Attachment 3. Answers to Contractor Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 58 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Process Improvement and Project Management Support Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N0018926QB036
About this file
This file is a compiled list of contractor questions and corresponding government responses regarding a federal solicitation for Process Improvement and Project Management Support services for the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED).
The solicitation (N0018926QB036) seeks contractor support for Lean Six Sigma, Continuous Process Improvement (CPI), Project Management (PM), and Knowledge Management (KM) services across Navy Medicine. The contract requires a minimum staffing level of 12 full-time equivalents distributed across four labor categories: one Program Manager, one Six Sigma Master Black Belt, seven Junior Six Sigma Black Belts, and three Process Improvement Specialists. Performance will be conducted across four primary locations—Falls Church VA (BUMED HQ), San Diego CA, Portsmouth VA, and San Antonio TX—with contractors required to work 60% on-site at government facilities and 40% virtually or at contractor locations. The base period runs from June 1, 2026, through May 31, 2027, with two option periods (one 12-month and one 9-month), and includes a 30-day transition-in period for onboarding. Travel is capped at $25,000 annually. Key deliverables include continuous improvement frameworks, training programs, mentorship assessments, SPIDR (document repository) configuration and maintenance, process mapping, workflow redesign, knowledge management system administration, and various status reports. The government will provide government-furnished equipment (GFE) and software licenses post-award, and all contractor personnel must possess or obtain a Secret-level Facility Security Clearance. The solicitation uses fixed-price CLINs and requires Phase One security clearance verification submitted separately from Volume I (non-price technical approach) and Volume II (price quote), with an amended submission deadline of April 21, 2026, at 9:00 AM EST. The government clarified that most quantifiable metrics—such as number of simultaneous projects, annual training volumes, and mentorship sessions—are mission-dependent and cannot be predetermined, requiring contractors to propose staffing and pricing based on capability to support variable demand across the specified scope.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Solicitation Amendment N0018926QB0360002 SF 30.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4. PII and PHI.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5. HIPAA Compliant Business Associate Agreement DON -July 2025.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2. Quote Breakdown Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation Amendment N0018926QB0360001.pdf | ||
| Solicitation - N0018926QB036.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2. BUMED N57_dd0254.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1. PPIF.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Reference | Contractor Questions | BUMED Response | |
| PWS Section 6.4 | Is the Government expecting all labor categories listed in Section 6.4 to be proposed and staffed at contract award, or may some categories be staffed on an as-needed basis as task requirements emerge? | Expectation is the contract will be staffed with the labor categories identified. | |
| Is there a minimum staffing level (full-time equivalents) the Government expects to be proposed for the base year? | FTE's are broken down as: Improvement Sciences Specialist: total FTE: 3; Program Manager total FTE: 1; Six Sigma Master Black Belt total FTE: 1, Junior Six Sigma Black Belt total FTE: 7 | ||
| PWS Section 6.2 | Is the 60% on-site requirement distributed across all four performance locations (Falls Church VA, San Diego CA, Portsmouth VA, San Antonio TX), or is it primarily concentrated at BUMED Falls Church? | The requirement is 60% on site per site. The vendor may choose if that is revolving between personnel staffed or not, however the primary concern is ensuring the mission's success, maintaining effective communication, and guaranteeing that all tasks are completed on schedule and to standard. | |
| PWS Section 6.2 | Are contractor personnel expected to be locally based near each performance location, or is travel from a home office to each site acceptable for the on-site portion? | Refer to C4 | |
| PWS Section 6.2 | Place of Performance is vague. The PWS states “All work shall be conducted in accordance with the requirement of the government project and office program, or project supported.” But then lists 4 different on-site locations. Should the contractor consider which role (PM, Master Black Belt, Black Belt, Green Belt) be at any of the 4 on-site locations or is there an alignment between contractor role and location (i.e. PM at BUMED, Master Black Belt at NMFP, etc)? | Proposed staffing is supported with at least 3 FTEs per region. BUMED HQ with the Program Manager, MBB, and a JBB). The remaining FTEs are to be distibuted amongst the regions (NMFL, NMFP, NMFDC). | |
| Does the Government anticipate a transition period or ramp up period as part of the overall POP? | Solicitation is clear on its face. There will be a transition period to turnover requirements at the completion of the POP. | ||
| Can the Government provide the historical or expected annual number of PI/LSS projects that the contractor will be required to support across all echelons? | Mission Dependent; the volume of projects depends on Leadership/Command priority at a given time. All requirements will be triaged at HQ for prioritization. | ||
| The PWS requires creating libraries for standard content (text, graphics, audio, video). Is the contractor expected to produce new multimedia elements, or simply organize existing Government provided content? | Mission Dependent. Solicititation is clear on its face. This is dependent on requirement of the project/program. | ||
| The PWS lists PMP, MBB, BB, and Improvement Sciences Specialists. Does the Government require a minimum number of each labor category? If so, please specify minimum FTE counts. | Refer to C3 | ||
| Section 4.3 | Is the government open to solutions other than SPIDR? | Innovation is encouraged within the parameters of the approved products list for DOW/NAVY/DHA. | |
| Section 4.1 | What is the estimated number of Performance Improvement projects per year? | Refer to C8 | |
| Section 5 | The “Continuous Improvement Framework” deliverable frequency is “Upon project completion.” Does that refer to the overall contract or each process improvement project? | Deliverable frequency is specific to each project. | |
| Section 4.1.1.3.1 | How many personnel in the NME currently have an LSS certification? | We have a list which is currently under review and the number is unknown at the moment. | |
| Section 4.1.1.3.1 | How many monthly applications are submitted to Improvement Sciences for review? | Refer to C8 | |
| How many personnel does the government anticipate are needed to support this requirement concurrently across, NMFL, NMFP, and NMFDC? | Refer to C3 & C6 | ||
| Section 6.4 | There is no clear identification in the solicitation of how many positions/FTEs the government is expecting to be staffed on this contract. Can the government clarify whether the requirement is four (4) FTEs that map to 6.4.1-6.4.4? Or is it the Government's intention to have the bidders propose total FTEs and corresponding LCATs to be filled at the bidder's discretion to fulfill the scope of work? | Refer to C3 & C6 | |
| Section 6.4 | The CSO document published on 02/02/2026 contains roles that are not reflected on the most recent solicitation. Are these roles required as part of the current solicitation (6.4.5-6.4.9)? | The solicitation is clear on its face | |
| Section 6.2 | Among BUMED, NMFP, NMFL, and NMFDC, is there a primary place of performance anticipated during the base period? | Refer to C4 & C6 | |
| Section 3-4 | What is the anticipated number of improvement projects during the base year, including expected concurrency across BUMED, NMFL, NMFP, and NMFDC, and are there any expected annual minimums or maximums under the FFP CLINs? | ||
| What are sample processes in pipeline earmarked for improvement efforts? Has there been any effort to optimize these processes in the past? | Refer to C8 and C11. | ||
| Section 4.3.2 | Are SPIDR efforts limited to configuration and business rules, or may custom automation/workflows be developed? | ||
| Would the government share current technical ecosystem with the bidders including any PPM and portfolio Management tool? | Customization may be developed subject to a CCB. The government cannot share the technical information. | ||
| Section 6.4 | Is the Government expecting a fixed and named team or a flexible, surge‑based staffing model? | Refer to C4 and C6. The government should expect consistency and continuation of support with fluctuation at the vendor's discretion. | |
| Should personnel be aligned to specific commands or managed as a pooled enterprise team? | Refer to C4 and C6. | ||
| Is there an expectation for continuous on‑site leadership presence at BUMED headquarters? | Refer to C4 and C6. | ||
| Does the Government prefer a centralized enterprise framework or command‑tailored execution models? | prefer a centralized enterprise framework | ||
| Will innovative delivery approaches (e.g., hybrid Agile–LSS, digital dashboards) be viewed favorably if compliant with the Adobe PDF Solicitation - N0018926QB036.pdf | Solicitation is clear on its face. | ||
| Do option year requirements shift toward sustainment, and is workload growth anticipated that would require staffing increases? | Mission/ Requirements Driven | ||
| For labor categories where a Bachelor’s degree is listed, will the Government accept additional directly relevant experience (e.g., 5+ years) in lieu of the degree? | Solicitaton is clear on its face | ||
| Section 6.2 identifies 4 on-site locations and states that "on-site locations are identified as but not limited to:..." and then lists 4 on-site locations. Are there other on-site locations staff will need to report to on a regular and recurring basis? Is the intent to have staff perform the 60% of work required in government facilities at the specific government facilities listed in section 6.2 or are there other government facilities staff can meet the 60% requirement in, like at an Echelon 4 or 5 command under one of the 3s listed in section 6.2? | Refer to C4 and C6. | ||
| PWS Deliverables (Sections 4–5) | Several deliverables are identified as “as required.” Please clarify whether historical averages, estimated frequencies, or expected volumes can be provided for these deliverables. | These deliverables are mission/ requirements specific. Estimated frequencies or expected number of deliverables cannot be provided. Historical information is not sufficient to estimate current needs and will not be provided. | |
| PWS 3 / 4 (Scope) | Please clarify the anticipated number of concurrent projects to be supported across BUMED, NMFL, NMFP, and NMFDC at any given time. | Mission/ requirements driven and these will be prioritized. | |
| PWS Deliverables Table | Please clarify whether all listed deliverables are required for every project or vary depending on the type and scope of the tasking. | Solicitation is clear on its face, see PWS 7. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. These will be further discussed during kick off meeting. | |
| PWS 4.3 (Knowledge Management) | Please clarify whether the scope for portfolio management and KM tools includes configuration of existing Government systems only, or if development of new capabilities is anticipated. | Both. | |
| Section 4.1 | Can the government provide an estimate of the number and size of process/performance improvement projects to be supported each year? | Refer to C31. | |
| Section 5 | Deliverables 11, 12, and 13 refer to Mentorship assessments, reports, and analysis. Can the government provide an estimate of the number of anticipated mentorships each year? | No, the government cannot provide number of anticipated mentorships each year. | |
| Section 6.2 | The place of performance lists four locations, is there a specific location which would be considered the primary location such as Falls Church, VA or are personnel expected to be present at all four locations? | Refer to C6 | |
| Section 6.2 | The PWS states that contractors are required to be on-site for 60% of their time and 40% virtual or at a contractor location. Does this apply to all personnel? Would the government be open to adjustments to this requirement for a geographically dispersed team understanding that team members would be present for site visits, training, and initiative implementation events? | Refer to C4. | |
| Section 6.3 | The PWS lists multiple Locations of Travel with a limit of $25,000 in travel expenses for the first year. Assuming 5 trips in a year, this would be $5,000 to cover travel expenses for all traveling personnel per trip. Estimating 2-3 staff members per trip, this would be $1,600 to $2,500 per person per trip. Can the government provide an estimate of the number and length of anticipated trips for the base year and two option years? | This is the max alloted for trips and will be based on requirements. The number and length of trips are determined by mission requirements. | |
| Section 6.4 | Are the positions described in Section 6.4 (Project Manager, Master Black Belt, Black Belt, and Improvement Sciences Specialist) considered key? If not, are there key personnel which should be identified? | The solicitation is clear on its face | |
| Section 6.8 | Understanding that all PII and PHI would be handled appropriately, is there additional information which the government should provide in section 6.8? | See amended solicitation. | |
| Section 4.1.1.3 | Can the Government clarify if certified Green/Black Belts are authorized to lead and deliver formal LSS training courses under this contract, or is that responsibility reserved only for certified Master Black Belts? | Discretion to vendor for training by position. Requirement must be fullfilled by their level of expertise. | |
| Section 6.4.3.4 | Section 6.4.3.4 requires Black Belts to "Possess experience in all elements of ASQ MBB Book of Knowledge (BOK)." This is typically a requirement exclusive to Master Black Belts. Could the Government please confirm if this is accurate, or if Black Belt candidates should instead have experience with the ASQ Black Belt BOK? | See amended solicitation. | |
| Section 6.4.4 | Section 6.4.4 states, "Experience requirements scale with seniority of the role." This suggests multiple levels for this position. Could the Government clarify the expected number of seniority levels (e.g., Junior, Senior) and the corresponding years of experience required for each? | See amended solicitation removing this language. | |
| Section 6.4.4.5 | Section 6.4.4.5 lists "training skills" for this role. Will the Improvement Sciences Specialist be the primary person responsible for delivering all required training (LSS, PM, KM), or is this a shared responsibility across the team? | Discretion to vendor for training by position. Requirement must be fullfilled by their level of expertise. | |
| Section 6.2 | Section 6.2 specifies a work split of "60% at a government facility and 40% at the contractor site or virtually." Does this 60/40 split apply to the contractor team as a whole, or is each individual employee expected to meet this ratio? | Refer to C4. | |
| Will classified work be performed in all listed locations? | Requirements/ Mission driven. | ||
| Section 4.2.1.2.4 | Can the Government clarify if it is a requirement or a preference for the contractor to be a Project Management Institute (PMI) Authorized Training Partner (ATP)? | This is highly encouraged. | |
| Section 4.2.1.2.4 | Is the Government expecting that all Project Manager FTEs on the contract be qualified to deliver this training, or should the contractor designate one or more specific individuals who are aligned to provide this specialized service? | We do not have a preference in the position that trains, so long as the position/person conducting training is knowledgable and capable of the topic/skill. 4.2.1.1.2 says that the CTR has to be able to train staff on projectement management with best practices and tools from PMI guidelines. | |
| What is the estimated level of effort for this project by labor category, and recommended staffing mix by labor category or functional role to support proposal pricing and staffing assumptions? (e.g., hours by LCAT) | Refer to C3 | ||
| Section 4.1–4.3 | Please confirm whether the requirement is intended to support BUMED, NMFP, NMFL, NMFDC, and lower echelon BSO-18 commands concurrently under one scope, or whether support will be phased or prioritized by discrete taskings. If prioritized, please identify the expected order of precedence. | Prioritization will be determined by the government. | |
| Section 5 | For pricing and staffing purposes, please provide estimated annual quantities for recurring and on-demand deliverables, including reports, workflow plans, training events, technical reports, post-implementation reviews, transition plans, and trip reports. | Refer to C30 | |
| Deliverables | Please clarify the intended scope of the mentorship effort, including the expected number of mentees, cadence of mentorship, applicable competency framework, and whether the Government will provide templates or scoring criteria for the Mentee Competency Assessment, Final Program ROI Report, and ROI Analysis deliverables. | The mentorship schedule typically involves regular one-on-one meetings (monthly or bi-weekly) and occasional group sessions.Mentorship is generally structured around a formal competency model. Curerntly there are no templates and these materials may be developed as part of the technical solution. If so, its expected to design assessments aligned with the competency framework and create a method for analyzing the program's Return on Investment (ROI) by tracking metrics. | |
| Deliverables | Please clarify whether the Knowledge Management scope is limited to administration/configuration of existing tools and sites, or whether the contractor is expected to develop new code, automations, applications, webpages, or other technical solutions. Please also identify the systems/platforms that are in scope. | Both aspects apply, current and new automations, etc. | |
| Section 4.2.1.2.12 | Section 4.2.1.2.12 references “designated Microsoft Applications,” the government share drive, the BUMED SharePoint site collection, and/or SPIDR. Please identify the specific applications and repositories required, and confirm whether the contractor must submit deliverables to all listed locations or only to the location directed for each task. | ||
| Applications include but are not limited to, word, excel, powerpoint, visio, sharepoint, powerapps, teams, SPIDR, etc. Location for delivery will be determined by type, review will be completed by COR, and copies shall be saved to a central location like a sharedrive (or other) as identified by the COR. | |||
| Deliverables | Please confirm the required trip report due date. Deliverable 21 states trip reports are due within 2 business days after travel, while Section 6.3 states they are due within 5 business days after trip completion unless task order requirements state otherwise. Which requirement governs? | At a minimum 2 days, maximum 5 days. See amended solicitation. | |
| Section 6.4 | Please clarify the minimum required team composition. The solicitation identifies qualifications for several roles, but it does not specify the minimum number of personnel by role, whether key personnel are required, or whether equivalent education/certifications may be substituted. | Refer to C3 | |
| Section 6.4.3.4 | Please confirm whether the reference in Section 6.4.3.4 requiring a Black Belt to possess experience in all elements of the ASQ MBB Book of Knowledge is intentional, or whether this was meant to reference the ASQ Black Belt body of knowledge. | ||
| Refer to C42 | |||
| Section 6.5 | Please identify the Government-furnished equipment, software, licenses, network access, collaboration tools, workspace, and data repositories that will be provided at award versus later by task order or COR direction. Regarding workspace, how many seats are assigned as onsite? | Once required paperwork has been turned in , the government will issue GFE and required software, with the current IT process that is in place. We have several seats available for assigned personnel. | |
| Section 6.8 | Section 6.8 is titled “Personally Identifiable Information, Protected Health Information, and Federal Information Requirements,” but no substantive requirements appear in the provided solicitation. Please provide the applicable PII/PHI, cybersecurity, privacy, records-handling, and information-protection requirements for this effort. | See response in C40 | |
| Please define the formal acceptance process for deliverables, including reviewing officials, review timelines, rework periods, and whether deemed acceptance applies if the Government does not respond within a specified timeframe. | Project and complexity dependent. | ||
| How many simultaneous projects are expected to be active at any given time? | Refer to C60. | ||
| What is the expected annual throughput of projects (per year)? | CTR/ Gov capacity. | ||
| What is the average duration of a CPI / PM project (weeks/months)? | Refer to C60. | ||
| What percentage of projects are new initiatives vs. sustainment efforts? | This will be assessed initially. | ||
| What is the average class size and duration of training sessions? | Training dependent. | ||
| What percentage of training is in-person vs virtual/ asynchronous? | Refer to C65. | ||
| PWS 4. Tasks, 4.1 | How many monthly mentoring sessions are expected (per belt type)? | Mission Dependent; the volume of mentoring sessions depends on Leadership/Command priority at a given time. | |
| PWS 4. Tasks, 4.2. | How many projects exist in the current portfolio baseline? | We are reassessing projects in current portfolio. | |
| PWS 4. Tasks, 4.2. | What is the expected growth of the portfolio year over year? | Mission Dependent; the volume of projects depends on Leadership/Command priority at a given time. | |
| PWS 4. Tasks, 4.2. | How many KPIs/metrics are expected to be tracked per project? | Mission Dependent | |
| PWS 4. Tasks, 4.2. | Is SPIDR a Government provided tool/software? | SPIDR is a document repository. | |
| PWS 4. Tasks, 4.3 | How many existing applications and webpages are expected to be maintained annually? | Mission Dependent | |
| PWS 4. Tasks, 4.3 | How many new existing applications and webpages are expected to be tested/verified annually? | Mission Dependent | |
| PWS 4. Tasks, 4.3. | How many existing users are there and how many new users are expected annually? | Mission Dependent | |
| PWS 4. Tasks, 4.3. | What is the average number of change requests or items reviewed or input into SPIDR Configuration Control Board (CCB) annually? | It changes based on requirements. | |
| PWS 6.3 | How many trips per year are anticipated per labor category, what are the locations of travel, and what is the average trip duration? | Refer to C38 | |
| PWS 6.4 | What is the expected ratio of roles: PMP / Program Manager, Master Black Belt, Black Belt / Green Belt, Improvement Sciences Specialists? | Refer to C3. | |
| PWS Section 4.1.1.2.6 | Does the government currently possess the training materials and curriculum for the Lean Six Sigma and Project Management courses, or is the contractor responsible for the initial design and development of these educational materials? | Training materials exist, but contractor is responsible for development of these educational materials. | |
| PWS 6.5 | Does the government anticipate a transition-in period (e.g., 30 days) to allow for the onboarding of contractor personnel, or is a full staff required to be fully cleared and operational by the 01 June 2026 start date?" | Yes, there will be an allotted 30 day period from the June 1 POP date for a transition-in period to allow for contractors to onboard. | |
| 4.1.1.3; 6.2 | Does the Government require 12 sessions per year / 36 sessions over the PoP at each of the four cited locations? | Requirements driven. | |
| 4.2.1.1.2; 4.2.1.2.4-2.5; 5.2.4 | Will the Government identify the number of trainings required for the base and all option periods? | Current quantity unknown in the base year/option periods. Identification of training required will be determined based on mission need. | |
| 4.3.2.8-4.3.2.10; 5.3.1-5.3.2 | Will the Government specify which language in which the vendor will be expected to code? Will the Government provide GitHub or another code repository? | Depends on the deliverable, it could be (but not limited to) R, Python, HTML, QLIK, SQL etc. as requirements are identified. | |
| 3; 4.1; 4.2; 4.3 | What has been the historical number of simultaneous improvement projects supported per quarter across BUMED, NMFP, NMFL, NMFDC, and lower-echelon commands? | We do not have an exact number readily available at this time. | |
| 3; 6.2; 6.3 | Can the Government provide the historical and expected distribution of work by site, by quarter, and by workstream (CPI / PM / KM / reporting)? | We do not have an exact number readily available at this time. | |
| 6.2 | Does the Government anticipate a standing contractor presence at each named location, or is a regional / shared support model acceptable if response times are met? | Mission dependent. | |
| 4.1.1.2.1-4.1.1.2.4; 5.1.1-5.1.2 | How many process-mapping or workflow-redesign efforts were supported under the predecessor effort during the most recent 12 months? | We do not have an exact number readily available at this time. | |
| 4.1.1.3; 5.2.11-5.2.13 | How many belt-mentorship candidates and certification-support actions does the Government expect annually, by site and belt level? | depends on the requirements. | |
| 6.4.1-6.4.4 | Does the Government have a planning estimate for the contractor labor mix needed to execute the requirement successfully in the base year? | Refer to C3 | |
| 3; 6.2 | Is the Government seeking command-level site leads at each named location, or would it prefer access to rotating specialists with deeper subject-matter depth? | Refer to C6 | |
| 6.2; Volume II pricing assumptions | May the contractor use remote analytic support personnel who do not routinely travel but directly support named site leads and command deliverables? | Refer to C4 and C6 | |
| 4.1.1.2.6; 4.1.1.3; 4.2.1.2.4-2.5; 5.1.3; 5.2.4 | What is the expected annual volume of PM trainings, professional-development courses, belt mentoring, and post-training coaching sessions by site? | as required | |
| 4.1.1.3; 4.2.1.2.4-2.5 | Are there preferred cohort sizes, session lengths, or monthly / quarterly cadences for PM instruction and LSS / GRGB mentoring? | No. | |
| 4.1.1.3; 4.2.1.2.4-2.5; 5.1.3; 5.2.4 | How should the contractor distinguish between workforce-wide training, targeted coaching, and project-specific mentoring for pricing purposes? | Contractors discretion. | |
| 4.1.1.2.6; 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.2.1; 5.1.3; 5.2.4; 5.3.3 | Does the Government expect the contractor to develop new curricula, refresh incumbent material, or primarily deliver against Government-furnished frameworks? | The expected process is that the contractor will first conduct an initial assessment of the existing Government-furnished materials to identify gaps, outdated content, and areas for improvement. Based on the findings of this assessment, the contractor may propose new curricula or recommend refreshes for Government review and approval. | |
| 4.3.2.6-4.3.2.10 | What applications, languages, repositories, or low-code / no-code environments currently support SPIDR and related KM workflows? | Sharepoint. | |
| 4.3.1.2; 4.3.2.8-4.3.2.10; 5.3.1-5.3.2 | Are the 'code implemented' and 'system change documents' deliverables expected to reflect full software development, workflow automation, configuration management, or primarily business-rule / content changes? | All associated documents mentioned are part of the deliverables. | |
| 4.3.2.7-4.3.2.10; 5.3.4 | Will the Government provide a current backlog of SPIDR enhancement requests, known business-rule issues, and sample technical reports from the predecessor effort? | upon request. | |
| 4.3.2.6-4.3.2.10; 6.5 | What level of system permissions, configuration-control participation, and deployment authority will contractor personnel receive? | dependent on role and level of permissions. | |
| 6.5; 6.6 | What is the expected onboarding timeline for contractor personnel requiring CAC, network accounts, interim access, and local site access at each command? | Depends on document/ training cert submissions. | |
| 6.2; 6.5 | May contractor personnel begin off-site work pending full onboarding if they are not yet able to access Government systems or facilities? | We can provide temporary building access for onboarding and training requirements and for the kick off meeting. | |
| 4.4.3; 6.5 | What incumbent artifacts, SOPs, charters, workflow maps, portfolio tools, or reporting libraries will be available at award or transition start? | Documentation will be available once accesses and permissions have been updated. | |
| 4.3.2.10 | Is there an incumbent vendor supporting SPIDR? If so, does that vendor have an Organizational Conflict of Interest in bidding this solicitation? | SPIDR should be government owned. | |
| 6.8 | PWS §6.8 appears to be truncated — the section heading for PII/PHI/Federal Information Requirements is present but no requirements text follows. Will the Government provide the full text of §6.8, or confirm that no additional PII/PHI handling requirements apply beyond standard DoD policy? | Refer to C40 | |
| 4.1; Background §2 | Will the Government provide GRGB reference materials, frameworks, or training resources to the contractor, or is the contractor expected to independently source and apply GRGB methodology? | The Government will provide guidance. | |
| 4.2.1.2.13; 4.2.1.2.14 | What portfolio management tools and software are currently in use across BUMED, NMFP, NMFL, and NMFDC? Is the contractor expected to configure existing tools, recommend and implement new tools, or both? | Any approved on the Products list, such as sharepoint, qlik. | |
| 6.2 | What 'global communication requirements' does the Government anticipate, and should the contractor plan for regular support outside the 0730–1630 window to accommodate OCONUS time zones (e.g., Pacific theater coordination for NMFP)? | As needed/ required. | |
| 6.3 | Does the Government anticipate any OCONUS travel during the period of performance? If so, should OCONUS travel costs (per diem, flights, country clearances) be factored into the travel NTE amounts, or would OCONUS travel be separately funded? | Solicitaton is clear on its face | |
| 6.4; 4.1-4.3 | For the 40% of work performed at the contractor site or virtually, is the contractor expected to furnish its own software licenses (e.g., MS Project, Power BI Pro, Adobe Acrobat, statistical analysis tools) and equipment, or will the Government extend GFE/GFI to cover remote work? | GFE will be issued. | |
| 7 (QASP) | Is a Quality Control Plan (QCP) a required deliverable under this contract? If so, when is it due and should it be included in Volume I or submitted post-award? | All deliverables are indicated in the table within PWS. | |
| 4.4.1; 5.4 | Will the Government provide templates or format specifications for the monthly status report (§4.4.1) and weekly status email (§4.4.2), or does the contractor propose its own format for Government approval? | We can make recommendations on format and information we would like to see. | |
| 4.1.1.3.3 | Which Government entity or office will serve as the certification authority for LSS belt certifications? Is the contractor's role limited to mentoring and documentation preparation, with no authority to certify? | This will be the Force Improvement Office, or as directed by OWA. Depends on higher level instruction. | |
| Does BUMED have a perception of the number of simultaneous Master Black Belt (MBB)-level projects they intend to support and the number of training classes they intend to hold per year? | As needed/ required. | ||
| To what extent does BUMED intend to support improvement projects using organic resources, such as certified (or certification candidate) Black Belts (BBs) and Green Belts (GBs), to complete projects, provide training, and mentor belt candidates? | As needed/ required. | ||
| Does BUMED already have a structured system for portfolio management, or are they looking for the vendor to provide or recommend one? | Innovation and Automation where possible. | ||
| Are there any standard planned events within the next 12 months that BUMED anticipates will require travel or remote support? If so, can these events/locations be specified? | Mission Dependent and not available at this time. | ||
| What are the top priorities or outcomes you would like to see achieved within the first 12 months? | This will be discussed in the Kick off meeting. | ||
| Beyond standard deliverables, how will success be measured? | As indicated in QASP. | ||
| How would you characterize the current maturity of CPI, Project Management, and Knowledge Management across BUMED? | on a maturity matrix, 2 with the current changes and maturation of the office. | ||
| Where are the most significant challenges today (for example: process inefficiencies, knowledge transfer gaps, or project execution)? | process inefficiencies, knowledge transfer gaps, and prioritization. | ||
| Is there an existing knowledge repository or lessons learned system currently in use? | Not really, but mostly sharepoint. | ||
| Are there specific expectations for how knowledge should be captured and reused across commands? | as efficient as possible. | ||
| How do you envision balancing operational tempo with the need to capture and reuse knowledge in real time? | Automation and leveraging current knowledge available. | ||
| Are there expectations regarding the number or scale of improvement initiatives each role should support? | Dependent on the project capability in need. | ||
| How do you envision the division of effort across CPI, Project Management, and KM activities? | Dependent on the project capability in need. | ||
| What systems are currently used for project tracking, process documentation, and knowledge sharing? | Sharepoint | ||
| Are there any planned system enhancements or integrations we should anticipate? | Innovation and Automation. | ||
| What level of responsibility should the contractor assume in mentoring and developing CPI/KM capabilities within government personnel? | As indicated in the solicitation. | ||
| Are there targets for certifications such as Green Belts or other training outcomes? | No | ||
| What reporting cadence and level of detail are expected for performance improvement and KM activities? | As indicated in the delverables. | ||
| What is the typical timeline for CAC issuance and onboarding of contractor personnel? | Depends on document/ training cert submissions. | ||
| Is the expectation to have the team entirely at the Portsmouth, VA location or just the PM and the other personnel could potentially be at the other listed locations? | Refer to C6 | ||
| Must the prime contractor (quoter) independently hold the FCL at the time of quote submission, or may the Phase One FCL requirement be satisfied by a proposed subcontractor who holds an active Secret-level FCL and who will be performing the work under this contract requiring classified access? | In accordance with 32 CFR Part 117.9(a)(5), the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM).," A prime contractor must have a favorable entity eligibility determination at the same or higher classification level as its subcontractors." | ||
| If the prime contractor does not hold an FCL at the time of quote submission but has initiated sponsorship and is actively pursuing FCL through a cleared teaming partner, will the Government consider that the quoter is eligible for Phase Two evaluation? | No | ||
| Is there a provision for FCL sponsorship by the Government Contracting Activity (NAVSUP FLC Norfolk or BUMED) upon contract award for a prime contractor that does not currently hold an FCL? | No | ||
| May a prime contractor with no prior federal contract awards submit subcontractor past performance references as all three of its past performance references, provided the subcontractor's past performance is clearly linked to the work the subcontractor is proposed to perform under this contract? | The solicitation is clear on its face | ||
| Will the Government evaluate a prime contractor with no relevant past performance as neutral (neither favorably nor unfavorably), consistent with FAR guidelines, provided the subcontractor references demonstrate strong relevant performance? | The solicitation is clear on its face | ||
| PWS 6.2 | The solicitation states labor ratios of 0% contractor facility / 100% government facility. Please confirm this means all proposed labor hours should be priced at the on-site government facility rate. | Please see amended solicitation. | |
| PWS 6.2 | Is the Government expecting a detailed labor hour breakdown by labor category and period of performance in Volume II, or is a total loaded FFP price with supporting rate documentation sufficient | ||
| Please see Attachment 2. *Note - this is an optional document* | |||
| would the Government consider a team structure in which the WOSB prime does not hold an FCL at the time of submission, but has a subcontractor with an active Secret FCL responsible for all work requiring access to classified information? | Refer to C132 | ||
| would the Government consider allowing the WOSB prime to obtain the required FCL post award or prior to performance requiring classified access, provided that a properly cleared subcontractor is in place at the time of submission? | Refer to C132 | ||
| Volume II: Does the Government require Section B fill-in, followed by solicitation fill-ins, followed by a price narrative? Is there an excel template that the government desires to show all cost break out data as mentioned in (2)Volume II (b) supporting data? | The solicitation is clear on its face. See (2) Volume II - Price Quote | ||
| Phase One states that Clearance Verification should be included as an attachment to the solicitation. Would the clearance verification be included in Volume II? | The solicitation is clear on its face, see paragraph, "Phase One: Security Clearance Vertification (pass/fail) under III. Quote Content | ||
| Can the Government identify if this is a follow on contract (and contract number) or if this effort is a new initiative? | this is a new requirement | ||
| Is there an incumbent contractor? If so, please list the corresponding vendor and contract number. | N/A, new requirement | ||
| would the government consider extending the due date for proposal submission to April 20th | Extension for quote submission has been provided in this amendment. | ||
| Can the Government clarify whether the travel ceiling ($25,000/year) applies per contract year, per CLIN, or across the entire contract? | The solicitation is clear on its face. | ||
| On page 3, it says that the period of performance for the last option year is 9 months, but on page 9 it states that the period is 12 months. Please confirm the correct period of performance. | See amended solicitation | ||
| In which volume should the facility security clearance verification appear, or should it be a standalone submission? | Security Clearance should be submitted separately from Volume I or Volume II, submission deadline has been extended as stated in this solicitation amendment | ||
| PWS 6.2 / Instructions to Offerors (Page 31) | The PWS states that work will be performed approximately 60% at Government facilities and 40% at contractor or virtual locations, while Section L pricing assumptions indicate 100% Government facility performance. Please clarify which assumption governs performance and pricing. | See amended solicitation | |
| Instructions (Page 31) | Please confirm whether the Government facility labor assumption (0% contractor / 100% Government site) is required for actual performance or is provided solely for evaluation purposes. | See amended solicitation | |
| Evaluation (52.212-2) | Please clarify how the Government defines “Acceptable” versus higher ratings for the Performance Approach factor. | Outstanding: Quote demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Good: Quote indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Acceptable: Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Marginal: Quote has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. (Marginal is a less-than-acceptable rating and renders a proposal unawardable as proposed.) Unacceptable: Quote does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high. | |
| Evaluation (52.212-2), page 29 | Please clarify how “innovation” will be assessed within the Performance Approach evaluation factor. | The degree to which the proposed solution exceeds minimum requirements and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the problem. | |
| PWS 6.6 (Security Requirements) | Please confirm whether all personnel must possess a Secret clearance at time of performance, or if interim clearances are acceptable. | Refer to C2 | |
| PWS 6.3 (Travel) | Place of Performance lists four locations (Falls Church, VA; San Diego, CA; Portsmouth, VA; San Antonio, TX) and the requirement states that 60% of the work must be completed onsite. Are contractor personnel required at each of the sites, or only one, with travel to the other three? If the latter, can you provide an estimate of the anticipated travel requirements (number of personnel and time/hours)? | Refer to C4 and C6 | |
| PWS 6.4 (Minimum Qualifications) | What is the anticipated Level of Effort (LOE)? (1) Is the LOE anticipated to include only the 4 Personnel Labor Categories listed in the solicitation (1 FTE Project Manager Professional, 1 FTE Master Black Belt, 1 Black Belt and 1 Improved Sciences Specialist), for full-time hours? (2) Does the contract LOE require any additional resources other than the four personnel outlined in the solicitation? | FTE's are broken down as: Process Improvement Specialist: 3; Program Manager: 1; Six Sigma Master Black Belt: 1, Junior Six Sigma Black Belt: 7 | |
| Instructions (Page 27) | DO NOT INTEND TO QUOTE: Any quoter not intending to submit a quote for this requirement is asked to notify Megan Emery at megan.p.emery.civ@us.navy.mil NO LATER THAN 12:00pm (Philadelphia, PA Time) on 02 April 2026. Is there any Contract Vehicle associated with this solicitation, where it would be required to notify the Government the Intent to bid? | The solicitation is clear on its face | |
| Instructions (Page 29) | Is the Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification (DD-254) verification form due with the proposal on April 13, 2026 12:00 Eastern Time, and will the form also need to be completed and submitted with the proposal for subcontractors, as well, at the time of the proposal due date? Is the Phase I due date, for the completed form, the same as the response date April 13, 2026 12:00pm Eastern Time? | The entirety of the solicitation submission is due on April 21st at 9am EST as updated in this amendment | |
| 52.212-1 Addendum | Section II (6) states that the 8 page limit does not include the cover sheet, acronyms, and table of contents. Section III (I) Volume I - Non-Price Quote states that Volume one is limited to 8 pages inclusive of Past Performance. Is the Past Performance included in the 8 page limit for Volume I or should the Past Performance be in a seperate volume? | The solicitation is clear on its face | |
| Can the government provide a price quote form or structure for the Price Volume? | See attachment 3 to the amended solicitation as a template for price volume | ||
| Addendum to 52.212-1 | Verification of an Offeror's Facility Security Clearance from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency's (DCSA) National Industrial Security System (NISS) is typically labeled CUI. To comply with NIST SP 800-171, can the Government confirm that Offerors may submit the attachment for Facility Clearance verification separately using a FIPS-validated encryption method? | The solicirtation is clear on its face. | |
| Can the Government please confirm the period of performance for Option II? The Continuation of Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs on page 3 identifies CLIN 2001 with 12 months of performance. On page 9-10, Option II is outlined as only 9 months, 01 June 2028 - 01 March 2029. The instructions for the Price Quote also indicate a performance period of 01 June 2028 - 01 March 2029 on page 31. | See amended solicitation | ||
| Who is the incumbent? If an incumbent, what is the current contract number? If no current incumbent, is this work currently being performed? If so, by whom and what is the contract number? If no current incumbent, has this work ever been performed in the past? If so, by whom and what is the contract number? | this is a new requirement | ||
| CLIN 2002 | Please clarify the travel funding assumptions. CLIN 2002 and the price instructions reflect $18,750 for Option II, while Section 6.3 states travel is not to exceed $25,000 per year for all travelers. Should Option II be priced at $18,750 because it is a shortened period, and should Section 6.3 be interpreted as an annualized ceiling? | See amended solicitation to Section 6.3 | |
| Please confirm the Option II period of performance and associated pricing quantity. The solicitation states Option II runs from 01 June 2028 to 01 March 2029, but CLIN 2001 still reflects 12 Months. Will the Government issue an amendment to reconcile this inconsistency? | See amended solicitation | ||
| section 6.2 | Please clarify the place-of-performance assumption for pricing. Section 6.2 states contractors will work 60% at a Government facility and 40% at the contractor site or virtually, while the price instructions establish a 0% / 100% contractor facility/government facility ratio for all labor categories. What roles are required to be onsite and which assumption should offerors use for proposal pricing? | See amended solicitation | |
| The QASP references deliverables in the PWS, attachments, CDRLs, and task orders. Please confirm whether there are any CDRLs, task-order-specific standards, or attachments not included in the provided solicitation package. | The solicitation is clear on its face. | ||
| Please provide the complete WAWF instructions, including the fixed-price services document type, routing DoDAACs, and WAWF point of contact, as these fields appear incomplete in the solicitation. | These fields are only completed at award to the successful quoter | ||
| Evaluation | |||
| Please provide the adjectival/risk definitions that will be used for evaluation, including the meanings of Acceptable, Marginal, and Satisfactory Confidence, so offerors can better understand the evaluation standard. | Refer to C151 | ||
| Please provide a pricing template or workbook or otherwise confirm the precise level of detail expected for the price volume, including whether offerors should map labor categories, hours, rates, indirect burdens, and assumptions to the CLIN structure in a specific format. | |||
| Solicitation is clear on its face, see (2) Volume II -Price Quote; However, optional pricing template provided in Attachment 3 | |||
| Can the government please inform us what the historical level of effort has been under the incumbent contract, and if there are expected/desired changes to the historical level of effort supporting this contract? | This is a new requirement | ||
| Can the government confirm if completed past performance information forms can be submitted as an appendix and will not count against the page limit? | As stated in the solicitation, past performance information forms will count towards the overall 8-page limit for Volume I | ||
| Can we use size 9 font within tables, charts, graphics, and/or diagrams to ensure the level of details able to be provided within the necessary page limit? | The solicitation is clear on its face | ||
| Can the government confirm if any positions have been identified as key personnel, and if any resumes are expected to be submitted within our response? | Do not submit resumes in response to this solicitation. Resumes will not be considered | ||
| Would resumes count against the 8-page limitation? | Do not submit resumes in response to this solicitation. Resumes will not be considered | ||
| Instructions to Offerors | |||
| III. QUOTE CONTENT | “If subcontractor past performance is provided as part of the 3 most relevant contracts or efforts, the subcontractor past performance will be given weight proportional to the scope and magnitude of the aspects of the work under the solicitation for which the subcontractor is proposed.” | ||
| As part of the initial RFP package, total magnitude has not been defined. Can the Government please provide anticipated value and total FTE counts for this effort? | Refer to C3 | ||
| PWS 5. Deliverables | Can the Government please provide historical volumes (last 12–24 months) for each deliverable? | This is not available at this time. | |
| Does the completed 'Past Performance Information Form' (Attachment 1) count toward the 8-page limit for Volume I, or is it considered an attachment excluded from the page count? | Solicitation is clear on its face | ||
| III (b) | Will the government provide a Past Performance Information Form template to ensure consistency among submitted bids? | Solicitation is clear on it's face, see attachment 1. PPIF | |
| III (b) | Will the government consider excluding the past performance information form from the Vol I page count? | Solicitation is clear on its face. | |
| 6.6; DD254 (referenced attachment) | Will the Government provide the DD254 referenced in §6.6? Additionally, does every contractor position require a Secret clearance, or are some positions eligible at a lower clearance or Public Trust level? | The DD 254 is provided at the time of award. The solicitation is clear on its face, a Secret level FCL is required. | |
| 52.219-14 (DEVIATION 2021-O0008) | For purposes of FAR 52.219-14, will the Government confirm that the limitations on subcontracting will be measured 'by the end of the base term of the contract and then by the end of each subsequent option period' as indicated by the checked box in the clause? | Solicitation is clear on its face | |
| 52.212-2; §III Phase Two | Does the Government anticipate awarding this contract in time for a 01 June 2026 performance start date? If award is delayed, will the period of performance dates shift accordingly, or will the contractor be expected to deliver within a compressed timeframe? | Award anticipated before June 1 start date | |
| Volume II; §III(2) | Will the Government provide a pricing template or preferred format for the Volume II price breakdown, or may the quoter use its own format provided all required elements (labor rates, hours, burden rates, subcontractor pricing) are included? | An optional template has been provided to the amended solicitation, see Attachment 2. | |
| 6.2; Evaluation §III(c) | Since the evaluation pricing assumption (0% contractor / 100% government) differs from the operational execution model (60/40), should the quoter price labor rates using government-site rates for 100% of hours even though ~40% of execution will occur off-site? If awarded, will the contractor be bound to the 0/100 pricing or the 60/40 operational model? | See amended solicitation | |
| Given the eight (8)-page limitation for the Non-Price Volume, how does the Government envision offerors balancing the level of detail between Performance Approach and Past Performance to ensure sufficient demonstration of technical understanding and relevance? Is detailed task-level mapping to the PWS expected within the page constraint? | The solicitation is clear on its face. | ||
| 6.6 Security Requirements | pg 29 "The highest level of security required for this requirement is Secret, see the attached DD254 for details. Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification (DD-254) – The contractor shall complete the designated DD Form 254" Is the DD 254 anticipated to be complete and submitted with the solicitation? | The DD 254 will be completed by the awardee after contract award. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .