MAPS Solicitation Questions and Answers - 01 MAY 2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 546 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W15P7T-26-R-A006
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document from the MAPS (Marketplace for Acquisition of Professional Services) Solicitation issued by Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground. The document contains over 1,000 questions submitted by industry and corresponding Government responses addressing clarifications to the solicitation requirements.
The MAPS solicitation is a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract that consolidates two predecessor vehicles: Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) and Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-3 Services (ITES-3S). The procurement seeks to acquire professional services across five domains: Engineering, Logistics and Operational Services; Management and Advisory Services; Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E); Emerging IT Services; and Foundational IT Services. The contract has a $50 billion ceiling and contemplates 70 total awards distributed across business size categories: 30 Large Businesses (with 15 reserved for Emerging Large Businesses), 25 Small Businesses per domain, and 15 Commercial-Sector Vendors. The Firm Fixed Price for a post-award virtual conference is $50-$100 for two attendees. Proposal submission was originally due May 1, 2026, but was extended to May 8, 2026. Awards are anticipated August 2026. The Government will evaluate proposals based on technical capabilities demonstrated through Qualifying Projects (QPs), past performance quality via CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaires, system acceptability certifications (accounting, purchasing, property management systems), facility clearance status, CMMC Level 2 certification, and various scoring criteria including relevance, dollar value, NAICS alignment, passthrough rate, vacancy rate, time to fill, schedule performance, and completeness metrics. The Q&A addresses extensive submission requirements, eligibility criteria for different business sizes, QP documentation standards, CPARS evaluation methodology, Joint Venture participation rules, and scoring calculations across multiple evaluation factors.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 88 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
MAPS Q&A
| MAPS Formal Solicitation Questions & Answers | ||
| Question # | QUESTIONS | ANSWERS |
| 00001 | Q: Can the Government clarify the submission mechanism within CHESS? If submitting a proposal for all 5 Domains, we would expect 5 upload items for the Cover letter, 5 for the Scorecard, etc. - there is only 1 of each. And there is currently no upload placeholder for Attachment 4, PPQ - for which there would be a possible 15 uploads for PPQs - 5 domains x 3 PPQs per Domain. We do not see within the submission page a way to enter or create new upload line items on the fly. Any guidance is appreciated. --Submitted on 4/1/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Section L.1, number 8, of the Solicitation. |
| 00002 | Q: If a subcontract is used as a QP, how does one respond to M.5.6 “passthrough rate” regarding how much work was subcontracted out, since the offeror would not be the prime? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please see the M.5.6 in the Solcitiation Amendment 01. "For QPs where the Offeror performed as a Subcontractor, the Total Incurred Labor Dollars reflects the total labor performed by the Offeror and any second tier subcontracts they let under its subcontract." |
| 00003 | Q: CMMC Level 2, validated by a government‑approved C3PAO, has become the de facto standard for DoD contractors because it directly aligns with the contractually mandated cybersecurity requirements for protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) that took effect on November 10, 2025. As a result, it now exceeds the assurances previously offered by ISO-based frameworks. While standards such as ISO 27001 provide general information security guidance, they do not meet the specific NIST SP 800‑171 controls nor the government‑approved third‑party assessment required under CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) certification. Industry particularly small businesses has invested heavily in achieving this mandated DoW certification and undergoing the required C3PAO assessment, rather than pursuing previously optional ISO certifications. In light of this, will the government consider recognizing CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO‑assessed) as satisfying both CMMC and ISO‑related requirements? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for the request. The Government will not be changing the requirements referenced in this question from what is in the solicitation. |
| 00004 | Q: The CHESS portal has text on it that says "DO NOT UPLOAD FOUO/CUI INFORMATION". Some of our proposal artifacts necessary for QP backup are marked CUI. How do we present this information to prove our self-scoring without violating this instruction? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please see the Solicitation Amendment for updated information regarding the submission of CUI information. |
| 00005 | Q: L.1.1.3 “Members of a Joint Venture must decide which -the Joint Venture or an individual partner - will submit a proposal for the opportunity to be a MAPS base contract holder for each Domain. Members of JVs can propose as a JV or a single offeror under each Domain, they cannot propose as both” Is it the government's intent to allow only one bid per domain, regardless of the JV’s individual partners' business sizes? For example, is a JV allowed to bid in the M&A domain as a qualified small business while one partner bids in the same M&A domain as an emerging large? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the requirements stated within Solicitation Section L.1.1. Regarding the hypothetical presented within this question. No, Offerors cannot bid as a JV in the M&A Domain and have a partner place a separate bid within the same Domain (M&A). |
| 00006 | Q: Section C.1.4 is followed by section C.1.4.2. Will the Government please update the section numbers, notate section 1.4.1 as reserved, or please provide section 1.4.1? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | This has been corrected with the Solicitation Amendment. |
| 00007 | Q: Section 4.2.5 requires "All contractor employees with access or require access to a government info system" to "be registered in the ATCTS (Army Training Certification Tracking System)". ATCTS was sunsetted on 30 April 2025 per NETCOM EXORD 250404-10G35 and replaced by the new Account Validation System (AVS). Will the Government please consider updating references to ATCTS with the latest applicable system? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | This has been udpated, please refer to Amendment 02 of the Solicitation. |
| 00008 | Q: Section H.5.2 details the procedures for Off-Ramps, which includes a list of conditions that would trigger an Off-Ramp. These conditions include marginal or unsatisfactory CPAR ratings, vacancy rates "of 10% or more", and time‑to‑fill rates "equal to or greater than 60 calendar days or more". Many of these conditions can and have resulted from factors that are not within the control of a contractor (e.g., labor‑market conditions, clearance processing delays, Government onboarding timelines, GFE readiness, etc.). Will the Government please consider updating this section to allow contractors to report status in the event that these conditions apply, create mitigation plans, provide grace periods in certain circumstances, or at least allow contractors an opportunity to respond before initiating an automatic or manual off‑ramp action? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for the request. The Government will not be changing the requirements referenced in this question from what is in the solicitation. |
| 00009 | Q: Section L.1, bullets 5 and 6, require offerors to provide sufficient detail to substantiate all claims. Since there are no documentation requirements with the evaluation factors in section M.5.7 (QP Submission Vacancy Rate, Time To Fill Rate, Schedule and Completeness), the Qualifying Project Form (attachment 3) appears to be the only vehicle to communicate this information in a manner that complies with Section L.1. Will the Government please clarify what supporting details or documentation is expected or required to substantiate claims related to Vacancy and Time To Fill factors, especially when this information is not formally tracked or readily available? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the Solicitation for the required supporting documentation. Unless specifically stated in the Solicitation, the Government will not be providing an all-inclusive list of what documentation will be required to substantiate an Offeror's proposal. |
| 00010 | Q: Section L.2.2 requires offerors to "provide detailed, verifiable, and substantiating information and documentation for all points claimed." Will the Government please clarify what kind of documentation will be accepted for verification purposes? For example, please clarify whether the Government will accept contract modifications, conformed contracts, USA Spending reports, SAM.gov contract award reports (formerly FPDS), Contract Data Requirements Listings (CDRL), Staffing Plans incorporated into the contract, Letters of Technical Direction (LOTD), subcontracting plans, subcontract agreements, approved/paid invoices, contract deliverables, final proposal, award fee documents, etc. --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the Solicitation for the required supporting documentation. Unless specifically stated in the Solicitation, the Government will not be providing an all-inclusive list of what documentation will be required to substantiate an Offeror's proposal. |
| 00011 | Q: Section L.2.2 requires offerors to "compile all supporting documents and Scorecard as one (1) PDF to submit." This may not be possible. For example, one of our QPs has a PWS that is 1,296 pages long. Will the Government please consider allowing separate files to be attached to a QP submission? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for the request. Offerors will need to be mindful of the size limitations. The Government will not be changing the requirements to permit separate files to be attached to the QP submission. |
| 00012 | Q: Section L.2.2.1,Large Business Active Secret Facility Clearance bullet 1 sub-bullets, require that "Offerors shall submit documentation to demonstrate that they hold an active Secret Clearance," which the Government will then "evaluate ... to ensure it is current and valid." Will you accept a letter from their Facility Security Office (FSO) that provides the offeror's name, CAGE code, FCL level, the cognizant security office (e.g., DCSA) to verify whether a facility clearance has been granted and remains active. Please advise if this form of documentation is acceptable. --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Section L.2.2.1 of the Solicitation. |
| 00013 | Q: Section L.2.2.1, bullet 1 sub-bullets, advises the offeror that "CPARS will be pulled for all five (5) NAICS codes under the acquisition over the last three (3) years for the last completed assessment." Further, "If 10% or more of the element ratings are MARGINAL or below, the Offeror will be excluded from evaluations." Will the Government please clarify whether this analysis includes counting each marginal (or lower) rating across the selected CPARS and then dividing by the total number of ratings (while excluding Regulatory Compliance ratings)? If this is not the case, please clarify how this analysis will occur so offerors can self-evaluate whether they qualify to propose to this solicitation. --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for your submission. At this time, the Government is exclusively addressing inquiries that seek clarification of the solicitation instructions. |
| 00014 | Q: Section L.2.3.1 provides a special note that qualifies "any contract/order that is a hybrid of contract types ... the QP shall be considered a LOE QP." If a hybrid contract/order is predominantly FFP completion (Outcome-Based) but includes a small LH CLIN for surge, will the Government please clarify whether offerors should classify the QP strictly as LOE, and therefore exclude the Schedule and Completeness factors and apply the Vacancy and Time-to-Fill factors instead? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Solicitation Section L.2.3.1, Special Note 1. "For any contract/order that is a hybrid of contract types between those as defined in the above terms, the QP shall be considered a LOE QP." Using the example presented in this question, the contract/order is a hybrid and shall be considered a LOE QP and follow the factors associated with that QP type. |
| 00015 | Q: Section L.2.3.2 instructs offerors to complete attachment 0003, the "Qualifying Project Form." The instructions also require a signature from the Government official (unless it's a commercial/private entity). Further, the instructions require offerors to "provide a copy of the PWS [etc.]... and a copy of the Contract [etc.]... as part of their supporting documentation." The supporting documentation, in addition to a required signature from the Government CO/COTR attesting to the facts provided in attachment 3, will significantly increase the level of effort of offerors to provide the content and of the U.S. Army to evaluate the documentation. Will the Government please consider removing the requirement for supporting documentation since attachment 3, combined with the funding agency's POC's signature, serves as an attestation to the facts included in that attachment? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for the request. The Government will not be changing the requirements referenced in this question from what is in the solicitation. |
| 00016 | Q: Section L.2.3.2 describes the acceptable contract types to be considered a QP. For most self-scoring proposals, at least one collection of task orders (COTO) awarded under a U.S. Federal Government Single Award IDIQ Contract, BPA, or BOA is permitted. Will the Government please consider the acceptance of at least one COTO per offeror and domain to qualify as a QP? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for the request. The Government will not be changing the requirements referenced in this question from what is in the solicitation. |
| 00017 | Q: Section L.2.3.2 states "Outcome Based QPs period of performance shall be completed." This restriction will limit competition and eliminate many potential QPs that match the majority of requirements. Will the Government please reconsider updating this requirement to match the LOE Based requirement of "at least one (1) year of completed performance that has occurred within the last four (4) years prior to the final solicitation release date.;"? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for the request. The Government will not be changing the requirements referenced in this question from what is in the solicitation. |
| 00018 | Q: Section L.2.3.2 requires contract references to have certain NAICS codes to qualify as a QP, which vary across the domains. Section M.5.3 also awards 1,000 points (per QP) if the QP's NAICS code matches the Domain-specific NAICS code. Section M.5.2 also awards points if the scope of work includes a certain percentage of the technical capabilities, unique to each domain. If a contract has scope that aligns to 100% of the relevant technical capabilities for a domain but does not align to the NAICS codes listed in L.2.3.2, will the Government please consider allowing that contract reference as a qualifying project? Most self-scoring solicitations recognize that a NAICS code on a contract may not align perfectly with a scope of work, and therefore allow offerors to justify the inclusion of a contract reference if the scope of work includes the scope or services relevant to the domain. Please note that the instructions, in its current form, prevents the U.S. Army from benefitting from offerors who have the necessary past performance because of the strict requirements on the NAICS codes. Providing an additional 1,000 points, in accordance with M.5.3, rewards offerors who are fortunate enough to have that NAICS code, while limiting competition from those offerors unfortunate enough to have generic, inherited, or misaligned NAICS codes. --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for the request. The Government will not be changing the requirements referenced in this question from what is in the solicitation. |
| 00019 | Q: Section L.2.3.2 lists NAICS codes that are eligible for submission as a QP for each domain. Each domain includes the 541712 as an acceptable NAICS code. Please note that the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) discontinued this NAICS number in 2017. Will the Government please consider removing and replacing this NAICS with a more relevant, current NAICS code, such as 541990 (All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services)? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for the request. The Government will not be changing the requirements referenced in this question from what is in the solicitation. |
| 00020 | Q: Section L.2.3.2 lists NAICS codes that are eligible for submission as a QP for each domain. There is considerable overlap between the eligible NAICS codes for the Emerging IT and Foundational IT domains. Will the Government please consider allowing offerors to use NAICS 518210, 541511, 541512, 541513, 541519, or 611420 for QPs aligned to the Emerging IT and Foundational IT Domains since these codes are commonly used across technical requirements for IT services? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for the request. The Government will not be changing the requirements referenced in this question from what is in the solicitation. |
| 00021 | Q: Section M.5.4 details how QPs will earn points based on CPAR ratings, which requires "all evaluation areas of the CPARS or PPQ" to have the same rating or higher to gain the most points. This method significantly devalues QPs with higher ratings. For example, if a contract has all Exceptional ratings, except for Management, which was noted as Satisfactory since all deliverables were provided on schedule, this predominately Exceptional CPAR would only earn 45% of the available points. Most self-scoring solicitations apply a weighted value to the CPAR ratings (i.e., Exceptional = 5, Very Good = 4, Satisfactory = 3, Marginal = 2, Unsatisfactory = 1) and require offerors to meet or exceed a certain average score (e.g., >=3). If CPARs continue to be devalued based on the lowest score, the Government may limit competition and reduce the opportunity to benefit from services that are predominately Exceptional. Will the Government please consider updating section M.5.4 to reflect a weighted average evaluation of past performance quality? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for the request. The Government will not be changing the requirements referenced in this question from what is in the solicitation. |
| 00022 | Q: Section M.5.7.1 describes the Vacancy Rate evaluation criterion; for LOE QPs, "The Government will evaluate the QPs to determine the vacancy rate for the last full year of performance on the QP." Will the Government please clarify how this is to be calculated for an ongoing contract? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Solicitation Sections M.5.1 and M.5.7.1. M.5.1 states, LOE QPs shall have "at least one (1) year of completed performance that has occurred within the last four (4) years prior to the final solicitation release date." M.5.7.1 states for LOE QPs "The Government will evaluate the QPs to determine the vacancy rate for the last full year of performance on the QP." |
| 00023 | Q: Section M.5.7.2 describes the Time To Fill evaluation criterion; for LOE QPs, "The Government will evaluate the QPs to determine the average time to fill for any job vacancy on the QP for the last full year of performance on the QP." Will the Government please clarify how this is to be calculated for an ongoing contract? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | Similar to the question and answer above, please refer to Solicitation Sections M.5.1 and M.5.7.2. |
| 00024 | Q: The RFP uses terms like "total contract value" and "dollar value." Will the Government please confirm that offerors should use the "Total Estimated Contract Value" to include all options for contracts that are ongoing, and the "Total Obligations" or funded amount for contracts that have completed? --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | In the context of this Solicitation, the terminology of "Total Contract Value" is the same as "Dollar Value". This is inclusive of all options (to include those not yet exercised). These terms are not reflective of "Total Obligations". |
| 00025 | Q: Section M.2 describes the overall evaluation approach, to include a tie-breaker procedure, as follows: "In the event of a tie between Large, Emerging Large, and Small Businesses, the Government will look at the percentage of those tied Offeror’s CPARS/submitted PPQ element ratings over the last three (3) years, for the five (5) NAICS codes under this acquisition, that are rated as Exceptional. The date will be calculated by the final proposal submission due date identified in this RFP. The Offeror that has a higher percentage of Exceptional ratings will win the tie." It is unclear how the CPAR rating analysis will occur. Will the Government please confirm that the tie-breaker analysis is based on all CPARs that can be pulled from CPARS during "the last three (3) years," for any record that is tied to "the five (5) NAICS codes under this acquisition," that include an Exceptional rating? Please elaborate on how this analysis will be calculated (e.g., counting Exceptional ratings per CPAR, total Exceptional ratings across all CPARs, is the outcome a percentage or a count, etc.), and whether certain ratings are excluded, as is the case in the screening questions, which do not count Regulatory Compliance (L.2.2.1) --Submitted on 4/2/2026 (Provide Answer) | The Government will pull all CPARS for the last three (3) years under all five (5) NAICS codes and determine the percentage of elements rated as Exceptional . The Government will not be including CPARS Element “Regulatory Compliance" on CPARS evaluation for any business size and will not be including CPARS Element “Small Business Subcontracting” in the CPARS evaluations for Emerging Large Businesses, Small Businesses or Commercial-Sector Vendors. |
| 00026 | Q: Section L.2.1.1 and Section M.6 require Offerors to submit a Firm‑Fixed‑Price between $50 and $100 on Attachment 0001 for attendance at the Government‑hosted postaward conference. Section B also references a maximum contract ceiling value of $50B for the MAPS IDIQ. Please confirm that the $50–$100 Firm‑Fixed‑Price referenced in Sections L and M is stated and evaluated in U.S. dollars and applies only to the minimum guarantee/postaward conference effort, and that Offerors are not required to submit any additional pricing, cost breakdown, or pricing volume as part of the base contract proposal. --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the requirements within Solicitation Sections L.2.1.1 and M.6 for the Firm Fixed Price submissions. Section B is not tied into those specific requirements. For this Solicitation and resulting proposals, no additional pricing, cost breakdown, or pricing volume are required outside of what is requested in the aforementioned solicitation sections. |
| 00027 | Q: The solicitation states that the Firm‑Fixed‑Price submitted on Attachment 0001 is for attendance by two authorized individuals at a Government‑hosted virtual postaward conference. Please provide additional detail regarding the anticipated scope and content of the postaward conference (e.g., general purpose, topics to be covered, and whether the session is primarily administrative or informational). --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the Solicitation for all available information as it relates to the postaward conference. |
| 00028 | Q: Could the Government please confirm whether a Conditional Level 2 Self‑Assessment is acceptable for proposal submission under this solicitation, or whether the Government requires an offeror to hold a Final CMMC Level 2 (Self) status to meet the Gate Criteria for proposal acceptance? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | No, a Conditional Level 2 Self-Assessment is not acceptable. Please refer to Section L.2.2.1 of the Solicitation. Offerors are required to hold CMMC Final Level 2 (Self) Certification in order to pass the Screening Questions. |
| 00029 | Q: RFP, Page 27, defines Emerging Large Business” (aka Mid-Tier Businesses) as “in the context of this acquisition means an entity, to include parent and affiliates, that is not a small business under the applicable Small Business Administration size standard for the proposed Domain, has become other-than-small business within the last five (5) years from the final RFP solicitation date, and has an average annual revenue not exceeding $250M over the last five (5) years. The average shall include the revenue of the parent, affiliates, and any subsidiaries.” There are many “Large” businesses that became large more than 5 years ago that have not exceeded an average annual revenue of $250M in any of the years since they were deemed “Large”. In addition, companies that qualify as “Small Business” are only required to demonstrate that their five (5) year revenue history is below the NAICS Size Standard without any consideration for their size reporting history within SAM. Ultimately, all companies that are considered to be “large” that meet the requirement of having an average annual revenue below $250M for the last five (5) years would be considered to be on an “equal playing field” regardless of the date that they were deemed large. Would the government consider modifying the definition of Emerging Large Business to eliminate the timeline for when they became large? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for your submission. At this time, the Government is exclusively addressing inquiries that seek clarification of the solicitation instructions. The solicitation accurately reflects the Government's needs in a manner that maximizes competition and adheres to all applicable laws without being unduly restrictive. |
| 00030 | Q: RFP, Page 274, Section L.2.2.1, SECTION 01 - SCREENING QUESTIONS, paragraph 4 states "Offerors shall only propose as one (1) entity per CAGE Code…If an Offeror chooses to submit an affiliate or subsidiary QP, then that affiliate or subsidiary will also be evaluated against the Screening Questions and all supporting documentation for the affiliate or subsidiary is also required". Our company is a parent company that is in the process of novating the contracts of our subsidiaries to us, the parent company. We have submitted novation packages on all subsidiary contracts; however, the novations are pending legal review and approval prior to final modification to update the subsidiary contracts to Saalex as the responsible party. Given that these contracts are in the process of being novated to one (1) CAGE code (the CAGE code of the parent company), and the subsidiaries and their CAGE codes will be dissolved, would we be able to reference these contracts without our subsidiaries being required to be evaluated against the Screening Questions? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for your submission. At this time, the Government is exclusively addressing inquiries that seek clarification of the solicitation instructions. The solicitation accurately reflects the Government's needs in a manner that maximizes competition and adheres to all applicable laws without being unduly restrictive. |
| 00031 | Q: The Offeror will receive points per Government determined acceptable systems and Small Business Offerors will receive additional points if they are NOT proposing as a JV. QUESTION: The Small Business score card allows 2,000 points to offerors that do not propose as Joint Ventures. SBA explicitly authorizes JVs (including mentor-protégé JVs) to compete as primes. This arbitrary preference for “non-JVs” clearly penalizes JVs as a lawful business structure, favors one class of offeror over another, and unduly restricts competition for small businesses that rely on JVs to qualify. Please clarify how this scoring element is consistent with basic acquisition principles, laws and statures that prohibit undue restriction on competition and pre-selection of a preferred business structure. --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for your submission. At this time, the Government is exclusively addressing inquiries that seek clarification of the solicitation instructions. The solicitation accurately reflects the Government's needs in a manner that maximizes competition and adheres to all applicable laws without being unduly restrictive. |
| 00032 | Q: Solicitation page 272, states the JV can rely on the managing or mentoring partner’s (mentor protégé JV’s) ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Certification. Are Mentor Protégé JV’s also allowed to rely on the mentor’s ISO 9001:2013 or ISO 9001:2015 certification? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Yes, the JV can rely on the managing partners ISO 9001:2013 or 2015 certificate. |
| 00033 | Q: Offerors are to submit supporting documentation to show their company has a Secret/Top Secret active facility clearance. This is normally provided by submitting the certification page from the ISFD. When downloading this data the certification page is automatically marked as CUI data. When submitting our proposal the Digital Marketplace states no CUI is to be submitted using the Digital Marketplace. How are we to provide our proof of active facility clearance? Is there alternate data the Government is looking for to prove our facility clearance? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please see the Solicitation Amendment for updated information regarding the submission of CUI information. |
| 00034 | Q: QP supporting documentation: Page 283 states: “Offerors shall provide a copy of the PWS, statement of work, statement of objectives, and applicable technical guidance letter that is being referenced.: If the PWS is marked CUI, how do we submit since the Digital Marketplace states no CUI is to be uploaded on the site? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please see the Solicitation Amendment for updated information regarding the submission of CUI information. |
| 00035 | Q: QP supporting documentation: Page 283 states we are to submit a copy of the Contract for each QP. Can we submit only the award page or entire Contract Award? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | This requirement is for a copy of the entire Contract, Order, and/or Agreement. |
| 00036 | Q: Is a firm permitted to submit a solo proposal as a Prime Contractor while also participating as a Subcontractor on another proposal submitted by a Large Business? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Solicitation Section L.1.1 - "One Contract Per Offeror". Also, please note Offerors shall not propose subcontractors for this Solicitation. |
| 00037 | Q: Is a firm allowed to serve as a Subcontractor to more than one Large Business under separate proposals? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please see the answer above regarding subcontractors. |
| 00038 | Q: As a Small Business, is it permissible to subcontract with another Small Business and/or a Large Business under this procurement? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please see the answer above regarding subcontractors. |
| 00039 | Q: Do both the Prime Contractor and all proposed Subcontractors need to independently meet the CMMC requirements and all screening criteria? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please see the answer above regarding subcontractors. |
| 00040 | Q: Can a Prime Contractor satisfy screening requirements by relying on the certifications of a proposed Subcontractor? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | No, please see the answer above regarding subcontractors. |
| 00041 | Q: Will the CMMC certification and Facility Clearance of a proposed Subcontractor be accepted in lieu of the Prime Contractor meeting these requirements? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | No, please see the answer above regarding subcontractors. |
| 00042 | Q: How many Qualified Projects (QPs) may a Prime Contractor utilize from its proposed Subcontractor(s)? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please see the answer above regarding subcontractors. |
| 00043 | Q: The RFP states “Up to 15 – Attachment 003.” Does this mean the firm may submit three (3) different sets of QPs to address requirements M.5.1 through M.5.6? Please confirm. --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Solicitation Section L.1, number 9. "Offerors can submit up to three (3) QPs per Domain." If proposing to all five (5) domains, an Offeror may have a total of 15 different QPs, but not more than three (3) per domain. |
| 00044 | Q: Are the selected three (3) QPs required to meet all Past Performance criteria within the Attachment 002 scorecard or may firms submit different QPs for each criteria (M.5.1 through M.5.7.4)? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Solicitation Section M.5. |
| 00045 | Q: To receive full relevance points for a QP, must the project demonstrate experience across all technical capability areas within a domain, or may firms select and address specific sub‑areas only? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Solicitation Section M.5.2. |
| 00046 | Q: Can Purchase Orders (POs) or Task Orders (TOs) be submitted as separate QPs, or are multiple POs/TOs issued under the IDIQ contract considered one QP? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Solicitation Section L.2.3.1 for definitions on what constitutes a QP. |
| 00047 | Q: Is Attachment 003 accepted in lieu of all supporting documentation, or are firms required to submit both Attachment 003 and separate supporting documents? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Section L.1 of the Solicitation. Attachment 0003 Qualifying Project form shall consolidate Attachment 0003 and all applicable supporting documentation as one pdf for submission. |
| 00048 | Q: Are firms required to tag or annotate specific portions of the submitted documentation to clearly identify the evidence supporting each claimed score? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Solicitation Section L.1, number 3. |
| 00049 | Q: Will a vendor‑created Statement of Work (SOW) provide to the client be considered sufficient supporting documentation, or must the SOW be issued directly by the client? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Projects where the Offeror performed as the prime, the PWS, SOW, SOO, and any associated TGL shall be issued by the client. Vendor-created documents will not be accepted. For proposals where QPs as a subcontractor are acceptable, these documents may be from the client or the Prime Contractor of that QP. |
| 00050 | Q: What supporting documentation is required to substantiate LOE‑based QPs, specifically for: Vacancy Rate & Time‑to‑Fill metrics? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the Solicitation for the required supporting documentation. Unless specifically stated in the Solicitation, the Government will not be providing an all-inclusive list of what documentation will be required to substantiate an Offeror's proposal. |
| 00051 | Q: Will Attachment 003 alone be sufficient supporting documentation to receive credit for LOE QP Vacancy Rate and Time‑to‑Fill? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the Solicitation for the required supporting documentation. Unless specifically stated in the Solicitation, the Government will not be providing an all-inclusive list of what documentation will be required to substantiate an Offeror's proposal. |
| 00052 | Q: What supporting documentation is required to substantiate Outcome‑Based QPs for: Completeness & Schedule scorecard criteria? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the Solicitation for the required supporting documentation. Unless specifically stated in the Solicitation, the Government will not be providing an all-inclusive list of what documentation will be required to substantiate an Offeror's proposal. |
| 00053 | Q: Will Attachment 003 alone be sufficient to receive credit for Outcome‑Based QP Completeness and Schedule? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the Solicitation for the required supporting documentation. Unless specifically stated in the Solicitation, the Government will not be providing an all-inclusive list of what documentation will be required to substantiate an Offeror's proposal. |
| 00054 | Q: The CPARS screening question does not include an N/A dropdown in the scorecard, although the instructions indicate that N/A may be selected if not applicable. Please clarify how firms should respond in this scenario. --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | This has been corrected with the Scorecard Amendment. |
| 00055 | Q: Since CPARS is a screening question, does selecting “N/A” or “No” still allow a firm to proceed to Section 2 of the scorecard? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Solicitation Section L.2.2.1 and Attachment 0002 for instructions on if "No" is answered for any of the screening questions. |
| 00056 | Q: If a firm does not have CPARS but can provide Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), will PPQs be accepted as an alternative to meet CPARS screening requirement and allow us to proceed to section 2? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Section L.2.2.1 of the Solicitation. |
| 00057 | Q: Can a firm submit a letter from its Certified Public Accountant (CPA) confirming the adequacy of its accounting system to satisfy the relevant requirement? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | No, please refer to Section L.2.2.1 of the Solicitation. The Offeror shall provide verification from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), or any Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA), of Government determined acceptable accounting system. |
| 00058 | Q: Please confirm whether the requested Total Firm‑Fixed‑Price (FFP) for the Post‑Award Conference applies only to the one‑hour virtual conference (up to two personnel) and does not impact overall contract pricing. Additionally, will this FFP be evaluated independently and not as an indicator of total contract value? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Correct. |
| 00059 | Q: Please clarify the basis on which pricing should be developed for this IDIQ contract and provide guidance on how offerors should complete Schedule B, including any assumptions or constraints that should be applied. --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Offerors are not asked to complete nor submit information related to Section B. For submission requirements, please refer to Sections L and M of the Solicitation. |
| 00060 | Q: What documentations are required to be submitted as “Documented efficiencies” --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Section M.5.7.4 of the Solicitation. |
| 00061 | Q: “Unpopulated JVs can rely on the managing or mentoring partner’s (mentor-protégé JVs) Government Determined Acceptable business systems,” and further requires that the JV agreement identify whose systems the JV will utilize. Based on this language, it is our understanding that for unpopulated joint ventures, including those that are not mentor-protégé JVs (e.g., all-small business JVs and large business JVs), the JV may rely on the Government-determined acceptable business systems of any identified JV partner (managing or non-managing), provided the JV agreement clearly specifies which partner’s systems will be used. Please confirm that this understanding is correct. --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | That is correct. The Offeror shall identify on the Cover Letter which of the systems are being used by which partner. |
| 00062 | Q: Offerors are to submit proof of an Acceptable Accounting System as part of our proposal response. Audit Reports issued by DCAA/DCMA are now marked CUI. The Digital Marketplace warns us that we are not to submit CUI data on the portal. How does the Government want us to submit this data? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please see the Solicitation Amendment for updated information regarding the submission of CUI information. |
| 00063 | Q: Proposal submission: The Digital Marketplace is set up to submit the specific forms/information for a compliant proposal submission. It however does not show options to upload any supporting documentation required to be complaint. Furthermore, there is a 5 MB limit on the document upload. The Cover Letter alone is currently at 3.5 MB and by the time we attach Joint Venture Agreements, and certifications we will exceed the 5MB limit. There is a good possibility that some of our supporting documentation will exceed the 5MB limitation, i.e., PWS/SOW, contract award. Question: How do we submit supporting documentation and can the file size be increased? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Offerors shall follow the submission instructions found in Solicitation Section L. Files must meet the size limitations displayed within the MAPS Submission Portal. |
| 00064 | Q: Section L.2.3.2 states the Government will not accept a PPQ in lieu of a CPARS assessment if one exists for the Qualifying Project. The Offeror understands and agrees with that requirement. However, the solicitation does not address a common and practical scenario: a QP where CPARS records exist for prior years, but the most recent completed year of performance has not yet received a finalized assessment. CPARS assessments are frequently delayed six months to over a year beyond the period they cover. Where the Government has not issued a current assessment, no CPARS "exists" for that period — and the PPQ is the appropriate instrument to document it. This is particularly relevant to Sections M.5.7.1 and M.5.7.2, where Vacancy Rate and Time to Fill are evaluated specifically against the last full year of performance. If that year is not reflected in any finalized CPARS record, a PPQ completed and signed by the Contracting Officer or designated representative is the only mechanism available to put that data before the evaluator. Please confirm the following: (a) Where no finalized CPARS assessment exists for a QP's most recent completed performance year, regardless of whether CPARS records exist for earlier periods, the Offeror may submit a PPQ for that period and the Government will evaluate it for Performance Quality scoring under Section M.5.4. (b) Where the last full year of performance on a LOE QP is not covered by a finalized CPARS assessment, the Offeror may document Vacancy Rate and Time to Fill for that year via a signed PPQ, and the Government will score it under Sections M.5.7.1 and M.5.7.2. (c) A gap in CPARS coverage attributable to delayed or overdue Government assessments does not preclude the Offeror from using a PPQ to document performance for that period for any scoring purpose under the Scorecard. --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Solicitation Section L.2.2.1. |
| 00065 | Q: Section L.1.1.3 states that a JV can rely on the managing partner's CMMC certification if the JV uses the managing partner's IT systems and enclaves to store or process all FCI/CUI. Will the Government consider extending this reliance provision to any JV partner — not solely the managing partner — that holds a Final CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) certification, where the JV intends to use that partner's certified IT systems and enclaves to store or process all FCI/CUI? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the answer provided to Question #00029. |
| 00066 | Q: Attachment 0002 Scorecard states "Offeror will receive 1,000 points per QP that aligns with proposed Domain specific NAICs". Are the overarching NAICS codes (541330, 541611, 541715, 541512, and 541519) considered Domain specific NAICs codes for all Domains? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Section M.5.3 of the Solicitation. "..if the QP aligns with the Domain Specific NAICS." |
| 00067 | Q: Attachment 0003, Qualifying Project Form, when you fill in Part 2, it justifies to the bottom and cuts off certain text which cannot be adjusted due to protections on the sheet. Can the Government adjust this so the text shows at the top of the cell and does not inadvertently remove pertinent text from being included in an Offeror's response? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | This was corrected in the Amendment. |
| 00068 | Q: Attachment 0003, Qualifying Project Form, row 16 (Item # 9.a) it states "Please Provide a brief explanation on how this NAICS Code relates to your QP;" however, it only allows for a NAICS dropdown which we believe is associated with Item #8. Could the Government fix this cell and release a new form? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | This was corrected in the Amendment. |
| 00069 | Q: In Attachment 003 Qualifying Project Form, there are sections that state "Proposed Domain(s), in which this QP shall be evaluated against" and "Please identify which of the Technical Capabilities identified in Section 3.0 of the PWS, aligns with the QP for the proposed Domain(s):" and L.1 states "Offerors proposing to multiple Domains must submit a separate proposal for each. The Cover Letter (Attachment 0001), Qualifying Projects (QP) (Attachment 0003), and (as applicable) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 0004) can be reused for each Domain proposal Submission" If a QP form is to be marked for each Domain it will be re-used for, the final section where we provide "a brief description of the work mapping to the PWS to demonstrate the work is relevant" will be very large and require that the Government reviewers will have to sort through unrelated content to get to the specific content relevant to the domain they are currently reviewing. Can the Government provide a sheet with more space for these larger narratives? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | No, Offerors shall respond within the space granted in the form. |
| 00070 | Q: Can you please clarify the changes that appear to have been made to M.5.1 regarding Recency for Outcome-Based QPs. - It appears that Draft 6 added a qualification that Outcome-Based QPs must have been completed prior to the RFP release date. - It appears that the Final RFP included an additional qualification that “final delivery” has been realized before the RFP solicitation date. My company has a candidate QP that we believe is Outcome-Based. The contract ended on 3/29/2026. However, while all the technical work products were delivered on or before 3/29/2026, the final report and final monthly cost report have not been delivered yet, but are expected to be before the MAPS proposal due date of 1 May. Our questions are; - Does the recency requirement regarding “final delivery” include project management reporting that typically lags behind the contract end date? o If the answer to the first question is “yes”, would the Government consider changing the recency requirement to “Proposal Submission Date” instead of “Final Solicitation Release date”? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to the Amendment of the Solicitation. |
| 00071 | Q: Q: To ensure all qualified bidders are able to compete, can the Government please confirm that a contractor's Purchasing System that has been reviewed and approved by a reputable third party will be deemed acceptable for the purposes of this procurement, pending a formal review and approval by the DCMA or other CFA to be scheduled post-award? (Solicitation L.2.2.1 SECTION 01 - SCREENING QUESTIONS; 1. Large Businesses; Government Determined Acceptable Purchasing System) --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Section L.2.2... "The Offeror shall provide verification from DCMA, or any CFA, of Government determined acceptable purchasing system" |
| 00072 | Q: The solicitation requires large business offerors to have a Government determined acceptable Purchasing System in order to be evaluated past the Screening Questions for IDIQ award consideration. Requiring Purchasing System approval at this stage may be unduly restrictive and unnecessarily limit competition, as purchasing activities would not occur until Task Order issuance. Will the Government please consider revising this requirement to allow offerors to demonstrate acceptable Purchasing System determination prior to issuance of a Task Order subcontract, rather than at the time of IDIQ proposal submission? This approach would continue to meet the Government’s needs while allowing for broader competition among otherwise qualified offerors. (L.2.2.1 SECTION 01 - SCREENING QUESTIONS; 1. Large Businesses; Government Determined Acceptable Purchasing System) --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for your submission. At this time, the Government is exclusively addressing inquiries that seek clarification of the solicitation instructions. The solicitation accurately reflects the Government's needs in a manner that maximizes competition and adheres to all applicable laws without being unduly restrictive. |
| 00073 | Q: Reference: Section L, Qualifying Projects (QP) Requirements (Page 284); Section M.5.5, Dollar Value Evaluation (Page 331) Question: The solicitation requires that each Qualifying Project (QP) meet or exceed a minimum total contract value of $2.5M. Given that this solicitation contemplates reserved awards for small businesses and encourages participation from commercial sector vendors, would the Government consider reducing the minimum QP contract value threshold for small business and/or commercial offerors? For comparison, other government-wide contract vehicles have established lower thresholds to encourage small business and commercial participation. For example, the GSA OASIS+ contract uses an average annual value of $500K for relevant experience projects for Small Businesses in the Technical & Engineering Domain rather than a total contract value minimum. A similar approach—or a reduced threshold in the range of $1.0M–$1.5M total expected contract value—would allow small businesses and commercial entities with highly relevant technical experience on smaller-scale contracts to compete, particularly in specialized areas such as emerging IT services, cybersecurity, and AI/ML. This would broaden the competitive pool while still demonstrating meaningful contract performance, better aligning with the solicitation's stated goals of enhancing flexibility through this combined vehicle. --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Thank you for your submission. At this time, the Government is exclusively addressing inquiries that seek clarification of the solicitation instructions. The solicitation accurately reflects the Government's needs in a manner that maximizes competition and adheres to all applicable laws without being unduly restrictive. |
| 00074 | Q: CUI Submission Constraints (Section L – Instructions) How should Offerors provide required Facility Security Clearance information (typically CUI from DCSA) given that the MAPS proposal portal prohibits submission of CUI? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please see the Solicitation Amendment for updated information regarding the submission of CUI information. |
| 00075 | Q: How will the Government evaluate Technical Capability for each QP, including the methodology for calculating percentage match, any capability mapping or weighting (and whether all capabilities are equally weighted), and the documentation and validation required to substantiate that a capability is “met”? --Submitted on 4/3/2026 (Provide Answer) | Please refer to Section M of the Solicitation for information on Evaluation Factors. |
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 .