TRADOC G2 Core_RFP Questions Final_20250204.pdf

Mission and Installation Contracting Command – Fort Eustis Request for Proposal Questions and Government

Answers U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)

Deputy Chief for Intelligence (G-2) Operational Environment (OE) and Core Functions Support Services

1. "Request for Post-RFP Engagement: Given the importance of transparency and fair competition, we recommend that the Government hold a Post-RFP Bidders' Conference to provide a platform for clarifying the solicitation requirements, addressing bidder questions, and ensuring all offerors have equal access to critical information. Such a conference would promote a more competitive environment and address potential gaps in understanding that could otherwise hinder proposal development. The Government previously hosted Industry Days for past competitions related to this opportunity, which significantly promoted transparency and fostered a competitive environment. However, for this solicitation, no Industry Day was held despite substantial changes, such as a shift in acquisition strategy and the removal of major sections from the PWS. These changes, combined with the planned short timeline before the final RFP submission and the lack of access to TRADOC G-2 due to MICC Eustis denying meeting requests, create a significant disadvantage for non-incumbent bidders.

Answer: The 2024 MICC Advanced Planning Briefing for Industry (APBI) was an outreach event that occurred on 22 April 2024 through 25 April 2024. The G2 Core requirement was presented to industry and an opportunity for questions or comments was given to potential offerors.

2. Request for Clarification and Extension: We previously submitted our questions in response to the DRFP as instructed. However, prior to the directed due date for DRFP questions, the Government released the final RFP package, which included a list of questions and answers. Unfortunately, our submitted questions were not included in that release. This submission contains a refined list of our original questions, removing those already addressed, along with additional critical inquiries.

Several of these questions are essential for developing an accurate staffing and pricing solution. For example, the absence of workload data creates a significant challenge for all bidders, except the incumbent, to build a feasible Basis of Estimate (BOE), which directly impacts staffing decisions. We have specifically requested historical and projected workload data necessary for formulating a proper staffing approach. Following receipt of this data, we will need time to conduct a thorough analysis to ensure an accurate and competitive proposal. Given the scope and complexity of this effort, we respectfully request that the Government extend the

RFP submission deadline to March 25, 2025, to allow for adequate analysis and preparation.

Answer: The Government will NOT be extending the RFP to 25 March 2025. The proposal submission date has been extended to 25 February 2025, at 10:00am

EST.

3. There are different contractor staffing numbers between historical workload data in the DRAFT PWS (page 121) and the Historical Support Efforts provided in Enclosure G of the PWS released with the sources sought submission on 8 April. As an example, the total historical CME for mission support in the DRFP PWS is 36, while the historical CME in the enclosure G of the Sources Sought PWS is 43. All sections are off, and the total for the DRFP PWS is 124 CME and the total for the Sources Sought PWS is 144 CME. This is a vast difference and will contribute to faulty pricing or inaccurate staffing resulting in being unacceptable. Please explain why the numbers are different, and what is the accurate CME numbers.

Answer: In the current PWS, dated 21 January 2025, there is no Enclosure G. PWS Attachment 2 identifies the historical workload data as 129 CMEs.

4. To be recent, the reference must have been performed for at least six (6) months within three (3) years from the date of initial issuance of this solicitation (not including subsequently issued amendments). Yet-to-be performed work, experience prior to the last three (3) years, and work performed for less than six (6) months will not be considered." Would the Government consider modifying the minimum performance period for past performance references from six (6) months to five (5) months or even eliminating the minimum performance period in its entirety? This change would allow for a broader range of relevant past performance to be considered while still ensuring substantial experience.

Answer: The Government will not modify the minimum performance period at this time.

5. To be recent, the reference must have been performed for at least six (6) months within three (3) years from the date of initial issuance of this solicitation (not including subsequently issued amendments). Would the Government consider changing the start date for the three-year window for past performance from "the date of initial issuance of this solicitation" to either the proposal submission date, the contract award date, or the Period of Performance start date? This change would allow for the consideration of more recent past performance and account for any delays in the procurement process.

Answer: The Government will not change the start date for the three-year window for past performance at this time.

6. "L.4.2.2.6. Tab F - Element III: Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement. Enterprise innovation and digital enablers provide TRADOC G-2 technical capabilities across the OEE and provide effective support to external customers and improve design, development, implementation and sustainment of intelligence capabilities. The offeror shall provide its approach to integrating decision support tools, enterprise-wide digital solutions, and cloud enablement. Proposals shall demonstrate its processes and capabilities to enable the TRADOC G-2 to manage the OEE, as well as its oversight approach to Quality Assurance (QA). Additionally, proposals shall demonstrate the offeror's ability for real-time situational awareness of activities across the OEE (such as planned and completed tasks, T&M requirements, travel requests, travel reports), as well as an approach to execute a cross-function evaluation of performance. M.3.2.3.2. Element III - Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement.." Reference Existing Tools and Systems: What specific existing tools and systems does TRADOC G-2 currently use for decision support and enterprise management? Are there any tools or platforms that the Government mandates the offeror to use or integrate with? Are there any proprietary limitations or licensing considerations we should be aware of when integrating with TRADOC systems?

Answer: At this time, TRADOC G-2 utilizes the Army Office 365 suite of tools for Integrated Decision Support Tools, to include SharePoint Online, Teams, PowerBI, and others. The tools and processes that TRADOC G-2 currently use include items such as a Training Tracker, Task and Event List, Travel Approval, etc. These are Power Apps within SharePoint, and are supported with visualizations via PowerBI.

The above tools are mandated for use by the Government. All tools are licensed or owned by the Government with no proprietary limitations.

7. L.4.2.2.6. Tab F - Element III: Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement. Enterprise innovation and digital enablers provide TRADOC G-2 technical capabilities across the OEE and provide effective support to external customers and improve design, development, implementation and sustainment of intelligence capabilities. The offeror shall provide its approach to integrating decision support tools, enterprise-wide digital solutions, and cloud enablement. Proposals shall demonstrate its processes and capabilities to enable the TRADOC G-2 to manage the OEE, as well as its oversight approach to Quality Assurance (QA). Additionally, proposals shall demonstrate the offeror's ability for real-time situational awareness of activities across the OEE (such as planned and completed tasks, T&M requirements, travel requests, travel reports), as well as an approach to execute a cross-function evaluation of performance. M.3.2.3.2. Element III - Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement.. Reference Real-Time Situational Awareness: Is the Government currently using real-time situational awareness tools for tracking tasks, T&M, and travel requests, or is this a new capability they expect the offeror to provide? Does the Government expect a custom dashboard solution for real-time situational awareness, or are enhancements to current tools sufficient? What level of detail does the Government require for real-time tracking of activities such as tasks, T&M, and travel reports?

Answer: At this time, TRADOC G-2 utilizes the Army Office 365 suite of tools for Situational Awareness, to include SharePoint Online, Teams, PowerBI, and others.

Those tools and processes that TRADOC G-2 currently use include items such as a Training Tracker, Task and Event List, Travel Approval, etc. These are Power Apps within SharePoint, and are supported with visualizations via PowerBI.

Enhancements to the current tools where applicable would suffice, but there are no current real-time tools that support T&M requirements, and the completed tasks are currently done on the team level without an enterprise approach.

8. "L.4.2.2.6. Tab F - Element III: Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement. Enterprise innovation and digital enablers provide TRADOC G-2 technical capabilities across the OEE and provide effective support to external customers and improve design, development, implementation and sustainment of intelligence capabilities. The offeror shall provide its approach to integrating decision support tools, enterprise-wide digital solutions, and cloud enablement. Proposals shall demonstrate its processes and capabilities to enable the TRADOC G-2 to manage the OEE, as well as its oversight approach to Quality Assurance (QA). Additionally, proposals shall demonstrate the offeror's ability for real-time situational awareness of activities across the OEE (such as planned and completed tasks, T&M requirements, travel requests, travel reports), as well as an approach to execute a cross-function evaluation of performance. M.3.2.3.2. Element III - Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement… Reference Cloud Enablement: Is the Government already using a specific cloud provider (e.g., AWS GovCloud, Azure) for TRADOC G-2 systems, or does the offeror need to propose a solution? What are the cybersecurity requirements for cloud migration, particularly regarding RMF, FedRAMP, and DISA compliance?

Answer: The government is currently using Azure provided by TRADOC G-6, and migrating to Azure provided by ECMA cArmy. The cybersecurity requirements for any system deployed to either Cloud environment will include approved RMF packages for each system. This includes not just the initial package, but continuous monitoring, and updating the records as appropriate.

9. L.4.2.2.6. Tab F - Element III: Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement. Enterprise innovation and digital enablers provide TRADOC G-2 technical capabilities across the OEE and provide effective support to external customers and improve design, development, implementation and sustainment of intelligence capabilities. The offeror shall provide its approach to integrating decision support tools, enterprise-wide digital solutions, and cloud enablement. Proposals shall demonstrate its processes and capabilities to enable the TRADOC G-2 to manage the OEE, as well as its oversight approach to Quality

Assurance (QA). Additionally, proposals shall demonstrate the offeror's ability for real-time situational awareness of activities across the OEE (such as planned and completed tasks, T&M requirements, travel requests, travel reports), as well as an approach to execute a cross-function evaluation of performance. M.3.2.3.2. Element III - Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement.." Quality Assurance (QA) and Performance Tracking: Can the Government clarify its expectations for QA oversight? Does the Government require a cross-functional performance evaluation tool to be integrated into existing systems, or is a separate solution preferred?

Answer: The government expects the proposals to demonstrate how their solutions would enable the TRADOC G-2 to perform QA Oversight. The solution doesn't have to perform any QA actions, but it must provide the level of detail to allow QA to be done. There is no preference on using existing systems, or separate solutions.

10. L.4.2.2.6. Tab F - Element III: Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement. Enterprise innovation and digital enablers provide TRADOC G-2 technical capabilities across the OEE and provide effective support to external customers and improve design, development, implementation and sustainment of intelligence capabilities. The offeror shall provide its approach to integrating decision support tools, enterprise-wide digital solutions, and cloud enablement. Proposals shall demonstrate its processes and capabilities to enable the TRADOC G-2 to manage the OEE, as well as its oversight approach to Quality Assurance (QA). Additionally, proposals shall demonstrate the offeror's ability for real-time situational awareness of activities across the OEE (such as planned and completed tasks, T&M requirements, travel requests, travel reports), as well as an approach to execute a cross-function evaluation of performance. M.3.2.3.2. Element III - Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement.. Reference Digital Transformation Scope: What is the scope of digital transformation that the Government envisions? Are there specific pain points with the current tools that the Government expects the offeror to address?

Answer: The government will expect digital transformation to occur as necessary, as technologies evolve, and new technologies become available to the Army for use.

There are no specific pain points with the current tools.

11. L.4.2.2.6. Tab F - Element III: Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement. Enterprise innovation and digital enablers provide TRADOC G-2 technical capabilities across the OEE and provide effective support to external customers and improve design, development, implementation and sustainment of intelligence capabilities. The offeror shall provide its approach to integrating decision support tools, enterprise-wide digital solutions, and cloud enablement. Proposals shall demonstrate its processes and capabilities to enable the TRADOC G-2 to manage the OEE, as well as its oversight approach to Quality Assurance (QA). Additionally, proposals shall demonstrate the offeror's ability for real-time situational awareness of activities across the OEE (such as planned and completed tasks, T&M requirements, travel requests, travel reports), as well as an approach to execute a cross-function evaluation of performance. M.3.2.3.2. Element III - Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement. Reference Does TRADOC G-2 or the incumbent currently perform real-time situational awareness, decision support, and cloud-enabled tracking of activities across the Operational Environment Enterprise (OEE)? If so, are you seeking enhancements to existing tools and processes, or is this a new requirement for the contractor to implement from the ground up?

Answer: TRADOC G-2 and the incumbent contractor currently perform situational awareness, decision support, and cloud-enabled tracking of activities across the OEE with the Army 365 suite of tools and the government is looking to maintain existing tools and processes. Real-time has been removed from the paragraph.

12. L.4.2.2.6. Tab F - Element III: Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement. Enterprise innovation and digital enablers provide TRADOC G-2 technical capabilities across the OEE and provide effective support to external customers and improve design, development, implementation and sustainment of intelligence capabilities. The offeror shall provide its approach to integrating decision support tools, enterprise-wide digital solutions, and cloud enablement. Proposals shall demonstrate its processes and capabilities to enable the TRADOC G-2 to manage the OEE, as well as its oversight approach to Quality Assurance (QA). Additionally, proposals shall demonstrate the offeror's ability for real-time situational awareness of activities across the OEE (such as planned and completed tasks, T&M requirements, travel requests, travel reports), as well as an approach to execute a cross-function evaluation of performance. M.3.2.3.2. Element III - Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement.." Could the Government clarify the evaluation criteria (Section M) for Element III - Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement? It is currently blank. How will this element be evaluated relative to other technical factors? How will the Government assess the offeror’s technical approach and innovation for this element?

Answer: Per RFP Section M.3.2.3.3., proposals will be evaluated for its processes, capabilities enabling, and use of decision support tools for TRADOC G-2 to manage the OEE and enable real-time situational awareness of activities of the OEE (such as planned and completed tasks, T&M requirements, travel requests, travel reports), methodologies to provide visibility of QA processes, and approach to execute a cross-function evaluation of performance.

13. L.4.2.2.6. Tab F - Element III: Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement. Enterprise innovation and digital enablers provide TRADOC G-2 technical capabilities across the OEE and provide effective support to external customers and improve design, development, implementation and sustainment of intelligence capabilities. The offeror shall provide its approach to integrating decision support tools, enterprise-wide digital solutions, and cloud enablement. Proposals shall demonstrate its processes and capabilities to enable the TRADOC G-2 to manage the OEE, as well as its oversight approach to Quality Assurance (QA). Additionally, proposals shall demonstrate situational awareness of activities across the OEE (such as planned and completed tasks, T&M requirements, travel requests, travel reports), as well as an approach to execute a cross-function evaluation of performance. M.3.2.3.2. Element III - Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement.." What are the key performance metrics the Government will use to measure the success of the proposed solution?

Answer: After award, the key performance metrics the Government will use to measure the success of the proposed solutions will be Availability, Accuracy, Usability, and Customer Satisfaction.

14. Tab F - Element III: Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement. Enterprise innovation and digital enablers provide TRADOC G-2 technical capabilities across design, development, implementation and sustainment of intelligence. Is this requirement for Tab F covered in the Historical CME, or is it a new requirement? Can the positions be covered under the T&M Tab for pricing?

Answer: This FFP requirement is covered in the historical CME staffing in PWS Attachment 2 – Historical Workload Data assigned to task 5.2.1.1. T&M pricing is not part of this competition and is a Government Not to Exceed (NTE) amount.

15. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors." Given the complexity of the requirement and the potential for misunderstandings, will the Government reconsider its position on awarding without discussions? This approach may limit competition and prevent the Government from receiving the best value.

Answer: The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). However, per Section M.1.4. of the RFP, [t]he Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

16. “The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors listed below" Would the Government provide more detail on how it will conduct the "integrated assessment"?

Specifically, how will the Government weigh technical approach against price in determining best value?

Answer: Per RFP M.2.3., the award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Factor 1 - Technical Approach consisting of the following elements: (I) Specified Functional Areas; (II) Integrated Management and Staffing Approach; and (III) Integrated Decision Support Tools, Enterprise-wide Digital Solutions, and Cloud Enablement;

Factor 2 - Past Performance; and Factor 3 - Price. Per RFP M.2.4., when making the Best Value determination, Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2.

Additionally, Factors 1 and 2 (non-priced factors) when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price). Price will be increasingly more important as non-price factors become increasingly equal.

17. "There are six (6) specific tasks that are strictly optional" Would the Government clarify if offerors are required to price all optional tasks? How will optional tasks be evaluated in the overall proposal assessment?

Answer: Yes, Offerors are required to price all optional tasks. Optional tasks will be evaluated in the same manner as non-optional tasks. Historically, all optional tasks have been funded and executed in each period of performance.

18. “Key Personnel" requirements. Given that this is a recompete, will the Government consider relaxing the key personnel requirements to allow for more competition, particularly from Joint Ventures that may bring diverse expertise?

Answer: Key Personnel requirements are outlined in para 1.10 of the PWS.

19. Joint Venture requirements. Would the Government clarify if there are any specific requirements or considerations for Joint Ventures submitting proposals? Are there any limitations or restrictions that might adversely affect a JV bid?

Answer: Offerors, including Joint Ventures, will need to determine what is required of them through the RFP.

20. Will the Government be holding an Industry Day for this opportunity? Given that MICC Eustis has not allowed meetings with potential offerors or the TRADOC G2, an Industry Day would be crucial to ensure fair competition and allow non-incumbent offerors to understand the customer's needs and priorities.

Answer: See answer to Question #1.

21. "Contractor personnel performing work under this contract must have at minimum, a secret at time of the proposal submission" Would the Government clarify if all proposed personnel must have active clearances at the time of proposal submission, or if interim clearances or the ability to obtain clearances would be sufficient? This requirement could significantly impact a JV's ability to propose competitive staffing.

Answer: Paras 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 of the PWS detail the security requirements for the TRADOC G-2 Core Contract. All proposed personnel must have active or interim clearances at the time of proposal submission in order to have competitive staffing.

22. Proposal submission requirements. Given the complexity of the requirement and the potential for a Joint Venture proposal, would the Government consider extending the page limits for certain volumes, particularly the technical volume?

Answer: Volume II (2) allows for 75 pages between the three (3) elements of the Technical Approach. The Government will not extend the page limit at this time.

23. Digital Systems Support requirements. Would the Government provide more detail on the expected level of effort for the Digital Systems Support tasks? This information would be crucial for accurate staffing and pricing, especially for non-incumbent offerors.

Answer: PWS para 5.2.1.1.2 is the overarching task, and the unique level of effort for Digital Systems support is covered in the 57 sub-tasks from 5.2.1.1.2.1 to 5.2.1.1.2.6.7.

24. Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). Would the Government provide more clarity on how it expects offerors to price the Time and Materials (T&M) CLINs, given that the work will be based on future Tech LOIs? This uncertainty could pose challenges for accurate pricing, especially for a JV.

Answer: Set amounts for the T&M CLINs have been provided on Section B of the Pricing Workbook for each Option Year. Offerors are to propose T&M Labor Rates within the Attachment 2, Pricing Workbook, in the T&M Labor Rates tab.

25. "The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors listed below" Would the Government provide more detail on how it will conduct the "integrated assessment"?

How will each factor be weighted, particularly for small businesses that may have less extensive past performance?

Answer: See answer to Question #16.

26. Proposal submission requirements. Would the Government consider extending page limits for certain volumes to allow small businesses to fully explain their capabilities and approach?

Answer: See answer to Question #22.

27. Past Performance requirements. Would the Government clarify how it will evaluate past performance for small businesses with fewer or smaller-scale past contracts?

Will the Government consider the quality of performance over the quantity or size of contracts?

Answer: This is a small business set-aside; all past performance evaluation criteria are laid out sufficiently in M.3.3. and subparagraphs that follow.

28. Technical approach requirements. Will the Government consider allowing alternative technical approaches that might be more suitable for small business capabilities while still meeting the overall objectives?

Answer: Offerors are encouraged to propose approaches that follow the RFP and align with the Government’s needs.

29. Evaluation criteria. How will the Government ensure that evaluation criteria do not inadvertently favor larger, incumbent contractors over small businesses?

Answer: This requirement is set-aside for small businesses.

30. Pricing requirements. Will the Government consider simplifying pricing requirements or providing additional guidance to assist small businesses in developing competitive pricing strategies?

Answer: The Government’s pricing requirements are set due to the specific needs of this action and the Government does not advise Offerors how to price their proposals.

31. Government-furnished property. Would the Government provide more details on the availability and condition of Government-furnished property? This information is crucial for small businesses to accurately assess their resource needs.

Answer: See para 1.27 of the PWS and Part 3 para 3 of the PWS which states "The Government will provide workspaces/desks (not standing desks), chairs, and office automation to include computer(s), telephones, printers, etc. as necessary by the work performed for each contractor personnel".

32. Optional tasks. How will optional tasks be evaluated in the overall proposal assessment? Will small businesses be at a disadvantage if they cannot price all optional tasks competitively?

Answer: See response to question #17. There are six (6) optional tasks. All Offeror's responses to the optional tasks will be evaluated in the same way as responses to non-optional FFP tasks, resulting in no disadvantage for small businesses.

33. T&M Administration Process. Would the Government provide more guidance on pricing the Time and Materials (T&M) CLINs, given the uncertainty of future Tech LOIs? This unpredictability could pose challenges for small businesses with limited resources.

Answer: For the RFP, Offerors shall provide the information requested in RFP Paragraph L.4.4.6.2. The Government requires offerors to provide the maximum rate allowable (ceiling rate) for each LCAT in Attachment 2, Pricing Workbook under the T&M Labor Rates tab and this table of rates will become part of the awarded contract. After award, the maximum rate allowable will be the highest rate an offeror shall use when developing their pricing in response to a Tech LOI. Offerors shall not be allowed to price above the maximum rate allowable in response to a Tech LOI.

34. Contractor Travel. Given the potential for both CONUS and OCONUS travel, can the Government provide historical data on travel requirements? This would help small businesses better estimate travel costs and resource allocation.

Answer: At the end of each of the major Tasks in section 5 of the PWS, the percent of travel time for Contractors performing each task historically is identified. Offerors are not expected to propose estimated travel costs in their proposals.

35. Information and Data Management (IDM) Support Would the Government clarify the expected division of responsibilities between the contractor and Government IT support (e.g., RNEC/LNEC)? This would help small businesses understand the full scope of their IT support responsibilities.

Answer: 5.2.1.1 is the overarching task for IDM the ITSS specific tasks and sub-tasks are covered under 5.2.1.1.1 and sub-bullets. Specifically in relation to the RNEC support "In Coordination With (ICW) the Regional or Local Network Enterprise Center (RNEC/LNEC; the RNEC will provide four [4] above baseline support to Fort Eustis, VA.) The Government estimates 400 help-desk tickets will need to be resolved per annual period of performance at Fort Eustis, Virginia and Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, combined." The Workstation Administration at Fort Leavenworth, on JWICS, and at building 950 will need to be provided by 100% by the contractor, with government oversight and prioritization being provided.

36. "Key Personnel" requirements. Would the Government consider military experience in lieu of the requirement "At least 3-5 years of technical program management experience." much like you did for the experience managing contracts?

Answer: See response to Question #18.

37. "Key Personnel" requirements. Would the Government consider allowing for equivalent combinations of education and experience for labor categories? This could allow small businesses to propose highly skilled personnel who may not meet specific degree requirements but have relevant practical experience.

Answer: See response to Question #18. Additionally, there are only two Key Personnel requirements (for a Contract Program Manager (PM) and Senior Systems Architect) and the qualifications are detailed in PWS para 1.10.1 and 1.10.2.

38. Labor category descriptions. Would the Government clarify if there are any certification requirements for specific labor categories, and if so, by what date these certifications must be obtained? This information is crucial for small businesses to assess their current staff capabilities and potential hiring needs.

Answer: The Army is currently in a state of flux on credentialing requirements. DoDI

8570.01 has been rescinded and is being replaced with DoDI 8140. However, DoDI 8140 does not apply to privileged account access by contractors. The approval for privileged account access is maintained by the TRADOC G-2 CIM; the initial review will start with DoDI 8140. The contractor is responsible for ensuring the workforce maintains the skillsets needed for each position and Labor Category, and the required skills and certifications are expected to be present when the individual is brought on the contract.

39. Labor category descriptions. Is there flexibility in the proposed labor categories, or are offerors allowed to suggest alternative labor categories that might better align with their organizational structure while still meeting the Government's needs?

Answer: Yes, there is flexibility in the proposed labor categories. Offerors are encouraged to suggest alternative labor categories that might better align with their proposed organizational structure while still meeting the Government's needs.

40. Labor category descriptions. Are there any limitations on the use of subcontractors or consultants for specific labor categories? This information is important for small businesses considering teaming arrangements.

Answer: No, there are no limitations on the use of subcontractors or consultants for any of the labor categories associated with the TRADOC G2 CORE Contract.

41. Labor category descriptions. Would the Government clarify if there are any requirements for personnel to work on-site versus remotely for each labor category and task area? This information is crucial for small businesses to plan their staffing and operational approach.

Answer: Government will require all FFP Contractors to work on-site 40 hours a week for each labor category and task area unless situational telework is approved by the Government. This is a classified award with many positions performed at the Secret or Top Secret level which cannot be done remotely. PWS para 1.5.3.3 has been updated in the latest PWS dated 21 January 2025.

42. The PWS only includes estimates for helpdesk tickets. Would the Government provide estimated workload data for other tasks, requirements, and deliverables to align with the historical data provided? Industry really needs the number of items/occurrences historically done in the last three years, plus an estimated workload for this opportunity.

Answer: The Government will provide numbers from FY24. In FY24, the TRADOC G2 had a total of 568 Events Supported and Products Delivered –

ACE HQ(Task 5.2.2): 18

Engagement Dir (Task 5.2.3): 4

FMSO (Task 5.2.2.4): 122

G2X (Task 5.2.1.3): 5

Info and Data Mgmt. (Task 5.2.1.1): 24

ISR (Task 5.2.3.5 and 5.2.3.6): 61

NET(Task 5.2.3.9): 11

OE Integration (Task 5.2.2.1): 108

OE/OPFOR (Task 5.2.3.2): 180

Security (Task 5.2.1.2): 35

43. The PWS does not mention any historical or estimated workload for the OPFOR Accreditations. Would the Government provide estimated future workload for OPFOR Accreditations?

Answer: CTC Accreditations are cyclic. Contractors working in OPFOR Modernization branch generally support 1x Accreditation annually. Duration can fluctuate from 7-12 days, including travel. Contractors working in OE Accreditation would have significantly more.

44. The historical workload data shows significant CME effort in supporting exercises and war games, but the PWS does not provide estimates for this work. Would the Government clarify the expected future workload for exercise and war game support?

Answer: Support to exercises and wargames is provided under the TEFOR task (Task 5.2.3.8), periodic support to other wargames for one analyst in OE Integration (Task 5.2.2.1), and then the same for OE Support (Task 5.2.3.3).

45. The historical workload data shows significant CME effort in Foreign Disclosure Office support, but the PWS does not provide estimates for this work. Would the Government provide expected future workload for Foreign Disclosure Office support?

Answer: Historically, one full-time CME has supported the TRADOC G2 Foreign Disclosure Office. The CME provides support to over 2000 Foreign visits across each year to TRADOC and to product review to numerous products and briefings.

46. The historical data shows significant effort in web design and content management, but the PWS does not provide estimates for this work. Would the Government clarify the expected future workload for web design and content management tasks?

Answer: Web Design and Content Management is covered under 5.2.1.1.2.4 and the 12 sub-tasks. This work includes managing the website and content under oe.tradoc.army.mil, fmso.tradoc.army.mil, madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil, as well as developing standalone websites to be utilized by the Information Operations Network (ION). The content on the three main sites is currently hosted by WordPress is updated multiple times weekly and includes an active blog. The ION websites follow a specific html5 template, and average 3-5 new websites each week.

47. The historical workload data shows significant CME effort in database management support, but the PWS does not provide estimates for this work. Would the Government provide expected future workload for database management support?

Answer: Database Management Support is covered under 5.2.1.1.2.5 and the 7 sub-tasks. This work is a component of the larger 5.2.1.1.2 Digital Systems Support, and the additional sub-tasks should be referenced for additional Database Management requirements. (e.g. 5.2.1.1.2.1 Digital Systems Enterprise Support will require Database Management and Development support to be fully successful.) Each of the TRADOC G-2 tools referenced under 5.2.1.1.2.2.1 have their own Database which need future development, maintenance, and vulnerability remediation actions.

48. The historical data indicates significant effort in security support tasks, but the PWS does not provide estimates for this work. Would the Government clarify the expected future workload for security support tasks?

Answer: Attachment 2 to the PWS documents that in support of Task 5.2.1.2 (Security), historically, there have been three full-time CMEs; one at Fort Eustis supporting personnel security across TRADOC; one full-time CME at Fort Leavenworth supporting security requirements for TRADOC G2 Leavenworth; and one full-time CME supporting FDO (See response to Question #53).

49. Given the significant discrepancies between the historical data and the limited estimates provided in the PWS, would the Government explain how it determined the estimated workload for the new contract? What factors led to the apparent reduction in estimated work across multiple task areas?

Answer: The historical workload data the Government provided in Attachment 2 was provided for information purposes only. The Government did not provide estimated staffing levels for the current Solicitation's PWS requirements. Each Offeror, based on their proposed staffing strategy, should propose its own staffing for this award.

50. The Performance Requirements Summary doesn't cover all tasks described in Part

5. Would the Government provide performance standards and acceptable quality levels for all major tasks to ensure comprehensive quality control?

Answer: PWS Technical Exhibit A covers all major Task areas in Section 5 of the PWS. The subtasks will be evaluated in the same manner as the major tasks.

51. The Deliverables Schedule seems incomplete compared to the tasks described in Part 5. Would the Government provide a comprehensive list of deliverables for all tasks, including frequency and format requirements?

Answer: PWS Technical Exhibit B Deliverables Schedule covers all major deliverables for the TRADOC G2 CORE Contract.

52. This attachment appears to be mislabeled as it contains labor category requirements rather than workload data. Would the Government provide the correct workload data for T&M tasks and clarify the purpose of the current Attachment 1?

Answer: Corrected in the current PWS.

53. For tasks requiring security clearances, would the Government provide the number of personnel currently holding required clearances versus those that will need to obtain clearances? This information is crucial for staffing and transition planning.

Answer: See response to Question #21. Additionally, Offerors are provided with clearance requirements throughout Section 5 of the PWS and should propose a staffing strategy that meets those security clearance requirements.

54. Many tasks mention travel requirements, but specific details are lacking. Would the Government provide more detailed information on expected travel frequency, duration, and locations for each task requiring travel?

Answer: See response to Question #34. Additionally, every PWS requirement in Section 5.0 lists projected travel requirements - for example, for PWS para 5.2.1.4 (TRADOC G2 Plans and OPS support), PWS para 5.2.1.4.4.2 states that less than 5% travel may be required for personnel supporting Plans and Ops.

55. For software development and IT support tasks, would the Government provide more details on the current technology stack, development methodologies, and any planned technology transitions?

Answer: Current G-2 applications reside on TRADOC Azure and are in the progress of migrating to cARMY Azure, but several applications are also developed to be deployed on laptops on Closed Restricted Networks. We do not expect the transition to cARMY be complete at the time of the contract award and will need to be finished by the new vendor. The technology stack varies between application, but include Java, Javascript, React, Apache, Terraform, NGINX, Azure Cloud Services, PosgreSQL, Docker, Node.js, dotCMS, MariaDB, Azure SQL, PHP, Git, Python, .NET, Ansible, R, and others. We utilize Agile DevSecOps development methods, and each project runs their own 3 week sprint cycles, with Dev / Test / Prod environments.

56. For tasks involving training and education support, would the Government provide historical data on the number of training sessions, average class sizes, and locations to allow for accurate resource allocation?

Answer: TRADOC G2 provides Mobile Training Teams, specifically in tasks 5.2.2.1, 5.2.3.5, and 5.2.3.9. There are a number of intelligence training courses provided across the Army each year.

57. For intelligence analysis tasks, would the Government provide more details on the expected volume of products, typical turnaround times, and any seasonal variations in workload?

Answer: Volume and turnaround times of products are difficult to articulate as they vary depending on customer requirements/demand as well as ongoing world events that drive said demand. Generally speaking, there is a lessening of demand around the traditional Nov-Dec holiday period.

58. For tasks involving support to exercises and war games, would the Government provide a calendar or estimate of the number and scale of these events to allow for proper resource planning?

Answer: Besides the directed TEFOR support (Task 5.2.3.8), TRADOC G2 usually supports 3-4 exercises or wargames a year. There is no set calendar for these events, but all events are planned out well in advance to allow any contract support to be adequately planned.

59. Would the Government clarify how performance will be measured and evaluated for tasks that don't have specific metrics listed in the Performance Requirements Summary?

Answer: Measures for evaluation for all major FFP tasks are listed in the PRS. The requirements for each of their subtasks are measured with the same evaluation criteria.

60. Would the Government provide more details on the expected interaction and coordination between different task areas, especially for interdependent activities?

Answer: All TRADOC G2 task areas work together to solve tasks as an integrated team.

61. For tasks involving foreign language skills, would the Government provide a list of required languages, and the number of personnel needed for each language?

Answer: The only foreign language skills mentioned in the PWS are in para 5.2.2.4 for FMSO where FMSO foreign language-enabled analysts conduct research through open sources including foreign language materials and directed engagement in the US and abroad with foreign security specialists, academia, military, and other officials. The language skills needed continually change as threats in the world evolve over time. Offerors should propose a staffing strategy as to how they would address this requirement.

62. Would the Government provide more information on the current staffing levels for each major task area to help in developing transition plans and identifying potential staffing gaps?

Answer: See Attachment #2, Historical Workload Data.

63. For tasks involving support to multiple locations (e.g., Fort Eustis and Fort Leavenworth), would the Government provide a breakdown of workload and required staffing at each location?

Answer: Task 5.2.1.1 (IDM) has 6 CME in Fort Leavenworth, 22 CME in Fort Eustis Task 5.2.1.2 (Security) has 1 CME in Fort Leavenworth, 2 CME in Fort Eustis Task 5.2.1.4 (G2 Operations) has 1 CME in Fort Leavenworth, 2 CME in Fort Eustis Task 5.2.2.1 (OE Integration) has 13 CME in Fort Leavenworth, 6 CME in Fort Eustis Task 5.2.3.5 (ISR-Integration) has 1 CME in Fort Leavenworth, 4 CME in Fort Eustis

64. "This PWS primarily consists of FFP requirements; however, there are some areas that will require T&M support due to the nature of the requirement." Would the Government provide more clarity on which specific tasks or subtasks are intended to be T&M versus FFP? This information is crucial for accurate pricing.

Answer: All tasks identified in PWS para 5.2 graphic titled "TRADOC G2 OE CORE Missions" are FFP tasks. IAW PWS paragraph 5.2.3.8, TEFOR requirement is split between a FFP Optional Task and T&M task.

65. "Period of Performance" Given the 8-month base period and four 1-year options, how should offerors account for potential cost escalations over the full period of performance in their pricing?

Answer: The Government does not advise offerors how to price their proposals across time. Offerors are encouraged to utilize the Wage Determinations provided with this RFP, SCA wage adjustments, other references online, etc. when developing escalations over the full period of performance in their pricing.

66. "Threat Emulation Force (TEFOR)" This section is mentioned as primarily T&M.

Would the Government provide more details on the expected frequency and duration of TEFOR events to allow for more accurate T&M pricing?

Answer: TEFOR FFP, as identified in the PWS, has its own Optional CLIN and offerors shall provide pricing for this CLIN ONLY, in both Section B and the Breakdown FFP tab, in Attachment 2, Pricing Workbook.

Additionally, offerors shall provide the information requested in RFP Paragraph L.4.4.6.2. The Government requires offerors to provide the maximum rate allowable (ceiling rate) for each LCAT in Attachment 2, Pricing Workbook under the T&M Labor Rates tab. This table of rates will become part of the awarded contract. After award, the maximum rate allowable will be the highest rate an offeror shall use when developing their pricing in response to a Tech LOI. Offerors shall not be allowed to price above the maximum rate allowable in response to a Tech LOI.

67. "THE CONTRACT WILL INCLUDE A CEILING PRICE THAT THE CONTRACTOR

EXCEEDS AT ITS OWN RISK." How will the ceiling price for T&M tasks be determined? Will it be based on the Government's independent estimate or the contractor's proposal?

Answer: The T&M CLIN celling is set by the Government’s independent estimate.

For the RFP, Offerors shall provide the information requested in RFP Paragraph L.4.4.6.2. The Government requires offerors to provide the maximum rate allowable (ceiling rate) for each LCAT in Attachment 2, Pricing Workbook under the T&M Labor Rates tab. This table of rates will become part of the awarded contract. After award, the maximum rate allowable will be the highest rate an offeror shall use when developing their pricing in response to a Tech LOI. Offerors shall not be allowed to price above the maximum rate allowable in response to a Tech LOI.

68. "Contractor Support Hours" Given the broad support hours (0630 to 1830), how should offerors price for potential extended hours or overtime work?

Answer: The hours 0630-1830 are the hours that the government buildings are open. Contractors are expected to work on-site 40 hours a week. The Government does not advise Contractors how to price for labor hours.

69. Magnitude table. Given the change to a small business set-aside, would the Government consider adjusting the magnitude ranges to better reflect the scale of contracts typically performed by small businesses in this NAICS code? This could help ensure a more appropriate evaluation of past performance for small business offerors.

Answer: The Magnitude Rating Scale has been updated in the Draft RFP.

70. Does the prime need to be 8(a)?

Answer: This requirement is set aside for small businesses.

71. On the prior 3 bid there was an industry day. At this time there has been no industry day. Does the Government intent to have an industry day? Also, if there is no industry day this gives the current Incumbent an edge over all others.

Answer: See response to Question #1. Additionally, this requirement is a small business set-aside.

72. In an 8(a) joint venture, the 8(a) participant(s) shall perform at least 40 percent of the work performed by the joint venture. Work performed by the 8(a) participants in the joint venture must be more than administrative functions. Should section 52.219-14 be removed or changes since this is a small business set aside and not an 8(a)?

Answer: FAR 52.219-14 addresses Limitations on Subcontracting. The clause applies to small business set-asides and will not be removed from the RFP.

73. L.2.1. This procurement will be solicited using 100% total small business set-aside competition procedures and will be conducted using formal source selection (negotiated) procedures as delineated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart…