Solicitation N6471026Q0016 AMD 0002 Questions and Answers.pdf

Solicitation N6471026Q0016 AMD 0002 Questions and Answers

1. In Section G, Paragraph 6 it states that "vendors must hold Microsoft certifications in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online."

Which certs for SharePoint Online are acceptable?

Do certification on Power Platform count?

Does PL 900 meet the criteria for both domains?

Answer: PL-900 does not meet the criteria as it is a Fundamentals level certification. The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online. The Government may also consider relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement as supporting evidence of experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online, provided the quote clearly identifies the proposed personnel, describes the relevant work performed, and includes supporting references.

2. The SOW states that 'Interested vendors must provide documented evidence of successful past performance and technical competency in designing, deploying, and supporting migrations from legacy Microsoft Access systems to Microsoft 365/Power Platform environments.' (a) Will the Government accept commercial (non-federal) past performance references as documentation of Access-to-Microsoft 365/Power Platform migration experience, or are federal references required; and (b) is there a maximum number of references an offeror may submit?

Answer: Yes. The Government will accept commercial, non-federal past performance references, provided they demonstrate relevant experience in designing, deploying, and supporting migrations from legacy Microsoft Access or comparable systems to Microsoft 365 and/or Power Platform environments. Federal references are not required, but relevance to the solicited effort will be considered in the evaluation.

3. Does the Government permit an offeror to satisfy the past performance factor through a subcontractor or teaming partner that provides the documented Access-to-Microsoft 365 migration experience, while the prime itself demonstrates technical competency through commercial work? If yes, (a) will the Government evaluate the subcontractor's past performance under the prime's proposal, and (b) are there any limits on subcontractor participation (e.g., minimum percentage of work the prime must perform)?

Answer: Yes, the Government will accept past performance factors through a subcontractor or teaming partner, provided they demonstrate relevant experience in designing, deploying, and supporting migrations from legacy Microsoft Access or comparable systems to Microsoft 365 and/or Power Platform environments.

Since this requirement is not for a small business set-aside and is not expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, the Limitations on Subcontracting requirements found in FAR clause 52.219-14 do not apply.

4. The solicitation states 'This Solicitation is a BRAND NAME REQUIREMENT for Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Micr[osoft]' but the text is truncated in the materials provided.

Please clarify: (a) does the brand-name restriction require the prime contractor to be Microsoft Corporation itself or a Microsoft federal reseller, or does it only require that the deployed solution use Microsoft platform components (SharePoint Online, Power Apps, Power Automate);

(b) is the supporting justification (e.g., FAR 6.302-1) attached or referenced; and (c) does this restriction prohibit an independent small business from proposing as prime?

Answer: (a) The platform components used to build the solution must be Microsoft. (b) Please see the attached Brand Name Justification. (c) The Government will accept performance factors through a subcontractor or teaming partner, provided they demonstrate relevant experience in designing, deploying, and supporting migrations from legacy Microsoft Access or comparable systems to Microsoft 365 and/or Power Platform environments.

5. The SOW requires the vendor to deliver 'a Migration Guide providing the SWFPAC internal team with step-by-step instructions and support mechanisms for executing the live data transfer.'

(a) Will the SWFPAC internal team execute the production cutover while the vendor provides only remote advisory support, or will the vendor perform the live migration directly inside the Flank Speed tenant; (b) what 'support mechanisms' (e.g., help desk coverage, on-call engineer during cutover window) does the Government expect; and (c) is the vendor responsible for post-migration data validation and reconciliation in production?

Answer: (a) The SWFPAC internal team will execute the production cutover within the Flank Speed environment. The vendor will provide remote advisory support during the cutover event and related migration activities. (b) At a minimum, the vendor shall provide an on-call engineer during the agreed cutover window to support issue resolution, troubleshooting, and coordination with the Government team. Specific timing for the cutover window will be coordinated in advance between the Government and the vendor.

(c) The vendor shall support post-migration validation and reconciliation of migrated data in production, to include assisting the Government in identifying and resolving migration-related discrepancies; however, final Government acceptance of the production migration remains with the Government.

6. The SOW repeatedly references records being 'securely maintained for a specified timeframe to meet audit requirements' prior to permanent deletion but does not state the duration. (a) What is the required archive retention period (in months or years) for inactive core records, transaction logs, the two (2) generated document types, and the monthly Excel report; (b) is the vendor responsible for configuring and/or funding additional Flank Speed storage to satisfy that retention; and (c) does the archive require SharePoint Online records-management labels and formal disposition schedules?

Answer: (a) The SOW does not prescribe a fixed archive retention period for inactive core records, transaction logs, generated document types, or the monthly Excel report. The required retention approach and timeframes will be finalized with the Government during discovery/kickoff based on business, audit, and records-management needs. Offerors should describe their recommended retention approach and any assumptions used in preparing their proposal. (b) No. The vendor is not responsible for funding additional Flank Speed storage. Configuration recommendations may be provided as part of the solution design, but any Government tenant storage provisioning or licensing actions will remain the Government’s responsibility unless otherwise stated in the solicitation. (c) The SOW does not currently require SharePoint Online records-management labels or formal disposition schedules as a mandatory deliverable. However, offerors may recommend records-management labeling, disposition, and retention approaches for Government consideration.

7. Will the Government provide a Flank Speed (DoD Microsoft 365 Government Cloud) development/test tenant for the vendor to build and User Acceptance Test the solution, or must the vendor develop in a commercial Microsoft 365 tenant and then re-deploy to Flank Speed? (a) What level of tenant access (tenant administrator, site owner) will be granted to vendor personnel during the Period of Performance; (b) how will vendor accounts be provisioned (DoD365 portal, sponsor); and (c) is a DoD IT/IA background investigation or PIV credential required for any vendor personnel?

Answer: The Government does not guarantee that a dedicated Flank Speed development/test tenant will be provided for vendor use. Offerors should assume they may need to develop and test the solution in their own environment and then support deployment and validation in the Government’s Flank Speed environment. The

Government team has Power Platform experience and can assist in validating feature availability and solution compatibility within Flank Speed during the design, testing, and deployment process. (a) Level of access: If vendor access to the Government’s Flank Speed environment is approved, access would be limited to the minimum level necessary for performance and is not expected to include tenant administrator privileges. Any access granted would be subject to Government approval and technical/security constraints outside the control of the requiring activity. (b) Account provisioning: Vendor account provisioning, if approved, would be handled through applicable Government onboarding and access request procedures, including sponsorship and submission of required access documentation. Offerors should not assume such access will be immediately available or guaranteed. (c) Background investigation/credentialing: Any personnel security, credentialing, or identity requirements for vendor personnel will be governed by applicable Government access policies and onboarding requirements in effect at the time of performance. Offerors should be prepared to comply with any required access documentation or vetting necessary to obtain approved access.

8. Given the effort supports Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific, must the prime contractor or any proposed subcontractor (a) hold a Facility Security Clearance (FCL) at any level; (b) handle Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), ITAR/EAR technical data, or classified information within the vendor's remote development environment; and (c) comply with NIST SP 800-171 or CMMC at a specified level? Please identify any clauses or attachments addressing these requirements that were not included in the posted requirements list.

Answer: The vendor will not be provided access to live data, nor will they have on-site access to the Government facility, therefore, a FCL is not required and CUI or classified information will not be provided to the vendor. This requirement requires the contractor to have a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 1 (self) or higher status for the duration of the contract, per DFARS 252.204-7021 found within the solicitation. CMMC status must be reflected in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) at time of award.

9. Section G, item 6 of the Amendment 0001 continuation sheet states that interested vendors must hold Microsoft certifications in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online, and that certification documentation is required with quotes.

Microsoft does not currently offer a SharePoint Online certification. Microsoft retired exams MS-300 and MS-301 and the Microsoft 365 Certified: Teamwork Administrator Associate certification effective August 31, 2020, and has not issued a replacement SharePoint credential since. This is published on Microsoft Learn at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/credentials/certifications/posts/microsoft-365-certification-and-exam-updates

Will the Government identify the specific, currently available Microsoft credentials it will accept as satisfying this requirement, or confirm that the SharePoint Online element is satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 administration credential?

Answer: The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online. The Government may also consider relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement as supporting evidence of experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online, provided the quote clearly identifies the proposed personnel, describes the relevant work performed, and includes supporting references.

10. Related to question 9: will the Government accept certifications held by the individual personnel proposed to perform the work, or must the certification be held at the organizational level, for example a Microsoft Solutions Partner designation? Microsoft issues certifications to individuals rather than to companies, so the two readings of "vendors must hold" lead to materially different submissions.

Answer: The Government will accept certifications held by the individual personnel proposed to perform the work. An organizational-level Microsoft designation or partner status is not required to satisfy this certification requirement.

11. The certification requirement is stated as a brand name determination under FAR 11.204(a)(1) and FAR 12.102(a). Will the Government accept documented equivalent technical experience in place of a formal Microsoft certification, for example a written description of prior Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online administration and migration work performed by the proposed personnel, with references? If not, please confirm that a quote without certification documentation will be found unacceptable so that vendors can make an informed decision about whether to expend the effort to quote.

Answer: The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft

365 certification that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online. The Government may also consider relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement as supporting evidence of experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online, provided the quote clearly identifies the proposed personnel, describes the relevant work performed, and includes supporting references.

12. Statement of Work paragraph 2.1 requires documented evidence of past performance migrating legacy Microsoft Access systems to Microsoft 365 and the Power Platform. Two questions on this paragraph:

a. Is 2.1 a pass or fail responsibility requirement, or is it evaluated as part of the past performance factor described in the evaluation criteria?

b. Where an offeror's relevant past performance was performed under commercial contracts rather than federal prime contracts, will the Government accept that commercial past performance? Will the Government also accept the relevant past performance of proposed key personnel or of a proposed subcontractor?

Answer: Paragraph 2.1 is evaluated as part of the Government’s technical assessment of the offeror’s relevant past performance and technical competency, rather than as a separate pass/fail responsibility determination. The Government will accept relevant commercial past performance, not just federal prime contract experience, provided the quoted experience demonstrates comparable scope, complexity, and relevance to the requirement. The Government may also consider relevant experience of proposed key personnel and proposed subcontractors, to the extent the quote clearly identifies the experience, explains its relevance to this requirement, and describes the role the proposed personnel or subcontractor will perform in contract execution.

13. Regarding DFARS 252.204-7021, is the CMMC Level 1 self assessment required to be posted in SPRS at the time of quote submission, or at the time of award?

Answer: Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) status must be reflected in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) and is validated at time of award.

14. The certification requirement in question 1 was added by Amendment 0001 on August 28, 2026, eleven days before the response date. If the Government revises or clarifies that requirement in response to these questions, will it extend the response date accordingly so that vendors have a reasonable period to respond to the revised terms?

Answer: AMD 0002 extends the offer due date to 5:00 PM PST on 14 September 2026.

15. SOW paragraph 4.0 states performance is 100% remote with no base access or physical presence required or authorized. Deliverables D.2 through D.7 require the vendor to construct SharePoint Online lists, document libraries, Power Apps, and Power Automate flows within the Government's Flank Speed tenant. By what mechanism will vendor personnel be granted access to that tenant (e.g., CAC, ECA certificate, sponsored guest/B2B account, or Government-furnished equipment)?

Answer: The Government does not guarantee direct vendor access to the Flank Speed tenant as part of this requirement. Offerors should assume they may need to develop and demonstrate solution components in their own environment and support deployment, testing, and validation in the Government’s Flank Speed environment. If vendor access to Flank Speed is later determined necessary and approved, it will be provisioned through applicable Government sponsorship, account request, and security approval processes in effect at the time of performance. Any access granted will be limited to the minimum level necessary for contract performance. Offerors should not assume tenant-administrator access or any specific access mechanism unless subsequently authorized by the Government.

16. Who sponsors and processes that access, and what is the anticipated provisioning timeline?

Will provisioning time count against the 180-day period of performance, or will the period of performance begin upon grant of tenant access?

Answer: Per Section F in the Solicitation, the 180 day Period of Performance starts from date of contract award.

17. Will development occur in the default Flank Speed environment, a dedicated Power Platform development environment, or a separate site collection designated for development? If development occurs outside the production site, who is responsible for promotion to production?

Answer: The Government is not prescribing a specific Flank Speed development environment at this time, such as the default environment, a dedicated Power Platform development environment, or a separate site collection designated for development.

Offerors should assume they may need to develop and demonstrate solution components in their own environment and support deployment, testing, and validation in the Government’s Flank Speed environment. If development occurs outside the production site, promotion to production will be coordinated with the Government and is expected to be executed by the Government with vendor support, unless otherwise approved by the Government. If direct vendor access to the Government’s Flank Speed environment is later determined necessary and approved, such access would be requested and provisioned through applicable Government sponsorship and account approval processes in effect at the time of performance.

18. Are there conditional access, device compliance, or managed-device policies that would prevent vendor personnel from performing development work from vendor-owned equipment?

E.g., from a NVD account?

Answer: The Government is not prescribing a specific device, desktop, or access method for this requirement. Any direct vendor access to the Flank Speed environment from vendor-owned equipment would be subject to applicable Government conditional access, device compliance, identity, and account approval requirements in effect at the time of performance. Offerors should not assume that access from vendor-owned equipment will be permitted absent successful completion of the applicable Government access and security approval processes. If direct access is determined necessary and approved, the specific method of access will be coordinated through the applicable Government sponsorship and onboarding procedures.

19. SOW paragraph 2.2 requires the vendor to facilitate testing cycles and perform "any necessary reworks identified by the internal team." Will the Government establish a defined number of User Acceptance Testing cycles and a formal change control process for scope changes identified during UAT? Absent a defined limit, offerors cannot reliably price this requirement on a firm-fixed-price basis.

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a minimum of two (2) formal UAT cycles following delivery of the initial testable solution baseline. Rework required to correct defects, ensure conformance with the approved System Architecture & Design Plan (D.1), and satisfy stated SOW requirements identified during those UAT cycles shall be included in the firm-fixed-price effort. Requests that introduce new functionality, materially revise previously approved requirements, or otherwise expand scope beyond the approved design and SOW baseline will not be treated as routine rework and may be addressed through the Contracting Officer directly for Government direction. If development occurs outside the production site, additional UAT cycles may be needed and can be requested by the contractor to specifically test compatibility with the Flank Speed environment at significant development milestones.

20. SOW paragraph 2.2 requires the vendor to evaluate the legacy Access 2003 database structure. Will the Government furnish the database file, a scrubbed schema export, or other structural documentation? If so, at what point relative to award?

Answer: Yes. After contract award, the Government will provide the vendor with sufficient structural information from the legacy Access 2003 database to enable evaluation of the existing design and development of the proposed target architecture. This may include the database file itself, a scrubbed schema export, and/or other structural documentation, as determined appropriate by the Government. Live production data will not be provided.

The material will be furnished during project initiation/kickoff or shortly thereafter.

21. Deliverable D.8 requires archival of records "for a designated timeframe." What retention period does the Government require?

Answer: The SOW does not prescribe a fixed archive retention period for Deliverable D.8 because periods are not universally identical between lists/data sets. Offerors should propose a configurable archive/retention approach and identify any assumptions used in preparing their quote.

22. Deliverable D.5 requires approval routing workflows. Which transaction types require approval, how many approval levels are contemplated, and how many approver roles?

Answer: For proposal purposes, offerors should assume a single approval level for transactions that affect inventory status, custody, or assignment. The Government currently anticipates one primary approver role for such transactions. Specific transaction types requiring approval and any refinements to approver roles or routing logic will be confirmed with the Government during discovery/kickoff.

23. Deliverables D.3 and D.7 require permission groupings across lists, libraries, and the application interface. What is the anticipated end-user population, and approximately how many distinct permission groups and roles does the Government contemplate?

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a small end-user population of fewer than 15 users with direct access to the application and related SharePoint Online components. This includes approximately 6 users who will enter and manage data, a small approval group of approximately 2 to 3 users for transaction review/approval, and Government IT/support personnel who may require administrative or support access.

Personnel records tracked by the system may number in the thousands; however, those individuals are not expected to have direct access to the application. Offerors should assume a limited role structure with distinct permissions for general users/data entry, approvers, and administrative/support personnel.

24. Deliverable D.10 requires active support during the internal team's live data migration phase.

If the internal team's migration activity extends beyond the 180-day period of performance, what is the extent of the vendor's continuing obligation?

Answer: The vendor’s support obligation under Deliverable D.10 extends through the contract’s stated 180 calendar day period of performance. The Government anticipates that the internal team’s live migration activity will occur within that timeframe. The contractor shall be liable for any nonperformance outside of the required 180 calendar day period of performance. If the contractor cannot meet the required deliverables within the period of performance, the contractor must notify the Contracting Officer in writing immediately and only excusable delays as outlined in FAR clause 52.212-4(f) may be authorized.

25. Is any warranty, defect-correction, or post-acceptance support period required beyond final acceptance? None is specified in the solicitation.

Answer: The intentions of Architecture Documentation and Knowledge Transfer/Hand-off (SOW Deliverable D.9 & D.10) are to ensure the Government team is comfortable and knowledgeable enough with the solution to conduct defect-corrections and support. This requirement does not have a need for post-acceptance support.

26. Deliverable D.1 must be approved by the Government POC prior to development. Sections E and F identify the technical POC as "TBD" with redacted contact information. Will the Government identify the POC and the Contracting Officer's Representative, and will it commit to a defined review and approval turnaround for each deliverable?

Answer: The Government will provide a technical Point of Contact at time of contract award. Turnaround times for reviews will fluctuate depending on size of the deliverable to be reviewed; however, review response should not exceed ten (10) business days.

27. What is the Government's acceptance period following submission of each deliverable?

Answer: Unless mutually coordinated for a particular deliverable, the Government anticipates a review period of up to ten (10) business days following submission of each deliverable. Within that period, the Government will either accept the deliverable or provide notice of deficiencies requiring correction and resubmission.

28. The solicitation contains a single CLIN (0001, 1 Job, firm-fixed price) with inspection and acceptance at destination. Will the Government consider establishing milestone-based sub- CLINs, or otherwise accept partial invoicing upon acceptance of individual deliverables, in lieu of a single invoice at the conclusion of the 180-day effort?

Answer: The Government will divide deliverables into distinct CLINs to facilitate partial invoicing, subject to formal Government acceptance. Timeline requirements for individual deliverables/CLINs are amended in solicitation AMD 0002 as follows: Deliverable D.1 required within 45 days of contract award. Deliverables D.2 – D.8 required within 160 days of contract award. Deliverables D.9 – D.10 required within 180 days of contract award.

29. In DFARS 252.232-7006, the blank at paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) specifying the document type for fixed-price service line items appears to be incomplete. Will the Government specify whether "Invoice 2in1" or a separate invoice and receiving report is required?

Answer: Correct. Invoices shall be submitted via Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) as a “Combo” invoice, not a 2in1.

30. In the same clause's Routing Data Table, the LPO DoDAAC field contains an email address rather than a DoDAAC. Will the Government provide the correct LPO DoDAAC?

Answer: Correct. The identified email address can be submitted into WAWF when entering your invoice. The applicable DODAAC’s are identified within the solicitation FAR clause table.

31. DFARS 252.204-7021 is completed at CMMC Level 1 (Self), which addresses Federal Contract Information. However, DFARS 252.204-7012 and 252.204-7008 are also incorporated, and SOW paragraph 6.0 states data will be scrubbed of Controlled Unclassified Information prior to vendor receipt. Please confirm that CMMC Level 1 (Self) is the required level and that no CUI will be processed, stored, or transmitted on contractor information systems.

Answer: The vendor will not be provided access to live data, nor will they have on-site access to the Government facility, therefore, a FCL is not required and CUI or classified information will not be provided to the vendor. This requirement requires the contractor to have a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 1 (self) or higher status for the duration of the contract, per DFARS 252.204-7021 found within the solicitation. CMMC status must be reflected in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) at time of award.

32. Does DFARS 252.239-7010, Cloud Computing Services, apply to the contractor in this effort, given that the cloud environment is Government-owned and Government-operated rather than contractor-provided?

Answer: DFARS 252.239-7010 addresses the use of cloud computing services in contract performance. For this requirement, the Government-owned Flank Speed environment is the intended and required hosting environment. The Government will not accept proposals that rely on contractor-provided or subcontractor-provided cloud computing services for performance of this effort. Accordingly, this requirement is not intended to acquire contractor-provided cloud computing services, but rather to obtain support for solution development and implementation within the Government-owned environment.

33. The solicitation incorporates both DFARS 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7015, which address noncommercial and commercial technical data respectively. Please clarify which applies to deliverables under this commercial acquisition.

Answer: Both DFAR clauses are appropriate for this requirement. Per DFARS 227.7103- 6(a) Use the clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data-Noncommercial Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, when the successful offeror(s) will be required to deliver to the Government technical data pertaining to other than commercial products or commercial services, or pertaining to commercial products or commercial services for which the Government will have paid for any portion of the development costs (in which case the clause at 252.227-7013 will govern the technical data pertaining to any portion of a commercial product or commercial service that was developed in any part at Government expense, and the clause at 252.227-7015 will govern the technical data pertaining to any portion of a commercial product or commercial service that was developed exclusively at private expense).

34. No software rights clause (e.g., DFARS 252.227-7014) is included, and Section K contains no provision for assertion of restrictions. What license rights does the Government require in the delivered Power Apps, Power Automate flows, and associated configuration? May offerors assert restrictions on pre-existing components, templates, or tools incorporated into the solution?

Answer: The Government requires sufficient rights in the delivered Power Apps, Power Automate flows, SharePoint configuration, and related solution artifacts to use, operate, modify, administer, and sustain the solution within the Government’s Flank Speed environment for Government purposes. Offerors may identify any pre-existing proprietary components, templates, or tools incorporated into the solution and clearly state any proposed restrictions in their quote. Any such restrictions must not prevent the Government from operating, maintaining, modifying, or supporting the delivered solution as contemplated by the SOW. The Government reserves the right to evaluate the acceptability of any proposed restrictions

35. SF 1449 block 27a indicates FAR 52.212-3 is attached. Section J (List of Attachments) is blank and 52.212-3 does not appear in Section K. Will the Government provide the provision, or may offerors submit a completed copy obtained from acquisition.gov?

Answer: Per the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul (RFO), FAR clause 52.212-3 is not required to be posted in solicitations. All contractor representation data will be evaluated in SAM.gov at time of contract award.

36. Section L does not specify a quote format. Are there page limitations, required volume structure, or file format requirements? What is the maximum permissible email attachment size, and will the Government confirm receipt of quotes?

Answer: There is no specified quote format.

37. Section G paragraph 2 lists Tabbatha.l.austin.civ@us.navy.mil while paragraph 3 lists Tabbatha.l.austin@swfpac.navy.mil. Please confirm the correct addresses for quote submission and for correspondence.

Answer: The email address for the Contracting Officer is Tabbatha.austin@swfpac.navy.mil and Tabbatha.l.austin.civ@us.navy.mil.

38. Given that responses to these questions and the pending amendment regarding certification requirements may materially affect quote preparation, and that the current closing date is 8 September 2026 with the intervening Labor Day holiday, we respectfully request that the Government consider extending the closing date to allow adequate time to incorporate the Government's responses.

Answer: AMD 0002 extends the offer due date to 5:00 PM PST on 14 September 2026.

39. Build environment. Section C requires the solution to be configured and delivered within the Government's Flank Speed environment, with performance 100% remote. Does the Government intend for the vendor to perform the build directly in the SWFPAC Flank Speed tenant, or to develop in a vendor Microsoft 365 environment and deliver exportable solution packages/templates for internal deployment? Note: LLT personnel currently hold active Flank

Speed accounts; if in-tenant development is intended, what is the process and timeline for associating vendor personnel to this effort?

Answer: The Government’s required target environment for the delivered solution is the SWFPAC Flank Speed environment. Offerors should assume they may need to develop and demonstrate solution components in their own environment and support deployment, testing, and validation in the Government’s Flank Speed environment. The Government does not guarantee that vendor personnel will perform the build directly within the SWFPAC Flank Speed tenant. If direct vendor access to the Government’s Flank Speed environment is later determined necessary and approved, such access would be requested and provisioned through applicable Government sponsorship, account request, identity, and security approval processes in effect at the time of performance. Offerors should not assume direct tenant access or any specific account-association timeline unless subsequently authorized by the Government.

40. Microsoft certification requirement. Section G, paragraph 6 requires "Microsoft certifications in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online." Given Microsoft's current certification catalog no longer includes standalone SharePoint certifications, will current role-based certifications (e.g., MS-102, PL-200, PL-400) satisfy this requirement?

Answer: The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification held by proposed personnel that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online, such as MS-102 or a comparable current Microsoft 365 role-based credential. Relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement may also be considered as evidence of relevant experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online, provided the quote clearly identifies the proposed personnel, describes the relevant work performed, and includes supporting references.

41. UAT and rework scope. Section 2.2 requires the vendor to facilitate testing cycles and perform reworks identified by the internal team. To support firm-fixed pricing, can the Government define the anticipated number of UAT cycles, or confirm that reworks are limited to conformance with the approved System Architecture & Design Plan (D.1) rather than new or expanded requirements?

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a minimum of two (2) formal UAT cycles following delivery of the initial testable solution baseline. Rework required to correct defects, ensure conformance with the approved System Architecture & Design Plan (D.1), and satisfy stated SOW requirements identified during those UAT cycles shall be included in the firm-fixed-price effort. Requests that introduce new functionality, materially revise previously approved requirements, or otherwise expand scope beyond the approved design and SOW baseline will not be treated as routine rework and must be addressed directly with the Contracting Officer. If development occurs outside the production site, additional UAT cycles may be needed and can be requested by the contractor to specifically test compatibility with the Flank Speed environment at significant development milestones.

42. Records retention period. Deliverables D.1 and D.8 reference maintaining archived records for a "designated timeframe" prior to permanent deletion. Can the Government specify the required retention period(s) so the archival and disposition logic can be accurately designed and priced?

Answer: The SOW does not prescribe a fixed archive retention period for Deliverable D.8 because periods are not universally identical between lists/data sets. Offerors should propose a configurable archive/retention approach and identify any assumptions used in preparing their quote.

43. The solicitation states that vendors must hold Microsoft certifications in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online. Please clarify the minimum qualification required. Must the offeror hold a company-level Microsoft designation, or may this requirement be satisfied through Microsoft certifications held by proposed personnel? If a company-level designation is required, please identify the specific designation or credential.

Answer: The Government will accept certifications held by the individual personnel proposed to perform the work. An organizational-level Microsoft designation or partner status is not required to satisfy this certification requirement. The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online.

The Government may also consider relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement as supporting evidence of experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the

Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online, provided the quote clearly identifies the proposed personnel, describes the relevant work performed, and includes supporting references.

44. Will the Government provide all Microsoft 365, SharePoint Online, Power Apps, and Power Automate licenses required for development, testing, deployment, and operation, or should the contractor include any licensing costs in its Firm-Fixed-Price quote?

Answer: The Government intends the solution to be delivered within the Government’s Flank Speed environment. The vendor is not responsible for funding Government tenant storage. Offerors should assume they may need to develop and test the solution in their own environment and then support deployment and validation in the Government’s Flank Speed environment, depending on whether direct access to the Government environment is requested, approved, and made available. Offerors should clearly identify in their quote any assumptions regarding licensing and should identify any premium licensing, premium connectors, or other non-standard licensing dependencies required by their proposed solution.

45. Please confirm the specific Microsoft 365/Flank Speed tenant environment in which the solution will be developed and deployed (e.g., Commercial, GCC, GCC High, or other), including any restrictions affecting SharePoint Online, Power Apps, Power Automate, connectors, or custom development.

Answer: The required target environment for the delivered solution is the Navy’s M365 environment which is an IL5 environment. Offerors should assume that Flank Speed-specific service availability, connector availability, and tenant restrictions may apply. The Government team can assist in validating feature availability and compatibility within Flank Speed during design, testing, and deployment. Offerors should not assume that commercial Microsoft 365 behavior is fully representative of the Government environment.

46. How will contractor personnel be granted remote access to the Flank Speed environment?

Are there requirements relating to Government accounts, CAC/PIV credentials, VPN/VDI, MFA, citizenship, background investigations, or other access prerequisites?

Answer: The Government does not guarantee direct vendor access to the Flank Speed environment as part of this requirement. If direct access is later determined necessary and approved, such access will be requested and provisioned through applicable Government sponsorship, account request, identity, and security approval processes in effect at the time of performance. Any access granted will be limited to the minimum level necessary for contract performance. If vendor personnel already possess active Flank Speed accounts, the Government may, if determined necessary and approved, use those accounts as the basis for granting the minimum permissions required to support performance in the SWFPAC environment. Offerors should not assume direct build access, specific permission levels, or a defined account-association timeline unless subsequently authorized by the Government.

47. Are there any remote-work security requirements beyond those stated in the solicitation, including requirements relating to Government-furnished equipment, approved devices or networks, development-environment restrictions, or approved data-transfer methods?

Answer: The Government is not prescribing a specific device, desktop, or access method for this requirement. Any direct vendor access to the Flank Speed environment from vendor-owned equipment would be subject to applicable Government conditional access, device compliance, identity, and account approval requirements in effect at the time of performance. Offerors should not assume that access from vendor-owned equipment will be permitted absent successful completion of the applicable Government access and security approval processes.

48. Should the functionality and deliverables expressly identified in the SOW be considered the required scope of the new solution, or will the contractor also be expected to reproduce additional functionality identified in the legacy Microsoft Access database during the assessment?

Answer: The contractor is expected to evaluate the legacy Access 2003 database structure and use that assessment, along with their experience in migrations and SPO environments, to design a solution build that achieves the functionality and deliverables identified in the SOW. The scope is defined by the approved System Architecture & Design Plan (D.1) and the SOW identified functionality and deliverables. Deviations beyond the specified scope should directed to the Contracting Officer directly.

49. Does the new solution need to integrate or exchange data with any other Navy systems, applications, databases, APIs, directories, or external data sources beyond those identified in the SOW? If so, please identify the applicable systems and required integrations.

Answer: The Government does not currently require external integrations beyond those identified in the SOW.

50. Approximately how many total and concurrent users are expected to use the new solution, and approximately how many user roles or permission groups are anticipated?

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a small end-user population of fewer than 15 users with direct access to the application and related SharePoint Online components. This includes approximately 6 users who will enter and manage data, a small approval group of approximately 2 to 3 users for transaction review/approval, and Government IT/support personnel who may require administrative or support access.

Personnel records tracked by the system may number in the thousands; however, those individuals are not expected to have direct access to the application. Offerors should assume a limited role structure with distinct permissions for general users/data entry, approvers, and administrative/support personnel.

51. For the required approval-routing functionality, approximately how many distinct approval processes and approval levels should the contractor plan for?

Answer: For proposal purposes, offerors should assume a single approval level for transactions that affect inventory status, custody, or assignment. The Government currently anticipates one primary approver role for such transactions. Specific transaction types requiring approval and any refinements to approver roles or routing logic will be confirmed with the Government during discovery/kickoff.

52. What retention periods should the contractor plan for when designing archival of inactive records, transaction history, generated documents, and audit logs?

Answer: The SOW does not prescribe a fixed archive retention period for inactive core records, transaction logs, generated document types, or the monthly Excel report. The required retention approach and timeframes will be finalized with the Government during discovery/kickoff based on business, audit, and records-management needs. Offerors should describe their recommended retention approach and any assumptions used in preparing their proposal.

53. Does the Government have an existing required format or required data fields for the monthly Excel transaction report, or should the contractor propose the report structure?

Answer: Yes. The Government has an existing required format for the monthly Excel transaction report and will provide that format, including the required data fields, during project kickoff/discovery. Offerors should base their quote on implementing the Government-provided report structure.

54. The SOW states that the Government will perform extraction, transformation, and loading of live data while the contractor provides migration guidance and active support. Please clarify the expected level of contractor support during production migration. Is support limited to guidance and troubleshooting, or should the contractor also plan for data validation, transformation assistance, migration rehearsals, or other hands-on migration support?

Answer: The SWFPAC internal team will execute the production cutover within the Flank Speed environment. The vendor will provide remote advisory support during the cutover event and related migration activities. At a minimum, the vendor shall provide an on-call engineer during the agreed cutover window to support issue resolution, troubleshooting, and coordination with the Government team. The vendor shall support post-migration validation and reconciliation of migrated data in production, to include assisting the Government in identifying and resolving migration-related discrepancies; however, final Government acceptance of the production migration remains with the Government.

55. Is the production migration expected to occur during normal business hours or during an after-hours/weekend maintenance window?