2.02 Attachment V - PART I_PART II.pdf

Part I

This amendment provides a list of questions and comments received in response to the solicitation. The questions and comments are provided for all potential offerors to review. Note that questions may have been edited for clarity and duplicative questions may have been combined or deleted. This solicitation includes responses to vendor questions concerning the solicitation and solicitation requirements. In the interest of efficiency, any questions received that were not related to the solicitation or solicitation requirements are not addressed herein as those questions are not relevant for purposes of submitting a responsive proposal. All available, necessary information and any necessary changes to the solicitation resulting from consideration of the below questions and comments have been incorporated into the solicitation in PART II of this Amendment. As a result of this amendment, the solicitation is considered to be clear.

The following questions have been answered:

Question 1: We would like to know if this is a brand-new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

Response: This is a follow-on procurement to N0018921DZ024.

Question 2: I am reaching out regarding the RFP question due date for Notice ID N0018926RD008 Navy's Marketing and Advertising Program. Could you please confirm if all RFP questions are due by 3pm EST on Thursday, May 14th or Friday, May 15th.

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 3: Please confirm that the cover page and table of contents are excluded from the 51-page page count.

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face. See page 60.

Question 4: Solicitation, General Question: Please confirm the exact contract type at both the basic contract and task-order/CLIN level.

Response: See Part II of this amendment.

Question 5: Solicitation, Question: The solicitation includes Corporate Experience and Past Performance within the 51-page limitation. We recommend the Government reconsider this approach and exclude these sections from the page count or provide a separate allocation. As structured, this creates an inherent imbalance in the competitive environment. Non-incumbent offerors must dedicate significantly more space to establish relevance, comparability, and scale of experience, while the incumbent can rely on direct program familiarity with far less narrative support.

Maintaining these sections within the overall page constraint may limit the Government’s ability to fully evaluate the breadth and relevance of competing offerors’ experience on an equal basis. Excluding them would better support a fair, complete, and defensible evaluation.

Response: See Part II of this amendment.

Question 6: General Question: Can the Government clarify expectations for transition-in, including timelines, access to systems, data, incumbent materials, and Government-furnished support?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 7: Will the Government evaluate transition approaches based on feasibility and structure, rather than prior program familiarity, to ensure all offerors are assessed on their ability to execute a successful transition?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 8: Solicitation, Page 1, Section: Supplies/Services: Are any CLINs intended to function as not-to-exceed funding pools rather than fully defined FFP requirements?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 9: Solicitation, Page 41. Section 52.21204, This states that “The offeror should address its past performance in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, "Utilization of Small Business Concerns," and 52.219- 9, "Small Business Subcontracting Plan."” However, there is no place in the Attachment IV Past Performance Information Form to address utilization of small business concerns. How will this be evaluated? How will this be evaluated for commercial experience references that do not require to track small business utilization?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 10: Solicitation, Page 55. Section 52.212-1, “The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers,” while on page 58 of the RFP it states: “The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 270 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.” Please clarify what the correct time period should be?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face. As relevant, FAR 52.212-1(b) states that “The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation.”

Question 11: Solicitation, Page 58. Section Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors, The RFP states Volume II should be in Microsoft Excel format only (with supporting information provided in Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF). The RFP does not provide an Excel Pricing Template. The RFP requires to fill out the pricing tables in solicitation pages 5-16 for each CLIN. Other than CLIN pricing information (RFP pages 5-16), is there any additional pricing / substantiation information or data that is required? Will you be providing an Excel pricing template for this data?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 12: Solicitation, Page 58. Small Business Subcontracting Plan, With respect to the solicitation’s small business subcontracting goals, can the Government please clarify whether the stated 30% target is intended to be calculated against: (a) total contract value inclusive of pass-through media expenditures and other non-labor direct costs (ODCs); or (b) anticipated labor value / fee-bearing contract value only? If (a), will the Government reconsider calculating the small business subcontracting goals against anticipated labor dollars and fee-bearing contract value, rather than total contract value inclusive of media spend and pass-through expenditures?

Response: See Part II of this amendment.

Question 13: Solicitation, Page 58. Small Business Subcontracting Plan, As currently structured, the solicitation appears to create a scenario in which one of the only viable methods for offerors to achieve the stated subcontracting percentages would be to route substantial media dollars through small business entities solely for percentage-calculation purposes, irrespective of whether those entities are performing meaningful programmatic work associated with the media planning, buying, optimization, or execution activities themselves. This approach could ultimately result in a disservice to the Government by diminishing access to the scale, marketplace leverage, negotiated rates, platform relationships, and buying power that large-scale media operations provide. In effect, the current structure may unintentionally incentivize administrative pass-through arrangements over substantive socio-economic participation, while simultaneously increasing overall program cost and reducing media efficiency and effectiveness.

Accordingly, the Government should strongly consider evaluating subcontracting participation against labor-based contract value to better align socio-economic objectives with meaningful workshare participation and best-value program execution.

Response: See Part II of this amendment.

Question 14: Solicitation: Please confirm that offerors are required to submit ‘up to’ 5 Corporate Experience/Past Performance references and that the proposals with less than 5 references will not be evaluated at a lower confidence level?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 15: Performance Work Statement, Section 4.4.1: Please provide the current inventory and types of vehicles that are leased to support the STEM Tour Mobile Display so that our scope and labor cost assumptions are in line with the current program’s structure and can be adequately addressed in the transition in plan.

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 16: Performance Work Statement, Section 4.4.1: What are examples of “innovative mobile assets” to be used as part of the Field Events Marketing? We want to be sure we understand the Navy’s context by mentioning this broad asset category.

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 17: Solicitation, “Important Notes” Page 63, “The cognizant Security Office (name, address, and identification code) for each subcontractor.” Is this a firm requirement or can this be removed as many small businesses that would be utilized for a Small Business plan do not possess this office/function/role.

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face. If the proposed subcontractor does not have a cognizant Security Office, then the offeror may state that.

Question 18: General - Pricing: Several CLINs (e.g., CLIN 0001 and other NTE-constrained or T&M-based CLINs) establish Not-to-Exceed (NTE) ceilings. To ensure a consistent and equitable evaluation, would the Government consider standardizing these CLIN values (i.e., using plug numbers at the stated NTE levels) for evaluation purposes, rather than allowing variation in proposed totals across offerors?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face. The CLIN descriptions instruct the offeror to use the NTE values determined by the Government in their offer.

Question 19: General - Pricing: If standardized values are not used, can the Government clarify how it will ensure an apples-to-apples comparison of proposals, given that total evaluated price may vary significantly based on how offerors choose to price below NTE ceilings?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 20: General - Pricing: For CLINs requiring blended hourly rates across multiple functional segments (e.g., research, creative, media, and fulfillment), can the Government confirm whether evaluation will emphasize: the competitiveness and realism of blended labor rates, the underlying labor mix and staffing assumptions, fee and indirect rate structures…as opposed to total extended price, which may be influenced by differing assumptions regarding NTE utilization? As outlined in the solicitation, these CLINs aggregate multiple service segments and rely on blended rates for task order execution.

Question 21: General - Pricing: Given that actual execution will be driven by task orders with defined levels of effort, can the Government clarify how CLIN-level total prices will be evaluated relative to the anticipated variability in usage and scope?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 22: General - Pricing: To promote a fair and consistent evaluation, the Government may benefit from standardizing NTE-based CLIN values during evaluation and focusing comparative assessment on underlying pricing structures (e.g., blended rates, labor mix, and fee composition), which more accurately reflect how work will be executed.

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 23: General: The Government notes 7 major sponsorships with various community outreach groups per year. Community Outreach Events do not, however, have a pre-set quantity instead shown as “to be determined by the navy and funding.” Should we assume any Community Outreach would be supported through change orders on an as-needed basis?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 24: General: The government notes contractor responsibility to reserve and pay for booth spaces for events (Expos) in PWS Attachment 4 (sec 2c), however also notes in sec 2d that some convention events have standard footprint space provided as part of the paid sponsorship package. Can the government clarify what percentage of the expected 82 Expos would have booth fees covered and what would remain needing a standard average fee coverage allocation? Is there an average booth fee cost that can be shared for budget reservation, as expo fees can range widely?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 25: Attachment IV Past Performance Information Form. This document does not seem to have any place for a customer questionnaire. Is it only for the offeror to fill out and submit in the Corporate Experience section of the proposal?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 26: Attachment IV Past Performance Information Form, How will Past Performance be evaluated, especially for those commercial contracts that do not have CPARs?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 27: Section 4.1.11.7 as written may inadvertently hinder the Government's objective of acquiring advertising services at best value. By preventing contractors from supporting other military services, the clause reduces the pool of experienced bidders and limits industry’s ability to offer enterprise-level best practices and cost savings to the wider Department of War. Will the Government consider (i) removing this clause, or; (ii) narrowing its scope by limiting its application to the specific duration of individual task orders that present an actual conflict, rather than the entire duration of the IDIQ contract? We would also suggest permitting participation in other military service advertising procurements when the contractor can demonstrate effective mitigation measures.

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face. The Government does not intend to revise this provision.

Question 28: Solicitation (p. 58-59) Small Business Subcontracting Plan: CLIN -002 Space Charges, Media Placement, and Postage is a significant percentage of the Total Contract Value (TCV) and allocating working media management to small business(es) may have a negative impact on cost effectiveness and not meet Navy and DOGE expectations for cost management the over the life of the contract. Do the Small Business Subcontracting goals apply to the TCV or is Media/CLIN -002 exempt from this?

Response: See Part II of this amendment.

Question 29: Solicitation (p. 4 of 79) Reference to CLIN -002: Since this contract is a FAR Part 12 acquisition and CLIN -002 has been identified as "Time & Materials" for direct costs only, will it be exempt from the submission of an annual Incurred Cost Submission (ICS) to DCAA and subsequent audit?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 30: Solicitation (p. 60-62) Section III - Proposal Content; Past Performance: Will the Government provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to be completed and submitted directly to the Government for each of a bidder's Corporate Experience and Past Performance references?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 31: Solicitation (p. 60 of 79) Section II, Item (5) - Page Limitations: However, the price proposal is to be strictly limited to price information (and the completed solicitation documentation)." Please clarify how the Government defines "price information" for solicitation compliance. For example, only pricing tables should be included. Is a supportive narrative on pricing strategy, justification, value, etc. compliant or not compliant?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 32: Attachment I - PWS Section 4.1.11.11: This PWS Section, along with guidance on p. 60 of 79 of the Solicitation, includes specific references to "transition out" plans. Should a "transition in" plan be included in an offeror's non-price and price volumes? If so, will the Government provide specific guidance for what "transition in" requirements a bidder should respond to and price?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 33: Attachment II - PWS Attachments: Attachment 4, Item 3: Will the Government please confirm that ODEs for the costs to build and lease STEM mobile assets/events marketing properties should be included in CLIN -

005. Should labor for mobile asset design/build/deploy be included in CLIN -001 or CLIN -003?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 34: Attachment II - PWS Attachments: Attachment 1, Item 7; Attachment 6, Item 12: There are multiple and conflicting references to social sites/channels to be managed. Attachment 1: Social Networking Sites "Currently have a presence on Facebook (4) pages, YouTube, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, and Reddit." Attachment 6: "12.

Social Media (CLINs ending in -001) – post content, update and maintain 19 sites." Will the Government please detail the specific owned social platforms and sites to be priced for post content, update and maintain?

Response: See Part II of this Amendment.

Question 35: General: Will responses be evaluated against specific DOGE cost effectiveness measurements or other KPIs? If yes, should these also be referenced in the detailed Corporate Experience and Past Performance responses?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 36: Will the Government own the software licenses for the proposed solution, or is the Vendor proposing a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) model where the Vendor retains the licenses and delivers the capability as a managed service?

Response: Offerors may propose either a Government-owned licensing model or a managed service/BPO model, provided the proposed solution meets all solicitation requirements.

Question 37: The RFP specifies FedRAMP Moderate as the required security baseline. Please confirm whether the solution will also be required to meet DISA Impact Level 4 (IL4).

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face. Offerors shall ensure proposed solutions comply with all FedRAMP, DoD, DON, ATO/DADMS, privacy, and data protection requirements applicable to the proposed architecture, hosting environment, data categorization, and operational use case.

Question 38: Will the Government provide telephony and carrier services, or is the expectation that these are included as part of the vendor's solution?

Response: Offerors should propose a complete and fully functional solution capable of meeting all performance requirements identified within the solicitation and Performance Work Statement (PWS). Unless otherwise specifically identified within the solicitation, offerors should assume that any telephony infrastructure, carrier services, connectivity, licensing, and associated support necessary to deliver the proposed solution are to be included as part of the vendor’s solution and pricing.

Question 39: In addition to contact volume, can the Government provide Average Handle Time (AHT) inclusive of talk time, hold time, and after work time, as well as average queue hold times? This data will allow vendors to more accurately size and price the proposed solution.

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 40: PWS Section 4.4.8.2, Electronic Fulfillment Program: The PWS references an estimated 330,000 fulfillment requests per year received through U.S. mail, the Internet, email, and telephone. Can the Government provide a historical breakdown of requests by channel (e.g., phone number, business reply mail, Navy.com, email) to allow offerors to appropriately size and cost the fulfillment operation?

Response: The solicitation provides the estimated annual fulfillment volume across all channels. Additional historical channel-level detail is not required for proposal submission.

Question 41: PWS Section 4.4.8.4, Electronic Fulfillment Program: The PWS states the CRM database will conduct a baseline screening of prospects against established criteria (age, education, citizenship, etc.) before forwarding eligible leads to Navy Recruiting Stations. Is it expected that the contractor be responsible for configuring and maintaining those screening rules? Or, is this something the Navy would want manually configured as it changes regularly with recruiting policies and guidelines?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 42: Attachment 1 PWS 1.1 Introduction & Understanding of CNRC Mission and Recruiting Outcomes.

How does CNRC define and prioritize “quality” across leads, prospects, and contracts, particularly for high-AFQT enlisted, officer, medical, nuclear, cyber, special warfare, and reserve recruiting?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 43: Attachment 1 PWS 2.2 Corporate Experience & Past Performance Information Forms. Biennial assessments through focus groups of brand effectiveness - does the Navy permit “synthetic audience” focus groups using AI-built personas from audience segmentation data? Or does the focus group have to be in person?

Response: The contractor may propose AI-enabled methodologies, including virtual focus groups and synthetic audience approaches, where appropriate and consistent with applicable DoD, DON, cybersecurity, privacy, and research policies. All methodologies remain subject to Government review and approval.

Question 44: Attachment 1 PWS 2.8 Background This statement is in section 2.8: "Software of comparable capability may be used." What specific software products and platforms must be retained in support of Navy marketing and which could be replaced with different products of comparable quality?

Response: The Government’s enterprise CRM environment and associated lead processing requirements shall remain in place in accordance with the solicitation. Software of comparable capability refers to supporting analytics, reporting, dashboarding, and content management tools utilized in support of marketing operations, provided proposed solutions meet the functional, security, interoperability, and operational requirements of the solicitation and are approved by the Government.

Question 45: Attachment 1 PWS 2.8 Background. Will the Navy provide a detailed timeline and responsibility matrix for the transition from NALTS to Salesforce CRM, clarifying contractor responsibility for data cleansing, mapping, and validation?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face. The solicitation identifies the current systems environment and anticipated transition to Salesforce CRM. Additional transition timelines, responsibilities, and implementation details will be coordinated with the successful offeror during contract performance.

Question 46: Attachment 1 PWS 2.8 Background. Will the Navy confirm whether all Salesforce configuration, customization, and field mapping will be completed prior to contract award, or will the contractor be expected to perform configuration work under a specific CLIN?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face. The contractor shall support Salesforce-related efforts as required by the PWS, including lead collection and processing capabilities utilizing Salesforce system.

Question 47: Attachment 1 PWS 2.8 Background. Does the Navy currently use Salesforce Public Sector Cloud or standard Salesforce Sales Cloud

Response: The solicitation identifies Salesforce CRM as the Government’s current platform.

Question 48: Attachment 1 PWS 2.8 Background. What other modules/components of Salesforce does the Navy currently use (i.e. Marketing Cloud, Data Cloud, Personalization, etc.)

Response: The solicitation identifies current enterprise platforms and tools relevant to contract performance.

Additional platform details are not relevant for the purposes of submitting a proposal.

Question 49: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.1.1 Research, Marketing Segmentation, Insights, and Emerging Technologies.

What segmentation model does CNRC currently use, when was it last refreshed, and what evidence shows it remains predictive of lead quality and contract conversion?

Response: The contractor is expected to conduct target audience identification, market segmentation, and analysis in accordance with the PWS. Existing Government methodologies may be discussed with the successful offeror after award.

Question 50: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.1.1 Research, Marketing Segmentation, Insights, and Emerging Technologies.

Is segment-level performance currently measured across the full funnel from awareness and favorability to RFI, recruiter contact, qualification, and contract?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face regarding the requirement to track performance measures across multiple stages of the recruiting and marketing funnel.

Question 51: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.1.1 Research, Marketing Segmentation, Insights, and Emerging Technologies. Which AI-enabled research or analytics use cases are currently permitted, restricted, or prohibited under Navy / DoD policy?

Response: All contractor use of AI-enabled tools and methodologies must comply with applicable DoD, DON, cybersecurity, privacy, acquisition, and research policies and remain subject to Government approval.

Question 52: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.1.1 Research, Marketing Segmentation, Insights, and Emerging Technologies.

What approval process is required before testing AI-enabled segmentation, virtual focus groups, synthetic audiences, predictive modeling, or AI-assisted research synthesis?

Response: Proposed AI-enabled methodologies are subject to Government review and approval during contract performance and must comply with applicable DoD and DON policies.

Question 53: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.1.1. Research, Marketing Segmentation, Insights, and Emerging Technologies. What documentation does CNRC require for AI-assisted methodologies, including data sources, model type, bias testing, human review, explainability, auditability, and limitations?

Response: Documentation requirements for AI-assisted methodologies will be determined in accordance with applicable DoD and DON policy, cybersecurity requirements, and specific task order requirements.

Question 54: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.2 Content: Creative Development & Execution. High school. Are we allowed to have a strong media push and ideas in high schools?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 55: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.2 Content: Creative Development & Execution. How young can we target?

Can we market to younger kids like G.I. Joe did back in the 80s?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face

Question 56: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.2.1 Creative Development. Are you open to AI images and video?

Response: The use of AI-generated content may be proposed where appropriate and is subject to Government approval and applicable brand safety considerations in accordance with the PWS.

Question 57: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.2.1 Creative Development. Innovative media, are you open to innovative media and ideas that show how we push the boundaries?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 58: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.2.1 Creative Development. With CNRC’s In House creative division collaboration – can the Navy provide a RASCI/RACI or similar decision making and responsibility matrix that details when contractor vs in-house are responsible for creative content creation and delivery?

Response: Roles and responsibilities will be coordinated between the Government and the successful contractor during contract performance.

Question 59: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.2.2 Creative Rights, Ownership, Inventory, and Brand Compliance. Can we use a celebrity in campaigns, or do they have to be associated with the Navy?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 60: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.2.2 Creative Rights, Ownership, Inventory, and Brand Compliance . Are there parameters around using active military in the content?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 61: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.2.2 Creative Rights, Ownership, Inventory, and Brand Compliance.

Influencers. Are you open to using them if they are not associated with Navy?

Question 62: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.3.2 Social Media. TikTok is not listed as a social channel the Navy is active on – now that ownership of the platform has shifted from ByteDance, will this be a potential channel going forward?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 63: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.3.2. Social Media. Do you see the Navy having a presence on TikTok in the future as long as it’s not on a government device?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 64: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.3.2 Social Media. What are CNRC’s expectations for social media moderation, including response times, escalation procedures, approved response guidance, and tone of voice?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 65: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.3.2 Social Media. Which social KPIs does CNRC consider most meaningful, and which are considered vanity metrics?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 66: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.3.2 Social Media. What targeting limitations apply because of platform policies, government restrictions, privacy rules, age restrictions, or DoD / Navy guidance?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 67: Attachment 1 PWS 1.4.3.2 Social Media. What brand safety, operational security, privacy, accessibility, and legal requirements apply to social media content and moderation?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 68: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1 Annual Marketing and Advertising Plan (AMAP) For performance measures outlined in the AMAP, will the Navy provide the historical baseline data (prior 3 years) for cost per lead, cost per contract, and conversion rates by channel to ensure realistic goal-setting?

Response: Relevant historical performance data may be provided to the successful offeror after award, as determined appropriate by the Government.

Question 69: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1 Annual Marketing and Advertising Plan (AMAP) If the contractor identifies a strategic misalignment between the AMAP and actual market conditions after approval, what is the Navy's approval process and timeline for submitting alternative strategic approaches, and does the Navy have a budget threshold for these mid-year changes?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 70: Attachment 1 PWS / Attachment II Att. 3 4.1 / Att. 3 Required Reports. Annual Marketing and Advertising Plan (AMAP) Attachment 3 lists "AMAP Tactical Production Report (Annually)" and "Paid Media Flowchart" as financial reports submitted with the AMAP. The PWS body (4.1.10.1) states "a fully costed media plan is not required for AMAP." How does the Navy reconcile these two? Is the Tactical Production Report the costed roll-up that comes after AMAP approval, and if so, what is the expected level of cost granularity?

Response: See Part II of this amendment. The AMAP shall include strategic budget allocations, planning assumptions, and required reporting elements identified in the solicitation. A fully costed media execution plan is not required at the time of AMAP submission, as the full plan will be contingent upon issuance of approved funding and associated media task orders.

Question 71: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.2 AMAP — Research Studies. Will the Navy provide access to the FY24 and FY25 segmentation models, audience personas, and propensity scoring frameworks currently in use, so the contractor can build on existing intelligence rather than rebuild foundational segmentation?

Response: Relevant Government-owned materials may be provided to the successful offeror after award, as determined appropriate by the Government.

Question 72: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.2 AMAP — Research Studies. Section 4.1.3 calls for AI use in audience identification, segmentation, and virtual focus groups. Does the Navy have existing approved AI/ML platforms or a constrained list for research applications, or is the contractor expected to propose, validate, and obtain ATO for new platforms?

Response: Contractors may propose platforms and tools consistent with the requirements of the PWS and applicable DoD and DON cybersecurity, privacy, and approval requirements.

Question 73: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.2 AMAP — Research Studies. Will the Navy clarify the integration model between contractor-led primary research and JAMRS secondary research? Specifically, whether contractor research findings inform JAMRS study design (per 4.1.5), and whether JAMRS data is available to the contractor in raw form for re-analysis or only as published reports?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 74: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.2 AMAP — Research Studies. The PWS distinguishes brand tracking from brand lift studies. Will the Navy share the current brand tracking methodology and cadence so the contractor can propose continuity, methodology improvements, or replacement approaches rather than guess at the existing baseline?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 75: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.7.1 Initial Planning Requirements. The PWS states "it is anticipated that initially most of the current creative materials would continue to be used for the remainder of FY26." Does the Navy view Year One as a continuity year with optimization, or is the Navy open to and expecting strategic shifts in messaging, audience targeting, or channel mix during Year One?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 76: Attachment 1 PWS / Attachment II Att. 1 4.1.7.1 / Att. 1 Program Summaries. Initial Planning Requirements. Attachment 1 (NRC Advertising Plan Summaries) lists historical tactics by program (Direct Mail, Email, navy.com content, social/SEO/SEM, resume mining, affiliates, etc.). The PWS (4.1.7.1) anticipates continuity of existing creative materials in FY26. Does the Navy expect continuity of the full historical tactical mix per Attachment 1, or is the contractor expected to propose changes to the tactical mix in Year One (e.g., reducing direct mail in favor of digital, sunsetting underperforming affiliates)? If changes are welcomed, are there tactics in Attachment 1 the Navy specifically wants the contractor to preserve regardless of performance?

Response: Contractors are encouraged to propose recommendations consistent with the requirements and objectives outlined in the solicitation.

Question 77: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.7.2 Strategic Communications Plan. Will the Navy share the evaluation framework or success criteria the AMAP and Strategic Communications Plan will be measured against during contract performance?

Question 78: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.7.2 Strategic Communications Plan. The PWS requires the Strategic Communications Plan to be "fully integrated" across channels, public relations, and outreach. What does the Navy consider successful integration in this context — measurable cross-channel performance lift, unified creative expression, shared audience data, all of the above?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 79: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.9 AMAP Process. Will the Navy confirm that the "approximately 40 personnel" attending the AMAP meeting includes all stakeholders whose approval is required for final plan acceptance, or are there additional stakeholder meetings/approvals required post-AMAP?

Response: Additional Government reviews and approvals may be required following the AMAP meeting.

Question 80: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.9.3 AMAP Meeting Plan & Outcomes. The PWS describes the AMAP as the "primary outcome" of the meeting. What separates an AMAP that earns Navy approval on first submission versus one that requires multiple revision cycles? Are there common gaps or weaknesses the Navy has seen in prior AMAPs that the contractor should explicitly address in our response?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 81: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.9.3.3 AMAP Plan Content. The PWS requires the AMAP to address "emerging tools and technologies" with "practical application where appropriate." What is the Navy's threshold for "practical"? Are pilots and proofs-of-concept considered practical, or does the Navy expect production-ready implementations?

Response: Contractors should propose practical, mission-relevant solutions that can reasonably support recruiting objectives within applicable Government constraints.

Question 82: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.10 AMAP EVALUATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ASSESSMENT.

If the Navy requests revisions within the 15-calendar-day window and the contractor submits a revised plan, does the Navy have an additional revision cycle, or is one round of revisions the maximum before final approval?

Response: See Part II of this amendment. The Government reserves the right to request additional revisions as necessary.

Question 83: Attachment 1 PWS / Attachment II Att. 11 4.1.10 / EOM. AMAP EVALUATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ASSESSMENT. The EOM Report requires data integration across 14+ distinct sources (paid search, display/video, affiliate, direct mail, email, navy.com, social, call center inbound/outbound, blueprinting, resume mining, events, online applications, walk-ins, PDC). What is the Navy's current state of data integration — is there an existing data lake, warehouse, or unified reporting layer that the contractor will inherit, or does each EOM cycle currently require manual consolidation from disparate sources?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 84: Attachment 1 PWS / Attachment II Att. 3 4.1.10 / Att. 3 NMI Reports. AMAP EVALUATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ASSESSMENT Attachment 3 specifies Navy Marketing Intelligence (NMI) Reports "currently using Adverity," delivered as weekly and monthly dashboards in graphical format, including the NMI CNP Executive dashboard. Is Adverity expected to remain the dashboarding platform under the new contract, or is the contractor expected to propose platform replacement? If a platform change is acceptable, does the Navy have existing Adverity-built dashboards, custom reports, or data connectors that the contractor would need to inherit or recreate?

Response: The solicitation identifies Adverity as the dashboard tool currently utilized by the Government. Software of comparable capability may be proposed in accordance with the PWS.

Question 85: Attachment 1 PWS / Attachment II QASP §5 4.1.10 / QASP Monitoring AMAP EVALUATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ASSESSMENT The QASP (§5.a) describes the COR conducting weekly status meetings to review AMAP execution and identify problems, deficiencies, and slippage. The PWS (4.1.10.10) also requires a quarterly assessment evaluating in-year AMAP. How does the Navy distinguish the quarterly AMAP assessment from the weekly status process, is the quarterly assessment a formal re-baselining opportunity, a deep-dive into a subset of metrics, or a forum for proposing AMAP modifications? Does the Navy expect this to result in formal AMAP modifications, or is it a tracking-only exercise?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 86: 1Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.10.4 Conversion and Cost Metrics. The PWS requires tracking conversion rate of leads to contracts and cost per eligible lead/cost per gross new contract. Does the Navy view these as the definitive measures of contractor success, or as inputs to a broader performance picture that includes recruiter productivity, time-to-contract, and contract quality (e.g., 65+ ASVAB scores)?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 87: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.10.9 Strategy Change Recommendations The PWS requires ROI trend analysis "and as directed by the Government, recommend appropriate changes to strategy." What is the Navy's appetite for contractor-initiated strategic recommendations versus Navy-directed changes?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 88: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.10.10. Quarterly Assessment. What outcomes does the Navy expect from the quarterly AMAP in-progress review: a tactical course correction, a re-baselining of annual targets, or a strategic decision forum?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 89: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.10.10 / 4.4.3 Digital Prospecting. Beyond quarterly AMAP assessments, what is the expected cadence for other optimization activities (e.g., A/B testing, performance reviews)?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 90: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.11. ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT AND TEAM EXECUTION. For the Transition Out Plan delivered 60 days before contract expiration (4.1.11.11), will the Navy specify the incumbent contractor's mandatory support obligations during the 60-day transition period—including knowledge transfer requirements, staff availability for overlap, data handoff commitments, and vendor relationship briefings—and will the Navy enforce these obligations with performance penalties if the incumbent fails to cooperate with the successor?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 91: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.11. ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT AND TEAM EXECUTION. What does the Navy consider rapid - within hours, within a business day, within 48 hours? And what proportion of the contractor's account management capacity does the Navy expect to be reserved for unplanned rapid-response work versus planned activity?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 92: Attachment 1 PWS / Attachment II Att. 3 4.1.11.1 / Att. 3 Weekly Reports. Weekly Project Status Attachment 3 lists "Weekly Project Status Report" and separately "CRM Projects Report" and "Ad Hoc Queries and Reports." Are these three distinct weekly artifacts, or is the Weekly Project Status Report the consolidated view?

Does the Navy have a preferred format/template for the Weekly Status Report (e.g., RAID-style, milestone-based, channel-by-channel), and what is the expected length and audience? This calibrates how the contractor scopes the weekly status function.

Response: The reports identified in Attachment 3 are distinct reporting requirements. Report format and level of detail will be coordinated with the successful offeror during contract performance based on Government requirements and intended audience.

Question 93: Attachment 1 PWS 4.1.11.11. Transition of Contract Support. What does the Navy consider a credible Transition-Out commitment in a contractor's response - specific artifacts, named successor cooperation protocols, escrow of working files, parallel operations, or other mechanisms?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 94: Attachment 1 PWS / Attachment II Att. 11 §5.a 4.1.11.11 / QASP Monitoring. Transition of Contract Support. The QASP and PWS describe Transition-Out obligations but do not specify success criteria for the 60-day window. Beyond zero service degradation, does the Navy define specific Transition-Out success measures (e.g., percentage of assets fully cataloged and transferred, knowledge transfer hours per workstream, parallel operations performance benchmarks, post-transition support hours)?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 95: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.1.4 FIELD EVENT DIGITAL LEAD CAPTURE. If a lead capture device experiences a connectivity outage during a field event, what is the contractor's responsibility for secure data recovery, and should offline data capture capability be maintained as contingency?

Response: The contractor shall maintain appropriate contingency procedures to support secure lead capture and data continuity during connectivity disruptions in accordance with applicable cybersecurity and privacy requirements.

Question 96: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.1.4 FIELD EVENT DIGITAL LEAD CAPTURE. Are the lead capture devices expected to connect to untrusted, public Wifi network connections?

Response: Contractors shall propose secure connectivity methodologies consistent with applicable DoD, DON, cybersecurity, privacy, and operational requirements.

Question 97: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.1.4 FIELD EVENT DIGITAL LEAD CAPTURE. What is the contractor's responsibility for any remote wipe capability of the PII data on the lead capture devices?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 98: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.1.4 FIELD EVENT DIGITAL LEAD CAPTURE. Authentication requirements for the mobile application that gathers PII?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 99: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.1.4 FIELD EVENT DIGITAL LEAD CAPTURE Is the lead capture device app distributed through managed enterprise app stores only?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 100: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2 Lead Nurturing Report. Who has approval authority for changes to the lead scoring algorithm?

Response: Lead scoring methodologies and associated governance processes are subject to Government oversight and approval in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 101: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2 Lead Nurturing Report. What is the Navy’s primary success measure for lead nurturing today: speed to recruiter contact, quality at first contact, or downstream contract rate?

Question 102: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2 Lead Nurturing Report. How long does CNRC expect the contractor to nurture “not yet eligible” prospects, and are there preferred re‑engagement intervals or caps?

Response: The solicitation identifies the requirement for lead nurturing and management. Specific nurturing timelines, re-engagement intervals, and cadence strategies shall be proposed by the contractor and are subject to Government approval during contract performance.

Question 103: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2 / 4.4.3 Lead Nurturing Report Are there defined blackout periods, channel preferences, or frequency caps to prevent over-messaging? Should nurturing coordinate with other Navy marketing initiatives?

Response: Specific cadence strategies, channel preferences, and frequency management approaches may be proposed by the contractor and are subject to Government approval.

Question 104: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2 / 2.8 Lead Nurturing Report Can you provide clarity on the current state of the Salesforce instance (custom objects, data quality) and the anticipated timeline/phasing for the NALTS-to- Salesforce transition during the contract period?

Response: The solicitation identifies the current systems environment and anticipated transition to Salesforce CRM. Additional implementation details, including transition timelines and system configuration specifics, will be coordinated with the successful offeror during contract performance.

Question 105: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2.2 Lead Nurturing Report. What are the expected chatbot deflection rates, resolution metrics, and defined handoff protocols when escalating to recruiters or live agents?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face. Contractors may propose chatbot performance metrics and escalation protocols consistent with the PWS, subject to Government review and approval.

Question 106: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2.2 Lead Nurturing Report. What depth and quality of historical conversion data will be available to train lead‑scoring models at contract start?

Response: Relevant historical conversion and performance data may be provided to the successful offeror after award, as determined appropriate by the Government.

Question 107: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2.3 Lead Nurturing Report. Is the 24‑hour recruiter availability requirement a minimum threshold, or does CNRC expect materially faster standards where technically feasible?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 108: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2.3 Lead Nurturing Report. Who has final authority over drip campaign messaging and content, and what is the approval timeline and process?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 109: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2.4 Lead Nurturing Report. For the benchmarks in 4.4.2.4 (20% open rate, 2.5% click-through rate), are these industry standards or Navy-specific baselines, and what is the Navy's remedy if not met for consecutive months?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 110: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.2.4 / 4.4.4.1 Lead Nurturing Report. Beyond FedRAMP, ATO, and DADMS compliance, are there specific audit cadences, third-party assessments, or data residency requirements we should plan for?

Question 111: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.3 / 3.2 Digital Prospecting. Does the Navy have existing audience research or persona definitions we should align to, or should we develop these as part of our approach?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 112: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.3 Digital Prospecting. Will the Navy provide historical data on the ratio of "Digital Prospects" to "Actionable Leads" to help the contractor estimate conversion rates and establish realistic targets for database growth?

Response: Relevant historical performance and conversion data may be provided to the successful offeror after award, as determined appropriate by the Government.

Question 113: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.3 / 4.4.3.1 Digital Prospecting. How does CNRC formally distinguish a “Digital Prospect” from a “Lead” for reporting, governance, and recruiter workflow purposes today?

Response: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Question 114: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.3.1 Digital Prospecting Who determines when a Digital Prospect is “ready” to transition into a Lead—contractor logic, recruiter discretion, or a CNRC‑defined rule set?

Response: The contractor shall support lead qualification, scoring, and nurturing activities in accordance with the solicitation. Lead transition methodologies and workflows are subject to Government oversight and approval.

Question 115: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.3 / 4.4.3.1 Digital Prospecting. What are the approved and prohibited uses of Digital Prospect data (e.g., retargeting, lookalike modeling, influencer amplification) under current DoD/DON policy?

Response: All use of Digital Prospect data must comply with applicable DoD, DON, privacy, cybersecurity, records management, and information assurance policies. Proposed methodologies and use cases remain subject to Government review and approval.

Question 116: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.4. RECURRING, ROUTINE WEBSITES AND APPLICATIONS SUPPORT. Will the Navy provide current hosting environment details, traffic volume, and performance SLAs for all websites and applications listed in PWS Attachment 8?

Response: Relevant hosting environment, traffic, and operational details may be provided to the successful offeror after award, as determined appropriate by the Government.

Question 117: Attachment 1 PWS 4.4.4. RECURRING, ROUTINE WEBSITES AND APPLICATIONS SUPPORT.