Attachment 16 Question and Answer Document.xlsx

Sheet1

The Government has confirmed that the reference to 'Attachment 4 Mission Essential Contractor Services' was incorrect. The solicitation has been updated to correctly refer to Attachment 11 Mission Essential Contractor Services.

Please refer to the amended version of the solicitation for your proposal preparation.

4 RFQ Page 38&39 (iv) Administrative Requirements and Table 1 AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 (iv) states ”The following items will not be considered when calculating page limits: cover pages,…., executive summary….

“Table I:” states Cover Page and Executive Summary have page limit is 5 pages. Please clarify if 5 pages or no page limit.? The Government acknowledges the conflicting information regarding the page limits for the Cover Page and Executive Summary.

To resolve this discrepancy, the references to 'cover pages' and 'executive summary' have been removed from the list of items excluded from page limit calculations under section (iv) Administrative Requirements.

Therefore, the Cover Page and Executive Summary are subject to a combined 5-page limit as specified in Table I. Please adhere to this 5-page limit for these sections in your proposal submission.

5 RFQ Page 38&39 (iv) Administrative Requirements and (v) Proposal Organization “Table 1” AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 (iv) states ”The following items will not be considered when calculating page limits: …Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)Plan ….”

“Table I:” states SCRM Plan page limit is 20 pages.

Please clarify if it is page limited or not page limited?

If it is page limited, we request an increase to 40 pages. The Government acknowledges the conflicting information regarding the page limit for the Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan.

To resolve this, the reference to the 'SCRM Plan' has been removed from the list of items excluded from page limits under section (iv) Administrative Requirements.

Therefore, the SCRM Plan is subject to a 20-page limit as stated in Table I. The request to increase the page limitation to 40 pages has been reviewed, and the page limit will not be adjusted. The 20-page limit remains in effect.

6 RFQ (ii) Instructions for Proposal Preparation. D (iv) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Is the page limit for the SCRM Plan the entire team or per team member? This notice is to clarify the page limit for the Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan.

The specified page limit applies to the entire, single SCRM Plan submitted by the offeror. This is not a per-team-member page limit. Offerors should submit one consolidated SCRM Plan for their entire team that adheres to the stated page limitation.

7 RFQ Page 47 #5. AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 “….any resultant contract require the prime contractor to sponsor at least two FCLs for small businesses during the base year. To be rated “Acceptable” offeror shall provide a written guarantee that they will sponsor two or more FCLs to small business during the first two years of performance of a resultant contract…”

Please clarify if the requirement is for “Base Year” of “First Two Years”? This notice is to clarify the requirement regarding the sponsorship of Facility Clearances (FCLs) for small businesses. The Government has corrected and clarified the language to resolve any discrepancies.

The requirement is that the prime contractor shall initiate the sponsorship for at least two FCLs for small businesses within the first two years of contract performance.

Furthermore, to clarify the duration and goal of this requirement, the prime contractor's responsibility is to sponsor the small business subcontractor through the entire process required for the subcontractor to be granted its own, independent Facility Clearance. The prime contractor's sponsorship obligation for a given subcontractor is considered complete once that subcontractor successfully receives its FCL.

The solicitation has been amended to reflect these clarifications. Please refer to the latest version of the document for your proposal.

The Government has updated the reference for the Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan. The entry previously listed as '(F) VOLUME VI - SCRM Plan' has been corrected to read 'VOLUME VII - SCRM Plan'.

Please refer to the amended solicitation to ensure your proposal aligns with the corrected volume structure.

The instructions on Page 48 (Paragraph 1.a.) incorrectly state the ROM is part of Volume V. The instructions in Table I (Page 39), which state the ROM is to be included in Volume II, are correct.

Therefore, for the purpose of your proposal submission, the ROM shall be included in Volume II. The solicitation will be amended to correct the conflicting language on Page 48.

11 PWS Page 20-21 6.17.1, Page #10, CDRL 0018 AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Subtask 17.1 - SCRM Plan states ….”(SCRM) Plan submitted as part of the initial proposal in accordance with CDRL A018.”

1. Delivery Schedule states 10 days after award

2. CDRL 0018 states Date of First submission is within 10 Days after Contract Award.

Please clarify if SCRM is to be provided at submission or 10 days after award? The Government acknowledges the conflicting references regarding the submission deadline for the Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan. To clarify this requirement, the solicitation is amended to establish a two-phase submission process as follows:

Phase 1: Draft SCRM Plan (Required with Proposal) Offerors shall submit a Draft SCRM Plan as part of their initial proposal submission. This draft must be sufficiently detailed to allow for a complete evaluation in accordance with the criteria set forth in the solicitation. The language in Subtask 17.1 will be updated to reflect that a 'Draft' plan is required for evaluation.

Phase 2: Final SCRM Plan (Required Post-Award) Following the contract award, the successful offeror shall deliver a Final SCRM Plan. This final plan is required within 10 days after contract award, as stipulated in the PWS and CDRL A018. This allows the contractor to incorporate any final adjustments before delivering the formal plan.

To summarize, a Draft SCRM Plan is required with the proposal for evaluation, and a Final SCRM Plan is required as a deliverable 10 days after award. The solicitation will be formally amended to reflect this two-phase process.

12 PWS Page 37 Para 13.3 AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 13.3 Electronic Product List. “DARS 252.211-9000”.

Having difficulty finding DARS 252.211-9000. Is this correct DARS or should it be 7000? The Government acknowledges the questions regarding the clause references in PWS Section 13.3.

After review, the Government is formally amending the solicitation to remove the references to both DFARS 252.211-7003 and DARS 252.211-9000 from this section of the Performance Work Statement.

Offerors shall follow the instructions as stated in the PWS regarding the Electronic Product List (Appendix 9). The applicability of any specific FAR or DFARS clauses is governed by their inclusion in the contract's terms and conditions, not by this PWS section. (what does this sentence mean?)

The Performance Work Statement will be formally amended to reflect this change.

13 PWS Page 12 Para 6.7.1 AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 “Subtask 7.1 - Industry Standards. The following ITIL principles must be included in the contractor’s proposal”

Is this requirement for the current proposal or to be delivered after award with a Quality Plan?

if with proposal, we request additional page count if it is to go into Phase I Technical / Management Proposal The Government provides the following clarification in response to questions regarding the ITIL principles referenced in Subtask 7.1.

Offerors are required to demonstrate an understanding of and incorporate these ITIL principles into their proposed technical and management approach within the proposal. However, the submission of full, detailed documentation (such as a complete Quality Plan) is not required as part of the initial proposal.

The proposal should describe how the offeror's methodology aligns with these standards, rather than providing the fully developed documentation itself. The formal, detailed plans and deliverables related to these standards will be required post-award, in accordance with their associated CDRLs.

As full documentation is not required in the proposal submission, the request for an additional page count is not granted. The existing page limit is considered sufficient for describing the proposed approach.

The solicitation will be amended to update this reference. The correct cross-reference is 'Page 38, paragraph iii'.

Offerors should refer to the information on Page 38, paragraph iii, as intended by this reference.

15 RFQ Page 41 AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 “Alternative SLINs shall be a separate chapter of the Technical/ Management Volume”

Please clarify which Phase under the Written Technical/ Management Volume SLINs should be provided. The Government provides the following clarification regarding the submission of Alternative Special Item Numbers (SLINs).

The solicitation requires that 'Alternative SLINs shall be a separate chapter of the Technical/Management Volume.' To ensure clarity, this chapter is to be included as part of the Phase I Written Technical/Management Volume.

The solicitation will be amended on Page 41 to explicitly state this requirement.

Should it be referenced under Phase I in Written Technical? The Government acknowledges that 'Offeror Technical Specifications (Attachment 4)' was not explicitly listed in the detailed organizational structure for the Phase I Written proposal on pages 40-41 of the solicitation.

This notice is to clarify that Offeror Technical Specifications (Attachment 4) must be submitted as part of the Phase I Written Technical/Management Volume (Volume III).

The solicitation will be formally amended to add this requirement to the list of components for the Phase I submission to ensure clarity for all offerors.

17 RFQ Page 56-57 Attachments AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Appendix 14 Escalation Questionnaire contains questions that cannot be answered prior to contract award. Can the Government remove it from being required for proposal submission?? The Government acknowledges the request to remove the 'Escalation Questionnaire' from the proposal submission requirements, citing that some questions appear to be answerable only after contract award.

The request to remove the questionnaire is denied. This is a mandatory component of the proposal submission.

The purpose of the Escalation Questionnaire is for the Government to evaluate the offeror's proposed approach and ability to meet the critical PWS requirements for minimum response and repair timelines, as defined in PWS 6.5.4, Subtask 5.4. Offerors should answer the questions by describing the processes, procedures, and capabilities they will have in place upon contract award to meet these escalation requirements. The responses will be used as part of the technical evaluation to assess the soundness and feasibility of the offeror’s proposed maintenance and support plan.

To simplify the submission process, the Government is formally amending the solicitation. The 'Escalation Questionnaire' has been removed from Appendix 14 of the PWS and is re-issued as a new, standalone attachment: Attachment 17 - Escalation Questionnaire. Offerors must complete and submit this new attachment with their proposal.

18 RFQ Page 56-57 Attachments AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Appendix 9 Electronic Products List spreadsheet columns C through F and I through J appear to request data that is likely not available until Post Contract Award/Start. Is Appendix 9 supposed to be delivered Post award of with Phase I Written Technical / Management Proposal? The Government acknowledges the questions regarding the submission of the 'Appendix 9 Electronic Products List,' noting that several columns request data that may not be available until after contract award.

To clarify, the Appendix 9 Electronic Products List is a post-award deliverable and is NOT required to be submitted with the proposal.

The Government understands that the information for columns C through F and I through J, in particular, is typically finalized after an award is made. The solicitation will be formally amended to remove any language that implies Appendix 9 is required as part of the initial proposal submission. The official submission timeline will be governed by its associated post-award delivery schedule.

19 RFQ Page 35 Para (b) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 “252.237-7024

NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES

(b) The offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in attachment 4, Mission Essential Contractor Services, …”

Is the offeror required to provide a Mission Essential Contractor Services plan with the proposal?

If so, which phase and volume should it be provided? The Government acknowledges that the solicitation contains an incorrect reference to 'attachment 4' regarding the Mission Essential Contractor Services. The correct reference is Attachment 11.

This notice is to clarify the submission requirements for the Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan and to formally amend the solicitation's evaluation criteria and page limits.

The Government confirms that, in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024, offerors are required to submit a written Mission Essential Contractor Services plan with their proposal. This plan must be included as part of the Phase I Written Technical/Management Volume (Volume III) and must specifically describe how the offeror will continue to perform the essential services listed in Attachment 11.

To ensure this requirement is formally evaluated, the Government is amending the solicitation to add the following new evaluation subfactor:

'Subfactor 1.6 (Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan): To be found “Acceptable,” the proposal must include a plan specifically describing how the offeror will continue services that are listed in Attachment 11 in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024.'

To accommodate this new requirement, the page limit for the Volume III - Technical/Management Approach narrative is hereby increased by two (2) pages, bringing the new total page limit to 20 pages.

Offerors must ensure their proposal includes this plan as instructed to be considered for an 'Acceptable' rating under this new subfactor.

20 RFQ Evaluation Factor 4: Price AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Which of the techniques in FAR 15.404 does the Government intend to use to evaluate cost reasonableness? The Government will evaluate price reasonableness in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

The Government reserves the right to use any of the other techniques listed in FAR 15.404-1 if needed to determine that the final agreed-upon price is fair, reasonable, and balanced.

However, D Volume V - Evaluation Factor 4: Price 1c and 3 (page 48) states that it is required as part of the Volume V response.

Please confirm that Volume V is not due with Phase I and that the ROM is not in Volume V, as it is in Volume II and required in Phase I. The Government acknowledges there are conflicting instructions in the solicitation regarding the submission of pricing information for Phase I. This notice is to clarify the requirements.

For Phase I, offerors are required to submit a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM). This ROM must be submitted in its own separate volume, designated as Volume II - ROM. No other pricing information is required for Phase I.

The references on Page 48 to a 'Volume V' price submission and evaluation are not applicable to the Phase I evaluation. Volume V - Price is not required for the Phase I submission. Instructions for the formal Volume V Price proposal will be provided to offerors who advance to Phase II.

The solicitation will be formally amended to correct these discrepancies.

22 RFQ Page 1 block 8 AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 The RFQ and PWS appear to have a number of conflicts, discrepancies and content that may need clarification. With only 28 days to respond and only 15 days between question due date and submission of the proposal, it will be difficult for offerors to react to the answers to questions and provide a valid compliant proposal.

The offeror respectfully requests a two week extension in order to properly respond to this opportunity with a valid and compliant response. The Government acknowledges requests from industry for an extension to the proposal submission deadline for the referenced solicitation.

To provide offerors with additional time to prepare their proposals while the Government finalized its responses to all submitted questions, the proposal due date was extended by two weeks.

Proposals are now due no later than Tuesday, April 7, 2026, at 4:00 PM Central Standard Time (CST).

23 RFP Pg. 47 Section 5 and Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 RFP pg. 47 says “...offeror shall provide a written guarantee that they will sponsor two or more FCLs to Small Businesses (SBs) during the first two years of performance...”. However, the table on pg. 3 of the SBPP template instructs offerors to list the SBs that they will sponsor a FCL for (meaning an offeror would need to know all of the SBs it will sponsor at time of initial bid). Is a written guarantee to sponsor two SB FCLs all that is required at time of bid for an offeror to be rated acceptable? The Government acknowledges the question regarding the requirement to provide a written guarantee for Facility Clearance (FCL) sponsorship versus the instruction in the Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) template to list specific small businesses.

The Government confirms that, to be rated 'Acceptable' for this requirement at the time of proposal submission, a written guarantee is sufficient. This guarantee must affirm that the offeror will sponsor at least two FCLs for small businesses during the first two years of contract performance.

Offerors are not required to identify the specific small businesses they intend to sponsor in the SBPP template at the time of proposal. The Government understands that these partners may not be finalized until after award.

The section of the SBPP template that requests the names of specific companies for FCL sponsorship should be marked as 'To be identified and finalized post-award.' The solicitation will be formally amended to reflect this clarification.

24 Attachment 5 AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Please include all unit measurements for each item in Column C in Attachment 5, Evaluation Quantities. For example, C40 units are listed as per drive per day. Please specify what units this refers to. The Government provides the following clarification in response to the request for unit measurements in Attachment 5, Evaluation Quantities.

The Government confirms that the unit of measure for each item is included in Column C of the 'Evaluation Quantities' table in Attachment 5. Each unit description in Column C should be read in the context of the specific item described in that same row.

For the example cited, SLIN C40, 'Mainframe Virtual Tape System (VTS) - CONUS,' the unit 'Per drive per day' refers specifically to the cost for one virtual tape drive within that system for a single day. The unit of measure is directly tied to the item being priced.

No changes are planned for Attachment 5, as the unit measurements are considered complete as written.

25 RFP Pg 49, (E) VOLUME VI - Contract Documentation – 1. AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Does the Government require Block 17a. Contractor/Offeror to be completed in addition to Blocks 30 a, b, and c? The Government confirms that offerors are required to complete both Block 17a and Blocks 30a, 30b, and 30c on the SF 1449.

These sections serve two distinct and mandatory purposes:

Block 17a: This block identifies the legal name and address of the offering entity (the company or organization submitting the proposal).

Blocks 30a, 30b, and 30c: These blocks capture the signature, name, title, and date from the individual who is legally authorized to bind the offeror to the terms of the proposal.

A complete and compliant offer requires the identification of the company in Block 17a and the authorized signature in Block 30.

26 RFP HC108426R0004 Amendment 1 AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Amendment 1 does not include the referenced Attachment 16 - Question and Answer Document. Will the Government provide this document? The Government confirms that 'Attachment 16 - Question and Answer Document' was included with the posting for Amendment 1 on SAM.gov.

All attachments for the solicitation and its amendments are listed in sequential order on the official SAM.gov notice. The posting for Amendment 1 shows the specific file for Attachment 16 and includes the date it was added.

Offerors are advised to review the complete list of attachments available on the SAM.gov website to ensure all documents have been downloaded.

The requirement for Section 508 compliance applies specifically to the solution and all applicable services and deliverables to be provided under the Performance Work Statement upon contract award.

Compliance with Section 508 accessibility standards is not a requirement for the proposal documents themselves, such as the written proposal volumes or the oral presentation slides.

Offerors should focus on demonstrating how their proposed solution will meet these standards, rather than applying the standards to the proposal submission materials.

28 PWS 6.5 (page 6) and Appendix 13 (page 60) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 For the current HPC storage cluster, what is the current compute architecture, networking and storage performance required? The Government provides the following clarification regarding the High-Performance Computing architecture and performance requirements.

The solicitation does not define a single, mandatory compute architecture. Instead, it emphasizes the need for a flexible solution, as architectures will vary based on the requirements of different strategic partners. As stated in Attachment 8 Performance Work Statement (PWS), Appendix 12, a key minimum requirement is that the solution must provide the flexibility to scale performance and capacity independently.

Specific, measurable performance thresholds that the proposed solution must meet are listed in Attachment 8 (PWS), Appendix 13. Offerors should refer to these appendices for the definitive minimum requirements for their proposed solution.

29 RFP , Volume IV (page 45) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 As a small business, (vendor) complies with NAICS code: 541519e, 150 employees and we intend to prime this opportunity. Your solicitation requires a small business to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan which identifies MQRs (Minimum Quantitative Requirements). Are these MQRs required if the prime is a small business? And if so, is a small business prime contractor required to meet all MQRs, as stated in the solicitation, to be considered compliant and eligible to receive an award? The Government provides the following clarification regarding the Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement.

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.702, the requirement to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan applies only to prime contractors that are 'other than small business' concerns.

Therefore, if the prime offeror is a small business concern that meets the NAICS code size standard for this solicitation, it is not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Consequently, the Minimum Quantitative Requirements (MQRs) associated with that plan are also not applicable to a small business prime contractor.

The solicitation will be considered amended to clarify that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement and its associated MQRs only apply to offerors who are large businesses.

30 RFP, Volume II and Volume V, Rough Order Magnitude (Pages 40 and 48) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Page 40 includes instructions for Volume II – ROM and page 48 Volume V Price Model indicates that the price volume should begin with ROM. Could the USG please clarify which volume(s) should contain ROM? The Government acknowledges the conflicting instructions in the solicitation regarding the placement of the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM).

To clarify: The ROM shall be submitted as Volume II only.

The instruction on Page 40, which identifies the ROM as a standalone Volume II, is the correct instruction to follow. The conflicting statement on Page 48 suggesting the ROM should be part of the Volume V Price Model is incorrect. The solicitation will be amended to remove this conflicting language from Page 48.

Offerors shall submit their ROM as a separate Volume II and their full Price Model as a separate Volume V when required.

31 RFP, Submission Instructions (Page 40) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Page 40 Electronic Submission of Offers states to “Submit Volumes I through VI via email…”. Please confirm that Volume VII SCRM Plan, as well as other attachments and appendices not attached to a volume but which require completion (e.g. Escalation Questionnaire, CDRLs, Electronic Product List) should be submitted following the same instructions. The Government acknowledges that the instruction on Page 40 regarding the electronic submission of offers was incomplete.

To clarify, all proposal volumes, including Volume VII (SCRM Plan), and all other required attachments and appendices (e.g., Escalation Questionnaire, completed CDRLs, etc.) must be submitted via email in accordance with the instructions provided in the solicitation.

The instruction on Page 40 will be formally amended to reflect that submissions must be inclusive of all volumes and required documents.

32 RFP, Placement of Subfactor 1.1 (Pages 39-41) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 On pages 40-41, the RFP states “Volume III - Technical/Management shall be organized as follows:

Evaluation Factor 3: Technical/Management Phase I Written Proposal:

• Subfactor 1.1: Self-Certification Checklist and Letter (Attachments 2 & 3)…”

Page 39 states “Proposals must be prepared according to the table below.” In the table, all Phase I Subfactors are listed at the beginning of Volume III. However, subfactor 1.1 Self-Certification Checklist and Self-Certification Letter are also listed after Alternative SLINs.

Please clarify the location of the Subfactor 1.1 Self-Certification Checklist and Self-Certification Letter. The Government acknowledges the conflicting instructions regarding the placement of the 'Subfactor 1.1 Self-Certification Checklist (Attachment 2)' and 'Self-Certification Letter (Attachment 3)'.

To clarify, these two documents are to be submitted as separate, standalone files within the overall Volume III, Phase I proposal package. They should not be embedded as a chapter or section within the main written proposal narrative.

The solicitation will be formally amended to correct the organizational instructions on pages 39, 40, and 41 to reflect this clarification.

33 RFP, Page Limits (Page 39) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Page 39, Table 1, lists a 12-page limit for “Technical/Management Approach – All Phase I Subfactors”, a 1-page limit for the Self-Certification Letter, and no page limit for the Self-Certification Checklist.

Please confirm that the 12-page limit only applies to the narrative for Subfactors 1.2–1.4 (Technical Solution, Availability, and Service Delivery Plan), and that Subfactor 1.1 (Self-Certification Checklist and Self-Certification Letter) are submitted separately and are not included in the 12-page Technical/Management Approach page limit. The Government provides the following clarification in response to the question regarding the page limits for the Phase I Technical/Management Approach.

The Government confirms that your understanding is correct. The 12-page limit for the 'Technical/Management Approach – All Phase I Subfactors' applies only to the written narrative response for Subfactors 1.2 (Technical Solution), 1.3 (Availability), and 1.4 (Service Delivery Plan).

This 12-page limit does not include the Self-Certification Checklist (Attachment 2) or the Self-Certification Letter (Attachment 3). These attachments are to be submitted as separate documents, subject to their own specified page limits (1 page for the Letter, no limit for the Checklist).

The solicitation will be formally amended to clarify this instruction.

34 RFP, Proposal Organization and Submission of Offers (Page 39-40) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Page 40 narrative states “each volume should be a separate file”, whereas the Proposal Organization Table on Page 39 has multiple rows for Volume III, each of which indicate “one electronic” copy.

Please clarify whether “One electronic” per row indicates that each item listed under Volume III should be submitted as a separate electronic file/attachment. The Government acknowledges the conflicting instructions regarding the submission of electronic files for Volume III.

To clarify, the instruction in the Proposal Organization Table on Page 39 is the correct one to follow. Each item listed in a separate row for Volume III in the table should be submitted as a separate electronic file/attachment.

For example, the written narrative for Subfactors 1.2-1.4 should be one file, the Self-Certification Checklist should be a separate file, and the Self-Certification Letter should be a third, separate file.

The general instruction on Page 40 will be amended to clarify that components within a single volume may be required as separate files.

The instruction on Page 40 stating that Volume III should be submitted in MS Word applies only to the written, narrative portions of the proposal.

Attachments that are provided as templates in other formats, specifically the Self-Certification Checklist (Attachment 2) and the Offeror Technical Specification (Attachment 4), should be completed and submitted in their native Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) format. These should be submitted as separate Excel attachments within the Volume III submission.

The solicitation will be formally amended to reflect this clarification.

36 RFP, Technical Approach Contents – Resume (Page 42) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Page 42 Part 1 states “The page count for the technical proposal is exclusive of the cover letter, cover page, table of contents, resume.”

Please clarify what, if any, resume should be submitted and in which volume it would be located? The Government confirms that the reference to 'resume' on Page 42, Part 1, is an error and an artifact from a template.

Resumes are not required for this solicitation, and offerors should not submit any.

The solicitation will be formally amended to remove the word 'resume' from the list of items excluded from the page count to eliminate this confusion.

37 RFP, Administrative Requirements (Page 38-39) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Page 38-39, section (iv) states “The following items will not be considered when calculating page limits: cover pages, table of contents, glossary, executive summary, OCCI mitigation plans, Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) plans, Government Furnished Property attachment, FAR/Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Provisions and Clauses (fill-in text), and Section 508 compliance.”

However, on page 39-40, Table 1, the executive summary has a limit of 5 pages and SCRM plan has a limit of 20 pages.

Please clarify if these sections are subject to page limits. The Government acknowledges the conflicting instructions regarding the page limits for the Executive Summary and the Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan.

To clarify, both of these sections are subject to page limits as specified in Table 1 of the solicitation. The correct limits are:

Executive Summary: 5 pages

SCRM Plan: 20 pages

The conflicting language on pages 38-39, section (iv), which lists these items as being excluded from page limits, is incorrect. The solicitation will be formally amended to remove 'executive summary' and 'Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) plans' from this exclusion list 38 RFP, Volume I, Executive Summary (Page 38 and 40) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Page 40, I.(vii)(A) states: “Include a master table of contents for the entire proposal.” Page 38 I.(iv) states: “The following items will not be considered when calculating page limits: cover pages, table of contents, glossary, executive summary, OCCI mitigation plans, Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) plans, Government Furnished Property attachment, FAR/Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Provisions and Clauses (fill-in text), and Section 508 compliance.”

Please confirm that the Volume I – Executive Summary master table of contents for the entire proposal does not count against the 5-page limit for that volume. The Government confirms that the Master Table of Contents, which is required to be included in Volume I, does not count against the 5-page limit for the Executive Summary.

The instruction on Page 38, which excludes a 'table of contents' from page limit calculations, applies to the master table of contents for the entire proposal.

To ensure clarity, the solicitation will be amended to explicitly state that the master table of contents is separate from the Executive Summary narrative for page count purposes.

39 PWS 11.7 (page 33) AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Requesting clarification on exceptions to media retention to accommodate drive returns:

“PWS section 11.7 states that all components and/or writable media (including tapes, disk drives, mass storage devices, and memory) shall be retained by the Government upon contract completion or termination unless otherwise directed by the Government, and section 11.7.2 further states that media leaving the control of this contract shall be destroyed unless otherwise directed by the Government.

For planning purposes, please clarify under what specific conditions and approval process the Government would exercise this ‘unless otherwise directed’ authority to allow operational disk drives to be returned to the OEM after:

1) the drives have been sanitized in accordance with DoW/DISA and DoDI 8500.01 requirements,

2) the Government has completed its certification of sanitization, and

3) any required sampling and third party verification of sanitization has been completed and accepted.

Is the Government willing to authorize such a disposition path for sanitized drives, and if so, what documentation, approvals, and contract language modifications (if any) would be required?” The Government provides the following clarification in response to the question regarding the conditions under which operational disk drives may be returned to the OEM instead of being retained or destroyed.

The Government confirms that it may exercise its authority under PWS 11.7 ('unless otherwise directed') to authorize a disposition path for sanitized drives to be returned. However, this authorization is not guaranteed and is contingent upon the contractor meeting a stringent set of conditions for each and every instance.

The specific conditions under which the Government may grant this authority are as follows:

Sanitization: The contractor must have sanitized the media in strict accordance with all applicable DoW/DISA requirements and DoDI 8500.01, including the latest revision of NIST SP 800-88.

Documentation & Certification: The contractor must provide sufficient and complete documentation to the Government that allows the Government to independently certify that the sanitization process has been successfully completed.

Verification: If required by the Government, any sampling and/or third-party verification of the sanitization process must be completed and formally accepted by the Government.

The approval process consists of the contractor formally requesting this disposition path and providing all necessary documentation for Government review and certification. The existing language in the PWS is sufficient to allow for this process; no contract language modifications are anticipated. Authorization will be granted on a case-by-case basis at the sole discretion of the Government.

40 HC108426R0004 ESS IV Page 1, SF1449: Offer Due Date March 24 AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 The Government stated it would not grant an extension (notified in Amendment 0001 released 03/03/2026) which leads to a less competitive environment for the government and significantly favors the incumbent who is already executing. Given the scope and critical nature of the questions, will the Government provide clarifying updates to the RFP and provide a 30-day extension from the date of those updates? The Government acknowledges requests from industry for an extension to the proposal submission deadline for the referenced solicitation.

To provide offerors with additional time to prepare their proposals while the Government finalized its responses to all submitted questions, the proposal due date was extended by two weeks.

Proposals are now due no later than Tuesday, April 7, 2026, at 4:00 PM Central Standard Time (CST).

This notice is to clarify the submission requirements for the Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan and to formally amend the solicitation's evaluation criteria.

The Government confirms that, in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024, offerors are required to submit a written Mission Essential Contractor Services plan with their proposal. This plan must be included as part of the Phase I Written Technical/Management Volume (Volume III) and must specifically describe how the offeror will continue to perform the essential services listed in Attachment 11.

To ensure this requirement is formally evaluated, the Government is amending the solicitation to add the following new evaluation subfactor to the Technical/Management Volume:

'Subfactor 1.6 (Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan): To be found “Acceptable,” the proposal must include a plan specifically describing how the offeror will continue services that are listed in Attachment 11 in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024.'

Offerors must ensure their proposal includes this plan as instructed to be considered for an 'Acceptable' rating under this new subfactor.

42 HC108426R0004 ESS IV Page 40, 52.212-1(a)(vii)(B) Volume II – ROM AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Instructions state the Rough Order of Magnitude is a two-page document submitted as Volume II - ROM. However, instructions on page 48 also state that the ROM should be included in Volume V - Price Model. Please clarify the discrepancy in volume requests. The Government acknowledges a discrepancy in the solicitation regarding the correct placement of the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM).

The instructions on Page 48 (Paragraph 1.a.) incorrectly state the ROM is part of Volume V. The instructions in Table I (Page 39), which state the ROM is to be included in Volume II, are correct.

Therefore, for the purpose of your proposal submission, the ROM shall be included in Volume II. The solicitation will be amended to correct the conflicting language on Page 48.

43 HC108426R0004 ESS IV Page 41, Evaluation Factor 3: Technical/Management Alternative SLINs AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Instructions state Alternative SLINs shall be a separate chapter of the Technical/Management Volume. It is unclear which Phase these are to be provided. Will the government clarify if the five-page Alternative Subline Items are to be submitted with the Offeror's Phase 1 proposal in Volume III? The Government provides the following clarification regarding the submission of Alternative Special Item Numbers (SLINs).

The Government confirms that the five-page chapter for Alternative SLINs is to be submitted as part of the Phase I Written Technical/Management Volume (Volume III).

The solicitation will be amended to explicitly state this requirement to ensure clarity for all offerors.

44 HC108426R0004 ESS IV Page 45, Evaluation Factor 1: Small Business Participation Plan AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 As written, DISA seems to be looking at the Total Contract Valuation (TCV) as the Small Business (SB)population of work vice a services focus. Has DISA considered that by using TCV, there is an incentive for any OEM to use an SB to support hardware procurements in addition to services, thereby increasing the pass-through to the Government? If the goal is to increase SB services support, would the Government not be better served by basing the SB plan on services only? The Government acknowledges the offeror's question regarding the use of Total Contract Value (TCV) as the basis for the Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) goals, and the potential incentive for hardware pass-throughs.

The SBPP goals are based on the Total Contract Value (TCV).

However, the Government shares the offeror's interest in ensuring meaningful, high-value small business participation and has incorporated specific evaluation criteria to mitigate the risk of low-value pass-through arrangements dominating the SBPP.

As detailed in Evaluation Factor 1: Small Business Participation, offerors are required not only to meet quantitative goals but also to demonstrate the quality and substance of the proposed participation. Specifically, the evaluation will assess:

The Complexity of the Work: The plan must detail the principal services to be performed, including the PWS task areas and the complexity of the work (rated as Low, Medium, or High). A plan that relies solely on low-complexity hardware procurement will be viewed less favorably than a plan demonstrating medium or high-complexity technical services.

The Details of the Contribution: Offerors must describe the specific services and corresponding labor categories that small businesses will provide.

Therefore, while the SBPP goals are based on the TCV, the evaluation is designed to reward offerors who provide credible plans for meaningful and substantive small business involvement, rather than those who simply use small businesses for low-value pass-throughs. The Government's goal is to encourage a healthy mix of both services and other types of opportunities for the small business community.

45 HC108426R0004 ESS IV Page 52 (iii) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.1. Phase I Evaluation "The Government will also compare the ROM price to the internal Government estimate for reasonableness and affordability" AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Given the dramatic increase in demand for and price volatility for memory and flash media across industry, a ROM may not be the best way to evaluate Offerors' price proposals. Rapidly escalating prices month-to-month means pricing and especially ROMs are inaccurate in terms of evaluating Phase I proposals. It is the rate of change in the DRAM, NAND, Storage marketplace that renders price quotes, pricing, AND ROMs obsolete almost the day after they are submitted. The Government would benefit from reviewing the Internal Government Cost Estimate to ensure that data reflects current market conditions and is useful to DISA in supporting this procurement. The Government acknowledges the offeror's insightful comments regarding the current price volatility within the memory and flash storage markets and its potential impact on the accuracy of a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM).

The Government is aware of these dynamic market conditions. However, the requirement for a ROM as part of the Phase I proposal remains in effect. The ROM is a required component of the Phase I submission for its intended purpose as a high-level assessment tool.

The Government's proposal evaluation process includes ongoing market research to ensure our understanding of current conditions. The reasonableness assessment of the ROM will take these known market dynamics into account.

Therefore, while the concerns about price volatility are valid, the ROM remains a required component of the Phase I submission. The detailed price evaluation will occur in a later phase based on the full price proposal.

46 HC108426R0004 ESS IV Page 56, Attachments Requiring Offeror Input: Attachment 4 ESS IV Offeror Technical Specifications AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Instructions state Attachment 4 ESS IV Offeror Technical Specifications shall be submitted with the proposal. It is unclear which Phase this is to be provided. Will the Government clarify if Attachment 4 is to be submitted with the Offeror's Phase 1 proposal in Volume III? The Government provides the following clarification regarding the submission of 'Attachment 4 - ESS IV Offeror Technical Specifications'.

The Government confirms that Attachment 4 is to be submitted as part of the Phase I Written Technical/Management Volume (Volume III).

The solicitation will be formally amended to explicitly include Attachment 4 in the organizational list for the Phase I proposal to ensure clarity for all offerors.

47 HC108426R0004 ESS IV Page 57, Attachments Requiring Offeror Input: Appendix 9 Electronic Product List AMD 03 posted March 25, 2026 Instructions state this document must be completed and submitted as part of the proposal. In which volume does the Government want this Appendix submitted? The Government acknowledges the question regarding the submission of the 'Appendix 9 Electronic Products List.'

To clarify, the Government confirms that Appendix 9 is a post-award deliverable and is NOT required to be submitted with the proposal.

Therefore, offerors should not include Appendix 9 in any volume of their proposal submission. The solicitation will be formally amended to remove any language that implies Appendix 9 is required as…