Vendor Question and Response Spreadsheet 4 March 2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Army Training Models - Solicitation
- Solicitation number
- W91CRB-26-R-A004
About this file
This is a Vendor Question and Response Spreadsheet documenting 123 questions submitted by potential contractors regarding Solicitation W91CRB-26-R-A004 for Army Training Models support services, along with Government responses provided as part of Amendment 1.
The solicitation is a Women-Owned Small Business set-aside for a single Firm-Fixed-Price contract to provide ongoing support and development of the Army Training Models (ATM) suite, which includes applications such as cTRM, BLTM, cITRM, cATRM, and cMRM. The contract requires one base year plus four one-year options and a six-month extension, with proposals due by 12:00 PM EDT on March 16, 2026. Key requirements include: maintaining existing infrastructure hosted on AWS under cArmy 1.0 with planned migration to cArmy 2.0; performing software maintenance and development tasks; providing training materials and custom analysis support; staffing one Program Manager (Key Personnel), one Alternate Program Manager, and five Task Leaders with minimum Secret clearance (with one requiring Top Secret/SCI); maintaining contractor facility with government access and face-to-face capability; and demonstrating relevant past performance on three contracts as either prime or major subcontractor. Significant clarifications addressed in responses include: labor hour assumptions (1,940 hours annually for vendor/HQDA locations to accommodate surge; 1,920 for field locations); confirmation that subcontractor past performance is evaluated equally to prime; the existing ATO maintained through continuous monitoring with renewal required October 2026; personnel qualifications revised to accept experience with "similar Training applications" rather than requiring project-specific application knowledge; and confirmation that the Prime contractor must hold a Top Secret Facility Clearance at time of award and perform 51% of contract work. Additional details address security requirements, cost model specifications, technical approach expectations, and clarifications regarding personnel dual-hatting flexibility for the Alternate Program Manager position.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors) UPDATE.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATM Price Model 030326 v3.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation Amendment - W91CRB26RA004.pdf | ||
| ATM PWS 4 March 2026.docx | DOCX document | |
| Contract Data Requirements List Portfolio.pdf | ||
| Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors) .pdf | ||
| Cost Model Workbook.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Vendor Question Spreadsheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation - W91CRB26RA004.pdf | ||
| ATM Performance Work Statement.pdf |
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
<Vendor Name> Feedback
| Vendor Name: |
| Submission Date: |
| Question Template for Solicitation Army Training Models |
| W91CRB-26-R-A004 |
| ***Questions shall be referenced by: (1) number (2) Solicitation Document Title (3) Document Attachment Number ("JX") Section, Page(s) and Paragraph(s). Additional rows can be added to the table, as applicable. *** |
| Comment, Recommendation, or Question No. | Reference | Contractor’s Questions | Government Response |
| 1 | Section L and M; Volume III; Page 6; Paragraph 1 | Can the Government clarify how many past performance references are required from the Prime contractor, and whether the Prime may submit a subcontractor’s past performance as part of the team’s submission? | Offerors shall submit no more than three (3) past performance examples. Offeror must be a prime or major subcontractor in each example. Yes, a subcontractor's past performance can be used as one or more of the 3 examples. |
| 2 | Section L and M; Volume III; Page 6; Paragraph 1 | Will subcontractor past performance be considered equally to prime past performance? | Yes, it will be considered equally. |
| 3 | PWS, Page 3, Section 1.6.4, Place of Performance | Will the Government provide additional details on the "contractor's facility" requirement including contractor face-to-face response time from the contractor facility to DAMO-TR; and any requirements for access by Government personnel to the contractor facility? | With regards to the contractor's facility, the vendor will provide workspace, office furniture, computer resources, telephones, offices supplies and tools necessary to perform duties at the vendor’s location. Face-to-face response time requirement may vary depending on current DAMO-TR mission requirements. Government personnel must have access to the contractor facility for meetings. |
| 4 | PWS, Page 4, Section 1.6.7.1, Personnel Clearance. | PWS states "In addition to a SECRET clearance, one individual assigned to Department of the Army Management Office, Regionally Aligned Army Readiness & Modernization Model (ReARMM) Division (DAMO-TRR) require a secret clearance, and one requires a TS Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance, at each location." Will the Government clarify the total number of locations requiring a TS/SCI cleared person? | See updated PWS. |
| 5 | PWS, Page 20, Section 5.4, Job Descriptions and Minimum Position Requirements. PWS, Page 39, Technical Exhibit 3. Cost Model Workbook, Tab Direct Labor Rate Schedule. | The PWS, Section 5.4 does not list or provide a job description and qualifications for an "Analyst". However, Technical Exhibit 3 of the PWS list an "Analyst" at two separate locations: Item 3, Analyst (Vendor's location) and Items 7 & 8 as "Analyst (Pentagon, HQDA - DAMO - TR)". In addition the Cost Model Workbook, Tab "Direct Labor Rate Schedule" also annotates several "Analyst" at multiple locations. Will the government provide clarification as to whether the "Analyst" listed in the Technical Exhibit 3 and Cost Model Workbook are in fact one of the "Senior Analyst" outlined in PWS Section 5.4, or is the "Analyst" a separate labor category / position? If the "Analyst" is a separate labor category from the "Senior Analyst" will the government provide a job description and minimum position requirements for the "Analyst" position? | See updated Technical Exhibit 3 in PWS. |
| 6 | Section L and M, Volume I, Page 4, Resumes and Letters of Intent. PWS, Page 20, Section 5.4. | The minimum qualifications for the required Key Personnel and Task Leaders provide a material advantage to the incumbent contractor(s) and restrict competition, inconsistent with FAR 11.002(a)(2) and FAR 11.002(b) (requirements stated in a manner that promotes full and open competition and avoids unnecessarily restrictive provisions). Specifically, these personnel qualifications require the retention of highly specialized, HQDA/DAMO-TR and DAMO-TRR-specific experience, including demonstrated successful experience with HQDA program and budget packaging methodologies, deep working knowledge of the specific ATM applications (cTRM/BLTM/cITRM/cATRM/cMRM), COMPO-specific experience, and clearance requirements up to TS/SCI for at least one role. As a result, collectively, only the incumbent contractor(s) or a very small number of recently retired DAMO-TR personnel qualify to satisfy the effort’s solicited requirement. Because the available pool of recently retired DAMO-TR personnel is limited and insufficient to fulfill the required Key Personnel and Task Lead positions we request that the Government remove the Key personnel requirements while ensuring that the price proposals enable the hiring of the incumbent personnel. | See updated PWS. |
| 7 | PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12 | Is TRMIS deployed as a single enterprise instance under one ATO boundary, or are there multiple hosted environments (e.g., HQDA, T2COM, COEs)? | TRMIS (which houses the all the models) is on ATO boundry. C-probe / ARC |
| 8 | PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12 | Where are applications servers and databases physically/virtually hosted (e.g., Pentagon enclave, Army Cloud[entirely], cloud IaaS/PaaS)? | Hosted on AWS by C-probe / ARC under cArmy 1.0 and moving to cArmy 2.0 soon |
| 9 | PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12 | Under which ATO boundary are model executions (cTRM, cITRM, cATRM) conducted and performed operationally? | TRMIS (which houses the all the models) is on one ATO boundry. C-probe / ARC |
| 10 | PWS 5.2.3, Development Objectives, Page 15 | To support long-term modernization and cloud migration, would the Government consider consolidating model execution into a centralized service layer (compute tier separated from UI) and establishing clearly defined enterprise boundary to reduce redundant RMF artifacts across locations? | The models are already consolidated under TRMIS in one cloud enviroment |
| 11 | PWS 5.3.3, Reconciliation Requirements, Page 17, PWS 7.2.2, TRMIS Data Conversion, Page 24 | Are cPROBE, RFS, and SNaP integrations currently: |
1) File-based (flat file, XML)
2) API-based
3) Database-linked
| 4) or manual upload processes? | All are manual upload process. | ||||
| 12 | PWS 5.3.3, Reconciliation Requirements, Page 17, PWS 7.2.2, TRMIS Data Conversion, Page 24 | What are the data classification levels per interface (CUI, SECRET, TS/SCI)? | CUI | ||
| 13 | PWS 5.3.3, Reconciliation Requirements, Page 17, PWS 7.2.2, TRMIS Data Conversion, Page 24 | Would the government consider standardizing interface mechanisms via a formalized API layer with version-controlled schemas, and automated validation pipelines to reduce reconcilliation overhead (PWS 5.3.3) | The models are not a continuous data feed. There are lock position and although there are automated process to check inputs and outputs, the data has to be validated by SMEs and HQDA DAMO-TR before processing. The government would not consider the standardization of interface mechanisms at time of award. | ||
| 14 | PWS 3.1, Objectives, Page 12, PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12, PWS 7, Army Training Model Overview, Page 24 | At each user location (HQDA, T2COM, COEs) are models executed locally or centrally? | Centrally | ||
| 15 | PWS 3.1, Objectives, Page 12, PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12, PWS 7, Army Training Model Overview, Page 24 | At each user location (HQDA, T2COM, COEs) are there location-specific model variants? | No. | ||
| 16 | PWS 3.1, Objectives, Page 12, PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12, PWS 7, Army Training Model Overview, Page 24 | At each user location (HQDA, T2COM, COEs) is force structure data harmonized before ingestion? | The force structure does not change based on location. However, requirement related to unit type and equip can vary. These variances remain at ingestion. | ||
| 17 | PWS 3.1, Objectives, Page 12, PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12, PWS 7, Army Training Model Overview, Page 24 | Would the government benefit from a standardized "model configuration profile" per COMPO, or a single canonical model with parameterized configuration sets? This could reduce hidden scope (duplicate code) and shapes toward shared architecture. | Although there are minor differences where required, the models are standardized and share architecture. | ||
| 18 | PWS 2.1, Total Army Integration, Page 12, PWS 2.2, Stakeholder Coordination, Page 12 | Do COEs and T2COM access share the same TRMIS environment via RBAC, or separate instances with data synchronization? | They access the same site but there are roles to indicate access level and available data. | ||
| 19 | PWS 2.1, Total Army Integration, Page 12, PWS 2.2, Stakeholder Coordination, Page 12 | If COEs and T2COM instances are separate, what is the synchronization mechanism and latency tolerance? | The instances are not separate, as answered above. The models are not transaction based. There is no latency issues. These are locked positions. | ||
| 20 | PWS 2.1, Total Army Integration, Page 12, PWS 2.2, Stakeholder Coordination, Page 12 | Would the government consider a role-based multi-tenant model within on enterprise instance to reduce RMF duplication and code divergence? | TRMIS (which houses the all the models) is role based and is on ATO boundry. C-probe / ARC. There is no duplication. | ||
| 21 | PWS 2.1, Total Army Integration, Page 12, PWS 5.3.1, Populate ATM, Page 16, PWS 5.3.2, Per Capita Update, Page 16, PWS 5.3.3, Reconciliation, Page 17 | Which inputs are authoritative at HQDA, T2COM, COEs, Reserve/Guard? | Examples of authoritative inputs are DASA-CE equipment cost factors, civilian pay rates, TAA Force file, SMDR ARPRINT. | ||
| 22 | PWS 2.1, Total Army Integration, Page 12, PWS 5.3.1, Populate ATM, Page 16, PWS 5.3.2, Per Capita Update, Page 16, PWS 5.3.3, Reconciliation, Page 17 | Who validates Per Capita factors, POI data, cost factor files, and force structure loads? | DAMO-TR validates the Per Capita factors, T2COM G-8 PAED, TOMA (USAREC) validates the POI data, force structure is validated through the TAA process, equipment and civilian pay (DASA-CE). | ||
| 23 | PWS 2.1, Total Army Integration, Page 12, PWS 5.3.1, Populate ATM, Page 16, PWS 5.3.2, Per Capita Update, Page 16, PWS 5.3.3, Reconciliation, Page 17 | Would the government consider formalizing a data governance matrix (authority source/validation/publisher) with automated data validation checkpoints prior to model ingestion? | There is an automated process to share and validate the data. | ||
| 24 | PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12, PWS 7.2.2, TRMIS Data Conversion, Page 24 | What are the primary in/out interfaces and transfer mechanisms (cPROBE/RFS/SNaP, etc .)?” | Primary interface is manual input / output. There is a web service to ingest things like POIs. | ||
| 25 | PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12, PWS 7.2.2, TRMIS Data Conversion, Page 24 | How is the suite organized at each user location (type model, # of models, integration)? | TRMIS (which houses the all the models) is on one ATO boundry. C-probe / ARC | ||
| 26 | PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12, PWS 7.2.2, TRMIS Data Conversion, Page 24 | Do COEs/T2COM access the same TRMIS environment with role-based access, or do they have local instances/replicas? | See question 18 | ||
| 27 | PWS 3.2, TRMIS, Page 12, PWS 7.2.2, TRMIS Data Conversion, Page 24 | What inputs are owned/maintained at each site vs centrally? | TRMIS (which houses the all the models) is on one ATO boundry. C-probe / ARC. Centrally managed | ||
| 28 | PWS 5.2.3, Development Objectives, Page 15 | What components have been migrated to the cloud (if any)? UI? Data warehouse? Compute engines? | The models are currently on cArmy 1.0 and moving to cArmy 2.0 soon | ||
| 29 | PWS 5.2.3, Development Objectives, Page 15 | What cloud migration efforts are remaining? | The models are currently on cArmy 1.0 and moving to cArmy 2.0 soon | ||
| 30 | PWS 5.2.3, Development Objectives, Page 15 | What security impact level is targeted (IL4, IL5)? | IL4 | ||
| 31 | PWS 5.2.3, Development Objectives, Page 15 | Is there an enterprise hosting strategy already defined? | TRMIS (which houses the all the models) is on one ATO boundry. C-probe / ARC. Centrally managed | ||
| 32 | PWS 5.2.3, Development Objectives, Page 15 | Would the government consider phased migration (data first -> compute -> UI) with containerized model services, and RMF inheritance from enterprise cloud boundary? | TRMIS (which houses the all the models) is already on one ATO boundry. C-probe / ARC. There is no need for phased migration. | ||
| 33 | PWS 5.1, Specific Tasks, Page 14, PWS 5.2, Software Maintenance/Development, Page 14 | In the last 2–3 years, how many ‘major’ modifications occurred? | TRMIS has kept up with technology and functionality with multiple updates / adjustments over the years but not any major overhauls. | ||
| 34 | PWS 5.1, Specific Tasks, Page 14, PWS 5.2, Software Maintenance/Development, Page 14 | In the last 2–3 years, how many ‘major’ modifications were Strategy-driven (ReARMM)? | TRMIS has kept up with technology and functionality with multiple updates / adjustments over the years but not major overhauls. Any training strategy adjustments for ReARMM were minor and within scope. | ||
| 35 | PWS 5.1, Specific Tasks, Page 14, PWS 5.2, Software Maintenance/Development, Page 14 | In the last 2–3 years, how many ‘major’ modifications were data-structure-drive (MDEP, AMSCO changes)? | TRMIS has kept up with technology and functionality with multiple updates / adjustments over the years but not major overhauls. A depot maintenance field was added to accomodate SNaP. | ||
| 36 | PWS 5.1, Specific Tasks, Page 14, PWS 5.2, Software Maintenance/Development, Page 14 | In the last 2–3 years, how many ‘major’ modifications were hosting/security-driven? | TRMIS has kept up with technology and functionality with multiple updates / adjustments over the years but not major overhauls. The most significant modification related to security would be updating login type. | ||
| 37 | PWS 5.1, Specific Tasks, Page 14, PWS 5.2, Software Maintenance/Development, Page 14 | In the last 2–3 years, how many ‘major’ modifications interface-driven? | TRMIS has kept up with technology and functionality with multiple updates / adjustments over the years but not major overhauls. There was an adjustment to TD2 to accommodate data. | ||
| 38 | PWS 5.1, Specific Tasks, Page 14, PWS 5.2, Software Maintenance/Development, Page 14 | In the last 2–3 years, what was the average implementation timeline for those ‘major’modifications? | There have not been any major overhauls required. | ||
| 39 | PWS 5.1, Specific Tasks, Page 14, PWS 5.2, Software Maintenance/Development, Page 14 | Would the government consider defining a threshhold definition for "major modification", along with a structured change management backlog with priority tiers? | The government would consider a major modification to be one with significant changes to the model, including but not limited to security and adapting to a new environment. | ||
| 40 | PWS 1.6.7, Security Requirements, Page 4, PWS 1.6.7.1, Personnel Clearance, Page 4, PWS 5.2.1, Software Maintenace, Page 14 | Who is the Authorizing Official (AO)? | The ATO is inherited through c-probe and is an HQDA G8 official. | ||
| 41 | PWS 1.6.7, Security Requirements, Page 4, PWS 1.6.7.1, Personnel Clearance, Page 4, PWS 5.2.1, Software Maintenace, Page 14 | Which artifacts are contractor responsibilities: |
1) SSP?
2) POA&M?
3) Continuous monitoring?
4) Control implementation evidence? 1) SSP - vendor
2) POA&M - vendor
3) Continuous monitoring - shared between vendor and c-probe
4) Control implementation evidence - shared between vendor and c-probe
| 42 | PWS 1.6.7, Security Requirements, Page 4, PWS 1.6.7.1, Personnel Clearance, Page 4, PWS 5.2.1, Software Maintenace, Page 14 | Are we inheriting controls from an enterprise enclave? | yes |
| 43 | PWS 1.6.7, Security Requirements, Page 4, PWS 1.6.7.1, Personnel Clearance, Page 4, PWS 5.2.1, Software Maintenace, Page 14 | Would the government clarify whether this contract maintains an existing ATO, or must pursue reauthorization? | It's an existing ATO with responsibility to maintain. |
| 44 | PWS 1.6.7, Security Requirements, Page 4, PWS 1.6.7.1, Personnel Clearance, Page 4, PWS 5.2.1, Software Maintenace, Page 14 | What NIST baseline applies (moderate/high)? | moderate |
| 45 | PWS 1.6.7, Security Requirements, Page 4, PWS 1.6.7.1, Personnel Clearance, Page 4, PWS 5.2.1, Software Maintenace, Page 14 | What is the scan cadence: |
1) Weekly ACAS?
2) Monthly?
| 3) Quarterly? | Weekly, however that is done by c-probe and results sent to vendor. | ||||
| 46 | PWS 1.6.7, Security Requirements, Page 4, PWS 1.6.7.1, Personnel Clearance, Page 4, PWS 5.2.1, Software Maintenace, Page 14 | Is there a DevSecOps pipeline or manual STIG process? | there are both manual and automated STIG. Currently no DevSecOps pipeline. | ||
| 47 | PWS 1.6.7, Security Requirements, Page 4, PWS 1.6.7.1, Personnel Clearance, Page 4, PWS 5.2.1, Software Maintenace, Page 14 | Would the government consider transitioning to automated vulnerability scanning integrated into CI/CD with continuous monitoring, reporting, and operations dashboards? | Yes | ||
| 48 | PWS 1.6.7, Security Requirements, Page 4, PWS 1.6.7.1, Personnel Clearance, Page 4, PWS 5.2.1, Software Maintenace, Page 14 | Who owns the ATO boundary and what RMF artifacts are maintained by the contractor vs Government?” | c-probe owns the ATO. The vendor / c-probe provide artifacts. | ||
| 49 | PWS 5.4, Job Descriptions and Minimum Position Requirements, Page 19 | How many TS/SCI billets are required in practice, and at which locations? | See Response to Question 4. | ||
| 50 | PWS 5.4, Job Descriptions and Minimum Position Requirements, Page 19 | Does the PM/Alt PM satisfy the TS/SCI need, or is this in addition? | See Response to Question 4. | ||
| 51 | PWS 5.4; Section L, 2(i),(ii), (iv), Pages 4, 5, 8 | Para 1.6.8 lists Key Personnel as "Program Manager"; Para 5.4 lists "Program Manager and Alternate Program Manager" (Key Personnel); DRFP Sec L States "offerors shall provide resumes and letter of intent…for each of the proposed (1) Key Personnel and ( 5) Task Leads...Please clarify whether resumes and letters of intent, if applicable, are requried for the Alternate Progrom Manager billiet IAW Section L.2(i), (ii) and (iv). | See response to question 52 - Alternate Program Manager can be dual-hatted with a Task Lead position. If dual-hatted, submit only 1 resume for that employee that meets requirements of both positions. If the Alternate PM will not be dual-hatted as a Task Lead, then yes, a resume/LOI would be required. | ||
| 52 | PWS 5.4; Section L, 2(i),(ii), (iv), Pages 4, 5, 8 | Please confirm whether the Alternate Program Manager is considered a stand-alone Key Person or if one of the Task Leads, assuming they met all the requirements for Alternate Program Manager, be "dual-hatted" as a Task Lead and the Alternate Program Manager? | Dual-hatted | ||
| 53 | Section L, 1, 2, Pages 1-2 | Please clarify whether Tables of Contents and summaries are included in applicable page count limitations. | See updated Section L&M: Each Volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section and Narrative discussion are included in the page count. The Table of Contents is not included in the page count. | ||
| 54 | Section L, 1, 2, Pages 1-2 | Please clarify whether a title/cover sheet should be incldued doe each volume and, if so, whther they are incluided in applicable page count limitations. | No title page is required except for Volume V. If you choose to put a title page for Volume I-IV, it is included in the page limit. | ||
| 55 | Section L, 2, Pages 4, 9 | Please clarify whether content of the letters of intent required in Volume 1 (Technical Approach) are the same as those required at Volume IV (Price). Specifically, when applicable, whether both letters of intent require un-redacted salary amounts. | Yes, both versions should have salary amounts. | ||
| 56 | Requirement and Scope | What is the gap or problem this requirement is intended to solve? | See the PWS for the tasks needed. | ||
| 57 | Is this a continuation of an existing effort or a completely new capability? | Continuation of existing effort | |||
| 58 | Is this requirement for steady state support or surge driven? | Both steady state support and surge driven. | |||
| 59 | Are any anticipated transformation events or key points requireing concentrated support forecast in the delivery? | Refer to the PWS for tasks required, and any changes that may be needed if within scope in the future will occur via bilateral agreement. | |||
| 60 | How will work fluctuate across the FY? | Steady with surge periods. | |||
| 61 | Transformation | Are surge periods anticipated to be tied to Army Strategic Readiness Assessment (ASRA), Program Objective Memorandum (POM) build, readiness reviews such as the Total Army Readiness Review (TARR), Strategic Readiness Assessment Group (SRAG), Joint Force Readiness Review (JFRR) or ReARMM/CTRM cycles? | Potential for surge periods to be tied to any/all of the listed events. | ||
| 62 | Will modernization and transformation cycles compress deliverable timelines? | Yes, potential for compressed timelines. | |||
| 63 | Is workload volatility anticipated as CTRM matures? | cTRM is mature. | |||
| 64 | How should offerors account for transformation-driven workload spikes? | The effort is cycle driven and adjustment to schedule and priorities are required. | |||
| 65 | What constitutes acceptable surge response time? | Date is agreed upon with each assignment. | |||
| 66 | Part 2: Total Army Integration, 2.1 | What data platforms, by system, are currently being used in support of ATM? | AWS RDS for SQL Server 2022 | ||
| 67 | Part 5: Specific Tasks, 5.2 Basic Tasks, 5.2.1 Software Maintenance | What is the status of the current ATOs and when will renewals be required? | It's continuous monitoring. The current ATO expires in October 2026 | ||
| 68 | Part 5: Specific Tasks, 5.2 Basic Tasks, 5.2.1 Software Maintenance | Is the vendor required to maintain eMASS? | No, this is inherited. | ||
| 69 | Part 5: Specific Tasks, 5.2 Basic Tasks, 5.2.1 Software Maintenance | Is there a requirement for the vendor to apply patches and resolve identifed vulnerabilities as well as addressing findings? | Yes, this is a shared responsibilty with c-probe. | ||
| 70 | Part 5: Specific Tasks, 5.2 Basic Tasks, 5.2.3 Development Objectives | What is the status of the migration to a cloud environment (e.g. cArmy, ALTESS, Vantage, etc.) | The models are currently on cArmy 1.0 and moving to cArmy 2.0 soon | ||
| 71 | Part 5: Specific Tasks, 5.2 Basic Tasks, 5.2.4 Training | PWS mentions that vendor is to provide training materials. What type of materials (PDF, Word, hard copies)? | Vendors are required to provide a training manual and in-person trainings. Vendor can determine type of materials used. | ||
| 72 | Part 5: Specific Tasks, 5.2 Basic Tasks, 5.2.5 Custom Analysis | PWS states that the vendor is to provide database maintenance, but there is no DBA resource identified in the list of positions. | Historically, this is a shared responsibility by task leads or Systems Analysts, not a separate position. | ||
| 73 | Part 5: Specific Tasks, 5.3.4, Tasks Performed | PWS mentions Mobilization Common Operating Picture, but the MODCOP acronym does not match. MODCOP is another system altogether and not funded by DAMO-SOE. Can the government confirm the correct acronym? | See updated PWS. | ||
| 74 | Part 5: Specific Tasks, 5.3.4.2, MODCOP | See above. Qlik is not one of the approved Department of War data platforms. The Minimum Position Requirements table does not have a Qlik specific software development task leader resource. | This is in reference to staff support within the ReARMM / DAMO-TRR division. One task within the support function is to pull data from Qlik. | ||
| 75 | Part 5: Specific Tasks, 5.4 Job Descriptions and Minimum Position Requirements | The Software Development Task Leader resource is tasked with submitting documentation for an application on Pentagon Servers. Is the ATM hosted on ALTESS or cArmy? | That is no longer in use, see updated PWS. The models are currently on cArmy 1.0. | ||
| 76 | Part 8: Deliverables, 8.5.1 Installation visits and VTC Deliverables | Is there a installation visitation schedule? How often are installation visits being conducted? | There is no set schedule. All travel must be approved by the COR on an as-needed basis. | ||
| 77 | Is cyber security and implementation handled by the government? | C-probe has responsibiltiy for security and the vendor has a supporting role. | |||
| 78 | Section L (Instructions) and Section M (Evaluation Criteria). Volume I Technical Factor "Resumes and Letters of Intent: Offerors shall provide resumes and letters of |
intent countersigned by the employer and prospective employee for each of the proposed (1) Key Personnel and (5) Task Leads as identified in PWS Part 5.4." The Program Manager (Key Personnel) Experience description which is found in the Key Personnel requirements in "5.4 Job Descriptions and Minimum Position Requirements", as currently written, is very restrictive and advantageous to only the incumbent contractor. It specifically cites information systems that currently make up the Army Training Models. This is not conducive to a Small Business set-aside competition. The Experience section states: "Additionally, the candidate shall have a thorough knowledge, and experience with the applications used on this project (cTRM/BLTM/cITRM/cATRM/cMRM)..."
| Would the Government please consider revising the language for Program Manager (Key Personnel) Experience section to consider experience with "similar Training applications and/or systems". For example: "Additionally, the candidate shall have a thorough knowledge, and experience with the applications used on this project (cTRM/BLTM/cITRM/cATRM/cMRM) or similar Training applications and systems from across the Army." | See updated PWS. | ||
| 79 | Section L (Instructions) and Section M (Evaluation Criteria). Volume I Technical Factor "Resumes and Letters of Intent: Offerors shall provide resumes and letters of |
intent countersigned by the employer and prospective employee for each of the proposed (1) Key Personnel and (5) Task Leads as identified in PWS Part 5.4." The Task Leader Experience description which is found in the Key Personnel requirements in "5.4 Job Descriptions and Minimum Position Requirements", as currently written, is very restrictive and advantageous to only the incumbent contractor. It specifically cites information systems that currently make up the Army Training Models. This is not conducive to a Small Business set-aside competition. The Experience section states "Additionally, the candidate shall have a thorough knowledge, experience and skill using the applications on this project (cTRM/BLTM/cITRM/cATRM/cMRM)."
| Would the Government please consider revising the language for Task Leader Experience section to consider experience with "similar Training applications and/or systems". For example: "Additionally, the candidate shall have a thorough knowledge, experience and skill using the applications on this project (cTRM/BLTM/cITRM/cATRM/cMRM) or similar Training applications and systems from across the Army." | See updated PWS. | ||
| 80 | Solicitation - W91CRB26RA004 [Page 3 of 53 Paragraph 6] | ||
| "CLIN 003 CDRLs Contract Data Requirements List" | Solicitation Section B, Paragraph 6, identifies CLIN 0003 for 'CDRLs Contract Data Requirements List,' however, there is no corresponding line item for CLIN 0003 in the provided Cost Model Workbook. Please correct the discrepancy. | CDRLs are not separately priced, so they will not appear in the Cost Model Workbook. | |
| 81 | Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors) [Page 1 Paragraph 8] | ||
| "Volume: I, Title: Technical Approach (Factor 1),Digital Copies: 1, Maximum Pages (not including Table of Contents): 35 pages total including resumes and letters of intent (resumes not to exceed 2 page each)" | Given that resumes (limited to two pages each) and letters of intent are standardized personnel documentation rather than technical narrative, please confirm that Offerors may submit resumes and letters of intent as a separate appendix to Volume I, excluded from the 35-page Technical Approach narrative limit to ensure equitable evaluation and preserve the full page allocation for the Technical Approach response. | Please reference page limit table: Volume I maximum pages is 35 pages total including resumes and letters of intent (resumes not to exceed 2 page each) | |
| 82 | Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors) [Page 3 Paragraph 1] | ||
| "Performance Work Statement Requirements: Offerors shall provide responses in this Volume which address each requirement listed in Performance Work Statement (PWS). The response to each of these requirements shall provide an explanation indicating the offeror’s ability and proposed methodology to be utilized to meet each requirement." | Section L instructions imply that Offerors must address all PWS requirements. Given there are over 200 individual requirements within the Army Training Models PWS, please clarify if a point-by-point response to every paragraph is required, or if the Government will accept a technical narrative that demonstrates a comprehensive approach to the scope of work? | The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Offerors shall provide responses in this Volume which address the requirements listed in Performance Work Statement (PWS). The response to the requirements shall provide an explanation indicating the offeror’s ability and proposed methodology to be utilized to meet each requirement. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal. | |
| 83 | Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors) [Page 15 and 16] |
"Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation
a. Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government may employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of offeror proposal. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.
b. Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool.
c. Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.
| d. For this solicitation, AI tools may only be used for Past Performance evaluation." | The Government's guidance regarding the use of AI tools appears inconsistent between Section M, Paragraph A and Paragraph D. While one section (Paragraph A) suggests a broader application, Paragraph D appears to limit AI use to the Past Performance evaluation. Could the Government please clarify the intended scope for AI-assisted evaluation and confirm if it will be applied to volumes other than Past Performance? | Please reference updated Section M - paragraph D has been removed. | |||
| 84 | Cost Model Fringe Benefit Worksheet vs. Fringe Worksheet | Since every company's fringe benefit and expense categories vary, can the Gov't confirm that the contractor can change the list of fringe benefits in the Pricing Workbook. | Model has been updated. Requirement has been removed. | ||
| 85 | Instructions for Cost Model Labor Cost Detail tab (embedded Word Document) | In the embeded Cost Model Instructions Word document, the Overall Instructions section 2, item 6 states to input the fully burdened contractor loaded labor rate into Column L while Note 7 says enter this information into column K. Which is the correct column for the Offerer this data? Regardless of which column is the correct location, both columns have formulas in them and other instructions state that the offerer should not change formulas. Please clarify these instructions or add a column for subK loaded labor rate into the Cost Model. | Instructions have been updated. | ||
| 86 | Cost Model Labor Cost Detail tab (Column K Overhead (Note 6b) | The cost model assumes the Offerers indirect structure has only a single Overhead rate. Can the Offerer create one or more additional Overhead worksheets to allow for different OH rates for government site versus contractor site? Can the Offerer add additional Overhead columns into the Labor Cost Detail & Indirect Rate Summary tabs to reflect their specific cost accounting structure, e.g. Gov't site versus company site overheads? | Model has been updated. Requirement has been removed. | ||
| 87 | Cost Model Labor Cost Detail tab (column H productive hours) | Can the government please clarify the assumptions used to derive the 1920 and 1940 productive hours. | Positions at HQDA and vendor location are using 1940, while positions at T2COM and COEs are using 1920. This is due to the surge requirements needed at vendor location/HQDA. See response to question 99. | ||
| 88 | Cost Model Labor Cost Detail tab (column H productive hours) | Please correct the discrepancy in instructions between NOTE 4 in the Cost Model and instructions in Section L (a) and Technical Exhibit 3 that permits contractors to propose labor skill mix and hours contractors deem fit to meet PWS requirements. | Model has been updated. | ||
| 89 | Cost Model Labor Cost Detail tab (column H productive hours) | Given that every company's fringe benefits vary, is the government's intent to use 1920 and 1940 productive hours for Key Personnel for evaluation purposes only? | 1920 will be considered a manyear; 1940 includes projected surge. | ||
| 90 | Cost Model Labor Cost Detail tab (column A) | Can the Offerer assume that the location of Washington, DC means the Metro Washington, DC area? | Yes | ||
| 91 | Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors) [Page 10] | ||||
| Section M, para C reads "Factor 4. Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed Price contract type. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort." | Section M states that price or cost realism analysis will not be performed for this commercial FFP acquisition. |
Section L and the Price Proposal Model require submission of detailed labor-hour breakouts, fully burdened labor rates, and supporting cost information.
| Please clarify the purpose for which the detailed cost information will be used in the Government’s evaluation. | Primarily for purposes of ensuring employee retention, total compensation packages to include direct labor and fringe benefits packages will be evaluated. | ||||
| 92 | Solicitation – General | Can the Government confirm whether there is a current incumbent contractor performing Army Training Models (ATM) support services under the existing or predecessor contract? If so, please identify the incumbent contractor. | Yes, there is a contractor currently performing this requirement. | ||
| 93 | Solicitation – Incumbent Contract Information | If an incumbent contractor exists, can the Government provide the current contract number and total contract value, including the base period and the total potential value inclusive of all option years? | Information about the current contract may be found on the public website. | ||
| 94 | Section L – Key Personnel / Task Lead Resume Requirements | Section L requires submission of resumes and letters of intent for the Program Manager and five Task Leads, including verification of required security clearances. If an incumbent contractor exists, this requirement may create a competitive advantage, as the incumbent may already employ personnel meeting these qualifications and clearance requirements. Would the Government consider revising the solicitation to remove the Task Lead resume and letter of intent requirement at proposal submission and instead require staffing documentation and clearance verification after award during the phase-in period? Alternatively, would the Government permit offerors to submit resumes for qualified candidates who meet the experience requirements and are expected to successfully complete the required background investigation and obtain a Secret clearance upon award? | No, Offerors shall provide resumes and letters of intent for each proposed Key Personnel and Task Lead as part of Volume I of their proposal. Each resume shall include the security clearance (level, date issued, and agency). Task Leads must have a minimum of a Secret clearance at time of award. | ||
| 95 | Section L / Section M – Evaluation Criteria | Is the Government’s intent to evaluate the Task Lead resumes as part of the Technical evaluation factor, or are the resumes primarily required for responsibility determination and staffing validation purposes? | Task Lead resumes will be evaluated as part of the Technical Evaluation factors. | ||
| 96 | Section L – Security Clearance Requirements | For Task Lead positions requiring a minimum Secret clearance at time of award, will the Government accept candidates who are eligible to obtain a Secret clearance and can complete the clearance process during the 45-day phase-in period, or must all Task Leads possess an active Secret clearance prior to contract award? | Task Leads must possess an active Secret clearance at the time of award. | ||
| 97 | Cost Model Workbook – Labor Cost Detail Tab | The Cost Model Workbook references both 1,920 and 1,940 annual labor hours as Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) assumptions. Can the Government clarify which labor categories should use 1,920 hours and which should use 1,940 hours? Are these annual hour assumptions mandatory, or may offerors propose an alternate annual hour basis consistent with their corporate policies? | Positions at HQDA and vendor location are using 1940, while positions at T2COM and COEs are using 1920. This is due to the surge requirements needed at vendor location/HQDA. See response to question 99. | ||
| 98 | Cost Model Workbook – Instructions / Labor Cost Detail | The Instructions worksheet references 1,920 hours, while the Labor Cost Detail worksheet contains both 1,920 and 1,940 hour assumptions embedded in the model. Can the Government confirm that the hour assumptions built into the workbook formulas are correct and should not be modified? If inconsistencies exist, will a revised cost model be issued? | Positions at the vendor location and HQDA have an additional 20hrs per year built in to accommodate surge requirements. | ||
| 99 | Section L / Cost Model – Labor Hours | May offerors adjust non-key personnel labor hours in the cost model to align with their proposed technical approach, or must all labor hours be used exactly as provided in the Government cost model? | See Section L, Volume IV: "Offerors shall propose the skill mix and level of effort (LOE) prescribed by the Government for Key Personnel only within the Price Proposal Model. Offerors may vary the proposed hours and labor categories for Non-Key Personnel to align with the Offeror’s best estimate as to the non-key labor mix needed to satisfy the requirements of the PWS, which will be subject to technical evaluation." | ||
| 100 | Section L – Key Personnel Hours | Can the Government confirm whether the labor hours for Key Personnel must be used exactly as provided in the cost model, and whether Task Lead hours are mandatory or may be adjusted consistent with the offeror’s staffing methodology? | See Technical Exhibit 3 - Estimated Workload Data and response to Question 99. | ||
| 101 | Cost Model – Option Years | The cost model does not clearly indicate whether escalation is required for direct labor and indirect rates across option years. Should offerors apply escalation to direct labor rates and indirect rates for option years? If so, is there a recommended or preferred escalation factor? | Offerors are permitted to apply annual escalation. | ||
| 102 | Cost Model Workbook – Overhead Worksheet | The Overhead Worksheet includes columns labeled FY2023 Actual, FY2024 Actual, and FY2025 Actual. Can the Government confirm that offerors are expected to populate these columns with corporate historical overhead expenses and allocation base data (company actuals) for the purpose of supporting proposed indirect rates, and that these entries are not intended to reflect costs specific to this solicitation? | Model has been updated. Requirement has been removed. | ||
| 103 | Cost Model Workbook – Fringe / Overhead / G&A Worksheets | For the FY2023–FY2025 Actual columns within the Fringe, Overhead, and G&A worksheets, does the Government require offerors to provide corporate historical incurred cost data to support proposed indirect rates, or may offerors propose estimated indirect rates without providing historical actual data (for example, in the case of newer firms or firms without complete fiscal year history)? | Model has been updated. Requirement has been removed. | ||
| 104 | Solicitation Attachments – Contract Data Requirements List | The document titled “Contract+Data+Requirements+List+Portfolio-2” does not appear accessible for download within the solicitation package. Can the Government please re-upload the document or provide an updated link to ensure offerors have access to the complete CDRL requirements necessary for proposal preparation? | This document is uploaded as a PDF portfolio, so it will not open within the browser window, but must be opened with Adobe directly (save to computer and then open from folder). | ||
| 105 | Technical Exhibit 3 vs. Price Model | There is a discrepancy in annual labor hours. Technical Exhibit 3 totals 83,440 productive hours per year, whereas the cost summary tab shows 79,360 hours in Cost+Model+Workbook attachment. Which figure should Offerors use for their pricing baseline? | 79,360 hours IAW Tech Exhibit 3 and Price Model | ||
| 106 | PWS 5.2 vs. 5.3 and 5.3.4 | PWS Paragraph 5.2 states that tasks performed on this contract fall within five categories (Maintenance, Development, Training, Custom Analysis, and Staff Support). However, the PWS subsequently lists "Specified Tasks" (5.3) and high-priority efforts like "ReARMM, MODCOP, and Analytics" (5.3.4) which are not included in that five-category list. Since Section L requires Offerors to address "each requirement," please clarify if the tasks in 5.3 and 5.3.4 are intended to be subsets of the five basic categories, or if they require their own distinct technical approach sections in Volume I. | See Response to Question 82. | ||
| 107 | Section L, Volume I (p. 3) vs. PWS Parts 1-8 | Section L requires Offerors to address "each requirement listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)." Please clarify if the Government requires a detailed technical methodology for the items in PWS Parts 1 through 4 (Introductory/Administrative) and Part 6 (PRS), or if the technical response in Volume I should focus primarily on the technical requirements and mission overviews described in PWS Parts 5, 7, and 8? if yes can Government increase the page limit from 35 to 45? | See Response to Question 82. | ||
| 108 | Section L, 1.d and 2.c | Section L, Paragraph 2.c (page 2) requires each volume to include a "Summary Section" consisting of a brief abstract. Please clarify if the Summary Section is also excluded from the volume page limits for Volumes I, II, and III. | See Response to Question 53. | ||
| 109 | Section L, Volume II (OCI) | Does the Government require a separate OCI Identification and Mitigation Plan from each major subcontractor, or should the Prime provide one single, integrated plan that covers the entire proposed team? | Offerors shall submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Mitigation Plan. The Offeror’s submission should include any subcontractors or team members. | ||
| 110 | Volume V (SAM Printout) | Section L requires a SAM.gov printout of the Offeror's "Core Data." To verify compliance with the 51% self-performance rule, does the Government also require SAM.gov printouts for all proposed subcontractors to verify their business size and status? | We require the prime contractor to perform 51% of the contract. We do not require SAM.gov printouts for subcontractors. | ||
| 111 | Section L, Volume III, Paragraph (c) (Page 14) | Section L, Paragraph (c) states: "Offerors shall submit a maximum of 3 Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror as a prime contractor or subcontractor..." |
1. Can the Government please confirm that these 3 examples must be strictly from the Prime Offeror's corporate history (either as a prime or as a sub on past efforts)?
| 2. Furthermore, because this is a complex technical requirement where the Prime may utilize significant subcontractor expertise, will the Government please consider allowing Offerors to submit at least one past performance example for each proposed major subcontractor to demonstrate the total team's relevant experience and capability? | See Response to Question 1. | |||
| 112 | Section L, Factor 4, Para (a) (p. 8) | Section L defines one (1) FTE as 1,940 or 1,920 productive hours based on the position location. Please clarify the following: |
1. Are these hours intended to be "Net Productive Hours" (actual hours worked on task, excluding holidays and all paid time off/leave) or "Gross Hours" (inclusive of paid leave and holidays)?
2. Can the Government provide the rationale for the 20-hour difference in "Productive Hours" between Vendor/NCR locations (1,940) and COE/Field locations (1,920)?
| 3. For the 6-month extension evaluation, should Offerors use exactly 50% of the annual hours (970 or 960 hours) in the price model, even if the calendar period contains a disproportionate number of Federal holidays? | Net Productive Hours. Positions at the vendor location and HQDA have an additional 20hrs per year built in to accommodate surge requirements. For the 6 month extension CMEs at the vendor location and the Pentagon should be costed at 970hrs and T2COM / COEs at 960. | ||
| 113 | Section L |
Volume III – Past Performance (Factor 3) Paragraph (iii) Page 6–7 Sub-paragraphs (1) through (4) The instructions for Volume III – Past Performance direct Offerors to organize the volume into enumerated sections. As currently published, the solicitation includes:
• Sub-paragraph (1): “Section 1 – Contract Descriptions”
• Sub-paragraph (3): “Section 4 – New Corporate Entities”
• Sub-paragraph (4): “Submissions” The numbering skips from sub-paragraph (1) directly to sub-paragraph (3), and the section titles skip from “Section 1” to “Section 4,” suggesting that two intermediate sections (Section 2 and Section 3, corresponding to sub-paragraph (2)) may have been inadvertently omitted from the solicitation.
Could the Government please confirm one of the following:
(a) Sections 2 and 3 were intentionally removed and the current numbering is a clerical artifact requiring no additional Offeror content beyond what is currently stated; or
(b) Sections 2 and 3 were inadvertently omitted, and if so, will the Government provide the full text and instructions for those sections so that Offerors may ensure their Past Performance volumes are complete and compliant?
| Additionally, if the Government confirms that additional sections exist, will the current 10-page limitation for Volume III be adjusted to accommodate the additional required content? | Please see updated Section L. Confirming (a) in the question. | ||||
| 114 | Section L, Volume I Table (Page 1) | Section L specifies a 35-page total limit for Volume I, which includes resumes and letters of intent.This leaves less pages to address the entire PWS scope. To ensure Offerors can provide the high level of technical detail, will the Government consider allowing resumes and letters of intent to be submitted in a non-counted Appendix? | Please see Response to Question 81. | ||
| 115 | Section L, p. 4 vs. PWS 5.4, p. 19 | The PWS 5.4 Table (Page 19): Lists "Program Manager and Alternate Program Manager (Key Personnel). However, Section L (Page 4): Explicitly states resumes/LOIs are required for "(1) Key Personnel and (5) Task Leads. Can the Government please clarify if offeror needs to submit resumes and Letters of Intent for both the PM and the Alternate PM. If yes, does the Government count PM and Alternate PM two differtent Key Personnel? | Please see Response to Question 51 and 52. | ||
| 116 | PWS Section Part 5 Paragraph 5.2.3 | PWS 5.2.3 mentions "migration to the cloud" as a priority. Can the Government please clarify if the ATM suite is currently hosted on-premise or if it has already partially migrated to the cARMY cloud environment. | Currently on cArmy 1.0 and moving to cArmy 2.0 soon | ||
| 117 | PWS Section 1.6.7. Security Requirements Paragraph 1.6.7.1 | PWS Paragraph 1.6.7.1 states: "See attached DD Form 254 (Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification)." However, this document was not included as an attachment to the solicitation package. Will the Government please provide the DD Form 254 so that Offerors can accurately assess corporate facility clearance requirements and ensure proposed personnel meet the specific classified access levels required for this effort? | See updated PWS 1.6.7.1. DD254 will be provided post award. | ||
| 118 | "Can the Government clarify the specific software languages or platforms currently used for the Army Training Models (e.g., Python, R, SQL, or proprietary legacy systems)? Understanding the existing tech stack will allow us to propose the most qualified technical staff." | Visual Studio 2022 (VB.net/C#) with SQL Server 2022 backend on IIS 10.0 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .