FINAL Q_As COMBINED.docx

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS:

QUESTION 1: The TPP matrix in the draft RFP only addresses the 6 technical areas. How will the interdisciplinary technical areas be proposed and evaluated?

ANSWER 1: The final Request for Proposals (RFP) will deliver definitive guidance on both the six technical areas and the six interdisciplinary areas, detailing exactly how offerors should describe and demonstrate their capabilities. To support a more standardized method for communicating these capabilities against Technical Performance Parameter (TPP) requirements, the government plans to update and potentially expand the TPP self-assessment matrix. Additionally, offerors can expect expanded instructions regarding the accompanying narrative descriptions to ensure all submissions are clear, comprehensive, and consistent.

QUESTION 2: Materials Science and Chemistry Areas appear to overlap and are redundant. We recommend combining or clarifying them. Another related question stated the following: Is the Chemistry Technical Area limited to the design of new materials (for power gen, storage, and conversion) or are engineering approaches to using materials also of interest? (Combining Materials Science and Chemistry would resolve this question) ANSWER 2: We acknowledge the feedback regarding the brevity and lack of clarity in the "Materials Science" and "Chemistry" technical area descriptions within the Draft RFP. Currently, these descriptions do not provide sufficient detail to help offerors distinguish between these disciplines when preparing their proposals. To address this, the final RFP will include expanded and revised descriptions for all technical and interdisciplinary areas. These updates will provide the necessary detail to ensure offerors can accurately categorize their capabilities and align their submissions with the specific requirements of each area.

QUESTION 3: Additionally, would proposals be considered responsive if they employ a phased execution model—for example, initiating work at the CUI level and transitioning to Secret/TS environments for components requiring classified data, operational context, or system integration?

ANSWER 3: The Army is interested in understanding how future potential partners currently, or plan to, engage with sensitive research. This is likely to encompass everything from research that requires access to CUI to develop the specific protocol that could then be executed fully Unclassified, all the way up to projects that start and stay at TS/SCI. A proposal that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of processes to move things up in classification as needed would be considered responsive and ensure that the offeror and the Army have a shared understanding.

QUESTION 4: What is the anticipated classification level of offeror proposals?

ANSWER 4: All proposals submitted under the full RFP should be fully Unclassified.

QUESTION 5: The video submission calls for "CUI facilities". CUI does not require "facilities". Classified spaces require facilities. Do you really want a video submission of the external controls for classified spaces?

ANSWER 5: DEVCOM Army Research Office (ARO) recognizes the disparity in safeguarding guidance between classified and unclassified information. While SECRET and above requirements are heavily regulated through Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) facility accreditations—covering physical, IT, and access controls—external guidance for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) primarily relies on the IT-centric Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program. Because CMMC lacks comprehensive physical security guidelines, the original intention behind requesting a video was to ensure potential partners share the Army's understanding of how to properly protect, store, and destroy physical CUI.

The Army remains particularly concerned about the logistical challenges of conducting CUI work within higher classification spaces, as the procedures required to extract and downgrade materials from those environments are significant. To clarify, the Army is strictly not requesting any video documentation regarding the external controls of classified spaces.

Instead of a video submission, the final Request for Proposals (RFP) will likely require these physical security measures to be addressed in written form. Offerors should be prepared to provide detailed policy documentation capturing the same information originally intended for the video. This includes, but is not limited to, access control processes, institutional requirements for physical CUI workspaces, and the specific procedures used to switch classification levels within dual-use spaces.

QUESTION 6: Do the rows in the matrix represent SME clearance level, facility clearance or both?

ANSWER 6: The matrix is designed to clarify an offeror's research capabilities including both SME individuals as well as available research infrastructure in appropriate facilities across specific technical fields at three distinct security tiers: CUI, SECRET, and Above SECRET. We acknowledge the feedback that institutions frequently do not hold Tier 1 individual clearances and that formal facility clearances for CUI spaces do not currently exist; the final RFP will provide definitive clarity on this matter. Regarding personnel, security clearances are treated as downward-compatible. An individual holding a Tier 5 (Top Secret) clearance is considered qualified for both Tier 3 (SECRET) and Tier 1 (CUI) requirements. Additionally, a single Subject Matter Expert (SME) may be counted multiple times in the matrix if they are capable of performing work across various technical areas or security tiers.

QUESTION 7: Section A.4. states, "This requirement is eligible for Institutes of higher education and non-profit research institutions as defined at both 20 U.S.C. (S) 1001 or 15 U.S.C. (S) 638(e)(8)." This seems to imply that for-profit organizations are ineligible to propose as a prime offeror, however, are for-profit organizations eligible to participate as a subcontractor?

ANSWER 7: At this time, the Government does not plan to make any changes to eligibility requirements, and plan to retain eligibility as a prime offeror to “Institutes of higher education and non-profit research institutions as defined at both 20 U.S.C. (S) 1001 or 15 U.S.C. (S) 638(e)(8).”

QUESTON 8: Does the government prefer multiple-university proposals that address all technical areas of interest? Or would single-university proposals that target a subset of areas be preferred?

ANSWER 8: The government does not expect any single institution to possess the capacity to deliver across all technical areas at every security tier. Instead, the objective is to establish a cohort of institutions that, when viewed holistically, provide a comprehensive breadth of technical capabilities and the necessary depth across all required security tiers.

While the government will not dictate how offerors choose to team or subcontract, only one institution may serve as the Prime contractor for a given award. DEVCOM ARO has deliberately selected a Multiple Award Contract (MAC) vehicle rather than utilizing other acquisition structures or consortiums. This approach is intended to cultivate a group of trusted, pre-vetted partners with whom the government maintains a direct relationship and privity of contract.

QUESTION 9: Anticipated security classification levels- Does ARL anticipate that more than 50% of the work conducted under this MAC will be at a CUI, Collateral (Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) and/or above (SCI, SAP) security level?

ANSWER 9: DEVCOM ARO does not have an expectation with regards to classification distribution of anticipated “task order requests” at this time.

QUESTION 10: CMMC requirement - DFARS 252.204-7025, pg. 91, section (b)(1) - What CMMC level is required under this solicitation?

ANSWER 10: DEVCOM ARO is requiring Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program Level 2 certification for eligibility.

QUESTION 11: Please provide historical annual obligation ranges for TPP in FY24-FY26 and planned funding ranges for FY27-FY28. How many task-order requests and awarded task orders have been issued in each of the last three fiscal years; what were the average and maximum order values.

ANSWER 11: As a new initiative, the Trusted Partner Program (TPP) currently lacks historical data to support specific performance estimates or projections. Furthermore, both US Federal Government and Department of War (DoW) acquisition frameworks are undergoing a period of significant transformation. Due to these ongoing systemic changes, it is not yet possible to determine the exact long-term implications or outcomes for the program.

QUESTION 12: At the base IDIQ and task-order levels, how will DEVCOM evaluate “transition” or “military utility”? What specific evidence is most persuasive: TRL progression, prototype delivery, field evaluation, transition agreements, patents/licenses, user adoption, or another metric set?

ANSWER 12: All Task Order Requests (TORs) will be generated by the Army. As a result, transition planning, military utility, or other Army/Government specific needs will typically be integrated into the request, or the government will provide specific transition requirements for individual task orders as needed.

For the base IDIQ evaluation, the "transition" requirement focuses on the prior experience the offering institution has already demonstrated. The government remains committed to facilitating research investment and transitions into civilian commercial enterprises and broader industry; we are seeking partners who share these values and have a proven track record of moving science and technology into the out of the lab.

The final RFP will provide comprehensive metrics.

QUESTION 13: What minimum facility clearance level is required at proposal submission, at base award, and at task-order award? May an offeror propose a growth plan, or must the full capability already exist?

ANSWER 13: Offerors must demonstrate the capability to conduct at a minimum, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) research to meet minimum eligibility requirements. This includes holding a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 2 and obtaining secured physical research spaces. The Government acknowledges that CMMC Level 2 took effect in November 2025 and is reviewing the required compliance timeline with regards to the acquisition milestone timeline. The final solicitation will provide explicit instructions regarding CUI physical workspace expectations and required capability narratives.

QUESTION 14: What portion of TPP work is expected to occur at contractor facilities versus government facilities, and when will the Government provide secure spaces, networks, access, or GFE/GFI?

ANSWER 14: The government anticipates that research conducted under this program will take place primarily at offeror facilities using their own established infrastructure, networks, and instrumentation. Consequently, the provision of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) or Government Furnished Information (GFI) is not expected at the base contract level. Offerors are expected to already possess—or have documented access to—the facilities and IT environments necessary to support their proposed research areas.

It is important to note that this Multiple Award Contract (MAC) IDIQ vehicle does not permit "elbow-to-elbow" collaboration. This means that direct, side-by-side work between Army scientists and civilian or contractor personnel at any facility is not authorized under this contract structure. While the government will not dictate teaming or subcontracting strategies, offerors may use such arrangements to bridge gaps in their own infrastructure. For instance, academic or nonprofit entities may partner with other organizations to gain access to the required cleared facilities or secure IT environments.

While the base contract assumes partner-provided infrastructure, any specific exceptions will be handled on a case-by-case basis. If a particular Task Order (TO) requires specialized access to government facilities or the provision of GFE/GFI, those requirements will be clearly delineated within the specific Task Order Request (TOR).

QUESTION 15: What approximate percentage of current and expected TPP orders are CUI-only, Secret, TS/SCI, or SAP-related?

ANSWER 15: As a new requirement, the government is currently unable to provide specific projections regarding Task Orders (TOs) for the Trusted Partner Program. This includes anticipated frequency, delivery cadence, security classification levels, or specific scientific technical fields. All requirements will be defined and released based on evolving mission needs.

QUESTION 16: To what extent will task orders be treated as fundamental research versus export-controlled, CUI, or classified research? What publication-review timelines, approval authorities, and distribution limitations should offerors expect?

ANSWER 16: The Department of War (DoW) definition of "fundamental research" exists independently of security sensitivity classifications. Consequently, a project may concurrently meet the criteria for fundamental research while being classified as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or higher. In such instances, Task Order Requests (TORs) will incorporate additional due diligence requirements, specifically compliance with the Army Research Risk Assessment Protection Program (ARRP) (https://arl.devcom.army.mil/collaborate-with-us/opportunity/arrp/).

The Army Research Office (ARO) recognizes the critical importance of scholarly publication for academic partners and will work with government stakeholders to provide early clarity regarding dissemination controls within the initial TOR. Depending on the specific mission requirements and the sensitivity of the research, and the specific details of the research conducted, dissemination strategies may include formal pre-approval for publications, the utilization of distribution-limited platforms, or, in certain cases, a total restriction on publication

QUESTION 17: Does the Government anticipate that the awarded IDIQ contract will provide a mechanism for contractors to sponsor personnel security clearances (e.g., Secret/TS/SCI) for otherwise eligible individuals who do not currently hold a clearance? If so, please clarify whether such sponsorship would be authorized at the IDIQ level or require task order-specific approval, and any associated conditions or limitations. Additionally, would clearance sponsorship, if permitted, extend to personnel employed by subcontractors under the IDIQ, or be limited to prime contractor personnel?

ANSWER 17: the government understands that some of the projects we are interested in funding, or some future requirements, may require cleared subject matter experts who do not at the time of proposal already possess a clearance. We are evaluating paths forward to sponsor individuals in a responsible manner. Further information will be provided in the final RFP, and there may be specific requirements or opportunities tied to individual task orders in the future.

QUESTION 18: For Video on CUI capabilities, should proposers include video content for all its performance sites (multiple sites for the prime proposer and subcontractors) since you want to see actual spaces or is providing one example site (prime proposer’s headquarters) in the video suitable?

ANSWER 18: The government anticipates removing the video requirement from the final RFP. However, ensuring that potential offerors share the government’s standards for protection, production, safeguarding, and destruction of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) remains a critical objective. Consequently, detailed information regarding all facilities and physical spaces currently utilized—or intended for use—for CUI-level research is considered highly valuable to the evaluation process.

The final RFP will provide definitive guidance on how offerors should present relevant facility information and security policies. This includes documentation for dedicated workspaces as well as procedural frameworks for "dual-use" environments designed to transition between classification levels (e.g., shifting from CUI to SECRET and back). Offerors should be prepared to describe their infrastructure across multiple facilities and, where applicable, clarify the extent to which security policies are standardized or differentiated across various physical locations. A key consideration for the government is understanding the degree of policy overlap and consistency when distinct spaces are governed by localized security protocols.

QUESTION 19: Does the Government place value on an offeror’s ability to identify, onboard, and enable new performers (e.g., universities or non-traditional partners) for participation in classified or sensitive research, in addition to leveraging existing cleared infrastructure? If so, how will this be considered in evaluation and task order execution?

ANSWER 19: The government highly values an offeror’s ability to expand the research ecosystem by identifying, onboarding, and enabling new or non-traditional performers to participate in sensitive and classified research. We do not expect any single institution to possess the capacity to deliver across all technical areas at every security tier. Instead, our objective is to establish a robust cohort of institutions that collectively provide comprehensive breadth and depth across all requirements.

To achieve this, the government is open to strategies that bridge infrastructure gaps and bring new capabilities into the fold. As previously noted, demonstrable access to cleared facilities via Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), MOUs, or MOAs is considered equivalent to owning those facilities, which directly enables participation from non-traditional partners. Additionally, the government is actively evaluating pathways to responsibly sponsor uncleared Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to further lower barriers to entry for these new performers.

However, DEVCOM ARO has deliberately selected a Multiple Award Contract (MAC) vehicle rather than utilizing a consortium model. This approach is intended to cultivate a group of trusted, pre-vetted Prime contractors with whom the government maintains a direct relationship and privity of contract. While teaming is encouraged to onboard new performers, only one institution may serve as the Prime contractor for a given award.

Specific details on how an offeror’s methodology for onboarding and enabling new performers will be weighted during the base IDIQ evaluation will be clearly outlined in the final RFP. Furthermore, individual Task Order Requests (TORs) may include unique evaluation criteria or specific requirements tied to leveraging these expanded partnerships for specialized mission needs.

QUESTION 20: I have a quick question regarding the phrase on pg . 84 of the RFP, Names of graduate and post graduate advisors and advisees and the time period of that specific relationship;

Can you elaborate on this? Are you referring to current AND past advisees? How far back do you want the faculty to go?

ANSWER 20: The requirement for advisee reporting encompasses both current and former individuals. Given that Tier 5 (Top Secret) security investigations typically involve a 10-year look-back period, the government is currently determining whether the reporting requirements for this RFP will align with that standard investigative timeframe. Definitive guidance and the specific duration of the reporting window will be provided in the final RFP.

QUESTION 21: Will DEVCOM provide teaming opportunities to pair offerors?

ANSWER 21: The government will not provide explicit or facilitated teaming opportunities. DEVCOM ARO has deliberately selected a Multiple Award Contract (MAC) structure to establish and maintain a direct, one-on-one relationship with its primary partners, which is essential for the long-term mission objectives of the Trusted Partner Program.

While the government remains neutral regarding specific teaming or subcontracting arrangements, we have compiled a resource for organizations interested in exploring partnerships. Parties interested in teaming have provided their contact information to the government and granted permission for its public release. This list is available for review at the following link under “Attachment A”: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/d1054690b38c4084a885e1888884da08/view.

QUESTION 22: What about faculty who are clearable but don’t now have a clearance?

ANSWER 22: The government understands that highly qualified Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) may not currently possess a security clearance simply because they have not yet supported a federal project that established their eligibility. We acknowledge that certain projects or future mission task order requirements will necessitate the involvement of getting these uncleared SMEs cleared upon receipt of award to fully leverage their technical expertise.

To address this, the government is currently evaluating viable pathways for the responsible sponsorship of individual personnel security clearances. Comprehensive guidance on these sponsorship procedures will be included in the final Request for Proposals (RFP). Furthermore, specific requirements or sponsorship opportunities may be explicitly delineated within individual Task Order Requests (TORs) as they arise.

QUESTION 23: If we have a comprehensive CUI enclave in process, but not implemented by the RFP deadline, how can we represent that?

ANSWER 23: The government recognizes that achieving Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) is a comprehensive process that requires significant time and investment. We are currently evaluating the specific milestone within the acquisition lifecycle at which an offeror must demonstrate compliance or hold an active CMMC certification (for example, at the time of proposal submission, prior to contract award, or prior to task order execution). Definitive guidance regarding acceptable CMMC progress milestones, certification timelines, and overall eligibility requirements and how to represent capabilities will be explicitly detailed in the final Request for Proposals (RFP).

QUESTION 24: Can awards fund the clearance process? Would the Army hold the clearance or the home institution?

ANSWER 24: Yes, the government anticipates that certain Task Orders will require personnel to hold Tier 3 (SECRET) or Tier 5 (TOP SECRET) security clearances. Awarded work under the Trusted Partner Program (TPP) will provide the necessary project justification to make previously uncleared Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) eligible for the clearance process. As previously stated, the government is actively evaluating pathways to responsibly sponsor individuals who have not yet had the opportunity to work on federal projects requiring access.

Regarding the management of these clearances, individual Tier 3 and Tier 5 security clearances are generally held and maintained by the performer's home institution. The government is currently working closely with its security team to formalize procedures and expectations. Definitive guidance detailing the clearance sponsorship process, funding mechanics, and institutional holding will be provided in the final Request for Proposals (RFP).

QUESTION 25: Would a CRADA be the appropriate way to gain access to the secure facilities needed for some research at a government facility?

ANSWER 25: I think a better response would be something like this: “Regarding this requirement, the Government is not seeking to have Offerors work research at a Government facility. Offerors would need to have their own secure facilities to work within.”

QUESTION 26: I guess what I was trying to understand is can Academia, while being the lead organization, can a center like US Army-ERDC can give access and collaborate, in a more of a Co-PI level maybe a CRADA?

ANSWER 26: The current Multiple Award Contract (MAC) IDIQ structure does not authorize "elbow-to-elbow" collaboration; direct, side-by-side integration between Army scientists and civilian or contractor personnel is strictly prohibited at any facility under this vehicle. While the government remains neutral regarding specific teaming strategies, offerors have the option of utilize subcontracting or other mechanisms to address sensitive infrastructure requirements. For instance, academic or nonprofit entities may partner with other organizations, including industry, to secure access to the necessary cleared facilities and secure IT environments required for the mission.

In alignment with ongoing acquisition reform, the Trusted Partner Program (TPP) is currently developing a parallel and complementary contracting mechanism. This new tool will be designed to facilitate sensitive cooperative research, providing a framework for the collaborative engagement between government and academic partners that is not available under the standard MAC IDIQ structure.

QUESTION 27: This suggests work at TRL levels from 1 to 7 or 8. Is ARO intending to fund work at TRL levels 1 through 7 or 8?

ANSWER 27: The Trusted Partner Program (TPP) is designed to support research at higher Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) than has historically been the case for Army Research Office (ARO) funded work. This shift is intentional, as ARO aims to facilitate research and development for other components of the Army through this program. Consequently, while the TPP is not a service or production contract, specific Task Order Requests (TORs) may require the demonstration of technologies at higher TRL stages.

Generally, the government anticipates that task orders under the TPP will range from TRL 2 through TRL 6. While some specific requirements may fall outside these bounds, they will only be included if they are within the appropriate scope and are reasonable for academic, nonprofit, or FFRDC partners to perform.

It is important to clarify that the Trusted Partner Program is not an acquisition vehicle for large-scale production or outfitting—such as equipping an entire platoon. The Army already possesses established procurement tools for such requirements, which typically fall outside the operational focus of universities and research institutes. The TPP remains focused on bridging the gap between fundamental research and advanced technology development.

QUESTION 28: You talked about technical skills being used as a measurement. Will including non-citizen faculty or staff be considered relevant?

ANSWER 28: Technical proficiency is a fundamental evaluation metric for the Trusted Partner Program, as the government requires highly qualified Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who possess—or are eligible to obtain—the appropriate security clearances.

Regarding the participation of non-U.S. citizens, the government is actively coordinating with security stakeholders to establish definitive policy guidelines. We anticipate that the baseline requirement for work conducted under any Task Order Request (TOR) will restrict eligibility strictly to U.S. citizens. However, there may be flexibility on a case-by-case, task order-specific basis, depending on the unique technical requirements, security parameters, and mission needs of a given project.

QUESTION 29: I believe there was a mention early in the presentation of the government deeming some work as fundamental research. Do you anticipate there could be instances in which a portion of a specific TOR’s work may be deemed fundamental research and excluded from the CUI restrictions? Or will all work on the IDIQ be CUI or above?

ANSWER 29: Eligibility for the trusted partner program will require, at a minimum, CUI capabilities. The government, including the Army Research Office, already possess acquisition tools for RDTE at the UNCLASSIFIED level (e.g. the DEVCOM ARL BAA- https://arl.devcom.army.mil/collaborate-with-us/opportunity/arl-baa/).

However, it should be noted that the DoW definition of “fundamental research” is orthogonal to definitions of sensitivity. This means that it is possible for a project to both be considered by the government to be sensitive enough to be CUI or higher, and for it also to meet the definition of “fundamental research”. In that case, additional requirements will be placed on the task order request, to meet the Army’s due diligence requirements- additional Army Research Risk Assessment Protection Program (ARRP) compliance (https://arl.devcom.army.mil/collaborate-with-us/opportunity/arrp/).

QUESTION 30: Given your plan to include other Government activities beyond ARO to fund work through the TPP, will any of them be part of the source selection process?

ANSWER 30: Task Orders for the Trusted Partner Program are expected to originate from organizations outside of DEVCOM ARO. Because these requirements will be driven by a broader customer base, the government considers it imperative to include external stakeholders in both the Request for Proposals (RFP) refinement process and the final source selection stage to ensure comprehensive mission alignment.

Question 31: Will this award allow for technical services, production and prototyping?

Answer 31: For the sake of clarity, the Trusted Partner Program (TPP) is not intended to—nor will it—function as a service or production contract, but as an Research and Development (R&D) initiative.

Question 32: How would the Government handle “dual space” where institutions have both CUI and Secret projects, etc in one room?

Answer 32: The government maintains a cautious approach toward conducting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) research within SECRET or higher-tier secure spaces. Downgrading or extracting data and physical materials from high-classification environments is a complex process with significant logistical and security implications. Furthermore, the government is strictly committed to preventing over-classification in accordance with federal regulations and mission requirements.

However, the use of "dual-use" spaces—facilities designed to transition between CUI and SECRET levels—is acceptable, provided that the transition protocols and security policies are rigorously defined and effectively implemented. The final Request for Proposals (RFP) will include detailed instructions on how offerors should outline these transition policies to ensure compliance with security standards.

CONTRACTING QUESTIONS:

QUESTION 1:

H.3.1.(B) notes that a cost contract may be appropriate for research and development work, particularly with nonprofit organizations. Can the Government clarify the circumstances under which it anticipates using Cost‑Reimbursement versus Cost‑Plus‑Fixed‑Fee task orders, and whether the Government intends to favor CPFF where feasible to reduce performance risk and avoid unnecessary limitations on competition?

ANSWER 1: This will be determined at the Task Order Level.

QUESTION 2:

Section B/ L.3.5 /H.3.1 -The contract line items in Section B identify the contract types to be Cost Plus Fixed Fee cost element, yet Section H.3.1. discusses using Cost Reimbursable (CR) for certain work. Will CR type line items be added to Section B for such work, and can you provide offerors with any indication, by approximate % or dollars, of how much work under this IDIQ would be awarded with no fee?

ANSWER 2: This will be determined at the Task Order level; Sections B, L, & H will be updated with the final RFP.

QUESTION 3:

L-3.2.2; Section B –You ask for a description of our proposed management structure. Are bidders to include the pricing for the management structure in each CLIN in Section B?

ANSWER 3: The Offeror should address their Management Approach in this section, to include all bullets under L.3.2.2.

QUESTION 4:

In Section L-3.3, Can Offerors include past performance references from other transaction agreements (OTA), grants, or cooperative agreements for evaluation provided they meet the recency and relevance requirements?

ANSWER 4: Offerors should include past performance references that are relevant to the similarity in scope as defined in the ARO technical fields, complexity and security (handling CUI or higher) as found within the final RFP, in addition to, performing as the prime or subcontractor.

QUESTION 5:

L.3.3 Can an Offeror's proposal include a past performance reference from a team member, or must all references be from the Offeror's projects?

ANSWER 5: The offeror should provide references where they performed work that is recent and relevant. The reference could reflect them serving in a role other than as Prime.

QUESTION 6:

(H.5.1., 3RD para.) In Section H.5.1. the last sentence states, "The Contractor agrees that the Government may, up to three years after acceptance of all programmatic documentation to be delivered under the applicable Task Orders, restrict the Contractors future participation in any resulting program managed system acquisition action(s)." It is difficult, as written, for organizations to understand what future work may be restricted. Can the Government provide more clarity for offerors as to what future work could be restricted?

ANSWER 6: The Final RFP will be updated.

QUESTION 7:

(H.5.1., 3RD para.) In the 3rd paragraph of Section H.5.1., the Government has indicated that future work can be restricted. Can the Government consider adding this to the last sentence of Section 5.3.1, " . . .. unless the Contractor mitigates the conflict with an OCI Mitigation Plan approved by the Contracting Officer."

ANSWER 7: The Final RFP will be updated.

QUESTION 8:

L-3.6.1.3 The solicitation states the AI tool will be ‘output-only’ and generated report data is not saved. Does ‘output-only’ mean the tool does not retain data (prompts, inputs, outputs, logs, telemetry, etc.) after a session ends?

ANSWER 8: When AI tools are utilized no prompts, inputs, outputs or metadata are retained after session completion.

QUESTION 9:

L.3.6.1.3. If AI outputs (summaries, compliance flags, risk highlights) inform evaluators, are those outputs captured anywhere in the official evaluation documentation or source selection file, and if so, where and how long are they retained?

ANSWER 9: When AI tools are utilized no prompts, inputs, outputs or metadata are retained after session completion.

QUESTION 10:

L.3.6.1 Please confirm proposal data (including any derived AI outputs) will not be used for model training, tuning, or improvement, and will not be incorporated into any dataset beyond the procurement evaluation.

ANSWER 10: When AI tools are utilized no prompts, inputs, outputs or metadata are retained after session completion.

QUESTION 11:

L.3.6.1 Who within the Government (roles/groups) will have access to proposal data when AI tools are used, and are there access controls that limit visibility to only the appointed evaluators?

ANSWER 11: All members of the source selection team will be signing non-disclosure agreements.

QUESTION 12:

L.3.6.1 The Government may use AI to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance issues, and highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and risk areas. If the AI flags a perceived issue/risk, noncompliance, or strength/weakness, what is the process for evaluator verification before that finding impacts evaluation results?

ANSWER 12: The Government has several internal processes for evaluator verification such as a Human Evaluator review; independently reviews the underlying proposal text and consensus validation; evaluator discussions to name a few.

QUESTION 13:

L.3.6.1 Will the Government disclose, in discussions/ENs (if any) or debriefing, whether an AI-assisted finding materially contributed to an identified weakness/deficiency/risk?

ANSWER 13: No, the Government has noted the use of AI tools in support of evaluations per L.3.6.1.1

QUESTION 14:

L.3.6.1.5 The restriction includes ‘text hidden within images or graphics.’ Many proposals include labeled diagrams, screenshots, or figures with embedded labels. Please clarify whether normal figure labels/annotations within graphics are permitted, and if so, any best practices (alt text, captions, separate text descriptions).

ANSWER 14: Labeled of annotations within graphics are permitted. Please refer to sections L.3.6.1.6 on guidance for acceptable formats.

QUESTION 15:

L.3.6.1.3 The section states AI will be employed consistent with protections for proprietary and source selection sensitive info. Please confirm the AI workflow will not expose proposal content to users outside the evaluation team and will not enable cross-proposal content mixing ANSWER 15: A standard Federal source selection consists of Subject Matter Experts within the Contracting, Legal and Program offices. These individuals only will have access to the proposal data and will sign nondisclosure agreements.

QUESTION 16:

The draft solicitation mentions Cost Based task orders as possibilities. Will this contract or task orders require DCAA compliant accounting systems?

ANSWER 16: Universities should have negotiated rate agreements and will need to have adequate accounting controls to segregate costs such as direct versus indirect; allowable vs. unallowable costs; and contract specific expenditures.

QUESTION 17:

We recommend the government also allow FFP-LOE awards.

ANSWER 17: The Government does not anticipate FFP-LOE awards.

QUESTION 18:

What is the required participation goal(s) for small businesses or any socio-economic statuses?

ANSWER 18: This will be a Multiple Award Contract, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract. There are no set asides.

QUESTION 19:

Can planned subcontractors be non-traditional defense contractors?

ANSWER 19: Yes

QUESTION 20:

Contract ceiling clarification- The Draft RFP states that the maximum ceiling for the contract is anticipated to be $400M. Is that value for total awards to all contractors, or does the $400M ceiling apply individually to the IDIQ issued to each contractor?

ANSWER 20: The total ceiling for the base is $200M and $200M for the option periods. Each awardee will have a total ceiling amount of $400 if the option periods are exercised.

QUESTION 21:

Contract type (CPFF vs. CNRF) - Section H.3.1 defines a cost contract (with no fee). However, CLINs 0001 and 1001 are defined as Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF). Is the government considering award of Cost Reimbursement No Fee (CNRF) task orders?

ANSWER 21: The Final RFP will be updated to reflect Cost Reimbursement, Firm Fixed Price and Cost-Plus Fixed Fee.

QUESTION 22:

Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement - Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement (Dec 2014), pg. 12 - To fully understand the applicable higher-level quality standards, we need clarification on the information referenced in paragraph (a), which is currently blank. Will this be defined in the Final RFP, or is this information available earlier in the process?

ANSWER 22: This will be defined in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 23:

For institutions or affiliates that also perform advisory, analytic, systems-engineering, or acquisition-support work elsewhere for the Army or DoD, what OCI scenarios are most relevant to TPP, and what mitigation measures would be considered acceptable at base award and at task-order level?

ANSWER 23: Offerors will need to identify the OCI in accordance with the OCI clause.

QUESTION 24:

How should offerors treat costs for cleared facilities, secure storage, classified IT, secure communications, security staff, software licenses, and capital equipment needed for classified or CUI work? Are these expected to be proposed as direct costs when allocable, recovered through indirect pools, or handled through institutionally negotiated rates?

ANSWER 24: Offerors are responsible for proposing costs in accordance with their established accounting practices, applicable cost principles, and the solicitation instructions. Costs associated with cleared facilities, secure storage, classified or CUI-capable IT infrastructure, secure communications, security administration, software licenses, capital equipment, and related security/compliance requirements may be proposed as direct costs, indirect costs, or recovered through institutionally negotiated rates, as appropriate and consistent with the offeror’s disclosed and consistently applied accounting practices.

QUESTION 25:

Section K appears to allow personnel who currently possess or are eligible to obtain required clearances, while Section L requests a key-person roster with currently active clearances. Which standard governs, and for which roles?

ANSWER 25: Comprehensive guidance will be included in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 26:

What are the expected response windows, page limits, and proposal requirements at task-order level? How often will urgent response windows shorter than 14-21 days be used?

ANSWER 26: At this time, the Government cannot confirm the response time for requirements. As requirements are identified a reasonable response time will be allotted.

QUESTION 27:

Does the Government require subcontractors (including academic or other partner organizations) to be identified at the time of IDIQ proposal submission and award, or may subcontractors be added or modified post-award, including at the individual task order level? If additions are permitted, please describe any approval processes or limitations.

ANSWER 27: Offerors should identify all known proposed subcontractors, teaming partners, and key partner organizations (including academic institutions or research affiliates) at the time of proposal submission to the extent required by solicitation. The Government may consider the qualifications, experience, capabilities, and proposed roles of identified subcontractors as part of the evaluation. However, the Government recognizes that teaming arrangements may evolve over time. Therefore, subject to applicable contractual requirements, subcontractors may generally be added, removed, or modified post-award and/or at the individual task-order level.

QUESTION 28:

Pertaining to Volume III Past Performance: To streamline the evaluation process and reduce reliance on external reference response times, would the Government consider accepting CPARS in lieu of, or in addition to, PPQs for relevant past performance efforts where available?

ANSWER 28: The Government may consider CPARS information as part of its past performance evaluation to the extent permitted by the solicitation and applicable FAR guidance. Offerors are encouraged to submit all requested past performance information in accordance with the solicitation instructions. Final instructions regarding acceptable past performance submission formats, including the use of CPARS versus PPQs, will be provided in the final RFP. Unless otherwise stated, the Government reserves the right to use information obtained from CPARS and other available sources in its evaluation.

QUESTION 29:

Pertaining to Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method: Can the Government provide additional guidance on how “magnitude of effort” will be assessed for past performance relevance (e.g., contract value, team size, scope breadth, or level of technical integration), and how these factors are balanced against technical scope alignment?

ANSWER 29: The magnitude of effort or complexity are categorized from Very Relevant to Not Relevant which is tied in the assessment of similarity of work performed.

QUESTION 30:

The draft solicitation includes Section (b)(1) requiring the Contracting Officer to specify the CMMC level; however, the required level is not provided in the current version of the RFP. Could the Government please confirm the required CMMC level for this procurement?

ANSWER 30: DEVCOM ARO is requiring Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program Level 2 certification for eligibility.

QUESTION 31:

Should the subcontracting plan be written to the ceiling total of $400M for the IDIQ?

ANSWER 31: The subcontracting plan should be tied to the TOTAL estimated contract value the offeror expects to subcontract out of the $400M ceiling including options.

QUESTION 32:

Will the government consider teaming arrangements where the Prime Contractor includes past performance from partners/subcontractors as part of the proposal package?

ANSWER 32: The Government does not have authority with whom Prime Contractors choose to team. Offerors should be noted as the Prime Contractor on Past Performance submitted.

QUESTION 33:

Section A, Item 4 of the draft RFP states that this requirement is eligible for "Institutes of higher education and non-profit research institutions as defined at both 20 U.S.C. § 1001 or 15 U.S.C. § 638(e)(8).” Can the Government please confirm what organization types qualify as eligible prime Offerors under this eligibility language? For example, are the following entities eligible:

· Independent non-profit research laboratories that are 501(c)(3) organizations engaged in scientific and engineering research but not affiliated with a degree-granting institution;

· University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) where the legal contracting entity is the sponsoring university, which is an institution of higher education as defined under 20 U.S.C. § 1001;

· Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) that are operated by non-profit organizations or institutions of higher education, where the managing entity meets the definitions under 20 U.S.C. § 1001 or 15 U.S.C. § 638(e)(8)

ANSWER 33:

QUESTION 34:

Section L-3.2.2 requires Offerors to provide a list of 3-5 key faculty members for each relevant focus area. The draft RFP does not address whether the same individual may be listed as Key Personnel under more than one of the six (6) technical focus areas.

0. May a single individual be identified as Key Personnel in more than one technical focus area within the proposal, provided that individual meets the relevant qualifications and clearance requirements for each area in which they are listed?

0. Section L-3.1.2.2 defines Key Personnel to include "faculty and research staff who currently hold active security clearances," while Section L-3.2.2 refers only to "key faculty members" when describing the list required for each focus area. Does the list required under L-3.2.2 include both faculty and research staff, consistent with the definition in L-3.1.2.2, or is it limited to faculty only?

ANSWER 34:

a. There is no limitation as to the frequency of Key Personnel identified for technical areas.

b. Key Personnel can both faculty and research staff or faculty solely or research staff solely; that determination is at the discretion of the Offeror.

QUESTION 35:

Section L-3.4 requires OTSB offerors to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan per FAR 52.219-9, and Section H.10 indicates that SB participation goals will be tracked cumulatively across the base IDIQ level. However, the draft RFP does not appear to provide (a) specific percentage goals by small business category (SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB), or (b) a contract value or estimated annual ordering volume against which to calculate those goals. Given the IDIQ structure with a $2,500 minimum guarantee and a $400M ceiling (including options), what dollar value should offerors use as the base for their subcontracting plan goal calculations? Will the Government provide specific SB category percentage targets in the final RFP?

ANSWER 35: Subcontracting plans will be required at the base award level however, will be based on the statement of work and the dollar amount. Specific SB goals will not be identified at the base award level, but at the task order level. Updated guidance will be provided in the final RFP.

QUESTION 36:

Section L-2.3 establishes a question deadline of June 22, 2026 at 16:00 ET for the final RFP, with proposals due July 15, 2026. To allow offerors a meaningful opportunity to review the final RFP (including all contract terms and clauses in Section I) and submit questions before the June 22 deadline, can the Government provide its anticipated release date for the final RFP? Given the prohibition on assumptions and exceptions in Section A, Paragraph 12, offerors will need adequate time between final RFP release and the question deadline to identify any issues with contract terms before proposal submission.

ANSWER 36: The Government has not determined when the Final RFP will be released. However, adequate time and consideration will be allotted for proposal preparation and submissions.

QUESTION 37:

Will this opportunity have an ongoing submission process and/or will on-ramping be available if the former is not being utilized?

ANSWER 37: There will be an opportunity for on-ramping.

QUESTION 38:

Do you think this proposal, in its current form as an instrumentation grant, is suitable for submission to this call?

ANSWER 38: No, the intent of this award is to be a multiple award contract, indefinite delivery, indefinite quality contract.

QUESTION: 39:

Would you recommend revising the…