QA Answers FINAL 27 March 2026.docx

1. The solicitation for NMRLC Warehouse Support Services lists an attachment in Section J as a Past Performance Information Form - Item #3. Section J also states this attachment was released on March 18, but I do not see it released anywhere. Does the government intend to release this document, or is it pertinent to an offeror's submission? The past performance information form will be provided to those offerors who are invited to submit a Step Two quote.

2. Is this a new contract or is there an incumbent? This is a new requirement.

3. What systems are presently being used to track inventory? This information is not pertinent to the solicitation.

4. What is the specific type of Civil Engineering Equipment and Biomedical Equipment that the contractor is responsible to maintain? Solicitation is clear on its face

5. Will the government please provide the WD and Revision # to be included in this solicitation? See current amendment(s) to the Solicitation.

6. Can the government please confirm that the qualifications for “Heavy Mobile Mechanic Technician” listed in PWS Section 5.5.22 apply to both Mechanic Tech” and “Mechanic, Lead Tech” listed in PWS Section 5.4? See current amendment(s) to the Solicitation.

7. “Pricing Template - NMRLC WSS”: Column S "Total" formula includes only Column M - O. Would the Government please correct the formula to include all options (Columns M - R)? Pricing Template was provided as suggestion, there is no requirement to use it nor instruction preventing changes to it.

8. “Pricing Template - NMRLC WSS”: The Total Fee calculation in Cell E56 inaccurately reflects the total fee percentage by summing the Prime and Sub fees. Would the Government remove the formula in order for the Contractor to populate the total fee separately? Pricing Template was provided as suggestion, there is no requirement to use it nor instruction preventing changes to it.

9. “Pricing Template - NMRLC WSS” : Would the Government remove the formula in Cell E57 as it is duplicative of Cell E56? Pricing Template was provided as suggestion, there is no requirement to use it nor instruction preventing changes to it.

10. “Pricing Template - NMRLC WSS”: There are currently no formulas populated in M54-R54 and M55-R55. Would the government populate formulas in these cells to reflect the fee totals for base and all options? Pricing Template was provided as suggestion, there is no requirement to use it nor instruction preventing changes to it.

11. “Pricing Template - NMRLC WSS”: Would the Government extend the formula in Cell O56 through R56 to reflect Total Fee sums annually for each option? Pricing Template was provided as suggestion, there is no requirement to use it nor instruction preventing changes to it.

12. Can the government please confirm that the qualifications for “Hazardous Material Specialist” listed in PWS Section 5.5.12 apply to both “Hazmat Lead” and “Hazmat Specialist” listed in PWS Section 5.4? See current amendment(s) to PWS.

13. If the government did not intend to exclude the qualifications for “Admin Specialist” in PWS Section 5.5, will the government please provide the corresponding required qualifications? See current amendment(s) to PWS.

14. The associated PWS Sections provided for each deliverable in PWS Section 6 does not always match the correct PWS Task Area (assumingly due to increased scope changes and difference in task numeration). Will the government please fix this and align to the correct task areas? See current amendment(s) to PWS.

15. Regarding the “Daily time and attendance Report” listed in PWS Section 6 Deliverables and PWS Section 4.1.20, as the purpose for this report are identified by the government is to be used for invoice auditing and accountability, will the government consider having the daily time log provided monthly as part of the monthly invoice, under the condition that all reporting requirements are kept in-tact, providing daily fidelity and not a summarized total for transparency and accountability? The Solicitation is clear on its face.

16. Solicitation, Section L, II. REQUIREMENTS FOR QUOTE CONTENT, (5), states “The cover sheet, table of contents (not to exceed one page per volume), tabs, and dividers will not count toward the page limit.” Can the Government please confirm that the cover sheet being referenced here is referring to the quote cover page that indicates the title of quote, volume number, solicitation number, etc. identified in (4) and NOT the solicitation cover sheet required in Section L, I. General, requiring “Solicitation cover sheet with appropriate blocks completed by the quoter.”. The solicitation is clear on its face.

17. The solicitation identifies Attachment 03_ Past Performance Information Form. However, this file is not provided in SAM.gov. Could the Government please provide this file? The past performance information form will be provided to those offerors who are invited to submit a Step Two quote.

18. The solicitation states “It is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor to make certain that all its subcontractors have been approved by the SeaPort-NxG MAC Contracting Officer to team together prior to the closing date and time of the solicitation.” However, offerors are submitting directly via email. Since the teaming section in PIEE is not set up yet, are offerors required to have established any teaming relationships within SeaPort-NxG prior to SeaPort being phased out? See current amendment(s) to Solicitation

19. Why is the Government calling the solicitation a quote rather than a proposal this go around? This Solicitation is a Request For Quotation.

20. Should quoters provide their approach to accomplishing PWS task areas 4.1 – 4.13.1 within Volume I, Performance Approach? The solicitation is clear on its face.

21. Within quoters Volume I Performance Approach, should quoters ONLY address the areas of particular interest identified in Solicitation, Section L, III. QUOTE CONTENT, 1. Volume I – Non-Cost Quote (a) Performance Approach? The solicitation is clear on its face.

22. Solicitation, Section L, III. QUOTE CONTENT, 1. Volume I – Non-Cost Quote (a) Performance Approach: The solicitation states “The quoter should provide any other information the quoter considers relevant to its Performance Approach and successfully accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation, including the PWS.” Could the Government please identify what aspects of the PWS, besides the areas of particular interest identified in Section L, the Government considers relevant? The solicitation is clear on its face.

23. Can the Government please state whether offerors will be evaluated less favorably if they do not provide an approach to each PWS task within their Performance Approach? The solicitation is clear on its face.

24. Solicitation page 42 states under “(f) For quote purposes, the following ratios of Contractor facility and Government facility labor performance are established for all labor categories” to “**See PWS attached in Section J**” However, the PWS only states the place of performance is “Naval Medical Readiness Logistics Command, Cheatham Annex (CAX), 564 Sanda Ave Williamsburg, VA 23185”. Can the Government confirm that 100% of the labor performance for all labor categories will be at Government facility? See current amendment(s) to Solicitation.

25. Solicitation, page 43, (h) states “Subcontractor cost breakdowns may be submitted separate IAW Seaport-NxG practices.” Since SeaPort-NxG is not being utilized, how would the Government like this to be performed? See current amendment(s) to Solicitation.

26. Solicitation, Pg. 41, states “This narrative shall be included as an attachment and cross referenced to the specific section of the cost quote.” Would the Government like this narrative to be included in the Cost Quote PDF rather than a separate attachment? The solicitation is clear on its face.

27. Section M does not identify what evaluation criteria will be used to determine if a non-cost factor Performance Approach is determined to be Acceptable or better. Could the Government please provide the evaluation criteria for the Performance Approach? The solicitation is clear on its face.

28. Could the Government please provide the evaluation rating scale that will be used for source selection? The Solicitation’s evaluation criteria and instructions are clearly provided in Sections L and M.

29. Solicitation Section M, Pg. 47, states “A rating that is less than "Acceptable" in any non-cost evaluation factor and/or less than a "Satisfactory Confidence" rating in the Past Performance evaluation factor will render a quote ineligible for award consideration as submitted.” Can the Government confirm that in order to be eligible for award that a quote MUST receive a rating of “acceptable” on the Performance Approach AND at least “Satisfactory Confidence” on the Past Performance evaluation? The solicitation is clear on its face.

30. Solicitation, Section M, Section M lists evaluation ratings such as 'Acceptable' and 'Satisfactory Confidence' but does not define these terms. Will the Government please provide the definitions, adjectival rating descriptions, or the rating matrix that will be used to evaluate proposals (e.g., definitions of strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies for each rating)? The Solicitation’s evaluation criteria and instructions are clearly provided in Sections L and M.

31. Solicitation, Section M, Will the Government please clarify what minimum requirements are being used for source selection evaluation of offers for the Performance Approach? The solicitation is clear on its face.

32. Solicitation, Section M, Please identify what evaluation criteria will deem a Performance Approach Unacceptable. The solicitation is clear on its face.

33. Section J: List of Attachments indicates "Attachment 03" is to be used in the provision of Past Performance Information concerning Phase 1. Attachment 03 was not provided as a part of solicitation documentation. Will the Government provide Attachment 03 prior to the Friday 25 March Phase 1 submission deadline or is a different past performance format acceptable? Past performance information form will be provided to those invited to submit a Step Two quote.

34. In reviewing page 43 of the Solicitation, would the Government clarify whether offerors are required to have an accounting system that has been formally audited and determined adequate by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) at the time of proposal submission, or whether an accounting system that is designed to be DCAA compliant but has not yet received a formal DCAA adequacy determination is sufficient to meet the requirements of FAR 16.301 3(a)(3) for eligibility for award. See current amendment(s) to solicitation.

35. PWS 5.2: Period of Performance states, “The base period of performance for this requirement is 01 October 2025 through 30 September 2026.” Please confirm the intended base period and whether these dates are placeholders or an active/incumbent transition scenario. See current amendment(s) to solicitation

36. Please provide historical data for after-hours, weekend, holiday, and surge support requirements, including urgent receipts/issues/downloads and emergency EXMED builds/shipments, and clarify whether this workload is included in the stated LOE or separately authorized/funded. Please quote provided LOE.

37. Are the annual labor hours in the LOE table mandatory minimums, Government estimates for pricing/evaluation only, or target staffing assumptions? Also, please explain the purpose of the “6 Mo Opt.” column since Sec. 5.2 already identifies four one-year option periods. . See current amendment(s) to solicitation

38. The following positions are listed in PWS 5.4: Level of Effort and the Pricing Template but are not described any further in any of the RFP documents (notably, they are absent from PWS 5.5: Minimum Qualifications): 1) Admin Specialist, 2) Sustainment/Pre-Production Lead (ERSS/ERCS), 3) Sustainment/Pre-Production Lead (FDPMU/CDML), and 4) Sustainment/Pre-Production Lead (EMU/EMF). Will the Government please provide additional information for these positions (e.g., task descriptions, position qualifications, etc.), particularly by adding them and their corresponding qualifications to PWS 5.5: Minimum Qualifications? . See current amendment(s) to solicitation.

39. Please provide an official labor-category crosswalk for the inconsistent titles used throughout the PWS, including: 1) Operations Supervisor/Deputy PM vs. Operations Manager, 2) CEE Maintenance Manager vs. Civil Engineering Equipment Manager, 3) Biomed Lead vs. Biomedical Equipment Lead Technician, and 4) Mechanic, Lead Tech vs. Heavy Mobile Mechanic Technician. . See current amendment(s) to solicitation.

40. Several positions are shown with “N/A” SCA occupation codes. Please confirm which positions are exempt/non-exempt and provide the final wage determination/classification mapping offerors should use for pricing. See current amendment(s) to solicitation.

41. Please define the exact formula for the requirement that 95% of monthly scheduled CEE work orders be in ready-for-issue status, including numerator/denominator, what qualifies as “scheduled,” what qualifies as “ready for issue,” and how Government-caused delays, parts shortages, and off-site repairs are treated. Solicitation is clear on its face.

42. Please provide current workload inventories and recent historical workload data for CEE/CESE/CEEI, containers/shelters/tool kits, biomed devices/TMDE, and monthly volumes for receipts, downloads, issues, kitting events, shipments, inventories, and send-out repairs/calibrations. This information is not pertinent to the solicitation.

43. Please provide the current backlog of open EROs, overdue LTIs, overdue PM/calibration requirements, and known non-RFI assets at start of performance. This information is not pertinent to the solicitation.

44. Please provide the referenced but missing materials needed for proposal development: Technical Exhibit 6, The NAVSUP security addenda cited in Sec. 5.8, The referenced “Part 3 of the main contract PWS” defining Government-furnished items/services. . See current amendment(s) to solicitation.

45. Please clarify the repair boundary between work the contractor must self-perform and work that will be sent to outside entities, especially for CESE, CEEI, TMDE, and specialty repairs. This information is not pertinent to the solicitation.

46. Please confirm the CMR funding approach: must the contractor front all material/service costs until monthly reimbursement, are interim reimbursements ever allowed, and does the $400,000 ODC ceiling include freight, taxes, and contractor procurement fees? Direct costs are defined by the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

47. Please provide anticipated travel by role, destination, estimated trip frequency/duration, and whether the $50,000 annual travel ceiling is a separate reimbursable pool or tied to a specific CLIN structure not shown here. The solicitation is clear on its face.

48. Please issue a corrected deliverables matrix. Several listed section references appear misaligned with the underlying task paragraphs, which creates risk in pricing recurring reporting and compliance effort. See current amendment(s) to solicitation.

49. Besides the 95% CEE workorder readiness metric and the general AQL table, is there a separate QASP or additional measurable KPIs the contractor will be surveilled against? The solicitation is clear on its face.

50. Will the government permit a font size of no smaller than 8-point for text in tables and figures? The solicitation is clear on its face.

51. RFP Section L mentions SeaPort and/or “the portal” several times. Will the Government please further explain the role of SeaPort/the portal in this solicitation? Specifically, will offerors be required to access solicitation documents and/or submit proposals through the SeaPort portal? In addition, RFP pg. 35 states, “It is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor to make certain that all its subcontractors have been approved by the SeaPort-NxG MAC Contracting Officer to team together prior to the closing date and time of the solicitation.” Please confirm whether this is a requirement of this solicitation. See current amendment(s) to solicitation.