Att_6_QandA.pdf

N66001-26-R-0002

CYBERSPACE SBSA MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACT (MAC)

RFP Questions and Answers

Q1. Can you confirm whether there are any specific mandatory place(s) of performance, or if contractors may propose a hybrid approach depending on task order requirements?

A1. Place of performance will be determined at the Task Order (TO) level

Q2. Is there an anticipated breakdown or example of the “Key Areas” referenced for organizational experience evaluation?

A2. Please refer to L-215-PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS, section 3.1

Q3. Are there any limitations on subcontracting (e.g., percentage thresholds, required labor categories to be performed by the prime)?

A3. Please refer to solicitation clause 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting. (Deviation)

Q4. Can you confirm if a site visit will be required at any point during proposal evaluation or task order execution?

A4. There is no site visit anticipated for proposal evaluation of the basic and will be determined on a case by case basis for any resulting Tos.

Q5. Are there any security clearance or facility clearance requirements expected at the time of proposal submission?

A5. Please refer to Solicitation Attachment 2 - DD254

Q6. Will there be an opportunity for industry Q&A or an amendment addressing frequently asked questions?

A6. This document is a consolidated copy of all questions received with responses.

Q7. Are there any incumbent contractors currently performing similar work under an existing contract?

A7. No.

Q8. For proposal submission, are there any page limits or formatting requirements for the technical/capability volumes?

A8. Please refer to L-215-PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS.

Q9. Can you confirm the final proposal due date and time (EST) and whether any extensions are anticipated?

A9. Per Amendment 1, proposal due date and time is 1100AM (PT) on 23 April, 2026

Q10. Will the government sponsor a Facility Clearance (FCL) for awardees that do not currently possess one at the time of contract award? If so, will awardees be permitted to perform on unclassified task orders while their FCL is being processed, with task order eligibility beginning upon FCL adjudication? Alternatively, is a FCL at the Secret level (or higher) a prerequisite for contract award under this solicitation?

A10. Offerors must have the required FCL at time of proposal submission.

Q11. For the purpose of the organization experience evaluation, may an offeror cite contracts performed by a predecessor company, parent company, or previous employer of the offeror's key personnel, provided the specific individual who performed the work are now employed by the offeror and will perform under this contract? Or must all cited references be contracts held by the offeror's current legal entity? The former aligns with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii)

A11. Per the RFP, Offerors may cite a maximum of three (3) references for work performed by the Prime Offeror. The 'Prime Offeror' is the legal entity submitting this proposal. Work is deemed 'performed' by the Prime Offeror if they acted as the prime contractor or a subcontractor performing the work, or if they were the prime contractor overseeing a subcontractor that performed the work.

Q12. As a Small Business offeror on the unrestricted effort, are we also eligible to submit a proposal for N6600126R0002 Navy Cyberspace Small Business Set-aside?

A12. Yes

Q13. Additionally, can a Large Business that submitted on the Unrestricted

(N6600126R0001) participate as a subcontractor to a Small Business prime on the

N6600126R0002 Small Business Set-aside?

A13. Yes

Q14. Would the Government please provide guidance on where in the offeror’s proposal

Past Performance (e.g. CPARs) shall be submitted.

A14. Please refer to L-215-PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS, section 3.2

Q15. Will the Government please allow the use of Glossary of Acronyms?

A15. As stated in L-215-PAC001, “If desired, an offeror may include a proposal cover letter, not to exceed two pages in length, in Volume I.” It is allowed but not required.

If included, it will be excluded from the page count. Make sure that the actual required content begins on a new page for a clear delineation on pages used.

Q16. Will the Government please allow the use of a Table of Contents?

A16. See A15 above.

Q17. The solicitation package includes a DD Form 254 that indicates a Top Secret facility clearance (FCL) is required. Will the Government allow offerors that currently hold an active Secret FCL to be evaluated and considered for award under N66001-26-R-

0002, provided the offeror can support performance under an approved DD254 and will pursue a TS FCL upgrade upon award (for example, via sponsorship/processing through the appropriate Government security channels)?

If yes, please clarify:

1. Whether a Secret FCL offeror may be awarded the MAC contingent upon initiating the TS FCL upgrade process within a specified timeframe, and what that timeframe is.

2. Whether any tasking under the MAC may be performed prior to TS FCL upgrade completion (for example, at Government facilities where safeguarding at the contractor facility is not required), and what restrictions would apply.

3. Whether the Government requires a TS FCL at time of proposal submission, at time of award, or only prior to performance of TS/SCI task orders.

A17. In order to be eligible for award, offerors must hold a Top Secret FCL at time of proposal submission.

Q18. Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5) (page 1) and Solicitation

N6600126R0002 (page 84) have conflicting information regarding who Attachment 5 is to be e-mailed to. Please clarify.

A18. Eric.R.Pomroy.Civ@US.Navy.Mil. Discrepancy resolved with Amendment 1

Q19. Could the Government validate that FAR 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements are not applicable to this solicitation?

A19. The solicitation has been updated to include Clause 252.204-7021 and the associated

Provision 252.204-7025

Q20. Regarding Section L 3.1. a "Offerors may cite a maximum of three (3) references for work performed by the Prime Offeror. The 'Prime Offeror' is the legal entity submitting this proposal. Work is deemed 'performed' by the Prime Offeror if they acted as the prime contractor or a subcontractor performing the work, or if they were the prime contractor overseeing a subcontractor that performed the work."

mailto:Eric.R.Pomroy.Civ@US.Navy.Mil

Please clarify whether Offerors may include past performance references for projects performed solely by a proposed subcontractor or teaming partner, where the Prime Offeror had no direct role in the work.

A20. As stated in L-215-PAC001 section 3.1, “Offerors may cite a maximum of three (3) references for work performed by the Prime Offeror. The 'Prime Offeror' is the legal entity submitting this proposal. Work is deemed 'performed' by the Prime Offeror if they acted as the prime contractor or a subcontractor performing the work, or if they were the prime contractor overseeing a subcontractor that performed the work.” Section 3.2, states:

“The references submitted under paragraph 3.1 above will be used to evaluate past performance”.

Q21. Could you please confirm whether past performance references from subcontractors may be used in Volume III under the Organizational Experience and

Past Performance sections?

A21. See A20 above.

Q22. Please confirm whether a cover page, table of contents, list of figures, list of tables, acronym list, and standard page markings are permitted in Volume III without counting against page limitations.

A22. See A15 above

Q23. Section L states that offerors may cite a maximum of three references for work performed by the prime offeror, defined as the legal entity submitting the proposal, including work performed as either a prime contractor or subcontractor. However, Section M indicates that if the Reference Information Sheet (Attachment 4) includes a proposed team member (prime or subcontractor), the reference will be considered in the evaluation of Organizational Experience, but not for Past Performance.

Can the Government clarify whether Organizational Experience references may include work performed by proposed subcontractors/teaming partners, or if such references are limited strictly to the prime offeror?

A23. The instruction in section M states: “If Block 1 of the Reference Information Sheet

(Attachment 4) includes a proposed team member (i.e., proposed prime or subcontractor), this reference will be considered when evaluating organizational experience, but will not be considered when evaluating past performance.” Block 1 is the POC/entity providing the reference, not the reference itself.

See A20 above.

Q24. If subcontractor/team member references are permitted for Organizational

Experience:

Is there any limitation on the number of references that may be attributed to subcontractors versus the prime?

Can all submitted Organizational Experience references be from subcontractors, or must at least one reference be from the prime offeror?

A24. See A20 above.

Q25. Section M indicates that subcontractor references will not be considered for Past

Performance. Can the Government confirm that the Past Performance evaluation is limited strictly to the prime offeror, even if subcontractor experience is included in

Organizational Experience?

A25. See A20 and A23 above.

Q26. Will primes be able to add post-award subcontractors?

A26. Please refer to clause 52.244-2 – Subcontracts.

Q27. This opportunity is a Small Business Set-Aside. Typically, Small Business Utilization is not required for Small Business Set-Aside contracts. Will the Government consider removing the Small Business Utilization Requirement from L3.2, Past

Performance and M Factor 2, Utilization of Small Business?

Q27. The FAR requires inclusion of 52.219-8 – Utilization of Small Business Concerns in this solicitation and any resulting contracts and none of the listed exceptions apply.

Q28. For organization and ease of readability for evaluators, will the Government permit inclusion of Cover Sheets, Table of Contents, and Acronym Lists without counting towards page limits?

A28. See A15 above.

Q29. Can we use team members’ prime experience to meet the requirements outlined in

Attachment 3?

A29. See A20 above.

Q30. The solicitation states, “Offerors shall submit … a second version of the cost proposal/Rate Sheet/Average Labor Rate Sheet, if applicable, as an electronic file compatible with Microsoft Excel 2010. The second version of the cost proposal shall include a copy of all cost proposal data tables in Microsoft Excel 2010 or compatible format with functional (i.e., not "read only") formulas. The Microsoft Excel version shall be submitted as a single Excel file. Therefore, each offeror's total submission shall include a maximum of four files.”

These instructions indicate that a Rate Sheet and 4 files should be submitted.

Although Section L-215-PAC001 states 3 volumes. Please clarify if a rate sheet is required and if we should submit 3 or 4 files.

A30. A single .PDF file per Volume (three) is required in line with the instructions in L-215-

PAC001. A "second version" Excel rate sheet is not required for the MAC-level proposal but ‘may’ be provided via a separate Excel file (additional file).

Q31. Please clarify what is required in the summary section {L-215-PAC001, 2.0, (d)(1 thru 5)}. Is the government looking for narratives or something else?

A31. A short, concise restatement of the main points. It should highlight key ideas while omitting minor details, examples, and personal opinions.

Q32. Is it the Government’s expectation that Primes have teams in place at time of proposal for this IDIQ, or is the Subcontracting and Contractor Teaming

Arrangement sections in Volume II as the intended Plan and Arrangement the

Offeror will use at the Task Order level?

A32. Whether in place or intended plan is at the discretion of the Prime proposing. Include any information that will help the Government understand the contractor team arrangement purpose and benefit.

Q33. What should be included in Volume III – Written Capability Information under the

Past Performance requirement? Is the Offeror only expected to answer the three (3)

Focus Areas in the proposal response, in relation to Past Performance - or - will the

Offeror be expected to address the other areas in the SOW (that are not annotated as “Reserved”)?

A33. As stated in L-215-PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS, “The references submitted under paragraph 3.1 above will be used to evaluate past performance”.

Q34. Please clarify what is required from the Offeror in response to this section. The PPQ

(for past performance references without a CPARS) contains ‘check boxes’ for this category. Is the intent for the Offeror to also include narrative in this section?

A34. Per the Attachment 5 - PPQ instructions: “In order for our team to compile its evaluation, we request that you complete the attached survey form and email it, and any other pertinent information…”. This includes on pg 4 of the attachment a “Narrative

Explanation” section if the submitter deems it necessary/relevant.

Q35. Since the rating of Organizational Experience is either Acceptable or Unacceptable, please explain how the rating would be maximized. What is the criteria for

Acceptable?

A35. Per M-215-PAC001 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award, all qualifying offeror(s) will be given an award. Acceptability of the Offer (Section 1.1) is the first and a separate step from the evaluation of Organizational Experience.

Organizational Experience will be evaluated considering the breadth, depth and relevance of an offerors organizational experience since 01 January 2021 in the Key Areas identified in provision Section L and assigned a rating based on identified strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

Q36. The solicitation states, “If Block 1 of the Reference Information Sheet (Attachment

4) includes a proposed team member (i.e., proposed prime or subcontractor), this reference will be considered when evaluating organizational experience, but will not be considered when evaluating past performance.”

Does this mean that we can use team member projects under experience?

A36. See A23 above.

Q37. The drop down for Reference Number on Attachment 4 allows for 5 References.

Please clarify the maximum number of Reference Information Forms (Attachment

4) that can be included in our response.

A37. Per the instructions in L-215-PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Section 3.1, Offerors may cite a maximum of three (3) references for work performed by the Prime

Offeror.

Q38. The email address provided for the return of Attachment 5 is for Mr. David Roden.

The instructions state the Point of Contact is Mr. Eric Pomroy. Please clarify who the completed Attachment 5 should be returned to.

A38. See A18 above.

Q39. Section 2.0(e) invites offerors to 'describe teaming arrangements,' yet Section 3.1(a) references only the Prime Offeror's experience. Can the Government clarify if relevant project experience and past performance of key subcontractors or teaming partners will be considered in the evaluation? If not, please explain the intent of requesting teaming arrangement details in Section 2.0(e).

A39. The cited section requires offerors to describe the teaming arrangements if there is any proposed subcontracting. Only the prime contractor’s references, as defined in the solicitation will be evaluated. As stated in M-215-PAC001 section 1.1, “If an offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the RFP, imposes additional conditions or omits material information required by this RFP, the Government may consider the offer to be unacceptable.” Ensuring compliance with 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting and ensuring no proposed subcontractors are debarred are regulatory requirements for award of a contract.

Q40. If only Prime Offeror project references will be evaluated, does the evaluation of our teaming arrangements under Section 2.0(e) have any bearing on past performance scoring or is it considered informational only? Could the Government clarify if, or how, teaming strength and partner experience will influence award decisions?

A40. See A39 above.

Q41. To ensure seamless integration into our proposal and maintain consistency with our document’s header and footer, may Offerors remove the header and footer from

Attachment 4 (Reference Information Sheet), provided that no other alterations are made to the content, structure, or formatting of the form? Please confirm that this will be acceptable for submission and evaluation.

A41. No. Attachments shall maintain their original format.

Q42. There appears to be a conflict between the instructions in Section L-204-PAC002, which requires submission of a Cost Proposal and an Excel file with cost/pricing data, and the instructions at the beginning of Section 2.0, which explicitly state:

'Offerors shall NOT submit a populated CLIN pricing table for Section B. The

Government will enter the same contract values for all the CLINs in Section B for each awardee at time of award. A cost proposal addressing the labor categories and estimated hours provided below is NOT required.' Please confirm precisely what, if any, cost or pricing data must be included in our proposal submission for Volume II, and what specific content (if any) must be submitted as the Microsoft Excel file.

A42. As stated in L-204-PAC002 Submission of Electronic Proposals, “(2) Cost or Pricing

Type Data: All information relating to cost and pricing type data, if applicable, shall be included only in the section of the proposal designated by the Contracting Officer as the

Cost Proposal and in the second copy compatible with Microsoft Excel 2010.” The ‘Cost

Proposal’ information shall be submitted in line with the information required in L-215-

PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS, Volume II. Offerors shall NOT submit a populated CLIN pricing table for Section B.

Q43. Under the current instructions, if no cost proposal or pricing spreadsheet is required

(as implied by Section 2.0 Volume II), do Offerors submit only three proposal files

(PDFs for Volumes I, II, III)? If there is no cost or pricing data to provide, please confirm that a fourth Excel file is not required or expected with our electronic submission.

A43. A single .PDF file per Volume (three) is required in line with the instructions in L-215-

PAC001. A "second version" Excel rate sheet is not required for the MAC-level proposal but ‘may’ be provided via a separate Excel file (additional file).

Q44. If only narrative or policy language (e.g., on uncompensated overtime and accounting system adequacy) is required for Volume II, please confirm that these may be provided as part of the required PDF file for Volume II, and no data tables, rates, or pricing schedules should be included in any format (PDF or Excel).

A44. See A42 and A43 above.

Q45. The solicitation states: “The Government will enter the same contract values for all the CLINs in Section B for each awardee at time of award.” Can the Government clarify what “contract values” will be entered for each CLIN? Where will those values originate, and what documentation or rationale will be provided to Offerors regarding their composition?

A45. Please refer to Solicitation Section B, Contract Ceiling.

Q46. Are the Section B CLIN values to be considered notional, placeholders, or ceilings for ordering purposes? Will the values be publicized prior to or at award, or will awardees be notified individually?

A46. See A45 above.

Q47. How will labor category pricing for future task orders be established under this contract? Will Offerors have the opportunity to propose rates, indirect rates, or fee as part of subsequent task order competitions, or will the Government set rates for each MAC awardee at base contract award?

A47. Please refer to Clause H-216-PAC001 Delivery/Task Order Procedures.

Q48. Will the Government furnish a pricing or rate schedule as part of any future contract amendment or provide guidance to awardees on how Section B values will impact invoicing and price reasonableness for task orders?

A49. See A45 and A47 above. If there is a change to the total values stated in section B prior to award, a solicitation amendment will be released.

Q50. The proposal instructions require electronic copies of each volume to be submitted as separate PDF and Excel files via PIEE. Is there a specific naming convention beyond volume number, solicitation number, and offeror name required for these files, and are there any technical limits (file size, security features) we should be aware of for submission through PIEE?

A50. No

Q51. For the Volume III Written Capability Information, are graphics, charts, or tables allowable and to be included within the three-page limit for addenda to Attachment

4 (Reference Information Sheet) per cited reference, and are there any color or image resolution constraints for embedded graphics?

A51. Submissions shall be in line with the instructions and applicable attachments. Per Section

3.1: “In evaluating the offeror’s experience in each individual Key Area, the Government will consider only the text designated in response to Block 17 of the Reference information sheet for that particular Key Area.” Further, the burden of providing thorough and complete information for evaluation remains solely with the offeror.

Q52. The instructions state: “Do not submit any information that is not specifically requested by this solicitation.” Would submission of discretionary executive summaries, cover pages, or table of contents (where not requested) be considered a deficiency, or are these allowed for clarity and navigation? And if allowed, particularly the cover page and table of contents, will they be exempt from page count restrictions?

A52. See A15 above and the instructions in L-215-PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS for the related volume’s information requirements.

Q53. The only page limitation identified for Volume III is the three (3) single-sided page limit for the summary description addenda to each cited reference in Block 17 of

Attachment 4. Please confirm that there are no other page limitations for any other portion of Volume III, including the Organizational Experience Matrix (Attachment

3) or other narrative content.

A53 See A52 above.

Q54. The evaluation states that “the Government will consider only the text designated in response to Block 17 of the Reference Information Sheet for that particular Key

Area.” If a key area is not relevant to a given reference, should Offerors state “Not

Applicable” in that section of the addendum, or simply omit discussion?

A54. That is at the offeror’s discretion

Q55. Requirement is that Offerors submit most recent CPARS for each reference and, when CPARS is not available, ensure a Past Performance Questionnaire is submitted directly by the reference. If the reference cannot be reached or declines to submit a questionnaire, will the Offeror be penalized, or should we document outreach efforts in the proposal?

A55. As referenced in M-215-PAC001 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award, Section 2.0, Factor 2, Pursuant to FAR 15.202(c)(i), an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Such offerors will receive a neutral rating of Neutral Confidence.

Q56. Are there any additional, specific technical compliance standards (e.g., NIST, DOD, Section 508, cybersecurity certifications) for IT Systems Support that should be addressed in the summary descriptions in Block 17 beyond those cited in the SOW?

A56. L-215-PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS section 3.1 states the Key Areas to address in regards to Block 17 of the RIS attachment.

Q57. The instructions require a summary of our “property control system” and

“production control procedures.” Can the Government clarify the level of detail and scope expected, given that property (e.g., government-furnished equipment or materials) and specific production/delivery procedures will be defined at the individual task order level, not the base IDIQ contract? Is a general compliance statement regarding these systems sufficient at this stage?

A57. Per L-215-PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS, Section 2.0, (b)(2), If an offeror’s accounting system has not yet been recommended as adequate by DCMA or DCAA, the offeror is to provide the information listed. It is the offeror’s responsibility to provide the information in sufficient detail that is in line with the aforementioned section’s description of the information required. This information will be used to determine whether the accounting system is adequate in line with regulation to accept Cost type contracts.

Q58. The instructions request a description of “equipment and facilities relative to this effort.” Given the solicitation’s IDIQ MAC structure and the lack of definite place of performance or required contractor equipment/facilities in the base solicitation, can the Government clarify what information is expected in this section? Should offerors discuss general capabilities, or only identify equipment/facilities after specific requirements or task orders are defined?

A58. See A57 above.

Q59. Will the Government be providing any government furnished property (GFP), equipment, space, or site access under the base contract, or will all contractor-provided facilities/equipment be defined at the task order level? If any GFP/GFE is anticipated for the base MAC, please specify, so we may address property control and facilities needs appropriately.

A59. Identified at the TO level.

Q60. Can the Offeror include relevant past performance and/or organizational experience performed by subcontractors or teaming partners in response to Factor

1 (Organizational Experience) and Factor 2 (Past Performance)? If so, how will such subcontractor or teammate experience be evaluated relative to that of the

Prime Offeror?

A60. See A20 above relating to subcontractors. and refer to 13 CFR § 125.8 and specifically section (e) for evaluations regarding joint ventures. Also, for mentor-protégé joint ventures, see A76 below.

Q61. Does the Government permit Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTAs) under this procurement, or is the expected structure limited to Prime/Subcontractor relationships? If CTAs are allowed, how will responsibilities and evaluation be assessed across team members?

A61. Yes. See A60 above.

Q62. For Factor 1 Organizational Experience, may the Offeror demonstrate coverage of all Key Areas collectively across multiple references, or is each individual reference expected to demonstrate experience across all Key Areas?

A62. Please refer to Attachment 3 Organizational Experience Matrix.

Q63. 1 - [PWS 1.2 – Scope; para 4, bullet 5] Requesting clarification on “serve as the test site”. Is there an expectation that the contractor will supply and maintain an approved sandbox environment for interoperability testing prior to deployment to operational environments, or will testing be conducted within Government-furnished facilities such as the NIWC Pacific labs? Additionally, if a contractor-supplied environment is expected, who bears responsibility for its accreditation and

Authority to Operate (ATO)?

2 - [PWS 2.1 – General; para 1] Requesting clarification on two points (a) Is the contractor expected to develop and deploy CS/BA and C2 capabilities that simultaneously support users at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels, or will the scope be limited to specific levels? If all three levels are required, will separate systems or configurations be needed to address the distinct requirements of each level? (b) Does supporting allied and partner nations create an expectation for

OCONUS contractor deployment or presence? If so, what locations are anticipated, and is support expected to be provided through direct forward deployment, CONUS-based reach-back, or a combination of both?

3 - [PWS 2.5.1 – Operational Support; para 1]. Requesting clarification on two points: (a) Does 'off-site' refer to contractor-owned facilities, telework arrangements, or other Government locations outside of NIWC Pacific, and are there any restrictions on which tasks may be performed off-site given the classified nature of the material involved? (b) Is the requirement to review and analyze national security policy, military strategy, intelligence estimates, and threat projections scoped specifically to Cyberspace Operations, or is a broader analytical capability expected?

4 – [PWS 2.7 – Software Development and Prototyping; para 1] (a) Requesting clarification on ‘shall perform reverse engineering’. Is the requirement to reverse engineer existing software components of US assets, adversarial assets, or both? (b)

Additionally, for adversarial assets specifically, will the Government provide the necessary legal authorities and materials, and are there restrictions on the facility or environment in which this work must be performed?

A63. Specific requirements will be identified at the TO level.

Q64. Subcontracting and Contractor Team Arrangement Information (a) The solicitation references both "subcontracting" and "contractor team arrangement" in this section. Could the Government please clarify whether this requirement applies to:

1. Formal Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTAs) established under FAR 9.601, where two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or

2. Traditional subcontracting relationships, where the prime contractor engages subcontractors to perform a portion of the contract work; or

3. Both types of arrangements?

Additionally, if the Government intends to distinguish between these two arrangement types, are there different information requirements or submission formats expected for each?

A64. See A60 above.

Q65. Page 82 of the solicitation states: “RFP Section K, "Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors," completed by the offeror.” Please confirm that when submitting a proposal as a joint venture, Section K is only required in the name of the joint venture.

A65. The joint venture entity itself (as the "Offeror") must complete the Representations and

Certifications. The JV must be registered as its own entity with its own Unique Entity

Identifier (UEI) and CAGE code. If the Joint Venture has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically in SAM.gov, the Offeror must complete them as part of the solicitation as required per FAR 52.204-8.

Q66. Page 83 of the solicitation states: “Offerors may cite a maximum of three (3) references for work performed by the Prime Offeror. The 'Prime Offeror' is the legal entity submitting this proposal.” Please confirm that consistent with 13 CFR §

125.8(e), when submitting as an unpopulated joint venture, the Prime Offeror may rely on the work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture.

A66. See A60 above.

Q67. …noted that there is an 8% cap on the fixed fee as specified in the solicitation.

However, we're seeking clarification on whether there is a similar cap applied to the pass-through fee.

A67. 52.215-22 and 52.215-23 are applicable and will be evaluated at the TO level.

Q68. For proposal submission, do we need to include a SAM Report (annual representations and certifications), or is completing all items in RFP Section K sufficient?

A68. Please refer to L-215-PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Section 1.0, (1)(b).

Q69. For proposal submission, can you confirm whether providing only a CPARS (or

PPQ) is sufficient to meet the Past Performance requirements, and that offerors do not need to include a separate past performance narrative?

A69. Please refer to L-215-PAC001 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Section 3.2, (b) and (e)

Q70. Could you please clarify whether offerors are required to complete Section B? The

RFP contains conflicting information regarding whether offerors should fill out

Section B or not.

A70. See A42 above.

Q71. Could you please clarify what is meant by "number of tasks" when assessing the relevance of an offeror’s Organizational Experience and Past Performance?

Specifically, does this refer to the total count of discrete tasks or another measure of effort?

A71. Solicitation revised removing the term.

Q72. For Past Performance, Section L paragraph 3.2.a (page 84 of 88) states “We will evaluate your performance data since 01 January 2021 provided by offerors, and obtained from other sources, in the following areas” for Quality, Schedule, Cost

Control, Management, Utilization of Small Business, and Regulatory Compliance.

Section M Factor 2 Past Performance paragraph 4 (page 87 of 88) states that “The

Government will consider past performance information (e.g., CPARS, Reference

Information Sheets submitted by offerors, Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by offeror references, their own experience with offerors, and information from third-party references) as it relates to the following areas to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment” for

Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Utilization of Small Business, and

Regulatory Compliance.

a. Can the Government confirm that Past Performance data pertaining to Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Utilization of Small Business, and

Regulatory Compliance submitted in Block 17 of the Reference Information

Sheet (Attachment 4) will be evaluated as part of the assessment for Past

Performance?

A72. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance information (CPARS or PPQ) submitted and received and reserves the right to use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror.

Q73. Are proposed subcontractor’s completed Section K required to be submitted in the proposal or just the Prime contractors?

A73. No, subcontractors do not need to submit Section K.

Q74. Are subcontractors required to submit their policy for addressing uncompensated overtime in the proposal or just the Prime contractors?

A74. No.

Q75. Is the subcontractor’s accounting system adequacy documentation required to be in the proposal?

A75. Please refer to 52.244-2 – Subcontracts. For a proposed subcontractor who meets the conditions of 52.244-2(c), evidence of an approved accounting system is required to have them identified in 52.244-2(j) at the basic level upon award.

Q76. May an SBA approved mentor-protégé joint venture include relevant past performance references from the mentor partner to demonstrate experience and past performance?

A76. While the joint venture may rely on the mentor's experience, the protégé member of the joint venture must demonstrate meaningful experience in at least one of the key areas identified in Section L of the RFP. This is not a requirement for the protégé to independently meet all evaluation criteria, but rather to demonstrate its contribution and capability within the joint venture's structure.

Q77. May offerors submit classified past performance, and if so, what is the required process for submission and Government review?

A77. Please refer to L-204-PAC002 Submission of Electronic Proposals which states; “Files shall not contain classified data.”.

Q78. Will MAC awardees have visibility into task order solicitations associated with all key areas beyond those identified in Attachment 3, and will awardees be eligible to compete for task orders across all key areas?

A78. TOs issued under the resultant MAC may include any requirements within the scope of the Statement of Work; Att_1_SOW_Cyber MAC_SB. All TOs will be competed in line with H-216-PAC001 Delivery/Task Order Procedures unless an exception to competition approved via a Fair Opportunity Exception is applicable.

Q79. Can the Government provide an estimate of the anticipated volume and frequency of task order solicitations issued under this MAC?

A79. The Government publishes a forecast approximately every 6 months (October & April).

Q80. Will the Government sponsor new security clearances, SCI indoctrinations, CACs, or polygraphs for contractor personnel, or must offerors provide fully adjudicated and eligible personnel at the time of task order performance?

A80. TBD at task order level

Q81. Does the MAC include any minimum task order award, contract sales, or participation thresholds that contractors must meet to remain eligible for continued participation?

A81. No.

Q82. Will the solicitation or resulting MAC require compliance with CMMC for storage or handling of CUI? If so, will a CMMC Level 2 self attestation satisfy the requirement, or will a third party CMMC Level 2 certification be required prior to award or prior to task order execution?

A82. Please refer to the solicitation sections: C-204-PAC002 Safeguarding Covered Defense

Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, H-204-PAC003 Controlled Unclassified

Information (CUI), and DFARS clause 252.240-7997

Q83. If all technical work, including handling of CUI and Unclassified DoD information, will be performed on Government classified networks, will contractors still be required to maintain an Unclassified System Security Plan (SSP) for their corporate networks under this contract?

A83. Some technical work may be performed on unclassified networks. TBD at task order level.

Q84. Who should complete the Past Performance Questionnaire to submit?

A84. A PPQ should be completed by a previous customer or contracting official who is familiar with the offeror’s performance on a prior project.

Q85. Is it acceptable for individual JV members to submit proprietary cost or financial supporting documentation directly to the Government, separate from the JV’s consolidated proposal submission in PIEE? If so, please clarify the appropriate submission method (PIEE, email, etc.)

A85. In the event a teaming arrangement’s submission would expose proprietary data to one another, only that data which is proprietary may be submitted directly to the CS via email and must be properly identified/traced to the offer’s submission.

Q86. A Form DD 254 was provided with the proposal as an attachment, but there is no reference to the Form DD 254 as a requirement for proposal submission. Will the solicitation be amended to remove the Form DD 254 or to provide instructions for

Form DD 254 submission?

A86. The DD254 (Att 2 DD254) identifies the security requirements, facility clearance levels, and safeguarding requirements of the contract. An offeror does not submit a DD254.

Q87. Volume II – Cost Related Information. The government requests that offerors provide verification of an approved accounting system by way of letters from DCAA or DCMA. These documents are marked CUI by the issuing organizations. Will the government please provide instructions on uploading documents with CUI markings to PIEE or provide an alternative method for safe delivery?

A87. The PIEE (Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment) Solicitation Module allows for the submission of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). It is designed as a secure, unclassified system for uploading, managing, and transmitting sensitive solicitation documents.

Q88. USCYBERCOM uses the CPEA system that is an exact replica of the CPAR System.

Can the Government confirm the offeror can provide a CPEA in lieu of a CPARS given that the evaluation methods, criteria, and format are identical to CPARS?

A88. No, the submission of Past Performance must be either a CPARS or PPQ.

Q89. Can the Government provide an estimated breakdown of on-site/remote work, or will this be determined at the Task Order level?

A89. Determined at the TO level.

Q90. Ref. p.14, C-211-PAC002-d, “Key Personnel” – will the Government confirm that

Key Personnel names are not required at the time of proposal submission and will be provided at the Task Order level?

A90. Correct.

Q91. In addition to subcontractors being included in the proposal, can the government please clarify whether subcontractors can be added after the IDIQ is awarded?

A91. See A26 above.

Q92. Can the government clarify the number of days for the key personnel no-substitution period?

A92. If Key Personnel are required at the TO level, a determination of the number of days prior to allowability of substitution will be made at that time and based on the requirement.

The number of days will be filled in and included within each TO RFP, when applicable.

Q93. Can the Government clarify whether experience where the Offeror performed as a subcontractor with meaningful execution responsibility is fully eligible for evaluation under both Organizational Experience and Past Performance factors?

A93. See A20 above.

Q94. The solicitation states: “If Block 1 of the Reference Information Sheet (Attachment

4) includes a proposed team member (i.e., proposed prime or subcontractor), this reference will be considered when evaluating organizational experience, but will not be considered when evaluating past performance.” Can the Government clarify what is meant by “proposed team member”

A94. An entity or individual identified in the offeror’s proposal to perform work in response to the RFP if the contract is awarded.

Q95. Can the Government clarify whether Offerors should provide narrative descriptions or indicate “Not Applicable” for items such as property control systems and production control procedures if these are not formally established?

A95. See A57 above.