HADES DRFP Questions First and Second Round-GovermentResponse_05May2026.xlsx

SecondDraftQuestions

They will be local Government personnel, attached to the organization. Which individuals are assigned as performance monitors will evolve over the course of the contract and potentially over the course of the task order.

Award Fee Plan Completeness, Clarity, and Understanding The draft Award Fee Plan is well-structured and transparent. The 4 evaluation categories and point allocation are easy to understand.

Recommendation for improvement: Add a specific sub-metric under the “Innovation & Technical Excellence” or “Cost Control” category:

. “Demonstrated reduction in sustainment costs through predictive analytics or AI-driven maintenance (measured by predicted vs. actual failure rates and O&M savings).” This would directly incentivize the innovative solutions the program seeks and align with the stated goal of “reducing operations and maintenance costs through hybrid architectures and automation.”

Our FracAdapt dashboard already provides real-time fleet health, terrain intelligence, and component wear forecasts — exactly the type of innovation that could earn award fee under this

It is expected that issues leading up to the award fee board are identified and discussed between the Government team and contractor team and resolved if possible. The contractor will still have an opportunity during the award fee board to present for 30 minutes.

Award Fee Plan 3.8 In an effort to further incentivize contractor performance, will the Government please consider modifying the Award Fee Plan to include the opportunity and ability, at the Government's discretion, to disposition unearned award fee to special emphasis areas or subsequent award fee evaluation periods?

With other U.S. Government customers, we have seen successful implementation of dispositioning and repurposing unearned award fee. Sample Disposition of Unearned Award Fee language from other current U.S. Government award fee plans states" Redistribution of unearned award fee shall remain a unilateral decision of the FDO. At the discretion of the FDO, all or any portion of the unearned award fee may be (1) de-obligated and removed from further consideration of payment under the terms of the contract and this fee plan, thereby reducing contract value; or (2) be reserved for future application to special milestone incentive(s) related to exceeding overall contract performance objectives following contract completion. Any fee available for earning in this manner may not be provisionally billed and must be funded from then current appropriations at the time of final determination. The adjudication for any special emphasis milestone(s) shall be accomplished concurrently with the determination for the final award fee period. Under no circumstances can the contractor be allowed to earn total fees greater than the negotiated contract maximum fee. Any unearned award fee that has not been otherwise allocated to special emphasis milestone incentives per the terms of this paragraph at the end of the final award fee period shall be de-obligated and removed from the terms of the contract."

Would the Government please consider rolling up security evaluation criteria under Area A: Management, as well as remove the language "may be reduced up to 100% of the earned award fee" and replace with more constructive language (i.e. sample language below)? This not only incentives Contractors to ensure security awareness and compliance is at attention at all times, but gives Contractors an opportunity to improve and emphasis security performance during execution.

Sample language: Demonstrated compliance with all security requirements as identified in the DD254. Proactively fosters awareness at all levels to ensure no security violations. Ensures strict adherence to security procedures and requirements. *You can then establish evaluation thresholds on compliance to determine each grade (i.e. Excellent, Very Good, etc.). The Government has carefully reviewed industry's recommendation regarding security violation consequences in Annex 2 of the Award Fee Plan.

The Government will not make the requested changes Award Fee Plan 3.1.2 Section 3.1.2: We request to add that the offeror be provided a draft of the evaluation and be provided an opportunity to provide a written rebuttal that is included in the briefing to the FDO before the FDO makes a final determination on the award fee. The Government will not modify Section 3.1.2 to include a contractor rebuttal process prior to FDO determination.

It is expected that issues leading up to the award fee board are identified and discussed between the Government team and contractor team and resolved if possible. The contractor will still have an opportunity during the award fee board to present for 30 minutes.

Section 4.0 of the AFP establishes the following:

Unilateral Incorporation: If the PCO provides written notification to the Contractor at least 15 calendar days before the start of a new evaluation period, changes will be incorporated unilaterally for the upcoming period.

Bilateral Agreement Required: Changes made within 15 days of a new evaluation period or changes affecting a current evaluation period must be made by bilateral agreement.

Award Fee Plan Annex 2 Annex 2 Areas A and C: We request relative weighting for the multiple scoring criteria. For example, if small business utilization drops below 25% for any given period, does that make the entire Area C Management score a 0% even if the other 4 areas are better? Or are they evenly weighted where each of the 5 bulleted criteria are really worth up to 4%? The evaluation criteria within each area in Annex 2 are not independently weighted or scored. The Award Fee Plan uses a holistic evaluation approach where the AFRB assesses overall contractor performance within each area by considering all applicable criteria collectively.

The Government does not:

Assign point values or percentages to individual criteria Score each criterion separately and calculate an average Apply mechanical formulas where failure in one criterion automatically determines the area rating

The Government does:

Consider all criteria within an area collectively Assess the relative impact and significance of performance in each criterion Assign a single overall rating (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory) for each area based on totality of performance Exercise judgment based on mission impact and the specific circumstances Regarding the specific example: If small business utilization drops below 25%, this does not automatically result in 0% for Area A: Management. The AFRB will consider the severity, reasons, contractor efforts, performance in other management criteria, and overall mission impact. Strong performance in other management areas may offset weaknesses in small business utilization, and vice versa.

The monthly threshold enables early identification of cost issues while the holistic evaluation approach considers the totality of performance over the six-month period. The AFRB will consider legitimate reasons for monthly fluctuations (invoice timing, material deliveries, scheduled activities) and contractor explanations provided during monthly surveillance meetings.

The evaluation focuses on cost management and forecasting accuracy, not simply whether costs fluctuate. Contractors who maintain accurate forecasts and communicate proactively will demonstrate effective cost control even with normal monthly variations. The 10% over / 20% under thresholds provide significant tolerance for cost-type contract fluctuations.

Award Fee Plan Annex 2 Annex 2 Area C: The excellent scoring seems contradictory. For excellent, offeror will be penalized for an under run by 10% but the government wants more than 10% cost savings. There should be clarity on which cost baseline the variance is being evaluated on so that the offeror doesn’t get penalized on government approved efficiencies, scope adjustment, process improvements, etc. Feedback: Recommend rewrite to say “Excellent: Accurately execute cost type task orders with no task orders above the task order cumulative cost and no task orders below 10% of task order’s cumulative cost on any during the evaluation period except as indicated in the criteria below. Proactively recommend changes to achieve cost savings of greater than 10% relative to the original baseline with associated rational and shall not be considered negative variance.” The Government appreciates industry's feedback but will not revise Area C evaluation criteria.

The Government's Position:

Cost estimation accuracy is a fundamental requirement for effective contract management. The evaluation criteria appropriately balance two objectives:

Accurate execution to negotiated estimates (demonstrates sound cost forecasting) Proactive value engineering during performance (demonstrates continuous improvement) These objectives are complementary. The Government expects contractors to:

Propose accurate, realistic cost estimates that reflect planned efficiencies and process improvements Identify additional cost-saving opportunities during execution and recommend them with supporting analysis Addressing the "penalty" concern: Significant underruns reflect estimation inaccuracy, not superior performance. Overestimation creates the same planning and budgeting challenges for the Government as underestimation. The criteria incentivize contractors to develop rigorous cost estimating processes and propose realistic, well-supported cost estimates.

The baseline for variance evaluation is the negotiated task order cost as modified by any bilateral contract changes.

The final event may be tied to task completion, deliverable acceptance, sustained operational performance, transition activities, or a combination thereof, depending on the nature of the work.

All award-fee event exit criteria, including the final event, will be clearly specified in the individual task order to ensure objective, measurable performance assessment.

Consistent with Class Deviation—Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul Part 16, Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Part 216: 216.402-4, at least 40 percent of the available award fee will be assigned to the final award-fee event for each task order.

Award Fee Plan 5.1 In Award Fee Plan Section 5.1, Termination for Default, the plan states that Award fee earned or earnable for completed periods prior to termination will not be affected, unless other provisions of the contract and/or award-fee plan (e.g., negative incentive) require payback of previously earned fee. Will the Government please clarify under what circumstances previously paid or previously earned award fee may be subject to payback, and whether such payback would be limited to the evaluation period in which the triggering event occurred or could extend to prior evaluation periods? Award-fee earned or earnable by the Contractor for award-fee evaluation periods completed prior to the effective date of a termination for default will not be affected by the termination.

This Award Fee Plan does not contain negative incentive or fee payback provisions.

Award Fee Plan 3.1 Annex 3 Includes 3.3.1 In Section L 5.3.1, the solicitation states that each Task Order will define its own award-fee events and corresponding award-fee pool allocations, while Government award-fee evaluations will occur at the IDIQ level in accordance with the Award Fee Plan. In AF Plan Sections 3.1 and 3.3.1, the plan further states that task-order-specific award-fee pools are established at task order award and allocated to award-fee events, and Annex 3 illustrates a single evaluation period containing completed events from multiple task orders. Will the Government please clarify how IDIQ-level award-fee evaluations will be applied when multiple task orders contribute award-fee events within the same evaluation period, including whether earned fee is assessed holistically across all completed TO events in that period or remains attributable only to the specific TO events completed? Needs government input.

Award-fee evaluations are conducted at the IDIQ level across all active task orders, not separately by task order.

At the end of each evaluation period, the available award-fee pools for all completed award-fee events from all task orders are summed to create the total available pool for that period (Award Fee Plan Section 3.3.2). The Award-Fee Review Board evaluates contractor performance holistically across all task orders using the criteria in Award Fee Plan Annex 2 (Management, Quality of Technical Services, Cost Control), resulting in a single adjectival rating and award-fee percentage for the period (Award Fee Plan Section 3.5). This percentage is applied to the total available pool, producing one award-fee dollar amount for the evaluation period.

Earned fee is assessed holistically across all completed task order events in the evaluation period. Performance on all active task orders contributes to the single IDIQ-level rating. Strong performance on one task order cannot compensate for poor performance on another. An overall Unsatisfactory rating results in zero award fee for the entire period, regardless of which task order(s) contributed to that rating (Award Fee Plan Annex 2, Note 1).

The Government will incorporate clarifying language into Section L , Section M, and the Award Fee Plan to enhance understanding of the cross-task-order evaluation process.

Award Fee Plan ● Some adjectival rating descriptions remain somewhat subjective. Award fee determinations involve professional judgment as authorized by RFO 16.405-2. The Award Fee Plan Annex 2 provides specific, measurable numeric criteria for the substantial majority of evaluation elements. The limited subjective elements are necessary to assess performance aspects that cannot be reduced to purely numeric metrics.

If the offeror has specific concerns about particular evaluation criteria, the Government requests those be identified with proposed alternative language for consideration.

No changes are planned.

Award Fee Plan ● Recommendation for Flexibility: Add language allowing the Fee Determining Official to adjust evaluation criteria mid-period (with 30-day notice) if new opportunities or risks emerge or mission priorities change. The Government will not adopt mid-period changes to award fee evaluation criteria.

Changing evaluation criteria mid-period would undermine fairness and predictability by evaluating contractors against standards that did not exist when work was performed. Award Fee Plan Section 4.0 provides appropriate flexibility by allowing criteria changes before new evaluation periods begin, with required FDO approval and advance notice.

Emerging opportunities and mission priorities are appropriately addressed through new task orders with separately defined award fee criteria, and through monthly surveillance meetings that provide ongoing performance feedback.

No changes will be made.

Per Section L and Section M, offerors shall propose award fee percentages for CLINs X001 and X005. These percentages are applied to direct labor and associated indirect costs to calculate the available award fee pool cited in CLIN X002 on each task order.

Award fee is earned based on performance evaluated per the Award Fee Plan (Section J, Attachment 3) and paid through CLIN X002.

Bidder's Library Will the Government reconsider providing either a classified bidders' library or a sanitized, and unclassified, version that allows for all bidders to have a fair and equitable understanding of the ground system as a whole?

The Government will not establish a classified bidders' library or provide sanitized system documentation beyond what is included in the solicitation.

The Performance Work Statements (Section J, Attachments 1-4), Government Furnished Property List (Section J, Attachment 7), and other solicitation attachments provide sufficient information for proposal preparation. [If applicable: A site visit will be conducted on [date] to allow observation of the facility and operational environment.]

Offerors shall demonstrate their technical capability and understanding through relevant past performance and proposed technical approaches that address the requirements specified in the solicitation.

CDRLs A017 Block 16, paragraph 6, also includes A001 and L 4.3.1.3 In CDRL A017, the Government states that within 60 days of contract award it will meet with the Contractor to develop an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for audit prioritization, while CDRL A001 requires a PMO Approach and Section L 4.3.1.3 evaluates the Offeror’s management process for addressing emerging requirements across multiple TOs. Will the Government please clarify whether the contractor is expected to maintain a single enterprise IMS spanning all active TOs and emerging work, or whether separate TO-level schedules with PMO roll-up are acceptable? The Government requires an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) structure consisting of:

Task Order IMS's: Each Task Order (Ground Control, JAGUAR, Ground Support, and future TOs) shall have a separate detailed IMS showing task-level schedules, dependencies, milestones, and resources.

Master IMS: A contract-level Master IMS that consolidates and rolls up all Task Order IMS's to provide organizational-level visibility across the entire HADES contract.

The Master IMS shall reflect schedule issues, critical path activities, resource conflicts, and cross-TO dependencies identified from the Task Order roll-ups. Both the Master IMS and individual Task Order IMS's shall be maintained and updated throughout contract performance

To reduce this risk, the Government should consider reinforcing expectations that Government-funded development results in Government Purpose Rights or Unlimited Rights for core mission systems, technical baselines, architectures, interfaces, and code necessary to operate, maintain, enhance, and recompete the effort in the future. Proprietary tools may still be appropriate where clearly identified and segregated, but they should not constrain the Government’s ability to sustain or transition critical capabilities. This approach aligns with(Company Name withheld)s delivery philosophy. When we develop solutions on behalf of the Government, we do so with the understanding that the mission must continue beyond any single contractor. Our model emphasizes transparent, scalable, and supportable solutions that allow the Government to retain ownership of the capabilities it funds and to adapt those capabilities over time without unnecessary dependency. "The Government expects that all technical data and computer software developed with Government funds or mixed funding under the HADES contract will be delivered with Government Purpose Rights or Unlimited Rights in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7013 and DFARS 252.227-7014. This includes system architectures, interface specifications, source code, integration scripts, and all technical data necessary to operate, maintain, sustain, and compete future requirements.

Offerors may assert Limited Rights or Restricted Rights only for items developed exclusively at private expense. All assertions must be clearly identified in the proposal with supporting rationale. The Government will evaluate whether such assertions create unacceptable vendor lock-in or restrict future competition.

Standard FAR commercial rights provisions apply to unmodified commercial items. Contractors may use proprietary development tools provided they do not restrict Government rights in Government-funded deliverables.

The contract will include standard DFARS data rights clauses (DFARS 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014). Offerors should review these clauses carefully when preparing proposals."

The Government acknowledges this concern and agrees that early visibility into data rights requirements is essential for accurate pricing and appropriate technical approach development.

Section J, Attachment 9 (Data Rights Assertions and Pricing) will be included in the final RFP and will provide:

1.) A structured data rights assertion template 2.) Clear definitions of rights categories (Unlimited Rights, Government Purpose Rights, Limited Rights, Restricted Rights, commercial licenses) 3.) A pricing template for data rights and commercial licenses Explanation of how data rights costs factor into Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculation

Regardless of the specific template format, offerors should plan their approaches based on the following principles:

1.) All Government-funded development should result in Government Purpose Rights or Unlimited Rights deliverables 2.) Commercial software licenses should be clearly identified with transparent pricing 3.) Assertions of restricted rights should be limited to items developed exclusively at private expense 4.) Technical approaches should minimize dependencies on restricted-rights items for mission-critical functions"

10 Feb 2027 -9 Feb 2030, Option 1 10 Feb 2030 - 9 Feb 2031, Option 2 10 Feb 2031 - 9 Feb 2032, Option 3 10 Feb 2032 - 9 Feb 2033, Option 4 10 Feb 2033 - 9 Feb 2034

Disclaimer: the above ordering periods are based on full contract perform start after a transition period currently set at 60 days.

General System How long do you keep data before archiving? Is there a timing requirement to decompress, retrieve and display archived data? "Data retention and retrieval requirements are mission-specific and will be defined in individual Task Order Performance Work Statements in accordance with Air Force and DoD records management policies.

Offerors should propose flexible data management solutions capable of supporting retention periods ranging from mission duration to indefinite retention. Archived data must remain accessible, retrievable, and displayable in usable format throughout the retention period. Specific performance requirements for data retrieval timing will be specified in each Task Order."

Offerors should address their recruitment and retention strategies for the Albuquerque/Kirtland AFB area in their technical proposals (Section L 4.3.1.3, Personnel Security Requirements). The Government will evaluate whether proposed approaches provide reasonable assurance of maintaining required staffing levels with qualified, cleared personnel.

Past performance contracts demonstrating successful workforce management in similar challenging recruitment environments (cleared personnel, specialized skill sets, competitive labor markets) will be considered during the relevancy assessment in Section M 6.4."

General System Performance Has the system met the availability requirement as originally specified? Are you allowed to give a percentage number? Most of the time. It is important to remember this is a single-string system. Every installation and/or corrective action brings the system down. There is a strong emphasis on return-to-service.

The Government cannot provide specific historical availability percentages, as this information can be sensitive in nature.

The organization primarily uses the Satellite Control Network (SCN). We have used (and will again) used the Swedish Space Network. We have used both NISN and TDRSS. Mission specific antenna come and go (depending on the mission). With the loss of the MRF, there is no expectation of the HADES contractor being responsible for physical maintenance of antennas. For at least one mission, the HADES contractor will be responsible for serving as a help desk for antennas (local and remote) as they connect to and work with the mission.

General Test Does the government customer have a formal test template that directed any incumbents on the system to write in a consistent test case format that included Test Case ID, Test Case Title, Entry and Exit Criteria, calibration of test equipment at the time of test, Step by step user procedures, summary of results, pass/fail criteria? The Government does not have a mandatory test template or standardized test case format. Test documentation requirements are specified in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) at Section J, Attachment 8, and in the applicable Performance Work Statement requirements.

Offerors shall propose test approaches and documentation formats that meet all CDRL and PWS requirements. The Government will evaluate proposed approaches for adequacy and completeness during source selection

Provide draft Past Performance factor/subfactor language, including relevancy definitions and how CPARS vs. questionnaires will be used. Comprehensive Past Performance evaluation criteria were released in the second draft RFP on 9 March 2026 and are available in Section L (paragraphs 6.1-6.6) and Section M (paragraphs 6.1-6.6).

Key Elements Provided:

Relevancy definitions with detailed scoring criteria (Section M, Table 6.2 and 6.2-S1) Quality assessment ratings (Section M, Table 6.3) Recency: 5 years from RFP release (Section M 6.3) Contract limits: Prime = 5 max, Major subs = 3 max (Section L 6.3.1) Questionnaire and CPARS integration approach (Section L 6.6, Section M 6.2) Confidence assessment methodology (Section M 6.6)

The final RFP will include minor clarifications but no material changes from the 9 March 2026 version. Offerors should use the current criteria for proposal preparation and teaming decisions.

Offerors shall demonstrate organizational capability and process maturity through:

These requirements collectively ensure contractors have appropriate process discipline and organizational capability without requiring CMMI certification, which is designed primarily for software development organizations."