QA SSS.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Source Selection Solicitation for Follow on TYQ23A and TSC 250 Contractor Logistic Support Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8217-25-R-B005
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) spreadsheet for Solicitation FA821725RB005, a Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) follow-on contract for AN/TYQ23A and TSC-250 systems. The solicitation is a 100% Small Business Set Aside for the Department of Air Force Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center at Hill Air Force Base, with proposals due 25 August 2025 at 1:00 PM MDT. The source selection will follow Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPPTE) evaluation criteria, with an unusual requirement for an oral review on 27 August where offerors will verbally highlight their proposal contents in approximately 20 minutes.
Key technical requirements include providing logistics support for TYQ-23A/TSC-250 systems, involving engineering support, project services, reliability and maintainability tracking, spare parts procurement, depot maintenance, technical order management, and software/firmware upgrades. Notable Q&A highlights include clarification on the oral review process, confirmation of 38-page proposal length, and maintenance of strict engineering degree requirements for key positions like Journeyman, Hardware, and Software Engineers. Foreign and foreign-owned companies are prohibited from submitting proposals, and the current CLS contract will expire on 27 January 2026.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Section M v6.3.1 Final.pdf | ||
| CRC CLS Matrix Follow on.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation TYQ-23A DD254 (2) (signed PJDWF).pdf | ||
| Section L v6 Final 30 June (1).pdf | ||
| Solicitation - FA821725RB005.pdf | ||
| GFPFA821725R5000_22222.pdf | ||
| ANTYQ-23A CDRL Package.pdf | ||
| TYQ-23A TSC-250 CLS Performance Work Statement v5.pdf | ||
| Section M v6.3 Final.pdf | ||
| PortfolioCLS Matrix.pdf | ||
| Addendum Section M page 20 (002).pdf |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Questions and Answers for the FA821725RB005 | |||
| Reference | Question | Answer | |
| Q1 General | Could the Government please identify the current incumbent contractor for this requirement and provide the corresponding contract end date? | The current CLS contract will expire on 27 Jan 2026 |
Q2 General Can the Government provide access to the technical documentation for the Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) systems that are included in the scope of this solicitation? We do have some of the technical manuals for our COTS that we can provide. We do not have technical manuals for all of our COTS systems. CRC can provide user manuals to COTS equipment at time of award.
Q3 PWS 10.15.8 TDP Can the Government clarify whether there are any Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) data rights restrictions, and identify the OEMs and manufacturers involved? Additionally, will offerors be granted sufficient access to all necessary system documentation required to perform the engineering and sustainment tasks outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)? There are some typical data rights restrictions. The major ones are ASDI and MSCT. The documentation available for the purpose of the proposal is what has already been provided. All necessary documentation will be provided to the awardee at time of award to perform the work outlined in the PWS.
Q4 SAM.gov Posting ID: FA8217-25-R-B005 The Government states: “An oral review of the proposal will be held.” However, Section L.2.10 states, “Oral presentations will not be allowed.” Given that an oral presentation is held without instructions in Section L or evaluation criteria in Sec-tion M could introduce the risk for protest, can the Government explain how this “Oral Review” will be evaluated since “Oral Reviews” are not referenced in section M or Section L? See amended description of the Oral Review
Q5 SAM.gov Posting ID: FA8217-25-R-B005 The Government states: “An oral review of the proposal will be held” and “this is to have the offeror explain how the proposal was prepared.” In the July 29 Amendment 02-Question, the Government states, “The offeror shall select a time to meet through a Teams call and will read through their proposal to the evaluation Team.” Could the Government clarify the intent and objectives of the oral review? Specifically, is the review intended for the offeror to explain the process used in preparing the proposal, or is it intended for the offeror to read the entire proposal aloud to the evaluation team? See amended description of the Oral Review
Q6 SAM.gov Posting ID: FA8217-25-R-B005 The Government states: “An oral review of the proposal will be held…” and that offerors should “plan on no more than 20 minutes for the review presented.” Given a 30 page document and all the attachments comprise the proposal, a read through of the en-tire proposal would take in excess of 90 minutes, could the Government please provide the areas on which offerors should focus and what we should prepare to present in 20 minutes? See amended description of the Oral Review
| Q7 Section L.4.2 Subject Matter Experts (SME’s), L.4.3.2.1 and L.4.3.22 Contractor’s Facility and SIPRNet Connection | Given the page allocation provided in the previous solicitation was 30 pages and the government has added two new sections in the current solicitation requiring substantial details to address a team of SMEs, facilities and SIPRNet, could the Government please allow an additional eight to ten pages to cover these sections effectively? | We will allow 38 pages. |
| 8 August Question | ||
| Section L.4.3.2.1 Sub factor 1: Subject Matter Experts, and PWS Section 10.4.11, 10.4.12 and 10.4.13 | The solicitation’s PWS specifies that positions 10.4.11 Journeyman Engineer, 10.4.12 Hardware Engineer, and 10.4.13 Software Engineer require a “BS or higher degree from an ABET-accredited institution.” However, the specialized subject matter expertise and the required “five years combined experience” with battle management command and control (BMC2) systems are skills that, in practice, are almost exclusively acquired through operational military experience rather than academic coursework. Given the highly specialized nature of this labor market, we respectfully request that the Govern-ment allow the industry standard substitution of four years of directly related experience as an equivalent to a bachelor’s degree. The related experience stipulated in the PWS should be in equivalent BMC2 systems—such as the AN/TYQ 23(V)5 OM or TYQ 23A—and relevant datalink systems including JTIDS, MIDS, MIDS JTRS, and TSC 250. This approach would expand an al-ready very limited qualified candidate pool while ensuring that personnel possess the hands-on expertise critical to the mission. | An Engineer should have at minimum a 4 year degree. The requirement in the PWS will remain as-is. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .