Final Q_A Q0016.pdf

DISTRIBUTION: DoW COMMUNITY ONLY

Q1. Is there any incumbent/recompete or this is a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

A1. There is no current incumbent, this is a new requirement for services.

Q2.The Government’s response to Question 37 states: “The Government will not sponsor a Top Secret Facility Clearance, the contractor must already hold this clearance.” However, PWS Section 12.0 states: “The Contractor must hold a Secret Facility Clearance prior to performance . . . If a prime contractor is unable to obtain a Secret Facility Clearance, they will not be entitled to receive the minimum guarantee under this contract.” These statements appear to conflict regarding the required Facility Clearance level (Secret vs. Top Secret). Could the Government please confirm that PWS Section 12.0 is incorrect in stating only a Secret Facility Clearance is required and a Top Secret Facility Clearance is actually the requirement?

A2. The Future Operations Analyst will require an active Secret clearance to execute his/her duties. The Future Plans Analyst will require an active Secret clearance with eligibility for Top Secret Clearance to execute his/her duties.

Q3. In response to Question 28 (“Will the Government confirm that only a Secret FCL is required?”), the Government directed offerors to see Q2/A2; however, that referenced response does not clarify the required FCL level. Can the Government please confirm the required Facility Clearance level for this contract (Secret or Top Secret), and clarify whether a Top Secret FCL is mandatory at the time of proposal submission or award?

A3 At the time of the award each FTE will require current eligibility for a Secret clearance to gain access to the work areas. The Future Plans Analyst will periodically access Top Secret systems and areas that require active Top Secret/SCI clearance. The Future Plans Analyst can have a Secret Clearance but the contractor will need to sponsor and obtain the TS/SCI clearance beforethe execution of the next option year.

Q4. The DD Form 254 provided does not identify the required Facility Clearance Level (FCL) in box 1.a. Can the Government please clarify the specific FCL required for performance under this contract?

A4. There is no current requirement for a specific FCL; however the personnel conducting duties must have applicable security clearances to their specific duties.

Q5. Given that the Government is requesting resumes for specific personnel to support this location in a very limited timeframe, has the Government already identified preferred candidates for these positions?

A5 The Government has not specifically identified potentional preferred canadidates for this procurement; however, the Government will provide proposed awardees with potenial candidates if any are identified.

Q6. The Government has stated that this is a new requirement without incumbent personnel. However, given the specificity of the resume and qualification requirements for personnel at this location with a very limited response timeframe, can the Government confirm whether the requirement has been structured around anticipated staffing profiles or predefined role expectations?

A6. This procurment has been structured around predefined role expectations as listed in the PWS

Q7. Would the government consider granting a 2 week extension to allow for time to answers to questions?

A7. The Government has not yet determined if an extension will be provided; however, the Government will provide a definitive statement on 02 March, 2026 regarding potential extensions.

Q8. Is anyone performing these functions now for the command?

A8. Some of these functions are being performed by non-doctrinal components of the command (example: future exercise alignment (3-5 years) being performed by the AC/S G-9 or G-35 FOPS section) and others are being performed by task-saturated active duty personnel. Some are not being performed at all resulting in significant resource misalignment and last-minute planning iterations.

Q9. Are there civilian contractors performing Future Operations Specialist role?

A9 No, there are no current contractors in this role.

Q10. Are there civilian contractors performing the Operational planner role?

A10 No, there are no current contractors in this role.

Q11. How are these functions (Future Operations and Operational Planning) getting completed now?

A11. See answer to question 9 above.

Q12. Is graduation from SAW, SAMS, MAWS, or SAASS strictly required for personnel performing tasks under Sections 4.1.1 and/or 4.1.2?

Given the remote location of performance and the comparatively smaller population of military-affiliated personnel in the surrounding area, the requirement for graduation from these specific institutions appears unduly restrictive and may unnecessarily limit competition. Will the Government consider equivalent advanced operational planning education, such as Joint Professional Military Education Phase II (JPME II), senior Service War College programs, or other comparable advanced planning credentials, as acceptable alternatives? Or is graduation from SAW/SAMS/MAWS/SAASS the only qualification that will be considered acceptable?

A12. We will entertain equivalent advanced operational planning education for the Future Operations Analyst position. The Operational Plans Analyst could be filled by an individual that has not been to a SAW-equivalent course, but significant and meaningful OJT as an operational planner in general officer level commands is required. Other attributes such as exposure to operational planning and global force management in support of the Marine Corps Reserve Component, campaign planning, etc will also be heavily weighted in this scenario.

Q13. Must proposed personnel already have active SECRET and TOP SECRET clearances, or can offerors propose personnel with SECRET who can be upgraded to TOP SECRET before performance? If a TOP SECRET upgrade is needed, will the Government sponsor/process the clearance for contractor staff, or is an active TOP SECRET clearance required at submission/award?

A13. The Government requires the contractor employees to have an active Secret clearnance with eligibility for Top Secret if applicable.

Q14. Does this requirement include a Facility Clearance (FCL) requirement? If yes, what level is required (Secret FCL or Top Secret FCL)?

A14. Refer to Q4/A4

Q15. Please confirm whether the Government expects one (1) FTE for the Future Operations Specialist role and one (1) FTE for the Planning Support Specialist role (two total), or whether additional staffing/surge coverage is anticipated.

A15. This requirement is for one FTE Future Operations Specialist and one FTE Planning Support Specialist

Q16. Will contractor personnel require access to SIPRNet/NIPRNet and other Government systems, and what is the typical lead time after award for CAC issuance and account/network provisioning?

A16. Both contracted personnel will require access to SIPR and NIPR. CAC issuance is typically within days of check-in and NIPR and SIPR accounts are normally complete within three weeks of check-in.

Q17. Is performance strictly on-site in New Orleans, or may any non-classified tasks/deliverables be performed hybrid/remote?

A17. G-3/5 may entertain non-classified work in a hybrid/remote manner on a case by case and limited basis, but this will likely only be after an initial observation period and is not guaranteed.

Q18. Will responses be evaluated on a go/no-go compliance basis for mandatory qualifications (advanced school graduation and clearance/FCL requirements) before other considerations?

A18. In accordance with the Technical Evaluation Criteria posted within the solicitation, the Government will evaluate based on Price, technical acceptability of potential contractor employees and past performance.

Q19. Is this requirement new, a re-compete, or a consolidation of existing support? If new, what operational gap is it intended to fill for MARFORRES G-3/5?

A19. This is a new requirement. 1) The Future Operations Analyst fills a gap in the MARFORRES G-3/5 FOPS section where current and inconsistent manning does not allow for experienced, persistent presence to track historical decisions and section taskings. A revolving door of Majors and Staff Non-Commissioned officers have no institutional knowledge of previously litigated issues and often find themselves conducting experiential learning. The individual in this position will be expected to mentor these majors in the execution of their duties, maintain communication with outside executive agencies, and understand regulations and policies that facilitate execution of the AC/S’s (O-6 level) and general officers’ intent regarding GFM planning and large-scale exercise planning. 2) The Future Plans Analyst fills a gap in the newly-minted G-5 Section within the MARFORRES G- 3/5. MARFORRES attempted to execute G-5 Plans responsibilities with a combined G-3/5 for over 15 years until the realization that FOPS/COPS consumed all bandwidth for deep planning efforts. This resulted in MARFORRES ill-positioned to align resources with operational requirements over time and continuously responding to unforeseen challenges that should have been apparent if future plans personnel were engaged at the appropriate touchpoints at the Service level. Even more impactful recently is the requirement to plan large-scale mobilization exercises in support of the Commander’s campaign plan and Service and joint initiatives in the next 3-5 years (and subsequently execute transition to G- 35 personnel when temporally appropriate).