Attachment 0011 - SCOS USG QA Response _23 Sep 26.pdf

Question Government Response

Question cutoff. The combined synopsis/solicitation does not state a deadline for offeror questions or a date by which the Government will respond. Please confirm the cutoff date and the anticipated answer date, so offerors can incorporate responses before the 1 September 2026 deadline.

Questions were cutoff in accordance with Amendment 2.

The Government acknowledges your inquiry regarding the deadline for questions. To ensure fair and equal opportunity for all prospective offerors, an amendment to the combined synopsis/solicitation will be issued shortly via sam.gov. This amendment will formally establish the cutoff date and time for the receipt of all offeror questions, as well as the anticipated date for the Government’s consolidated responses.

In the interim, offerors are encouraged to submit any currently drafted questions as soon as possible. As a reminder, all questions and the Government's responses will be published for all potential offerors to review, without identifying the submitting vendor

Service Contract Act wage determination. CLINs 1003/1004 and 1011/1012 are designated "SCA Labor" and "SCA Labor OT," but no wage determination is attached and the FAR 52.222-41, 52.222-42, 52.222-43, and 52.222-44 boxes at 52.212-5 do not appear to be checked. Please confirm whether the SCA applies, and if so, post the applicable wage determination(s) for El Paso County, TX and Madison County, AL. Uploaded with Amendment 3

Facility clearance and DD Form 254. PWS 4.2 states the work effort will not exceed SECRET and that all contractor personnel shall retain a SECRET clearance for the duration; PWS 4.12.2 requires a Facility Security Officer designated within five days of award. Please confirm (a) whether a prime-level DCSA facility clearance at SECRET is required at time of award, (b) the level of safeguarding required, if any.

All contract and subcontract personnel shall retain a SECRET level clearance for the duration of the contract. The contractor shall comply with the appropriate security classification guides listed in Appendix H of this PWS.

Solicitation number discrepancy. Attachment 0001 (PWS) and the DD Form 1423-1 CDRLs A001 through A016 are headed W31P4Q-26-R-0031, while the SF1449 and the SAM.gov notice cite W31P4Q-26-R-A002. Please confirm the posted PWS and CDRLs are the correct, current documents for this solicitation.

Yes, the CDRLs are the correct documents for this solicitation. The CDRLs title "W31P4Q-26-R-0031" will be updated to reflect W31P4Q-26-R-A002.

Option-year plug-in values. The Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 7, prescribes exact unburdened amounts for CLINs 1005, 1006, 1007, 1013, 1014, and 1015 (base period). Please confirm whether the same amounts ($27,500 material, $6,000 travel, $88,500 ODCs, per system, per year) apply to the corresponding option-year CLINs in the 2000, 3000, 4000, and 5000/6000 series, and confirm whether those amounts are to be held flat with no escalation.

They are for planning purposes for the Base year. The unburdened rates for Option Years will be provided based on availability of funding.

Pricing template. Volume 5 must be submitted in MS Excel with formulas intact, but no Government pricing template or CLIN spreadsheet is posted. Please confirm offerors may use their own format, or post the required template. Own format may be used but must be submitted in MS Excel with formulas intact.

Staffing baseline. PWS 3.6.4 provides estimated annual workload volumes but no minimum staffing, no labor-hour estimate, and no incumbent FTE count. To allow realistic and comparable fixed-price offers, please provide the current staffing level by labor category and site, or confirm that staffing is left entirely to the offeror's technical approach.

Per PWS Appendix C, Labor Category Description-Qualifications, Note: This is a Performance-Based Acquisition. While the Government may provide historical workload data, estimated transaction volumes, or a projected Level of Effort (LOE) for informational and planning purposes, these figures do not constitute a guaranteed minimum or maximum requirement. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to conduct an independent analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and determine the optimal labor mix—including specific labor categories, skill levels, and the total Level of Effort (FTEs/Hours)—necessary to successfully execute all contract requirements.

The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach must demonstrate a clear, independent technical methodology that ensures all Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) will be met or exceeded. The Government assumes no liability for Offerors who rely on Government-provided estimates or historical data in lieu of their own comprehensive technical and staffing assessments.

Incumbent contract. PWS 4.13.1.1 requires coordination with an outgoing contractor. Please identify the incumbent contract number and contractor, and the current contract's annual value, or confirm that this is a new requirement.

Offerors may review prior contract award records on SAM.gov to identify the incumbent contract, contractor, and available funding history.

Overtime CLINs. PWS 2.5.1 caps overtime at 46 hours per week or 92 hours per two-week period and requires prior written COR approval. Please confirm the estimated annual overtime hours the Government wants offerors to price at CLINs 1002/1004 and 1010/1012, or confirm that these are not-to-exceed lots that offerors should price at a Government-directed amount. These are Not to exceed, based on Government direction and based on mission need.

Government-furnished property baseline. Volume 2 requires a list of any additional GFP required "beyond the PWS baseline," but the GFP appendix (Appendix F) is not posted. Please post the GFP list, including material handling equipment and vehicles referenced at PWS 3.4. See "PWS+ Attachment + 2_Appendix + F" in SAM.gov under the solicitation documents.

Past Performance Questionnaire form. The Addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph 6.5, requires offerors to complete Part I of a Past Performance Questionnaire and have references return Part II directly to the Contracting Officer by the proposal due date. No questionnaire form is posted.

Please post the form. Past Performance Questionnaire posted as attachment

Font and line spacing. Paragraph 2.1 specifies margins, gutter, header/footer placement, and page size, but no minimum font size, typeface, or line spacing. Please confirm there is no font or spacing restriction, and confirm whether tables, figures, and graphics may use a reduced font. Font no smaller than 12 and tables/figures/graphics can contain reduced font.

Page-count exclusions. Please confirm that the cover page, table of contents, summary section, glossary/acronym list, and tabs are excluded from the stated page limits for Volumes 1 through 4.

The Government confirms that the cover page, table of contents, glossary/acronym list, and divider tabs/section dividers are excluded from the page limits for Volumes 1 through 4.

Time zone. SAM.gov displays the response deadline as 1 September 2026 in Central Daylight Time, while the Addendum to 52.212-1 states 5:00 PM CST. Please confirm the deadline is 5:00 PM Central local time at Redstone Arsenal on 1 September 2026. Central local time at Redstone Arsenal on 1 September 2026

Site visit. Please confirm whether a site visit or industry day will be offered for Bldg 722 and Bldg 1116 at Fort Bliss, TX prior to the proposal due date. The USG does not intend to have an Industry day or site visits.

s there a cutoff date/time for questions, to allow time for a response before the proposal due date?

As stated in Amendment 2 of the solicitation, the cutoff for questions was 28 Aug 2026, 5:00 PM CST. Questions submitted after this date and time will not be answered.

17 Will answers be issued as a formal amendment, or handled individually? Questions and answers will be posted on SAM.gov

18 Is the government willing to provide these (Appendices A-I) to industry?

Appendices are posted on SAM.gov. Potential offerors are to send an email requesting Appendices that cannot be posted on SAM.gov. CAGE Code needs to be included in email request.

Reference: SCOS PWS, Page 24, Section 6 (Related Documents) and Instructions to Offerors Question: The PWS Section 6 cites nine appendices, labeled Appendix A through Appendix I, as "Related Documents" referenced within the PWS. However, these documents are currently unavailable for downloading or reviewing. PWS Appendix C (Labor Category Descriptions/ Qualifications), Appendix D (PRS), Appendix E (QASP), Appendix F (GFP List), and Appendix G (DD Form 254) are essential to price and staff the effort, and to meet Volume 2 Subfactor 2 (Workforce Qualifications) requirements. Could the Government please provide access to the PWS appendices for the offerors?

Appendices are posted on SAM.gov. Potential offerors are to send an email requesting Appendices that cannot be posted on SAM.gov. CAGE Code needs to be included in email request.

Reference: SCOS PWS, Page 5, Paragraph 2.9 Question: Does the current contractor lease any space that has been approved by the Contracting Officer (KO)? If so, can the location be shared? There is no Contracting Officer (KO) approved leased property. Please see the provisions of para. 2.9.2 of the PWS.

Reference: SF 1449 Section Solicitation/Contract Form Continuation, Page 2, Paragraph (ii) and Attachment 0001_PWS dated 15 MAY 2026 Headers Question: The solicitation number on SF 1449 is W31P4Q-26-R-A002, while the PWS headers reference W31P4Q-26-R-0031. Could the Government please confirm the correct PWS solicitation number? The PWS headers reference W31P4Q-26-R-0031 is the correct PWS for this solicitation. The header will be updated at award.

Reference: SF 1449 continuation pages, Item 7006, Page 22 and CDRL A006 Question: Can the government confirm that it pays for all consumable and non-consumable purchases for this contract, and that CDRL A006 is only a requirement for data tracking and reporting by the offeror as part of the support function? Yes, the USG pays for all consumable and non-consumable purchases using the CLINs.

Reference: Solicitation SCOS Section – Continuation of Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs, Page 4 Question: Could the government please confirm whether the solicitation is classified as a Firm-Fixed-Price contract type? Yes, it is a Fixed Price contract.

Reference: SCOS Solicitation, Section – Addendum to Evaluation, Page 126, Paragraph – Volume 1 Item 2. Question: To ensure that proposals are prepared and evaluated consistently, please confirm that the solicitation requires only the submission of a resume for the Project Manager and Lead Logistics Analyst positions, with each resume demonstrating a minimum of five years of relevant experience.

Instructions for this solicitation begin on page 115, Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to offeror's-commercial products and commercial services.

Reference: Solicitation SCOS, Section 6. Volume 4: Past Performance, Page 120 Question: Will the government consider and evaluate the subcontractor's past performance, CPARS, and FPDS data if included in the quote package submission? Each volume will be evaluated according to the instructions. Please address information in correction section/volume.

Reference: SCOS Solicitation, Section – Past Performance, Page 121, Paragraph 5 Question:

Please confirm if offerors can submit CPARS if available instead of PPQs. CPARS is acceptable

Reference: PWS 2.5.1 and CLINs 1002/1004/1010/1012 (Overtime). Question: Since overtime is a separately priced CLIN, request the Government provide the estimated overtime hours per year by labor category, or an incumbent overtime baseline, to enable a consistent pricing basis across offerors. These are Not to exceed, based on Government direction and based on mission need.

Reference: PWS 2.5, Incumbent Contract. Question: Would the Government provide the incumbent contract number, contractor name, and total staffing level (by labor category) to support a compliant transition and workforce plan.

Offerors may review prior contract award data on SAM.gov to identify the incumbent contract, contractor name, and any available staffing information needed for transition planning. The current contract is W31P4Q-21-0049. This is not an overlapping requirement. The solicitation is a new requirement.

Reference: CLINs 1003/1004/1011/1012 (SCOS SCA Labor). Wage Determination / SCA Labor Question: The solicitation carries SCA-covered labor CLINs. Could the government identify the applicable WD number(s), revision, and any Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that carries over from the incumbent?

Contracting agencies may use the sam.gov website to select the proper wage determination for a proposed contract. The sam.gov website provides assistance to the contracting agency in the selection of the correct wage determination. An overview of this process can be found on the sam.gov website. You can also use the following Websites for Ft. Bliss https://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_elpaso.htm and Redstone Arsenal, https://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_huntsville.htm

Reference: PWS 4.2 and 4.2.7. Security & Clearances: Question: All contract and subcontract personnel must hold a Secret clearance for the duration of the contract, and Key Personnel require a Tier 3. Given the 30-day FOC requirement, will the Government sponsor interim Secret clearances at contract award for personnel not already cleared?

The US Government will provide sponsorship contractor and all associated sub-contractor employees with a minimum of an interim security clearance equal to or greater than that to which access is afforded per PWS 4.2.7.

Reference: PWS 4.13.1 and CLIN 0001 (Transition-In, FFP, 12 Months). Question: CLIN 0001 shows a 12-month period, but PWS 4.13.1 requires transition-in completion within 30 days.

Please clarify the intent of the 12-month CLIN 0001 duration and how transition-in cost is expected to be structured.

Clerical error. The transition in period is only one (1) month. Thank you for pointing this out. To ensure fair and equal opportunity for all prospective offerors, an amendment to the combined synopsis/solicitation will be issued shortly via sam.gov.

Reference: Instructions to Offerors, Volume 1 (Max 10 Pages, excluding resumes). Proposal Instructions – Format & Content Question: Can the government please confirm whether the Transition Plan required within Volume 1 is included in or excluded from the 10-page limit (only resumes state they are explicitly excluded)? Transition Plan is included in the 10-page limit as described in RFP.

33 Who is the incumbent, what was the wining bid, contract number and SOW? Previous contract number: W31P4Q-21-C-0049. This is not an overlapping requirement. The solicitation is a new requirement.

34 Would USG sponsor SECRET FCL for an otherwise winning offeror? Please clarify the question in relation to the solicitation.

35 The PWS references Appendices A-I. Will these documents be forthcoming?

Appendices are posted on SAM.gov. Potential offerors are to send an email requesting Appendices that cannot be posted on SAM.gov. CAGE Code needs to be included in email request.

36 Can USG provide the number of FTEs required to support the Key Personnel/Labor Categories?

The Government does not mandate a specific number of FTEs for Key Personnel. Offerors must propose the appropriate labor-mix and level of effort (FTEs) for Key Personnel necessary to successfully perform the requirements outlined in the PWS.

37 Would a Prime offeror be allowed to use Subcontractor past performance in support of Volume 4? Subcontractor Past Performance can be included along with the Prime Past Performance.

38 Will the Past Performance Questionnaire template be forthcoming? Past Performance Questionnaire posted as attachment

39 Will USG provide a template for pricing to ensure all Offerors provide equivalent documentation? The USG is not providing a pricing template.

40 Are Offerors required to answer all 6 scenarios in Volume 2? Please see solicitation instructions for request for proposals.

PWS 4.1; 4.2 13 Required security clearance level Section 4.1 states personnel accessing unclassified information systems require at least a favorable Tier 1 investigation, while Section

4.2 states all contractor and subcontractor personnel shall retain a SECRET clearance for the duration of the contract. Please clarify whether a SECRET clearance is required for all contractor and subcontractor personnel, or only personnel supporting classified functions, classified materiel, designated systems, or key positions. Yes, secret clearance is required for all personnel performing work.

PWS 1.4; 3.6.4 1; 11 Workload distribution by location The PWS states services will support Fort Bliss, TX and Redstone Arsenal, AL. Section 3.6.4 provides estimated annual workload totals but does not break them out by location. Please provide historical workload data by location, including MRO/STO processing, receipts, ARI processing, DLA-DS processing, TPF processing, inventory lines, classified inventory, and other recurring activities. PWS paragraph 3.6.4 provides all information requested for the warehouse.

PWS 3.6.4 11 Workload distribution by location The PWS provides an overarching summary of the workload for the warehouse operation at Ft Bliss, TX, but the PWS does not break out the Workload at either Ft Bilis or Redstone by Aviation or Missiles. Since the RFP CLINs require us to breakout our labor costs by Aviation and Missiles, can the Government provide workload specifics that clearly break out the details of the activities that support both Aviation and Missiles and where these actions are performed?

Per PWS Appendix C, Labor Category Description-Qualifications, Page 1 Note: This is a Performance-Based Acquisition. While the Government may provide historical workload data, estimated transaction volumes, or a projected Level of Effort (LOE) for informational and planning purposes, these figures do not constitute a guaranteed minimum or maximum requirement. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to conduct an independent analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and determine the optimal labor mix—including specific labor categories, skill levels, and the total Level of Effort (FTEs/Hours)—necessary to successfully execute all contract requirements.

The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach must demonstrate a clear, independent technical methodology that ensures all Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) will be met or exceeded. The Government assumes no liability for Offerors who rely on Government-provided estimates or historical data in lieu of their own comprehensive technical and staffing assessments.

PWS CBA Our understanding is that the Ft Bliss warehouse operates under a CBA. Request the Government provide the Ft Bliss Warehouse CBA that relates to this contract. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) will be provide in the next solicitation update.

Manager (PM) and the Lead Logistics Analyst. However, PWS Attachment 1, Appendix C indicates that multiple individuals are listed as Key personnel. Can the Government revise PWS Attachment 1- Appendix C to align with the RFP requirement to show that only the Program Manager (PM) and the Lead Logistics Analyst are key personnel?

Per PWS Appendix C, Labor Category Description-Qualifications, Page 1 Note: This is a Performance-Based Acquisition. While the Government may provide historical workload data, estimated transaction volumes, or a projected Level of Effort (LOE) for informational and planning purposes, these figures do not constitute a guaranteed minimum or maximum requirement. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to conduct an independent analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and determine the optimal labor mix—including specific labor categories, skill levels, and the total Level of Effort (FTEs/Hours)—necessary to successfully execute all contract requirements.

The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach must demonstrate a clear, independent technical methodology that ensures all Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) will be met or exceeded. The Government assumes no liability for Offerors who rely on Government-provided estimates or historical data in lieu of their own comprehensive technical and staffing assessments.

However, PWS Attachment 1, Appendix C does not reference a Lead Logistics Analyst. Rather, it shows a requirement for a Site Operations Manager and a Senior Logistics Analyst. Can the Government revise PWS Attachment 1- Appendix C to align with the RFP requirement to clarify that the Lead Logistics Analyst is the Senior Logistics Analyst?

Per PWS Appendix C, Labor Category Description-Qualifications, Page 1 Note: This is a Performance-Based Acquisition. While the Government may provide historical workload data, estimated transaction volumes, or a projected Level of Effort (LOE) for informational and planning purposes, these figures do not constitute a guaranteed minimum or maximum requirement. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to conduct an independent analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and determine the optimal labor mix—including specific labor categories, skill levels, and the total Level of Effort (FTEs/Hours)—necessary to successfully execute all contract requirements.

The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach must demonstrate a clear, independent technical methodology that ensures all Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) will be met or exceeded. The Government assumes no liability for Offerors who rely on Government-provided estimates or historical data in lieu of their own comprehensive technical and staffing assessments.

Solicitation Volume 4 Past Performance 121 PPQs Would the Government please consider accepting CPARS in lieu of a PPQ in order to ease the burden on offerors' customers? Yes, the USG will accept CPARS

Solicitation Volume 4 Past Performance 120 Past Performance Quantity Given the importance of relevant teaming partner experience to successful contract performance, would the Government consider allowing offerors to submit up to five (5) past performance references, including relevant references from major subcontractors? As stated in the solicitation, provide up to three (3) references only.

Solicitation Volume 4 Past Performance 120 Past Performance Recency Given the long-term nature of many logistics and supply chain support contracts, would the Government consider accepting past performance performed within the last five (5) years instead of the current three

(3) year period? The USG will accept Past Performance from the last 5 years.

50 PWS 3.2.2 - Data Analytics Does the Government require certification of AI developers?

The Government does not require specific artificial intelligence (AI) developer certifications. However, proposed personnel must meet all general education, professional experience, and security clearance requirements outlined in the PWS for their respective labor categories.

RFP page 121 para 5 Past performance questionnaires Para 5 states. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. A Past performance questionnaire was not available for download.

Will the Government provide the questionnaire. Past Performance Questionnaire posted as attachment

Is there a Government wage/labor rate estimate or historical incumbent staffing level (e.g., via a prior CPARS, task order history, or FOIA-releasable IGCE) that can be shared to help offerors size the workforce accurately?

Per PWS Appendix C, Labor Category Description-Qualifications, Note: This is a Performance-Based Acquisition. While the Government may provide historical workload data, estimated transaction volumes, or a projected Level of Effort (LOE) for informational and planning purposes, these figures do not constitute a guaranteed minimum or maximum requirement. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to conduct an independent analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and determine the optimal labor mix—including specific labor categories, skill levels, and the total Level of Effort (FTEs/Hours)—necessary to successfully execute all contract requirements.

The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach must demonstrate a clear, independent technical methodology that ensures all Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) will be met or exceeded. The Government assumes no liability for Offerors who rely on Government-provided estimates or historical data in lieu of their own comprehensive technical and staffing assessments.

Is there an incumbent contractor on this requirement today, and if so, is incumbent capture/staffing data available (even in summary form) to support the 30-day transition-in plan required in Volume 1? W31P4Q-21-C-0049 is the current contract. This is not an overlapping requirement. The solicitation is a new requirement.

Will the Government facilitate a site visit or virtual walkthrough of Fort Bliss (Bldg 722/1116) and the Redstone Arsenal Sparkman Center space prior to proposal submission? The USG does not intend to have any site visits.

Please confirm the CLIN 1005/1006/1007 (and 1013/1014/1015) NTE plug-in values ($27,500 Material / $6,000 Travel / $88,500 ODCs, per weapon system, per year) are fixed for the base year only — are the option-year plug-in values the same, or will they be provided by amendment for each option period?

They are for planning purposes for the Base year. The unburdened rates for Option Years will be provided based on availability of funding.

Can the Government confirm the applicable SCA Wage Determination(s) for both the El Paso/Fort Bliss, TX and Huntsville/Redstone Arsenal, AL locations that offerors should price against?

The government used the following BLS websites to determine the applicable SCA labor rate for Huntsville and El Paso.

https://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_elpaso.htm https://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_huntsville.htm

CLIN numbering jumps from 1007 to 1009 (no 1008) — please confirm this is intentional and there is no missing line item. This is intentional. If needed, CLIN 1008 will be used for surge requirements to support possible mission increase.

FAR 52.212-2 as filled in lists Technical/Risk, Management, Past Performance, and Price as factors, but the standard bracketed instruction on relative weighting ("significantly more important than price / approximately equal to price / significantly less important than price") appears to have been left unfilled — can the Government clarify the actual relative importance of non-price factors versus price?

The relative importance of the evaluation volumes is established in the solicitation as follows:

1. Volume 2 (Technical/Risk) and Volume 3 (Management) are of equal importance to one another.

2. Volume 2 (Technical/Risk) and Volume 3 (Management), when combined, are significantly more important than Volume 4 (Past Performance).

3. All non-price evaluation volumes (Volumes 2, 3, and 4), when combined, are significantly more important than Volume 5 (Price).

As proposals become more equal in their non-price ratings (Volumes 2, 3, and 4), the evaluated price (Volume 5) becomes more significant in the source selection decision.

For the six Volume 2 operational scenarios and six Volume 3 management scenarios, will responses be evaluated primarily on approach/methodology, or is prior demonstrated experience with directly analogous scenarios (e.g., actual LMP/GCSS-Army integration work) required to score well?

Responses for both Volume 2 and Volume 3 scenarios will be evaluated on the offeror's proposed approach and methodology.

While demonstrated experience may strengthen a proposal, the primary basis of evaluation is the soundness of the proposed approach to the scenarios as presented.

Given the requirement for all contract/subcontract personnel to hold a SECRET clearance for contract duration, what is the anticipated timeline for interim clearance processing, and will the Government sponsor clearances for incoming employees during transition-in?

The Government does not control or guarantee the processing timelines for interim or final security clearances, which are determined by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA).

The Government will sign the DD Form 254 (Contract Security Classification Specification) upon contract award, enabling the successful awardee to sponsor and initiate clearance actions for its personnel. However, the Government will not individually sponsor or fund clearance processing for prospective employees during the pre-award or transition-in phase.

Are current incumbent employees expected to be available for incumbent capture, given the SECRET clearance and Tier 3 requirements for key positions?

Per PWS paragraph, 4.13 Transition. The contractor shall ensure a seamless transition-in and transition-out process, coordinating with outgoing or incoming contractors as required.

Could you please confirm whether this requirement is currently being performed under an awarded contract? If so, would you be able to provide the contract number and the incumbent contractor's name?

Per PWS paragraph, 4.13 Transition. The contractor shall ensure a seamless transition-in and transition-out process, coordinating with outgoing or incoming contractors as required. W31P4Q-21-C-0049. This is not an overlapping requirement.

The solicitation is a new requirement.

PWS 3.4 page 9 Para 3.4 states that At least two individuals shall hold a Class A Operator’s Permit, and at least three individuals shall hold a Class B or higher Operator’s Permit. Does the Government have equipment within its GFE that require CDL license? Please see attached GFP list in appendix to PWS.

Appendix C pages 4 -5: Would the Government consider allowing additional years of directly relevant experience performing and/or managing work of the same or similar scope, together with applicable technical training (DAU Logistics Level III, Associates Degree) and related professional certifications, as an acceptable substitute for the stated minimum educational requirements?

Per PWS Appendix C, Labor Category Description-Qualifications, Page 1 Note: This is a Performance-Based Acquisition. While the Government may provide historical workload data, estimated transaction volumes, or a projected Level of Effort (LOE) for informational and planning purposes, these figures do not constitute a guaranteed minimum or maximum requirement. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to conduct an independent analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and determine the optimal labor mix—including specific labor categories, skill levels, and the total Level of Effort (FTEs/Hours)—necessary to successfully execute all contract requirements.

The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach must demonstrate a clear, independent technical methodology that ensures all Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) will be met or exceeded. The Government assumes no liability for Offerors who rely on Government-provided estimates or historical data in lieu of their own comprehensive technical and staffing assessments.

Reference: PWS Attachment 1_Appendix C, Page 6 of 19, Labor Category Question 1: Appendix C refers to PWS paragraphs 2.5.8.1 (Senior Logistics Analyst), 2.5.8.2 (Senior Data Analyst), 2.5.7, 2.5.8 (Program/Data Analyst), and 2.5.8.3 (Lead Data Sys Developer / Junior Systems Developer), which are not in the PWS. Because these references appear to associate each Labor Category with a Basis of Estimate PWS reference based on the workload data presented in PWS paragraph 3.6.4, we request the Government’s clarification as to why the Appendix C cited paragraphs are not included in the PWS. In addition, we request to please identify the corresponding PWS requirement, function, or task for each of the aforementioned Labor Categories listed in Appendix C, if those labor categories remain required as a basis for the estimate.

Per PWS Appendix C, Labor Category Description-Qualifications, Note: This is a Performance-Based Acquisition. While the Government may provide historical workload data, estimated transaction volumes, or a projected Level of Effort (LOE) for informational and planning purposes, these figures do not constitute a guaranteed minimum or maximum requirement. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to conduct an independent analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and determine the optimal labor mix—including specific labor categories, skill levels, and the total Level of Effort (FTEs/Hours)—necessary to successfully execute all contract requirements.

The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach must demonstrate a clear, independent technical methodology that ensures all Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) will be met or exceeded. The Government assumes no liability for Offerors who rely on Government-provided estimates or historical data in lieu of their own comprehensive technical and staffing assessments.

USG will update the appendix and pws to reflect the cross linkage and provide with the next solicitation update.

RFP pp. 116–117, Proposal Files / Content Requirement

“Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.” The solicitation separately establishes maximum page limits for the proposal volumes.

Please confirm that the required Table of Contents and Summary Section are excluded from the stated page limitation for each proposal volume. Yes or No? The Government confirms that the cover page, table of contents, glossary/acronym list, and divider tabs/section dividers are excluded from the page limits for Volumes 1 through 4.

RFP p. 117, Volume 1, Technical Capability Gateway

“Key Personnel Resumes: Commercial-format resumes (max 2 pages each) for the proposed Program Manager and Lead Logistics Analyst.”

Please confirm that offerors may use their customary corporate resume format to satisfy the requirement for “commercial-format resumes,” provided each resume contains sufficient information to demonstrate the proposed individual’s qualifications. Yes or No?

Customary coporate resume format will satisfy the requirement as long as it is within the 2 pages.

RFP p. 117, Volume 2, Subfactor 1, Technical Approach and Scenario Responses

“Offerors shall provide documentation demonstrating the adequacy of their commercial approach and addressing any associated performance risk.” The solicitation then identifies the Technical Approach Narrative, Commercial Feasibility Plan, Scenario Responses, PWS Compliance Matrix, and GFP List as required content.

Please confirm that the Technical Approach Narrative, Commercial Feasibility Plan, Scenario Responses, PWS Compliance Matrix, and GFP List identified under Subfactor 1 constitute the “documentation demonstrating the adequacy of [the offeror’s] commercial approach,” and that no separate supporting documentation is required. Yes or No?

Yes. The documents listed under Volume 2, Subfactor 1 in the solicitation constitute the required documentation demonstrating the adequacy of the offeror's commercial approach. No additional supporting documentation is required for this subfactor beyond what is explicitly listed.

RFP p. 119, Volume 3, Personnel Management Plan

“The corporate approach to recruiting, training, and retaining qualified personnel for the full contract duration, including standard commercial employee benefits. (Required for prime and all major subcontractors).”

Please confirm that the prime offeror may submit one integrated Personnel Management Plan addressing the prime and all major subcontractors, rather than requiring each major subcontractor to submit a separate Personnel Management Plan. Yes or No? The Personnel Management Plan is required for the Prime and all major subcontractors. It can be in one plan or multiple, but all requested content in the RFP must be addressed.

RFP p. 116 and p. 121, Volume 4, Past Performance

The solicitation establishes “Volume 4 Past Performance Maximum 5 Pages.” Section 3 also requires subcontractor information, written consent, and Letters of Commitment, while Section 4 requires applicable Letters of Commitment for new corporate entities.

Please confirm that the written subcontractor consents and Letters of Commitment required under Volume 4, Sections 3 and 4, may be submitted as attachments and are excluded from the five-page limit for Volume 4. Yes or No? Yes. Written subcontractor consents and Letters of Commitment required under Volume 4 may be submitted as attachments and will be excluded from the five-page limit for Volume 4.

RFP p. 121, Volume 4, Section 2, Performance

“For all contracts, the offeror shall provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns.”

Please confirm that the manufacturing warranty-return data requirement does not apply to cited past performance contracts that involved services only and did not include manufactured or delivered products subject to warranty returns. Yes or No?

If warranty returns are not applicable, it is not required.

RFP p. 121, Volume 4, Past Performance Questionnaire

“For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire...”

Please confirm that the Government will provide the Past Performance Questionnaire form referenced in Volume 4 for offerors to use. Yes or No?

Yes. The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided as Attachment 0002 to Solicitation Amendment 2.

RFP p. 117, Volume 1; PWS Appendix C, pp. 4–5

The RFP requires resumes for the “Program Manager and Lead Logistics Analyst.” Appendix C states that the work includes “mandatory Key Personnel positions” and identifies the Program Manager, Site Operations Managers, Senior Logistics Analyst, and Senior Data Analyst as Key Personnel.

Please confirm that the Program Manager, Site Operations Managers, Senior Logistics Analyst, and Senior Data Analyst identified in PWS Appendix C constitute the complete list of mandatory Key Personnel positions for this requirement. Yes or No?

Per PWS Appendix C, Labor Category Description-Qualifications, Note: This is a Performance-Based Acquisition. While the Government may provide historical workload data, estimated transaction volumes, or a projected Level of Effort (LOE) for informational and planning purposes, these figures do not constitute a guaranteed minimum or maximum requirement. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to conduct an independent analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and determine the optimal labor mix—including specific labor categories, skill levels, and the total Level of Effort (FTEs/Hours)—necessary to successfully execute all contract requirements.

The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach must demonstrate a clear, independent technical methodology that ensures all Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) will be met or exceeded. The Government assumes no liability for Offerors who rely on Government-provided estimates or historical data in lieu of their own comprehensive technical and staffing assessments.

RFP p. 117, Volume 1; PWS Appendix C, pp. 4–5

The RFP states: “Key Personnel Resumes: Commercial-format resumes (max 2 pages each) for the proposed Program Manager and Lead Logistics Analyst.” Appendix C identifies additional positions as Key Personnel.

Please confirm that offerors are required to submit proposal resumes only for the Program Manager and Lead Logistics Analyst identified in Volume 1, and not for the other Key Personnel positions identified in PWS Appendix C. Yes or No? Yes. For the Volume 1 Technical Capability Gateway evaluation, offerors are only required to submit resumes for the Program

Manager and Lead Logistics Analyst positions.

RFP p. 117, Volume 1; PWS Appendix C, p. 5

Volume 1 refers to a “Lead Logistics Analyst,” while Appendix C identifies a “Senior Logistics Analyst.”

Please confirm that the “Lead Logistics Analyst” identified in Volume 1 and the “Senior Logistics Analyst” identified in PWS Appendix C refer to the same labor category and Key Personnel position. Yes or No? Yes. The "Lead Logistics Analyst" referenced in the Volume 1 instructions and the "Senior Logistics Analyst" in PWS Appendix C refer to the same Key Personnel position.

I am looking to find a prospective/interested prime contractor or others who may be interested in bringing us on as a sub-contractor with SDVOSB certification for this SDVOSB set-aside. Is there an interested vendors list? Or is there another way to find interested parties? The Government is not able to assist offerors in this manner.

Will years of Program Management Experience substitute for Program Management Profession Certification?

Per PWS Appendix C, Labor Category Description-Qualifications, Note: This is a Performance-Based Acquisition. While the Government may provide historical workload data, estimated transaction volumes, or a projected Level of Effort (LOE) for informational and planning purposes, these figures do not constitute a guaranteed minimum or maximum requirement. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to conduct an independent analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and determine the optimal labor mix—including specific labor categories, skill levels, and the total Level of Effort (FTEs/Hours)—necessary to successfully execute all contract requirements.

The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach must demonstrate a clear, independent technical methodology that ensures all Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) will be met or exceeded. The Government assumes no liability for Offerors who rely on Government-provided estimates or historical data in lieu of their own comprehensive technical and staffing assessments.

Since there was no official Q&A window or cutoff, will AMCOM be providing responses to questions submitted in previous correspondence? All questions will be answered and provided in an amendment.

Appendix E (QASP), §2.2, states this is a “Single-Award, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) hybrid contract, consisting of Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) line items for labor and services, and Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF)/Cost-Reimbursable line items for travel and materials.” However, the Section B CLIN schedule identifies every CLIN — including Material AWCF (1005/1013), Travel (1006/1014), and ODCs (1007/1015) — as “FFP Not-to-Exceed (NTE),” and the Section L addendum directs offerors to propose these lines using fixed, Government-mandated unburdened plug-in values rolled into a single Total Evaluated Price — consistent with FFP, not cost reimbursement. Please clarify which governs: is this contract FFP (including FFP-NTE for Material/Travel/ODC) as stated in Section B and the Section L pricing instructions, or CPFF/Cost- Reimbursable for Travel and Materials as stated in the QASP? Appendix E QASP has been updated to reflect FFP.

Related: Appendix E also describes this as an “Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)” contract, but the solicitation is issued as a Request for Proposal (Block 14) with a single set of firm annual quantities per weapon-system pool — not the minimum/maximum guarantee language or individual task-order structure typical of an IDIQ. Please confirm whether award will be a single-award IDIQ (with associated ordering procedures) or a standard definite-quantity requirements-type contract as reflected in the CLIN schedule. Appendix E QASP has been updated to reflect FFP.

If cost-reimbursement (CPFF) pricing does apply to the Material, Travel, or ODC CLINs, please clarify: (a) whether the mandatory “exact unburdened” plug-in values in the Section L addendum ($27,500 Material / $6,000 Travel / $88,500 ODC per weapon system) still apply as fixed ceiling estimates, or whether offerors should instead propose burdened indirect rates and fee as customary under CPFF; and (b) whether the stated exemption from Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Volume 5 instructions) still applies, since CPFF pricing ordinarily requires certified cost or pricing data above the TINA threshold. This requirement is FFP. Also, CCPD is not required since this award is competitive.

If this is confirmed to be FFP as the weight of evidence in Section B and Section L suggests, can the Government correct Appendix E, §2.2 accordingly so the contract file is internally consistent for source selection and post-award administration? QASP has been updated to reflect FFP.

Amendment 0001 also newly identifies this as a DPAS-rated order (Rating: DO-A2) under 15 CFR 700. Please confirm what specific DPAS compliance obligations (e.g., priority-rated order acceptance, flow-down to subcontractors) apply to offerors at the proposal stage versus post-award. This was not identified as a DPAS-rated order. DPAS in the PWS is in reference to Defense Property Accountability System.

Can the Government confirm the identity of the incumbent contractor performing under W31P4Q- 21-C-0049, and whether incumbent capture/staffing data (even in summary form) is available to support the 30-day transition-in plan required in Volume 1?

Per the PWS para. 4.13.1.1: The contractor shall coordinate with the outgoing contractor for up to 30 working days after contract award to ensure a smooth and uninterrupted transition of required performance levels. The goal is to maintain all customer services, both wholesale and retail, without disruption. The incoming contractor shall establish and maintain effective communication with the outgoing contractor and Government personnel during the transition-in and transition-out periods through weekly electronic status meetings.

Will the Government facilitate a site visit or virtual walkthrough of Fort Bliss (Bldg 722/1116) and the Redstone Arsenal Sparkman Center (Bldg 5301, Room 1128) space prior to proposal submission? The USG does not intend to have any site visits.

Please confirm the CLIN 1005/1006/1007 (and 1013/1014/1015) NTE plug-in values ($27,500 Material / $6,000 Travel / $88,500 ODCs, per weapon system, per year) are fixed for the base year only — are the option-year plug-in values the same, or will they be provided by amendment for each option period?

They are for planning purposes for the Base year. The unburdened rates for Option Years will be provided based on availability of funding.

Can the Government confirm the applicable SCA Wage Determination(s) for both the El Paso/Fort Bliss, TX and Huntsville/Redstone Arsenal, AL locations that offerors should price against?

The government used the following BLS websites to determine the applicable SCA labor rate for Huntsville and El Paso.

https://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_elpaso.htm https://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_huntsville.htm

CLIN numbering jumps from 1007 to 1009 (no 1008) — please confirm this is intentional and there is no missing line item. This is intentional. If needed, CLIN 1008 will be used for surge requirements to support possible mission increase.

FAR 52.212-2 as filled in lists Technical/Risk, Management, Past Performance, and Price as factors, but the standard bracketed instruction on relative weighting ("significantly more important than price / approximately equal to price / significantly less important than price") appears to have been left unfilled — can the Government clarify the actual relative importance of non-price factors versus price?

The relative importance of the evaluation volumes is established in the solicitation as follows:

1. Volume 2 (Technical/Risk) and Volume 3 (Management) are of equal importance to one another.

2. Volume 2 (Technical/Risk) and Volume 3 (Management), when combined, are significantly more important than Volume 4 (Past Performance).

3. All non-price evaluation volumes (Volumes 2, 3, and 4), when combined, are significantly more important than Volume 5 (Price).

As proposals become more equal in their non-price ratings (Volumes 2, 3, and 4), the evaluated price (Volume 5) becomes more significant in the source selection decision.

For the six Volume 2 operational scenarios and six Volume 3 management scenarios, will responses be evaluated primarily on approach/methodology, or is prior demonstrated experience with directly analogous scenarios (e.g., actual LMP/GCSS-Army integration work) required to score well?

Responses for both Volume 2 and Volume 3 scenarios will be evaluated on the offeror's proposed approach and methodology.

While demonstrated experience may strengthen a proposal, the primary basis of evaluation is the soundness of the proposed approach to the scenarios as presented.

Given the requirement for all contract/subcontract personnel to hold a SECRET clearance for contract duration, what is the anticipated timeline for interim clearance…