FINAL_Consolidated FS3i QA 2APR 2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HM047625R0016_Bidder_Library
About this file
This file contains consolidated questions and answers (Q&A) from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) regarding the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Foundation Sustainment Support, Software and Integration (FS3i) contract, a single-award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) with a contract ceiling of $721,000,000 for the ordering period.
The FS3i IDIQ will establish an acquisition framework for delivering information technology capabilities to support NGA's Foundation GEOINT Group and Source Information Group IT operations, covering system integration, software development, help desk support, security, and transition-in services across multiple task orders. The solicitation will be released on SAM.gov, with questions accepted until 9:00 AM CDT on January 23, 2026, and responses posted on the Unclassified ARC website. Key proposal requirements include five volumes (Technical/Management, Past Performance, Intellectual Property, Security, with a 40-page limit for Technical/Management excluding key personnel resumes), submission of CDRLs at proposal, and demonstration of compliance with small business participation goals of 31% for the IDIQ with socioeconomic targets including 5% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, 5% Small Disadvantaged Business, 5% Women-Owned Small Business, and 3% HUBZone. The Q&A consolidates 81 respondent clarifications on proposal organization, evaluation criteria, PWS requirements, CDRL deliverables, task order structure (Common Services and Air Task Orders with 60-90 day transition periods), security requirements (mandatory TS/SCI with polygraph clearance and existing NGA-accredited SCIF with NGANet/SECNet/SBU access on day one), past performance evaluation, and cost proposal methodology using the Common Services and Air Task Orders as evaluation baseline.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
FS3i Draft RFP
| FS3i Draft RFP Questions | |||||
| Document | Section | Page Number | Comment/Question | NGA Response | |
| 1 | Section L | L1.3 | The CO will utilize System for Award Management (SAM.gov) website to post announcements, the solicitation and associated attachments, amendments (if any) to the solicitation, and receive and answer appropriate (validated) questions. | Please email questions to POCs listed in SAM.gov | |
| 2 | Section L | L1.6 | Questions received after 9:00 AM CDT January 23, 2026 may not receive a response. Only responses submitted by the Government to the Unclassified ARC website under the FS3i webpage shall be considered. | The Unclassified ARC website is down. We will update this in Section L. Please email questions to POCs listed in SAM.gov | |
| 3 | Section L | 1.1.8 | Please confirm that resumes for Key Personnel do not count against the overall 40 page limit for the Technical/Management Volume | Correct. They do not. | |
| 4 | Section L | L1.16.1.2(b) | 9 | L1.16.1.2 (b) references WBS 3.38. Will the government please confirm this should reference Air TO WBS 2.38. | Yes. This is a typo and will be corrected in the final RFP package |
| 5 | Section L | L1.15.4 and L1.16.1.6.1 | 11 | L1.15.4 and L1.16.1.6.1 state that the 31% small business goal applies both to the total value of the IDIQ and the combined total value of the Common Services and Air TOs. Please clarify that the socio-economic category goals also apply both to the IDIQ and the combined total value of the Common Services and Air TOs. | To clarify as mentioned in L1 15.4 and L1 16.1.6.1, the 31% Small business goal shall be applied to the total value ordered under the IDIQ. |
| 6 | Section L | L.1.16.6.1 AND L1.16.1.6.2 | 11 | Sections L1.16.1.6.1 and L1.16.1.6.2 use the term “Small Disadvantaged Veteran Owned Business”. However, Section L1.16.1.6.2 uses the term “Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)”. Should Small Disadvantaged Veteran Owned Business be corrected to Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business? Please confirm the socio-economic goals for Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) for the Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP). | Section L will be corrected to read Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOSB). |
The goal will be finalized on the official RFP.
7 J-07 CDRLs, Base PWS, Common Services TO PWS, and Air TO PWS Table L.1, L1.16.1, M.3.1., Base PWS App. D, Common Services TO PWS App. A, Air TO PWS App. B Base PWS 34-36, Common Services TO PWS 44-46,
| Air TO PWS 28-29 | Common Services TO PWS App A CDRL requires the following seven CDRLs to be delivered “At Proposal”: a) CDRL A001 Program Management Plan, b) CDRL A005 Security Plan; c) CDRL A006 Transition-In Plan; d) CDRL A008 System Monitoring Plan; e) CDRL A013 Configuration Management Plan; f) CDRL A030 Operations Support Plan; and g) CDRL A031 Integration Management Plan (IMP). However, Sections L and M do not identify any requirements for these CDRLs to be delivered with the proposal. The Common Services TO PWS is also inconsistent with the J-7 CDRLs file and the Base and Air TO PWSs for these CDRLs. Please clarify the CDRL delivery requirements for the proposal. If the initial submission of these CDRLs are due with the proposal submission, please identify the CDRL’s associated appendices, additional page allocations, evaluation criteria, and evaluation weightings in Table L.1, L1.16.1 and M.3.1. | Will be corrected in the final RFP. | ||||
| 8 | Section L | L1.17.8 | 14 | Section L1.17.8 discusses Organizational Structure Change History. It does not give a requirement for how recent the change(s) needed to be. Will the government provide guidance for this (for example, within the last 5 years) ? | In the past 5 years if your company's name changed or if acquired by a new company or acquired a new company, or reorganized, then the offeror must provide a "roadmap" describing all changes to include specific company names and dates. | |
| 9 | Common Services TO PWS | The Common Services TO PWS does not specify a transition period from the FS2 contractor to the FS3i contractor. Please provide the specific transition period from contract award to full operational capability. | We anticipate between 60-90 day transition period between one contract to another but this will be clarified in the final RFP package. | |||
| 10 | Air TO PWS | The Air TO PWS does not specify a transition period from the FS2 contractor to the FS3i contractor. Please provide the specific transition period from contract award to full operational capability. | We anticipate between 60-90 day transition period between one contract to another but this will be clarified in the final RFP package. | |||
| 11 | Section L | L-7 Intellectual Property Schedule | 1 | In L-7 Table 1, please provide the “Government’s Minimum Data Rights Requirements” for each of the CDRLs, e.g. U, GPR, etc. | Data Rights will be defined on the final RFP. | |
| 12 | Section L | L-4 Small Business Participation Template | In L-4, column B is labeled Company Type (Small Business, HUBZone, etc.) while column D is labeled Company Type(s). Please clarify what additional information is required in column D compared to column B. | Column D should show all Small Business type qualifications. | ||
| 13 | Base PWS, Common Services TO PWS, and Air TO PWS | 18, 52, 33 | The Base PWS states that Key Personnel will be specified at the task order level, and the TO PWSs provide those KP requirements. Is the Program Manager for the Common Services TO considered the Program Manager for the overarching IDIQ Program Manager? | Yes | ||
| 14 | Common Services TO PWS | 8 | 40 | Will the Government provide the WBS element to provide the Enterprise Dashboard? | Yes | |
| 15 | Draft_HM047625R0016 Section L_v4 | K.6 | 38 | Section K.6 includes NAICS 541511 Custom Computer Programming Services and Section L1.2 includes NAICS 541519 Other Computer Related Services. Which NAICS code is applicable for this effort? | NAICS 541511 (Custom Computer Programming Services) will be used for this effort. Section L1 1.2 will be updated to reflect this. | |
| 16 | L1.2 | 1 | ||||
| 17 | Air TO PWS | Attachment 1, 2, and 3 | 34 | Addendums for Attachment (1) APS, (2) WebDVOF, and (3) GTO cannot be opened within the draft TO PWS. Will the Government please provide these documents separately? | Will provide with Bidder's Library. | |
| 18 | Air TO PWS | WBS 3.0 | 13-14 | Will the Bidders Library contain the information to advise the size and scope of the technical effort? Is there a timeframe we can expect this data? | Yes. All requirements will be provided on the Bidder's Library and final RFP. | |
| 19 | Section M_v3 | M.3.1.2: Integration Services; L1.16.1.2.c | 9 | Subfactor 1.2.c Release Management is listed in Section 6.3, WBS 4.5. Should this be included in Section L1.16.1.2.c, Sub-factor 1.1 instead? If so, will the Government please update Section M accordingly? | Section M will be updated to reflect 6.3, WBS 4.5. This will likely remain in Sub-factor 1.2. | |
| 20 | L-10_placeholder and L-2_BOE+placeholder | Will the government please provide the draft L-10_placeholder and L-2_BOE+placeholder templates prior to the final RFP being released? If so, what timeline should we expect to receive these two templates? | Yes - these will be released with the final RFP; we are still working on final timeline. | |||
| 21 | Section L_v4, | |||||
| Section M_v3 | L1.16.1.4(b), | |||||
| M.3.1.4(b) | 10,9 | L1.16.1.4(b) cites Common Services Task Order PWS Sections 6.1 and WBS 2.20 – WBS 2.24. M.3.1.4(b) cites Common Services Task Order PWS Sections 2.20 and WBS 2.24. These references do not align and do not appear to address “help desk support for Tier 1, 2, and 3 support to include tracking escalation and resolution”. Will the Government confirm that L.1.16.1.4(b) and M.3.1.4(b) should reference PWS Section 4.1 and WBS 4.20 through 4.24? | Yes. This is a typo and will be corrected in the final RFP package. | |||
| 22 | ||||||
| 23 | ||||||
| 24 | ||||||
| 25 | Section L | Proposal Volume and Organization and Table L.1 | L1.8 has a statement that the Glossary of Acronyms and terms for each volume shall be provided, but Table L.1 doesn't have an Acronym Appendix labeled in each volume. Please confirm that the Acronym list is only needed for Volumes 2 and 3 as shown in Table L.1. | Table L.1 will be revised to include an Acronym List for Volume 1. | ||
| 26 | J-03 FS3i_Common_Services-TO-PWS-v16_01022026 | To support accurate estimation of the level of effort required for procurement management, system integration, and sustainment activities, can the govt. please quantify the anticipated volume, frequency, and dollar value of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) items expected to be procured under the Software COTS Procurement and Common Services Task Order? | 1 FTE equivalent of staff support to manage licensing and will be supporting software buys in special circumstances (with SAM approval) but we don't want anything bid for COTS cost at this time b/c it is unknown. | |||
| 27 | J-03 FS3i_Common_Services-TO-PWS-v16_01022026 | Can the government confirm that Software COTS Procurement will only occur under the Software COTS Procurement and Common Services Task Order? | Yes, and if Software is required under the other TO's, we would use this one to procure it. | |||
| 28 | Section L | Does the government intend to include a defined requirements list with the RFP to support accurate labor rate development and adequate staffing plan for the Common Services and Air Task Orders to build out the BOE's? Without including a defined requirements list, offerors will be required to make assumptions that could increase cost risk and provides a competitive advantage to the incumbent. | BOE is forthcoming and will be included with Final RFP. | |||
| 29 | Section L | L1.16.1 | Does the government intend to release additional Task Orders to be included with the bid with the Final RFP? | Yes - this is covered in our industry day brief. | ||
| 30 | Base PWS 6.20 Common Services | 4.1 | The Common Services PWS Figure 4.1, Help Desk Hierarchy, indicates that the top tier is the NGA helpdesk and other organizations helpdesks. The Base PWS states that the NGA ESC Tier 1 utilizes Service+. Can the government expand on what system the other organizations utilize on their help desks so we understand what systems to integrate with? | None. Other organizations use other tools, but FS3i will integrate with Service+ and that is all. We will make adjustments to the language in the base IDIQ PWS to clarify this. | ||
| 31 | ||||||
| 32 | Section L | 12.2 No files, documents, spreadsheet, or cells shall be password protected. | Please confirm that Offerors may password protect all documents that include PII data or provide another method of delivery for files that contain protected data. | If password protect is necessary, ensure the receipient receives the required access passwords as well. | ||
| 33 | Section L | 1.19.1.2 | The security volume must provide a copy of the most recently adjudicated signed, dated, witnessed or notarized Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interest (SF 328) for the FOCI evaluation. If any of the responses on the SF 328 are “yes”, the Offer must submit official communications documentation from Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) that corresponds with the CAGE code(s) and most recently adjudicated SF 328 form submitted that authorizes the company’s FCL with FOCI. Official communications documentation can be in the form of a letter on DCSA letterhead, a memorandum from DCSA with DCSA logo or letterhead, or an email communication from DCSA showing date/time stamp and official DCSA email address. In lieu of documentation from DCSA, the Offeror must submit a screen capture of their current FCL status as reflected in the National Industrial Security System (NISS) that corresponds to the CAGE code(s) submitted. The screen capture must display a date that is no more than thirty (30) days before the date of the proposal submission. | No answer necessary. | ||
| 34 | N/A | N/A | Will the Government describe how they plan to provide labor categories for use across all CLINs? | This is the BOE that will be released with final RFP; changes may be applicable. | ||
| 35 | N/A | N/A | In the DD254, box 11a is checked off. For the Final RFP, will the Government revise this form to enable the identification and use of contractor facilities? | Yes. The final version is executed by the selected vendor and definitized as part of the contract. | ||
| 36 | N/A | N/A | Does the Government plan to provide a plug number for COTS procurement? | We are including software procurement scope and giving SAM first right of refusal so there will be instances when we can purchase it under one of our FS3i TO's. All admin tracking and mgmt will be done in coordination with the NGA SAM process. | ||
| 37 | Section L | Can the government expand on what "T-Shirt cost models" are as outlined in section L1.20.10 and how they will be utilized for the pricing of Common Services Task Order, Air Task Order, and future task orders? | T-Shirt models will not be used. | |||
| 38 | Section L | L1.16.1.6.1 | 11 | The RFP states “The plan must demonstrate a commitment to achieve the small business goal of 31% for the IDIQ”. The RFP also states a goal of “Small Business – 15%”. Please confirm the small business goal for this opportunity. | The Small Business Goals for this requirement will likely be 31%. |
The socio-economic category goals are as follows:
Small Disadvantaged Business - 5%;
Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business – 5%;
Women-Owned Small Business - 5%;
Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) - 3%.
| 39 | Section L | L1.16.1.6.2 | 11 | The socioeconomic category goals mention “Small Disadvantaged Veteran Owned Business – 5%”. Please confirm this is intended to reference Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business. | Yes, Section L, L1.16.1.6.2 will be changed to "Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)." |
| 40 | Section L | L1.16.1.6.2 | 11 | The RFP states “The socio-economic category goals (which are not additive to the small business goal) are as follows: Small Business – 15%; Small Disadvantaged Business - 3%; Small Disadvantaged Veteran Owned Business – 5%; Women-Owned Small Business - 5%; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) - 3%.” The 2025 DoD Statutory Small Business Subcontracting goals SDB 5%, WOSB 5%, HUBZone 3%, and SDVOSB 5%. These goals are in terms of Total Subcontract Value (TSV). The solicitation lists similar percentage goals for each socioeconomic category. Please advise if it is the Government's intent for the overarching small business participation goal to be based on TCV and the socioeconomic goals to be based on TSV, consistent with the DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals established by Congress? | The goals should be based on Total Contract Value. |
| 41 | Section L | L1.16.1.6.2 | 11 | L1.16.1.6.2 (2) states both the Common Services Task Order and Air Task Order should be used to calculate the total TCV percentage. L1.16.1.6.2 (3) states “All percentages shall use Task Order 1 Total Value as a baseline.” For the purposes of evaluation, please confirm if the percentages in L1.16.1.6.2 (3) shall use both the Common Services Task Order and Air Task Order or just Task Order 1 as the baseline. | All orders are included in the TCV. |
| 42 | Section L | L1.16.1.6.2 | 11 | The RFP states “Note – any subcontractor identified as an 8(a) or HUBZone MUST have an active SBA certification of its status at the time of proposal.” As of December 2024, SBA certification is also required for SDVOSB. Please advise if the Note should also include SDVOSB subcontractors as requiring an active SBA certification of its status at the time of proposal. | SDVOSB does not currently require certification at time of proposal. |
| 43 | Attachment L4 Small Business Participation Template and Section L | L1.16.1.6.2 | 11 | The information included in Attachment L4 Small Business Participation Template duplicates the information required in L1.16.1.6.2 (6) and (8). The Attachment L4 Excel template also includes two columns for the same information (Company Type, columns B and D). Please confirm all the information required in the Attachment L4 Excel template is covered within section L1.16.1.6.2 (6) and (8). | Attachment L-4 assists in listing subcontracts. Offerors are still responsible to ensure all requirements in L1.16.1.6.2 is provided. |
| 44 | J-05 FS3i_ Air_PWS v4.1_01022026 | 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 | If specific service requirements are not associated with a specific WBS section, does that indicate that NGA is not interested in receiving those services for that specific area? Example: if the 6.46 Innovation and AI/ML service category (defined in the Base PWS) is not listed under Air PWS: 6.1 Integration Services WBS 2.0 section, does that mean that NGA is not interested in AI/ML solutions to integration activities related to the Air domain? | Correct. Any given Task Order may order some or all of the possible services from the Base PWS. A task order is not required to order all possible services. The vendor must be capable of providing all service types within the ordering period upon receipt of request via new task order or existing task order modification. | |
| 45 | Section L | 1.8 | A table of contents shall be incorporated into each volume of the Offeror's proposal, and shall include a listing of the section titles, subsection titles, and paragraph along with page numbers for each title. For ease of evaluator understanding, will the Government please remove the requirement to list all paragraphs in the Table of Contents? | Yes | |
| 46 | M.2.0 | Factor 1 Sub-factors Order of Importance | Given that the sub-factors are evaluated in descending order of importance, will the Government provide the percentage weighting for the 6 sub-factors? | The final RFP will define the updated importance of subfactors. | |
| 47 | Section L | 1.10 Page Limitations | Please confirm that we may use 11x17 pages in our proposal. | No, please refer to Section L1.10 | |
| 48 | M.2.0 | Evaluations | Please confirm that Volume 1 is not evaluated. | Volume 1 is still part of a compliance evaluation as referenced in Section M. | |
| 49 | J3 | 9 | Section 9 states “(U) The performance period for this T-ask-order is from April 1, 2027, through April 1, 2034. One year Base period and five (6) Option years” Please confirm that there are six option years. | Corrected to 6 option years. | |
| 50 | Draft RFP | FAR 6-M | FAR 52.217-8 Contract Extension Clause is included in the Evaluation Criteria. However, it is not included or identified to price in either task order PWS. Please confirm that the pricing templates for both task orders will include FAR 52.217-8. | The government has the ability to evaluate the option under -8 without stating it as a separate line under a pricing template. | |
| 51 | Section_L_v3 122825 |
and
| Section_M_v3 122825 | Subfactor 1.2 (L1.16.1.2 & M.3.1.2) | Section L, page 9 Section M, pages 8-9 | Section L1.16.1.2, Sub-factor 1.2 "Integration Services": Instructions labeled (b) state: Offeror shall demonstrate an adequate approach to provide Engineering support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS Section 6.1, WBS 3.38. |
| Section M.3.1.2 states (b) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide Engineering support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS Section 6.1, WBS 2.38. Would the Government please clarify which WBS Section is correct? | Yes. This is a typo; Corrected in final RFP | ||
| 52 | Section_L_v3 122825 |
and
| Section_M_v3 122826 | Subfactor 1.2 (L1.16.1.2 & M.3.1.2) | Section L, page 9 Section M, pages 8-9 | Section L1.16.1.2, Sub-factor 1.2 "Integration Services": Instructions labeled (c) state: Offeror shall demonstrate the ability to provide Release Management support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.3, WBS 4.5. | ||
| Section M.3.1.2 states (c) Demonstrates the ability to provide Release Management support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.1, WBS 4.5. Would the Government please clarify which PWS and WBS Section is correct? | Yes. This is a typo; Corrected in final RFP | ||||
| 53 | Section_L_v3 122825 | Sections L1.17, L1.18, L1.19 | pages 12- 16 | L1.17 Is labeled Volume 4 - PAST PERFORMANCE. This should be Volume 3 in accordance with Table L.1. |
L1.18 is labeled Volume 5- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. This should be Volume 4 in accordance with Table L.1.
| L1.19 is labeled Volume 6 - SECURITY. This should be Volume 5 in accordance with Table L.1. These volume numbers contradict with the proposal volume numbers provided in the Proposal Organization Table L.1. Please correct the numbering so they are consistent | Yes. This is a typo; Corrected in final RFP | |||||
| 54 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Is this contract solely a follow-on to FS2, or are there other contracts rolled into it? If others are rolled in, please provide incumbent names and contract numbers. | For the purposes of this RFP and the Air and Common Services Task Orders, yes. For future task orders, that may or may not be the case. | |
| 55 | Draft RFP | 1.28 | 15 | 52.215-12 SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA. (JUN 2020) is included in the DRFP. Would the Government clarify if sealed packages will be required? | The requirements are stated within the clause. | |
| 56 | Section_L_v3 122825 | Section L1.20.5.6 | 18 | L1.20.5.6 Total Compensation Plan In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Offerors shall submit a Total Compensation Plan setting forth the salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work on the contract. Would the Government please clarify if “Professional Employees” includes Subcontractors, which would require a Sealed Bid? | FAR 52.222-46 has been removed as a requirement based on the new Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. | |
| 57 | J-01 FS3i_Base_PWS_v9_01022026 | 7.3 | 18 | Section 7.3 Key Personnel requirements will be specified at the task order level. Hours of availability for Key Personnel will be specified at the task order level. All Key Personnel are required to have an active TS/SCI with CI polygraph. Would the Government please confirm that Key Personnel with an active TS/SCI be eligible to complete the polygraph examination within 90 days of start, as per PWS Section 7.6.2 Personnel Security Requirements? | Yes. Scheduled within 90 days | |
| 58 | Draft RFP | b.4 | 5 | The contract ceiling of the IDIQ contract for the duration of the ordering period is $721,000,000.00 This effort is described as a follow-on to the current contract; however, the projected value of the DRFP reflects a substantial increase relative to the existing contract. Given that non-incumbent offerors do not have insight into the incumbent’s historical scope, growth drivers, or anticipated mission expansion, would the Government describe the primary factors driving this expected increase in value? Specifically, does this growth reflect expanded mission requirements, consolidation of additional contracts, increased workload volumes, or a higher contract ceiling? | The increase in ceiling value from predecessor contract is in fact a result of NGA’s estimated expanded of mission requirements and other factors. As this ceiling amount is subject to change as additional data is clarified regarding mission needs, no additional information can be provided at this time | |
| 59 | Section L | 1.3 | 1 | c) Contractor Bidder’s Library (CBL) - The CO will use the XXX. Given the maturity of the Draft RFP and pre-solicitation documents would the government please provide the missing attachments and CBL artifacts in advance of the Final RFP and answers to questions? | Included in bidder's library to be released soon. | |
| 60 | J-03 FS3i_Common_Services-TO-PWS-v16_01022026 and J-04 FS3i Common Services Task Order QASP 01022026 | N/A | N/A | The DRFP includes requirements for two task orders. Would the Government clarify whether these task orders are expected to be awarded and commence performance at contract award, or if they will be issued later? This clarification will assist offerors in developing appropriate transition, staffing, and pricing assumptions. | They will be awarded in an expedited manner post-award. | |
| 61 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Does the Government anticipate providing or issuing any classified requirements, data, or tasking under this contract, either at award or through subsequent task orders? | ||
| Independent of whether the solicitation contains classified content, would the Government accept classified proposal content submissions (e.g., classified technical volumes or annexes) in addition to the classified past performance information indicated in Section L1.17.1? | NGA does not anticipate issuing any classified requirements/data, etc. |
NGA does not intend on accepting classified proposals in response to the official RFP.
| 62 | Section_L_v3 122825 and J-03 FS3i_Common_Services-TO-PWS-v16_01022026 and J-05 FS3i_ Air_PWS v4.1_01022026 | L1.16.1.4 Sub-Factor 1.4 Common Services and Section 6.1 of Common Services TO and Section 6.1 of Integration Services – WBS 2.0 | Section L, page 10; and Common Services, page 20 and Air PWS, page 6 | L1.16.1.4 Sub-factor 1.4 Common Services, instructions labeled (b) state: "Offeror shall demonstrate an adequate approach to providing integrated and comprehensive help desk support for Tier 1, 2, and 3 support to include tracking escalation and resolution in accordance with Common Services Task Order PWS Sections 6.1 and WBS 2.20 – WBS 2.24", Section 6.1 of the Common Services Task Order PWS is Citrix Shared Service with no WBS mapping and does not seem applicable. However, Section 6.1, WBS 2.20-2.22 of the Air Task Oder PWS is specific to Help Desk & Desk Side Support. It seems like the reference to the Common Services TO PWS is in error and the intended reference might be for the AIR PWS. Would the Government please clarify which Task Order PWS and Section(s) Offerors should be referencing for their responses? | Numbering / reference error that will be corrected in the final RFP package. | |
| 63 | ||||||
| 64 | Section L | N/A | 3 | Section L1.8 states "A glossary of acronyms and terms for each volume shall be provided which (including table of contents) will not count against the volume page limit. All acronyms shall be defined at first use." Table L.1, Proposal Organization, reflects Vol 2 to include an Acronym List as Appendix 2-E and Vol 3 to include an Acronym List as Appendix 3-F. Would the Government please clarify if we should be providing acronym lists as appendices or if it is acceptable to include acronym lists as part of the front matter? | To clarify, the offerors shall provide an acronym list as an appendix for volumes 1-3. | |
| 65 | J-03_Common Services-TO-PWS-v16_01022026 | 3 | 8 | Please confirm that the Section L required Key Resumes are the three key personnel that appear on page 8 in the Common Services PWS and that they must meet the Appendix D job qualifications in this document only. | This is correct. The Key Personnel Resumes from Section L is referring to the 3 Key Personnel on page 8, WBS 4.5 of the Common Services PWS and the job description for the Key Personnel is described in Appendix D. | |
| 66 | J-03_Air_PWS v4.1_0102206 | Appendix D | 33 | The Common Services TO states that Key Personnel will be leveraged from TO-1 for all task orders under FS3i contract. Appendix D in the AIR Task Order also shows a requirement for a Program Manager. Please confirm that we do not need to have an additional Key Program Manager in addition to the one for Common Services. Additionally, please confirm that the Appendix D qualifications are not added to the Common Services Program Manager qualifications. | The desire is to have a designated Program Manager for the Air Task Order. If the contractor elects to have the overall FS3i Program Manager also function as the Program Manager for one or multiple other domain-specific task orders, that is their decision. But the Air Task Order must have an individual designated who is the owner of the vendor's delivery effort for that task order in totality. | |
| 67 | Section L | L1.16.1.5 Subfactor 1.5 Program Mgmt. | 10 | The staffing plan must demonstrate that adequate Contractor SCIF facilities are available during the full performance of this effort to accommodate the proposed staff. Where do SCIF facilities need to be located? | The vendor is expected to propose that. | |
| 68 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Would the Government allow for remote access into SBU environment for unclassified development and monitoring? | Yes and it depends. The vendor would have to describe how they would do that, and how it would ensure meeting security and accreditation requirements. SBU and Unclass environment are not the same. SBU Test environment should be used for DEV OPS. | |
| 69 | Section L | L1.16.1.5 Subfactor 1.5 Program Mgmt. | 10 | The staffing plan must demonstrate that adequate Contractor SCIF facilities are available during the full performance of this effort to accommodate the proposed staff. Would the Govt approximate how many people need to working in the SCIF upon award? | The vendor is expected to propose that and provide rationale for why. | |
| 70 | J-02 FS3i Base PWS | 8 | 25 | The FS3i Contractor must have an existing SCIF TS/SCI with NGA accredited networks, with NGANet, SECNet, and SBU workstation access for all employees with the ability to work completely off-site. Would the Government accept use of a proposed SCIF that is pending NGA final accreditation and connectivity? | No. The requirement is that SCIF access must be assured on day one. Pending situations are not acceptable. | |
| 71 | J-03 FS3i_Common_Services-TO-PWS-v16_01022026 and J-04 FS3i Common Services Task Order QASP 01022026 | Section 6 WBS-1 | 19 | WBS 1: The contract will provide services to develop new capabilities that did not previously exist [FT1] . This does not extend, adapt or modify existing services that already perform the same function for which is covered under Adaptive, Perfective, Preventive and Corrective Maintenance (sections 6.16 through 6.19 inclusive). It may adapt existing capabilities that perform a similar function, but for a different purpose, and are reused for a new application [FT2] . Would the Government provide current or anticipated backlog information (or guidance) for industry's use in estimating SW development (WBS-1) capabilities allocable to each NGES system listed in Common Services PWS Section 6? | Yes. That will be in the Bidder's Library. | |
| 72 | Common Services PWS/ Air PWS | Common Services PWS, Paragraph 9, page 41 / Air PWS, Paragraph 8, page 20 | Common Services PoP: One year base with five option years (4/1/2027-4/1/2034) - are those one-year options? Air PoP: Nine-month base with four one-year options from date of TO award. Will the Common Services & Air PWS(s) be realigned to have the same period of performance? | Yes. This is a typo and will be corrected in the final RFP package. | ||
| 73 | J-03_Air_PWS v4.1_0102206 | Section 6.23 Incident Tracking | 15 & 23 | Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.3, WBS 4.5, Release Management, "The contractor shall provide release management services in accordance with section 6.5 of the FS3i IDIQ PWS and each applicable addendum listed in section 12." Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.3, WBS 4.5, references applicable addendum listed in Air PWS section 12. However, the applicable documents are not evident. Would the Government define the applicable documents and provide them to Offerors? | Yes, those will be posted in the Bidder's Library. | |
| 74 | Section_L_v4+01132026 Revised Jan 16 and J-03 FS3i_Common_Services-TO-PWS-v16_01022026 | L1.16.1.4 Sub-Factor 1.4 Common Services: and Common Services Section 6.2 | Section L, Paragraph L1.16.1.4 (a), page 9 and Common Services, page 20 | Section L: (a) Offeror shall demonstrate an adequate approach to provide software license procurement support in accordance with Common Services Task Order PWS Section 6.2. Common Services Section 6.2: Citrix Direct Connect The PWS reference in Section L does not match the section topic in Common Services. Would the Government correct the reference to Common Services? | Yes. This is a typo and will be corrected in the final RFP package. | |
| 75 | Section_L_v4+01132026 Revised Jan 16 and J-03 FS3i_Common_Services-TO-PWS-v16_01022026 | L1.16.1.4 Sub-Factor 1.4 Common Services: (b) | ||||
| Common Services Sections 6.1 Citrix Shared Service | Section L, Paragraph L1.16.1.4 (b), page 9-10 | |||||
| Common Services, page 20 | Section L: (b) Offeror shall demonstrate an adequate approach to providing integrated and comprehensive help desk support for Tier 1, 2, and 3 support to include tracking escalation and resolution in accordance with Common Services Task Order PWS Sections 6.1 and WBS 2.20 – WBS 2.24. Common Services Section 6.1 The PWS reference in Section L does not match the section topic in Common Services. Would the Government correct the reference to Common Services? | Yes. This is a typo and will be corrected in the final RFP package. | ||||
| 76 | J-01 FS3i_Base_PWS_v9_01022026 | Section 6.23 Incident Tracking | 11 | Services to submit and track incidents (INCs), PBIs, and DRs in accordance with NGA’s Incident Response process for Incident management workflow and response time SLAs as minimal requirements needed for Incident management support required. What are the SLAs specified on incident tracking? | The are / will be listed in Appendices related to Performance Metrics for each task-order. Also, information about Service+ and NGA’s Incident Response process for Incident management workflow will be in the Bidder's Library. | |
| 77 | J-01 FS3i_Base_PWS_v9_01022027 | Section 6.21 Help Desk and Desk Side Support: Tier 2 Support | 10 | This support ensures the FS3i services are available to mission customers and can execute to their designed functionality and performance levels at the availability and reliability per the performance specifications. What are the functionality and performance levels at the availability and reliability per the performance specifications referenced? | Defined by each PWS. For example, Air PWS is Appendix A. | |
| 78 | J-01 FS3i_Base_PWS_v9_01022026 | Section 4 Current Environment and Constraints | 4 | 14. Automate Alerting and Incident Response: The team shall have automatic alerts to notify an on-call engineer and Enterprise Service Center as well as integrate with NGA's enterprise monitoring tools. What is the current required On-Call response time? | Defined by each PWS. For example, Air PWS is Appendix A. | |
| 79 | J-01 FS3i_Base_PWS_v9_01022026 | N/A | Appendix C – Compliance Documents Table page 37 | Refer to the Missing Documents spreadsheet that is part of the Excel Workbook. Would the Government provide missing referenced documents? Would the Government provide missing referenced documents? | Yes, those will be posted in the Bidder's Library. | |
| 80 | J-05 FS3i_ Air_PWS v4.1_01022026 | Attachments 1, 2, 3 | 34 | Refer to the Missing Documents spreadsheet that is part of the Excel Workbook. The links provided do not work. Would the Government provide attached documents that are not accessible? | Yes, those will be posted in the Bidder's Library. | |
| 81 | J-01 FS3i_Base_PWS_v9_01022026 | Sections 1-3 | 1 | This PWS describes the technical services required to support the NGA FG IT systems. The FS3i contract vehicle will establish the acquisition framework for delivering the full scope of information technology capabilities to support the IT operations of MC&G for the Foundation Integrated Program Office and the FG capabilities in support of the NGA’s Source Directorate's Foundation GEOINT Group (SF) and the Source Information (ST) Group. SF’s FG mission areas include Aeronautical, Maritime, Topographic, Geopolitical Geography (to include Human Geography (HG), Political Geography, and Names, Places and Boundaries), Elevation, Geodesy (e.g. Global Positioning System (GPS), Soils, Surveys, and Gravity), and Controlled Imagery. ST mission areas include but not limited to content management and dissemination of the source data and products to users across the NGA enterprise. The FS3i scope covers all FG and SF/ST Enterprise IT Systems. Where are the references to topographical, maritime and Geodesy systems? Would the Government please outline all systems and subsystems subject to FS3I's initial award? Would the Government provide the phasing of all systems and subsystems anticipated for inclusion in FS3I post award? | All this is within the scope of FS3i. The Common Services and Air Task Orders are what is included in the RFP for award. Subsequent task orders may cover all or some of this scope. The Industry Day presentation will elaborate on this. | |
| General | General | Regarding the requirement to increase the use of innovative and AI/ML technologies, does the agency plan to increase and/or tech refresh high performance computing (HPC) resources? An increase of AI/ML technologies significantly increases HPC needs and there is currently a shortage of HPC resources at the agency. | Yes, Agency is planning to use HPC that includes to acquire HPC via cloud, or partner provisioning. | |||
| Will the Government consider a MAC-IDIQ for this effort? | ||||||
| The scope of the FS3i contract encompasses multiple technical and operational elements that are not uniformly addressed by a single solution or contractor capability. Market research indicates that potential offerors demonstrate differentiated strengths across various aspects of the requirements; specifically in the Air and Science mission/domains. We highly encourage a MAC-IDIQ structure for this contract. This strategy would better align with these realities, encourages competition, and reduces dependency on a single performer mitigating risks related to schedule, performance and execution. | We have heavily weighed the pros and cons to different contract types and have made the decision for a single award due to many factors. Awarding a single-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract instead of a multiple-award IDIQ is a strategic decision driven by specific circumstances where a single, dedicated contractor is more advantageous. |
The primary reasons for choosing a single-award IDIQ are rooted in the nature of the requirement, efficiency, and the government's best interest. Here are the main justifications:
1. Integrally Related Tasks When the tasks to be performed under the contract are so interconnected that only one contractor can reasonably perform the work, a single award is justified.
This situation often arises in complex, large-scale projects where having multiple vendors would introduce significant integration risks, management challenges, and potential inconsistencies. A single contractor ensures a unified approach and clear accountability.
2. Unique or Highly Specialized Services If only one contractor possesses the unique qualifications or highly specialized capabilities to perform the required work at the necessary quality level, a single award is appropriate.
This is common in fields involving proprietary technology, niche expertise, or highly specific security requirements that a limited number of vendors can meet.
3. Greater Efficiency and More Favorable Terms A contracting officer may determine that a single award will result in more favorable terms and conditions, including better pricing, for the government. This can occur in situations like Job Order Contracts (JOC) where pre-established unit prices are a core component. The logic is that a single contractor, with a higher potential volume of work, may offer a more competitive overall price (or coefficient) than multiple contractors who would each need to account for higher overhead across fewer guaranteed orders.
| Will the Government provide the HW as GFE (COE, SECNET, SBU workstations) at contract award? | ||||
| As stated during the Industry Day unless industry has an existing NGA contract and is performing the existing FS2 scope we do not have workstations/desks ready to go at contract award regardless of having an accredited NGA SCIF. UDS does not allow procurement of the HW unless you have a contract and have HW requirements from the PMO assigned and requested. This limits open competition significantly. | No, See section 8 of Base IDIQ PWS (Place of Performance (PoP) "The Contractor must provide secure and unclassified VTC conferencing facilities, communications infrastructure, connectivity, and workstations, including security to support the goals of the contract and that are cleared in accordance with the National Industrial Security Program." | |||
| Will the Government provide the existing backlog of all the systems under FS3i? Will it include specifics such as identifying perfective, adaptive, and corrective features and LOE to address each feature? | Yes a backlog will be provided however level of effort will be evaluated and determined by the contractor in working with the government leads on what qualifies as acceptable. | |||
| If the Government keeps this effort as a single award IDIQ, will the Government consider doing a phased down-selection during the bid process? | ||||
| a. | Under this approach, NGA can identify the best value by evaluating technical capability first, reducing the burden on both industry and the government for extensive, premature cost proposals. |
b. Below is a recommended outline of a phased down-selection approach for the RFP. This has been used on various NGA contracts such as GEM Cutter.
1. Phase I (Down-Select): Offerors submit proposals covering non-cost factors, such as technical capability, corporate experience, and management approach.
2. Advisory Down-Select: The agency evaluates Phase I, advises offerors on their likelihood of success, and determines who moves to Phase II. This reduces Source Selection risk by early identification of execution challenges and allows the Government to limit exposure and focus resources on the most capable performers versus evaluating a large pool of vendor RFP’s.
3. Phase II (Final Evaluation): Selected offerors submit remaining artifacts to include key personnel resumes, small business participation plans, and full cost/price proposals etc.
| 4. Price Evaluation: Cost/price must be evaluated and the phased approach allows for focusing detailed pricing on a sample task order or a "not-to-exceed" rate structure, often using a "Total Evaluated Price" (TEP) for evaluation purposes only. | Yes, we will consider this. | |
| The NGA has indicated its intent to release a Solicitation/RFP for the Foundation Sustainment Support, Software and Integration (FS3i) requirement as a single award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract. |
In the interest of maximizing competition and small business participation, could the Government please clarify the following:
(1) Will the Government consider structuring the FS3i acquisition as a multiple award contract rather than a single award?
(2) If a multiple award strategy is contemplated or adopted, would the Government consider including a set-aside for at least one award to be reserved for small business concerns? If so, could the Government elaborate on the criteria and mechanisms by which a small business set-aside would be implemented within a multiple award framework?
We have heavily weighed the pros and cons to different contract types and have made the decision for a single award due to many factors. Awarding a single-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract instead of a multiple-award IDIQ is a strategic decision driven by specific circumstances where a single, dedicated contractor is more advantageous. While the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) establishes a preference for multiple-award contracts to maximize competition, it outlines clear exceptions where a single-award vehicle is not only appropriate but required.
The primary reasons for choosing a single-award IDIQ are rooted in the nature of the requirement, efficiency, and the government's best interest. Here are the main justifications:
1. Integrally Related Tasks When the tasks to be performed under the contract are so interconnected that only one contractor can reasonably perform the work, a single award is justified.
This situation often arises in complex, large-scale projects where having multiple vendors would introduce significant integration risks, management challenges, and potential inconsistencies. A single contractor ensures a unified approach and clear accountability.
2. Unique or Highly Specialized Services If only one contractor possesses the unique qualifications or highly specialized capabilities to perform the required work at the necessary quality level, a single award is appropriate.
This is common in fields involving proprietary technology, niche expertise, or highly specific security requirements that a limited number of vendors can meet.
3. Greater Efficiency and More Favorable Terms A contracting officer may determine that a single award will result in more favorable terms and conditions, including better pricing, for the government.
This can occur in situations like Job Order Contracts (JOC) where pre-established unit prices are a core component. The logic is that a single contractor, with a higher potential volume of work, may offer a more competitive overall price (or coefficient) than multiple contractors who would each need to account for higher overhead across fewer guaranteed orders.
To help Offerors focus proposals on the most mission-critical aspects of performance, are there specific operational interfaces, dependencies, or coordination points that NGA considers of higher importance for successful FS3i execution that Offerors should emphasize in their technical approach? 1 - See Section M section "M.2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA" Relative Importance of non-price/cost and price/cost Factors: (1) The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.
2 - See Section M Table M.1: Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors.
For Technical/Management Factor 1.0, are there particular outcome areas (e.g., performance stability, scalability, security posture, automation maturity, integration velocity) that NGA considers most indicative of long-term mission success and would value seeing emphasized in Offeror approaches? 1 - See Section M, Table M.1: Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors. The table lists Sub-Factors in descending order of importance.
2 - The requirements within each sub-factor have the same mission importance for each Task-Order.
For System Performance support (Air PWS 6.3, WBS 4.25), will the Government provide baseline performance metrics and SLAs, or are Offerors expected to propose and manage these metrics independently? 1 - Performance metrics are listed in Appendix A of the Air task order.
2 - The availability requirements are stated in the Air Task-order: " The contractor shall operate and maintain the Aero SoN capabilities and services at a user operational availability rate of 99.9% for deployed services" 3 - Government provides a spreadsheet that shows how system availability is calculated.
4 - Ref: Para 6.3 WBS 4.4
| For Automation support (Air PWS 6.3, WBS 4.4), can the Government clarify whether automation is limited to software pipelines and testing, or if it also includes infrastructure provisioning, monitoring, and operational workflows? | Automation applies to all the applicable requirements in WBS 2.0, WBS 3.0, and WBS 4.0 in the Air Task-order. Some examples are Infrastructure as code (IaC), automated system monitoring. Also reference 6.4 of the FS3i IDIQ PWS. |
| Section M references an “adequate approach” across multiple sub-factors. From NGA’s perspective, what characteristics most clearly distinguish a merely compliant approach from one that meaningfully reduces mission risk or improves operational resilience? | Please read Section M section "M.3.0 Evaluation Criteria Descriptions". |
| In evaluating Technical/Management approaches, will the Government place greater value on demonstrated risk reduction and operational resiliency over strict procedural compliance? | 1 - See Section M section "M.2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA" Relative Importance of non-price/cost and price/cost Factors: (1) The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. |
2 - See Section M Table M.1: Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors.
| For the Past Performance factor, can the Government confirm whether relevance will be assessed based on demonstrated scope, complexity, and mission criticality, even when prior efforts differ in specific customer, toolsets, or organizational context? | See Section M section "M.2.3 Factor 2.0 Past Performance Factor Assessment". |
| When evaluating relevance, how will the Government assess past performance where an Offeror performed as a subcontractor but proposes as a prime for FS3i? | See Section M section "M.2.3 Factor 2.0 Past Performance Factor Assessment". |
| Does the Government have a preferred or required open-architecture framework for FS3i to facilitate future competition, modular upgrades, and sustainment? | This information is in the base IDIQ PWS and separate Task-order requirements. |
| Will any Government SCIF seats be provided to the contractor team, and if so, at which locations and for what labor categories? | 1 - See Place of Performance (PoP) in the base IDIQ. The primary place of performance is at the Contractor’s facilities. |
2 - Unless otherwise noted in the specific Task Order the Contractor will not be provided Government allocated office space or equipment for the execution of this contract.
3 - If NGA on-site work is required, temporary access to NGA sites may be granted in the Washington, DC and St. Louis, MO area. This will be detailed at the individual task order level.
| In evaluating the Basis of Estimate, what elements does NGA find most helpful in demonstrating realism and mission alignment, particularly when Offerors propose efficiencies through automation, tooling, or alternative labor strategies? | See Section M "M.3.6.1 The Government has chosen to use TO1 (Common Services Task Order) and TO2 (Air Task Order) to evaluate the Cost for the award of the basic IDIQ contract. The Offeror's cost proposal will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4 to determine the reasonableness and realism of proposed costs." |
| In Air PWS, Appendix A, System Performance, the Restore time and availability refer to the Dev/Test Environments and not Operational Environment? | See Appendix A in Air Task-order : |
1 - "O-11: Restore Production Environment within 4 hours of an outage during the operating hours."
2 - "O-14: Restore environment, data, and/or services NLT five working days in the event of disaster.
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 .