Questions Responses from Draft RFP Incl Industry Day.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 56 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
This is a consolidated Questions and Answers document addressing inquiries from industry participants regarding draft Request for Proposals (RFPs) for the Army's Human Resource Solutions Generation VI (GEN VI) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) multiple award contract suites covering Personnel Lifecycle Support (PLS) and Recruiting Management Administrative Support (RMAS) missions.
The Q&A document clarifies critical proposal submission and evaluation requirements across both solicitations. For the Corporate Knowledge subfactor, offerors may submit Qualifying Contracts (QCs) from prime contractors and major subcontractors, with no numerical cap but subject to page limitations; a single QC may support multiple task categories if distinct relevancy narratives are provided. Past performance submissions must cover the five-year period preceding RFP issuance, with Past Performance Questionnaires required for all contracts listed in Volume II; CPARS data alone is insufficient. The Government will evaluate all responsive, acceptable, and qualifying proposals for award with no predetermined number of awards specified. For security requirements, the Government indicated responses regarding personnel security clearance timing and facility clearance eligibility standards would be posted separately prior to final RFP release. Facility Clearance standards differ between RMAS (have or be able to obtain) and PLS (shall possess), with clarification pending. Pricing will not be requested at the IDIQ level and will be required only at individual task order competitions. Small Business Subcontracting Plans are required only for large business offerors under RMAS; small business concerns are exempt under FAR 19.109(e)(2). The Summary Section and Table of Contents will not count against page limitations pending final RFP revisions. Offerors may use subcontractors across multiple prime team proposals and may simultaneously pursue prime and subcontractor positions on different proposals, provided organizational conflict of interest requirements are satisfied and limitations on subcontracting are maintained.
View the file
Other files
Show all 37
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
Draft RFP_Industry Day Qs
| General | Reference location | Question/ Assumption / Comments | Response |
| 1 | Does Human Resources Solutions envision future RMAS task orders that may require workflow automation or case management capabilities supporting personnel securityrelated functions such as onboarding, access authorization, or workforce vetting? | Security Related functions could be performed as an ancillary task under business management services but historically has not been a primary function under RMAS. | |
| 2 | Will future task orders potentially involve contractor onboarding, DISS-related activities, clearance eligibility tracking, suitability processing, or Trusted Workforce related requirements? | Security Related functions could be performed as an ancillary task under business management services but historically has not been a primary function under RMAS. | |
| 3 | Are there anticipated requirements where integration between Human Resources functions and personnel security processes may be beneficial, particularly for managing contractor or workforce lifecycle activities? | Security Related functions could be performed as an ancillary task under business management services but historically has not been a primary function under RMAS. | |
| 4 | From your perspective, are there specific mission areas within RMAS where a company specializing in Personnel Security automation and workforce onboarding workflows would be best positioned to support prime contractors or the Government? | Security Related functions could be performed as an ancillary task under business management services but historically has not been a primary function under RMAS. | |
| 5 | We understand that H2F is moving under PAE Ground Manuever. Will the recompete for H2F task order be recompeted under this IDIQ or move to one managed by PAE GM? | We currently work hand in hand with PAE Maneuver Ground and are set to continue this relationship. The contract strategy for future H2F requirements is undetermined at this time based on many influencing factors. | |
| 6 | Will the Ready and Resilient (R2) task order (formerly Master Resilence Training (MRT) be consolidated under the H2F task order for the recompete? | The future acquisition strategy for the Master Resilience Trainers is undetermined at this time. | |
| 7 | What is the maximum number of QCs that can be used? | Refer to the specific criteria within Section L of the draft RFP (L.2.1, L.2.1.4.1, L.2.1.4.1.1, L.2.1.4.1.2, L.2.1.4.1.3). It's the responsibility of the Offeror determine what they deem necessary to meet the RFP requirements and abide by the required page limitations set forth with Section L. | |
| 8 | Can we use a subs QCs if they are not a major sub? | Only those QC's of the Prime and Major Sub-contractor will be evaluated to support the corporate knowledge sub-factor. |
| 9 | Can a QC be used for more than one Task Category? | Yes, however it's the responsibility of the Offeror to clearly outline how the provided QC demonstrates the Offeror's ability to meet the evaluation criteria requirements. |
| 10 | What is the maximum number of past performances that can be used? | As stated in L.2.1.5, "Past performance information for all QCs submitted under the Technical Factor above AND any additional Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror in performance of awarded during the past five (5) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation." Additionally, any submissions shall meet the recency and relevancy definitions as stated in M.3.2.2 b) . Additionally Offerors are required to abide by the required page limitations set forth with Section L. |
| 11 | Can we provide additional past performances beyond what is provided to match our QCs? | As stated in L.2.1.5, "Past performance information for all QCs submitted under the Technical Factor above AND any additional Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror in performance of awarded during the past five (5) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation." Additionally, any submissions shall meet the recency and relevancy definitions as stated in M.3.2.2 b) . Additionally Offerors are required to abide by the required page limitations set forth with Section L. |
| 12 | Can PPQ’s come from a prime contractor vs. only the government? | As stated in L.2.1.5.5 for RMAS: "For all contracts identified in Past Performance Factor Volume II, L.2.1.5.1 Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past / current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the cognizant Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to michele.l.walston.civ@army.mil, jacqueline.m.smith95.civ@army.mil, and morgan.f.ziatyk.civ@army.mil." |
As stated in L.2.1.5.5 for PLS: "For all contracts identified in Past Performance Factor Volume II, L.2.1.5.1 Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past / current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the cognizant Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to rodolphe.a.primeau.civ@army.mil, and karyn.a.bohli.civ@army.mil."
| 13 | Do Small Business offerors need to provide a small business participation plan? | If your question is in reference to FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, these are only required for large businesses. All offerors are required to submit on Small Business Particiaption Past Performance demonstrating compliance with FAR 52.219-8, reference L.2.1.5.7. | |
| 14 | Is the sample Task Order an Awardable TOR? | No. As stated within L.2.1.4.3 of the draft RFPs, "The Sample Task is representative of the types of tasks that may be solicited during the PLS IDIQ MATOC period of performance and is intended solely for proposal evaluation purposes only." | |
| 15 | Going into the next generation, how does HR Solutions assess its own current competitive landscape among available contracting vehicles? | Based on historical utilization and performance we believe the HR Solutions vehicles will continue to be a viable source for requiring activities. Additionally the assisted acquisition and management services offered set us apart from our competitors. | |
| 16 | How is HR Solutions differentiating from other Army vehicles, such as MAPS, and broader government options such GSA schedules, OASIS+, etc? | Our assisted acquisition and management services differentiates HR Solutions from other Army vehicles and broader government options. | |
| 17 | HR Solutions is the designated preferred source for acquiring and managing HR service contracts in the Army for the next generation. What barriers exist to achieving this designation again for Generation VI? | The designation for preferred source are tied to our program not specifically to the contract vehicles however we intent to work with DASA-P to renew the policy to ensure awareness. | |
| 18 | Is there a minimum size (FTE or dollar value) that HRS will require to accept task orders for competition on the HR Solutions PLS or RMAS IDIQ? | HRS assesses potential requirements when they come in to determine if the requirement would be appropriate to pursue at an enterprise level. | |
| 19 | How does HR Solutions plan to market the vehicle beyond the Army and DOD? Are there task orders from other agencies in the pipeline? | For centrally managed task orders we will target organizations within DoW. Decentralized ordering may be allowed for other requiring activities. | |
| 20 | How many awards does the Army anticipate making for PLS and RMAS? | The Government intends to make multiple awards under both suites as stated within M.1 of the draft RFPs, and cannot share any additional information as to the number of awards. | |
| 21 | Does achieving Green/Acceptable rating for the Technical Factor and a Neutral or higher rating for the Past Performance Factor guarantee an award? In this scenario, what factors would result in no award? | As stated in M.1 of the draft RFPs, "The Government intends to make multiple awards in accordance with FAR 16.504-3. Award(s) will be made to all proposals that are deemed responsive, acceptable and qualifying in accordance with FAR 15.104(b)(1)(ii)(A) and the instructions contained within this RFP, with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving appropriate consideration to the following two (2) evaluation factors: Technical and Past Performance." It further states, "The Government will conduct an integrated assessment of each proposal to determine eligibility for award. To be considered for award, Offerors must receive a Green/Acceptable rating for the Technical Factor and a Neutral or higher rating for the Past Performance Factor. Additionally, any other than small business Offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.109. Only those proposals that meet these standards across all factors will be eligible for award." | |
| 22 | Section A, Executive Summary, Paragraph 5 (p. 3) PWS Section C.4.1, Personnel Security, Facility Clearance, and Safety (p. 37) Attachment 0003, DD Form 254, Item 14 (Additional Security Requirements) | Personnel Security Clearance Timing: IDIQ Award vs. Task Order Performance Commencement The draft RMAS solicitation contains three provisions that appear to establish different timing standards for personnel security clearances, and they cannot be reconciled without Government clarification. Section A, Paragraph 5 states that offerors "will be required to have Secret personnel clearances" to receive an award, suggesting clearances are a condition of IDIQ base contract award. PWS Section C.4.1 states that key contractor personnel must hold eligibility for access to SECRET information "not later than the time of the Contract/TO award," which is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the IDIQ base contract award or an individual task order award. The RMAS DD Form 254 (Attachment 0003), Item 14 states: "Employees performing work under this contract must qualify and shall have a personnel security clearance at the appropriate level as specified by the task order prior to commencing performance," which ties the requirement explicitly to task order performance commencement, not IDIQ award. Please clarify the following: (1) Which provision governs the timing of the personnel security clearance requirement: is it a condition of IDIQ base contract award, or a condition that must be satisfied prior to commencing performance under a task order that requires cleared access? (2) If clearances are required at IDIQ base contract award, will the Government accept proposed key personnel who are U.S. citizens with no known disqualifying factors and are therefore eligible to obtain a Secret clearance, with actual adjudicated clearances obtained prior to first task order performance? (3) If the requirement is tied to task order performance as stated in the DD Form 254, please confirm that offerors without current Secret clearances at the time of IDIQ proposal submission and award remain eligible for IDIQ award, provided clearances are in place before commencing performance on any task order requiring cleared access. | The Government anticipates a response to this question will be posted under a separate posting prior to final RFP release. |
| 23 | PWS Section C.4.1, Personnel Security, Facility Clearance, and Safety (p. 37-38) -- RMAS W15QKN26RA001 PWS Section C.4.1, Personnel Security, Facility Clearance, and Safety -- PLS W15QKN26RA016 (companion solicitation, same program office) Attachment 0003, DD Form 254, Items 1a, 1b, and 11a Prior Q&A Response, Question 38 (PLS), 15 Jun 2026 | FCL Eligibility Standard for RMAS IDIQ Award: Clarification of "Have or Be Able to Obtain" vs. PLS "Shall Possess" Requirement PWS Section C.4.1 of the RMAS draft states that the contractor "shall have or be able to obtain and maintain the required level of Facility Clearance (FCL) from DCSA... prior to award of this contract," and further states that contractors without an FCL after IDIQ award "will not be eligible for award of a TO with security requirements until the FCL is received." This language differs materially from the companion PLS solicitation (W15QKN26RA016), issued by the same program office, which states the contractor "shall possess and maintain a SECRET Facility Clearance from DCSA prior to award" and that "Contractors will not be eligible for Contract or TO award without SECRET FCL." The RMAS and PLS DD Form 254s, both signed by the same security manager, also reflect the same operational structure: Item 1a requires a Secret FCL, Item 1b reflects no safeguarding of classified material at the contractor facility, and Item 11a reflects access to classified information only at a government facility. Question 38 in the prior Q&A posting addressed FCL for a Joint Venture in the PLS context and was directed to the JV section without addressing the substantive question. The RMAS solicitation uses different FCL language than PLS, and that distinction has not been addressed. Please clarify the following: (1) Is the "have or be able to obtain" standard in RMAS C.4.1 intentional, and does it differ from the PLS requirement that contractors must already possess a Secret FCL prior to IDIQ award? (2) Under the RMAS solicitation specifically, does meeting NISPOM 32 CFR Part 117 organizational eligibility criteria (U.S.-incorporated, U.S.-located, no disqualifying foreign ownership, control, or influence) satisfy the "be able to obtain" standard for purposes of IDIQ base contract award eligibility? (3) May a contractor receive an IDIQ base contract award without a current FCL, provided it is eligible to obtain one, and then obtain the FCL before competing for any task order with security requirements? | The Government anticipates a response to this question will be posted under a separate posting prior to final RFP release. |
| 24 | PIEE alternate submission if system is down: L.1 Proposal Submittal Instructions (pages 173–175) | If the PIEE Solicitation Module is unavailable near the proposal due date, please confirm the government approved alternate electronic submission procedure and provide the KO email/phone to obtain prior written approval to use that alternate method. | The Offeror must obtain prior approval from the Contracting Officer (KO) via email to use the alternate submission method. If approval is granted, the KO will provide the submission instructions at that time. Failure to ensure registration in PIEE is complete and the Solicitation Module is accessible is not acceptable justification to submit using an alternate submission method. See Draft RFP Section L.1.2 for contact information. |
| 25 | Confirm exact proposal due date/time: SF33 / L.1 (cover and L.1, pages 1 and 173) | Please confirm the exact final proposal due date and local time for receipt (and confirm the SF33 depositary date shown), and whether any changes to that due date are anticipated. While the RFP is marked draft, the SF33 cover page shows a due date of 16 June 26. | The due date on the Draft RFP was intended to reflect the date of Industry Day. When the Final RFP is released, it will have a different due date by when proposals will be due to be submitted. |
| 26 | PIEE uploads — single zip vs segmented uploads: L.2.1.2 File Packaging (page 178) | Please confirm whether the Government requires a single ZIP upload per Offeror in PIEE or whether segmented native file uploads (multiple files per volume) are acceptable. | L.2.1.2, File Packaging provides the compliance instructions: File Packaging. All the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one (1) file entitled |
proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. Each file shall be labeled with the volume number, Factor/Subfactor title, date, and the Offeror's name. **Please note - Self extracting .exe files are not acceptable.
| 27 | Page counts — staffing matrix and Section J attachments: L.2 (page 176) and L.2.1.4.3.2 (pages 184–186); Section J (pages 145–146) | Please confirm which Section J attachments (specifically the staffing matrix) are excluded from the Vol I page limits. If included, please confirm how the staffing matrix should be counted against the Vol I page limit. | Refer to L.2.1 for page count exceptions. |
| 28 | Qualifying Contract (QC) as TO under IDIQ vs master contract: L.2.1.4.1 (QC definition) (pages 179–183) | For Corporate Knowledge QCs, may a single Task Order (TO) issued under an IDIQ or GSA schedule be submitted and counted as the QC (as long as the TO documentation specifically demonstrates the QC criteria), or must the master IDIQ/GSA contract itself be used? | Reference L.2.1.4.1, a single task order under a Master IDIQ/GSA contract may be submitted and counted as a QC provided it meets the full definition of a "Qualifying Contract". The Master IDIQ/GSA contract itself cannot be used. |
| 29 | Reuse of same QC across Task Categories: L.2.1.4.1 note (pages 181–183) | The RFP notes an Offeror may utilize the same QC across multiple Task Categories if a separate relevancy narrative is provided. Please confirm that a single QC may be used for both the required Recruiting & Retention QC and the second selected Task Category provided separate, distinct relevancy narratives are submitted for each Task Category. | Yes, a single QC may be used for both the required Recruiting & Retention QC and a second selected Task Category. However, you must provide a separate and distinct relevancy narrative for each Task Category. |
| RMAS | Reference location | Question/ Assumption / Comments | Response |
| 1 | Page 3, Paragraph 1 | Question on Disclosure of Labor Rates (FOIA Risk): The Draft PWS states that labor rates submitted at the TO level may be subject to FOIA release but can be protected under FAR 52.215 1(e). |
Question:
Can the Government confirm whether fully burdened labor rates submitted in future task order competitions will be treated as source selection sensitive and therefore categorically exempt from release under 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(3) or §552(b)(4)? Reference Section A, General Information Item #4 "Disclosure of Labor Rates and Pricing Information (Task Order Level). "If an Offeror considers its labor rates, pricing methodologies, or associated financial data to constitute protected trade secrets or confidential commercial information exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4 (5 U.S.C. (S) 552(b)(4)), the Offeror must clearly mark the applicable portions of its proposal in accordance with the legend prescribed at FAR 52.215-1(e). In the event the Government receives a FOIA request for labor rates or pricing data that an Offeror has marked as confidential, the Government will strictly comply with the submitter notification and objection procedures set forth in Executive Order 12600 prior to making any disclosure determination."
2 Page 3, Paragraph 5 Question on Secret Clearance Requirement for All Key Personnel: The Draft PWS states that “all key Contractor personnel shall obtain, at a minimum, Secret level clearance prior to start of performance.”
Question:
| Can the Government confirm whether pre award key personnel must already hold active Secret clearances, or if interim Secret eligibility will be sufficient at the time of award? | The Government anticipates a response to this question will be posted under a separate posting prior to final RFP release. | ||
| 3 | Page 3, Paragraph 6 | Question on eCRAFT Data Requirements: E2 (eCRAFT) is expected to be required for all cost type CLINs. |
Question:
| Will the Government provide standardized labor category mappings, data definitions, or data dictionaries for the eCRAFT tool prior to the first task order competition? | As stated within Section A, paragraph 6 of the draft RFPs, "The ACC is in the process of deploying the Electronic Cost Reporting and Financial Tracking (eCRAFT) Enterprise tool (E2) to all ACC organizations. E2 is a tool designed to enhance cost reporting and financial tracking utilizing standardized labor categories, authoritative data, and automated reports. E2 is expected to be deployed in Fiscal Year 2026 and its utilization is required for service contracts/orders that contain Cost type Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). While pricing is not requested at the IDIQ level per Sections L and M of this solicitation, Offeror(s) are advised information listed within Section J, Attachment 0005 of this solicitation may be requested at the TO level for any requirements to which eCRAFT applies." Additionally, Section H.2 further discusses eCRAFT. | ||
| 4 | Page 15, Paragraph 3 | Question on Telework Restrictions (VPN Use): The Draft PWS states that telework is permitted but VPN access must use Government furnished equipment only, unless pre approved. |
Question:
| Can the Government clarify whether hybrid models (Government laptop + contractor owned peripherals such as monitors/keyboards) are permitted? | Using a hybrid model would be acceptable as long as the non government conponents do not have wireless or internal storage capability. | ||
| 5 | Page 17, Paragraph 2 (Local Travel) | Question on Travel Outside 50 Mile Radius: Travel within 50 miles is not reimbursable unless specified in the TO. |
Question:
| Will the Government allow per TO exceptions for high density metro regions (e.g., NCR) where standard commuting distances exceed 50 miles? | As stated, if the radius varies for a requirement, specific terms will be identified at the task order level. | ||
| 6 | Page 35, Paragraph C.3.1.0 | Question on Off Ramping Metrics: Offerors must submit timely proposals for 50% of TO RFPs issued. |
Question:
How will the Government treat no bid responses due to conflicts of interest or insufficient information will they count as timely responses or non responses? A response stating an offeror cannot propose due to a COI will be considered "responsive" / "timely" as long as a response is provided by the RFP deadline.
Response stating insufficient information to respond to an RFP will be considered non-responsive. Note. The offerors will have an oportunity to ask for clarification of any unclear requirement prior to the proposal submission deadline.
7 Page 44, Paragraph C.4.1.6.4.4 Question on CUI/NIST 800 171 Requirements: Contractors must comply with NIST 800 171 and DFARS 252.204 7020.
Question:
| Will the Government require submission of the NIST 800 171 SPRS score with the IDIQ proposal? | The Government does not require offerors to submit their NIST Scores with their proposals as the Government will verify contractor compliance through the Supplier Performance Risk System. Offerors are required to comply with the provision at 252.204-7025 in order to be eligible for award. | ||
| 8 | Page 49, Paragraph C.4.4.1 | Question on Transition Plan Requirements: Transition management activities include staffing, knowledge transfer, and security requirements. |
Question:
| Will the Government provide incumbent workforce data (FTE count, locations, clearance levels) to support transition planning? | The government will not provide incumbant workforce data. The awardee is required to staff in accordance with their proposed solution that was eveluated and accepted by the government. The incumbant IAW "PWS 4.4.2 Exit Transition Activities" is required to coordinate the orderly change to a new Contractor or Government provided service such that the level and quality of service, including security if applicable, are not degraded, and to exercise its best efforts and cooperation to effect an orderly and efficient transition to a successor. | ||
| 9 | Page 55, Paragraph 1 | Question on Section 508 Compliance: Contractor must list all EIT products with compliance statements. |
Question:
| Is a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) required at the IDIQ stage, or only when products are proposed at the TO level? | If required, a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) would be at the TO level. | |||
| 10 | Volume II Past Performance instructions (Section L.2.1.5 and associated PPQ requirements) and Section M Past Performance evaluation. | Past Performance. For PPQs, can CPARS be used as a substitute? | It is unclear what is meant by the question of CPARs being a substitute for PPQs. As stated within paragraph M.3.2.2 of the draft RFPs, it states in part, "The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), data from other Government systems and files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local Government and/or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS code 541612." | |
| 11 | Section L.2.1.4.3 Sample Task, Page 184 and continuing. | Sample Task Evaluation. Will the Government confirm whether the Sample Task is evaluated solely for technical approach and understanding, or whether proposed staffing quantities and labor mix will also be evaluated? | Reference Section M 3.1.3 "The Government will evaluate the Offeror's adequacy, completeness and feasibility of their Technical Proposal for the Sample Task PWS." | |
| 12 | efficiency and innovation as discriminators under the Sample Task factor? | |||
| Section L.2.1.4.3.2 Staffing Approach, Page 184-185. | Sample Task Evaluation. Will the Government evaluate staffing efficiency and innovation as discriminators under the Sample Task factor? | Criteria for the Sample Task Staffing Approach is delineated under L.2.1.4.3.2 and M.3.1.3.2. | ||
| 13 | Executive Summary, Section A, Page 4. | Evaluation Methodology. Will the Government provide additional details regarding the specific criteria used to determine whether an offeror is "qualifying"? | Refer to M.1, Basis of Award which states in part, "The Government intends to make multiple awards in accordance with FAR 16.504-3. Award(s) will be made to all proposals that are deemed responsive, acceptable and qualifying in accordance with FAR 15.104(b)(1)(ii)(A) and the instructions contained within this RFP, with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving appropriate consideration to the following two (2) evaluation factors: Technical and Past Performance." | |
| 14 | Attachment 0008 Past Performance Questionnaire As part of this evaluation, we have requested that the Offerors provide information about their past performance on recent and relevant federal, state, or local Government or commercial contracts as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541612 | Given the broad scope of 541612 and that both RMAS and PLS fall under 541612, it would mean that projects could be equally relevant for both solicitations. Instead, would it be possible to include the specific high level PWS tasks for RMAS? | While both the RMAS and PLS draft RFPs utilize NACIS 541612, the Offeror is responsible for understanding the differences in the scopes for each suite to determine the relevancy of the submitted contract as defined under L.2.1.5, M.2.2 and M.3.2. | |
| 15 | L.2.1.3 pg 178 | Please confirm that the Summary Section does not count against page count. | Upon review of Section L.2.1.3 Content Requirement, the Government has identified areas of this section that require revisions. The Government intends to update "Summary Section" language requirements for this section prior to final RFP release however the Government does not anticipate it counting against the page count. | |
| 16 | L.2.1 pgs 175-177 and L.2.1.3 pg 178 | L.2.1.3 states: “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.” However, the table in Section L.2.1 does not show a TOC and Summary Section for each volume. Please confirm the TOC and Summary Section requirement should be reflected in the table for each volume. | Upon review of Section L.2.1.3 Content Requirement, the Government has identified areas of this section that require revisions. The Government intends to update "Summary Section" language requirements for this section prior to final RFP release. | |
| 17 | L.2.1.6 pg 190 | The instructions do not mention the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) that was listed in the L.2.1 table. Please provide instructions for the SBSP. | For RMAS Specifically, Small Business Concerns are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 19.109(e)(2), accordingly FAR 52.219-9 will not appear in the final RFP version. |
| 18 | RMAS SOW | Where does the Government anticipate the greatest growth in requirements over the next five years? | Soldier and family health and welbeing functions are an Army priority. |
| 19 | RMAS SOW | What percentage of future ordering activity is expected in each major RMAS functional area? | We do not have predictions by functional area. |
| 20 | RMAS Solicitation | Does the Government intend to restrict a subcontractor or teaming partner from participating on multiple offeror teams at the IDIQ proposal stage, or may subcontractors support multiple prime offerors provided appropriate firewalls and non-disclosure protections are maintained? | The government will not limit prime contractors subcontract agreements. Subcontractors are not limited to establishing a relationship with only one prime contractor. |
| 21 | RMAS Solicitation | Would the Government clarify whether Prime Contractors awarded an IDIQ contract may add, remove, or substitute subcontractors and teaming partners after award for purposes of competing for individual task orders, provided all applicable subcontracting and organizational conflict of interest requirements are satisfied? | Yes; however holders shall still abide by FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting. |
| 22 | RMAS Solicitation | May a company submit one proposal as a Prime Contractor while also serving as a subcontractor on one or more other offerors’ proposals? | Yes |
| 23 | L.2.1.4. (f) pg 180 | The instructions state: “Offerors shall submit supporting documentation to substantiate each corporate knowledge reference.” Please confirm documentation is not considered part of the page count. | Information submitted as part of your proposal is included within the page count unless specifically stated otherwise. Additionally, refer to L.2.1.4.1, specifically: In order to be deemed responsive, each submitted QC under the Corporate Knowledge Subfactor shall contain the following supporting documentation to substantiate each contract: 1) Summary of Project and 2) Technical Relevancy Narrative. |
| 24 | L.2.1.4. (f) pg 180 | The instructions state: “Offerors shall submit supporting documentation to substantiate each corporate knowledge reference.” Please confirm documentation can be in an annex to Volume I. | Information submitted as part of your proposal is included within the page count unless specifically stated otherwise. Refer to L.2.1.4.1. |
| 25 | L.2.1.5.5 Section 5, Past Performance Questionnaire | Per L.2.1.5.5 Section 5, Past Performance Questionnaire: To reduce burden to our existing Government clients, would RMAS allow for the submission of recently (e.g., within the last 24 months) completed and submitted Past Performance Questionnaires for relevant bids? | Offerors may choose to submit contracts within the last 24 months, however recent is defined as within the past 5 years as stated in M.3.2.2. |
| 26 | L.2.1.4.2.1 Subfactor 2, Management Approach | Per L.2.1.4.2.1 Subfactor 2, Management Approach: To determine maximum past experience alignment for this requirement, would the Government please provide a working definition for the Outside of the Continental United States (OCONUS) requirement, e.g., would support of Hawaii and Puerto Rico satisfy this requirement? | Per FAR 2.101 Contiguous United States means the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, so for example, Hawaii and Puerto Rico would be OCONUS locations. |
| 27 | Subcontractor and commercial contracts with different NAICS: L.2.1.4.1.e (QC relevance / NAICS) (page 180) | If a proposed QC was awarded under a NAICS other than 541612 but the scope maps directly to an RMAS PWS Task Category, will the Government accept that QC if the Offeror provides a clear mapping and evidence of relevancy? | Yes. L.2.1.4.1.e) states: Be technically relevant to the scope of the proposed PLS (or RMAS) Task Category as identified within PWS Section 2.2. To be considered technically relevant the proposed contract must be awarded under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541612 and clearly align with the scope of the respective PLS (or RMAS) Task Category proposed. Corporate Knowledge outside NAICS code 541612 may be considered if the Offeror can clearly demonstrate the relevance by tying specific tasks performed to PLS (or RMAS) PWS tasks. |
| 28 | Past Performance Questionnaire process and KO emails: L.2.1.5.5 (pages 187–188) | Please confirm the exact KO/CS emails to which Part II (completed Past Performance Questionnaires) must be returned and confirm that electronic email submission of Part II to those addresses (and michele.l.walston.civ@army.mil, jacqueline.m.smith95.civ@army.mil, morgan.f.ziatyk.civ@army.mil) is acceptable. | Yes, that is correct. |
| 29 | Authoritative labor category list: Section J Attachment 0001 (Labor Category Descriptions) referenced in L.2.1.4.3.2 (pages 145, 184–186) | Please confirm Section J Attachment 0001 is the authoritative labor category list for the Sample Task and whether any equivalent labor category substitutions are permitted if the Offeror provides a mapping and rationale. | With regard to the sample task, Offerors shall not deviate from the requirements identified within the PLS (or RMAS) Labor Category Descriptions Attachment. |
| 30 | SCLS wage determination timing and precedence: C.2.4 Recognized Government Holidays / L.2.1.4.3.2 (pages 16, 184–186) | Please confirm that Service Contract Labor Standards (DOL wage determinations) will be issued at the Task Order level, and confirm whether DOL wage determinations supersede the RMAS Labor Category Descriptions for TO performance. | DOL wage determinations will be issued at the Task Order level. Offerors must still adhere to the qualifications and experience defined in the RMAS Labor Category Descriptions. The DOL wage determination does not supersede the need to meet these qualification standards. |
| 31 | DD254 availability and classified work timing: C.4.1 Security / J Attachments 0003/0004 (pages 36–41, 145) | Will the base contract include a completed DD254 at time of award, or will DD254s be issued at the TO level only? Please confirm which base contract activities require SECRET access vs TO level determination. | DD Form 254s will be issued at the base contract and TO level. The security requirements for the base contract are IAW Attachment - DD Form 254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification. For TOs |
requiring Contractor personnel to access classified information in the performance of their TO, Contractors shall possess the appropriate PSI completed, favorably adjudicated by the DCSA CAS and granted eligibility for access to SECRET level classified information not later than the time of the Contract/TO award; a separate DD Form 254 will be executed specific to that TO. Key personnel at the IDIQ level must maintain a SECRET level clearance in order to perform proper oversight of any potential task order requiring activates at the SECRET level.
| 32 | Interim clearances and SIPR access rules: C.4.1 (pages 36–41) | Can Offerors propose key personnel with an interim clearance at TO award if final DCSA adjudication is pending, or does SIPRNet access and classified TO start require final adjudication prior to TO award/initial performance? | Specific requirements will be identified at the TO level. For any TO requiring SIPRNet access at the start of performance, the personnel involved must have a final adjudicated clearance prior to the TO award. An interim clearance would not be sufficient for those specific roles. Refer to Section C.4.1. | |
| 33 | Telework rules and use of contractor devices for VPN: C.2.3 Telecommuting & C.4.1.6 (pages 15–17, 41–45) | Please confirm whether Contractor owned or company issued devices are permitted to access Government networks via VPN for telework if approved at the TO level, and whether the Government requires use of Government furnished property for VPN access. | Refer to C.2.3.2: "Personal or company issued equipment may not be used to access the Government network infrastructure unless pre-approved at the TO level; examples include using Virtual Port Network (VPN) or a corporate network. If the KO approves telework or remote work, the Contractor shall use only Government furnished property (GFP), if provided under the contract/TO, to access the VPN. | |
| 34 | eCRAFT (E2) applicability to CLINs: A.6 and H.2 (pages 3–4, 74) | Please confirm whether eCRAFT (E2) reporting is required only for TOs that include cost type service CLINs or whether eCRAFT may be required for any TO (including FFP LOE) at the Contracting Officer's discretion. | Refer to Section H.2. While is it required for cost-type service CLINs, the Draft RFP states the eCRAFT language may be applicable to firm fixed price service CLINs as a future time. | |
| 35 | WAWF routing and default invoice contacts for IDIQ admin invoices: G and DFARS 252.232 7006 (pages 66–70) | The WAWF Routing Data Table lists DoDAACs but notes TO level Inspect/Acceptor contacts are TBD; please confirm the default invoice inspector/acceptor contacts or the process to obtain them for an IDIQ admin invoice prior to award. | This information will be provided in the IDIQ award document for those offerors selected for award. | |
| 36 | ODC CLIN ceilings and indirects on ODCs | |||
| Citation: C.2.5 Other Direct Costs (pages 17–19) | For TOs that include ODC CLINs (Cost No Fee), will TOs define ODC ceilings and preapproval procedures, and can Offerors confirm that indirect costs and profit/fee are not allowable on ODC CLINs per the PWS? | Yes. This information will be provided at the task order level. | ||
| 37 | Expected number of initial awards / staggered awards details | |||
| Citation: A.2 and H.3 (pages 2–3, 73–75) | Please provide the anticipated range or approximate number of awards the Government expects to make initially and describe any schedule for staggered awards (if known) or when such schedule will be published. | There is no anticipated range/approximate number of awards. See Basis for Award in Section M. The Industry Day PPT slides provided a notional schedule for PLS and RMAS. | ||
| 38 | Off ramp / dormant status metrics and triggers | |||
| Citation: H.1 and C.3 Performance Standards for Off Ramping (pages 72–75, 34–36) | Please describe the specific metrics, thresholds, and CPARS/QASP triggers the Government will use to place an awardee into dormant status or to off‑ramp (e.g., number/level of CARs, CPARS rating levels over measurement periods), and the appeals/remediation process available to the contractor. | The performance standards for off-ramping are detailed in Section C.3 (page 37) of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The evaluation period is the initial 24 months of performance and annually thereafter. A contractor may be considered for off-ramping if they fail to meet the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) listed within Section C.3 and its subsections. There is no formal appeals process for the dormant status as it viewed as a remediation opportunity/temporary measure initiated by the KO to allow contractors to address "performance issues." It is not triggered by a single specific metric but is a discretionary action. Placing a contractor in dormant status requires execution of a bilateral modification which requires buy in from the contractor. A contractor may follow the Disputes clause for any disagreement with an unilateral off-ramping decision. | ||
| 39 | On ramp mechanics and coterminous period of performance | |||
| Citation: H.1.3 On Ramping (pages 72–74) | If the Government conducts an on ramp competition and adds new contractors, will newly awarded IDIQs be coterminous with existing awardees (same base/option end dates) as stated; please confirm the expected administrative schedule for onboarding on ramp awardees. | Section H.1.3, item (h) on page 77 explicitly states: "The period of performance term for any new awards is coterminous with the existing term for all other Contractors." This means the base and option period end dates will be synchronized with the original awardees. The Draft RFP does not provide an expected administrative schedule for onboarding new awardees. It only outlines the process that the Government will follow should it decide to initiate an on-ramp competition. The decision to on-ramp and the subsequent schedule are at the Government's discretion. | ||
| 40 | Pricing at IDIQ vs TO and FOIA handling of pricing data | |||
| Citation: A.2 and A.4 (pages 2–4) and Sec L/I (pricing clauses) | Please confirm the Government does not require pricing submission at IDIQ award and that full pricing will be requested at TO competitions only. Also confirm the FOIA handling process if a TO respondent marks labor rates proprietary (FAR 52.215 1 legend procedures). | Pricing is not required to be submitted at the IDIQ level and will be required at the TO level only. See Disclosure of Unit Price for FOIA handling information. | ||
| 41 | Confidential markings / trade secret redaction guidance for PIEE | |||
| Citation: L.2.1.2 and A.4 (pages 173–178, 3) | Please confirm the Government’s preferred format and exact legend for marking/redacting proprietary or trade secret information in PIEE PDF uploads and whether a separate unredacted copy may be submitted to the KO under controlled access if requested. | See DFARS 252.227-7989 in the Draft RFP for general marking information. | ||
| 42 | DBA insurance / BACO 90 process for Germany and support for SOFA / PRO FILE | |||
| Citation: C.4.1.8.2/8.3 and C.4.1.8.1 (pages 46–48) | For OCONUS TOs (e.g., Germany), will the Government provide a POC and administrative support for BACO 90 / PRO FILE / SOFA processing, or is the Contractor fully responsible for initiating and obtaining these approvals and DBA insurance waivers? | BACO-90 (Germany): While the document (Section C.2.5.3) states that contractor employees must receive approval, it does not specify a Government POC for this particular process. The responsibility lies with the contractor to follow the guidance found on the U.S. Army Europe and Africa - DoD Contractor Personnel Office (DOCPER) website. |
PRO-FILE: The Government will provide support and a POC. Section C.4.1.8.1 states, "PRO-FILE and PRMS management support for applicable TOs will be provided by Government. The Government requiring activity POC will be identified in each individual TO."
SOFA Processing: The Government will designate a POC for the contractor to coordinate with. Section C.4.1.8.4 instructs that "The Contractor shall coordinate with the Government POC... The Government will designate a SOFA POC for each TO that requires performance in a foreign country."
For the above processes, a Government POC would be provided at the TO level.
DBA Insurance Waivers: The document does not mention Government support for obtaining DBA waivers. Section C.4.1.8.2 places the responsibility on the contractor to provide proof of insurance. It is the contractor's responsibility to either secure the insurance or, if applicable, certify that employees are covered under a DBA waiver obtained from the Department of Labor (DOL).
| 43 | CDRLs & deliverable encryption/CAC access | |||
| Citation: C.5.0 Deliverables & J CDRLs (pages 56–58, 145–146) | Please confirm whether any specific CDRL deliverables must be uploaded only via CAC protected portals or encrypted email, and whether the HRS portal is the exclusive upload path for unclassified deliverables. | The HRS portal is the exclusive path for standard, unclassified deliverables that do not contain PII. Any deliverable containing PII must be segregated and sent via encrypted email. | ||
| 44 | QASP visibility to offerors and off ramp performance measures | |||
| Citation: C.2.8 / PWS Section 3 Performance Standards (pages 23–36) | Will the Government provide the base contract QASP and the specific Off Ramping performance measures/thresholds that will be used in the first 24 month assessment for offerors to reference during proposal preparation? | The QASP was provided as Attachment 0002 to the Draft RFP. | ||
| 45 | Clarify past performance relevance definition (Very Relevant / Relevant) | |||
| Citation: M.3.2 Table 3 (pages 212–214) | For past performance relevancy scoring, please confirm whether a past effort that matches scope but is smaller in dollar magnitude (e.g., single site vs multi site) will be considered Relevant or Somewhat Relevant and provide any quantitative guidance the Government will use in such tradeoffs. | The Government intends to evaluate past performance relevancy as detailed in section M of the RFP. | ||
| 46 | SCORM / Section 508 evidence location | |||
| Citation: C.4.9 Section 508 (page 55) | If an Offeror proposes EIT products or services, please confirm the preferred method to present Section 508 conformance evidence in the proposal and whether links to vendor pages (URLs) in Section J are acceptable. | Section C.4.9 states "The Contractor shall identify all EIT products and services proposed, identify the technical standards applicable to all products and services proposed and state the degree of compliance with the applicable standards. Additionally, the Contractor must clearly indicate where the information pertaining to Section 508 compliance can be found (e.g., Vendor's or other exact web page location). The Contractor must ensure that the list is easily accessible by typical users beginning at time of award." | ||
| 47 | CUI / NIST SP 800 171 score expectations at IDIQ award | |||
| Citation: C.2.13.11 / C.4.1.6.4 (pages 32–45) and DFARS 252.240 7997 (page references in Clause list) | Please confirm whether Offerors are required to have a verified NIST SP 800 171 DoD assessment score in the Supplier Performance Risk System at IDIQ award (and if so, the minimum score required), or whether this verification can be completed at TO award. | The language in C.2.13.11 explains Offerors are required to have a verified NIST SP 800-171 DoD assessment score in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). This section of the Draft RFP contains the requirements at the IDIQ level. This requirement cannot be deferred until TO award. | ||
| 48 | Confirmation of Past Performance Neutral rating handling | |||
| Citation: M.3.2 Past Performance (pages 212–214) | Please confirm that Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance will receive a Neutral Confidence rating (not penalized) and that Neutral is acceptable for award eligibility. | Refer to M.3.2.2 which states: "Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned a "neutral confidence rating" and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. | ||
| PLS | Reference location | Question/ Assumption / Comments | Response | |
| 1 | Page 12, Paragraph C.2.2 | General task descriptions are listed for personnel lifecycle support: Question: | ||
| Will the Government provide prioritization of these task categories or identify which task areas are expected to be most heavily utilized in early TOs? | Specific tasks will be identified in each task order PWS. Refer to the industry day presentation slides depicting our current task orders and their PoP end dates. | |||
| 2 | Page 17–18, Paragraph C.2.3.2 | Telework & Alternate Work Location Requirements: the draft PWS discusses telework authorization and COOP requirements. |
Question:
| Will the Government define, at the TO level, which positions are strictly on site versus telework eligible, and will a standard Government telework approval template be provided? | Place of performance will be identified in the task order PWS. Regular, reoccurring telecommuting (telework) may be authorized at the TO level depending on the nature of the work to be performed. The Government may permit telework by Contractor employees when determined to be in the best interest of the Government in meeting TO requirements and mission needs. | ||
| 3 | Page 17, Paragraph C.2.3.1 | Surge Support Requirements: surge support is identified but no quantitative thresholds are provided. |
Question:
| Can the Government clarify the expected frequency, duration, and magnitude of surge events for pricing and workforce planning? | Task orders will be firm fixed price, performance based and contractors may require surge support to meet the performance requirements within the awarded price. Surge support requirements would be identified at the task order level using optional tasks to execute as required. | ||
| 4 | Page 35, Paragraph C.2.13.6 | Cyber Awareness and privileged access requirements are described. |
Question:
| Will the Government specify at the TO level which roles require privileged access certification under DoDM 8140.03? | Yes |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .