Dist B - Industry Day QA Public Access.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Agile Professional Services _CPE ST3 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-26-ST3-Professional-Services
About this file
This file is an Industry Day Questions and Answers document for the CPE ST3 Professional Services acquisition, addressing concerns raised by industry participants regarding the Government's approach to staffing, pricing, evaluation methodology, and contract structure.
The Government is pursuing an Agile-focused acquisition strategy under the Army Open Solicitation (AOS) with a Commercial Solutions Offering (CSO), anticipated to issue a draft solicitation in June 2026 and final solicitation in July 2026, with target award in October/November 2026 and a 2-4 month transition period. Two separate, fixed-price Prototype OTAs under 10 U.S.C. 4022 will be awarded to two different small business offerors—one for Engineering/Acquisition Support and one for CPE Staff/HQ Support—with no offeror eligible to win both awards due to organizational conflict of interest (OCI) restrictions. The Government will not establish mandated pricing ranges or pursue unrestricted competition, declining alternative acquisition vehicles including MAPS, RS3, and OASIS+. Key personnel requirements are pending determination, though the Agile Program Manager must serve as a single integrated role combining program leadership with Agile implementation responsibilities; alternative Agile frameworks (LeSS, DA, Scrum@Scale) are acceptable alongside SAFe. The Government will release draft RFP sections, Performance Work Statement, and sample task order scenarios for evaluation purposes, provide Government-furnished tools (Jira, Confluence), conduct a 90-day overlap with the incumbent OST bridge contract (W900KK-26-F-A025), and evaluate offerors on technical approach and past performance rather than price as a primary factor. Offerors must propose their own staffing plans, value stream structures, and PWS, with flexibility regarding on-site, hybrid, or remote delivery models; the Government will maintain backlog prioritization and Product Owner responsibilities in a hybrid model with contractor recommendations.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| DRAFT PWS Template Agile professional Services 20260729.docx | DOCX document | |
| DRAFT QASP Template Agile Professional Services 20260729.docx | DOCX document | |
| SOO_Agile_Professional_Services (Draft for Release) Final.pdf | ||
| APS _ Combined Synopsis Solicitation _ DRAFT POSTING.docx | DOCX document | |
| 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.docx | DOCX document | |
| 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.docx | DOCX document | |
| Agile Professional Services _ APS _ Questions and Answers as of 07.09.2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| DRAFT - Call for Solutions under AOS-CSO _ 15 June 2026 1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 250505 Dist A - Agile Professional Services Industry Day.pdf | ||
| PWS-2025-032_Vol 1 CASTT and Vol 2 HQ _Distribution A.pdf | ||
| DRAFT PWS Agile Professional Services.pdf |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| QUESTION DETAIL | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE |
| What is ACC-Orlando's approach to mitigating staffing risks brought about by unreasonably low pricing? | The Government is aware of this concern, and is working on fair opportunity evaluation criteria solution. |
| Following #1, has ACC-Orlando considered establishing a mandated pricing range for CPE ST3? | No, this is not an acquisition strategy currently under consideration. |
| Following #2 has the Government considered how it will evaluate vendors on staffing and pricing in the final RFQ? | The Government concurs and is currently anticipating two scenario based sample tasks as a part of the evaluation methodology, though the distribution of work has yet to be finalized. |
| Is the Government contemplating a single award BPA? | No, an award utilizing a GWAC is the primary acquisition strategy while Army Open Solicitation (AOS) is an alternative. |
| Has the Government considered how it will evaluate vendors in the Professional Services RFQ? | The Government is working on fair opportunity evaluation criteria methodology, but nothing is finalized at this time. |
| Is this a brand new contract or is there an incumbent currently performing these services? If there is an incumbent, what is the current contract number? | The incumbant (OST) is currently under a Bridge contract W900KK-26-F-A025 |
| Will the Government be releasing any additional artifacts (e.g., draft CDRLs, labor category descriptions, or technical environment details) before the RFP to help industry better align capabilities with the anticipated task orders? | Yes, the Government anticipates release of a draft RFP, Performance Work Statement, and additional documents prior to issuing a final RFP. A date for the draft RFP has not been set. |
| The notice references the possibility of awarding two separate task orders (Engineering/Acquisition Support and CPE Staff Support). Does the Government anticipate allowing offerors to propose on one or both, or will a single awardee be required to cover the full scope? | In order to mitigate any potential OCI issues within Agile Support Services Program, it is envisioned that Offerors will only be allowed to submit Offers for one (1) of the two (2) Task Orders. |
| For planning purposes, can the Government confirm whether any positions under this requirement will necessitate existing personnel clearances, or if interim clearances will be acceptable at the time of award? | Personnel need to be cleared at the appropriate level for access to information. There is no issue with interim if there is no impact to accessing information required to complete assigned tasks. |
| Could you confirm whether the Government anticipates a requirement for 100% on‑site support at the CPE ST3 offices, or if a hybrid/remote Agile delivery model will be considered for specialized technical roles? | The Government does not intend to provide guidance, or preference, on the staffing plans related to Offeror performance methodologies. The Government understands that some specialized technical roles may not be available in the immediate area. All options (on-site, centralized staffing, or hybrid, etc.) are available to Offerors. |
| To ensure the highest level of interoperability and mitigate high overhead costs for small business partners, does the Government intend to provide Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), virtual desktop infrastructure, or direct access to Army-managed cloud environments—such as cARMY or the Army Software Factory—for the execution of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) in Cameo/SysML and the management of DevSecOps pipelines? | The Government will make available tools and resources such as Jira and Confluence. The Government will consider recommendations for additional tools required for performance of this effort. |
| Will Agile teams be structured as persistent capability elements across task orders? | That is a determination to be made, Offerors are expected to propose a draft PWS along with their proposed solution that will assert the proposed execution methodology, under a commercial solution offering, under the Army Open Solicitation. How offerors arrive at and supply the identified service level to the Government is a proprietary element of their respective proposed solution methodologies. |
| Is the Govenrment considering a small business set-aside (SDVOSB or partial)? | Yes, the resultant solcitation ("Call for Solutions") will be set-aside for small businesses. |
| Will rapid prototyping and additive manufacturing systems (includiing UAS and simulation assets) be included withing scope? | No |
| Are there considerations for OTA or hybrid acquisition pathways to support rapid capability insertion? | The Government currently anticipates issuance of a Call for Solutions under that Army Open Solicitation, with a particular vision towards issuance of a Prototype OTA (10 U.S.C. 4022) for the development and demonstration of Agile Business Processes. |
| I know that MAPS is an option for the Government to utilize for this contract. Will which domain you intend to use be discussed at Industry Day? Of the 5 domains, it seems like 4 of the domain descriptions include scope that is included in the ST3 Professional Services PWS. | MAPS will not be used. Due to the changes in many areas of Agile and the need for process and business practice development, this requirement will be solicited via a Commercial Solutions Offering under the Army Open Solicitation. |
| Given that the Government has articulated a desire for a “task-based, outcome-focused, capability-centric” Agile program management approach, would the Government clarify its deconfliction procedures for prioritizing and reprioritizing billable hours when capacity, funding, schedule, or specialized resources are insufficient to deliver all tasks and outcomes across the organization within a given period of performance? | This will be provided in the Draft RFP stage, where the current PWS will be provided, however offerors will be required to draft their own proposed PWS under the Call for Solutions. |
| Would the Government clarify the OCI notice in PWS Section 1.3.2(a), which states: “The Contracting Officer has determined that the Commercial Acquisition of Services for Testing and Training contract award will create a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) in the future competition for any CPE STRI or ACC-Orlando requirement other than a follow-on action related to this effort (i.e., SETA III or its replacement).” Specifically, would the Government provide additional clarity regarding the scope of “any CPE STRI or ACC-Orlando requirement”? For example, is the Government referring to any requirement for which CPE STRI manages execution, or only to requirements directly related to the programs, products, or acquisition activities supported under this effort? | This PWS will be replaced in its entirety, by an Offeror drafted and negotitated PWS to be finalized through the Call for Solutions process. The OCI issues remain between the HQ Scope and the balance of Scope, which is why we note elsewhere that no offeror can be awarded BOTH awards, and that seperate and distinct awards will be made for each of these scopes. |
| PWS Section 3.2.1 states that the contractor shall “Establish and maintain a Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) or equivalent methodology for managing all tasks and present it to the Government within 30 days.” Would the Government clarify whether the requirement is funded and structured to support the additional programmatic overhead typically associated with operating a SAFe or equivalent enterprise Agile construct at the scale of the CPE ST3 Professional Services requirement, including roles such as Agile Coach, Scrum Masters, and other programmatic support staff? | If a FP contract structure is pursued, no specific CLIN will be included to cover such costs. All such costs would be expected to be covered by the proposal for FP provision of the Performance Based Services. |
As as awards made via the Army Open Solicitation are required to be Fixed Price, the proposed Solution will need to account for all costs associated with the proposed performance solution.
| PWS Section 3.2.1 states that the contractor shall “Establish and maintain a Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) or equivalent methodology for managing all tasks.” Has the Government identified and dedicated Government personnel to support product ownership and enterprise-wide Agile execution, including Product Owners, decision authorities, and recurring stakeholder participation for sprint planning, backlog prioritization, sprint reviews, and retrospectives? | Yes, "positions" have been identified to cover these responsibilities, though the named parties may change over time. |
| PWS Section 3.2.1 states that the contractor shall “Establish and maintain a Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) or equivalent methodology for managing all tasks.” However, the PWS describes a wide variety of work, some of which may not align well to a sprint-based or SAFe-based approach. Would the Government clarify its expectations for a “SAFe or equivalent methodology,” particularly given that CPE ST3 outputs to the Army and mission partners are varied and must remain highly flexible? | The expectation is to support the Government's objectives to deliver value faster, maintain a sustainable pace for the team, and ensure that the service evolves based on real-world feedback. |
| Regarding PWS Section 3.2.2, “Agile Team Structure,” the contractor is assigned responsibility to “Organize teams aligned to value streams proposed by the contractor and agreed to by the Government” and to “Establish roles and responsibilities for each Agile Team.” Would the Government clarify the contractor’s level of control over staffing and day-to-day management of Agile teams? Specifically, will contractor personnel execute against a Government-approved prioritized backlog within sprint boundaries, or will the Government directly manage contractor staff tasking within and/or outside the boundaries of a sprint? | Under this Performance Based/Development OTA, the contractor will be responsible for all staffing decisions and employee activity, where the Government will be responsible for coordinating Backlog and Sprint work products, in accordance with the forthcoming/negotiated PWS revision. |
| In PWS Section 3.2.8, “Key Personnel (Agile Program Manager),” the Government describes a key personnel Program Manager role focused heavily on experience with Agile implementations. As written, the role appears to combine enterprise Agile implementation responsibilities with overall program leadership responsibilities for a large, complex requirement. Since the duties of a Program Manager for an effort of this size will include cost, schedule, performance, staffing, contract execution, and customer management, would the Government consider separating Agile process implementation responsibilities into an Agile Coach or similar role, distinct from the Program Manager? | The Government recognizes the complexity and importance of effective leadership in Agile professional services delivery, particularly for large-scale efforts. |
Based on lessons learned from prior contract performance, including the current bridge effort, the Government has determined that separating Agile process implementation from overall program management responsibilities is not conducive to successful Agile delivery. In practice, dividing these roles has resulted in misalignment, confusion, and a lack of accountability for Agile outcomes. Specifically, when Agile implementation is treated as a distinct function from program leadership, the result has been a traditional program management approach that does not fully embrace or execute Agile principles.
For this requirement, the Government is seeking a Program Manager who is not only experienced in Agile methodologies but is also capable of integrating Agile principles into all aspects of program leadership—cost, schedule, performance, staffing, contract execution, and customer engagement. The intent is to ensure that Agile is embedded in the program’s DNA, rather than being an adjunct or secondary responsibility.
While we appreciate the industry’s perspective and understand the rationale for proposing an Agile Coach or similar role, our experience has shown that this separation undermines the effectiveness of Agile delivery. Therefore, the Agile Program Manager will remain a single, integrated key personnel position, responsible for both program leadership and Agile implementation.
We encourage offerors to propose candidates who demonstrate both strong program management skills and deep, practical experience in leading Agile transformations at the enterprise level. This integrated approach is essential to achieving the Government’s objectives for this effort.
| In Volume II, “HQ Staff Support for Acquisition of Services for Simulation, Training, Test, and Threat,” the PWS identifies supported organizations including the G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, and G8 directorates, as well as ACC-Orlando. However, the PWS does not clearly state how Agile activities under Volume II should interact with Agile activities under Volume I. Does the Government intend for the two volumes to operate within the same SAFe or equivalent enterprise Agile implementation, or does the Government intend for them to operate as distinct efforts with limited Agile integration at the program level? | Both contracts will operate in the same Army Jira environment. Intent is to split "Volume I" and "Volume II" into two separate requirements documents to be awarded under seperate and discrete OTAs. |
| Both Volume I and Volume II describe an Agile Program Manager role. Would the Government clarify whether it anticipates two separate Agile Program Managers, one for each volume of scope, or one Agile Program Manager responsible for the overall requirement? | Each Award would need a Agile PM, and since no Offeror can receive award of both Awards, this should not result in duplication of Cost to a single Offeror. |
| The Government has articulated a desire for a complex, enterprise-wide Agile program covering a wide variety of labor categories, workflows, and mission outcomes. This scope may exceed the experience of firms that have primarily managed smaller Agile efforts or software-focused Agile teams. Would the Government consider whether an unrestricted solicitation, or another acquisition approach that emphasizes demonstrated enterprise-scale Agile program management experience, would better mitigate performance risk for this requirement? | No, at this time there is sufficient data available to justify a Small Business set-aside. |
| Given the broad scope of the PWS and the demand for highly qualified talent, would ACC-Orlando consider adopting a mandated pricing range framework using the Highest Technically Rated with a Fair and Reasonable Price approach described in FAR 15.103-3, or a similar price-range construct? Under this model, the Government would establish a price range based on the IGCE, reducing incentives for offerors to price unrealistically high or low and allowing the competition to focus on technical quality, staffing, and service approach. Such a construct could also support an FFP level-of-effort model or a best-value tradeoff approach, if preferred by the Government. | No, it is the Government's intent to two OTAs for Agile Development, and Process Development and prototyping in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4022 |
| Given the dual emphasis on Agile program management and varied mission outcomes, would the Government consider how it will evaluate offerors’ capability to address both the Agile requirements and the tailored needs across the CPE ST3 enterprise? Specifically, would the Government consider requesting responses to at least two sample task orders, such as one focused on Volume I and one focused on Volume II, including a staffing matrix and associated pricing, to evaluate how an offeror’s Agile approach applies within the specific context of CPE ST3’s varied workstreams? | The Government concurs and is currently anticipating two scenario based sample tasks as a part of the evaluation methodology, though the distribution of work has yet to be finalized. |
| Given that the draft PWS includes two volumes of requirements, is the Government contemplating a single-award BPA or similar structure? For example, OASIS+ may accommodate this approach and could provide CPE ST3 flexibility at the task-order level. | The Government currently anticipates issuance of a Call for Solutions under that Army Open Solicitation, with a particular vision towards issuance of a Prototype OTA (10 U.S.C. 4022) for the development and demonstration of Agile Business Processes. |
| To support effective teaming, small business participation, and realistic proposal planning, will the Government clarify the anticipated acquisition strategy, including contract vehicle, set-aside approach, and single-award versus multiple-award approach? Is the Government contemplating awarding the Engineering/Acquisition Support and CPE Staff/HQ Support volumes as task orders under the same contract? | The Government intends to award two distinct OTAs to two different Offerors. Both of which are expected to be awarded through Army Open Solicitation (AOS). |
| Would the Government consider releasing draft Sections L and M so that offerors can effectively finalize teaming decisions? In addition, can the Government provide an updated notional timeline for draft RFP release, final RFP release, proposal submission, award, transition, and start of performance? | Yes, the Government intends to release a Draft Solictition in June of 2026, though the timeline for final Solicitation and Award are not yet available. |
| Can the Government clarify the intended scope and duration of the OCI restriction, including whether award would restrict contractors from future CPE ST3, CPE STRI, ACC-Orlando, or related program opportunities generally, or only from opportunities directly related to the specific programs, products, or acquisition activities supported under this effort? | The OCI restriction in the durrent Draft PWS is not applicable to this action, though a new OCI statement will be added to the CPE/STAFF HQ Task Order PWS. |
| Which roles does the Government anticipate designating as key personnel, and what resume, certification, clearance, availability, and commitment-letter requirements are expected at proposal submission versus at contract award? | These issues are pending determination. |
| Does the Government prefer SAFe specifically, or are alternative scaled Agile frameworks (e.g., LeSS, DA, Scrum@Scale) equally acceptable for evaluation? | Alternative Agile frameworks will be considered. |
| Will the Government provide an initial Agile enterprise structure (value streams, ART boundaries, Government Product Owners), or should the contractor propose one? | The Contractor should propose one, but for situational awareness, today each PM/PL is a "Value Stream" and there is little/no cross-utilization of resources even as requirements ebb and flow from time to time. The Government is currently serving as the Product Owner role, with varying levels of participation/success, and the Contractor is serving in the Scrum Master Role, with varying levels of success. |
| Who will own and prioritize the enterprise task backlog—Government personnel, contractor Product Owners, or a hybrid model? | A hybrid model is expected. The Contractor should recommend priority based on input received, The Government ultimately sets the priority. It is expected that the selected vendor learns/understands the requirement so much that they can anticipate priorities and we should be operating as partners where priorities should be clearly understood and rarely a surprise. |
| Of the technical task areas listed in the PWS, which are critical at contract award versus expected to be on ramped over time? | Offeror(s) will need to evaluate data sample to determine recommended labor mix |
| Can the Government provide projected annual or quarterly estimates for the number and anticipated size of task orders across the PM/PL portfolios? | The Government anticipates making two awards, each with a Base period and two, or more, Option periods of performance/demonstration. |
| Which cloud environments should offerors assume (cArmy, IL5, IL6, hybrid, on premises), and will multiple environments be required simultaneously? | Assume services work could be required in multiple environments. |
| Is the contractor expected to implement a continuous ATO (cATO) process and pipeline, or will STRI maintain its own ATO process and tools? | If things are developed by personnel supporting the CPE under the resulting contracts that require a cATO, the contractor will follow the Army's ATO process and leverage Army tools. |
| Should offerors assume early performance requirements for LVC/STE systems (CTIA, LT2, RVCT, SVT, OWT, NGC), or are these future optional task areas? | Yes, all performing at award. |
| Beyond the Agile Program Manager, does the Government intend to designate additional Key Personnel positions? | No, but offerors are encouraged to submit their own "key personnel" lists based on their proposed performance methodology. |
| Can STRI provide a matrix indicating which labor categories require Secret, TS, TS/SCI, or SAP access? | This varies based on the Agile requirements being executed. |
| Which roles, if any, may be performed remotely or under a hybrid arrangement, and which require full time on site presence? | Offerors are expected to propose their own staffing plans to maximize agility and responsiveness, and thus are encouraged to propose their own unique staffing plans. |
| Will STRI provide standardized templates for acquisition artifacts (AP, APB, LCSP, TEMP, SEP), or should offerors propose their own? | Yes |
| For HQ directorate support (G2–G8), can the Government provide estimated volumes for annual taskers, audit samples, planning artifacts, and Congressional inquiries? | Similar data will be provided in the forthcoming Solicitation or Draft solicitation. |
| Which geographic regions or partner nations are expected to represent the majority of FMS case support requirements? | We currently support 60+ partners. |
| Should offerors plan for routine, surge based, or minimal international travel in support of PL IPO? | The Government anticipates providing an NTE "Cost Only" ceiling for travel |
| Will the Government provide access to all required systems (PMRT, ETMS2, ATCTS, PIEE, Army 365, SharePoint Online), or should offerors propose supplemental toolsets? | The Government intends to provide access to available tools and systems required to perform the duties assigned. |
| Does STRI have a preferred enterprise dashboarding platform (Power BI, Tableau, Azure DevOps), and should Agile metrics integrate with STRI systems? | There is currently no preferred platform, the contractor will recommend the best solution for dashboards and data presentation. |
| Does STRI have a preferred transition in duration (e.g., 30, 45, or 60 days), and will any incumbent knowledge transfer be facilitated? | Planned for approximately a 90 day overlap with the bridge, but if the winning offeror requires less overlap that can be accounted for in the transition plan. |
| Can the Government confirm whether all mandatory annual training requirements (AT, OPSEC, iWATCH, TARP, CUI, IA) will be allowable direct charges? | Under a FFP contract structure, "allowable direct charge" discussions are not relevant. |
| Are you considering the RS3 contract vehicle out of ACC-APG for the CPE ST3 Professional Services solicitation? | The RS3 contract is not currently under consideration. |
| Status of the SETA III Recompete. MAPS IDIQ proposals are currently due 1 May 26, so having a projected RFP release of 8 May means that vehicle will likely not be available for this solicitation. What CLIN on OASIS+ is the Government planning to use? | The Government currently anticipates issuance of a Call for Solutions under that Army Open Solicitation, with a particular vision towards issuance of a Prototype OTA (10 U.S.C. 4022) for the development and demonstration of Agile Business Processes. |
| To support industry planning and teaming decisions, can the Government provide its current acquisition timeline for the ST3 Support Services requirement, including when draft PWS/CDRLs may be released, whether a draft solicitation or questions period is anticipated, the projected final solicitation release date, and the target award timeframe for the potential Engineering/Acquisition Support and CPE Staff Support task orders? | The SETA successor contract (Agile Professional Services (APS)) Solicitation that is currently planned for July 2026, with a draft Solicitation and PWS to be released near the end of June, with additional Q&A opportunities provided concurrently. Notional timeline for Award is October/November with a transition period of 2-4 months. |
| What NAICS is the APS award expected to fall under? | The below is NOTIONAL, and Offerors are encouraged to make recommendations if there is an alternate that is believed to be more appropriate: |
NAICS Code: 541330, Engineering Services and 541990 All Other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services.
| What is the estimated value range and size of each Task Order? | Similar data will be provided in the forthcoming Solicitation/Draft. |
| Can the Government confirm if offerors can compete for both TOs or if they will be limited to compete for only one? | Offerors will not be able to win both awards, due to OCI issues associated with performing the HQ scope of work. |
| Is MAPS still a viable option? If not, what does the Government anticipate using? | No, this requirement will be solicited through the Army Open Solicitation (W9128Z-25-S-A002) |
| Will this be full and open competition or a small business set aside? | Competition will be limited to Small Businesses |
| Will FTEs be pooled across the enterprise, or only within the PM/PL shop? | The offerors should propose their approach to meet the requirement, but efficiencies can be gained if a wider perspective is taken. |
| Since MAPs is a successor of RS3, why is there reluctance to use RS3? | ACC-APG is encouraging the use of the Army Open Solicitation. |
| Will a 3 month backlog be provided to be representative for the life of the contract? | Yes, a notional LOE will be expressly provided for offeror use in developing their proposed solutions. |
| Is all the data needed within JIRA? | The offeror should review what is in JIRA and make that determination. |
| Is the timeline the same for both TOs? | Yes |
| Can the sub/prime be doubled up? | No, any prime or sub that succeeds in winning the HQ scope of work will be prohibited from award of the second scope of work and visa versa. |
| Will there be oral presentations be performed before or after the down-select? | After. |
| Small/Large Business determination when? | This requirement will be set-aside for small businesses. |
| Clarification on the "I know it when I see it" evaluation criteria? | The Government recognizes the importance of clear and objective evaluation criteria. Our intent is not to be vague or subjective, but rather to encourage innovative and differentiated solutions from industry. In past procurements, we have observed that highly prescriptive requirements often result in nearly identical proposals, making it difficult to distinguish between offerors and select the solution that best meets our needs. |
By allowing some flexibility in how requirements are addressed, we aim to create space for offerors to demonstrate their unique approaches, expertise, and value propositions. We are seeking solutions that go beyond compliance and show true understanding, creativity, and practical experience in implementing Agile professional services.
Specific evaluation criteria will be included in the resultant solicitation.
For the demo, when will the information be provided? This question will be answered in the Solicitation or Draft Solicitation
Will Past Performance be required? If so, how will Past Performance be evaluated (size, complexity, relevancy, time...)? I think we should require that they provide the contract and Government PM (not PCO) for the Agile work that they have done. Then we should interview that PM.
TD: I thought the team agreed (over my initial objections) that Past Performance was not usefull here, and that the key personnel and the performance plan we far more indicative of successful performance capability.
| Would FFP be a better approach? | The Government is considering Fixed Price structure. |
| Would the Government be open to scaled/SAF Agile or other similar frameworks? | Yes. |
| For the EOs, was there everlower-level guidance that provides further clarity/guidance? | Some EOs have resulted in Service level guidance and some have not. |
| Does DOGE still perform reviews? If so, on what? | Yes. |
| What is the the contingency plan for awarding by Dec 2026? What does the funding look like? | Desire is to award earlier, but contingencies are available to push the bridge contract further, in needed. This is NOT anticipated, however. |
| Will it be allowable to use FMS Funding? | Yes, for country specific tasks. |
| Will interested offerors be allowed to perform as the subcontractor on both TOs? Would it negatively impact evaluations if the Government noticed the same company as a sub for both? | No, due to the OCI considerations existing between the two scopes of work. Offerors must take into account the OCI limitations when proposing. |
| Why is there and OCI issue with the HQ Task Order? | This is due to specific Source Selection Sensative information that is required/developed/reviewed, or otherwise in the purview of the performer under the HQ award. |
| At what stage is price being evaluated? Will price be a consideration for down select to phase 2? | Price will be a factor in award, but will not be a primary factor, as this is likely to be solicited via the AOS, through a CSO, price is secondary to the satisfaction of the Government requirement that is seeking a commercially developed solution. Once a proposed solution is selected, cost/price will be negotiated directly and concurrent with final PWS negotiations. |
| If FFP is persued, will the Government provide a longer backlog of current performance for more accurate reference? | The Government is unlikely to provide actual backlog data, as such, due to incomplete data, but will provide sufficient LOE data to support proposal/solution development. |
| During the Source Selection process, is a Prime having many subcontractors considered a negative? | In general, the number of subcontractors is not seen as negative as long as the small business requirements are met. Offerors must also take into account the OCI limitations when proposing. |
| Clarify the current problem. What currently does work? What are you starting from scratch, and what are you integrating from Agile Approach? | The Government is in the midst of a significant transformation in how professional services are delivered and managed. Historically, both the Government and contractor teams have operated under a traditional support model, where personnel were assigned to specific Government programs/teams, often resulting in individuals being assigned to support one Government person regardless of actual workload. While this approach provided a sense of security and continuity, it has also led to inefficiencies and underutilization of resources. |
The current challenge is twofold:
Cultural Shift: There is a longstanding expectation within the Government for dedicated, on-site support, even when demand fluctuates. This has made it difficult for some Government stakeholders to embrace a more dynamic, outcome-focused model.
Contractor Adaptation: The incumbent contractor has been operating under this traditional model for several years and has not been incentivized to drive or support the transition to a more Agile, flexible approach.
As a result, we lack the necessary data and metrics to accurately assess resource utilization and performance.
What is Changing:
We are not starting entirely from scratch; we are building on an existing Jira environment in the Army cloud that can serve as a baseline for proposed iteration/transformation. The transformation involves integrating Agile principles—such as iterative planning, dynamic resource allocation, and transparent performance measurement—into the delivery of professional services.
The goal is to move away from static, person-based support models toward a more flexible, metrics-driven approach that aligns resources with actual mission needs.
What We Expect:
A shift to outcome-based delivery, supported by real-time metrics and dashboards.
Proactive management of resources across the command, rather than fixed assignments.
A collaborative partnership with industry to help drive and sustain this transformation.
We appreciate industry’s engagement and look forward to innovative solutions that will help us achieve these objectives.
| The PWS provided on SAM.gov is dated JAN 2026. Is this the PWS currently being used for the bridge? | Yes |
| Does the Government want comments on the PWS? Do you want industry to utilize Track Changes? | Yes |
| How will transition function? How will the new award overlap with the Bridge? | Planned for approximately a 90 day overlap with the bridge, but if the winning offeror requires less overlap the thansition plan can be altered. |
| Who is the current incumbent? | OST |
| How will non-incumbent SETA contracts be affected? | The long term desire is to merge all CPE ST3 Professional Services requirements to operate in the same Agile model to be developed under this acquisition. |
| In regards to the demo, how much information will be provided upfront? | This question will be answered in a forthcoming solicitation. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .