Amendment 0001 - CSO Questions and Answers (1-23).docx

CSO Questions and Answers Question 1: “Past performance references are expected to be either from a system of record (such as the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, CPARS) or from a source that has direct knowledge of the contractor’s performance on previous requirements” Is the government looking for:

1. The inclusion of an actual CPARS report?

1. An actual letter of reference/recommendation from a previous/current government client of record (COR, Technical PM, etc.)?

1. Simply contract info, a description, and a relevant POC that the government could contact as a reference?

1. All or some of the above as acceptable submissions?

Answer 1: If the contract is in CPARS the contract number is enough. If not, then provide actual past performance information, such as feedback from a relevant point of contact. Also provide the relevant POC’s info so the Government can verify the reference.

Question 2: I am writing to inquire whether our current work is a strong fit before submitting a Solution Brief by the April 17 deadline. We believe this work supports the CSO's goals. We would welcome a brief conversation to confirm alignment with the specific SOW objectives before preparing our Solution Brief. Would either of you have 20–30 minutes available this week or early next week for a call?

Answer 2: The Technical Team cannot steer you in a particular direction. They are hoping for something way more general. They do not envision multiple contracts with the same [Company]. The proposal offered is too precise and wouldn’t be fit for an award as it would limit the work to what is described.

Question 3: What technology readiness level (TRL) is expected for proposed solutions?

Answer 3: TRL 3 (Proof of Concept) through TRL 7 (Full-scale Prototype).

Question 4: How fast would the Navy expect a deployment of sensors?

Answer 4: Too variable. Depends on the proposal, but anything longer than 2 years would be sub-optimal.

Question 5: Is there a budget range that is expected for the project or is there an average project cost that you could provide? This would help us calibrate the level of effort for the proposal.

Answer 5: Very dependent on the category of work and the specific proposal provided. Proposers should provide ROM for the concept/prototype and not worry too much about average project cost. Top end of the CSO is $80M…should be enough wiggle room to propose whatever they want.

Clarification: The Government intends to award up to $80,000,000 through prototype project awards that ultimately result from this CSO.

Question 6: In 3.2 Solution Brief Content of CSO N66604-26-9-A00X Tactical Oceanography, the Technology Concept section is listed as “should not exceed 5 pages.” In order to convey our proposed solution clearly, we request that the Government increase the limit for this section to 10 pages.

Answer 6: The Technical Team has confirmed that the five (5) five page limit should be sufficient.

Question 7:

How would you prefer we present the different technologies? Are we allowed to submit multiple solution briefs in response to this solicitation, or do you prefer we address multiple technologies within a single solution brief?

Answer 7: The preference would be multiple technologies in a single brief.

Question 8: We have a CPARS available as a performance reference, however it is 4 pages long. Should this be edited down to the meet the 2 page requirement with appropriate information for the full CPARS to be viewed by the government reviewers? Or is there a way to provide a reference to you all where you could retrieve the entire CPARS report on your end?

Answer 8: If the contract is in CPARS then providing the contract number alone is sufficient. If an offeror also wants to provide an excerpt from the relevant CPARS that is also acceptable.

Question 9: We are looking to team with a researcher at a university. Is there a preferred route for indicating this type of teaming arrangement in our solution brief?

Answer 9: The Government has no preference; offerors just need to be clear about the nature of any subcontracting or teaming arrangements.

Question 10: Are we able to bring members into our team at a later stage of the process and adjust team composition based on actual agreed on SOW or future RPPs?

Answer 10: Team members can be added after award upon approval of the Program Manager and Contracting Officer.

Question 11: Should our solution brief be entirely unclassified or is the inclusion of CUI and non-Distribution A content permissible?

Answer 11: The solution brief needs to be entirely unclassified but can contain CUI as long as the proposal is transmitted appropriately.

Question 12: Our interpretation of the solicitation is that sensor solutions that build situational awareness are broadly solicited, including sensors that are not integrated themselves into the fleet (though their data would be). Our presented solution would be deployed on the seafloor in littoral regions. Can you confirm this is type of solution is broadly compatible with the types of solutions of interest in the RFP?

Answer 12: Yes, it is.

Question 13: Would we be allowed to submit more than one solution brief if we wanted to present [a] second solution?

Answer 13: Multiple submissions are not allowed, but an offeror’s single submission can contain multiple solutions.

Question 14: Both the GovWin and SAM.gov postings for N66604-26-9-A00X reference a due date of 17 APR 2026, 2PM EDT; however, the CSO attachments do not reference a due date/time. If the due date/time is in fact 17 APR 2026, 2PM EDT, would the government please consider a two-week extension? Because of the Easter Holiday, coupled with time required for solutioning with potential teammates requires, vendors need additional time in order to respond.

Answer 14: The Government will not be providing an extension to the current due date.

Question 15: Are vendors only to submit a single response to each of the SOWs? Or will the government allow companies to submit multiple solutions as they can be evaluated against their own merit?

Answer 15: The Government is only seeking a single response from each offeror, but that response can contain multiple solutions.

Question 16: Could the Government please clarify the format that should be used for the past performance references. The CSO Document, Section 3.2 states that each reference is limited to 2 pages; however, CPARS reports are more than 2 pages in length and typically span 5 pages or more. Does the Government require specific pages from the CPARS report, such as only the rating summary? Or is there another format that offerors should use for past performance references?

Answer 16: If the contract is in CPARS then providing the contract number alone is sufficient. If an offeror also wants to provide an excerpt from the relevant CPAR that is also acceptable.

Question 17: Are companies allowed to submit more than one proposal for consideration?

Answer 17: Multiple submissions are not allowed, but an offeror’s single submission can contain multiple solutions.

Question 18: For the Solution Brief, is there a strict 5-page maximum, or is that a recommended guideline?

Answer 18: There is a 5-page maximum for the Solution Briefs.

Question 19: Are figures and diagrams encouraged within the page count?

Answer 19: Yes.

Question 20: Are hyperlinks to external technical materials or demonstrations acceptable, or should all content be self-contained?

Answer 20: Hyperlinks are fine, but will not be considered an official part of the proposal.

Question 21: Is it acceptable to describe a system that has already been prototyped and field-tested, rather than a purely conceptual solution?

Answer 21: Yes, as long as the approach meets the Statement of Work (SOW) and is in some way novel to the original system (eg application, technique, CONOP, etc).

Question 22: Should teaming partners be identified at the Solution Brief stage, or is that more appropriate for Phase 2?

Answer 22: Identify the team and their role if they are part of the overall concept or prototype being proposed.

Question 23: Is this is a new requirement or is there an incumbent contractor.

Answer 23: This is a new requirement.