Questions and Answers W911QY-26-R-A007 (Rev. 2).pdf

Question # Volume Section / Page Question Response

Solicitation+-

+W911QY26RA007+Pro fessional+Appearance

Section L.6.0.

Can the Government confirm the Past Performance volume should be Phase II Volume VI rather than Volume V?

Yes, the Past Performance volume should be Phase II Volume VI rather than Volume V?

Attachment+0001+-+ Performance+Work+

Statement

Section C.2.12

Can the Government clarify the section number for "Executive Level Fielding Schedule (ELFS) - Deliverable 07 - CDRL A007" in the

PWS? (C.2.12.1.4?)

ELFS should be C.2.12.1.4. RFP Ammended

Solicitation+-

+W911QY26RA007+Pro fessional+Appearance

Section L.5.2.1.1

Can the Government clarify that for the Program Management (Contractor Task Management) tasks, offerors should demonstrate the ability to provide technical support for all tasking areas in Section C.2.1 of the PWS instead of Section C.2.6?

Section L.5.2.1.1 - Program Management (Contractor Task Management) tasks, tasks, offerors should demonstrate the ability to provide technical support for all tasking areas in Section C.2.1 of the PWS. RFP Ammended

Solicitation+-

+W911QY26RA007+Pro fessional+Appearance

Sections L.5.2.2.4 & M.7.2.2.4

Pages 98, 118

The solicitation requires offerors to demonstrate the professional experience of proposed key personnel and provide a Letter of Intent for each. Would the Government consider requiring submission of resumes for key personnel to support the evaluation of qualifications and experience similar to that in the PWS?

Submit resume for each key personnel (limit 2 pages / not counted against volume limit). RFP Ammended

Solicitation+-

+W911QY26RA007+Pro fessional+Appearance

Section L.1.18, Request the Government direct that Resumes/CVs not count towards page limitations, as is done with Letters of Intent. see Q4 response

Solicitation+-

+W911QY26RA007+Pro fessional+Appearance

Section L.1.3 Page 90-91

The solicitation specifies minimum font size of Aptos, 10-point font for proposal content. Would the Government allow Aptos, 8 point font for graphics and tables?

Yes, the Government will allow Aptos, 8 point font for graphics and tables. RFP Ammended

Solicitation+-

+W911QY26RA007+Pro fessional+Appearance

Section L.1.3 Page 90-91

The solicitation specifies 1.5 line spacing for proposal submissions.

Would the Government consider allowing single spaced text for graphics and tables?

Yes, the Government will allow single spaced text for graphics and tables. RFP Ammended

8 Solicitation Can tables and graphics use 8 pt font? see Q6 response

9 Solicitation Please confirm that resumes are required in addition to LOIs for all Key Personnel. See Q4 response

10 Solicitation If resumes are required, please confirm resumes are not included in the page count limitation for sub-factor 2. See Q4 response

11 Solicitation

To ensure alignment with Government priorities, can the Government clarify the relative importance of incumbent workforce retention versus proposed staffing approaches that introduce new personnel with equivalent or enhanced qualifications?

The government has not established a relative ranking of types of staffing plans. A proposed staffing plan, whether it has incumbent staffing or not, may be considered a strength if it has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

12 Solicitation L.5.1.3 / Page 97 Please confirm that the Incoming Transition Plan is an attachment and should be submitted seperately from Volume V just as the PMP and QCP.

Incoming Transition Plan will be an attachment. Limited to 10 pages.

13 PWS PWS §C.2.1.3 / page 4 Should "C.2.1.3. Process Efficiencies Recommendation(s) – Deliverable 1 / CDRL A001" be part of the "C.2.12. Management Analysis Support Services" ?

No. See PWS C.2.19.1 / Deliverable is not due until 6 months after start of award.

14 PWS PWS §C.2.1.3 / page 4 Or, is this CDRL A001 a separate Process Improvement responsibility that is part of Program Management (Contractor Task Management) ?

Correct. It's a separate Process Improvement responsibility that is part of Program Management (Contractor Task Management).

15 PWS Section L.5.1.1 / Page 96

The response requirements for L.5.1.1 Program Management Plan and its subsections have significant overlap with L.5.2.1.1 Program Management (Contractor Task Management). Can we reference between sub factor I and sub factor II rather than duplicate information?

See Q3 response. The Amended solicitation will provide clarity between sections L.5.1.1. and L.5.2.1.1. Subfactor 1 focuses on the Plan, Subfactor 2 on the tasks.

16 PWS PWS §C.2.1.3.3 / page 4

The PWS is clear that the Government wants a recommended system(s) within the first six months of contract award. After six months of performance and gathering insitutional knowledge, offeror may determine a different or better approach and system(s) that currently anticipated. Based on this, is the Government requiring a specific system or solution recommended in the offeror's proposal?

No. Reference states under PWS C.2.1.3.1., "...An ATS is a broad term for the use of technology to perform tasks with reduced human assistance, designed to improve efficiency, quality, and productivity. In this context, the ATS should be aimed at achieving specific efficiencies within equipment fielding operations. This could involve, but is not limited to, the implementation of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.), which enables machines to mimic human intelligence for tasks like decision-making and problem-solving; Robotic Process Automation (RPA), which uses software "bots" to automate repetitive, rules-based digital tasks; and Machine Learning (ML), a subset of A.I. where systems learn from data to improve their performance over time."

17 PWS PWS §C.2.1.3 / page 4 Should the Automated Technology Solution (ATS) recommendation be limited to existing Government systems and tools, or may offerors propose third-party or contractor-owned solutions?

No. Reference states under PWSC.2.1.3.3. page 5, Attachment

1. An offeror may propose a third-party or contractor-owned solution, however, as with any proposed solution, each recommendation must include detailed information addressing each of six components described in Attachment 1.

18 PWS PWS §C.2.1.3 / page 4 For the ATS does the Government want/anticipate a Customer- Owned Tooling (COT) or Government-Owned Tooling (GOT)? See Q17 response

W911QY-26-R-A007 - Materiel Fielding and Medical Liaison Support Services

19 PWS PWS §C.2.1.3.3 / page 4

Should offerors assume that any costs associated with implementing an accepted ATS recommendation would be handled via a future bilateral contract modification and are not part of the base contract scope?

Yes. Reference PWS C.2.1.3.3. page 5, "Should the Government wish to implement an accepted recommendation, it will be incorporated into the contract via a bilateral, negotiated modification. "

20 Volume V Will the government please confirm that Key Personnel Resumes are not required for this submission? see Q4 response

21 Volume V Will the government be providing job descriptions, education requirements, and years of experience needed for each labor category?

Yes, The govenrment will add a tab to the FTE attachement 0003 with the job descriptions, education requirements, and years of experience for each position

22 Volume V

The government intends to make an award on March 26th 2026, with PoP to begin April 02 2026. Under this timeline, is the expectation for the contractor to have all 39 staff onboarded and ready to perform on day 1 of the PoP, or can staff be mobilized in a phased approach throughout the 30-day transition-in period?

The Government expects FTE's to be filled 30 days after contract award.

23 Volume II

If proposing as a Joint Venture, must the JV entity itself possess the required Secret Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission, or may compliance be satisfied by one JV partner (e.g., the managing partner)?

Only one JV member needs to hold a facility clearance

24 Volume III

If proposing as a Joint Venture, must the JV entity itself possess the required CMMC certification at the time of proposal submission, or is it acceptable for one JV partner (e.g., the managing partner) to hold the required CMMC level?

all members must meet CMMC requirements

25 Volume III If offer is submitted with CMMC Level 1 how long after award does the awardee have to get CMMC Level 2? Not required at this time

26 Volume III Can CMMC Level 2 be self assessed or does it have to be C3PAO? See Q25 response

27 RFP Is this requirement a follow-on to an existing contract? If so, please provide the incumbent contractor name and contract number. Yes. W911QY-25-C-A047

28 L.5.2.2.4 What document is required to show evidence? see Q4 response

29 L.5.2.2.1 What document is required to show evidence?

No specified document is required. Solicitation section L.5.2.2.

"The Offeror shall submit written information which effectively demonstrates the Offeror's relevant experience (for this purpose, experience refers to what an Offeror has done, not how well it was accomplished) identical to, similar to or related to performing services contained within the PWS. The Offeror's proposal shall demonstrate:..."

30 L.5.2.2.2 What document is required to show evidence? See Q29 response 31 L.5.2.2.3 What document is required to show evidence? See Q29 response

32 L.5.2.2.4 Does the government want resumes of key personnel as evidence of key personnel experience see Q4 response

33 Is there an incumbent ? If so what is the name and contract number ? Yes, ERPROSOURCE360 LLC. / W911QY-25-C-A047

34 Is resumes required ? see Q4 response

35 L6.0 What is the page limitation for Volume VI- Past Performance.

IAW L.1.18, each Past Performance Information Sheet shall not exceed six (6) pages. The Table of Contents, Consent Letters, if required, do not count against the page count.

36 C.1.4

Could you please provide the job descriptions and qualification requirements for the following positions?

1. Program Manager/CTM

2. Management Analyst- Middle

3. Logistics Analyst IV Medical Liaison Officer (LNO)

4. Logistics Analyst IV – Medical Liaison Officer (LNO) Systems Analyst

5. Logistics Analyst III – Fielding Coordinator

See Q21 response

37 Volume VII Row 27

The Period of Performance dates in Row 27 do not match those on Row 1 - can the government update the surge PoP, as the base Year has 2025 in it. Yes, the Government updated the dates in Amendment 0001

38 Volume VI Section L – Instructions to Offerors (Past Performance) / Page 99

Can the Government confirm whether offerors may submit Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to satisfy the past performance submission requirements?

IAW L.6.2., The offeror shall send out up to but no more than three (3) Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires (PPAQs) to each of the Points of Contact (POCs) identified in the Past Performance Volume. The offeror can submit CPARS reports if it wishes to, but it is not requjired as the Contracting Officer has access to CPARS.

39 RFP L.1.14 Instructions, Condi

L.1.14 states, "The Government will perform a virus scan on all electronic files provided by the Offerors. Any submittal failing the virus scan or found to be unreadable shall be rejected, returned to the Offeror and not considered or evaluated." Please share the software and tools that will be used to conduct the virus scan.

The Department of War (DoW) primarily uses McAfee (specifically McAfee VirusScan Enterprise/Endpoint Security) to scan emails and systems for viruses. The DoD also utilizes advanced email security solutions, such as MailRoute, for cloud-based, multi-layered threat protection, including phishing and malware defense

40 RFP L.1.16.d Proposal Format

L.1.16.d states (twice), "Appendixes required or authorized for the respective volume. Each appendix shall be submitted as a separate file. Appendixes will not count against page counts." Please further explain these instructions, including what "appendix" means, as the word does not appear anywhere else in Section L.

This requirement has been removed.

41 RFP L.5.1.1 Program Managem

Please clarify whether the Program Management Plan (PMP), Quality Control Plan (QCP), and Incoming Transition Plan (ITP) shall be included as distinct sections within—or as attachments to—Volume V - Technical (Factor 1), Subfactor 1: Management Approach. L.5.1.1 PMP and L.5.1.2 QCP instruct offerors to include each plan "as an attachment to their non-cost/price proposal," but L.5.1.3 ITP lacks those instructions. If the PMP, QCP, and ITP are to be submitted as attachments to Volume V, please further clairfy whether those attachments shall be referred to as attachments (e.g., "Attachment A: PMP") or appendices (e.g., "Appendix A: PMP").

The Incoming Transition Plan shall be included as an attachment to the non-cost/price proposal. The PMP, QCP, and ITP are to be submitted as attachments to Volume V and should be refered to as "Attachments."

RFP

PWS

L.1.7 / pg. 91L.5.1.3 / pg.

The RFP requires submission of a 30-day Incoming Transition Plan, with proposals due on 03/23/2026, performance beginning on 04/02/2026, and incumbent performance currently concluding on 04/01/2026. To develop a realistic and executable transition approach that ensures continuity of operations, please clarify:

1. Will the incumbent Program Manager (PM) and/or incumbent key personnel be required to support transition activities (e.g., knowlege transfer, documentation turnover, stakeholder introductions)?

2. If incumbent transition support is not required, does the Government intend to lead and support transition coordination to ensure effective knowlege transfer?

3. Should offerors assume direct access to incumbent processes, artifacts, and personnel during the transition period?

4. How should offerors structure staffing during the first 30-days of performance, i.e., fully staffed on day one or phased based on transition milestones?

Transition scope, staffing levels, and pricing assumptions are highly dependent on the Government’s approach to transition governance and knowledge transfer. Clarification will enable offerors to propose a plan that balances mission continuity, execution risk, and cost efficiency.

See Q22 response; 1. Will the incumbent Program Manager (PM) and/or incumbent key personnel be required to support transition activities (e.g., knowlege transfer, documentation turnover, stakeholder introductions)? Yes the incumbent is required to assist in the transition.

2. If incumbent transition support is not required, does the Government intend to lead and support transition coordination to ensure effective knowlege transfer? See above

3. Should offerors assume direct access to incumbent processes, artifacts, and personnel during the transition period?

IAW with W911QY-25-C-A047 -Outgoing Transition Plan – Deliverable 4

In accordance with this solicitation, the Contractor shall provide an Outgoing Transition Plan (Deliverable 4) for 30 days of outgoing transition for transitioning work from an active contract to a follow-on contract or Government entity. This transition may be to a Government entity, another Contractor or to the incumbent Contractor under a new contract/order. In accordance with the Government-approved plan, the Contractor shall assist the Government in planning and implementing a complete transition from this Contract and/or orders issued under this Contract to a successful provider. This shall include formal coordination with Government staff and successor staff and management. It shall also include delivery of copies of existing policies and procedures, and delivery of required metrics and statistics. This transition plan shall include but is not limited to:

43 RFP L.7.0 / pg. 101M.9 / pgs. 1

The RFP reflects relocation of multiple positions to the Frederick, MD labor market and includes a five-year period of performance. Given the increased labor market competition and cost-of-living differences relative to West Virginia, clarification is requested regarding how the Government intends to assess price reasonableness in relation to sustained workforce stability and long-term mission continuity.

Specifically:

1. In determining fair and reasonable pricing, will the Government consider whether proposed labor rates are sufficient to recruit and retain qualified personnel within the Frederick, MD market over the full five-year performance period?

2. In a highly competitive firm-fixed price environment, if proposed labor pricing is materially below prevailing market conditions, will the Government assess the potential long-term performance risk associated with attrition, vacancy rates, and workforce instability?

3. Does the Government intend to perform any level of price realism or risk assessment to evaluate whether proposed compensation levels are adequate to sustain required staffing levels and mission capacity over time?

Over a five-year performance period, workforce attrition risk may not be immediately visible but can materially impact mission continuity, institutional knowledge, and operational effectiveness. Clarification will enable offerors to structure pricing that balances competitiveness with sustainable execution capacity.

All proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness per FAR

15.305 using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR

15.404. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the Offeror's proposed Costs/Prices in accordance with the definitions in FAR 31.201-3. A price is considered reasonable if it does not exceed what would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.The Government will not perform a price realism analysis.

44 PWS C.2.1.3. Process Efficienc Is the correct name of Deliverable 1 / CDRL A001 "Process Efficiencies Recommendation(s)" or "Proficiency Recommendation?"

Process Efficiencies Recommendation(s) is the correct name.

The government will amend the deliverable table title

45 PWS C.2.8. Continuity of Opera Is the correct name of Deliverable 5 / CDRL A005 "Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)" or "Contingency Operations Plan (COP)?" Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) is the correct name

46 PWS C.2.9. Monthly Fielding An Is the correct name of Deliverable 6 / CDRL A006 "Monthly Fielding Analysis Report" or "Monthly Fielding Analysis?"

Monthly Fielding Analysis and Monthly Fielding Analysis Report are synonymous

47 PWS C.4.1. Non-Disclosure Ag Is the correct name of Deliverable 18 / CDRL A018 "Non-Disclosure Use Agreement" or "Non-Disclosure/Non-Use Agreement?" Non-Disclosure Agreement is the correct title

48 RFP L.1.3 Font and Size

L.1.3 states, "Proposals must adhere to the following font and size requirements: Font Family: Aptos, Font Size: 10 points." Will the Government please allow a font size no smaller than 8 points for text in tables and figures?

See Q6 for response

49 PWS C.2.17.6. Surge Plan -– C

Is C.2.17.7. Fielding Mission Support a subsection to C.2.17.6.

Surge Plan -– CDRL A017? As written, Fielding Mission Support has an equivalent fourth-tier section level to Surge Plan (i.e., C.2.17.X). If Fielding Mission Support is a Surge Plan subsection, please correct its section number to C.2.17.6.1.

The Government will strike this section from the PWS. Delete C.2.17.7. Fielding Mission Support

50 RFP M.8.4 Past Performance R

How is an offeror's past performance evaluation rating impacted by the number of past performance references they submit? For example, if Offeror A submits only 1 very relevant reference and Offeror B submits 1 very relevant and 1 somewhat relevant reference (2 references total), who would receive an overall higher confidence rating? Would Offeror B's overall rating be brought down by their 1 somewhat relevant reference, leaving Offeror A with a superior rating even though they only submitted 1 reference?

RFP M.8.4: Past Performance Rating Methodology states, "...A negative finding under any aspect may result in an overall low confidence rating.

Offerors are encouraged to include all relevant past efforts regardless of perceived evaluation rating. Each contract submitted by the Offeror to substantiate past performance will be rated for relevancy...This relevancy rating will be used when considering how much weight to ascribe to each contract in determining the overall confidence rating." The criteria above is unclear and seems contracdictory: While it is beneficial to the government to have several references to evaluate from each offeror, it seems like a risk for an offeror to submit multiple references if some references are potentially weaker than others. If "a negative finding under any aspect may result in an overall low confidence rating," it does not seem to be in the offeror's best interest to "include all relevant past efforts regardless of perceived evaluation rating," as the RFP states. In other words, it seems to be in the best interest of the offeror to only submit those references they anticipate being rated as very relevant.

By itself, the number of past performance references does not impact the past performance rating, unless the offeror does not have any past performance in which case they will receive a rating of Neutral Confidence.

In addition, the question contains an incorrect assumption that submission of a “somewhat relevant” reference is “negative.” As stated in the solicitation, an offeror’s past performance assessment “will be made based upon the Offeror's (to include proposed subcontractors) demonstrated performance in the assessed areas of evaluation.” (M.8.4.)

The purpose of assessing the relevancy of a past performance reference is to help determine “how much weight to ascribe to each contract in determining the overall confidence rating.”

(M.8.4.) Demonstrated successful performance on a “Somewhat Relevant” reference is still successful performance and is not a “negative finding.” However, in establishing an overall Performance Confidence Assessment, demonstrated successful performance on a “Somewhat Relevant” reference will be given less “weight” than demonstrated successful performance on a “Relevant” or “Very Relevant” reference.

Finally, offerors are reminded that “the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources” and “Failure to provide any derogatory Past Performance information may be grounds for elimination from the

51 PWS C.2.12.1.3. / pg. 12C.2.12

Deliverable 7 / CDRL A007 Executive Level Fielding Schedule appears in two different PWS secitons: 1) C.2.12.1.3. Process Improvement, as a standalone paragraph without its own sub-heading, and 2) C.2.12.5. "The Contractor shall provide administrative support to support all FID fielding’s and ancillary paperwork, such as the Executive Level Fielding Schedule (Deliverable 007)." In C.2.19. Deliverable/Delivery Schedule, Deliverable 7 is only associated with C.2.12.5. Please clarify whether Deliverable 7 is applicable to C.2.12.1.3., C.2.12.5., or both.

The deliverable is applicable to both sections C.2.12.1.4., C.2.12.5. The Government will amend the PWS.

52 RFP L.5.2 Phase II SUBFACTO

L.5.2 Phase II SUBFACTOR 2: FIELDING SUPPORT states, "The Offeror should submit a written technical approach which effectively demonstrates the Offeror's clear understanding of all the tasks in PWS Sections C.2.6, C.2.12, C.2.13, C.2.14, C.2.15, C.2.16 and C.2.17…" PWS C.2.6. is Program Management Plan (PMP), which offerors are instructed (in L.5.1.1, RFP pg. 96) to include in Subfactor 1: Management Approach. Please confirm that offerors must only submit information regarding a PMP in Subfactor 1:

Management Approach—not also in Subfactor 2: Fielding Support.

The government will amend L.5.2. and remove PWS reference C.2.6.

RFP

PWS

L.5.2.1.1 Program Manag

Under L.5.2 Phase II SUBFACTOR 2: FIELDING SUPPORT, L.5.2.1.1 Program Management (Contractor Task Management) states, "Demonstrate the ability to provide technical support for all tasking areas of Section C.2.6 of the PWS." In the PWS, Program Management (Contractor Task Management) is Section C.2.1, not C.2.6 (C.2.6 is the PMP, which is required in Subfactor 1: Management Approach). Please confirm that offerors are required to discuss C.2.1. Program Management (Contractor Task Management)—not C.2.6. PMP—in Subfactor 2:

Fielding Support.

See Q3 response

RFP

PWS

L.5.2 Phase II SUBFACTO

L.5.2 Phase II SUBFACTOR 2: FIELDING SUPPORT states, "The Offeror should submit a written technical approach which effectively demonstrates the Offeror's clear understanding of all the tasks in PWS Sections C.2.6, C.2.12, C.2.13, C.2.14, C.2.15, C.2.16 and C.2.17…" In addition, L.5.2.1.1 instructs offerors to discuss Program Management (Contractor Tasks Management), which is PWS C.2.1.

These combined instructions omit the following seven PWS sections that are not otherwise required in Subfactor 1: Management Approach: 1) C.2.2. Monthly Progress Report (MPR) –CDRL A002,

2) C.2.3. Kick-off Meeting and Program Reviews Meeting Materials –– CDRL A003, 3) C.2.5. Outgoing Transition Plan –CDRL A004, 4) C.2.8. Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) – CDRL A005, 5) C.2.9. Monthly Fielding Analysis Report - CDRL A006, 6) C.2.10.

Operations during Emergency Situations, and 7) C.2.11. Contractor Personnel Performance/Replacement. Please clarify whether Subfactor 2: Fielding Support shall also include a written technical approach which effectively demonstrates the Offeror's clear understanding of the aforementioned seven PWS sections.

The identified CDRLs do not require additional explanation or vendor understanding. The government will amend L.5.2 to include PWS section C.2.11.

55 DD 254 pgs. 2-3 Will the Government please provide the "DD 254 Continuation attachment" referenced in the form?

Yes, the government will provide the DD 254 Continuation attachment at time of award

56 RFP

L.4.0 Phase I (Acceptable/Unacceptabl e): Volume III

Please confirm whether Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) will be processed, stored, or transmitted by prime contractors or subcontractors during performance of this contract.

Yes

57 RFP

L.4.0 Phase I (Acceptable/Unacceptabl e): Volume III

If performance involves CUI, given DoD’s phased CMMC rollout during the performance period, will the Government revise the requirement to CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO Certification) instead of Level 1 in order to reduce security risk?

No

58 RFP

L.4.0 Phase I (Acceptable/Unacceptabl e): Volume III

Based on review of the Performance Work Statement and associated CDRLs, contract deliverables appear to require the creation and electronic transmission of the following CUI categories from contractor-owned information systems to the Government, including:

• Operational status, logistics execution data, staffing, travel, telework status, OPSEC-related training status, and Government Furnished Equipment accountability (e.g., Monthly Progress Reports);

• Fielding schedules, materiel quantities, Line Item Numbers, locations, transportation discrepancies, and execution timelines supporting worldwide medical materiel fielding;

• Transition of Government Furnished Information, system documentation, configuration data, historic program data, and access credentials during incoming and outgoing transitions;

• Continuity of Operations Plans documenting emergency procedures, alternate work locations, communications plans, and personnel accountability; and

• Personnel Accountability Reports and Privacy Impact Assessment–related information involving personally identifiable information.

Under DoD CIO guidance, contracts that involve the processing, storage, or transmission of CUI require implementation of NIST SP 800-171, which corresponds to CMMC Level 2. Will the Government consider raising CMMC Requirement to CMMC Level 2 with

No, All deliverables with CUI information are provided through the GFE systems.

59 RFP

L.4.0 Phase I (Acceptable/Unacceptabl e): Volume III

Will CUI be handled in contractor information systems? If so, the DoD CIO suggests requiring CMMC Level 2 with third-party certification (C3PAO). Will the Government consider increasing CMMC to Level 2 with C3PAO?

No. CUI information is to be handled on GFE. No CMMC will remian LvL 1

60 Solicitation and PWS L.6.0/99 L6.3/101 M.2.2.

3.3/112

Due to the approximately 11-month unanticipated delay between the original proposal submission date (28 April 2025) and the current re-solicitation, highly relevant past performance that was recent under the initial solicitation of this work now falls just outside the 6-year window. To maximize competition, maintain a level playing field, and prevent the inadvertent penalization of offerors due to the administrative delay, will the Government consider revising recency definition in Sections L and M to include contracts performed within the 7 years prior to the current proposal submission date?

Yes. Past Performance within the past 7 years will be considered.

RFP amended.

61 Solicitation L.1.1.8 L.5.0/96 Volume IV M.1.3/107 G.3/32 J/74

Solicitation Sections L, M, G, and J – Volume IV OCI Requirements (Phase I) Sections L.5.0 (p. 96), M.1.3 (p. 107), G.3 (pp. 32–33), and Section J

(p. 74) address the Phase I Volume IV Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) submission, but use differing terminology and descriptions for Attachment 0002 and its required contents.

Section M.1.3 states that, to receive an “Acceptable” rating, Volume IV must include both a certified declaration of no current OCI and a notional OCI Mitigation Plan addressing potential OCI concerns.

Section G.3 similarly describes Attachment 0002 as including a mitigation plan to be maintained throughout contract performance.

However, Section J lists Attachment 0002 solely as “OCI Certification FSD,” and Section L.5.0 uses conditional language that could be interpreted inconsistently.

Will the Government please confirm that, for Phase I evaluation, Volume IV (Attachment 0002) must include both an OCI certification/declaration and a notional OCI Mitigation Plan regardless of whether a current OCI is identified, and update or align the referenced solicitation sections and attachment labeling accordingly to reflect the criteria for an “Acceptable” rating?

For Phase I evaluation, Volume IV (Attachment 0002) must submit the OCI certification/declaration. The notional OCI Mitigation Plan is only required if on Attachment 0002 the Offeror certifies as having a real or apparent OCI. The notional OCI mitigation plan is required and will be evaluated as to if it adequately addresses OCI concerns. If the declaration or mitigation plan is found to be Unacceptable, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration, and no further volumes will be evaluated, making this proposal ineligible for award.

The Government Amended Section L, M to more clearly state which documents are required.

62 Solicitation L.4.0/96 M.1.2/107

Sections M.1.0 and L.4.0 requires a CMMC Level 1 Certification.

However, the PWS indicates the contractor will handle sensitive unclassified data (e.g., medical readiness and personal information) that may qualify as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).

According to DoD’s CMMC guidance and DFARS 252.204-7025, contracts involving CUI require CMMC Level 2 compliance. Can the Government confirm whether CUI will be involved, and if so, whether CMMC Level 2 (Self) is actually the required level for this effort? If CUI is present, would the Government consider amending Section M.1.0 to specify “Level 1 or higher” or directly require Level 2 to align with DoD policy?

Se Government response to Q56-59 addresses CUI

63 Solicitation M.1.1/107 L.3.0/95

Facility Clearance and Key Personnel For Phase I Volume II, Section M and L.3.0 requires proof that all proposed Key Personnel possess an active Secret clearance at the time of proposal submission.

Please clarify what documentation is considered acceptable proof (e.g., DISS/NBIS verification memorandum, certified contractor memorandum, visit request confirmation, or other Government accepted documentation).

A certified contractor memorandum is required.

Attachment+0003+Estim ate+of+FTEs+Position+ Description+(Rev.+1)

Location

With amendment 0001, the Government has removed the work location for the Logistics Analyst IV Medical Liaison Support (LNO) Systems Analyst position; it is currently stated as "non-specified".

Can the Government confirm whether this position will be remote?

It is an internal buisness decision as to whether the Offeror has this position locally or not. Additonally, the contractor has flexibility in how they manage personnel staffing. See PWS Reference C.3.12.2.

Solicitation+Amendment

+W911QY26RA007+00

01+

Volume VI - Past Perform

The Government states that "Each Past Performance Information Sheet shall not exceed six (6) pages". Can the Government provide this Information Sheet and/or clarify what is to be submitted for this requirement?

The Past Performance Information Sheet, aka submission, that is limited to 6 pages includes L.6.1-L.6.2 excluding PPAQs.

66 Solicitation

In Amendment 0001, the Government added education and experience requirements to the Key Personnel Labor Categories (Attachment 003). Would the Government consider allowing additional years of relevant experience to offset the Bachelor's degree or education requirements, where such experience demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the requirement, as is consistent with similar federal acquisition practices?

Attachment 0003 has been revised to exclude educational experience.

Solicitation Instructions, Volume I-

Admininstrative. Volume VII- Price

, Section B, p 3-.8;

Section L1.11; p 91 Section L1.16.g.p 93

The CLIN tables in Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs have columns for "unit price" and "amount" for all Base and option year CLINs. Later in Section L1.11 offerors are emphatically told "Offerors WILL NOT include any pricing information in any section of their proposal except within Volume VII: Price Proposal. If found elsewhere, the proposal may be deemed noncompliant." Vol I- Admin includes (among other things)Section B, and appears to require the Offeror to enter unit and total prices per CLINs therein.

Later, in Section L1.16.g, offers are again told "All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in Price Proposal and Contract Documentation, Volume VII (also referred to herein as Price Proposal). Labor hour estimates and material types and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale for alternatives or staffing decisions." Therefore, if offerors do not include pricing contract documentation information in Section B tables as part of Phase I- Vol I- Admin submission, (to be compliant with L1.11 and L1.16), the offerors may get a Phase I - Vol I unacceptable rating if the pricing elements of the tables in Section B are omitted. Please clarify if Section B pricing and cost elements are required for inclusion in Vol I, and if so, please clarify guidance in Sections L1.11 and L1.16.g.

Offerors should not fill out Section B. Pricing information shall be submitted only in Volume VII - Price Proposal - Attachment 0008 - Price and Pricing Narrative.

Question and Answers