HADES Q_A Amend 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 43 KB Posted
- Attached to
- HADES (Hybrid Architecture and Development for Experimental Systems) Request for Proposal Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8809-26-R-B002
- Issued by
- Department of the Air Force
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document (Amendment 0002) for the HADES (Hybrid Architecture and Development for Experimental Systems) IDIQ contract solicitation, containing clarifications and responses to over 200 offeror inquiries regarding proposal requirements, contract structure, and evaluation criteria.
The HADES program, executed by the Space Systems Command at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, is a single-award Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a ceiling of $389 million (increased from $300 million in Amendment 0002). The contract includes a three-year base period with four one-year option periods, totaling seven years of performance. The program provides satellite ground system and satellite operations center engineering, development, integration, and sustainment support, with four primary task orders: Transition (60-day fixed-price phase-in beginning December 10, 2026), Ground Control, Ground Support (serving as the Support Services Task Order for non-mission-specific functions including overall contract management), and Jaguar (special studies and concept exploration). Key proposal requirements include submission of five volumes covering past performance, technical approach, staffing/labor profile, cost/price analysis, and representations; compliance with a 25 percent small business participation requirement (calculated as percentage of total subcontracted value with a congressionally mandated 5 percent Disadvantaged Small Business subset); provision of labor hour bases of estimate by Contractor Work Breakdown Structure to Level 3 for cost-reimbursable and CPAF CLINs; and completion of Performance Questionnaires from Government points of contact on past performance contracts. The Q&A document clarifies numerous technical and administrative issues including staffing matrix page-count exclusions, transition period dating, small business calculation methodology, award fee plan scoring for small business utilization (25 percent or more for satisfactory to excellent), data rights submission requirements, organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan requirements, and cost/price documentation standards, with the original proposal deadline of September 17, 2026, not extended despite offeror requests for additional time to address solicitation inconsistencies identified in Amendment 0001.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
HADES (Hybrid Architecture and Development for Experimental Systems) Request for Proposal has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Amendment 0002
| Section | ||||||
| - Document | Paragraph - | |||||
| Clause | Table / Chart | |||||
| (if App) | Paragraph Verbiage in Question | Question / Comment | Proposed Solution | Government Response | ||
| General Question | Will compliance for reporting and monitoring requirements under CNSA 2.0 be a requirement under the contract? | Yes. | ||||
| General Question | Can you provide historical data logs that show equipment failures for the last 3 years? | This information cannot be provided due to OPSEC. | ||||
| (U)_Section_L_Attch_F_Ground_Support_PWS_v3.8_20260724 | 5.2.9.34 | Contractor shall resolve the identified problems within 2 hours during business hours. | ||||
| Contractor shall resolve the identified problems within 3 hours during non-business hours. | Because the PWS requires a resolution time of under 2 hours and the award fee plan incentivizes even faster resolution times, can the government provide 2 years of historical data that detail the issues that required sub-2 hour resolution? | This information cannot be provided due to OPSEC. | ||||
| General Question | Is the program eligible for Cisco sustainment support under the DoD Global Enterprise Modernization Software and Support (GEMSS) Contract? If yes, is the Program willing to accept the SLAs for the GEMSS Contract? Through GEMSS, the military branches have unlimited access to DNA Advantage Software licenses for route, switch, wireless, Smart Net Total Care for their entire Cisco branded infrastructures, Software Support Services (SWSS) to maintain perpetual software installed on hardware assets, and dedicated Network Consulting Services to support design, implementation, delivery, and management of their Cisco environments. | Yes HADES is eligible, and currently utilizes the GEMSS Contract. The program is willing to accept the SLA but the necessary administrative actions (filling out forms,... etc.) are the responsibility of the awardee. Any schedule delays associated with this approach are the responsibility of the awardee and are NOT assumed by the program. | ||||
| General Question | Can you provide a list of all Software, renewal dates, and renewal costs, that are currently in use for the program? | A list of Rights in Commercial Technical Data, Computer Software, and Computer Software Documentation has been provided in Attachment 08 Rights in Data 20260820 on SAM.gov. | ||||
| Section L | L.2.5.1, L.6.5.1.4, L.6 | L.2.5.1 – (U) Classified Information: "The Government does not anticipate the need for classified responses to this solicitation. All proposal volumes (Volumes I–V) shall be UNCLASSIFIED. The only anticipated need for classified information is to support past performance references for classified programs. In such cases, Offerors shall provide unclassified descriptions of the work performed in the unclassified proposal volumes and may submit a one-page classified key to enable Government correlation to specific classified contracts." |
L.6.5.1.4– (U) Contract Data Matrix:
Provide the following data in matrix/table form.
| 1. | Contractor name, location of Performing Organization, including all current and previous CAGE codes and DUNS numbers. |
| 2. | Name, address, telephone, fax numbers and initial tracking status for: |
| a. | Procuring Contracting Officers, Contract Administrators, or Administrative Contracting Officers. |
| b. | Program, Project, or Subcontract Managers |
| c. | Technical Representatives |
| d. | Other Cognizant Authorities (e.g., previous program managers, PCOs, technical leads). |
| 3. | Contract or subcontract name, number, type, award date and Period of Performance. |
| 4. | Include field to indicate whether the contractor is Prime or Subcontractor. |
| 5. | Include field for contract Cost/Price. |
This matrix provides a consolidated reference for all contracts cited in Sections 2 and 3 and facilitates Government verification and questionnaire distribution.
L.6 (U) Past/Present Performance Questionnaire Responsibilities:
The Prime Offeror shall send out Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 1 of Section L) to all POCs identified in Section L 6.1 above. The Prime Offeror is responsible for ensuring questionnaires are sent out for each of its team members. The Offeror shall send a standard transmittal letter (Attachment 2 of Section L) to request that all POCs complete an unclassified Performance Questionnaire and submit (via email, DoD Safe, or PIEE) the questionnaire within five (5) working days.
The Offeror shall track the completion of Performance Questionnaires and document all exchanges and follow-ups with each of the POCs identified in the Summary Information using the Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record (Attachment 5 of Section L). The initial Past Performance Questionnaire and Tracking Record (Attachments 1 and 5 of Section L) will be provided with the Past Performance Volume (Volume IV). The Offeror shall exert its best efforts (as defined in Section L 6.6.1) to ensure that at least two (2) POCs per contract or subcontract submit completed performance questionnaires by the time of proposal submission.
A final tracking record shall be submitted on the proposal due date. The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the POCs and reserves the right to send out additional questionnaires.
L.6.6.1 (U) Offeror Responsibilities and “Best Efforts” Standard The Offeror shall demonstrate "best efforts" to obtain completed questionnaires. These "best efforts" include the following sending questionnaires within 5 business days of proposal submission decision, following up with questionnaire POCs at least twice (at 5 days and 10 days after initial send), documenting all communication attempts in the Tracking Record (Attachment 5 of Section L), and escalating to alternate POCs if primary POCs are non-responsive after 10 business days.
L.6.6.2 (U) Treatment of Missing Questionnaires Missing questionnaires will NOT automatically result in an adverse evaluation if the Offeror documented appropriate follow-up attempts, AND the Offeror provided complete self-assessment narratives per Section L 6.5.2, AND the Government is able to obtain performance information through other means. However, contracts with complete questionnaires or robust alternative documentation will provide higher confidence than those with limited verifiable information (see Section M 6.6, Performance Confidence Assessment).
L.6.6.3 (U) Alternative Performance Documentation If fewer than two (2) completed questionnaires are received per contract despite best efforts, the Offeror may submit alternative performance documentation, including CPARS reports (if available and releasable), Award Fee Determination letters or scorecards, Customer letters of commendation or appreciation, Performance metrics reports (e.g., system availability data, schedule performance indices), and/or Corrective Action Reports with demonstrated resolution.
Such alternative documentation shall be clearly labeled and included in Section 2 or 3 (Contract Performance subsection). These alternative documents will be considered by the Government in lieu of questionnaire responses. In a scenario where a past performance reference contract is classified (e.g., at the TS/SCI level) and, due to classification compartmentalization and the limited number of Government personnel with the requisite access and direct knowledge of the contractor's performance, the Offeror can identify and provide only one (1) Government POC capable of completing and submitting the PPQ for that contract citation, please clarify the following:
(a) Will the Government accept a single completed PPQ from one Government POC for a classified past performance contract citation where classification restrictions demonstrably prevent identification of additional Government references?
| (b) If a single PPQ is insufficient, should the Offeror invoke the "best efforts" standard under Section L.6.5.1.1 and/or the alternative performance documentation provisions under Section L.6.5.1.3 (e.g., CPARS reports, award fee determinations, or other available records) to supplement the single PPQ? | Only unclassified PPQs will be accepted. If it is not possible to have a Government POC provide an unclassified PPQ, then the best effort standard under L 6.5.1.1 should be used as well as providing other documentation under Section L 6.5.1.3. | |
| Section L |
Section J - Attachment 2 Ordering Instructions L 2.5.1, L6.5.1.4, L 6
Page 2, Paragraph 4 "Section L, Appendix B will be incorporated into the contract at award as Attachment 8 of the Basic IDIQ. The labor categories and corresponding CPAF rates proposed in Appendix B shall be used in pricing to include all Task Orders to be issued by the Government against the Basic IDIQ in this solicitation, and future Task Orders to be issued under the IDIQ."
"Costs will be proposed using the burdened direct labor rates table and Award Fee identified in Section J Attachment 10 of the basic contract." Can the government confirm that it is asking offerors to provide rates for current Task Orders only?
The government may want to consider difficulty of offerors providing rates for unknown LCATS that are based on requirements that offerors have not received.
| We recommend the government establish a procedure under Section J – Attachment 2 Ordering Instructions to allow for the development and proposing of refined LCATs and Rates specific to future Task Orders once those requirements are defined and provided under the IDIQ. | The initial Task Orders represent the majority, if not all Labor Categories, that are currently expected during the duration of the HADES program. However, the recommendation is reasonable as there may be a Task Order in the future that requires one or more LCATs not currently included. The incorporation of the recommended change will be considered for incorporation into Attachment 2, Ordering Instructions. | |||||
| Section L Appendix A | Appendix A Table | Appendix A requires we enter "Contractor Proposed Cost + Award Fee Pool $" in Column (F), which for the CPAF CLINs align with the Basic CLINs X001 as shown in column (D). However, the IDIQ Basic CLINs X001 in Section B are for Labor Cost only while Award Fee Pools are in CLINs X002. Can the Government confirm that both the cost and award fee pool should be included in TO 2 and 3 in CLINs X001 and in TO4 CLINs X001 and X002. | Confirm that both cost and award fee pool should be included in the mentioned CLINs. The award fee will be administered based on CLIN X002 of the basic IDIQ, but for pricing and source selection consideration, include the cost and award fee pool on Appendix A in it's current form. | |||
| Sections L & M | L 7.4, L7.4.1, M 7.2 | Section L 7.4 states "Offerors shall submit an OCI Mitigation Plan", but 7.4.1 states "If the Offeror identifies any actual or potential OCIs with respect to the performance . . . the Offeror shall provide an [OCI] Mitigation Plan. | Section L 7.4 states "Offerors shall submit an OCI Mitigation Plan", but 7.4.1 states "If the Offeror identifies any actual or potential OCIs with respect to the performance . . . the Offeror shall provide an [OCI] Mitigation Plan." Is the offeror only required to provide a mitigation plan if an actual or potential OCI is identified or is the offer required to submit a draft OCI Mitigation Plan? | Per Section L 7.4.1, once the offeror completes an OCI analysis, and they determine that no actual or potential OCI exists: "If you have no actual or potential OCIs to disclose, provide a clear statement to that effect, signed by an authorized representative of your organization: |
"[Offeror name] has conducted a comprehensive review of its current contracts, relationships, and circumstances and has identified no actual or potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest related to the HADES acquisition."" An OCI mitigation plan is only required is an actual or potential OCI exists. Additionally Section M 7.2 states: The offerors must submit a OCI mitigation plan, if they have identified an OCI. The plan will need to be in compliance with the OCI checklist and provide a feasible approach to mitigate identified OCI.
| Section A (SF33) / Section L 2.4.2 | Sec A, Blk 9; L 2.4.2 | (Company) requires additional time to submit a follow-on round of questions because Amendment 0001's Q&A responses and the v4.3 updates to Section L contain unresolved inconsistencies (Items 2-6) - including page-count relief the Government said it granted but that Section L v4.3 does not actually reflect. | Given the inconsistencies between Section L v4.3 and the Amendment 0001 Q&A responses (see Items 2-6), will the Government extend the proposal due date (currently 17 Sep 2026, 1:00 PM MT) to allow offerors to submit and receive responses to a follow-on round of questions? | The proposal due date will not be extended at this time. | ||
| Section L v4.3; Amendment 0001 Q&A | L 4.3.1.1; 4.3.1.1.1; 4.3.1.1.2; Table 1 | In Amendment 0001, the Government answered three separate questions with: 'Section L 4.3.1 has been updated to exclude Resumes, and staffing matrices from the page limit.' However, Section L v4.3 (20260820) 4.3.1.1 still states 'The narrative and matrices for the section Staffing/Labor profile are limited to fifteen (15) pages.' Only 4.3.1.1.2 excludes the Excel Labor Profile Matrices (Tables 5-6) and MS Project files; the Staffing Matrices in 4.3.1.1.1 (Tables 3-4) are NOT excluded, and Table 1 still lists 'Staffing/Labor Profile = 15' with no exclusion notation. This is a significant page-count discrepancy. | In Amendment 0001, the Government stated (in three responses) that 'Section L 4.3.1 has been updated to exclude Resumes, and staffing matrices from the page limit.' However, Section L v4.3, paragraph 4.3.1.1 still limits 'the narrative and matrices for the section Staffing/Labor profile' to fifteen (15) pages, only 4.3.1.1.2 excludes the Excel Labor Profile Matrices, and Table 1 still shows the 15-page limit with no exclusion. Will the Government (a) confirm that BOTH the Staffing Matrices (Tables 3-4, para 4.3.1.1.1) and the Labor Profile Matrices (Tables 5-6, para 4.3.1.1.2), as well as resumes, are excluded from the 15-page Staffing/Labor Profile limit; (b) revise the final sentence of 4.3.1.1 so the 15-page limit applies to narrative only; and (c) update Table 1 to reflect these exclusions? | Changed to excluded in L 4.3.1.1, Table 1 updated to include the following verbiage: -Staffing/Labor Profile narrative (staffing and labor profile matrices, as well as resumes do not count against page limit) | ||
| Section L v4.3; Amendment 0001 Q&A | TOC & 4.3.1 | The Q&A confirmed the heading should read 'Subfactor 1' (not 'Subfactor 1.1') and stated 'Section L has been updated.' Section L v4.3 still shows '4.3.1 (U) Subfactor 1.1, Program Management Criteria' in both the TOC and the paragraph header, inconsistent with Table 2, Section M 4.3.1, and the Q&A response. | The Q&A confirmed L.4.3.1 should read 'Subfactor 1' and stated Section L was updated, but Section L v4.3 (20260820) still shows 'Subfactor 1.1' in the TOC and the paragraph header. Will the Government correct paragraph 4.3.1 (and the TOC) to 'Subfactor 1, Program Management Criteria'? | Updated 4.3.1 and TOC to display "Subfactor 1" | ||
| Solicitation (SF30 Amend 0001), Section F; IDIQ PWS; Section L | Sec F CLIN 0008; PWS 5.1.1; L 4.3.1.1.1 | Amendment 0001 changed CLIN 0008 (Transition) ordering period to 11 Dec 2026 - 11 Jun 2027 (~6 months). This conflicts with (a) IDIQ PWS 5.1.1's 60-day phase-in, (b) Q&A statements that transition is 60 days (~10 Dec 2026 - 9 Feb 2027), and (c) L 4.3.1.1.1's staffing matrices covering the first 12 months after the transition period ends. The Q&A itself contains conflicting transition dates. | Amendment 0001 set CLIN 0008's ordering period to 11 Dec 2026 - 11 Jun 2027 (6 months). This appears to conflict with the 60-day phase-in required by the IDIQ PWS section 5.1. Will the Government confirm that CLIN 0008 is a 60-day transition period keyed to the actual start date of TO1 and reconcile Section F, the PWS phase-in language, and the staffing/labor matrix start point accordingly? | This is an Ordering Period for the Transition Period Task Order. The Period of Performance for the Task Order will be 60 days, and exact PoP will be included when the Task Order is awarded. | ||
| PART V – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS | ||||||
| SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD | 4.3.1.3 | Section M 4.3.1.3 states that the small business participation requirement "will be assessed at the overall contract level" but then states that participation "will be calculated at the first-tier subcontract level," while Section L 7.2.6.3 directs that percentage goals be "expressed as total contract value." | To ensure all offerors prepare the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) on a consistent basis, we request the Government confirm the following: |
Will the Government confirm that the 25% small business participation requirement is calculated as total small business dollars (prime self-performed small business work, if applicable, plus all small business subcontract dollars) as a percentage of total contract value, consistent with the "expressed as total contract value" instruction in Section L 7.2.6.3 and the "overall contract level" and "total contract value" basis used for the small business utilization thresholds in the Award Fee Plan (Section J, Attachment 3)?
| If so, we further request the Government confirm that the reference to calculation "at the first-tier subcontract level" in Section M 4.3.1.3 is intended only to identify the tier of small business subcontracts that count toward the total-contract-value percentage, and not to establish a separate denominator based solely on subcontracted dollars. | The 25% small business participation requirement is calculated as total small business dollars (prime self-performed small business work, if applicable, plus all small business subcontract dollars) as a percentage of total subcontracted value, consistent with the updated RFO clause 52.219-9. The language regarding "expressed as total contract value" instruction in Section L 7.2.6.3 has also been updated consistent with RFPO 52.219-9. Confirm that the reference to calculation "at the first-tier subcontract level" in Section M 4.3.1.3 is intended only to identify the tier of small business subcontracts that count toward the total-contract-value percentage, and not to establish a separate denominator based solely on subcontracted dollars. | ||||
| PART V – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD | 4.3.1.3 | Section M 4.3.1.3 ties the 'congressionally mandated 5% SDB goal' to 'Small business Offerors' ('...will meet the 25% requirement...to include the congressionally mandated 5% SDB goal. The 5% SDB goal is included within the 25% requirement, not in addition to.'). The following sentence addressing 'other than small business Offerors' references only the 25% requirement and is silent on the 5% SDB. It is unclear (a) whether the 5% SDB goal applies to other-than-small offerors, (b) whether the 5% SDB is a subset of the 25% for ALL offerors, and (c) whether small business offerors are evaluated on their utilization of SDB subcontractors versus their own SDB status. | Section M 4.3.1.3 describes the 5% SDB goal in the context of 'Small business Offerors' meeting the 25% requirement 'to include' the 5% SDB, while the sentence addressing 'other than small business Offerors' references only the 25%. Will the Government clarify: (a) whether the congressionally mandated 5% SDB goal also applies to other-than-small business offerors; (b) whether, for all offerors, the 5% SDB goal is a subset of (i.e., within) the overall 25% small business participation requirement; and (c) whether small business offerors are evaluated on their utilization of SDB subcontractors as opposed to their own SDB status? | This will apply to all offerors. Section M 4.3.1.3 has been updated the language that was misleading that it only applied to small business offers. If a SDB is the offeror, they would likely meet the 5% goal, and would not require additional subcontracting to other SDBs to meet the 5% goal. | |
| In Response to question 88 from Previous Amendment 0001 | In the Government’s response to Question 88 regarding the requirement for a full Volume III cost volume, the answer referenced “Travel and materials subcontractors.” We would like clarification, as we believe this question was referring to Time-and-Materials (T&M) and Labor-Hour (LH) subcontractors, not travel-and-materials providers. |
| Accordingly, could the Government please confirm whether the requirement to provide a full Volume III cost volume applies to T&M/LH subcontractors performing ONLY labor? T&M and LH subcontracts are not Cost-Type contracts and performers often do not have approved accounting systems deemed adequate for Cost Reimbursable contracts. | Regarding L.5.4.8 Requirement 1, we recommend the government accept the Prime offeror's subcontract Price/Cost Analysis in lieu of an unsanitized Cost/Price volume. Alternatively, if this is not acceptable, we recommend the government accept unsanitized Cost/Price Volumes appropriate to non-Cost Type T&M/LH subcontracts rather than flowing down the HADES solicitation Cost-Type instructions. | This appears to be a very specific instance, and the Government would not be able to account for every possible prime/sub relationship. More context would need to be provided in order to provide a more specific answer to this inquiry. |
| Section L |
Q&A Attachment 3 Award Fee Plan 4.3.1.3 Small Business Q&A Row 48 ANNEX 2: Award Fee Evaluation Criteria 4.3.1.3 "The SBPCD shall demonstrate compliance with the 25% small business participation requirement, as well as the congressionally mandated 5% goal for small disadvantaged business (SDB). The 5% goal is included within the 25% and not in addition to."
Q&A 48 "The language from the RFO states: The Offeror’s subcontracting plan shall include the following: (1) Separate goals, expressed in terms of total dollars subcontracted, and as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone small business, SDB, and WOSB concerns as subcontractors."
| The congressional mandate requires the utilization of SDBs for 5% of the total subcontracted amount (not 5% of the TCV). The AF Plan was corrected in Amendment 001 to reflect that SB utilization is measured against the total subcontract amount (and not against TCV as stated previously). To be consistent with both the congressional mandate and award fee plan calculations, would the Government please confirm that 4.3.1.3 requires offerors to demonstrate utilization of small businesses for 25% of the total SUBCONTRACTED value in its SBPCD? | Updated language in L 4.3.1.3 and M 4.3.1.3 to reflect total subcontracted dollars. | ||
| Section L | 4.3.1.3 | ||
| 7.2.6.3 | 4.3.1.3 SBPCD requires offerors to "Identify, to the extent known at proposal time...The approximate percentage of total contract value associated with each" SB concern. |
7.2.6.3 requirements for the SB subcontracting plan state: "In addition to RFO 52.219-9 requirements, include: 1. Percentage goals for small business subcontracting expressed as total contract value."
| Would the Government please confirm that Offerors shall use the 300M IDIQ ceiling as the total contract value in the Volume 2 SBPCD and Volume 5 SB Subcontracting Plan? | Section L and M 4.3.1.3 have been updated to the 25% of total subcontracted value. However for Section L 4.3.1.3, and Section L 7.2.6.3, offerors are also required to submit the percentage of total contract value which based on the ceiling is $300M (At the time of RFP release and Amendment 0001). The evaluation factor in M is 25% of subcontracted value. Please note that with Amendment 0002, the total ceiling has been updated to $389M. | ||
| Section L | 5.1.1 | ||
| 5.4.3 | 5.1.1 Volume organization requires "Attachment CP3 to Volume III: Prime/Subcontractor Labor Hour Basis of Estimate (BOE) by TO/CLIN/CWBS, Version 1: Pricing applied" | ||
| 5.4.3 LH BOE requires "All labor proposed must be discretely identified by Category (labor category name), Rate (hourly rate for that category), Year utilized (Offeror's accounting year)." | Please confirm that the hourly rate listed in the priced BOE (i.e. Attachment CP3 to Volume III: Prime/Subcontractor Labor Hour Basis of Estimate | ||
| (BOE) by TO/CLIN/CWBS, Version 1: Pricing applied) should be the fully burdened rate excluding award fee (AF)? | Confirm: Attachment CP3 to Volume III: Prime/Subcontractor Labor Hour Basis of Estimate |
(BOE) by TO/CLIN/CWBS, Version 1: Pricing applied) should be the fully burdened rate excluding award fee (AF) Section L 5.1.1
| 5.4.3 | 5.1.1 Volume organization requires "Attachment CP3 to Volume III: Prime/Subcontractor Labor Hour Basis of Estimate (BOE) by TO/CLIN/CWBS, Version 1: Pricing applied" | ||||||
| 5.4.3 LH BOE requires "All labor proposed must be discretely identified by Category (labor category name), Rate (hourly rate for that category), Year utilized (Offeror's accounting year)." | Please confirm the subcontractor hourly rate listed in the prime's priced BOE should be the subcontractor's rate inclusive of the prime's indirect burdens and exclusive of the prime's award fee? | The subcontractor hourly rate listed in the prime's priced BOE should be the subcontractor's rate inclusive of the prime's indirect burdens and exclusive of the prime's award fee for L 5.4.3, . However, per Section L 5.4.8 Requirement.2. 2. | "The Prime Offeror shall submit to the Government its written analysis of all non-prime proposals. Evaluation of subcontract proposals shall include direct labor hours and costs/prices that will flow up through the prime to the Government. The Prime Offeror is responsible for showing clear traceability from its subcontractor / vendor / partner proposed amounts to the prime's evaluation and to the CWBS structure." | ||||
| Section L | 5.1.1 Table 8 | Table 8 | Attachment CP2 to Volume III: Prime’s Cost/Price Analysis of Subcontractors Organizations per Task Order | Confirm the prime should include as an attachment its price/cost analysis of all subcontractor rates at the IDIQ level (in addition to the analysis at the individual task order level) | Offerors are required to submit the Prime’s Cost/Price Analysis of Subcontractors Organizations per Task Order. Submission of a separate IDIQ level analysis is not requested. | ||
| Section L | 5.4.8 Requirements 1. | For Non-Prime companies where the proposed total price of the company is at least 10% of the total proposed price for each Task Order, the non-prime company shall be directed by the prime to submit a Cost/Price Volume directly to the Government. The same pricing instructions apply to these non-prime companies. | Please confirm that non-primes required to submit Cost/Price Volumes are not required to submit Appendix A (TPP) therein, since this is applicable to prime level only? | ||||
| Confirm, Appendix A is only required to be submitted by the prime, not by the subcontractors. | |||||||
| Section L | 5.4.8 Requirements | For Non-Prime companies where the proposed total price of the company is at least 10% of the total proposed price for each Task Order, the non-prime company shall be directed by the prime to submit a Cost/Price Volume directly to the Government. The same pricing instructions apply to these non-prime companies. | If Time & Material subcontractors are required to submit cost volumes, please confirm that they are only required to submit the working excel files containing their T&M labor rate build, and are not required to complete appendices B and C as they are applicable to CPAF type contracts only and reserved for prime offerors. | Correct, they would only need to provide working excel files and not appendix B and C. Prime offers will fill out Appendix B and C Iaw Section L Instructions. | |||
| Section L | 5.4.4 Rates | "The Offeror shall complete Section L, Appendix B and Appendix C with the Offeror's and subcontractor’s proposed labor categories and the corresponding CPAF rates for each Offeror's accounting year following the instructions outlined within this section. The dollars and rates proposed in Section L, Appendices B and C shall represent the dollars and rates required in performing one labor hour for each labor category" | Confirm that the subcontractor IDIQ rate cards should list the proposed fully burdened subcontractor rates (including subcontractor profit) and shall not include the prime's indirect burdens for the prime's award fee. | The subcontractor hourly rate listed in the prime's priced BOE should be the subcontractor's rate inclusive of the prime's indirect burdens and exclusive of the prime's award fee for L 5.4.3, . However, per Section L 5.4.8 Requirement.2. 2. | "The Prime Offeror shall submit to the Government its written analysis of all non-prime proposals. Evaluation of subcontract proposals shall include direct labor hours and costs/prices that will flow up through the prime to the Government. The Prime Offeror is responsible for showing clear traceability from its subcontractor / vendor / partner proposed amounts to the prime's evaluation and to the CWBS structure." | ||
| Section L | 7.2.5 (U) Section I - Contract Clauses, 5.1 (U) General Instructions | 7.2.5 " Section I – Contract Clauses Offerors shall review all clauses. In instances where clauses require fill ins such as 252.215-7993 Proposal Adequacy Checklist, submit as part of Volume V." |
| 5.1 "The Offeror shall submit other-than-certified cost or pricing data (per RFO 15.403-2(b), 15.403-1, and 15.105-4) for the Government evaluation. ..The Government issued this solicitation with the anticipation of adequate price competition; therefore, any cost/price documentation requested shall not be certified cost or pricing data. " | Given that this is a competitive proposal and certified cost or pricing data is not applicable, please remove the requirement in the model contract/Volume V for offerors to submit a completed proposal adequacy checklist with the proposal. | Section L language and Contract document will be updated to remove provision. | ||||
| Attachment 3 Award Fee Plan | 3.2 | The first line of the table states "Evaluation Period One (Includes Transition)" | Given that transition is FFP and prior to the period listed, please remove language that first evaluation period includes transition and confirm that transition is neither evaluated nor scored as part of the AF plan, and that the CLIN 0008 amounts are not included in the award fee pool | Award fee plan, section 3.2 has been updated to remove transition as part of evaluation period one. The transition will not be scored or evaluated as part of the award fee plan, nor will it be part of the award fee pool. | ||
| Section L | 6.6.3 | "Such alternative documentation shall be clearly labeled and included in Section 2 or 3 (Contract Performance subsection). These alternative documents will be considered by the Government in lieu of questionnaire responses." | Section L, Paragraph 6.6.3 directs offerors to include alternative performance documentation (e.g., CPARS reports, Award Fee letters, performance metrics) in Section 2 or 3 of Volume IV. Section 2 is limited to 20 pages and Section 3 is limited to 10 pages, while Section 1 of Volume IV is explicitly excluded from the page limit per Table 1. Including alternative performance documentation in Sections 2 or 3 would consume pages otherwise needed for the required narrative content. Would the Government please confirm whether alternative performance documentation submitted under Paragraph 6.6.3 may be included in Section 1 of Volume IV, where it would not count against the page limit? | Section 6.6.3 has been updated with the following language: "*If fewer than two completed questionnaires are submitted per contract, despite best efforts, and the offerors submit alternative performance documentation, the alternative performance documentation will not count against the page limitations in section 2 or 3." Asterisk is also annotated in Section L, Table 1. | ||
| Q&A | Row 113 | "if the offeror's approved accounting practices apply burdens in these instances for Cost Reimbursable CLINs, those should be included and appropriately annotated in the offerors pricing volume." | Please confirm that the travel and material plugs are inclusive of any burdens allowable under the offeror's approved accounting system (ie that the plug values in Appendix A TPP do not need to be updated to add G&A, M&S, FCCM) | Plug numbers do not include any burdens the offeror may apply. Offeror will need to update Appendix A to add burdens. IAW Section L 5.3.2 | ||
| Section L – Attachment 8 Rights in Data | Table 2 versus 3.1.1.3(c)(i): RFP quotes: “In Column two of Table 2, leave the unit quantity provided by the Government…”; and (ii) RFP quotes: “In column three, provide the vendor’s assigned license tracking number identifying the specific license for this data/software…”. See also Attachment 8, 3.2(a), (b), and (c) for similar references to Columns 2 and 4. | The “Quantity” in Table 2 appears to be listed in Column 3 and Column 2 is blank, contrary to the guidance wording. Would the Government confirm that Table 2’s Column 2 is for entering the applicable license tracking number and Column 3 represents the quantity of said data/software to be provided? | Attachment 8 has been updated. Table 2 now has column 2 labeled as Assigned License Tracking Number. 3.1.1.3(c)(i) has also been updated to correct column 2 and 3 discrepancy. | |||
| Section L – Attachment 8 Rights in Data | 3.1.1.3(d)(iii): RFP quotes: “In subsection 3.4.1, replace the double-asterisk (**) with the direct cost for Special License Right Category B (SLRC-B).” | It appears the actual paragraph with the double-asterisk (**) that the Offeror is to update and include has the section number “3.3.1”. Would the Government confirm that the prior guidance in section 3.1.1.3(d)(iii) referring to “3.4.1” a double-asterisk is actually referring to “3.3.1 | Confirm, and Attachment 8, 3.1.1.3(d)(iii) has been updated. | |||
| General | Please confirm Q&A are incorporated into the solicitation and update the language accordingly. | Confirmed. | ||||
| RSC Tour Inbrief | Can the Government publish the list of attendees to the Classified RSC Tour? | List will be uploaded with Amendment 0002. | ||||
| Section L | 7.6 | 7.6 (U) Discussion of Business Systems and Offeror’s Unique Approach | 7.6 is titled Discussion of Business Systems and Offeror’s Unique Approach but contains only instructions related to Business Systems, to include estimating and accounting systems. Would the Government please remove "Offeror's Unique Approach" from the title or clarify what information should be addressed in this section? | Updated | ||
| Exhibit A – HADES IDIQ CDRLS 20260820 | Block 11 of CDRLs A002 through A0036 states “Task Order Award”. | Several of the CDRLs appear to be applicable to the IDIQ and not to a specific task order (For example, CDRL A002, Program Management Plan - CDRL appears to be applicable to a program management plan for the overall IDIQ rather than a specific program management plan for a task order)). |
| Request clarification as to which CDRLs apply only at the IDIQ and which will be updated based on specific task order requirements. | The Program Management Plan (PMP) should define the contract processes (i.e: management processes, project planning, project assessment and control, decision management, risk management, information management, quality assurance processes, etc.) for the entire contract. These processes should apply across the contract and is part of an integrated approach to program management. Updated CDRLs in Amendment 0002 | |||
| Basic Contract / Solicitation Amendment 0001 Section F Deliveries or Performance (pg 19-23), Section L Appendix A | Section L Appendix A Total Proposed Price (TPP)/Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Computation Table | The Basic Contract Section F table of CLINs shows CLINs numbered 000X - 400X with a 3 year base period period of performance of the 000X CLINs. However, the TEP Computation Table includes CLINs 000X - 600X with CLINs 100X-600X as Options 1-6. |
| Are we to propose a Base (CLINs 0001 -0007) period of 1 year or 3 years? Is the IDIQ Period of Performance changing from 7 years to something else? Should/is the TEP table be based on CY/FY vs Base/Options periods? | Basic Contract Section F CLINs are a 3 year base Ordering Period with 4 (1) year options. The basic IDIQ Ordering Period will be 7 years if all options are exercised. The Task orders will have a 1 year base, and in the case of the initial Task Orders 2, 3, and 4 they will include 6 (1) year options. The PoP for those Task Orders if all options are exercised will be 7 years. The reasoning for a base 1 year, and 6 options years on the Task Orders is due to fiscal law constraints. The Task Orders are not allowed to have a 3 year PoP where there could possibly be 3-4 different fiscal years of funding. For the TEP, section L, Appendix A, use a base 1 year and 6(1) year options. The TEP is based on base/option periods. | ||||
| HADES_Section L_20260721_v4.1_Appendix-A.docx | Ground Control PWS 5.2.1.14 | Previous direction was provided in the draft Q&A responses that IDIQ PMO was to be collected in Ground Control vs. Ground Support. Should the requirement in the Ground Control PWS 5.2.1.14 be included in the Ground Support PWS as PMO labor is now expected to be bid on the Ground Support TO? | Requirement 5.2.1.14 is a Task Order specific requirement. This requirement will not be included in the Ground Support PWS. PMO Labor will be based on each bidder's proposed approach and will be captured cost-wise in the Ground Support Task Order. | ||
| HADES_Section L_20260721_v4.1_Appendix-A.docx | Will the government be updating the PoP in an Amendment #2 to align with the Q&A response to reflect the transition period start date of Dec 10, 2026? | Yes | |||
| Solicitation - FA880926RB002 and (U) 00. HADES_Section L_20260731_v4.2-final | Section F | The PoP for CLIN 0001 was not updated to reflect the Government's revision that Transition starts Dec 10, 2026. | Updated | ||
| (U) 00. HADES_Section L_20260721_v4.1_Appendix-A. | Base Period PoP | In the responses to the Q&A dated 20 Aug 2026, the Government stated that "each TO will have a 1 year base, and it is expected all initial TOs will continue for the duration of the IDIQ, with the 6 options being exercised if continued performance is required." This is inconsistent with the POP in Section F of the Solicitation and Appendix A of Section L. | TO 1 Transition will not continue for the duration, but Ground Control, Jaguar, and Ground Support are expected to continue for the duration of the HADES IDIQ. | ||
| (U) 00. HADES_Section L_20260721_v4.1_Appendix-A and Solicitation Section F. | Ground Support - PMO | The CLIN numbering appears to be inconsistent between Appendix A and the Section F of the Solicitation. It is also inconsistent across TOs in Appendix A. Section F shows CLIN 002 aligned to Award Fees. | Basic IDIQ CLINs are referenced on the Task Order CLINs. There may be instances where there are multiple funding sources or customers on a Task Order which could necessitate having multiple Task Order CLINs that reference the basic IDIQ CLIN such as multiple Task Order material CLINs that reference the Basic IDIQ Material CLIN. | ||
| (U) 00. HADES_Section L_20260721_v4.1_Appendix-A | Ground Support - PMO | Please confirm whether PMO support and KP labor supporting the Ground Control and Jaguar task orders should be allocated directly to Ground Control and Jaguar task order labor, OR whether all KP Labor and PMO support labor should be homed in Ground Support and priced there. | All KP Labor and PMO support labor should be homed in Ground Support and priced there. | ||
| (U) 00. HADES_Section L_20260721_v4.1 | 4.2 | Please confirm this change to Section L4.2 Second bullet should read: | |||
| "Maps to Government Level 1 PWS elements: 5.0 Basic Services" | Updated | ||||
| Section L | 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.4 | Page Definition; Visual Displays and Graphics | Sec L 2.2.1.3 states a "page is defined as one face of an 8.5 × 11-inch sheet, not including foldouts, containing information". Sec L 2.2.1.4 states "Visual displays count toward page limits (one page per 8.5 × 11-inch or 11 × 17-inch foldout)." Can the government confirm that 11x17 foldout pages are counted as a single page? | Yes, the 11x17 foldout pages are counted as a single page. | |
| Section M | 6.2 | Evaluation Process and Information Sources | M 6.2 states that the Gov't "may consider past performance on both an individual contract basis and in the aggregate across multiple contracts." Can the government clarify if the term "aggregate" described in M 6.2 implies an averaging of the relevancy ratings over the cited contracts or if it refers to taking the maximum relevancy rating across the citations for each of the Question IDs? | Please reference previous Q&A as this question has already been answered. | |
| Section M | 6.6 | Performance Confidence: Assignment of Ratings | M 6.6 states that "more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant performance." Can the Government confirm that recent citations scoring VR are weighted more than those scoring R which are weighted more than SR? For example, in the overall assessment, two VRs, an R, and two SRs would still be a VR because the VR references received a heavier weight than the SR references? | Please reference previous Q&A as this question has already been answered. | |
| Section M | 6.6 | Performance Confidence: Assignment of Ratings | Will the Government confirm that the number of past performance citations submitted does not have an effect on the overall Performance Confidence Assessment? In other words, an offeror submitting 5 or 6 citations will not be compared adversely against an offeror submitting 8 (or more for JVs). | Please reference previous Q&A as this question has already been answered. | |
| (U)+00.+HADES_Section+L_20260820_v4.3+Final.pdf | 5.4.2 Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) Summaries | RFP states "The Offeror shall provide a summary of the hours and dollars by CWBS (to Level 3) per Task Order" |
| Given that Transition is FFP, is this required for Transition Task Order #01? | It is not required for TO #1 (Transition) | |
| (U)+00.+HADES_Section+L_20260820_v4.3+Final |
(U)+00.+HADES_Section+M_20260820_v4.3+Final
HADES+RFP+Q+and+A+Amendment_0001+20+Aug+26 L.6.5.2.1 (d) and Table 15;
Section M.6.4.1 Table 5; and
| Q&A #196 | Should Offerors amend the format in Table 15, Relevancy Matrix, to include a separate row for Cost and Schedule items included in Section M Table 5? | No, IAW Section L 6.5.2 a separate row for cost and schedule is not requested for that table. | ||||
| Section L, M | L 4.3.1.3 | |||||
| M 4.3.1.3 | Could the Government please clarify how it intends to measure the required 25% participation? Specifically, will the passing threshold be determined based on 25% of the total labor dollars for the contract, or 25% of the total subcontracted labor dollars? | Section L and M 4.3.1.3 have been updated to the 25% of total subcontracted value. | ||||
| Section L | 5.1.1, p. 15 of 37 | Table 8. (U) Volume III – Cost/Price Organization | The instructions state to provide prime/subcontractor basis of estimate Version 1: Pricing applied. Version 2: Pricing redacted. Please clarify what dollars must be shown in the BOE. The instructions at L.5.4.3 state “... All labor proposed must be discretely identified by Category (labor category name), Rate (hourly rate for that category)”. Please clarify if offerors should use direct labor rate only OR, a burdened rate (without profit), or a fully burdened labor rate inclusive of proposed award fee. Additionally, if offerors are to use a direct labor rate, please clarify whether the BOE needs to show computation of indirect costs and award fee to arrive at a burdened or fully burdened labor rate.(for labor CLINs). | In this section burdened rate minus award fee. In Section L, Appendix C, offerors will provide a more detailed breakout of how the fully burdened labor rates are built. | ||
| Section L | 5.4.3 | Labor Hour Basis of Estimate | The BOE instructions at L.5.4.3 states, "From the information requested, the | |||
| Government should be able to replicate the calculations of all proposed hours and dollars". Is the Government requesting that the 'priced' BOE provide calculations of price down to the CWBS Level 3 element of detail? We note that there are about 100 CWBS level 3 elements across the 3 task orders times 7 CLIN period per task order which would equal about 700 CWBS level 3 buildups. Can offerors refer the evaluator to the cost element summaries required in Section L.5.3.2 (which are buildups at the task order CLIN level) to satisfy the priced BOE requirement? | Please see line 54 and 75. | |||||
| Section L | 4.2 | Contractor Work Breakdown Structure | As the Government has stated in the recent Q&A file that the CWBS should map to the IDIQ PWS, would the Government consider removing the following instructions as this differs from the IDIQ PWS level 1; “ Maps to Government Level 1 PWS elements: Systems Engineering, Engineering, Development, Integration, Sustainment, Cybersecurity, and Program Management”? | Updated | ||
| Section L | 5.4.3 | Labor Hour Basis of Estimate | Section L states “For each Task Order, the Offeror shall prepare a Basis of Estimate (BOE) by CWBS to Level 3 for each Cost-Reimbursable (CR) Travel CLIN, ODC CLIN, and each CPAF CLIN." Does the Government want each Task Order BOE to include the CLIN's base period and option periods? Meaning, a separate BOE isn't required for each option period. We recommend that each BOE covers the full program's tenure as the rationale by CWBS is applicable over option periods as well. | This is acceptable, and in line with the answer at line 76..however, this is with the expectation that the BOEs proposed for the base period remain stable throughout the life of the contract. | ||
| Solicitation | Solicitation, Section B, Items 003, 006, 1003, 1006, 2003, 2006, etc. | Will the Government confirm that hardware refresh items, software refresh items, licenses, and other materials directly associated with the scope of an individual Task Order are to be priced under the applicable Materials CLIN? Additionally, will the Government provide examples of the types of items it expects offerors to price as Other Direct Costs? | Confirm they should be priced under the material CLIN. ODC should be consistent with offerors accounting practices. ODC is a cost that can be identified specifically with a final cost objective that is not treated as either a direct material or direct labor cost. Examples of ODCs may include special tooling and test equipment, computer services, consultant services, preservation, and packaging. | |||
| Task Order Responsibility / Program Management | FRFP 24 Jul 2026: Basic IDIQ PWS §5 and §5.2, which identify a “Support Services TO” for non-mission-specific support functions. Amendment 1, 20 Aug 2026: Basic IDIQ PWS §5 continues to reference a “Support Services TO,” while §5.2 states that non-mission-specific support service requirements will be specified in the “Ground Support TO PWS.” | Please confirm whether the Ground Support TO is intended to serve as the Support Services TO for all non-mission-specific support functions, including overall contract management, or whether a separate Support Services TO is contemplated. | Confirm that Ground Support TO will serve as the (Support Services TO) | |||
| Information Management / Requirement Traceability | FRFP 24 Jul 2026: Ground Control PWS §8.1, Basic §5.2.3 applicability matrix, §§5.2.3.1-.3 selected; Basic §5.2.3.4 not selected. Amendment 1: Ground Control PWS §8.1 selects Basic §5.2.3.4 while retaining a separate Ground Control-specific requirement also numbered §5.2.3.4. | Please confirm the intended numbering of the Ground Control-specific §5.2.3.4 now that Basic IDIQ §5.2.3.4 is also applicable to the Ground Control TO. Are both requirements intended to apply? | Corrected and updated in the Ground Control PWS v4.0 | |||
| Special Studies / Jaguar Scope | FRFP 24 Jul 2026: Jaguar PWS §12.2 requires studies of “current system capabilities” and at least three COAs for system and architectural improvements. Amendment 1: Jaguar PWS §12.2 and Jaguar-specific §5.7.6 expressly refer to studies of “Ground Control” systems/capabilities. | In Jaguar PWS §12.2 and §5.7.6, should the references to “Ground Control systems and capabilities” and “Ground Control system capabilities, architecture, performance, and infrastructure” instead refer to Jaguar systems and capabilities, or is the Jaguar TO intended to perform special studies of Ground Control? | Corrected and updated in the Jaguar PWS v4.0 | |||
| Ground Control / Systems Engineering Inheritance | FRFP 24 Jul 2026: Ground Control PWS §9.1 selects Basic IDIQ §5.3.1.8. Amendment 1: Ground Control PWS §9.1 does not select Basic §5.3.1.8. Basic §5.3.1.8 requires coordination with internal/external mission partners to define/document interfaces and ensure new requirements are compatible with existing systems. | Was Basic IDIQ §5.3.1.8 intentionally removed from the Ground Control TO applicability matrix in Amendment 1? If so, are the interface-definition, documentation, and compatibility responsibilities intended to be satisfied solely through the remaining Ground Control and Basic IDIQ requirements? | Corrected and updated in the Ground Control PWS v4.0. | |||
| Cybersecurity / DCO Responsibility | Amendment 1: Ground Support PWS §11 states that the section ensures comprehensive “cybersecurity, authorization, and defensive cyber operations support,” but §11.1 leaves Basic IDIQ §§5.6.3.1-.4 DCO requirements unselected. The same condition existed in the FRFP. | Is the Ground Support TO expected to perform any Defensive Cybersecurity Operations functions described in Basic IDIQ §5.6.3 despite §§5.6.3.1-.4 being unselected in the Ground Support applicability matrix? | Negative, DCO-s requirements are not currently supported under the Ground Support PWS. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .