IndustryResponsesFirstRelease.pdf

Section

- Document

Paragraph - Clause

Table / Chart

(if App) Paragraph Verbiage Question / Comment Response

AF Plan 3.2 The Award Fee Plan shows Evaluation Period Fourteen as "10 AUG 23 9 FEB 34" (should be "10 AUG 33"). Award fee periods corrected on second draft of RFP

AF Plan 3.4

The document contains conflicting evaluation area weightings:

Section 3.4 states:

Area A: Management – 40% Area B: Quality of Technical Services – 40% Area C: Cost Control – 20%

Annex 3 (Sample Computation) shows:

Technical Services – 50% Cost Control – 30% Management – 20%

RECOMMENDATION: Correct and standardize weightings across all sections

Award fee percentages corrected on second draft of RFP

AF Plan 3.5

Section 3.5 uses vague standards in the description column, such as:

"exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria" "exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria" "exceeded some of the significant award-fee criteria" What defines "almost all" vs. "many" vs. "some"? What makes criteria "significant"?

RECOMMENDATION: Change the description column to indicate the total number of points awarded from the recommended scoring system below.

Award fee updated as part of second draft. Defining language has been included.

Industry Question Responses (QuestionsSubmitted Before 20 Feb 2026)

AF Plan 3.6

Section 3.6 references "Column 1...Column 2" etc. for evaluation criteria in Annex 2, but Annex 3 shows "Evaluation Point" scores of 100, 90, 80, 60, 40. The plan never explains how Annex 2 Columns map to Annex 3 Evaluation Points.

RECOMMENDATION: Separate metric criteria scoring from overall Award Fee Performance rating. Assign a point score for each metric threshold achieved.

Then in evaulation, add up all points across the metrics to get a total point count which will then determine the overall Area Rating. For example, Column 5 (Excellent) = 91-100 points Column 4 (Very Good) = 76-90 points Column 3 (Good) = 51-75 points Column 2 (Satisfactory) = 50 points Column 1 (Unsatisfactory) = 0-49 points Include this in Section 3.6 and reference in Annex 2

Update Annex 2 to indicate the number of points achieved for each criterion listed in the column for that Area, for example, under Area A Quality of technical, the "# of reruns to transition a modification into the test enivornment" is the metric. Then assign a point value to each threshold:

>3 reruns is awarded 0 points <=3 is 5 points no more than 2 is awarded 7 points no more than 1 is awarded 9 points 0 reruns is awarded 10 points.

In work as part of the final RFP, annex 2 and award fee plan overall has received significant updates since the initial posting. Recommend reviewing, and if there are still areas that are unclear, please send feedback to the PCO and contract manager.

AF Plan Annex 2 Area A

Technical Services Criteria Use "Per Evaluation Period" Inconsistently Quality of Technical Services criteria state:

"More than three unapproved deviations...per evaluation period" = Unsatisfactory "No more than three reruns...per evaluation period" = Satisfactory Problem: This creates a binary threshold cliff (3 vs. 4 deviations) without considering:

Severity of deviation Timing (early vs. late in period) Corrective action responsiveness Impact to mission

RECOMMENDATION:

Add severity weighting: "Minor deviations count as 0.5, Major as 1.0, Critical as 2.0" Incorporate corrective action speed: "Deviations corrected within 5 business days count as 0.5" Add "Critical" deviation category that triggers immediate unsatisfactory regardless of count

In this context, a deviation is a failure to deploy something (hardware, software, network modifications, whatever).

Deviations imply a faulted configuration control/quality assurance process. Ranking deviations, as proposed, implies it is acceptable to have a faulted deployment on an operational system for up to five days. For operational systems, all deviations should be treated as critical - as defined by the comment. The award fee plan overall has received significant updates since the initial posting.

Recommend reviewing, and if there are still areas that are unclear, please send feedback to the PCO and contract manager.

AF Plan Annex 2 Area B

Cost Control

Cost Control Criteria Penalize Both Over and Under-Runs Equally Annex 2 Cost Control criteria state that "Accurately execute cost type task orders with no task orders above the task order cost and no task orders below 20% of task order's cost" is Excellent performance.

Problem: This treats cost overruns (bad) and significant underruns (potentially indicating poor planning or unused capacity) the same. However, underruns ≥20% may indicate:

Sandbagging estimates Unused labor/resources Scope not delivered

RECOMMENDATION:

Separate overrun and underrun thresholds. For example:

All Task orders within 90%-100% of estimated cost = 10 points No more than 1 task order over 10% of estimated cost = 5 points Any task order less than 80% of estimated cost without written explanation and reallocation plan= 0 points

Update the metric for "Proactively identify cost savings" to reflect:

No recommended cost saving improvements proposed = 0 points At least one recommended cost saving improvement proposed = 5 points

The Award Fee Plan (AFP) has been updated and included in the second draft of the RFP. The Government will consider the recommendation regarding cost control criteria and the treatment of cost overruns versus underruns. Any revisions to the AFP cost control metrics will be reflected in the final RFP documentation. The award fee plan overall has received significant updates since the initial posting.

Recommend reviewing, and if there are still areas that are unclear, please send feedback to the PCO and contract manager.

AF Plan General

Can you explain the rationale for using an Award fee structure for the HADES TOs since the previous contract transitioned from award fee to fixed fee? Recommend continuing with fixed fee and providing specific performance measures for CPARS evaluation. This will provide adequate performance motivation with less administrative burden for the Government and Prime contractor.

The Government has determined that a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure is appropriate for the HADES Task Orders based on the nature of the work, performance risk, and the need for performance incentives.

DD254 General

Please confirm interest/intent for potential use of contractor SAP and associated connectivity following award.

The Government does not require or intend to utilize contractor Special Access Program (SAP) facilities or associated connectivity for HADES contract performance.

All work will be performed at Government facilities or Government-approved locations as specified in the Task Order PWSs. All required facilities, infrastructure, and secure connectivity are identified in the Government Furnished Property (GFP) listing posted in the Bidders' Library. Offerors should not propose contractor SAP facilities or associated costs in their technical or cost proposals.

I 52.216-18 (a)

Such orders may be issued form 07 Feb 2027 thourgh 07 Feb 2033.

This is inconsistent with Section B Ordering periods.

The Government acknowledges the inconsistency and will correct the discrepancy in the final RFP. All sections will be aligned to ensure consistency across the solicitation documents.

F Ordering Period Although the ordering period is clearly defined. It does not state the TO POP limitations.

18 months, and will be updated within the contract documentation for clarity.

F Please confirm Base period of contract as three years

Confirmed, the base period of the contract is three years with four 1-year option periods.

General Baseline

Architecture

To develop a technically sound migration strategy, offerors require insight into the current environment. Will the Government provide current architecture diagrams, hardware inventory, virtualization platforms, and ground software baselines, and any existing cloud enclaves (if any)?

Detailed architecture diagrams, hardware inventory, virtualization platforms, software baselines, and cloud enclave information contain classified and operationally sensitive details that cannot be released in an unclassified solicitation or pre-award environment. The Government Furnished Property (GFP) listing posted in the Bidders' Library provides unclassified information about available Government-provided equipment and infrastructure.

Offerors are expected to possess the expertise and experience to propose migration strategies for satellite ground system enclaves based on the requirements defined in the Task Order PWSs and industry best practices.

Detailed technical documentation, including classified architecture and system baselines, will be provided to the awarded contractor during the transition period under appropriate security controls.

We are considering a generalized architecture overview that may be provided in the final RFP.

General Bidder's Library

Will the Government establish a Bidder's Library with controlled access to current system documentation, including Ground System Enterprise architecture, existing on-prem hardware configurations, current SD and SAIC-operated software stacks, cyber boundary definitions, and curent ATO artifacts? If so, what is the anticipated timeline for access?

Detailed system documentation, including Ground System Enterprise architecture, hardware configurations, current software stacks, cyber boundary definitions, and ATO artifacts, contain classified and operationally sensitive information that cannot be released in a pre-award environment, including through a controlled Bidder's Library.

We are considering a generalized architecture overview that may be provided in the final RFP.

General Cloud Migration

Are specific cloud migration-focused Task Orders anticipated during the Base Ordering Period? If so, can the Government provide estimated timing and scope characteristics?

The Government has not predetermined specific cloud migration Task Orders or their timing during the Base Ordering Period.

General Cloud Migration

To what extent is cloud migration expected to be within scope of the initial IDIQ proposal versus deferred to future Task Orders?

The Government has not predetermined specific cloud migration Task Orders or their timing during the Base Ordering Period.

General CPARS

Will the Government rely solely on CPARS data for past performance evaluation, or are questionnaires anticipated?

Past Performance Questionaires will be part of the process.

As part of the second draft of the RFP, there has been substantial information added regarding past performance evaluation. Please review and send any additional comments or questions to the PCO and contract manager.

General EDIS Staffing

Will the Government provide current incumbent staffing by LCAT? Will the Government provide current on-site vs remote distribution? Will the Government provide current subcontractor composition?

Notional staffing matrices are provided, and nothing further is antipated.

General General

- Are there specific tools, methodologies, or standards the government prefers for systems engineering in the HADES environment?

None that are mandated

General General

- Can you provide more details on the cloud architecture that has been implemented in the GSE or status of current virtualization initiatives?

No, not at this time based on security requirements of the acrchitecture.

General General

Can you provide maintenance and upgrade history for the RSC facility, specifically regarding HVAC upgrades and other key infrastructure changes?

Upgrading the HVAC Systems are not in scope of the contract at this time. Scope is currently limited to maintenance and sustainment activities as described in the IDIQ PWS (subject to change).

H

Missing Special Contract Requirements

Will this be added at a TO level?

No H clauses at this time, this section for now is intentially left blank. However, in the final RFP or if amendments to the RFP are required, there coud be special H clause requirements.

I 252.204-7021 DFARS 252.204-7021 - Please confirm the required min CMMC certifcation level as CMMC Level 2.

Confirmed as level 2 or higher in clause 252.204-7021

I 252.204-7021 DFARS 252.204-7021 - Please confirm the required min CMMC certifcation level as CMMC Level 2. Confirmed as level 2 or higher in clause 252.204-7021

I 252.204-7021 What CMMC level is required for HADES? Confirmed as level 2 or higher in clause 252.204-7021

I 252.204-7021

Regarding Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, will the Government please clarify that CMMC is required for this bid? If so, will the Government confirm Level 2?

Confirmed as level 2 or higher in clause 252.204-7021

I 252.234-7002

Regarding the Earned Value Management System; given the scope of this solicitation and the increased cost for contractors and the Government for implementing and maintaining an Earned Value Management System (EVMS), will the Government consider removing the EVMS requirement?

HADES is and S-CAT II program. Neither FAR Part 37, DoDI

5000.74 (Defense Acquisition of Services) nor AFI 63-138 (Acquisition of Services) levy EVM requirements on service contracts. Additionally, the RDSMO program which HADES falls under is on the Acquisition Master Exempt List. Per AFI 63-101/20-101 (Integrated Life Cycle Management), this program/contract is not considered an ACAT program and is not required to follow DoDI 5000.02 guidance related to the management of acquisition programs. Since the activities are not considered as an ACAT program the EVMS applicability from Circular A-11, FAR 34.201 and DFARS

234.201 is not required. Therefore, EVMS requirements will not be included in the contract. The Government will monitor the contractor’s financial performance through a periodic Funds & Labor Hour Report submitted by the prime contractor as a deliverable under a CDRL, the specific CDRL number is still to be determined. EVMS requirements will be removed from this contract in either the second draft of the RFP or in the final RFP.

I 52.216-19

Would the Government consider at least +/- 5% for order limitations given the likely variability of these TOs.

The order limits input in 52.216-19 were decidied based on the most probably amounts and then given a significant margin. The government does not anticipate exceeding these limits.

I 52.219-4

Would the Government consider removal of 52.219-4 from the solicitation?

Per FAR 19.1309(b) (b)The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition. It is a mandatory use clause. If during the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul, it becomes non-mandatory it may be removed.

I Award Fee

Percentages Section I indicates the award fee percentages are TBD. When will the award fee percentages be defined for CLIN 0001 and 0005 series?

Award fee percentage for the pool is 8%

I Contract Clauses

Section I states the contract maximum is $300M and minimum is $3M Can the Government provide an estimated funding profile by ordering period (Base and Options) to assist offerors in developing a realistic staffing and cost phasing approach?

At this time, no, the government is not able to provide that information.

I General

FAR 52.216-1 states that the Government contemplates a cost plus fixed fee contract resulting for this solicitation. However Section I of the draft solicitation indicates a cost plus award fee contract. Will the Government clarify the contract type?

This will be updated in the second draft of the RFP or the final RFP.

I

Please confirm its not the government intent to use EVMS per DFAR 252.234.7002 Is appilcable. Recommend this is not in alignment with HADES objectives and can be achieved with other effective and less costly program management measures.

HADES is and S-CAT II program. Neither FAR Part 37, DoDI

5000.74 (Defense Acquisition of Services) nor AFI 63-138 (Acquisition of Services) levy EVM requirements on service contracts. Additionally, the RDSMO program which HADES falls under is on the Acquisition Master Exempt List. Per AFI 63-101/20-101 (Integrated Life Cycle Management), this program/contract is not considered an ACAT program and is not required to follow DoDI 5000.02 guidance related to the management of acquisition programs. Since the activities are not considered as an ACAT program the EVMS applicability from Circular A-11, FAR 34.201 and DFARS

234.201 is not required. Therefore, EVMS requirements will not be included in the contract. The Government will monitor the contractor’s financial performance through a periodic Funds & Labor Hour Report submitted by the prime contractor as a deliverable under a CDRL, the specific CDRL number is still to be determined. EVMS requirements will be removed from this contract in either the second draft of the RFP or in the final RFP.

J 4

For modifications to exising TOs…."If proposal preparation is authorized, costs shall not be subject to award fee."

How will it be authorized? What is defined as proposal prep costs? Beyond labor, does it include travel, material, or ODCs?

Section J ordering instructions will be updated to clarify in the final RFP. The intention is to not have proposal prep for every modification, but only in certain circumstances to be clarified.

J 4 ...approved by the appropriate designee… Please define "appropriate designee". The CO, change to CO in doc

J Ordering

Instructions

Page 2 of Section J states that if the Government does not issue a Core Sustainment and Management Task Order for an ordering period, subsequent ordering periods are null and void. Can the Government clarify whether the Core Sustainment TO will be awarded at time of IDIQ award? Can the Government clarify whether evaluation of IDIQ proposals assumes award of an initial Core Sustainment TO?

Langauge has been updated in Ordering instructions to clarify "If the Government does not issue a task order for an ordering period, all subsequent ordering periods are null and void." Core sustainment TO langauge has been removed.

K 252.204-707 (d)

(2)

The following reps & certs…(CO check as appropriate)

Nothing is checked. Was that intentional or will this be included in the final RFP?

In work as part of the second draft, and will be updated in either the second draft or final RFP.

L 2.2 2.1 Staffing matrices

Would the Government consider increasing the page limit for Staffing requirements?

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. Staffing Profiles are limted to 15 pages, per the table.

L 4

If Past Performance references are being considered for an additional Evluation Factor, please allow the 'aggregate' treatment of all references combined (vice individually) in achieving similar value, scope, and complexity similar to HADES.

Please see the updated past performance section in L&M. If there are still questions or comments, please submit the PCO and contract manager.

L 4

If Past Performance references are being considered for an additional Evluation Factor, please allow the use of non-prime/subcontractor references where the HADES Prime or its teammates have relevant non-prime performance references.

Please see the updated past performance section in L&M. If there are still questions or comments, please submit the PCO and contract manager.

L 4

If Past Performance references are being considered for an additional Evluation Factor, please allow the use of Teammate references where a teammate to a HADES prime is providing at least 10% of the labor efffort.

Please see the updated past performance section in L&M. If there are still questions or comments, please submit the PCO and contract manager.

L 4

If Past Performance references are being considered for an additional Evluation Factor, please confirm the highest level of classification the government could accept for classified past peformance references. Many relevant National Space Domain programs are classified.

BOE's will be provided to the technical evaluation team to help determine reasonableness.

L 4

Recommend that BOEs from Cost Volume be included with the Technical Volume too, so that they can be accessible to Technical/Staffing plan evaluators to review justifications for proposed staffing levels for realism and risks of staffing profiles in alignment with the technical approach

BOE's will be provided to the technical evaluation team to help determine reasonableness.

L 4.2

Can the Government define and/or provide figure 4.1 for the stacked area chart called out as part of Subfactor 2?

Stacked area charts are removed and references to figure

4.1 and 4.2 will be removed from section L and M, as applicable.

L 4.2

The Contractor defines the CWBS, to a minimum of the third level, using the level one PWS Breakdown Structure as follows:

Systems Engineering Engineering Development Integration Sustainment Cybersecurity Program Management

The identified level 1 CWBS structure does not align to the IDIQ PWS cleanly.

Would the government consider using the PWS X.X level as the Level 1 CWBS?

---- This will help to ensure all PWS requirements are cleanly mapped to one BOE for each Task Order

The Government is considering this recommendation for the final RFP.

L 5.2 References Appendix A Appendix A is not included or clearly marked. Can the Government please clarify the location and content of Appendix A?

In work as part of the final RFP or next draft

L 6

May offerors rely on a subcontrac tor's past performan ce to meet any relevancy requireme nts? If so, what are the expected requireme nts?

Regarding Past Performance - May offerors rely on a subcontractor's past performance to meet any relevancy requirements? If so, what are the expected requirements?

Yes, offerors may rely on subcontractor past performance to demonstrate relevancy, provided the subcontractor is proposed to perform critical aspects of the effort as defined in Section L, paragraph 6.1.

Offerors must clearly demonstrate in Volume IV how the subcontractor's past performance is relevant to the specific work the subcontractor will perform under this IDIQ.

L 6

Regarding Past Performance - At this time, Section L does not clearly define the number of past performance references required or allowed, recency requirements, dollar value thresholds, and relevancy criteria weighting.

Can the Government please clarify these parameters with the next draft RFP iteration?

If so, what is the anticipated timeline for this past performance requirement to be clarified?

Recency Requirements: Per Section L, paragraph 6.3, relevant past or present performance must have a performance period completion within five (5) years of the RFP release date. This means contracts that were completed or are currently active anytime within the 5 years prior to RFP release are eligible. The 5-year lookback period aligns with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) guidance and ensures evaluated performance reflects current capabilities while providing offerors a sufficient pool of relevant contracts to demonstrate their qualifications.

Number of References: Section L, paragraph 6.3.1 currently states the prime offeror may submit a maximum of 5 recent contracts. The Government will clarify in the next iteration the specific number of references allowed for subcontractors and teaming partners (recommend 2-3 per major subcontractor).

Dollar Value Thresholds: The Government will add minimum contract value thresholds in the next iteration to ensure substantive and relevant contract examples are provided.

Relevancy Criteria Weighting: The Government will ensure alignment between Section L requirements and Section M evaluation criteria, clearly defining how Very Relevant, Relevant, and Somewhat Relevant ratings will be weighted in the overall past performance confidence assessment.

L 6 When will the Government provide directions on the Past Performance Volume?

(Volume IV, Past Performance)

Past Performance Volume (Volume IV) instructions are already provided in the second RFP draft

L 7.2

"Offeror should instruct its subcontractros to submit their total compensation plan directly to the contracting officer."

Can the Government please provide instructions for Subcontractor's submission?

Request encrypted email or password protected files directly to CO.

Subcontractor cost or pricing data supporting the prime offeror's proposal shall be submitted through the prime offeror, not directly to the Government. The prime offeror is responsible for collecting, consolidating, and submitting all subcontractor information as part of their complete proposal submission. All proposal volumes, including subcontractor supporting data, shall be submitted via the method specified in Section L 3.0 (Proposal Submission Instructions).

If the Government requires direct subcontractor submissions for any reason, specific submission instructions will be provided at that time. For secure file transfer, the Government utilizes DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil), which requires CAC authentication.

Subcontractors without CAC access should coordinate with the prime offeror to facilitate secure submission or contact the Contracting Officer for alternative secure submission arrangements if direct submission is required.

L 7.2

Professional Employee Compensation Plan requirements refer to a major sub as having a min of 40 FTEs. Please clarify this requirement given the total FTE of all Task orders is 42.5. Recommend all subs be required to provide a PECP to ensure realistic compensation in alignment with bid rates.

Do not intend to change language. Language is in line with FAR requirements

L 2(a)

"The Offeror's proposal must include all data and informaon requested by this ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the basic contract Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Task Order (TO) PWS, and Model Contract. Non-conformance with the instrucons provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluaon"

We need to know if or response needs to address all PWS requirements, and if not, which specific tasks need to be addressed and are they tied to specific Subfactors for evaluation?

Please clarify the expected PWS elements X.X.X to be addressed and evaulated under Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2 so compliance can clearly be determined and approaches address all aspects of interest to evaluation.

The expected PWS's to be addressed and evaluated are the three Task Order's attached to the draft RFP.

L 2.1.4

"The Bidders' Library, including some RFP attachments, such as the GFP listing, is posted on SAM.gov."

Can the Government provide an estimate for when the GFP listing will be made available on SAM.gov.?

The GFP list will be available with the final RFP, potentially with the second draft RFP.

L 2.1.4

Section L states "The Bidders’ Library, including some RFP attachments, such as the GFP listing, is posted on SAM.gov." When will the GFP listing be posted to SAM.gov?

The GFP list will be available with the final RFP, potentially with the second draft RFP.

L 2.1.4 Will the Government post information regarding current business systems for EDIS to the Bidders Library?

Information on EDIS business systems will not be added to the Bidder's Library at this time.

L 2.2.1.1 Table 2.1

II 4.0 Technical See Below

4.3 Technical Volume Narrave

4.3.2.1 Staffing Matrices/Labor

Profile 15

4.3.2.4 Transion Plan 5

4.3.1 Vol II, Aachment 1, Cross-Reference Matrix Unlimited

4.2 Vol II, Contractor Work

Breakdown Structure (CWBS) Unlimited

Please clarify page count total for Technical Volume 4.3 is 65 pages. In other words, please confirm the 45 pages are in addition to the 15 and 5 pages for Staffing Matrices/Labor Profile and Transition Plan for a total of 65 pages.

Offerors may submit up to 45 pages of technical narrative addressing Program Management and Systems Engineering responses (excluding staffing and transition content), plus an additional 15 pages for all staffing matrices, labor profiles, stacked area charts, and key personnel qualifications, plus an additional 5 pages for the transition plan. This is a total of a maximum of 65 pages for Volume II narrative content.

L 2.2.1.1

Does the 45 page Technical narrative include the 15 page staffing matrices and 5 page transition plan or is it in addition to?

Offerors may submit up to 45 pages of technical narrative addressing Program Management and Systems Engineering responses (excluding staffing and transition content), plus an additional 15 pages for all staffing matrices, labor profiles, stacked area charts, and key personnel qualifications, plus an additional 5 pages for the transition plan. This is a total of a maximum of 65 pages for Volume II narrative content.

L 2.2.1.1

Regarding Page Limits - Table 2.1 of Section L states a 45-page limit for the Technical Volume Narrative; however, it is unclear whether the "Staffing Matrices/Labor Profile" volume and "Transition Plan" volume page limits count against the overall Technical Volume Narrative's 45-page limit or if they are in addition to it. Can the Government clarify whether the Staffing Matrices and Transition Plan are included in the 45-page limit and whether resumes (if required) count toward page limits?

Offerors may submit up to 45 pages of technical narrative addressing Program Management and Systems Engineering responses (excluding staffing and transition content), plus an additional 15 pages for all staffing matrices, labor profiles, stacked area charts, and key personnel qualifications, plus an additional 5 pages for the transition plan. This is a total of a maximum of 65 pages for Volume II narrative content.

L 2.2.1.1

2.1 Technical Narrative is listed as

45 pages, Staffing 15 pages, Transition Plan 5 pages. Can the Government please clarify if the 45 pages is inclusive of the Staffing 15pgs and Transition Plan 5pgs (totaling 45pgs)? Or is the 45pgs given to cover the Subfactors' requirements detailed in paragraphs 4.3.1-4.3.2 (Systems Engineering, Program Mgmt's Personnel Security, Emerging Req'mts, Small Business compliance demonstration)?

Offerors may submit up to 45 pages of technical narrative addressing Program Management and Systems Engineering responses (excluding staffing and transition content), plus an additional 15 pages for all staffing matrices, labor profiles, stacked area charts, and key personnel qualifications, plus an additional 5 pages for the transition plan. This is a total of a maximum of 65 pages for Volume II narrative content.

L 2.2.1.2

List of Figures and List of Tables are not listed.

Can the Government please confirm the List of Figures and List of Tables are excluded from page count in all volumes?

Offerors may submit up to 45 pages of technical narrative addressing Program Management and Systems Engineering responses (excluding staffing and transition content), plus an additional 15 pages for all staffing matrices, labor profiles, stacked area charts, and key personnel qualifications, plus an additional 5 pages for the transition plan. This is a total of a maximum of 65 pages for Volume II narrative content.

L 2.2.3.1

"text size no less than 12-point Times New Roman"

Could the Government confirm that Headers/Footers font size can be smaller than 12 point? Would the Government consider 10point font for headers/footers?

Headers and footers containing administrative information such as page numbers, volume titles, company names, proprietary markings, and similar identifying information may use 10-point Times New Roman font.

This exception applies only to headers and footers and does not extend to any proposal content, including footnotes, captions, or text within tables, charts, graphs, or figures, which must comply with the font size requirements specified in Section L, paragraphs 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2.

L 2.2.3.1

"...text size no less than 12-point Times New Roman."

Will the Government approve 10-point. Times New Roman is acceptable in headers/footers, captions, and classification markings?

Headers and footers containing administrative information such as page numbers, volume titles, company names, proprietary markings, and similar identifying information may use 10-point Times New Roman font.

This exception applies only to headers and footers and does not extend to any proposal content, including footnotes, captions, or text within tables, charts, graphs, or figures, which must comply with the font size requirements specified in Section L, paragraphs 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2.

L 2.2.3.2

Would the Government consider 8-pt font for Figure, Tables, Charts, and Graphs?

Headers and footers containing administrative information such as page numbers, volume titles, company names, proprietary markings, and similar identifying information may use 10-point Times New Roman font.

This exception applies only to headers and footers and does not extend to any proposal content, including footnotes, captions, or text within tables, charts, graphs, or figures, which must comply with the font size requirements specified in Section L, paragraphs 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2.

L 2.3.1

Would the Government consider allowing 5 pages for the classified Key given

4.3.1.2 requires offerors to provide applied SE experience and Section M 4.3.1.2 states we need to demonstrate experience and expertise in applying our SE approach to the Nation Space Enterprise software intensive systems which are often classified, especially for Intelligence Community programs?

Will be updated, no classified will accepted.

L 2.3.2 Shouldn't Volume IV be Volume V as Volume IV is Past Performance and Volume V is the contracts volume? Yes, language should be updated in second draft

L 2.3.3

List of Figures and List of Tables are not listed.

Can the Government please confirm the List of Figures and List of Tables are excluded from page count in all volumes?

Yes, the Government confirms that List of Figures and List of Tables are excluded from page count limitations in all volumes. Per Section L, paragraph 2.2.1.2, page limitations shall be treated as maximums, and each page shall be counted except title pages, dividers, Tables of Contents, and other pages having no proposal content and marked as such.

List of Figures and List of Tables fall into the same category as Tables of Contents as organizational aids to the evaluator and do not contain proposal content. Therefore, List of Figures and List of Tables, when clearly identified and separated from narrative content, do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

L 2.3.6.1

Can the Government confirm the intent of the technical volume to be broken into separate files based upon subfactors as defined in this paragraph?

Yes, the Government confirms that the intent is for the Technical Volume to be organized into separate electronic files based on subfactors to facilitate efficient evaluation.

Per Section L, paragraph 2.3.6.1, the offeror shall provide digital copies via DoD Safe and shall use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments.

L 2.3.6.1

2.3.6.1 "The Offeror shall provide digital copies of their proposal. For electronic copies, indicate on each DVD/CD the volume…"

2.4 "Proposals shall be addressed to the PCO and electronically delivered" and "If hand-delivering digital copies…"

Please confirm Offerors have the choice to deliver either electronically (via email) or hand delivering digital DVD/CD copies?

Electronic only. References to DVD/CD willl be removed.

L 2.3.6.1 Will the Government confirm if physical CD/DVDs are required for submission? If so, how many copies is the Government requesting?

Electronic only. References to DVD/CD willl be removed.

L 252.204-7025 /

(b)(1)

The CMMC level required by this solicitionati is: ______ (CO inserts)

(b)(1) CMMC level not completed by PCO. Was this intentional or will this be included in the final RFP? Will be updated to Level 2

L 4.3.1 4.1, 4.2

Can you provide more details on the government’s expectations for the staffing matrix and labor profile, particularly for time-phased labor allocations?

Please reference section L, 4.3.1.1, Staffing Matricies/Labor Profile (and corresponding section M as noted) for additional details. In particular, utilize the tables provided and descriptions therein.

L 4.3.1.1 Can the Government please provide the Section L Appendices D through H?

Appendices D-H corresponded to the TO's in the original structure of the RFP. This will be updated in the final RFP.

L 4.3.2.1

The three Task Orders seem to account for task-order specfic labor. Where should bidders propose labor for IDIQ level program labor associated with the program management aspects of the HADEs program? Perhaps a Program Management or similar overarching TO would be appropriate for capturing cross-task program leadership and administrative labor? If this is the Core Sustainment and Management TO, would the Government provide a sample similar to the other 3?

The government is reviewing this question and determining if IDIQ level program labor should be proposed as part of the three TOs and subsequent TOs or if should be a stand along TO. Updated guidance will be released with the final RFP.

L 4.3.2.1.1

Regarding Staffing Matrix - Will the Government require, or accept, named personnel within the staffing matrix?

Does the Government anticipate listing required Key Personnel (KP)?

(a) If not, will the Government accept the offeror's identified Key Personnel?

(b) If so, will the KPs be identified at the IDIQ level or TO level? Will the KP LCATs be identified in the draft RFP?

Willl the Government require, or accept, resumes for KPs?

See section L, section 4.3.1.1.3, updated Key Personnel.

Identify the qualifications the offeror is proposing for the key personnel positions below:

These positions shall be filled and maintained at the qualification levels as proposed to ensure continuous and qualified management and technical execution.

Resumes are not required, however if a resume is submitted, the name of the individual shall be removed.

L 4.3.2.1.2 Figure 1 Will the Government please provide "Figure 1" referenced in the requirement?

Figures 4.1 and 4.2, and references therein, shall be removed in the next draft.

L 4.3.2.1.2 Figure 2 Will the Government please provide "Figure 2" referenced in the requirement?

Figures 4.1 and 4.2, and references therein, shall be removed in the next draft.

L 4.3.2.1.2

References Figure 4.1 & Figure 4.2, but there are no figures included in file.

Could the Government please provide Figures 4.1 & 4.2?

Figures 4.1 and 4.2, and references therein, shall be removed in the next draft.

L 4.3.2.2

Personnel Security requirement instrcutions do not align to the Sec M 4.3.2.2 evaulation criteria. Recommend Section L 4.3.2.2 be amended to reflect the criteria in Sec M.

The government considers these sections are aligned.However, after this second draft of the RFP is released, and there are still questions or concerns please submit to the PCO and contract manager.

L 4.3.2.4

Regarding Transition - CLIN 0008 has been identified as Firm Fixed Price for Transition. Will the Government clarify whether transition applies only to the initial IDIQ contract award or to each TO? Will the transition include data migration, knowledge transfer, staffing ramp, and hardware turnover? What is the expected transition period duration?

Per Section M, paragraph 4.3.1.4, the Government will evaluate whether "The Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to assume contract responsibilities at the end of the transition period." Offerors shall address transition requirements in their Technical Volume per Section L, paragraph 4.3.1.4, providing a transition plan (5-page limit) that describes their approach, including risks and risk mitigation plans, to accomplish an effective transition and assume full responsibility within the 90-day period.The approach should encompass the overall IDIQ as well as the initial Task Orders.

L 4.3.2.5

Section L states a 25% Small Business requirement. Can the Government clarify if the 25% requirement is an aggregate Small Business target only or if it will be further allocated across socioeconomic categories (e.g., WOSB, 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, etc.)?

The 25% is an aggregate small business target for evaluation purposes, but offerors must still establish and commit to individual socioeconomic category goals within their Small Business Subcontracting Plan as required by FAR 52.219-9. However, due to current uncertainty and pending clarifications from the SBA, offerors should expect to see updated and clarified guidance in the final RFP.

L 4.3.2.6

Will the 25% SB participation requirement be evaluated/enforced at the IDIQ contract level or at each invidivual Task Order level?

Per Section M, paragraph 4.3.1.5, "The percentage requirement will be assessed at the overall contract level."

Additionally, Section L, paragraph 4.3.1.5 states: "The percentage shall be calculated on an annual basis by dividing total small business expenditures by total labor costs/prices on all TOs on just those labor CLINs."

L 5.1.1 table 5.1

In Attachment CP5 to Volume III: Prime/SubContractor Labor Hour Basis of Estimate (BOE) by TO/CLIN/CWBS, Version 1: Pricing applied - For Version 1 of the BOE, is the Government requesting that all labor costs, including fee, are shown, or would the Government like this pricing shown without fee?

Version 1 of Attachment CP5 should present the complete pricing picture that ties directly to the Cost Element Summaries (Section L, paragraph 5.3.2, Tables 5.3 and 5.4) and enables the Government to trace labor hours and associated costs from the CWBS through to the total proposed price. Version 2 (Pricing Redacted) should show the same structure but with all dollar values and rates removed, showing only labor hours, labor categories, and task descriptions to facilitate technical evaluation without cost/price visibility.

L 5.2.1

5.2.1 Time-Phased, Person-

Loading Graph.

The Offeror shall provide a me-phased, person-loading bar graph – one for each Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) CLIN. The vercal axis shall be in hours. The horizontal axis shall be in quarters. The bars will be layered – boom for prime hours and each stack on top will be for each non-prime with at least 10% of the proposed dollars for each

TO.

Can the Government provide more explanation on the statement "each stack on top will be for each non-prime with at least 10%". Specifically, where to the hours go if a non-prime is below 10%. E.g. if one of our subs is at 8%, they won't be in the layer so should their hours be associated with the prime at that time?

Yes, if a subcontractor represents less than 10% of the Task Order dollars, their hours should be included in an aggregated layer, NOT attributed to the prime contractor's layer.

The intent of Section L, paragraph 5.2.1 is to provide the Government visibility into the distribution of labor across the prime and major subcontractors while maintaining graph readability. The "at least 10%" threshold identifies which subcontractors are significant enough to warrant individual visibility in the stacked bar graph.

L 5.2.1

The bars will be layered – bottom for prime hours and each stack on top will be for each non-prime with at least 10% of the proposed dollars for each

TO.

Please confirm that non-prime with less than 10% of the proposed dollars for each TO will be classified under the Prime bar

Yes

L 5.2.2

Paragraph 5.2.2 also calls for only non-prime companies greater than 10%, therefore, if we have companies less than 10% then the totals won't equal 100%, is that correct?

Yes, if a subcontractor represents less than 10% of the Task Order dollars, their hours should be included in an aggregated layer, NOT attributed to the prime contractor's layer.

The intent of Section L, paragraph 5.2.1 is to provide the Government visibility into the distribution of labor across the prime and major subcontractors while maintaining graph readability. The "at least 10%" threshold identifies which subcontractors are significant enough to warrant individual visibility in the stacked bar graph.

L 5.2.2

Table 5.2, The Offeror shall complete Table 5.2 below for each TO, listing all companies – prime, subcontractors, and team members – who will be involved with the performance and management of the contract within the five TOs. (Prime Plus Non-Prime Companies greater than 10% of total proposed dollars for each TO).

Please clarify if non-prime companies with less than 10% of the total proposed dollars for each TO should be listed in Table 5.

Yes, if a subcontractor represents less than 10% of the Task Order dollars, their hours should be included in an aggregated layer, NOT attributed to the prime contractor's layer.

The intent of Section L, paragraph 5.2.1 is to provide the Government visibility into the distribution of labor across the prime and major subcontractors while maintaining graph readability. The "at least 10%" threshold identifies which subcontractors are significant enough to warrant individual visibility in the stacked bar graph.

L 5.2.2 Should the five TOs be three TOs as defined elsewhere in the RFP?

Section 5.2.2 has been updated, the Government is utilizing the three TO's tied to the draft RFP.

L 5.2.2

The Offeror shall complete Table 5.2 below for each TO, listing all companies – prime, subcontractors, and team members – who will be involved with the performance and management of the contract within the five TOs.

The instructions mention five TOs. Please confirm that it should be three TOs Section 5.2.2 has been updated, the Government is utilizing the three TO's tied to the draft RFP.

L 5.2.2

The Offeror shall complete Table 5.2 below for each TO, listing all companies – prime, subcontractors, and team members – who will be involved with the performance and management of the contract within the five TOs.

There are only three TOs included with the Draft RFP. Will the Government update this instruction to reference three Task Orders rather than five?

Section 5.2.2 has been updated, the Government is utilizing the three TO's tied to the draft RFP.

L 5.3.1 References Appendix A Appendix A is not included or clearly marked. Can the Government please clarify the location and content of Appendix A?

In work as part of the final RFP

L 5.3.1

The Offeror shall complete and submit Secon L Appendix A below, in calculang the Offeror’s TPP. The Offeror shall comply with the parameters in Appendix A and this paragraph in subming the proposal amounts.

Base Fee: No base fee is allowed.

Can the Government please provide Appendix A? In work as part of the final RFP

L 5.3.1 Base Fee: No base fee is allowed

Per DFARS 216.405-2(2), Award-fee payments other than payments resulting from the evaluation at the end of an award-fee period are prohibited. (This prohibition does not apply to base-fee payments.)

It is our interpretation that the RFP section L.5.3.1 restriction on base fee would not allow the prime contractor to be paid any portion of fee for 6 months or longer and would cause undue financial hardship on a business.

May offerors propose base fee plus award fee? This structure would allow businesses to collect a nominal fee during the period of performance while still complying with the DFARS regulation.

The Government does not intend to amend Section L 5.3.1 to allow base fee at this time, but will take it under consideration.

L 5.3.1

The Offeror shall comply with the parameters in Appendix A and this paragraph in submitting the proposal amounts.

Section 5.4.4 includes instructions for Appendix B and C but does not include instructions for Appendix A. Will the Government provide specific instructions for Appendix A (Total Proposed Price)?

Yes, the Government will provide specific instructions for Appendix A (Total Proposed Price) in the final RFP . Section L, paragraph 5.3.1 references Appendix A for calculating the Offeror's Total Proposed Price (TPP), but detailed completion instructions were inadvertently omitted. All Task Orders and CLINs - List each TO (Transition, Ground Control, JAGUAR, Ground Support) with all associated CLINs (base period and all options)

L 5.3.2

Printed copies shall be submitted in Section 2 to the Cost/Price Volume.

Will the Government confirm that no printed material will be required?

Updated in second draft. No printed material is required.

L 5.3.2

Cost Element Summaries are not required for Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs

Where should the FFP transition pricing be detailed within the cost exhibits?

The Government will clarify FFP CLIN documentation requirements, including transition pricing, in the final RFP

L 5.4.4

The Offeror shall complete Section L Appendix B and Appendix C with the Offeror’s proposed labor categories and the corresponding CPAF/FFP rates for each offeror’s accounting year following the instructions outlined within this section.

Are the LCATs provided in Appendix B for contract performance only, to exclude transition (FFP)?

No, the labor categories (LCATs) provided in Section L Appendix B are for all contract performance, including transition.

All labor categories anticipated for use anywhere in the contract—including transition, all Task Orders, base periods, options, and future TOs—should be included in Appendix B with both CPAF and FFP rates. Do not create separate rate structures or labor category lists for transition versus ongoing performance.

L 5.4.4

The Offeror shall complete Secon L Appendix B and Appendix C with the Offeror’s proposed labor categories and the corresponding CPAF/FFP rates for each offeror’s accounting year following the instructions outlined within this section.

Can the Government provide templates for Appendix B and Appendix C?

The Government anticipates releasing Appendix B and C templates with the final RFP. Offerors are encouraged to wait for the official templates before finalizing these appendices to ensure compliance with Government formatting requirements.

L 5.4.4

The Offeror shall comply with the parameters in Appendix A and this…