19 RFP 25RE001 Consolidated QnA (20250408).pdf

RFP 25RE001

WCGS Consolidated QQuestions from RFP

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments

Section L – Table 2 Past Performance – Relevancy Criteria Baseline

Consolidated questions on Atch 12 - PPI Relevancy Baseline.

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L

L0.14.3- L0.14.4 Q: Will the Government consider extending the timeframe for Oral Presentations by an additional week, as the current timeframe of two weeks may be insufficient for Offerors to adequately prepare and present their solutions?

RFP N/A Q: Will the government provide who is the incumbent contractor?

RFP N/A Q: What is the contract number for the current contract?

RFP N/A Q: Can past performance for major subcontractors be used for bidding the contract?

Section L L0.2.4 Q: An SF 33 was not provided with the RFP. A completed and signed conformed copy of the solicitation through the latest amendment is required in VOLUME V – Administrative (Compliance and Responsibility). Will the Government provide an SF 33

General N/A Q: Are there any "Host Nation" OCONUS hiring processes required to ensure compliance and accreditation?

L3.2.1 Execution N/A Q: Can you confirm if phase II, Volume III, oral presentation is in person, virtual, or a combination of both. Is there a limit to the number of briefers?

09_RFP_25RE001_-

_WD_List

N/A Q: The referenced wage determination revisions in 09 DRFP 25R0001 - WD List are not the most current wage determination revisions. Can the Government please provide the updated WD?

Section L and PPI Relevancy Baseline

L.2.7 Q: The definition of relevant contracts in L.2.7 states, “similarity of security requirements, and similarity in complexity (at least 27 Top Secret positions with SCI requirements)” is required for a citation to meet the definition of “relevancy”. The PPI Relevancy Baseline attachment indicates that having any number of TS cleared personnel meets the definition of “relevant” and secret cleared personnel meets the definition of “somewhat relevant”. As a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business set-aside, this unnecessarily limits competition. Would the Government please consider removing the requirement for a past performance citation to have TS cleared personnel to be considered very relevant or relevant?

Government Response: See revised Section L. Oral presentation will be in person. A maximum of five briefers are allowed due to room space. Location is TBD, but expected to be SOFWERX, East 2nd Ave, Suite 102, Tampa, FL.

Government Response: WDs have been checked via SAM.gov and are correct for the locations listed.

Government Response: No. Relevancy is based on the needs of the requirement to determine "similarity". Both TS/SCI and TS personnel are required.

Government Response: See revised Atch 12 - PPI Relevancy Baseline.

Criterion Relevancy Score - Each criterion will be assessed by rating. Each rating assigns the score value identified Relevancy Ratings Ranges - Calculated by sum of the individual score values assigned to each criterion

Government Response: See revised Section L. Phase 1 Proposal submission date changed to 18 April 2025; NoAP Phase 2 date changed to 16 May 2025; Phase 2 Proposal submission date changed to 30 May 2025. No further extensions or date changes will be provided.

Government Response: 9Line (CAGE: 5FTW3)

Government Response: See Section L.012

Government Response: See Section L2.4 on criteria for past performance citations

Government Response: See provided SF33.

Government Response: TESA is required for hiring within Germany, however there are no "Host Nation" accreditiation requirements.

NOTES:

1) Duplicate questions in any format have not been included

2) Question that the Government cannot or will not answer have not been included

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments PPI Relevancy Baseline N/A Q: The PPI Relevancy Baseline attachment row 4 indicates that there will be a points range assigned to each past performance citation based on whether it falls into the category or “Very Relevant”, “Relevant”, “Somewhat Relevant”, or “Not Relevant”.

Could the Government please provide additional information on how the categories (Magnitude, Complexity, and Scope) and sub-categories (Contract Value, Contracted Personnel, Security Classification, Performance Locations, Variety of Labor Categories, and DoD/OGA Support) will be weighted? For instance, if a Past Performance reference is “somewhat relevant” can an offeror

PPI Relevancy Baseline N/A Q: The PPI Relevancy Baseline attachment row 10, columns C and D indicate that ITAR compliance is required to meet the definition of “Very Relevant” and “Relevant”. There is no reference to ITAR or ITAR compliance in the Statement of Work (SOW) or Clauses Incorporated by Reference. Can the Government please provide an explanation as to how ITAR compliance

Section L L0.2 Volume V, Paragraph L0.2.3 and L.2.7 – Relevant Contracts

Q: Section L0.2.3 states that offerors are required to demonstrate that they have a current Top Secret facility clearance as part of a compliant submission. Paragraph L.2.7 states that relevancy will be determined based on “similarity of security requirements, and similarity in complexity (at least 27 Top Secret positions with SCI requirements).” Since offerors are required to demonstrate that they have a current Top Secret Facility Clearance, would the Government please remove the TS cleared personnel in the past performance relevancy rating?

PPI Relevancy Baseline N/A Q: The PPI Relevancy Baseline attachment row 2 has a numerical value next to the categories “Very Relevant (10)”, “Relevant (6)”, and “Somewhat Relevant (3)”, and “Not Relevant (0)”. Does the Government intend to apply a point system in evaluating past performance? If so, would the Government please explain how points will be determined? For instance, if an offeror presents a past performance example that meets all criteria for “very relevant” but does not require performance at a location which requires ITAR compliance, is that contract considered “not relevant” and receive a “0” per row 2 or between 0-29 points per row 4?

Section L

11 RFP 25RE001 - PPI

L2.1, L.2.2, L2.3 (p 6) Items 2 and 3

Q: Items 2 and 3 in Attachment 11 – PPI require offerors to address Past Performance Summary (Sect L2.2) and Organizational Structure Change History (Sect L2.3). Sections L2.2 and L2.3 in Section L request this same information across the offeror team.

Please confirm whether this information is to be provided for the whole team in Volume II or if it is to be provided in each individual PPI.

Section L

11 RFP 25RE001 - PPI

L.2.2 (p 6)

Items 2 and 3

Q: Please explain the difference in the PPI between the requirements for “2. Past Performance Summary (Sect L2.2)” and “4.

Provide a brief description of services provided under this contract.”

Government Response: See revised Attachment 12 - PPI Relevancy Baseline. Reference to ITARs replaced with OCONUS performance requirement.

Government Response: No. A TS Facility Clearance does not translate to having provided TS/SCI or TS personnel on contract. "Similarity of security requirements" includes providing TS cleared personnel.

Government Response: See revised Attachment 12 - PPI Relevancy Baseline, "Factor 3 PPI Matrix Info" tab for information on how criterion and points ranges will be applied. Max points per PPI is 70, based on receiving 10 points per criterion.

Government Response: See revised Section L2.1. Volume II submission will consist of the Offeror's submitted Attachment 11 - PPIs only. No separately written PP volume is required.

Government Response: See revised Attachment 11 - PPI. Question 2 requires a summary of the main contract points (See Section L2.2). Question 4 requires details as to how the PPI meets the recency and relevancy requirements. Offerors should describe how each PPI meets the criterion of the PPI Relevancy Baseline to assist the Government in evaluation of Past Performance.

Government Response: See revised Attachment 12 - PPI Relevancy Baseline, "Factor 3 PPI Matrix Info" tab for information on how criterion and points ranges will be applied. Max points per PPI is 70, based on receiving 10 points per criterion.

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments Section L

13 RFP 25RE001 –

Subcontractor Consent

L0.5.1 (p 1), L2.5 (p 6)

Q: Please confirm that the Subcontractor Consent Letters are to be submitted in the Optional Volume and are not to be included in the Past Performance Volume.

SOW

Price Matrix

2.1 (p 1),

2.3 (p 2)

Tab #3 - TEP

Q: Will the government please provide current fill rates, by LCAT/ Location identified on Tab 3 of the Pricing Matrix? This information will influence transition mapping, priorities, and initial recruiting/onboarding efforts.

Section L L0.2.2 (p 4) Q: Please identify the documentation offerors are expected to provide in accordance with FAR 9.401-1.

Section M M4.2.4 (p7) Q: Please explain this evaluation criteria: “Add language about price discrepancies tying to factor 1-technical.”

10 RFP 25RE001 – Oral Presentation WARNO

N/A Q: The footer of this document is marked “CUI//SP-SSEL,” though the filename is not marked. Should offeror’s handle this document as CUI? Using this information would render Volume III – Oral Presentation also CUI. What are the government’s instructions for submitting a CUI Volume?

Section M

12 RFP 25RE001 – PPI

Relevancy Baseline

M2.7.3, Table M.3 Q: Table M.3 identifies “very relevant” Past Performance as being “essentially the same scope and magnitude”, while the PPI Relevancy Baseline identifies ‘very relevant” as $15M+. Current contract burn rate is $9M. Is the US Government criteria “very relevant” IAW Table M.3 or Attachment 12?

Section L L1.1.3.1 (p 4) L1.1.4.1 (p 4)

Q: The requirement to provide risk mitigation strategies for the Staffing and Retention sections appear to be reversed. For Staffing, the “risk mitigation strategies to resolve shortfalls resulting from voluntary or involuntary personnel terminations” are more in keeping with the requirements to discuss Workforce Retention and Development. For Retention, the “risk mitigation strategies for providing uninterrupted support during personnel absences due to sickness and/or leave, while allowing for reasonable returns” are more in keeping with the requirements of maintaining Staffing coverage. Please clarify the connection between a Plan to Recruit and Integrate Non-Incumbent Personnel and personnel termination risks. And the connection between temporary absences and Workforce Retention.

Section L

03 RFP 25RE001 Price Matrix

L.4.9 (p 8-9)

Tab #1 Instructions

Q: RFP requires Subcontract submission of Price Matrix and Compensation Plan. This includes privileged information concerning indirect rate structure from Subcontractor. Price Matrix Instructions states “The Government will not accept direct submission from any subcontractor.” How will the Prime submit required electronic Subcontractor pricing data to the Government while safeguarding propriety information?

Government Response: Correct. If submitted, Consent Letters are to be included in the Optional Volume.

Government Response: The Government will provide this information to the awardee. However, the current contract fill rate is 97%.

Government Response: Assuming you mean FAR 9.104-1, please refer to FAR 9.104-3(a) for examples.

Government Response: See revised Section M for updated language.

Government Response: See revised Attachment 03 Price Matrix. Please review the instructions tab, as most instructions have been updated.

Government Response: See updated documents. There is no CUI included in the RFP other than SOW Addendum 1 Security Requirements and CUI is not to be included in an Offeror's proposal.

Government Response: See revised Atch 12 - PPI Relevancy Critera Basline.

Government Response: See revised Section L.

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments Section L L4.4 (p 8) Q: Concerning Wage Determination of Exempt and Non-Exempt, the Government requires “rationale for development of the position” for “non-exempt positions which have not been conformed.” Please define “conformed” as used in this requirement.

Section L L4.9 (p 8) Q: Government states that “Compensation levels (unburdened salary rates and fringe benefits) of employees for performance in the same positions shall not be reduced as a result of this effort.” Since only the incumbent has these “compensation levels,” vendors cannot accurately price the labor categories and locations to comply with this requirement without the compensation levels or access to that information in that “proposed compensation levels are binding.” Will the Government provide this information?

Section M M4.1 (p 4), M4.2 (p 4) Q: In M4.1 , the Government states that Price Realism will be evaluated only on Compensation Plans. In M4.2 “The Government will use price analysis techniques in order to determine price fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404,” which includes ‘fair and reasonable’ criteria. It is unclear why the emphasis on Price Realism for the Compensation Plan. Is price realism the key evaluation criteria for Compensation Plans as compared to the Price Matrix?

03 RFP 25RE001 – Price Matrix

Tab #1 Instructions Q: There is no requirement within the RFP to determine, provide, or specify Uncompensated Overtime. Why is the definition in the instructions? If the Government directs the use of uncompensated overtime, how is it bid, identified in the Price proposal requirements?

05 RFP 25RE001 – TE2

MSR Template

Recovery Care Coordination Q: Part 1 of the AQL/Performance Standard for the Quality of Recovery Care Coordination provided to Case states, “No more than 3 substantiated complaints per Period of Performance.” To help offerors understand the dynamics, culture, training, and complexities involved in meeting this standard, please provide historical data regarding the number of substantiated complaints over the past 5 years.

05 RFP 25RE001 – TE2

MSR Template

Personnel Q: Within Management of Personnel Issues, the AQL states, “Contractor receives no more than 1 formal customer complaints per year.” Please provide historical data regarding the number of formal customer complaints over the past 5 years.

05 RFP 25RE001 – TE2

MSR Template

Personnel Q: Within Management of Personnel Issues, the AQL states, “No more than 1 personnel related changes due to ineffective performance or inappropriate qualifications.” We understand the intent and this places the contractor in the precarious position of failing to achieve quality of service requirements or failure due to movement or removal of personnel, regardless of the amount of training or retraining conducted for each individual across the entire contract. Will the USG consider limiting this to monthly or removing this standard?

Government Response: See revised Section L. Statement has been removed. Offerors should keep in mind the effect wage cuts will have on turnover and an offerors ability to execute their transition plan when determining rates.

Government Response: "Conformed" applies to the process of aligning a job title and duties with a standard SCA labor category when there is no exact match in the WD. If a labor category is covered by SCA, but is not included in an applicable WD, then the offeror must describe the positions duties and how it supports the contract work, and propose an appropriate wage, likely by comparing it to similar positions in the WD.

Government Response: Price realism is conducted on Compensation Plans to determine if proposed rates are realistic and to evaluate the ability of proposed rates to maintain mission continuity, uninterrupted high-quality of work, and availability of required, qualified professional personnel.

Government Response: See revised Attachment 03 - Price Matrix. Clause has been removed, as it does not apply.

Government Response: There have been no substantiated complaints.

Government Response: There have been no formal complaints brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer or reflected in CPARS.

Government Response: See revised TE2 - MSR Template. Statement has been updated to include "monthly".

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments SOW 2.3.1 Surge Q: Please clarify if the intent is for the contractor to hire additional labor in support of Surge requirements or for current contractor personnel to work beyond established 1872 hours to meet surge requirements.

SOW 2.3.1 Surge Q: Are hours worked beyond 1,872 hours in support of Surge requirements billable under the SURGE CLIN?

General N/A Q Considering the extensive number of attachments, requirements, and instructions/evaluation criteria included in the solicitation, will the Government consider increasing the Technical Volume page limit from 10 pages to a range of 15 to 20 pages to allow for a more thorough and comprehensive response?

General N/A Q: It appears there are no requirements for the submission of a Quality Control Plan. We recommend the Government consider including this requirement as part of the Oral Presentation to allow Offerors the opportunity to demonstrate how they will effectively mitigate risk and ensure consistent performance throughout the contract. Will the Government consider adding this requirement in the Oral Presentation?

00B RFP 25RE001 –

Section M

N/A Q: Is there a limit on the number of personnel from the Offeror’s team that can be present and participate during the Oral Presentation? If so, can the Government specify the maximum number allowed and whether there are any restrictions on which roles or positions are permitted to present?

ATTACH 3-Price Matrix N/A Q: The Price Matrix includes plug-in amounts for Travel (starting at $500K and increasing by $15K each year) and Labor Surge (starting at $300K and increasing by $10K each year).

Are fees, such as general and administrative (G&A) fees, overhead, or other allowable costs, included within the Travel plug-in amount, or are Offerors permitted to apply additional fees to the Travel plug-in amount as part of their pricing structure?

Controlled Attachments

N/A Q: The notice under “Controlled Attachments” states:

This notice contain controlled attachments. To view, please sign in to the application.

01 (CUI) SOW Adm 1 Security Reqts (CUI).docx

a) Will the Government provide further instructions on how Offerors can access these controlled attachments?

b) Are these documents intended to be accessible only upon award, or are they available during the solicitation process?

00A RFP

25RE001 –

Section L

L0.2.3 Q: The solicitation requires a TS FCL. Can the Government confirm whether subcontractors must possess a compliant TS FCL at the time of award, or if they may obtain the TS FCL post-award, given that facility clearances must be sponsored by a Government entity?

Government Response: See revised Section L3.1. Offerors are limited to 5 personnel in the breifing room and are encouraged to bring individuals with the knowledge to speak proficiently about the requirement and the Offeror's understanding of processes and roles, as well as the Offeror's proposed plan of action.

Government Response: See revised Price Matrix. G&A is the only allowable fee against Travel.

Government Response: As stated in SOW para. 2.3.1: Surge hours are met by additional hours worked by Contractor personnel currently assigned to the task order. Additional personnel will not be required.

Government Response: As stated in SOW para. 2.3.1: Surge hours are met by using compensatory time, scheduled within the established 1,872 hours per FTE. The Government defines "compensatory time" as time served within a 2-week, 80 hour period, allowing for a flexible work schedule within that 2-week period. It is considered as time off with pay in lieu of overtime pay for irregular or occasional overtime work.

Government Response: No. The page limit for the technical volume will remain at 10 pages.

Government Response: No. The Government will only require the submission of a QCP from the awardee.

Government Response: Attachment 01 is available for viewing on SAM.gov upon request. Please see SAM.gov to request access and the Contracting Officer will grant viewing rights.

Government Response: Subcontractors are not required to possess a compliant TS FCL at time of award.

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments

00A RFP

25RE001 –

Section L

L0.5.1 & L2.5 Q: If an Offeror is proposing Subcontractors, is the Government requiring Attachments 13 and 14 (Subcontractor Consent Letter and Subcontractor Authorization Letter) to be submitted exclusively in the “Optional Volume,” Volume 2 – Past Performance, or in both volumes?

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L

L1.1.2.1 Q: Section L requires Offerors to provide a timeline that details the Phase-In, which is identified as 39 calendar days (07 August to 15 September).

a) What is the Government’s intended course of action if the award date occurs later than August 7, 2025?

b) Will the Government consider extending the Phase-In period to ensure that the duration remains 39 days, allowing contractors to achieve Full Operational Capability (FOC) as planned?

00C RFP 25RE001 - SOW 3.3.3 Q: The SOW states:

The contractor shall create and utilize a POI consisting of DoD standardized core training and program requirements for all WCP personnel, both government and contract staff. Training will be conducted within 30 days of new personnel start date. All onboard training will be conducted at WCP Headquarters in Tampa, FL, unless otherwise approved.

Can the Government provide a detailed description of what constitutes the “core training” required under this requirement, including any specific topics, standards, or competencies that must be addressed?

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L, TE-4, TE-3

L1.1.2.1, TE-4, TE-3 – Tab 1 Q: Section L states:

Include details pertinent to staffing and mission transition, by location and by FTE (TE-4), paying specific attention to requirements for OCONUS personnel.

TE-4 includes Travel Authorization information. Can the Government confirm if the correct reference should be TE-3, which provides information on locations, rather than TE-4?

TE3 Perform Locs Skills Quals

Tab 1 – Performance Locations

Q: Are there any OCONUS locations, in addition to Hawaii and Germany, that Offerors should be aware of when preparing their proposals? If so, can the Government provide a comprehensive list of all applicable OCONUS locations?

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L & 12 RFP 25RE001 – PPI Relevancy Baseline

L.2.7 & Tab 2 – PP Relevancy Matrix

Q: Will the Government provide a clear definition of “geographically dispersed locations” for evaluation purposes? For instance, does the Government consider locations to be “geographically dispersed” if they are separated by a specific distance, such as 25 miles or more?

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L

L.2.7 Q: Will the Government confirm whether an offsite or remote position, such as a Program Manager who is not required to be onsite but whose role is required by the contract, counts as a separate location for evaluation purposes under the geographically dispersed locations criterion?

Government Response: Solely in the "Optional Volume".

Government Response: See revised Section L1.1.2.1. Offerors should provide a Phase-In plan that allows for no more than 30 days regardless of award date or performance start date.

Government Response: No. This information will be provided to the awardee.

Government Response: No. An offsite PM will not count as a separate location. Separate locations refer only to personnel providing actual performance onsite daily.

Government Response: See revised Section L. Correct reference is TE3.

Government Response: No. There are no additional OCONUS locations.

Government Response: "Geographically dispersed" will be applied as distinct geographic locations. E.g., CENTCOM and SOCOM are not considered distinct locations as both are located in Tampa, FL. Tampa, FL and St. Petersburg, FL would be considered distinct locations, regardless of their distance.

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L &

00B RFP 25RE001 –

Section M

L3.2.2 & M3.2.2 Q: Regarding the Oral Presentation, the requirement mentions the need to address “on-the-spot” requirement changes provided by the Government but does not specify the nature or scope of these potential changes.

Can the Government provide more clarity on the types of “on-the-spot” requirement changes that may be presented during the Oral Presentation (e.g., staffing levels, procedural modifications, or unforeseen patient care scenarios)?

00B RFP 25RE001 –

Section M &

00C RFP 25RE001 – SOW

M3.2.2, SOW 3.1.1.1 & 4.1.4 Q: Regarding the Oral Presentation, the evaluation criteria for “Operational Planning” references “on-the-ground decision-making” but do not specify the expected level of decision-making authority required from the contractor’s personnel.

a) Can the Government confirm whether the decision-making authority required pertains to the Operations Case Coordinator (OCC) or Recovery Care Coordinator (RCC) role?

b) Additionally, the lack of clarity regarding decision-making authority could unfairly advantage the incumbent, who likely possesses institutional knowledge and established processes related to OCC or RCC roles. This ambiguity may result in an uneven competitive landscape, making it more challenging for non-incumbents to effectively address the requirement. Will the Government consider providing further guidance to ensure fair competition?

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L &

00C RFP 25RE001 – SOW

L3.2.1 & SOW 4.1.4 Q: Regarding the Oral Presentation, the OCC role is described as including communication with the military medical system, including the DoD, VA, and TRICARE. However, the specific expectations for coordination and reporting are not fully explained.

Additionally, the incumbent’s established relationships and familiarity with existing communication and reporting structures could create an unfair advantage over non-incumbents who may not have the same level of insight into these processes. Greater clarity would help ensure fair competition.

Can the Government provide more details about the expected communication protocols and reporting requirements when coordinating with these agencies?

Government Response: "On-the-spot" changes may include staffing levels, procedural modifications, or unforeseen patient care scenarios.

Government Response: a) The Government maintains decision making authority for the overall operation, while the RCC maintains control over each individual case with QA on the part of the Government.

Government Response: No. The Government's intent in this exercise is to determine the Offeror's overall understanding of the program as it relates to both the company's and it's contracted personnel's support to WCG. The Government understands that the communicated topics are nuanced. Understanding is intended to be between the macro and micro levels, providing enough detail to show a high level of understanding of the processes involved and steps to be taken, rather than specifically communicated information. Additionally, use and coordination with the military medical system is not restricted to the Warrior Care Group. Therefore, no unfair advantage is given to the incumbent. Offerors are encouraged to seek out individuals or companies to partner or subcontract with in order to develop a team that can support the requirement.

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L & 10 Oral Presentation

WARNO

L3.2.1 & ATT 10 Q: Regarding the Oral Presentation, the sections requiring the description of “patient coordination support” by the OSS lack specificity on the exact nature of support expected.

The incumbent, having prior experience with the program, may have a deeper understanding of these expectations, which could place non-incumbents at a disadvantage and create an uneven competitive landscape. Additional clarification would help ensure fair competition and thorough proposal preparation.

Can the Government provide additional guidance on the specific types of patient coordination support required from the OSS beyond general communication and administrative duties?

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L & 00B RFP 25RE001 – Section M

L3.2.1, L3.2.2, M3.2.1, M3.2.2

Q: The Oral Presentation is to be evaluated using the color ratings outlined in Table M.1(A), which includes criteria such as significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies.

a) Will the “Execution” and “Operational Planning” elements of the Oral Presentation be evaluated as separate components with distinct ratings, or will they be assessed collectively under a single evaluation criterion?

b) Additionally, if they are evaluated separately, can the Government clarify whether different weighting or emphasis will be applied to each element?

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L; 00B RFP 25RE001 – Section M &

12 RFP 25RE001 – PPI

Relevancy Baseline

L3.2, No info listed in Section M, Tabs 1 & 2

Q: A narrative is required as part of the Oral Presentation in Section L; however, there are no evaluation criteria provided for it in Section M.

a) Is the narrative for Volume III – Oral Presentation intended to be submitted as a separate document from the PowerPoint presentation, or should it be incorporated within the PowerPoint itself?

b) If it is to be submitted separately, will the Government provide evaluation factors, page limits and rating criteria applicable to the narrative to ensure Offerors address the requirement appropriately?

00B RFP 25RE001 –

Section M

M0.5 Q: Section M states the order of importance for all five factors:

• Factors 2 and 3 are equal and individually more important than Factor 1.

• Factors 1, 2, & 3 are significantly more important, when combined, than Factor 4.

• Subjective tradeoff analysis among all factors besides the Administrative. Considering some factors are more important than others, will the Government provide a percentage-based weighting for each factor?

00B RFP 25RE001 –

Section M

M1.1 & Tables M.1(A) & M.1(B)

Q: The Technical Volume requires Offerors to address six specific elements.

a) Will any of these six required elements be evaluated with different weights or considered more favorably than others?

b) If so, can the Government provide the percentage-based weighting for each element or a prioritized list from most to least favorable?

Government Response: a) The Oral Presentation will receive one collective evaluation rating.

Government Response: "Narrative" in this case refers to "reciting the details of" or "a spoken account of " rather than a written narrative. The Offeror's Presentation shall "provide a concise narrative that clearly demonstrates their understanding of the SOCS-WCP mission and the contractor’s role in providing support".

Government Response: No. The Government's intent in this exercise is to determine the Offeror's overall understanding of the program as it relates to both the company's and it's contracted personnel's support to WCG. The Government understands that the communicated topics are nuanced. Understanding is intended to be between the macro and micro levels, providing enough detail to show a high level of understanding of the processes involved and steps to be taken, rather than specifically communicated information. Additionally, "Patient coordination support" is not restricted to the Warrior Care Group. As such, no unfair advantage is given to the incumbent. Offerors are encouraged to seek out individuals or companies to partner or subcontract with in order to develop a team that can support the entire requirement.

Government Response: Evaluation of factors are inherently subjective. The Government will not assign percentage-based weights to factors.

Government Response: a) No. All elements are equal.

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments

00B RFP 25RE001 –

Section M

M1.1 & M1.1.6 Q: The sections state that the Technical Volume will be evaluated based only on the elements of “management, transition and mission continuity, staffing, retention, and safeguarding.” However, Element 6 – Resume Facilitation Services is not mentioned, despite Section M1.1.6 providing evaluation criteria for it.

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L

L2.4 Q: Section L states that Offerors may submit a maximum of three PP Citations but does not specify a minimum requirement.

Understanding supporting Warrior Care Global Support is a unique requirement and to ensure Offerors demonstrate consistency and familiarity in providing similar complexity with past/current contracts, we recommend the Government require a minimum of three past performance citations. This approach would provide a more comprehensive assessment of each Offeror’s relevant experience and capability.

12 RFP 25RE001 – PPI

Relevancy Baseline

Tab 2 – PP Relevancy Matrix Q: To achieve a “Very Relevant” rating for the Number of Contracted Personnel, the Government requires 75 or more personnel.

Example: An Offeror submits three PP citations, where two citations have 30 contracted personnel each and the third has 25, totaling 85 personnel.

Must this threshold of 75+ personnel be met by each individual PP Citation, or will the Government consider the cumulative total of contracted personnel across all submitted PP (up to three)?

12 RFP 25RE001 – PPI

Relevancy Baseline

Tab 1 – Factor 3 & Tab 2 – PP Relevancy Matrix

Q: Based on our analysis of the documentation provided by the Government, we understand the Past Performance evaluation process as follows: Citations will be scored based on how well each citation meets the criteria listed in the matrix, with points allocated according to relevancy ratings: Very Relevant (10), Relevant (6), Somewhat Relevant (3), and Not Relevant (0). Using the example citation below:

• Contract Value: $20M

• Number of Personnel: 60

• Security Classification: TS/SCI Personnel

• Locations: 7

• Number of LCATS: 8

• DoD & OGA Support: DoD If the information qualifies as “Very Relevant,” it would receive approximately 16.6 points per section (100 / 6 = 16.6). Therefore, if 4 of the 6 sections are rated as “Very Relevant” and 2 as “Relevant,” the total score would be:

• Very Relevant (4 sections): 66.4 points (16.6 x 4)

• Relevant (2 sections): 26.4 points (13.2 x 2, assuming “Relevant” is 80% of 16.6)

• Total Score: 92.8 points, which would correspond to an overall criteria score of 10. Will the Government confirm if this interpretation of the scoring methodology is accurate? If not, please provide a detailed explanation of how points will be allocated per section for each Past Performance citation.

Government Response: See revised Section M. Resume facilitation services will be included in the evaluation of Technical Volume.

Government Response: No. Number of citations submitted within the maximum constraints is a business decision on the part of each Offeror. An Offeror who chooses to submit fewer than the maximum allowed citations takes on risk at their own discretion. The Government will not dictate this.

Government Response: The threshold to meet a "Very Relevant" rating for a criterion must be met within a single citation, not spread among multiple citations. A cumulative total will not be considered to meet the requirement for a "Very Relevant" rating.

Government Response: See revised PPI Relevancy Baseline. Interpretation of the scoring methodology is accurate. Numbers have been adjusted to allow for easier math.

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments

00A RFP 25RE001 –

Section L

L0.4.2. Q The instructions permit the use of foldouts for illustrating the proposed management structure and key milestones of the Phase- In Approach.

a) Can the Government provide a clear definition of what constitutes a “foldout” for this submission?

b) Does the allowance for foldouts include the use of 11 x 17 size paper, or are there specific size restrictions that Offerors should be aware of?

00B RFP 25RE001 –

Section M

M1.1.3.2, M1.1.4 Q: Will the Government consider renumbering section M1.1.3.2 under M1.1.4 to “M1.1.4.1” to avoid potential confusion and ensure consistency in the numbering structure?

ATTACH 3-Pricing Tab #2 Section B Q: Will the Government confirm whether the reference to “Schedule B” mentioned in Section L is intended to refer to Tab #2 – Section B?

14 RFP 25RE001 – Client Authorization

Q: Attachment 14 only requires this document for each identified commercial customer that will be used as a PPI citation. Are subcontractors required to provide a Client Authorization Letter (Attachment 14) if they are utilizing a Government PPI citation?

Section L; Section M Section L Para. 1.2.4; Section M Para M2.7.2

Q: To best represent the qualifications of a collective team, and considering Section M2.7.2 (evaluating subcontractor performance in the specific scope area they will support on WCGS), would the government please remove or reduce the 25% threshold for past performance citations?

Section L L0.2.3 Q: Considering the place of performance is not at the contractor site, and does not require offerors to possess classified materials, would the government accept offers from companies with an active Secret Facility Clearance, qualified for an upgrade to Top Secret immediately following award?

Section L Pg 4, Para. L0.24 Q: Please clarify that offerors are only required to complete and sign the SF 33 through the latest Amendment for Volume V and not provide a complete copy of the solicitation.

Section L Pg 5, Para. L1.1.2.1 Q: TE-4 is the Travel Authorization Request. Is the Government requesting the information required for TE-4 to be detailed in response to this requirement?

Price Matrix and TE-3 Price Matrix Column B Location

Q: Please clarify that Fort Bragg was formerly called Fort Liberty. Recommend corrections to Price Matrix.

Section M Pg. 2, Para. M1.1 Q: The Adjectival ratings in Tables M.1(A) do not match the Adjectival ratings in Table M.1(B). Please clarify.

Section M Pg. 4, Para. M1.1.5 Q: Section L requested a SPRS score of 85. For clarification purposes, is the Government now stating that the Offeror must have an SPRS score of at least 110 in order to be more favorably evaluated? Please advise

Government Response: A fold out is anything that requires more than one 8.5" x 11" page when printed. Fold outs will be no larger than two 8.5" x 11" pages when printed.

Government Response: Yes. See revised Section M.

Government Response: That is correct. See revised Section L.

Government Response: See revised Section L. The Offeror may cite experience data of its proposed subcontractor(s) if the subcontractor is proposed to perform at least 25% of the services under the Warrior Care Global Support services contract.

Government Response: No. Attachment 14 is only required for commercial or industry customers.

Government Response: No. TE-4 is provided to provide clarity regarding the travel authorization process. Reference SOW Sections 8.0 - 8.2 for more details.

Government Response: No. Top Secret Facility Clearance is required at proposal submission

Government Response: This is correct.

Government Response: Yes. An SPRS score of at least 85 is required to be considered for award. An SPRS score of 110 is not required, but may be more favorably evaluated.

Government Response: See revised Price Matrix.

Government Response: Table M.1(B) provides further clarification of risk definitions as part of a combined technical and risk rating.

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments SOW Pg. 12, Para. 4.1.1, 1st bullet Q: Should referenced Section 4.0 be Section 5.0?

SOW Pg. 12, Para. 4.1.1, 3rd bullet Q: Please define PRS.

SOW Pg. 14, Para. 5.5 Q: No Section 5.4 is provided. Is this correct?

SOW Pg. 15, Para. 5.7 Q: No Section 5.6 is provided. Is this correct?

SOW Pg. 15, Para. 6.0 Q: FYI - The SDS is not identified as an Attachment

SOW Pg. 16, Para. 9.0 Q: FYI - Price Matrix Tab #3, Column C does not indicate that all personnel require TS/SCI. Please clarify.

SOW Pg. 4, Para. 3.1.1.2 Q: Regional Leads are defined, but the Price Matrix also includes Site Leads. Would the government please provide the

Section L Pg. 3, L.0.12 Historical Information

Q: The previous contract (H9240019C0007) was competed as a 100% set aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), with a workforce of over 60 full-time equivalents (FTEs) performing across several geographically dispersed locations. The scope of work has consistently focused on several focus areas, including Recovery Care Coordination, Military Adaptive Sports, Benevolence Support, and Career Transition. Of the 60 FTEs, please provide the number of FTEs that currently hold TS / SCI clearances.

Section L Pg. 3, L.0.12 Historical Information

Q: The scope of work has consistently focused on several focus areas, including Recovery Care Coordination, Military Adaptive Sports, Benevolence Support, and Career Transition. For pricing purposes, please provide where the TS/SCI positions would apply to the focus areas contained in the SOW.

Price Matrix Price Matrix Q: For pricing purposes, please identify the positions that require TS/SCS

PPI Sheet Pg. 1, Item #1 Q: May one of the 2 points of contact provided by a Contract Specialist?

SOW 9.0 Security Requirements Q: The government refers to DD254 in section 9.0 Security Requirements.

Will the Government please provide a DD254?

Section M M4 Vol IV - Price/M4.1

Q: M4 Vol IV – Price, M4.1 states "proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, price realism (compensation plan only), unbalanced pricing, and a clear understanding of the requirement and are consistent with the Offeror’s technical proposal.

Compensation plans will be evaluated to ensure it reflects a sound management approach and ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality services."

Government Response: Yes.

Government Response: Draft DD254 is provided with Amendment 01

Government Response: See revised SOW. Para numbering has been updated.

Government Response: See revised SOW. Para numbering has been updated.

Government Response: See revised SOW. Updated language references TE1- Service Delivery Summary

Government Response: See revised SOW. Correct reference is Section 5.0 Deliverables.

Government Response: See revised SOW. Open positions should be filled by fully qualified personnel in accordance with TE2 - Service Selivery Summary.

Government Response: 23 currently hold TS/SCI clearances.

Government Response: Information provided in document: TE3 Perform Locs Skills Quals

Government Response: Information provided in document: TE3 Perform Locs Skills Quals

Government Response: Information provided in document: TE3 Perform Locs Skills Quals

Government Response: See revised Price Matrix. Site Lead is removed.

Government Response: Yes. Cost realism will be conducted on the Offeror's submitted compenstion plan.

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments Price Matrix Multiple Tabs Q: Many of the tabs on the Pricing Matrix identify Indirect Rate information and details.

Given that this is an FFP-type contract, would the Government explain why this information is being requested and whether the structure of the Pricing Matrix is aligned to the contract structure assigned to this RFP?

Section L L1.1.2.1 Phase-In Approach

Q: L1.1.2.1 Phase-In Approach states "The timeline shall cover the period beginning at anticipated award of 7 August 2025 and end at the point of FOC (full operational capability) on 15 September 2025. Include details pertinent to staffing and mission transition, by location and by FTE (TE-4), paying specific attention to requirements for OCONUS personnel."

Would the Government consider adding a firm fixed priced transition CLIN of up to 90 days to support the successful standup and implementation of this contract?

Multiple Documents Mutiple Paragraphs Q: The solicitation was posted on SAM as solicitation H9240025RE001. Many of the associated documents/attachments list H9240025R0001 as the solicitation number.

Will the Government please confirm that the documents posted to SAM on 20 March 2025 under solicitation H9240025RE001 are valid even though many of these documents reference a different solicitation number (H9240025R0001)?

TE5 Tab TE4 Q: Technical Exhibit (TE) 4 - HISTORICAL SOCS-WCP METRICS provides metrics data through 2023.

Will the Government please add a column to TE 4 with 2024 metrics data, and would it be possible to provide projected metrics for 2025?

TE5 Tab TE4 Q: The document heading within the file 08_RFP_25ER001_- _TE5_Historical_Metrics.xlsx is "Technical Exhibit (TE) 4 - HISTORICAL SOCS-WCP METRICS".

Please confirm the intent is “Technical Exhibit (TE) 5 - HISTORICALSOCS-WCP METRICS”

Section H H.1/Travel; SOW 1.1/Description of Requiring Organization

Q: H.1 states “Relocation expenses will be limited to those expenses allowable for all Government civilian employees IAW the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) and Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR)." SOW 1.1 states that this "effort is a non-personal service requirement”. The JTR applies to contractors only for "personal services contracts".

Could the government please confirm that this is a non-personal services contract, therefore the JTR is not applicable?

Section L L3 Volume III– Oral Presentation

Q: Would the Government consider allowing offerors to submit additional questions specifically associated with Phase II following the distribution of Advisory Down-Select notifications to allow offerors the opportunity to seek clarification of the requirements and procedures of the oral presentations?

Government Response: The information is being utilized to determine price realism and reasonableness. Price realism is conducted on Compensation Plans, to include indirect rate information to determine if proposed rates are realistic and to evaluate the ability of proposed rates to maintain mission continuity, uninterrupted high-quality of work, and availability of required, qualified professional personnel.

Government Response: No. The timeline will not support this request.

Government Response: This is a non-personnal services contract. This statement in Section H is meant to alert Offerors that the Government will limit relocation expenses to those as stated in the JTR. All travel shall performed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 31.205-46, Travel Costs, which incorporates elements of the JTR.

Government Response: No. The current timeline does not allow for an additional round of Q&A.

Government Response: Yes. All documents posted under Solicitation H9240025RE001 are valid. Both of the referenced solicitation numbers can be used interchangably as the Government is migrating to a new contract writing system that generates slightly different solicitation numbers. Citing either H9240025R0001 or H9240025RE001 will be acceptable for proposal submissions.

Government Response: No. This information will be provided to the awardee. Offerors may assume that the trend is flat.

Government Response: See revised Attachment 08.

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments SOW/ TE3 9.0 Security

Requirements/Tab 1 Q: Can individuals begin employment with an interim Top Secret clearance (or Secret, as applicable) while the Government finalizes their background investigations?

SOW General Q: Will the Government please provide a list of all solicitation attachments and exhibits so offerors may confirm they have received the complete requirement?

Pricing Matrix Tab 3 Q: CLIN 0001 Base Period reads: 15 Sept 2025 – 14 June 2026 CLIN 1001 OY1 reads: 15 Sept 2026 – 14 Sept 2027 As written, it indicates there is a 3-month unaccounted period of 15 June 2026 - 14 September 2026.

Will the Government please confirm the correct POP for the base period and all associated options?

SOW 3.1.4.2/ Military Adaptive Sports Personnel Coordinator

(MAS-PC)

Q: The SOW states, “The MAS-PC is responsible the recruiting and retention of personnel participating in adaptive sports. The MAS-E shall perform tasks such as:”

Did the Government intend to reference the MAS-PC here or is text missing from the MAS-E position?

SOW 3.2/Location and Hours of Work

Q: "The SOW states core business hours are from 0900 to 1500 daily. Contractors and Government representatives shall establish 8-hour workday schedules that require Contractor personnel to be present during core business hours.”

Is there an error in the core business hours; should it be 0900 to 1700?

SOW 3.2/Location and Hours of Work

Q: "The SOW states core business hours are from 0900 to 1500 daily. Contractors and Government representatives shall establish 8-hour workday schedules that require Contractor personnel to be present during core business hours.”

How is the actual workday determined?

SOW 3.2/Location and Hours of Work

Q: "The SOW states core business hours are from 0900 to 1500 daily. Contractors and Government representatives shall establish 8-hour workday schedules that require Contractor personnel to be present during core business hours.”

Is it contractor discretion, the COR, or local POC determination?

Section L L0.5 Volume Submission, L0.5.1

Q: L0.5 Volume Submission, L0.5.1 states: “Each Volume shall be submitted as a separate file in accordance with Table L1. If page limits in Table L1 are exceeded, the excess pages will be removed and not read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. If provided, the following are exempt from page limitations for the submission and shall be submitted in a single, standalone file titled “Optional Volume”: Table of Contents, List of Table and Drawings, Glossaries, Acronym List, Compliance Matrix, Sub-Contractor Consent Letters, and Client Authorization Letters. The Optional Volume, if provided, must be submitted during Phase 1.”

Will the Government please clarify whether they would like the Sub- Contractor Consent Letters and Client Authorization Letters included in Volume II: Past Performance and, if so, whether they will be exempt from Volume II page count restrictions?

Government Response:…