W50NH925R0006 Questions and Answers.pdf

No. Section Page Number Question Answers

1 N/A N/A Request suspense date for submission of RFIs. This is not a RFI, this is a solicitation/request for proposals. The due date for responses is 03 March 2025.

2 L.4.1 N/A

Proposal Content lists Volume 3-Cost Price as "N/A, Attachment 0001 GFPM" but L.4.4.1.3.1 Pricing states we Need a price narrative. Does the Government want a price narrative and template or only the template for submission? If the former, does N/A simply mean there is "no page limit"?

Please dissregard the "N/A". Please include a short narrative (how you arrived at your prices) and include it as part of Volume 3.

3 N/A N/A Does the Government want the PWS or SOW in the Appendix of the Past Performance Volume and it does not count towards the page count?

The PWS needs to be submitted for the selected contract. It does not count towards the page limit.

4 L.4.1 N/A Request the USG provide the maximum number of past performance submissions which will be accepted.

The number of past performance submissions being requested under Section M is three (3) of the most recent and relevant past performance examples.

5 N/A N/A Does the Government want a screen shot of the contract award? or another file? No screen shot required. Please include past performance information in accordance with the requirements in section L.

6 N/A N/A Is the total past performance volume 5 pages or is the limit 5 pages per past performance?

The total Past Performance Volume should not exceed five pages (This does not include the questionnaire) (See answer 8 also)

7 L.4.1 N/A Will the USG accept past performance of a proposed subcontractor as part of the submission?

No – acceptable past performance submissions are only those which were performed by the offeror as the prime contractor.

8 L.4.1.3.2 N/A Request clarification on page limit for past performance. Is the 5 pages per referenced contract or total for all submitted contracts?

Any templates provided should be utilized and contractors should follow what is highlighted in Section L&M with respect to page numbers and format. Please also see answer #6.

INSCOM ETA Solicitation Questions

9 L.4.1.5 N/A How will the USG assess Past Performance for an offeror IF a the offeror's references do not submit the provided PPQs on time?

If a PPQ is not received on time (or at all), then the contract will not be considered in the evaluation.

10 L4.2 N/A What documents, if any, is an offeror required to submit to substantiate Key Personnel? Resumes, Conditional Offer Letters?

The Government is not requesting resumes or conditional offer letters. Please refer to Section L.4.2, which covers the proposed approach the offeror needs to address in its proposal.

11 L.4.4.1.3.1 N/A ) Is there a page limit associated with the required Price Narrative?

The price narrative, which includes how prices as proposed were determined, should be included as part of the Pricing Volume. We didn't include a page limit here because your only utilizing the GFPM and inserting your numbers. Please also include a small description of how you determined your prices. Please make this less than a page.

12 N/A N/A Request confirmation that the incumbent contractor and contract value was as listed in the 2024 INSCOM APBI.

As a reference, the incumbent contractor is: Kametrix LLC. The Government estimate prior to award for that action was just under $60 million.

13 N/A N/A The 2024 INSCOM APBI listed 26 FTEs. The current solicitation list 16 FTEs. Did the USG reduce the requirement? Or were the other 10 FTEs option LCATs which the USG executed?

The USG reduced the requirement.

14 N/A N/A Is there any OCONUS TDY associated with this effort? Will DBA insurance be required?

Yes. OCONUS TDY is possible. Yes. DBA has been required during travel for those on travel.

15 N/A N/A Will all option LCATs, if executed, be located at Ft. Belvoir, VA?

This question is pretaining to the "Option" LCATS on the GFPM (Lines 17 - 20) within the Labor Tab. YES - All of these LCATS are located at Ft. Belvoir, VA.

16 N/A N/A

The RFP Volume I Past Performance section references contracts demonstrating similar engineering analysis, technical support, and test & evaluation services provided to Department of Defense Intelligence Community programs. Will the Government consider past performance references from civilian federal agencies that demonstrate similar experience or else only from Department of Defense Intelligence Community?

Please see answer number 18.

17 N/A N/A

Will past performance references from Department of Defense Intelligence Community programs receive higher relevancy ratings or more favorable evaluation scores compared to past performance references demonstrating similar technical scope and complexity from civilian federal agencies?

See also answer 16. It is critical that any reference to a "civilian" agency demonstrate past performance that directly relates to the PWS to include the security requirements. Security requirements are not a norm in the civilian sector. For example, civilian agencies do not require a Top Secret clearance nor Facilities Clearance.

18 L.4.1.2 N/A Relevant Contracts both i and ii state Department of Defense Intelligence Community.

Would organizations that peripherally support DOD IC, including DTRA, DARPA, and AFRL meet the relevancy criteria?

Yes - We can include contracts in which the majority of work directly supports the IC agency. Section L.4.1.2 will be revised accordingly.

19 L.4.1 N/A Volume 1—Past Performance, the first sentence states that information should be provided for up to a (fill in Number of Contracts). We are assuming this is 3 since that is what Attachment 0003 has columns for, but we would like to confirm

Yes. Three of the most recent and relative responses should be provided.

20 N/A N/A We also want to understand if the predecessor contract had the same number of CMEs.

No. The current contractor isn’t required to staff the same number of CMEs. The Requirement has been modified.

21 L.5.6 N/A

Section L.5.6 states “Facility Clearance. The contractor shall possess and maintain a Top Secret facility clearance from the Defense Security Service at time of proposal in accordance with PWS Section 1.6.7.1.” This rule will limit competition especially for Joint Ventures. Could the government modify the language to require the bidder to be eligible for a TS FCL at time of submission or could the government issue a DD254 with the RFP? Often small businesses or JVs don’t yet have a FCL because they have not been issued a DD254 despite the fact that they are eligible.

This requirement can’t be changed. It is required that contractors have a FLC at the time of proposal. The time it takes to obtain a FLC may result in the effort being delayed.

22 N/A N/A The Draft RFP states that the proposal is due on 17 Feb 25. Can we assume that this is an error and that the Final RFP will establish the proper date? The new due date for proposals is posted.

23 L.4.1.1 N/A The reference states “Recent Contracts are those performed within 3 years of the date of issuance of this RFP.”, Would the Government extend this to “5 years” to allow a broader section of offerors to submit qualified bids?

No. The Government is unable to extend the time period.

24 L.4.1 N/A The parenthetical-fill in does not indicate the maximum number of contracts that can be submitted. Would the government update “(fill-in Number of Contracts)” with the prescribed number. Our recommendation is 3 contracts.

Refer to the answer for question #19.

25 L.4.1.4 N/A

Would the Government allow for major sub-contractors to submit up to two past performances as well as the ‘named offeror’? For the purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is a entity with at least 20% of the labor workshare as demonstrated in the signed, dated teaming agreement.

Only the prime is able to reference past performance contracts.

26 N/A N/A Does the Government have a prescribed file name they wish offerors to use when submitting the Attachment. 0003 Past Performance Matrix? No

27 N/A N/A

The relevancy evaluation measures our references against the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFP requires. Since incumbent contract information for contracts like this is not publicly posted, will the Government please provide the range of magnitudes that is required to be considered essentially the same as required for this RFP to obtain the Very Relevant rating?

No. We can't provide a range of magnitude. Offerors should consider the rating scales posted in Sections L and M and ensure they are demonstrating experience that directly relates to the PWS.

28 L.4.1.5 N/A

Section L.4.1.5 stills shows the email to send the PPQ to as “(fill-in e:mail address)” yet page 2 of attachment 2 states to send the PPQ to “usarmy.detroit.acc.mbx.global-intelligence-linguist-dlite@army.mil” Can you confirm this is the address our customers are to send completed PPQs?

This information will be updated.

29 N/A N/A This section states " For the Past Performance Factor, provide information for a total of up to (fill-in Number of Contracts) submissions" Could the government please clarify how many Past Performance references are requested?

Yes. Three of the most recent and relative responses should be provided.

30 L.2.4 N/A This section references L.2.4 as the OCI but OCI is actually L..2.5 - just wanted to clarify we are looking at the right section.

Section L.2.4 discusses Single Proposal Submission. Section L.2.5.

discusses OCI.

31 N/A N/A If the Company is a JV do you want the Reps and Certs for the Company bidding and ALL the JV members? Or just the JV?

If the offeror is a JV, then that JV offeror should execute the Reps and Certs.

32 N/A N/A In the "Reminders" section it states "'1) It is incumbent upon the offeror to ensure that a submission meets the definition Contract Submission requirement defined in Section L.X.1" Coiuld the government please clarify which section is L.X.1 is referring to?

The actual definition of a "contract" is not defined under definitions.

Please refer to Part 1 of the PWS which calls out the contractual requirements as a general rule of how to interpret this language.

33 L.4.1.4 N/A

In the "Reminders" section it states "' Refer to Section L.X.1, which states that each Contract must have been performed by the offeror as the prime contractor, unless otherwise allowed by L.X.1.4 (Associated Corporate Entities, Predecessor Company, Individual Partners of a Joint Venture)." Coiuld the government please clarify which section is L.X.1 & L.X.1.4 are referring to "

This is a question about PP. Make sure the numbering is corrected, and the definition of a contract is in the first section of the L language.

34 M.2.1 (i) N/A This section states, “The offeror does not have a SECRET Facility Clearance at time of proposal.” Should this not read “TOP SECRET” facility clearance is required?

Yes - M.2.1 (i) should read TS/FLC as referenced in PWS Section 1.6.7.1

35 L.4.1.1 N/A

In the "Reminders" section it states "Refer to Section L.X.X. " Recent Contract(s) are those performed within XX years of the date of issuance of this Request for Proposal (RFP). " Could the government please clarify which section L.X.X is refering to? and How many years "XX years" is?

This is section L.4.1.1 (Recent is within three years)

36 N/A N/A In the "Reminders" section it refers to other reminders - such as submission limitations -are there reminders that we should adhere to?

It is unclear what this question is referring to. Please adhere to the submission requirements in Section L and M when in doubt.

37 N/A N/A

In solicitation, section H3, government estimated 19,502.40 hours for FAR 52.217-8 (option to extend services). However, on page 2, the solicitation does not have associated CLIN item beyond OY4 (CLIN 400x). Does government want the offeror to include said 18,502.40 hours in pricing calculation in certain fashion?

Your pricing for -8 should reflect half the cost (6 months) of your last period of performance. In this case, it should be half the amount as quoted in Option Year 4.

38 N/A N/A Will government provide plug amounts for CLINS x002 (ODCs/Travel) and x003 Yes

39 N/A N/A

The requirement under DoDM 5220.22 Vol. 2 § 4.8(c)(6) for Joint Ventures to hold a facility clearance was legally overruled with the passage of NDAA FY 2020 § 1629 “Termination of requirement for Department of Defense facility access clearances for joint ventures composed of previously cleared entities.” (now codified as 15 USC § 644(e)(4)(B)(ii)). This conclusion was affirmed in 2021 by the GAO in Matter of InfoPoint LLC, Case No. B-419856. Please confirm if each member of an unpopulated 8(a) Mentor Protégé Joint Venture has the requisite top secret facility clearance, there is no need for the JV entity itself to have the top secret facility clearance for this proposal?

It is confirmed that if each member of a joint venture possesses the required facility clearance, then the joint venture itself is not required to possess such a facility clearance. This answer applies only to the issue of facility clearances. All other applicable requirements for joint ventures and/or the members of the joint venture remain.

40 L.4.1 79

Page 79 of the RFP, Section L.4.1, Past Performance, states “provide information for a total of up to (fill-in Number of Contracts) submissions”. Can the Government please clarify the minimum and maximum number of past performance references that can be submitted for this response?

This section in the solicitation has been updated. We are unable to modify the number of pages due to the number of proposals we exect and the time frame to evaluate them.

41 N/A N/A Will the Government please consider increasing the page limits for Volume 2, Staffing Plan, to 10 pages from 4 pages?

We are unable to modify the page limits. We are unable to modify the number of pages due to the number of proposals we exect and the time frame to evaluate them.

42 N/A N/A Will the Government please consider accepting CPARS scores when available, in lieu of PPQs? No. IC contracts are not allowed in CPARS.

43 N/A N/A Will the Government require any sort of Technical Approach as an evaluation factor for this response?

This question is not clear. The Government is not requesting a technical approach. Please refer to the listed evaluation factors.

44 N/A N/A Currently, Attachment 1 GFPM is locked IAW information management rights access controls. Will the Government please provide an unrestricted copy to Offerors? Please check the most recent version of the document.

45 N/A N/A The Other Direct Costs (ODC) tab is locked and the team is unable to enter our indirect rate for ODCs. Please check the most recent version of the document.

46 L.2.4 N/A Does the government consider a Joint Venture—where multiple entities collectively manage contract performance an affiliated entity under this definition and therefore precluded from submitting a proposal?

Yes, per L.2.4, affiliation is defined in part as "the Government will consider affiliation to exist if associated business concerns or individuals, directly or indirectly, either controls the other or can control the other (control can exist through common ownership, common management, or a contractual relationship such as a joint venture, where members have the power to control performance of the contract)"

47 L.5.6 N/A

The requirement under DoDM 5220.22 Vol. 2 § 4.8(c)(6) for Joint Ventures to hold a facility clearance was legally overruled with the passage of NDAA FY 2020 § 1629 “Termination of requirement for Department of Defense facility access clearances for joint ventures composed of previously cleared entities.” (now codified as 15 USC § 644(e)(4)(B)(ii)). This conclusion was affirmed in 2021 by the GAO in Matter of InfoPoint LLC, Case No. B-419856. Please confirm if each member of an unpopulated 8(a) Mentor Protégé Joint Venture has the requisite top secret facility clearance, there is no need for the JV entity itself to have the top secret facility clearance for this proposal?

See response to Question # (insert correct #).

48 L.4.1 N/A

The bidder understands each volume shall include a (i) title page, (ii) table of contents, and (iii) list of tables and figures. When applicable, the title page, table of contents, and list of tables and figures are excluded from any page count limit established for a proposal volume and Volume 1 contains 5 pages. Is it the Government's intent to allow each Prime Contractor (Joint Venture or otherwise) as many Past Performance write-ups within the 5-page limit?

No. The page limit for past performance (not inclusive of the PWS/SOW or Past Peformance Questionnaire) is 5 pages total.

50 M.3.8 N/A

The relevancy evaluation measures our references against the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFP requires. Since incumbent contract information for contracts like this is not publicly posted, will the Government please provide the range of magnitudes that is required to be considered essentially the same as required for this RFP to obtain the Very Relevant rating?

See answer #27

57 N/A N/A

In the "Reminders" section it states "' Refer to Section L.X.1, which states that each Contract must have been performed by the offeror as the prime contractor, unless otherwise allowed by L.X.1.4 (Associated Corporate Entities, Predecessor Company, Individual Partners of a Joint Venture)." Coiuld the government please clarify which section is L.X.1 & L.X.1.4 are referring to "

This is a typo and will be fixed.

58 N/A N/A

In the "Reminders" section it states "Refer to Section L.X.X. " Recent Contract(s) are those performed within XX years of the date of issuance of this Request for Proposal (RFP). " Could the government please clarify which section L.X.X is refering to? and How many years "XX years" is?

This is a typo and will be fixed.

59 N/A N/A In the "Reminders" section it refers to other reminders - such as submission limitations -are there reminders that we should adhere to? No - please disregard

60 N/A N/A

In solicitation, section H3, government estimated 19,502.40 hours for FAR 52.217-8 (option to extend services).However, on page 2, the solicitation does not have associated CLIN item beyond OY4 (CLIN 400x). Does government want the offeror to include said 18,502.40 hours in pricing calculation in certain fashion?

Please disgregard this. A -8 will contain half of the hours allocated to

OPYR 4.

61 N/A N/A Will government provide plug amounts for CLINS x002 (ODCs/Travel) and x003 Yes. ODC & Travel will be plug amounts as listed in the GFPM.

62 1.6 8 Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) requirements are becoming more common in DoD contracts. Does the government anticipate CMMC to be a gate requirement, and if so to what level?

No. We are not at this time anticipating CMMC to be a requirement.

63 1.6.8.5 10 The solicitation states that the contractor may be required to establish and maintain COMSEC accounts. Does the government require a particular CME to have COMSEC experience?

No.

64 1.6.14.3 13 There are 4 optional LCATs in the solicitation. Can the government confirm if pricing for these optional LCATs must be submitted with the base pricing in the proposal?

Yes - please provide pricing for all LCATS to include those which may be optional.

65 1.6.17 14 How far do OCI concerns extend? Just G7? INSCOM HQ? Subordinate units?

Other Army work (G2, ARCYBER, TSMO, PDMIW, etc.)?

In accordance with Section L.2.5.1 and L.2.5.2 Offerors should discose potential OCI situations or highlight any potential conficts to the best of their ability and IAW applicable rules referenced in the solicitation.

66 1.6.18.13.1 19 Which positions require 8570.01 certifications? Refer to the PWS for requirements.

67 1.6.18.13.1 19 Which 8570.01 certifications are required? The PWS states level 1 or level 2, but not which track (IAT, IAM, etc.)? Not specified.

68 1.6.21 20 The solicitation describes positions in Warren, MI being exempt from the TOP SECRET clearance requirement. Can the government clarify which positions these are?

This reference was written in error. There are no positions located in Warren, MI.

69 1.6.21 20 Will the positions require an existing CI polygraph or just the ability to obatain & maintain a CI polygraph?

It is preferred that relevant positions would have CI polygraphs at the time of hire but the ability to obtain and maintain is required.

70 1.6.25.3 22 The JPAS system has been decommissioned. Did the govenrment intend to reference DISS, the replacement system? PWS Section 1.6.25.3. should reference DISS.

71 2.1.6 24 Does the government require letters of commitment for all key personnel/positions with the proposal submission? No. Letters of commitment are not required and will not be evaluated.

72 5 29 After reviewing this solicitation, we have noticed that the information assurance staff has been removed. Does the government anticipate risk management framework (RMF) support tasks like in prior G7 ETA contracts?

Refer to the PWS for requirements.

73 5 29 If there are information assurnance staffing requirements in G7 that will not be addressed by this contract, can the government identify what contract will address these?

Not at this time

74 PRS #7 40 PRS #7 is limited to cyberspace operations tools and capabilities. It does not include MI tools identified earlier in the solicitation. Will testing be limited to cyberspace tools?

No. INSCOM has both cyberspace and MI tool testing responsibilities.

75 Exhibit 3A 43 Is school of advanced military studies (SAM) a requirement for the program manager ? SAM is preferred as stated.

76 Exhibit 3B 46 Do non-key personnel need to be current SCI or SCI eligible?

Yes. All positions in this contract will work in a SCIF. Additionally, some positions (as noted in the PWS) will need to be able to access to NSA facilities and computer systems.

77 Exhibit 3B 50 PMP certification a requirement for the program administration specialization It is prefered but is not required.

78 L.4.1 79

This clause mentions past performance performed as a sub contractor will not be accepted. This is very limiting for small businesses that often perform as a subcontractor. Will the government accept past performance that was performed as a major sub contractor?

See answer #25

79 L.4.1 79 What is the number of past performance references allowed? Could the government provide a limit? A reasonable limit will ensure that all small business submissions can be evaluated fairly.

Up to three contracts may be submitted

80 L.4.1.5 81 The directions do not identify an email address for providing completed past performance questionnaires. Can the government identify one? This section has been updated

81 L.4.2 81 If resumes/LOC are required, how will this impact the 4 page limit of the staffing plan? Resumes and letters of commitment are not being requested and will not be evaluated.

82 L.4.2 81 Can you clarify the difference between key position and key personnel? There are references to both with different requirements/quantities.

There are three Key Positions identified in the PWS. Key Personnel refer to the individuals filling the positions.

83 M.4.2.1 89

Sections L.4.2 and M.4.2.1 both say that there are 3 key positions to be addressed in the staffing plan. However, section 1.6.11.1 identifies 10 key personnel. How many CMEs is the government expecting resumes and/or letters of commitment for at proposal delivery?

Only the 3 positions identified in the Staffing Plan Factor are to be addressed. Also, see the answer to question #81.

84 1.16.18.11 18; 41

Section 1.16.18.11 says that the OPSEC Standing Operating Procedure shall be delivered within 90 days of contract award. However, the deliverable schedule on page 41 says that this (deliverable A008) should be delivered with the technical proposal at proposal submission. Could the government clarify which of these is correct?

The verbiage in Section 1.16.18.11 is correct.

85 L.5.6, M.2.1 83, 85 L.5.6 requires a TOP SECRET Facility Clearance. M.2.1 states that a proposal may be rejected if the offeror does not have a SECRET Favcility Clearance. Can the government clarify which is required?

This section has been updated. It should be TS/FLC.

86 1.6.21 N/A The referenced DD-254 was not released with the solicitation. Will the government provide one? Yes - Updated

87 N/A N/A What is the value of the current contract? Over $60M

88 N/A N/A How many CME's are part of the current contract? Will not be answered at this time

Vendor Questions and Answers