Solicitation N0018926RW023 Questions and Answers.pdf

Solicitation N0018926RW023 Questions and Answers

1. If an offeror does not currently possess an active Secret Facility Clearance but is considering teaming with another firm that possesses the required clearance.

a. Would the offeror be eligible to submit as the prime contractor if its subcontractor or teaming partner possesses the required Secret Facility Clearance?

No, the offeror serving as the prime must possess the required Facility Clearance.

b. Alternatively, must the prime offeror itself possess the active Secret Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission?

Yes, the prime contractor must possess the required Facility Clearance.

c. Please also clarify whether a joint venture or another teaming structure would permit the

Facility Clearance requirement to be satisfied by the cleared partner.

Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.103(h)(5)(i), A joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility clearance where either the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work has (have) a facility security clearance. (i) Where a facility security clearance is required to perform primary and vital requirements of a contract, the lead small business partner to the joint venture must possess the required facility security clearance.

2. The ITO states that bidders only need a Secret facility clearance, however, Section 9 of the

PWS states that “some task orders may require TS/TS SCI Eligible personnel, which will be identified in the TO's PWS” and the DD254 states (top of page 5) that access to SCI (item e,) and JWICS, NSANet, and ACCM-LIMIT PIRANHA are all TS/SCI level access required.

How can a bidder only have a Secret facility clearance and be able to access these systems.

As a former JSO in Information Operations with a clearance above TS/SCI, I believe there is something amiss. Either the DD254 is in error of the facility clearance level required is. Can the Government please clarify?

The level of the facility clearance has been changed to Top Secret.

3. Sub-factor 1 (Performance Approach) must address seven distinct task areas under PWS paragraph 2 (Test Planning Support, Operational Test/Tactics Exercise Design, M&S

Analysis Support, Database Development and Management, Test Operations/Tactics

Evaluation Support, Test/Tactics Analysis and Reporting, and Program Management

Support); the deliverables requirements under PWS paragraph 3; a risk and mitigation narrative demonstrating prior successful use of the identified mitigation techniques; and two detailed sample tasks with five and seven sub-elements respectively. Given the breadth of required content across these four distinct elements, and the solicitation's own caution against generalized or PWS-paraphrased responses, would the Government consider increasing the

Sub-factor 1 page limit to 25 pages to allow offerors sufficient space to substantively address the PWS task areas, deliverables, the risk/mitigation requirement, and the sample tasks?

The page limit for Sub-factor I has been increased to 25 pages.

4. This requirement specifies Microsoft Office-compatible file formats (e.g., Word, Excel) but does not identify PDF as an acceptable submission format. Given that PDF is widely used to preserve formatting integrity, protect proposal content from unintended editing, and ensure consistent rendering across systems, will the Government accept proposal volumes submitted in PDF format in addition to, or in lieu of, native Microsoft Office file formats?

PDF formats may be submitted in addition to Microsoft Office file formats.

5. Section M evaluates past performance scope relevancy against, among others, PWS Section 8

(Additional Qualifications), but Section 8.1 does not define specific qualifications, stating only that they "may be required" based on the task order SUT identified in Section 1.2. Can the Government clarify what specific qualifications, capabilities, or experience under Section

8 offerors should demonstrate through past performance references, given that SUT-specific qualifications are not yet defined at the IDIQ level?

Data collection and analysis methodologies, and tools (e.g., Extraction, Matlab, Excel) are not static and will shift based on the SUT. Data collection, analysis methodologies, and tools specific for each task order SUT, as referenced in section 1.2 of the solicitation, may be required to successfully complete the tasking. PWS Paragraph 8.1 has been revised to incorporate this language.

6. The PWS defines qualification requirements for "Senior T&E Specialist" (7.2) and "Junior

T&E Specialist" (7.3), while the pricing spreadsheet lists "Senior Test and Evaluation

Engineer" and "Journeyman Test and Evaluation Engineer." Can the Government confirm these labor category titles are intended to map one-to-one, with the pricing spreadsheet's

"Senior Test and Evaluation Engineer" corresponding to PWS 7.2 and "Journeyman Test and

Evaluation Engineer" corresponding to PWS 7.3, so offerors price and staff against the correct qualification set?

The pricing spreadsheet has been revised to reflect the correct labor categories.

7. The Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 states that the Non-Price Proposal is considered significantly more important than the Price Proposal. However, the evaluation methodology specifies that if the lowest-priced offeror receives an 'Acceptable' for Factor I, 'Outstanding' for Factor II, and 'Substantial Confidence' for Factor III, award will be made to that offeror without evaluating higher-priced proposals. Could the Government clarify whether this acquisition is structured as a Tradeoff Source Selection where all technical proposals are evaluated to determine best value, or if higher-priced offerors will be precluded from trade-off consideration once a lower-priced offeror meets the specified rating threshold?

In accordance with the solicitation if a lowest priced offeror receives a rating of ‘Acceptable’ for Factor I, ‘Outstanding’ for Factor II and ‘Substantial Confidence’ for Factor III, the evaluation stops at this point. If the lowest priced offeror does not receive these ratings the evaluation will continue (in order of price from lowest to highest) until a proposal is evaluated to have a Factor I rated as 'Acceptable', a Factor II rated as 'Outstanding', and a

Factor III rated as 'Substantial Confidence'. The Government shall then make an integrated best-value award decision between that proposal rated with a Factor I rated as 'Acceptable', a

Factor II rated as 'Outstanding', and a Factor III rated as 'Substantial Confidence' and all lower priced awardable proposals.

8. Factor III limits past performance submissions to three (3) total contract references, while stating that subcontractor past performance will be evaluated as highly as the prime contractor's for critical roles. May prime offerors submit up to three (3) references for the prime PLUS additional references for each major subcontractor, or is the three-reference limit inclusive of the entire team?

The three-reference limit is inclusive of the entire team.

9. On page 54 of 66 in the solicitation document, offerors are instructed to provide a "complete and detailed price breakdown with all supporting documentation." Given that the

Government-provided Pricing Spreadsheet only requires fully burdened rates by labor category, what additional information (if any) does the Government require to be compliant with a "complete and detailed price breakdown with all supporting documentation?

The offeror may submit any supporting price documentation to further explain its pricing methodology.