Questions and Answers 20230410 (for posting).pdf

# Reference Question Answer 611 L.13.3 The Attachment 015 self-scoring worksheet appears to add the total of the small business participation percentages to an offeror’s total points. This may encourage offerors to propose unrealistic participation percentages as a means to gain an award. How will the Government adjudicate unrealistic goals submitted by offerors?

All Offerors are required to submit Small Business Participation Commitment information for their performance if awarded a T4NG2 Base contract. The percentages proposed for the goals will be incorporated into any resulting contract in accordance with H-4 Small Business Requirements. As set forth in L.13.3, the percentages proposed will be incorporated into any resulting contracts. The Government will review the contractor's small business participation performance on a quarterly basis and make any necessary adjustments to the contractor's quarterly past performance score based the ability to achieve those goals. In accordance with H-4, failure of the contractor to demonstrate good faith to achieve its small business participation percentages may be grounds for termination for default.

Although VA does not intend to evaluate the realism of each proposed commitment, if, on its face, a proposed commitment does not appear possible then VA reserves the right to deduct the claimed points. For example, if a large business proposes to meet 100% of a given socioeconomic category, that would not be possible. Another example would be if a SDVOSB proposes to meet 100% of a given socioeconomic category, yet its proposed subcontractors are all large businesses, that may also not be possible.

612 L.13.3 Will the Government conduct any analysis on the Small Business Participation Commitment proposed by Offerors to ensure they are realistic and reasonable to avoid a high volume of off-ramp eligible contractors due to poor past performance where small business participation commitments cannot be realistically reached in good faith?

Please review H-4 Small Business Participation Requirements which states, "The Government shall monitor the contractor's performance against the Government’s overall small business participation requirement above to ensure compliance.

Failure of the contractor to demonstrate good faith to achieve its small business participation percentages may be grounds for termination for default."

Although VA does not intend to evaluate the realism of each proposed commitment, if, on its face, a proposed commitment does not appear possible then VA reserves the right to deduct the claimed points. For example, if a large business proposes to meet 100% of a given socioeconomic category, that would not be possible. Another example would be if a SDVOSB proposes to meet 100% of a given socioeconomic category, yet its proposed subcontractors are all large businesses, that may also not be possible.

613 M.4.3. and Attachment 015

For a SDVOSB JV based on an SBA approved Mentor-Protege arrangement with a large business mentor, how would work be scored for small business participation?

1) Would the offeror automatically earn 100 points for SDVOSB and VOSB as the JV/M-P qualifies for each of these categories?

2) If said JV/M-P commits to subcontracting 30% to a WOSB/HUBZone, would the offeror propose in Attachment 15 100 points each for SDVOSB and VOSB and 30 points each for the WOSB and HUBZone socioeconomic classes, to yield a total score for of 260 points?

Q1: No Q2: No The Small Business Participation Commitments should factor in the work to be completed by the offeror as well as the offeror’s subcontractors. Therefore, an offeror should only commit to 100% within a given socioeconomic category if it intends for 100% of the dollars obligated during the entirety of its T4NG2 contract will go to companies within that socioeconomic category.

Although VA does not intend to evaluate the realism of each proposed commitment, if, on its face, a proposed commitment does not appear possible then VA reserves the right to deduct the claimed points. For example, if a large business proposes to meet 100% of a given socioeconomic category, that would not be possible. Another example would be if a SDVOSB proposes to meet 100% of a given socioeconomic category, yet its proposed subcontractors are all large businesses, that may also not be possible.

614 L.12.10 Are Joint Venture Offerors able to use subcontractors to claim points under industry and accounting system certifications?

Yes, if the subcontractors are being used under REPs 5-10.

615 Section I Sec. I did not include FAR provisions for limitations of liability, FAR 52.246-23 (Basic) and FAR 52.246-25 (services) which are applicable to this solicitation for services. Will the amendment include such clauses to clarify the limitations of liability for this particular effort?

These clauses do not apply to this solicitation.

616 L.12.1.1 In the Answers provided on 3/16/2023, the Government confirmed that the limitation of three REPs only applies to subcontractors and not to divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates where common control is demonstrated via a Letter of Commitment. L.12.1.1 indicates “The first four REPs submitted must be projects that have been performed by the Offeror.” We assume offerors can use REPs associated with an offeror’s divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates where the FPDS record may indicate a contractor name other than the offeror’s legal name within the first four REPs. Please confirm

In this example, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to demonstrate in its proposal that the REP is from a division, subsidiary, or affiliate that is under common control of the Offeror and therefore qualifies as a REP performed by the Offeror.

617 Attachment 016 Many of the supporting documents for the Attachment 15 Self Scoring Spreadsheet are details regarding relevant experience projects, or certifications, etc that are required in other locations or volumes of the Offeror's response. Can the USG confirm that the "Supporting Documents for Self-Scoring Worksheet" file should duplicate these other document references?

Please refer to the amended RFP for clarification on Supporting Documents for Self-Scoring Worksheet (referred to as Attachment 016).

618 Attachment 017 Should offerors use the Funding Agency ID from the Prime’s contract agency for Sub-contracted work? If the REP is a non-Federal project, the Offeror may enter "Not Applicable" into this field.

619 B.7 Please clarify that liability for liquidated damages applies to “a data breach or privacy incident involving any SPI the Contractor/Subcontractor processes or maintains under this contract caused by the Contractor/Subcontractor’s breach of a security requirement in this Agreement.”

Yes, "Consistent with the requirements of 38 U.S.C. §5725, a contract may require access to sensitive personal information.

If so, the Contractor is liable to VA for liquidated damages in the event of a data breach or privacy incident involving any SPI the Contractor/Subcontractor processes or maintains under this contract."

620 Certification “Offerors will be evaluated based on their SDVOSB certification in the SBA certification database” SDVOSBs certified by the VA CVE prior to January 1, 2023, did not need to re-certify with the SBA this year. The SBA deemed such firms certified for the remainder of their three-year eligibility term. Please confirm the VA will honor SDVOSBs certified by the VA CVE prior to January 1, 2023, if their certification is still within the three-year eligibility term?

On January 1, 2023, the Small Business Administration (SBA) took over the process of certifying Service-Disabled-Veteran- Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSB) as directed by the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 116-283) and codified in 15 U.S.C. § 657f.

VA has a statutory requirement to ensure that SDVOSB/VOSB are listed in the database of eligible firms, now maintained by SBA, promulgated in 38 U.S.C § 8127 and 8128.

The VA Acquisition Regulation at 819.7003 (b) clearly states that at the time of submission of offers/quotes, and at time of award of any contract, the offeror must represent to the contracting officer that it is a (1) SDVOSB/VOSB, (2) small business concern under the NAICS code assigned to the acquisition, and (3) is listed as a verified SDVOSB/VOSB on the VA’s Vendor Information Pages. Under the deviation, number (3) was changed to show the certification database at https://veterans.certify.sba.gov (see 13 CFR Part 128).

The requirements that firms be certified at time of proposal and time of award are unambiguous under statute and regulation and, therefore, required in the solicitation and will not be changed.

621 Certification A small company cannot request the federal government for an audit from DCAA, DCMA, or CAA.

Requiring the audit from one of these agencies gives the Mentor Protégé JVs with a large business an advantage as a large business has a higher probability of being selected for audited by one of these agencies. A small business is more likely to have a third-party audit in preparation for being selected by the federal government for an audit from one of the agencies listed above. Can consideration be given to third-party validations of Accounting Systems?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

622 Certification By drastically increasing the point values associated with certifications (i.e., CMMI and ISO) and simultaneously restricting these points to only the Offeror, the VA has materially changed the acquisition strategy that SDVOSB companies were pursuing until the day the final RFP dropped. This VA material change favors Mentor Protégé JVs associated with large corporations and provided no advance notice to SDVOSB companies during the shortened pre-RFP timeframe when questions were asked and VA’s acquisition strategy didn’t change, on this subject matter. This material change is inconsistent with L.10.6 indicating the Government will not consider certifications from subcontractors not conforming to Subcontractor Letter of Commitment. This material change disenfranchises SDVOSBs, many of whom have institutional VA knowledge. Can the VA revert back to allowing certifications from subcontractors, or revert back to the proportional scorecard value of these certifications?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

623 Certification Can an SBA-approved mentor protégé SDVOSB Joint Venture be the prime offeror and partner with another Small Business as a subcontractor/teammate and utilize the experience and certifications of this teammate? In this instance, would the Subcontractor and CTA submission requirements suffice?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

624 Certification Can the government clarify if a MPJV can form a CTA with a standalone SDOVSB or another MPJV and claim the corporate experience and certifications of one of its members?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

625 Certification CMMI certifications represent a significant investment in both time and money, and with overlaps between SVC and DEV, less than 15% of companies invest in receiving both designations. The points associated with this element significantly hinder SB, specifically SDVOSB, ability to compete against purpose-build CTAs or large businesses. We are recommending the TAC adopt one of the following changes:

Consolidate the CMMI certifications to be either SVC or DEV, as it was presented in an earlier draft; or Substantially increase the SDVOSB/VOSB evaluation factor by a factor of 3 or higher to offset the fact a SB will not have both designations We would further recommend the TAC consider both adopting both changes to enable SDVOSB firms to remain most competitive

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

626 Certification DCAA, DCMA, and or CFA auditing of a contractor’s accounting system can only be initiated by the Government. Large businesses are substantially more likely to have a Government initiated audit than an SDVOSB. SDVOSBs, in effect, now have a disadvantage due to their socioeconomic status. This material change only happened with the final RFP release, is absolutely controlled by the Government, and is slanted toward large businesses (or MP-JVs of large businesses). Can the Government remove this from the scorecard or allow third-party validations of Offeror’s accounting systems?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

627 Certification For a JV Offeror to receive points for Accounting Systems and Industry Certifications, can the Government please affirm that all members of the JV must possess the Accounting Systems and Industry Certifications?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

628 Certification For Joint Ventures (JV), Please confirm offerors submitting as a joint venture can provide evidence of any claimed system, certification, or clearance in the name of the joint venture itself or in the name of a member of the joint venture?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

629 Certification If an Offeror submits as a CTA as defined in L.10.4 (2), will the Government consider the Accounting Systems and Industry Certifications of one of the CTA members?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

630 Certification In the previous Q&A released on February 14 2023, a question regarding CMMI and ISO was answered that stated "Prime Offerors may utilize experience/certifications from proposed subcontractors." Offerors have made decisions regarding priorities and teaming based on that answer. We respectfully request that the original answer to that question remain valid and allow offerors to utilize subcontractors for points regarding ISO and CMMI certifications.

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

631 Certification Per Section L.10.6 in draft and final versions of the RFP, “The Government will not consider experience, past performance, or certifications from subcontractors identified by Offerors for which there is not a conforming Subcontractor Letter of Commitment.” This implies that subcontractor certifications can be used as long as there is a Subcontractor LOC. In addition, previous Q&A documents indicated that “Prime Offerors may utilize experience/certifications from proposed subcontractors.” This seems to directly contradict the answer to Q3 issued on 3/16 that says ““Eligible certifications under L.12.10 only apply to the Offeror, not subcontractors.”. Many teams were formed based around using experience AND certifications from subcontractors. This change causes many teams to lose valuable points and consider new teaming strategies very late in the solicitation response process. Will the government reconsider their answer to align with the original draft and final RFP language and allow offerors to use subcontractor certifications?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

632 Certification Per Section L.10.6 in draft and final versions of the RFP, “The Government will not consider experience, past performance, or certifications from subcontractors identified by Offerors for which there is not a conforming Subcontractor Letter of Commitment.” This implies that subcontractor certifications can be used as long as there is a Subcontractor LOC. In addition, previous Q&A documents indicated that “Prime Offerors may utilize experience/certifications from proposed subcontractors.” This seems to directly contradict the answer to Q3 issued on 3/16 that says ““Eligible certifications under L.12.10 only apply to the Offeror, not subcontractors.” Many teams were formed based around using experience AND certifications from subcontractors. This change causes many teams to lose valuable points and consider new teaming strategies very late in the solicitation response process. Will the government reconsider their answer to align with the original draft and final RFP language and allow offerors to use subcontractor certifications?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

633 Certification Please confirm that a prime offeror (any size), may use the Certification(s) of their subcontractor(s).? Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

634 Certification Please confirm that if proposing as an SBA-approved mentor protégé SDVOSB Joint Venture, the JV can utilize the past experience, certifications, and DCAA approved accounting system for any of its members?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

635 Certification Please confirm that in the case of an SBA-approved mentor-protégé Joint Venture offerors, certifications such as ISO can be claimed by either member of the JV.

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

636 Certification Regarding Section L.12.10.5 Cost Accounting System Certification: In instances where an Offeror has previously received approval from DCAA/DCMA/CFA, and then made a change to its accounting system, would the Government please consider allowing offerors to claim credit for this element by submitting a Pre- Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System (SF 1408) completed by a third-party accounting firm?

No, thank you for the suggestion.

637 Certification Scoring for Certifications, final Solicitation Question #3: Based on the Government answer stating that “Eligible certifications under L.12.10 only apply to the Offer”, please confirm that any Prime JV not possessing these certifications specifically under the name of the JV, is not eligible to claim the associated points for this area.

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

638 Certification Section L.10.6 states that the government requires a subcontractor letter of commitment for experience, Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

639 Certification Since the Solicitation does not expressly require that an all-small mentor-protégé, unpopulated joint venture itself hold a certain technical certification, please confirm the government will accept the mentor’s respective certifications as having satisfied the RFP requirement and for scoring purposes.

For example, the mentor’s ISO 9001 certification and CMMI Level 3 certifications will satisfy the RFP and scoring requirement for the Joint Venture proposal.

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

640 Certification The confidence and reduction in risk to the government received by awarding contracts to offerors with CMMI Level 3 certification is gained whether it be for Service or Development. Requiring both is repetitive and simply offers a benefit to large companies with no real benefit to the government. It is requested that the government change this requirement to awarding points to either Service or Development for CMMI Level 3. If points will continue to be awarded for both, it is requested that these certifications be allowed either by small business subcontractor team members or the prime in accordance with FAR 13 C.F.R.

125.2

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

641 Certification The Cost Accounting System Certification, which is initiated by Government, typically applies to Large Businesses and has been assigned a weight double the weight allocated for an SDVOSB. This net result would provide an unfair competitive advantage to Large Businesses and JVs with a Large Business Mentor over SDVOSBs. In order to mitigate this inherent unfair competitive advantage, would the Government allow offerors to use this Certification from a subcontractor?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

642 Certification The government states the eligible certifications for CMMI and ISO under L.12.10 must come from the offeror, not the subcontractor. This would give Mentor Protégé JVs with large businesses an advantage as the Mentor will have all the certifications required while a small SDVOSB is unlikely to have the resources to have pursued all the different certifications while still being a small business. Would the government consider requiring one of the certs to be from the offeror while the others could be from the subcontractor teaming partners?

Please refer to amended RFP L.12.10.

643 Certification The RFP is not specific regarding where Subcontractor input is a valid scoring option for Prime Offerors.

For instance it is clear that Subcontractors may provide REPs, however can a Prime Offeror use Veteran's employment counts from Subcontractor teammates? Can a Prime Offeror use certifications or DCMA approved systems from a Subcontractor?

Q1: No. Please refer to L.3.2 . Q2: Please refer to amended

RFP L.12.10.

644 General “Please confirm that the Prime offeror can claim credit for a subcontractor's REP in the following scenario:

The subcontractor is the majority owner and managing partner of an SBA approved Joint Venture that the Prime offeror is not a part of. As the majority owner and managing partner of the Joint Venture, the subcontractor is submitting a REP for a contract awarded to the JV. Please confirm this REP is a valid experience for T4NG2 evaluation.”

The Government confirms. Please refer to L.10.5 and L.10.6.

645 General For a multiple award schedule order issued to a MAS CTA in which a single FPDS report and award form were issued, may we include in our Attachment 17 an explanation of the MAS CTA and our work on the

The Government confirms.

646 General For an SBA-approved mentor-protégé SDVOSB Joint Venture, please confirm is only the JV itself must complete the Certifications and Representations or if each member of the JV should complete these?

Please see revised RFP L.15 for clarification.

647 General For Offerors preparing a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP), the FAR requires that the SBSP include the percentage of subcontracted dollars and subcontracted dollar values. Please clarify the total contract value Offerors should assume or utilize for the purposes of estimating subcontracted dollars in the SBSP, or otherwise clarify how Offerors should include subcontracted dollar values in the SBSP.

For purposes of this proposal at the IDIQ level, the Offeror may cite simply the percentage of work proposed to be subcontracted and/or the same percentage reflected as a percentage of the $60.7B IDIQ ceiling value.

648 General In the current RFQ there are no limits to the number of proposals that companies can submit as a partner in an MPJV. SBA currently allows mentor companies to have up to 3 MPJVs. Is it the TAC's intent to allow companies to submit a prime bid and up to 3 MPJV proposal submissions?

Please refer to the limitations under L.10.1.b

649 General Many questions previously submitted were clarifying questions for compliance purposes which were not answered. Will the Government confirm that those compliant-related questions will not be answered, and therefore there is no way for offerors to determine if proposals are compliant?

As noted at time of final RFP release, VA reviewed all questions and comments received in response to the 2nd draft RFP and, in consideration, made various updates throughout the RFP. Answers to that set of questions will not be released. However, timely questions submitted regarding the final RFP will be answered.

650 General Please confirm that if there are any discrepancies between the RFP and answers to questions that the RFP takes precedence.

The Government confirms . To the extent that any answers provided to the questions conflict in any way with the Solicitation and any Amendments, the final solicitation takes precedence.

651 General The T4NG2 solicitation released by the Department of Veterans Affairs systematically gives Mentor Protégé Program Joint Venture (MPP JV) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) with Large Business Mentors an unfair advantage over stand-alone SDVOSBs stemming from the way in which the self-scoring mechanism is constructed, as follows:

• Every offeror may provide up to 10 REPs which accumulate points for various aspects of the past performance (value, coverage of diverse functional areas, etc.). Non MPP JV SDVOSBs and stand-alone SDVOSBs must provide their own past performance for the first four citations. A MPP JV SDVOSB with no record of its own performance only must provide one past performance from the Protégé SDVOSB in the JV while the remaining three can be provided by the Large Business Mentor in the JV.

• Offerors can use partner past performance references to gain points. A MPP JV SDVOSB with no record of its own performance can use up to nine past performances from a single Large Business Mentor JV member. All other offerors including stand-alone SDVOSBs can only use up to three from a single partner, and only up to six total from all partners.

• Offerors acquire points for various REP aspects, including the dollar value of each past performance. The highest points are given for contracts valued at $30M or higher. It is extremely unlikely that any SDVOSB will have numerous contracts in this size range because an SDVOSB loses its small business status when it exceeds a certain amount of revenue over a certain period. A MPP JV SDVOSB with no record of its own performance will be able to submit up to 9 >$30M past performances from its Large Business Mentor. If a stand-alone SDVOSB were to have as many >$30M past performance references as a JV MPP SDVOSB, it would have graduated the size standard and no longer be an SDVOSB. Therefore, MPP JV SDVOSBs have an advantage because they will be able to submit more past performances valued at $30M or greater and thus accumulate more points.

• Offerors acquire significant points for having certain industry certifications. MPP JV SDVOSBs can use the certifications of their Large Business Mentor JV partner. Stand-alone SDVOSBs cannot similarly use their partners' certifications.

• Offerors acquire significant points for having a Government audited Cost Accounting system. The process for obtaining this designation is initiated by the Government and cannot be something "earned" by a

Thank you for your comments.

652 General Why is the Government giving an unfair advantage to Mentor Protégé JVs over SDVOSBs and VOSBs in terms of the REP requirements.

a. SDVOSBs and VOSBs non-JV primes are required to submit 4 of 10 REPs and the SDVOSBs and VOSBs JV Protégé are only required to submit one REP.

b. Subcontractors to SDVOSBs and VOSBs non-JV primes are only allowed to provide up to three REPs while the Mentor to the Protégé is not limited in the number of REPs the Mentor can provide to the Protégé.

Is the Government aware that the Mentor can perform 60% of the work performed by the JV entity?

Thank you for your comments.

653 General Will the Government confirm that all awarded ceiling rates on the T4NG2 master contract will be considered realistic at the task order level as it relates to the evaluation of feasibility of approach and any risk analysis conducted?

In accordance with L.14, Offerors shall propose ceiling rates for T&M/LH task orders. At the task order level, Offerors shall submit its cost/price proposal in accordance with PWS 7.3.2.B, C, and/or D. The Government shall evaluate the Offeror's proposal utilizing the techniques, or a combination of the techniques, identified in FAR 15.404.

654 General Q1. With the current scoring structure, SDVOSB/VOSB Mentor/Protégé JVs are positioned to maximize the points needed to be among the highest rated Offerors in Step 1 and Step 2 (Top 30) and win all awards.

As currently structured, the SDVOSB Protégé in a Mentor/Protégé JV Offeror is only required to provide 1 of the 10 Relevant Experience Projects (REP) to demonstrate their capability. In contrast, a traditional SDVOSB Prime is required to provide the first 4 REPs, which unduly favors an SDVOSB Mentor/Protege JV by allowing the Mentor to provide up to 9 REPs (as long as they do not duplicate a REP submitted for itself). Under similar scoring systems, such as Polaris, the Protégé was required to demonstrate more capability by providing two out of five projects. Q2. Will the Government consider requiring the Protégé to submit more than one out of the four if the JV itself does not have an acceptable REP?

Thank you for your comment, the RFP will remain unchanged.

In the event the Offeror is a Joint Venture established in accordance with SBA's Mentor-Protege Program, the first four REPs must be projects that have been performed by the Joint Venture. If the Joint Venture does not have four relevant experiences, then it must include at least one REP performed by the Mentor and one by the Protégé.

655 H.10 and I.11 As the solicitation states “At the time of task order competition, contractors will be responsible for identifying any personnel subject to the SCA, and their corresponding region (state/county), within their proposed Task Execution Plans. The Government will incorporate wage determinations at the task order level as applicable.”, please confirm that Offerors are not required to identify SCA categories in their proposal (as established by DOL) at the IDIQ level.

Confirmed.

656 H-2 RFP states: The Government, in its sole discretion, may exercise the Off-Ramp if any of the following events occur: a T4NG2 SDVOSB contract holder that no longer qualifies as a SDVOSB because it is acquired by a non-SDVOSB concern or is no longer listed as verified in the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Veteran Small Business Certification (VetCert) database as a result of losing ownership and/or control of the company.

Question: If a bidder wins on its own merit in unrestricted competition based on its point score, can you confirm that it would not be off-ramped, even if it lost its SDVOSB status post-award. This off-ramp provision should only apply to up to the companies (up to 15) who receive awards reserved for SDVOSB.

The Government does not confirm. For example, as stated later in H-2, the Government may off-ramp “any T4NG2 contract holder with a repeated record of non-performance, inactivity, or poor past performance (to include, but not limited to the contractor’s good faith efforts to meet its small business and Veterans employment percentages) under its T4NG2 contract…”

657 I.19 How would the Government like for Offerors to provide this Certification in their proposals? Please refer to amended RFP L.15 and Attachment 015.

658 I.19 Section I.19 – VAAR 852.219-75 VA Notice of Limitations on Subcontracting. This section has a certification that has a place for a signature. Is this required to be submitted with our proposal?

Yes, please refer to amended RFP L.15 and Attachment 015.

659 I.19 The clause at I.19 requires contractor certification, however the CO has not selected a.i, a.ii, or a.iii of the clause. Can the Offeror check this box if the USG can provide the applicable category? Or will an updated RFP document need to be provided for Offerors to complete? Can the USG confirm where this completed section I.19 should be provided in their response?

Please refer to amended RFP L.15 and Attachment 015.

660 L..11 The SF 33, Block 12, insertion for validity period is blank. If no validity period is inserted, 60 calendar days is the validity period. Q. Please confirm that the validity period for T4NG2 submissions is 60 days.

Proposals should be valid through September 30, 2023.

661 L.1, p. 120 Please advise which Volume should contain a cover page which includes the data required by 52.215- 1(c)(2)

The Government will not specifically direct Offerors in this regard other than to comply with the instructions in L.10.

662 L.1, 52.252-1 and

L.2, VAAR

852.252-70

In which file does the Government expect solicitation provisions or clauses requiring completion? Please refer to L.10.2 and L.15.

663 L.1, p. 120 The Government has included 52.215-22 LIMITATIONS ON PASS-THROUGH CHARGES—IDENTIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACT EFFORTS which instructs offerors to "identify in its proposal the total cost of the work to be performed by the offeror, and the total cost of the work to be performed by each subcontractor, under the contract, task order, or delivery order." Q1. Please confirm that paragraph (c) is not applicable to our IDIQ proposal submissions; Q2. If Offerors are required to include information as requested in this clause, please advise which volume this should be included within and provide this instruction within the RFP.

This clause is relevant at the Task Order level and not applicable for the basic contract proposal.

664 L.1, p. 120 This clause is applicable to price evaluations that require adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Q. Please confirm the solicitation is not evaluating on a total proposed price basis; and only requires Offerors to provide their ceiling rates for Year 1, which will be escalated by 3.41% for the out years.

Confirmed.

665 L.10.1(b) Could the Government please confirm that its limitation of Relevant Experience Projects stated in Section L.10.1(b) refers to only Small Businesses who submit a proposal on behalf of itself, and as the Protégé in the Joint Venture?

For JV’s that are not SBA MP JV’s, the limitations are defined in L.10.5.

666 L.10.1(b), L.15 Under L.10.1 (b) the limitation on one proposal per Offeror extends to “affiliates” “which is defined as associated business concerns or individuals if, directly or indirectly either one controls or can control the other; or third party controls or can control both.” However, the solicitation does not request any information which would enable the VA to validate that companies have complied with this limitation. We recommend adding an item (f) under L.15 Volume 5 as follows: “Offeror's must disclose their business structure from the immediate owner up through the highest level owner. Immediate owner means an entity, other than the offeror, that has direct control of the offeror. Indicators of control include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: ownership or interlocking management, identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment, and the common use of employees. Highest-level owner means the entity that owns or controls an immediate owner of the offeror, or that owns or controls one or more entities that control an immediate owner of the offeror.”

Thank you for your suggestion, the RFP will remain unchanged at this time.

667 L.10.1.B In accordance with L.10.1.B, can the government confirm that if a parent company controls two subordinate companies (for example, subsidiaries of the parent company or portfolio companies of the same private equity parent company), then only one of those two affiliates may submit a proposal as a prime offeror?

The Government confirms.

668 L.10.5.E Section L.10.5.E states “ In the event that a company submits a proposal on behalf of itself, and is also a member of a Joint Venture, then the REP may not be used in more than one proposal. In this instance projects used in more than one proposal will be removed from all of those proposals and will not be evaluated.” While that is clear guidance, it is unclear how the VA will evaluate a situation where a mentor has its protégé as a subcontractor on one of its prime contracts. In that situation, there are two distinct contracts – the mentor’s direct contract with the Government and the protégé’s subcontract with the mentor. For this situation, please clarify if a mentor can submit its prime contract as a REP in its proposal and if the JV can submit the protégé’s subcontract within the JV bid.

Yes.

669 L.10.1.B The RFP states a company may submit a prime offeror proposal and also a proposal through a mentor-protégé JV. However, it is possible that three large businesses are affiliates, that all three large businesses each have their own mentor-protégé JVs. If the first large businesses submits a proposal as both a Prime and as a JV member (a total of two bids), please confirm that the second and third affiliated large businesses are prohibited from submitting an offer as a mentor protégé JV?

The Government confirms.

670 L.10.2 Please clarify if the SF33 should be submitted as a separate file (per L.10.2) or contained in the file labeled (Prime Offeror)_OFRREP.PDF (per the contents indicated in L.15).

SF 33 shall be submitted under Volume 5. Please refer to the amended RFP L.15.

671 L.10.2 Please confirm that Exceptions and the Certification of Good Faith should be contained in the file labeled (Prime Offeror)_OFRREP.PDF.

This is acceptable.

672 L.10.2 Please provide a recommended location to provide a narrative to explain divisions, subsidiaries, acquisitions, or affiliates of the offeror.

Please refer to the amended RFP for clarification on Supporting Documents for Self-Scoring Worksheet (referred to as Attachment 016).

673 L.10.2 Should each required file have a separate cover, or should we at least include a cover in the Table of Contents file, “(Prime Offeror) TOC.PDF” to convey contract and company information?

Please refer to Table of Contents under L.10.2.

674 L.10.2 Should offerors provide a Cover Page (excluded from page count) for each individual file denoted in the Content Requirements table?

Offerors may use the Table of Contents and/or Supporting Documents for Self-Scoring Worksheet (referred to as Attachment 016). There is no page limitation.

675 L.10.2 Proposal Files (Prime Offeror)_SLC.PDF

Please confirm that the fully executed teaming agreement for each subcontractor should be appended to the end of each Subcontractor Letter(s) of Commitment. In addition, should there be a separate file for each subcontractor, or should they be assembled into one document? (This could end up being a large file).

The Government will not dictate how this should be assembled. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to clearly demonstrate where the required information is located.

676 L.10.2 Proposal Files Table of Contents (Offeror)_TOC.PD F

A non-linked Table of Contents would be just of listing of file names submitted. Is that the intent of this file?

Is an internal Table of Contents desired/permitted for each individual file submitted?

The Table of Contents is a Free Format for Offerors.

677 L.10.2(c) Table Subpart 9.6 of the FAR, Contractor Team Arrangements, distinguishes between:

- Teaming agreements. A teaming agreement is a contract between a potential prime contractor and another company to act as a subcontractor under a specified federal government contract or acquisition program.

- Other teaming arrangements. Two or more companies form a new legal entity to act as a potential prime contractor, by crWill the Government please clarify that a Fully Executed (FE) Teaming Agreement (TA) is the required document to be submitted rather than a Contractor Teaming Arrangement as defined by FAR Subpart 9.6?eating either: a partnership; or a joint venture. (48 C.F.R. § 9.601.)

The Government considers a CTA to be either a JV (L.10.5) or subcontractors (L.10.6). With this context, we believe the RFP is clear.

678 L.10.2, L.11 Table of Contents is noted as a separate file as well as a component of Volume 1 - is this meant to be a table of contents for Volume 1 data, or a Master Table of Contents for ALL provided data?

Offerors may use a Free Format for the Table of Contents and include information determined necessary.

679 L.10.2.a This section requests that offerors include the Offeror's UEI number and cage code as well as contain the offeror's company name, date and solicitation number in the header or footer. In the case of the Attachment 017 or other submissions that pertain to specific JV members or subcontractors, does VA want the JV or prime offeror information disclosed or the information of the JV member or subcontractor when the information on a submission is exclusively related to a JV Member or Subcontractor?

Please refer to L.10.2.a in its entirety. The Offeror’s submission should be designed to help the Government easily identify and locate the information being claimed.

680 L.10.2.c and L.13.1.1

For Volume 3, should the Offeror provide only the most recent CPAR for each REP? Yes, please refer to amended RFP.

681 L.10.4 & L.10.6 Will the government confirm that teaming agreements and letters of commitment are required for parent company, affiliate, division, or subsidiary if the Offeror is under common control?

The Government confirms.

682 L.10.4; L.10.5 Will the VA recognize a CTA Joint Venture (JV) comprised of an SDVOSB MP/JV and an additional SDVOSB entity as a CTA JV prime offeror?

The question being asked is unclear; therefore, the Government is unable to provide a response.

683 L.10.5 A business operating as Protégé can only have two (2) Mentors over the lifetime of the business. We are aware of at least one Protégé who has had three SBA-approved mentors, demonstrating that SBA’s process for validation may be flawed. Please explain how the Government will validate that a protégé has not had more than 2 mentors?

VA will not independently verify this and will instead rely upon SBA's approval.

684 L.10.5 A JV is eligible to bid on new work for 2 years after the date of the first contract/Task Order award and may continue to perform work through the completion of all awards awarded before the end of the 2-year mark.

Please explain how the Government will validate that the Joint Ventures are still operating within the two-year timeframe and are actually eligible for a new T4NG2 contract award?

Please refer to RFP L.10.5. Failure to provide the Government with the requested documentation establishing the joint venture will be considered a material nonconformity and will result in the Offer being rejected.

685 L.10.5 A Mentor-Protégé Agreement may last up to six years from the date of SBA approval. Please explain how the Government will validate that a Mentor-Protégé Agreement is still valid?

The Government will follow SBA regulations.

686 L.10.5 In the event that a company is submitting a REP as a member of JV, then can the same REP be reused by a company as a subcontractor on another offeror's proposal?

This question is not specific enough for the Government to properly answer.

687 L.10.5 Item e in L.10.5 states “In the event that a company submits a proposal on behalf of itself, and is also a member of a Joint Venture, then the REP may not be used in more than one proposal. In this instance projects used in more than one proposal will be removed from all of those proposals and will not be evaluated.” As stated, this creates a limitation on L.10.6 by prohibiting re-use of any REP by a Prime that also submits a bid as a JV member, even if the company appears on a third bid as a subcontractor.

Will the Government please confirm that this limitation on re-use of REPs between proposals by Prime Offerors submitting an additional bid as a member of a JV also applies to forbidding use of the same REP on a third bid as a Subcontractor?

In this example, REPs submitted as a subcontractor are not prohibited.

688 L.10.5 Section L.10.5 of the Draft Solicitation states that “In the event that a company submits a proposal on behalf of itself, and is also a member of a Joint Venture, then the Relevant Experience Projects may not be used in more than one proposal. In this instance projects used in more than one proposal will be removed from all of those proposals and will not be evaluated”.

1. Please explain the Government’s rationale for the imposition of this restriction.

2. Is this prohibition only applicable to proposals submitted by the Joint Venture and the Mentor or Protégé?

3. Would this provision also preclude the Mentor or Protégé from using the same REP if they were a subcontractor in another offeror’s proposal? It would appear that such use is specifically authorized by Section L.10.6 of the Draft Solicitation which states that “[a] Relevant Experience Project reflecting work performed by a proposed subcontractor may be used in more than one proposal.”

The concern is that the Joint Venture could win an award based on a proposal that is nearly identical to the proposal submitted by the Mentor as a prime; and two nearly identical proposals could potentially take up two of the 30 total T4NG2 awards. VA considers the potential for such an outcome to be problematic and unfair, particularly considering that the scenario could present itself multiple times within the top 30 scoring Offerors.

Please refer to L.10.6 for limitations on Offerors that are not Joint Ventures. JV REPs submitted as a subcontractor are not prohibited.

689 L.10.5 Section L.10.5.E states "In the event that a company submits a proposal on behalf of itself, and is also a member of a Joint Venture, then the Relevant Experience Projects may not be used in more than one proposal. In this instance projects used in more than one proposal will be removed from all of those proposals and will not be evaluated." Please confirm that REPs submitted in an offeror's proposal on behalf of itself cannot be used in any other proposal (i.e., in the situation where the same offeror has formed a CTA to serve as a subcontractor to another offeror). Assuming the Government confirms this, we recommend updating the solicitation language to explicitly prohibit this in the same manner as L.10.5.E.

Iterations of these questions have been asked previously, and we have not received a response, nor have we seen any changes in the final solicitation related to these questions.

Please refer to L.10.6. A REP reflecting work performed by a proposed subcontractor may be used in more than one proposal. However, no individual proposal shall include more than three (3) REPs from a single subcontractor.

690 L.10.5 Would the Government please confirm that an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture can serve as a “small business subcontractor” to an SDVOSB Prime offeror for T4NG2 since the JV is considered a small business by regulation? If the answer is “yes,” please confirm that relevant experience examples from the Mentor member of the JV subcontractor can be used as relevant experience examples for the SDVOSB prime offeror?

Yes, SBA MP JV may be used as a subcontractor; however, REPs from that subcontractor may only be used if the REP is from the MP JV or the Protégé in order to count as a small business subcontractor r.

691 L.10.5 Would the Government please confirm that non-SDVOSB SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture can be a Prime offeror for T4NG2 since the JV is considered a small business by regulation:

a. If the answer is “yes,” please confirm that relevant experience examples from the Mentor member of the JV be used as relevant experience examples for the prime offeror?

b. If the answer is “yes,” please confirm that the system, certifications, etc., can be provided by the Mentor member of the JV for the prime offeror?

Yes, SBA MP JV may be used as a subcontractor; however, they would not be eligible for any of the reserve awards.

692 L.10.5 (D) If an SBA approved Mentor-Protégé team form a Joint Venture, should the Mentor-Protégé Agreement and SBA Welcome letter be included in the file name (Prime Offeror) JVA.pdf with the Joint Venture Agreement?

The Offeror shall submit all documentation it considers necessary for the Government to validate its status as an SBA approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture.

693 L.10.5 and L.10.6 If a company submits a proposal (1) on behalf of itself, and (2) as a member of a JV, and (3) as a subcontractor on one or more additional proposals, will the Government confirm that the REPs used on (1) proposals on behalf of themself and (2) as a member of a JV can _not_ be used as (3) part of their subcontractor proposal?

JV REPs submitted as a subcontractor are not prohibited.

694 L.10.5 and L.10.6 If a company submits a proposal as a Prime Offeror in only one capacity (on behalf of itself or as a member of a JV), will the Government confirm that any REPs used in the Prime Offeror proposal (on behalf of itself or as a member of a JV) can be used for any proposal they are a part of as a subcontractor?

Please refer to the limitations defined in L.10.5 and L.10.6.

695 L.10.5 E If a company submits a prime proposal as a member of a joint venture (JV), can that company reuse the REPs from its JV prime proposal in proposals where it is a subcontractor to other prime offerors?

JV REPs submitted as a subcontractor are not prohibited.

696 L.10.5.C.1 Please confirm that an SBA-approved Mentor Protégé JV (MPJV) may form a Contractor Teaming Arrangement under FAR 9.601.1 as a Joint Venture with another small business, e.g., an SDVOSB which will be the managing member and 51% owner of the JV.

A. If so, will that JV be considered an SDVOSB?

B. If so, will that JV be permitted to use the REPs from the Mentor member of the MPJV?

A. Yes. B. Yes, IAW the RFP instructions.

697 L.10.5.E Please confirm in the following scenario that both REPs are allowable and scoreable, as has been the case with other federal IDIQs with a self-scoring evaluation methodology. In the case of an SBA ASMPP JV, where the Mentor is submitting a proposal and the JV is also submitting a proposal, may the Mentor submit a REP where the Mentor had the Prime contract with the government, and may the JV submit a REP where the Protégé had a Subcontract under the same task order with the Mentor (i.e., the Protégé REP would represent only the scope and total contract value of the Subcontract)?

This would be considered double-counting experience from the same REP and is prohibited.

698 L.10.5A SAM.gov entity validation for newly formed Joint Ventures is often delayed as newly formed entities cannot be automatically validated. Recently this process has taken two to three months at times. If a Joint Venture has started SAM.gov registration but has not received a UEI due to entity validation delays, is it acceptable for JV offerors to provide the UEIs of its constituent members?

No.

699 L.10.5C Section L.10.5(C) states “[i]f an Offeror is submitting as a joint venture for the small business reserve, the Offeror must submit a complete copy of the joint venture agreement that includes the information required by 13 CFR 125.8(b)….” Please confirm that an SDVOSB joint venture can submit an offer as a prime contractor.