W9124926RA003 Consolidated QAs.pdf

Question Answer

1. Given the CCoE and the desired course requirements; why isn't a set aside done for the veteran or SDVOSB on this opportunity as opposed to unrestricted?

Based on Market Reseach two or more VOSB/SDVOSB businesses were not identified that could fulfill the requirement.

2. In the instructor requirements: "Course completion documentation from the Support Cadre Training Course (SCTC) and either the Army Basic Instructor Course (ABIC) or the Foundation Instructor Facilitator Course (FIFC)", can this be substituted for other relevant teaching experience within this field?

This is a T2COM (formerly TRADOC) requirement for all instructors teaching courses at the U.S.

Army Cyber Center of Excellence. New contractor personnel are required to complete IS-CTC (NLT 30-days after assuming duties per TRRADOC 350-6) and CFD-IC within 90 days of onboarding. Current courses are IS-CTC, and CFD-IC (for instructors). PWS updated in Section

1.6.8 and Part 6

3. What is the estimated budget for this course?

The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) is an internal procurement document and is not authorized for public dissemination. Please develop your pricing proposal based strictly on the requirements and deliverables outlined in the PWS

4. Can equivalent experience be considered or removed from the requirements labor category ? Bachelor's degree requirements in PWS 1.6.8.3 and PWS 1.6.8.4 have been updated to provide an alternative option.

5. Paragraph 5.3 references a "30-week training schedule," but the duration of a single ACO-P course iteration is undefined. What is the specific duration (in days/weeks) of one class, and do iterations run concurrently?

ACO-P courses are 7 weeks (Monday - Friday), currently they are not concurrent. TE 3 has been updated.

6. Clarification Request: Does "Pilot Course Test and Evaluation (PCTE)" in Section 1.4 refer to the Persistent Cyber Training Environment? Yes - PCTE should stand for Persistent Cyber Training Environment.

7. Will the Government consider waiving the Bachelor's degree requirement in Para 1.6.8.4 for Range Developers who demonstrate significant equivalent professional experience?

Bachelor's degree requirements in PWS 1.6.8.3 and PWS 1.6.8.4 have been updated to provide an alternative option.

8. Request for Modification: We request the Government include a 60-day grace period for new hires to complete the SCTC and ABIC/FIFC certifications listed in 1.6.8.3. This aligns with historical CCoE contracts and ensures qualified technical candidates are not excluded solely due to pending Army-specific training.

There is no requirement for a Phase In period for this contract. The contractor is expected to provide adequately trained personnel as identified in PWS 1.6.8The government does not have time available before classes begin to permit a grace period. This is a T2COM (formerly TRADOC) requirement for all instructors teaching courses at the U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence. New c ontractor personnel are required to complete IS-CTC (NLT 30-days after assuming duties per TRRADOC 350-6) and CFD-IC within 90 days of onboarding. Current courses are IS-CTC, and CFD-IC (for instructors). PWS updated in Section 1.6.8 and Part 6

9. Regarding Section 1.6.18, if Phase In is "Not Applicable," how does the Government envision the transition process occurring, particularly for non-incumbents? Is there an incumbent currently performing this work?

There is no requirement for a Phase In period for this contract. The contractor is expected to provide adequately trained personnel as identified in PWS 1.6.8

10. Critical Conflict: Para 1.6.14 states "Contractor Travel: Not Applicable," yet Para 1.6.5 and 5.5 require Mobile Training Team (MTT) support at remote locations. Without a Cost-Reimbursable Travel CLIN, Offerors must risk-adjust FFP labor rates for unknown travel volume. Recommendation: Will the Government establish a Travel CLIN (Cost Reimbursable, NTE) to cover MTT travel expenses?

The Government will provide a NTE CLIN to support MTT/Surge requirements

11. The "Applicable Publications" section lists several outdated documents (e.g., JP 3-12, FM 3-12). Should the Contractor utilize the specific versions listed in the PWS or the most current versions available in the Joint Doctrine Library?

It is the government's intent that offerers use the most recent publications as distributed by Army and Joint Staff. Use JP 3-12 dated 19 December 2022. FM 3-12 dated 17 September 2025. PWS Updated

12. Is specific Past Performance or experience with the Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE) a mandatory requirement for Technical Acceptability?

In accordance with Addemdum 52.212-1 any offeror without past performance shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

13. Does the Government require at least one Range Developer to possess prior experience with PCTE?

The Contractor shall be responsible to propose and deploy the correct labor types, mix, number and hours required to satisfactorily and professionally meet all PWS requirements to include supervision. PWS 1.6.8.4 has been updated to reflect revised qualifications.

14. There is a discrepancy between Para 1.6.14 (Travel "Not Applicable") and Para 1.6.5 (MTT travel required). Please clarify if travel is authorized and reimbursable under this contract. The Government will provide a NTE CLIN to support MTT/Surge requirements

15. If "Neutral" Past Performance is considered "Acceptable" (same as a positive rating), is there any evaluation benefit to submitting relevant Past Performance? If not, we recommend removing the requirement to streamline the proposal process.

Past performance evaluation is required by FAR 15.304.

16. Regarding Para 1.6.8.1 and CDRL A002: Given the requirement for COR pre-approval of candidates, we request the vacancy fill timeline be extended from 10 days to 30 days to account for the Government approval cycle.

The government requirement is for personnel to be back filled within 10 business days.PWS

1.6.8.1 has been updated to reflect 10 business days

17. Regarding CDRL A004: Can the Government provide the specific steps and timeline required for a new instructor to achieve "CCoE Instructor Certification" for the ACO-P course?

Instructors must successfully complete the IS-CTC or SCTC course, CFD-IC course, provide a Security Clearance Letter, obtain a request for certification from the Cyber School's Director of Training (cyber school will take care of this), and at least 1x instructor observation completed by a military or government civilian who has graduated from the Instructor Observation Course (IOC).

18. Technical Exhibit 3 currently lists "Annual Student Load" and "Contact Hours" as "0", despite estimating 11 classes per year. Request the Government provide accurate student volume and contact hours to enable accurate FTE estimation.

Tech Exhibit 3 has been updated to reflect the base and potential surge requirement. A SURGE CLIN will be established with a plug in number for SURGE requirements

19. Technical Exhibit 2 currently lists "Student Feedback Forms" as the sole quality metric. Will the Contractor be evaluated on objective student outcomes (e.g., Graduation Rates, First-Time Pass Rates)? If so, please provide historical benchmarks.

Student Feedback is the sole quality metric.

20. Paragraph 5.3 requires instruction IAW established POIs. Does the Government have a formal "train-the-trainer" or validation pipeline for new instructors to become authorized ACO-P instructors? If so, what is the duration of this process?

This is addressed as part of the Instructor Certification Process. The Government does not typically train the contractors in the subject matter.

21. Recommendation: Paragraph 1.6.18 states Phase-In is "Not Applicable," creating a risk for Day 1 readiness given the 100% staffing requirement. We respectfully request the Government add a 30-day Phase-In CLIN to allow for security in-processing and instructor validation.

There is no requirement for a Phase In period for this contract. The contractor is expected to provide adequately trained personnel as identified in PWS 1.6.8

22. Regarding "Surge" requirements for MTTs: If additional instructors are required for a surge, does the Government anticipate a ramp-up period for these individuals to become certified on the ACO-P course, and should this be costed in the surge estimate?

The government will provide 30 days notice on MTT/Surge requirements.

23. The PWS references delivering content IAW the Program of Instruction (POI), but the specific modules and technical topics are not defined in the solicitation. Request the Government provide a syllabus, Course Map, or list of primary technical modules (e.g., specific OS, tools, or tactics) to ensure Offerors map personnel with the appropriate Subject Matter Expertise.

Required qualifications are found in PWS 1.6.

24. Paragraph 5.3 mentions "performance-based" testing but does not define the final assessment format. Does the ACO-P course include a Capstone Exercise (CULEX) or comprehensive End of Course exam? If so, what is the duration of this event and does it require specific range support?

Most of the course is hands-on - there are Capstone Exercises (CULEX) whose length can be provided with the unclassified training schedule. Skills will be assessed throughout the course.

25. Regarding student assessment: Does the Government require the Contractor to rank students or assess proficiency against specific Work Role KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities), or is the standard strictly Pass/Fail? If KSA-based assessment is required, will the Government provide the evaluation rubric?

The standard is strictly Pass/Fail based largely on active participation in the course and completion of objective tasks given to the students. Proficiency assessment against the specific Work Role KSAs will be completed for purposes of feedback to the students. This is subject to change.

26. Administrative Discrepancy: The Solicitation package includes two files labeled "Attachment 6" (the DD254 and the Employee Total Compensation Plan). The Instructions (Addendum to 52.212-1) refer to the Compensation Plan as "Attachment 5." Please clarify the correct attachment numbering and confirm that no intended "Attachment 5" is missing from the solicitation package.

Attachment 5 is "Employee Total Compensation Plan" Attachment 6 is "DD254".

27. SCLS Applicability: The Instructions state that Total Compensation Plans will be evaluated IAW FAR 52.222-46 (Professional Employees). Please confirm that the Government considers all Labor Categories in this PWS (including Range Developers) to be "Professional Employees" exempt from the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) / Service Contract Act (SCA), and that no Wage Determination applies.

The Government anticipates that all Labor Categories for this effort are considered Professional Employees.

28. FTE Basis: The Sample Compensation Spreadsheet (Row 9) hard-codes the annual hours calculation as "2087".

Does the Government require all proposed personnel to be priced as full-time (1.0 FTE) employees, or may Offerors propose fractional/part-time FTEs if their technical approach warrants it?

The offeror can propose fractional part-time.

29. In which Volume should the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be placed? Is Volume I preferred? Volume II is preferred.

30. Can the Offeror submit Past Performance examples from subcontractors performing less than 51% of the total effort? Yes.

31. Given the advanced technical complexity of the ACO-P course, would the Government consider changing the evaluation method to Best Value Trade-off to better ensure quality instruction and reduce performance risk?

No the Government will not consider changing the evaluation method. They will move forward with

LPTA.

32. Format: The Instructions require a "description" of how salary rates account for skill differences, yet the provided Attachment is a numerical spreadsheet. Does the Government desire this narrative description to be embedded within the Excel file, or submitted as a separate PDF narrative within Volume IV?

Yes the Government desires a narritive description to be submitted with Volume IV.

33. Missing Information: The Instructions state "Offerors shall use government provided not-to-exceed (NTE) estimates for ODC CLINs," yet no NTE amount is provided in Attachment 4. To ensure equitable price evaluation, will the Government provide a specific "Plug Number" (e.g., $10,000) for all Offerors to use for ODCs?

There is no NTE CLIN for ODCs. The Government will provide a NTE CLIN to support MTT/Surge requirements

34. Surge Pricing: PWS 5.5 defines "Surge" as an "unforeseen need," but Attachment 4 does not contain a Surge CLIN.

Does the Government intend for Surge support to be priced within the FFP Base CLINs, or will a separate T&M / Over-and-Above CLIN be added for Surge requirements?

There is no NTE CLIN for ODCs. The Government will provide a NTE CLIN to support MTT/Surge requirements

35. Will the Government consider waiving the Bachelor's degree requirement in Para 1.6.8.3 for Instructors who demonstrate significant equivalent professional experience?

Bachelor's degree requirements in PWS 1.6.8.3 and PWS 1.6.8.4 have been updated to provide an alternative option.

36. The DD-254 indicates no safeguarding at the contractor's facility (Block 1b), with all classified access occurring at Government facilities (Block 11.a). For an offeror with an FCL application in process at time of award, would the Government permit the contractor to begin non-classified setup and implementation activities (e.g., personnel onboarding, administrative coordination, unclassified curriculum review) while awaiting final FCL adjudication, provided all personnel hold active TS/SCI clearances?

Per PWS 4.2, the contractor must have and maintain a TS/SCI Facility Clearance at time of award.

There is no unclassified curriculum to review.

37. The PWS identifies Instructor/Writer and Range Developer as labor categories. Are there any additional labor categories beyond Instructor/Writer and Range Developer that the Government expects offerors to propose and price (e.g., Program Manager, Training Coordinator, Quality Control)?

The Contractor shall be responsible to propose and deploy the correct labor types, mix, number and hours required to satisfactorily and professionally meet all PWS requirements to include supervision

38. If a candidate has all requisite certifications and exceeds the experience level but has a bachelors degree in another field, would the USG accept this individual to support this effort?

No. Bachelor's degree requirements in PWS 1.6.8.3 and PWS 1.6.8.4 have been updated to provide an alternative option.

39. Will the USG be willing to sponsor contractor personnel to attend the Support Cadre Training Course (SCTC) as part of their instructor certification requirements?

Yes. The government sponsors the requirements for all contract instructors/training developers as required. Contractors are required to take IS-CTC and not SCTC.

40. If the USG sponsorship is not available, may the Contractor, using TDC-certified personnel provide equivalent internal training to satisfy the SCTC requirement?

Yes. The government sponsors the requirements for all contract instructors/training developers as required. Contractors are required to take IS-CTC and not SCTC.

41. The requirement does not specify whether the listed qualifications apply to all instructors or whether at least one instructor must meet all qualifications. Could the USG please clarify this to avoid any assumptions? All instructors must meet the minimum qualifications as found in PWS 1.6.8.3.

42. Given that the certifications required in the PWS (e.g., ABIC, SCTC, FIFC) are administered solely by the Government and require Government sponsorship for enrollment, and recognizing that access to these courses is limited for non-incumbent offerors, can the Government clarify how these pre-award certification requirements align with FAR 11.002(a)(1), which states that agencies shall avoid requirements that are unduly restrictive of competition?

This is a T2COM (formerly TRADOC) requirement for all instructors teaching courses at the U.S.

Army Cyber Center of Excellence. New contractor personnel are required to complete IS-CTC (NLT 30-days after assuming duties per TRADOC 350-6) and CFD-IC within 90 days of onboarding. Current courses are IS-CTC, and CFD-IC (for instructors). PWS updated in Section

1.6.8 and Part 6

43. Additionally, based on market research requirements in FAR 10.001 and the small business participation guidance in FAR 19.202-1, can the Government confirm whether these certifications may be reclassified as “desired” or required within a period post-award in order to ensure full and open competition and avoid inadvertently creating an CCoE-ITSS incumbent-only advantage?

This is a T2COM (formerly TRADOC) requirement for all instructors teaching courses at the U.S.

Army Cyber Center of Excellence. New contractor personnel are required to complete IS-CTC (NLT 30-days after assuming duties per TRADOC 350-6) and CFD-IC within 90 days of onboarding. Current courses are IS-CTC, and CFD-IC (for instructors). PWS updated in Section

1.6.8 and Part 6

44. Could the USG please share whether any Standard Occupational Classifications (SOCs) were used in developing the IGCE, and if so, would those be available for release to offerors?

The Government anticipates the requirements within this PWS will require the following labor categories: Instructor/Writer, and Range Developer. Refer to PWS 1.6.8

45. Will the USG consider allowing the contractor up to six months to obtain the SCTC certification, given that the SCTC is USG-approved and USG-issued? If not, could the Government identify any industry-recognized equivalent certifications that would be considered acceptable?

This is a T2COM (formerly TRADOC) requirement for all instructors teaching courses at the U.S.

Army Cyber Center of Excellence. New contractor personnel are required to complete IS-CTC (NLT 30-days after assuming duties per TRRADOC 350-6) and CFD-IC within 90 days of onboarding. Current courses are IS-CTC, and CFD-IC (for instructors). PWS updated in Section

1.6.8 and Part 6

46. Because the scope of work includes complex technical activities and mission-critical performance outcomes, would the Government consider requiring ISO 9001:2015 certification to ensure that all offerors maintain a standardized and optimized quality management system? This requirement would help ensure consistent performance, risk mitigation, and repeatable processes across all contract deliverables.

ISO 9001:2015 is not required for this effort

47. To ensure accurate staffing and experience-level alignment, would the Government please clarify whether contractor personnel are required to perform tasks independently without Government supervision, or whether standard supervisory oversight will be provided as part of mission execution?

Yes - all tasks are required to be performed independently without direct Government supervision.

There is a military Course Manager responsible for the course, but this individual will not be present in the classroom every day.

48. Given that this requirement is a service-based contract and the key instructor certifications (such as ABIC, SCTC, and FIFC) are issued by the Government and not commercially sourced, can the Government clarify why this acquisition is being released as an unrestricted competition rather than a small business set-aside despite previous contracts had the exact same requirement and it was deemed a small business set aside?

Based on Market Reseach two or more of those were not identified.

49. Under FAR 19.502-2(b), a procurement must be set aside for small business when there is a reasonable expectation that at least two responsible small businesses can perform the work at fair market prices. Because the certifications are provided by the Government rather than being proprietary or requiring industry licensing can the Government explain what market research findings under FAR 10.001 led to the conclusion that adequate small-business competition was not achievable for this requirement? Though similar contract with very similar requirements was deemed to be a small business set aside.

Based on Market Reseach two or more of those were not identified.

50. For pricing and staffing alignment, can the Government clarify whether the Program Manager is expected to serve as a direct labor position charged to the contract, or whether the Program Manager may be treated as an indirect/overhead position whose cost is recovered through standard contractor indirect rates?

There is no requirement for a Program Manager. PWS 4.6 has been updated to reflect the removal of the reference to Program Manager. The Contractor shall be responsible to propose and deploy the correct labor types, mix, number and hours required to satisfactorily and professionally meet all PWS requirements to include supervision.

51. Can the Government clarify the required or desired qualifications for the Program Manager (e.g., minimum years of experience, management certifications, cyber experience, DoD acquisition experience, or training-related background)?

There is no requirement for a Program Manager. PWS 4.6 has been updated to reflect the removal of the reference to Program Manager. The Contractor shall be responsible to propose and deploy the correct labor types, mix, number and hours required to satisfactorily and professionally meet all PWS requirements to include supervision.

52. For staffing flexibility and to ensure access to the widest pool of qualified personnel, would the Government consider allowing a substitution of experience in lieu of a Bachelor’s degree for the Instructor/Writer and Range Developer positions—for example, accepting an additional three (3) years of relevant experience in place of a Bachelor’s degree?

This substitution approach is common in DoD service contracts of this type and may help increase competition and availability of otherwise fully qualified cyber professionals.

PWS 1.6.8.3 and PWS 1.6.8.4 have been updated to reflect acceptable alternative qualifications.

53. The CDRL requires NDAs signed by employees, but no NDA template is provided. Is this NDA intended to be separate from the SF-312, and if so, will the Government furnish the required NDA format, or may contractors use their own?

The NDA will be provided by the Government at contract start/new employee on boarding.

54. Under FAR 52.222-46, offerors typically submit a Total Compensation Plan. If an offeror already has a DCAA-approved accounting system that documents compensation controls, is a separate Total Compensation Plan still required for this solicitation?

Yes.

55. The Pricing section states that “incumbent contractors shall submit information pertaining to the salaries and fringe benefits paid to incumbent contractor personnel…” For proposal accuracy, can the Government identify the current incumbent contractor(s) or clarify who the Government considers to be the incumbent for this requirement?

This is new requirement.

56. In subfactor 1B, Staffing, the USG uses both Letters of Intent (LOIs) and Letters of Commitment (LOCs). As we feel these are different levels of documents, which of these does the USG require? Letters of Intent

57. Can the Government confirm whether the “PCTE” referenced as the Pilot Course Test Environment is the same as, or different from, the Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE) used with academia and PEO STRI? Yes - PCTE should stand for Persistent Cyber Training Environment.

58. Can the USG provide an estimated number of MTTs requiring travel per year, the length of those MTTs, and the number of personnel required per MTT?

The length of those MTTs would be approximately the length of the course (7 weeks). The government will provide a plug in NTE number for the Surge/MTT CLINS. Current MTT requirement is 0.

59. Does the Government intend for Offerors to provide distinct and separately evaluated responses to Subfactor 1A.2.a and Subfactor 1B, or Will the Government consider removing or revising Subfactor 1A.2.a to avoid duplicative submissions, given that the same information is already required under Subfactor 1B?Clarification will help ensure our proposal is responsive and organized in accordance with the Government’s intended evaluation approach.

The Government will not remove Subfactor 1.A.2.a. Please submit proposals accordingly.

60. The Instructions to Offerors require us to provide “proof of…security clearances” for all personnel proposed under this contract. In practice, clearance verification is performed through DISS, which is a CUI system that contains significant PII and is not appropriate to screen-capture or export for inclusion in a proposal submission. To avoid improper handling of CUI/PII and remain compliant with security policy, we request clarification on the Government’s expectations:

The contractor's attestment as to clearances will suffice at time of proposal.

61. How does the Government expect Offerors to demonstrate “proof” of personnel clearances at the proposal stage without exposing CUI or PII from DISS or other clearance systems? Will the Government accept an Offeror certification (e.g., a signed statement that all proposed personnel possess the required clearances and eligibility), with formal verification to occur post-award? We recommend that, upon award, the contractor submit a Contract Access Roster (CAR) to the G–2 Security Office for verification and validation of clearances in DISS. Will the Government accept this approach in lieu of including DISS-based documentation in the proposal?

The contractor's attestment as to clearances will suffice at time of proposal.

62. In the Instructions to Offerors (d) Volume IV - Price, the Government notes that all prime and subcontractor offerors must provide a Total Compensation Plan that includes fringe buildup rates. Likewise, the Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet requires that all costs include rate buildup and wrap information. Since many companies consider this proprietary information, is the Government willing to allow subcontractors to send their Total Compensation Plan separately from the Prime Offeror's proposal? Likewise, is the Government willing to adjust the format of Attachment 4 so that positions filled by subcontractors do not require rate buildup information?

Subcontractors are allowed to send their Total Compensation Plan seperately. Please make sure the subcontractor identifies the prime contractor. Offerors may adjust the pricing sheet, but do not delete any of the required information.

63. The Performance Work Statement indicates that there is an anticipated requirement for 6 content developers and 3 range engineers; however, there is no information on the course schedule or how many courses are planned for the year. Can the Government provide estimated course schedules and lengths to help the Offerors price the right amount of contractor staff as well as create a relevant 30-week training schedule?

TE3 has been updated in the PWS to reflect the correct requirements.

64. Volume 2 Technical Subfactor 1B addresses Letters of Intent. Are Letters of Intent required? If so, will Offerors be penalized during evaluation if they do not include them? In accordance with Addemdum 52.212-1 the offeror's shall provide Letters of Intent.

65. Volume 3 Past Performance requires that past performance examples include specific information on overall cost and delivery. Since many companies consider this proprietary information, is the Government willing to allow subcontractors to send their past performance examples separately from the Prime Offeror's proposal? If not, will the Government accept more sanitized past performance examples for the subcontractors?

Yes.

66. Volume 3 Past Performance requires Offerors to coordinate the delivery of past performance evaluations from previous Government customers. Given that it is the holiday season and Offerors have little control over Government response time, is the Government willing to extend the proposal due dates until after the holidays?

Yes.

67. For Volume 4 Price, can the Government provide the referenced Not to Exceed ODC CLINS? There is no NTE CLIN for ODCs. The Government will provide a NTE CLIN to support MTT/Surge requirements

68. Is the Government willing to accept labor category equivalencies (additional experience or technical certifications) in lieu of Bachelor's degree for candidates without degrees?

There is no NTE CLIN for ODCs. The Government will provide a NTE CLIN to support MTT/Surge requirements

69. Attachment 4, Pricing Worksheet shows base and four option years on the "Pricing - Fully Burdened" tab. Can we modify this spreadsheet since this effort is only three years? The attachement has been updated.

70. PWS Section 1.6.8.3 has an Instructor/Writer requirement for "Course completion documentation from the Support Cadre Training Course (SCTC) and either the Army Basic Instructor Course (ABIC) or the Foundation Instructor Facilitator Course (FIFC)." The result of this requirement is the restriction of staffing to only prior-Army personnel.

There are many OCO personnel who can expertly support this contract with experience from other military branches or the federal government and have obtained non-Army instructor qualifications that are equivalent. Would the government consider changing this requirement to include other military, government, or commercial instructor qualification equivalents? Proposed re-write would be: "Course completion documentation from the Support Cadre Training Course (SCTC) and either the Army Basic Instructor Course (ABIC) or the Foundation Instructor Facilitator Course (FIFC) or other military, government, and commercial instructor qualification equivalents."

The requirement is to provide contractors with the identified qualifications when the contract starts.

The required courses are a T2COM (formerly TRADOC) requirement for all instructors and support staff involved with courses at the U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence. New contractor personnel are required to complete IS-CTC (NLT 30-days after assuming duties per TRADOC 350-6) and CFD-IC within 90 days of onboarding. Current courses are IS-CTC, and CFD-IC (for instructors).

71. What are the exact number of course days and course hours for each offering of the ACO-P course? Course length is 7 weeks. Classes run Monday through Friday each week.

72. How many physical classrooms does the government have to execute the course locally?

There are exactly two physical classrooms available to execute the course locally. One classroom is used as the primary, and the other classroom is used as overflow for the instructors and range engineers to work on the course and the training environment while the course is in session.

73. It appears to be due the week of Christmas! That is an extremely busy time. Is there any possibility of extending the due date? Yes. The past performance evaluation is based on relevancy, recency of past efforts.

74. ADDENDUM 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors - The Instructions state that a small business subcontracting plan is required. Is there a preference for which volume it is included in? Vol I? Vol IV? See answer above.

75. ADDENDUM 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors - As part of the pricing data, subcontractors will need to submit some information directly to the government contracting office. Are there any specific instructions for submission of the subcontractor Attachment 5 Total Employee Compensation Plan?

Reference the solicitation # when you send the email.

76. ADDENDUM 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors - Solicitation states: “The Offeror shall provide letters of intent (signed within 60 days of proposal submission) and resumes for all personnel." Is a letter of intent required if the person is already employed by the offeror or is this intended for personnel who are holding contingent offers?

Letters of intent are required for all personnel

77. ADDENDUM 52.212-1 Evaluation - Since Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE) is such a critical part of the delivery of this course, can an offeror be deemed "technically acceptable" if they do not have Past Performance demonstrating PCTE experience?

Yes.

78. ADDENDUM 52.212-1 Evaluation and ADDENDUM 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors -The evaluation addendum states: “(f) Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 [a][2][iv]). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.” Given that offerors with no past performance are considered acceptable, is there any advantage given to offerors who have credible past performance?

See answer above.

79. ATTACHMENT 4 - PRICING WORKSHEET - In column M, it lists 1863 as the "Total Paid to Vendor based on Productive Hours". Is 1863 the RFP-mandated Full Time Equivalent?

Offerors can propose a different number of hours. It is the contractor's responsibility to staff and deploy qualfied contractor personnel to meet all of the PWS requirements.

80. ATTACHMENT_6_-_EMPLOYEE_TOTAL_COMPENSATION_PLAN_SAMPLE.xlsx - Attachment 6 lists "2087" on row 11 of Attachment 6 (Compensation Plan). "Base Labor Rate by Specialty: 2087 X ________= $_____________" There are only 2080 working hours in a business year. Is there a particular intent with using "2087"?

Offerors can propose a different number of hours. It is the contractor's responsibility to staff and deploy qualfied contractor personnel to meet all of the PWS requirements.

81. (PWS) - The background as written states: "The ACO-P course was developed in response to the evolving cyber threat landscape and the need for the Army to enhance its cyber capabilities to counter increasingly sophisticated adversaries.". Will this course train only Army personnel or will it also train personnel from other services?

It will train personnel from all military services that present forces to USCYBERCOM. The ACO-P course is currently only available at Fort Gordon. The need for Surge / MTT capability accounts for the possibility that a decision is made at USCYBERCOM to request a TRAP to provide concurrent classes at other CONUS locations.

82. (PWS) - Section 1.4 states, "...administering virtual cyber ranges on the Pilot Course Test and Evaluation (PCTE) network…" Is this synonomous with the Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE)?

The correct terminology is Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE). All language in the PWS has been corrected accordingly.

83. The PWS states: 1.5 Period of Performance: The period of performance shall be for one (1) Base Year of 12 months, and 2 (two) 12- month option years. The Period of Performance reads as follows: Base Year 16 February 2026

– 15 November 2027; Option Year I 16 November 2027 – 15 November 2028; Option Year II 16 November 2028 – 15 November 2029. The SF1449 continuation pages state POP is Base Year 16 February 2026 – 15 February 2027;

Option Year I 16 February 2027 – 15 February 2028; Option Year II 16 February 2028 – 15 February 2029. What is the correct POP?

PoP dates in PWS have been updated.

84. The PWS states that all instructors shall possess a "Bachelor's degree or greater in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Cybersecurity, or Information Systems". Is it possible to have an experience in lieu of education for those who currently only possess an Associates Degree or no degree?

PWS 1.6.8.3 and PWS 1.6.84 have been updated to reflect acceptable alternative qualifications.

85. Since Army Basic Instructor Course (ABIC)/Foundation Instructor Facilitator Course (FIFC) are courses that are no longer offered, would a Common Faculty Development Program (CFDP) Phase I (qualification) course serve as an acceptable substitute for the ABIC or FIFC requirement for the Instructor/Writer position?

The requirement is to provide contractors with the identified qualifications when the contract starts.

The required courses are a T2COM (formerly TRADOC) requirement for all instructors and support staff involved with courses at the U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence. New contractor personnel are required to complete IS-CTC (NLT 30-days after assuming duties per TRADOC 350-6) and CFD-IC within 90 days of onboarding. Current courses are IS-CTC, and CFD-IC (for instructors).

86. PWS Section 1.6.8.3 currently lists course completion documentation for the Support Cadre Training Course (SCTC) and Army Basic Instructor Course (ABIC)/Foundation Instructor Facilitator Course (FIFC) as a requirement for Instructor/Writers. Historical solicitations for similar CCOE instructor support explicitly provided a 60-day grace period from the start date or hiring date for personnel to obtain these government-specific certifications. To align with historical precedent and ensure the vendor can provide the widest pool of technically qualified candidates who may possess the required technical skills but lack these specific government training courses prior to onboarding, would the Government consider amending the PWS to include a 60-day grace period for obtaining SCTC and CFDP Phase 1 (replacement for ABIC/FIFC) certifications?

The requirement is to provide contractors with the identified qualifications when the contract starts.

The required courses are a T2COM (formerly TRADOC) requirement for all instructors and support staff involved with courses at the U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence. New contractor personnel are required to complete IS-CTC (NLT 30-days after assuming duties per TRADOC 350-6) and CFD-IC within 90 days of onboarding. Current courses are IS-CTC, and CFD-IC (for instructors).

87. The PWS states that all range developers shall possess a "Bachelor's degree or greater in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Cybersecurity, or Information Systems". Is it possible to have an experience in lieu of education for those who currently only possess an Associates Degree or no degree?

PWS 1.6.8.3 and PWS 1.6.8.4 have been updated to reflect acceptable alternative qualifications.

88. (PWS) - Since Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE) is such a critical part of the delivery of course, this task order will not succeed unless at least one range developer has extensive PCTE experience. Will the government add "a minimum of two years' hands-on experience setting up training environments in PCTE" as a minimum requirement for at least one of the range developers?

The Contractor shall be responsible to propose and deploy the correct labor types, mix, number and hours required to satisfactorily and professionally meet all PWS requirements to include supervision. PWS 1.6.8.4 has been updated to reflect revised qualifications

89. (PWS) - 1.6.14 Contractor Travel states "Not Applicable" while 1.6.5 Place of Performance states "All contract instructors may be required to travel to facilitate Mobile Training Team (MTT) training at CONUS locations." Can you clarify which of these statements is accurate?

Travel Language updated in PWS 1.6.14.

90. (PWS) - 1.6.15 Other Direct Costs states "Not Applicable". 5.3 Classroom Instruction/Course Writing Services occasionally has a need for classroom supplies. Can a small plug number be added for ODCs to allow for this requirement?

The Government will provide a NTE for MTT/Surge requirements only. ODCs as a stand alone CLIN are not authorized

91. The PWS states that the Phase In / Phase Out Period is "not applicable." Since there is a current incumbent teaching this course based upon the approved FY26 course schedule, what is the transition expectation between contractors?

The requirement is to provide contractors with the identified qualifications when the contract starts.

The required courses are a T2COM (formerly TRADOC) requirement for all instructors and support staff involved with courses at the U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence. New contractor personnel are required to complete IS-CTC (NLT 30-days after assuming duties per TRADOC 350-6) and CFD-IC within 90 days of onboarding. Current courses are IS-CTC, and CFD-IC (for instructors).

92. PWS states: "The contractor shall provide an MTT capability to train units as directed by the Government in the (AOC-P) functional course at other locations than Ft. Gordon, GA. A “Surge” requirement is an unforeseen need for specific additional support services for an AOC-P functional course training event" and "The contractor shall then complete an estimate of labor, travel, and materials costs within 5 business days." Given that the surge requirement most likely includes additional instructors, is a spin-up period to get the surge instructors qualified to teach the course included in the surge estimate?

The requirement is to provide instructors with the identified qualifications when the contract starts (including Instructor Certs). PWS 5.5 updated to reflect 30 days notice for Surge Requirememts

93. (PWS) - The government lists multiple CJCS issuances and Joint Publications under the "Applicable Publications (Current Editions)" section that are not the current editions available on the Joint Doctrine Library (https://www.jcs.mil/Doctrine/) and the Joint Electronic Library Plus (JEL+) (https://jdeis.js.mil/jdeis/index.jsp?). For example, JP 3-12, Joint Cyberspace Operations is listed as 5 February 2013, but the most recent version available on JEL+ is 19 December 2022. Similarly, U.S. Army documents are also listed that are previous editions such as FM 3-12, Cyberspace Operations is listed as "20 May 2015 (Draft)" whereas the Central Army Registry lists the current edition as "17 September 2025" (https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/12BAB5E3-1C00-4DB8-B324- 2AA7C6F6F420-1492095745021/FM_3_12wc1.pdf). Is it the government's intent that offerers use these listed versions or the most recent publications as distributed by the Joint Staff and Army Staff respectively?

It is the government's intent that offerers use the most recent publications as distributed by Army and Joint Staff. Use JP 3-12 dated 19 December 2022. FM 3-12 dated 17 September 2025. PWS Updated

94. (PWS) - CDRL A002 requires submission of Pre-Hire information for the COR to approve prior to bringing a new employee onto the contract. 1.6.8.1 requires contractor to back-fill vacant positions no later than 10 days after the position becomes vacant or potentially receive a Non-Conformance Report (NCR). Considering the government must approve all candidates, recommend the timeframe be adjusted to 30 days to ensure adequate time for the COR to respond?

Typically, the COR can approve based on a comparison of an applicant's resumse with the quals in the PWS. The 10 day period should not pose any difficulty. The PWS has been updated to reflect 10 business days (instead of 10 calendar days).