H92401-25-R-0002 - DRAFT RFP Questions and Answers 12 February 2025.pdf

ITEM #

SECTION

NUMBER

NAME OF SECTION

COMMENT TYPE

(Select from drop down)

SOURCE SELECTION

SENSITIVE OR

PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION IN

QUESTIONS / COMMENTS?

(Yes/No)

QUESTIONS / COMMENTS

(With justification of why considered source selection sensitive if applicable)

Government Answer

1 Redacted 2 Redacted

3 DRFP Administrative No

When will the controlled documents be made available? Please refer to the instructions provided in the 27 Jan notice, H9240125R0002, via Sam.Gov. It provides detailed instructions regarding the verification process and gain explicit access to the controlled portion of Draft RFP documents

4 DRFP Administrative No How do we gain access to the controlled documents? see response to item #3

5 DRFP Administrative No

The draft RFP does not state that the prime award winners must have SIPR access, but the current DD254 has SIPR marked as a requirement. Is SIPR access a requirement to prime?

We did not provide a DD254 with the draft RFP so it is unclear what document you are referring to.

However, no, TREX primes will not require access to SIPR outside of Government facilities.

6 Redacted

7 DD254 No

Is it possible for a prime offeror who does have a TS Facility clearance but does not currently have the ability to safeguard at the Secret Level to gain access to RFP documents in order to submit an offer if they expect to have Secret level safeguarding in place by time of contract award?

The Government is not able to change the standard at this stage in the process. The Government has determined that it is reasonable to restrict access based upon the go/no security requirements outlined in Section L of the draft RFP. This precaution has been established to limit the dissemination of sensitive unclassified information.

Additionally, as outlined in Section L, the safeguarding requirement must be met at the time of proposal submission, not at time of award. Therefore, it is also reasonable to assume that if a company does not meet the security requirements at this time, they will also not meet them by 28 April 25.

8 J List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

Administrative No

In reviewing the DRAFT RPP Attachment listing, attachment J-6 states that the OEM Listing would be provided with the DRAFT RFP. Will the OEM list be provided in a separate email?

The draft listing was finalized 12 Feb, a notice was posted via SAM.Gov and copies will be sent via DoDSafe to those with the proper clearance.

Cybersecurity & Compliance Question No

How will TREX 3 address cybersecurity requirements for ISR and tactical communication systems?

The question is unclear as it relates to the scope of TREX. However, all required and applicable cybersecurity requirements are outlined in SOW Section 4 and the appropriate RFP clauses/provisions.

H92401-25-R-0002 - DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - 12 FEBRUARY 2025

Cybersecurity & Compliance Question No

Are there specific compliance frameworks (e.g., CMMC, NIST 800-171) required for prime or subcontractor participation?

As outlined in Section L.5.2 "IAW DFARS provision 252.204-7019, Notice of NISTSP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements, included within Section K, in order to be considered for award, Offerors shall have a current minimum of Basic assessment (i.e., not more than 3 years old) (see 252.204-7020) for each covered contractor information system." With regards to CMMC, please refer to DFARS 204.7503 which states in part that Until September 30, 2025, in solicitations and contracts or task orders or delivery orders, including those using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, except for solicitations and contracts or orders solely for the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, if the requirement document or statement of work requires a contractor to have a specific CMMC level. In order to implement a phased rollout of CMMC, inclusion of a CMMC requirement in a solicitation during this time period must be approved by OUSD(A&S)" Therefore, this RFP will not include a CMMC requirement.

Quantum-Resistant & AI-Driven Security Question No

Does SOF AT&L have interest in quantum-resistant encryption and AI-driven cybersecurity solutions for ISR and identity intelligence applications?

This would not be within the scope of

TREX.

Quantum-Resistant & AI-Driven Security Question No

Would solutions that embed security layers into UAS, tactical networks, or flight systems be of interest under TREX 3?

No, that is not in the scope of TREX As outlined in the SOW, we are not looking for new solutions. Reference SOW Section 1 which states in part "Systems Integrators/Coordinators to effectively perform both functional and technical systems integration (as defined in SOW Section 1.1) in order to provide a complete equipment solution (that includes kitting) of disparate supplier parts & components into the required deliverable. These kits are primarily made up of brand name equipment" This equipment is on a pre-approved class brand name justification.

Teaming & Subcontracting Opportunities Question No

Are there recommended prime contractors currently exploring subcontractor partnerships for TREX 3?

The Government would not have that information. A list of all companies that RSVP'd to our Industry Day was provided via Sam.Gov on 12 Feb 25.

Teaming & Subcontracting Opportunities Question No

Is SOF AT&L facilitating matchmaking between primes and small businesses with specialized expertise?

No.

Next Steps for Engagement Question No

Are there specific steps Infiltron should take to engage with TREX 3 beyond the draft RFP review?

Not at this time. Recommend that you continue to monitor Sam.gov for updates.

Next Steps for Engagement Question No

Would it be possible to schedule a one-on-one discussion regarding potential alignment with SOF AT&L’s needs?

No. As outlined in the Sam.gov notices, one-on-one meetings were held on 4-5 February with those interested companies that have the ability to prime this effort (i.e. Top Secret Facility clearance with Secret Safeguarding, past performance, etc.)

17 L Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders Administrative No There is no paragraph L.1.1. Was this intentionally omitted? No, it was not. L has been updated to re-number L.1.1.1 to L.1.1.

18 L Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders Administrative No There is no paragraph L.4.1. Was this intentionally omitted? No, it was not. L has been updated to re-number L.4.0 to L.4.1.

19 L Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders Substantive No

Section L.2.1.4.1 Similar Scope included systems integration requirements which result in kits that are able to deliver an over-arching functionality and capability; was in support of DOD or other Federal Government agency; “Complexity: required a Secret Facility Clearance or higher; included subcontracting requirements with multiple OEMs, vendors, and/or suppliers; and required DO/TO level competitions under a multiple award vehicle (minimum of 30 proposal submissions annually).

Question 1: Since the similar scope can be demonstrated in a non-DoD project would the government permit a non DoD project without demonstrated Secret or above clearance if other submitted projects demonstrated the primes ability to manage cleared projects?

Question 2: Some of the listed complexities are required for project information sheets from the prime but not the sub. We understand that the government is using these metrics to determine the viability of the prime. Please verify the prime needs to demonstrate this complexity over the maximum four, minimum two prime projects submitted?

Question 1: Due to the RFP only including relevant or not relevant criteria (vs. somewhat, very, etc.) the criteria must be relevant to the scope of TREX. Given the RFP requires a TS facility clearance, we believe that only requiring a secret level clearance and no safeguarding requirement in order to be determined relevant is reasonable.

Going from TS to none is not considered relevant.

Question 2: Correct. As stated in L.2.1.4.1 For the prime offerors, relevancy is defined as contracts that are similar to this overall effort and require similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be considered relevant (prime offeror efforts only) the effort must include the following:..."

L.2.1.4.2 defines relevancy for proposed major subcontractors.

20 Certifications Administrative No Based on comments made concerning the NIST requirements under DSFAR 204.252-7019, it was said that the vendor must be certified. Please clarify what specific certifications are required.

reference response to item #10

21 L General Instructions to Offerors Substantive No

L.2.1.4.1 says: For the prime offerors, relevancy is defined as contracts that are similar to this overall effort and require similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be considered relevant (prime offeror efforts only) the effort must include the following:

Similar Scope: included systems integration requirements which result in kits that are able to deliver an over-arching functionality and capability; was in support of DOD or other Federal Government agency; Magnitude: contract value of $3M annually or greater (actual awarded amount not just overall ceiling value); Complexity: required a Secret Facility Clearance or higher; included subcontracting requirements with multiple OEMs, vendors, and/or suppliers; and required DO/TO level competitions under a multiple award vehicle (minimum of 30 proposal submissions annually). REQUEST - Please allow the following to be equivalent - Competitive Task order contracts under a multiple IDIQ, with multiple task instructions issued under the awarded task order are allowed to be shown as equivalent.

For example, Seaport NxG task order contract (competitively bid), with multiple task instructions assigned after award (not competitive) - but requires a task instruction response that includes plans, pricing, and schedules.

Reference response to item #19.

Additionally, specific to vehicles that operate under technical instructions.

While they could demonstrate the ability to submit higher volumes of proposals, there is a difference in competitive vs.

non-competitive proposals and the ability to simultaneously execute those won with those proposed. In the sole source construct the scope of what the original TO won is known and thus it is typically less challenging to put together technical order proposals which are normally a simplified version of the original competitive proposal.

22 L General Instructions to Offerors Substantive No

L.2.1.4.1 says: L.2.1.4.1 For the prime offerors, relevancy is defined as contracts that are similar to this overall effort and require similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be considered relevant (prime offeror efforts only) the effort must include the following:

Similar Scope: included systems integration requirements which result in kits that are able to deliver an over-arching functionality and capability; was in support of DOD or other Federal Government agency; Magnitude: contract value of $3M annually or greater (actual awarded amount not just overall ceiling value); Complexity: required a Secret Facility Clearance or higher; included subcontracting requirements with multiple OEMs, vendors, and/or suppliers; and required DO/TO level competitions under a multiple award vehicle (minimum of 30 proposal submissions annually). REQUEST - please change the word "must" to "may" with respect to the 30 proposal submissions annually. This is a very high number of annual proposals - and while primes may show they can do this in the future, small businesses with this level of proposal submission per year is a very small pool. Also please consider lowering the number to 10 proposals per year.

Reference response to item #19.

Additionally, specific to the number of DOs, as outlined in the Sam notice and in the industry day slides, we anticipate 75-90 (minimum of 60) DO RFPs annually. Requiring only less than half of our minimum is considered reasonable in making a determination of relevancy.

23 L General Instructions to Offerors Administrative No

L.1.1.2Small Business Participation. Please clarify if small business primes are to submit the SB Participation plan.

Yes. As outlined in Section L, the small business participation requirement is separate and distinct from a SB subcontracting plan.IAW DFARS

215.304 (c)(i)(B) "Proposals addressing the extent of small business performance shall be separate from subcontracting plans submitted pursuant to the clause at FAR 52.219-9 and shall be structured to allow for consideration of offers from small businesses."

24 L General Instructions to Offerors Administrative No L.1.1.1Key Management Personnel. Will the govt allow single spacing for the resumes, or increase the page count to 3 pages instead of 2.

No. We have determined that 2 pages are sufficient

25 General Instructions to Offerors Administrative No L.0.11. Would the government consider allowing cover pages to be single spaced? No. the amount of information on a cover page (if proposed) would not require single spaces

26 L General Instructions to Offerors Administrative No L.0.3. Regarding the statement of acceptance for all SOW requirements,in which volume should this statement be placed?

Section L has been updated to clarify this statement belongs in Volume 1, Factor 1

27 L General Instructions to Offerors Administrative No

L.0.11. Would the government also exempt headings (titles, subtitles) withing the volumes from spacing requirements?

No. the government believes the current requirements are reasonable based upon numerous prior competitions.

28 Sample task orders Administrative No

Please define which sample task orders will be awarded at IDIQ award. There will not be "sample" task orders in the RFP. As outlined in Sections L and M, there are 4 orders included in the RFP and all will be awarded post IDIQ awards.

29 Attachment 6 OEM Listing Administrative No When will the govt post the OEM listing? Reference response to Item #8

30 H.10.3 Special Contract Requirements Substantive No

Will the Government please confirm the evaluation criteria for the 4 sample task orders and how those differ from the IDIQ evaluation criteria?

It is not entirely clear if you are referring to the differences in Factor 1 and Factor 3 in the initial source selection, of if you are referring to how the award decisions of the 4 orders will be made post prime IDIQ awards. However, assuming the latter, please reference RFP Section H.10.3 which states in part " DEVIATION of H.10.3 Initial Four Delivery Orders Following IDIQ contract award the Government will determine the best value of the initial four delivery orders, based on the delivery order proposals and discussions conducted (if conducted) during the overall IDIQ source selection. The Government will utilize the same final color/risk ratings for Factor 3 and Final proposed price for Factor 4 per subfactor (order), determined for the IDIQ contract awards. For the initial four delivery orders, Delivery Order Management (Factor 3) is significantly less important than Delivery Order Price (Factor 4)."

31 L.1.1.3 Protecting CUI and SCRM Administrative No Should the first bullet in this section reference SOW 4.2 instead of SOW 4.4? No, the bullet actually states 4.2-4.4

(i.e. 4.2 through 4.4)

32 L.0.2 Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders Substantive No Will the Government please release the Atch 6 OEM Listing? Reference response to Item #8

33 L.0.10.12 Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders Administrative No

The GSA form SF295 appears to obsolete and has been replaced with the Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR) system. Will the Government consider revising the RFP to address this change?

The RFP actually references both the GSA and eSRS forms. To avoid confusion, we have removed the GSA references in the final RFP

34 L.5.2 Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders Administrative No Will the Government please confirm that self assessment of the NISTSP 800-171 is acceptable to be considered for award?

Reference response to item #10

35 Attachment 6 OEM Listing Substantive No Will the Government please release the Atch 6 OEM Listing? Reference response to Item #8

36 A Solicitation/Contract Form Substantive No

1. What key performance metrics are currently in effect, and are they being met? The performance requirements are outlined within the SOW and Sections L and M. Yes they are.

37 F Deliveries or Performance Substantive No

1. Can additional subcontractors be added at the TO/DO level if not included in the original IDIQ proposal and, if so, is there a special approval process involved?

It is unclear why a subcontractor would need to be added specific to any one DO. The question requires clarification.

Recommend reading Sections L, M, and H.10.

38 G Contract Administration Data Substantive No

1. With the current administration’s focus on speed and efficiency in new systems development and deployment, with T-REX3 be open to non-conventional contracting vehicles as demonstration of corporate experience and past performance, to include Other Transaction Agreement (OTA contracts, business-to-business commercial contracts, and Cooperative Agreements between Government and Industry?

Not at this time.

39 H Special Contract Requirements Substantive No

1. We have warehousing and integration facilities at various locations throughout the U.S. is there a requirement for certain types of facilities to be within a specific geographical distance from MacDill AFB?

No.

40 K Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors

Substantive No

1. Is the requirement for a Top-Secret Facility Clearance? Yes, as outlined in Section L.5

41 H Special Contract Requirements Administrative No

Would the government consider sponsoring the offeror's building in Tampa as a SCIF on award? The building was a SCIF and requires sponsorship to be certified. It would provide the government another potential off base space with conference rooms, computers, and storage. Currently, only requires DSCA and a DD254 with safe guarding to be at Secret.

No. The process is more complex than a simple sponsorship and it is not needed under this RFP.