QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AEF Augmentation.pdf

FA7037-25-R-0002

READINESS ANALYSIS

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. QUESTION:

In the RFP it states that Points are awarded at a rate of 2 points per FTE working in the named labor categories (2.1.2.1), up to a maximum of 50 points (4.1.2), and Points are awarded at a rate of 20 points per work sample demonstrating similar work (2.1.2.2), up to a maximum of 100 points (4.1.2). However, in reviewing the Self-Scoring Matrix attachment, it appears that the scoring may be structured differently. We wanted to confirm that the correct interpretation is the one stated in the RFP and the maximum score for FTEs is 50 and the maximum score for work samples is 100.

Could you kindly confirm that we should follow the scoring methodology as outlined in the RFP?

ANSWER:

The points established in Section M, para 4.1.2 of the solicitation are correct and a corrected version of the Self-Scoring Matrix is attached.

Points are awarded at a rate of 2 points per FTE working in the above labor categories with a maximum score of 50 points are allowed.

Points are awarded at a rate of 20 points per work sample demonstrating similar work with a maximum score of 100 points are allowed.

2. QUESTION:

We would like to confirm the eligibility of FTEs from labor categories (LCATs) beyond

Cyber Analyst and Intelligence Analyst when scoring past performance in the Self-

Scoring Matrix attachment. Specifically, we would like to include personnel in relevant roles where the duties align with readiness analysis, cybersecurity planning, and intelligence support functions.

Could you clarify whether the scoring tied strictly to job titles, or will the government evaluate based on functional duties performed?

Would the government give consideration to FTEs be counted under LCATs such as

Senior Cybersecurity Planner, SME II, and SME III if we can justify their relevance in the narrative?

ANSWER:

The scoring of FTE’s will be tied strictly to the Labor Categories Cyber Analyst and

Intelligence Analyst only.

Section L, para 2.1.2.1. of the solicitation will not be amended.

3. QUESTION:

Is this a new requirement? Or is there an incumbent contract/contractor currently performing the same or similar work? If an incumbent exists, are you able to provide the contract number and vendor’s name?

ANSWER:

This is a current and on-going requirement. The incumbent contractor information is:

FA7037-22-C-0002

JSToogood LLC

2300 West Rathgeber Rd.

Wichita Falls, TX 76310-7927

UNITED STATES

4. QUESTION:

How many Cyber Analyst/Intelligence Analyst FTEs are expected?

ANSWER:

This is a performance-based requirement and the government will not dictate the number of Full Time Employees (FTE) required. The Price Proposal submitted by each offeror will list the number of FTE’s per Labor Category to fulfill the requirements of the

Performance Work Statement. The size of the effort has historically been 1-2 FTE’s per

LCAT and the scope of this requirement has not changed significantly from the historical acquisition.

5. QUESTION:

Do they need any other specific certifications?

ANSWER:

Paragraph 5.11.1 of the Performance Work Statement specifies the Special Training, Certifications and Qualifications required. “The contractor shall have minimum 2 years experience with the JCC2-R, DRRS, and Deliberate and Crisis Action Planning and

Execution Segments (DCAPES) systems.” No other specific certifications are required.

6. QUESTION:

Any additional minimum years of experience in other aspects of the job?

ANSWER:

Paragraph 5.11.1 of the Performance Work Statement specifies the Special Training, Certifications and Qualifications required. “The contractor shall have minimum 2 years

Execution Segments (DCAPES) systems.”

7. QUESTION:

Any other particular software knowledge?

ANSWER:

Paragraph 5.11.1 of the Performance Work Statement specifies the Special Training, Certifications and Qualifications required. “The contractor shall have minimum 2 years

Execution Segments (DCAPES) systems.”

8. QUESTION:

Is it the desire of the client to keep incumbent personnel on the new contract? If yes, will contact information for incumbent personnel be provided to ensure a smooth transition?

9. ANSWER:

The successful offeror will be required to fill the positions in accordance with the contract, PWS and offeror’s proposal. A list of incumbent personnel filling the position(s) within 30 days of the end of the current contract will be provided to the successful offeror.

10. QUESTION:

Does the Government have historical LCATs/size of effort they find comparable to this requirement?

ANSWER:

Historically, the Labor Categories for this requirement have been Cyber Analyst and

Intelligence Analyst. The resulting contract will be awarded utilizing these LCATs. The size of the effort has historically been 1-2 FTE’s per LCAT and the scope of this requirement has not changed significantly from the historical acquisition.

11. QUESTION:

For subcontractor work, can we use our Prime POC for the contract as the Relevant

Customer Point of Contact?

ANSWER:

Offerors may submit past performance documentation as a Prime or Subcontractor.

Subcontractor work samples shall meet the minimum qualifications as stated in Section

L, para. 2.1.1 of the solicitation. However, in accordance with Section L, para 2.1 of the solicitation, the Government will only accept a Statement of Fact from the cognizant contracting officer or COR to confirm missing information, should contractual documents not carry all of the information necessary to substantiate the Offeror's scores.

12. QUESTION:

Can the Government offer any historical/additional background information on this requirement to better provide offerors an indication of the level of effort required?

ANSWER:

Level of effort for each FTE is 1860 hours per year. Each offeror should propose its best price proposal offering the number of FTE’s to fulfill the requirements of the PWS.

Additional levels of effort are described in the PWS. The size of the effort has historically been 1-2 FTE’s per LCAT and the scope of this requirement has not changed significantly from the historical acquisition.

13. QUESTION:

Can the government clarify how many Commands this solicitation is supporting?

ANSWER:

AFCYBER is the Air Component to USCYBERCOMMAND which supports other commands as required and directed.

14. QUESTION:

Can the government provide an estimated scope for this effort, including the anticipated number of FTEs, to help industry provide the best price?

ANSWER:

Level of effort for each FTE is 1860 hours per year. Each offeror should propose its best price proposal offering the number of FTE’s to fulfill the requirements of the PWS.

Additional levels of effort are described in the PWS. The size of the effort has historically been 1-2 FTE’s per LCAT and the scope of this requirement has not changed significantly from the historical acquisition.

15. QUESTION:

What is the competition type for the requirement?

ANSWER:

This requirement is 100% set aside for 8(a) small business firms. Please review section

10 (page 1) of the Solicitation.

16. QUESTION:

Can you confirm if past performance qualifications from a subcontractor are acceptable in this SB set-aside? If so, are there any stipulations associated with using a subcontractor's past performance qualifications?

ANSWER:

Offerors may submit past performance documentation as a Prime or Subcontractor.

Subcontractor work samples shall meet the minimum qualifications as stated in Section

L, para. 2.1.1 of the solicitation.

17. QUESTION:

How are Intel and Cyber FTEs evaluated within past performance citations for scoring purposes? Are they assessed based on labor categories (LCATs) or their performance on the contract?

ANSWER:

The scoring of FTE’s will be based strictly on the Labor Categories Cyber Analyst and

Intelligence Analyst only. The government will validate offerors self-scoring based on

Section L, para’s 2.1 – 2.1.2.3 of the solicitation.

18. QUESTION:

We have identified a discrepancy in the scoring requirements for Full-Time Equivalents

(FTEs) in Intelligence Analyst or Cyber Analyst positions. The self-scoring matrix indicates a maximum of 100 points for these roles, implying that a past performance reference would need to demonstrate 50 FTEs to achieve the maximum score. However, the evaluation factors outlined in section 4.1.2 present a similar table, but with only 50 points needed to achieve the maximum score for these roles. Can the government please clarify which scoring requirement should be considered for accurately evaluating past performance references?

ANSWER:

The points established in Section M, para 4.1.2 of the solicitation are correct and a corrected version of the Self-Scoring Matrix is attached.

Points are awarded at a rate of 2 points per FTE working in the above labor categories with a maximum score of 50 points are allowed.

19. QUESTION:

According to the instructions provided in the solicitation, vendors are expected to receive

2 points per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) and 20 points per Work Sample. However, upon completing the spreadsheet as directed, the total value does not reflect these point allocations. Can the government please clarify whether there is an error in the spreadsheet calculations or if the point allocation should be interpreted differently?

ANSWER:

The points established in Section M, para 4.1.2 of the solicitation are correct and a corrected version of the Self-Scoring Matrix is attached.

Points are awarded at a rate of 2 points per FTE working in the above labor categories with a maximum score of 50 points are allowed.

20. QUESTION:

Given that vendors are required to propose a unique mix of LCATS for their solutions and will then implement our unique staffing plan to meet the requires of the PWS will the government remove the requirement for the specific two specific LCATS in the self scoring matrix and allow vendors the ability to add relevant LCATS aligned with their proposed solution? The ability for vendors to propose their own unique staffing solution and have that be reflected in the self-scoring matrix will enable vendors to have their scored LCAT mixes more accurately reflect the unique needs and objectives outlined in the PWS.

ANSWER:

Offeror’s proposal shall be based on the LCAT’s established within the self-scoring matrix. The government will validate offerors self-scoring based on Section L, para’s 2.1

– 2.1.2.3 of the solicitation. The resulting contract will be awarded utilizing these LCATs.

21. QUESTION:

Will the government remove the two specific LCATS identified as each company has their own unique LCAT titles and will allow companies to propose proof of work based on PWS requirements and their unique staffing plan versus a specific LCAT title that will be unnecessarily restrictive given companies can give different position titles with similar duties and responsibilities.

ANSWER:

The scoring of FTE’s will be tied strictly to the Labor Categories Cyber Analyst and

Intelligence Analyst only. Section L, para 2.1.2.1. of the solicitation will not be amended and the resulting contract will be awarded utilizing these LCATs.

22. QUESTION:

For Volume I - Past Technical Experience, the instructions indicate "The Offeror shall provide all documentation for a given work sample into a single PDF file.". Could you please clarify whether the expectation is for each work sample to have its own individual package and submitted as a separate file, or if all work samples should be combined into one large file/volume with tabs or dividers for each work sample package? This clarification will ensure compliance with the submission format requirements.

ANSWER:

Each work sample will be submitted as a separate file with a maximum of 5 work samples in accordance with Section L, para’s 2.1 – 2.1.2.3 of the solicitation.

23. QUESTION:

The instructions indicate that SF30s will be required if any amendments are provided for the solicitation. Does the government want vendors to provide signed copies of the

SF1449 as well? Also, the amendment issued on 18 Mar 2025 did not include an SF30, only the original SF1449, will the government provide an SF30 for this amendment?

ANSWER:

Each offeror shall acknowledge all amendments and submit signed copies of all SF30s as part of their proposal in accordance with Section L, para 1.9 of the solicitation. The conformed copy of the SF1449 was uploaded to SAM.gov on 18 Mar 25 which included the solicitation changes. The SF30 for Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 are now attached.

24. QUESTION:

Can the Government confirm if this is new or existing work? If it is existing work, please confirm the incumbent.

ANSWER:

This is a current and on-going requirement. The incumbent contractor information is:

FA7037-22-C-0002

JSToogood LLC

2300 West Rathgeber Rd.

Wichita Falls, TX 76310-7927

UNITED STATES

25. QUESTION:

For Volume I - Past Technical Experience PDF file, can the Offeror include front material such as a Cover Page and Table of Contents to support in evaluation of each PDF file?

ANSWER:

Offerors may submit as part of their proposal, an optional Cover Page and/or Table of

Contents so long as each proposal meets all other requirements of the solicitation. Lack of a Cover Page and/or a Table of Contents will NOT negatively impact the validity of a proposal.

26. QUESTION:

To support ease of evaluation, will the Government allow a cross-reference matrix and/or annotations* within official contract documentation to show relevance to the A3

Readiness Analysis PWS dated 22 October 2024?

(*e.g., PDF highlights and comments in official contract PWSs that confirms relevance to this work.)

ANSWER:

Offerors may submit as part of their proposal, optional highlights and/or comments within the work samples so long as each proposal meets all other requirements of the solicitation. Lack of highlights and/or comments will NOT negatively impact the validity of a proposal.

27. QUESTION:

Could the Government confirm that an award will be made not to the Offeror with the lowest TEP, but in accordance with FAR 3.0, to the Offeror who was was rated highest, received an acceptable past performance, and also has a reasonable price?

ANSWER:

Award will be made to a responsible 2 HTRO with Acceptable Past Performance, with a

Government-validated technical score within 10% of the highest Government-validated technical score and with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The government will follow the Evaluation Methodology and Factors in accordance with Section M, para 3.0 of the solicitation.

28. QUESTION:

Could the Government confirm that no separate price narrative is required?

ANSWER:

Offerors are NOT required to submit a separate price narrative as part of the price proposal so long as each proposal meets all other requirements of Section L, para 2.3 of the solicitation. Volume 3 will be evaluated in accordance with Section M, para 4.3 of the solicitation.

29. QUESTION:

Could the Government confirm that a breakout of hours and rates are not required, solely the price per each labor category per year?

ANSWER:

Offerors are NOT required to submit a breakout of hours and rates as part of the price proposal so long as each proposal meets all other requirements of Section L, para 2.3 of the solicitation. Volume 3 will be evaluated in accordance with Section M, para 4.3 of the solicitation.