NGAME RFIs 9_2.docx

Next Generation Ammunition Munition Equipment (NGAME)

RFP FA853226RB002

RFIs

1. I would appreciate some additional information and clarification regarding the recent update posted to SAM.gov for the referenced pre-solicitation. I noted the following statement was added to the listing: "NGAME will not accept any foreign participation. Direct awards will be restricted to entities with a valid U.S. CAE code. The Buy American Act requires that all end items be manufactured in the United States." Could you please clarify the intended scope of the phrase "will not accept any foreign participation"? Specifically, we would like to understand whether this restriction applies solely to the prime contractor and place of manufacture of the end items, or whether it also extends to engineering, design, development, manufacturing, or other performance activities conducted by affiliated entities located outside the United States. Our company maintains engineering and manufacturing capabilities in Austria, and we are seeking to determine whether those resources could be utilized in support of contract performance, provided that all applicable solicitation requirements, domestic sourcing requirements, and U.S. export control regulations are satisfied. Additionally, could you clarify whether this acquisition is subject to any restrictions that would preclude products, components, or services originating from Trade Agreements Act (TAA) designated countries, or whether the government intends to apply sourcing requirements beyond the standard Buy American Act and TAA framework?

A foreign company may participate, but they need to have a registered CAGE code for the US. The Buy American Act requires manufactured end products to be produced in the US as long as 55% of the cost is associated with work done in the US. Additionally, the Buy American Act only applies to the Prime contractors and subcontractors. To be TAA compliant as well as Buy American compliant, the foreign country just has to be on the designated country list. Components are allowed to be produced OCONUS, as long as the company resides in a country listed in the Buy American Act IAW the TAA. The end product must be assembled in the US. The RFP posted on sam.gov has been updated. The statement of no foreign participation was inaccurate and has been removed.

2. Section J lists three attachments: Combined Sections L and M, the Statement of Objectives, and the Ordering Guide. Combined Sections L and M also references “RFP Attachment I,” which appears to contain the NGAME Self-Scoring Matrix, Work Sample Cover Sheet, Price Submission, List of Fill-In Clauses and Provisions to Complete, and PIEE submission instructions. These materials were not included in the solicitation package available to the offeror. Will the Government provide RFP Attachment I and all required forms and instructions?

The NGAME self-score matrix and Price submission list has been uploaded to sam.gov. I am working on an amendment now to update some of the wording in Section L&M which includes removing the PIEE submission wording and Work Sample Cover Sheet. You may have your own coversheet for each work sample, we don’t have anything specific for that. I will have the other attachments completed and uploaded by EOB Monday 5 August and will upload them to sam.gov.

3. Combined Sections L and M requires a current CMMC Level 2 status in the SPRS as of the proposal due date. Please confirm whether a Level 2 assessment conducted by a Certified Third-Party Assessment Organization (C3PAO) must be completed by the proposal due date, or whether a current CMMC Level 2 self-assessment satisfies the proposal eligibility requirement.

Self Assessment is sufficient- if the score is below 110- you must submit a Plan of Action for obtain the required score.

4. For Categories 1 and 2, when qualifying work was performed by an integrated team that included the offeror, original equipment manufacturers, subcontractors, and other contributors, what documentation does the Government consider sufficient to demonstrate the offeror’s specific role, responsibilities, and contribution toward successful contract performance and the resulting deliverables?

You can provide the government contract number under which the work was completed and a snip of the SOW/PWS etc showing what work was completed and invoices etc submitted for that work. The amounts can be redacted.

5. Section L requires evidence of prior work to be submitted “in the original format as it was originally delivered.” It also requires Volume II to be submitted as one combined PDF file and requests an electronic Microsoft Word copy of the technical proposal. Please confirm whether both a combined PDF and separate Word document are required for the technical proposal volume.

A combined PDF is sufficient.

6. [Redacted] submitted a proposal as a Prime contractor with a number of subcontractors. We are currently creating a proposal for the solicitation, as a Prime; one of subcontractors wants to also submit a proposal as a Prime, while keeping his status with us as a subcontractor. Is this allowed under the contracting mechanism you have in place?

A subcontractor under one teaming agreement may propose as a Prime contractor. If there’s not an “official” teaming agreement, same rules apply. The subcontractor is able to submit their own independent proposal. The Prime proposing must have an approved DD2345 with their company name. They cannot use one for another company.

7. Question: Each Work example is a cover page (1), plus content Pages (2), no limit on artifacts. Is it safe to assume that the artifacts are limited so that that total page count does not exceed 30 pages?

Volume II page limit is 30 pages. The Work Sample Cover Sheet, Self Scoring Matrix, and anything like a table of contents or acronyms page are not included in the page count. There’s no limit on artifacts. We don’t need a bunch of “fluff”, just send us proof via artifacts that you are capable of performing what you are giving yourself credit for on the self-score matrix.

8. The work was not for the US government, but for very regulated and safety critical industries e.g., oil and Gas. Can we use these examples of Industrial Materials Handling Equipment as suitably qualified Work Examples, or will they just get thrown out? (we fully understand that the relevancy and substantiation is our responsibility) Work samples are required to be from work performed as a Prime or subcontractor on another US Government contract. Any examples submitted outside of that will not be reviewed for the NGAME requirement.

9. Work Examples: Qualified expertise. Is it acceptable for an company employee to have relevant experience from a previous company where he was responsible and accountable for the costing, design, prototyping, manufacture, and testing of Industrial Material Handling Equipment?

No, the experience and qualifications must follow the company, not an employee.

10. The solicitation PDF is locked against editing, but Section L requires submission of a completed and signed solicitation. Because the applicable fill-ins are already completed, may offerors submit the locked solicitation with separately signed signature pages, or will the Government provide an unlocked version?

The offeror may submit a separately signed signature page for the RFP and any amendments issued. A wet signature is also allowable. To date, there are 2 amendments that have been issued and uploaded to sam.gov, so please submit those signed also. As listed in the combined L&M, if the Volume I submission is not fully compliant, the remainder of the proposal will NOT be evaluated, and will be determined not eligible for award. The fill-ins were completed in error by the contract writing system, so if there is a different response for the fill-ins than what is showing, please note that.

11. Section L, Volume IV, paragraph D.2.c, references a Pre-Award Survey as RFP Attachment I, but the attachment was not provided. Will the government clarify and provide the pre-award survey attachment?

Yes, the SF1408 has been added as an attachment on sam.gov, and will be incorporated into amendment 03.

12. If the Pre-Award Survey referenced in Section L is Standard Form 1408, may an offeror that previously submitted this form, but who has not yet received a determination submit the same form, or must a new form be completed?

The same form may be used as long as it was submitted in the past 90 days from the NGAME RFP release date. We will need the signed SF1408 form.

13. Thank you for providing the Pre-Award Survey attachment. Upon review, the posted SF 1408 does not appear to contain fields for completion by the offeror.

The contractor-completed document we previously submitted was the DCAA Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist, which contains contractor response fields and supporting narrative requirements addressing the SF 1408 criteria.

Please confirm whether the contractor-completed checklist is the Pre-Award Survey intended for submission under Section L, or if there is a different document.

As long as the checklist you have addresses the information we are requesting, I do not have a problem with it.

14. Do we need to submit Section D.3 Introductory Documents with our RFP response?

It’s not clear if we must submit all the documents in D.3 with this RFP response, or just with any following proposals once selected as a team member in the IDIQ. Based on D.2 Format, I would say yes, it’s required. But these documents are not included in the evaluation criteria for Section M. It also says Price will be Evaluated but not rated. D.3.f Ground Rules and Assumptions is a part of the Completed Price Submission (D.2.b.) which is confusing.

D. Volume IV, Price

1. General: To be eligible for award for the first Delivery Order, offerors shall provide the following reports/statements:

a. Price: The offeror shall submit their proposed price for the Virtual Post-Award Conference in RFP Attachment Price Submission. The Virtual Post-Award Conference will be used to satisfy the minimum requirement of the IDIQ contract which is $100.00.

b. In accordance with DFARS 215.371-3, cost and pricing data may be required in the event only one offer is received. If no exception in FAR 15.403-1(b) applies, the cost and pricing data shall be certified. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

2. Format:

The Price proposal shall contain the information specified below:

a. Introductory documents IAW D.3.

b. Completed Price Submission

3. Introductory Documents:

a. Estimating System: The offeror will indicate whether the offeror’s system has Government Approval. The offeror will provide evidence of such approval.

b. Purchasing System: Offerors will provide a description of their purchasing system or methods (e.g., how material requirements are determined, how sources are selected, when firm quotes are obtained, what provisions …..

c. Accounting System…

d. Disclosure statements….

e. Financial Capability Review…

f. Ground rules and assumptions… Yes, the below (now above) needs to be submitted with the Volume IV for the RFP. Ground rules and assumptions speak to what you are proposing in your price. Ex: We will have 2 members for a 2-hour post award conference.

15. For NGAME solicitation FA8532-26-R-B002, are we allowed to use a PROS V contract as one of our work samples? Just would like some clarity on if this US contract vehicle is an acceptable contract for submission in our proposal.

It may be used as long as the artifacts submitted show the work completed/or in process as it relates to the experience necessary to meet the requirements of the RFP and it’s attachments. The work must also be recent-within the past 5 years.

16. Is there a TDP for this opportunity?

There’s no TDP.

17. Volume I asks for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. As this current NGAME proposal is not bidding any particular product or service but simply showing examples of prior work and why our company is suited for bidding in this space, what is the expected content in this plan? Can we send a prior example of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan with some of the information redacted (customers, suppliers, actual cost goals, etc.)? For the nature of this proposal, the Volume III Small Business Participation Proposal seems more relevant on HOW we intend to target small businesses, so I’m trying to understand the expectation for the inclusion of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The small business subcontracting plan required by RFO clause 52.219-9, as supplemented by the R-DFARS, shall be submitted by large business offerors. The plan shall set forth the offeror’s plan for subcontracting with small businesses to the maximum extent practicable and shall include all elements in accordance with RFO clause 52.219-9, as supplemented by the R-DFARS. The small business subcontracting plan shall include the information required by RFO 19.206-2 and all associated clauses within this RFP.

Both the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation Plan are relevant for all Large Business. Based on the contract ceiling amount, figure out how much of that you expect to bid on and based on the work that will be done under this IDIQ, figure out what percentage of the work you expect to be done by each small business category listed based on your knowledge of the market and what type of supplies/services you provide. Make sure to include each item listed in the above clauses and provisions. If a company does not meet the current SB subcontracting goals, tell us what you will do to try to meet or exceed those goals.

18. Earlier when our team was reviewing the proposal solicitation, we distinctly remember the documents stating that the maximum price for a submitter’s post award conference participation was $100. I believe this was stated in Attachment I Price Submission and in the NGAME Combined LM_Final_ attachments, however now that language is no longer there. What is the guidance for pricing our participation in a post award conference for the Volume IV Price Proposal?

That’s correct. That language was inaccurate, and was updated in one of the solicitation amendments which have been posted on sam.gov. You will state your ground rules and assumptions and propose a price for your team to participate in the post award conference for a maximum of 2 attendees for up to 4 hours.

19. Regarding the document NGAME Combined LM_Final_8_6 Page 5, Category 2:

1. May we include previous and ongoing technical manuals and provisioning experience for non-MMHE items to support Category 2 exhibits?

For Category 2 exhibits/artifacts/substantiation documentation- you may include ongoing technical manuals and provisioning experience for non-MMHE. We want you to show us that you can provide what is requested and show proof that you can do it.

20. The NGAME+Combined+LM_Final Document (II Volume Organization, A General) indicates that Volume II is restricted to 30 pages, and the contents include the Self Scoring Matrix, Work Sample Cover Sheet, Work Sample Contract Front Page, and Artifacts. However, the answer to Question 7 in the NGAME_RFIs_8_10 document indicates “Volume II page limit is 30 pages. The Work Sample Cover Sheet, Self Scoring Matrix, and anything like a table of contents or acronyms page are not included in the page count. There’s no limit on artifacts.” Because this contradicts the original instructions, will the government please clarify what will be counted within the 30-page limit for Volume II?

Section L of the combined L&M:

3. The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, is 30 pages. The page limitation for Volume III, Small Business Concern Participation, is 5 pages. The page limitations exclude any cover page(s), table of contents, list of acronyms (if utilized), or attachments as specifically identified in this provision; all other content is included in the page limitations. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation.

I misspoke on addressing the Self-Scoring Matrix and artifacts, per the Section L&M, there is a maximum of 2 work samples for Volume II, and the Self Scoring Matix IS included in the page count.

21. The NGAME+Combined+LM_Final Document (II Volume Organization, A General, (2)) indicates "No paper shall be larger than 11x17. Will 11x17 pages be counted as one page or two pages for purposes of page count?

1- 11x17 page= 1 page

22. Does a work sample consisting of design, prototype development, and formal engineering documentation, without a completed production run or formal production/acceptance record (e.g., DD250), satisfy Category 1, given that "prototypes" and "documentation" are named as applicable evidence types in Section L?

Yes. You do not need a completed production run to meet Category 1. Because Section L specifically allows "prototypes," those work samples are acceptable. However, you must provide clear, official documents showing that the prototype was successfully built and worked as intended. Examples of acceptable documentation include, but are not limited to:

· Formal Developmental or Operational Test reports

· Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) results

· Third-party laboratory validation or certification reports

· Detailed records of a successful functional demonstration

23. For a work sample where an offeror fabricated and physically assembled a prototype, without a separate DD250, but providing reports and pictures of functional prototype, constitute sufficient evidence for Category 1, or is a DD250 (or equivalent formal acceptance instrument) specifically required?

No, a DD250 is not specifically required. If you do not have a DD250, you can submit other official proof, such as finalized test results, documented proof of successful performance, or quality assurance records to show the prototype was successful. Pictures alone are not enough and must also be backed up with formal documents or test reports that the proved the prototype performed as it should.

24. Section L establishes a minimum 12-point font requirement for proposal submissions. Please confirm whether the 12-point minimum applies to headers and footers, including page numbers, proprietary markings, and required security or handling markings, or whether offerors may use a smaller, legible font for header and footer content.

The 12 point font applies to anything on the page that is submitted.

25. For Volume II work samples, please clarify the required Point of Contact (POC) when the offeror performed the qualifying work as a subcontractor. Should the offeror identify the prime contractor POC who can validate the offeror’s subcontract performance, the Government POC associated with the underlying U.S. Government contract, or both when available?

We would prefer both if available, but the main POC we would need is the Government POC.

26. In document L-900 Proposal Requirements, Section II.C.6 – Work Sample Substantiating Documentation of the NGAME solicitation, it states that evidence of previous work history “must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered.” Technical Orders and Technical Data packages can be 50–100 pages each. Is the following approach an acceptable approach to meet the requirement?

1. Within the 30-page limit for Volume II, we include excerpts from referenced artifacts

1. Referenced artifacts files (full originals) are sent as separate file attachments

No, we do not want or need to read through 50-100 pages of a TDPs. You may simply take the page(s) from the TDP that you delivered to match the requirements we are requesting for each focus area and combine them into a single document. The volumes need to be submitted as a combined volume, no separate attachments or embedded attachments.

27. I work with [Redacted], and I ran across the Next Generation Ammunition & Munitions Equipment (NGAME) for MMHE RFP/Solicitation on SAM.gov. Is this opportunity closed to new sources? If so, do you happen to know if/when on ramping of new sources would happen?

I apologize for the delayed response. Per sam.gov, the announcement is open until 9 September 2026.

28. Section L&M's Category 1 definition states that this focus area is met when a work sample describes an "Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)" that "manufactures and delivers" munitions materiel handling equipment (MMHE) and/or comparable industrial material handling equipment. Could the Government clarify what "OEM" means for purposes of this definition? Specifically, we would like to understand whether Category 1 requires the offeror to hold original design authority over the equipment in the work sample, or whether the offeror satisfies this definition by manufacturing and delivering MMHE to Government furnished drawings and specifications under a completed contract or delivery order, regardless of who originally authored the design.

“OEM”= Original Equipment Manufacturer. So, you would provide what was manufactured for the government and the work samples that verify what was manufactured. Work samples types for this is listed under Category I.

29. On page 8 of the document NGAME Combined LM_Final_8_6:

3. Introductory Documents:

a. Estimating System: The offeror will indicate whether the offeror’s system has Government Approval. The offeror will provide evidence of such approval.

An offeror will only have “Government Approval” if an audit or survey has been completed by DCMA or DCAA. This just needs to be addressed as No, DCMA or DCAA has not performed a survey or audit and provided approval; No, DCMA/DCAA has performed a survey/audit and did NOT approve; OR Yes, we have an approved system and provide the approval from DCMA/DCAA.

b. Purchasing System: Offerors will provide a description of their purchasing system or methods (e.g., how material requirements are determined, how sources are selected, when firm quotes are obtained, what provisions are made to ensure quantity and other discounts). offerors will indicate whether they have Government approval or not of their purchasing system and if so, provide evidence of such approval.

Similar to the above, If DCMA/DCAA has provided approval of your purchasing system, you would provide that documentation. If they have not approved or reviewed the purchasing system then you would provide us with a description of your purchasing system.

We have Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) documentation from large military suppliers in support of other government contracts. Will these documents meet the above criteria?

If not, is there a form or report issued by a certain agency that does, that we can initiate?

DCMA/DCAA usually has at least a 30 day turn around for reports like this. We will be requesting pre-award financial surveys for potential successful offerors prior to making a final award decision as part of contractor responsibility, so if you do not have a Government Approved System at proposal submission, if will not affect whether you are considered responsible or not responsible UNLESS, the not approved system is found as part of our evaluations and survey with DCMA. You just need to make sure you address what you have and what you do not have.

30. Our relevant work sample involves manufacture and delivery of MMHE performed to Government provided drawings under an existing IDIQ contract awarded 5/2025, and we want to ensure our self-score submission accurately reflects our role as defined by the Government's intent for this evaluation criterion.

Can you confirm if the MMHE IDIQ past project experience is applicable to the Category 1 work sample requirement?

The MMHE IDIQ past project would be applicable to category 1 if it represents the capacity for an OEM manufacture of munitions material handling equipment and/or comparable industrial material handling equipment. I have no knowledge of what IDIQ you are speaking of, and even if I did, the burden of proof is on the offeror to show relevant artifacts for the experience being claimed. The offeror should describe the type of MMHE and or comparable industrial material handling equipment provided and produced by their company that meets our definition of MMHE referenced in the SOO, Section I, which I have copied for you here. Section I states, “MMHE refers to the specialized tools, vehicles, and hardware used to safely transport, store, load and assisting the buildup of various armaments both nuclear and conventional. MMHE can be transported by air vehicles; however, it is not utilized while in the air.”

31. Work Sample Category Strategy: We noted what appears to be conflicting guidance within the Combined Sections L&M document regarding how work samples should be distributed across the two Focus Area Categories. One section states the Government recommends “each submitted work sample shows expertise across one (1) of the two (2) Focus Area Categories.” (NGAME_Combined_LM_Final_8_6, page 5 of 14, first paragraph). The other section states the Government recommends each submitted work sample show expertise across multiple Focus Area Categories. (NGAME_Combined_LM_Final_8_6, page 11 of 14, C. Volume II, Technical Factor - paragraph ii)

Could the Government clarify which of these reflects its actual guidance?

There is a maximum of 2 work samples permitted. In the 2 samples, you must be able to show proof of the capability/performance completed/in progress to receive a point for a focus area category. The work samples have to show expertise in the focus area category(ies) you are claiming 1-2 points for. We suggest providing a work sample that shows expertise for both focus area categories to ensure the offeror is able to claim the maximum points possible. If you do not have a work sample that shows expertise for both categories for the same sample, that’s not a problem. You may provide one work sample to verify the point claimed for focus area category 1 then a work sample that proves expertise for focus area category 2. If the latter is done, you would have 2 submitted work samples, 1 point for each focus area category, so you would have yourself scored as a “2” on the self scoring matrix- 1 point for each category. Please let me know if that answer is not clear, and I will try to word it another way.

32. Is an offeror permitted to submit two work samples that each claim the same single Focus Area Category, to achieve the minimum two points, rather than distributing the two work samples across both categories?

You may use 2 work samples to claim 2 points for a specific category; however, you have to have at least 1 point for each focus category to be technically acceptable. For example, if you provide 2 work samples that just address Focus Category 1- then you would be rated technically unacceptable because you did not provide anything to address Focus Area Category 2.

33. [Redacted] respectfully requests a DODSafe drop-off link to submit our response to FA853226RB002 NGAME MMHE RFP. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Link has been sent, if you submit the proposal and require a password, please send us a separate outlook email with the password so we can access the proposal.

34. Page 6 of Combined L&M states “Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed. See RFP Attachment, List of Fill-In Clauses and Provisions to Complete.” Should offerors copy and paste the complete clause contents, fill them out, and submit that in volume 1 in lieu of utilizing Section K?

Offerors can copy and paste the clauses into a word doc and submit in Volume I please.

35. Page 6 of attachment ‘NGAME+Combined+LM_Final_8_6’ states “Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed. See RFP Attachment, List of Fill-In Clauses and Provisions to Complete.”

Should offerors copy and paste the complete clause contents, fill them out, and submit that in volume 1 in lieu of utilizing Section K?

Offerors can copy and paste the clauses into a word doc and submit in Volume I please.

36. Recency does not appear to be defined in attachment ‘NGAME+Combined+LM_Final_8_6’. For the work samples – is there a limit to the number of years past from the proposal due date that offerors can utilize?

Work samples should be for Government work performed in the last 5 years from the solicitation date.

37. I am writing to request an extension of the due date for the NGAME solicitation - FA853226RB002 until September 30th. Due to complexity of this proposal and the need to coordinate with several key stakeholders, the additional time would help us prepare and complete a thorough proposal.

An extension will not be granted at this time.

38. I’ve posted a Q&A from NGAGE below (question13), to question the applicability to NGAME. Can we assume the same criteria applies to NGAME?

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.

The same below is the same for NGAME. Also, you will need to ensure that the signed and approved DD2345 reflect the name of the teaming agreement if a JV is formed from it.

39. Our company is preparing a proposal to submit on Notice ID FA853226RB002, and we would like to kindly request an extension on the current due date of September 9th. We would like to submit our best proposal possible, and would like to request an additional week in order to do so.

We are not extending the due date at this time.

40. One of our Team members specializes in Technical Publications; given the artifact page count limitations do you want artifact’s that show examples of each of the documents required (Technical data is the creating, curating and maintaining of T.O.s and/or material manual, maintenance manual, provisioning, training material and/or operation manuals.), or the process flow that shows how they are created? To do this justice, it would take a selection of each, which would blow the page count in itself.

We just need samples of the documents proving what you are claiming to have experience in. You may take snips of the documents and combine them into a single pdf; therefore, creating one work sample. Just indicate that on the coversheet.

41. After reviewing the latest RFI upload on 8-31, I am seeking further clarification on Section M-900, Paragraph C.2.

To our interpretation it states that the total score on the self-score matrix must result in (2) points to be considered technically acceptable and must include (1) point for each category. Would submissions be considered where (2) work samples are included that score (1) point for each category, resulting in a total of (4) points on the self-score matrix? Or are we to interpret the requirement such that the self-score matrix shall meet a score of exactly (2) points?

The minimum requirement is 1 point for each focus area category, so a total self score of 2. If you submit 2 work samples and they each warrant a point for each category then you would have a score of 4. The self score max is not 2. 2 is the minimum requirement.

42. [REDACTED] submits the following request for clarification following the Q&As released yesterday:

Section L requires submission of four separate volumes. The latest RFI response q. 26 states that ‘the volumes need to be submitted as a combined volume, no separate attachments or embedded attachments.’ Please confirm that Volumes I, II, III, and IV should remain separate standalone files, with each individual volume consolidated into a single document and no separate artifact attachments.

Yes, there should be 4 separate volumes submitted; however, all of the documents for each volume should be combined into a single pdf.

43. Couple questions from [REDACTED), please:

1. Our standard cost estimating practice is to include several hours labor for contracts and finance administration to input new awards into our ERP system. Will inclusion of these hours make our submittal non-compliant?

0. If acceptable, as the Post Award Contract proposal will be FFP should we break out these additional hours for transparency on pricing?

The price submittal is for the virtual post award conference under (f) for Introductory Documents required, you will state your ground rules and assumptions for the price you are submitting. On page 13 of the Combined LM it has the instructions on the maximum for number of participants for up to 4 hours. I cant tell you what to not include or include. You will provide the cost based on your ground rules and assumptions that you provide us. What you decide to include in that is your decision.

1. Our SAM entity registration and Disclosure Statement (which will be included in the submittal package) contains much of the ‘fill in’ data required in Section K of the Proposal. Will USG be reviewing SAM for Representations/Certifications or should we proceed to copy/paste/fill in these clauses in a separate word document attachment to Volume 1?

We will not be reviewing SAM for Reps and Certs in regard to the clauses. You may copy and paste them into a word document.