Agile Professional Services (APS) Questions and Answers_20261008.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 60 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Combined Synopsis/Solicitation for Commercial Items Agile Professional Services (APS) Department of the Army
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-26-R-A023
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for the Agile Professional Services (APS) solicitation (W900KK-26-R-A023), containing 146 numbered industry questions and government responses addressing clarifications on the solicitation requirements, evaluation criteria, pricing, cybersecurity compliance, and contract administration.
The acquisition is a 100% Total Small Business Set-Aside for Labor Hours/Time & Materials services under NAICS 541990 (All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services) with a $19.5M size standard. Key clarifications confirm: (1) the Government will not change from Labor Hours to Fixed Price contracting; (2) CMMC Level 2 is required with a NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 self-certified assessment score of 110 posted in SPRS as of Phase I submission; (3) the contract vehicle is Labor Hours with payment based on actual hours worked, though performance will increasingly rely on outcome-based metrics including story points and sprint velocity; (4) all proposed labor rates will be incorporated into the contract; (5) the Government will provide Jira, Power BI, and other Government-furnished systems and licenses; (6) conflicting QASP requirements between Attachments 2 and 3 regarding vacancy backfill (14 vs. 30 calendar days) and financial accuracy (100% vs. 95%) have been resolved by updated Attachment 2; (7) the Total Evaluated Price will be inclusive of all six option periods covering 66 months of performance; (8) travel costs will be reimbursed separately at cost-only under plug-number estimates provided by the Government; (9) facility clearance and key personnel requirements apply at award or start of performance; and (10) the Government maintains decision-making authority over backlog prioritization and resource allocation across program offices. The Q&A also confirms the Government-provided Army DSO JIRA settings and sample data (classified as CUI) will be released prior to Phase II after cybersecurity verification, and that offerors may propose Agile-related labor categories (Scrum Masters, Agile Coaches, etc.) as direct billable line items. The Government declined recommendations to adopt best-value tradeoff evaluation, implement contractor incentives, establish price realism thresholds, limit the number of compliant offerors advancing to subsequent phases, or revise other evaluation methodologies.
View the file
Other files
Show all 38
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
| ID | Please submit your question below. Please limit to one question per submission. | |
| Government Response | ||
| 1 | N/A | No question contained in this submission |
| 2 | The solicitation assigns NAICS 541990 ($19.5M size standard). Based on the principal purpose of the work, we respectfully request the Government re-designate the acquisition under NAICS 541512, Computer Systems Design Services ($34.0M size standard). The requirement is centered on agile software delivery, a JIRA-based sprint/story-point framework with "definition of done" verification (QASP), and expressly calls for cloud computing, artificial intelligence, cyber security, and DevSecOps services (PWS 1.1; SOO 1), governed by NIST SP 800-171 and DFARS 252.204-7012 (SOO 6.2). These are hallmarks of computer systems design rather than "all other" professional services. |
In the alternative, given the substantial systems engineering, modeling & simulation, and training-device/instrumentation content supporting CPE ST3's 370+ simulation, training, test, and threat products (PWS 1.3), the Government may consider NAICS 541330, Engineering Services, applying the appropriate higher size-standard exception. We request the Government confirm the NAICS code and corresponding size standard it intends to apply. Based on CPE ST3 requirements for professional advisory and subject‑matter expertise services that support the Program Offices in managing a diverse portfolio of training, test, and threat system acquisitions, the Government will continue to use NAICS 541990 – All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services for this acquisition.
3 Attachment 10 _ APS Pricing Workbook_9.18.2026, Proposals Summary Tab:
| Per ACC-APG's 2026 Technical Initiatives, will the Government please consider implementing a funded or unfunded Contractor Incentive to support Agile Transformation either through a Expedited Delivery/Performance CLIN or Innovation CLIN? This will allow Offerors to differentiate themselves by allowing them to present innovative commercial technologies and services, and at the same time, provide the Government with an actual contracting mechanism to acquire the innovation if chosen to do so pre-or-post award. In addition, a Contractor Incentive mechanism will also provide the Government the means of more easily evaluating which Offerors represents the best value to the Government during the Advisory Down-Select process. | No. Incentives are not authorized or allowed at this time. | |
| 4 | Attachment 3 _ 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services_9.18.202, (b) Phase I Evaluation, (c) Phase II Evaluation, and (d) Phase III Evaluation: |
Will the Government publish their forecasted number of anticipated "Compliant Offerors" who will successfully make it through the “Advisory Down-Select notification” for Phase I and Phase II (i.e. 1, 1-2, 1-3)? Doing so will assist potential Offerors in making informed business decisions on whether they want to choose to invest in competing prior to the Phase I and Phase II start/finish dates.
| No. The Government will not and can not forecast the number of anticipated compliant offerors who will be advised to withdraw their proposals, nor will the government forecast the number of anticipated compliant offerors who will actually withdraw their proposals on their own accord | |
| 5 | Attachment 3 _ 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services_9.18.202, (b) Phase I Evaluation, (c) Phase II Evaluation, and (d) Phase III Evaluation: |
| Will the Government consider placing a limit/cap on the number of deemed "Compliant" Offerors to no more than three (3) total after completion of the Phase II evaluation, and only those three Offerors will be eligible to submit final proposals for Phase III? | No, the Government is not conducting any limitation of Offerors allowed in each respective Phase, and there will be no "down-select". All Compliant Offers will be allowed to compete. | |
| 6 | Attachment 10 - APS Pricing Workbook, Base Period/Option Period Tabs, Hours Columns: |
| Attachment 10 (Pricing Workbook) contains pre-populated hour quantities by labor category, program office, and location, which drive the Total Evaluated Price used for award. But the workbook does not contain hours allocated to Change Management and Agile Implementation. Please confirm whether these hours represent (a) a Government estimate used solely to compute a comparable price for award purposes, or (b) an anticipated workload the Government intends to actually order? | All hours identified in the spreadsheet represent Government Estimates of anticipated workload, and are to be used for proposed price comparisons. Any additional Direct Charge hours expected/proposed by offerors for Agile Implementation, Change Management, or general Contract Management are to be added in Column "CI" (Agile Administration HRS) for "Contract Level Management, and may be added in Rows 11-15 for each Site as applicable to the Offeror's proposed performance methodology. | |
| 7 | Attachment 10 - APS Pricing Workbook, Base Period/Option Period Tabs, Hours Columns: |
The populated hour cells differ across period tabs in Attachment 10 (e.g., Option Period 2 reflects labor category/location combinations not populated in the Base Period). Please clarify whether Offerors must propose a fully burdened rate for every labor category/location combination populated in any period tab, or only those populated within each individual tab being priced. Separately, please confirm whether Offerors may or must propose rates for combinations currently showing zero/blank hours, to establish a rate in the event of future task instructions to that combination? See Updated Attachment 10 - APS Pricing Workbook Yes, Offerors are expected to provide a Labor Rate for each Labor Category and Location.
All proposed Rates will be incorporated into the resultant contract.
8 PWS Template, 9/17/26, §3.2 Facilities, p. 22 states that the Government will provide workspace for the Contractor but provides no quantity, allocation by location, or indication whether the space is dedicated, shared, or hoteling. This affects facilities planning, staffing assumptions, remote-work planning, and price. Please identify the anticipated number of Government-furnished workspaces /seats / computers available to APS contract personnel at each Government performance location and clarify whether those spaces will be dedicated, shared, or hoteling and whether each workspace includes a computer. See the following revised documents:
Attachment 1 - SOO Attachment 5 - PWS.
| 9 | As a small business, it is not economically feasible to have a Jira Data Center or robust Jira Cloud instance. Is it acceptable to utilize simplified base model version of Jira for the demonstration to show that we can use, administer, and demonstrate our capabilities. Additionally, will the data be provided by the government or will we be allowed to create fictitious sample data? | Any instance of JIRA is permissable provided the Offerors are able to meet the Cybersecurity Compliance Gate (SPRS score of 110) and are able to apply JIRA settings that allign to the Army DSO JIRA. The Army DSO settings and sample data set will be provided prior to Phase II Proposal Submission. |
| 10 | Attch 4a-i list SCA rates for all the states CPE ST3 currently has contractor support in but the solicitation doesn't clearly identify what LCATS are subject to SCA rates or if the offeror can only bid SCA rates for those positions. For purposes of ensuring consistent application of the Service Contract Labor Standards and preparation of proposed pricing, please identify which Government-provided labor categories are subject to the applicable Wage Determinations and, if applicable, the corresponding SCA occupational classifications. If offerors are responsible for determining the applicability of the Wage Determinations and mapping labor categories to SCA occupations, please confirm. | Offerors are responsible for determining the applicability of the Wage Determinations and mapping labor categories to SCA occupations. |
| 11 | PWS §1.5.6 identifies Redstone Arsenal as including 24/7/365 operations. In addition, the pricing template alludes to Orlando as also having 24/7/365 operations. Please clarify which APS functions, tasks, or labor categories require 24/7 support at Redstone Arsenal and provide the anticipated level and frequency of after-hours, weekend, and holiday coverage. | Redstone Arsenal is the only location that has 24/7/365 operations. Reference SOO (pg 7). |
- Uninterrupted administrative reception, security support and access control services at Stand Alone Facilities (SAFs) in Orlando, FL, and 24/7/365 security support and access control services at the TSMO SCIF facilities at Redstone Arsenal, AL (current contractor implementation staffs a minimum of 2 employees on-site 24/7, 4 during core hours to comply with SCIF regulations and laws).
12 Reference: SOO Objective 5.1 and Section 7.2; Instructions to Offerors, Volume 3; and the Current Level of Effort table in the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation. The government is asking for a shift to the Agile methodology. This shift requires personnel who are certified in the Agile transformation process in addition to personnel currently supporting the mission. To ensure the mission continues without degradation, this combination is essential. The current pricing model is based on a historical waterfall staffing model. The Current Level of Effort table does not include labor categories for Agile management and enablement roles (e.g., Scrum Master, Agile Coach, Jira/Confluence administrator, dashboard developer), yet the SOO requires sprint reporting, real-time dashboards, backlog management, and Agile coaching of Government personnel. May Offerors propose these as separate, directly billable labor categories through the LCAT Crosswalk and Pricing Workbook, with hours added to the Total Evaluated Price, or does the Government expect this effort to be performed within the listed hours or absorbed into indirect rates? If billable, recommend that the Government provide standard evaluation hours for these categories so all Offerors are priced on an equal basis.
Offerors may propose these Agile‑related roles as separately direct billable labor categories when such roles are required to successfully execute the Offeror’s Agile Implementation Plan. Proposed hours for these roles should be included in the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price. These hours should not be absorbed into indirect rates unless the Offeror determines that to be the most effective approach for its solution.
13 PWS §3.4 states that the Government will provide the Agile Management software system, currently Jira and Power BI. Will the contractor be granted sufficient access levels as well as user licenses for all contractor personnel requiring access? This includes the ability to configure workflows, dashboards, fields, reports or integrations required to implement the proposed Agile Management approach. Yes, the Government will provide sufficient user licenses and access levels within the Government‑furnished Agile Management tools (currently Jira and Power BI) to allow contractor personnel to perform all functions necessary to support the proposed Agile Management approach.
The Government‑provided environment is constrained by its existing Authority to Operate (ATO). As such, the Government’s Jira and Power BI instances cannot support external tools, third‑party software dependencies, or Jira add‑on features that are not already part of the Government’s approved and deployed environment. Offerors should ensure that their Agile Implementation Plan does not rely on external integrations or non‑ATO‑approved capabilities.
| 14 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation §4 identifies integration with Government tools and environments, including Jira and Cameo. In addition to Jira and Power BI identified in PWS §3.4, please identify other Government-provided software, licenses, systems, or environments APS contractor personnel are expected to use, including Cameo, and clarify which licenses the Government will furnish. | In addition to Jira and Power BI identified in the PWS, contractor personnel may be expected to use other Government‑provided systems and environments as part of normal contract execution. Additional examples include GFEBS, PMRT, and APMS. The Government will furnish the necessary user licenses and access levels for these systems to support the functions required under the contract. |
| 15 | Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offerors provides confusing and contradictory instructions around phases, volumes, and document requirements. For example, page 13 lists a requirement to include a Compliance Matrix that ties multiple documents together (e.g. the PWS to all sections of the SOO, the Agile Implementation Plan to the PWS, the orals presentation to the PWS, etc.); however, the Compliance Matrix is not listed on page 1 in the total list of documents to be included and, indeed, is not listed anywhere else in the RFP package to provide any indication as to which volume should contain the Compliance Matrix or how many pages it should be. As another example, page 2 states that the Phase I proposal must include Volume 4 - Administration with a Cover Letter and NAICS Size Standard Certification while further down on page 6 it states that the Phase III proposal must include Volume 4 - Administration with a NAICS Size Standard Re-Certification, Amendment Acknowledgements, Teaming Agreements, and Representations & Certifications to include Data Rights Certifications without any explanation of the difference between the Phase I NAICS Size Standard Certification and the Phase III NAICS Size Standard Re-certification. As another example, there are no instructions anywhere in the RFP package regarding file formats, naming conventions, e-mail size limits, or whether covers, tables of contents, and appendices count toward the stated page limits for any volumes or phases. To add to the confusion, volumes seem to be divided across phases (e.g. Volume 1 includes factors "a" through "g" that seem to be broken up such that Phase I includes factors 1.a/b/c, Phase II includes factors 1.d/e, and Phase III includes factors 1.f/g) with no indication whether each subsequent phase requires all previous volume elements to be included in the next phase submission or if each phase will merely include the same numbered volumes that happen to contain completely separate elements. Can you please provide clearer instructions around phases, volumes, and documents such that every required document is clearly denoted in a particular volume and instructions are provided as to how volumes should either build upon the previous phase's submission or start anew without regard to the same numbered volume submitted in an earlier phase? | See the following revised documents: |
Combined Synopsis Solicitation, Attachment 2 - 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors and Attachment 3 - 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria for noted revisions.
| 16 | Jira Hosting / Atlassian Government Cloud Requirement: For the Phase II live demonstration, please clarify whether the contractor-provided Jira environment is required to be hosted in Atlassian Government Cloud or another FedRAMP-authorized environment, or whether an Offeror may use Jira Cloud Commercial, a Jira trial/sandbox environment, or another contractor-controlled Jira environment, provided it can be configured to the Government's Phase II specifications and does not contain or retain controlled Government information. | Any instance of JIRA is permissable provided the Offerors are able to meet the Cybersecurity Compliance Gate (SPRS score of 110) and are able to apply JIRA settings that allign to the Army DSO JIRA. The Army DSO settings and sample data set will be provided prior to Phase II Proposal Submission. Both the DSO JIRA settings and sample data are Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). The Offeror's environment/sandbox must be authorized to process and store CUI. |
| 17 | The Instructions to Offerors states (on page 7) that "Offerors shall e-mail their final PowerPoint presentations (Part 1 and Part 2) to the PCO no later than 48 hours prior to the beginning of first scheduled presentation." Further down the Instructions to Offerors (on page 9) states that Part 1 - The Oral Presentation should include a 20-slide PowerPoint, but Part 2 - Jira Environment Technical Demonstration does not list any number of slides. Can you clarify what needs to be submitted for Part 2 - Jira Environment in advance of the on-site orals presentation? | See the following revised documents: |
Combined Synopsis Solicitation, Attachment 2 - 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors and Attachment 3 - 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria for noted revisions.
18 Timing of Phase II Configuration Specifications: How far in advance of the Phase II live demonstration will Offerors receive the Government-provided data, Jira configuration specifications, demonstration scenarios, and required workflows? Please also identify the anticipated amount of time Offerors will have between receipt of these materials and the mandatory configuration verification/live demonstration. See the following revised documents:
Combined Synopsis Solicitation, Attachment 2 - 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 3 - 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria for noted revisions, and Attachment 11 - Army DSO JIRA Settings.
19 Various documents (including Instructions to Offerors and Attachment 3 - Evaluation) indicate that Offerors invited to Phase II will receive Jira configuration/setting specifications and Government-provided data for the orals presentation and that the Government will conduct a mandatory Jira verification session to confirm environment compliance. How much time will offerors have between release of Government data/configuration specifications and the mandatory Jira verification session/oral presentation (in other words, time to build the specified environment), and what will be included in the environment compliance check (including whether a commercial Jira Cloud instance is acceptable for importing the Government-provided sample data, whether the Army DSO Jira Settings will specify the product edition and required plug-ins, and whether Offerors may use supplementary synthetic data if the Government-provided dataset and required configuration remain intact)? See the following revised documents:
Combined Synopsis Solicitation, Attachment 2 - 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 3 - 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria for noted revisions, and Attachment 11 - Army DSO JIRA Settings.
20 Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offerors (FAR 52.212-1), QASP Instructions items 3 and 4 instructs Offerors to establish a QASP AQL requiring vacated positions to be backfilled within 14 calendar days and a financial accuracy AQL of 100% on monthly Consolidated Cost Reports. Attachment 3 - Evaluation (FAR 52.212-2), Subfactor 1.f QASP Evaluation Criteria rates the QASP Acceptable with a backfill AQL of 30 calendar days and a financial accuracy AQL of 95%. Which thresholds will the Government apply when evaluating Subfactor 1.f (100% accuracy within 14 days or 95% accuracy within 30 days) and will the Government amend the solicitation so the two attachments are consistent?
See the following revised documents:
Attachment 2 - 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors 21 PWS §3.4 provides Government-managed laptops and Army 365 licenses, and PWS §1.5.6 permits remote performance. Please clarify whether Government-managed laptops will support authorized remote access to Government systems necessary for APS contractor performance and identify any categories of APS work that may not be performed remotely because of security, system-access, or mission restrictions. See the following revised documents:
Attachment 1 - SOO Agile Professional Services Attachment 5 - PWS Template Agile Professional Services
| 22 | Attachment 1 - SOO Objectives 5.1 and 5.4 call for real-time dashboards and automation of tasks using Department of War/Army tools when able. Does the Government already have an accredited automation or AI-assisted capability that Offerors should plan around for these functions? | The Government‑provided environment is constrained by its existing Authority to Operate (ATO). As such, the Government’s Jira and Power BI instances cannot support external tools, third‑party software dependencies, or Jira add‑on features that are not already part of the Government’s approved and deployed environment. Offerors should ensure that their Agile Implementation Plan does not rely on external integrations or non‑ATO‑approved capabilities. The Army DSO JIRA settings that describe the Government instance will be released to Offerors prior to Phase II, provided that the Cybersecurity Compliance Gate (SPRS score of 110) is met |
| 23 | The SOO identifies a 60-to-90-day Transition-In phase and a Full Performance Start, while the initial six months focus on transition, testing the proposed business process, and finalizing the implementation plan. The language reviewed does not establish a specific staffing or incumbent-transition percentage required by Full Performance Start. Please clarify whether the Government expects the Contractor to achieve a specified percentage of required staffing or incumbent transition by Full Performance Start and, if so, provide the required threshold. | The Government does not prescribe a specific percentage of staffing or incumbent transition that must be achieved by Full Performance Start. However, at Full Performance Start the Offeror is expected to have the necessary staffing, qualifications, and organizational structure in place to assume full support and execution of the complex training, testing, and threat acquisition portfolio described in the SOO. This includes having sufficient personnel onboard and fully prepared to carry out all required functions without disruption to ongoing Government activities. |
| 24 | Government Data and Cybersecurity Requirements for the Contractor Jira Environment: What classification, CUI status, sensitivity, or other handling restrictions will apply to the Government-provided data used during Phase II demonstration? Please identify any cybersecurity, FedRAMP, NIST SP 800-171, CMMC, data-residency, access-control, authentication, or environment-specific requirements that the contractor-provided Jira environment must satisfy for the Phase II demonstration. | No response provided as questions were submitted as a "batch", in contradiction to the instructions provided to all prospective Offerors in Section 9.i of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation. |
| 25 | Phase II Environment Verification and Internet Connectivity: Please describe the mandatory Jira configuration-verification process that will occur before the Phase II demonstration, including the items the Government will verify and whether Offerors will have an opportunity to correct configuration discrepancies before evaluation. If not, please clarify whether vendors/offerors will be able to bring our own hot spots into the environment and will the government ensure the demonstration location is conducive to commercially available WiFi devices. | The Army DSO settings will be released prior to Phase II Proposal Submission and after verification of the Cybersecurity Compliance Gate (SPRS score of 110) |
The Government will ensure the demonstration location is conducive to commercially available WiFi devices.
| 26 | Phase II Jira Products and Licensing: Please identify which Atlassian products, applications, and capabilities Offerors will be required to configure and demonstrate during Phase II (e.g., Jira, Jira Service Management, Confluence, Assets, dashboards, automation, reporting, or other applications), including any required product editions, applications, plug-ins, integrations, or licensing levels. | The Army DSO settings will be released prior to Phase II Proposal Submission and after verification of the Cybersecurity Compliance Gate (SPRS score of 110). Demonstration should rely on the native capabilities of Jira Data Center. |
| 27 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, 9/18/26, §4 Description of Requirement, p. 3; PWS §1.5.6 Place of Performance, p. 6. Both documents state that work will be performed at Government facilities, Contractor facilities, and remote locations, but neither establishes percentages, FTE quantities, hours, or minimum on-site presence for the three performance modes. Please clarify whether the Government has minimum on-site staffing expectations by organization or performance location, or whether the Contractor may determine the appropriate mix of Government-site, Contractor-site, and remote performance based on mission requirements and Government direction. |
See the following revised documents:
Attachment 1 - SOO Attachment 5 - PWS.
| 28 | How many Scrum Masters are currently supporting CPE ST3 and are there RTE, Solutions Architect, STE, and Agile Coaches currently performing dual-hatted functions the team? | Offerors should propose their Agile manning method that best aligns with the proposed solution. |
| 29 | The SOO describes a single Government-provided Jira environment as the single source of information, with real-time dashboards across all directorates. Because some APS work will occur in classified and closed environments (e.g., SIPRNet, JWICS/SCIF spaces, stand-alone simulation or test labs), please clarify: which network environments contractor personnel will be expected to perform and track work in, and whether the Agile Management team will have administrative rights in Jira and Power BI to make changes in the Jira environment for ST3 Projects. | Currently, only Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) program and project efforts are being tracked within the NIPR‑based Jira environment. Although integration of classified or closed‑network Agile workflows is within scope, no SIPRNet or JWICS program or project tasks are presently tracked in Jira. |
The Offeror will initiate contract performance within the NIPR Jira environment, consistent with current ST3 Agile practices. Work executed in classified or closed environments (including SIPRNet, JWICS, and SCIF spaces) will continue to follow the applicable classified‑network processes. Future integration of Agile workflows for classified or closed environments could occur during the performance of this contract and will be contingent on the successful rollout and performance of the Offeror’s Agile Implementation Plan within the NIPR environment.
The Offeror will be provided the necessary administrative permissions in Jira and Power BI to modify Agile boards, workflows, dashboards, and reporting elements for ST3 projects within the NIPR instance.
30 Page 6 of the Instructions to Offerors states that Offerors must identify "up to five (5) participants proposed to attend the in-person Phase II session in Orlando, FL" as part of the Phase I submission. However, on page 7 of the same document, it states that "identification of all attendees... shall be identified to the Government points of contact (POCs) via email by the Phase II submission due date." Can you clarify whether the Phase II oral presentation attendees must be identified in the Phase I response or by the Phase II submission due date? See the following revised documents:
Combined Synopsis Solicitation, Attachment 2 - 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors and Attachment 3 - 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria for noted revisions.
| 31 | Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offerors and Attachment 3 - Evaluation both discuss requirements for the identified Key Personnel (the Agile Program Manager). The instructions state that the Key Personnel's "resume must clearly demonstrate that the proposed individual meets or exceeds the required education, certifications, and technical experience necessary…" However, details sufficient to clearly demonstrate compliance are not provided. For example, there are no education requirements listed anywhere in the RFP package and certifications are only described as needing to be a “current, recognized advanced Agile-specific credential” without any details of what supporting evidence might be. Can you provide complete requirements for the Agile Program Manager including education, certifications, and supporting evidence necessary for all such requirements? | Reference attachment 2 - Instructions to Offeror - Key Personnel |
| 32 | The Combined Synopsis/Solicitation identifies this project as a Labor-Hour contract, but Subfactor 1.f says the QASP metrics have to measure outcomes and workflow efficiency instead of hours billed. Are hours being reported for invoicing and administration only, or will they also be used in performance surveillance? | The current approach uses labor hours to support invoicing and general contract administration. At the same time, workflow‑efficiency measurements for outcome‑focused tasks are aligned to a sizing convention in which one story point equals one labor hour. |
While hours will continue to be reported for invoicing and administrative purposes, performance surveillance will increasingly rely on the outcome‑based sizing and velocity measures defined in the offeror’s proposed methodology, rather than solely on hourly story points.
| 33 | The LOE table shows about 9,600 hours a year for Agile functions and Program Management, supporting roughly 200 FTE across six domains. Is that the Government's expected steady-state level for that function, or a planning placeholder Offerors should size based on their proposed model? | Offerors should propose their Agile manning method that best aligns with the proposed solution. |
| 34 | The SOO describes the current one-hour user-story increment model for sizing work. Does the Government want Offerors to propose a sizing method that replaces that model, or one that runs alongside it during transition? | Reference Attachment 1 - SOO, Objective 5.1 |
"The contractor proposes, implements, and maintains a standardized and transparent workload-sizing methodology that complements the existing one-hour user-story increment model and provides an additional sizing technique that enables more accurate resource estimation, performance measurement, and forecasting of delivery velocity."
35 Attachment 2-ITO, Pre-Demonstration Activities, Steps 2–3 Attachment 3-Evaulation, (c) Mandatory Verification Session
At the Jira verification session, will Vendor's environment still be rated compliant if it includes everything the Government specifies plus our own additions? Examples include custom fields, dashboards, automation rules, third-party apps from the Atlassian Marketplace (add-ons), and sample personnel and skills data we need to demonstrate the Talent Pool (Subfactor 1.e). The Army DSO settings will be released prior to Phase II Proposal Submission and after verification of the Cybersecurity Compliance Gate (SPRS score of 110). Demonstration should rely on the native capabilities of Jira Data Center.
The Government‑provided environment is constrained by its existing Authority to Operate (ATO). As such, the Government’s Jira and Power BI instances cannot support external tools, third‑party software dependencies, or Jira add‑on features that are not already part of the Government’s approved and deployed environment. Offerors should ensure that their Agile Implementation Plan does not rely on external integrations or non‑ATO‑approved capabilities.
36 Attachment 10-Workbook, OCONUS Rate Columns (TRADE-Germany, TSO-Germany, TSO-South Korea)
| Attachment 10 provides distinct rate columns for OCONUS locations (e.g., TRADE-Germany, TSO-Germany, TSO-South Korea) but no separate line item or reference methodology for OCONUS premiums, cost-of-living differentials, or hardship/danger pay. Please confirm whether Offerors are expected to incorporate any such premiums directly into the all-in rate proposed for each OCONUS column, and whether the Government has a preferred or required methodology (e.g., DSSR-based) for calculating them. | All labor and labor related costs should be contained in the respective Rates and Burdens. All travel related costs will be chargable under the Cost Reimbursable Travel CLIN(s). | |
| 37 | Attachment 7 - Clauses and Provisions |
Clauses 252.204-7021 and 252.204-7025 in Attachment 7 contain an unfilled Contracting Officer insert for the required CMMC level (currently shown as a placeholder). Please confirm the specific CMMC level required prior to award, as this affects both compliance cost and staffing timeline. CMMC Level 2
Attachment 3 _ 52.212-2, Subfactor 1.c - Cybersecurity Compliance Gate:
"To pass this entry gate and be eligible to receive the Government-provided data and Jira configuration/setting specifications, the Offeror and their affiliates must have a self-certified NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 assessment score of 110 (the maximum score indicating full implementation of all 110 security controls) active and posted in the DoD Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) as of the Phase II entry date."
38 APS - Combined Synopsis Solicitation, Phase I and II Evaluation/Downselect
The solicitation states that Offerors rated Unacceptable on Phase I or Phase II elements (other than the cybersecurity gate) will be advised that they are "unlikely to be a viable competitor" but may nonetheless choose to proceed. Please confirm whether an Offeror who proceeds after receiving such a recommendation is evaluated on the same basis as any other Offeror in subsequent phases, or whether the prior rating carries forward in any way. See the following revised documents:
Combined Synopsis Solicitation, Attachment 2 - 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors and Attachment 3 - 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria for noted revisions.
39 Attachment 1-SOO, Place of Performance Attachment 5-PWS Template, 1.5.6 Attachment 10-Workbook
SOO section 4.2 and PWS paragraph 1.5.6 state that work will be performed at Government facilities, Contractor facilities, and remote locations. The Pricing Workbook places every Government-provided hour at a named Government site. SOO section 4.2 also lists the Army installations themselves as "remote sites." May an Offeror propose that part of its workforce perform from contractor facilities, or from employee locations away from the named sites? If so, how should those hours and labor rates be entered in the Pricing Workbook?
See the following revised documents:
Attachment 1 - SOO Attachment 5 - PWS.
40 "Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 2, Section 1- Please confirm whether the Phase I white paper must demonstrate traceability to the SOO performance objectives, or whether SOO traceability will only be evaluated in Phase III through the proposed PWS and QASP."
Yes, tracebale in Phase 1 and Phase 3 See updated Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offeror 41 "Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 2, Section 3- Please confirm that the Jira Demostration will use Jira Cloud, not Jira Data Center. These licenses are nearing End of Life and are not available to new customers after March 2026."
| Any instance of JIRA is permissable provided the Offerors are able to meet the Cybersecurity Compliance Gate and are able to apply JIRA settings that allign to the Army DSO JIRA, the settings will be provided prior to Phase II Proposal Submission. Demonstration should be equivalent to the native capabilities in Jira Data Center. | |
| 42 | "Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 2, Section 1- |
Please confirm font size 11 Times New Roman for narrative font, and font size 10 for graphics and tables is acceptable for Phase I responses. "
| See revised Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offerors for formatting standards. | |
| 43 | "Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 2, pg. 2- |
Please confirm that Tables of Content/Figures and Acronym Lists are not included in page limitations. "
| See revised Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offerors for formatting standards. | |
| 44 | "Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 2, pg 2- |
What is the maximum size per email the Government's system will accept (e.g.,, 10 megabytes)? If a submission exceeds it, may we split it across multiple sequentially numbered emails?"
| No limit. If it cannot be emailed the instructions should state that they can use DoD Safe. | |
| 45 | Question 1 |
The Agile Implementation Plan requires Offerors to collaborate with Government Product Owners on backlog prioritization, workload sizing, and capacity allocation. For planning purposes, does the Government anticipate assigning Product Owners at the PM/PL level, the individual Directorate level, or at another organizational level within the APS operating model?
Question 2 The SOO emphasizes transitioning from a traditional personnel-based support model to an outcome-focused enterprise capacity model. Beyond sprint velocity, cycle time, and backlog management, are there specific Government-prioritized Agile adoption metrics or enterprise transformation outcomes that Offerors should consider when developing their Agile Implementation Plans?
Question 3 The solicitation requires Offerors to propose an Agile Program Manager (APM) as Key Personnel; however, the Government pricing workbook does not appear to contain a corresponding Agile Program Manager labor category. Please clarify whether the proposed APM is expected to be priced as a direct billable labor category, mapped to an existing Government labor category within the pricing workbook, or treated as indirect contract management overhead.
Question 4 The SOO references the current one-hour user-story increment model while encouraging Offerors to propose an enhanced workload-sizing methodology. Does the Government intend for Offerors to maintain the existing one-hour model as the baseline measurement framework, or may Offerors propose alternative Agile estimation techniques provided traceability, forecasting, and reporting requirements are maintained?
Question 5
| Please clarify how the Government will assess the Facility Clearance requirement for Joint Venture Offerors. Specifically, must the Joint Venture legal entity possess the required Top Secret Facility Clearance, or may the requirement be satisfied through a Joint Venture member that possesses the required clearance and will perform the applicable security-related functions? | No response provided as questions were submitted as a "batch", in contradiction to the instructions provided to all prospective Offerors in Section 9.i of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation. | ||
| 46 | Please confirm whether the labor-hour quantities contained in Attachment 10, APS Pricing Workbook, represent the Government's anticipated workload by labor category and location, or whether the quantities are provided solely for price-evaluation purposes? | All hours identified in the spreadsheet represent Government Estimates of anticipated workload, and are to be used for price evaluation purposes. These hours are not guaranteed but they represent the current estimates of the Government. Offerors should propose their Agile manning method that best aligns with the proposed solution. | |
| 47 | For the Estimated Workload Data attachment in the offeror-developed PWS, should offerors use the labor quantities contained in the Government-provided APS Pricing Workbook, or develop estimated workload quantities based on their proposed Agile enterprise capacity model? | All hours identified in the APS Pricing Workbook represent Government Estimates of anticipated workload, and are to be used for proposed price evaluation purposes | |
| 48 | Will the Government provide an incumbent staffing baseline identifying, at a minimum, labor category or functional area, duty location, clearance level, and current organizational/program assignment to support development of the required transition and incumbent workforce capture strategy? | The Combined Synopsis Solication (page 4) provided the current level of effort data, any Agile Adminstration is not included (Offerors will propose and include in Attachment 10). Offerors should propose a staffing baseline that best aligns with the proposed solution. | |
| 49 | Please confirm whether the post-award production Jira environment used for APS backlog, capacity, workflow, dashboard, and performance management will be Government-provided or contractor-provided. If contractor-provided, please clarify how Jira licensing, hosting, administration, cybersecurity, backup, and related costs should be priced? | Government Provided | |
| 50 | Please clarify whether CONUS and OCONUS travel, including transportation, lodging, per diem, visas, country clearances, deployment processing, and other authorized travel-related costs, will be reimbursed separately from labor-hour pricing or must be incorporated into the offeror's fully burdened hourly rates. Please identify any applicable travel/ODC CLIN or ceiling? | All travel and JTR compliant costs will be reimbursed at Cost-Only. Offerors are NOT required to propose this cost element as the Government is utilizing "plug numbers" for this cost element. Please see APS Pricing Workbook Proposal Summary for Government estimates. | |
| 51 | File Name: Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 |
Section: SOO Section 4.2, Place of Performance; Subfactor 1.b, Key Personnel Question: Please identify the required duty location for the Agile Program Manager and clarify whether this position requires full-time on-site support or permits a hybrid or remote arrangement with travel as needed.
These decisions are up to the offeror to determine in alignment with their Agile Implementation Plan.
52 File Name: Attachments 1, 2, and 3 Section: SOO Objective 5.1 and Operating Constraints; Subfactor 1.a, Agile Implementation Plan
| Question: The solicitation requires the contractor to secure compliance from Government team members and dynamically reallocate resources across program offices, while the SOO reserves decision-making authority to CPE ST3. Please identify the Government authority and escalation process that will support the contractor in resolving competing backlog priorities, approving cross-office resource shifts, and addressing Government nonparticipation in the agreed Agile processes. | Offerors should propose their process with the understanding that Government sets priority and is the decision-making authority. | |
| 53 | File Name: Attachments 1, 2, and 10 |
Section: SOO Objective 5.1; Fully Burdened Labor Rate Schedule; Base Period and Option Period Tabs Question: Please clarify how the fixed hourly pricing structure will operate under the Agile capacity model. Specifically, do Attachment 10’s labor quantities establish required staffing allocations by labor category, office, and location, or are they evaluation estimates that permit approved reallocation during performance, with payment based on actual authorized hours worked? If payment will instead be based on reserved capacity or completed outcomes, please identify the payment basis.
All hours identified in the spreadsheet represent Government Estimates of anticipated workload, and are to be used for price evaluation purposes. These hours are not guaranteed but they represent the current best estimates of the Government. Payment will be based on actual hours worked.
54 File Name: Attachments 1, 2, and 3 Section: SOO Objective 5.1; Subfactor 1.a, Agile Implementation Plan
| Question: To help offerors develop an actionable Agile Implementation Plan, please describe the current maturity of Agile practices across CPE ST3 and the principal barriers encountered in prior efforts to share resources and prioritize work across program offices. What existing processes and practices must the proposed solution retain? | The offeror should propose its Agile Implementation plan. The Government does not intend to share its assessment of the maturity of the current approach or barriers being encountered." | |
| 55 | File Name: Attachments 2 and 3 |
Section: Subfactor 1.a, Manpower Resource Efficiency and Commercial Business Model Application
| Question: Please clarify the results CPE ST3 will prioritize when evaluating whether proposed resource efficiencies provide a tangible, measurable benefit. Is the primary objective to reduce total labor cost, increase mission output within the same funded capacity, shorten response and delivery times, or achieve a combination of these outcomes? Please identify any established performance baselines or improvement targets offerors should use. | The government is evaluting the elements as stated in the RFP and attachments. The Government is not evaluating other areas or looking for other obectives. | ||
| 56 | Subfactor 1.c requires submission of a one-page Compliance Statement and states that Offerors must provide "documentation/CAGE code" confirming an active SPRS score of 110. Is identification of the applicable CAGE code(s) within the Compliance Statement sufficient, or does the Government expect Offerors to include SPRS screenshots or other supporting documentation for the Prime and applicable teammates/subcontractors? | The Government will verify the Offeror’s cybersecurity compliance rating in Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). The Government will use the CAGE code within the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). This is requirement is also applicable to teammates/subcontractors | |
| 57 | Section 52.212-1 requires a "NAICS Size Standard Certification" in Phase I and a "NAICS Size Standard Re-Certification" in Phase III. To ensure compliance, please clarify the Government's expectations for the Phase III re-certification, including the required content, format, and any supporting documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance. | See the following revised documents: |
Combined Synopsis Solicitation, Attachment 2 - 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors and Attachment 3 - 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria for noted revisions.
| 58 | The APS acquisition emphasizes an outcome-driven Agile delivery framework, enterprise transformation, and measurable mission outcomes. Given the potential for meaningful differences in the quality, maturity, and effectiveness of proposed approaches, will the Government consider revising the evaluation methodology from selection of the Offeror with the "lowest Total Evaluated Price" among proposals rated Acceptable under the non-price factors to a best-value tradeoff approach that allows the Government to assess which solution provides the greatest overall value in achieving the desired outcomes of the APS program? | No, the evaluation methodology will remain unchanged. |
| 59 | Attachment 2, Instructions to Offerors, requires the QASP to establish an AQL requiring vacant positions to be backfilled within 14 calendar days, while Attachment 3, Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, identifies an Acceptable rating as requiring backfill within 30 calendar days. Will the Government please clarify the required timeframe to backfill vacant positions? | See the following revised documents: |
Attachment 2 - 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors
| 60 | The draft solicitation included a price realism provision stating that pricing more than 20% below the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) may trigger additional scrutiny. Given the APS requirement for highly skilled personnel, workforce retention, rapid backfill, and sustained mission performance, will the Government consider reinstating the draft 20% below-IGE price realism threshold to help ensure proposed pricing is realistic and capable of supporting successful contract execution? | No, price realism analysis will be conducted in accordance with law/regulation. |
| 61 | System ownership during performance: Does the awarded contractor use the Government-provided Jira and Power BI system described in Attachment 5, or must it provide and maintain its own Jira and dashboard environment during contract performance? | Awarded contractor must use the Government provided JIRA and Power BI. |
| 62 | Conflicting QASP numbers: When the numerical QASP standards in Attachment 2 conflict with those in Attachment 3, including the vacancy-backfill and monthly financial-accuracy thresholds, which attachment controls the proposed QASP? | See the following revised documents: |
Attachment 2 - 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors
| 63 | Payment basis: Under the stated labor-hours contract type, will payment for otherwise allowable, verified labor hours depend on completion of Government-approved Jira tickets or achievement of sprint-velocity thresholds described in the QASP template? | All allowable, allocable, and reasonable, and verified hours related to PWS performance scope will be billable. |
| 64 | Does the government intend to provide GFE (Government furnished equipment) for remote and contractor facility work locations? | GFE (Government furnished equipment) will be provided for APS direct billed contract personnel. |
| 65 | What Wage Determination sheet should we use for pricing for labor hours for Germany and S. Korea? | Wage Determinations are only applicable to work performed within the United States |
| 66 | Reference Attachment 3 (52.212-2), Subfactor 1.c. The gate requires a self-certified NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 assessment score of 110 posted in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), and states the Government will verify the rating in SPRS. Given that a self-attested Basic assessment carries a lower confidence level than an independent CMMC certification issued by an authorized Third-Party Assessment Organization (C3PAO), will the Government give evaluation consideration to Offerors holding a C3PAO certification, and what measures will the Government apply, before or after award, to confirm that self-certified scores accurately reflect implementation? | No. The Government will verify the Offeror’s cybersecurity compliance rating in Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). This indicates that the Government will use the CAGE code within the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). |
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 .