N0042127R1008_Draft QandA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NAWCAD (WOLF) Airborne Systems Integration (ASI ) Division Technical/Project Management Support (TPMS)
- Solicitation number
- N0042127R1008
About this file
This file is a Draft Questions and Answers (Q&A) document for Request for Offers (RFO) N0042127R1008, issued by Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) for Airborne Systems Integration (ASI) Division Technical/Project Management Support (TPMS) under the SeaPort-Next Generation (NxG) Multiple Award Contract (MAC).
The 98-question Q&A addresses critical clarifications on proposal preparation, evaluation criteria, and contract requirements. Key issues resolved include: confirmation that 447,840 total labor hours (not 364,280 or 364,800) governs proposal pricing and cost realism evaluation across the base year and four option years; four required Key Personnel positions (General and Operations Manager Senior, Management Analyst Senior, Project Management Specialist Senior, and Project Management Specialist Journeyman), each with minimum 1,920 annual hours; a minimum labor cost floor of $44,206,048 fully burdened including fee; requirement for Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type with prime contractors requiring DCAA adequate accounting system determinations; and Attachment C4 as the controlling labor-category, hour, and work-location allocation for offers. Additional clarifications address past-performance relevancy criteria requiring demonstration of Technical PM Support and Acquisition Support with magnitude thresholds of at least 35 FTEs annually or 67,200 labor hours annually or $6.3M annual value; facility requirements including Secret Facility Clearance Level in place prior to performance start; CMMC Level 2 (Self) for all information systems processing FCI/CUI; rejection of DAWIA Level III as substitute for PMP certification; and elimination of references to SCN funding and OPSEC CDRLs. The Q&A also corrects multiple attachment inconsistencies, cross-reference errors, and conflicting hour totals throughout the draft RFO package, with the Government committing to issue a reconciled final RFO with corrected documentation.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| ASI TPMS DRAFT RFO N0042127R1008 | |
| Questions | Responses |
| 1. Section L, 2.0 Offer Format, Paragraph 2.3 illustrates an example of file names for the Volume files. Is that example format provided, the file naming convention required? | The file naming convention in Section J, Attachment L1, Table 1 is required. Offerors shall follow the prescribed naming convention and include no more than three letters identifying the Contractor, consistent with the examples provided in Attachment L1. |
| Question 2: Section L, 2.0 Volume 2 Past Performance, paragraph 2.4: Can Contractors provide CDRLs as examples of past performance, in addition to SOW/PWS? | Answer 2: Offerors must provide the applicable SOW/PWS for each contract reference in Annex 1, as required by Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, paragraph 2.4. CDRLs may not be submitted in lieu of the required SOW/PWS. Offerors may reference relevant CDRL-related work in Attachment P1 and the Annex 2 CRM, as applicable. |
| Question 3: Section L, 2.0 Volume 2 Past Performance, paragraph 2.5: The offeror is required to correspond the solicitation Attachment 01 SOW paragraph and subparagraphs to the SOW provided with Annex 1. Should the Offeror map the entirety of the SOW starting with paragraph 1.0, or just paragraph 3.3 Detailed Support Requirements? | Answer 3: Offerors shall tailor the Annex 2 Past Performance CRM to identify and include only those paragraphs and subparagraphs of Section J, Attachment 01—SOW that align with the cited contract reference’s SOW/PWS. Offerors are not required to map the entirety of Attachment 01—SOW. Offerors should include all applicable aligned requirements, which may include relevant portions of paragraph 3.3 and any other SOW paragraphs/subparagraphs necessary to demonstrate the scope, complexity, and magnitude of the cited effort. |
| Question 4: Attachment 01 SOW, Section 3.4.1.1 Key Personnel: The table contained within Section 3.4.1.1 illustrates four (4) Key Personnel required: (1) General and Operations Manager, Senior, (1) Management Analyst, Senior, (1) Project Management Specialist, Journeyman, and (1) Project Management Specialist, Senior. However, the Attachment C4 Labor Hours Table illustrates different Key Personnel: (1) General and Operations Manager, Senior, (2) Management Analyst, Senior, (4) Project Management Specialist, Senior. Can you please clarify the number of Key Personnel required for this solicitation? | Answer 4: The Government acknowledges the inconsistency between SOW section 3.4.1.1 and Attachment C4. Attachment 01 - SOW, Paragraph 3.4.1.1 is accurate. The Government will revise Attachment C4 to delineate hours associated specifically with Key Personnel within the labor category. |
| Question 5: Attachment 01 SOW, Section 3.4.2.6 Labor Qualifications: Is DAWIA Level III certifications an allowable substitute for an active Project Management Professional (PMP) certification? | Answer 5: The Government does not concur. Requirements will remain as stated in SOW. |
| Question 6: Section L, 2.0 Volume 2 Past Performance, Paragraph 2.2.3 indicates that the Prime Contractor must submit written consent from its Principal Subcontractor(s) that will allow the Government to coordinate any past performance issues directly with the Prime Contractor. Where should the letter be included in the proposal? | Answer 6: The Prime Contractor shall submit each Principal Subcontractor consent letter within Volume 2. The Government will update Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 2.2.3. |
| Question 7: Section L, 2.0 Volume 2 Past Performance, paragraph 2.5 requires the offeror to submit a Past Performance Cross Reference Matrix (CRM). Should the offeror also highlight or mark the documents provided in Annex 1 to illustrate the CRM reference correlation? | Answer 7: Offerors are not required to highlight or otherwise mark the SOW/PWS documents submitted in Annex 1. The Annex 2 Past Performance CRM shall provide specific cross-references sufficient for the Government to locate the applicable contract-reference SOW/PWS paragraphs and the corresponding Section J, Attachment 01—SOW paragraphs/subparagraphs. Offerors may highlight supporting documents at their discretion, provided the documents remain complete and legible. |
| Question 8: Section L, 3.0 Volume 3 Cost/Price, Section 3.1.1 states that the contractor must not propose costs associated with FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. However, Section M makes reference to the FAR clause in the cost realism analysis and the Total Evaluated Price. Can you please clarify if the FAR 52.217-8 is supposed to be priced and evaluated? | Answer 8: In accordance with Attachment L1, Contractors must not propose costs associated with FAR 52.217-8. The Government will evaluate the price of the six-month period of performance in accordance with Attachment M1, Section B, Paragraph 4.4 for purposes of establishing the Total Evaluated Price. Paragraph 4.4 was updated to clarify that the evaluated price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the Government’s MPC of the final option period by two (2) to establish the estimated cost/price for the six-month option to extend services. |
| Question 9: Section L, 3.0 Volume 3 Cost/Price, Section 3.1.1 provides a table illustrating the percentage allocation of the pricing the different colors of money. In review of the SOW, there is reference to SCN. Is there supposed to be a percent allocation within the 3.1.1 table for SCN? | Answer 9: Section B and Section J, Attachment 01 – SOW, have both been updated to remove reference to SCN funding. The table in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3.1.1. is accurate. |
| Question 10: Section M, Part A General Information, paragraph 2.4 states the Government may use information in its evaluation, other than that submitted by the Offeror to validate the Offeror content. Can the Government elaborate on what other resources may be used in its evaluation? | Answer 10: In accordance with Section J, Attachment M1, Part A, Paragraph 2.4, the Government may use information other than that submitted by the Contractor in its Offer to validate Offer content. Some examples of information other than that submitted by the Contractor in its Offer are stated in the RFO. For key personnel, Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 1.1.5 states that the Government may verify experience, education, certifications, and clearances. For past performance, Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 2.1 identifies sources that may include Government questionnaires; the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) and other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and interviews with program managers, contracting officers, and fee-determining officials. The Government also may conduct oral or written interchanges consistent with Section J, Attachment M1, Part A, Paragraph 2.3. For cost/price, Section J, Attachment M1, Part B, Paragraph 4.3.2.4 provides examples of pertinent cost information that may be used. The Government will evaluate Offers in accordance with the evaluation factors and methodology stated in Attachment M1. |
| Question 11: Attachment 01 SOW, paragraph 3.4.2.6.3 General Operations Manager illustrates the Required Education. Will the Government add or qualifying substitution to the qualifications IAW the table illustrated in 3.4.2.4? | Answer 11: The Government does not concur. Requirements will remain as stated in Section J, Attachment 01 - SOW. |
| Question 12: Section M, Section 3.0 Table 2, paragraph 3.2.2: To maximize competition and ensure the Government receives proposals from highly qualified offerors, would the Government consider removing the rigid magnitude thresholds (specifically the $6.3M annual value and FTE limits) from the Relevancy definition? Strict dollar and FTE thresholds can inadvertently disqualify offerors who have successfully performed the exact technical scope (SOW 3.3.1 and 3.3.3) and complexity (PPBE, cleared personnel) required by this RFO, but under highly efficient, lower-cost, or slightly smaller-scale contracts. Removing these thresholds aligns with FAR 15.305(a)(2) by focusing the relevancy evaluation on the actual capability to perform the work rather than contract size. | Answer 12: Magnitude of the past performance reference is considered when evaluating Relevancy and is therefore defined. Magnitude of the past performance record provides the Government insight as to the scale of past performance reference. The Government’s definition of Magnitude within the Relevancy rating includes the flexibility that any one of the three conditions would be considered relevant complexity. The Government will consider the scope, complexity, and magnitude of the past performance reference to the magnitude of effort and complexities of the ASI TPMS RFO when making a relevancy determination. The scope, complexity, and magnitude definitions are not thresholds but rather serve as an informational guideline. The Government will update language in Section J, Attachment M1, Paragraph 3.2.2, Table 2 to make this clear. The Relevancy rating will not be assigned exclusively on any one of the elements (scope, complexity, magnitude) but rather, the Government will balance magnitude with complexity and scope when evaluating relevancy and assigning a rating to the past performance reference. The Government is using the FAR Overhaul and requests Contractors to cite FAR Overhaul references in lieu of old FAR references. |
| Question 13: Section M: 3.0 Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation section defines performance evaluation in 3 separate ways: a) recency, relevancy, and quality; b) relevant: scope, complexity and magnitude; and c) Performance Confidence Assessments Rating. Can the government explain how they plan to normalize these scoring criteria across multiple past performances from prime and principal subcontractors and how there is no conflict across the multiple scoring criteria of these past performances? | Answer 13: The Government will evaluate past performance in accordance with Section J, Attachment M1, Part B, Factor 2—Past Performance Evaluation, paragraphs 3.1 through 3.3 and Tables 2 and 3. The Government will assess recency, relevancy, and quality of the past-performance references submitted for the prime Contractor, principal subcontractor(s), and, if applicable, joint-venture team member(s), and assign an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. Recency is defined in Section J – Attachment M1, Part B, Paragraph 3.1. If the contract reference is not recent then it will not be evaluated for relevancy and will not be included in the Government’s past performance confidence assessment rating. Relevancy is defined in Section J – Attachment M1, Part B, Paragraph 3.2 and its subparagraphs (including Table 2). If the contract reference is not relevant then it will not be evaluated for overall quality. The Government will focus its evaluation of quality in the areas listed in Section J – Attachment M1, Part B, Paragraph 3.3 for past performance contract references that are considered both recent and relevant. In accordance with Section J – Attachment M1, Part B, Paragraph 3.3 and its subparagraphs (including Table 3) further explain the evaluation methodology of assigning one Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating per Contractor based on their recent, relevant past performance contract reference(s). |
| Question 14: Section M, Section 3.0 Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation, Table 2: Will the Government provide additional information on how the Relevant, Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude will be weighted to determine the Past Performance Relevancy Rating? Is the score pass/fail criteria or a range of weighted values? | Answer 14: There is no weighted value applied to the scope, complexity, and magnitude. These definitions are provided as guides to what the Government will consider when determining if a past performance contract reference is relevant or not relevant. See also, the Governments response to Question 12. |
| Question 15: Attachment C1 Cost Reimbursable Workbook, Tab Hours Check FOR GOVERNMENT USE : there is a discrepancy between the hours illustrated on this tab and total number hours illustrated in Section L and Attachment C4. Can the Government please clarify if the total hours and by labor category should match the Attachment C4? | Answer 15: The Government acknowledges the discrepancy in the Attachment C1—Cost Reimbursable Workbook, “Hours Check – FOR GOVERNMENT USE” tab. The Government has corrected the workbook and will provide an updated Attachment C1.The updated Attachment C1 provided with the RFO release will reflect the Government-furnished total of 447,840 labor hours for the base period and all option periods, exclusive of the potential FAR 52.217-8 extension period. |
| Question 16: Three conflicting total labor-hour figures. The RFO clause states 364,280 hours, its accompanying table totals 364,800, and L1/C4 require 447,840. This affects pricing, staffing, fee calculations, and the contractual LOE ceiling. Please reconcile the total and annual labor hours throughout the RFO and attachments. Confirm whether Attachment C4’s 447,840 hours govern proposal preparation and revise the contractual LOE clause and table accordingly. | Answer 16: 447,840 hours is correct. Updates will be made to ensure consistency across all RFO documents. |
| Question 17: The key-personnel requirement does not align with priced capacity. The SOW requires one individual in each of four key categories. C4 assigns two FTEs to Senior Acquisition Analysts and four FTEs to Senior Project Management Specialists, with those rows all marked key. Journeyman key markings also differ between C1 and C4. Please confirm that only four named key personnel/resumes are required. Identify which hours and locations belong to each key individual and whether additional capacity in categories marked key may be staffed by non-key personnel. Please reconcile the key/non-key designations across the SOW, C1, and C4. | Answer 17: Four Key Personnel are required to support the tasking requirements of this effort. Those four positions are identified Section J, Attachment 01 – ASI TPMS SOW, Paragraph 3.4.1.1. The Government will update Attachment C1 and Attachment C4 to reflect the same as SOW Paragraph 3.4.1.1. |
| Question 18: OCI restrictions expressly reach subsidiaries, affiliates, and JVs. Several restrictions continue three years beyond performance. Attachment 06 is extensive, but does not clearly assign restrictions to particular tasks or programs. Attachment 06 identifies contracts and suppliers potentially affected by HTXT.209-9510. Please clarify which TPMS activities would trigger restrictions on performing or competing for work associated with those listed contracts, including follow-on procurements. Will those restrictions apply to non-performing parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or joint-venture entities? Will the Government consider task-specific mitigation through segregated personnel, data-access controls, firewalls, and recusal? | Answer 18: Yes, in accordance with HTXT.209-9510(d)(7) “Contractor” for the purposes of this requirement, means the firm signing this contract, its subsidiaries and affiliates, joint ventures involving the firm, any entity with which the firm may hereafter merge or affiliate, and any other successor or assignee of the firm. Contractors interested in the ASI TPMS procurement should read and adhere to the requirements of HTXT.209-9510, KTXT.209-9511, LTXT.209-9512, and LTXT.209-9513. LTXT.209-9512(b) states “Any time the Offeror represents that there is an actual or potential conflict of interest for itself (or any of its subcontractors, partners, or affiliates) per KTXT.209-9511, Conflict of Interest Representation, the Offeror shall also submit a mitigation plan. The mitigation plan shall, at a minimum, identify the conflicted party/parties, provide salient facts, provide an analysis of the actual or potential conflict of interest, and recommend an approach to neutralize, mitigate, or avoid the actual or potential conflict. There is no page limitation on the conflict of interest mitigation plan.” In accordance with LTXT.209-9512(c) “The actual or potential conflict of interest and the Offeror's proposed mitigation plan, if applicable, will be reviewed as part of the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination and will not be considered as part of the evaluation conducted per Section M. If the Contracting Officer determines that the conflict of interest cannot be neutralized, mitigated, or avoided such that the integrity of the procurement is maintained, then the conflicted Offeror may be deemed ineligible for award.” |
| Question 19: Past-performance magnitude definitions overlap and conflict. “Relevant” includes at least 35 FTEs, while “Not Relevant” includes fewer than 36 FTEs. The repeated “and/or” also leaves unclear whether hours, FTEs, or annual dollars independently establish magnitude. Please reconcile the 35/36-FTE thresholds and confirm whether meeting any one magnitude measure—FTEs, annual hours, or annual value—is sufficient. For subcontract references, will magnitude be measured using the submitting company’s performed portion? |
| Answer 19: The Government will update Section J, Attachment M1, Table 2 to ensure consistency between the Magnitude definition of Relevant and Not Relevant. See also, the Governments response to Question 12 and Question 14. | ||
| Question 20: Pricing instructions conflict on below-minimum prospective-hire rates. C1 invites an explanation for a below-minimum rate, but L1/M1 say such rates make an offer ineligible. Separately, the $44,206,048 minimum labor cost, including fee, permits justification for a lower total. Please distinguish the treatment of individual prospective-hire rates below the MDLR from total labor cost below $44,206,048. Are exceptions to individual MDLRs prohibited regardless of justification? Please correct C1’s instructions and M1’s reference to nonexistent L1 §3.1.6; the minimum total appears in §3.1.4. | Answer 20: Section J, Attachment L1 and Attachment M1, stated that Contractor’s must propose direct labor rates equal to or greater than the direct labor rates stated in the “Minimum Direct Labor Rates” (MDLR) worksheet within Attachment C1. The Government will update the language to include prospective hire direct labor rates in accordance with a DCMA/DCAA FPRA or FPRR as allowable. The minimum labor cost stated in Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.1.4 is a separate requirement and Contractors are expected to meet or exceed the minimum labor costs. If a Contractor’s offer does not meet or exceed the minimum labor cost then a justification must be provided. The justification that simply makes a statement that the contractor and subcontractors proposed all prospective hires using the Government’s MDLRs will not be considered adequate by the Government in accordance with Section J, Attachment M1, Part B, Paragraph 4.6. The Government updated the reference within Section J, Attachment M1, Part B, Paragraph 4.6 to reflect Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.1.4. | |
| Question 21: The DD254 identifies a different solicitation. It shows N0042126R1016, rather than N0042127R1008. Its OPSEC narrative says no OPSEC CDRLs are required, while the SOW requires an OPSEC program under A006. Please issue a DD254 identifying this procurement and reconcile its OPSEC instructions with SOW/CDRL A006. | Answer 21: The DD254 posted with the RFO will reflect N0042127R1008. The Government will update Section J, Exhibit A – CDRLs to remove the OPSEC CDRL. | |
| Question 22: Classified contractor-site capability needs a clear readiness date and scope. The SOW requires local facilities, Secret safeguarding, and meetings for five people with telephone/VTC capability. Occupancy is tied to performance start, but classified operational readiness is less explicit. | ||
| Please confirm when the contractor facility’s Secret safeguarding and classified meeting capability must be operational (at time of proposal or at time of transition period end). Must VTC support classified discussions, and may an approved teammate facility satisfy these requirements? Identify any Government-furnished secure communications equipment or connectivity. | Answer 22: There is no requirement for classified Video Teleconference (VTC) capability at the Contractor facility. The Government will provide access to secured spaces if classified meetings are required in support of the ASI TPMS tasking. Section A of the RFO, specifically #7, will be updated to state “The Facility Clearance Level (FCL) and Safeguarding Level are stated in Section J, Attachment 02 - DD254. The FCL must be in place with sufficient time to meet the personnel security clearance requirements stated in Paragraph 3.2.21 of Section J, Attachment 01 - Statement of Work (SOW)." | |
| Question 23: Fixed-price/T&M contingent-hire comparison is unclear. M1 compares a fully burdened rate to salary information in an LOI, although the LOI requires salary rather than a fully burdened rate. | ||
| Please clarify the method for converting contingent-hire salary information into the rate used for evaluating fixed-price/T&M subcontractor personnel, including applicable burdens and annual productive hours. | Answer 23: In accordance with Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.5.1 “A work-year is defined as 1,920 hours exclusive of holidays and leave and must be utilized for proposal purposes. |
The Government has updated Section J, Attachment M1, Part B, Paragraph 4.1.1. to remove reference to FBLR verification. Contractors should also note, for subcontractors proposing a Fixed-price/T&M subcontract type, a Letter of Commitment is only required to be submitted if the subcontractor is proposing a Key Personnel that is a contingent hire.
| Question 24: Sample-task instructions are missing. L1 Part B §1.2 is “Reserved” while T2 contains only headings and blank numbered placeholders; M1 evaluates sample tasks. Without task requirements offerors cannot prepare comparable technical responses. | |
| Please provide the complete scenarios, task details, and specific response instructions for Sample Task One (Division Support) and Sample Task Two (Technical Project Support). Confirm whether the combined 10-page limit remains in effect. | Answer 24: The sample task instructions are intentionally omitted from the draft RFO. The Government will provide the sample tasks when the official RFO is posted. |
| Question 25: SF33 Block 9 displays a July 31, 2026 date while the RFO materials are dated October 2026. L1 calculates the question deadline as the 14th calendar day after issuance; the communicated Q&A deadline is October 20, 2026. | |
| Please confirm the controlling RFO issuance date, question deadline, and offer submission date/time. If necessary, issue a corrected SF33 and/or amendment to align all documents. | Answer 25: The final RFO will be updated with an appropriate response date/time. |
| Question 26: Several documents referenced by Section J and/or the proposal instructions were not included in the materials available for this review. Missing documents can affect CDRLs, OCI, cost narrative compliance and proposal preparation. This is a document-availability check, not a finding that the Government omitted them. | |
| Please confirm that the complete Section J package has been provided to offerors, including Exhibit A and Attachments 03, 05, 06, 08, 09, C2 and C3; if any are not posted, please provide them and confirm whether submission dates will be adjusted. | Answer 26: The Government confirms that the documents identified in Question 26 were included in the draft notice package and made available for download during the draft review period. The Government will provide a reconciled and complete attachment index with the final RFO. |
| Question 27: L1/M1 require exact C4 labor mix, hours and work locations for proposal evaluation, but Section B appears to allow reasonable combinations of labor-category hours in performance. This affects the binding staffing baseline and changes after award. | |
| Are Attachment C4 labor-category, work-location and annual labor-hour allocations mandatory only for proposal preparation or also during performance? Please identify the required approval process for post-award reallocations. | Answer 27: The specified labor category/hour allocation within Attachment C4 is the Government’s estimate of the hours per labor category that will be required during execution of the task order requirements. Contractor’s must propose the labor hour/mix specified in Attachment C4 when submitting their offer. |
During task order performance the Contractor may use a reasonable combination of labor category hours to perform the tasking provided the Contractor uses only labor categories identified in Section J, Attachment 01, SOW; remains within the level of effort specified for the period of performance; remains within the cost ceiling established for the specified period of performance; and complies with the task-order scope, Key Personnel requirements, funding/CLIN limitations, and authorized places of performance.
| Question 28: The SOW identifies four key individuals while C4 splits certain key-category hours between multiple work locations and multiple FTEs. The individual commitment obligation is not explicit. | |
| Please identify the minimum annual LOE and expected work-location allocation for each named key person. May other qualified non-key staff execute the remaining C4 hours in a key-designated labor category? | Answer 28: The Government requires four (4) named Key Personnel: one (1) General and Operations Manager, Senior; one (1) Management Analyst, Senior; one (1) Project Management Specialist, Senior; and one (1) Project Management Specialist, Journeyman. |
The minimum annual level of effort for each named Key Person is 1,920 hours.
The four proposed Key Personnel shall perform the hours identified as Key Personnel hours in Attachment C4. Any remaining hours in the same labor category that are not identified as Key Personnel hours may be performed by personnel who meet the applicable labor-category qualifications.
The Government will include an updated Attachment C4 to clarify the Key Personnel annual hour and work location allocations when the formal RFO is posted.
| Question 29: M1 requires Technical PM Support (§3.3.1) and Acquisition Support (§3.3.3) as the two core scope areas for past-performance relevance, although Data Management (§3.3.2) is substantial in the new work. | ||
| Will references demonstrating both core areas be relevant even with limited Data Management Support? How will demonstrated §3.3.2 data management experience influence the evaluation of similarity of scope and complexity? | Answer 29: Yes, past performance contract references demonstrating experience in both core areas Section J, Attachment 01 – SOW Paragraph 3.3.1 and 3.3.3 will be considered when determining relevancy. Demonstrated experience in Section J, Attachment 01 – SOW Paragraph 3.3.2 will not have an impact on the evaluation of similarity of Scope. | |
| Question 30: L1 states cost-reimbursable subcontractors without a DCAA/DCMA adequate accounting system determination are ineligible. This differs from the path offered to an unreviewed prime. | ||
| Must every cost-reimbursable subcontractor hold a formal DCAA/DCMA adequate-system determination by offer submission? Is alternative substantiation or a pre-award determination permitted for such a subcontractor? | Answer 30: The Government is soliciting and will award a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) task order so the prime contractor must have an adequate accounting system determination and therefore the Government will request a pre-award survey from DCAA if the prime contractor does not yet have a determination. Subcontractors are not required to have a cost reimbursable type subcontract. Therefore, a subcontractor that does not have an adequate accounting system determination from DCAA/DCMA must propose a fixed price/T&M subcontract type. The Government will not request a pre-award survey from DCAA for a subcontractor. | |
| Question 31: Prime fee-per-hour methodology depends on total LOE, which is inconsistent in the RFO, L1 and C4. Potential distinctions between prime and subcontract hours are not explicit. | ||
| Please confirm the controlling LOE denominator for calculating prime fixed fee per hour and whether it includes all prime and subcontract direct labor hours, consistent with the Government-prescribed C4 allocation. | Answer 31: . See Government response to Question16. The total specified LOE will be consistent across all documentation when the formal RFO is posted. The Government will calculate the prime fixed fee per hour inclusive of all prime and subcontract direct labor hours. | |
| Question 32: Section L requires CMMC Level 2 (Self) for contractor information systems processing FCI/CUI; prime and subcontractor SPRS evidence responsibilities should be clear. | ||
| Please confirm whether all prime and subcontractor information systems that process, store or transmit FCI/CUI must independently maintain CMMC Level 2 (Self) status and current affirmation in SPRS, and supply any applicable CMMC UIDs with the offer. | Answer 32: According to Section L, DFARS 252.204-7025, and Section I, DFARS 252.204-7021 CMMC Level 2 (Self) is required for each prime contractor or subcontractor information system that will process, store, or transmit Federal Contract Information (FCI) or Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in performance of the task order. Each applicable system must maintain current CMMC status and the required affirmation of continuous compliance in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). Additionally, the Offeror shall provide with its proposal the CMMC unique identifier(s) for its applicable information systems. The prime contractor is responsible for flowing down applicable CMMC requirements and ensuring that applicable subcontractor information systems maintain the required CMMC status and affirmation before subcontract award. | |
| Question 33: The requirement consolidates ASIMS and RAS. SOW details transition-out but provides limited transition-in sequencing or initial knowledge-transfer/continuity requirements. | ||
| Will the Government authorize a formal transition-in period? Please identify its duration, staffing and security expectations, treatment within C4 hours, and whether coordinated knowledge transfer with both incumbents will be facilitated. | Answer 33: There will be no formal transition period and the Government will not fund one. | |
| Question 34: Volume 1, 1.1 Key Personnel, paragraph 1.1.3 states the experience requirements for the Key Personnel must be achieved by the date state in Block 9 of the SF33. The SF33 provided with the DRAFT RFO Block 9 is dated July 2026. Will Block 9 be updated in the Final RFO to reflect a future due date? | Answer 34: Yes. Block 9 of the SF 33 will be updated in the final RFO to reflect the actual Offer due date. Proposed Key Personnel must meet all required experience and qualification requirements no later than the date stated in Block 9 of the final SF 33/SF 30 (if applicable). | |
| Question 35: Volume 2, Past Performance, paragraph 2.3.1 states the contractor must provide a narrative if adverse past performance had been identified/documented for the contract reference, including the demonstrated improvement actions taken to resolve performance issues or problems. |
Historically, the "Demonstrated Systemic Improvement Information" section of the Past Performance Information Form has been used by contractors to describe:
| • | Significant improvements made during contract performance | |
| • | Proactive enhancement actions taken on the contract/project | |
| • | Techniques, elements, and tools used to improve performance | |
| • | How these improvement methods would be applied to future requirements | |
| Is the "Demonstrated Systemic Improvement Information" section now intended solely for explaining how adverse performance was corrected, or can it still be used to describe significant proactive improvements made during successful contract performance (even when no adverse performance was documented)? Please clarify the intended scope and purpose of this section. | Answer 35: The “Demonstrated Systemic Improvement Information” area within Attachment P1 provides an opportunity for Contractor’s to discuss improvements in relation to any performance issues or problems; however, Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 2.3.1 specifies that if the contract reference has adverse past performance identified/documented then the Contractor must provide a narrative. The Government will update Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 2.3.1 to clarify this. | |
| Question 36: Attachment C4, Labor Hours - the General and Operations Managers (Program Manager) Senior, *KEY* 11-1021 illustrates hours are illustrated on 2 separate lines, 2 different sites, and 2 different locations. Can the Government clarify if it is the Government’s intention that the total LOE illustrated is intended for 1 FTE/person to accomplish? | Answer 36: Yes. The two General and Operations Manager, Senior—Key Personnel entries represent one (1) Key Person with a total annual level of effort of 1,920 hours. The Key Person shall perform 960 hours annually at St. Inigoes, Maryland, and 960 hours annually at the contractor site. | |
| Question 37: Attachment T1 – Key Personnel, Section IV. Work Experience – the instructions provided state to identify the “position end date (to include month and year).” The first table provided includes a row for Position Start Date, followed by a row below named Position End Date. The following tables include a row for Position Start Date but does not include a row for Position End Date. Does the Government intend for the Offeror to modify the Work Experience tables to add rows to illustrate Position End Date? | Answer 37: Yes. The Government intends for offerors to provide both position start and position end dates, including month and year, for each Work Experience entry in Attachment T1, Section IV. The Government will revise Attachment T1 to add a Position End Date row to each applicable Work Experience table. | |
| Question 38: Attachment 01 – SOW, Section 3.4.2.6 Labor Qualifications: Is Aerospace and Aeronautics from an accredited educational institution an allowable Engineering discipline? If so, will the Government modify the solicitation requirements to include it? | Answer 38: The Government does not concur. Requirements will remain as stated in Section J, Attachment 01- SOW. | |
| Question 39: Attachment P1 – Past Performance Information Forms: If the Offeror has past performance to demonstrate for multiple or many statement of work paragraph and subparagaphs, but is limited by the text box provided on the Attachment P1, can the offeror provide additional pages to complete its past performance SOW references? | Answer 39: No. Offerors may not submit additional pages for Attachment P1. The Contract Effort Description narrative must fit within the Attachment P1 template and applicable page limitation. Offerors shall use Annex 1 to provide the supporting SOW/PWS documents and Annex 2, the Past Performance Cross-Reference Matrix, to identify the applicable SOW paragraph and subparagraph correlations. | |
| Question 40: Attachment 06 – OCI List: If the offeror’s name is illustrated on the Attachment 06, but does not perform any contracting activities illustrated in Section H of the DRAFT RFO associated with any of the suppliers illustrated on the list, does that preclude the offeror from submitting an offer? | Answer 40: Per Section H, HTXT.209-9510; Section K, KTXT.209-9511; Section L, LTXT.209-9513; and Section J, Attachment M1, paragraph 4.7 the inclusion of an offeror’s name in Attachment 06 does not, by itself, preclude the offeror from submitting an offer. The applicability of the Section H OCI restrictions depends on the work to be performed in relation to the suppliers and/or equipment identified in Attachment 06. |
Offerors shall comply with the OCI representation and disclosure requirements in Section K and Section L and submit a mitigation plan, if applicable. The Contracting Officer will evaluate any actual or potential OCI and determine whether it can be mitigated, avoided, or resolved consistent with the RFO and applicable law and regulation.
| Question 41: Attachment 06 – OCI List: If the offeror’s name is illustrated on the Attachment 06, does that preclude the offeror from submitting an offer? | Answer 41: See Government response to Question 40. |
| Question 42: The SOW describes a broad range of technical/project management, data management, financial, administrative, and acquisition support functions. Can the Government identify the principal workload priorities and expected allocation of effort among these functional areas, including any areas expected to receive increased attention during the base year? This would help offerors align their management approach and proposed staffing to the Government’s operational priorities. | Answer 42: Contractor’s are required to propose the Government specified labor mix and hour allocation in accordance with Attachment C4. The Government anticipates that the labor mix and hour allocation included in Attachment C4 is what will be required to successfully execute the SOW tasking requirements. |
The Government’s description to Sample Task One (intentionally omitted from the Draft RFO) provides contractors with general ASI project information, this information coupled with the Government specified labor category/hour allocation in Attachment C4 should be enough to provide Contractor’s with a general understanding of the support necessary for the functional areas.
| Question 43: The SOW specifies approximate work-location percentages, while L1 directs offerors to use the labor categories and hours by location in Attachment C4. Can the Government confirm whether the C4 labor-hour allocation is intended to be the controlling staffing distribution for proposal evaluation, and whether the Government anticipates any material changes to the stated work-location percentages or functional staffing distribution during the base year? | Answer 43: Yes, Attachment C4 is the controlling labor-category, labor-hour, and work-location allocation for offer preparation and evaluation. Section A provides the overall estimated place-of-performance summary for the entire task order so that Contractor’s can see at quick glance if the geographical locations of performance are suited for their company. Section J, Attachment 01 – SOW, Paragraph 3.1.2 also specifies the approximate work locations to support the tasking requirements and is consistent with the information stated in Section A. The Government does not anticipate material changes to the Attachment C4 labor mix and hour allocation or the stated place-of-performance percentages during the base year. |
| Question 44: The SOW identifies Government-site and contractor-site performance requirements, routine on-site attendance for telework-eligible positions, and a contractor facility capable of hosting meetings up to Secret. Can the Government clarify which functions or work products require performance at a Government site, which may routinely be performed at the contractor facility, and whether the contractor facility is expected to support any recurring classified work beyond meetings? | Answer 44: Contractors must propose the labor mix and hour allocation specified in Attachment C4. Attachment C4 identifies which labor categories and the number of hours required to be proposed per location (Govt (St. Inigoes, MD/Patuxent River, MD) and Contractor Site). The contractor facility is not required to support recurring classified work beyond the capability to host meetings up to the Secret level. |
| Question 45: What transition-in activities and schedule does the Government anticipate between award and full operational performance, including transfer of open work, current project records, status reports, procurement trackers, financial baselines, and other Government work products from the ASIMS and RAS incumbents? Please clarify whether the Government will establish a defined transition-in period and whether transition activities must be performed within the stated labor-hour allocation. | Answer 45: See Government response to Question 33. |
| Question 46: Several SOW functions require maintaining existing trackers, repositories, dashboards, reports, procurement records, and financial data while also assessing processes and recommending improvements. Can the Government clarify whether the initial priority is to maintain existing processes and systems with minimal disruption, or whether it expects the incoming contractor to implement substantive process, data, or reporting improvements during the base year? If improvements are expected, will the Government define and approve the scope and priorities before implementation? | Answer 46: The SOW is written so that the contractor can support both; updates to current tools and new tools. Since the task order is Level of Effort (LOE) rather than completion type tasking, the Government will provide input for tasking demands during task order execution. |
| Question 47: The DD Form 254 provided in the package references solicitation/contract number N00421-26-R-1016, whereas the current RFO is N00421-27-R-1008. Can the Government confirm that the supplied DD Form 254 is applicable to this acquisition and resulting task order, or advise whether an updated form will be issued? | Answer 47: The Government acknowledges that the draft DD Form 254 references an incorrect solicitation/RFO number; however, it was the correct DD254 in support of ASI TPMS tasking The DD Form 254 has been updated to reflect RFO number N00421-27-R-1008 and will be included in the final RFO package. |
| Question 48: The RFO identifies the incumbent contracts but does not provide an aggregate view of work expected to carry over from each effort. Can the Government clarify whether all ongoing ASIMS and RAS functions and associated open actions are expected to transition to the new task order, or whether any work, projects, deliverables, or support functions will remain under separate contracts or be discontinued? | Answer 48: All functions of ASIMS and RAS will transition to the ASI TPMS task order except for the logistics support currently being provided on the RAS TO. The logistics support tasking is anticipated to be fulfilled via a future task order competition. |
| Question 49: For recurring deliverables and trackers associated with the SOW’s technical/project management, data management, and acquisition functions, can the Government provide a current list of the active deliverable/reporting requirements, expected submission frequencies, and principal Government stakeholders? Where existing formats, dashboards, repositories, or workflows must be retained, will those artifacts and procedures be made available to the awardee at transition? | Answer 49: Contractors should refer to Section J, Exhibit A – CDRLs and corresponding SOW paragraphs to understand deliverable requirements in support of the ASI TPMS tasking. The Government will provide the awardee applicable Government work products, formats, repositories, procedures, and stakeholder coordination information. |
| Question 50: Attachment L1 states a total Government-estimated level of effort of 447,840 hours, while the Government-use “Hours Check” worksheet in Attachment C1 appears to total 409,440 specified hours across the five populated performance years, a difference of 38,400 hours. Can the Government reconcile these figures and confirm the controlling total level of effort and the applicable labor-category, performance-year, and location allocations for proposal preparation and evaluation? | Answer 50: See Government response to Question 15. The Government acknowledges the discrepancy in the Attachment C1—Cost Reimbursable Workbook, “Hours Check—FOR GOVERNMENT USE” tab. The Government has corrected the workbook and will provide an updated Attachment C1 with the formal RFO release. |
| Question 51: The SOW requires personnel to complete security and access procedures and identifies access to Government facilities, CACs/local badges, information systems, and classified or controlled information as applicable. Can the Government clarify the anticipated process and expected lead times for security validation, CAC/badge issuance, account provisioning, and required system access for incoming personnel? Will the Government coordinate timely access to enable personnel to begin assigned duties at the start of performance, subject to required approvals? | Answer 51: The SOW establishes strict guidelines regarding personnel onboarding, security procedures, and system access. The Government will sponsor and facilitate all required security validations, CAC registrations, and SAAR routing While the Government holds final approval authority over all credentials, active contractor coordination is required to initiate these processes upon Task Order (TO) award. |
| Question 52: The SOW identifies Government-provided computers and network access at Government sites and requires use of systems and tools such as N-ERP, Shared Data Warehouse, Business Objects, SQL, and Qlik Sense or a similar dashboard platform. For work performed at the contractor facility, which of these systems and applications will be accessible remotely, and which require on-site access or specific Government-furnished equipment, accounts, or approvals? | Answer 52: For authorized work performed at the contractor facility, remote access to Navy ERP, Shared Data Warehouse, Business Objects, SQL databases, and Qlik Sense dashboards will be supported. The Government will provide necessary Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE). |
| Question 53: The SOW requires monthly financial/status reporting and travel to CONUS and OCONUS locations, with prior approval and trip reports. Can the Government provide an estimated annual travel profile, including typical trip frequency, duration, principal destinations, and the approximate domestic versus international distribution? If a reliable estimate is unavailable, can the Government confirm whether the provided travel NTE is intended to cover the anticipated travel demand for the entire task order, including all supported functional areas? | Answer 53: The Government’s Not to Exceed (NTE) value provided in Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.5.2.2 is intended to cover the anticipated travel demand for the TO, including all supported functional areas. |
| Question 54: The SOW assigns responsibilities for preparing and maintaining multiple project records, dashboards, training materials, acquisition documents, and reports, with several deliverables subject to Government review or feedback. Can the Government clarify the expected review, coordination, and approval workflow for these work products, including the designated Government approval authority and any required turnaround times that the contractor must account for when planning delivery schedules? | Answer 54: Formal CDRL deliverables shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted in accordance within each DD Form 1423 (see Section J, Exhibit A – CDRLs). For non-CDRL work products, the Contractor shall coordinate with the COR and applicable Government technical representatives identified after award. |
| Question 55: The SOW describes work-location percentages at the overall effort level, while the labor-hour attachment allocates hours by labor category and location. Can the Government clarify whether the approximate 85% Government-site and 15% contractor-site split is a planning estimate across total task-order labor hours or a requirement to be maintained within each labor category or functional area? | Answer 55: It is a planning estimate across total task order labor hours. |
| Question 56: The SOW covers work across multiple funding and acquisition environments, including WCF, procurement, O&M, RDT&E, SCN, FMS, and non-DoD projects. Can the Government identify whether any of these portfolios are expected to receive a disproportionately high share of support during the base year, or whether offerors should assume that the current portfolio distribution will remain generally representative throughout the task order? | Answer 56: The Government anticipates the funding appropriation percentages stated in Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.1.1 will remain generally representative throughout the task order. |
| Question 57: The SOW requires support for existing processes and repositories as well as assessments and process-improvement activities. Can the Government clarify whether the contractor will be expected to maintain and update existing Government-owned templates, dashboards, trackers, and standard operating procedures only, or whether development of new tools and reporting products is also anticipated within the stated level of effort? If new products are anticipated, will the Government establish priorities and approve requirements before development begins? | Answer 57: See Government response to Question 46. The Contractor shall maintain and update existing Government-owned templates, dashboards, trackers, repositories, and standard operating procedures as required by the SOW. Development of new tools, reporting products, or other substantive enhancements may be performed only when within the scope of the task order and authorized by the Government. Yes, if new process-improvement activities/products are anticipated, the Government will establish priorities and approve requirements before development begins. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .