify whether the DAF GF and/or DAF WCF is included when “DAF level” is mentioned? | When PWS section 5.3 references 'DAF level,' this is only for DAF General Fund (GF). |
| PWS section 6.5 states: "The contractor shall perform Monthly and Quarterly financial data evaluations which include reconciliations and coordination efforts with AFLCMC, JSF, SSC, and SDA PEO program offices to ensure Logistics and Finance data in relevant systems of record are consistent and accurate." Can the Government provide a specific list of monthly/quarterly reconciliations it expects the Contractor to maintain? | A specific list of monthly / quarterly reconciliations can be found withing the Deliverables section. |
| PWS section 6.8.16 states a requirement to "Advise Senior Leadership on MEV rooted in a mission-first approach while complying with accounting principles, standards and codes to sustain the material weakness downgrade. This includes sustainment and refinement of existing monthly metrics capturing MEV status at all levels, i.e.. Acquisition Centers, FLDCOM, DRU’s, SAF/FM. Deliverable: Monthly Metrics (Development). In row 201 of the Appendix B: Deliverables file, the "Monthly Metrics (development)" deliverable line item has a due date/frequency of "As Needed". Can the Government clarify if this deliverable is expected to be delivered monthly, or as needed?" | Deliverable is As Needed by the DAF |
| PWS 7.3 states The contractor shall develop and maintain reconciliations for remaining 19 feeder/source system to general ledger reconciliations…". In row 228-238 of the "Appendix B: Deliverables" file, there are only 11 system reconciliations listed. Can the Government update the file to include all 19 reconciliations, or provide access to or attach as an appendix the "bidder's library" referenced in PWS 7.2? | The list of 19 reconciliations are needed as part of the DAFs audit acceleration efforts. These are development items. The 19 reconciliations required are in the Bidders Library |
| PWS section 9.0 states: "The Contractor shall develop, provide broad-based communication and change management support for program management, financial management, business process improvement, standardization and other matters related to this effort." Can the Government consider adding key personnel requirements for the contractor including: (1) multimedia and graphic design support; (2) strategic communication SME; (3) graphic designer with user interface/user experience knowledge; (4) change management SME with Certified Change Management Professional certification and FM experience. Inclusion of these skill sets and personnel requirements will promote innovative change management and workforce transformation practices, including taking leading practices from Commercial organizations and other Government agencies. | The Government acknowledges the value of specialized skill sets in multimedia design, strategic communications, user interface/user experience design, and certified change management for effective program execution. Contractors are encouraged to propose personnel with these competencies as part of their technical approach. However, the current PWS defines key personnel as Lead or Partner/Director/Executive labor categories deemed critical to managing overall performance of the PWS. Contractors should address how they will incorporate these specialized capabilities within their proposed staffing structure and key personnel assignments. |
| PWS section 7.2 states "The contractor shall maintain reconciliations for all 36 current feeder/source system to general ledger reconciliations and collaborate with stakeholders for remediation of variances and abnormalities" In row 221-225 of the "Appendix B: Deliverables" file, there are only 5 system reconciliations listed. Can the Government update the file to include all 36 reconciliations, or provide access to or attach as an appendix the "bidder's library" referenced in PWS 7.2? | The list of 37 reconciliations needed as part of the DAFs audit acceleration efforts are included within the Bidders Library |
| PWS section 4.11 states the contractor "shall provide SharePoint developers that will make the necessary changes to the SharePoint as required and provide a helpdesk to answer questions from personnel regarding the use of the automated audit remediation tools." Can the Government provide additional details on what types of changes it anticipates? For example, are the changes specific to changes for the Audit Response Tool (ART) for changes in structure of the data, workflow, structure of the ART? Does this also include making updates to the SharePoint software (installing patches, updating SharePoint versions, etc.)? | As the DAF prioritizes and accelerates audit efforts, the ability to adapt our SharePoint tools to meet the needs of the organization. A SharePoint developer is defined as someone who designs, builds, and customizes SharePoint solutions to meet the organization's specific business needs, acting as a bridge between the out of the box SharePoint features and custom functionality. |
| PWS section 4.11 states: "SAF/FM (USAF/USSF GF), AFMC (WCF) Contractor shall provide SharePoint developers that will make the necessary changes to the SharePoint as required and provide a helpdesk to answer questions from personnel regarding the use of the automated audit remediation tools." Can the Government clarify which automated audit remediation tools require helpdesk support? | The DAF tools are as listed: Audit Acceleration Plan, FIAR AR Tool, FIAR AR Tool-Substantive, FIAR Site Visit tool, and the NFR tracking tool. |
| The scope references enterprise-wide support across multiple Components (USAF, USSF, AFMC, DSCA) with accelerated clean audit deadlines. This breadth of work may favor only very large integrators. Would the Government consider a multi-award IDIQ structure or partial small business set-aside to allow specialized small businesses to compete for defined workstreams (e.g., internal controls testing, audit training, IT/cybersecurity controls, data analytics)? | The government has not finalized its acquisition strategy at this time. |
| The performance thresholds and implied staffing levels could be interpreted as requiring a single contractor capable of fielding 100+ FTEs. This effectively excludes qualified small businesses. Would the Government clarify whether FTE thresholds will be evaluation criteria? If so, will consideration be given to past performance managing large teams under multiple smaller task orders (e.g., 50–80 FTEs) rather than a single 100+ FTE task order? | The government does not have acquisition approval nor evaluation methodology. How the evaluation will be performed can not be answered at thistime. |
| The list of deliverables spans enterprise FIAR activities, DSCA systems, policy, and training. Would the Government consider structuring task areas/delivery orders by functional domain (e.g., internal controls, IT/cybersecurity, training) to allow small businesses to prime or team selectively, rather than requiring a single contractor to cover all domains? | The government has not finalized its acquisition strategy at this time. |
| The PWS references training development for personnel. Small businesses, including SDVOSBs, have demonstrated success managing enterprise training programs (e.g., OUSD(C) Distributed Learning). Would the Government consider setting aside the training and workforce development workstream for small businesses to maximize innovation and cost efficiency? | The government has not finalized its acquisition strategy at this time. Alternative strategies will be evaluated based on their ability to deliver best value and meet the Government’s accelerated clean audit objectives across the enterprise. |
| This section requires ongoing management of DFAS and other service provider relationships. Could the Government clarify whether past performance in managing cross-agency audit remediation (as opposed to internal DoD-only work) will be recognized as relevant? This would broaden competition and allow small businesses with specialized interagency audit experience to compete. | The government has not finalized its acquisition strategy at this time. |
| The description references mission-essential, enterprise-wide support. Would the Government consider reserving at least one award for small business (SDVOSB, WOSB, 8(a)) under a multi-award approach? This would ensure best-value competition, consistent with DoD’s small business utilization goals. | The government has not finalized its acquisition strategy at this time. Alternative strategies will be evaluated based on their ability to deliver best value and meet the Government’s accelerated clean audit objectives across the enterprise. |
| The PWS states that 17 cubicles will be provided at Wright-Patterson AFB and 35 cubicles at Joint Base Andrews. Does the amount of cubicles coincide with the number of FTEs the government expects to have on the contract, or will remote work be allowed? | The number of cubicles provided does not correspond to the total FTE requirement for the contract. Remote work will be permitted, allowing for flexible work arrangements beyond the available on-site workspace at Wright-Patterson AFB and Joint Base Andrews. All cubicles at WPAFB and JBA available shall be filled with contractor FTEs. |
| Does the Government intend to award this requirement through a specific contract vehicle (e.g., GSA MAS, OASIS, 8(a), STARS III, or an existing BPA/IDIQ)? | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy. Once achieved it is the intention to post a draft RFP for Industry feedback. That will contain evaluation methodology details. |
| Will this requirement be set aside for small businesses or competed full and open? | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy. Once achieved it is the intention to post a draft RFP for Industry feedback. That will contain evaluation methodology details. |
| What is the anticipated timeline for release of the solicitation and subsequent award (e.g., draft RFP/RFQ, final RFP, award quarter)? | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy or timeline. |
| How long is the contract obligation in months. | The contract is expected to be Base Year plus 4 Option Years (total of 60 months) |
| Can the contactor office facility be offsite? | As indicated in the PWS, certain locations require on site personnel. Other locations can be a mixture of onsite or remote. |
| Recommend that the Air Force utilize General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) until a DAF-specific IDIQ can be established. |
Key Benefits and Considerations: Using GSA MAS allows access to adequate competition and straightforward procurement procedures through an audit-experienced vendor pool awarded Schedule pricing under Special Item Numbers (SIN) 541211 (Auditing Services) and 541219 (Other Accounting Services).
Pre-negotiated GSA Schedule pricing ensures cost-effectiveness and compliance with Federal acquisition standards. GSA’s MAS ordering procedures provide the DAF with assurance that pricing has already been determined fair and reasonable by the Government and only includes a minimal administrative fee of 0.75% that is already built into the Schedule pricing. The DAF can also purchase open market items under a MAS award, and the MAS Order Level Materials (OLM) SIN enables the DAF to make ancillary purchases as-needed to ensure program success. Competition and flexible ordering procedures promote innovation and quality, while ensuring that the DAF is purchasing from firms qualified to perform FIAR services (i.e., those qualified vendors who have been awarded relevant financial services and audit-related SINs, such as 541211).
| GSA MAS does not have a predefined contract ceiling at the master contract level, and 80% of the vendors are small businesses (SB) with various socioeconomic categories, which meets the current FIAR SB objectives. In addition, Large Businesses/Other than Small Businesses are bound by their GSA MAS SB Subcontracting Plans, which support the DAF’s SB goals. In addition, an IDIQ issued under a MAS requires a detailed Statement of Work and procurement vetting to avoid overlaps with other procurement efforts, in addition to easing procurement by defining focused evaluation criteria to manage proposals from a large vendor pool. | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| PWS Task 1: RMIC should be a stand-alone task. Performing RMIC has no correlation to any other audit remediation tasks. In addition, RMIC should be considered an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) for vendors performing any tasks involving the implementation of internal controls, as the implementer of the controls has an inherent conflict when they are then requested to access the control they implemented. | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| PWS Task 2’s overly broad scope of work will simultaneously be unduly burdensome to fair competition between multiple vendors and prevent the Government from holding vendors accountable for results. The Government should break up the activities in Task 2 by AU to maximize the Government’s ability to have each vendor deliver in their strongest subject matter areas and allow the Government to discretely hold each vendor accountable for success in their specific AU. | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| PWS Task 3 should be a stand-alone task, as performing audit response work does not correlate to any other aspect of audit remediation. | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| PWS Task 4 should be a stand-alone task, as it requires highly specialized skills that are not consistent across other areas of audit remediation. | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| PWS Task 5’s overly broad scope of work under this task will simultaneously be unduly burdensome to fair competition between multiple vendors and prevent the Government from holding vendors accountable for results. The Government should break up the activities in Task 5 by AU to maximize the Government’s ability to have each vendor deliver in their strongest subject matter areas and allow the Government to discretely hold each vendor accountable for success in their specific AU. Implementing the controls in Task 2 should be combined with implementing the data solutions in Task 5 by AU to have single vendors performing end-to-end remediation over a single AU. Even in a single-award environment, separating data analytics and reconciliation from control implementation for the AU only serves to impede the Government’s ability to hold vendors accountable to an outcome. Additionally, vendors are able to use overly complicated solutions with unnecessarily high levels of effort in order to maximize billing on both business process controls and data analytics. | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| PWS Task 6 should be either a stand-alone task, as it requires highly specialized skills that are not consistent across other areas of audit remediation, or included with the Financial Reporting task. Please note that the quantitative drill down (QDD) should not be broken out with the other AU-level tasks; those should include QDD or other feeder system-based analytics necessary to support those AUs. | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| PWS Task 7 should be included in the scope of AU-level tasks as automation related to those AUs. The Government is most able to hold vendors accountable when a single vendor is responsible for efficiently and effectively remediating an end-to-end business process vs. when elements of a task are broken up between multiple vendors or even multiple tasks with a single vendor. | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| PWS Task 8 should primarily be included with the AU-level tasks required for remediation. A stand-alone SB task should be issued for consolidated requirements, as this is highly effective use of a SB, especially regarding creating slide decks and various communication materials. | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| PWS Task 9 should be a stand-alone contract, as it does not relate to the remaining scope of work (DSCA stands alone as an entity and has unique business processes.) | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| The PWS and Accelerated Audit Plan (Appendix D) show different timelines for USSF (FY26 modified), DAF GF/WCF (FY27 clean), and DSCA (FY28 clean). How will the Government prioritize AU remediation and CAP resourcing when timelines conflict across organizations? | In order to achieve an unmodified opinion in FY28, all Assessable Units are considered a priority. | |
| Will the Government provide a consolidated “master milestone tracker” across AUs and NFRs, or is the contractor expected to integrate Appendix D with AU listings (Appendix F) and the NFR condition list (Appendix C)? | The government will not provide a consolidated tracker. | |
| For DSCA, which has unique Title 22 accounts, will the contractor have direct access to DSCA systems/data, or will access be mediated by DoD CIO/ODCFO? | The contractor will have direct access to DSCA systems and data. | |
| The AU listing identifies numerous business cycles and processes. Which AUs are considered Tier 1 priority for audit readiness versus lower priority sustainment? | Tier 1 priority AUs are those that are directly tied to the audit roadmap and have material weaknesses currently under remediation. | |
| How should contractors balance remediation versus sustainment activities when an AU is already assessed as “low risk” but still included in quarterly testing? | Contractors should prioritize remediation activities while also ensuring sustainment activities are maintained at levels sufficient to prevent re-opening material weaknesses. | |
| Will the Government designate AU leads with authority to enforce CAPs and testing schedules, or is the contractor responsible for coordination across MAJCOMs/FOAs? | Each AU will have at least one government lead assigned. However, contract support will be responsible for coordinating across the DAF, working in concert with and on behalf of the designated government leads. | |
| Appendix C lists NFR conditions by category. Will the Government provide scoring/risk weighting of NFRs to help prioritize CAP development within the 6-week deadline? | All NFRs referenced in Appendix C are currently associated with established CAPs, as documented in column J. For any new NFRs, the contractor shall develop corresponding CAPs within the prescribed 6-week timeframe and ensure compliance with this deliverable deadline. | |
| When CAP root cause analyses conflict between IPA, AFAA, and AU leads, who is the final adjudicator ODCFO, SAF/FMF, or the auditor? | SAF/FMF Directors serve as the final adjudicator when CAP root cause analyses conflict between IPA, AFAA, and AU leads. However, proactive coordination and communication among all stakeholders should be prioritized to avoid and minimize such conflicts during the root cause analysis process. | |
| Will historical NFRs that were closed by auditors but still flagged in the AU listing require sustainment testing and documentation? | Sustainment testing of key controls and documentation is required in accordance with OMB Circular number A-123 for historical NFRs that were closed by auditors and still identified in the AU listing. | |
| The deliverables appendix shows recurring reports (monthly dashboards, quarterly variance analyses, annual AFR, AU CAP packages, etc.). Which deliverables will be used as formal CPARS performance metrics for the contractor? | All deliverables are utilized as part of the formal CPARS performance metrics. | |
| Several deliverables reference Power BI/SharePoint dashboards. Will the contractor be permitted to propose other tools (e.g., Tableau, Databricks, Snowflake) if they integrate into government IT at no cost? | The contractor may propose alternative solutions or tools that demonstrate equivalent or enhanced functionality, provided they integrate seamlessly with existing government IT infrastructure and meet all security and operational requirements. Any proposed alternatives will be subject to government review and approval, with final tool selection remaining at the government's discretion. | |
| Are all deliverables required at the AU level, or will some be rolled up at the enterprise level (e.g., SAD template, Service Provider assessments)? | Some deliverables will be rolled up at the enterprise level as identified in Appendix B and the PWS. | |
| The AFR (Task 4.0) requires coordination across GF, WCF, and eventually a carved-out USSF statement in FY26. Will the contractor be expected to develop the carve-out methodology for USSF, or will Treasury/DoD provide templates? | Work on USSF carve-out methodology has already been initiated. The contractor will be expected to build upon existing work and continue developing the methodology as standalone USSF financial statements are implemented. | |
| The JV review process requires pre-approval before DFAS postings. Is the contractor’s role advisory or will the Government require “hard-stop” concurrence before journal vouchers are posted? | The contractor's role in the JV review process includes reviewing journal vouchers per DFAS JV MOUs prior to AU Lead review and approval. Based on this review, the contractor may return JVs to DFAS for updates and corrections before AU review/approval and prior to DFAS posting. This provides a quality control function in the approval workflow. | |
| For trading partner reconciliations (Task 5.8), will the contractor be expected to lead inter-DoD negotiations on data discrepancies, or only document and escalate to OUSD(C)? | The contractor is expected to perform reconciliations of DAF buyer side data and identify variances between trading partners. In conjunction with AU Leads, contractors are expected to coordinate with other federal entities regarding variances, which may result in preparation of supported accrual JVs or challenges and corrections to trading partner data provided. | |
| Which asset categories in Appendix F (GPP&E, OM&S, Inventory, Military Equipment, Software, FBwT) are considered highest materiality risk for FY26–FY28 milestones? | All asset categories listed in column A of Appendix F that have both a MW/SD designation in column C and an open roadmap date in column D should be considered highest materiality risk for FY26–FY28 milestones. | |
| For FBwT reconciliations, Appendix D requires use of Advana and Databricks notebooks. Will the Government provide baseline code and full access, or will the contractor need to reverse-engineer and sustain existing scripts? | The Government can provide full access to ADVANA and provide baseline code for existing scripts where possible. We don't want to rule out the possibility that some scripts may need to be reverse engineered. | |
| For Military Equipment Valuation (MEV), will PEOs provide dedicated SMEs/data stewards, or is the contractor responsible for both audit readiness and technical data stewardship? | The contractor is responsible for both audit readiness and technical data stewardship for Military Equipment Valuation (MEV). | |
| The PWS requires all tools to be “non-proprietary.” Does this mean IP rights transfer to the Government for any contractor-developed automation, or can contractors propose license-based but non-proprietary platforms? | No, IP rights will remain with the government. | |
| Are there approved APIs or data governance standards for connecting to Advana, eGRC, DEAMS, DFAS, and APSRs, or will the contractor be responsible for custom integration? | The contractor will not be responsible for API development or custom integration between business systems. The focus is on onboarding business system data into Advana to perform reconciliations (RECONs) rather than system-to-system API connectivity. | |
| Will the Government provide a list of automation/RPA pilots already in progress to avoid duplication of effort? | The Government will provide information on any existing automation/RPA pilots after contract award to ensure coordination and avoid duplication of efforts during contract performance. | |
| Will the Government require all training modules (e.g., RMIC, Service Provider module) to be hosted in MyLearning, or can contractors propose external LMS integration? | The contractor may propose alternative solutions or tools that demonstrate equivalent or enhanced functionality, provided they integrate seamlessly with existing government IT infrastructure and meet all security and operational requirements. Any proposed alternatives will be subject to government review and approval, with final tool selection remaining at the government's discretion. | |
| How will the Government measure success for training/strategic communications? | Success metrics for training and strategic communications will be defined in collaboration with the contractor and aligned with overall program objectives. The Government reserves the right to establish and modify measurement criteria throughout the contract performance period based on evolving requirements and stakeholder feedback | |
| Will incumbent contractor staff (and detailed AFAA personnel per MOA) be available for knowledge transfer during transition-in? | There will be limited to no overlap between contracts, as such incumbent contractor will likely not be available to support knowledge transfer activities during the transition-in period. The MOA with AFAA is limited to PWS Task 1. | |
| The PWS references “mission essential personnel.” Will the Government provide minimum staffing thresholds or leave that to the contractor’s transition plan? | All services in this PWS HAVE NOT been defined or designated as essential services for performance during crisis IAW DFARs 252.237-7023, “Continuation of Essential Contractor Services.” | |
| Are there additional key personnel roles required beyond RMIC/Audit Liaison/Financial Reporting SMEs? | Based on the PWS language in sections 17.1-17.2, key personnel are defined as all Lead or Partner/Director/Executive labor categories that are deemed critical to managing the overall performance of the PWS, which would include but not be limited to RMIC, Audit Liaison, and Financial Reporting SMEs. | |
| What contract types does the DAF envision for this task order? | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy. Historically FIAR has been a Firm Fixed Price service. | |
| Will there be additional program management support in this effort or another effort to track remediation progress, ensure performance is meeting internal DAF goals, and audit is on track for a clean opinion by 2028? | No | |
| Does the Government intend to make a single award or multiple awards to ensure the Government has access to a qualified pool of vendors as needs and priorities change? | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| Is the Air Force considering a single or multiple award? | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| What are the proposal requirements the Air Force is considering and how they will weigh them (technical, capabilities, past performance, price, etc.) | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy and appreciates the feedback. | |
| Will contractor support extend into ADVANA dashboard development? | Contractor support will not extend to building WebApps in Advana. Under the Audit Acceleration Plan, analytical tools such as UoT Completeness Dashboard and RECON Dashboards are being developed in PowerBI. The contractor will be responsible for sustaining these PowerBI dashboards. | |
| Will future TOs be focused more on sustainment or new discovery? | Future TOs will prioritize new discovery and remediation activities while maintaining sufficient sustainment efforts to prevent regression of previously remediated material weaknesses. The focus will be on advancing audit readiness without allowing sustained AUs to revert to remediation status. | |
| Are there new compliance requirements the Air Force is considering on a new contract? | Future task orders will focus on both sustainment of current compliance levels and new discovery efforts to identify and address emerging compliance gaps. The contractor will be expected to assist the Government in maintaining compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and accounting standards while supporting identification and remediation of new compliance requirements that may arise. | |
| How will the Air Force prioritize resources across SAF/FM, AFMC, and DSCA if remediation timelines conflict? | The Air Force has separate resources for each of the listed activities | |
| Several deliverables require “templates” (e.g., PCMs, CEMs, SoA packages). Will the Government provide standard templates upfront, or is the contractor expected to propose them? | The Government will provide standard templates upfront for the examples cited (PCMs, CEMs, SoA packages) and other applicable deliverables. For deliverables listed in the PWS that require contractor development, "(development)" is noted after the deliverable title. | |
| What is the Government’s expectation for contractor help desk support (Task 3.11)? Is it Tier 1 user assistance only, or deeper technical troubleshooting? | A deep technical knowledge is ideal | |
| Will the contractor be required to migrate existing analytics dashboards (e.g., Advana, CDO Vault, SharePoint) into a common environment, or sustain each separately? | The contractor will be expected to sustain each analytics dashboard environment separately. However, the contractor may propose alternative solutions or tools that demonstrate equivalent or enhanced functionality, provided they integrate seamlessly with existing government IT infrastructure and meet all security and operational requirements and incur no additional costs. Any proposed alternatives will be subject to government review and approval, with final tool selection remaining at the government's discretion. | |
| Could the Air Force elaborate on the security percentages in Appendix F. What type of secured environment will that work be and what level/type of clearance will be required to do the work. | Updating Appendix F and the security requirements. At a minimum, Secret Clearance is required. | |
| Will this effort be awarded to one contractor or multiple? | The government has not finalized its Acquisition strategy | |
| What accesses will the contractor be granted (or need) for physical inventory of "real property" | The contractor will be granted access that aligns with the nature of the accelerated milestones and policies and terms of the contract. | |
| Will the Contractor be provided high side access to review revenue & reimbursable claims to reconcile Audit Findings to policy and procedure? | The government will provide access to the high side terminals as needed in accordance with the contract |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .