E.1 RFP Attachment 1 QA Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- M0026425R0013
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for a United States Marine Corps (USMC) Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Support Services Request for Proposal (RFP) with solicitation number M0026425R0013. The Q&A covers technical, pricing, solicitation, and miscellaneous questions addressing key aspects of the PKI support services, including certificate authority management, cybersecurity configuration, system infrastructure support, training support, and compliance requirements. The RFP seeks a contractor to provide comprehensive PKI support across multiple locations, including Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, Okinawa, and HQMC, with a focus on tasks such as certificate issuance, validation, system infrastructure, and cybersecurity management.
The solicitation includes specific requirements for past performance, with offerors required to submit prime contractor experience, and provides details on government-furnished equipment, tools, and environments. The RFP indicates the contract will involve managing existing PKI infrastructure, including transitioning to Keyfactor EJBCA, supporting multiple certificate authorities, and maintaining high-availability systems with a 99.97% uptime requirement. The original proposal submission date was 30 September 2025, which has been extended to 2 October 2025 at 10:00 a.m. ET. The contract will utilize performance-based staffing, with the contractor responsible for determining appropriate personnel levels to meet the PWS requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| RFP Attachment 1 | |||
| Public Key Infrastructure Support Services | |||
| M00264-25-R-0013 Question & Answer Document- AMENDMENT 0001 | |||
| Contractor: Insert additional rows in the applicable section as necessary | |||
| Question # | RFP Reference (with PWS Section number, page number, and paragraph number, as applicable) | Question (Please provide clear, concise questions. Any question that is not clear is at risk of not being answered.) | Answer (To be provided by the Government as soon as possible after close of Question period.) |
| Technical Questions | |||
| 1 | D.1 RFP PWS Attachment 2 MECS.docx | Can the Government specify if all the PWS 4.3 Local Registration Authority positions are considered Mission Essential Contractor Support. | Yes, contractor personnel performing PWS Task 4.3 Local Registration Authority are considered Mission Essential Contractor Support. |
| 2 | D.1 RFP PWS Attachment 2 MECS.docx | If only some of the LRAs are consider Misson Essential, can the Government specify which LRA locations? | Please refer to the answer for question 1. |
| 3 | D.1+RFP+M0026425R0013, Sections 4.4.2.5 and Section 13 Row 1 | The PWS task description indicates a requirement to publish and issue CRLs on a weekly basis from Root and Sub CAs, however, Section 13, Row 1 in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) Table on page 30 indicates CRL publishing new CRL must be published and made available very seven (7) days for issuing CAs and monthly for Root CAs. Will the Government please confirm that the PRS table indicating that the new CRL must be made available every 7 days for issuing CAs and monthly for Root CAs is the required performance standard? | The PRS is Correct. |
-Issuing CA CRLs shall be published weekly -Root CA CRLs shall be published monthly
| 4 | pg. 23-24, #5. Training Support | Will the Government please specify the usage of the laptops listed in the Government-Furnished Property (GFP) Attachment 4? | Government furnished laptops are end-user devices for performing PWS tasks 4.1 through 4.8. This GFP should not be confused with PWS 5 Training Support |
| 5 | PWS 4.4.8, Page 15 | The uptime requirement is stated as 99.97%. How will planned maintenance periods be excluded from this metric, and what reporting format will be required? |
System is designed and operates in a High-Availability/High-Reliability across both within the data-centers and between data-centers. Individual components can and are placed into maintenance mode as required such that service delivery availability is not affected. Service uptime is required to be 99.97%. Marine Corps Enterprise Monitoring Tools -- operated by a different section of the MCCOG provides system uptime reports. There is no prescribed format.
| 6 | PWS 4.7, Page 22 | CSfC support requires separation of duties between Outer and Inner networks. How will conflicts be resolved when staffing is constrained? | Resolution of staffing conflicts is not determined by the Government; this is the responsibility of the contractor. |
| 7 | 3.6 Available Workstation Space | Government on-site workspaces are limited by location and task is provided in a table in this section. Please confirm that these are the positions required to support the contract as well. |
As noted at PWS 3.6 the available workstations are based on location and task; "positions" to support the contract is at the discretion of the offeror. Also reference PWS 4.7 which provides additional on-site information for required full-time equivalents.
8 PWS Section: All Can the Government provide a list and description of all current Government-furnished tools, systems, and processes (including configuration, knowledge management, ticketing, collaboration, monitoring, and automation platforms) that the contractor will be required to use or integrate with? List and description of Government furnished tools, systems, and processes is contained within the PWS and attachments. Additional or more specific information will be provided shortly after award.
Government tools are:
1. E-ITSM (BMC Enterprise Remedy)
2. Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (Tenable) for vulnerability scanning/SCAP benchmarks
3. Microsoft SharePoint Online -- knowledge management
4. Microsoft Office 365
5. Marine Corps Enterprise Monitoring Tools (Solar Winds)
| 9 | PWS Section 4.4.7, page 14, paragraph 4.4.7.3 | Can the Government clarify if there is an existing PKI configuration baseline (hardware, middleware, applications) and whether the contractor will inherit that baseline at contract start? | Baseline will be provided to the vendor after award. The contractor will inherit the current baseline. |
| 10 | PWS Section 4.4.13, page 16, paragraph 4.4.13.2 | How many scripts are currently in production that must be validated and maintained against all new PKI requirements? | Currently there are approximately 15-20 scripts. |
| 11 | PWS Section 4.4.13, page 16, paragraph 4.4.13.2 | On average, how many new script requests are received each month? | On average there are < 1 script requests received each month. |
| 12 | PWS Section 4.4.13, page 16, paragraph 4.4.13.2 | Are new script requests processed individually as they are received, or are they batched and run through a set development cycle/schedule? | Script requests are processed individually as they are received. |
| 13 | PWS Section 4.5.1, page 17, paragraph 4.5.1.3 | Is there an expectation to migrate existing knowledge management content from legacy repositories or previous contractor-maintained systems into the current SharePoint environment? | No, there is not this expectation to migrate existing knowledge management content from legacy repositories or previous contractor-maintained systems into the current SharePoint environment. Documentation and knowledge management content is managed and maintained on the Marine Corps Enterprise SharePoint. It is expected that the contractor will continue to maintain documentation on the Marine Corps Enterprise SharePoint. |
| 14 | PWS Section 4.5.1, page 17, paragraph 4.5.1.3 | Are there restrictions on developing custom SharePoint web parts, workflows, or database integrations beyond the out-of-the-box capabilities? | Yes, constraints are applied at the Enterprise Management of SharePoint Online. |
| 15 | PWS Section 4.6.1, page 21, paragraph 4.6.1.1 | Given the Marine Corps Cybersecurity Assessment and Authorization Support Tool (MCCASTAT) is being transitioned to DoD eMASS, will the PKI package(s) be maintained in MCCAST (as directed in the "PKI Cyber Security Support" section of the PWS) or will those package(s) be housed in eMASS? | PKI packages will be migrated to eMASS. |
| 16 | PWS Section 4.4.2, page 13 | What is the planned schedule for migrating the current Microsoft Certificate Server capability to Keyfactor EJBCA? | This migration is on going/work in progress with an expectation to be completed during FY 26. |
| 17 | 4.4.2 Certificate Authority (CA) Support, p.13 | CA's. What is the current production constellation of Certificate Authorities used for all certificate issuance duties? | In production: |
Issuance CAs: 6 Root CAs: 4 18 4.4.3 Certificate Validation Infrastructure (CVI) Support, p. 13 CVI Support. What RA and LRA online tools are used for both DISA NSS PKI and USMC CAs? The on-line tools are:
NSS PKI: Token Management System USMC CAs: Windows Admin Tools (Current)
| 19 | 4.4.3 Certificate Validation Infrastructure (CVI) Support, p. 13 | With reference to 'Keyfactor EJBCA Validation Authority', what is the application that supports VCI? | (Possible typo: "VCI" should read "CVI") Key Factor EJBCA Validation Authority is a component of Key Factor EJBCA. Supplemental information will be provided after time of award. |
| 20 | 4.6 Cybersecurity, p.21 | Vulnerability Management Tools. For PWS 4.6, will the Government furnish all required tools (e.g., ACAS, STIG Viewer, SCAP benchmarks), or should offerors propose licenses and infrastructure to support vulnerability scanning and compliance management? | Yes, the Government will provide the required tools for PWS 4.6. |
| 21 | 4.6.2 Security Configuration Compliance Management; 4.6.3 Vulnerability Management, 4.6.4.4 Remediation of Findings, p.21-22 | Authority to Remediate Findings. When ACAS/STIG scans identify vulnerabilities (PWS 4.6.2, 4.6.3), will the contractor be expected to directly remediate PKI infrastructure, or provide recommendations for remediation to the Marine Corps Vulnerability Management Team? | The contractor is expected to take action in accordance with established E-ITSM processes. The Government is to be informed prior to taking any action. |
| 22 | Industry Day slides, p.23 of 25, PKI Projects, Bullet #2: Modernized "OLT" PKI; Bullet #5: "Algorithm Evolution"; and PWS New Technologies: 4.4.2, 4.4.5.1, 4.4.9.8 | Emerging Crypto Requirements. The Industry Day briefing referenced Algorithm Evolution and Post-Quantum Cryptography. Does the Government anticipate contractor cybersecurity staff supporting PQC migration and crypto-agility planning during this period of performance? Or will this be covered in a future Task Order? | No, the Government does not expect this under the resultant contract. |
| 23 | 4.4.8 PKI System Infrastructure Support, p.15, and 4.7.1.1 CSfC, MCCA services, p.22-23 | Certificate Types. What certificate types are serviced by each CA? (e.g. CAC/PIV, ID, Mobile, Tactical etc.?) | USMC OLT PKI support Non-Person Entity certificates only. |
| 24 | 4.8 MES, p.23, and Attachment 2: D.1 RFP PWS - MECS | Mission Essential Services Plan. Please confirm you would like us to describe a plan on how we will staff and manage these 4 essential task areas: 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.6, as cited in RFP PWS Att. 2? | Please reference the RFP at FAR 52.212-1, Addendum 4.2.3 and comply with DFARS 252.237-7024(b) |
| 25 | 5.0 Training Support, p.23; and 4.4.1 Hands-On Lab, Task 4, sub-bullet 5, p.13 | Lab Environment Ownership. For PKI Tactical Training, should the contractor provide and maintain the hands-on lab environment, or will the Government furnish a baseline suite (e.g., VMware images, Purebred devices, HSMs) for training events? | This is Government furnished equipment consisting of a "Tactical Training Suite" providing for hands-on training/lab-work in an isolated environment and is baselined to reflect operational environment. It will be maintained by the contractor. |
| 26 | 5.0 Training Support, p.23; 4.4.1 Hands-on Lab, p.13; and, 4.5 Implementation & Planning, 'PKI tools', p.17. | Lab Tools & Scenarios. For hands-on training events, are there baseline tools or PKI platforms the Government requires (e.g., CA consoles, CVI/OCSP, Desktop Validator, Purebred mobile), or should offerors propose a training toolkit aligned to DoD PKI best practices? | All software and tools required for hands-on training events is provided by the Government. It will be maintained by the contractor |
| 27 | D.1 RFP PWS Attachment 1, Help Desk Matrix, Table: 1st entry | Help Desk Matrix. In the first Desired Outcome listed for Critical (P1) tickets, you cite 4.5.3 as one of the referenced PWS Sections (Purebred), yet you do not cite 4.5.3 for any other Critical or High Outcome; yet it is cited in the Medium and Low Outcomes. Was this Critical reference to 4.5.3 intended? | Ticket incident prioritization is established by the MCCOG Battle Captain/Operations Team without regard to task identifier. Please see revised PWS Attachment 1 highlights in yellow. |
| 28 | 4.7 CSfC, p. 23, Para. 2, and Attachment 4, Pricing Workbook, Tab: Price Matrix | Price Matrix. Please confirm that for optional Task 4.7 CSfC, a minimum of 'two qualified personnel' are expected to work at 'the identified location(s)' and that we 'should be prepared to execute services at multiple locations simultaneously'. If that is true, can you please state: (1) the maximum number of sites that would simultaneously require 2 personnel onsite providing CSfC services? and (2) the expected duration that these 2 personnel would remain onsite - at each site? and (3) should we calculate this CSfC Pricing from the contract 'period of performance start date'? | At this time, the maximum number of sites simultaneously requiring two qualified contractor personnel is at PWS 4.7. At this time, the expected duration of the two personnel will be to remain on-site for the remainder of the contract. The pricing for the CSfC task should follow the contractor's methodology of the other PWS tasks. |
| 29 | 4.2.1, 4.2.3 and 4.3, pages 10, 11 and 12 | Will the government please provide a copy of the Certificate Policy Statement Registration Practice Statement document. | This document will be provided after award. |
| 30 | RFP pg.18, PWS section 4.7 | How much CSFC support is anticipated to be needed in the future on the NIPR and SIPR side. | All CSfC support will be on the Gray Outer and Inner Tunnels. There will be no CSfC work on NIPR or SIPR. |
| 31 | RFP page 11, PWS section 4.2.3 | Are there LRAs within the USMC that will require auditing outside of the four locations mentioned (Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, Okinawa, & HQMC)? | No, auditing locations are in accordance with PWS 4.2.3. |
| 32 | RFP page 15, PWS section 4.4.9 | Will Virtual Infrastructure Support personnel be required to create and maintain a VMware environment or is there already an existing environment in which they will be operating? | Virtual infrastructure is already in place. |
| 33 | RFP page 6, Section 3.3 | Will Personnel be command-sponsored for Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan? | Yes, personnel will be command sponsored. |
| Pricing Questions | |||
| 1 | Attachment 4, Total Evaluated Price Matrix | The RFP states training classes will not exceed 15 per year but the formula in Attachment 2 Total Evaluated Price Tab calculates 75 time per year. Can the Government please deconflict between the RFP and Attachment 2 Total Evaluated Price tab? | Correction to cell D26 in 'Total Evaluated Price Matrix' tab price workbook made and annotated in orange. Please see E1 Revised RFP Attachment 4 Price Workbook for corrected version. |
| 2 | pg. 23-24, #5. Training Support and D.1+RFP+PWS+GFP+Attachment+4 | Will the Government like to have the training laptop price reflected in GFP Attachment 4? | Per FAR 52.212-1, Addendum pricing is submitted by completing RFP Attachment 4. Pricing shall not be entered in PWS Attachment 4. The GFP should not be confused with the PWS 5 Training Support. |
| 3 | D.1+RFP+PWS+GFP+Attachment+4 and D.1+RFP+Attachment+4+Price+Workbook | If the Government does not want the training laptop price to be reflected in Attachment 4 (GFP), please clarify how the cost should be represented within the Attachment 4, Pricing Workbook. | Please see answer to Pricing Question 2. |
| 4 | Submission of Offers Para 4.4.1 Price Submission, Handling Rates | The Government has asked for the contract handling rate percentage for travel and other travel related expenses. The second to last sentence in that paragraph states, "The offeror shall account for the handling rate in their Total Evaluated Price amount." Since there are no travel or travel related expenses estimated in the RFP, there is no expense to burden with the handing rate, and therefore, no dollar amount to account for in the Total Evaluated Price amount. Will the Government clarify what is expected in response to that sentence? | Plug numbers for travel and other travel related costs are identified on the "Total Evaluated Price" tab in RFP Attachment 4 Price Workbook. |
| 5 | Page 80, paragraph 4.1.1 Offer Letter | The Government has requested inclusion of page 1 of the completed SF 1449 with signature. The Government has also requested a statement of the total evaluated price. Does the Government wish offerors to include completed SF 1449 Continuation Sheets - Schedule of Supplies/Services (pages 3 and 4) to document the total evaluated price? If so, should those pages be included in Volume I or Volume IV? | Regarding Vol I Administrative and Compliance Documentation, only submit page 1 of the signed SF 1449, no other pages of the SF 1449 are necessary. The offeror's Total Evaluated Price shall be identified in the Offeror Letter. |
| 6 | Attachment 4, Pricing Workbook, Tab: BOE | For the Basis of Estimate (BOE) computations, what yearly total hours (Ordering Period hours) should be used to represent a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) worker? | FTE hours are based on a fixed definition of 40 hours/week, but the number of FTEs proposed in response to a PWS can vary depending on the vendor’s solution/staffing model. |
| 7 | Attachment 4, Pricing Workbook, Tab: Total Eval. Price Matrix | Attachment 4 states: CLIN 0002, Task 10.0 Travel and Other Travel-Related Expenses- 'The total cost for each category is calculated by multiplying the Government "Plug" (rows 21 and 23) amount by the proposed handling rate and then adding the result to the Government "Plug" amount'. Don't you mean 'plug' rows 31 and 34? (We understand this data is auto-calculated based on inputs to the Price Matrix tab). | Correction made to "Notes" box on the "Total Evaluated Price Matrix" tab in RFP Attachment 4 Price Workbook is annotated in orange. |
| Solicitation Questions | |||
| 1 | N/A | What is the prior contract number? | M67854-21-F-4037 |
| 2 | Section 4.3, Volume III Past Performance (Page 82–83) | The solicitation requires that at least one past performance effort be as a prime contractor. As an EDWOSB with extensive subcontractor past performance on highly relevant DoD contracts, will the Government consider allowing subcontractor past performance to meet this requirement? | Per FAR 52.212-1, Addendum 4.3.1, page 82 requires the offeror be the prime, meaning the awardee, on at least one of the three past performance contract efforts. |
| 3 | Section 4.3, Volume III Past Performance (Page 82–83) | The RFP states subcontractor experience will be given “weight relative to scope, magnitude, and complexity.” Could the Government clarify how subcontractor past performance will be weighted compared to prime experience (e.g., percentage scale, qualitative consideration)? | The evaluation will not include 'weighting' in terms of percentage scale, scoring, or the like. The offeror's subcontractor past performance is subjectively assessed based on the demonstrated relevancy of scope, magnitude, and complexity of its performance under the contract, recency, and quality of performance. |
| 4 | Section 4.3, Volume III Past Performance (Page 82–83) | The solicitation allows affiliate, teaming partner, and joint venture past performance to be considered with signed agreements. Will the Government confirm whether a new Joint Venture or SBA Mentor-Protégé team may rely on the mentor’s or partner’s past performance to satisfy the prime past performance requirement? | Can a Mentor-Protégé team rely on the mentor's past performance to satisfy the prime past performance requirement? No. |
Can a Joint Venture rely on their partner's past performance to satisfy the prime past-performance requirement? Yes, per Para. 4.3.1 of 52.212-1 "Past performance of proposed subcontractor(s) or teaming partner(s) identified in Volume I and Volume II may be included".
| 5 | Section 4.3, Volume III Past Performance (Page 82–83) | For small businesses, will the Government consider granting equal evaluation weight to subcontractor past performance when the offeror can demonstrate responsibility for significant and critical aspects of performance, similar to the treatment of affiliate or JV past performance? | The context of 'subcontractor' is not clear. It is not clear if the question refers to 'subcontractor' in terms of the offeror's past performance as a subcontractor, or if 'subcontractor' is in terms of the offeror's proposed subcontractor('s) past performance. Past performance is subjectively assessed based on a demonstrated record of its relevant and recent past performance, as well as the quality of its performance. |
| 6 | Section 4.3, Volume III Past Performance (Page 82–83) | The solicitation notes that an offeror with no recent, relevant past performance will receive a “Neutral” confidence rating. Would the Government confirm that a small business submitting only subcontractor past performance examples will not be rated less favorably than “Neutral” if those are not given full credit as prime? | The context of 'subcontractor' is not clear. It is not clear if the question refers to 'subcontractor' in terms of the offeror's past performance as a subcontractor, or if 'subcontractor' is in terms of the offeror's proposed subcontractor(s). A 'Neutral' confidence rating is based on the offeror's past performance submission as having no recent or relevant experience. |
| 7 | D1. RFP Attachment 2 Staffing Matrix | Can the Government provide an example of the type of information they are looking for to evaluate in column "Other PWS 4.2.2 Instructional Information Deemed Necessary "? | Please see Revised RFP Attachment 2 for correction to cell I-10 annotated in orange. Entering information in this cell is at the discretion of the offeror and may be used to provide additional information related to the staffing instructions. |
| 8 | D.1+RFP+M0026425R0013, FAR 52.212-1 ADDENDUM, 4.1.1, bullet 9 | The Government requires that bidders include 'demonstration of responsibility as required in FAR 9.104-1. Will the Government please clarify what information or documentation is required to demonstrate compliance (e.g., a statement indicating the bidder is registered in SAM, has adequate resources, etc.)? | The offeror's Offer Letter shall adequately address those items at FAR 9.104-1 to determine the offeror responsible. |
| 9 | D.1+RFP+PWS+Attachment+3+DD254-1 | The DD254 form does not allow for any text to be added to the form. Will the Government please provide an updated DD254 that allows for text to be added in the required sections? | If an offeror encounters an issue adding text to the DD254, the Government will accept a completed scanned copy. |
| 10 | RFP Section 3, Offer Format, page 79; RFP Section 4.3.1, page 82; and RFP Attachment 3 | RFP section 3, Offer Format on page 79 states "each page must include the solicitation number and the offeror’s business name." RFP Section 4.3.1 states "All offerors must provide its past performance utilizing RFP Attachment 3. The attachment shall not be altered, meaning margins shall not be adjusted, no additional tables shall be added, tables shall not be removed, and the required instructions and information within each table shall not be edited." Are offerors permitted to add headers and footers to Attachment 3 to comply with the instructions in Section 3?? | Government created RFP attachments (Attachment 1, 2, 3, 3a, 4), as well as PWS attachments, are excluded from the offer format instructions at FAR 52.212-1, Addendum 3; b and c. Please see revisions highlighted in yellow at FAR 52.212-1, Addendum. |
| 11 | RFP Section 4.3.1, Past Performance Submission, page 82; and RFP Attachment 3a, Past Performance Questionnaire | RFP Section 4.3.1 states, "If the prime provides its experience as a subcontractor for part of the three most relevant contracts or efforts, the subcontractor experience will be given weight relative to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the aspects of the work under the solicitation that as a subcontractor it performed." Attachment 3a, Past Performance Questionnaire, has a signature field for "Government Point of Contact". If submitting relevant past performance as a subcontractor, is the offer permitted to have the past performance questionnaire completed, signed, and returned by the prime contractor (company with privity of contract with the Government)? | Please see revised RFP Past Performance Attachment 3a for correction to the signature page; revision is highlighted in yellow. The individual identified at Section II and thus completing the attachment must be the person providing the attachment to the contracting office. |
| 12 | Page 6, Paragraph 3.4 Hours of Operation | The PWS states adjustments to contractor work schedules shall not constitute overtime. It is possible that some personnel performing on this task may not be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (NetOps Jr?) and require overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours in a work week (in California, more than 12 hours in a day). Will the Government consider allowing a surge rate under such circumstances? If not, can the Government provide a historical estimate of surge hours exceeding 40 hours a week or 12 hours a day in California, so contractors can consider building that contingency into their fixed monthly task prices? | Frequency of hours other than the anticipated normal workday is minimal. In the case of work hours exceeding this, the contractor is responsible for adjusting personnel schedules so overtime does not occur thus eliminating the need for a surge rate. |
| 13 | Page 25, Paragraph 7.4 Security Requirements | Paragraph 7.4 states that the contractor will have a Secret Facility Clearance. However, the DD 254 and paragraph 7.1 indicate Top Secret SCI access may be required. Top Secret, SCI access for contractor personnel will require the contractor to have a Top Secret Facility Clearance. Will the Government clarify whether the contractor must have a Secret or Top Secret facility clearance? | Please see PWS 7.4 for revisions highlighted in yellow. |
| 14 | Page 28, Paragraph 11. GFF, GFE, GFI | Para. 11 states that the Government will provide facilities, furniture, and equipment used by the contractor for performance of work under the contract. Will the Government clarify that the GFE and GFF provided by the Government excludes the facilities and equipment mentioned in Para 5, Training Support? | PWS Section 11 excludes the requirements at PWS Section 5. |
| 15 | Page 82 Paragraph 4.3.1 Past Performance Submission | The solicitation states, "All offerors must provide its past performance utilizing RFP Attachment 3." |
| Will the Government confirm that only Attachment 3 forms and the PDF supporting documents listed in the second paragraph are desired in the Past Performance Volume III? That is, no written text such as introduction or general comments about capabilities may be included as part of the 20 page limit? | Per FAR 52.212-1, Addendum 4.3 the 20-page limitation excludes the mentioned PDFs, any necessary Past Performance Questionnaires, and any necessary signed commitments. Inclusion of introductory or general comments is at the discretion of the offeror. | ||
| 16 | Page 82 Paragraph 4.3.1 Past Performance Submission | The Past Performance Form instructions state: “The attachment shall not be altered, meaning margins shall not be adjusted, no additional tables shall be added, tables shall not be removed, and the required instructions and information within each table shall not be edited.” |
| Can the Government confirm that table cells in the form may be expanded as necessary to accommodate offeror replies to the instructions that must be retained in the cells? | The tables in RFP Past Performance Attachment 3 expand as necessary. | |||
| 17 | Page 8 paragraph 4.1.4 Transition out, Key Personnel, Page 7 paragraph 4.4.1 Kickoff Meeting, and Page 24, paragraph 6 Replacements/Substitutions | No key personnel are identified in the RFP. Will the Government identify key personnel/positions? Are the positions identified in paragraph 6 on page 24 considered key? Are the "key" contractor personnel mentioned on page 7, paragraph 4.4.1 for the kickoff meeting different from key personnel in 4.1.4 (i.e. relevant company management staff)? | Key personnel are not identified in the PKI PWS. PWS 4.1.1 "key" contractor personnel are those personnel deemed by the contractor, at its discretion, as being key to the requirement. | |
| 18 | Page 86, Evaluation Criteria, Factor 1: Technical | The solicitation does not specify how 'optional tasks' or surge (such as PWS 4.7 CSfC Support) will be evaluated in source selection. Will they be scored or only noted for capability? | The technical evaluation will not utilize 'scoring' or other similar processes. PWS 4.7 will be evaluated in the same manner as other PWS tasks in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, Addendum 4.2. | |
| 19 | 4.2.2 Staffing Matrix | We would appreciate it if the Government can provide the required staffing and quantities by location. | The PKI requirement is performance-based, therefore proposed staffing to ensure successful execution of all tasks is at the discretion of the offeror. Please review the PWS for any references to level of effort. | |
| 20 | 4.3.1 Past performance submission | Please confirm if the CPARS or PPQs count against the page limit for this volume; | Per the instructions at FAR 52.212-1, Addendum 4.3 Past Performance Questionnaires are excluded from the page limitation. The instructions do not require the submission of a CPARS, but if an offeror chooses to submit this, it is also excluded from the page limitation. Please see revised FAR 52.212-1, Addendum 4.3 highlights in yellow. | |
| 21 | RFP, Section 3 Offer Format, Page 79 | The RFP states: "Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each volume. As an example, page 7 of Volume II is numbered II-7. All pages will be numbered." | ||
| Does the Offer Letter and Cover/Title Page of each Volume need to be numbered? Or will the page numbering begin after the Offer Letter and Cover/Title Page of each Volume? | Per FAR 52.212-1, Addendum; 3; g cover pages and title pages count as a page, and at 3; c all pages will be numbered. | |||
| 22 | RFP, Section 4. Offer Content, 4.1 Volume I Administrative and Compliance Documentation, the Offer Letter, page 80 | The RFP states: "SF 1449 page 1 with signature and date (pdf submission only)." | ||
| Does the Government want the completed and signed SF 1449 submitted as an attachment or embedded into Volume I, Administrative and Compliance Documentation? | It is the offeror's discretion if signed and dated page 1 of the SF1449 is submitted as an attachment to and identified with Volume I or embedded into Volume I. | |||
| 23 | RFP, Section 4.3 Volume III Past Performance: Factor 2, RFP Attachment 3, Page 82 | The RFP states: "All offerors must provide its past performance utilizing RFP Attachment 3. The attachment shall not be altered, meaning margins shall not be adjusted, no additional tables shall be added, tables shall not be removed, and the required instructions and information within each table shall not be edited. Completion of the form shall be 10pt, Times New Roman font." | ||
| Could the Government clarify if RFP Attachment 3 should be embedded into Volume III Past Performance: Factor 2 or provided as an attachment to the Volume? If it's an attachment, how will the 20 page limit be counted? | It is the offeror's discretion if RFP Attachment 3 is embedded into Volume III or if it is provided as an attachment to and identified with Volume III. In either case, adherence to RFP Attachment 3's 20 page limitation and its exclusions will be enforced. | |||
| 24 | RFP, 4. Offer Content 4.1 Volume I Administrative and Compliance Documentation, the Offer Letter, page 80 | The RFP states "Total evaluated price" in the list of pieces to include in the Offer Letter. Typically, no other Volumes should contain price information. Can the Government confirm, that we should only refer to our submitted RFP Attachment 4 Pricing Workbook for the "Total evaluated price"? | Per FAR 52.212-1, Addendum 4..1.1 the Offer Letter shall contain the total evaluated price; not a reference to the RFP Pricing Workbook. | |
| 25 | RFP, Standard Form (SF) 1499 Block 8, page 1; | |||
| RFP Section 4.3.1, page 83 | With the requirement to obtain and submit PPQs (Attachment 3a) where CPARs do not exist, coinciding with our Government customers' fiscal year-end priorities; and the need to apply any updates from answers to questions into proposals, would the Government consider granting a two-week extension to proposal submission date to October 14? This additional time would enable offerors to incorporate the Government’s responses and ensure the submission of high-quality proposals. | The Government will consider extending the RFP submission date only if circumstances warrant such. | ||
| 26 | RFP, Section 4.3 Volume III Past Performance: Factor 2, Page 82 | Can the Government confirm that a Small Business Offeror may submit relevant past performance from its SBA-approved Mentor Protégé JV (not bidding this effort) where it performed as a managing member, for evaluation as a prime contract past performance under this effort? | Please see response to Solicitation question 4 above. | |
| 27 | Industry Day Q&A, 1 April 2025 | Could you please repost all other previous Q&A, to include the Industry Day Q&A? | The Draft RFP questions/answers and the Industry Day question/answers will be posted with the RFP's Amendment 0001 for informational purposes only. As can be expected, information on these dated documents may have evolved/changed. Offerors are cautioned to refer only to the RFP's question/answer document. | |
| 28 | Attachment 3, Past Performance | For the past performance instructions and evaluation, would the Government remove the requirement to submit PWS documents and mapping to PWS paragraphs and pages; and instead use the offeror’s narrative as the basis for evaluation? This is consistent with common industry practice and would provide a clearer and more equitable assessment of relevancy. For a contract spanning multiple years, the PWS typically would not reflect all detailed tasks and activities performed. | The requirements at FAR 52.212-1, Addendum 4.3 will remain as such. | |
| Miscellaneous Questions | ||||
| 1 | RFP due date: 30 Sep 2025 | What is the anticipated date by which responses to submitted questions will be published? | The date RFP Amendment 0001 is posted to SAM.GOV. | |
| 2 | RFP due date: 30 Sep 2025 | If there is a delay in publishing responses to vendor questions, will the government consider extending the RFP submission deadline accordingly? | Please see answer to Solicitation question 25 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .