Questions and Answers 20230605.pdf

# Reference Question Answer 875 Amendment 004 VA released Amendment 004 on May 25, 2023 at 12:13PM. Will the VA please confirm that the statement below in Amendment

004 pertains to submission of original proposals that were due on April 24 and does not refer to the Amendment 003 response?

“If any portion of the proposal was transmitted to VOA after 1:00:59PM ET on April 24, 2023, YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO THIS AMENDMENT AND YOUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, IN ITS ENTIRETY, WILL NOT BE EVALUATED.”

The Government confirms.

876 Amendments The Amendment states, “However, all Offerors shall submit a SF33 acknowledging this amendment.” Please confirm the total number of Amendments the Government has issued for T4NG2.

The Government released 4 amendments. The dates of release were 4/5/23, 5/11/23, 5/12/23, and 5/25/23.

877 SF33 "Offerors shall submit a SF33 acknowledging this amendment. As part of the SF33, Offerors shall indicate whether there are changes to the proposal and, if there are any changes, indicate which files are being changed and clearly identify all changes within each file (i.e., in tracked changes)." Should we append a page in the SF33.PDF file after the signed Amendment 2 form to indicate proposal changes? Can we submit more than multiple files within VOA?

Offerors may add a continuation page to the SF33 to indicate the files that are being changed. Yes, Offerors may submit multiple files within the VOA website.

878 Amendment If we are required to submit the entire proposal are we required to change the date in the Footers for all of the documents if they have not changed?

No.

879 SF33 The instructions state "Offerors shall submit a SF33 acknowledging this amendment. As part of the SF33, Offerors shall indicate whether there are changes to the proposal and, if there are any changes, indicate which files are being changed and clearly identify all changes within each file (i.e., in tracked changes)." The SF33 is a government form. Should we append a page in the SF33.PDF file after the signed Amendment 2 form to indicate proposal changes?

Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of amendments to the solicitation and related documents numbered and dated within the SF33, Block 14. Offerors may identify if there are changes to its proposal within Block 14 (i.e. Amendment 02 - No Changes) or Offerors may append a page in the SF33 submission.

880 REP If a project that was not initially submitted now qualifies as ‘relevant’ can offerors replace a previous REP with a new one?” We recommend that all REPs remain static from the original submission.

Yes, Offerors can replace a previous REP with a new one.

881 Small Business Participation Commitment

In the original submission, offerors were permitted to submit the Small Business Participation Commitment Excel Spreadsheet either in Volume 3 or Volume 5. Please confirm that if we submitted in Volume 5 that we do not have to now move it to Volume 3.

The Government confirms.

882 Volume 5 If we provide this narrative are we permitted to include this in Volume 5 along with the competed Attachment 014? Yes.

883 Small Business

Participation Report The language added to this amendment regarding the mentor obligated dollars in a mentor/protégé seems to be inconsistent with the Small Business Participation Report (Attachment 10) which states "6. Goal 2: Shall include all small business dollars for associated socio-economic categories. SB Primes shall include their prime dollars in these computations. Please clarify, why did the requirement for L.13.3 change from what is specified in Attachment 10?

Thank you for the comment. Attachment 10 is a basic contract level report and it is not required at this time for Offeror's to submit a proposal. L.13.3 did not change from what is specified in Attachment 10, but rather serves to provide additional clarification as to how the goals shall be calculated.

884 Attachment 012 If the number of employees and number of Veterans listed in Attachment 012 have changed based on the definition, but the percentage has not changed, does the Offeror need to resubmit Attachment 012 and the Veterans Employment Certification (Attachment 013)?

Yes.

885 Amendment 004 Please provide the TAC’s rationale and objective for the inclusion of the dual (i.e., Joint Venture and Standard) scoring approach in Amendment 4, and please indicate the impetus for that revision (e.g., in response to a protest or a submitted question).

Multiple forms of industry feedback and re-consideration of 13 CFR 128.402(f).

886 Amendment 2 Based upon the clarification to the definition of “employee” included in Amendment 2 to the T4NG2 Solicitation (i.e., PWS Section 8.1.7, H-5, and L.13.2), it would appear that the language in the Certification at Attachment 13 should similarly be revised to reflect the fact that “an employee must be employed on a full-time basis (i.e., no less than 35 hours per week); and, shall have been employed on a full-time basis for at least 30 days at time of proposal submission,” particularly in light of the fact that Certification states as follows: “I understand that a knowingly false certification will subject the undersigned to criminal prosecution pursuant to 18 USC Section 1001.” Additionally, it would appear that all offerors should be required to submit/re-submit this Certification. Please confirm that a new Certification should be filed, if any changes are made.

The certification pertains to the final requirements of the solicitation. Attachment 13 will not be revised and Offerors are not required to re-submit Attachment 13 unless they so choose.

887 Definitions Please confirm that the T4NG2 definition of “Veteran” for Veterans Employment is consistent with how “veteran” is defined in 38 U.S.C. § 101(2): “a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.”

The Government confirms.

888 Joint Venture Similarly, in the event the Offeror is a Joint Venture that was not established in accordance with SBA's Mentor-Protege Program and it does not have four relevant experiences, then it must include at least one REP performed by the managing partner of the Joint Venture. Does this apply only to JVs comprised of large and small businesses, or all JVs even if both companies qualify as small business? e.g. SBA approved 8(a)/SDVOSB JV?

This applies to all JV’s.

889 SDVOSB There are two changes to the requirements of T4NG2 defined in the amendment of May 11, 2023, where protégés in mentor-protégé joint ventures (JVs) seem to be given a competitive advantage in comparison to all other offerors. It seems that the changes in the RFP are aligned with 13 CFR 125.8(e): “A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally.” However, in 13 CFR 128.402(f), which is about VOSB and SDVOSB JVs, the language is identical to the language in 13 CFR 125.8(e) except that the word “protégé” is replaced with “certified VOSB or SDVOSB” as: “A procuring activity may not require the certified VOSB or SDVOSB to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally.” The solicitation is open to both non-Veteran and Veteran offerors. Holding VOSB and SDVOSB JV offerors to the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as other offerors is not consistent with 13 CFR 128.402(f). 13 CFR 125.8(e) and 13 CFR 128.402(f) seem to have the same intent and nearly identical language. In order to meet the requirements of both regulations, we request VA allow VOSB JVs and SDVOSB JVs the same scoring considerations as those given to the protégé of a mentor protégé JV.

The two changes in the RFP are about the scoring in sections L.12.3 Relevant Experience Project Values and section L.12.6 Breadth of Relevant Experience Projects (REPs) within Multiple Main Functional Areas which seems to give protégés a scoring advantage while not giving the same consideration to offerors that fall under 13 CFR 128.402(f).

Please see Amendment 004.

890 T4NG2 Solicitation It is our understanding that the most recent modifications to the T4NG2 Solicitation are intended to address the impact of the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in SH Synergy, LLC et al v. US pertaining to GSA’s POLARIS procurement (the “Polaris Decision”). In the Polaris Decision, the COFC specifically held that the GSA solicitations for POLARIS were contrary to the requirements of 13 C.F.R. 125.8(e) by applying the same evaluation criteria to assess relevant experience projects submitted by protégé firms as used to assess relevant experience projects submitted by offerors generally. What we find curious is why the modifications made to T4NGS Solicitation by VA in reaction to the Polaris Decision only address JV offerors that are Mentor Protégé joint ventures (i.e. established in accordance with 13 C.F.R. 125.8) and provide separate scoring criteria for REPS submitted by the SDVOSB protégés in such JVs. No such adjustment has been made for the scoring of REPS submitted by certified SDVOSBs in SDVOSB JVs that are not Mentor Protégé JVs. Note that the pertinent language in 13 C.F.R. 125.8(e) that addresses “Capabilities, past performance and experience” for Mentor Protégé joint ventures is virtually identical to the pertinent language in 13 C.F.R. 128.402(f) that addresses “Capabilities, past performance and experience” for SDVOSB joint ventures. The provisions of each are set forth below: Therefore, based on the findings of the COFC in the Polaris Decision, it seems unreasonable and inequitable for VA to be evaluating the past performance of SDVOSB joint venture offerors differently depending on whether or not they are Mentor Protégé joint ventures. Could VA review and provide some feedback on this at the earliest?

Please see Amendment 004.

891 L.10.1 Solicitation Section L.10.1, Introduction, paragraph (b) (page 124), states that “In the event that more than one joint venture proposals under SBA’s Mentor-Protégé Program are received wherein the mentor or protégé is the same company, then none of those proposals will be considered for award”; however, newly revised Solicitation Section L.10.5, Joint Venture, If Applicable, paragraph F (page 135), states that “...if a company is a member of more than one Joint Venture (Mentor Protégé or otherwise), than [sic] the REP may not be used in more than one proposal...”, and Solicitation Section L.10.6, Proposed Subcontractors, If Applicable, paragraph 3 (page 136), states that “[a] REP reflecting work performed by a proposed subcontractor may be used in more than one proposal.” Please resolve or clarify this apparent inconsistency.

There is not an inconsistency. L.10.1 refers to overall proposals and L.10.5 refers to REPs within proposals.

892 L.10.5 Solicitation Section L.10.5, Joint Venture, If Applicable (page 131), states as follows in paragraphs C and D, respectively: “If an Offeror is submitting as a joint venture established under the SBA Mentor-Protégé program, the Offeror must submit a complete copy of the joint venture agreement that includes the information required by 13 CFR 125.8(b)…If an Offeror is submitting as a joint venture established in accordance with 13 CFR 128.402, the Offeror must submit a complete copy of the joint venture agreement that includes the information required by 13 CFR 128.402(c).” Why are MPJV offerors being required to submit two separate JV agreements, if they are a JV under the SBA’s MPP, but are submitting a proposal as an SDVOSB JV?

An MPJV is not required to submit two agreements. The MPJV agreement should include the information required by 13 CFR 125.8(b).

893 L.12.1.1 Solicitation Section L.12.1.1, Relevant Experience Project Template, paragraph 2 (page 138), states that “[t]o qualify for reserve awards in accordance with Section M.1.1, Evaluation Process, the first four REPs submitted by a Joint Venture established in accordance with SBA’s Mentor-Protege Program under 13 CFR 125.8, 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...” (a) Please explain why, if a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture does not have four REPs, it is not required to provide the number of REPs that it does have, rather than apparently immediately defaulting to “at least one REP performed by the Mentor and one by the Protégé” which, in all likelihood, will result in three REPs being provided by the Mentor. The suggested approach would appear to be more fair, consistent, and reasonable in light of the requirement for a “stand-alone” SDVOSB offeror to provide four REPs itself. (b) Since this provision states that “[i]f 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...” does that preclude the offeror from using a REP(s) from the JV, from which it may have one, two, or three REPs? (c) If the Government actually means that the JV must provide as many REPs as it does have (for the mandatory first four), and the JV provides three REPs, i.e., fewer than four, must it ALSO provide one from the Mentor and one from the Protégé? If not, can the fourth example come from either the Mentor or the Protégé? (d) Please clarify whether the sentence that says that “[i]f 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” (emphasis added) allows an offeror to submit more than one REP from the Protégé. (e) If the SBA MPJV has been created IAW 13 CFR 128.402 (as required to be considered an SDVOSB JV), is that JV also subject to the requirement to provide four projects performed by the JV and, if not, to provide one from the Mentor and one from the Protégé, or is that requirement only applicable to those JVs that are created IAW 13 CFR 125.8 (the Small Business JV regulation)?

(a & b) If the MPJV has one or more eligible REPs, they shall be submitted. REPs may not be withheld in order to use REPs from the Mentor.

(c) In this instance, the remaining REP may be from either the Mentor or the Protégé.

(d) Yes, more than one REP from the Protege may be submitted.

(e) See L.12.1.1, paragraph 2 in Amendment 4.

894 L.12.1.1 Solicitation Section L.12.1.1, Relevant Experience Project Template, paragraph 2 (page 138), states that “...if the joint venture, as defined by 13 CFR 128.402 [the SDVOSB JV regulation], consists of partners for which a REP was not submitted, then the Offeror shall include a narrative within Attachment 16 discussing the work done and qualifications held related to the type of work associated with this solicitation for each joint venture partner for which a REP was not provided.” Please indicate specifically the content of the required narrative, the “work done”, and the qualifications that must be addressed.

The Government will not prescribe specific content for the narrative.

895 L.12.10.5 Solicitation Section L.12.10.5, Cost Accounting System Certification (page 152), states that “GSA’s GWAC Program Office will not sponsor a “Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System” or an Adequacy determination on behalf of any Offerors for scoring purposes.” Please verify the applicability of that statement to the T4NG2 Solicitation.

The language was included in error and should be ignored.

896 Amendment 004 In the event the Offeror is an “All Small Business” Joint Venture that was not established in accordance with SBA's Mentor- Protege Program, then would REPs performed by all the Joint Venture members, to include the managing partner, follow the same scoring scheme as that of a Protégé? This will allow a level playing field for all the small business members within a JV for both the SBA certified M-P JV and All Small JV.

Please see Amendment 004.

897 JV “NOTE: There are different scoring values (identified as “Joint Venture Scoring”) under this section associated with REPs from the Protégé within a Mentor Protégé Joint Venture and VetCert certified SDVOSB joint venture partners within non-Mentor Protégé Joint Ventures.” If a Mentor Protégé Joint Venture is made up of two VetCert certified SDVOSB joint venture partners, then shouldn’t the Mentor Protégé SDVOSB Joint Venture receive the same access to the extra point scoring as a non-Mentor Protégé SDVOSB Joint Venture?

The question is not clear to the Government. A SDVOSB Mentor Protégé Joint Venture would have access to the special scoring.

898 L.12.6 Solicitation Section L.12.6, Breadth of Relevant Experience Projects within Multiple Main Functional Areas (page 145), states in the "Note", as follows: "There are different scoring values (identified as "Joint Venture Scoring") under this section associated with REPs from the Protégé within a Mentor Protégé Joint Venture and VetsCert certified SDVOSB joint venture partners within non-Mentor Protégé Joint Ventures..." Please explain why this revision, which appears to be designed to treat both SDVOSB Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures (MPJVs) and non-MPJV SDVOSB Joint Ventures in a consistent manner, does not also encompass the "stand-alone" SDVOSBs with which the MPJVs and non-MPJVs will be directly competing for the reserve awards. By not affording the "stand-alone" SDVOSBs the benefits of this "favored" scoring approach, the TAC has further exacerbated the disadvantages that face the "stand-alone" SDVOSBs within the T4NG2 Solicitation that will minimize, if not completely eliminate, their ability to successfully compete against the MPJVs and non-MPJVs for the limited number of reserve awards. Accordingly, in order to negate this unfair advantage, it is respectfully requested that a further Amendment be issued that also affords the "stand-alone" SDVOSBs the same "favored" scoring benefits as are presently available to the MPJVs and non-MPJVs. Furthermore, Section M titled "EVALUATION FACTOR FOR AWARD" lacks clarity regarding the evaluation process for "stand-alone" SDVOSBs. We kindly request the Government to include the essential language and offer clarification specifically for the "stand-alone" SDVOSB bidders.

The Government has no legal basis to provide specialized scoring for SDVOSBs that are not joint ventures. With respect to Section M, the Government does not understand the question or what the lack of clarity is.

899 L.12.6 Solicitation Section L.12.6, Breadth of Relevant Experience Projects within Multiple Main Functional Areas (page 145), in the “Note,” states as follows: “...Once reserve awards (i.e., 15 SDVOSBs, one SDVOSB/WOSB and one SDVOSB/HUBZone) have been identified to be in the Top 30, then all REPs from all Offerors will be evaluated utilizing the Standard Scoring...” Please confirm that the “one SDVOSB/WOSB and one SDVOSB/HUBZone” reserve awards are within the 15 reserve awards and not in addition to those 15 awards as appears to be indicated by the parenthetical. (See also Solicitation Section M.1.1.)

The Government confirms that the “one SDVOSB/WOSB and one SDVOSB/HUBZone” reserve awards are within the 15 reserve awards.

900 L.13.2 a. Please confirm that when determining the number of the offeror’s employees in accordance with Solicitation Section L.13.2, Current Veterans Employment (page 154) (i.e., “the contractor shall count all employees that are employed within the same Unique Entity ID (UEI) identified on its T4NG2 basic contract proposal” (emphasis added)), that only full-time employees should be counted, IAW Section 7003 of the JOHNNY ISAKSON AND DAVID P. ROE, M.D. VETERANS HEALTH CARE AND BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2020 which states, in pertinent part, “…(a) PREFERENCE. (1) In awarding a contract for the procurement of goods or services, the Secretary may give a preference to offerors that employ veterans on a full-time basis. (2) The Secretary shall determine such preference based on the percentage of the full-time employees of the offeror who are veterans” (emphasis added). b. Please confirm that when determining the number of full-time employees against which the number of full-time veteran employees are counted, that those full-time employees also have to be on the payroll for at least 30 days consistent with the calculation of the number of veteran employees.

The Government confirms the numbers the Offeror provides must be based on full-time employees and full-time Veteran employees in accordance with Section L.13.2.

901 Definition The new definition of “veteran employee” requires that only “full time employees that work at least 35 hours per week” are counted. Considering that many Veterans, especially Service-Disabled Veterans, may not be able to work a full 35 hours per week, would the Government permit an offeror to count two or more veteran employees whose work, combined, add up to 35 or more hours per week as the equivalent of one full-time employee?

No.

902 Amendment This new requirement will require a re-calculation and re-submission of veteran employment numbers by some firms. It is unclear, however, which “proposal submission” date Offerors should use for the re-calculation of veteran employment. In the current context, the language could be interpreted to mean either the date of an Offeror’s original T4NG2 proposal submission in April – keeping the basis of calculation consistent with the previous submission, or it could now also refer to the date that revised proposal elements are submitted under Amendment 3 & 4, - i.e. on or before May 25th. A change of one month could significantly impact veteran employment numbers for some companies with contract or staffing changes occurring over that period. Question for clarification: Can the government please confirm that, for Offerors re-calculating veteran employment, vendors should use their original T4NG2 proposal submission date as the basis of calculation? Or, if not, can the government please clarify and confirm which date(s) Offerors should use for any updated employment calculations provided under amendment 3?

Offerors shall use the date its acknowledgement of Amendment 004 is submitted, regardless of whether revisions to the original proposal are included.

903 M.3.1 M.3.1 states, “If a joint venture, as defined by 13 CFR 128.402, consists of partners for which a REP was not submitted, then the Agency will review the Offeror’s narrative within Attachment 016 discussing the work done and qualifications held related to the type of work associated with this solicitation. For each joint venture partner for which a REP has not been submitted, failure to submit the aforementioned narrative or submitting a narrative that does not discuss each joint venture partner for which a REP has not been submitted, will result in the total validated score being reduced by 60 points.” Please clarify if an SDVOSB MPJV is formed under 13 CFR 128.402, and the JV does not have four REPs and the Protégé does not have one REP, leaving three REPs provided by the Mentor, does the JV need to submit a narrative in Attachment 016 which explains its qualifications and work done related to the T4NG2 Solicitation for the Protege? Or, do the evaluation criteria listed in M.3.1 only apply to SDVOSB JVs that are created under 13 CFR 128.402 that consist of “All Small” businesses and do not apply to SBA MPJVs?

For any member of the joint venture that does not have a REP, the narrative shall be submitted.

904 M.4.3 Solicitation Section M.4.3, Small Business Participation Commitment, paragraph (c) (page 163), states that “[i]n the event an Offeror’s proposed commitment for any socioeconomic category is 75% or higher, the Offeror’s supporting narrative explaining how all the proposed goals (to include those that are below 75%) are intended to be met will be assessed to determine whether it is reasonably realistic. In the event that a proposed commitment is not reasonably realistic, then the number of associated points may be reduced to zero.” Please indicate whether the Government will perform any type of evaluation, verification, or validation of any proposed SBPC goal percentages or corresponding points to assess whether a proposed goal is “reasonably realistic” or “impossible” if the offeror does not propose 75% or higher for any socio-economic category.

Only to the extent where a proposed commitment does not appear possible; for example, claimed business type of the prime is incorrect; a large business proposes near 100% in a small business category; etc.

905 M.4.3 Solicitation Section M.4.3, Small Business Participation Commitment, paragraph (c) (page 163), states that “[i]n the event an Offeror’s proposed commitment for any socioeconomic category is 75% or higher, the Offeror’s supporting narrative explaining how all the proposed goals (to include those that are below 75%) are intended to be met will be assessed to determine whether it is reasonably realistic. In the event that a proposed commitment is not reasonably realistic, then the number of associated points may be reduced to zero” (emphasis added). Please indicate specifically: (a) the required content for the offeror’s “supporting narrative”; (b) how the Government will determine if what has been proposed is “reasonably realistic”; and (c) the Government’s rationale for determining the number of points to be reduced.

The Government will not prescribe specific content for the narrative. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to demonstrate to the Government, in any manner necessary, how its proposed commitments are reasonably realistic. The rationale for the number of points reduced will depend on what is determined to be reasonably realistic.

906 Protest How is the government addressing the pre-award protest (File number: B-421613.2)? The case is Currently Open.

907 Self Scoring Worksheet Even though the self-scoring worksheet is locked, it appears that offerors may use the COMMENT feature to indicate what in the self-scoring worksheet has changed. Please confirm that this is an acceptable way to track changes within the self-scoring worksheet.

The Government confirms.

908 Amendment Please verify the accuracy of the references in Amendment 4 to 13 CFR 125.8(b) and 13 CFR 128.402. 13 CFR 125.8(b) is the “Small Business Joint Venture” regulation that includes the JV Agreement requirements that apply to Small Business JVs that consist of all small businesses (“All Smalls” JVs), as well as Small Business JVs that are created under the SBA’s Mentor- Protégé (MP) Program; however, 13 CFR 128.402 is the specific JV agreement regulation that is applicable to SDVOSB JVs (i.e., both “All Small SDVOSB JVs” and MPJVs). 13 CFR 125.8(b) does not only apply to MPJVs and 13 CFR 128.402 does not only apply to SDVOSB “All Small” JVs. (See Solicitation Section L.12.1.1, Relevant Experience Project Template, paragraph 2, page 138.)

The Government confirms the references as cited.

909 VAAR Can you please confirm that small business subcontractors do not need to provide a signed certification form for VAAR 852.219- 75 and the VAAR 852.219-75 VA Notice of Limitations on Subcontracting—Certificate of Compliance for Services and Construction (JAN 2023) only is required to be signed by the small business Prime "offeror"?

The Government confirms the certification required in accordance with VAAR 852.219-75 is required to be signed by the small business prime offeror.

910 Award When will award announcements or scores be made available? Award notifications will be made following the completion of evaluations.

911 Amendment 2 During the approximate three-week span between initial proposal due date and release of Amendment 2, (April 24th and May 11th, respectively), did VA distribute offerors’ proposals, or any parts or excerpts of their proposals (e.g., scorecards), to any member(s) of its evaluation team or any personnel - to include government employees and contractors- who have participated personally and substantially in this procurement?

Limited evaluations did commence after receipt of initial proposals.

912 Questions and Answers The TAC’s answers to Q&As # 611, 612, and 613 state as follows: “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.”

RFP Amendment 02, Section L.13.3, Small Business Participation Commitment, states, in part, that “If a proposed commitment for any socioeconomic category is 75% or higher, the Offeror shall provide a narrative that sufficiently explains how all the proposed goals (to include those that are below 75%) are intended to be met. If a proposed goal is deemed not to be reasonably realistic, taking into consideration any narrative explanation provided, then the number of associated points may be reduced to zero.”

Please confirm that if an Offeror proposes below 75% for each of the five socio-economic categories, then the proposed commitment appears possible and therefore, the Government will not validate or verify the reasonableness or realism of the offerors’ proposed SBPC goals or deduct claimed points.

The Government does not confirm. The Government's response to Q&As #611, 612 and 613, as well as the language within RFP Amendment 02, Section L.13.3 are still valid.

913 L.9 Reference Volume 5, final version 4 States that, “Each proposed subcontractor being used to obtain points within the Self Scoring Worksheet, including each entity within a Joint Venture, must also submit their individual Representations and Certifications in Section K.” Please confirm that Representations and Certifications in Section K are required for those subcontractors that are being used for points for Section L.9 Veterans Involvement factor and/or for the subcontractors that are being used to claim points for the Small Business Participation Plan.

The Government confirms that individual Representations and Certifications must be submitted for those subcontractors that are being used to obtain any point within the Self Scoring Worksheet.

914 Amendment Should offerors only resubmit the files that have changed/been modified or should offerors resubmit their entire proposal response? Can offerors make changes to their proposals such as Attachment 017 that may not be directly affected by recent modification conditions from the government to the T4NG2 solicitation? How should Offerors name the files? Are multiple files permitted to be submitted separately within the VOA website / portal by one vendor?

Offerors shall only submit revised documents and use the same naming conventions noted in the RFP. Appending the file names with "revision", or something similar, is permitted.

Yes, Offerors may make changes not directly associated with amendments. Yes, submission of multiple files is permitted.

915 Attachment 017 The self-scoring sheet and Attachments 17 are locked for editing. Would the government please remove the requirement to use track changes in these files?

Offerors shall utilize track changes where possible. If track changes are not possible, Offerors shall clearly identify all changes with separate comments, notes, etc.

916 FPDS/CPARS If there is new information available (FPDS or CPARS) since initial submission, do offerors need to update/resubmit these documents?

No.

917 Amendment Did the Government redact company names and other identifying information from offerors’ proposals prior to distribution to any member(s) of its evaluation team?

Proposals are not redacted. However, all members of the evaluation team sign NDAs and are removed from the evaluation team if a conflict is identified.

918 CFR This section states, "Moreover, if the joint venture, as defined by 13 CFR 128.402, consists of partners for which a REP was not submitted, then the Offeror shall include a narrative within Attachment 16 discussing the work done and qualifications held related to the type of work associated with this solicitation for each joint venture partner for which a REP was not provided."

Please clarify that the term “partners” refers exclusively to members of the JV, not subcontractors.

The Government confirms that the term “partners” here refers exclusively to members of the JV.