SOFGSD Draft RFP Compiled QnA 20250613.pdf

Number Document Reference Paragraph/Section Questions/Comments Gen N/A Q: Can an Offeror’s Teammate/Subcontractor be a large business in NAICS 541611?

Government Response:

Section L Pg 1, L.4.2.4

Q: Will the Government please clarify if the cross-teaming limitation in L.4.2.4 prevents a subcontractor from participating in multiple bids as a subcontractor? The final sentence in the paragraph defines the scope of the limitation for over-unders: a prime bid and a sub bid.

Government Response:

Attachment 2 Section L L.5.1.7 Q: Are we going to be limited to a specific size standard for our teammates/subcontractors as it relates to their size standard related to the NAICS code? (example – if we team with a large business, will we be able to use their tier 3 work samples to score against in our team submission?)

Government Response:

Attachment 2 Section L L.5.1.7 Q: If we are using a teaming partner’s tier 3 work sample, is that same teaming partner allowed to use the same tier 3 work sample on another teams scoring or does that work sample have to be exclusive to one proposal?

Government Response:

Atch+2+Section+L L5.1.3 Q: Please confirm the process for offerors to submit substantiating documents for classified Work Samples.

Government Response:

Atch+4+- +HTRO+Self+Score+Mat rix+DRAFT

Scoring Summary Tab Q: Is the General Tab score on the HRTO the only measure being used to make IDIQ awards? If not, please explain how this works as it is not clear from the HRTO and sections L and M.

Government Response:

NOTE ON CPARS

CPARS will ONLY affect your Matrix score if you have ratings that are Marginal or Unsatisfactory. Individuals without CPARS will not be negatively affected.

NOTE ON SPECIALTY POOLS

The separate Specialty Pools have been removed and will not be included as part of the evaluation or resultant award.

All questions related to the Specialty Pools were not included or answered.

Combined Q & A

SOFGSD DRAFT RFP

13 June 2025

Duplicate questions in any form have not been included.

As long as the Prime is a Small Business under NAICS 541611, it does not matter what their Sub-contractors identify as under that NAICS.

The Government is not interested in whether a sub-contractor participates in multiple teams with multiple Primes. Rather, we encourage this practise. The Government is only limiting the ability of an awarded Prime participating as a sub-contractor under another awarded Prime.

No, you are not limited on size standards for subcontractors/teammates. You can use a large business work sample.

Yes, that teaming partner will be allowed to use that same work sample on another teams scoring. The Government is not restricting teaming arrangements. If a teaming partner is participating as a sub-contractor under multiple Primes, then the same work sample may be used across all teams.

See Section L3.1.6. All elements of the proposal must be Unclassified, except for Work Samples. Submitted Work Samples may only be classified at the Secret/NOFORN level. If submitted, you may submit as an Unclassified Redacted document or via SIPR to the email addresses included in Section L3.1.6.

Yes. Section M2.0 identifes the basis for award.

Combined Q & A

SOFGSD DRAFT RFP

13 June 2025

Attch+3_Section+M M5.1.5, M5.2.2, M5.3.2, M5.4.2

Q: Please clarify how Category 5 on the HTRO, for both the General, Education, Intelligence and Exercise tabs will be evaluated. For example, if you have 10 employees on a singular work sample that align against a single Labor Category would this be scores as 10 points, or 1 point? On a similar HTRO acquisition, MSOFS 2.0, the government evaluated this example as 10 points, and allowed offerors to receive credit for managing multiple employees, while allowing the government to have confidence the offeror can manage multiple employees.

Government Response:

Gen N/A

Q: It seems to be clear from your document H1 that cross-teaming is not permitted on GSD, that is being a Prime contractor and Sub-contractor on another team.

If so, would you be allowing Prime contract awardees to add sub-contractors after award that were failed Prime offerors?

Government Response:

Atch 4 – HTRO Self- Score Matrix Category 2

Q: Since the criteria (M.5.1.2) is designed to determine offeror capability of managing concurrent performance at various geographic sites, for the purposes of evaluation, can the WS cited for this be distinct WS from the remaining categories? E.g. the CONUS work could be one set of five, the OCONUS work could be a second set, and the DE/KOR could be a third set? Precedent for this exists from GSA OASIS+ when evaluating federal contracting experience that may not have been demonstrable under the Qualifying Projects category.

Government Response:

Atch 4 – HTRO Self- Score Matrix Category 5 Q: The instructions for Category 5 indicate that 75 points are available for this category, but the scoring tab only reflects 50 available points. Will the Government please clarify if the maximum available points for Category 5?

Government Response:

See revised Matrix Instruction Tab.

Yes. Additional sub-contractors maybe added after award, to include offerors who were not provided an award. Offerors will be required to follow the requirements of FAR Clause 52.244-2 when adding new sub-contractors to their team after award.

See revised Matrix General Score Sheet tab. Offerors are limited to submitting five total Work Samples. It is the Offerors decision on how to best to maximize their score.

See revised Matrix General Scoring Sheet tab. 75 points is correct.

13 June 2025

M2.0 Basis for Contract Award

M2.0 Basis for Contract Award:

“The source selection process under this Solicitation will not be based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) or Tradeoff process. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposals are the best value to the Government based upon a Highest Technically Rated (HTRO) approach.”

The government’s use of HTRO with a Fair and Reasonable Price evaluation implies the government values innovation, performance, and mission-critical expertise. If task orders are then competed and awarded solely on price (LPTA), it may undermine the very purpose of selecting highly rated technical offerors. This shift in strategy brings a risk of protest and could have regulatory implications.

Many of the highest-rated offerors awarded under the IDIQ may be disincentivized from bidding on task orders competed under an LPTA evaluation method, due to the increased risk and reduced emphasis on technical merit.

This approach may ultimately degrade mission performance and undermine the value of selecting offerors based on an HTRO standard at the IDIQ level. SOF support demands security, reliability, and advanced capability in high-risk, integrated missions. Contractors must recruit and retain high-skill labor with intensive training pipelines. The focus is on outcomes and mission assurance. This work is more than the cheapest acceptable solution and interchangeable labor.

Applying LPTA at the task order level would be fundamentally inconsistent with the original intent of the IDIQ, which prioritizes technical excellence. If the Government intends to utilize LPTA for task order evaluations, even selectively, we strongly recommend that this approach be clearly communicated—either publicly via SAM.gov or within the forthcoming final RFP—to ensure transparency and alignment with industry expectations.

Government Response:

RFP Atch 2 - Section L Section L4.0 Volume I

Q: Volume I is identified as “Executive Summary/Contract.” The instructions that follow address a table of contents (L4.1) and administrative documentation (L4.2). Section L4.0 does not contain instructions on preparing an Executive Summary.

Can the Government kindly clarify if a stand-alone Executive Summary is part of Volume I, and if so, what the summary should cover (such as introduction of the prime offeror and subs, capability summary, page limit, etc.)?

Government Response:

Market research is conducted for each task order requirement that will be placed on SOFGSD. Part of market research is a determination of the best source selection approach. LPTA is part of the Best Value Continuum and a viable process for some requirements. The Government will use the most appropriate process for the requirement.

See revised Section L4.0.

13 June 2025

RFP Atch 2 - Section L Section L4.2 Volume I (a)

Q: Section L4.2 Volume I (a) contains 6 bullets of the documentation that offerors should include in Volume I.

Immediately after the bullets, Sections L4.2.1 through L4.2.4 address some, but not all , of the items contained in the 6 bullets.

To provide comprehensive instructions to offerors that cover the entire 6 bullets, does the Government need to share instructions on the following 3 requirements:

1.Documentation/Certification pertinent to TS Facility Clearance and Secret Safeguarding 2.OCI Mitigation Plan 3.Signed SF33, including acknowledgement of any amendments

Government Response:

RFP Atch 1 – IDIQ Draft SOW 4.0 Scope of Support

Q: To help offerors anticipate the possible demand, task order size, scope of support, location of global services delivered, etc., under SOFGSD, can the Government share the following information about the SOF Core Services IDIQ as a benchmark:

1.How many task orders has the Government awarded to date?

2.What is the total dollar value of task orders awarded to date?

3.What percentage of task orders have an OCONUS vs. CONUS place of performance?

4.What is the dollar value range of task orders issued (that is, smallest / largest)?

5.What is the period of performance range of task orders issued (that is, shortest / longest)?

Government Response:

RFP Atch 1 – IDIQ Draft

SOW

5.2 Management Support

Services; 5.6 Administrative and Other Services

Q: Two service sub-bullets are duplicative under Sections 5.2 Management Support Services and 5.6 Administrative and Other Services: (1) Position and Concept Papers; and (2) Reports. Both services have similar descriptions.

Can the Government clarify if these two sub-bullets are applicable to both Management and Administrative Support and should continue to be included under Sections 5.2 and 5.6, or if they should be aligned only with one overarching service? If they should only be under one, can the Government clarify if they fall under 5.2 or 5.6?

Government Response:

The Government is using the DoD layout of Knowledge Based Services, which separates "Management Support Services" and "Administrative and Other Services" into two different avenues and their own sub-bullets. We do not intend on revising the layout, or the suggested sub-bullets under each one.

The following SCS IDIQ statistics are provided:

1) Approximately, 220 Task Order awarded during the 1st five year option period. Of these, 5 were Programs that include a mix of both long term and short term PoPs.

2) The first option period has utilized ~$887M

3) Approximately 10 Task Orders require OCONUS support

4) SOFGSD Task Orders will range from $2,000 to $65M

5) Performance ranges from 1 day to a base year plus 3 option years

See revised Section L4.2.

13 June 2025

RFP Atch 3 – Section M M.5.1.2 Category 2

Q: Category 2 addresses “Concurrent Performance at Various Geographic Sites.” Can the Government clarify what qualifies as a “site.” For example:

•Does the offer need to have rented an office, owned property, or set up a base of operations to be considered a

“site”?

•Does a “site” include a Government-run facility where the offeror provided staff?

•Does a “site” require a long-term staff presence (six months or more) at an office, base, etc.?

•Can a “site” be considered a temporary “work site” or “operational location” where short-term work occurred (less than six months)?

•If an offeror operated at two qualifying sites but both were in the same city, can the offeror claim one or two sites on Category 2?

Government Response:

Atch 4 HTRO Self Score Matrix

General Score Sheet, L.X.X.X Category 3

Q: There may be a formula calculation error in Row 8 of the General Score Sheet for Category 3. Unlike the rest of the spreadsheet, if the offeror enters the Maximum Count number (100 for Category 3) under the Offeror’s Count column, the resulting Offeror’s Score column calculates a score of “100” and not the Max Possible Points of 2,000 (100 count x 20 weight factor = 2,000 Max Possible Points). Can the Government kindly correct the formula for offerors. (Note: an illustration follows with the potential error highlighted by a red arrow.)

Government Response:

Atch 4 HTRO Self Score Matrix

Instructions – Category 8

(CPARS)

Q: The instructions for Category 8 address the CPARS reporting on the General Score Sheet. They state that a “fully completed CPARS report means that the Government is able to verify that the Assessing Official has signed it, and the Contractor has concurred on the CPARS.” If an offeror has received a CPARS but NOT concurred with the Government and has an active dispute over a CPARS rating,

1. Does the Government consider that CPARS “fully completed” for purposes of SOFGSD self-scoring?

2. If not, how should the Offer score the disputed rating on the General Score Sheet (given that a low score may generate a point reduction, and the solicitation states that the Government will only adjust self-scores downwards but not upwards)?

3. In the case of a dispute, should the offeror include its response to the Government’s CPARS rating in its proposal?

4. Also, if a marginal score was obtained once in an interim CPARS during the period of performance but the subsequent CPARS demonstrated the marginal score was no longer applicable, will it be acceptable for the Offeror to disregard the previous marginal rating and refrain from including this deduction on the Self Score Matrix?

Government Response:

A "site" is defined as a distinct geographic location where contracted personnel are providing support under an awarded contract - whether at a Government-run or Contractor-run facility. Company personnel not directly billable to the contract do not count as performance at a site. Various geographic sites does not include performance in the same state.

See revised HTRO Matrix General Score Sheet Tab.

The Government will only accept fully completed CPARS. Please see "Note on CPARS" at the top of this list of questions.

13 June 2025

RFP Atch 1 – IDIQ Draft

SOW

11.0 Security Requirements.

11.2 The prime contractor

shall possess and maintain a minimum Top Secret

Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission.

Q: The Security requirements stated in Section 11.2 clearly state the requirements for the prime contractor.

However, it will be prohibitively expensive and difficult for otherwise competitive small businesses to make these investments prior to award and achieve this requirement by the time of proposal submission. This will unfairly limit competition. Can the Government kindly consider:

•Offering sponsorship to achieve TS FCL to otherwise competitive small business offerors upon award?

•Allowing a partnership with a cleared subcontractor to manage security requirements while the prime contractor pursues an FCL? This would be a temporary solution while the FCL is being processed, but it would not replace the prime contractor's requirement to ultimately hold the TS FCL.

•Allowing a Prime to be an unpopulated Joint Venture between two firms in which one already holds a TS FCL while the other pursues an FCL? Again, this would be a temporary solution while the FCL is being processed, but it would not replace the prime contractor's requirement to ultimately hold the TS FCL.

Government Response:

17 5.1 – Education and Training Services

Will USSOCOM provide Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), facilities, or online infrastructure to support in-person and virtual training delivery?

Government Response:

17 5.1 – Education and Training Services

Will USSCOM provide a list of priority languages that a contractor may be required to provide instruction, regional expertise, and culture instruction and culture emersion in foreign host nations? If a list is not available, can you provide at least a geographic area of operation?

Government Response:

24 5.3 – Irregular Warfare Support

Can the Government clarify whether MILDEC and OPSEC planning tasks require specific certifications or previous Government experience to qualify personnel?

Government Response:

5.5 – Multimedia &

Strategic Communications Support

Can contractors provide original physical and digital content for Strategic Communication or Multimedia Support deliverables, including videos and wellness materials?

Government Response:

33 6.0 – IDIQ and Task Order Administration

Will the KO accept a candidate for IDIQ PM who lacks PMP certification but has 10+ years USSOCOM experience and meets all other requirements?

Government Response:

The Government requirement is for the Prime to have a TS FCL. Unpopulated Joint Ventures require that both managing partners must hold a TS FCL to be eligible for award.

This is requirement dependent. In most cases, in-person training will be accomplished at Government facilities where space and equipment will be available for instructor use. The same applies to most virtual training where a Government owned or managed online infrastructure will be available for instructor use. When this is not the case, it will be clearly explained in the requirements documents what the contractor will be responsible for providing.

This is requirement dependent. However, languages in Indo-PACOM and the Middle East are required.

This is requirement dependent and is determined at the task order level.

This is requirement dependent and is determined at the task order level.

As stated in SOW Table 6.1, the requirement is "Project Management Professional (PMP) or DAWIA Level III PM certification – OR – an additional 5 years’ (total of 10 years’) Program Management experience on a DoD Contract" ( emphasis added ). "10+ years' USSOCOM experience", as stated in the question, must be in Program Management to meet this qualification.

13 June 2025

42 11.5 – Security Requirements

Can the Government provide estimated lead times for TOs requiring SAP/SAR access to ensure contractor clearance sponsorship can be accomplished on time?

Government Response:

18 5.1 – Translation Services Will USSOCOM allow the use of remote interpretation and AI-assisted translation tools for low-volume or non-sensitive engagements, or is in-person interpretation required?

Government Response:

23 5.2 – Management Support Services

Will a contractors expertise in performance coaching and resilience training be acceptable for use in developing Position and Concept Papers related to human optimization?

Government Response:

25 5.3 – Acquisition Program Management

Does the Government intend to allow contractor access to DoD acquisition systems (e.g., DAVE, DISS, EDA) or will all documentation flow through the COR?

Government Response:

30 5.6 – Administrative and Other Services

Will the Government provide software access for administrative support tasks (e.g., Microsoft Teams, Outlook, SharePoint) or is the contractor responsible for acquiring licenses?

Government Response:

34 6.2 – Business Relations Are there any established KPIs or metrics the contractor will be expected to meet under Business Relations, or should offerors propose their own performance measures?

Government Response:

43 11.12 – Polygraph Examinations

Will polygraph requirements be disclosed in the base task order or communicated later at the TO level, and can substitute personnel be proposed if timelines conflict?

Government Response:

44 11.14 – Security Training Will contractor personnel be granted access to DoD or SOCOM learning portals to complete required training (e.g., cyber awareness, OPSEC), or must training be conducted externally?

Government Response:

General N/A Q:Will the Government allow PPQs instead of CPARS for projects where CPARS are not yet available or where the work is performed as a subcontractor?

Government Response:

This is a task order level requirement that will be communicated at the time of task order RFP.

Yes.

No. Only fully completed CPARS will be allowed. Please see "Note on CPARS" located at the top of this list.

In most cases, Offerors can expect a minimum of 14 days of transition time from notice of award to performance start. In the event of short turn requirements, transition time can be significantly reduced. When additioanl read-on are required, the time for this to be accomplished is not included in transition timelines, as it is solely dependent upon the Government to provide this. Offerors will be responsible for primarily providing Secret or Top Secret cleared personnel, with "able to obtain SCI on Day 1 of performance" caveats when required.

This is requirement dependent. Translation services are primarily written - translation of Government training material into another language -rather than interpretation services. In all previous requirements, AI-assisted translation was not allowed, based on the nature of the material, or the need for nuanced translation based on the language required.

This is requirement dependent and is determined at the task order level.

All documentation will flow through the COR.

When contract performance is required onsite, the Government will provide all software required to perform the services contracted for.

This is requirement dependent and is determined at the task order level.

13 June 2025

General N/A

Q: The current draft RFP evaluation structure favors large businesses through MPJVs, allowing them to circumvent small business size restrictions while gaining Tier One credit for work not done by small business protégés. In contrast, small businesses with relevant experience supporting SOCOM as a subcontractor are only considered Tier Two, and subcontractor teammates are categorized as Tier Three (without the MPJV, the large business work sample would fall in this category). This creates a competitive disadvantage for small businesses and undermines the intent of participation goals. Would SOCOM consider eliminating the tier structure for work samples and requiring the prime contractor or small business to submit a minimum of three of the five work samples?

Government Response:

Atch 4 HTRO Self Score Matrix Category 8 CPARS Q: Will the government accept customer performance evaluations, other than CPARs, in situations where customers provide their own evaluations in lieu of CPARs (e.g. DIA)?

Government Response:

Atch 3 Section M L.5.1.6

In Section M5.1.6 it states: M5.1.6 Category 7: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will review the narrative and rating of the fully completed CPARS report submitted by the Offeror and compare it with the Offeror’s total percent entry for the past performance scoring categories that were rated “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, or “Unsatisfactory.” The Government reserves the right to retrieve past performance data from government repositories to validate the past performance data submitted by the Offeror.

Q: CPARS are subjective. Some Government raters will only provide satisfactory or below ratings. Which is their prerogative. Will the Government change this evaluation to include 3 levels, Marginal, unsatisfactory and satisfactory and above.

Government Response:

Attch 4 HTRO Self Score Matrix Instructions Q: For OCONUS sites- Please clarify if these sites include rotational deployment sites, where work performed can be up to 179 days.

Government Response:

Atch 2 Section L L5.1.3

Para L5.1.3 states, “An IDIQ contract with a specified scope of work, including all task orders, is acceptable as one work sample”.

Q: Please confirm that an offeror can submit a multiple-award IDIQ with all task orders that have been awarded to the vendor as one work sample. For example, the USSOCOM Core Support IDIQ with the specific task orders that have been awarded to the submitting vendor counts as one work sample.

Government Response:

Atch 4 – HTRO and Atch -6

Attch4- Cell C-10 LCAT List; Atch6

SOFGSD_LCAT

LCAT 2 on Atch 4 is Intelligence Linguist LCAT 2 on Atch 6 is Foreign Disclosure Officer Q: Which LCAT does the government want offerors to score against?

Government Response:

Yes, rotational deployment sites may be included at the task order level.

Yes. A multiple award IDIQ with all task orders that were awarded to the submitting Offeror may be used as one work sample. However, individual task orders issued under that same IDIQ may not then be used as a second work sample.

See revised HTRO Matrix General Score Sheet Tab. Foreign Disclosure Officer is correct.

See revised Section L3.1.8. The SB Prime or the Joint Venture Protege are required to submit at least one Tier 1 work sample.

No. Only fully completed CPARS will be allowed. Please see "Note on CPARS" located at the top of this list.

See revised HTRO Matrix General Score Sheet Tab. Please see "Note on CPARS" located at the top of this list.

13 June 2025

Atch 3 Section M M5.1.3

Most work sample documentation (PWS, SOW, CDRL, DD254, etc) does not identify the “Percentage of Awarded Billets (Minimum Of 25 Billets) Hired or Transitioned Onto a Contract Within 30 Days of Award”.

Q: How does the government propose vendors provide proof of transitioned workforce without creating documentation?

Government Response:

HTRO Self Score Matrix N/A Q: For the Max Counts, if the Offeror’s score is above the max count, should the Offeror just cap the score at the max count or put what the actual count/score is even if it is over the Max?

Government Response:

HTRO Self Score Matrix General Score Sheet Q: For the “Work Samples that contain the following 15 LCATs”, is the scoring 1 point for each number of FTEs for that LCAT across the 5 work samples so if one WS had 2 Intelligence Linguist and another WS had 3, the count for that is 5?

Government Response:

Attachment M Pg 2, First Paragraph Q: The paragraph labeled Step two states, “For those proposals which have passed Steps one and two…” is this meant to read passed Step one since this is step two?

Government Response:

Section L Pg 2, L5.1.3

Q: It states if the offeror is submitting as a JV and submits a work sample conducted under their JV, the copy of the SBA approved JV agreement must be included in Volume 1(a).

Is the agreement still required to be submitted even if the JV is not submitting work that was conducted by its JV?

Government Response:

HTRO Matrix Tabs: Scoring Summary & General

Q: Will the government make the following calculation/equation corrections in the HTRO Matrix?

•General – Category 3 •General – Categories 1-5 does not add value to the “Scoring Summary” nor to the Total Score in “General” •General – Category 8 does not add value to the “Scoring Summary” nor to the Total Score in “General”

Government Response:

Section L Pg 2, L5.1.5 Q: The government allows offerors to submit substantiating data with redacted PII such as names, social security, or any other personal information that would identify the individual. Will the government accept names to be replaced with “Employee 001” or a similar employee ID number?

Government Response:

Offerors should use business records (such as payroll information, hiring date, timecards, etc.) to demonstrate this.

See Section L2.8, "Mentor-protégé Joint Venture Agreement" are required to be submitted as part of Administrative Documentation

Offerors shall cap their score at the max count.

Yes, so long as the Government can also see that each position is a separate and distinct individual.

Yes, that is correct. However, the total is capped at 5 across all WS.

See revised Section M.

See revised HTRO Matrix General Score Sheet Tab

13 June 2025

HTRO Matrix & Section L

Instructions – Cat 4 & Pg 2, L5.1.5

Q: The HTRO instructions state the offeror is to verify the standings of TS/SCI clearances within 5 days of the proposal submission.

Section L instructs offerors to redact PII info.

How does the government want offerors to submit substantiating documentation for proof of the TS/SCI clearance-holding employees if PII is to be redacted?

Government Response:

Section L Pg 2, L5.1.4

Q: Section L5.1.4 requires work samples to be within the last 5 years but does not require a minimum performance duration. As written, an offeror could use a contract that ended just one day into the 5-year window (e.g., June 1, 2020), despite most of the work being outdated.

Will the Government consider requiring a minimum of 6 consecutive months of performance within the 5-year period to ensure submitted work samples demonstrate relevant and recent capabilities?

Government Response:

General General Q: Will the government confirm only a CMMC Level 1 with a SPRS score of 110 is what is required by the prime offeror only?

Government Response:

HTRO Matrix & Section L

Instructions – Cat 4 & Pg 1, L5.1.5

Q: Offerors can submit subcontractor-led work samples and score equally. This could dilute the scoring relevance.

Will the government consider awarding additional weighting or priority to Tier 1 prime-led work samples to better assess the offeror’s ability to lead and manage the contract?

Government Response:

See revised HTRO Matrix General Score Sheet Tab. Verification of TS/SCI clearances is no longer required.

See revised Sec L5.1.4. A minimum of six consecutive months of performance within the 5-year period is required.

IAW 32 CFR 170 and the 15 Jan 2025 DoD CIO, USD(R&E), and USD(A&S) signed memo, “Implementing the Cybersecurity maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program: Guidance for Determining Appropriate CMMC Compliance Assessment Levels and Process for Waiving CMMC Assessment Requirements.” the requirement for a CMMC Level 1 has been removed.

Only Prime offerors are required to hold an SPRS score of 110. If part of an Unpopulated JV, then BOTH managing partners are required to hold an SPRS score of 110.

The Government has implemented this through the Work Sample Tier requirements found in Column H of the HTRO Matrix General Score Sheet tab, and as outlined in Section L5.1.7.

13 June 2025

General Current Acceptable Accounting System

Q:Will the government consider requiring an "Acceptable” accounting system with the option of an SF-1408 for those entities who do not currently have evidence of a recent DCMA, DCAA or other Federal Agency audit at time of proposal submission. Example below:

Acceptable Accounting System. The Prime Offeror (to include all members of a Joint Venture) shall provide valid documentation at the time of initial proposal submission from DCMA, DCAA, other Federal Audit Agency, or other information that allows the Contracting Officer to determine that the contractor’s accounting system will permit timely development of all necessary cost data for the cost type CLINs and the negotiation of cost in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and applicable supplements in order to be considered for award.

If valid documentation is outside of the last 5 years from date of the issuance of this RFP, a letter from the Chief Financial Officer must accompany the valid documentation that states the company has not had any material changes to the accounting system since the date of the accounting system adequacy determination.

If the Offeror does not have current documentation regarding an acceptable accounting system, the Offeror shall complete Attachment J-4A, SF 1408 Pre-award Survey of Prospective Accounting System Checklist with supporting documentation. An advanced copy of the Offeror’s SF 1408 Pre-award Survey of Prospective Accounting System Checklist with supporting documentation shall be forwarded to the cognizant DCAA and to the Contracting Officer office no later than Industry Day. Offerors are cautioned that determination of the acceptability of the accounting system must be accomplished to be eligible for contract award. Therefore, Offerors shall be prepared to support DCAA upon the initiation of the audit. (Reference USSOCOM ISSJ III)

Government Response:

DRAFT SOW Para 11.2

Q: The contractor shall be required to safeguard information at the level specified in the DD Form 254 for this contract and the DD 254 specific to any resulting task order.

Do the safeguarding requirements flow down to subcontractors? Are all teammates required to already possess an approved safeguarding DD Form 254, or will the Government sponsor eligible teammates with an active Top Secret Facility Clearance who do not yet have one in place?

Government Response:

DRAFT SOW Table 6.1 Q: IDIQ Program Manager shall possess a Top Secret clearance and 10 years of SOF experience. Q: Would the Government consider allowing Secret-cleared candidates with eligibility for TS/SCI? A recently retired servicemember may simply need to renew the TS/SCI clearance at time of proposal submission.

Government Response:

See revised Sec L2.6. Yes. An offeror without documentation regarding an acceptable accounting system must submit an SF 1408 Pre-Award Survey.

Safeguarding requirements for the IDIQ are specific to the Prime awardees. Task order safeguarding requirements must be met by all teammates that will be providing performance under that specific task order. IDIQ awardees are required to ensure teammates meet the requirements at the task order level prior to task order award by sponsoring teammates through the SOCOM Industrial Security Office.

See revised SOW Table 6.1. No. A Top Secret cleareance is required. SCI eligible on day 1 of award is permissable, as the Government maintains control of read-ons.

13 June 2025

DRAFT SOW Table 6.1

Q:What documentation will the Government require to validate that the proposed IDIQ Program Manager is currently employed or committed to the Offeror? Will a Letter of Intent suffice, or will the Government require a fully executed or redacted employment contract to verify that the PM is an active employee or will be on-boarded upon award?

Government Response:

General RFP Compliance FAR 9.104-1 and FAR Subpart 4.8

Q:The RFP and SOW do not address how the Government will evaluate contractor responsibility beyond proposal submission as compared to the Market Research stage of this acquisition. Will the Government detail and require Offerors to submit an acceptable accounting system verification, line of credit evidence, and establish procedures for not yet audited or inspected accounting systems to compete fairly?

Government Response:

General N/A Q: Is the PM required to be onsite at MacDill AFB or can the work be performed remotely?

Government Response:

ITO/RFP Pg 2, Submission Instructions Q:For the work samples, must the OGA be a defense-related agency or is any federal agency acceptable?

Government Response:

Atch 1 – IDIQ Draft

SOW 5.1

Q:The Special Operations Forces General Services Delivery (SOFGSD) IDIQ Level Statement of Work (SOW) specifies that the contractor provide highly specialized support in the following areas: Education and Training Services, Management Support Services, Program Management, Engineering, Technical and Professional Services, and Administrative & Other Services. Does USSOCOM envision development of comprehensive programs for all subordinate commands? At what levels of command will the contractor be expected to develop/conduct training?

Government Response:

Atch 1 – IDIQ Draft

SOW 5.1

Q:The Special Operations Forces General Services Delivery (SOFGSD) IDIQ Level Statement of Work (SOW) details that the contractor may be required to provide foreign language instruction, regional expertise, and culture instruction and culture emersion in foreign host nations. Target Languages include but are not limited to all dialects of the following languages: Arabic, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Indonesian, Thai, Korean, Chinese, Urdu, Farsi, UK English, Swahili, Filipino, Hindi, Pashtu, Russian, and German.

- What level of proficiency is required for each of the target languages? - What verification credentials will USSOCOM accept as proof of meeting the requirement?

- Will the contractor be responsible for providing or developing multimedia language and cultural training software, or will this be provided in support of execution?

Government Response:

See revised Section L2 for revised list of qualifying criteria

No. The PM is a company asset not directly billed to the contract, so onsite work is not required.

A redacted employment contract that shows the individual's name and signature will meet this requirement.

Any federal agency is acceptable.

SOFGSD is a SOCOM enterprise IDIQ. Requirements are identified and specified to provide support to SOCOM mission globally. The task order may support any level of the command.

All requirements will be specified at the task order level, and are too varied to provide in this forum.

13 June 2025

Atch 1 – IDIQ Draft

SOW 5.2

Q:The Special Operations Forces General Services Delivery (SOFGSD) IDIQ Level Statement of Work (SOW) specifies that the contractor provide Management Support Services: These services involve providing advice and assistance with the management and operation SOF organizations that are closely associated with the basic responsibilities and missions of SOF organizations. These services include strategic planning, SOF capability and structuring analysis and advice, with a broad array of deliverables such as data collection, writing services, public relations support and media analysis.

- Does USSOCOM anticipate that this support be focused on the services specified in Section 5.1?

- Which staff directorates will be involved?

- Will the staff directorates expect full-time dedicated personnel be assigned to their offices?

Government Response:

General General Score Sheet/Category 2

Q: How much of the current/past SCS work is either OCONUS or on site in Germany and Korea?

Discussion: if very little work is performed overseas on the IDIQ, then the heavier weight may eliminate qualified offerors.

Recommendation: OCONUS site performance should be evaluated at the TO level instead of the IDIQ level.

Government Response:

Sect. L L5.1.7 Work Sample Tiers

Q:Are the work sample Tiers (1, 2 & 3) weighted differently?

Recommendation: If the work sample Tiers (1, 2 & 3) are weighted differently, recommend including an explanation of how they will be evaluated as this will impact sub-k teaming strategies.

Government Response:

Sect. L L5.1.7 Work Sample Tiers

Q:Are Tier 1 and 2 work samples weighted more heavily than subcontractor performance?

Discussion: If weighed differently, this may favor selection of Joint Ventures who are controlled by large businesses over independent Small Businesses. Effective Aug 22, 2022, the SBA amended its regulations to implement new provisions of the NDAA FY 2021. The final rule allows for small business contractors to use past performance rating for work performed as a first-tier subcontractor.

Recommendation: ensure sub-k past performance is weighted properly to give small business the opportunity to build teams that are competitive and can fill capability and performance gaps where needed.

Government Response:

Sect. M M1.2 & M2.0

Q:how many awards will the government make on this IDIQ?

Discussion: the number of awardees is currently listed at 15 in the draft. The Sidebar discussion mentioned that the number has not yet been determined.

Recommendation: the government should clarify the number of awards if not 15 as mentioned in the SOFGSD Sidebar discussion at SOF Week.64

The Government has determined that OCONUS work in Germany and/or Korea is significant enough to include this requirement.

Work samples aren't weighted differently. The categories are weighted differently and work samples provide evidence of the meeting the category.

Work samples aren't weighted differently. The categories are weighted differently and work samples provide evidence of the meeting the category.

All requirements will be specified at the task order level, and are too varied to provide in this forum.

13 June 2025

Government Response:

Atch II – Sect. L

L4.0 Volume I – Executive Summary/

Contract.

L4.2 Volume I (a) –

Administrative Documentation

Q:Will there be a requirement for SECRET safeguarding at the time of proposal submission?

Discussion: during the SOF Week Sidebar, it was mentioned that the safeguarding requirement would be removed at the proposal stage and that DD245 would be provided at the time of award.

Recommendation: If not, the government should consider removing this requirement from Section L.

Government Response:

Atch Sect. L L5.1.2

Q:How will you ensure that JVs are not favored and do not dominate the list of awardees?

Discussion: The acquisition L.5.1.2 (Atch 4 - HTRO Self Score Matrix DRAFT) approach should foster a level playing field for true small businesses, ensuring they have fair access to contracts in education, training, intelligence, and exercise support services. We have concerns regarding small business joint ventures (JVs) that are essentially propped up by large businesses over the standard size. These JVs, while technically classified as small businesses, often have significant backing from large entities, which can put standalone small businesses at a disadvantage. We worry that the large JV companies, which are not truly independent small businesses, will dominate the re-bid process and secure the majority of contract spots, limiting opportunities for truly independent small businesses.

Government Response:

Atch Sect. L L5.1.2

Q: How will the government evaluate Technical and Management by utilizing the Cross Reference Matrix (attachment XX) (not included in the draft documents).

Recommendation: the government should release the Cross Reference Matrix for evaluation prior to the final draft or explain this at the Industry Day event (TBD).

Government Response:

Atch 3 Section M M1.1 Source

Selection Method

Q: For neutral ratings for contractors with no relevant past performance, and how can the USG rate the top 15 with HTRO scores in such cases?

Discussion: The FAR Part 15.305(a)(2)(iv) permits that in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be assessed favorably or unfavorably on the agency’s evaluation criteria. In other words, the contractor should not receive a negative rating for neutral past performance evaluations.

Recommendation: the government should make provisions for offerors where past performance evaluations are not available.

See revised Section M2.01. The Government intends to award between 10-15 awardees for this IDIQ. An exact number cannot be given until evaluation begins, as scores will determine this number. For example, if anticipated awardee 10 and 11 hold the same score, both offerors would be given an award. If awardees 15 and 16 hold the same score, then neither will be given an award and only 14 awards will be made.

No. Secret Safeguarding will be an added requirement after award.

See revised Sec L3.1.8. At least one work sample must be submitted by the JV protégé

See revised Sec L3.3.4 for instructions concerning Attachment 03 HTRO Cross Reference Matrix

13 June 2025

Government Response:

Sect. L L.5.1.2 Q: Of the maximum of 5 work samples, how many are required to be from the prime offeror (including JV partners) and how many can be provided by teaming partners/subcontractors?

Government Response:

Atch 2 Sect. L L5.1.3

Q: Currently, the draft RFP for SOFGSD allows Work Samples to come from either member of an MPJV, but does not require ANY projects to come from the protégé:

Section L5.1.3:

“If the Offeror of this solicitation is a Joint Venture (JV) formed under The All-Small Mentor-Protégé Program or the SBA 8(a) Mentor Protégé Program, work samples from either the managing or non-managing venturer are acceptable.”

With 20% of the total points coming from the Tier 1 Prime work sample(s), by accepting Work Samples from Large Businesses portion of the JV, in essence, Small Businesses meeting the $24.5M size standard are competing against Large Businesses.

In practice, many agencies have created a “half” standard for proteges. As an example, NASA’s SEWP procurement required proteges submitting in an MPJV arrangement to submit past performance examples that were half the value of the required examples for small businesses submitting on their own. See Section A.3.7.1 of the SEWP RFP, Amendment 14 conformed version:

Each Project must have had a minimum of $4M in total value size of a single order or contract and must be described using the Exhibit 1 REP Template. For offerors submitting as HUBZone, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, or 8(a) Joint Ventures, one of the REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted from the HUBZone, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, or 8(a) partner, or the Joint Venture itself. The HUBZone, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, or 8(a) partner project, or Joint Venture project need only have a minimum of $2M in total value size of a single order or contract.

We recommend that you apply the same standard to ensure consistency with federal regulations and standard procurement practice. A protégé should be required to bring at least one of the five work samples on SOFGSD, but the required value can be half that of other bidders’ examples. (25 FTE instead of 50 FTE for the required Tier 1 example, e.g.).

Government Response:

Atch 4 -HTRO Self Score Matrix

General Tab, Excel row 4, Education Score Sheet, Excel rows 12 & 14

Q: “Concurrent performance at various geographic sites” “Number of Work Samples providing concurrent Professional Military Education at multiple locations (e.g.

undergraduate or graduate level instruction) (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1).”

“Number of Work Samples providing concurrent foreign language, regional expertise, or cultural training in multiple locations (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1).”

Please define the word “concurrent” in each of these 3 cases.

Government Response:

At a minimum, one Tier 1 work sample must be provided. See Section L3.1.7 for Work Sample Tier definitions.

See revised Sec L3.1.8. At least one Tier 1 work sample must be submitted by the JV protégé.

Based on the definition provided by Webster's Online Dictionary, the word "concurrent" means "happening or operating at the same time."

CPARS ratings are reflected at the bottom of the General Score Sheet tab in the HTRO matrix. Contractors without CPARS will not be scored in this area and not assessed favorably or unfavorably as a result of not having CPARS.

13 June 2025

Atch 2 Sect. L L5.2 Format and Specific Work Sample Content

Q: “Unofficial contract-related documentation, such as a Memorandum from a Contracting Officer may be used for substantiation but must be clearly labeled and cross-referenced with the corresponding work sample.”

Will the Government allow official email communication from the Contracting Officer /COR of a work sample to be considered for specific evidence?

Government Response:

Atch 4 -HTRO Self Score Matrix

Instructions Tab, Category 8 Q: Does the Organizational Change History “Roadmap” apply only to Prime offers?

Government Response:

Atch 4 -HTRO Self Score Matrix Instructions

Q: “Applicable to all Score Sheets. Using a single Tier 1 Work Sample (WS), Offerors shall provide evidence of the number of total positions contracted for at any point in time during the period of performance. Evidence shall identify corporate records documenting continued employment under the work sample over the course of months three through 12 of the base year. Percentages shall be calculated by the number of employed personnel in month three still employed in month 12.”

The first part references picking the total number of positions at any given point in time during the PoP but then goes on to reference only months 3 through 12 of the BASE YEAR. What is the point of the "any point in time" reference? Is the Government allowing industry to choose?

Government Response:

Atch 2 Sect. L L5.2

Q: “Unofficial contract-related documentation, such as a Memorandum from a Contracting Officer may be used for substantiation but must be clearly labeled and cross-referenced with the corresponding work sample.”

Do Monthly Status Reports, as required in contract deliverables to the Contracting Officer /COR count as “unofficial contract-related documentation,” given it is contractually required to be sent to the Contracting Officer/COR?

Government Response:

Atch 4 -HTRO Self Score Matrix General Tab, Category 3

Q: “Percentage of awarded billets (minimum of 25 billets) hired or transitioned onto a contract within 30 days of award (enter % as numerals (e.g., .64)” Please note that the formula has an error and the offeror's score does not populate correctly.

Government Response:

Atch 4 -HTRO Self Score Matrix General Tab, Category 5

Q: LCAT # 14 - “Faculty and staff at the undergraduate or graduate-level (e.g., JSOU) to include such labor categories as: Instructional Systems Design (ISD), Learning Management Systems Specialist (LMS), Academic Instructors, Distance Learning Instructors,” Given JSOU is not a degree-granting institution, and therefore not at the undergraduate/graduate level, would an ISD that is not in an undergrad program but are working at the 4-star level count in this LCAT?

Government Response:

See revised HTRO Matrix Instructions Tab

Yes, as long as it is clearly labeled and cross-referenced

Yes.

No. MSRs are not "unofficial contract-related documents" if they are required deliverables.

See revised HTRO Matrix.

Yes.

13 June 2025

Atch 4 -HTRO Self Score Matrix Instructions Tab Q: Please confirm that, based on the General Score Sheet formulas for Category 8, Offerors will not gain points for positive CPAR ratings but will lose points for negative (i.e., Marginal, Unsatisfactory) CPAR ratings.

Government Response:

Atch 4 -HTRO Self Score Matrix Instructions Tab

Q: Please note that, while the General Score Sheet does contain formulas in Offeror's Self Score cells (K28–K30) as well as USG Evaluated Score cells (M28–M30) for Exceptional, Very Good, and Satisfactory CPAR ratings, it does not contain formulas in Offeror's Self Score cells (K31 and K32) or USG…