Attachment 9 - Questions and Answers.docx
DOCX document 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Software Definable/Reconfigurable Systems (SDS): Design, Development, Support, and Integration
- Solicitation number
- N00173-25-R-0005
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to solicitation N00173-25-R-0005 for Software Definable/Reconfigurable Systems (SDS) Design, Development, Support, and Integration at the Naval Research Laboratory. The Q&A addresses three key points: 1) confirmation that a minimum 25% of employees must work on-site at NRL facilities in the National Capital Region, with proposals not meeting this requirement being deemed technically unacceptable, 2) clarification that key personnel must be TS/SCI eligible at proposal submission rather than fully cleared, and 3) confirmation that small business subcontracting goals are calculated against the total contract value rather than year-by-year.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N00173-25-R-0005 0002.pdf | ||
| N00173-25-R-0005 0001.pdf | ||
| Software Definable Systems (SDS).zip | ZIP file |
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
N00173-25-R-0005
SDS
Questions and Answers 1
1. Regarding the solicitation, "Software Definable/Reconfigurable Systems (SDS): Design, Development, Support, and Integration" (SAM Notice: N00173-25-R-0005), are there any acceptable workarounds to requirement 2.6 of the SOW, which states a minimum of 25% of employees covered by the SOW are expected to fulfill the conditions of the contract working in-person, on-site at NRL facilities in the National Capital Region? If not, does this preclude companies that can fulfill all other requirements of the SOW but do not have personnel in the National Capital Region from bidding?
Answer: A proposal submitted that does not meet the mandatory minimum of 25% on-site employees will be determined to have an unacceptable technical proposal, and not be awardable.
2. The solicitation indicates all key personnel must be TS/SCI cleared as of proposal submission. The SOW indicates that TS/SCI eligible is sufficient as of proposal submission. Can you confirm which is correct?
Answer: The SOW language in section 4.1 is correct. Section M-2 of the RFP is herein modified to make the language match.
3. In the solicitation, section L-6 Volume V indicates “small business subcontracting goals are calculated as a percentage of total subcontracting…” Our assumption is the subcontract percentages identified in the solicitation are for the entire contract value rather than year-by-year. Is this assumption correct?
Answer: Yes, goals are calculated against total contract value for proposal and evaluation purposes.
Attachment 9
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .