N3943026Q1001_Attachment_JL1_RFI.pdf

Q1. Should contractors include the meeting facility and A/V equipment costs in their submission?

A1. Yes, the contractor should include these costs in their submission (PWS Section 2.2). The meeting is typically held at the Kimpton Canary in Santa Barbara or at the Crowne Plaza in Ventura, CA. Santa Barbara was listed in the PWS because per diem is slightly higher there. Each hotel has an A/V company that they typically use for meetings. The main meeting is 3 full days (Tue-Thurs), with setup on Monday and breakdown on Thursday afternoon.

Q2. Will the government provide funding for required audio/visual equipment, or is the contractor expected to procure and provide this equipment?

A2. Per PWS Section 2.2.2, the contractor is expected to secure/rent this support/equipment for the meeting and should include costs in the proposal. The meeting is typically held at the Kimpton Canary in Santa Barbara or at the Crowne Plaza in Ventura, CA. Santa Barbara was listed in the PWS because per diem is slightly higher there. Each hotel has an A/V company that they typically use for meetings. The main meeting is 3 full days (Tue-Thurs), with setup on Monday and breakdown on Thursday afternoon.

Q3. Can the government provide an estimated scope of audio/visual requirements, including whether equipment will be needed for multiple concurrent sessions in separate rooms?

A3. Audio/Visual requirements pertain to an in-person meeting that is held in one large meeting room (~50-75 people). Requirements include a projector, screen, speakers, microphones, and a person that manages a master computer and all equipment during the meeting. In addition, any other miscellaneous equipment that is required to support the equipment listed above (power cords, equipment cart, screen stand, etc.). The main meeting is 3 full days (Tue-Thurs), with setup on Monday and breakdown on Thursday afternoon.

Q4. Can the government provide an estimated level of effort (LOE), anticipated per contract year, for both tasks?

A4. LOE should be determined by the contractor based on expertise available.

However, only part-time support is expected. For Task 1, the deliverables required are outlined and examples of each can be found on our website at https://exwc.navfac.navy.mil/lmr. For Task 2, the technical planning meeting (2.1) would just require labor and travel for up to 2 contractor personnel for a 2-day meeting. For the larger In-Progress Review Meeting (2.2), in addition to the meeting facility and A/V costs, it would involve labor and travel for 2 contractor personnel for 5-days to allow for setup and breakdown associated with the 3-day meeting. In addition, labor associated with preparation for the meeting should be included.

Q5. Is Task 1 (Generate Communications Products) performed onsite, remotely, or hybrid?

A5. Task 1 is expected to be performed remotely.

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1

v. 12 January 2026

Q6. The QASP defines acceptable performance as 95% of tasks completed on time with “zero changes required.” Can the Government clarify whether this standard refers only to substantive technical or factual revisions, or whether routine editorial, formatting, or preference-based comments would be considered “changes” for performance assessment and payment purposes?

A6. The QASP refers to the final products under each task. It is understood that editorial, formatting, and preference-based comments would be expected throughout the review process.

Q7. The PWS Performance Standards state content must be "free of typographical errors" and "formatting inconsistencies." How does this 100% error-free requirement reconcile with the 95% Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) defined in the QASP?

A7. The expectation is error-free. However, as long as this expectation is met 95% of the time, the contractor performance is considered acceptable.

Q8. PWS Task 2.2 requires the contractor to "secure meeting facility" and "secure audio/visual support." Are the direct costs for these facility rentals and equipment intended to be included in the Firm Fixed Price of the CLIN, or will the Government provide a separate reimbursable CLIN for Other Direct Costs (ODCs)?

A8. Yes, the contractor should include these costs in their submission (PWS Section 2.2). The meeting is typically held at the Kimpton Canary in Santa Barbara or at the Crowne Plaza in Ventura, CA. Santa Barbara was listed in the PWS because per diem is slightly higher there. Each hotel has an A/V company that they typically use for meetings. The main meeting is 3 full days (Tue-Thurs), with setup on Monday and breakdown on Thursday afternoon.

Q9. The PWS Task 1 Format and Timeliness Chart lists Briefing Templates as "Final due late by end of December." Is this a one-time deliverable to be completed in the first performance year, or is this an annual requirement for every option period?

A9. This is an annual requirement for every option period.

Q10. Is this requirement for two positions? One for each task? Or multiple personnel for each task?

A10. This is to be determined by the contractor. The only task where we require two people to participate is Task 2.2 to help run the large meeting. The contractor can determine how many people and how many hours they think it will take to provide the services requested.

Q11. The QASP states "Key personnel are available and responsive," but the RFQ does not designate specific labor categories as "Key." Does the Government intend to evaluate Key Personnel? Will the Government identify which positions it considers Key Personnel and provide associated minimum qualification requirements?

A11. As stated in RFQ, in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1

Commercial Products and Commercial Services and Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services Sections, we will be evaluating Key Personnel. Key personnel, are those doing the work. We do not require specific labor categories because in some cases one person can have expertise in multiple categories. However, we would expect that someone on the team has experience in the following general categories:

project management, graphic design, writing, and editing. Also, as stated in the evaluation section, personnel with scientific degrees and/or experience conducting research (particularly related to Life Sciences) may be rated higher, and/or prioritized by their documented professional qualifications and achievements.

Q12. What are the education and experience requirements for the personnel?

A12. No specific education requirements are outlined. In the RFQ, in the Evaluation

- Commercial Products and Commercial Services Section, it states that personnel with scientific degrees and/or experience conducting research (particularly related to Life Sciences) may be rated higher, and/or prioritized by their documented professional qualifications and achievements.

In the RFQ, in the Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services Section, it states that past performance will be assessed to determine the Government's confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform the required effort based on a record of recent and relevant performance.

Q13. The QASP references performance assessment and acceptance criteria but does not specify review timelines or acceptance authority. Can the Government clarify who has final acceptance authority for deliverables and whether any standard review and acceptance timeframe applies prior to acceptance and payment?

A13. The COR will be responsible for reviewing and accepting the deliverables.

Review of each deliverable typically occurs within 30 days, however exact timing will depend on the deliverable in question.

Q14. For recurring deliverables identified in the PWS (e.g., newsletters, publication lists, website content, annual reports), can the Government confirm whether quantities and scope reset at the start of each option period or are cumulative across the life of the contract?

A14. The quantities listed are on an annual basis, so the scope would reset at the start of each option period.

Q15. Are the personnel expected to be on site or remote? If on site what is the location? Are there any tasks and/or positions where remote/telework arrangement would be allowed?

A15. Task 1 is expected to be performed remotely. Task 2 requires in person attendance for relevant personnel at each of the specified meetings.

Q16. Are there anticipated travel requirements, and if so, should offerors assume CONUS-only travel?

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1

A16. All travel requirements are listed in Task 2. Yes, assume CONUS-only travel.

Q17. For in-person meetings or conferences involving large participant groups (e.g., 50 or more attendees), does the Government anticipate that such events would typically be conducted:

a. at Government-provided facilities,

b. at Navy or DoD installations, or

c. at commercial conference venues arranged by the contractor?

A17. See response A2 above.

Q18. If commercial venues are anticipated, can the Government identify any typical or preferred geographic locations (e.g., National Capital Region, West Coast, or rotating locations)?

A18. See response A2 above.

Q19. Can the Government clarify whether travel in support of meetings and IPRs is expected to be occasional and event-driven, or whether there is an anticipated recurring travel cadence during the base or option periods?

A19. The only travel expected is associated with the meetings outlined in Task 2.

Only two meetings per year is required.

Q20. Given that this solicitation is described as a new procurement that does not directly replace an existing contract, can the Government confirm whether the anticipated scope is expected to be generally similar in scale to the referenced task order N3247020D0016- N3247025F4013, or whether any material changes in scope or intensity are anticipated?

A20. The latest task order that would apply to this work is N6247020D0016 - N6247025F0016. There were some additional tasks listed under that Task Order, but in general, the scale would be similar.

Typographical errors on the synopsis record have been duly corrected; apologies for any inconvenience.

Q21. Are there historical workload metrics (e.g., number of projects, reports, newsletters, fact sheets, and meetings) from the incumbent contract that can be shared?

A21. Our website https://exwc.navfac.navy.mil/lmr has examples of all existing projects, factsheets, newsletters and annual reports. Expected number of each deliverable are outlined in Task 1 in the PWS.

Q22. Is there a ceiling on the number of ad hoc reports or briefings the contractor may be required to produce annually?

A22. There are no expected ad hoc reports or briefings required. The expected deliverables are outlined in Task 1 in the PWS.

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1

Q23. Is the contractor required to maintain a dedicated Program Manager, or may that role be part-time?

A23. The level of effort is expected to be part-time.

Q24. Will the Government provide any branding guidelines, templates, or style guides for newsletters, fact sheets, and annual reports?

A24. All existing branding guidelines, templates, and files can be provided to the new contractor for use and ease of transition.

Q25. Are there any specific accessibility or Section 508 compliance requirements for electronic deliverables (PDFs, website content)?

A25. No.

Q26. In Section 1.1, the final sentence states: “The contractor will provide the final products in electronic form (Word files and PDFs) necessary to post these fact sheets to the program’s public website.” This language appears to apply to Section

1.2 (Project Fact Sheets). Please confirm whether Quarterly Newsletters are also intended to be posted to the program’s public website?

A26. All reports deliverables are expected to be provided in word and pdf versions.

To clarify, LMR manages our public website and will post final pdfs of each deliverable once provided to us. The contractor will not be responsible for managing the website itself, just for providing the deliverables.

Q27. Are the Quarterly Newsletters issued on a fixed schedule aligned with the end of each fiscal quarter, or may they be distributed at a flexible point within each quarter? (This clarification is requested to assess potential overlaps with other end-of-quarter deliverables, such as the Annual Report.)

A27. The quarterly newsletter schedule is fluid. We shift schedules based on other deliverables, such as meetings or the annual report.

Q28. What event or action triggers the creation of a Project Fact Sheet?

Specifically, are fact sheets produced on a recurring schedule, tied to specific milestones or calendar dates, or generated on an ad hoc basis?

A28. In general, project fact sheets are produced in the Fall of each year prior to the In-Progress Review (IPR) meeting. The new fact sheets represent the new start projects for that FY. However, the fact sheet schedule can be fluid based on other deliverables as needed.

Q29. Can the government clarify whether the research, compilation, maintenance, and posting of the publications list is performed continuously on an as-needed basis, or formally updated every three months?

A29. We have an existing publication tracking spreadsheet. As we are notified of new

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1 publications, we send the publication to the contractor. An updated version of the spreadsheet is posted on the website in line with the quarterly newsletter publication. It will be up to the contractor whether they want to update the spreadsheet throughout the quarter or keep track of publications received and update it once a quarter.

Q30. Can the government provide the approximate number of briefing templates required and the typical length (e.g., number of slides or pages) for each template?

A30. We have two briefing templates that we use for our program that are approximately 10-20 slides each. Once per year, when applicable, we may ask for these to be updated based on formatting issues or other changes in content that need to be made.

Q31. Is there an existing portfolio of photographs, seals, graphics, or other visual assets available for use in the Annual Report?

A31. Yes, the existing portfolio of relevant graphics will be turned over to the new contractor.

Q32. Does the Navy RDT&E program provide the factual content for the report, or is the contractor responsible for compiling and developing the written content?

A32. We provide the factual scientific content but expect the contractor to summarize and often rewrite content in a format that is suitable for public consumption.

Q33. Will the contractor be responsible for event support activities for the Annual Technical Planning Meeting similar to those required for the In-Progress Review (IPR) meeting (e.g., securing facilities, arranging hotel accommodations for attendees)?

A33. No. The meeting associated with Task 2.1 is an informal planning meeting between the contractor and program staff. The contractor would just be responsible for their own travel and accommodation.

Q34. Does “manage hotel room block” include booking individual hotel rooms for attendees, or does it apply solely to reserving meeting or conference space?

A34. Attendees will book their own hotel rooms through a room block link. However, there is often coordination required between the contractor and the hotel staff to get updated lists of who has booked a room. This helps us track folks down that have not reserved a room.

Q35. The PWS references “meeting notes” as part of logistical and administrative responsibilities. Does this refer to preparatory materials developed in advance of meetings, notes captured during meetings for post-event documentation, or both?

A35. This refers to notes captured during the meetings for post documentation and action item tracking.

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1

Q36. Will the prime contractor require any form of Facility Security Clearance?

A36. No.

Q37. Are there existing program materials, prior reports, or templates that contractors may be expected to reference or build upon when developing communications products and meeting documentation? Or should offers assume the development of graphic design of reports, etc.?

A37. All existing materials and templates will be handed over to the new contractor to use.

Q38. In relation to Performance Objective 2 referencing coordination and support for meetings and related activities, can NAVFAC clarify whether the contractor would be expected to coordinate travel or logistics for government personnel, or whether travel arrangements for government participants are handled independently by their respective organizations?

A38. The contractor would not be responsible for coordinating travel arrangements for anyone other than their own personnel.

Q39. Can the Government provide information on the incumbent contract from which these requirements are currently being delivered?

A39. This Solicitation represents a new requirement being advertised. Some of the performance objectives were previously consolidated with others upon task order N6247020D0016-N6247025F4013, but the requirements are found to not be the same.

Typographical errors on the synopsis record have been duly corrected; apologies for any inconvenience.

Q40. For pricing realism purposes, can the Government provide the approximate annual value range (e.g., low/medium/high) or otherwise describe the general magnitude of effort associated with the prior task order referenced as N3247020D0016-N3247025F4013, which previously supported similar program activities?

A40. Historical ordering of requirements, in addition to other requirements consolidated, is as follows:

N6247020D0016-N6247025F4013 FFP $524,181.13 (Modification P00002) N6247020D0016-N6247024F4015 FFP $1,575,362.40 (Modification P00002) N6247020D0016-N6247023F4083 FFP $854,034.13 (Modification P00002) N6247020D0016-N6247022F4037 FFP $1,108,644.40 (Modification P00002)

Please be advised that each of these historical orders does not match closely the PWS advertised for RFQ N3943026Q1001, where the performance objectives currently advertised were effectively consolidated with a variety of other Environmental services. Each of the historical orders listed roughly aligns with consolidated program spending for one Fiscal Year (FY).

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1

Typographical errors on the synopsis record have been duly corrected; apologies for any inconvenience.

Q41. Please provide with the current incumbent contractor, contract number, total obligated value to date, and current period of performance.

A41. Please see answers above (A40).

Q42. As this procurement is structured as a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) commercial services contract, does the Government prefer that anticipated costs associated with meeting logistics and travel be incorporated into the total FFP, rather than proposed as separate pricing elements?

A42. Per the current solicitation, the FFP must cover all aspects of meeting the performance objectives, and this includes required travel for non-remote work on meetings and presentations. In the case that travel is later deemed to be excessive and/or emergent, the Contractor would be able to seek recourse under the Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) process of the contract. For clarity, the DFARS Clause 252.243-7002 has been added by formal amendment of the Solicitation (SF 30) to provide controlling terms of the intended REA process; modifications of post-award pricing (either base or option periods) are not expected, but would be facilitated by the Changes clause delineated at FAR Clause 52.212-4(c).

Q43. Does the Government accept CPARS reports in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), if PPQs are not explicitly required? May offerors submit CPARS reports in lieu of completed PPQs, where available?

A43. The Government prefers CPARS records for any past performance citations made;

PPQ form has been provided for convenience, for performance with non-Federal entities that may still be relevant to the proposal and/or requirements, and represents the acceptable alternative to a finalized CPARS record for the Past Performance evaluation factor.

Q44. Are there specific proposal sections or volumes the Government expects offerors to submit (e.g., Technical Approach, Management, Past Performance), or is offeror-defined organization acceptable?

A44. The Offeror should ensure that each of the evaluation factors of 52.212-2 are provided, to have a real opportunity for award consideration: Factor 1, Technical Capability, Factor 2, Past Performance, and Factor 3, Price. Please note the details at 52.212-1(m), especially the directions to submit three (3) Volumes; it is important that no Pricing is included in the Technical Capability or Past Performance portions of the proposal, for evaluation purposes. Within the restrictions of the Solicitation (e.g. file format, email size), each Offeror controls discretion for submitting their best proposal.

Q45. Can the Government confirm the evaluation factors and their relative importance for this RFQ?

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1

A45. Factor 1, Technical Capability, is more important than Factor 2, Past Performance. The non-price factors (Factors 1 and 2), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3, Price. However, the importance of price will increase if offers are considered essentially equal in terms of non-price factors. To be considered for award, a proposal must receive a rating of "Acceptable" or higher for Factor 1, Technical Capability; a rating of "Unacceptable" would be assigned to evaluations of an offer with a deficiency, or multiple weaknesses that are found to amount to a deficiency in aggregate. Please see FAR 52.212-2 of RFQ provided for full details.

Q46. Is a detailed technical and management narrative required, or will conformance to the PWS with pricing suffice?

A46. A technical and management narrative is intended by the evaluation criteria for Volume I / Factor 1, Technical Capability, and Organization Charts and Resumes are allowable, at the Offeror's discretion. Narratives are allowable for Volumes II and III, where necessary for the Offeror. Email size and file type limitations are listed at 52.212-1(m)(5) of the RFQ document.

Q47. Does the Government require identification of key personnel or submission of resumes? Are resumes required, and are minimum qualifications expected?

A47. Identification of key personnel is recommended for the technical proposal, in order to facilitate a favorable evaluation; per the Contracting Officer's direction for use of FSC AH52, it is anticipated that best-value proposals will have representation of highly-qualified subject matter experts presented by the offeror for contract performance. Identification of personnel will be necessary in pre-award for representation checks (i.e. SAM.gov), in post-award for contract administration purposes, and possibly for post-award security requirements for physical access and/or citizenship verification, per Navy Installation guidance.

Q48. Should pricing and technical approach address the base and each option period separately, or may they be presented in aggregate?

A48. Pricing must be segmented into 12-month lump sums, for a total of five sums, per the Pricing Chart 0001-0005, in order to have a quote eligible for award; for estimation purposes, a Period of Performance estimate is made at "Delivery Period" in the RFQ document, although the Government reserves the right to deviate with the date of award to facilitate program funds and timelines. (Anticipate an base period award date in FY26.) There should be very little practicable difference between technical solutions for the base and option periods, as the PWS is consistent throughout all 12-month periods for services. The offerors must decide how to propose for the entire period of performance, using discretion and judgement so as to best meet the performance objectives, for both prices and technical solutions.

Q49. Section 1.2.1 of the QASP references a "Statement of Objectives (SOO)" as the basis for performance management. However, the RFQ contains a detailed "Performance Work Statement (PWS)." Can the Government confirm if a separate SOO exists or if offerors should respond solely to the PWS?

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1

A49. Both SOO and PWS refer to FAR Subpart 37.6, Performance-Based Acquisition. For the purposes of this Solicitation, please replace all "SOO" with "PWS" for understanding. Please be advised: the QASP document is generalized for programmatic application, and the Government may change the QASP after award, without notification or affirmation by the Contractor. Performance standards in the PWS would only be changed bilaterally post-award. The Contractor may utilize the REA procedures, were they to need to request compensation for changes to either QASP or PWS post-award, notwithstanding the authority for Changes to performance, schedule, or price of the Contract per 52.212-4(c) terms and conditions.

Q50. Will the Government provide a pricing template or CLIN-level pricing instructions to ensure consistent pricing across offerors?

A50. Lump-sum pricing of each 12-month period is intended for Volume III and price evaluation. The Government does plan to request a Schedule of Values after an award of contract is made, not for evaluation but rather general coordination and administrative convenience (e.g. future, unplanned change orders). Table of items (CLINs) provided with PWS in RFQ document should be sufficient for pricing submittals; on Page 4, please utilize 12-months to equate 1 Task Unit. Please keep in mind that the Government is anticipating 12 monthly invoices per Line Item, and so pricing should be lump sum in Volume III but should be readily divisible for monthly invoicing as FFP effort, but the Government can confirm that monthly detail is not required nor favorable for a valid quote.

Q51. Should pricing assume all labor, travel, and ODCs are included in the firm-fixed-price CLINs?

A51. Per the current solicitation, the FFP must cover all aspects of meeting the performance objectives, and this includes required travel for non-remote work on meetings and presentations. In the case that travel is later deemed to be excessive and/or emergent, the Contractor would be able to seek recourse under the Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) process of the contract. For clarity, the DFARS Clause 252.243-7002 has been added by formal amendment of the Solicitation (SF 30) to provide controlling terms of the intended REA process; modifications of post-award pricing (either base or option periods) are not expected, but would be facilitated by the Changes clause delineated at FAR Clause 52.212-4(c).

Q52. Can subcontractor past performance be submitted and considered as part of Volume II?

A52. It is allowable for subcontractor past performance to be included, in order to meet requirements of the solicitation. Please be advised: subcontractor support may be evaluated differently than performance that will be done by prime contractors, in addition to the balance of work requirements found at RFQ

Q53. Is there a page limit for Volume II (Past Performance) and Volume III (Price Proposal)?

A53. Pages or information beyond the standardized CPARS format or mandatory PPQ format will not be reviewed or evaluated. Past Performance examples for Volume II

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1 are limited to three (3) by the RFQ at 52.212-1(m)(2). Regarding Volume III, this Solicitation is a Request for Quotes (RFQ), with adjoining technical capabilities to be evaluated. There is no page limit for Volume III Price Proposal, but the Government price evaluators have no responsibility to evaluate any information submitted beyond pricing, and will not share additional technical or past performance information contained in Volume III for evaluation of the technical factors. As a reminder: the submittal file sizes and emails shall be limited to 6GB or less (.pdf .docx and/or .xlsx formats only).

Q54. How many positions are currently filled versus vacant under the incumbent contract, by labor category?

A54. This is a new requirement being advertised. Some of the performance objectives were previously consolidated with others upon task order N6247020D0016-N6247025F4013, but the requirements are found to not be the same. The Government cannot provide estimates that would adequately address the question;

requirements will be satisfied with performance-based solutions, and the Offeror's technical solutions will dictate staffing for satisfaction, on a competitive evaluation basis.

Q55. Please provide Place of Performance for the PWS task order.

A55. All known Places of Performance are cited in the RFQ documentation, although clarifications are provided on other questions herein.

Q56. Please provide an estimated level of effort (LOE) for this requirement?

A56. The Government will not provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) for this requirement. Offerors are responsible for developing their own LOE based on their independent assessment of the solicitation, their technical approach, and industry

‑standards. No additional Government furnished assumptions, estimates, or workload projections will be issued. However, the program representatives have provided various guidelines herein for improved understanding of the Government's intent, performance objectives, and deliverables listed.

RFQ N3943026Q1001

RDTE Program Technical Services

Attachment JL-1