DRFP W51EW726RA004_RFI Responses_Posted 13Feb2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W51EW726RA004
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This file contains Government responses to 46 industry questions and comments submitted during the Request for Information (RFI) phase for the U.S. Army Operational Evaluation Command Base Test Support Services (BTSS) Follow-on acquisition (W51EW726RA004). The RFI responses address clarifications regarding solicitation requirements, evaluation criteria, contract structure, and operational expectations. Key determinations include: the requirement is designated as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) set-aside, based on market research demonstrating adequate SDVOSB competition; subcontracting is authorized under FAR compliance requirements; this is a single-award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with task orders issued non-competitively as requirements dictate; historical testing data shows 55-65 test events over five years with durations ranging from two weeks to six months; and key personnel (Program Manager, Logistics Manager, Security Manager) require Top Secret clearances with CMMC Level 1 certification applicable. The incumbent contract is W9115121D0003, expiring 30 September 2026, with Phase-in support from the incumbent contractor required during the 30-day transition period.
The Government clarified technical and operational requirements including: Government Furnished Property will be provided in serviceable condition with no anticipated maintenance backlogs; interim clearances are acceptable for personnel prior to final adjudication; Government provides database licenses and access (EWSS, ATOM) without system training; cost realism will be evaluated at the base contract level for Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee CLINs; NTE CLINs will be evaluated at the Government-provided ceiling amount plus proposed indirect costs; proposed escalation factors for non-SCLS labor categories must be substantiated and subject to Government adjustment using current market data; and the Quality Control Plan is due 30 days post-award independent of the Phase-in period. The Government declined requests to extend the proposal due date, revert to a non-socioeconomic set-aside, or provide additional historical staffing projections, noting that industry received advance notice of the potential SDVOSB designation change as early as 26 November 2025.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| BTSS DRFP Follow Up_Government Responses_posted 02Mar2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TE H- Government Furnished Facilites_27Jan2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 5_Historical Data_Apr 2021-Mar 2025.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFI Template_DRFP W51EW726RA004.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| DRAFT_RFP W51EW726RA004_posted 02Feb2026.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4_Pricing Matrix_29Jan2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TE E _BTSS_DD254.pdf | ||
| TE C DD1423 A001 Block 16 Continuation Sheet.pdf | ||
| TE F-IML Listing.XLSX | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TE D GFP_as of 27Jan2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 2_Sample Test_SOW-M10_BCV_IOT.pdf | ||
| Attachment 6_WGDs_as of 03Dec2025.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3_PPQ_13Jan2026.docx | DOCX document | |
| TE H- Government Furnished Facilites_27Jan2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1_BTSS PWS_30Jan2026.pdf | ||
| TE G OTC BTSS Military Test Locations List.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5_Historical Data_Apr 2021-Mar 2025.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TE C DD1423_BTSS_27Jan2026.pdf |
Show all 18
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
BTSS DRFP RFI Responses
| No. | Source Document | Attachment or # DRFP/PWS Section | Document Page / Paragraph No. | Industry Question / Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | DRFP | Section A.2.1 | General | Does the Government anticipate or encourage subcontracting arrangements under the OEC BTSS IDIQ, and if so, will subcontractor past performance and key personnel qualifications be evaluated independently from the Prime Contractor for task order awards? | Subcontract arrangements are authorized, provided the prime is in compliance with FAR 52.219-14 (FEB 2023) (DEVIATION 2021-O0008). |
Subcontractor past performance or key personnel qualifications are not evaluated independently for the IDIQ award. See L.3.2 and its subparts, addressing proposal requirements tied to subcontractor past performance (and proposed performance under BTSS). See M.5.3 for evaluation of the Offeror's proposed past performance, to include proposed subcontractor past performance.
This is not a multiple award action and thus, past performance is not evaluation criteria for subsequent task orders.
| 2 | PWS | Section 1.10 | Key Personnel | For task orders issued under the BTSS IDIQ, will the Government allow task-order-specific key personnel substitutions or additions beyond the Prime Contractor’s core PM/LM/SM staff, provided all clearance and qualification requirements are met? | Substitutions or replacements of key personnel may be authorized as stated at PWS 1.10.1. Key personnel are on the base task order and can work on test task orders as the Contractor deems appropriate. |
| 3 | PWS | Section 1.6.2 | General | For non-key personnel supporting task orders, does the Government anticipate allowing performance to begin upon interim clearance or CAC issuance when appropriate, or must all personnel possess final adjudicated clearances prior to task order performance start? | CAC issuance is part of the in processing and a Tier 1 background check is all that is required for this. Interim clearances are required prior start of performance for the select and required personnel subject to the applicable clearance levels/requirements. Not all personnel require interim clearances. These are task order specific and the task will indicate the security level. |
| 4 | PWS | Section 1.6, 1.7 | General | Can the Government clarify whether historical GFP loss, damage, or maintenance backlog data will be provided to Offerors prior to final RFP release to support cost realism and risk mitigation planning? | There is no significant history of GFP loss, damage or maintenance backlog. Currently there are no maintenance backlogs. |
| 5 | DRFP | Section B | General | Does the Government anticipate providing task order forecasting information (e.g., expected number of TOs per fiscal year, average duration, or typical labor mix) in the final RFP to assist Offerors in workforce planning and cost realism? | Industry Day briefing advised "historical test events range between 55-65 per contract period of performance (5 years)." No average duration is available as TOs will be testing dependent with a range of two weeks to six months. Additionally, Attachment 5 of the DRFP provides historical data (labor categories and hours) for the stated period. It is not anticipated this data will be updated again for the final RFP. |
| 6 | DRFP | Section A | A.2.1 | Is the Government going to release BTSS as a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Set-Aside? | Yes. |
| 7 | Attachment 5 (A5) and Technical Exhibit (TE) H | A5 and TE H | General | Is there anything in particular you would like industry to focus on when reviewing the historical staffing data and the GFF information (e.g., specific assumptions, constraints, or data fields that are most important to the Government) | Per L.3.3.4.1, the historical data is the basis of the structure for the Pricing Matrix, utilizing the labor categories previously applicable. However, Offerors are able to propose their own technical approach to meeting the PWS requirements, and may add/reduce staffing (or categories) in accordance with their proposed approach. There are no "assumptions" the Government is suggesting Offerors make. |
The GFF information provided at TE H supports the requirements addressed in PWS 3.6.
| 8 | DRFP | n/a | General | We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number? | |
| This is a follow-on to contract to W9115121D0003. | |||||
| 9 | DRFP | 2.3.2.2 | page 76 / para 2 | Will the government verify that there is no minimum performance period within the last three years for past performance? If not, will the government please specify? | Confirmed. There is no minimum performance of a cited past performance contract to be considered, provided it meets the specified Recency standard at M.5.3.1. |
| 10 | DRFP | Section A | Pg 2 | Will the Government clarify the market research considerations that supported the decision to designate this requirement as an SDVOSB set-aside, particularly given that the prior competitive procurement for this requirement was conducted as a Small Business set-aside and received adequate competition (eight offers received), and that earlier APBI and Industry Day materials identified this opportunity as a Small Business set-aside as recently as December 17, 2025. Based on historical competition and current industry awareness, there appears to be a broad pool of qualified Small Business concerns with relevant experience capable of supporting robust competition and best-value outcomes. Given current market conditions, would the Government consider that expanding the competitive pool to a Small Business set-aside remains appropriate to meet the MICC’s objective of maximizing competition to the greatest extent practicable? | Through the Contracting Officer's consideration of FAR 19.203 and the requirements of FAR 19.502-2(b) and FAR 19.1405(b), it was determined and approved via the MICC Army Office of Small Business Programs and the SBA that the BTSS Follow-on be competed as a SDVOSB set-aside. Given the strong SDVOSB response to multiple market research efforts, the Sources Sought, Pre-Solicitation Notice, and Virtual Industry Day, a SDVOSB is appropriate as two or more SDVOSB can satisfy the BTSS requirement via FAR 19.502-2(b). |
It is noted the Contracting Officer advised participants during the 17 Dec 2025 Industry Day that while the acquisition would at a minimum move forward as a "minimum" of a small business set-aside, market research efforts were ongoing and a further set-aside was possible. Industry was also put on notice the Government's final determination of a small business set-aside status had not been made earlier during the pre-solicitation process, via the Pre-Sol Q&A posting on 26 Nov 2025.
11 PWS Attachment 1 N/A Given the Department of Defense’s emphasis on protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) across the Defense Industrial Base, can the Government clarify whether it intends to require CMMC Level 2 certification for this requirement?
DoD policy and implementation guidance establish CMMC Level 2 as the standard for contractors that handle, store, or transmit CUI, and DFARS 252.204-7021 identifies CMMC Level 2 as the applicable level for such efforts once included in a solicitation. Additionally, MICC acquisition activities routinely emphasize cybersecurity posture and supply-chain risk management as part of disciplined acquisition planning and protection of mission data.
| Based on the nature of the work described in this requirement, it appears performance may reasonably involve access to CUI. Would the Government consider adding CMMC Level 2 certification as a requirement to ensure alignment with DoD cybersecurity objectives, reduce program risk, and ensure consistent protection of sensitive information across all offerors? | CMMC Level 1 certification requirements will apply. DFARS 252.204-7021 and 7025 will be incorporated, identifying the Level 1 requirement. Section L, Volume IV will include the Offerors' requirement for an initial/preliminary report, which will not be evaluated under the source selection, but as a requirement for award to a business who has been determined "responsible" by the Contracting Officer. | ||||
| 12 | DRFP | L.3.1.2.3 | 80 | The solicitation requires submission of key personnel resumes for the Program Manager, Logistics Manager, and Security Manager; however, offerors are instructed to exclude individual names and company identifiers. |
Can the Government clarify how anonymized resumes will be evaluated for relevance, continuity, and commitment, and whether this information meaningfully supports a best-value determination prior to award?
Given the restrictions on identifying information, would the Government consider eliminating the requirement for key personnel resumes until after contract award, or alternatively requiring only post-award submission of key personnel credentials? Deferring this requirement may reduce proposal burden, avoid potential ambiguity in evaluation, and still allow the Government to validate personnel qualifications prior to performance while maintaining MICC’s objectives for fair and equitable competition.
| Would the Government consider whether this approach could better support disciplined acquisition planning, clearer evaluation, and efficient source selection, while minimizing unnecessary proposal risk? | The absence of an individual's name does not impact the Government's ability to evaluate the proposed personnel for adequacy and feasibility as set forth at M.5.2.2.3.There is no ambiguity in the proposed evaluation criteria and the requirement for resumes at L.3.1.2.3 will remain. | ||||
| 13 | DRFP | A.2.4 and L.3.2.2 | 80 | In Paragraph A.2.4, the solicitation requests submission of Past Performance information within seven (7) days of RFP release, while also identifying Past Performance as a major evaluated factor of the final proposal. |
Can the Government clarify the purpose and intended use of the Past Performance information submitted prior to the solicitation close date, and how it will relate to the Past Performance evaluation conducted at proposal submission?
Given the importance of Past Performance to the best-value determination, would the Government consider aligning the Past Performance submission with the proposal due date, or alternatively clarifying that the early submission is for market research or responsibility purposes only and will not be evaluated as part of the source selection?
| Relaxing or realigning this requirement may reduce unnecessary proposal burden, ensure consistent and equitable evaluation across offerors, and better support a defensible source selection consistent with FAR 15.304 (evaluation factors) and FAR 15.305 (proposal evaluation). | L.3.3.2 does not refer to Past Performance requirements. L.3.3.2 is a requirement for Offeror's to provide evidence to support they have an adequate accounting system in order to administer a cost-type contract. | |||||
| 14 | Please clarify attachment 1 – BTSS PWS | Attach #1: 1.5 Quality Control; 1.21 Phase-In | 11 and 23 | PWS 1.5.1 requires submission of the Quality Control Plan within 30 days after contract award, while PWS 1.21 establishes a 30-day Phase-In period. Please confirm whether deliverable timelines run concurrently with the Phase-In period or begin following completion of Phase-In. | The Quality Control Plan is required 30 days after contract award (not 30 days after the Phase-In period. | |
| 15 | Please clarify draft RFP | Section L; Section M | 58–60, 97 | The Draft RFP prohibits escalation of SCLS-covered labor rates. Please confirm how escalation assumptions for exempt (non-SCLS) labor categories will be evaluated for realism and whether such escalation may be adjusted during cost realism analysis. | Offerors shall provide an explanation and substantiation for any proposed escalation factors (may be unique to each Offeror). Per M.5.4.2, the Government will make adjustments during its cost realism analysis utilizing current data that may come from multiple sources, including, but not limited to BLS, salary.com, ERI, Dept of Labor, Global Insights, DCAA, and/or DCMA. Cost realism adjustments will occur if the Offeror does not adequately substantiate/support basis for performance (in this case, escalation), at a lower cost. | |
| 16 | Please clarify draft RFP; Attachment 4 – Pricing Matrix | Section B; Section M | DRFP Section A.2.2; PWS 1.3.1 | Attachment 4 includes Not-To-Exceed (NTE) CLINs in pricing roll-ups. Please confirm whether the Government will evaluate proposed NTE ceiling values or probable cost estimates for NTE CLINs when determining Total Evaluated Price. | See M.5.4.4.2. "CLINs 0002-0004 are NTE CLINs. The evaluated price for this CLIN is the NTE amount provided by the Government plus any indirect costs for CLIN 0002 (Material Handling and/or G&A as proposed by the Offeror in A3, Tab “Total Evaluated Price Summary” cells G4, I4, K4, M4, and O4)." | |
| 17 | DRFP A.2.2 / PWS 1.3.1 | DRFP A.2.2 / PWS 1.3.1 | PWS 1.21.1; CLIN 0007 | Please clarify can the Government clarify the anticipated annual task order award cadence and whether task orders will be competed among all IDIQ awardees or issued non-competitively? | The Government anticipates an annual TO for Base Support. Testing requirement TOs shall occur as test requirements dictate. This requirement is for a single award task order contract. TOs will NOT be competed as again, a single IDIQ contract shall result. | |
| 18 | PWS 1.21 | PWS 1.21 | PWS 1.6.2; PWS 1.10 | Please clarify during the 30-day phase-in period, will the incumbent contractor be required to support knowledge transfer, including SOPs, databases, and historical test data? | Yes, during contract Phase-in the incumbent contractor will be performing contract Phase-out requirements, which include supporting knowledge transfer, etc., facilitated by the COR. | |
| 19 | PWS 1.6.2 / 1.10 | PWS 1.6.2 / 1.10 | Attachment 2 (Sample TO SOW), Section 4.1 | Please clarify for positions requiring Top Secret clearances, will interim clearances be acceptable at task order start while final adjudication is pending? | See PWS 1.6.2.1. The PM, LM and SM require a T/S clearance. Other personnel may require T/S based on the classification of test events to be supported. Interim clearances may be authorized as addressed at 1.6.2.1. | |
| 20 | Attachment 2 SOW 4.1 | Attachment 2 SOW 4.1 | PWS 1.5.4.3 | Please clarify will the Government provide licenses and access for EWSS, ATOM, and other mandated databases, or should these be proposed as contractor ODCs? | The Government will provide the license to access these databases as required. The license will be returned to the Government upon completion of requirement. The Government does not provide system training. | |
| 21 | PWS 1.5.4.3 | PWS 1.5.4.3 | PWS 3.1.2 | Please clarify can the Government clarify expectations for sustained 24-hour operations at the task order level and how surge staffing should be priced? | All required taskings will provide the timelines needed to perform the services required. The Government does not provide the surge staffing pricing; Offerors shall provide and identify this information as part of their proposal. | |
| 22 | PWS 3.1.2 | PWS 3.1.2 | Attachment 2 (Sample TO SOW), Section 4 | Please clarify will a notional Government Furnished Property inventory with condition codes be provided prior to award to support risk assessment? | No. All GFP will be provided in serviceable 10/20 condition with all maintenance services up to date/current. | |
| 23 | Attachment 2 (Sample TO) | Attachment 2 (Sample TO) | DRFP Section L; Section M | Please clarify should offerors assume the M10 BCV IOT Sample Task Order is representative of future task orders in complexity and staffing intensity? | The Sample TO is just that, a sample of one test requirement that may be required during BTSS performance. It is likely some test requirements may be more complex, and some test requirements will be less complex. | |
| 24 | DRFP Section L/M | DRFP Section L/M | Please clarify will cost realism be evaluated only at the base contract level, or also at the competed task order level? | A cost realism analysis for the BTSS requirement herein, W51EW726RA004 will be conducted for the CPFF CLINs, to include the Sample TOP. See M.5.4.2. |
TOPs will be evaluated by OEC and MICC upon receipt during contract execution/after identification of a requirement and release of a TO SOW and TO-RFP.
25 PWS 4.4 35 Under Contractor Furnished Items and Services, 4.4 Vehicles and Equipment is marked "Reserved".
1. Does the Government anticipate that the contractor will be required to furnish vehicles and/or equipment at any point during the period of performance?
| 2. If the requirement for Contractor Furnished Vehicles and Equipment is implemented post-award, will this be managed through a contract modification as a new, separately priced CLIN? | The Government does not anticipate a requirement(s) for the Contractor to furnish their own equipment or vehicles. The reserve is a boiler plate should said requirement change of the contract term and the PWS requires an update (via contract modification). Should requirements change, the PWS and all documentation will be updated and forwarded to the contracting office for implementation, proposal action and bilateral contract modification. | ||||
| 26 | Draft RFP | A.2.1 | Page 2 | Historically, the BTSS procurement has been, and the re-compete was initially advertised and marketed as, a small business set-aside opportunity with no specified socio-economic subcategory. The late-stage change to a SDVOSB set-aside, approximately two weeks prior to release of the Final RFP, severely limits the ability of qualified small businesses to restructure teams around an SDVOSB prime while still meeting the technical, past performance, and capability requirements of the BTSS contract. As a result, the pool of fully qualified, experienced, and competitive teams is likely to be reduced, potentially leading to proposals from less mature and/or less capable offerors—which is not in the Government's best interest for a complex mission-critical support services requirement. |
Recommend that the Government revert the procurement to the originally advertised small business set-aside (without socio-economic subcategory requirements) or convert to full and open competition with meaningful small business subcontracting goals. This action would:
-Restore the broadest possible pool of qualified, high-performing teams consistent with the opportunity's marketing for the past year;
-Maintain strong competition and increase the likelihood of receiving the most capable and technically superior proposals;
-Better align with the Government's objective of obtaining the highest-quality support for the BTSS mission.
If retention of the SDVOSB set-aside is deemed essential at this stage, we strongly recommend extending the proposal due date by a minimum of 30–45 additional days to provide adequate time for compliant re-teaming and preparation.
See response at RFI #10.
The Government will not grant an additional 30-45 days for proposal preparation.
| 27 | General | Not identified in KTR submission | Not identified in KTR submission | Please provide the expiration date for the incumbent contract. | 30-Sep-2026 |
| 28 | PWS | 1.6.2.1 | Not identified in KTR submission | Please confirm the Information Technology IS NOT considered Key Personnel | Confirmed PWS 1.10 depicts key personnel. |
| 29 | PWS | Not identified in KTR submission | Not identified in KTR submission | Please provide projected or incumbent staffing for the ABNSOTD at FT Bragg. | No projected or incumbent staffing will be provided. The historical data provided at A5 is inclusive of ABNSOTD staffing requirements at Fort Bragg. |
| 30 | PWS | 1.26.1.5 | Not identified in KTR submission | Hazardous Duty: Will the government be providing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)? If not, will it be an allowable ODC expenditure? | Government provides Kevlars for driving tactical vehicles, safety shoes hard hats, for supply and maintenance personnel. PPE otherwise may be allowable as an ODC. |
| 31 | PWS | 1.26.1.6 | Not identified in KTR submission | Please confirm the Government will be providing sensitive Item storage facilities at the three primary contractor work sites (FT Hood, FT Bliss, and FT Bragg). | SISA is only located at Fort Hood. |
| 32 | Att 6 | Not identified in KTR submission | Not identified in KTR submission | We are unable to open the Att. 6 WGD. Please provide this document as an Adobe Acrobat PDF version. | Confirmed. A single Adobe PDF vice Portfolio will be provided with the final RFP. |
| 33 | PWS | 5.2.1.2(d)6 | Not identified in KTR submission | Please identify the database software currently being used in the performance of the contract. | There is no specific database software required for Contractor data collection and input. Individual test requirements will identify varied database software requirements. Contractors shall comply with PWS 1.14 and its subparts. |
| 34 | PWS | 5.2.1.2 (c) | Not identified in KTR submission | What make/model communications systems are currently in place? | Information provided in the IML. See TE F. |
| 35 | PWS | 5.2.16.3 | Not identified in KTR submission | Is all of the equipment in PWS Section 5.2.16.3 considered direct reimbursable cost? | Provided the Contractor has allocated these costs as directly supporting the BTSS contract, yes. |
| 36 | PWS | 5.2.1.2(f) | Not identified in KTR submission | Is all IT Support Microsoft and Windows based? | Yes. |
| 37 | PWS | 5.2.14 | Not identified in KTR submission | Please clarify/specify what is meant by "framing" and "signs". | Shipping frames, labeling and/or signs. Ability to build signs associated with test requirements. |
| 38 | Sample Test | Not identified in KTR submission | Not identified in KTR submission | Please provide the draft OTP with the final RFP for industry review. | An OTP is not provided, requirements are listed under the Sample Test Document |
| 39 | Sample Test | Not identified in KTR submission | Not identified in KTR submission | Does milage need to be recorded and reported by terrain type? | Milage is solely reported as mileage. |
| 40 | Sample Test | Not identified in KTR submission | Not identified in KTR submission | How is the data collected by ATC personnel provided to the contractor? | Paper copy of observation cards are provided to the Contractor. |
| 41 | Sample Test | Not identified in KTR submission | Not identified in KTR submission | Whose responsibility is it to transport the government property for this Sample Test? | The Contractor is responsible for the transportation services. |
| 42 | Sample Test | Not identified in KTR submission | Not identified in KTR submission | Please clarify the data turnaround requirements. | Data turn-around timeline is 10 days from completion of test. |
| 43 | Sample Test | Not identified in KTR submission | Not identified in KTR submission | Please provide the monthly historical FTEs by labor category in order to help plan for the flexible expansion and contraction of this contract. | Historical data has been provided at A5. No further historical data will be provided for purposes of Offerors proposing to the Sample TOP requirement. |
| 44 | Draft RFP | A.2.1 | 2 of 108 | Did the market research used to determine the change in socio-economic set aside take into account the ability of the potential offerors to provide the requisite wide range of services necessary to successfully manage and perform the Performance Work Statement? |
Some of the more critical areas that should have been considered are:
1. The ability to provide support for multiple simultaneous tests in multiple locations with trained, experienced, and cleared personnel. Including surging support as test requirements change.
2. The ability to provide a cleared and capable workforce at multiple remote locations using locally sourced employees
3. The ability to manage a large, geographically dispersed, on-call workforce.
4. Expertise in preparing cost proposals for task orders within seven days and with a 5% accuracy.
5. The logistics experience to simultaneously manage a motor pool; issue, receive, and maintain an inventory of test support materials; manage calibrations compliance and perform calibrations; and manage Environmental Compliance CONUS and OCONUS
6. Having adequate financial strength to do all of the above items
| 7. Adequate experience to demonstrate ability to do all of the above items. | Market Research included a detailed analysis of all industry responses (e.g. Sources Sought, Capability Statements, Pre-Sol Notice feedback, etc.). The OEC customer reviewed all industry information and conducted capability assessments that considered many of the comments noted within the RFI and beyond. Multiple sources within multiple socioeconomic categories demonstrated the required capability to successfully perform the BTSS effort, at a fair market price. | ||||
| 45 | Draft RFP | A.2.1 | 2 of 108 | The draft solicitation indicates the Government’s intent to issue this procurement as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) set-aside. |
| Did the Government consider alternative small business strategies e.g., Small Business set-aside with SDVOSB participation to maximize competition while still meeting socio-economic objectives? | Yes, alternative acquisition strategies were considered. | |||||
| 46 | Draft RFP | A.2.1 | 2 of 108 | Given the last-minute acquisition strategy change to SDVOSB set-aside, will the government delay release of the final RFP for a minimum of 100 days to allow industry time to develop revised teaming approaches? | See response to RFI #10 above. Industry was put on notice of the potential change as early as 26 Nov 2026. The final RFP release will be delayed beyond the previously communicated date, but the delayed release is anticipated to be <30 days (from 13 Feb 2026). | |
| 47 | Draft RFP | Section B | 4 of 108 | CLIN 0002 unit of measurement is months, but CLINs 0003 and 0004 are LOT. Can the government confirm the unit of measure for the CLIN 0002 plug number is correct? | The Government anticipates a change in U/I to JOB (JB) for CLIN 0002. | |
| 48 | Draft RFP | Section E | 8 of 108 | Section E includes FAR 52.246-6, however this contract does not include T&M or LH CLINs. Can the government clarify the inclusion of this FAR reference? | Confirmed. FAR 52.246-6 in N/A and will be deleted. | |
| 49 | Draft RFP | Section I | 21 of 108 | Section I includes FAR 52.215-12, but does not include FAR 52.215-10 as required? Can the government clarify the inclusion of this FAR reference? | Confirmed. FAR 52.215-10 is required and will be added. | |
| 50 | Draft RFP | Section I | 22 of 108 | Section I includes FAR 52.215-13, but does not include FAR 52.215-11 as required? Can the government clarify the inclusion of this FAR reference? | Confirmed. FAR 52.215-11 is required and will be added. | |
| 51 | Draft RFP | Section I | 23 of 108 | Section I includes FAR 52.232-2, however this contract is not a fixed-price research and development contract. Can the government clarify the inclusion of this FAR reference? | Confirmed. FAR 52.232-2 is N/A and will be deleted. | |
| 52 | Draft RFP | L.2.4.3 | 71 of 108 | The instructions indicate that file names should include dates. Can the government confirm that offerors can omit dates from file names? | No, dates shall be included. L.2.4.3 shall remain unchanged. | |
| 53 | Draft RFP | L.3.1.1.1 | 72 of 108 | The instructions include a reference to Fort Cavazos. Can the government confirm that references should be instead to Fort Hood? | Confirmed L.3.1.1.1 will be corrected to Fort Hood. | |
| 54 | Draft RFP | L.3.1.3 | 75 of 108 | The instructions refer to the Sample Task Order as Attachment 1. Can the government confirm this should instead reference Attachment 2? | Confirmed. L.3.1.3 typo will be corrected to Attachment 2, consistent with the "A2" cited. | |
| 55 | Draft RFP | L.3.1.3.1 | 75 of 108 | The instructions require offerors to identify Department of Labor skill categories. Can the government clarify whether only non-exempt (DOL/SCA) skill categories must be identified, or should offeror identify the total staffing solution required, including exempt (non-SCA/DOL) skill categories? | Confirmed. L.3.1.3.1 will be updated/corrected to reflect the total staffing solution required. | |
| 56 | Draft RFP | L.3.2.1 | 75 of 108 | Past performance instructions refer in multiple places to "major subcontractor / teaming partner". Can the government confirm that only past performance references from subcontractors who meet the "major subcontractor" definition are eligible for inclusion? | Confirmed. | |
| 57 | Draft RFP | L.3.2.2.1 | ||||
| L.3.2.4 | 76 of 108 | |||||
| 77 of 108 | The instructions include references to MSS and WDTC. Can the government confirm these references should be instead to BTSS? | Confirmed. Typos will be corrected. | ||||
| 58 | Draft RFP | L.3.2.2.1 | 76 of 108 | The instructions state "Level of support is defined as designated workshare or the estimated portion of contract cost the team member (e.g., prime, JV entity, etc.)." Given the inclusion of "prime", can the government clarify whether a letter of commitment is required from the prime or JV managing partner? | Yes, required from each/all JV member entities. | |
| 59 | Draft RFP | L.3.2.3(2) | 76 of 108 | The instructions require POC information for the government customer. For past performance references performed as a subcontractor, where the offeror or major subcontractor does not have privity of contract with the government, can the government confirm that this POC information should instead be for the prime contractor (customer) on the referenced effort? | No, the Offeror shall coordinate with the prime to provide the Government POC. The Government will not accept past performance information provided from another Contractor entity. It is understood the resulting Government POC may have limited past performance information to provide based on privity of contract and Offerors shall consider this in providing past performance data/contracts. | |
| 60 | Draft RFP | L.3.2.4.1 | 77 of 108 | A poor record of performance can be indicative of likely performance issues on the subsequent BTSS contract and is relevant to both the responsibility determination and the assigned past performance confidence rating for a given offeror. Will the government require offerors to include any cure notices or show cause notices received on any contract within 3 years of the RFP issue date, not just those received on contracts cited in this volume? | No change is anticipated and CPARS data is anticipated to uncover any general trends regarding Offeror/Contractor performance. | |
| 61 | Draft RFP | L.3.2.6 | 77 of 108 | The page limits and structure described in L3.2.6 does not match L.3.2.1 (25 pages vs. 20 pages, 3 references vs. 2 references). Can the government clarify the requirements between these two sections? | Confirmed. L.3.2.6 will be corrected to align with L.3.2.1. | |
| 62 | Draft RFP | L.3.2.7 | 78 of 108 | The instructions state "…PPQs submitted from non-Government personnel will not be considered". Can the government clarify how this applies to past performance references performed as a subcontractor, where any PPQ would be completed and submitted by the prime contractor (customer) and not government personnel? | PPQs shall be completed by Government personnel only. See response to RFI #59. It is acknowledged the Government POC may have limited past performance information to provide for a subcontractor. | |
| 63 | Draft RFP | L.3.3.4 | 80 of 108 | Can the government confirm that the capped rate described in this section applies only to CLIN 0002? | Confirmed. | |
| 64 | Draft RFP | L.3.3.4.4 | 82 of 108 | Historical task order issuance under this requirement has demonstrated year-to-year variability, which can materially affect indirect rate absorption for a small business contractor. Can the Government clarify whether it would consider an annual reconciliation or adjustment mechanism for indirect rate caps in instances where the actual task order value issued by the Government is materially less than the annual value assumed in the evaluated proposal, such that the originally proposed rates no longer reflect the cost structure required for successful performance? | No. The Government does not anticipate an annual reconciliation or the ability to adjust capped rates based on noted circumstances. This is risk in either direction, each year. | |
| 65 | Draft RFP | L.4.3 | 83 of 108 | The instructions reference PWS 2.10. Can the government confirm this reference should instead be to PWS 1.10? | Confirmed. This typo will be corrected to PWS 1.10. | |
| 66 | Draft RFP | L.4.3 | 83 of 108 | To protect against situations where offerors may propose key personnel with no intention of using them on the contract, will the government require that signed letters of commitment include a statement of the candidate's intent to perform in the proposed role for not less than one year after contract award, with no key personnel substitutions permitted during this period? | The Government does not anticipated incorporating this proposed adjustment/requirement. Provided the key personnel meet the requirements specified at PWS 1.10, substitutions may be permitted throughout the life of the contract, in compliance with notification requirements at PWS 1.10.1. | |
| 67 | Draft RFP | M.3.1 | 98 of 108 | The descriptions of Blue/Outstanding and Purple/Good both include "at least one significant strength". It is unclear whether a proposal that includes a single significant strength (and no additional strengths) would be rated Blue/Outstanding or Purple/Good. Can the government clarify the descriptions of the ratings to remove this ambiguity? | There is no ambiguity in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, which is utilized at the DRFP M.3.1 Table 1. |
In order for a proposal to be evaluated as "Blue-Outstanding" it must meet ALL the criteria established, demonstrate an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements AND contain multiple strengths, and/or at least one significant strength, AND the risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
In order for a proposal to be evaluated/assigned as "Purple-Outstanding" it must meet ALL the criteria established, indicate a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements AND contains at least one strength or significant strength, AND risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.
| 68 | Draft RFP | M.5.4 | 106 of 108 | BTSS is an IDIQ with fluctuating requirements dependent on Army customer demand for test and evaluation support. While Attachment 5 includes historical labor workload, this workload has no relation to the future workload on this contract. For these reasons, the inclusion of a priced sample task order is understandable as it gives all offerors a notional task to solution and price, but it is unclear what the basis of estimate would be for the remainder of the requested pricing (Years 1 through 5, excluding the sample task). The PWS does not include any indication of task order frequency, size, volume, complexity, etc. on which to propose an overall labor mix and associated hours. To clarify the requirement, we recommend that the government provide a defined level of effort in hours for each labor category in Years 1 through 5 (excluding the sample task), and require offerors to propose not-to-exceed fully burdened labor rates. Total evaluated price would remain as described in M.5.4. | The Government does not anticipate providing a labor mix or hours beyond the historical data to support Offerors' cost proposal efforts. The PWS identifies the scope of work and historical data, while acknowledged isn't a guarantee of future requirements, is provided for Offeror use. Offerors who understand the BTSS scope of requirements should be able to provide a technical solution (and associated cost proposal) to satisfy the Government's requirements. Moreover, the CPFF IDIQ contract type takes into account risks of unknowns to both parties. |
| 69 | Draft RFP | M.5.4.4.2 | 107 of 108 | Can the government confirm that any MH and/or G&A rates included in Attachment 4 is only applicable to CLIN 0002, and that CLINs 0003 and 0004 will not be burdened by this rate when calculating evaluated price? | Confirmed. |
| 70 | Attachment 1_BTSS PWS_30Jan2026 | 1.1 | 10 of 76 | Given the importance of PWS 5.2.18 ABNSOTD Test Operations and its inclusion as part of the Technical Approach in L.3.1.1.2, will the government add Fort Bragg Site Lead to the key personnel listed in PWS 1.10? | No. |
| 71 | Attachment 4_Pricing Matrix_29Jan2026 | N/A | N/A | Can the government confirm that offerors may modify the columns on the blue tabs (Labor build up) to reflect their estimating methodology? | Confirmed. Columns may be modified, if necessary. Offerors shall ensure no errors to avoid potential for clarifications. |
| 72 | Attachment 4_Pricing Matrix_29Jan2026 | N/A | N/A | Labor build up tabs for Year 2 onward list the incorrect period of performance in cell C1. Can the government confirm the correct period of performance for Years 2 through 5? | Confirmed and will be corrected to reflect "1 Sep 20XX" as applicable for Year 2-5 tabs. |
| 73 | Attachment+5_Historical+Data_Apr+2021-Mar+2025 | N/A | N/A | The Grand Total in Column O is hard coded and does not match the sum of the preceding four years of historical data. Can the government clarify this discrepancy? | There is no discrepancy. The Government has confirmed the cumulative total for each year equals the grand total provided at Column O. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .