Solicitation Questions and Answers 4.9.2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 46 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Intelligence and Automation Operations
- Solicitation number
- W50NH9-26-R-A002
About this file
This is a Solicitation Questions and Answers document for the Intelligence and Automation Operations (W50NH9-26-R-A002) contract opportunity issued by the U.S. Army Contracting Command-Detroit Arsenal and INSCOM. The document provides government responses to 200+ offeror inquiries submitted during the proposal preparation phase, clarifying requirements across staffing, security, pricing, performance work statement interpretation, and contract administration.
Key clarifications include: core service hours are 0900–1500 with minimal 24/7 coverage for Data Transfer Agent operations; all contractor personnel must hold Top Secret/SCI clearances at contract award with no interim clearances accepted; CI polygraph examinations are government-funded and administered within 10 business days of indoctrination; CMMC Level 2 (Self-Attestation) certification is required at award; facility clearance requirements apply to all prime contractors and subcontractors; off-site development work referenced in earlier PWS sections has been removed, with all classified work performed at government-provided locations only; the Financial and Resource Management Dashboard must leverage Microsoft Power Platform (A365) and be delivered within 30 days as a prototype; the Level of Effort contract includes 88,908 annual hours with no shift differentials beyond normal rates; OCONUS travel is minimal and directed by the Contracting Officer; the 30-day transition period runs concurrently with staffing ramp-up to 100% by day 45; pricing uses 1,912 billable hours annually with no price realism evaluation; and Volume 3 (Administrative) is reviewed for compliance but not evaluated as a factor. The proposal due date is 17 April 2026 at 0900 AM EST.
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
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
Sheet1
| RFP/PWS Section | PG Number | Question | Answer | |
| 24/7 | Regarding PWS 1.1.6.1.1, does "at all times" for Task Area 1 imply 24/7/365 coverage, or does it refer to coverage during the core/standard 8-hour workday? | Section 1.1.6.1 states Contractors should provide services during core hours | ||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 – W50NH9-26-R-A002 | PWS 4.1.6.1.1 | 24/7 | PWS 4.1.6.1.1 requires minimum 2 DTAs on shift at all times. Is this a 24/7 requirement or only during core hours? | Section 1.1.6.1 states Contractors should provide services during core hours |
| PWS 1.1.6.1.1; PWS 4.1.2.2 | 24/7 | Task Area 1 requires a minimum of 2 contractor personnel on shift at all times for DTA operations, with 3-person manual review mandatory when automated screening tools are degraded. Given that core hours are 0900 to 1500, can the Government clarify whether the 2-person DTA minimum applies only during core hours, or whether 7-day dissemination operations (per PWS 4.1.2.2) require DTA coverage outside of core hours and on weekends? | Section 1.1.6.1 states Contractors should provide services during core hours | |
| 24/7 Staffing | For functions requiring continuous coverage (e.g., Data Transfer Agent operations), should offerors assume dedicated 24/7 staffing within the proposed labor hours, or are these surge-based requirements? | Section 1.1.6.1 states Contractors should provide services during core hours | ||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 – W50NH9-26-R-A002 | PWS 1.1.8.3 | Back Fill | The vacancy backfill requirement states the Contractor must "backfill the position with personnel of equal or superior qualifications no later than the eleventh working day and permanently fill the position within 30 calendar days." Given the TS/SCI with CI poly clearance requirement across most positions, can the Government address how this timeline will be assessed in practice for positions requiring poly access, considering that reciprocity and adjudication timelines are often outside contractor control? | IAW PWS 1.1.11.2 CI Poly is at the discretion of the Government, the contractor will not be responsible for timeline that involves Government delay. |
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 – W50NH9-26-R-A002; Attachment 0001 – Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM) | Section L.4.3.7, Page 72 | CDRLs | CLIN 0004 (CDRL deliverables) has a period of performance spanning the entire contract including all options (Aug 2026 - Jan 2032), while it is listed as 'Not Separately Priced.' |
| Question: Can the Government confirm that the costs associated with CLIN 0004 (CDRL deliverables) should be included in the labor CLINs (0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001) for each respective period, and that no separate pricing is required for CDRL deliverables in any period? | CDRLs found in CLIN 0004 are Not Separately Priced and will exist for the full performance of the contract. | ||||||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 – W50NH9-26-R-A002 | PWS Section 1.1.11.2, Page 10 | CI Poly Clarification | Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 1.1.11.2 states that 'select personnel shall obtain the Counterintelligence (CI) polygraph based on project and daily tasks following government nomination and approval.' Are all labor categories listed in the Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM) subject to potential Counterintelligence (CI) polygraph nomination, or only specific roles? | Potentially all positions | |||
| Attachment 0001 – Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM) | PWS Section 1.1.11.2, Page 10 | CI Poly Clarification | Please confirm that the cost of Counterintelligence (CI) polygraph examinations is borne entirely by the Government, as stated in Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 1.1.11.2, and that no polygraph-related costs are expected to be included in the contractor's proposed price. | PWS 1.1.11.2 states The CI Polygraph will be provided by the Government at Government Expense. Therefore, should not be included in the contractors proposed price | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | PWS 1.1.11.2 | CI Poly Clarification | For the CI polygraph requirement (PWS 1.1.11.2), what is the expected timeline for Government-administered polygraph scheduling after indoctrination? | The Contractor will submit personnel for polygraph examinations within 10 business days of indoctrination at INSCOM if required by the mission and only when directed by the Government. | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | PWS Section 4.9.1.4.1, Page 49; PWS Section 4.9.1.4.17.1, Page 50 | Clearance | Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 4.9.1.4.1 states that 'one of which shall be located at a Government facility and shall require TS/SCI clearance.' Please confirm that exactly one (1) of the three (3) Senior .NET/C# Developers is required to hold a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearance and perform on-site at a Government facility. Does this change the stated clearance requirement in Technical Exhibit B for the remaining 2? | PWS 4.9.1.4.1 and 4.9.1.4.2 removed. There is no planned off site work at this time | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS); Attachment 0003 – DD Form 254 | PWS Section 4.9.1.4.1, Page 49; PWS Section 4.9.1.4.17.1, Page 50 | Clearance | Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 4.9.1.4.1 states that the Senior .NET/C# Developers who are not located at a Government facility 'shall not require a security clearance.' Please confirm that the two (2) Senior .NET/C# Developers performing at a contractor facility or remote workspace must be priced using an uncleared, off-site labor rate. | PWS 4.9.1.4.1 and 4.9.1.4.2 removed. There is no planned off site work at this time | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | Clearance | Are all labor categories required to possess an active Top Secret clearance at time of proposal submission, or may certain positions be filled with candidates eligible for upgrade? | At the time of Award | ||||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS); Solicitation Amendment 0001 – W50NH9-26-R-A002 | Clearance | Will the Government accept interim clearances for any roles? | Qualified, available, and approved for indoctrination must be clear at the time of award | ||||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS); Attachment 0001 – Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM) | 11,17,51 | Clearance | Will contractor personnel be permitted to perform limited duties while awaiting clearance adjudication or polygraph completion? | Personnel waiting on clearance adjucation will not be accepted. Contractor personnel pending polygraph completion may be permitted to perform limited duties. | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS); Solicitation Amendment 0001 – W50NH9-26-R-A002; Attachment 0003 – DD Form 254 | DD Form 254 Section 13 (Continuation of Block 10g) | Clearance | DD Form 254 Section 13 states that personnel requiring North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) access must possess a 'FINAL clearance.' Are offerors permitted to staff personnel with Interim Top Secret clearances during the 30-day transition period, or must all personnel hold a FINAL Top Secret clearance on Day 1 of performance? | No | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | PWS 4.9.1.4.17.1 | Clearance | PWS 4.9.1.4.17.1 specifies that non-cleared developers work in an unclassified environment. Will the GOVT provide the hardware/VPN for this remote unclassified work, or is the CTR responsible for the dev infrastructure? | PWS 4.9.1.4.1 and 4.9.1.4.2 removed. There is no planned off site work at this time | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | PWS 4.9.1.4.17.1; PWS 4.9.1.4.17.2 | Clearance and CMMC | The PWS delineates that developers who are not TS/SCI cleared "shall write code in an unclassified environment" and hand off to cleared developers at a Government facility. We agree this is a very good practice to drive down costs. Can the Government clarify whether this potential merits CMMC Level 2 Third Party Certification or whether that will be considered an additional strength? | PWS 4.9.1.4.1 and 4.9.1.4.2 removed. There is no planned off site work at this time. CMMC Level 2 self is required | |||
| Attachment 0003 – DD Form 254 | Clearance Sponsorship | 3. | Would the Government please clarify its process and level of commitment regarding the sponsorship and facilitation of SCI clearance read-ons for onboarding non-incumbent personnel, in order to support timely contract start requirements? | The Government will read on perssonel who have not been read into the program | |||
| Attachment 0003 – DD Form 254 | Section 252.204-7025(d), page 77. | CMMC | In which proposal volume should the offeror provide the CMMC UID or UIDs for each relevant contractor information system? | Administrative Volume 3 | |||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 – W50NH9-26-R-A002 | Section F, Pages 16-17; Section B, Pages 3-5 | CMMC | Section I clause 252.204-7021 specifies a requirement for 'CMMC Level 2 (Self).' Section K provision 252.204-7025 paragraph (b)(1) states the CMMC level is 'N/A: NIST SP 800-171 compliance for CUI, is required prior to award.' |
| Question: Can the Government clarify the specific CMMC level and assessment type required for eligibility at time of proposal submission and at time of award? Sections I and K appear to provide different guidance. | CMMC Level 2 Self is required at the time of award | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | CMMC Level | Inquiry: |
The offeror is currently Self-Attested in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) for CMMC Level 1. We are actively pursuing CMMC Level 2 (Self-Attestation) with an anticipated completion within the next 60 days, to be followed by a formal C3PAO assessment. The organization is currently in the vendor selection phase for this audit and will update our Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) accordingly.
| Given our current compliance roadmap and active progress toward Level 2, would the Government consider amending the solicitation to allow for CMMC Level 1 (Self) certification at the time of bid submission, provided that CMMC Level 2 (Self) is achieved prior to contract award? | No, CMMC Level 2 Self Cert will need to be completed at the time of contract award | ||||||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | NOTICE OF CYBERSECURITY MATURITY MODEL CERTIFICATION LEVEL | ||||||
| REQUIREMENTS (NOV 2025) | CMMC Level | The CMMC level required by this solicitation is shown as "N/A". What level of information will be required to be transmitted and stored by bidders (Level 2 is required for contractors processing, storing, or transmitting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), while Level 1 is sufficient for those handling only Federal Contract Information (FCI)? | Clause 252.204-7025 will be updated in Amendment 0002. Errorneous N/A will be updated to CMMC Level 2 self | ||||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | M.1.1.5. Eligibility for Award. | CMMC Level | CMMC is not listed in Evaluation Factors for Award despite the fact the CMMC Notice is included on page 76 of the solicitation and full implementation of CMMC is required for DoD contractors by November 2028 which is within Option Year 2. Should CMMC be listed in the Evaluation Factors for Award and should the N/A be removed from the NOTICE OF CYBERSECURITY MATURITY MODEL CERTIFICATION LEVEL | ||||
| REQUIREMENTS (NOV 2025)? | Clause 252.204-7025 will be updated in Amendment 0002. Errorneous N/A will be updated to CMMC Level 2 self. CMMC will not be considered a separate evaluation factor. | ||||||
| Attachment 0003 – DD Form 254; Attachment 0001 – Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM) | Contracting | Is every blank in Sections A through K required to be completed even if not applicable, or may offerors annotate non-relevant sections as 'Not Applicable'? | Offerors may annotate Not Applicable or N/A | ||||
| Attachment 0003 – DD Form 254 | PWS Section 1.1.27.1, Page 16 | Current Incumbant | To support transition planning, please provide the contract number for the incumbent contract currently supporting the Data Capabilities Division (DCD) Intelligence and Automation Operations effort. | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS); Attachment 0001 – Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM) | General | Current Incumbant | What is the DCD incumbent contractor and current government, military workforce size to inform transition planning? | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS); Attachment 0001 – Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM) | N/A | Current Incumbant | Can the Government provide the contract number(s) for the incumbent contract(s) supporting this requirement? | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | N/A | Current Incumbant | Would the government please specify the number of vacancies (vacant positions) on the current contract? | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | N/A | Current Incumbant | Are the incumbent contractor staff currently cleared and eligible for onboarding under this new contract? If yes, is there an expectation or preference for incumbent capture? | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | 5 | Current Incumbant | Please provide any available data regarding current vacancy rates, turnover trends, and retention challenges. | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | 16-17 | Current Incumbant | What percentage of incumbent personnel are expected to be available for transition to a follow-on contractor? | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | 17 | Current Incumbant | What level of incumbent contractor cooperation is required or expected during the transition period? | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | 11 | Current Incumbant | What percentage of the current workforce possesses: |
- Active TS/SCI clearance with required compartments (e.g., SI/TK/HCS)
| - CI Polygraph (if applicable) | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | ||||||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS); Solicitation Amendment 0001 – W50NH9-26-R-A002 | PWS Section 1.1.27.1, Page 16 | Current Incumbant | To support transition planning and staffing risk assessment, please provide the current number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) actively performing on the incumbent contract. | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| Attachment 0002 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) | Current Incumbant | Can the Government confirm whether this requirement represents a follow-on effort and whether a transition period is anticipated? | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | ||||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 – W50NH9-26-R-A002 | Current Incumbant | 1. Can we request the name of the incumbent vendor and their contract number, considering they are currently performing? | |||||
| 2. What is the total award value of the ongoing contract held by the incumbent vendor? | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | ||||||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 – W50NH9-26-R-A002 | 20-22 | Current Incumbant | What Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) or Government Furnished Property (GFP) is currently in use? | All GFE and GFP currently in use is incidental to workplace | |||
| Solicitation - W50NH926RA002 Professional Appearance | 16-17 | Current Incumbant | Are there any subcontractors or specialized support roles currently performing under the incumbent contract? | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| Performance Work Statement (PWS) | PWS Section 1.1.27.1, Page 16 | Current Incumbant | The Performance Work Statement (PWS) requires a Transition-In plan with minimum staffing milestones of 30% at Day 7, 50% at Day 14, 75% at Day 21, and 90% at Day 30. To develop a credible transition plan and accurately price transition risk, please provide the name of the incumbent contractor currently performing this effort. | N/A, Offerors must propose IAW sections L & M | |||
| PWS Part 6 – Technical Exhibit 2; Section M (Staffing Plan Evaluation) | Block 11m | DD 254 | Will the government add the statement "see block 13" to Block 11m? | See pg 4, The entirety of the block is marked as Section 13 Continuation | |||
| PWS Part 6 – Technical Exhibit 2 | Block 11a and Block 13 11a | DD 254 | Will the government update the location of performance to include the locations indicated on the SCI Addendum, Item 15, Block 13 11f, and PWS 4.6.1? | Permanent position locations can be found in the GFPM, OCONUS locations are intended for TDYs only | |||
| PWS (Cross-Domain / Data Transfer Operations) | DD Form 254 Section 14 (Additional Security Requirements) | DD 254 | DD Form 254 Section 14 references an 'SCI addendum' containing additional security requirements beyond the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM). This SCI addendum was not included in the solicitation package. Will the Government provide the referenced SCI addendum prior to the proposal due date so offerors can accurately assess all personnel security requirements and transition timelines? | See pg 5, Marked US Army SCI Addendum to DD Form 254 | |||
| Attachment 0001 – Government Format Pricing Model (LOE) | DD Form 254 Block 8; GFPM – 'Period of Performance' Tab | DD254 locations | DD Form 254 Block 8 (Actual Performance Location) lists only Fort Belvoir, VA as the performance location, whereas the Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM) identifies four distinct performance locations: Fort Belvoir, VA; Fort Liberty, NC; Fort Huachuca, AZ; and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. Will the Government issue a revised DD Form 254 that includes all four performance locations, or will separate DD Form 254s be issued for the other three sites post-award? | Page 6, Block 15 Lists all locations in the GFPM | |||
| Solicitation Section L; DD254; PWS Security Requirements | Electrically signed Copies | 1. | The solicitation at Section L.4.3.2 requests “a scanned image of a signed copy” of the SF33 cover page, as well as signed/filled-in Sections A through K and relevant amendments. Would the Government accept electronically signed copies of required documents (e.g., via Acrobat, DocuSign, or other federally recognized e-signature platforms) as compliant in lieu of physically signed and scanned documents? | Yes | |||
| Solicitation Section L; DD254 | Section M.4.2.3 through M.4.2.5, pages 84 to 85. | Evaluation | Please confirm whether the Government will evaluate only price reasonableness, completeness, and unbalanced pricing, or whether it will also assess any form of price realism, including realism as it relates to staffing adequacy under this LOE structure. | Reference M.4.2.3,M. 4.2.4, and M.4.2.5 for price evaluation factors. Price Realism will not be performed. |
tc={A82ABB6F-2201-443C-998A-092A62825ECC}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
Change references to add “M” to them.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea to state that price realism will not be performed.
Reply:
Updated PWS – Place of Performance Section M, M.3.5 Evaluation Notices The solicitation states the Government intends to make award without conducting discussions. Can the Government confirm whether it anticipates issuing Evaluation Notices (ENs) for Clarifications under FAR 15.306(a) or if the Government is not going to utilize that tool as part of the award process? The Government will issue EN's if needed and reserves the ability to conduct discussions if needed.The Government will not speculate whether or not EN's for Clarifications will be issued.
tc={9C8A1FD4-AD7D-4E52-8769-D705472D4131}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
Would also add “The Government will not speculate whether or not ENs for Clarifications will be issued.”
Reply:
Updated
| Solicitation Section F; PWS (Period of Performance) | 11,21 | Facility | Are there any facility constraints, including SCIF capacity, seating, or system access limitations? | No |
| None | FCL | Please confirm that the TOP SECRET Facility Clearance requirement at proposal submission applies only to subcontractors that will handle classified material or perform on classified systems, and not to subcontractors performing solely unclassified support. | Top Secret Facility Clearance shall have been grant at the time of contract award for any Prime or Subcontractor IAW with PWS 1.1.11. Section L.4.3.7 of the solicitation has been amended to remove language stating for any location that will handle classified material and for any subcontractors that will handle classified material. | |
| Solicitation Section M – Evaluation Factors (Staffing Plan) | Section L.4.3.7, page 71. | FCL | Please confirm what documentation the Government will accept at proposal submission as sufficient evidence of the required Facility Clearance for the offeror and any applicable subcontractors. | Refer to Contractors FSO |
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 W50NH9-26-R-A002 Professional Appearance.pdf | Section H.4.3, Page 27; Section H.4.4, Page 27 | FCL | The solicitation requires a TOP SECRET Facility Clearance (FCL) at time of proposal submission for the prime and any subcontractors handling classified material. Without the DD254, the full scope of classified access requirements is unclear. |
| Question: Beyond the TOP SECRET Facility Clearance requirement, does performance on this contract require access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) facilities or Special Access Programs (SAP)? Are subcontractors who will not handle classified material exempt from the FCL requirement? | Top Secret Facility Clearance shall have been grant at the time of contract award for any Prime or Subcontractor IAW with PWS 1.1.11. There is no planned off site work at this time performance on this contract will be performed in a Government provided space. | ||||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 W50NH9-26-R-A002 Professional Appearance.pdf | Section L.4.3.7, Page 72; Section M.1.1.5(d), Page 80 | FCL | The solicitation references 1.6.7.1 of the PWS: At time of proposal submission in accordance with PWS Section 1.6.7.1, the offeror must provide documentation demonstrating this clearance for their own |
facility and for any subcontractors that will handle classified material.
| Section 1.6.7.1 does not exist within the PWS, please advise. | Facility Clearance information can be found in PWS section 1.1.11. PWS reference has been updated in section L.4.3.7 from 1.6.7.1 to 1.1.11. | |||||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | Section L.4.3.8, Pages 72-73; Section M, Pages 79-86 | FCL | The solicitation requires a Top Secret (TS) Facility Clearance at time of award. For a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture (MP JV), where the mentor entity holds an active TS Facility Clearance and will provide cleared facilities and support to the JV, will this arrangement be considered compliant with the TS Facility Clearance requirement at time of award? | All contractors require TS/SCI clearance | ||
| Solicitation | Section L, L.4.3.7; PWS 4.9.1.4.17.1 | FCL | The solicitation requires a TOP SECRET Facility Clearance at time of proposal submission for the offeror and any subcontractors handling classified material. For subcontractors providing support exclusively in the unclassified development environment under Task Area 5 (PWS 4.9.1.4.17.1), can the Government confirm whether those subcontractors are exempt from the TS FCL requirement, provided they do not access or process classified material? | Top Secret Facility Clearance shall have been grant at the time of contract award for any Prime or Subcontractor IAW with PWS 1.1.11 | ||
| Solicitation | 58-68 | FCL | 5.2.1 Technical Exhibit B includes varying security requirements across labor categories, including references to “TS/SCI clearance with SBI...” and “Current DoD TS/SCI clearance...” | |||
| Can the Government clarify whether the reference to “SBI” reflects any requirement beyond a standard Top Secret clearance with a Tier 5 investigation, or if these terms are intended to be equivalent? If equivalent, can the Government update the solicitation to reflect consistent terminology across all labor categories? | Standard TS / SCI. eligible for read-ons | |||||
| Attachment 0002 - PWS | PWS Section 4.9.1.4.17.1, Page 50; Solicitation Section L.4.3.7, Page 67; DD Form 254 Block 1a and Block 1b | FCL clarification | DD Form 254 Block 1a requires a Top Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) for the prime contractor, but Block 1b states 'None' for the level of safeguarding required at the contractor facility. Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 4.9.1.4.17.1 confirms that off-site developers will work in an unclassified environment. Please confirm that the contractor's off-site development facility — used exclusively by uncleared developers in an unclassified environment — is not required to hold a separate Top Secret Facility Clearance (FCL), and that only the prime contractor's primary corporate facility must hold the Top Secret Facility Clearance (FCL). | Top Secret Facility Clearance shall have been grant at the time of contract award for any Prime or Subcontractor IAW with PWS 1.1.11 | ||
| Solicitation | FCL/Contractor Controlled space | Please confirm whether offerors must provide or maintain a contractor controlled space/CUA for any portion of performance, or whether all classified/SCI work will occur at Government-provided locations only. | PWS 4.9.1.4.1 and 4.9.1.4.2 have been removed, all work will be performed at Government provided locations only | |||
| Solicitation | PWS Section 1.1.9.3.1, Page 8 | FRM-D Platform | Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 1.1.9.3.1 requires the contractor to deliver a live, web-based Financial and Resource Management Dashboard (FRM-D) within 30 days of contract award using a Government-owned platform with an existing Authority to Operate (ATO). Please identify the specific Government-owned platform — for example, SharePoint, Appian, or ServiceNow — that the contractor is expected to use for the Financial and Resource Management Dashboard (FRM-D). | Microsoft Power Platform (A365) with potential Premium license - Does not its own ATO | ||
| Solicitation | PWS Section 1.1.9.3.1, Page 8 | FRM-D Platform | Will the Government provide the contractor with access credentials and administrative rights to the designated Financial and Resource Management Dashboard (FRM-D) platform within the first five (5) business days of contract award to enable the required 30-calendar-day delivery timeline stated in Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 1.1.9.3.1? | Yes | ||
| Solicitation | PWS 8–9; CDRL 2 | FRM-D Platform | Please identify the designated Government-owned platform required for the live web-based Financial and Resource Management Dashboard (FRM-D). The PWS and CDRL A002 require use of a Government-owned platform with an existing ATO, but do not identify the specific platform. | Microsoft Power Platform (A365) with potential Premium license - Does not need its own ATO | ||
| PWS 1.1.8.11 | PWS 8–10; CDRL 2 | FRM-D Platform | Please also clarify whether the Government or contractor is responsible for hosting, access provisioning, cybersecurity authorization, and ongoing sustainment of the FRM-D environment. - Not clear to me if any of this would be us or not. Worth asking? | Hosting - Government; Access Provisioing - Contractor; CyberSecurity - N/A; Ongoing Sustainment - Contractor | ||
| PWS 1.1.6.1.1 | PWS 8–10; CDRL 2 | FRM-D Platform | Exhibit A / CDRL A002 says the contractor must deliver a live, web-based FRM dashboard “leveraging a designated Government-owned platform,” but again does not identify what that platform is. | Microsoft Power Platform (A365) with potential Premium license - Does not need its own ATO | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement, CDRL A002 | 1.1.9.3.1 | FRM-D Platform | Can the Government provide detailed requirements for the dashboard, including the intended system or enclave in which it will operate, authorized tools/technologies, and whether development may be subcontracted? | Microsoft Power Platform (A365) with potential Premium license - Does not need its own ATO | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement, CDRL A002 | PWS 1.1.9.3.1 | FRM-D Platform | PWS 1.1.9.3.1 requires a live FRM Dashboard within 30 days using a "government-owned and controlled platform with existing ATO." What is the Government’s approved platform(s)? | Microsoft Power Platform (A365) with potential Premium license - Does not need its own ATO | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement, CDRL A002 | PWS 1.1.9.3.1 | FRM-D Platform | PWS 1.1.9.3.1: Which specific government-owned, ATO'd platform(s) are approved and available for the FRM-D deployment (e.g., SharePoint Online, a Power BI tenant, a specific cloud enclave)? | Microsoft Power Platform (A365) with potential Premium license - Does not need its own ATO | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | PWS 1.1.9.3.1 | FRM-D Platform | PWS 1.1.9.3.1: May the contractor deploy custom-configured applications or reports within the existing platform's ATO boundary without requiring a separate RMF package for the FRM-D solution itself? | Yes | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | PWS 1.1.9.3.1 | FRM-D Platform | PWS 1.1.9.3.1: When will the contractor receive access to the approved platform environment following contract award, given the 30-day delivery requirement for the initial FRM-D? | Post-Account creation | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | PWS 1.1.9.3.1 | FRM-D Platform | PWS 1.1.9.3.1: Is the 30-day delivery requirement for a fully operational dashboard, or will a minimally viable version with a documented enhancement roadmap satisfy the initial CDRL A002 submission? | Prototype | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement, CDRL A002 | PWS 1.1.9.3.1 | FRM-D Platform | PWS 1.1.9.3.1: If the government migrates or upgrades the approved platform during the period of performance, is the contractor responsible for re-implementing the FRM-D in the new environment at no additional cost, or would that constitute a contract modification? | Yes - contractor is responsible for re-implemting the FRM-D | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement, CDRL A002 | General | Could you please confirm whether the effort is currently in the pre-RFP stage? If so, do you have an anticipated timeline for the RFP release? Additionally, has a contract vehicle or potential set-aside strategy been identified at this stage? | Requirement has been in solicitation phase since 18 March 2026 | |||
| PWS Section 2.1.2, Page 21 | GFE | Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 2.1.2 states that the Government will provide workspace, desk space, telephones, and other office items. Please confirm that this workspace commitment applies to all four (4) primary performance locations — Fort Belvoir, VA; Fort Liberty, NC; Fort Huachuca, AZ; and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA — and that no contractor-furnished office space costs are anticipated at any of these sites. | The Government will provide workspace, desk space, telephones, and other office items to all four locations in the PWS | |||
| LOE | Is the Level of Effort (LOE) inclusive of any required shift differentials or extended/after-hours coverage? | No, any hours beyond 1912 hours per LCAT will need approve EWW as determined by the COR and KO | ||||
| Section H.1, Page 26; Section A.1, Page 2 | LOE | Section H.2 and H.3 leave blank the 'Hours Exercised at Award' and 'Hours Remaining' fields. The base year allocation is 88,908 hours. |
| Question: Can the Government clarify whether all Base Year hours (88,908) identified in Section H.3 will be exercised and funded at contract award, or whether the Government anticipates exercising only a portion of Base Year hours initially? | Base Year Hours are intended to be exercised in full and funded on an incremental bases. | ||||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | Section I, Pages 41-43 (FAR 52.219-14) | LOE | The contract type is Firm Fixed Price - Level of Effort with 88,908 annual hours estimated per performance period. |
| Question: Has the Government conducted a level of effort analysis or historical workload assessment to determine the 88,908 annual hours estimate per performance period? Is this hour estimate based on incumbent contractor performance data from a predecessor contract? | N/A | |||||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | PWS Section 4.6.1, Page 38 | OCONUS | Regarding the embedded personnel requirement in Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 4.6.1, what is the estimated number of contractor personnel expected to be deployed Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) at any given time during a performance period? | Table 1-2 language in PWS 1.1.8.10 language removed. OCONUS locations are for TDY only and OCONUS travel is expected to be minimal and directed by the COR. | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | PWS 1.1.5.2; PWS 4.6.1; PWS 4.7.1; Technical Exhibit B | OCONUS | The primary places of performance are listed as Fort Belvoir, Ft. Liberty, JBLM, and Ft. Huachuca. The PWS also references OCONUS embedded positions under Task Areas 4.6 and 4.7. Can the Government provide the approximate number of positions anticipated at each CONUS location, and whether any positions are expected to be permanently stationed OCONUS at the start of the base period or is that something that offerors can propose? | Table 1-2 language in PWS 1.1.8.10 language removed. OCONUS locations are for TDY only and OCONUS travel is expected to be minimal and directed by the COR. | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | PWS 38, CDRL 15 | OCONUS | Please clarify the intended staffing and travel assumptions for bilateral/multilateral and embedded support. How many recurring billets, if any, are expected to support CONUS or OCONUS embedded positions, and what locations or theater alignments should offerors assume for pricing and staffing? | N/A, please refer to GFPM | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | PWS 26-38, CDRL 15 | OCONUS | Please provide the anticipated frequency and destination profile of OCONUS and other mission travel. This should include travel associated with GEN 302/mobile training, bilateral or multilateral partner engagements, and theater-aligned support. | Table 1-2 language in PWS 1.1.8.10 language removed. OCONUS locations are for TDY only and OCONUS travel is expected to be minimal and directed by the COR. | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | Section H.2, Page 26; Section H.3, Page 26 | Options | Section H.4.3 provides 15-calendar-day notice before option exercise, and Section H.4.4 allows 15 calendar days after option exercise to begin performance. |
| Question: Given the security clearance requirements for this effort, does the Government anticipate providing advance planning guidance beyond the 15-calendar-day formal notice period prior to option exercise, to allow the contractor adequate time to recruit and clear personnel for specialized positions? | Options are typically planned further in advance | |||||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | 1.1.5.1 Period of Performance | PoP | Section 1.1.5.1 of the PWS states the Contract period of performance is for a 12-month based period from the time of award with four 12-month option periods but in Solicitation. However, “Solicitation Amendment 0001 W50NH926RA002 Professional Appearance”, on page 2, Period of Performance includes a 52.217-8: 1 August 2031 - 31 January 2032. | |||
| Question: Can the government please confirm the correct POP. | Period of Performance is estimated, contract will being on award date with a one year base period, 4 one-year option periods, and a FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services | |||||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | 1.1.5.1 Period of Performance | PoP | Section 1.1.5.1 of the PWS states the Contract period of performance is for a 12-month based period from the time of award with four 12-month option periods but in Solicitation. However, “Solicitation Amendment 0001 W50NH926RA002 Professional Appearance”, on page 2, Period of Performance includes a 52.217-8: 1 August 2031 - 31 January 2032. | |||
| Question: Can the government please confirm the correct POP. | Period of Performance is estimated, contract will being on award date with a one year base period, 4 one-year option periods, and a FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services | |||||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | PoP | Is there an anticipated contract award date and corresponding target start date for performance, to assist with onboarding and transition planning? | Period of Performance is estimated, contract will being on award date with a one year base period, 4 one-year option periods, and a FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services | |||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | Section L.4.1, PWS 5.2.1 Technical Exhibit B | Positions and Qualifiations | In Section L.4.1 of the solicitation, the Government references PWS Part 6. “The offeror shall also include in its Staffing Plan a narrative of the proposed processes to recruit, vet, and staff personnel who meet or exceed the minimum labor category qualifications to include required technical/professional certifications for the personnel listed below, as outlined in Performance Work Statement (PWS) Part 6, Technical Exhibit 2 - Position Descriptions / Qualifications.” In the PWS, the Position Description / Qualifications starts on page 58 and is: 5.2.1 Technical Exhibit B. |
| Can the Government please clarify the PWS Part/Section for the position descriptions/qualifications? | Position Descriptions and Qualifications can be found in Technical Exhibit B of the PWS. | |||||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | 58-68 | Positions and Qualifiations | The “Special Qualifications” column of 5.2.1 Technical Exhibit B appears to include tasks and responsibilities rather than distinct qualifications for certain labor categories, specifically the Dissemination Specialist, Content Site Manager, Business Administrator, Intelligence Management Specialist, and Mission Trainer. Similar tasking/responsibility detail is not provided for the remaining labor categories. | |||
| Could the Government please clarify the intent of the “Special Qualifications” column and distinguish between special qualifications and roles/responsibilities for each labor category? Additionally, would the Government provide a consistent set of roles and responsibilities for all positions? | Minimum qualifications are required, special qualifications are preferred | |||||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement | 58 | Positions and Qualifiations | Can the government please clarify how many years of experience are required for Senior level, Mid Level and Junior level LCATS? As written it's a little unclear because the table references "meeting senior level qualifications" but there is no overarching reference to year of experience per labor category level. As an example, Intelligence Sharing Specialist Mid Level seems to reference the same about of year of experience as the Intelligence Solutions Integrator position at JBLM. Additionally, it's unclear if the education requirements column contradicts the minimum requirements column or if it's intended to be years of experience in lieu of education. Another example, Helpdesk / Access Manager Senior seems to require 4 years of experience vs. the 8 years or 10 years referenced for other Senior LCATS. | See PWS: Technical Exhibit B: Minimum Qualifications | ||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 W50NH9-26-R-A002 Professional Appearance.pdf | Section M.4.2.5, page 85. | Pricing | Please confirm the level or levels at which unbalanced pricing will be assessed, including whether the assessment will occur at the CLIN, labor category, and-or period-of-performance level. | Reference M.4.2.5 | ||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 W50NH9-26-R-A002 Professional Appearance.pdf | Pricing | Will the Government consider deviations to the prescribed labor in the GFPM based on an Offeror's solution? If so, can the Government provide an unlocked the pricing attachment to allow Offeror’s to do so? | No | |||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001 W50NH9-26-R-A002 Professional Appearance.pdf | N/A | Pricing | Will the government provide the price range or funding budget for this contract? | No | ||
| Attachment 0002 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | N/A | Pricing | Is there a Government Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) available for bidders to align pricing strategy? | No | ||
| Solicitation | N/A | Pricing | Will the government require all labor rates to be rounded to the nearest hundredth? | Yes | ||
| Solicitation | N/A | Pricing | Is the quoter permitted to update the formatting to ensure consistency across all tabs? | No | ||
| Solicitation | N/A | Pricing | Will the Government allow quoters to use a 1,872-hour (instead of 1,912) annual basis in calculating these rates? This is a standard industry practice that reflects actual productive labor time after accounting for federal holidays and statutory paid time off, and is consistent with cost accounting and DCAA guidance. We believe this approach provides a more realistic and reasonable basis for comparison and evaluation. | No | ||
| Solicitation | N/A | Pricing | Will the CLIN structure or FAR clauses of this contract require the quoter to submit an Incurred Cost Submission? | No | ||
| Solicitation | 70 | Pricing | Do quoters need to submit a separate Price Narrative? | Yes reference L.4.2.1.3.1 | ||
| Solicitation | PWS Section 1.1.5.3, Page 2; Solicitation Section B.3, Page 4 | Pricing, COOP and ODCs | Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 1.1.5.3 states that in the event of a Continuity of Operations (COOP) activation, costs of relocating employees and purchasing hardware are 'authorized when approved by the Government.' Would Continuity of Operations (COOP)-related relocation and hardware costs be funded through the existing Other Direct Cost (ODC)/Travel Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), or through a separate contract modification? | Separate contract modification | ||
| Solicitation | Pricing, CUI markings | Each tab within the pricing worksheet is marked as CUI. However, Section L.2.3 of the solicitation instructions (page 68) states that the proposal is unclassified. Could the Government please clarify whether any portion of the proposal, including the pricing worksheets, should be marked as CUI? | GFPM is already marked as CUI and the offerors should apply appropriate marking to any other additional documents | |||
| Solicitation | Pricing, DBA | Please clarify how offerors should account for DBA insurance referenced in the solicitation pricing instructions. Should DBA insurance be included within travel pricing, priced separately, or is it already assumed within the Government’s travel assumptions? - To be clear I need to research this more within the documents, incase it's OBE but if we don't care then let me know. | DBA insurance will be minimal and will be included in OCONUS travel costs via Travel ODC's | |||
| Solicitation | Section M.4.2.4, page 85. | Pricing, DBA | Please confirm where DBA Insurance is to be reflected in the GFPM and whether it should be priced as part of travel, ODCs, or another pricing element. | DBA insurance will be minimal and will be included in OCONUS travel costs via Travel ODC's | ||
| Solicitation | Solicitation Section M.4.2.4, Page 86 | Pricing, DBA | Section M.4.2.4 states that the Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM) must include pricing for 'travel and Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance.' The GFPM does not contain a dedicated input cell or line item for Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance. Please identify the specific GFPM cell or tab where Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance costs should be entered. | DBA insurance will be minimal and will be included in OCONUS travel costs via Travel ODC's | ||
| Solicitation | Solicitation Section M.4.2.4, Page 86 | Pricing, DBA/FBLR | Regarding the requirement in Section M.4.2.4 to price Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance, should Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance be priced as a separate Other Direct Cost (ODC) line item, or should it be embedded within the Fully Burdened Labor Rate (FBLR) calculation for applicable labor categories? | DBA insurance will be minimal and will be included in OCONUS travel costs via Travel ODC's | ||
| Solicitation | PWS Section 1.1.8.10, Page 6 | Pricing, DBA/OCONUS | To allow offerors to accurately price travel costs and Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance, what is the anticipated frequency and duration of Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) travel events per performance year? | DBA insurance will be minimal and will be included in OCONUS travel costs via Travel ODC's | ||
| Solicitation | GFPM – 'Period of Performance' Tab; GFPM – 'Contract Rates' Tab | Pricing, FBLR | The Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM) 'Period of Performance' tab identifies four distinct performance locations: Fort Belvoir, VA; Fort Huachuca, AZ; Fort Liberty, NC; and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. In addition, Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 4.9.1.4.1 allows for off-site contractor facility performance. The GFPM 'Contract Rates' tab does not provide a mechanism to apply distinct, location-specific indirect burden rates — for example, a Government Site overhead rate versus a Contractor Site overhead rate — to the Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FBLRs). Will the Government amend the GFPM to allow offerors to apply distinct indirect burden rates based on the specific performance location of each labor category? | PWS 4.9.1.4.1 and 4.9.1.4.2 removed. There is no planned off site work at this time | ||
| Solicitation | Solicitation - W50NH926RA002 Professional Appearance.pdf, page 2; and Attachment 0001 - Government Format Pricing Model.xlsx | Pricing, LOE | The solicitation states that this is a firm fixed price level of effort contract. In the pricing file, the Government has utilized 1,912 hours per FTE staff member. For Offerors whose benefits do not support that many billable hours, can the hours per FTE be changed to align with the Offeror’s benefit structure? | Offeror may provide an Offerors Furnished Price model (OFPM) in addition to the GFPM to show reconcilation for benefits and hours | ||
| PWS | PWS Section 4.6.1, Page 38; Solicitation Section B.3, Page 4 | Pricing, OCONUS Costs | Are the costs associated with Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) embedded assignments — such as hazard pay, cost-of-living uplifts, and lodging — intended to be covered within the scope of the $100,000 annual Travel Other Direct Cost (ODC) plug provided in the Government Format Pricing Model (GFPM), or will they be funded through a separate contract mechanism? | The only costs associated with OCONUS anticipated in this requirement are minimal travel to OCONUS locations. DBA insurance for these trips are antipated to be included in the minimal Government travel plug number, permanate OCONUS are not anticapated. | ||
| PWS | Section I, Pages 44-48 (DFARS 252.204-7021); Section K, Pages 76-77 (DFARS 252.204-7025) | Pricing/ODC | Section B.3 states ODCs are reimbursed 'at actual cost, without fee.' Section H.5 introduces ODC/Travel Maximum Burden Rates (OTMBRs) that cap indirect cost recovery on ODCs/Travel. |
| Question: Can the Government clarify whether 'without fee' in Section B.3 means (a) no profit/fee is applied but indirect burdens are allowable up to the OTMBR, or (b) no indirect burdens of any kind are applied to ODCs/Travel? | No fee or profit is allowable on ODC's, the GFPM under the ODC tab allows for the indirect rate burden to be entered by the offeror. The OTMBR includes the entered indirect rate burden proposed by the offeror. | ||||
| PWS | Section A.1, Page 2; Section H.3, Page 26 | Pricing/ODC | Section L.4.2.1.6 requires offerors to use Government-provided ODC/Travel estimates in the GFPM without alteration. |
| Question: Can the Government confirm that the ODC/Travel estimates in the GFPM represent the Government's best estimate of anticipated costs, and that these estimates will be used solely for evaluation purposes and will not establish a ceiling on actual ODC/Travel expenditures during performance? | The ODC travel estimates in the GFPM will be use for evaluation purposes. During execution all travel ODCs expenditures must be approved by the COR as per PWS 1.1.8.7 | |||||
| DD254 | Section L, L.4.2.1.7; Section H, H.5; PWS 4.6, 4.7 | Pricing/ODC | Offerors are required to propose ODC/Travel burden rates (OTMBRs) for each period. The GFPM includes Government-provided ODC/Travel estimates that offerors cannot modify. Can the Government provide additional detail on the basis for the ODC/Travel estimates in the GFPM, specifically the anticipated frequency and destinations of OCONUS travel under Task Areas 4.6 (Bilateral/Multilateral) and 4.7 (Embedded Intelligence Data Integration)? | No. | ||
| DD254 | 73 | Property Management Plan | If the Government intends to have the L.4.3.8 Property Management Plan evaluated as part of Volume III-Administrative, please include this Plan as a requirement under section M. Otherwise, we would recommend this Plan be a deliverable 10 days after contract award. | PMP an administrative compliance requirement | ||
| Section L.4.2.1.6, Page 71 | Property Management Plan | Section L.4.3.8 requires a Property Management Plan (PMP) as part of the Administrative Volume. The PMP is not listed as an evaluation factor in Section M. |
| Question: Will the Property Management Plan be evaluated as part of any evaluation factor, or is it solely an administrative compliance requirement? If the PMP is found to be inadequate, will the Government provide the offeror an opportunity to correct deficiencies, or could an inadequate PMP result in proposal rejection? | PMP an administrative compliance requirement | |||||||
| Proposal Adequacy Checklist | Will the Government please clarify if the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is for Offeror's use only or to be submitted with Offeror's proposal? If it is to be submitted, in which Volume? | Clause 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist is not included in the solicitation |
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 .