Attachment 5 - Q_A Template_govt answers_Draft RFP_8Oct24.pdf

GOVERNMENT ANSWERS

MSOFS 2.0 DRAFT RFP H9224025R0001

Questions and Answers

10 September 2024

Question Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(1) RFP Section M5.2.1

Category 1, and Attach 06

– HTRO Self Score Matrix

Q: Will the government consider allowing a potential prime contractor to reference multiple TOs performed on an IDIQ contract as a 1st tier subcontractor as its category 1 reference, if that work is in support of current NSW task orders?

Government Response: Multiple task orders are allowed but will be considered separate work samples.

(2) RFP

Section M2.0 and Attach 06

– HTRO Self Score Matrix

Q: The government has stated that “The “Top Five” highest scores will then enter the process at “STEP ONE”.” In an SBA notice issued July 22, 2024, the SBA speaks to the impacts that have been created with the highly successful SBA MPJV program. The SBA states that “MPJVs are winning too much work at the expense of standalone small businesses” and that the SBA is considering muting this incentive by either eliminating the affiliation exception for MPJVs for (1) multiple award contracts or, alternatively, for (2) contracts or orders with a duration longer than five years.

With at least two of the four current MSOFs prime contractors establishing MPJVs and a number of other previous NSW prime contractors doing the same, and with only five prime contractor spots available on MSOFS 2, will the government consider scoping the number of prime contracts awarded to MPJV’s in order to allow for standalone SB prime contractors who are competent and may not be able to score as high as a Mentor Protégé Prime who can more readily drawn on five PP references all potentially from the prime contractor team, OR in an effort to level the playing field for all SB submission, only allow the protégé to reference its PP references requiring the protégé to submit 2 PP references of its own and treating the Mentor as a sub with the same restrictions levied on all other subcontractor submission?

Government Response: The Government is aware of the notice posted in the Federal Registry. At this time there is no proposed interim or final rule issued by the SBA nor any DoD or SOCOM policy restricting MPJVs on multiple award contracts. The Government will not limit the number of MPJVs eligible for award ahead of any official policy. Additionally, GAO Bid Protest Decision, B-419956 was recently sustained in which the protester stated the RFP was unduly restrictive in limiting the number of experience examples from large business mentors in a mentor-protégé joint venture. In an approved SBA mentor-protégé joint venture, the joint venture is permitted to compete as a small business for Government contracts §125.9(d)(1). Additionally, the Small Business Act requires agencies to consider the capabilities of small business joint venture members as the capabilities of the joint venture 15 USC § 644(q)(1)(C).

(3) RFP Section M5.2.1, and Attach 06 – HTRO Self

Score Matrix

Q: Will the government consider allowing a potential prime contractor to reference two IDIQ contracts as a 1st tier subcontractor if that work is in support of current NSW task orders?

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Government Response: No.

(4) RFP Section L1.5 Q: The government states that “Offerors shall possess a facility clearance with safeguarding equal to the requirement on the DD254 (Attachment 2) by the proposal due date.”

Since not all TOs released under the MSOFS IDIQ are classified solicitations, will the government consider modifying this requirement to require a TS FCL at time of submission, and Secret Safeguarding within six months of award?

Government Response: No; the requirement is for a TS FCL with Secret Safeguarding at time of proposal submission.

(5) PWS 4; 7 Q: Understanding details will be identified at the task order level, what is the average number of Key Personnel and staff desired for each task order?

Government Response: The staffing varies widely based on task order. We have issued over 80 task orders under the current IDIQ. We have had TO’s with one FTE and some with more than 30 FTEs.

(6) PWS 5.11 Q: Please confirm if the micro-purchase threshold (MPT) is $10,000 USD, as defined by FAR 2.101.

Government Response: Confirmed.

(7) PWS General Q: Are Letters of Intent (LOI) or Letters of Commitment (LOC) required for non-employees and employees?

Government Response: At time of task order proposal submission, Key Personnel resumes are required.

Resumes should not be submitted for any personnel not currently available. Actual LOI or LOC are not required to be submitted.

(8) General N/A Q: Can you provide any information regarding the current firm or staff that is on site or was previously onsite? Who is the incumbent?

Government Response: The current MSOFS IDIQ is a multiple award contract with the following awardees:

Lukos, LLC of Tampa, FL, Contract H9224020D0011 People, Technology, and Processes of Tampa, FL, Contract H9224020D0012 RMGS, Inc of Virginia Beach, VA, Contract H9224020D0013 Spathe Systems, LLC of Tampa, FL, Contract H9224020D0014

(9) General N/A Q: When will the detailed version of the Statement of Work be provided?

Government Response: The Draft RFP included the current Draft version of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for the IDIQ. The Final RFP will include the Final version of the PWS but is not anticipated to include more details than what was already posted.

(10) General N/A Q: Will the government consider Vendors to show their possession of a Facility Clearance License as the work requires "cleared" employees?

Government Response: IAW L1.5, “Offerors shall possess a facility clearance with safeguarding equal to the requirement on the DD254 (Attachment 2) by the proposal due date. The Offeror shall provide a copy

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments of its Facility Clearance Level (FCL) notification to validate possession of Top-Secret Facility Clearance with Secret Safeguarding.”

(11) General N/A Q: Will the government also consider current projects within the past 3 years as compliant past performance? This may advantage the government as the criteria of "completed within past 5 years" may leave out valuable Vendor performance to be considered for evaluation.

Government Response: IAW M5.2, work samples’ “Period of Performance must be at least 6 months and no more than five years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation.” A current project within the past 3 years would meet the period of performance requirement.

(12) RFP L1.5 Referencing the requirement for the Prime contractor to possess both a Top Secret FCL and Secret Safeguarding. According to FAR 9.6, there is not a distinction between a contractor teaming arrangement and a joint venture.

If a teaming agreement is established, and within the team both the TS FCL and the Secret Safeguarding requirements are met, will that meet the requirements of L1.5?

Government Response: Although FAR 9.6 considers a “Contractor team agreement” to be either a teaming agreement with a prime contractor and subcontractor relationship or that of a Joint Venture, a Joint Venture has slight nuances with security requirements in an unpopulated joint venture. A prime contractor is required to have both the TS FCL and Secret safeguarding and may not utilize a subcontractor to jointly meet this requirement since the security requirements rest with the prime and only flow down to subcontractors. In an unpopulated Joint Venture, both team members must possess the TS FCL as both members may be responsible for meeting the security requirements. However, for an unpopulated JV, the Government has determined only one of the team members need the safeguarding.

This nuance is based on the unique relationship that a JV offers and current NISPOM security guidance.

(13) Solicitation Pg 45 L 2.3

Q: Will the government confirm the maximum total number of work samples is five as stated in M5.2? Section L 2.3 states “Pages shall be numbered sequentially by work sample and Category in each volume.

For example, the pages of Work Sample 1, Category 5 would be numbered WS1.CAT5.p1-5.” This gives the impression that there will be work samples provided for each of the nine categories identified in section M. Will the government confirm the maximum total number of work samples is five as stated in M5.2?

Government Response: As stated in M5.2, the maximum number of work samples that can be submitted is five (5). A work sample as defined in part in M5.2 is a federal contract or task order. Since a federal contract or task order may support multiple categories and/or have multiple documents or extracts to provide the “burden of proof” as listed in M5.3, L2.3 is providing the format so the Government evaluation team clearly understands which section(s) of the work sample applies to the category.

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(14) Solicitation Pg 46 L.4.2.4

Q: Section L4.2.4 states: “The following restriction on cross teaming applies: If a company is identified as a Prime Offeror or teaming partner/subcontractor on any proposal, then that company cannot participate as a Prime Offeror or teaming partner/subcontractor on any other Offeror's proposal. The Offeror shall provide a list of all proposed subcontractors that will perform work on the Task Order and the mailing address, email address and CAGE codes for the cognizant Contract Administration Office, DCAA, and DCMA for each subcontractor”. Will the government clarify this restriction only applies at the Task Order level as indicated in the last sentence of the paragraph?

Government Response: The Government has placed restrictions on cross teaming. However, the Government understands that it may be unrealistic to identify all subcontractors at this time. As such, L4.2.4 has been revised.

(15) Solicitation Pg 55, M5.2.3

Q: Would the government accept episodic positions filled in under 14 days under the premise that it is more difficult to identify individuals with availability to fill episodic positions on short notice that it is to transition a group on incumbent staff members that are already committed to a position?

Government Response: IAW M5.2.3, “the work sample chosen must also have a period of performance of at least a consecutive six months or more.” Episodic support would have to meet the minimum requirement.

(16) PWS Pg 56, M5.2.6

Q: M5.2.6 states: “Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of positions (with a maximum of 10) across all samples whose primary purpose is providing logistics support”. Was this supposed to read: “Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of positions (with a maximum of 10) across all samples whose primary purpose is providing training support.”

Government Response: Yes. M5.2.6 has been updated.

(17) PWS Pg 57, M5.2.7

Q: M5.2.7 states: This category must use all the work samples submitted in the proposal (either three, four or five). As an example, it is unacceptable for the offeror to only use three work samples when a total of five were submitted”. L5.1.6 allows for an IDIQs to be used.

In this case there in not a simple answer of retention of the work sample, particularly those that involve episodic work. Will the government accept a “not applicable” for a work sample that is an IDIQ for episodic work?

Government Response: No. L5.1.6 has been updated to account for this.

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(18) PWS Pg 57, M5.2.9

Q: With NIST SP 800-171 requirements being new, would the government consider removing the requirement for an average score going back 24 months, and rate companies on their score the day the contract starts much like the requirement for an FCL is graded on the day the solicitation starts.

Government Response: No. NIST SP 800-171 has been a requirement since 2020. The evaluation in M5.2.9 is demonstrating a company’s commitment to safeguarding which has value for NSW as it directly relates to NSW’s posture on OPSEC and protection of controlled unclassified information.

(19) PWS Pg 54, M5.2.4.1

Q: Section M5.2.4 reads: Support Craft Maritime Mechanic: Must be factory certified mechanic on a Suzuki DF250APXX outboard engine with a minimum of 5 years’ experience as an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) certified mechanic with either Evinrude, Honda, Mercury, or Yamaha commercial outboard engines and ancillary equipment. Would the government consider adding Suzuki to list that currently reads: “Evinrude, Honda, Mercury, or Yamaha commercial outboard engines” given the requirement to do work on Suzuki engines?

Government Response: Yes.

(20) PWS 5.1 Q: Does the government have a preference for the location of the IDIQ Program Manager (PM)?

Government Response: No.

(21) RFP M.5.2.4.3 Q: Will the government consider dive school equivalent or higher than Navy Dive School certification NEC 5342?

Government Response: No.

(22) RFP M.5.2.4.3 Q: Are the semi-colons in the position requirements “ands” or “ors?”

For example, for the Dive Equipment Support position, the RFP states “Possess Navy Dive School certification (NEC 5342/5342 or higher); possess qualification as Material Maintenance Management (3M) QA Craftsman, and 3M Work Center Supervisor.” Does the position require ALL of those qualifications?

Government Response: Yes, all of those qualifications.

(23) RFP Section K Q: The Government states, “[Contracting Officer to insert NAICS codes and size standards].” What is the NAICS code and size standard for this effort?

Government Response: 541990

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(24) RFP Section L1.5 Q: The Government states, “Therefore, a JV without its own FCL is required to submit, as part of its proposal, a Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure which, at a minimum, includes the following…” In what volume shall this Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure be included, and will it count toward that volume’s page limitation?

Government Response: The Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure should be included in the Volume I(a) Contract Documentation and Administrative section as updated in L4.2. No page limit.

(25) RFP Section L2.1 Q: The Government is requiring the following: I(a) Contract Documentation Administrative and I(b) Transition Plan. Are these two parts to be submitted in two separate documents (Word/PDF)?

Government Response: Yes two separate documents.

(26) RFP Section L2.1 Q: The Government states, “Attachment 06 - HTRO Self Score

Matrix copies and Volume Placement. Offerors shall include an electronic copy of the completed self-scored matrix in both Volumes I(a) and II. The Offeror’s self-scored matrix (Attachment 06) shall be printed to PDF and placed directly behind the cover sheet in Vol I (a) and behind the cover sheet in Vol II.” The font in the matrix is Calibri 11. Section L2.3 indicates that the offeror is to use Times New Roman, 12-point font. Should we change the formatting of Attachment 06 to comply with this requirement or leave it in its original format?

Government Response: Attachment 06 should be left in its original format.

(27) RFP Section L2.3 Q: The Government states, “The font size requirement for all tables, charts, graphs, and foldouts shall be written in no less than 10-point font, font shall be Times New Roman.” Does this 10-point font requirement apply to the table/figure numbers, titles, and action captions/message statements that accompany the graphics as well?

Government Response: Yes.

(28) RFP Section L2.5 Q: The Government states, “To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written as a stand-alone document so that it may be evaluated with minimum cross reference to other volumes of the proposal.” Understood. May we cross-reference within a volume so as not to repeat the same information in the same document?

Government Response: Yes. However, recommend minimizing this practice as M5.3 states “It is not the Government’s responsibility to search through documentation provided without any clear, concise cross reference.”

(29) RFP L4.0, L4.2 Q: The title of the volume is as follows: L4.0 Volume I – Executive Summary/Contract Documentation/Responsibility Determination.

The instructions provided in L4.2 do not provide instructions for the executive summary or responsibility determination. What

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments information shall be included in the executive summary and responsibility determination?

Government Response: L4.0 has been updated to read “Contract Documentation/Administrative”

(30) RFP L4.0, L4.2 Q: The title of the volume is as follows: L4.0 Volume I – Executive Summary/Contract Documentation/Responsibility Determination. In L4.2, the Government references Administrative Documentation. Is this the same as Contract Documentation?

Government Response: L4.0 has been updated to read “Contract Documentation/Administrative”

(31) RFP L4.2 Q: The Government states, “At a minimum, this volume shall include the following documentation:

• Authorized Offeror Personnel

• Provisions and Clauses Fill-ins

• Cross Teaming Limitations, Teaming Agreements to include JV, and Identification of Subcontractors

• Documentation/Certification pertinent to TS Facility Clearance and Secret Safeguarding

• Signed SF33, including acknowledgement of any amendments.”

May we include the teaming agreements as an attachment at the end of the volume to improve readability?

Government Response: Yes

(32) RFP L5.1.2 Q: The Government states, “L5.1.2 For Factor 1, the Offeror shall select a maximum of five (5) work samples (contracts/task orders) to be used by the Offeror to self-score each selected work sample and to be submitted as “Offeror elected substantiating Evidence.”

Attachment 7 contains Times New Roman, 11-point font. Are we to cut and paste this document into our volume and change the font to 12-point Times New Roman or are these standalone files?

Government Response: Attachment 7 is merely a cover sheet that should accompany the work sample with its substantiating documentation. L2.3 states the formatting “does not apply to any substantiation documentation”. These documents are required to be submitted in Volume II – FACTOR 1: Technical Proposal and Substantiating Data.

(33) RFP L5.2 Q: The Government states, “L5.2 Format and Specific Content.

While the Technical Proposal Volume (Volume II) has no page limit, Offerors shall provide specific evidence to substantiate its self-score.”

Some work samples may reference a PWS that is labeled Controlled Unclassified Information; thereby, making our entire proposal response CUI as well. Please provide instructions for submitting CUI information in the proposal submission.

Government Response: L3.3.2 discusses the use of DoD SAFE for proposal submission which would be appropriate for any CUI information in the proposal submission.

(34) RFP L6.1(c) Q: The Government states, “c) Price Narrative File. The Offeror shall submit a separate narrative file in Word or PDF format with

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments information other than the values required in the price template, to support proposed prices/costs and compensation, to include but not limited to applicable information described below in Ground Rules and Assumptions, Accounting System Summary, and Total Compensation Plan.” Does the price narrative explaining the ground rules and assumptions come before the Accounting System Summary and Professional Employee Compensation Plan/Total Compensation Plan? (There are no instructions under L6.5 for the price narrative under Section 1.)

Government Response: L6.1.c is the format instructions for the Price Narrative File. The Price Narrative should address all requirements of L6.0. For example, L6.3 Ground Rules and Assumptions – Price should be included in the Price Narrative file; not separate submissions.

(35) RFP L6.5 Q: The Government states, “L6.5 SECTION 1: Introduction. The Offeror shall prepare a proposal summary that includes an introduction, overview, summary description of their accounting systems, and, if applicable, changes to approved/disclosed accounting systems.” There does not appear to be a SECTION 2 in the volume instructions. Is this intentional?

Government Response: Correct. L6.5 has been updated as just Introduction.

(36) RFP M2.0 Q: The Government states, “a. The Government will check that support documentation (i.e., work samples, cross reference matrix, self-scoring worksheet, price template, etc.) exists for all the evaluation criteria and that the documents are completed in accordance with the directions specified in this solicitation.” The Government mentions a cross-reference matrix. Please provide further explanation and instructions on this requirement (only mentioned here).

Government Response: The Government has not prescribed a specific format for a cross reference matrix but rather states in L1.2 “The Offeror shall provide cross references with their proposal that will clearly demonstrate the connection between the submitted documents and criteria identified in Section M, and in Attachment 06 – Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) Self-Scoring Matrix.” This is merely to assist the Government in understanding the documentation submitted to substantiate the selfscoring information.

(37) RFP M5.2(4) Q: The Government states, 4. Must have received a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) rating of “Satisfactory” or above in all CPARS rating categories on the most recent finalized assessment.” Are we to include a copy of our CPARS for each work sample submitted (prime only)?

Government Response: No, CPARS that are recorded in the official online CPARS system need not be submitted.

(38) RFP M5.2(4) Q: The Government states, 4. Must have received a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) rating of “Satisfactory” or above in all CPARS rating categories on the most recent finalized assessment.” Are subcontractors required to submit CPARS to their prime contractor for inclusion in their proposal or directly to the Government?

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Government Response: No, CPARS that are recorded in the official online CPARS system need not be submitted.

(39) PWS 5.1 Q: The Government states, “5.1 IDIQ Program Manager (PM). The IDIQ PM is responsible for overall execution of the M-SOFS 2.0 IDIQ contract. The IDIQ PM serves as the focal point between NSW contracting personnel, and their company’s management regarding all issues and discrepancies. The IDIQ PM ensures full compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract and ensures that non-conforming contract services are corrected. The IDIQ PM is identified as Key Personnel in accordance with SOFARS clause 5652.237-9001.” To confirm, a resume for the IDIQ PM is NOT required in the proposal submission. Is this correct?

Government Response: Correct.

(40) RFP Section I Q: Are we to include any required fill-ins referenced in Section I in our proposal submission? Are the representations and certifications (I and K) required to be submitted in Volume I(a), Contract Documentation?

Government Response: Yes, applicable fill-ins should be submitted with the proposal and included in Contract Documentation. Should representations and certifications be on SAM.gov, the offeror need not fill those out again. Out of caution, be advised SOFARS clauses are not in SAM.gov.

(41) Att. 7 Work Sample Cover Sheet

Q: The Government states, “Signature below by a Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, Other Government Representative for the ordering activity constitutes acceptance of the above project information to be accurate as ordered and received by the listed entity.” Is the Contracting Officer, COR, or other representative supposed to submit this attachment directly to the Government, or should they return it to the offeror to include in our proposal? Please provide further instructions.

Government Response: It should be returned to the offeror for inclusion in the proposal. Of note: If the current PCO for MSOFS 2.0, Michelle Riisma, is the Contracting Officer on any given work sample---DO NOT email her to review and sign.

(42) RFP L.5.3 Q: Would it be possible for the Government to provide a sample of a completed Work Sample Cover Sheet?

Government Response: No; the titles are self-explanatory.

(43) RFP L.6.3 Q: How should we factor potential inclusion of Service Contract Act wage determinations in future task orders?

Government Response: SCA requirements will be determined at the task order level.

(44) RFP M.5.2 Q: To confirm, the “at least 6 months period of performance” applies to all work samples regardless of whether that is specifically stated in each specific category? For example, Category 1 restates 6 months, but it is not stated in Category 2.

Government Response: IAW M5.2, work samples’ “Period of Performance must be at least 6 months and no more than five years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation.” This refers to time the work sample

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments has been active. A work sample must have a period of performance be at least 6 months prior to the issuance date of this solicitation. So a work sample just awarded in September 2024 would not count.

Similarly, a work sample must not have a period of performance more than five years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation.

M5.2.1 is making the distinction specifically for total positions on a single work sample to ensure episodic support in which 50 employees are filling various categories/requirements over six months is not utilized.

The support must be consecutive support to count for Category 1. Task orders and/or contracts that require episodic support can still be used for other Categories so long as the minimum requirements for a work sample are met.

(45) RFP M.5.2.6 Q: The Government states, “M5.2.6 Category 6: Positions for Training Support DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of positions (with a maximum of 10) across all samples whose primary purpose is providing logistics support.” Is the reference to “logistics” a typo?

Government Response: Yes. M5.2.6 has been updated.

(46) RFP M.5.2.7 Q: When calculating the retention rate, many companies do not include employee losses due to retirement, death, mandatory transfer of a military spouse, or disabling injury. Is this acceptable to the Government?

Government Response: Yes, that would be acceptable.

(47) RFP M5.2.9 Q: For understanding, the Government would like us to take our score month by month and divide it by 24 months? Hypothetically, would a score of 35 for 12 months and a score of 110 for 12 months, result in an average assessment score of 72.5 and yield a score of 50 points, in accordance with the HRTO Matrix?

Government Response: The hypothetical score calculation is correct based on the parameters listed.

Similarly, if an offeror had a score of 110 for 18 months and no score for 6 months the average assessment score would be 82.5.

(48) 4.1 N/A Q: How will IT systems, such as logistics management software or supply chain platforms, be integrated with existing NSW logistics operations? What challenges do you anticipate in ensuring seamless communication and data flow between logistics management tools and other IT systems?

Government Response: IT systems are already integrated and approved by NSW. Normal challenges exist but are not the primary task for a contractor to assist for MSOFS 2.0.

(49) 4.1 N/A Q: What opportunities exist for automating logistics processes through IT solutions, such as automated inventory tracking, predictive analytics for supply chain management, or automated dispatch systems? How will these automation efforts enhance the efficiency and reliability of NSW logistics operations?

Government Response: Automation of processes are not the primary requirement for MSOFS 2.0. Many processes are already established and/or directed by external agencies such as the Navy or USSOCOM.

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(50) 4.1 N/A Q: How will cybersecurity measures be integrated into logistics management systems to protect sensitive logistics data and ensure the integrity of supply chain operations? What specific challenges do you foresee in securing these systems against potential cyber threats?

Government Response: Logistics management systems are already established and/or directed by external agencies such as the Navy or USSOCOM. It is not the MSOFS 2.0 requirement to update these systems for cyber threats. A responsible offeror for MSOFS 2.0 must meet the requirements of DFARS Subpart

204.73 for Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting.

(51) 4.1 N/A Q: What role will real-time data analytics play in optimizing logistics operations, such as tracking shipments, managing inventory, or forecasting supply chain needs? How will IT systems be leveraged to provide actionable insights that support decision-making in logistics management?

Government Response: Logistics management systems are already established and/or directed by external agencies such as the Navy or USSOCOM. Although MSOFS 2.0 requirements may require data analytics to be conducted, analysis will utilize approved NSW IT systems.

(52) 4.1 N/A Q: How will IT solutions be used to support the training of logistics personnel, particularly in the use of new logistics management software or systems? What tools or platforms will be employed to ensure that personnel are proficient in using these technologies?

Government Response: Logistics management systems are already established and/or directed by external agencies such as the Navy or USSOCOM. Task order level requirements will dictate the qualification requirements and whether employees are required to be proficient in any systems.

(53) 4.1 N/A Q: How will IT systems used for logistics management ensure interoperability with systems used by external partners, such as suppliers or transportation providers? What strategies will be implemented to facilitate smooth data exchange and communication between different systems?

Government Response: Logistics management systems are already established and/or directed by external agencies such as the Navy or USSOCOM. All IT systems must be approved by NSW. Data exchange and communication between different systems is not a primary task of the MSOFS 2.0 requirement nor does NSW typically handle such requirements.

(54) 4.1 N/A Q: What considerations will be given to the scalability of IT systems used in logistics operations, particularly in response to varying operational demands or changes in the scale of missions? How will these systems be designed to handle fluctuations in logistics needs without compromising performance?

Government Response: IT systems are already integrated and approved by NSW. Normal challenges such as scalability exist but are not the primary task for a contractor to assist for MSOFS 2.0.

(55) 4.1 N/A Q: How will IT infrastructure support logistics operations in remote or deployed environments, where connectivity and access to centralized systems might be limited? What solutions will be employed to ensure that logistics personnel have the necessary IT tools and systems in these challenging conditions?

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Government Response: IT systems are already integrated and approved by NSW in remote and deployed environments.

(56) 4.5 N/A Q: Are there specific engineering projects or technical challenges anticipated under this contract?

Government Response: Specific requirements will be detailed at the task order level.

(57) 4.5 N/A Q: What methodologies will be used to evaluate the impact of innovative IT-based product support strategies, particularly in the context of lifecycle management for NSW surface and submersible systems? How will these methodologies address the integration of AI and other advanced technologies into the existing IT infrastructure?

Government Response: Innovative IT-based product support strategies is not a requirement of MSOFS

2.0 and not being evaluated per any of the specific criteria in Section M.

(58) 4.5 N/A Q: How will the integration of artificial intelligence into surface and submersible systems enhance operational capabilities, specifically in terms of IT system architecture and the engineering of AI algorithms? What challenges do you anticipate in ensuring these AI-driven solutions are robust, secure, and effective in tactical environments?

Government Response: Technical requirements specific to a given operational capability will be defined at the task order level as necessary.

(59) 4.3 N/A Q: What are the key logistics and equipment-related requirements for this contract, particularly concerning the management of IT infrastructure, asset tracking, and reporting systems? How will these requirements impact the overall operational efficiency and readiness of NSW facilities?

Government Response: IT systems are already integrated and approved by NSW. Normal challenges exist but are not the primary task for a contractor to assist for MSOFS 2.0. Logistics management systems are already established and/or directed by external agencies such as the Navy or USSOCOM.

(60) 4.3 N/A Q: How will the contractor support strategic planning and SOF capability analysis, particularly in aligning emerging technologies like AI and advanced IT systems with NSW’s long-term operational goals? What methodologies will be employed to ensure these strategies are adaptable and resilient in dynamic operational environments?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(61) 4.3 N/A Q: What are the key considerations for managing facilities and ranges under this contract, particularly with respect to maintaining and upgrading IT systems and infrastructure? How will the contractor ensure that these facilities support the evolving needs of NSW operations?

Government Response: IT systems and infrastructure for facilities and ranges already exist and are not a primary requirement of MSOFS 2.0.

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(62) 4.3 N/A Q: What systems and technologies will be utilized for asset tracking and reporting within NSW? How will these systems integrate with existing platforms, and what measures will be taken to enhance data accuracy and accessibility for decision-makers?

Government Response: Logistics management systems are already established and/or directed by external agencies such as the Navy or USSOCOM. Although MSOFS 2.0 requirements may require data analytics to be conducted, analysis will utilize approved NSW IT systems.

(63) 4.3 N/A Q: How will the contractor support knowledge management initiatives within NSW, particularly in terms of digitizing and organizing critical data for easy access and collaboration? What tools or platforms will be used to enhance communication and information sharing across different teams and locations?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(64) 4.3 N/A Q: In supporting human-related systems like the Human

Performance Program (HPP), how will the contractor integrate data analytics and IT solutions to enhance performance monitoring and improvement? What specific technologies will be leveraged to support NSW’s human capital programs?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(65) 4.3 N/A Q: How will the contractor manage the critical aspects of the acquisition cycle, including the development, production, deployment, and sustainment of systems and equipment? What strategies will be used to ensure that these processes are efficient, transparent, and aligned with NSW’s operational needs?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(66) 4.3 N/A Q: What approaches will be taken to prepare and manage digital content and other communication methodologies within NSW? How will these approaches support improved collaboration, information dissemination, and decision-making across the command?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(67) 4.4 N/A Q: What specific custom software solutions are anticipated to support intelligence analysis, such as ASINT/OSINT, SIGINT, or IMINT? How will these solutions integrate with existing intelligence systems to enhance data processing and analysis capabilities?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(68) 4.4 N/A Q: How will the contractor be involved in the integration of IT systems for ISR portfolio management and digital reconnaissance?

What are the key challenges in ensuring seamless data fusion from multiple intelligence sources, and how will these be addressed?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(69) 4.4 N/A Q: What strategies will be implemented to manage and secure the vast amounts of data generated by ISR and intelligence analysis activities?

How will the contractor ensure that these data management practices align with current cybersecurity standards?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(70) 4.4 N/A Q: What role will the contractor play in supporting METOC and Cultural Surveillance and Reconnaissance (CISR) intelligence activities? How will advanced IT systems be utilized to enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of these intelligence disciplines?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(71) 4.4 N/A Q: How will the contractor provide training and support for the continuous improvement of intelligence support strategies, particularly with regard to integrating innovative technologies like AI and machine learning into intelligence analysis workflows?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(72) 4.4 N/A Q: What methodologies will be used to evaluate the impact of new and innovative intelligence support strategies, particularly those involving advanced IT systems? How will these evaluations inform continuous improvement and sustainment activities within the intelligence community?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(73) 4.6 N/A Q: What specific software applications and tools are required for preparing briefings, reports, and visual aids under this contract?

How will these tools integrate with existing NSW systems to streamline administrative workflows?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(74) 4.6 N/A Q: What are the key requirements for data management and report generation within NSW’s administrative operations? How will the contractor ensure data accuracy, accessibility, and security in these processes?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(75) 4.6 N/A Q: How will the contractor support the establishment and management of databases, files, and forms to ensure seamless access and compliance with NSW’s reporting requirements? What systems will be employed to maintain these resources effectively?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(76) 4.6 N/A Q: What multimedia capabilities are expected for producing briefing charts, visual aids, and reports? How will these capabilities be integrated into NSW’s current administrative processes to enhance communication and decision-making?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(77) 4.6 N/A Q: How will the contractor assist in generating and maintaining special training requirements and related documentation? What systems or platforms will be used to ensure these training materials are up-to-date and easily accessible to NSW personnel?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

(78) 4.6 N/A Q: How will the contractor leverage automation to streamline administrative processes such as data entry, file management, and report generation? What benefits are anticipated from implementing automated solutions in these areas?

Government Response: Specific technical requirements will be defined at the task order level.

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(79) Solicitation Section L Q: Section L mentions a Joint Venture (JV) formed under The All Small Mentor-Protégé Program or the SBA 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Program is allowed to propose. What about a JV that is part of the SBAMPP but not all members are small or 8(a)? Would such a JV be permitted to submit under the same rules?

Government Response: As of 16 November 2020, the 8(a) Mentor-Protégé program and the All Small Mentor-Protégé program have merged into one SBA Mentor-Protégé program (MPP). Section L&M have been updated. A JV under the MPP is acceptable.

(80) Solicitation Section M5.2 Q: M.5.2 states, "Must be a federal contract or task order."

Recommend including "or subcontract" after "task order."

Government Response: The subcontract would have to fall under a federal contract or task order and thus would be redundant.

(81) Solicitation Section M5.2.1

Q: For 5.2.1 Category 1 – Should only one work sample be claimed here? Recommend graying out the WS-2 to WS-5 cells on the HTRQ matrix to reflect this.

Government Response: Yes. M5.2.1 states “This category is restricted to a single work sample chosen from among the maximum five submitted and must be PRIMED by the OFFEROR (to include either of the partners of a Joint Venture).”

(82) Solicitation Section M5.2.1

Q: Categories 1 and 3 state, “The work samples chosen must also have a performance period of at least a consecutive six months or more.” Recommend removing this requirement since it was previously indicated that multiple task orders (which may not have been performed consecutively) could be used as a work sample.

Government Response: Multiple task orders may not be used separately as a single work sample.

(83) Solicitation Section M5.2.1/M5.2.

Q: Categories 1 and 3 state, “The work samples chosen must also have a performance period of at least a consecutive six months or more.” Recommend removing this requirement since it was previously indicated that multiple task orders (which may not have been performed consecutively) could be used as a work sample.

Government Response: Multiple task orders may not be used separately as a single work sample.

(84) HRTO

Matrix

-- Q: We recommend allowing offerors to submit a maximum of 5 work samples per Evaluation Criteria Category on the HTRQ Matrix, without limiting the total number of work samples an offeror can provide

- For instance, offerors could submit up to 5 distinct work samples for Category 4, and 5 other distinct work samples for Category 5.

- This approach provides a more comprehensive reflection of the offeror's overall experience and capabilities, aligning with the

SOW.

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Government Response: No.

(85) Solicitation Section M5.2.3

Q: Category 3 – What substantiating information does the government expect offerors to provide to demonstrate the number of "properly qualified and experienced personnel within 14 days of the PoP start" that were staffed?

Government Response: An example document for burden of proof could be a historic monthly report CDRL submitted to the Government or payroll data clearly linked to the individuals performing a specific effort.

(86) Solicitation Section M5.2.4 / 5.2.5

/ 5.2.6

Q: For Categories 4, 5, and 6 – If the offeror submits a collection of task orders, does each position count as 1? For example, if 2 Intel Analysts are provided on Task Order 1 under ABC IDIQ, and 4 Intel Analysts on Task Order 2 under ABC IDIQ, is it acceptable to self-score as "6" for Category 5?

Government Response: Multiple task orders may not be used separately as a single work sample.

(87) Solicitation Section M5.2.7

Q: What substantiating information does the government expect to see in order to validate retention rates or headcounts at specific periods?

- Please clarify what period should be used for the "selected annual period." We recommend that the government define this as the beginning and end of the order/performance/base period.

Allowing the offeror to define the "annual period" could lead to selective timeframes. Specifically, in the event multiple task orders under an IDIQ are used for a single work sample, which "annual period" should be used?

Government Response: M5.3 includes examples of documents that could be used for burden of proof.

M5.2.7 has been updated to uniformly address the reporting period.

(88) RFP Section M5.2 Q: Work samples are categorized as Category 1, 1A, 1B, 2, 2A, and 2B, depending on whether they were provided by the Prime or Teammate and whether they were performed as a Prime or Subcontractor. The use of "Category 1" and "Category 2" in this context is confusing because the HTRO elements are also referred to as "Categories." Recommend renaming these work sample classifications to "Type of Work Sample" or another term that clearly distinguishes them from the HTRO categories

Government Response: Categories will remain.

(89) PWS Pg 1 Section 4.2

Q: Will MSOFS contractors potentially be utilized for Combatant Craft and SOC-R maintenance? The Combatant Craft and SOC-R diesel inboard engines discussed in the PWS Section 4 does not correlate with the Suzuki qualification requirement in the Solicitation Section M5.2.4.

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Government Response: Yes there is potential to use Contractors to provide maintenance on all models of Combatant Craft in inventory today (CCM, CCA, SOCR, CCH, SFA) and future models not yet fielded.

M5.2.4 is showcasing one aspect of the entire MSOFS 2.0 requirement.

(90) PWS and

RFP

General Q: Will MSOFS contractors be utilized for NSW Center for SEAL and SWCC 11M RIB maintenance? These 11M RIBs utilize inboard diesels which are not mentioned in the Solicitation Section M5.2.4 and this variant of NSW craft is not mentioned in the PWS.

Government Response: Yes there is potential to use contractors for the current 11M RIB at Center.

M5.2.4 is showcasing one aspect of the entire MSOFS 2.0 requirement.

(91) RFP Pg 55 Section M5.2.4

Q: Provided the contractor is also a certified Suzuki dealer, would the Government consider contractors who provide “HTRO Self Score Matrix” work samples with a point generating value covering equivalent maintenance support to the Navy on various Inboard Diesel Engines and on Mercury, Yamaha, and Honda outboard Engines?

Government Response: It is unclear what is meant by a “point generating value”. Maintenance support to the Navy would count so long as the requirements at M5.2.4 are also met.

(92) Pricing Volume

Pricing Volume

Q: The sample pricing volume does not have a clear format for pricing out subcontractor cost pools and pricing.

Government Response: Contractor format is acceptable. IAW L6.6, “Each proposed subcontractor shall submit to the prime offeror a separate Total Compensation Plan meeting the requirements of 52.222-46.”

(93) H9224025R

DRAFT_A

ug24

Pg 55 M5.2.3

Q: How will the duration of the transition period be verified based on the Work Sample documentation? For instance, even if the PWS specifies a 14-day transition period, this may not be consistently met.

We suggest that the Government use FPDS records to confirm the contract/task order signature date and the start date of the period of performance.

Government Response: No. The date the contract is signed and the date the period of performance begins only shows the time provided for transition activities to occur and not whether positions were staffed with properly qualified and experienced personnel within 14 days of PoP start. An example document for burden of proof could be a historic monthly report CDRL submitted to the Government or payroll data clearly linked to the individuals performing a specific effort.

(94) H9224025R

DRAFT_A

ug24

Pg 55 M5.2.3

Q: Do both full-time and part-time positions count towards the number of positions transitioned within 14 days?

Government Response: Yes.

(95) H9224025R

Pg 55 M5.2.3

Q: Will small task orders with a 3-week performance period qualify as evidence of completing transitions within 14 days?

Number RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

DRAFT_A

ug24

Government Response: IAW M5.2.3, “The work samples chosen must also have a period of performance of at least a consecutive six months or more.”

(96) H9224025R

DRAFT_A

ug24

Pg 55 M5.2.3

Q: Does backfilling positions within the 14-day period count toward meeting the transition requirement?

Government Response: So long as the position is filled within the 14-day period, it would meet the transition requirement.

(97) H9224025R

DRAFT_A

ug24

Pg 55 M5.2.4

Q: The Government requires proof of qualifications for similar positions that offerors have provided. For example, the Draft RFP states:

“Tactical and Heavy Equipment Mechanic: Each mechanic, shall have a minimum of six (6) years’ experience as an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) mechanic at semi-truck dealership, commercial fleet service shop, Intermediate level military maintenance facility, or have equivalent military experience. Additionally, each respective mechanic shall possess an Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) certification in diesel engines and at least two (2) other Heavy Truck Categories such as, Drive Train; Brakes; Suspension & Steering;

Electrical; Heating & A/C and Preventative Maintenance.”

The “minimum of 6 years’ experience” is better specified on a person’s resume.