Environmental Services Q and A.pdf

Facility Environmental Compliance, Planning, and Resiliency Technical Support

Solicitation # HQ003426RE025

Question and Answer Questions Answers

1. Attachment 11 – RFP Section LM&H Section L, Part VI(b)(1) requires “The Offeror must possess, on the proposal due date, a current/active DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) at the SECRET level or above. There will be no exceptions or extensions to this requirement.

All companies aligning as a joint Venture (JV) candidate must have an active secret clearance individually by proposal due date.”

Can we assume for non-joint venture arrangements, a small business prime that does not possess a cleared facility partnered with a first-tier subcontractor with a Secret cleared facility passes this security requirement?

Both Prime and Subcontractor are required to possess a current/active DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) on the proposal due date.

2. Solicitation_-_HQ003426RE025.pdf, Section 252.204-7021 Contractor compliance With the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements.

A) What CMMC Level is required at time of proposal submittal (i.e. Level 1, Level 2 self-certified or Level 2 C3PAO certified)?

B) Can we assume the Offeror is required to hold and maintain a CMMC Level 2 (Self) or higher to meet the CMMC requirement?

See revised DFARS Clause 252.204-7021

A) CMMC Level 2(self) required.

B) Yes, the contractor must hold and maintain a Level 2 (Self) throughout the duration of

3. Please clarify the work location for the Senior Engineer (Energy) in Technical Exhibit 3 vs. Attachment 4 Key Personnel Qualification Table? Exhibit 3 indicates hybrid work location;

Attachment 4 does not specify.

The work location for the Senior Engineer (Energy) is hybrid.

Attachment 4 does not include work location. (See Revised Attachment 4 – Key Personnel Qualification Table.)

4. The solicitation table only shows 1 CLIN per year but the spreadsheet shows 10 CLINs. What is the contract funding type for the other 9 CLINs?

The single CLIN in the solicitation represents the overarching base IDIQ ordering period. However, individual Task Orders will use the 10-CLIN structure detailed in the spreadsheet to separately track specific tasks, travel, and Other Costs.

5. Are Travel and ODCs required? There are no CLINs provided in the solicitation table but they are provided in the spreadsheet (which shows travel NTE $8K).

See response to question 4.

In accordance with PWS Sectio 1.16 Travel is required to various CONUS/ locations as determined by the Government. The Contractors are reimbursed for actual allowable, allocable, and reasonable travel costs incurred during performance of this effort in accordance with the FAR 31.205-46 "Travel Costs."

6. In the spreadsheet, what's the difference between ODC CLIN 8 and ODC CLIN 9? Can the Government provide NTE values for these ODC CLINs?

While CLIN 0008 is ODC, CLIN 0009 is indirect/ miscellaneous costs.

ODC is not required. Solicitation documents are updated accordingly.

7. Solicitation - HQ003426RE025:

Reference Section 252.204-7021, Compliance with the CMMC Level Requirements (d)(1)(i), Pages 14-16 – States “The Contractor shall-- (1)(i)Have and maintain for the duration of the contract a current CMMC status at the following CMMC level, or higher: ____________ [Contracting Officer insert: CMMC Level 1 (Self);

CMMC Level 2 (Self); CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO); or CMMC Level 3 (DIBCAC) ] for all information systems used in performance of the contract, task order, or delivery order that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI; and…”

The clause includes a placeholder for the required CMMC level; however, the solicitation does not specify which level applies.

Can the Government please confirm the intended CMMC requirement for this solicitation is CMMC Level 2 (Self)? Based on the scope of work and anticipated handling of Federal Contract Information (FCI) and limited Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), CMMC Level 2 (Self) aligns with the requirement to protect CUI in accordance with NIST SP 800 171, as implemented through DFARS 252.204 7021 and codified in 32 CFR Part 170.

Furthermore, CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) and CMMC Level 3 (DIBCAC) do not appear to be applicable to this solicitation. Third party Level 2 assessments (C3PAO) are not required until November 10, 2026, in later phases of CMMC implementation under the 48 CFR CMMC rule, and the scope of work does not involve DoD designated critical programs, high value assets, or activities requiring safeguards beyond NIST SP 800 171 that would warrant CMMC Level 3

(DIBCAC).

See response to question 2.

CMMC Level 2 (self) satisfies requirement for this contract.

Accordingly, can the government confirm CMMC Level 2 (Self) satisfies the cybersecurity requirements for this contract?

8. Various Documents: Reference Security Clearance Requirements – The solicitation contains differing statements concerning the timing for contractor personnel to possess a SECRET-level security clearance.

For instance: Some sections state personnel must possess a SECRET clearance at the time of proposal submission (Attachment 1 PWS, Section 1.14.1, page 15).

Other sections state clearance requirements at the time of award (Attachment 1 PWS, Section 4.2, page 22).

Additional language references personnel must be able to obtain a SECRET clearance (Attachment 1 PWS, Section 1.13.3, pages 5-14;

Attachment 4 Key Personnel Qualifications Table; Attachment 11 Section LM, Section VI(b)(1) Security Requirements).

Can the Government please clarify the controlling requirement for the timing of SECRET clearance eligibility for proposed personnel? Specifically, should offerors interpret the solicitation to require that Key Personnel possess an active SECRET personnel security clearance at the time of proposal submission, consistent with Attachment 1 PWS, Section 1.14.1, with the expectation that such clearances be maintained through award and contract performance?

Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement – IDIQ Section 1.14.1 has been revised to reflect Contractor personnel performing work under this contract shall have a Secret level security clearance at time of contract award and shall maintain the level of security required for the life of the contract.

9. Attachment 1 PWS, Attachment 4 Key Personnel Qualification Table, and Attachment 8 Pricing Submission Worksheet – Attachment 1 PWS, Section 7, Technical Exhibit 3, Item 17:

Estimated Workload Data (Page 40) lists two (2) FTEs (3840 hours) for the Mid-Level Scientist (HRP/DHHQ) labor category, with both identified as Key Personnel. However, in Attachment 1 PWS, Section 1.13.3(q), page 13, Mid-Level Scientist (HRP) is Key Personnel.

The Mid-Level Scientist for DHHQ is not considered a Key Personnel

Attachment 8 (Pricing Submission Worksheet) has been updated to reflected Mid-Level Scientist (HRP)* and Mid-Level Scientist (DHHQ) as two separate labor only one (1) Key Personnel is listed for “Mid- Level Scientist (HRP),” and no Key Personnel position is listed for DHHQ.

Can the government confirm whether this requirement is for two onsite Key Personnel FTEs supporting HRP/DHHQ? If so, please add an additional Key Personnel table in Attachment 4 to allow offerors to present qualifications for the second FTE.

Additionally, in Attachment 8 Pricing Submission Worksheet, only one row is provided for “Mid- Level Scientist (HRP)”. Please confirm whether an additional pricing row should be added to account for the second FTE.

categories for the period of performance of the contract.

10. Attachment 2 PWS Sample Task Order: Reference Section III (A), Deliverables Table, Page 5 – In the text above the Deliverables Table, it states “a 365-day period between March 1, 2026, and April 31, 2027.”

Can the government confirm whether the intended date range is June 1, 2026, through May 31, 2027, to align with the base year period of the contract?

Attachment 2 – PWS Sample Task Order Section III (A) paragraph 4 has been revised to reflect the following:

The following is a listing of the expected deliverables submitted during the 365-day period of performance commencing from the Contracting Officer directed start date.

11. Attachment 5 Past Performance Data Sheet – Attachment 5 (Past Performance Data Sheet) includes a note stating that offerors “must use this form” and references a “4-page limit,” while Block 14 of the same attachment independently allows up to three (3) pages for the summary description. Given this inconsistency and the evaluation requirements in Section M, clarification is requested. In addition, Block 12 is labeled as “Block 2,” which appears to be a numbering error and may cause confusion for offerors preparing their submissions.

Section L requires proposals to be prepared in sufficient detail to allow the Government to fully evaluate offerors, and Section M states that Factor I – Past Performance will be evaluated based on recency, relevance, and

Attachment 5 – Past Performance Data Sheet has been revised to reflect the following on top of each sections:

• The page limit for Blocks 1 through 11 is two (2) pages.

• The page limit for Block 12 is two

(2) pages.

• Block 14 was changed from not to exceed the three (3) to ten (10) pages.

quality, including similarity in scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort. For contracts of similar size and complexity to this requirement, offerors may be unable to adequately demonstrate relevance and quality within the current constraints.

To enable a fair and meaningful evaluation consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, will the Government consider revising Attachment 5 as follows:

One (1) page limit for Blocks 1–11;

One (1) page limit for Block 12 (contract description and relevancy); and Up to ten (10) pages for Block 14 (summary description of contract work and relevance to the PWS).

Additionally, please confirm that the note at the top of Attachment 5 will be updated to reflect the revised page limits to avoid conflicting instructions.

12. Attachment 5 Past Performance Data Sheet – Attachment 5 (Past Performance Data Sheet) The Data Sheet indicates that “Each page shall be single-spaced and no less than 11-point font Times New Roman.” However, Attachment 11, V(b) page 4, instructs offerors to “use Times New Roman or other plain font that is easily decipherable.” Can the government confirm whether use of another plain, easily decipherable font — consistent with Attachment 11— is acceptable for Attachment 5 (Past Performance Data Sheet)?

Attachment 5 Past Performance Data Sheet has been revised to include the following on top of the page:

NOTE: Refer to Attachment 11 RFP Section M (V) Content Instructions (b).

13. Attachment 9 Contractor NDA and COA Form – Attachment 11, Section VI(a)(2) (page 6) states: “NOTE: The Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) for awardee employees is not required to be submitted with the proposal.

Awardee employees shall complete an NDA Form prior to commencing work.” However, the Proposal Content Chart in Attachment 11, Attachment 11 – RFP Section L, M, & H was revised to reflect the following: The Offeror shall submit a signed Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) statement with its proposal, and a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) at the time of award.

Section IV (page 3) indicates that “Signed Contractor Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA)/COI Certification” are to be included in Volume I: Administrative.

Can the Government confirm that, for proposal submission, only ADAP Form 209 506 1 (Contractor Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form, Attachment 9, pages 6–7) must be completed, signed, and submitted, and that ADAP Form 209 506 5 (Non Disclosure Agreement for employees, Attachment 9, pages 1–5) is not required to be included with the proposal and is instead completed after award?

14. Attachment 11 RFP Section LM:

Reference Section L, IV Proposal Content Chart, Pages 3-4 – Can the Government confirm whether offerors may include a cover page, table of contents, and/or an introductory page for each of Volumes I–IV? If permitted, please clarify any applicable page limits for these items and confirm whether these pages are excluded from the page counts specified for each volume.

No - A cover page is permitted only for Volume I. For all other volumes, the Offeror may choose to include a one-page Table of Contents.

15. Attachment 11: Reference Section L, V(A)(d), Page 18 – Please confirm that the term “combined contract price,” as used in this section for evaluation purposes, refers exclusively to the total proposed price for the sample task order (inclusive of the 12 month base period, four 12 month option periods, and the 6 month extension under FAR 52.217 8), and does not refer to overall IDIQ contract pricing or contract ceiling values.

Yes – The total contract price encompasses the 12-month base period, all option years, and the six-month extension period of performance for the Sample Task Order.

Attachment 11 Section M V. Evaluation Factors Volume IV Factor II- Price d) has been revised to reflect the following:

For evaluation purposes, the phrase “combined contract price” in this section includes the sample task order total proposed price for the 12-month base period, plus four 12-months option periods, plus the 6-month extension period under FAR clause 52.217-8.

16. Attachment 11: Reference Section L, V(A)(j), Page 17 – States “In the case of a Contractor without a record of relevant past

Yes. The government will evaluate past performance projects submitted in the proposal even if third party performance performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).”

Can the Government clarify that this provision is intended to apply to the availability of external past performance information (e.g., CPARS, completed Past Performance Questionnaires, or other Government records), and not to the relevance or substance of the past performance projects affirmatively submitted by the Offeror in Attachment 5?

In other words, please confirm that past performance projects submitted in the proposal will still be evaluated for relevance and quality under Factor I, even if third party performance information (such as PPQs or CPARS) is limited or unavailable.

information is not available for a referred project.

Please review Section M, Volume III, Factor I (Past Performance), Paragraph (c) for a detailed list of other sources the Government will utilize to evaluate past performance information.

17. Attachment 11: Reference Section M, II(b) Part 2 Key Personnel Requirement, Page 13 – Requirement 3 states: “Provide a copy of degree and certificates.” Can the Government confirm whether offerors are required to submit copies of degrees and certificates for all proposed Key Personnel? If so, please clarify whether copies must be provided for all degrees held by an individual.

Additionally, can the Government clarify what is considered an acceptable “degree” document for proposal submission? Given that copies of original degree certificates may be difficult for some Key Personnel to obtain, will the Government consider allowing official or unofficial college transcripts that clearly show the degree awarded as an acceptable alternative?

Attachment 11 Section L and M and Attachment 4 has been revised to include Official Transcript, Unofficial Transcript and Foreign Degree Evaluation as acceptable documents.

All key personnel shall provide supporting documentation, as required by Attachment 4, to demonstrate that minimum education standards have been met.

18. Attachment 11: Reference Section M, II(a) Part 1: Security Requirements, Page 13 – This section states that “the Offeror must

The Offeror needs to submit identifying data so the Contracting Officer can verify the Offeror’s Facility Clearance status.

possess, on the proposal due date, a current/active DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) at the SECRET level or above.” Can the Government clarify what documentation is considered acceptable to demonstrate proof of the required facility security clearance at the time of proposal submission (e.g., DCSA verification, Facility Clearance (FCL) letter, or other official confirmation)?

Identifying data includes CAGE Code, Clearance Level, Facility Security Officer (FSO), Cognizant Security Office (CSO) and Facility Security Clearance (FCL) Address.

19. Attachment 11: Reference Section L, VI(d)(2) page 10 – The solicitation states that “the Offeror shall provide a Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) in accordance with FAR 52.222 46, as a separate document in PDF.” However, the PECP is not listed in the Proposal Content Chart in Attachment 11, Section IV (page 3). Can the Government confirm it is acceptable to submit the PECP as part of Volume IV: Factor II – Price?

Yes, an Offeror may incorporate the PECP as part of the Volume IV: Factor II – Price.

20. Attachment 11: Reference Section M, II(b), Page 13 – This section states that “the Government will evaluate if the proposed Personnel meet the minimum qualifications, at the proposal due date.” To avoid ambiguity in evaluation, can the Government confirm that the minimum qualifications for Key Personnel are defined solely by—and include all elements of—the Solicitation Requirements specified in Attachment 4, including Security, Education/Years of Experience, and Required Experience for each position?

Yes, the Government confirms that the minimum qualifications for Key Personnel are defined by and include all elements of the Solicitation Requirements specified in Attachment 4. This includes the Security, Education/Years of Experience, and Required Work Experience for each position.

The “preferred experience” qualifications that are specifically outlined in Attachment 4 are not required to meet the pass/fail test but will be used to differentiate offerors that Pass. Once a pool of passing offerors has been established, personnel strengths will be considered from each qualification (no requirement for resume) to ascertain the proposed key personnel group that is the greatest benefit to the government.

Additionally, the relevant Performance Work Statement (PWS) section for each key personnel role is provided on Attachment 4. This form is used to standardize submissions, ensuring that offerors provide all required information necessary for the Government to determine that minimum qualifications are met.

21. Attachment 11: Reference Section L, IV Proposal Content Chart (page 4) and VI(c)(1) Volume Content (page 8) – The Proposal Content Chart and Section VI(c)(1) permit offerors to submit Attachment 5 (Past Performance Data Sheet) using the following combinations:

• Two (2) Prime and One (1) Primary 1st Tier Subcontractor references;

• Three (3) Prime references; or

• Three (3) Primary 1st Tier Subcontractor references.

However, Sections L and M state that the Government will evaluate Factor I – Past Performance to assess confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform, based solely on the information provided in the proposal.

Allowing submission of three (3) Primary 1st Tier Subcontractor references does not provide a basis to meaningfully evaluate the past performance of the Prime Offeror, particularly when the Prime is a small business and is responsible for overall contract performance.

Accordingly, please confirm that the Prime Offeror is required to submit at least one (1) past performance reference performed by the Prime. If confirmed, please further clarify that acceptable past performance submission combinations are limited to the following:

• One (1) Prime and Two (2) Primary 1st Tier Subcontractor references;

Attachment 11 Reference Section L, IV Proposal Content Chart (page 4) and VI(c)(1) Volume Content (page 8) – The Proposal Content Chart and Section VI(c)(1) permit offerors to submit Attachment 5 (Past Performance Data Sheet) One (1) Prime and Two (2) Primary 1st Tier Subcontractor references;

Two (2) Prime and One (1) Primary 1st Tier Subcontractor references; or Three (3) Prime references.

• Two (2) Prime and One (1) Primary 1st Tier Subcontractor references; or

• Three (3) Prime references.

22. Attachment 11: Reference Section L, VI(c)(1), Page 8 – The RFP states that, to be considered, past performance references must involve Facility Environmental Compliance, Planning, and Resiliency Technical Support Services of similar scope, size, and complexity, with a total contract value greater than $8 million for federal or private projects.

Given that this procurement is a small business set aside and is structured as an IDIQ contract with work executed through individual task orders, and further noting that Technical Exhibit 3 identifies multiple labor categories, FTE allocations, and functional disciplines that will be applied incrementally across task orders rather than as a single consolidated effort, will the Government consider past performance references with a total contract value greater than $5 million?

This clarification would recognize that qualified small business prime contractors may demonstrate highly relevant past performance at the task order or program level that is representative of this requirement in terms of scope, complexity, technical breadth, and staffing mix, even if the total contract value does not exceed $8 million.

Please confirm whether past performance projects with a total contract value greater than $5 million will be considered acceptable.

Facility environmental contracts that are greater than 5 million dollars align more closely in size to this procurement, however, contracts with a smaller dollar value that have a similar scope of work will be considered. Past performance references that align with the scope of this procurement will be rated well; however, it is recommended that the contractor also provide past performance references that demonstrate capacities similar to this procurement.

23. Attachment 11: Reference Section L/M – The RFP states that Key Personnel (KP) will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis; however, this evaluation approach does not provide an apparent mechanism for the Government to meaningfully differentiate between offerors’ Key Personnel qualifications. The solicitation

The “preferred experience” qualifications that are specifically outlined in Attachment 4 are not required to meet the pass/fail test for Key Personnel but will be used to differentiate offerors that Pass.

Once a pool of passing offerors has been established, personnel strengths will be also includes “preferred qualifications” for each KP role, which suggests an intent to recognize varying levels of capability.

To ensure offerors appropriately align proposal content with the Government’s evaluation intent and to avoid ambiguity in how proposals will be assessed under a best-value framework, can the Government clarify whether Key Personnel will be evaluated strictly on a pass/fail basis, or whether WHS intends to qualitatively consider key personnel and staffing (e.g., through an adjectival rating or other comparative assessment) as part of the best value evaluation?

considered from each resume to ascertain the proposed key personnel group that is the greatest benefit to the government.

24. Attachment 11: Reference Section M, V(A), pages 15-17 – In the event that multiple offerors receive the same past performance confidence rating (e.g., Substantial Confidence), can the Government clarify whether differences in the relevance and/or quality of the submitted projects will be considered as part of the best value determination, and if so, how those distinctions will be assessed? Absent such differentiation, it is unclear how the evaluation would support a meaningful best value tradeoff among proposals receiving the same confidence rating.

Yes, the Government confirms that differences in the relevance, scope, magnitude, and quality of submitted past performance projects may be considered as part of the best-value tradeoff determination.

In accordance with standard source selection procedures, adjectival confidence ratings (such as "Substantial Confidence") are evaluation tools designed to assist the Source Selection Authority (SSA). However, the best-value determination is not based strictly on a comparison of adjectival ratings. The SSA will look beyond the assigned ratings to the underlying qualitative merits of each offeror's past performance record.

If multiple offerors receive the same confidence rating, the SSA may differentiate between them by conducting an integrated assessment of the specific relevance and quality of their respective past performance efforts to make a meaningful and comparative best-value tradeoff decision.

25. Section L, Volume II – Security Requirements (Part 1) - Section L, p. 6–7

See response to question 1.

Please confirm that the FCL requirement for only the prime to hold a SECRET Facility Clearance at proposal submission.

26. PWS Section 1.13.3 / Technical Exhibit 3 vs Attachment 4 - PWS p. 14; Technical Exhibit 3 p. 40; Attachment 4

Technical Exhibit 3 and PWS Section 1.13.3 identify the Senior Communications Specialist as a hybrid position requiring up to three days onsite at the Pentagon; however, Attachment 4 does not reflect this requirement. Can the Government confirm whether this position must be performed in a hybrid capacity, or if fully remote/offsite candidates will be considered?

Yes, the Senior Communications Specialist is a hybrid position that includes up to three days per week at the Pentagon per PWS Section 1.13.3o.

Attachment 4 is used to standardize submissions, ensuring that offerors provide all required information necessary for the Government to determine that minimum qualifications are met.

27. PWS Section 1.13.3 (Personnel Matters) PWS p. 4–15

For positions identified as hybrid or onsite, will the Government consider candidates who are not currently located in the NCR but are able to travel periodically to meet onsite requirements?

For hybrid positions, the candidate must be able to be on site up to three days per week. The government will not pay for travel from outside the NCR for these positions.

28. Section L, Volume II – Key Personnel Requirements - Section L, p. 7 Is there any flexibility in Key Personnel qualifications where candidates meet the intent of the requirements but may not strictly meet one element (e.g., slightly fewer years of experience but strong directly relevant experience)?

No, the key personnel must meet the minimum requirements.

29. Section L, Volume II – Key Personnel Requirements - Section L, p. 7

Please confirm that Key Personnel may be proposed as contingent hires (i.e., not currently employees), provided Letters of Commitment are included in accordance with solicitation requirements.

The Government confirms that contingent hires are permitted, provided that explicit letters of commitment are submitted with the proposal. While allowable, the Government notes that contingent hires inherently carry a higher degree of transition and performance risk.

30. Section L, Volume III – Past Performance Section L, p. 8

a. No. Offerors may not combine or aggregate multiple smaller task orders under a single IDIQ contract to meet the $5 million threshold.

The solicitation requires three (3) projects of similar scope, size, and complexity with a contract value of at least $8 million.

a. Can the Government confirm that multiple smaller task orders under a single IDIQ contract may be combined to meet the $8 million threshold?

b. Is it permissible to submit one past performance reference each for the prime (x1 project), and subcontractor #1 (x1 project) and subcontractor #2 (x1 project) for a total of three

(3) projects, provided each of the three projects meet all other past performance eligibility requirements?

To accurately assess an offeror's ability to successfully perform the solicited requirement, the Government must evaluate past performance projects that individually demonstrate similar scope, size, and complexity. Managing a single contract or task order valued at $5 million or more requires a specific level of centralized program management, integrated risk mitigation, resource allocation, and financial capability.

Successfully managing multiple smaller task orders does not sufficiently demonstrate the offeror's ability to handle the consolidated complexities and magnitude of a single, large-scale effort as required by this solicitation. Each submitted project must stand on its own to meet the minimum value and similarity requirements.

b. See response to question #21.

31. Section M – Past Performance Evaluation - Section M, p. 15–16

Will the Government give equal consideration to subcontractor past performance versus prime contractor past performance, or will prime contractor experience be weighted more heavily?

The Prime contractor experience weights more than subcontractor experience.

32. Section L, Volume III – Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) - Section L, p. 9

If a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is not returned by the client by the deadline, will the Government rely on CPARS or other available sources for evaluation?

Please review Section M, Volume III, Factor I (Past Performance), Paragraph (c) for a detailed list of the sources the Government will utilize to evaluate past performance information.

33. Section M – Past Performance Evaluation - Section M, p. 15–16

Yes. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), the Government will

Can past performance from key personnel be used to demonstrate relevance where the individual had significant involvement in similar efforts?

consider the past performance of proposed Key Personnel who have relevant experience with the Offeror for the minimum of five years. The Offeror must clearly demonstrate how the individual's significant involvement in the prior effort is relevant to the instant acquisition.

34. Section L – General Instructions Section L, p. 1–2 Can the Government confirm the anticipated contract start date, given the proposal submission timeline?

Yes, however, a specific contract start date is currently To Be Determined (TBD) and is contingent upon the completion of the source selection process. The Government may confirm an anticipated start date in the future.

35. Section L – Proposal Submission Timeline Section L, p. 2 Will the Government consider a proposal submission deadline extension?

Yes, the proposal submission date has been extended to May 28, 2028, 12:00 PM

(EST).

36. Section L – General - Section L, p. 1–2 Will a site visit or industry day be conducted prior to proposal submission?

No.

37. Section H – Organizational Conflict of Interest - Section H, p. 20

Are there any known or anticipated Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) concerns for contractors currently supporting WHS or related programs?

There are no known or anticipated Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) concerns for contractors currently supporting WHS or related programs

38. PWS Section 1.8 / 1.9 / Technical Exhibit

- PWS p. 2; TE3 p. 40

Can the Government clarify minimum onsite staffing expectations at the Pentagon, RRMC, and other locations, particularly for hybrid positions?

Refer to Attachment 1 PWS Personnel Duties and Qualifications section (1.13.3) under Specific Classification(s).

39. Technical Exhibit 3 – Estimated Workload Data - TE3 p. 40

For positions identified as “offsite” in Technical Exhibit 3, can personnel reside outside the NCR without restriction?

Yes. Personnel in remote positions may reside outside of the NCR; however, personnel may be required to travel to the site to support meetings, events, or mission needs at any time as required by the KO or COR per PWS section 1.9 Telework.

40. Technical Exhibit 3 – Estimated Workload Data - TE3 p. 40 – Does the Government anticipate any changes to staffing levels or labor mix from the estimates provided in Technical Exhibit 3?

The provided labor categories and hours are strictly for estimation purposes.

Offerors are entirely responsible for proposing a labor mix and staffing levels necessary to accomplish the PWS requirements to successfully execute their proposed technical approach.

41. Section H – Task Order Procedures – Section H, p. 26–27 Can the Government clarify the expected balance between IDIQ base contract support and task order-driven work?

All direct mission support and execution of PWS requirements will be performed under Task Orders. The base IDIQ contract establishes the overarching terms, conditions, and maximum scope, but no operational work is performed at the base contract level.

The only work expected at the IDIQ base contract level is routine contract administration to maintain the IDIQ vehicle.

42. Section H – Task Order Procedures – Section H, p. 26–27 What percentage of work is anticipated to be performed through task orders versus base contract operations?

100% of the technical work is anticipated to be executed and funded solely through Task Orders.

43. PWS Section 5 – Specific Tasks - PWS p.

23–30 Are there any priority task areas (e.g., environmental compliance, resiliency, communications) expected to dominate early task orders?

The government will require all of the support outlined under Attachment 1 PWS IDIQ ; Section 5 upon award.

44. PWS Section 1.9 – Telework - PWS p. 2 Can the Government provide additional guidance on how telework determinations will be made and whether certain roles are expected to remain predominantly onsite?

See response to question #38.

45. Section L, Volume IV – Price - Section L,

p. 9–10 Will the Government provide an Independent Government Estimate (IGE) or expected labor mix for the Sample Task Order?

No. The Government will not provide the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) or an expected labor mix for the Sample Task Order. The purpose of the Sample Task Order is to evaluate the Offeror's independent ability to analyze the requirements, develop a sound technical approach, and propose a realistic labor mix to successfully execute that approach.

46. Attachment 8 – Pricing Worksheet – Attachment 8

Should offerors assume fully burdened labor rates inclusive of overhead, G&A, and profit in the Pricing Submission Worksheet?

Yes. Offerors shall propose fully burdened labor rates in the Pricing Submission Worksheet. These rates must be inclusive of base labor, fringe benefits, overhead, General and Administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit/fee for the duration of the IDIQ contract.

47. Section M – Price Evaluation - Section M,

p. 18 Are there any expectations regarding escalation rates across option years?

The Government does not mandate a specific escalation rate. Offerors shall propose an appropriate escalation rate based on their company’s standard accounting practices, historical data, or FAR 15.407-3 Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs). Offerors must clearly state their proposed escalation rate and provide the rationale or methodology used to calculate it within their pricing narrative.

48. Section L – PECP Requirements - Section L, p. 10 For the Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP), should offerors align compensation strictly to SCA/market rates, or is premium pricing acceptable to reflect highly qualified personnel?

The Government does not mandate strict adherence to a specific market average.

The purpose of the PECP is to demonstrate that the Offeror's proposed compensation reflects a clear understanding of the work and is sufficient to obtain and retain suitably qualified personnel. If an Offeror's technical approach relies on highly qualified personnel requiring premium compensation, this strategy must be clearly detailed and justified within the

PECP.

Please note that Service Contract Act (SCA) wage determinations typically apply to non-exempt service employees, whereas the PECP evaluates exempt professional employees.

49. Section M – Price Evaluation - Section M,

p. 18 How will the Government evaluate price realism versus price reasonableness, particularly for the Sample Task Order?

No, price realism will not be performed as this is requirement is clearly defined and firm-fixed price type contract.

Per attachment 11 RFP Section LM H, Section Volume IV Factor II- Price (b) Reasonableness may be based on one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b).

50. Section H – Phase-In / Transition – Section H, p. 24

Can the Government clarify expectations for transition (phase-in) support, including incumbent contractor coordination?

The Government is anticipating a maximum of one month transition period.

51. PWS Section 3 – Government Furnished Property - PWS p. 21 Will Government-furnished equipment (GFE) be provided to all onsite personnel, or should offerors include IT equipment and related costs in their pricing?

See Attachment 1 – PWS – IDIQ; Section 4.1.

52. PWS Section 1.16 – Travel - PWS p. 16

Can the Government clarify expectations for travel funding, including whether travel will be reimbursable under task orders or should be included in fixed pricing?

See Attachment 1 – PWS IDIQ – Section 1.16.

53. Section L, Volume II – Key Personnel Requirements - Section L, p. 7

Can WHS please define what is meant by “Degree Certificate”?

Attachment II, Section L and M is asking for Copies of Degree Certificate for each Key Personnel position. In many cases, this will potentially present a challenge to provide. Can WHS please confirm if there are alternate documents that can be provided in case the Degree Certificate is not able to be located? (i.e.

School transcript?).

Please See response to question# 17,