C2X_Industry Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6600126R3608
About this file
This is an Industry Questions and Answers document for the Command & Control Experimentation (C2X) and Modernization Software Engineering Services solicitation (N6600126R3608), addressing 80 questions submitted by prospective contractors regarding requirements, evaluation criteria, security clearances, personnel qualifications, and contract administration.
The solicitation is for SeaPort-NxG contract holders only and seeks advanced software engineering and systems integration services to develop, mature, and transition Command and Control (C2) software prototypes to operational Naval and Joint Programs of Record. The effort is structured as a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Level of Effort contract with incremental funding across a base year plus four option years, totaling 92,160 estimated labor hours (18,432 hours per performance period). Work locations include the contractor's facility for unclassified and Secret-level work, with all SCI-level work restricted to Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Pacific in San Diego, California. Three Key Personnel positions are required: SME/Naval Operations Lead (mapping to OPERATIONS SUPPORT III-OS3), Lead Software & AI Engineer (mapping to SOFTWARE ENGINEER III-SEG3), and DevSecOps/Systems Engineer (mapping to ENGINEER, SYSTEMS II-ESY2), with at least two of three meeting all mandatory qualifications to advance. Personnel must possess Active Top Secret/SCI clearances or TS/SCI Eligibility with completed Tier 5 investigations at proposal submission, while the prime contractor requires a valid Top Secret Facility Clearance at award. The Government will provide access to the C2X GitLab environment, Overmatch Software Armory (OSA), and existing software baselines post-award. Key deliverables include containerized software aligned to CANES technology stack, AI/ML integration, and Software Development Plans following IEEE/EIA Standard 12207. Oral presentations will be conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams with no classified discussions. The evaluation methodology is Highest Technically Rated with Fair and Reasonable Price (HTR-FRP), with Factor 1 (Key Personnel Go/No-Go), Factor 2 (Oral Presentation), and Factor 3 (Cost Realism) evaluated sequentially.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question Number | Questions | Answer |
| 1 | Are there any incumbents currently performing this work, and if so, are incumbent personnel expected to be available for transition? | Yes, the incumbent is CUBRC under contract N66001-23-C-4700. The Government expects the successful offeror to provide fully qualified Key Personnel at the time of award, regardless of incumbent status, but they do not have to be incumbent personnel. |
| 2 | Is this opportunity fully funded, and if not, what funding profile or phasing is anticipated? | This is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Level of Effort (LOE) contract. The Government anticipates utilizing incremental funding. Specific funding profiles will be established at the time of award and through subsequent contract modifications, subject to the availability of funds. The Government anticipates incrementally funding each period of performance as funds become available. |
| 3 | What is the current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the applications being transitioned or matured under this effort? | The SOW encompasses a portfolio of different tools and algorithms. As stated in SOW Section 1.0, the current baseline consists of technologies developed under previous "Basic and Applied Research" programs. Offerors should assume the current baseline consists of research-level capabilities and prototypes requiring further software development and prototype validation. |
| 4 | Can you provide additional insight into the desired target TRL level at contract completion? | As stated in SOW Section 1.1, the objective is to mature the technologies, increase their Technology Readiness Level, and "prepare them for transition to a number of possible Programs of Record (PoR)." The desire is to reach an acceptable Technology Readiness Level for transition to a PoR. Acceptable Technology Readiness Level with be determined during contract performance. |
| 5 | Are there currently identified transition requirements from research and development into operational environments? | Yes. SOW Section 3.5 (E.3) specifically requires the contractor to align containerized capabilities to the CANES technology stack. The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that moves code from the operational prototype to a production container application will be aligned with the PMW150 S&T Facility and the Overmatch OSA environment. |
| 6 | Is there an anticipated Government preference for maintaining continuity with incumbent staff, existing teams, or current development environments? | The Government does not have a preference for incumbent staff or existing teams. The Government places the highest value on an Offeror’s ability to clearly demonstrate that their proposed candidates for the three Key Personnel roles possess the mandatory experience outlined in the solicitation, before they can be invited to the oral presentation. |
All proposals will be evaluated strictly in accordance with Section M, using the Highest Technically Rated with a Fair and Reasonable Price (HTR-FRP) methodology. The initial evaluation step is a strict Go/No-Go assessment of the Key Personnel qualifications, regardless of incumbent status.
| 7 | Will the Government provide access to existing architectures, source code repositories, documentation, APIs, technical baselines, and prior development artifacts? | Yes. While SOW Section 5.0 states no formal Government Furnished Information (GFI) is anticipated, the contractor will be provided access to the C2X GITLAB environment and the existing software baselines for the tools identified in SOW Section 1.1 (e.g., RAPT, WarCaT) to perform the required development and modernization. | |
| 8 | Are there Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), Government Furnished Information (GFI), datasets, cloud environments, or development platforms that will be provided? | Per SOW Section 5.0, there is no formal Government Furnished Property (GFP) or Facilities anticipated. However, as noted in SOW Section 1.1 and 3.1, the contractor will be provided access to perform builds, tests, and cyber scans within the Government's C2X GITLAB environment and the Overmatch Software Armory (OSA). | |
| 9 | Are there existing DevSecOps pipelines, software factories, cloud environments, or development tools already established that the contractor will be required to use? | Yes. As explicitly stated in SOW Section 3.1 (A.1.6), the contractor shall perform software engineering efforts that align to existing DevSecOps platforms and policies, specifically utilizing the C2X GITLAB environment and the Overmatch Software Armory (OSA). | |
| 10 | Is there an expected onboarding timeline or desired period of transition between award and full performance? | The Government expects full performance to begin at the time of award. Offerors are reminded of Clause C-211-PAC002, which states that no personnel substitutions of Key Personnel will be permitted during the first 90 days of the contract performance period. | |
| 11 | Are there expected opportunities for innovation, AI/ML integration, or technology insertion as part of the modernization effort? | Yes. SOW Section 1.1 explicitly requires the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) approaches. Furthermore, the solicitation requires the Lead Software & AI Engineer to possess documented experience integrating ML/AI or Large Language Models (LLM) into operational systems. | |
| 12 | Will there be opportunities for industry questions, technical exchanges, one-on-one discussions, or an Industry Day event? | The Government is currently accepting written questions. Per the SF 33, the deadline for question submission is June 9, 2026 at 10AM. At this time, no one-on-one discussions or Industry Day events are scheduled for this solicitation. | |
| 13 | Are there known challenges or lessons learned from the current or previous effort that industry should consider? | Offerors should thoroughly review all requirements in the solicitation and SOW, as the SOW has been updated to reflect lessons learned and evolution of this requirement. | |
| 14 | |||
| We do not see the Key Personnel roles listed in the LOE table. Do the Key Personnel positions map to any of the existing LCATs, or are they considered additional roles? If they are additional, can you clarify the expected hours for each Key Personnel position? | The estimated level of effort table in L-2 Submission of Proposals will be updated to reflect the key personnel. |
For the purposes of pricing and proposal submission, Offerors shall map the Key Personnel to the following LCATs:
SME / Naval Operations Lead: Maps to LCAT: OPERATIONS SUPPORT III-OS3
Lead Software & AI Engineer: Maps to LCAT: SOFTWARE ENGINEER III-SEG3
DevSecOps / Systems Engineer: Maps to LCAT: ENGINEER, SYSTEMS II-ESY2 15 Could you please confirm whether the FCL clearance is required at the time of proposal submission or at the time of award? The prime contractor must possess a valid Top Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) at the time of award.
Please note the distinction between the Facility Clearance and the Key Personnel security requirements. While the Top Secret FCL is required at the time of award, the mandatory security qualifications for all proposed Key Personnel (Active Top Secret/SCI or TS/SCI Eligible with completed Tier 5 investigation) must be met at the time of proposal submission, in accordance with Section M.
| 16 | We do not have a DCAA or DCMA approved accounting system. However, our accounting system has been audited by a third-party CPA, who certified that it is DCAA compatible. Will this certification be sufficient, or will the lack of a DCAA/DCMA audited system prevent us from being eligible for this opportunity? | No, an audit from a third party CPA will not be sufficient to substantiate the offeror has an adequate accounting system to receive a government cost reimbursement contract. Offerors that do not yet have a DCAA or DCMA approved accounting system will have to fill-out the DCAA Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist available on DCAA’s website: Home -> Customers -> Checklists & Tools -> Pre-award Accounting System Adequacy Checklist and submit the checklist to the CS and KO. If offerors know they are going to submit a proposal, they may submit the completed checklist to the CS and KO prior to proposal submission, to initiate the Pre-award Accounting System Survey. DCAA performs this survey to gain an understanding of how the company's system is designed to meet the criteria of Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System (SF 1408). If DCAA concludes the offeror has an adequate accounting system for incurring expenses on cost reimbursement contracts, the offeror may receive a cost reimbursement contract. |
| 17 | For the Naval Operations Lead, what does the Government consider an acceptable “equivalent documented warfare qualification” to a U.S. military command/staff college graduate (e.g., specific warfare pins, JPME, joint qualification levels)? | The Government provided "Surface Warfare Officer" as an example in the solicitation. |
| 18 | For the Lead Software & AI Engineer and DevSecOps/Systems Engineer, will the Government accept equivalent or higher‑level certifications (e.g., CISSP, CASP+, GCIH) as satisfying the DoD 8140/8570 IAT Level II/intermediate CSWF baseline requirement, provided they map to an approved baseline? | Yes. In accordance with DoD 8140/8570 baseline certification policies, the Government will accept approved equivalent or higher-level certifications (e.g., IAT Level III certifications such as CISSP, CASP+, or CISA) as satisfying the IAT Level II / intermediate proficiency level baseline requirement. |
| 19 | The Oral Presentation Guidelines allow one hour of caucus followed by a one‑hour presentation via Microsoft Teams and specify no contact outside Government personnel. Can the Government provide additional guidance on logistics and facility requirements of the Oral Presentation, for example, may Offerors use internal collaboration tools (e.g., chat, virtual whiteboards)? | Offerors may use internal collaboration tools (e.g., chat, virtual whiteboards) during the one-hour caucus period strictly for communication among the designated Oral Presentation participants. Offerors are strictly prohibited from using these tools to communicate with, receive assistance from, or access materials from any personnel who are not actively participating in the Oral Presentation. |
| 20 | The solicitation states that only Offerors rated Acceptable or better on Factor 2 advance to cost evaluation. Can the Government provide definitions for each of the ratings, such as High, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable? | The Government will evaluate Factor 2 utilizing standard Department of Defense source selection adjectival rating definitions (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable). |
Rating Definition:
Outstanding - Proposal demonstrates exceptional experience and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
Good - Proposal demonstrates thorough experience and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.
Acceptable - Proposal demonstrates adequate experience, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Marginal - Proposal has not demonstrated adequate experience, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.
| 21 | The SOW states that the contractor shall define a software development approach. Is there an existing approach with which the contractor should plan to interface or adopt? | While the Contractor is required to define and document their specific Software Development Plan (SDP), this approach must align with and integrate into the existing DevSecOps environments, the Overmatch Software Armory (OSA), and the CANES technology stack requirements explicitly detailed in SOW Sections 1.1 and 3.0. |
| 22 | Section 3.0 lists Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), NAVWAR (PMW 150), Navy International Program Office (NIPO), NAVWAR (Overmatch), and Office of Naval Research (ONR). Is this the extent of the supporting organization or could there be others? | The organizations listed in SOW Section 3.0 represent the primary known sponsoring organizations at this time. However, as this is an experimentation and modernization effort, the contractor may be required to interface with other Navy, Joint, or Coalition partner organizations as directed by the Government to accomplish the SOW objectives. |
| 23 | On the Prime - Cost Proposal tab of Attachment 0004, the indirect rates appear to be a rate percentage for the entire Period of Performance. Can the attachment be modified to separate the rates by each base year and option years? | Yes, absolutely, update the template as needed. |
| 24 | Can offerors include a separate tab in Attachment 0004 for indirect rates across all contract years? | Yes. Offerors may add a separate tab or tabs within Attachment 0004 to provide detailed calculations, breakdowns, and substantiating data for their indirect rates across all contract years, provided the final applied rates correctly mathematically link back to the main Cost Proposal tab without breaking any formulas. |
| 25 | On the Prime - Cost Proposal tab of Attachment 0004 for the ODC CLINs in row 87 show CLINs 7000 - 7400, however the RFP has CLINs 0002 - 4002. Will the Government update Attachment 0004 to reconcile the discrepancy? | The Government acknowledges this discrepancy. The correct ODC CLINs are 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002, as listed in Section B of the solicitation. The Government will issue a revised Attachment 0004 to reflect the correct CLIN numbering. |
| 26 | The Key Personnel Categories in Factor 1 - Key Personnel Requirement Qualifications table are named by titles and are not assigned hours or allocated time spent between Government and Contractor sites. These titles do not match any labor categories listed in Factor 3 - Estimated Level of Effort table. Please confirm if the Key Personnel Categories should map to the labor categories included in the Government's Estimated Level of Effort table and provide which labor categories they map to. | Offerors shall map the Key Personnel to the following LCATs: |
SME / Naval Operations Lead: Maps to LCAT: OPERATIONS SUPPORT III-OS3
Lead Software & AI Engineer: Maps to LCAT: SOFTWARE ENGINEER III-SEG3
DevSecOps / Systems Engineer: Maps to LCAT: ENGINEER, SYSTEMS II-ESY2
| 27 | Under the Responsibility Information, d). The Government is requesting a summary of equipment and facilities relative to this effort. Can the Government provide more specific information related to the what type of Equipment will be used and what the Offeror facilities should contain, etc.? | The Government does not anticipate the need for specialized Offeror facilities or equipment beyond standard office environments for remote development and administrative work. Provide a summary of standard facilities/equipment to support the contractor site portion of the Level of Effort (LOE) and the ability to meet the Secret safeguarding requirements outlined in the DD 254. |
| 28 | Estimated Level of Effort Table. Can the Government provide the location of the Government Site?, as there is no mention where this work will be performed. | The Government Site is Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Pacific in San Diego, CA. The Contractor Site is the Offeror's facility. There is no specific geographic requirement for the Contractor Site, provided it meets the Secret safeguarding requirements established in the DD 254. |
| 29 | Estimated Level of Effort Table. Can the Government provide more information related to the Contractor Site? Are is a specific location for where the Contractor Site should be? | The Contractor Site is the Offeror's facility. There is no specific geographic requirement for the Contractor Site, provided it meets the Secret safeguarding requirements established in the DD 254. |
| 30 | The Key Personnel Qualification Table. The Key Personnel Categories do not have the Labor Categories listed in the Estimated Level of Effort. Can the Government please update the Key Personnel Categories to match Estimate Level of Effort Categories? | Offerors shall map the Key Personnel to the following LCATs: |
SME / Naval Operations Lead: Maps to LCAT: OPERATIONS SUPPORT III-OS3
Lead Software & AI Engineer: Maps to LCAT: SOFTWARE ENGINEER III-SEG3
DevSecOps / Systems Engineer: Maps to LCAT: ENGINEER, SYSTEMS II-ESY2
| 31 | Under the L-1 Notice of Organization Conflict of Interest, Item (c). Can the Government state where they would like the Offeror statement of No Potential OCI Exists? Can the Offeror include this statement in the Cover Letter? | Yes, the Offeror may include the statement affirming that "No Potential OCI Exists" within the Cover Letter. |
| 32 | Under Factor 1: Key Personnel - SME / Naval Operations Lead. The requirement states "equivalent documented warfare qualification." Can the Government clarify the full range of acceptable warfare qualifications, and confirm whether qualifications from other military branches (e.g., Army, Air Force) will be considered equivalent? | The Government provided "Surface Warfare Officer" as an example in the solicitation. |
| 33 | Under Factor 1: Key Personnel - Lead Software & AI Engineer. The requirement specifies experience with ML/AI or LLM in "operational systems." Can the Government define what constitutes an "operational system" for this evaluation (e.g., Does a DoD test environment or R&D prototype qualify)? | An "operational system" refers to software or systems that have been deployed to end-users for active mission or field use. R&D prototypes or isolated test environments do not qualify unless the capability was successfully transitioned and utilized by warfighters in an operational environment. |
| 34 | Under Factor 1: Key Personnel - DevSecOps / Systems Engineer. The requirement specifies experience with the Overmatch Software Armory (OSA) or "comparable DoD DevSecOps pipeline." Can the Government provide a list of pipelines considered "comparable" to OSA, or define the acceptable criteria? | Comparable pipelines include formal DoD/Navy enterprise software factories (e.g., Platform One, Black Pearl, Compile to Combat in 24 Hours) that utilize Kubernetes, containers, and automated continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) DevSecOps processes. |
| 35 | Under Factor 1: Key Personnel - All Categories. Regarding the "TS/SCI Eligible with completed Tier 5 investigation" requirement. Can the Government confirm if a candidate with a completed Tier 5 investigation pending final SCI adjudication meets the eligibility threshold for proposal submission? | Yes, a candidate with a completed and favorably adjudicated Tier 5 investigation (e.g., in continuous evaluation or pending final SCI read-on) meets the "TS/SCI Eligible" threshold for proposal submission. |
| 36 | Under Factor 1: Key Personnel. The solicitation states "at least two of the three proposed key personnel must meet all mandatory qualifications." Can the Government clarify if the third resume will be evaluated, and whether deficiencies could negatively impact the overall proposal rating? | The initial Go/No-Go evaluation strictly requires a minimum of two out of the three Key Personnel to meet all mandatory qualifications to advance. While all three resumes will be reviewed, the proposal will be rated Acceptable/Unacceptable for Factor 1 provided at least two KP meet all the required experience, certifications & technical competencies for their respective position. For instance, if all KP appear to meet the required experience requirements, but one of the three KP falls short (i.e. Naval Operations Lead only has 8 years of operational U.S. Navy/Joint experience in Command and Control (C2) and Naval Fires vice the minimum of 10 years), the Government is allowing offerors some latitude to advance to the Factor 2 - Oral presentation. |
| 37 | Under Factor 1: Key Personnel - Certifications. Regarding the DoD 8140/8570 IAT Level II certification requirement. Can the Government confirm whether alternative intermediate CSWF certifications beyond Security+ CE and CySA+ will be accepted? | For the purposes of evaluation, if the alternate CSWF certifications meet the Government's intermediate Information Technology (IT) or Cybersecurity (CS) element qualifications in accordance with DoD 8140 requirements (https://www.cyberworkforce.mil/DoD-8140/8140-Dashboard/), or maintain an active legacy DoD 8570 IAT Level II baseline qualification, it will be acceptable. However, during contract performance the Government may may require the personnel to obtain the required certifications. |
| 38 | Under Factor 1: Key Personnel - SME / Naval Operations Lead. Regarding the "minimum ten (10) years operational U.S. Navy/Joint experience" requirement. Can the Government clarify if this requires continuous service, or if cumulative years across multiple tours or contracts will be considered? | The minimum ten (10) years of operational experience does not need to be continuous. Cumulative years of relevant experience across multiple tours, assignments, or contracts will be considered. |
| 39 | Under SOW Section 2.0 - Applications. The SOW references multiple C2X applications (RAPT, WARCAT, TN, BIGS, NOVA, ACED, ACOR-N). Can the Government provide existing technical documentation, interface specifications, or APIs for these applications prior to contract award? | No. Detailed technical documentation, interface specifications, and source code will not be provided prior to award. They will be provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI) post-award. |
| 40 | Under SOW Section 2.0 - LLM Development. The scope requires "development, implementation and testing of large language models (LLM)." Can the Government clarify whether offerors are expected to develop LLMs from scratch, fine-tune existing models, or integrate commercial LLM services? | The Government anticipates the contractor will fine-tune existing foundational models and integrate applicable commercial/open-source LLM services (within approved secure environments) rather than developing foundational LLMs entirely from scratch. |
| 41 | Under SOW Section 2.0 - CANES Environment. For containerized software delivery within CANES representative environments. Can the Government confirm whether access to a CANES development/test environment will be provided, or if the contractor is expected to establish one independently? | Yes, access to CANES representative test environments (e.g., OSA, CTB hardware in the loop lab) will be provided by the Government, as noted in SOW Section 1.1(w). The contractor is not expected to establish a CANES environment independently. |
| 42 | Under SOW Section 2.0 - Development Environments. The SOW states the contractor shall deliver builds in the "C2X GitLab environment and the Overmatch Software Armory (OSA)." Can the Government provide the expected timeline for access credentials and onboarding support after contract award? | The Government anticipates providing access credentials and onboarding support within 30-45 days following contract award, contingent upon the successful processing of contractor security clearances and SAAR-N forms. |
| 43 | Under SOW Section 2.0 - MTC2 Integration. Regarding the Maritime Tactical C2 (MTC2) Program of Record integration requirement. Can the Government confirm whether MTC2 interface specifications and software baselines will be provided, or if separate coordination with PMW 150 is required? | MTC2 interface specifications and software baselines will be provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI) post-award. The Government will facilitate the necessary coordination with PMW 150. |
| 44 | Under SOW Section 2.0 - Coalition Partners. The SOW requires support for "coalition partners pursuant to Foreign Disclosure Office (FDO) guidance." Can the Government identify which coalition partners are anticipated and whether existing foreign disclosure approvals are in place for C2X technologies? | Specific coalition partners and specific Foreign Disclosure Office (FDO) approvals will be identified at the task execution level post-award. |
| 45 | Under SOW Section 3.0 - Software Development Plan. The SDP must follow IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.0. Can the Government confirm whether an Agile/DevSecOps-aligned SDP incorporating IEEE 12207 principles will be accepted, or if strict compliance with the traditional framework is required? | An Agile/DevSecOps-aligned Software Development Plan (SDP) is preferred and highly encouraged, provided it adequately addresses the lifecycle requirements and documentation intended by IEEE/EIA Std 12207. |
| 46 | Under SOW Section 2.0 - MVP Definition. Regarding "Minimum Viable Product (MVP)" for containerized capabilities transitioning to the Program of Record. Can the Government provide the specific performance thresholds, feature requirements, or TRL levels that define MVP acceptance? | Specific MVP performance thresholds and feature requirements will be determined collaboratively with the Government Product Owner post-award based on the application. At a minimum, an MVP must be a containerized capability successfully aligned to the CANES technology stack and mature enough for transition to the Program of Record. |
| 47 | Under DD 254 Block 13 - Performance Locations. A Top Secret facility clearance is required with Secret safeguarding at the contractor facility. Can the Government clarify what work is expected to be performed at the contractor facility versus NIWC Pacific, San Diego? | Unclassified and Secret-level software development, documentation, and administrative work may be performed at the contractor facility. All SCI-level work, processing, meetings, and data access must be performed at NIWC Pacific, San Diego. |
| 48 | Under DD 254 Block 13 - SCI Access. The DD 254 states that "contract performance for SCI access is restricted to NIWC Pacific, San Diego, CA." Can the Government provide the anticipated percentage of total labor hours requiring SCI access, and confirm if remote SCI work from other accredited facilities is permitted? | Remote SCI work from other accredited facilities is not permitted. All SCI access is strictly restricted to NIWC Pacific. The Government is unable to provide the anticipated percentage of total hours requiring SCI access at this time. |
| 49 | Under DD 254 Block 11c - COMSEC. The solicitation requires access to COMSEC equipment/material and a COMSEC account at the contractor's facility. Can the Government clarify the specific COMSEC requirements (e.g., type of equipment, encryption level) and whether existing CMS user certifications will be accepted? | The access to COMSEC in this case is simply to establish an account and not to obtain COMSEC equipment. |
| 50 | Under DD 254 Block 11f - NATO SECRET. The DD 254 requires personnel with SCI access to be read-on NATO SECRET with an entry into DISS. Can the Government confirm whether this read-on is purely administrative for JWICS/SIPRNET access purposes, since NATO access is not required for this contract? | Yes. As stated in the DD 254 (Block 10.g/k(1)), contractor personnel with SCI access must be read-on to NATO Secret purely as an administrative requirement for Defense Information System for Security (DISS) and JWICS/SIPRNet access. Actual access to NATO classified material is not required for this contract. |
| 51 | Under Section C, C-204-PAC003 - IT Level Designations. For personnel requiring privileged access, a Tier 5 (T5) or T5R investigation is required. Can the Government provide the expected timeline for processing access requests after contract award? | Key Personnel must possess completed Tier 5 investigations at the time of proposal submission. For other non-Key personnel requiring privileged access post-award, processing timelines rely on DCSA and typically range from several weeks to several months. Offerors must plan staffing appropriately. |
| 52 | Under Section C, C-204-PAC002 - SSP Review. The System Security Plan (SSP) must be available within 30 days of contract award. Can the Government confirm whether CMMC Level 2 certification or a current NIST 800-171 self-assessment with a positive score will expedite the SSP review process? | Yes. A current, positive NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment uploaded to SPRS or a CMMC Level 2 assessment will be highly beneficial and will streamline the Government's review of the System Security Plan (SSP). |
| 53 | Under Section C, C-204-PAC002, Para 2(b)(1). The solicitation requires NIST 800-171 Control 3.5.3 (multi-factor authentication) with allowances for "physical and logical protections acceptable to the Government" for legacy systems. Can the Government provide examples of acceptable compensating controls? | Acceptable compensating controls may include strict physical access controls (e.g., locked server cabinets, badge access logs) combined with network segmentation (air-gapping) or dedicated jump-boxes for legacy systems unable to support Multi-Factor Authentication. |
| 54 | Under Section C, C-204-PAC002, Para 3. The solicitation references DFARS 252.204-7012 cyber incident reporting requirements. Can the Government clarify the preferred method for the contractor to "begin assessment of potential warfighter/program impact" within 15 days of an incident? | The contractor shall submit the initial incident data to the DoD Cyber Crimes Center (DC3) per the provided instructions and directly notify the Contracting Officer and COR in writing to begin coordination on the impact assessment. |
| 55 | Under Section C, C-240-PAC001. This clause prohibits contractor-furnished equipment on RDT&E networks unless specifically identified. Can the Government clarify the modification process and typical approval timeline if contractor-furnished equipment is later determined necessary? | If contractor-furnished equipment is later determined necessary, the contractor must submit a formal Cybersecurity Exception Request to the Command Information System Security Manager (Code 82400) via the COR. If approved by the ISSM, a bilateral contract modification will be executed by the Contracting Officer. Approval timelines vary based on the equipment and network requirements. |
| 56 | Under Attachment 0003 - Oral Presentation Guidelines. The Government will provide questions and allow one hour to prepare. Can the Government confirm whether questions will be provided in writing, and whether offerors will have access to reference materials during the preparation period? | Yes, the Government will provide the Oral Presentation scenario and questions in writing at the start of the caucus period, but offerors may not bring or access their own unclassified reference materials during the preparation period. |
| 57 | Under Attachment 0003 - Oral Presentation Guidelines. Two of the three key personnel must participate in the oral presentation. Can the Government confirm whether rescheduling or a substitute presenter will be permitted if a required key person is unavailable due to unforeseen circumstances? | Rescheduling of the Oral Presentation will generally not be permitted. In the event of an unforeseen, documented emergency, the Offeror may request a substitute presenter, provided the substitute is one of the other proposed Key Personnel, subject strictly to Contracting Officer approval. |
| 58 | Under Section M, Factor 2: Oral Presentations. The presentation will evaluate the offeror's "ability to articulate a comprehensive technical strategy." Can the Government clarify whether this includes cost/pricing strategy, or if the presentation is strictly limited to technical approach? | No. The Oral Presentation is strictly limited to the technical approach and strategy. No cost or pricing information shall be included in the presentation. |
| 59 | Under Section L, Factor 2: Oral Presentations. Can the Government confirm whether the oral presentation will be conducted in-person at NIWC Pacific, virtually, or if both options will be offered? If in-person, will a secure facility be provided for classified discussions? | As stated in Attachment 0003, the Oral Presentation will be conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams. No classified information shall be discussed during the presentation. |
| 60 | Under Section B, B-216-PAC001 - Level of Effort. The contract is contemplated as Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Level of Effort. Can the Government confirm the total estimated labor hours (92,160 hours) and the breakdown by CLIN (18,432 hours per performance period)? | Yes, the Government confirms the total estimated labor hours are 92,160. This equates to exactly 18,432 hours per period of performance (Base + 4 Options) as detailed in Section B, Clause B-216-PAC001. |
| 61 | Under Section L, L-237-PAC002 - eCRAFT Labor Categories. The solicitation requires use of eCRAFT labor categories. Can the Government clarify how offerors should map specialized roles (e.g., ML/AI Engineer, LLM Specialist) that do not directly align with existing eCRAFT categories? | Offerors shall map the Key Personnel to the following LCATs: |
SME / Naval Operations Lead: Maps to LCAT: OPERATIONS SUPPORT III-OS3
Lead Software & AI Engineer: Maps to LCAT: SOFTWARE ENGINEER III-SEG3
DevSecOps / Systems Engineer: Maps to LCAT: ENGINEER, SYSTEMS II-ESY2
| 62 | Under Section C, C-211-PAC002 - Key Personnel. This clause restricts key personnel substitutions during the first 90 days. Can the Government clarify the process for evaluating and approving a substitute if a key person becomes unavailable after contract award but before work begins? | Clause C-211-PAC002 prohibits substitutions during the first 90 days of performance unless necessitated by "sudden illness, death or termination of employment." If one of these exceptions applies after award but prior to work commencing, the contractor must immediately notify the Contracting Officer and submit a complete resume for a substitute. The substitute must meet or exceed all mandatory qualifications of the person being replaced, subject to Contracting Officer approval. |
| 63 | Under Section A - SeaPort Contract Holders. The solicitation states this is a SeaPort contract holders only requirement. Can the Government confirm whether offerors must hold a current SeaPort-NxG contract, or if offerors under the legacy SeaPort-e contract are also eligible? | Offerors must hold a current, active SeaPort-NxG contract. Legacy SeaPort-e contracts are not eligible for this requirement. |
| 64 | Under Exhibit A (CDRL) A005 - Software Development Plan. The SDP must follow IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.1. Can the Government provide a template or example SDP from a prior C2X effort that demonstrates the preferred format and level of detail? | The Government will not provide a template or example SDP. The contractor shall define their software development approach in a manner that best supports their technical methodology, provided it contains the information required by IEEE/EIA Std 12207.1, section 5.2.1 as described in SOW Section 3.1(A.2). |
| 65 | Under Exhibit A (CDRL) - Computer Software Product Deliveries. The CDRL requires quarterly Computer Software Product deliveries. Can the Government clarify whether "quarterly" aligns with calendar quarters or contract performance period quarters (e.g., every 90 days from date of award)? | "Quarterly" aligns with the contract period of performance quarters (e.g., every 90 days from the effective date of the task order award). |
| 66 | Under SOW - CDRL Classification. The SOW states "The contractor shall not develop any CDRL classified Top Secret with SCI." Can the Government clarify the process for handling deliverables if, in the course of development, a CDRL requires SCI-level classification? | If the Government directs that a deliverable requires SCI-level classification during execution, the contractor shall coordinate with the COR and Special Security Officer (SSO) to generate, store, and transfer the document entirely within the accredited Government SCI facility at NIWC Pacific, and the Government will provide further guidance on delivery methodology. |
| 67 | The Government states that to verify cost realism, Offerors must submit either Current Payroll data, Letters of Intent, and/or Forward Pricing Rates. Will the Government accept salary survey data as a source of supporting documentation? | No. As stated in Section L, Factor 3, acceptable substantiating documentation is strictly limited to Current Payroll, signed Letters of Intent, or approved Forward Pricing Rates. Salary survey data will not be accepted. |
| 68 | If an Offeror utilizes current employees in it’s proposal, will a payroll verification letter that includes current direct labor rates and is signed by an authorized representative of the company be sufficient supporting documentation? | No. A signed payroll verification letter is not sufficient. For current employees, the Offeror must submit actual "Current Payroll" records (e.g., recent payroll system runs or pay stubs) that clearly and mathematically link to the proposed rate, as detailed in Section L, Factor 3. |
| 69 | The “Indirect Rates” instructions under Factor 3 in Section L state, “Identify the proposed indirect rates, the cost pools they are applied to, and the source of the rates (e.g., FPRA, FPRP, Provisional Billing Rates). If approved rates do not exist, submit historical actual incurred rates for the three years prior to the current fiscal year. If a proposed rate is below the three-year historical average, provide a narrative justifying the discrepancy.”. With consideration to the details required and years listed, the provided “Indirect Rate Detail” tab seems to be applicable to those Offerors who are not proposing approved rates. Will the Government confirm that this tab is not required for Offerors that are proposing approved indirect rates? | If the Offeror is proposing DCAA/DCMA approved Forward Pricing Rates (FPRA/FPRP), they are not required to complete the "historical actual incurred rates" portion of the Indirect Rate Detail tab. However, they must still identify the proposed rates, the cost pools they apply to, and attach the formal DCAA/DCMA rate agreement as the source documentation in their cost volume. |
| 70 | The RFP provides a total ODC estimate of $50K for the base year and each option year of the proposed contract. Can the government confirm this number does not include any amount for travel and travel must be calculated separately? | No, the Government cannot confirm this. The $50,000 provided in the solicitation is an aggregate "plug" number intended to cover all Other Direct Costs (ODCs), which includes travel, materials, and incidental expenses. Section B of the solicitation only contains a single CLIN for ODCs (CLINs 0002, 1002, etc.); there is no separate CLIN for travel. Offerors are encouraged to propose the exact $50,000 amount for the ODC CLIN as instructed, and apply any applicable indirect burdens (e.g., G&A) in accordance with their approved accounting practices. |
| 71 | Within the Responsibility Information deliverable, the government request information regarding "General financial condition and specific plans for financing the proposed contract." Can the government provide additional details of what they are expecting offerors to provide? What documentation is the government expecting from offerors to meet this requirement? | To demonstrate adequate financial resources in accordance with FAR 9.104, Offerors should provide a brief narrative statement of their financial health accompanied by supporting documentation. Acceptable documentation includes, but is not limited to: recent financial statements (e.g., balance sheets, income statements), a letter from a financial institution confirming an active line of credit, or a recent DCAA financial capability audit. |
| 72 | The RFP states, "The files shall be submitted in (1) Microsoft Word for all text in .doc or .docx files in original searchable text format" but the Proposal Format table on pages 43-44 state everything must be submitted in either PDF or Excel. Can the government clarify this difference? | The Proposal Format table on pages 43-44 governs. All narrative volumes, resumes, and cover letters shall be submitted as searchable PDF files. Excel must be used for cost spreadsheets. The reference to Microsoft Word formatting on page 42 is an administrative error and will be corrected. |
| 73 | Section L-2, Factor 1 and 2 states that a proposal will be rated Acceptable under Factor 1 if at least two of the three proposed Key Personnel meet all mandatory qualifications. The Government has identified a Naval SME as Key Personnel, and will be evaluated on ability to articulate the technical strategy for the application and platform lifecycle, addressing complex system integration challenges, and guiding the secure deployment, management, and scaling of applications. Given the significance of this role to successful contract performance (and years of mandatory experience compared to the other KPs) , can the Government clarify whether all three Key Personnel positions will be evaluated with equal weight for purposes of the Acceptable/Unacceptable determination, or whether the qualifications of certain Key Personnel positions, such as the Naval SME, will receive greater consideration? | There is no weighting applied to Factor 1. The evaluation of Factor 1 is conducted strictly on an Acceptable/Unacceptable (Go/No-Go) pass/fail basis. A proposal will be rated Acceptable and advance to Factor 2 if any two of the three proposed Key Personnel meet all mandatory qualifications. No individual Key Personnel position receives greater consideration or "weight" for the purpose of clearing this Acceptable/Unacceptable threshold. |
| 74 | May the government confirm that the identified Key Personnel do not have to work on site in San Diego, CA? | The Government cannot confirm this. While unclassified and Secret-level work may be performed at the contractor's facility, DD 254 Block 13 strictly restricts contract performance requiring SCI access to NIWC Pacific, San Diego, CA. Because all three Key Personnel categories require "Active Top Secret/SCI or TS/SCI Eligible" clearances, Offerors should assume these individuals will be required to work on-site in San Diego, CA to access SCI spaces, attend classified meetings, and perform SCI-level integration tasks as directed by the Government. |
| 75 | The solicitation (Section L-2, page 45, Factor 1: Key Personnel Qualifications) lists 3 Key Personnel roles that should be filled by individuals included in our proposal. Those Key Personnel categories are not included in the list of labor categories (LCAT’s) and their associated level of effort (page 46, Estimated Level of Effort). Please confirm that those individuals named as Key Personnel will have 2 distinct identifiers in the proposal, their Key Personnel role as well as the LCAT that would be used to bid their effort. | Yes, this is correct. The Key Personnel categories represent roles, not separate labor categories with additional hours. Offerors must map the three Key Personnel roles to the existing Labor Categories (LCATs) provided in the Estimated Level of Effort table on page 46. Offerors shall map the Key Personnel to the following LCATs: |
SME / Naval Operations Lead: Maps to LCAT: OPERATIONS SUPPORT III-OS3
Lead Software & AI Engineer: Maps to LCAT: SOFTWARE ENGINEER III-SEG3
DevSecOps / Systems Engineer: Maps to LCAT: ENGINEER, SYSTEMS II-ESY2
| 76 | (Attachment 0003, Oral Proposal Guidelines, Page 2, Paragraph 7.) To aid in oral proposal pre-preparation by the contractor, will the government consider providing general Oral Proposal content requirements and a list of possible sample task topic areas as soon as possible after determining that a company will be invited to participate in the oral proposal phase of this procurement? | No. To ensure a fair and equal evaluation environment for all Offerors, the specific scenarios and questions will only be provided exactly at the beginning of the 1-hour caucus period. For general preparation, Offerors are advised to review the Factor 2 evaluation criteria in Section M (which evaluates the ability to articulate a technical strategy for application lifecycle, complex system integration, and secure deployment) and the overall scope of work described in the SOW. |
| 77 | (Attachment 0003, Oral Proposal Guidelines, Page 1, Paragraph 1.) Will the government consider providing the contractor a minimum 5-business day notification as opposed to 5-calendar days for the oral presentation schedule? | The Government will amend Attachment 0003, Oral Presentation Guidelines, to reflect that Offerors advancing to Factor 2 will be provided a minimum of five (5) business days' notification prior to their scheduled oral presentation. |
| 78 | Attachment 0003, Paragraph 7 states that "specific instructions as to content will be provided with the sample tasks" and that offerors will have one (1) hour to prepare following receipt of the sample tasking. FAR 15.102(d) requires that offerors be provided sufficient information to prepare for oral presentations. To ensure the offeror can meaningfully prepare and field the appropriate technical personnel, could the Government provide the general topic areas or technical domains (e.g., specific SOW task areas) from which the sample task will be drawn, even if the specific scenario details are withheld until the day of the presentation? | The Government declines to provide a more specific list of topic areas or domains prior to the Oral Presentation. |
In accordance with FAR 15.102(d), the Government has provided sufficient information regarding the scope and nature of the presentation. As stated in Section M, Factor 2, the presentation is designed to assess the Offeror's ability to "articulate a comprehensive technical strategy for the entire application and platform lifecycle, addressing complex system integration challenges, and guiding the secure deployment, management, and scaling of applications."
The sample tasking provided during the 1-hour caucus period will be drawn directly from the requirements detailed in the Statement of Work (SOW). Offerors should be prepared to address any technical element within the SOW during the Oral Presentation.
79 Please clarify the Government’s approach to OCI determinations for offerors employing individuals who previously supported the Government in drafting the requirements, acquisition strategy, or solicitation for this effort. Will any restrictions or mitigation requirements apply to ensure all competitors are afforded a fair and impartial competitive environment? The Government strictly adheres to the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) guidelines set forth in FAR Subpart 9.5 and applicable post-Government employment restrictions (e.g., the Procurement Integrity Act).
In accordance with Section L, Provision L-1 (Notice of Organizational Conflict of Interest), all Offerors are mandated to identify any potential OCI—including those stemming from Unequal Access to Information or Biased Ground Rules—as part of their proposal submission.
If an Offeror employs individuals who previously supported the Government in drafting the requirements, acquisition strategy, or solicitation for this effort, the Offeror must explicitly disclose this and submit a comprehensive OCI Mitigation Plan. The Contracting Officer will independently evaluate the specific facts of each disclosure to determine if an actual OCI exists and if the proposed mitigation strategy is sufficient to neutralize any unfair competitive advantage. If the Contracting Officer determines that a significant potential conflict exists and cannot be adequately mitigated, that Offeror will be ineligible for award. The Government is committed to maintaining a strictly fair, impartial, and level competitive environment.
80 Would the Government consider a two-week extension to allow offerors to evaluate the Key Personnel requirements and develop a competitive response? An extension will also allow accommodation of a holiday in June. No, the Government's timeline to award the follow-on does not allow for a slippage in schedule.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .