36C10B19R0046-014.pdf

Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology Next Generation (T4NG) On-ramp Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) Questions and Answers (Q&As)

Notes:

1. Please note that Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) is moving to beta.SAM.gov starting on the evening of November 7, 2019. To ensure vendors have no gaps in functionality or performance, please refer to the

Contractor Quick Start Guide located on fbo.gov. It is anticipated that all saved searches and followed contracting opportunities vendors currently have in FBO will need to be recreated in beta.SAM.gov. FBO remains the authoritative site to search and view existing contracting opportunity data until Contract Opportunities goes live in beta.SAM.gov on the morning of

Tuesday, November 12th.

This notice is for informational purposes only. It is the responsibility of each vendor to review FBO and beta.sam.gov and follow guidance listed. All questions regarding the move to beta.SAM.gov shall be directed to www.fsd.gov.

2. Please note if a conflict occurs between the final Solicitation and the Q&As, the final Solicitation takes precedence.

3. For efficiency purposes, the Government removed duplicative questions and questions that have been previously answered.

4. References were only included in the Reference column in instances where the question submitted to the Government included a separate reference.

Question

Reference Question Government Response

75 Can you please clarify the relationship between the "Limitations on Subcontracting" requirement and the "Limitations on Pass Through

Charges"? Specifically, since the work given to "similarly situated" subcontractors is not considered

"subcontracting" for purposes of meeting the minimum performance requirements under VAAR clause

852.219-10 and 13 CFR 125.6 (c), is

There is no relationship between the

"Limitations on

Subcontracting" and the "Limitations on

Pass-Through Charges" clauses as it pertains to similarly situated subcontractors. Federal

Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) 52.215-23,

this work also not considered as

"subcontracted" work under the

"Limitations on Pass Through

Charges" clause (52.215-23)?

Limitation on Pass-

Through Charges, includes the following definitions:

“Subcontract” means any contract, as defined in FAR 2.101, entered into by a subcontractor to furnish supplies or services for performance of the contract or a subcontract. It includes but is not limited to purchase orders, and changes and modifications to purchase orders.

“Subcontractor”, as defined in FAR 44.101, means any supplier, distributor, vendor, or firm that furnishes supplies or services to or for a prime

Contractor or another subcontractor.

FAR 52.215-23 does not provide an exception for similarly situated contractors;

therefore, any and all subcontracts, whether or not similarly situated, are applicable to FAR 52.215-23.

76 For Past performance references, would the Government consider allowing past performances “which occurred any time during the last three calendar years” in order to allow a broader range of past performance references?

No. As noted in the draft RFP, recency includes “prime contracts, task/delivery orders, and/or major subcontracts in performance during the past three years from https://www.acquisition.gov/content/part-2-definitions-words-and-terms#i1125359 https://www.acquisition.gov/content/part-44-subcontracting-policies-and-procedures#i1073689 the Solicitation Step

One date of issuance.”

77 Would the government please confirm that the Veterans

Employment Certification requirement will be assessed solely for the Prime contractor and not from team members as well (e.g. – subcontractor employees will not count towards a team’s final Veterans

Employment number)?

This is partially correct.

As noted within the

Solicitation’s Veterans

Employment Volume, for Offerors that are not a Joint Venture, the

Veterans Employment

Certification will be assessed only for the

Prime Offeror.

However, for Joint

Ventures, the Joint

Venture Prime Offerors shall combine the total number of employees and total number of

Veterans employed for all members of the

Joint Venture.

78 How will the government evaluate the Veterans Employment

Certification? Is it a pass / fail or will

SDVOSB Prime’s receive additional credit for employing a greater number of Veterans?

The Veteran’s

Employment Factor will not be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

Rather, as noted within the Solicitation’s

Veterans Employment

Approach, it will be evaluated to determine the extent to which

Veterans are employed by the Prime Offeror.

79 I understand Joint Venture Entities

(JVE) will require CVE certification prior to proposal submission.

Would a Contractor Teaming

Arrangement (CTA), between a CVE

Certified SDVOSB prime and a regular small business subcontractor, require any additional certification or verification, other than the Prime’s current VA CVE SDVOSB certification.

A CTA would not require any additional certification or verification; however, the CTA does not establish the joint venture.

80 What are the requirements to onboard as a small business outside of the

27M contract size? Will SDVOSBs that are above 27M be allowed to participate as a Large Business or

VOSB?

The detailed requirements will be identified within the

Solicitation. However, the On-ramp will be limited to Center for

Verification and

Evaluation (CVE)-verified Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Business

(SDVOSB) concerns.

Please note that on July

18, 2019, an interim final rule was published by SBA which increased the size standard from $27.5M to $30M for NAICS

541512.

81 We are a new SBA MPP JV, and as such have no past performance as a

JV, but both we and our mentor do have individual past performance citations. Will the government accept the individual citations and consider a neutral rating for the JV?

Joint Ventures will have the ability to submit past performance instances for the parties that make up the Joint

Venture. Each entity will be assessed individually, and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the Offeror’s

Past Performance rating.

82 In the draft RFP, there are two mentions of font sizes for graphics and illustrations. In PWS section

7.3.2 (pg 49) the requirement states

"Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size not less than 8-point and may be landscape." In draft RFP section L.10.2.a (pg 126) it states

"Tables and illustrations font size shall be no smaller than 12-point.

Tables and illustrations may be landscape." Can the government

The font size may not be reduced to font size

8. For clarification, the font size limitation requirements identified within the PWS apply to Task Execution

Plans submitted in response to Requests for Task Execution

Plans issued for task orders under the T4NG confirm that the font size for graphics and illustrations may be reduced to size 8?

Contracts, it does not apply to this Basic

Contract Solicitation.

The submittal instructions provided in

Section L of the

Solicitation shall be adhered to for this On-ramp Solicitation.

83 We request the government to confirm that a total compensation plan for professional employees is not required.

Correct. A deviation to

FAR 22.1103 and

52.222-46 has been approved; therefore, those requirements have been waived for the T4NG On-ramp

Solicitation. As a result, a compensation plan for professional employees is not being requested.

84 What will be the due date for Step 1? The Step One due date will be established within the final

Solicitation.

85 Do we have to choose Sample Task 1 among the given technical functional areas or address them all?

All Offerors will respond to the same

Sample Task; there is no choice being offered.

86 Is there any fixed date on which other attachments will be published?

Other attachments will be released with the

Solicitation.

87 In Step Two of the proposal submission under Past Performance, the instructions state “Areas of relevance include contracts/subcontracts the Offeror has been awarded that are greater than $5,000,000 and which provide any of the IT services similar to those required under functional areas 4.1 through 4.11 of the T4NG PWS.” The previous Solicitation had similar language in the instructions for Past

Performance but greater than $1M

The Government considered this request;

however, has decided to leave this requirement unchanged. The

Government would like to remind potential

Offerors that they are competing for a contract with a total ceiling of $22.3B. This fact, coupled with was the standard. Raising this standard to $5M for the current

Solicitation is a potential significant deterrent for many interested

SDVOSBs that have performed relevant work but not on awarded contracts greater than $5M in value.

Many SDVOSBs have invested considerable preparation time to be ready to submit a viable bid in participation in the Government’s acquisition process for T4NG. This includes enlisting the collaborative support of multiple small business teaming partners. As the proposal instructions currently stand for Past

Performance, unfairness to true

SDVOSBs of the On-Ramp is introduced in favor of JVs which are comprised of large businesses.

Having pathways to fairly compete to provide services on contracts like

T4NG is extremely vital to the long-term sustainability and growth of

SDVOSBs. So as to not potentially exclude several SDVOSB offerors and teams from competing in the evaluation of Past Performance, can the Government lower the $5M relevant contract reference down to

$1M as was the case for the previous

Solicitation?

current award statistics that show that more than half of all awarded

T4NG orders are in excess of $5M and approximately 85% of all T4NG orders are in excess of $1M which indicates that a $5M threshold for determining past performance relevance is reasonable, warranted, and fair.

Furthermore, the

Government would like to remind potential

Offerors that even if the Prime Offeror does not have recent or relevant past performance, as to be defined in the

Solicitation, there are other aspects established within the

Past Performance

Volume that allow for consideration of an

Offeror’s past performance; therefore, an Offeror would not be excluded from competing on this effort merely due to a lack of recent and relevant past performance.

88 In light of the projected November release date for Step One of the

Solicitation and the scheduling of vacation time for staff during the

Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New

Year’s holidays, please provide the

TAC’s anticipated schedule for the release of Steps One and Two of the

The release date for

Step Two will be dependent on a number of variables; therefore, an expected release date cannot be provided at this time. However, the Government is

Solicitation. Even if an exact timeframe cannot be provided, please confirm that Step Two will not be issued until after 1 January.

currently anticipating approximately six (6) months to evaluate Step

One.

89 For Volume II-Past Performance

Files, the RFP states that “Joint

Ventures shall submit up to one (1) instance for each of the entities that make up the Joint Venture, as well as up to one (1) instance for the Joint

Venture.” Please clarify that the

RFP’s requirement is for a Joint

Venture offeror to submit one instance of Past Performance for each member of the JV as well as the JV itself, rather than submitting only “up to” one instance of Past Performance.

The Solicitation’s requirement is to submit up to one (1) instance for the Joint

Venture and up to one

(1) instance for each member of the Joint

Venture. The “up to” language means that an

Offeror may submit either zero (0) or one

(1) instance. Further, the inclusion of the “up to” language is included because an entity may not have any instances to submit that meet both the recency and relevancy criteria identified within the Solicitation.

90 What is the expected release date of

Sample Task 1?

The Government currently anticipates the release of the

Solicitation, and therefore Sample Task

1, in mid-November.

91 I am writing to see if the past performance requirement of

$5,000,000 can be achieved through a combination of contracts and subcontracts? I am assuming the purpose of the requirement is to gauge capacity of the small business concern.

Our largest single subcontract is

$4.1M. Even with an accounting for a range of 10% within the $5M target or 6 months of performance we would be just short of that. However, The relevancy dollar threshold identified for the Past Performance

Factor must be satisfied by a single contract, order, or subcontract.

A combination of contracts and/or subcontracts to reach the relevancy threshold is not permissible.

Furthermore, the

Government would like to remind potential if considered cumulatively with other contracts and subcontracts within the same period of performance we will exceed the capacity to successfully execute $5M worth of concurrent contracting.

It is arguable that it is more challenging to have multiple small contracts with different scope, periods of performance and end users than one single award of monetary value. For example, a single product order could exceed $5M in cost and a complex system architecture solution for an entire agency could be below

$5M in cost.

In order to accommodate scaling we can present letters of commitment from our financing institutions as well as the staffing agencies or distributors that support us with our current client base.

Thank you for reading this and all you are doing to help our small business community. I hope you will consider this case with regard to the

$5M past performance requirement.

Offerors that even if the Prime Offeror does not have recent or relevant past performance, as to be defined in the

Solicitation, there are other aspects established within the

Past Performance

Volume that allow for consideration of an

Offeror’s past performance; therefore, an Offeror would not be excluded from competing on this effort merely due to a lack of recent and relevant past performance.

92 Besides the 7 SDVOSBs, will there be any large companies on-ramping also?

No.

93 Can new technology be introduced in the evaluation like 5G?

The T4NG

Performance Work

Statement is broad enough to include new and emerging technologies.

94 What are the top 10 agencies using the Veteran Affairs T4NG?

T4NG is a multi-agency contract that has been utilized by several agencies such as the Department of

Homeland Security, Department of Defense

(USTRANSCOM),

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Council of the Inspectors

General on Integrity and Efficiency, and

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service;

however, up to this point T4NG has been predominately utilized by VA.

95 Is there a threshold for the Task

Order to be competitively bid?

No.

96 Will there be a briefing and a Q&A process for IDIQs to understand the project thoroughly?

An Industry Day was conducted on June 6, 2019 (the slides are posted to the Federal

Business Opportunities

(FBO) announcement for the T4NG On-ramp), two rounds of questions and answers have been previously posted to the FBO announcement, and a draft Solicitation, to which this specific question was submitted in response to, was posted to FBO.

Furthermore, this is an on-ramp to a contract that has been in existence for several years. Therefore, the

Government believes that ample opportunity has been afforded to

Industry to gain an understanding of the

T4NG On-ramp effort, and no further briefings or Q&A periods are anticipated.

97 Should we assume that all acquisitions (Full and Open or

Succeeding) considered to have Post

Award requirements?

This question is not very clear, but each and every task order will have some sort of post-award requirement.

98 Will there be Post Award site visit requirements?

Again, this question is not very clear;

however, the

Government reserves the right to conduct site visits to monitor compliance with certain contractual requirements. Further, if a specific task order requires the contractor to perform site visits, then those requirements will be identified at the task order level.

99 Do we need to include all potential subcontractors in our response to sources sought that could potentially work?

No.

100 For Indefinite Delivery Indefinite

Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, is the

Form required only for the base contract, only for individual task orders, or for both?

This question is too unclear to be answered;

it is unknown what form is being referenced.

101 Will there be an industry day, to meet the Procurement team?

The Industry Day was conducted June 6, 2019. No further industry days are planned for this effort.

102 Can a non-SDVOSB/VOSB vendor create a JV with the certified prime

SDVOSB/VOSB vendor and will be eligible to bid on the T4NG On-

Ramp opportunity?

Yes, provided that it is done under SBA’s All

Small Mentor-Protégé

Program in accordance with SBA regulations and VAAR. However, please note that the resulting JV must be

CVE-verified as a

SDVOSB; therefore, the scenario presented here would only be possible if one of the entities is also a

SDVOSB.

103 Issue: Sample Task response time of

7 days does not take into consideration the time required for the government to respond to industry questions. Also, considering the requirements for the Sample Task are unknown and could span many different technical domains, 7 days leaves little time for planning and solution development.

Question: Considering the Sample

Task responses are the most important evaluation criteria and require the development of complex technical solutions across a broad range of requirements, could the government provide at least a 10 day response time – after questions from industry are answered by the government. Providing the additional time for the Sample Task will help ensure a higher quality of vendor responses.

The Sample Task is purposely set at seven

(7) business days because that is the common response time permitted for Requests for Task Execution

Plans under T4NG, and therefore is directly relevant to the

Government’s expectations of contractors post-award.

Therefore, this time period will not be extended. Furthermore, the Government does not plan to entertain questions pertaining to the Sample Task.

104 If no OCI exists is a statement verifying such required? If so, where should this information be included within our proposal submission?

The Solicitation will be updated to include a statement stating that no OCI exists shall be included as part of

Volume VI, Solicitation, Offer and

Award Documents and

Representations/

Certifications.

105 Request for clarification: Normally

1" page margin requirements allow for headers/footers to be placed above/below the 1" mark so that proposal content itself takes up 6.5x9 inches of page space. Please clarify

The Solicitation states that the “top, bottom, left and right margins shall be a minimum of one inch each,” and

“[p]age numbers, if this is allowable or if top/bottom margins should really be set at 1.5"-

2" to cause the header/footer to fall within the 1" margin.

company logos, and headers and footers may be within the page margins ONLY, and are not bound by the

12-point font requirement.”

Therefore, headers and footers may be within the 1” margins;

however, since the one

(1) inch requirement is a minimum, Offerors may utilize larger margins if they desire.

With that said, headers and footers must consist of identifying information, only, and must not contain any information to be evaluated as part of the proposal.

106 Would the government consider allowing a smaller font size for tables? 10-point font is easily readable and allows for a multi-column table to easily fit within a portrait page.

No. Prior experiences have demonstrated that some Offerors may take liberties with smaller font size allowances for tables and illustrations (such as by inserting practically the entire response in a table format); therefore, to ensure consistency and fairness the 12-point font size will apply to all tables, illustrations, and graphics.

107 Would an acronym list be excluded from the page count?

No. An acronym list would be included in the page count.

108 If an offeror has been awarded multiple task orders, for similar work, under one contract number can they

Past Performance instances shall consist of a single contract, order, or subcontract.

be submitted as one past performance?

While the Government acknowledges that an

IDIQ is a single contract, it is noted that performance occurs under the resulting task/delivery orders, not the IDIQ itself.

Therefore, multiple task orders may not be submitted as one past performance instance.

109 How does the VA ensure a balanced evaluation if a JV can submit 3 or more past performance references (1 from each member and 1 from the JV itself) and a SDVOSB that is not a JV can only submit 2 as a prime contractor?

The Past Performance

Factor includes numerous ways that the

Government can evaluate past performance. The past performance instances are only one of those methods. There is no way to ensure that each and every Offeror can submit the same number of past performance instances

(for instance a new entity without any recent and relevant past performance will not be able to submit any instances).

110 Please considering changing the JV requirement for past performance to be “up to two instances,” from either member. The intent of the JV is to pool resources and capabilities, not segregate them by member.

13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e) states: “When evaluating the past performance and experience of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously.” (emphasis added). Therefore, the past performance language contained within the draft

Solicitation is consistent with federal regulation and will not be changed.

111 Under the current past performance requirements for JVs (1 from each member and 1 from the JV itself), if the JV only submits 1 instance, are the other instances rated neutral?

No. Similar to the proposed major subcontractors, each entity will be assessed individually, and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the Offeror’s

Past Performance rating. Despite being assessed individually, each entity will not receive an individual rating.

112 Can an offeror submit an ID/IQ contract that was awarded to a JV as a contract reference?

No. Since performance occurs on orders issued under an IDIQ, and not the IDIQ itself, an

IDIQ would not provide a basis to evaluate past performance.

113 Proposal Section: L.10.2.c

Page Number: 127

Question: Please confirm Offerors will be allowed to submit questions for Step One submissions after the release of the full RFP.

Offerors will be permitted to submit questions for the Step

One Pricing and Reps and Certs submission;

however, questions pertaining to Sample

Task 1 will not be entertained.

114 Proposal Section: PWS Section 3.12 -

Transition and Orientation Support

Page Number: 25

Question: What is the routine transition period allowed between task orders?

There is not a standard transition period.

Transition requirements, to include the period of performance for the transition, are specified within the individual

Task Orders.

115 DRFP Section C, paragraph 7.3.3, page 49, states “The goal is to evaluate TEP submittals within 12 work days of receipt.” Does this same goal to evaluate submissions within

12 days apply to the evaluation of

Step One submissions?

No.

116 DRFP Section, paragraph 7.3.2 #3

Page Limitations states, “The Cover

Page and Table of Contents are not included in the page count however any additional matrices, appendices, or acronym lists, etc. will count against the page limitation. Cover letters shall not be included in the

Technical Volume.” Please confirm that these RTEP formatting requirements also apply to the Step

One and Step Two proposal submissions.

The referenced section is within the

Performance Work

Statement and is explicitly in regard to the submittal of Task

Execution Plans at the task order level, not proposals submitted in response to this On-ramp Solicitation. The formatting requirements identified within the Proposal

Submission

Instructions located in

Section L shall apply to both Step One and Step

Two proposal submissions.

117 DRFP Section L, paragraph 2 states, “The page count will be determined by counting the pages in the order they come up in the print layout view.” Please confirm that cover letters, cover pages, and tables of contents are also included in the Step

One and Step Two submission page limits.

As noted within

Section L, Proposal

Submission

Instructions, Subsection (2)(c), cover letters and table of contents are not included in the page counts.

118 VAAR 852.219-72 states that, “In order to receive credit under the evaluation factor or sub-factor, the offeror must provide with its proposal a copy of a signed letter issued by the

VA Office of Small and

Disadvantaged Business Utilization approving the offeror’s Mentor-

Protégé Agreement.” Our understanding is that the Office of

Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization no longer issues these signed letters as a matter of policy, but rather directs offerors to use the evidence provided via certify.sba.gov showing Mentor Protégé arrangements are “active.” Please confirm that showing evidence via a print out of the certify.sba.gov record

(i.e., a screenshot of the online registration status) is acceptable.

VAAR 852.219-71 and

852.219-72 were inadvertently included in the draft and will be removed from the final

Solicitation.

119 For planning purposes, what is the estimated length of time the

Government plans to spend evaluating Step One (i.e., number of calendar days) prior to issuing notice to offerors to proceed with Step Two?

The length of time is dependent on a number of variables that are unknown at this time

(for example, the number of proposals received); therefore, any estimates provided at this time may (and likely will) change, possibly by a significant amount.

With that said, the

Government is currently anticipating approximately six (6) months.

120 L.10 Proposal Submission

Instructions, page 130: Contractor

Team Arrangements are listed twice, under Volume I, Technical and

Volume II, Past Performance. Will the Government please clarify if these will be submitted in both volumes?

That is correct –

Volume I shall include all Contractor Team

Arrangements, whereas

Volume II shall include only the Contractor

Team Arrangements for the Major

Subcontractors, as defined within Volume

II.

121 L.10 Proposal Submission

Instructions, page 131: The instructions say that up to 2 instances of Past Performance (PP) can be submitted for a Prime and up to 1 for each of 3 major subs. Further, for a

JV, up to 1 may be submitted for each member of the JV and up to 1 for the JV itself. For a JV, will the

Government please confirm that up to

1 instance can be submitted for each of the 3 major subs?

Offerors, whether or not a Joint Venture, shall submit up to one

(1) instance for each of the major subcontractors.

122 Question: If vendors are already registered within the System for

Award Management (SAM), will they be required to fill out the Reps &

Certs template for submission?

Yes.

123 Question: Is VA looking for the

SDVOSBs to subcontract 35% of the work? With this onramp being for

SDVOSBs, as the prime, that would already exceed the 35%.

Since this Solicitation is for an On-ramp to an existing contract, the goals reflected within the Small Business

Participation

Commitment Factor are the same as those expressed within the original T4NG, which was not limited to small businesses.

Nonetheless, the Small

Business Participation

Commitment Factor requires Offerors to propose goals for each of the socio-economic categories, and those percentages proposed will be incorporated into any resulting contract.

124 Will SDVOSBs be required to establish Small Business Goals for each category (SDVOSB, VOSB, As noted within the

Small Business

Participation

SDB, 8a, Women Owned, HUBZone, etc.)?

Commitment Factor, all

Offerors must propose a goal for the socio-economic categories identified.

125 Are all Prime offerors required to submit the subcontractor list in its entirety for Step One? e.g. Additional subcontractors will not be allowed over the life of the contract if not identified in Step One.

Prime contractors may be permitted to add subcontractors during the life of the contract.

FAR 52.244-2 is applicable.

126 Are all Prime offerors required to identify and provide C-Teaming

Arrangements for all subcontractors in the first submission for Step One?

e.g. Additional subcontractors will not be allowed in Step Two.

As was noted in the draft Solicitation, Contractor Teaming

Arrangements (CTAs) are not required to be submitted as part of

Step One. CTAs are only required as part of the Step Two submittal.

However, Offerors must provide all necessary information identified within the

Sample Task 1

Certification as part of the Step One response.

127 Section B.3, Page 7

Price Schedule, Contract

Maximum/Minimum

Ceiling

Will the overall ceiling on the IDIQ of $22.3B be increased based on the base period TO awarded ceiling or does the Government intend to reduce the 5-year option period ceiling to stay within the overall

$22.3B IDIQ ceiling?

The $22.3 billion ceiling will not be changed and is inclusive of the $11.9 billion ceiling identified for the On-ramp award.

128 Section C, Addendum B.4(j) and B.4(k), Page 68

Fill-ins are blank. Please advise on # of days for action.

Those fill-ins are intentionally blank and would be further specified at the task order level.

129 Section C.3.13(a), PWS - Government

Inspection and

Oversight

For Government Inspection and

Oversight, does free access to facilities by designated representatives of CO/Government include other non-

Government/support contractors?

Yes.

130 Section C.3.2, Page

PWS - Ordering

Period

For the T4NG Onramp ordering period of 5 years, does the

Government intend on awarding the on-ramp start date to coincide with the exercise of the original awardees' option period Year 6 contract start date? If not, can the Government provide an estimated start date for the

Onramp Awardees?

Yes, that is the intent.

131 Section C.3.6.1, PWS Government-

Furnished

The contractor is required to report all inspection results, maintenance actions, losses, and damage to the

TAC website. Please provide link to appropriate TAC website link (for property reporting).

The link will be provided post-award to any On-ramp awardees.

132 Section H-4, Page

Small Business

Participation

Requirements

In Section H-4, the RFP requires the prime contractor to satisfy certain identified small business participation goals. Does the small business participation goals requirement apply to set-aside task orders?

All orders, set-aside or not, will be utilized to track a Contractor’s compliance with the small business participation requirement and the proposed small business participation percentages.

133 Section H-4, Page

Small Business

Participation

Requirements

In Section H-4, the RFP requires the prime contractor to satisfy certain identified small business participation goals.

To the extent that a small business

Joint Venture is the Offeror, does the work performed by the entities that make up the Joint Venture count toward the small business participation goals (to the extent that an entity is a small business or qualifies in one of the categories)?

Potentially; however, that work could not be counted twice (i.e. the

Joint Venture and the entity could not both be credited for the same work performed).

134 Section J, Page 111

List of Attachments

Could the Government please provide

Attachments 0001-0019 prior to final

RFP release?

No, these will be provided with the RFP.

135 Section K, Pages

112 -121

Representations, Certifications, and

Other Statements of

Offerors

Some of the components of the Reps and Certs may require updating in

Step 2. Will the Government consider allowing Reps and Certs to be submitted or updated during Step

Two Submission?

The Government has revised the Solicitation to permit for some components of the

Representation and

Certifications to be submitted in Step Two.

136 Section L.10.2.i, Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Sample Task 1

Can the Offeror use consultants in developing their response to the

Sample Tasks?

As noted within the

Volume VI submission instructions of the draft

Solicitation “Offerors shall not use a consultant(s) to develop responses to

Sample Tasks.” As also noted, Offerors will be required to submit a certification that the

Sample Task responses are the work of the

Offeror and its subcontractors only.

137 Section L.10.2.ii (a), Pages 127-128

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Price Files

To allow the Offeror more time to prepare the pricing volume, would the Government consider allowing a

30 calendar day response time for

Step One proposal submission with the Sample Task 1 released 7 business days prior to end of day 30, similar to the approach used in Step

Two for volumes outside the sample task response?

The Government may allow for additional time for the submittal of the pricing volume.

The due dates will be identified in the final

Solicitation. However, all of Step One will be released at the same time, with Sample Task

1 due seven (7) business days after release, and the Price

Volume likely due after that.

138 Section L.10.2.ii (a), Pages 127-128

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Price Files

To afford small businesses sufficient time to develop a nationwide and

OCONUS rate card spanning 175

LCATS we request that the

Government release the Excel Pricing

Attachment with Labor Categories, Labor Category descriptions and notional Level of Effort prior to the

RFP release. This will allow small businesses enough time to conduct the analysis necessary to deliver VA an accurate rate card that spans such

The pricing attachment will be released with the final Solicitation;

however, additional time may be provided to submit the Price

Volume.

a wide range of technical functionality.

139 Section L.10.2.ii (a), Pages 127-128

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Price Files

Can the Government confirm that offerors are providing Time &

Materials (T&M) rates within the

Excel Pricing Attachment for evaluation?

That is correct. The proposal shall consist of proposed T&M rates.

140 Section L.10.2.ii (a), Pages 127-128

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Price Files

Will the Government provide a level of effort by labor category and level

(e.g., junior, mid, senior, expert) for the Sample Tasks?

No.

141 Section L.10.2.ii (a), Pages 127-128

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Price Files

The Government states that

OCONUS work location rates will need to be provided within the Excel

Pricing Attachment. Can the

Government confirm that the

OCONUS locations will be specified within the Excel Pricing Attachment?

Specific OCONUS locations will not be provided within the

Excel Pricing

Attachment.

142 Section L.10.2.ii (a), Pages 127-128

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Price Files

The Government states that

OCONUS work location rates will need to be provided within the Excel

Pricing Attachment. How will the

Government handle OCONUS

Department of State Allowances in the post award environment? Will these costs be included as a portion of the offerors proposed loaded labor rates in the Excel Pricing Attachment or proposed as an ODC at the task order level?

OCONUS location allowances or loadings should be included in the OCONUS blended loaded labor rates in the T4NG Pricing

Template for those labor categories that the

Government is requesting OCONUS blended loaded labor rates.

143 Section L.10.2.ii (a), Pages 127-128

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Price Files

Over the last 5 years, the technology landscape and the VA’s IT needs and priorities have evolved and expanded to include SAFe, DevOps, HCD, cloud strategy and solutions, cybersecurity, health IT, data science, and no/low code COTS solutions like

Salesforce and ServiceNow. To address these needs, non-T4NG

LCATs have been proposed on several task orders released during the base period that leverage these technologies/capabilities. Would the

Government consider adding new

The Government may consider this; however, if done, it would be as a post-award contract administration effort and outside the realm of the On-ramp competition.

labor categories to the T4NG IDIQ for both existing Primes and Offerors for the T4NG OnRamp to price?

144 Section L.10.2.iii

(d), Page 129

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Solicitation, Offer and Award

Documents and

Certifications/Repre sentatives

The instructions state a CTA is required for any subcontractor that supports the Sample Tasks 1 and 2 responses. However, the Past

Performance volume indicates that a

CTA is only required for major subcontractors. Should the CTA also be included if the subcontractor supported Sample Task 1 or Sample

Task 2?

As a matter of clarification, the Past

Performance Volume does not indicate that a

CTA is only required for major subcontractors. Instead, the Past Performance

Volume defines major subcontractors as the three (3) subcontractors, identified in the

Management Sub-factor, expected to receive the greatest amount of subcontracted work and for which a CTA exists.

As noted within the

Management Sub-factor (within the

Technical Factor), a

CTA shall be submitted for each subcontractor identified within the

Management Sub-factor. If a subcontractor supported either of the

Sample Tasks, then that

CTA shall be provided with the Management

Subfactor.

145 Section L.10.2.iii

(d), Page 129

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Solicitation, Offer and Award

Documents and

Certifications/Repre sentatives

Some large businesses do not sign

Contractor Teaming Arrangements

(CTA); instead, they provide Letters of Support to Prime Bidders to demonstrate their willingness to support successful Bidders post award. Are Letters of Support or similar instruments acceptable in lieu

No, a CTA must be submitted. A Letter of

Support or similar instruments are not acceptable in lieu of a

CTA.

of CTAs in Step Two Submissions for Volume II, Section 5?

146 Section L.10.2 Step

2 (i)(b), Page 130

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Technical Files

Management

Subfactor

To allow the Offeror to fully describe its management approach to satisfying the RFP requirements and demonstrate its ability to manage work under the IDIQ, will the

Government consider increasing the

Management volume page limit to 20 pages?

The Government considered this request;

however, it believes a ten (10) page limit is sufficient.

147 Section L.10.2 Step

2 (ii), Page 131

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Past Performance

Files

In the RFP, the "Past Performance

Files" instructions specify that "Joint

Ventures shall submit up to one (1) instance for each of the entities that make up the Joint Venture, as well as up to one (1) instance for the Joint

Venture."

Are Joint Ventures permitted to submit "major subcontractor" references, in addition to the instances of past performance from the entities that make up the joint venture?

If so, do the three (3) "major subcontractors" include the 2 entities that make up the Joint Venture?

Joint Ventures are permitted to submit major subcontractor instances. The entities that make up the Joint

Venture are not considered a major subcontractor.

148 Section L.10.2 Step

2 (ii)(3), Pages 131-

Proposal Submission

Instructions -

Past Performance

Files

In "Section 3 - New Corporate

Entities," the RFP states that "new corporate entities may submit data on prior contract(s)/task order(s) involving its officers and employees, and any predecessor companies."

If a Joint Venture is a new corporate entity, would the Joint Venture be able to submit data from contracts involving its officers/predecessor companies?

Yes, as long as the contracts/orders meet the recency and relevancy requirements outlined in the

Solicitation.

149 Section M.A.1, Page

Evaluation Factors -

Basis of Award

The basis of award states: “Following the evaluation of Sample Task 1 and the Price Volume, the Government will set a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated

a) Not necessarily.

The Step One

Down-select will consider all evaluation criteria proposals. "It also states: To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor, all

Technical Subfactors, and the SBPC factor.

a) Will an Offeror who has a highly rated technical proposal on sample task 1 be in the competitive range by definition of how the competitive range is established?

b) Is it possible that an Offeror with a higher rated technical response than other Offerors will not be included in the competitive range while an Offer with a lower price technically

"Acceptable" score proceeds to Step

Two?

c) Could the government clarify the circumstances when an Offeror who has a highly rated technical proposal on sample task 1 not be allowed to proceed to Step Two?

identified within

Step One (i.e.

Sample Task 1 and

Price) and only those Offerors that are the most highly rated will be selected to proceed to Step 2.

b) Yes, that is possible.

c) The Step One

Down-select will be established based on the evaluation results of each proposal against the

Step One evaluation criteria

(i.e. Sample Task 1 and Price).

Therefore, simply having a highly rated technical proposal does not guarantee a spot in the Step One

Down-select since the Price Volume has to also be considered.

Furthermore, as noted within the draft Solicitation, the Offerors included in Step

Two may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

150 Section M.A.1, Page

Evaluation Factors -

Basis of Award

In Step Two, would it then be feasible that an Offeror with a technical rating of “Acceptable” for the Technical Factor, all Technical

Subfactors, and the SBPC factor and very affordable pricing receive an award, while an Offeror with higher

Any award will be made consistent with the Basis for Award identified within the

Solicitation, taking into account the relative importance of each rated technical subfactors than other

Awardees not receive an award?

factor. As such, the scenario presented within this question is within the realm of possibilities.

151 Section M.C.1 (2), Evaluation Factors -

Technical

Evaluation

Approach

Does the Government intend to award either Sample Task at the conclusion of the Step Two evaluation?

No.

152 One of our members is still considered a small business on the federal side. So, will our workshare still count on this contract as a part of your small business goals?

This question is not detailed enough to provide a definitive answer. However, assuming “members” is referencing a team member acting in the capacity as a subcontractor, then as long as that subcontractor maintains a small business status, then the work performed by that subcontractor would be counted towards the small business goals.

153 We have seen a lot of links like this:

(https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go v/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/ memoranda/fy2008/m08-05.pdf), M08-23 mandating Domain Name

System Security

(NSSEC)(https://obamawhitehouse.ar chives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/ass ets/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-

23.pdf), and shall comply with the

Trusted Internet Connections (TIC)

Reference Architecture Document

Are there any updates to these under the new administration, or are these to remain the same?

As of this time they remain the same.

If/when referenced documents are updated within the T4NG

Performance Work

Statement, then those changes would be implemented via a post-award modification.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-05.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-05.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-05.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-23.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-23.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-23.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-23.pdf

154 Volume II - Past

Performance

Can an offeror cite the Past

Performance of a division within its corporate structure? The division has a separate CAGE and DUNS, but the offeror provides operational control as well as administrative, HR, and accounting support. Division will have meaningful involvement in the execution of Task Orders.

A prime Offeror’s submitted past performance instance shall have been performed under the same CAGE code and

DUNS number as the prime Offeror.

However, in the event that the prime Offeror does not have past performance instances that meet the recency and relevancy criteria established within the

Solicitation, then the

Offeror may submit information pertaining to a corporate affiliate in accordance with the

New Corporate Entities section of Past

Performance. Offerors are cautioned that if they submit information under the

New Corporate Entities section pertaining to a corporate affiliate with a separate CAGE code and/or DUNS number, then the Offeror bears the burden to demonstrate within its narrative that the affiliate is anticipated to meaningfully participate during performance of the contract.

155 I.12 VAAR

852.209-70

ORGANIZATIONA

L CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST (JAN

2008) L.7 852.209-

Paragraph (b) of these sections requires that "The Offeror shall provide a statement with its offer which describes, in a concise manner, all relevant facts concerning any past, present, or currently planned interest

There is no desired format for the statements. The

Solicitation will be revised to clarify that the statements shall be

ORGANIZATIONA

L CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST (JAN

2008)

(financial, contractual, organizational, or otherwise) or actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest relating to the services to be provided under this

Solicitation. The offeror shall also provide statements with its offer containing the same information for any consultants and subcontractors identified in its proposal and which will provide services under the

Solicitation." Is there a desired format for these statements? Where should these statements be included in the proposal?

included as part of

Volume VI, Solicitation, Offer and

Award Documents and

Representations/

Certifications.

156 Step One, VOLUME VI -

SOLICITATION,

OFFER AND AW

ARD

DOCUMENTS

AND

CERTIFICATIONS/

REPRESENTATIO

NS (d)

Offerors are required to certify that the responses to the Step One and

Step Two Sample Task Orders are the work of the offers and its subcontractors (not consultants). The

RFP instructions direct offerors to include the certification in Volume

VI which is only currently required to be submitted for Step One. Request the Government update the RFP to reflect the certification for the Step

Two Sample Task Order be submitted with the Step Two response.

The Solicitation will be updated to account for this.

157 Step Two, VOLUME I-

TECHNICAL

FILES, (b)

Management Sub-factor (1)

Offeror is required to provide a brief narrative that includes the skills and expertise of each subcontractor. We intend to have more than three subcontractors in order to meet all requirements and the Small Business

Participation goals. Should this narrative include all subcontractors or just the major subcontractors as defined in the Past Performance

Factor?

For the Management

Subfactor, Offerors shall include all subcontractors. The reference to major subcontractors is specific to the Past

Performance Factor.

158 Step Two, VOLUME I-

TECHNICAL

FILES, (b)

Management Sub-factor (1)

This section of the RFP requires the offeror to submit a CTA between "the

Prime and each subcontractor (as defined in the Past Performance

Factor)." Volume II - PAST

PERFORMANCE FILES, Section (5)

Yes, within Volume I, Management

Subfactor, Offerors shall provide a CTA for each and every subcontractor identified

Contractor Team Arrangement states

"The Offeror shall submit the CTA required in the Management Sub-factor between the Prime and its three major subcontractors." Is there a requirement for the Offeror to submit

CTAs for subcontractors who are not considered major subcontractors per the RFP language?

within the Offeror’s

Management Subfactor response. Within

Volume II, Past

Performance Files, the

Offeror shall provide

CTAs only for the three

(3) major subcontractors as defined within the

Solicitation.

159 On page 131 the instructions state, "Joint Ventures shall submit up to one (1) instance for each of the entities that make up the Joint

Venture, as well as up to one (1) instance for the Joint Venture." Due to this requirement would the customer consider requiring all offerors to submit past performance as part of the Step 1? By making this a Step 1 requirement, the customer is able to verify the validity of all offerors, ensuring that all offers within stage 2 are eligible to provide proposals.

The Government appreciates the suggestion and considered it; however, has decided to leave this unchanged.

T4NG Draft RFP,

(ii) VOLUME II –

PAST

PERFORMANCE

FILES, page 131

Line/Sentence: Areas of relevance include contracts/subcontracts the

Offeror has been awarded that are greater than $5,000,000 and which provide any of the IT services similar to those required under functional areas 4.1 through 4.11 of the T4NG

PWS.

Question: Is this in reference to project average annual revenues or the total value of the contract/subcontract for the Prime?

The total value being the value of the base year, plus all the optional years

(to include future/projected)?

The referenced Past

Performance threshold refers to the total value of the contract, order, or subcontract.

From previous T4NG August 2019

Question and Answer postings to

FedBizOpps.

Please reference the

Verification Assistance

Brief entitled

“Understanding Joint

Previous Government Response:

Any Joint Venture (JV) under the

Small Business Administration’s

(SBA) All Small Mentor-Protégé

Program must have the JV approved by SBA and the JV must be CVE-verified as a SDVOSB under the applicable NAICS code at time of proposal submission, as well as at time of award to be eligible.

Question:…