Amend 1_QnA Responses_20May2026.pdf

MARSOC CD&I SETA

RFP H92257-26-R-E010 Questions

20 May 2026

Q RFP DocRef

Pg/Section/ Paragraph Questions/Comments

1 ITO

Pg 45, Resumes & Qualifications

Q: We understand resumes and resume Cross-Reference Matrices shall be provided for all proposed personnel. Can the Government confirm that both the required resume Cross-Reference Matrix and associated resumes are not included in the 10-page limit for the technical volume?

A: Resumes and Cross-Reference Matrix are exempt from the page limit

2 ITO

Pg 45, Staffing

Approach Evidence

Q: If offerors provide Letters of Intent (LOI) from proposed personnel, can the Government confirm that the LOIs are not included in the 10-page limit for the technical volume?

A: Resumes, Cross Reference Matrix and LOIs are exempt from the page limit.

3 ITO

Pg 45, Staffing

Approach Evidence

Q: Would it be acceptable for offerors to provide resumes, resume cross-reference matrices, and LOIs in an Appendix to the Technical, which would not be counted toward the 10-page limit?

4 ITO

Pricing /

CLIN

Structure

Q: Can the Government clarify whether travel will be proposed as:

A separate ODC/Travel CLIN, Included within fixed-price labor rates, or

Reimbursed in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 A: Travel will be a separate Firm Fixed Price NTE CLIN as stated on the

Pricing Template

5 ITO

Pricing /

CLIN

Structure

Q: Since $120,000.00 was provided in the Pricing Template for travel as a “plug number”, can the Government confirm offerors should include

$120,000.00 in the solicitation Travel CLINS upon submission (found on pages 3 – 7 of the solicitation)? Or, should Travel CLINs within the solicitation be submitted as unpriced?

A: Offerors should include it in their proposal.

6 ITO Pg. 45, Subfactor II:

Q: Subfactor II Staffing Approach – is the staffing approach process, Letters of Intent, vetted candidate pipeline and historical metrics data included in the

Technical Volume 10 page limit?

Staffing Approach

7 ITO

Page 45 Q: Subfactor I Resumes and Qualifications – are resumes and cross reference matrix included in the Technical Volume 10 page limit?

Subfactor I:

Resumes and Qualifications

8 ITO Factor I

Section L states that Volume II, Factor I is limited to ten (10) pages. Please clarify whether the page limitation applies collectively to the overall technical approach as well as Subfactor 1 (Resumes and Qualifications), Subfactor II (Staffing Approach), and Subfactor III (Transition Approach), or whether separate page limitations apply to those subfactors. Given the breadth of the required technical, staffing, resume, and transition information, additional clarification would help offerors ensure sufficient detail is provided to support meaningful Government evaluation.

A: The page limit applies to the overall technical approach. The page limit has been increased to 20 pages.

9 ITO Pg 45, Subfactor II

Q: Subfactor II instructions state, “Offerors are highly encouraged to substantiate their approach with concrete evidence of recruitment capabilities.

This evidence may include, but is not limited to:

- Signed Letters of Intent (LOIs) from fully qualified personnel

(including incumbent capture efforts).

LOIs may contain salary and other compensation which may be deemed as cost/price data. Can offerors redact salary and compensation information for the Subfactor II Staffing Approach submission?.

A: Yes, offerors can redact salary and compensation data from Subfactor

II.

10 ITO Page 46, Subfactor III

Q: Factor III does not require a separate price proposal from any proposed subcontractors. Please confirm proposed subcontractors are not required to submit separate subcontractor Price proposal.

A: While subcontractors are not required to submit separate price proposals, they may submit Total Compensation Plans directly to the Government to protect proprietary data from disclosure to the Prime

Contractor.

11 ITO

Pg. 45, Subfactor III:

Transition Approach

Q: Subfactor III Transition Approach – is the Transition/Transfer Plan included in the Technical Volume 10 page limit?

A: The Technical Volume page limit has been increased to 20 pages. The Transition/Transfer plan is included within the 20 page limit.

12 ITO

Instructions, Pg. 45, Subfactor I

Q: Per the instructions, “offerors shall provide resumes for all proposed personnel.” May resumes be included in an annex that does not count toward the page limit?

13 ITO

Instructions, Pg. 45, Subfactor II

Q: Per the instructions, signed LOIs may be included. May LOIs be included in an annex that does not count toward the page limit?

14 ITO

P. 46, Factor

III - Price (Volume IV)

Q: Section: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters states that Volume IV (Price) shall include the completed Pricing Template and supporting price narrative/documentation.

To ensure compliance with the proposal submission requirements, would the Government please clarify how the Government would like the following documents to be submitted:

Executed SF1449 (and potential Amendment(s))

Completed Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs (CLIN pricing schedule) Specifically, should these documents be included within the Price volume or submitted separately as part of the overall proposal package? Additionally, please confirm whether such documents are excluded from any applicable page limitations.

A: Executed SF1449 and amendments shall be submitted separately and are exempt from page limits. Price Volume page limit has been removed.

15 ITO

Pp. 44-45, Qualifying

Criteria (Vol.

I)

Q: Section: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters states that Volume I (Qualifying Criteria) shall include all fill-ins or certifications required by the solicitation, for inclusion in any resulting contract.

To ensure compliance with the proposal submission requirements, please confirm whether the Government intends for only the solicitation-specific fill-in pages, certifications, representations, and acknowledgments requiring offeror completion to be included within the Qualifying Criteria volume, rather than the entirety of the solicitation document. Additionally, please confirm whether such documents are excluded from any applicable page limitations.

A: Only the fill-in pages, representations, and acknowledgements are required. They are exempt from page limitations.

16 ITO N/A

Q: Are all 7 positions currently staffed?

A: Yes

17 ITO N/A

Q: Will the Government provide the names and contact information of incumbent personnel?

A: No

ITO

P. 34, KP

Requirements

Q: Section I, Clause 5652.237-9001 Key Personnel Requirements, states that “the following positions are identified as Key Personnel,” however no positions are identified in the solicitation. Additionally, Subfactor I requires resumes and qualification matrices for all proposed personnel. Will the Government please clarify if all positions are designated as Key Personnel for this solicitation?

Special

Contract Requirements

A: All positions are designated as Key Personnel. The Clause has been updated.

19 ITO

Page 45, Instructions, Qualifying

Criteria (Volume I)

Q: Page 45 of the RFP states in the qualifying criteria (Volume I) offers must submit “Documentation of Level 2 (Self) Cybersecurity maturity Model

Certification (CMMC) (Exempt from page count)”.

In order to protect the critical information this command handles, would the Government consider changing this requirement from Self certified to C3PAO certified CMMC Level 2 offerors? Many SB companies made the investment to protect Government information and to ensure compliance with the original intent of CMMC Level 2 to include certification by an independent C3PAO as mandated by DFAR clause 252.204-7012. This ensures documented adherence to cybersecurity standards as mandated.

A: CMMC will remain Level 2 (Self)

20 ITO

Q: (Volume I FCL Pass/Fail Gate Alignment): Page 44 instructs offerors to provide documentation of a current Top Secret Facility Security Clearance within the Qualifying Criteria volume (Volume I), noting it is exempt from the page limit. Will the Government explicitly confirm that if an offeror satisfies this Pass/Fail requirement via a structurally bound Teaming Partner or Joint Venture participant holding an active, verified TS FCL, the entire prime-sub entity will be rated as a "Pass" for this qualifying threshold?

A: No. The Government does not confirm this assumption. To receive a "Pass" for this Qualifying Criteria, the specific legal entity submitting the proposal as the Prime Offeror must possess an active and verified Top Secret Facility Security Clearance (TS FCL) at the time of proposal submission.

An offeror cannot satisfy this Pass/Fail requirement by relying on the FCL of a subcontractor, teaming partner, or an individual Joint Venture participant. While subcontractors and teaming partners are not required to hold an active TS FCL at the time of proposal submission, they must be eligible to receive a flow-down TS FCL via a DD254 from the Prime Contractor during performance.

21 SOW

Pg 3, Sec 3.0

Q: “The contractor shall provide support for the following requirements associated with the (7) seven full time, on-site capability development support positions.” Please confirm the intent is for all (7) seven full time positions to be on-site.

Specific Requirements

A: Yes, all (7) seven FTE positions shall be on-site, situational remote work may be authorized on a limited basis.

22 SOW

P. 5, Section 3.0.7, bullet 2; Sect. 5.7, and Sect. 7.0

Q: Will the Government please clarify whether the General Combat Development Support Analyst will require ACCM read ins for the conduct of the duties? If so, will that requirement be added to the SOW Security section

5.7, bullet 5 / 7.0 Security (to justify the read-in) and be added to the final DD 254?

A: Yes, ACCMs read ins are required for all positions.

23 SOW P. 3, Section 3.0.3, bullet 8

Q: For the requirements specific to the Targeting Support Analyst, it mentions close coordination w/ EW/Cyber Support Analyst and ISS Support Analyst, however, EW/Cyber Support Analyst is not listed as a position in the SOW or the pricing template. Will the Government please clarify if these duties have been absorbed by one of the other positions (such as the SA and Effects Support Analyst as potentially indicated in Sect. 3.0.5 and Sect. 5.5) or if there should be an eighth position.

A: This was an error, EW/Cyber Support Analyst reference is updated to SA and Effects Support Analyst. The SOW has been updated.

24 SOW

Q: (Personnel vs. Education Thresholds): SOW Section 5.1 indicates that a Bachelor's degree is preferred but not required across all analyst positions.

However, Sections 5.2 through 5.5 mandate a strict minimum of 10 years of combined operational experience in highly niche SOF, JSOC, or specialized intelligence environments. Will the Government explicitly confirm that documented elite operational military service in senior enlisted grades (e.g., E-7 through E-9) or warrant officer ranks completely substitutes for a formal collegiate degree during the Evaluation Factor 1 resume and cross-reference matrix review?

A: Yes, experience will satisfy the requirement.

25 SOW

Q: (Evaluation of Preferences): SOW Section 5.1 notes that experience within offices such as USSOCOM SOF AT&L, MARSOC G-8, or adjacent component capability development directorates is "preferred". Could the Government clarify if this preference will be evaluated qualitatively as an assessed "Strength" or "Significant Strength" within Factor I, Subfactor I during source selection, or if it is strictly an optional differentiator?

A: A: The Government will evaluate proposals strictly in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M (or equivalent) of the solicitation. Demonstrated experience within the preferred organizations listed in SOW Section 5.1 will be evaluated qualitatively under Factor I, Subfactor I.

If an offeror possesses this preferred experience, it will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it provides merit or exceeds the baseline capability requirements. If the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) determines that this experience presents a demonstrable benefit or advantage to the Government during contract performance, it may be assessed as a "Strength" or "Significant Strength."

However, Offerors are advised that the mere existence of this experience does not automatically guarantee a strength; the proposal must clearly articulate how this preferred experience reduces risk or provides a distinct advantage to the successful execution of the mission.

26 SOW

Q: (ISS Analyst Core Experience Overlap): SOW Section 5.4 requires a minimum of 10 years of combined operational experience and additionally mandates at a minimum 3 years of SOF, SMU, or specialized Agency operational experience conducting advanced physical and technical surveillance training and missions. Will the Government clarify whether these 3 years must be entirely distinct from, or if they can be nested concurrently within, the overarching 10-year combined operational experience minimum?

A: The three years can be nested within the 10 years.

27 Pricing Template Tab #

Q: On the pricing worksheet the FFP Totals for all years only totals to Line 9.

The Requirements Analyst was not calculated on any FFP Subtotal. Will the

Government correct the pricing worksheet and reissue?

A: The pricing worksheet has been corrected. Additionally, if a formula error or inconsistency is identified within the provided template or the Offeror’s internal calculations, the Offeror is authorized to make the necessary corrections to ensure the accuracy and integrity of their proposed pricing.

28 Pricing Template

R&A TEP

Tab

Q: Can we modify the formulas on the government's pricing template? The template provided does not expand the formulas down to accommodate the 7 personnel being proposed.

A: Yes, if a formula error or inconsistency is identified within the provided template or the Offeror’s internal calculations, the Offeror is authorized to make the necessary corrections to ensure the accuracy and integrity of their proposed pricing.

29 Pricing

R&A TEP

Tab

Q: The pricing template requests indirect buildup information. Given that this is a Firm Fixed Price procurement, can the Government please confirm whether this level of cost detail was intended, or whether offerors may instead provide their total fixed price and any required supporting price information?

A: Yes, this level of cost detail was intended.

30 Pricing

R&A TEP

Tab, Cell S7

Q: Was it the governments intent to label cell S7 as “Direct Labor + Fringe + Overhead + G&A” rather than “Direct Labor + Fringe + Overhead + Fee”?

A: Yes, the Pricing Template has been corrected.

31 Pricing

Cell G11…P11

Q: The FFP Subtotal cell calculation doesn’t include the Requirement Analyst’s rate, should this sum calculation be corrected?

A: Yes, the template has been updated. If a formula error or inconsistency is identified within the provided template or the Offeror’s internal calculations, the Offeror is authorized to make the necessary corrections to ensure the accuracy and integrity of their proposed pricing.

32 Pricing Template Cell P12

Q: This cell calls out a travel plug that should not be changed according to Cell A 12, but it is a mismatch with CLIN 5008 in the H9225726RE010.pdf document. Which number should be used in the pricing volume?

A: $75,000. CLIN 5008 has been corrected.

33 Pricing Template Columns Q-S

Q: Can you provide clarification on why the Indirect Category Rates are required since this is a Firm Fixed Price Contract?

A: While the resulting contract will be Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), the Government requires a breakdown of the proposed rates, including

Indirect Category Rates, to properly evaluate the proposal.

In accordance with FAR 15.403-3, Requiring Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, the Government may request cost element breakdowns to the extent necessary to determine price reasonableness.

Furthermore, pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(d)(3), the Government requires this data to evaluate the offeror's understanding of the requirement and to assess performance risk (Cost Realism).

Finally, a breakdown of indirect rates (specifically Fringe Benefits) is required for the Government to meaningfully evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror's Total Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

Therefore, Offerors must provide the indirect rate data as instructed in the Volume III Price Proposal instructions.

34 Pricing

Q: (CLIN Formatting Error on Page 3): In the Pricing Schedule table on page 3 of the solicitation, the item row for "ISS Analyst" is missing its assigned CLIN designation number in the left-hand column, appearing sandwiched between CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003. Will the Government issue an amendment to correct this formatting and formally confirm that the Base Period ISS Analyst position should be correctly priced under a designated line-item identifier to align with the subsequent Option Period itemizations (e.g., Option Line Item

1003)?

A: Yes, that has been corrected on the Amendment.

OCI

Disclosure Form

Entire Document

Q: We understand the OCI Disclosure Form shall be submitted for each USSOCOM contract or subcontract currently being performed. Can the Government confirm that any required OCI Disclosure Forms should be included with our email submission as separate attachments and not included in any of our proposal volumes? If the Government would like this form included with any volume, please confirm this form is excluded from the associated page count?

A: Yes, OCI disclosure shall be submitted as separate attachments and are exempt from page limits.

OCI

Disclosure Form

N/A

Q: Will the Government please clarify whether the submission of the OCI Disclosure Form, Attachment 7, is required to be submitted if a company does not have an actual or potential OCI? If submission is required, should this be part of the technical volume or submitted as a stand-alone document?

Additionally, please confirm whether such documents are excluded from any applicable page limitations.

A: OCI Disclosure forms are exempt from page limits. No submission is required if the offeror does not have any actual or potential OCI.

37 Teaming Agreement N/A

Q:Will the Government clarify whether the attachment named “TA-8May26” is intended to be submitted only in instances that apply to teaming arrangements, or are all offerors required to submit? If so, should this be included in the pricing volume or submitted as a stand-alone document? Additionally, please confirm whether such documents are excluded from any applicable page limitations.

A: Yes, it is only applicable if the offeror is proposing a teaming agreement in performance of this requirement. The Teaming Agreement is exempt from page limitations.