RFIS Responses and Answers as of March 05 2026.docx

NGAGE RFP FA853226RB001

RFIs (Answers in Bold)

1. What is the due date for NGAGE proposals in response to the RFP?

March 10, 2026 at 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

2. Could the government please clarify the required format for delivery?

Section L, page 2 – II. Volume Organization, paragraph A.2 states that technical and small business proposals shall be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word format.

Later on, page 6 - Volume II Technical Proposal – paragraph C.3 states the Technical Proposal is a single combined PDF.

A PDF would be the preferred method.

3. Section L refers to Volume I thru IV for our submission. Can we use the same Volumes I, II, and IV for each Work Sample?

4. May we attach a third or fourth Work Sample to cover a wider range of products/capabilities we have to offer?

5. Can you provide a notional example(s) of how the NGAGE process is expected to go to production?

Response to questions 3-5: Only 2 work samples are required. Anything over the total 30-page limit will not be reviewed. Both work samples must fit in the 30-page limit. If you have capabilities outside of what we are asking for, they can be addressed at the order level. The purpose of this RFP is to gather a pool of contractors that have the capabilities we are requesting. Any capabilities beyond the scope of what we are requesting can be addressed when we solicit the selected pool of contractors for each task/delivery order.

6. Please confirm the Post Award Conference Price Proposal document is the same as “Attachment 9” referenced in Section L (E.1.a., E.2.b, and E.3.f). That’s correct.

7. Please confirm the document “NGAGE List of POCs” is the same as “Attachment 11” under Section L 3 and does not count toward the page limit. That’s correct- the List of POCs does not count in the 30 page limit.

8. Please confirm that the self-scoring matrix does not count toward the page limit within Volume II. The self-scoring matrix DOES count in the 30 page limit.

9. What does the government expect as “artifacts” to substantiate each work sample? Please describe or provide examples. This should be examples from government contracts performed in the past 5 years. It could be as simple as providing the contract number-brief summary of what was provided from the SOW/PWS of that contract to substantiate/confirm that you have provided that type of service etc. Basically, something to “prove” that what you are claiming to be capable of doing has been successfully completed before. Just a side note, as mentioned in a prior RFI response posted to sam.gov, providing specific work examples does not mean that a company, chosen for the NGAGE IDIQ, is only limited to bid on orders for those specific examples. We are aware that companies can provide some and even all of what we are asking, but you are not going to be held to only bidding on work that you provide examples on. The examples with artifacts are to ensure that we have a pool of contractors that can bid on some or all of the work at the individual order level.

10. For Volume II – Technical, are attachments permitted (e.g. proof of technical manuals or Excel spreadsheets/engineering specifications)? No attachments- Everything should be combined into a single PDF or word document. A PDF is highly preferred.

11. Regarding section M, Capability Focus Area 2, “Please provide samples of your company demonstrating proficiencies in complying with Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TM-86-01) technical orders, ; demonstrating proficiency in developing and delivering logistics product data complying with DI-SESS-81758A; demonstrating proficiency in developing and delivering Engineering Data For Provisioning complying with DI-SESS-81874; training material, and/or engineering analyses, such as Finite Element Analysis, Failure Reporting Analysis and Corrective Action System processes, thermodynamic flow analysis, etc.) Digital engineering may include experience with commercial modeling software suites, modeling and simulation, examples include but are not limited to: DOORS, Cameo, Ansys, Solidworks, Creo, Catia, MatLab, etc. End to end requirements traceability to product design in a digital environment is highly desired.

Please confirm that, in order to claim one point from this area, the first four criteria are mandatory (Technical Manual Contract Requirements, Product Data complying with DI-SESS-811758A, Enginnering Data complying with DI-SESS-81874, and training material, respectively), and the last three criteria are optional/highly desired (engineering analyses, digital engineering, and end-to-end product traceability, respectively). Yes, confirmed.

12. What is the intent of the RFP attachment document NGAGE List of POCs, and does the completed document need to be submitted with the proposal? The NGAGE list of POCs should include anyone from the contractor’s company that needs to be contacted when sending out Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests if chosen to be on the NGAGE contract. Furthermore, yes, the document needs to be submitted with the proposal. Furthermore, it does not count towards the 30 page limit.

13. If two companies desire to have a teaming agreement, are there any requirements from a government contracts point of view that the team needs to satisfy? e.g. present signed documents verifying the teaming arrangement? Furthermore, what is the best way to arrange a teaming agreement? A copy of a signed teaming arrangement will be satisfactory. As far as specifics on how that team will work will be up to each team. We only need to confirm that the specifications we are asking for can be met, so in submitting a proposal, each team would provide examples together and indicate who would be Prime and sub. There’s no need to submit 2 proposals. The Prime contractor will submit the proposal. We need to know what the prior contract was for and how it is relevant to what we are looking for. All of that needs to be combined into a single PDF.

14. Would the Teaming Agreement documentation be included in Vol. I? Yes, that is fine.

15. Please describe what the best work samples may be. Furthermore, the list provided by the USAF of types of equipment needs in the future vary quite a bit from product to product. How does the USAF plan to evaluate potential suppliers that span a variety of expertise. How does the USAF plan to manage the approval of a variety of different disciplines for a variety of different suppliers and ensure the government well understand the capabilities? We will be reviewing the work samples, but not evaluating them. You will be evaluating yourself and putting your score in the matrix. It’s not a requirement that you have to be able to manufacture or provide any and all items considered AGE. You only need to be able to provide at least 1 example to meet category 1 and category 2. For example, if you provide a work sample showing that you provided tow bars. Okay, great, you have met the criteria for #1. This does not mean that after the IDIQ contract is awarded that you will only be allowed to bid on projects that have tow bars. Unless a small business set-aside is determined at the order level, fair opportunity will be given to all NGAGE contractors to bid on various requirements under the IDIQ. You will not be limited to only bid on items that are provided in the work samples. You will not be disqualified from bidding on something that was not shown in a work sample.

16. Please confirm that Attachment 12 (NGAGE List of Fill-in Clauses and Provisions) should be included in Volume 1 with the other documentation as a combined PDF. It should be with Volume 1, but will not count toward the 30 page limit. They can be filled in on the RFP. If there is not enough room, you can submit as a separate document.

17. What is the current status of Solicitation FA8532-26-R-B001? The solicitation is active and responses are due March 10th

18. Were Sections L and M intentionally removed, and if so, will revised versions be reposted? Sections L and M are currently active and posted on the announcement

19. Is there an anticipated timeline for when complete solicitation documents will be available? They were posted on 1/13/26

20. Has the proposal submission deadline been affected by this document revision? No

21. The original solicitation and amendment 1 are locked PDFs (for editing), what is the Air Force’s direction for filling in the fill-in clauses and provisions?

22. For clause 52.219-28 Postaward Small Business Program Representation (Jan 2025), there is no field to complete if a company is declaring that they are a certified small business), what is the Air Force looking for to complete the fill-in requirements?

Response to Questions 21 and 22: You should be able to open the solicitation as it is no longer being edited. 52.219-28 has more “boxes” to check vs filling out a bunch of information. There’s a space to insert the NAICS code under (1). Also, it appears due to the contract writing system format that the boxes were removed in front of what needs to be “checked”. If it doesn’t allow you to update the pdf fill-ins, you can print and edit that way then scan it back in, OR you may copy the clause(s) onto a separate document to ensure the appropriate fill-ins are complete. It will not count towards the 30 page limit.

23. How does the SPRS score factor into the decision? SPRS is not being evaluated at the basic IDIQ level, but it has to be supplied in Volume 1.

24. Would the Gov't. please clarify the level of detail required for the "compliance statement that demonstrates how the Offeror intends to comply with DFARS clause 252.242-7006."? We just need confirmation that your accounting system meets the criteria set out in the clause under “acceptable accounting system”

25. Regarding the solicitation documents for the NGAGE opportunity listed on sam.gov (FA853226RB001), will the previously deleted files be made available to the public or do we need to request access? No, the previously deleted files are irrelevant and were deleted due to administrative corrections. You should be able to access the revised and relevant documents

26. If a company has partners that are part of the NGAGE IDIQ, will the company in question need to be added as well or how would/could that work? The company on the NGAGE contract would be the Prime contractor, and they can hire the company in question as a subcontractor.

27. Is there a list of items that are a part of the NGAGE? New -60's, C-10's, bomb lift trucks, etc? No list.

28. Regarding the Work Sample Contract/Order Front Page – should an offeror provide the original contract/order front page or the most recent modification contract/order front page? The front page of the original contract/order is fine as long as modifications were not done to the contract that “took away” the specific work examples you are wanting to showcase.

29. Does the Government intend for industry to acknowledge only the updated documents released on 13 January 2026, titled “Amendment 1”?

30. Are the documents that were released on 5 January 2026 considered valid for the solicitation, given that they were issued as an 'update'?

Response to Questions 29 and 30: The amendment that was made to the original RFP was only to add the list of fill in clauses as an attachment and fill in the correct attachment numbers in section M, since they were inadvertently left blank. The original documents released on 5 January are still relevant.

31. Section L of the NGAGE Solicitation states that “Interested vendors must forward a current, approved DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement” to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer, via the email specified in this solicitation.”

Does the Government require the DD Form 2345 to be emailed before submitting the proposal or simultaneously with the proposal submission? With the proposal is fine

32. For the Work Samples, is it okay to submit works that are in progress, i.e. a technical manuals & provisioning buildup which is 80%+ complete? Yes, you may submit work samples that are in process, but if not at 100%, please state what has been delivered and what is outstanding. We will also need the POC for that Government contract to verify deliverables.

33. Can you confirm whether the Q&A period for NGAGE is still open? If so, who are the appropriate POC’s? Yes, proposals are not due until March 10th. The POC’s are Becky Janssen (kimberly.janssen@us.af.mil) and Joe Lee (joe.lee.4@us.af.mil).

34. Can the USG provide clarity on DOD Safe and the proposal submission process? If you are ready to submit then the USG can send your company a DoD SAFE link with password. It’s not a submission portal, it’s an encrypted “safe site” for delivering and receiving CUI. Please confirm you are ready to submit, and the USG will send a link. They usually expire after 24 hours.

35. How can a company find out about subcontracting opportunities? The USG would suggest keeping an eye on sam.gov. When the IDIQ is awarded, there will be a list of contractors your company can reach out to for subcontracting opportunities.

36. Does the government require offerors to include a table of contents in each volume, or is this optional? What is required for each volume is listed in the chart on page 2 of the Section L attachment. – Additionally, as stated in II.A.3- Any cover sheet or table of contents will count toward the page limits listed for volume II and volume III. There is no page limit for Volume I.

37. Page 3 of Section L states that Volume 1 shall be titled “Volume I – Completed RFP”. Can offerors edit/add to the name of the volumes to include company name and the solicitation number? No, it just needs to say Volume I-Completed RFP as stated. We know the solicitation number and will know who the proposal is from.

38. Page 3 of Section L states that for Volume 1, offerors shall include “a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale”, however does not include instruction to add a cover page or table of contents. The format for what should be included in each volume is listed on page 2. We do not need a table of contents because the proposal should be in submitted in accordance with the chart on page 2.

39. Page 3 of Section L states that Volume 1 is to consist of “the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued”. Does the government want offerors to include the entire 69-page document, or just the SF-33 for the original solicitation posting and each amendment? If the government wants offerors to include the entire 69-page solicitation in their volume 1, do they want duplicates of both the original solicitation and the amended version? Additionally, If the government wants the entire 69-page solicitation included, do they want the fill in clauses listed twice - once with the completed RFP earlier on in the volume organization, and again with the Section K filled out under the ‘Required Clause and Provision Fill-Ins’ section of the volume? We just need the front page from the solicitation and any amendments signed. Please do not send a full copy of the solicitation. The required fill-in clauses can be simply copied and pasted onto a word document and filled in on that document for submission.

40. For the Supplier Performance Risk System requirement in Volume 1 - does the government want offerors to include a screenshot of their NIST score in SPRS, or just verify their score and/or their remediation plan to become compliant with a score of 110? Just verify the score along with a remediation plan to become compliant if applicable.

41. If a Joint Venture submits an Offer, may a Member of that Joint Venture also submit an independent Offer? (e.g., Joint Venture A consists of Member Companies B and C; may Company B also submit an Offer?) If so, may Joint Venture A use the same Work Sample(s) for their Offer as Company B uses for their separate Offer? Yes. If a company from the Joint Venture wants to submit a separate proposal and use the same work sample, then we will allow it.

42. Can both of the JV work samples be used on a separate proposal? No, the work samples follow the contractor, so if a single company is using a JV work sample, then the work that company actually performed or delivered is the only information that used as a work sample. Company A can’t submit a work sample that was actually performed by Company B.

43. In Section L, 6. Work Stample Substantiation Documentation, the order of the work sample is listed as Substantiation (Within the explanation, the Offeror shall identify each artifact supporting the category/categories claimed and its location within the work sample, describe what each artifact is, and explain how each is being used to substantiate the proposed self-score) then Contract/Order Front Page, then Work Sample Artifacts [Evidence/information (produced by this work sample) used to substantiate points claimed on the self-score matrix.)] as separate sections. Would it be acceptable for an offeror to include the work sample artifacts within the substantiation, rather than as a separate section? No, please provide it in a separate section per the instructions.

44. In the second paragraph of “format and specific content in Section L it states…” contracts/orders for work performed for the United States Government and be within the last five (5) years from the proposal due date…”. Question: Would the Government consider extending the timeframe and aperture of submission to 15 years for Defense/Military customers? For past performance to be considered recent and relevant, it should be no more than 5 years. For the basic IDIQ contract, we are not expecting every offeror to be able to meet every single potential requirement. To be on the basic IDIQ, an offeror just needs to prove they have experience in one or more of the focus areas listed for each category.

45. Would the USG consider contracts other than with the USG? We will only be considering experience from USG contracts where the offeror has work in a prime OR subcontractor role.

46. Reference: Work Sample Cover Sheet, Part II; RFP Section L, C. Volume II, Technical Proposal, 2. Format and Specific Content, paragraph 3:

If Offerors are subcontracted OEMs for military aircraft contracts, Government Representatives are not likely to have firsthand knowledge of the subcontractor OEM’s work. In this way, the Government would be unable to provide meaningful reference information on the subcontractor OEM.

Additionally, an Offeror submitting a subcontract work sample may be unable to provide Government CO/COR contact information as the subcontractor/Offeror may not be aware of the Prime’s specific Government points of contact.

Question: Because of these subcontracted work sample challenges, are Offerors permitted to provide generic work samples that do not list points of contact if the submitted work sample is for subcontract work?

Any work samples submitted, must have some type of reference for the Government to verify that what is submitted is accurate. The burden of proof lies with the offeror submitting a proposal. If the Offeror was a subcontractor on a contract/order for the United States Government, the Offeror may only use artifacts it produced for the Prime as substantiating documentation. However, the Work Sample Cover Sheet must be populated using information from the Prime’s contract with the Government. In addition to the information described in RFP Attachment (3) – Section L – Instructions to Offerors, Section II.C.6, for the substantiation section of the Work Sample Cover Sheet, the Offeror shall also explain its role on the Prime’s contract and how the Offeror provided modernization support indirectly to the Government. Additionally, the offeror can contact the Prime they worked for a copy of the contract with any sensitive information redacted. The Contracting Officer’s name should be on the front page along with the contract number.

47. Reference:

RFP Section L, C. Volume II, Technical Proposal, 2. Format and Specific Content, NGAGE Focus Area Categories CATEGORY 1; Work Sample Cover Sheet For Offerors who have not previously manufactured AGE, but have the potential to support flightline or back shop operations (per RFP Section L, C. Volume II, Technical Proposal, 2. Format and Specific Content, NGAGE Focus Area Categories, CATEGORY 1), examples of design, development, prototypes, projects, and efforts that are applicable may be proprietary to the Prime contractor and protected from subcontractor dissemination via NDAs/privacy agreements. Therefore, subcontractors would not be able to expose specific work details and artifacts demonstrating the full extent of their contributions.

Question: Will the Government consider removing the requirement for Offerors to provide work sample artifacts in this case?

No, there is no exception in providing substantiated documentation for any capabilities an offeror has claimed and plans to use for their work sample justification. A prime’s propriety information should not come into play since we are not evaluating that Prime’s capability. For example, an offeror provided specific parts or services for a Prime that’s an OEM, the offeror can only take credit for what they actually provided. If there is no way around it and no other work samples are available, we suggest submitting what information can be shared with any and all proprietary redacted. OR The Prime contractor may contact Kimberly Janssen to request an NDA be signed by herself and the evaluation team. The Prime can choose to redact any information they do not want shared. Government workers are bound by law to keep propriety information secured and not shared.

48. Reference RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, A. General; RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, C. Volume II Technical Proposal, 6. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation, subsections a & c; and Q&A #9 The table in RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, A. General requires Work Sample Cover Sheet(s) (including Part III: Substantiation) and separately requires Work Sample Artifacts. RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, C. Volume II Technical Proposal, 6. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation also requests substantiation separately from artifacts, as it requires a subsection a. "xi. Substantiation" with a written summary of how the work sample relates to the RFP need and also separately subsection c. "Work Sample Artifacts," which appears to require contract performance documentation as evidence to the discussion in subsection a.

However, in response to a request to describe what the Government requires for work sample artifacts in Q&A #9, the Government suggests that, “it could be as simple as providing the contract number-brief summary of what was provided from the SOW/PWS of that contract to substantiate/confirm that you have provided that type of service.”

Q&A #9 appears to contradict the requirements in the RFP for separate substantiation discussion and evidential artifacts.

Question: Will the Government please confirm that no evidence outside of the Offeror's discussion in the Work Sample Cover Sheet's Part III: Substantiation in accordance with Q&A9 is required?

That’s correct.

49. Reference: Work Sample Cover Sheet, Part I; RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, A. General Due to NDAs/privacy agreements with the Prime, subcontractors are unable to provide any contract-identifying data.

Question: May Offerors omit contract numbers and Work Sample Contract Front Page(s) for work samples that cover subcontracted work on a Government program?

No, we would need the contract number to verify the artifact submitted to be correct. You may omit dollar values and proprietary information, but not contract numbers or POC information.

50. Reference:

General We believe the requirement for work samples that meet the scope of both Category 1 and Category 2 to be restrictive.

Question: Will the government please consider removing the requirement to demonstrate capabilities in both categories?

No, because the Government will not be changing our requirement to better fit an offeror’s capability.

51. Reference:

RFI Number 25, Solicitation Amendment, Section J - List of Attachments

Question: Will the government please provide Attachment 10?

There is not an attachment 10. The attachments are listed in Section J and subsequently posted on sam.gov.

52. Reference:

Section L, Volume 1.6 and RFI 22 There may be a volume number reference error in the response to RFI 22.

Questions:

a. Will the government please confirm that the submission requirement for fill-ins belongs in Volume I.

Required Clause and Provision fill-ins can be submitted in Volume I

b. Will the government please confirm that Volume I is not page limited?

Correct, no page limit for Volume I

53. Reference:

RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, A. General; Q&A #10; Attachment 5 Work Sample Cover Sheet; and Attachment 6 Self Scoring Matrix RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, A. General lists Attachment 6 Self-Scoring Matrix and Attachment 5 Work Sample Cover Sheet as part of Volume II. Q&A #10 states of Volume II that, "Everything should be combined into a single PDF or word document. A PDF is highly preferred."

Questions:

a. May Offerors copy and paste the table data from Attachment 6 Self-Scoring Matrix Sheet 1 into our own template, formatted as a PDF submission file?

b. Are Offerors permitted to submit the information required by the Attachment 5 Work Sample Cover Sheet within our own template, formatted as a PDF submission file?

The self scoring matrix and the Work Sample Cover Sheet need to remain in the format the Government has provided to ensure consistency with evaluations. You can turn the documents into PDFs, but they need to be in the template that is provided.

54. Reference:

Work Sample Cover Sheet and Section L, Item I.A. Volume II Organization

Question: Will the government please confirm that Parts I and II comprise the Work Sample Cover Page and the substantiation for each work sample has a two-page limit for a total of 3 pages (1 cover page and 2 substantiation pages)?

For each work sample submitted (maximum of 2 total work samples), there should be a work sample cover sheet (no more than 2 pages PER work sample) and the contract front page of the work sample provided. We only need the front page of the contract, so 1 page. There is no specific page limit on the substantiation documentation artifacts so long as the total page limit for Volume II is 30 pages or less. Nothing past a total of 30 pages will be reviewed.

55. Reference:

RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, C. Volume II Technical Proposal, 2. Format and Specific Content; 6. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation

RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, C. Volume II Technical Proposal, 2. Format and Specific Content notes that Offerors should “include the relevant portions of artifacts from the Work Sample that clearly show the Government that the Offeror has experience in the Focus Area Categories for which points are claimed,” while 6. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation requests submission of evidence “in the original format as it was originally delivered.”

Categories for which points are claimed,” while 6. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation requests submission of evidence “in the original format as it was originally delivered.”

Question: Would the Government please verify that Offerors may provide subsets of information within a document or partial documentation (e.g., only 1-2 pages of the relevant portion of the SOW or CDRL) to ensure relevancy and reduce evaluation load?

Yes, the offeror only needs to provide documentation applicable to the work they are claiming to have completed. Just make sure the Government can tell which document the insert is coming from if only referencing a partial document.

56. Reference:

RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, C. Volume II Technical Proposal, 6. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation; and Q&A #10 Regarding RFP Section L, II. Volume Organization, C. Volume II Technical Proposal, 6. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation’s requirement for submission of evidence “in the original format as it was originally delivered.”

Question: Would the Government please verify that substantiating documentation that was not originally provided as a PDF (e.g., Word files or emails) may be converted to PDF to enable Offerors to respond via the Government’s preferred PDF file submission which does not allow for attachments (per Q&A #10)?

Yes, and you can submit via email or DoDSAFE. It’s your choice. Just make sure, for example, if it was an email, that we can tell by looking at the pdf that it was an email and has the original names of anyone on the email and nothing else added.

57. Reference:

Solicitation- Page 3, Overview: Government shall order at least the "Minimum" amount to each offeror under the basic contract. The Government will award one (1) IDIQ contract and one (1) task order to fund a one-time attendance to one (1) virtual post award conference attendance. The value of this minimum is $100.00.

Page 4, Item 0001: This CLIN serves to fund virtual attendance to the NGAGE Post Award Conference. This CLIN will be included on the Basic IDIQ contract and subsequentially used for the first order for each successful offeror, to meet the minimum order requirement as defined in the basic contract. The Government will not reimburse any travel costs or unallowable costs associated with attendance to this virtual post award conference.

Ordering Guide

1.16 Initial Orders: 1.16 Initial Orders

Each awardee will receive an initial Delivery Order to cover the expense of attendance at the Post Award Conference (PAC). This initial Delivery Order will constitute the contract minimum for each awardee. The PAC will be conducted approximately 30-45 days following contract award and will be held virtually using Microsoft Teams. The number of Contractor attendees shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) persons and the PAC duration shall not exceed four (4) hours. The Government will provide the PAC dates, format, and agenda within approximately two (2) weeks of contract award. The Government will not pay any additional costs incurred above this amount. Travel must be approved by the OPCO in writing five (5) days prior to making travel arrangements. The PAC will require the attendance of up to two (2) Contractor management staff and will focus on the contract terms and conditions. At the request of the awardee, the OPCO may approve additional attendees, at no additional cost to the Government, if space is available.

Questions:

1. Is attendance at the post award conference virtual only? Yes, attendance will only be virtual. This is a basic IDIQ contract, so there are not specific requirements that will be discussed. We will only be answering any questions relevant to this source selection.

2. Is there opportunity to attend the post award conference in person? If yes, is travel allowed in the price of the proposal? (NOTE: In one place it states travel will not be reimbursed and in another that travel must be approved) No travel is approved for the postaward conference because it’s virtual only.

3. Is it acceptable to offer the government a $0.00 proposal for the post award conference? No, because in awarding the IDIQ contract, we will be subsequently awarding the individual orders to each successful offeror to ensure that the minimum contract requirement of $100 is met. You may propose any cost for the post award conference that it actually cost the offeror to attend for a maximum 1 hour time slot. Cost realism will be conducted to ensure pricing is fair and reasonable. All successful offeror will be awarded an order for at least the contract minimum ordering requirement upon successful selection for the basic NGAGE IDIQ contract.

58. Can a company engage with the USG prior to submission to ask for the DOD Safe Link? Yes, as long as it is requested in a timely manner.

59. How can a company propose on NGAGE? Your response will be either emailed to Mr. Lee and Ms. Janssen or sent via DoD SAFE. The instructions on what to submit and how is listed in Section L&M.

60. Reference: Section L. II Volume Organization; A. General;

Print shall be no smaller than font size of 12. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11,” excluding any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. shall not be greater than 11” x 17.” Multiple charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. may be submitted on paper that are either 8 1/2” X 11” or 11” X 17”. No paper shall be larger than 11” x 17”.

Q: If an offeror is providing a picture of or screenshot of a drawing, diagram or supporting illustration as substantiating evidence, and that drawing, diagram or illustration was originally done in a different font than size 12, may the offeror use the original artifact without modifying the font to maintain its authenticity and integrity? Yes, as long as the font size is legible.

61. Section L, Paragraph E (Volume IV, Price), #3, e., Page 8:

Request: Financial Capability Review: ….This information is necessary for the Government to potentially request a Financial Capability Review. Offerors with current (within one (1) year of the proposal due date) Financial Capability Reviews may provide a copy with their proposal.

Question: If DCMA was already in contact with a company and requested the financial capability review and the company provided the financial-related information to DCMA, is it acceptable to reference that the submittal has already occurred? Or does the Government want the Contractor to provide the financial capability review documents with the proposal submission? If you have a copy of the review, please send it in with your proposal. It will not count toward any of the page number limitations.

62. 1.16 Initial Orders: 1.16 Initial Orders Each awardee will receive an initial Delivery Order to cover the expense of attendance at the Post Award Conference (PAC). This initial Delivery Order will constitute the contract minimum for each awardee. The PAC will be conducted approximately 30-45 days following contract award and will be held virtually using Microsoft Teams. The number of Contractor attendees shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) persons and the PAC duration shall not exceed four (4) hours.

Questions and Answers were posted that stated “You may propose any cost for the post award conference that it actually cost the offeror to attend for a maximum 1 hour time slot”

Should an offeror propose pricing for 2 persons for up to 4 hours or for a maximum of 1 hour for the post award conference? To be honest, I don’t know what we would talk about for 4 hours, so I believe an hour is sufficient. However, since the solicitation states up to 4 hours, a company may bill as they see fit. If we have any questions with the billing, we will be in contact prior to potential award.

63. Regarding question 37: “Page 3 of Section L states that Volume 1 shall be titled “Volume I – Completed RFP”. Can offerors edit/add to the name of the volumes to include company name and the solicitation number? No, it just needs to say Volume I-Completed RFP as stated. We know the solicitation number and will know who the proposal is from.”

Please confirm that this means file names should read “Volume 1 – Completed RFP.pdf”, and “Volume II – Technical Proposal.pdf”, etc. and not include the offeror’s name.

64. Regarding Section L.A.3: “. The page limitations include any cover page(s), table of contents, list of acronyms (if utilized), executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, attachments, etc., as specifically identified in this provision”. The Government stated they do not wish for a table of contents to be provided. Does this apply to all the listed items in this section, namely cover pages?

Response to Questions 63 and 64: Correct, the file names should read exactly what is in Section L. A table of contents is only required and applicable if/when mentioned in Section L.

65. Can work samples from other DoD service contracts (Navy, Army, etc.) be used to substantiate the self-score, or does it have to be Air Force specifically? You may use work samples from any US Government contract no matter the agency. So, work samples from Navy, Army, etc are acceptable. FMS contracts that were not administered by the US would not be valid.

66. Since a technical item is not currently defined in the RFP documents, please confirm whether the USG is looking for a small business subcontracting plan or a small business participation plan. Please provide verification on the proposed contract amount that industry should base the plan off. We are just looking for the Subcontracting Plan Goals listed in the table on page 4. If an offeror’s subcontracting goals are lower in any of the listed categories, we just need an explanation of why the offeror’s goal is lower in that specific category than the DOD’s goal. For example, DOD small business goal is 30%, but an offeror’s goal is 28%. We would need an explanation of why it’s lower than 30%, is it due to market availability? Existing working relations with small businesses classified by a different business size or type etc. It should be based off the current plan of $920M ceiling over 10 years.

67. Would it be an issue if a company’s request for JCP is submitted and still in the approval process at the time of RFP due date?

68. If a company is working to be a part of the USAF supply base for GSE and the companies examples of products are over five years old for NATO aircraft, is that an issue?

Responses for questions 68 and 69. Section M page 2 states that the DD2345 must be current and on-file for the offeror submitting the proposal.

2. DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement”: The submitted DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement” will be evaluated to validate it is current with the Defense Logistics Agency’s Logistics Information Service – Joint Certification Program. The DD Form 2345 must be current and on-file for the Offeror submitting the proposal. The Government will only accept and review the actual DD Form 2345. System screen captures from the DLA JCP will not be accepted. Failure to submit DD Form 2345 will result in the Offeror being considered failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

69. Will the Government please clarify whether any and all USG contracts can be used as Work Samples or do they have to be USAF specific contracts? They do not have to be Air Force specific contracts. Any USG conus contracts are fine.

70. Can a company add a one or two page Executive Summary to Volume 1? You may, but it’s not required. We will only be evaluating what is listed in Section M due to the high volume of proposals expected.

71. Would the USG allow referencing multiple contracts? Yes, you may reference whichever contracts are relevant to what you are stating to have accomplished.

72. Could the USG please advise whether ITAR registration/certification is required for this effort? That should not be an issue.

73. If a company does not have a current DD FORM 2345 active and still pending approval status, will that disqualify a company? 2. DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement”: The submitted DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement” will be evaluated to validate it is current with the Defense Logistics Agency’s Logistics Information Service – Joint Certification Program. The DD Form 2345 must be current and on-file for the Offeror submitting the proposal. The Government will only accept and review the actual DD Form 2345. System screen captures from the DLA JCP will not be accepted. Failure to submit DD Form 2345 will result in the Offeror being considered failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions and thus render the proposal not eligible for award. I’m not sure how long it takes for approval, but it will need to be approved to be eligible for award.

74. Does a volume cover page (i.e., the first page of the volume identifying the offeror name, date, volume number, solicitation number, etc.) count towards the page limit for volumes two and three? Any volumes that have a page limit- all pages submitted under that volume would count toward that limit including a cover page.

75. Would the USG be willing to extend the due date for the solicitation? We will not be providing an extension for the solicitation.

76. Is there a required validity period for the proposal response? SF-33 outlines a 60-day period if no other amount is identified (For the Price)? At least 180 days for the price. We are only requesting a price for the post award conference.

77. For the SPRS requirement in Volume I – will the government accept supporting documentation to accompany the written explanation of an offeror’s remediation plan? Specifically, will the government accept an Excel spreadsheet detailing an offeror’s official Plan of Action and Milestones as the remediation plan? Yes, we will except anything that illustrates the plan to become compliant.

78. Related to Q&A #9, Q&A #47, and Q&A #48 – do you prefer the work sample artifacts to be inputs (items received at beginning of project; for example, SOWs) or outputs (items delivered as result of project; for example, UI screenshots from the completed work product)? The preference would be outputs. Something to show that you are actually capable of providing what you say you can.

Furthermore, if a company has always performed work for the government as a subcontractor and the NDA’s with primes will make delivering outputs somewhat difficult – is there a recommended strategy? You can either redact, or get permission from the Prime to be able to release information to only myself and the 3 other evaluators. We have signed NDAs for the source selection and we are bound by legal otherwise to not talk about anything marked accordingly.

79. Page 2 of Section L states “Each volume within the proposal shall be contained within a separate folder/file.” Can the government please confirm this is just to mean that each Volume needs to be its own separate PDF, not one large PDF containing all the volumes in one document? Industry wants to ensure the mention of separate folders doesn’t literally mean that offerors need to submit folders that contain the proposal volumes (like separate zip files for each volume). Yes, each volume just needs to be separate pdfs. I believe the file would be too large if you tried to combine everything into one.

80. Can the government please clarify that that offerors need only to complete the 7 different fill-in clauses mentioned in the ‘NGAGE List of Fill-In Clauses and Provisions’ attachment (whether copied and pasted, completed, and inserted into Volume 1 or completed and scanned via the solicitation) as the final portion of Volume 1? ‘Fill-ins’ are mentioned both in B.1 and B.5; industry wants to ensure they don’t require duplication and are in the correct order in Volume 1. Yes, please fill in the clauses mentioned on the list of attachments. If there is one that is inadvertently missed, we will be in contact.

81. 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns (Oct 2022) is one of the clauses that requires a fill-in. If the offeror is a HUBZone Small Business, are they required to waive their evaluation preference? There is no non waiver fill-in option there – are HUBZone offerors allowed to leave this clause non filled as to keep their evaluation preference? The offeror is not required to waive their evaluation preference.

82. 252.227-7017 is listed as a fill-in, but the clause itself doesn’t contain any area to complete. Can the government clarify what they’re looking for as it relates to this clause? Should offerors insert a signature at the end of the clause section as acknowledgement since there’s no fill-in? 252.227-7017 is used in case you are submitting artifacts etc that contain technical data specifically owned by the offeror. If it doesn’t apply, you can fill in “N/A”

83. In relation to ground support equipment, can a company use examples for NATO aircraft if it is within 5 years? You may use examples from any USG contracts no matter the agency.

84. Where does the government want offerors to include the NGAGE list of POCs? I see there is an attachment titled ‘NGAGE List of POCs’ and the solicitation itself says that vendors shall submit a list of POCs that should be contacted for each FOPR release at the order level, but I don’t see instructions in Section L identifying what volume to include the list of POCs. Does the government want offerors to include them somewhere in Volume 1 (perhaps in the cover letter)? You may include the list of company POCs in Vol 4 as a separate document.

85. Regarding the cover letter – is the only content requirement for the cover letter for offerors to delineate any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions? Yes, on the cover letter.

86. For clauses 52.219-4 and 252.227-7017 where there literally is no N/A fill-in option included in the clause (for example the only fill-in box in 52.219-4 would be to literally check the box waiving HUBZone evaluation preference), is it acceptable for offerors to notate these things in its proposal ahead of the copied/pasted clauses? Like a little narrative explaining why we didn’t fill in the clause but wanted to acknowledge them for compliance’s sake? For the clauses, you can choose to check or not. Your selection doesn’t count for or against you. Some offerors choose to waive and some don’t. It’s completely up to the offeror and your answer or “checked” box will not may a proposal unacceptable.