Mandiant Training Questions and Answers Amendment 0001.pdf
PDF 47 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W91CRB-25-Q-5004
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document (Amendment 0001) for solicitation W91CRB-25-Q-5004 regarding Mandiant Training Services for Romania under a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case.
The document addresses two key questions about brand-specific requirements and evaluation criteria. The first question seeks clarification on whether the training must be provided exclusively by Mandiant or if equivalent training from other providers would be acceptable. The response indicates that while the Letter of Request (LOR) from Romania specifically names "Mandiant On Site Cyber Intelligence Foundation Training," there is no sole-source requirement, though the contracting legalities regarding equivalent courses remain unclear. The second question requests details about technical evaluation criteria, to which CECOM SAMD engineers clarified that they only assess technical acceptability and are not involved in determining best value or award selection decisions. These matters would need to be addressed by legal/contracting personnel.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Mandiant Training
Questions/Answers
Solicitation: W91CRB-25-Q-5004
Amendment 0001 12/16/2024
Question 1: On Brand-Specific Requirements - Could you kindly confirm if the solicitation requires the training to be provided exclusively by Mandiant, or if equivalent training services from other leading industry providers meeting the performance criteria outlined in the PWS would also be deemed acceptable? If exclusive to Mandiant, is this considered a brand-specific justification?
Answer 1: In response to below, all I can say is that the LOR from Romania, and therefore the LOA as written, names the specific Mandiant training courses, ie ‘Mandiant On Site Cyber Intelligence Foundation Training”. Therefore, I feel as if that specific course needs to be provided, but I am unsure of the contracting legalities as to whether or not an ‘equivalent’ course could be provided to meet Romania needs. There is no sole-source, so again I am unsure to the legalities.
Question 2: Regarding the evaluation process, could you provide additional details on how technical acceptability will be assessed for offerors? Specifically, will the evaluation criteria prioritize the provider's brand recognition or the alignment of the proposed training content with the objectives in the Performance Work Statement?
Answer 2: Same with the second question on evaluation criteria, this would have to be addressed by legal / contracting. CECOM SAMD engineers only provide guidance as to whether or not an offer is ‘technically acceptable’, I don’t think we have anything to do with determining best value and making an award selection.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .