B08.03 Answers to Questions - NNOMPEAS - PANHEC-26-P-0000 026813 dated 2026.09.02.docx

CUI

NNOMPEAS Solicitation Questions

Question 1: NAICS code

The combined synopsis solicitation states NAICS 514511, “Custom Computer Programming Services,” size standard $34.0 million. Custom Computer Programming Services is NAICS 541511. The SAM.gov notice listing for this opportunity displays 541511. Please confirm the correct NAICS for this acquisition and the applicable small-business size standard.

Answer 1: The NAICS code is confirmed as 541511.

Question 2: Base versus option CLINs

PWS Section 5 labels Task 3-4 and Task 3-5 as “Optional Tasking.” PWS Task 4-2 is titled “Travel – Options.” The synopsis Schedule (CLINs 0001–0010) does not mark any line as optional. RFO 52.217-7 is incorporated. Please confirm which of the following are separately priced options that the Government may or may not exercise:

· CLIN 0004 / Task 3.4 Process Code Enhancement

· CLIN 0005 / Task 3.5 Statistical Views

· CLIN 0009 / Task 4.2 Travel – optional expenses

· any other CLIN

Answer 2: All of the specific identified CLINs listed above are for optional efforts or tasks. Travel is also optional or may be proposed by the contractor, however past experience has demonstrated it is not always necessary with the current capabilities for web-based meetings and similar forms of communication.

Question 3: CLIN 0006 (Task 3.6) — RMF option versus required IL4 work PWS Section 5 lists Task 3-6 as a Base Task. The Task 3-6 narrative states that one RMF documentation update “may prove not to be required” and should be estimated “as an option,” while support for migration to and operation within an IL4 secure cloud environment is described as required. Please confirm:

3a. Whether CLIN 0006 is entirely base, entirely optional, or should be split (required IL4/cloud support versus optional RMF package).

Answer 3a: Relative to answering Questions 3 and 3a, the subject application (NNOMPEAS and related or integral applications and functions) are housed or accommodated under the cloud umbrella of IWR’s Civil Works Business Intelligence (CWBI) system which also houses a variety of other applications. In this regard all RMF and IT\IM requirement submittals for IL4\CUI and cloud residence are provided to the IM technical support staff of CWBI with requirements such as RMF, POA&Ms, system scans and other requirements formally supported and prepared in finality by subject CWBI support personnel. Compliance and support on the part or via the NNOMPEAS work effort within this framework largely requires providing sub-part or application-specific data, information, and documentation as requested so that these requirements can be fulfilled at the higher level of CWBI administration for NNOMPEAS and other applications or functions which fall within the same band of requirements for authorization to operate (ATO) and security\IA within the overall CWBI system. In these contexts and relative to the question asked regarding the subject requirement, it is somewhat split requiring ongoing activity to provide information as requested to the CWBI staff versus occasional or less frequent efforts to help or assist with significant modification to data system management plans, etc. To summarize, support for continuing ATO in the cloud environment is generally an ongoing requirement. However, establishment of the cloud for IWR applications and migration to the cloud for the subject application is a reasonably recent development and the extent of requirements for confluence or compliance are generally established and reasonably well-known. However, management and operation is still being somewhat refined and adjusted for DoD\DoW requirements change or arise and as experience is gained with operating and managing a cloud presence both at the overall level and at the application-specific level. While some level of RMF efforts or support is required in general, certain activities such as comprehensive modification and submission of modifications to documentation for the RMF have been marginally or somewhat flexible in terms of timing and depending on extent of need of and for, requests from CWBI. Accordingly, depending on whether minimal or more extensive effort is required for the coverage of the PWS, marginal or incremental allowances for a more extensive effort are included as an option with assumption that a baseline minimal effort for subject compliance will be inherently required for (and included within) the baseline framework of work required (for additional information (see response to question 3b for additional information).

3b. If CLIN 0006 remains a single line, how offerors should price the optional RMF package so that it can be exercised or not exercised under 52.217-7.

Answer 3b: Not sure that this question is fully understood but would suggest that in context of level of effort relative information provided for 3a, preceding and pricing, baseline or minimal effort for compliance included within the baseline requirement scope would likely constitute approximately one fourth to one third of an overall or comprehensively detailed effort with the latter and related differential balance requiring option execution.

3c. Whether the Government will furnish prior RMF packages, POA&Ms, and source-code scan results at notice to proceed.

Answer 3c: The Government will furnish a summary of the most recent findings for the most recent source code scan if or as available from CWBI (see responses to 3a and 3b concerning CWBI association in relation requested information). RMF documentation for prior submittals will also be provided if or to the extent available with expectation of a fifteen day period after the NTP (in this regard any potential offeror should be advised that any documentation or efforts previously developed may not be fully descriptive of what is needed for compliance in future or subsequent submittals due to changing or evolving requirements for management and security of a newly-established cloud and cloud-resident system. Accordingly, consideration for time and cost allowances should reflect contingency for work efforts to develop to a stage supporting development and operation commensurate with current IL4 standards for security of U.S. Government and U.S. Government Military or DOW systems. Reference response to question 17 for additional information).

Question 4: Total evaluated price

Factor 2 states that the price analyzed is “the total price inclusive of the base and all options.” Please confirm that offerors must price every CLIN, including unexercised options, and that the Government will evaluate the sum of CLINs 0001–0010.

Answer 4: FAR 52.217-5 is in the solicitation. Every line item must be separately priced. The total will be evaluated.

Question 5: Government-furnished information and access at NTP Please confirm what will be furnished to the successful offeror at or shortly after award, and in what form (for example existing Oracle schema/export, APEX application export, source repository, data dictionaries, prior technical documentation):

a. Current NNOMPEAS application, database, and source.

Answer 5a: The Government will furnish to the extent applicable and available the overall Oracle\APEX programming framework and source code, supporting repositories, available data dictionaries and documentation. It should be understood however that comprehension and understanding of the data dictionaries and documentation as available requires or assumes a strong viable knowledge base of subject matter or domain knowledge for maritime data, related analytical application and analytical procedures of USACE. Source code documentation to the extent available also assumes a similar knowledge base and qualification for time and cost-efficient execution of the work.

b. Existing development, test, and production environment credentials or CAC-enabled access procedures.

Answer 5b: See responses to questions 8a, 8b, and 8c; 9a and 9b.

c. WCSC movement data already loaded (CY2004–CY2023 and, if completed, CY2024).

Answer 5c: See response to question 6.

d. Any incumbent transition briefing or overlap period.

Answer 5d: There will be no incumbent transition briefing though there may be some cursory period in overlap. Any transition briefing will be provided by USACE personnel to provide an overview of the system and orientation on how it functions or is used. Should there be detailed questions USACE staff cannot acceptably answer concerning how it functions or what is in general needed for transition the short period of overlap will enable some coordination with the incumbent to obtain or secure needed information to the extent possible.

Question 6:

Task 3.2 — CY2024 versus CY2025 scope PWS Task 3-2 states the database currently includes CY2004–CY2023, that CY2024 upload is to be completed by the end of September 2026, and that this contract requires integration of CY2025 data when available (estimated late March to late May 2027). Please confirm that CY2024 load is outside the scope of this solicitation, and that CLIN 0002 is limited to CY2025 (plus calendar-year / fiscal-year query capability across the retained series).

Answer 6: In reference to WCSC traffic or vessel movement data, the determination outlined or described by subject inquiry concerning the status for loading of CY2024 WCSC data with limitation of scoping to eventual upload of CY WCSC data is correct. It should be understood however that there will also be ancillary or supporting databases considered part of the overall content and framework of WCSC data that will also require uploading, handling, and integration in tandem with the primary WCSC movements database. These will include databases or tables for vessel characteristics or physical specifications (dimensions, etc) and revised computerized relationships for evaluation of vessel loading and other operations. Any potential offeror should include estimates for prudent allowances for time and costs in support and coverage of these efforts.

Question 7: Task 3.1 — Oracle 26AI / APEX 26 slip Task 3-1 requires migration to Oracle 26AI and APEX 26, with USACE platform availability projected in FY2026 or early FY2027 and completion within 395 days of NTP. If USACE has not deployed 26AI and/or APEX 26 within the period of performance, what is the acceptance criterion for CLIN 0001 (for example demonstrated compatibility and a cutover runbook versus a completed production cutover)?

Answer 7: If USACE has not implemented the subject version of software or operating system for migration or upgrade as scheduled acceptance would be based on the contractor maintaining and stabilizing then-existing system operation and functionality but with carrying out implementation of operational compatibility for upgrade to the extent reasonably possible subject to available pending information and specifications for pending software or operating systems so that time and costs are minimized when upgrade or migration is in actuality undertaken.

Question 8: IL4 cloud hosting and licenses / Please confirm:

a. Whether the IL4 environment is a Government-furnished USACE/Army enterprise cloud (and, if so, the platform name), or whether the contractor must propose hosting.

Answer 8a: The IL4 environment is Government-furnished for or via a USACE/Army or DOW enterprise cloud housed or hosted by AWS. This extends to both test and production\deployment environments but presently not development. Support and costs of operation and security of the commensurate development environment and mechanisms for secure transfer to the test environment would be the responsibility of the contractor.

b. Whether Oracle 19c / 26AI and APEX licenses, Linux images, and related enterprise components are Government-furnished.

Answer 8b: Licensed use of these systems would within the test and production\deployment environments would, in general, be covered or provided by the Government to the extent that such licensed access would be via any Government furnished equipment (GFE) accessed and authorized via issuance of a Government-controlled CAC.

c. Whether the contractor will be given a development environment in that cloud during FY2026, or only test/production.

Answer 8c: Presently, the contractor would need to support or provide for a commensurately operable and secure development environment. The cloud development effort for USACE is still in the process of developing an operational development environment but it is not presently available and the time horizon for availability and specifications are presently not available. The intent would be to make the subject environment available to the contractor if it were to become available during the work cycle of the PWS

Question 9: CAC, investigations, and place of performance. The PWS requires CAC issuance and a favorably adjudicated Tier 1 (or equivalent) investigation because USACE network access is required. Place of performance is the offeror’s facility. Please confirm:

Answer 9: The place of performance can be a contractor’s facility but only via use of secure Government furnished computer equipment (GFE) and commensurate electronic internet access point. The offeror’s facility must be located within the United Sates with access and use of GFE equipment within an acceptably controlled access area within the offeror’s facility and placement of signed agreements for handling and control for CUI and products or information provided or produced under the contract, with subject information subject to non-disclosure and non-alternative or derivative use and non-retention with any ownership of subject products, data, and information governed by perpetual ownership by the Government.

Question 9a. Approximate number of CACs the Government expects to sponsor.

Answer 9a: Tentatively no more than two (2) with applicable security review with detailed explicit justification to be provided by the contractor for operational and security review should the contractor have position more is essential or would be required.

Question 9b. Whether the Government will sponsor Tier 1 investigations for contractor personnel who do not already hold a current investigation.

Answer 9b: Where such investigations or evaluations would be required all related costs are to be incurred at the expense of or covered by the contractor without expectation for reimbursement by the Government.

Question 9c. Typical timeline from award to usable CAC / U-PASS network access.

Answer 9c: This can vary based on past experience, but typical expectation is 15 to 45 calendar days depending on specific circumstances, after award.

Question 9d. That day-to-day performance may be fully remote from the contractor’s facility once CAC remote access is in place.

Answer 9d: See response to question 9.

Question 10: CUI, CMMC, and NIST SP 800-171 / The SAM.gov notice states that CMMC does not apply. The solicitation incorporates DFARS 252.204-7012, 252.204-7019, and 252.204-7020, and the PWS requires handling of CUI. Please confirm:

Question 10a. That CMMC is not a proposal or performance requirement.

Answer 10a: CMMC Level 2 – Self is required.

Question 10b. Whether a current SPRS NIST SP 800-171 assessment is required at proposal or only after award.

Answer 10b: Not necessarily at proposal but before finalization of award if selected.

Question 10c. Whether contractor-owned systems that never store WCSC/CUI (work performed only on the Government IL4 enclave) still require a 800-171 assessment.

Answer 10c: Yes; IL4 is specific to impact level assessment and security of the system data and information, and systems where housed and accessed for Government systems. However, consideration for integrity and assurance extends to feed-in or uploaded data, information, and products subject to valid needs for continuity of data assurance and integrity for information and products handled pre-system or in support of primary application development.

Question 11: Travel volume (CLIN 0008) / PWS 4-1 asks offerors to estimate travel to IWR and, where necessary, WCSC, reimbursed per JTR. For common pricing of this FFP travel CLIN, please provide a Government planning assumption for:

Question 11a. Number of in-person trips during the 435-day period of performance.

Answer 11a: Past experience has shown that when travel was deemed necessary typically no more than one in-person trip has been required during a given work cycle given present and evolving capabilities for electronic or televised communication.

Question 11b. Potential destination(s) for travel if required.

Answer 11b: Destination(s) (Most likely USACE-IWR located in Alexandria, VA but could however alternatively be the USACE waterborne Commerce Statistics Center (WCSC) located in New Orleans, LA).

Question 11c. Typical trip duration and number of traveler(s).

Answer 11c: Should travel be considered or deemed necessary or advantageous, experience has shown that no more than one member of contractor staff has needed to travel for onsite visitation with a travel period duration typically totaling five days or less (i.e., a typical work week; 5 man-days) including allowances for travel time.

Question 11d. If the Government prefers, offerors can propose a not-to-exceed trip count; please so state.

Answer 11d: This would be reviewed for reasonableness and acceptance relative to proposed costs and level of work effort for any allowance in an awarded contract. This approach does often reduce uncertainty for travel costs as would be considered advantageous to the Government. It should be understood that travel expenses are on a reimbursable basis only if or where incurred and are generally benchmarked to allowances for lodging, travel, and subsistence within the applicable Joint Travel Regulation (JTR; current or as amended) unless exceptional circumstance can be fully substantiated commensurate with allowed exceptions to the JTR such as for example if reasonably analogous rates for lodging and transportation and other significant travel expenses could not be secured. Also refer to response 11c for additional information.

Question 12: CLIN 0009 (Task 4.2) zero-dollar option. If the offeror does not require purchase of third-party maritime data because Government-furnished WCSC, VOC, and VTN baselines are sufficient, may CLIN 0009 be proposed at $0.00? If a third-party data buy later becomes necessary, would that be handled by option exercise or a separate modification?

Answer 12: Yes; by separate modification where or if justified. This would be considered a reimbursable expense only if incurred and undertaken whether by option (for a non-zero estimate included in the proposal) or subsequent modification . As an example CLIN 0009 exists in context regarding potential or prudent acquisition of new data or information that may not have been available before that could reasonably or possibly lend efficiency to the work effort.

Question 13: Proposal format and contents / Please confirm:

Question 13a. Required or preferred file types (PDF, DOCX, XLSX) and maximum email size.

Answer 13a: PDF preferred for technical and binding price proposal. Excel to supplement Price proposal to aid price analysis. Maximum email size is 25MB.

Question 13b. Font, margin, and spacing rules for the 15-page technical volume, if any beyond “typed pages.”

Answer 13b: Fonts with a serif (Times New Roman) size 12 is preferred for body text. Headers can be without a serif. Charts and maps may go no smaller than size 10.

Question 13c. That the labor-category / level-of-effort table may be a separate Excel workbook and does not count against the 15 pages.

Answer 13c: Correct

Question 13d. That key-personnel résumés (max two pages each) and the cover page / table of contents do not count against the 15 pages.

Answer 13d: Correct

Question 13e. Whether past-performance volumes or questionnaires are required. Factor 1 and Factor 2 list only Technical Capability and Price.

Answer 13e: The position for this solicitation is for best value to the Government and not specifically or exclusively lowest bid cost. Demonstrated past performance as it factors into technical capability is of significant and important consideration. Demonstrated past performance with regard to experience, knowledge and skills with associated or applicable USACE data, information, analytical procedures and related regulations or guidance is also of consideration for evaluation (of capacity or capability for understanding more fully what is required combined with allowing for relatively more time and cost-efficient execution of related technical work).

Question 13f. Required proposal validity period (days from 26 August 2026).

Answer 13f: Thru end of FY2026 (30 SEP 2026)

Question 13g. Required email subject-line format for the proposal submission.

Answer 13g: None – make sure we know what RFP you are submitting against by number AND title. We have multiple RFPs posted concurrently.

Question 14: Query-time benchmark / Task 3-2 cites “generally less than four (4) seconds” processing and approximately 18–20 seconds end-to-end for a defined foreign-trade query. Is this a contractual performance standard for CLIN 0002 (and, if exercised, CLIN 0004), or an informational benchmark of current system behavior?

Answer 14: This is a benchmark derived from current system behavior with ongoing expectation of analogous levels of response performance with continued and expanded development in measurable part continuing to emphasize support for such performance. This level of performance was an active objective for development to-date and having now been achieved is considered a valuable capability for practical use of the system or application. Minimizing response time is critical due to occurrence of short-notice or rapid-response queries or requests for data and information from the system combined with requirements that when domestic movements are included for query the process becomes measurably more compute-intensive with commensurate allowances for marginal response time. The compute intensive nature further increases when functions such as regional or multiple-port tallies are undertaken requiring the handling and statistical manipulation of progressively large volumes or structures for data. In addition, much of the output is not pre-compiled in terms of its content which allows versatility in what may be queried relative to purpose or needs for analysis therefore efficiency and speed is critical for practical and efficient use of the system and some or many of its supporting computer or computational resources.

Question 15: Task 3.7 — VTN Government-furnished baseline PWS 3-7 states that the pre-project / waterway-system baseline profile will be provided by the Government and is expected to be complete by or before the close of FY2026. Please confirm the expected delivery date, format, and whether nationwide pre-project depths will be complete at NTP or will arrive in phases during performance.

Answer 15: The baseline waterway profile was projected for completion by the close of FY2026 but recent review and progress for this effort indicates it may carry on through mid-November of the 2026 calendar year. Over 90 of the nation’s coastal deep-draft ports or projects have to be historically researched, reviewed and determination(s) made respective to present conditions versus applicable baseline conditions. Of these, approximately 72 have been acceptably completed and several more will be completed by the close of the current Federal fiscal year if not the full extent of the remaining projects or ports. There does not exist absolute certainty of completing all subject assessments by the close of FY2026 due to changing workloads and assignments that have arisen in the present timeframe but closure of the subject effort by mid-November or sometime before is considered reasonably certain.

Question 16: Task 3.3 — VOC and power/emissions Government-furnished models Please confirm that updated DDVOC structures, bunkerage-consumption formulas, and power/emissions handling relationships will be Government-furnished (PWS anticipates availability no later than 30 August 2027, with a six-week integration lead-time floor). Please also confirm the expected delivery format (spreadsheet, documented equations, existing model code).

Answer 16: Yes; these inputs are by and large to be provided by the Government. However, given the nature and procedures by which these inputs are programmed and applied, practical and extensive knowledge and experience concerning purpose and applied use is preferred to best support time and cost efficient execution of the work and so that the contractor is sufficiently verse in technical understanding and undertaking adaptive programming where required to accommodate variances and adjustments in subject applications and functions that routinely occur from year to year. As far as the relationships they will be in the form of equations or formulas, and\or tables contained in spreadsheets largely prepared by another contractor. Associated data, information, and products will be subject to compliance for or with non-disclosure and non-alternative use and retention agreements, and affirmation of pepetual ownership by the Government. Subsequent testing of equations and relationships will be required on both the part of Government staff and the contractor to ensure they have been uploaded and integrated into the NNOMPEAS application correctly and reasonable allowances should be made for these efforts.

Question 17: DoD 8570 / IA workforce PWS Clause 10 requires compliance with DoD 8570.01-M for personnel performing IA/IT functions. Please identify the minimum IA workforce categories and levels (if any) required for personnel who will hold CACs and work on the IL4 application, as distinct from personnel who only perform waterway-economics analysis without privileged system access.

Answer 17: The subject application (NNOMPEAS and related or integral applications and functions) are housed or accommodated under the cloud umbrella of the IWR’s Civil Works Business Intelligence system (CWBI). The primary objective for the PWS is to secure economic and data analysis skills for the described subject matter domain (maritime data and information) combined with affiliated supportive application development and programming skills. The realm of information assurance, security and integrity while linked to the scope of work would be a submission or reporting requirement to the CWBI technical support function. However, the contractor (or prospective offeror) needs to first review DoD\DoW 8570 current or as amended for current standards and requirements and propose a workforce structure for proposed or described work as the contractor understands associated requirements as set forth in any applicable PWS.