CyOFTS III FA8773-25-R-0002 Q_A dated 10 July 2025.xlsx

Q&A

Given the detailed breakdown already required in the solicitation (e.g., portion of effort, signed teaming commitments, and supporting documentation), we believe an aggregate assessment would:

We further request consideration to align the aggregate total contract value threshold with the expected ceiling value of the CyOFTS III IDIQ, rather than requiring a single reference to exceed $50M. This would allow small business teams to demonstrate relevant experience at the programmatic scale expected as well as the scope and complexity The Government confirms that the Government will evaluate contracts IAW the RFP and its attachments. The Government recommends full review of Section M for full context and understanding of Factor 2, specifically as it relates to how the Government will evaluate for relevancy.

Specifically in regards to the Government's Relevancy Assessment, Section M in 2.3.2.2 includes the note for magnitude which states "NOTE: Past Performance efforts that are valued less than $50M for total contract value will be determined not relevant, and therefore, will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation." As a result, if a recent contract does not meet the magnitude requirement, the Government will not further evaluate the contract either individually or on an aggregate basis IAW Section M.

For additional clarification, the Government confirms Section M states in 2.3.2 "The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis." Additionally, 2.3.2.2 states in part "Relevancy will be rated at the total contract level for each PPI. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made, including JV partner(s) and subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for the individual contract references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on the previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort."

Based on the criteria in Section M, for each PPIF submitted that meets the recency and magnitude criteria, the Government will provide a relevancy rating based on how similar the submitted contract compares to the criteria of scope, magnitude, complexity and Price (contract type) for the CyOFTS III requirement. The Government will also review those PPIFs aggregately as well. For example, while a single PPIF may not demonstrate all aspects of relevancy, the Offeror may have submitted another PPIF that demonstrated performance on those missing areas of the first PPIF, and based on an aggregate review of both contracts, the Offeror could possibly demonstrate all areas of relevancy between the two contracts submitted. This type of aggregate review of all the contracts will be done as the Government determines what overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating should be assigned. Any areas of missing relevancy that remain after the aggregate review of all the contracts will be documented as a potential trade off consideration and could potentially impact the best value decision.

Therefore, in regards to how the Government will look at magnitude in the aggregate, as described above, the Government will consider if any of the PPIFs submitted by the offeror demonstrated magnitude requirements similar to the CyOFTS III requirement. If an offeror submitted multiple contracts, but only one of the contracts met the $50M magnitude criteria, the Government would document contracts that do not meet the $50M criteria to be not relevant, and therefore, will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation IAW Section M, 2.3.2.2 note.

While there are several questions throughout this Q&A that pose scenario or hypothetical type questions for the Government's response, the Government will not provide answers to these types of questions as the Government will conduct its evaluations IAW the RFP and its attachments based on the information provided within offerors' proposal submissions. Offerors are encouraged to provide detailed proposals that comply with the Government's RFP and its attachments.

2 General RFP Questions We kindly request your assistance in providing clarification on the following Questions:

1. Can you please provide Incumbent details.

2. Can you please provide contract value

3. Are subcontractors also required to hold a security clearance?

4. Is this a single-award contract, or will it involve multiple awardees? For questions 1 and 2, Tyonek Technical Services LLC, of Madison, Alabama is the current contractor for CyOFTS 2.75. Please see announcement https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/4081466 for the direct award of FA8773-25-C-0001 for CyOFTS 2.75.

For question 3, please review sam.gov for the FA8773-25-R-0002 solicitation and all attachments to ensure full understanding of the CyOFTS III requirement, to include requirements for the facility security clearance.

For question 4, as stated on solicitation FA8773-25-R-0002 page 3 and also Section L, paragraph 1.1.2, the Government plans to award a single Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract as a result of this competitive 8(a) solicitation.

3 PWS The PWS update provided on 20 May includes a 32 MB file that is unreadable – which makes thorough analysis very difficult. Although I was able to get Adobe to recognize text in the file, it can make errors, and it creates an even larger file (over 48MB after processing). Can you provide a new file that is readable to ensure nothing is lost in the translation to readable text? The original PWS provided was 3.2 MB. I was able to rotate the pages to landscape in the original file, but Table C.1 starting on page 101 is an image even in the original PWS. Can that be provided in a readable format? The Government has been unable to determine the reason for change in file size of the PWS from the 19 May to 20 May uploads. However, the Government provides the following instructions to ensure the document is readable and searchable.

1.Download a copy of Attachment 1 - CyOFTS III PWS 19May25 from the FA8773-25-R-0002 20 May 2025 sam.gov posting.

2. Once downloaded, a message at the top of the document will state "A scanned document has been identified, Scan & OCR tool can turn scans or images into editable PDFs." The message will also include an option to "Get Started" on the right of the document. Offerors can select "Get Started" and complete the prompts that follow. Once completed, the document should be fully readable and searchable.

3. If that message as described in 2. above at the top of the document does not appear, go to the "All Tools" tab and select the option that is "Scan & OCR" and follow the prompts that follow. Once completed, the document should be fully readable and searchable.

The Government was able to confirm that after the "Scan & OCR" function is completed, the document is searchable and readable, to include text within Table C.1.

4 To assemble the best team and allow sufficient time for the customer to complete the PPQ, we kindly request a two-week extension for the PPQ submission deadline. The Government refers offerors to review Section L, paragraph 4.2.2. which states:

"As soon as practicable, offerors shall complete Section 1 of the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 1.2) and e-mail it and the Performance Questionnaire Letter (Attachment 1.3) to all points of contacts (POCs) the Offeror has listed in the Past Performance Information Form (Attachment 1.1). The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them directly to the CO (Attn: Melissa Mitchell and Melissa Blair). E-mail addresses for questionnaires are melissa.mitchell.7@us.af.mil and melissa.blair.2@us.af.mil. RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEETS BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Offerors shall not follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. The PPET will conduct such follow-up with any POC as necessary."

Based on the above information, the Government provides further clarification that PPQs that have been submitted to any applicable POCs are not due at the same time as the Offeror's proposal submission. As stated above, the PPET will conduct any follow-ups with any POC, as necessary if it is not provided to the Government. As a result, an extension will not be executed.

Specifically, the Government has streamlined Subfactor 1 to reference the Top Secret (TS) Facility Clearance (FCL) to be included as part of the evaluation for this acquisition. The Government has also removed the requirement to include a screenshot from NISS. Additionally, the Government has excluded subparagraphs iii-vi from the page count requirements of the Technical Volume. All other remaining criteria in Subfactor 1 will remain included in the 25 page limit page count. Please review the final version of Section L and M for all updates.

7 RFQ L 4.3. Relevant Contracts and M.2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment: For 8(a) Mentor Protégé Joint Venture firms, how will the 8(a) protégé firm past performance references be evaluated in light of 13 CFR § 124.513(f) which stipulates that a procuring agency may not require the 8(a) Participant (protégé) to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as other offerors generally? The Government has reviewed the referenced information and would like to provide further clarification regarding the Government’s intent to evaluate joint venture team members, to include 8(a) protégé members, in compliance with SBA’s rules. The SBA recognizes the small business mentor-protégé joint venture program is designed to enhance the capability of protégé firms by requiring approved mentors to provide business development assistance to protege firms and to improve the protégé firms' ability to successfully compete for federal contracts. Additionally, mentors are encouraged to provide assistance relating to the performance of contracts set aside or reserved for small business so that protégé firms may more fully develop their capabilities. See 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(a). Specifically, 13 CFR § 124.513(f) describes that a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Additionally, a procuring activity may not require the 8(a) Participant to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. Ultimately, the partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract. In 13 CFR § 124.513(a)(2) the SBA concludes that in instances where an 8(a) Participant brings very little to the joint venture relationship in terms of resources and expertise other than its 8(a) status, the SBA will not approve the joint venture to receive an 8(a) sole source contract award and will find the joint venture to be ineligible for a competitive 8(a) award if it is determined to be the apparent successful offeror. Therefore, it is reasonable for agencies to expect protégé firms to have some experience in the type of work to be performed under the contract. Therefore, the protégé must bring something to the table other than its size or socioeconomic status. 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e) confirms that a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Further, in 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e) the procuring activity has discretion whether to require a protégé or lead small business member of a joint venture to demonstrate some level of past performance and/or experience. The Government recommends offerors to review all required regulations to ensure full compliance.

The Government has reviewed FA8773-25-R-0002 CyOFTS III's Section L and M paragraphs related to Relevancy and has determined its instructions and evaluation criteria to be in compliance with SBA regulations. Specifically, in regard to how the Government will evaluate relevant contracts for CyOFTS III, Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.2 states in part "A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made, including JV partner(s) and subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for the individual contract references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on the previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort." The Government recommends review of paragraph 2.3.2.2 for full context.

8 Attachment 6 Section M M.2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Management Staffing Plan Paragraph 2.2.2.a.i states an acceptable organizational structure to include a completed CyOFTS III Labor Matrix that provides certified personnel resources, etc. Was it the government’s intent to provide an excel matrix(table) describing the CyOFTS III Labor Matrix for bidders to complete? Or are we to provide this Matrix (table) as part of Factor 1 Technical approach? If required to be part of Factor 1 technical approach, will the government remove the labor matrix from the page count? No, the Government does not prescribe a specific template or format for the CyOFTS III Labor Matrix.

The Offeror shall provide the CyOFTS III Labor Matrix as part of Factor 1, Subfactor 2, Management Plan/Staffing Plan, IAW 3.1.2.2.a.i. The page limitations outlined in Section L, paragraph 2.3.5 apply.

No, the Government does not intend to change the page count.. Per Sec L Table 1, there are certain page limitations as described, however Table 1 also depicts the usage of para. 2.4.2 which is unlimited page count.

The government acknowledges the error and has made corrections to Sec L, Sec M, and PWS references.

Additionally, in regards to how the Government will evaluate subcontractor's past performance, as stated in part in Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.2 "A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made, including JV partner(s) and subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for the individual contract references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on the previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort." The Government recommends review of paragraph 2.3.2.2 for full context.

In reference to Table 1, the Government can confirm that it correctly requires offerors to provide the Price Matrix in both the Price and Contract Documentation Volumes. As part of the contract award process, the Government will attach the successful awardee's Price Matrix to the future award/contract. Therefore, it is required to be submitted as part of the Contract Documentation Volume, separate from the Price Volume.

In reference to paragraph 5.1.5. the Government recommends review of the paragraph in full to obtain complete context and understanding. Specifically, the first sentence describes this set of instructions pertains to additional pricing data/information that is beyond what is required by the instruction. It further describes that this additional pricing data/information shall not be submitted unless an offeror considers it essential to document or support its proposed price and shall not to be provided in any volume except the Pricing Volume.

The Government would also direct review of Section L paragraph 2.3.6. Pricing Information which states "The price volume shall not include information beyond that required by this instruction unless the Offeror considers it essential to document or support Offeror’s price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in this part or assumptions of the proposal. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included in the Technical or Past Performance volumes." As paragraph 2.3.6 directly prohibits any pricing information being included in the Technical or Past Performance volumes, it makes no such reference or prohibition for the Contract Documentation Volume. Additionally, Section L paragraph 6.1.2. Supplies or Services and Cost/Prices states "The Offeror shall provide a completed copy of the CyOFTS III Pricing Matrix utilized in the Pricing Volume within the Contracting Volume. The pricing provided in the CyOFTS III Pricing Matrix for the Contracting Volume copy must match those proposed in the Offeror’s CyOFTS III Pricing Matrix for the Price Volume."

Therefore, the requirement for the Price Matrix to be included in both the Price and Contract Documentation Volumes remains unchanged and without discrepancy.

28 Attachment 5, Section L Table 1 - Proposal Organization, 3.1.2.1. Subfactor 1 – Facility Security Clearance, 4.3.3, 6.1.5 - page 6 Copies of the JV Agreement are requested in Volumes 1, 2, and 4, including a page limited section in Volume 1, Subfactor 1. Would it be acceptable to include the JV agreement in Volume IV CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION, and reference that volume and section in the Technical/Past Performance Volumes? Please review question and answer to #14 above, which includes detailed explanation of the requirements for the JV Agreements to be included in the Technical and Contract Documentation Volumes.

The Government confirms that Section L paragraph 4.3.3 also require separate copies of the JV agreements in the respective Past Performance Volume as they will be evaluated as part of past performance evaluation provided that sufficient documentation is included in the proposal. As stated in 4.3.3, if the required information is not included in the proposal, the joint venture companies shall not be evaluated or considered. Based on the above, joint venture agreements are required in each volume as described for different evaluation purposes and shall not be cross-reference between volumes.

29 Attachment 5, Section L, Attachment 1 CyOFTS III PWS 3.1.2.1 Subfactor 1 - Facility Security Clearance, PWS 7.1.2 - page 8 Subfactor 1 states "Top Secret (TS) /Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI) and Special Access Program (SAP) Access Facility Clearance (FCL) is required" and "...if the Offeror is an unpopulated JV and all members of the JV possess a Top Secret FCL..." The PWS also states "The contractor shall have an active Top Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) before the proposal package due date" Please clarify this discrepancy in the instructions. Section L and M have been updated to clearly describe that a Top Secret (TS) Facility Clearance (FCL) is required for this acquisition IAW the DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification (RFP Attachment 2) without additional authorization (i.e. National Interest Determination (NID)).

While Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI) and Special Access Program (SAP) Access will remain as additional requirements within the DD Form 254, SCI and SAP will not be evaluated as part of Subfactor 1.

30 Attachment 5, Section L 3.1.2.2.a Subfactor 2 - Management Plan/Staffing Plan and PPIF Section J - page 10 L.3.1.2.2 states, "do not include employee names or resumes."

ITO Attachment 1.1 PPIF asks for employees to be named in section J: Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this evaluated program and are to support the proposed effort. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions."

Please clarify this discrepancy. Will the Government consider modifying the PPIF to exclude Section J? The Government has reviewed the referenced information and can confirm there is no discrepancy.

In reference to Section L, paragraph 3.1.2.2. Subfactor 2 - Management Plan/Staffing Plan subparagraph a. states "The offeror shall provide a Management Plan/Staffing Plan that explains how it will meet the requirements in the PWS and appendices. The approach shall meet the following criteria: (do not include employee names or resumes):" and provides further criteria in subparagraphs i-iii. The Government recommends full review of Subfactor 2 criteria to ensure complete context and understanding of the evaluation and how it will roll into the overall rating for Factor 1 Technical.

In reference to ITO Attachment 1.1, the PPIF requirement is related to the Factor 2 Past Performance evaluation. As described in Section L, paragraph 4.3.1. "The Offeror shall provide Past Performance Information (PPI) on current or previous contracts (or efforts). The PPI shall be completed in accordance with Section L ITO, Attachment 1.1, Past Performance Information Form (identified in this document as “PPIF”)." As shown on the PPIF Section J states "Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this evaluated program and are to support the proposed effort. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions." Section J on the PPIF is in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), which describes that evaluations should take into account past performance information regarding key personnel who have relevant experience when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

Based on the above information, the Government confirms there is no discrepancy as these are separate requirements required for separate evaluation criteria IAW Section L.

31 Attachment 1 CyOFTS III PWS 2.1.2 Transition: Fully Executed Contractor Transition Plan - page 15 There is ambiguity in the transition schedule requirement. PWS 2.1.2 states, "The contractor shall be able to meet a transition timeframe of no fewer than seven (7) calendar days and no more than sixty (60) days while minimizing disruption during the transition period and maintaining cost and schedule." It also states "While under no obligation, the Government plans to grant no less than a sixty (60) calendar day phase-in period after contract award (CA)." and "The length of the phase-in period will be at the discretion of the Government."

34 Attachment 1 CyOFTS III PWS Table C.1 - page 101 Are any of the certification requirements in Table C.1 new? The Government confirms that the certification requirements listed in Table C.1 are not new. Offerors are responsible for ensuring proposed personnel meet all certification requirements outlined in Table C.1 of the PWS.

Offeror may be asking in reference PWS sec. 2.9.1, "The Government will not reimburse the contractor for professional training and the maintenance of certifications, except where the requirement is new and government directed." The Government clarifies that PWS 2.9.1 is in reference to new certifications post-award during performance.

35 ITO Attachment 1.1 PPIF ITO Attachment 1.2 PPQ Section L - page 20 ITO Attachments 1.1 and 1.2 are unfillable forms with long-form question spaces too short for reasonable answers.

How does the Government want Offerors to use these forms? Will the Government provide new versions that are fillable? The Government will provide to sam.gov an editable Word version of Section L Attachments 1.1 and 1.2.

Offerors are not required to resubmit the PPQs to the customers that have already been provided a previous version of the PPQ (in PDF form, or converted from PDF to editable Word Version). The Government will accept either version of the PPQ.

36 Attachment 5, Section L

ITO Attachment 1.1 PPIF L.4.3 Relevant Contracts - page 11 L.4.3 states, “Request each offeror submit up to five (5) PPIFs for the prime contractor, and up to three (3) PPIFs for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner. . . . NOTE: The requested number of PPIFs for the prime and subcontractors are preferences and not requirements. Offerors may submit more than the preferred number if the Offeror believes the extra contracts are needed to fully describe their relevancy.”

ITO Attachment 1.1 Past Performance Information Form states, “Request each offeror submit up to five (5) PPIFs for the prime contractor, and up to three (3) PPIFs for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner.”

Please clarify the maximum number of PPIFs Offerors may submit. The Government confirms that paragraph 4.1.3 from Section L states in part "Request each offeror submit up to five (5) PPIFs for the prime contractor, and up to three (3) PPIFs for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner. Significant subcontractor is defined as a contractor who is proposed to perform over 5% of the total effort, or a contractor who is proposed to perform less than 5% of the total effort, but is determined to be performing a critical function. NOTE: The requested number of PPIFs for the prime and subcontractors are preferences and not requirements. Offerors may submit more than the preferred number if the Offeror believes the extra contracts are needed to fully describe their relevancy. Offerors who submit fewer than the preferred number of PPIFs are not automatically assigned a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Fewer numbers may be acceptable, if the Government determines there is sufficient information to determine a confidence rating. Request each PPIF not exceed a target of eight (8) pages, although more or fewer may be submitted, if necessary and relevant to the CyOFTS III Program."

The Government confirms that the number of PPIFs to be submitted for the prime and for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner are requests/preferences, not hard requirements. As explained in the note in paragraph 4.1.3, the Government is allowing the offeror to use its discretion to determine the number of PPIF required to fully explain its relevancy as it relates to the CyOFTS III acquisition. Therefore, as described above, it could mean an offeror may submit more or fewer PPIF than requested. Ultimately, the Government intends Offerors to provide its most relevant information. As explained in the note, Offerors who submit fewer than the preferred number of PPIF are not automatically assigned a "Neutral Confidence" rating. As a result, a maximum number of PPIFs is not included in this criteria.

37 Attachment 6, Section M M.2.3.2.2 Past Performance Relevancy - Page 7 M.2.3.2.2 states “Past Performance efforts that are valued less than $50M for total contract value will be determined not relevant, and therefore, will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation.”

Given that subcontractors or teaming partners may have performed a small portion (e.g., 5% or less) of a larger contract, would the Government consider allowing the evaluation of subcontractor past performance under $50M contract value as relevant? This approach would enable subcontractors with highly relevant experience to demonstrate their capabilities on contracts with a lower total contract value. As stated in Section M, 2.3.2.2 "A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made, including JV partner(s) and subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for the individual contract references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on the previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort."

Additionally, the Government reminds offerors that Section L, 4.3.1 states in part "Significant subcontractor is defined as a contractor who is proposed to perform over 5% of the total effort, or a contractor who is proposed to perform less than 5% of the total effort, but is determined to be performing a critical function." Therefore, contractor and/or their teaming partners that are proposed to do less than 5% will not be evaluated, with the exception that the contractor/teaming partner is determined to be performing a critical function that is less than 5%.

38 Attachment 6, Section M M.2.3.2.2 Past Performance Relevancy - Page 7 M.2.3.2.2 states “Past Performance efforts that are valued less than $50M for total contract value will be determined not relevant, and therefore, will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation.”

The Government provides further clarification to the narrative provided in paragraph 2.4.2. This acquisition will require all proposal documentation to be submitted electronically, the parameters for tables, charts, graphs and/or figures are described in paragraph 2.4.2. For example, as described, the display of any table, chart, graph and/or figure shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Additionally, for any text intended for evaluation within the provided figures, charts, tables, and graphs, to include imbedded images, shall be no less than Arial 8 point. In instances where the provided figures, charts, tables, and graphs, do not meet this criteria, that information will not be considered in the evaluation. While paragraph 2.4.2 also describes what it considers to be a page, Table 1 clearly identifies that Tables, Charts, Graphs and Figures as having an unlimited page count.

40 Attachment 4, Pricing Matrix Attachment 5, Section L L.5.1.4 Tab 9 L.5.1.4 page 14 L.5.1.4. Price Realism states, “For the purposes of comparability within this evaluation, the direct labor base rates proposed by all offerors should be the annual salary divided by 1,872 hours.”

Typically, hourly rates are derived by dividing an annual salary by 2,080 hours (52 weeks X 40 hours/week), as that accounts for all hours paid inclusive of both productive and non-productive hours. As we understand , 1,872 reflects the productive hours, which does not include time paid for holidays and leave.

This reference contradicts Section L-3.1.2.1.a. This offeror believes the error is in Section L. Please review these references and clarify requirements for FCL. Please review question and answer to #29 above, which describes the updated requirements for Subfactor 1 TS FCL. Additionally, #29 describes the exclusion of SCI/SAP from Subfactor 1 criteria.