On Attachment 7 - Ramp II EWAAC Questions.pdf

# Suggestions, Questions, & Comments from Industry Government Response

The stated NAICS 332993 Ammunition Manufacturing seems narrowly focused when considering the requirements of the solicitation.

Would sincerely appreciate consideration for an alternate NAICS that would allow us to bid EWAAC On Ramp II.

Please consider these NAICS:

531330 – Engineering Services 541690 – Other Scientific and Technical Services 541715 – research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Cycle Sciences 541990 – All Other Professional, Scientific and Technical services

This EWAAC On-Ramp is to add additional vendors to the already established EWAAC contracts. Therefore, the Government is unable to change the already established NAICS code.

The current NAICS code for the EWAAC vehicle is 332993, Ammunition Manufacturing. Can the Government confirm that Delivery Orders released under this vehicle will be published with NAICS code’s other than 332993 when the primary scope of the effort does not consist of Ammunition Manufacturing?

Delivery orders under EWAAC will utilize the same 332993 size standard for all efforts

Will NAICS 332993 apply to all orders placed under IDIQ awards as required by 13 C.F.R. § 121.402(c)(2)(i)? The December 20, 2021 FAQ for the last EWAAC on-ramp solicitation indicated that different NAICS codes could be assigned at the order level in future competitions. However, this approach is inconsistent with the requirement under 13 C.F.R. § 121.402(c)(2)(i) that a “NAICS code assigned to an order must be a NAICS code included in the underlying Multiple Award Contract.”

Delivery orders under EWAAC will utilize the same 332993 size standard for all efforts

Attachment 3, Section L On Ramp, Subsection L-1.2 General Information, Section H) Participation by Foreign Firms states that, In accordance with the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), foreign firms or U.S. companies determined to be under Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) will not be permitted to participate. Will the Government consider allowing the participation of companies who are technically under FOCI, but have an active Top Secret FCL based on the fact that DCSA has determined their FOCI to be fully mitigated?

The Government at this time will maintain its current possition and not allow foreign firms to participate in EWAAC, regardless of their DCSA status. Only firms considered to be "domestic" will be evaluated for EWAAC award.

3 Attachment 3, Section L On Ramp, Subsection L-2.4.2 Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan outlines the required inputs to an OCI Mitigation Plan submitted with this proposal. Can the Government please confirm that an OCI Mitigation Plan is only required if the offeror has an active/perceived OCI that it is looking to mitigate?

The OCI mitigation plan is requried for all offerors intending to propose for EWAAC and is not for just active/perceived OCIs. The plan is required to show how the company will address any potential OCI, present or future.

On-Ramp II - Industry Question and Government Responses

The solicitation for the EWAAC vehicle contains a variety of clauses and provisions enabling offerors to propose to Delivery Orders on multiple contract types including FFP, CPFF, CR and CPIF. Can the Government confirm that contractors who do not currently have an approved government cost accounting, estimating, or property system based on their status as a FFP-exclusive commercial services provider are still encouraged and able to participate on this vehicle?

EWAAC supports multiple contract types. If your company does not currently have an approved government cost accounting system, then you are still permitted to submit a response for EWAAC consideration. However, you would be limited to non-cost contract types.

5 In reference to section L-3.2.3.1 Subfactor B-3-1:

In that this provision is likely to substantially limit competition, to what extent may an offeror with an otherwise compliant facility not within 10 miles of Eglin use those facilities until such time (ostensibly within 2 years of contract award) as the offeror may secure a suitable facility?

A proposal would be considered with justifications and must be evaluated for workforce impacts (commuting, COLA, bargaining unit MLA, etc.), which may limit use.

As XXXX is a commercial non-traditional defense contractor, are you open/flexible to allow us to provide a proposal with significant term and condition exceptions or ability to discuss our rationale for requested changes?

• For example, we do not currently have CAS compliant business systems; as such, we only intend on bidding Task Orders that are Firm Fixed Price.

The PCO intends to make award without discussions. In the given example, EWAAC supports multiple contract types. If your company does not currently have an approved government cost accounting system, then you are still permitted to submit a response for EWAAC consideration. However, you would be limited to non-cost contract types.

Section M paragraph M-1.0 (a) states this is a LPTA source selection. However, the only pricing requirement in Factor II Cost/Price is in the Post Award Conference Excel sheet that must equal $1000. Is there a price element missing from the current RFP? If not, please describe how price, which is equal amongst all competitors, is evaluated for lowest price?

All potential offerors must submit a cost for the PAC. This PAC MUST equal $1,000.00 as this was determined to be a fair price based on other similar and past awards. The Government will not award to any company who submits a cost other than the $1,000.00 amount.

Section L paragraph L-2.2 (a) states that the SF33 and sections A- K are to be provided in Volume I Section II Contract Documentation. This information is required again in Section IV Administrative Submissions. Are companies required to supply the submissions twice in the volume in accordance with Table L- 1.3? if not, in which section should the information be provided?

Sections A-K of the SF33 must be completed.

The reps and certs requirement mentioned in Section IV can be satisfied with a statement that "The Reps and Certs were completed in the SF33". A second copy of the model contract is not required to be published in Section IV.

In the subparagraphs of sections L and M, the statement “Examples which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include (but are not limited to) the following” is immediately followed by “Supporting examples shall be included in the proposal:” which is then followed by a list of examples. These two statements seem to indicate that the list is only representative, but also could be interpreted that the list is required. Are the lists of examples all required in order to demonstrate proficiency?

Alternate wording of last sentence: Are we permitted to provide other performance examples?

It is intended to be used as a list of examples to demonstrate proficency, but is not limited to those examples. However, the offeror must provide some example that they have expereince and proficency in the work element.

Section M, paragraph 3.2.2.1 indicates that to meet the requirement for “Business Intelligence (BI) Tools,” an offeror must demonstrate the ability to leverage DoD HPC Centers.

Section L, paragraph 3.2.2.1, however, lists it as an “example which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency…” and “supporting examples shall be included in the proposal,” but there is no mention in either paragraph of actual Business Intelligence tools. Does demonstrated experience with actual BI tools demonstrate proficiency?

See similar Q&A (9) above, I believe this answer should be the same.

Sections L and M, paragraph 3.2.2.1 refers to leveraging “DoD High Performance Computing Centers.” Does this refer exclusively to the HPC Centers at the DoD HPCMP (https://centers.hpc.mil) or is the requirement satisfied by leveraging, operating, and maintaining an HPC center that is owned by other agencies?

Capabilities must meet DoD HPC compliance to enable Network connectivity, processing and licensing criteria. HPC should not be a proprietary or closed system.

Can we add a cover sheet, acronym list, and/or Source Selection Sensitive/Proprietary labels to the Proposal Response Guide?

Additional pages cannot be added to the proposal response guide submission

In attachment 4, page two paragraph 2 (under M-3.0…) it says "The offeror shall provide recent/relevant experience in at least one area of Subfactor B.”

We had planned on primarily proposing against M-3.2.1 TECHNICAL: ARMAMENT/WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT and perhaps M-3.2.2 ENTERPRISE ANALYTICS, but not the innovation hub.

The proposal template (attachment 5) dictates 4 pages for Armament/Weapons Development, 2 pages for Enterprise Analytics, and 3 pages for Innovation Hub.

The question is, must we propose all three areas? If we only propose the first two, can we use the 3 pages dedicated for Innovation Hub for the others?

You can submit on whatever technical factor your company falls into. However, you are not allowed use pages dedicated to the other techincal factors to discuss a factor for which the page limit has been reached.

We are in the process of teaming and subcontracting discussions.

Would you be able to share the current prime contractors and there POC information?

That information will be provided as an additional attachment to the RFP.

XXX does not have the NAICS code being used for this vehicle.

Will the contracting officer consider adding a NAICS code, or because this is an on-ramp for an existing vehicle is that not allowed by the FAR? If FAR allows contracting to add an additional NAICS code, we request that they use 541611 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting. It is our belief this will further widen your aperture and likely significantly increase the number of companies that can potentially participate on this vehicle. We respectfully request that you encourage, if allowed by the FAR, contracting to add this NAICS code and we would be very interested in participating in the on-ramp process.

This is an on-ramp for an existing vehicle and a change in NAICS code is not allowed by the

FAR.

In the EWAAC Statement of Objectives, Rev 2, dated 15 Dec 2022, in paragraph 6.4.1 and 6.4.1.1 it states, “The contractor will provide … A developmental ops environment that is ICD 705 compliant and accredited located in the greater Okaloosa County area locality, within 10 miles of Eglin Air Force Base, FL.” Can the Government clarify if all EWACC On-Ramp 2 offerors must have a facility within 10 miles of Eglin AFB to be awarded the EWAAC On-Ramp 2, or will this be a task order issued subsequently awarded to a single offeror?

Multiple opportunities exist with schedule of available capability being of highest concern.

17 Section M-3.2.3 INNOVATION HUB, states that the "Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this category by demonstrating competence in three (3) of the four (4) categories below." The categories are M-3.2.3.1 DEVELOPMENTAL [OPS]

ENVIRONMENT, M-3.2.3.2 INTEGRATED HARDWARE,

SOFTWARE, AND NETWORK SERVICES, M-3.2.3.3

SOFTWARE LICENSE MANAGEMENT, and M-3.2.3.4

INTEGRATED AND CONFIGURABLE TECH LABS

SUPPORTING DOD MISSION-SETS. Does the Government consider "A developmental ops environment ... within 10 miles of Eglin Air Force Base" to be optional for this solicitation? If yes, then is a response required for that category?

The technical team is still evaluating the answer to this question and will provide one as soon as possible.

Section L, Subsection L-3.2.3 SUBFACTOR B-3 describes the requirement for an "INNOVATION HUB." Section verbiage includes that "The innovation hub will serve as a location and/or physical place..." and "The contractor will accomplish all...actions to operate the Innovation Hub." Is this requirement similar to, or exact as, the L-3.2.3.1 SUBFACTOR B-3-1:

DEVELOPMENTAL [OPS] ENVIRONMENT requirement?

Can the Government please clarify any differences between the two? Can the Government answer whether the "Innovation Hub" needs to be located near Eglin AFB or can be located at the contractor's facility?

The innovation hub could also be identified as a "sandbox" capability which includes multi-level security networks in a multi-use space for daily and special use events. The location is intended to be within 10 miles of Eglin AFB. The Developmental Operations Environment is intended to serve as daily program use space, with prescribed ICD705 operations to meet OI requirements.

With reference to EWAAC Attach. 3, Section L-2.4.2:

Can you confirm: An OCI mitigation plan is NOT required if NO existing or potential conflicts are identified?

The OCI mitigation plan is requried for all offerors intending to propose for EWAAC and is not for just active/perceived OCIs. The plan is required to show how the company will address any potential OCI, present or future.

Att 3, Sec L, para 2.2, pg 5: The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the SF 33 (to include clause fill-ins), Sections A through K.

Att 3, Sec L, para 2.4.1, pg 6: The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract, as well as Sections A through K.

Question: The solicitation currently asks for us to submit RFP Sections A-K in 2 places – Volume I: Section II (Contract Documents) and Section IV (Administrative Submissions). Please clarify in which Section of Volume I we should submit Att 3 L-

2.4.1 6 RFP Sections A-K.

The signed SF33 and the accompanying Section A-K should be included in Volume I, Section II.

No additional model contract is needed in Section IV

21 Att 3, Sec L, para 2.2, pg 5: The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the SF 33 (to include clause fill-ins), Sections A through K.

Att 3, Sec L, para 2.4.1, pg 6: The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract, as well as Sections A through K.

Att 3, Sec L, para 2.4.3, pg 7: Offeror shall ensure all required representations and certifications have been filled-in/completed and are provided in their proposal.

Question: The solicitation currently asks for us to submit RFP Section K (which are the Reps and Certs) in 3 places within Volume I: Section II (Contract Documents); Section IV (Administrative Submissions); and Section IV (Reps&Certs).

Please clarify in which Section of Volume I we should submit RFP Section K/Reps & Certs

Sections A-K of the SF33 must be completed.

The reps and certs requirement mentioned in Section IV can be satisfied with a statement that "The Reps and Certs were completed in the SF33". A second copy of the model contract is not required to be published in Section IV.

Att 3, Sec L, para 6.0, pg 13-14:

a. Authorized Offeror Personnel: Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

b. Offerors shall identify in the Proposal Response Guide any subsidiary, parent company, or teaming relationships.

c. Government Offices: Provide the name, mailing address, telephone and fax numbers and facility codes for the cognizant Contract Administration Office, DCAA, DCMA Administrating Contracting Officer, and Government Paying Office. Also, provide the name and telephone and fax number for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).

d. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations: Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; UEI code; TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information shall be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s).

Question: The PRG template does not have enough room in the designated “Other Information” box to provide all the “Other Information” as required by L-6.0. Should we provide this data within our own contractor formatted document to report the required “Other Information”?

Offerors can ignore the need to identify teaming arrangements and subsidiaries as this is information that is no longer required and should have been deleted from this document. Offerors will still need to identify if they themselves are business units of a larger corporation.

Information in Section 6.0(d) already has designated spots to input the information on the

PRG.

Att 3, Sec L-2.2(a), pg 5: Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

Question: Concerning the requirement to input “the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP,” the only proposed price would be the $1000 required for the Staffing Proposal: Post-award conference, correct? In which line item of Section B of the RFP are we supposed to input this price? Are we expected to input any other prices (like contract ceilings) in any of the other contract line items in Section B?

The staffing proposal estimate is only to be reported on the template provided.

Att 3, Sec L-3.2, pg 9: The offeror shall provide recent/relevant experience in performing technical work under paragraph M-3.2.

Experience shall meet a recency period of within the past five years from the proposal due date.

Question: Are we required to provide specific contract information (e.g., specific contract details like contract number, PoP, Gov’t/Customer information) to prove our recent/relevant experience is “within the past five years from the proposal due date”, or is it enough to generically reference and discuss the experience?

Specific contract information is not required

25 Quick question regarding a compliant proposal. Will an entity be considered compliant if they submit a response against each of the Subfactor A elements and only one Subfactor B element? An example of this is that XXX submits against Subfactor B-1 and not against Subfactor B-3.

An entitity is not required to submit against all subfactors

For the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, does the EWAAC team expect specific small business partners to be identified and their contributions clearly described, or should the Small Business plan be more of a description of our process for teaming with small businesses, and then specific effort breakdown between us an our small business partners are to be provided on our responses to any Task Orders?

What you are referring to is called a SB Participation Plan. For LPTA, a SB Participation Plan is not required. A SB Participation Plan is separate from a SB Subcontracting Plan. For this effort, companies that are "other than small" will submit one SB Subcontracting Plan for the entire IDIQ with goals that will carry throughout the entire contract per FAR 19.705-2 (e). You wiil not provide a separate plan for each TO. We suggest using the DoD subcontracting goals as listed. If the DoD goals are unobtainable, you need to give us your own goals for the IDIQ and specify why you can't make the DoD goals. You will ensure your goals are met by the end of the IDIQ period.

27 I recognize that the EWAAC’s name implies Eglin, but what is the scope of potential users for the contract? Will organizations outside of Eglin have the ability to leverage this IDIQ?

Organizations outside of Eglin may use EWAAC as long as the requirement is in support of the Air Force Weapons PEO's mission

Section L-1.3 a. Proposal organization states that “the titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table….”. The Volume titles provided in the table include both Volume I Executive Proposal and Volume II Factor I: Management/ Technical Proficiency. However, the Government is requesting we provide these sections via the Proposal Response Guide. Should we provide two copies of the response guide – one labeled as Volume I and one labeled as Volume II? Or does the Government prefer a single Proposal Response Guide submission?

Table L-1.3 identifies which areas are to be completed in the PRG, and which areas are to be written, but submitted seperately or placed in the provided excel template.

29 Section L-1.3 d. states that “Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and be contained within the page limits set forth in Table L-1.3. If volumes I and II are both to be submitted together in a single Proposal Response Guide submission – will one glossary suffice for both volumes?

Volume I and Volume II consist of both responses in the PRG and written, submitted seperately. A glossery is required for both sections independently, and must adhere to the established page limits.

Section L-1.3 d. states that “Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and be contained within the page limits set forth in Table L-1.3. Will the Government exempt the glossary from the page count to allow contractors space to address the technical requirement?

The glossary will not be exempt from the page count

31 Section L-1.4 a. states “Offerors shall not deviate from the format of the templates provided and shall not exceed page limits set forth in Table L-1.3.” May offerors update the headers and footers to include company name, volume information, and proprietary markings?

no changes should be made to any part of the templates including headers, footers, company name, volume information, and proprietary markings.

Section L-1.4 b. requests offerors “Identify the following data on the submission in space provided in Volume I: RFP # FA8656-21- R-0095, Government Address, disclosure statement, and company name.” Should this information be included in the Volume I section of the Proposal Response Guide under “Other Information.”? Also, the Solicitation number provided in this instruction appears to be incorrect.

These are instructions for the submission of the file in DoD Safe

33 Section L-3.2 Subfactor B: Technical and M-3.2 Subfactor B:

Technical, and the Proposal Response Guide Subfactor B: Technical.

Section L requests offerors “demonstrate a complete understanding of SOO paragraph 6.0. Responses will be evaluated against Section M-3.2 Subfactor B: Technical. Offeror shall provide, as specifically as possible, the actual methodology to be used for technical work described in Subfactor B. The evaluation criteria are reflected in Section M. The offeror shall provide recent/relevant experience in performing technical work under paragraph M-3.2. Experience shall meet a recency period of within the past five years from the proposal due date. Each experience example shall relate to an entity (e.g. prime, subcontractor, etc.) that the contractor proposes to perform in relation to the work element outlined in the SOO. This information shall be reflected in the written submission.” Section M states “This sub factor evaluates the offeror’s management approach to meet the technical requirements of the Statement of Objectives (SOO). Offeror responses shall be evaluated relative to the offeror’s knowledge and ability to address all facets of the technical requirements listed in this section The proposals shall be evaluated against Subfactor B. Offerors shall describe their direct (organic, in-house, or subcontracted) capability to perform technical functions associated with technical areas listed in section M 3.2.” The Proposal Response Guide states: “Offerors shall use space provided below to demonstrate management approach to meeting the technical requirements of the Statement of Objectives and in accordance with Section M, paragraph 3.2. Offerors shall provide evidence of technical approaches, recent/relevant expertise, direct (organic, inhouse, or subcontracted) capabilities, qualifications, key personnel and facilities, or other examples which show knowledge and ability to deliver or support technical requirements ”

The Government is requesting that you please provide the actual methodology to be used for technical work described in Subfactor B. The offeror shall provide recent/relevant experience in performing technical work under paragraph M-

3.2. Experience shall meet a recency period of

within the past five years from the proposal due date. Each experience example shall relate to an entity (e.g. prime, subcontractor, etc.) that the contractor proposes to perform in relation to the work element outlined in the SOO. Offerors shall provide evidence of technical approaches, recent/relevant expertise, direct (organic, inhouse, or subcontracted) capabilities, qualifications, key personnel and facilities, or other examples which show knowledge and ability to deliver or support technical requirements. This all together is considered your "management approach"

In Section L-3.2.3 SUBFACTOR B-3: INNOVATION HUB, the solicitation refers to a physical location for collaborative efforts in support of the PWS. The section includes the statement “The contractor will accomplish all acquisition/procurement, program management, and systems engineering actions to operate the Innovation Hub.” In Section L-3.2.3.1 SUBFACTOR B-3-1:

DEVELOPMENTAL [OPS] ENVIRONMENT, the example of “A developmental ops environment that is ICD 705 compliant and accredited located in the greater Okaloosa County area locality, within 10 miles of Eglin Air Force Base, FL” is provided. Section M-3.2.3 INNOVATION HUB, however, states that the “Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this category by demonstrating competence in three (3) of the four (4) categories below.” Section M-3.2.3.1 DEVELOPMENTAL [OPS] ENVIRONMENT also mentions “A developmental ops environment that is ICD 705 compliant and accredited located in the greater Okaloosa County area locality, within 10 miles of Eglin Air Force Base, FL.”

Does the Government consider the INNOVATION HUB and the DEVELOPMENTAL (OPS) ENVIRONMENT to be the same facility?

Does the Government have a requirement for respondents to own/lease a local facility to support the EWAAC contract operations?

Does not having a local facility near Eglin prevent selection for

EWAAC?

Developmental Ops Environment is a daily use space to meet an OI acquisition program requirement, it is the enabler to meet the SECAF ICD705 compliant acquisitions. The Innovation Hub is a sub-space that is also ICD705 compliant, but enables multi-level networks to display within a single space for decision making events / progress reports / acquisition milestones. Government expects respondents to make any necessary arrangement for lease/ownership off Eglin property, other considerations are being worked to offer Eglin site as an option for reduced risk to respondents.

35 Regarding model based engineering and digital enterprise future roadmaps for EWAAC, has the government selected the MBE digital tools or the specific digital environment that it prefers to utilize as was done by AFRL in the solicitation referenced document?

The Government has not selected a single digital tool at this time and one has not been identified for EWAAC due to its decentralized nature.

36 Will the Government consider a 3-week proposal due date extension, beyond the current due date of 1/24/2023?

An extension is not allowable at this time due to a hard mission-driven deadline.

37 We respectfully request a 10 day extension to more thoroughly produce and scrutinize a response proposal for EWAAC

FA865623RA002.

An extension is not allowable at this time due to a hard mission-driven deadline.

38 We’d really appreciate having until 0800 Monday the 30th.

An extension is not allowable at this time due to a hard mission-driven deadline.

39 Is the contractor able to map back to existing rates (i.e. open market rates, GSA negotiated labor categories and rates, etc.)?

This question is not clear

40 Is the contractor able to establish new labor categories/rates for this IDIQ? If so, is a labor build up required?

There is no establishment of labor categories at the base IDIQ level.

41 Will labor categories outside of those proposed for the conference be allowed to be proposed for subsequent delivery orders/efforts?

Labor categories, if applicable or allowable, will be determined by the PCO at the delivery order level.

Given that this is an LPTA opportunity, and provided that every contractor’s price will need to equal $1,000 exactly, how is an LPTA determination going to be made?

The $1,000 PAC will be determined fair and reasonable as this was the amount awarded to all previous EWAAC IDIQ contracts issued.

43 Section L of the solicitation indicates that awards will not be used for Advisory and Assistance (A&AS) requirements. However, Eglin-H099 in Section H indicates that A&AS may be involved.

Will resulting awards prohibit their use for A&AS requirements?

EWAAC awards shall not be made for A&AS services.

44 Will awardees be expected to provide systems engineering, technical direction, or evaluation for third-party solutions?

This is not an answer that can be made at the base IDIQ level and will vary on a DO to DO basis.

45 Will awardees be expected to establish specifications or work statements for future competitive procurements?

This is not an answer that can be made at the base IDIQ level and will vary on a DO to DO basis.

Section 7.3 of the Statement of Objectives indicates that the Government intends to “own” data for the majority of task and delivery orders under resulting awards. Will the Government instead be willing to accept rights that would apply under DFARS 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014, or a specially negotiated license to the extent required under 10 U.S.C. § 3774(c), given that a request for ownership is inconsistent with 10 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(8)?

This is not an answer that can be made at the base IDIQ level and will vary on a DO to DO basis.

Can the Government confirm that DFARS 252.227-7020 will be removed from the solicitation? A license to data generated in performance should be sufficient instead of assignment of ownership.

The Government intends to award without discussions, and does not intend to remove any clauses from the base IDIQ. Discussions of data rights can be had at the DO level with the responsible PCO

Will the Government accept a government purpose rights license in data in lieu of full ownership rights, which could otherwise prevent a contractor from using data in continued development?

Discussions of data rights can be had at the DO level with the responsible PCO

49 Can the Government confirm that FAR 52.207-1 will be removed from the solicitation? It does not appear that a public-private competition under OMB Circular A-76 would be permitted for this requirement.

The Government intends to award without discussions, and does not intend to remove any clauses from the base IDIQ.

Consistent with the December 20, 2021 FAQ for the last EWAAC on-ramp solicitation, will providing a single sentence confirming that an offeror meets the standards in DFARS 252.242-7006 be sufficient satisfy Section L.4.1.1.b of the instructions even if a federal agency has not previously determined that an offeror’s accounting system is acceptable?

This is correct.

51 Page 1 of Attachment 3 indicates that a DO rating will apply under the Defense Production Act while pages 1 and 80 of Attachment 1 indicate that no rating will apply. Will a rating apply under the Defense Production Act at the IDIQ level?

A rating will not apply at the IDIQ level

Table 1