Questions and Answers GLS MAX RFP - 2.pdf

GLS MAX RFP

47PH5326R0017

Questions and Answers - 2

1. RFP Attachment 3 contains two tabs with different field sets: "Client Account Data," with 100 numbered rows and 18 columns, and "Factor 2 Part 1 Firm Exp Client," with 65 numbered rows and 15 columns. Please confirm which tab offerors are to complete. The "Client Account Data" tab also carries what appear to be internal review comments in cells O1, O2, P2 and O3, including "Dropdown is wrong" and "Team Member(s)/Transaction Manager - DROPDOWN IS WRONG."

Please confirm whether a corrected attachment will be issued by amendment.

a. RFP Attachment 3 is hereby updated as follows:

i. Tab 1, titled Client Account Data was deleted.

ii. Tab 2, titled Factor 2 Part 1…”

1. Guidance in cell C7 was revised so as not to conflict with guidance in cell A5.

2. Cell A5 is revised to allow for experience “within the last five years”.

3. The dropdown in column “I” was revised to include all modules.

4. A dropdown box was added in Column P to identify if the offering firm's level of authority is a prime contractor or subcontractor.

iii. Tab 3, titled Factor 2 Part 2 Individual Proj 1, replaced 100 with 65.

iv. Tab 4, titled sheet 5, was renamed to Factor 2 Part 2 Individual Proj 2 and replaced 100 with 65 projects.

v. Tab 5, titled sheet 6, was renamed to Factor 2 Part 2 Individual Proj 3 and replaced 100 with 65 projects.

b. All tabs and data requested via the updated RFP Attachment 3 are required for proposal submission.

2. Factor 2, pages 67-69; Attachment 3: Attachment 3 contains drafting comments, duplicate or working tabs and a reference to 100 projects, while the amended solicitation requires 65 projects.

Please confirm that 65 projects are required and provide a corrected final version of Attachment

3. May offerors add a field identifying the performing legal entity if GSA permits participating firms’ experience to be submitted?

a. See answer to question 1.

3. Section M.2, Factor 2, pg. 66 of 79 & Attachment 3, Tab "Factor 2 Part 1 Firm Exp Client" - "This factor considers an offeror's (the corporate entity only, not individual personnel) experience..." The second tab of Attachment 3 requires data sorted by Transaction Manager (TM) rather than by company/corporate entity. - Section M.2 states that Factor 2 evaluates Firm Experience by corporate entity only, not individual personnel. However, the second tab of Attachment 3 ("Factor 2 Part 1 Firm Exp Client") organizes data by Transaction Manager (Column B) rather than by company. Given that the evaluation criterion is corporate-level experience, we recommend that this second tab be deleted or revised to align with the corporate entity evaluation standard. Please confirm whether this tab is required as structured, or whether GSA will issue an amendment.

4. Attachment 3 - Tab Entitled “Client Account Data” - We believe that this tab may have been included in error and should be deleted because it deviates from the terms of the RFP in multiple respects and is largely duplicative of the Tab entitled “Factor 2 Part 1 Firm Exp. Client”. Please confirm.

5. Attachment 3 - Tab “Client Account Data,” intro cell (row 100/footer note) vs. Tab “Factor 2 Part 1 Firm Exp Client,” cell A5 – Client Account Data tab - Attachment 3 contains two data-entry tabs with conflicting experience lookback periods: the “Client Account Data” tab's footer note states “within the last five years,” while the “Factor 2 Part 1 Firm Exp Client” tab states “within the last three years” (matching the RFP body at Section H.9/M.2). Please confirm whether the lookback period is 3 years or 5 years.

6. Attachment 3 - Tab “Client Account Data,” column N - Client Account Data tab - The “Client Account Data” tab in Attachment 3 contains an embedded note stating “Dropdown is wrong” next to the Team Member/Transaction Manager column header, indicating the data-validation dropdown list may be broken or contain incorrect options (“We want: Lease Acquisition, ost Award AND Lease Acq only”). Please confirm the correct dropdown options and provide a corrected attachment if needed.

7. RFP Attachment 3, "Client Account Data" tab, cell I4, gives the guidance "What GLS Max zone is the project located in? (e.g. NY = Zone 1, AK = Zone 3)." Section F.1, page 23, places New York in Zone 2. Please confirm Section F.1 governs.

8. Section L.5.3, Submission and Content of Proposals; Section M.2 - Pages 60 and 67 through 68 - Instructions and Evaluation criteria reference Factor 2 Part 1 (tab 2) and Factor 2 Part 2 (tab 3), but not "Client Account Data" (tab 1). Is completing the Client Account Data (tab 1) required as data in tab 1 and 2 are very similar, and if so, how will tab 1 be evaluated?

a. RFP Attachment 3 has been updated. All tabs and data requested via the updated RFP Attachment 3 are required for proposal submission.

9. Factor 2 Project Quantity – Attachment 3: The RFP requires 65 projects under Factor 2. However, the “Factor 2 Part 2 Individual Project” worksheet in Attachment 3 states, “As part of the 100 projects submitted.” Please confirm that the controlling requirement is 65 qualifying projects and that the reference to 100 projects in Attachment 3 is not applicable.

a. RFP Attachment 3 is hereby updated to replace 100 with 65 qualifying projects.

10. H.9 / M.2, Factor 2 - Other Special Contractor Requirements / Firm Experience – Pages 32 and 67 - The SOW and Factor 2 evaluation criteria both require a minimum of 65 lease transactions over a three-year period. However, RFP Attachment 3, tab “Client Account Data,” provides a 100-row template (rows 1–100, column A “ID”), and tab “Factor 2 Part 2 Individual Proj” instructs offerors to elaborate on 3 of the “100 projects submitted.” Please confirm whether the required number of transactions is 65 or 100.

a. See answer to question 9.

11. Section H.9, pg. 32 of 79 & Section M.2 / Section L.5.3, pg. 60 & 67–68 of 79 - Sections H.9 and M.2 / L.5.3 both reference 65 lease transactions / projects as the firm experience threshold. - The team had noted a potential discrepancy between a reference to 100 projects and 65 projects. Upon review of the RFP, only 65 projects is referenced as the firm experience threshold (Sections H.9, L.5.3, and M.2). No "100 project" reference was found. No clarification question needed — confirmed 65 projects throughout.

a. See answer to question 9.

12. Section L.5.3, Submission and Content of Proposals; Section M.2 - Pages 66 through 69 - Attachment 3 Firm Experience spreadsheet Part 1 asks for "Enter the name(s) of the Transaction Manager (TM) and names and titles of other participating team members," which individual personnel experience. This seems to be in conflict with the evacuation criteria on page 67, which indicates that corporate entity only experience will [be] evaluated. Please confirm TM experience will be evaluated as part of Part 1.

a. Yes, Transaction Manager Experience, as part of the offering entity’s experience, will be evaluated via Factor 2.

13. Attachment 3 - All Tabs - Ease of evaluation, are offerors allowed to resize the columns and rows, and use text wrap to better fit content?

a. Yes, offerors are permitted to resize columns and rows and use text wrap to ensure content is legible. Please ensure the structural integrity of the spreadsheet is maintained, meaning, offerors must not alter the layout, order of columns, or tab structure.

14. Attachment 3 - FACTOR 2 FIRM EXPERIENCE: Part 1; and Factor 2 Part 1 Firm Exp Client -tab - Firm Level of Authority - Firm Level of Experience is missing from the spreadsheet. Will the Government please update the spreadsheet if Level of Authority is required? Will the Government please define or clarify what Level of Authority means?

a. RFP Attachment 3 has been updated with a dropdown box in Column P to identify if the offering firm's level of authority is a prime contractor or subcontractor.

15. RFP Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Factors, Factor 2: Firm Experience - Factor 2 Template -

Please clarify the meaning of “Firm Level of Authority” and explain how it should be addressed in the Factor 2 document. The GSA-issued template does not appear to include a corresponding column. Please confirm which template tab should be used. The “Client Account Data” and “Factor 2 Part 1 Firm Exp...” tabs appear similar but contain different information.

a. See answer to question 14.

16. Attachment 3 - Sheets 5 and 6 - Ease of evaluation, are offerors allowed to rename Sheet 5 to Factor 2 Part 2 Project 2, and Sheet 6 to Factor 2 Part 2 Project 3?

17. RFP Attachment 2, "Minimum Contract Requirements" tab, names the key personnel role "Territory Program Manager." Sections H.10.1.2 and H.11.2 name it "Zonal Program Manager."

Please confirm these refer to the same role.

a. RFP Attachment 2 has been updated to replace Territory Program Manager with Zonal Program Manager.

18. Attachment 2 Staffing Matrix - Section H.10.1.2, Zonal Program Manager; Section H.11.2, Personnel Requirements Matrix; and Minimum Contracts Requirements tab - Zonal or Zone Program Manager role - Pages 34 and 35 - Attachment 2 uses the title “Territory Program Manager,” while Sections H.10.1.2 uses “Zonal Program Manager” and H.11.2 “Zone Program Manager.” Please confirm that “Territory Program Manager” is intended to mean the Zonal Program Manager required by Section H.10.1.2. Will the Government revise the RFP and Attachment 2 to use one consistent role title?

a. See answer to question 17.

19. Section M.2, Factor 2, page 66, limits firm experience to "the corporate entity only, not individual personnel." Where an offeror operates through affiliated brokerage offices under common branding and network agreements, please confirm whether lease transactions executed by those affiliated offices may be counted toward the 65 transactions where the offeror entity held primary responsibility for overall delivery.

a. Yes, lease transactions executed by affiliated offices may be counted towards the 65 transactions where the offeror entity held primary responsibility for overall delivery.

Offerors must clearly demonstrate that the offeror entity held primary responsibility for overall delivery of transactions executed by affiliated offices.

20. Factor 2 Firm Experience and Contractor Team Arrangements – Sections L.5.4 and M.2, Pages 61 and 66–68: Section L.5.4 permits an Offeror to propose as a joint venture or teaming arrangement and requires the arrangement and legal entity to be identified. Factor 2 states that experience pertains to the “corporate entity only, not individual personnel” and requires evidence of 65 qualifying lease transactions. For an Offeror proposing through a joint venture or Contractor Team Arrangement, may the corporate experience and qualifying lease transactions of the participating corporate entities be combined to satisfy the 65-project Factor 2 requirement? If so, please clarify: a. whether the 65 projects may be allocated among multiple members of the proposed team; b. whether a small-business lead Offeror may use qualifying corporate experience of a teaming partner while remaining the lead contractor; and c. what level of responsibility or participation the proposed lead must have had in the qualifying projects.

a. No. The 65-project requirement must be met by projects completed under the Offeror entity. Experience from individuals or separate entities cannot be combined to satisfy the requirement.

21. Joint Venture Experience - If a newly formed joint venture submits an offer and the joint venture itself does not have three years of operating history or 65 prior lease transactions, will GSA evaluate the qualifying experience and past performance of the individual joint venture members?

If yes, may the experience of the members collectively satisfy the 65-transaction requirement, or must one individual member independently satisfy the requirement?

a. See answer to question 20.

22. Factor 3 – Past Performance Under a Teaming Arrangement - Factor 3 states that past performance pertains to the Offeror's corporate entity and requires references for three projects submitted under Factor 2. For a Contractor Team Arrangement or joint venture, will GSA consider relevant past performance belonging to the individual team members/JV members, or must the past performance belong directly to the entity submitting the offer?

23. Factor 3, pages 69-70: If GSA permits an offeror to use a participating firm’s transaction under Factor 2, may that firm’s client provide one of the three Factor 3 references? If so, should the reference evaluate the participating firm, the prime offeror or the proposed team?

24. Factor 2, pages 67-69; Attachment 3: Factor 2 states that GSA will evaluate the experience of the “corporate entity only, not individual personnel,” while the solicitation also contemplates performance through subcontractors, co-brokers, affiliates, and teaming arrangements. May the required 65 transactions include projects performed by committed subcontractors, affiliates, co-brokers, or other participating firms? If so, how should the performing legal entity be identified in Attachment 3, and what documentation is required to establish its commitment to the proposed team?

25. Transaction Manager Government Real Estate Experience – Attachment 2 / Section H.11: The minimum requirements for the Transaction Manager require five years of commercial real estate experience, including at least one year of Government real estate experience within the past ten years. Please confirm whether Government real estate experience obtained while employed directly by a county government qualifies toward the one-year Government real estate experience requirement, including experience involving management of government leases, lease acquisitions, renewals, extensions, negotiations, amendments, and related leasing activities. If particular categories of governmental leasing activity are excluded from the definition of qualifying Government real estate experience, please identify those exclusions.

a. Please review Page 68, Factor 2: Firm Experience which includes "for corporate and/or Government (Federal, State or Local) accounts."

26. Meaning of “Awarded and Active” – Factor 2, Page 67 Factor 2 requires evidence of 65 lease transactions that “have been awarded and are active within the previous three (3) years.” Please clarify whether “active” means: a. the underlying lease must currently remain in effect; b. the lease transaction/project must have been performed or awarded within the three-year lookback period; or c. another definition intended by GSA.

a. See Redlined and Updated RFP that was posted via Amendment 0001 to revise to“awarded and/or made effective”.

27. Factor 2, pages 67-69: Factor 2 initially refers to experience that was “awarded and active” within the last three years, while the amended requirement later requests transactions that were “awarded and/or made effective” within the previous three years. Please confirm which standard controls and whether a completed transaction qualifies if it was awarded or made effective during the three-year period but is no longer active. Please also confirm that the period is measured from the original solicitation issuance date of August 5, 2026. For the “Total Contract Value of Project” field, should offerors report the aggregate lease value, the brokerage commission, the value of the underlying client contract or another amount?

a. See answer to question 26. Additionally, the RFP was updated to state “Total Lease Contract Value of Project” in lieu of “Total Contract Value of Project.”

28. FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS - Pages 7, 61, and 70 - Section

B.2. - GSA has previously utilized evaluation methodologies providing evaluation credit associated with small-business status in unrestricted multiple-award procurements. Please explain the acquisition-specific rationale supporting the Factor 4 methodology in GLS Max, particularly given that GLS Max is a best-value competition limited to approximately two awards per zone and expressly states that the procurement is not set aside for small business. Reference: FAR 15.304(b) requires evaluation factors to represent key areas of importance and support meaningful comparison and discrimination among competing proposals.

a. The RFP has been revised to correctly state that the procurement has a partial small business reserve per the incorporated clause 52.219-31 and added award process language. Note that this RFP utilizes applicable GSA Class Deviations implementing the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. References to the codified FAR in submitted questions may be out of date.

29. FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS - Pages 7, 61, and 70 - Section B.2 states that this procurement has not been set aside for small businesses. Factor 4 nevertheless provides a favorable rating to an Offeror based upon its status as a small business, while an other-than-small-business Offeror receives a neutral rating regardless of its proposed level of small-business participation. Please identify the specific statutory, regulatory, FAR, GSAR/GSAM, or SBA authority authorizing GSA to use the size status of the prime Offeror itself as a comparative technical evaluation discriminator in this unrestricted procurement.

Reference: Per GAO, Francis & Jackson Associates, B-190023, 57 Comp. Gen. 244 (1978), case law provided that in the unrestricted procurement at issue, it was improper to score a proposal differently solely on the basis of small-business size status.

a. See answer to question 28.

30. FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS - Pages 7, 61, and 70 - Section B.2. - Please explain how an Offeror's size or socioeconomic status, standing alone, demonstrates greater technical merit or reduced performance risk sufficient to warrant a favorable technical rating over an otherwise technically equivalent other-than-small-business Offeror.

a. See answer to question 28. See updated RFP, Section M.1.

31. FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS - Pages 7, 61, and 70 - Section B.2. - Please explain how two Offerors receiving equivalent evaluations under Factors 1 through 3 could receive different overall technical evaluations solely because one qualifies as a small business and the other does not. If so, please identify the authority supporting that distinction in an unrestricted best-value competition. Reference: FAR 15.304(b); FAR 15.305(a). FAR 15.305 describes proposal evaluation as an assessment of the proposal and the offeror's ability to successfully perform the prospective contract.

32. FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS - Pages 7, 61, and 70 - Section B.2. - GSAM 570.304(c) identifies the “planned participation of small disadvantaged business concerns in performance of the contract” as an evaluation factor in a tradeoff procurement. Please explain how Factor 4's evaluation of the prime Offeror's size and socioeconomic status is consistent with this requirement. Reference: GSAM 570.304(c)-(d), which also requires the evaluation factors to comply with FAR 15.304.

a. See answer to question 28. Additionally, GSAM 570 does not apply to the source selection procedures for this award.

33. FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS - Pages 7, 61, and 70 - Section B.2 requires other-than-small-business Offerors to submit subcontracting plans supporting GSA's small-business goals. Please explain why an OTSB satisfying or exceeding those requirements is categorically limited to a neutral Factor 4 rating while a small-business Offeror automatically receives a favorable rating based upon its size status. Reference: Section B.2 of the RFP requires OTSBs to submit a subcontracting plan under FAR 52.219-9 while expressly stating the procurement is not set aside.

34. FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS - Pages 7, 61, and 70 - Section B.2. - Please clarify whether Factor 4 is intended to implement or rely upon 13 C.F.R. §125.3(g).

If so, please explain how the Factor 4 evaluation methodology is consistent with that provision.

35. FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS - Pages 7, 61, and 70 - Section B.2. - Given that GLS Max is expressly an unrestricted procurement and Section B.2 already establishes small-business subcontracting requirements for OTSB Offerors, would GSA consider removing Factor 4 as a comparative technical evaluation factor to ensure all Offerors compete under the same technical evaluation standards?

36. Partial Small Business Set-Aside / Award Structure - The recent notice indicates that the GLS Max acquisition is anticipated to be partially set aside for small business, while the draft solicitation contemplates up to six IDIQ awards, with a target of two awards in each of three geographic zones. Please clarify how GSA intends to implement the partial small business set-aside. Specifically:

a) Does GSA anticipate reserving a specific number of the six awards for small business concerns?

b) Will a small business award be reserved within each zone, or will the small business set-aside apply across the procurement as a whole?

c) Will small businesses be permitted to compete for both the set-aside and unrestricted portions of the procurement?

37. Limitations on Subcontracting - Please clarify whether FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, or any other small-business performance requirement will apply to awards made under the partial small business set-aside. Because GLS Max is structured as a no-cost IDIQ under which compensation is generally derived from commissions paid by lessors rather than direct Government payments, please also clarify how GSA intends any applicable limitation on subcontracting to be calculated for this requirement.

38. Small Business Prime / Large Business Team Member - For an award made under the small business set-aside portion of GLS Max, may an eligible small business serve as the prime contractor while utilizing a large commercial real estate brokerage as a subcontractor or other FAR 9.6 team member for brokerage personnel, transaction management, geographic coverage, market expertise, licensing, and other portions of contract performance? If permitted, please identify any GLS Max-specific restrictions on the scope or percentage of work that may be performed by a large business subcontractor or team member.

a. See answer to question 28. The Government will not restrict who the prime subcontracts with and for what work. The use of subcontractors must be consistent with contract requirements.

39. Section M.1, pages 62-64; Factor 4, pages 70-71: For purposes of Factor 4 and the small-business reserve, does a “Contractor Team Arrangement” include a small-business prime contractor with committed subcontractors, in addition to a joint venture? Would that small-business prime remain eligible for the reserved award if it performs at least 51% of the contract requirements? Please clarify how GSA will measure the 51% requirement, such as by labor hours, activities, transaction volume, commissions, or another method. Will work performed by other qualifying small-business team members count toward the 51%, or must the small-business prime perform the entire percentage itself?

a. See answers to questions 28 and 38.

40. Prime Contractor Responsibilities - If a small business prime utilizes a large commercial real estate brokerage as a subcontractor, please clarify which functions GSA expects the small business prime itself to perform and/or control. For example, would GSA consider a structure acceptable in which the small business prime retains overall contract management, GSA interface, quality control, compliance, task-order administration, and responsibility for performance while utilizing its brokerage subcontractor for transaction managers, local brokerage services, market surveys, negotiations, and state-specific real estate expertise?

a. See answer to question 38.

41. Sections H.11.3, H12; H.12.1.1 - Pages 36 through 38 - Even though "Individual Activity Participant Contractors and Subcontractors are not required to have a security clearance if their sole function is to perform market research or a market survey. Such duties do not require access to GSA computer systems." Many of the duties identified in the SOW will require access to GSA computer systems and clients like the FBI who will require security clearances. Section H, L, and M do not identify personnel that need security clearances or public trust. Will the Government please define what personnel will require a public trust or security clearance and at what level to minimize operational risk?

a. Please review Section H.12 of the RFP.

42. Section L.5.3, Submission and Content of Proposals; Section M.2 - Pages 66, 67, and 69 - Section M.2, Factor 2 (Firm Experience) states that the factor "considers an offeror's (the corporate entity only, not individual personnel) experience … as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor where the offeror had primary responsibility for the overall program delivery." Section M.2, Factor 3 (Past Performance) and Section L.5.3 further require that the three past-performance references correspond to projects submitted under Factor 2. Consistent with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), which provides that the past-performance evaluation should take into account major subcontractors (25% workshare) that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, please confirm the following:

(a) Factor 2 — Firm Experience: An Offeror may submit, and GSA will evaluate, the firm experience of a proposed subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the GLS Max requirement, notwithstanding the "corporate entity only" language; and

(b) Factor 3 — Past Performance: Where such subcontractor projects are submitted under Factor 2, the Offeror may designate up to three (3) of those subcontractor projects as its Factor 3 past-performance references, and the corresponding client representatives may complete and submit the past-performance Google form for those projects.

If GSA does not intend to permit a subcontractor's firm experience or past performance to be evaluated under Factors 2 and 3, please confirm that interpretation and identify where the solicitation so states, so that Offerors may structure their teams accordingly.

a. Please see Section M.2. Technical Evaluation Factors, Factor 2. Firm Experience, and Factor 3. Past Performance. See answer to question 20.

b. An offeror may submit, and GSA will evaluate, projects completed by prime or subcontractors where the offering corporate entity had primary responsibility for program and project delivery.

c. Any of the qualifying 65 projects submitted under Factor 2: Firm Experience, can be utilized to respond to Factor 3 Past Performance.

43. Factor 2, pages 67-69: Factor 2 permits experience performed as a subcontractor when the offeror had “primary responsibility for the overall program delivery.” When evaluating an individual transaction submitted among the required 65, must the offeror have managed the broader client account or leasing program, or may the transaction qualify if the offeror had primary responsibility for completing that specific lease transaction?

a. See answer to question 42.

44. Factor 2 – 65-Transaction Firm Experience Requirement - Section M, Factor 2 states that the Government will evaluate the Offeror's corporate entity experience and requires evidence of successfully managing 65 lease transactions awarded and active within the preceding three-year period. Where a small business Offeror proposes through a Contractor Team Arrangement under FAR Subpart 9.6, joint venture, or prime/subcontractor arrangement, may qualifying lease transactions performed by another member of the proposed team be used to satisfy some or all of the 65-transaction requirement?

a. See answer to question 20 and answer to question 42.

45. Section M.2, Factor 2, pg. 66 of 79 & Section M.2, Factor 3, pg. 69 of 79 - "Experience awarded and active within the last three (3) years of the date of this solicitation issuance." (Factor 2, pg.

66) / "Within the last three (3) years as a prime contractor..." (Factor 3, pg. 69) - Given the gap year in task order issuance under the predecessor GLS Max contract, would GSA consider extending the past performance and firm experience lookback period from 3 years to 5 years to allow offerors to demonstrate the full breadth of their relevant experience?

a. The RFP has been revised, changing the allowable past experience period to 5 years.

46. Section L.5.3, Submission and Content of Proposals; Section M.2 - Pages 66 through 69 - Previous iterations and drafts of this solicitation allowed for Offerors to provide references within the last 5-years from the date of solicitation issuance. 3-years favors incumbent contractors as they have firm experience working with GSA. Will the Government please allow for firm experience from within the last 5-years?

a. See answer to question 45.

47. Section C.4.1, Menu of Services; Section L.5.4, Price Proposal; Section M.3, Price - Six SOW modules and required pricing submission - Pages 13, 62, and 70 - Attachment 1 uses four module labels that do not correspond to the six modules in Section C.4.1. Will the Government issue a corrected Attachment 1 containing an expressly identified and mapped pricing row for each of Modules 1 through 6?

a. An updated Attachment 1 was provided via Amendment 0001.

48. Attachment 1 Price Worksheet - Section M.3, Attachment 1 Price Worksheet - Maximum Market Commission Percentage precision - Section M.3 states that offerors “should provide” commission rates to the nearest whole-number percentage. Please confirm that “should” is advisory and that offerors may submit rates to at least two decimal places. If whole-number percentages are intended to be mandatory, will the Government revise Section M.3 and Attachment 1 to permit commission rates stated to at least two decimal places so that offerors may accurately reflect market rates and avoid material rounding distortions?

a. The RFP has been revised to, “the nearest hundredth of a percentage.”

49. RFP - Section M.3, Price - Average of competition pricing for commission rate evaluation - Page 71 - Section M.3 states that the CO will rank an Offeror's price evaluation factor based on the overall average for the proposed commission rates, and that each zone will be compared with the average of competition pricing received. Will the Government confirm that this overall average is calculated as a simple, unweighted average of an Offeror's own proposed commission rates across the two SAT tiers, five contract years, and all modules within a zone, rather than a weighted average based on anticipated commission volume or Aggregate Lease Value?

a. This language has been deleted from the RFP, see revised RFP.

50. Section F.1, Place of Performance - Geographic zone assignments - 23 and Attachment 1 - Will the Government issue a corrected Attachment 1 assigning New York, Boston, Newark, Burlington, and Bridgeport to Zone 2; Louisville to Zone 3; and Chesapeake and Martinsburg to Zone 1, consistent with Section F.1 and Attachment 4?

a. Updated Attachment 1 was provided via Amendment 0001.

51. Attachment 1 Price Worksheet - C.4.8. Market Information - To identify market opportunities such as strategic leasing, potential lease restructuring, buyouts, consolidations or renegotiated rent savings/concessions, GSA may rely on the Contractor's industry knowledge and insights. GSA Program Managers (NCOR/NPM) may occasionally ask Contractors to present information on selected markets at the national or local level, e.g. not to exceed five (5) presentations annually - Page 16 - Considering Market Information is not included in the pricing instructions for C.4.8 activities or in Attachment 1 Price Worksheet, will the Government please confirm that these tasks will be issued under separate task orders?

a. Market information requested in accordance with Section C.4.8. Market Information will be requested as set forth in Section C.4.8., without corresponding task order(s), or payment.

52. Attachment 2 Staffing Matrix - GLS MAX Offeror Staffing Matrix tab - License Requirement

(This requirement is for Transaction Managers ONLY. For TMs - Check the box to self-certify compliance with contract licensure requirement.) - GLS MAX Offeror Staffing Matrix tab - Attachment 2 instructs Transaction Managers to check a box to self-certify compliance with state licensure requirements, but the workbook contains no checkbox. Will the Government please confirm that entering “Yes” in column E will satisfy the self-certification requirement.

a. Revised cell E7 to state “License Requirement (Transaction Managers ONLY. List states and/or jurisdictions where you are currently licensed to practice commercial real estate.)

53. Section M.2 - Factor 1: Management Plan, Organizational Structure, Staffing Plan, and Resumes -

Pages 65 - Section M.2 requires the staffing matrix to include Contractor Key Personnel, Contractor Support Personnel, and direct subcontractors, while Attachment 2 instructs offerors to include only Contractor Key Personnel. Please confirm that offerors must only include Key Personnel.

a. See updated RFP Section M.2. Technical Evaluation Factors, Factor 1: Management Plan.

54. RFP Section M - 5.3 Submission & Content, Factor 1: Management Plan - Page 65 - Please confirm whether only Key Personnel must be listed in the Staffing Matrix attachment or whether Contractor Support Personnel should also be included.

a. See answer to question 53.

55. Key Personnel and Subcontractor Personnel - Factor 1 permits the Staffing Plan to include Contractor Key Personnel, Contractor Support Personnel, and direct subcontractors. Please confirm whether qualified employees of a proposed subcontractor may fill key personnel and/or transaction manager positions identified in the GLS Max Staffing Matrix, provided they satisfy the applicable experience, training, and licensing requirements.

a. Subcontractors may serve as key personnel. Additionally, See updated RFP Section M..2.

Technical Evaluation Factors, Factor 1: Management Plan.

56. General - Are the Firm Experience Client Data Account Worksheet, Staffing Matrix, and Pricing

Worksheet to be submitted in their native Excel Format or converted to PDF prior to submission?

a. Keep in native excel format.

57. Sections L.5.3 and M.2, pages 60-67: Please confirm whether the individual Factor 1 limitations are included within the overall 15-page limit. Specifically, do the Organizational Chart, Staffing Matrix, one-page key-personnel resumes, Licensure Agreement and supporting commitment documents count toward the 15 pages? If the Staffing Matrix is excluded because it is a separate Excel attachment, please confirm that exclusion.

a. The Staffing Matrix and Resumes are excluded from the page limit. The Organizational Chart is included in the Page Limit.

58. L.5.3 Submission and Content of Proposals, Technical Proposal, Factor 1: Management Plan –

Pages 60-61 - Please confirm that the organizational chart, the Staffing Matrix, and Key Personnel Resumes are all outside of the 3-page limit applicable to the Management Plan/Staffing Plan narrative. Additionally, please confirm that Key Personnel resumes are outside of the 15-page limit for Factor 1 and that there is no limit on the total pages of resumes as long as they only include Key Personnel and do not exceed one page per resume. Please confirm that there is no page limit on the Excel Sheet GLS Max Factor 1 Staffing Matrix Submission.xlsx

a. See answer to question 57.

59. RFP - L.5.3. Submission And Content of Proposals - Pages 60 and 64 - Page 60: Management Plan - Narrative Not to Exceed 3 pages; Org Chart 3 pages; Staffing Plan - Narrative Not to Exceed 3 pages; Resumes 1 page each; Quality Control Plan - PDF Not to Exceed 5 pages;

Succession Strategy and Planning - Not to Exceed 2 pages; Licensure Agreement - Not to Exceed 1 page Page 64: Note: A complete submission under Factor 1 should not exceed 15 pages, in 11 point font minimum - Will the Government please remove or update the note from page 64 as the page counts excluding resumes is at 17 pages? If resumes for key personnel (PAM, ZPM, TM, and possibly an Alternate ZPM) are included, then the page totals could be equal to or greater than 18 pages.

60. RFP Section L 5.3 Submission & Content, Factor 1: Management Plan - Page 61 - Please confirm that the one-page resumes for Key Personnel are excluded from the 15-page limit noted on page 68.

61. Section M, pg. 64 of 79 - A complete submission under Factor 1 should not exceed 15 pages, in 11-point font minimum. - Resumes are currently required for each zone proposal. Please consider clarifying that resumes (1 page each) are not included in the overall 15-page limit for the management plan.

62. Section J / Attachment 2, pg. 57 of 79 & Section M.2, Factor 1, pg. 65 of 79 - Staffing Matrix Submission (Attachment 2) — columns defined in Section M.2, Factor 1, pg. 65. - The staffing Matrix (Attachment 2) limits offeror responses to three labor categories. Will the Government unlock Column A so that offerors are able to include additional labor categories that may be needed to match the offerors’ solutions?

a. Attachment 2: Staffing Matrix shall only address key personnel.

63. State Licensing / Geographic Coverage - Section 7.11.2 indicates that authority to operate in a state may be demonstrated through a co-brokerage agreement, subcontract, or brokerage license.

Please confirm that an Offeror is not required to independently hold brokerage licenses in every state within its proposed zone at the time of base IDIQ proposal submission, provided the Contractor can demonstrate appropriate authority to operate within five days after receipt of an applicable Task Order as required by the solicitation.

a. Confirmed.

64. Teaming Arrangement Disclosure and Commitment - For an Offeror relying upon subcontractors, a Contractor Team Arrangement, or joint venture members for staffing, geographic coverage, licensing, or relevant experience, what documentation will GSA require at the proposal stage to demonstrate the relationship and commitment of those entities? For example, will a teaming agreement, letter of commitment, subcontracting agreement, joint venture agreement, or other documentation be required with the proposal?

a. See Paragraph L.5.4. Instructions for Proposals.

65. Factor 1, pages 64-67; Attachment 2: May an offeror rely on committed subcontractors, co-brokers, affiliates, or other participating firms to demonstrate staffing, personnel qualifications, local-market knowledge, geographic coverage and the ability to obtain required licensing under Factor 1? If so, what commitment documentation must be submitted, where should it be included, and will it count toward the Factor 1 page limit?

a. See answer to question 64.

66. Zone Participation by Team Members - The draft solicitation permits Offerors to submit proposals for multiple zones but provides that an individual contractor will ultimately receive an award in only one zone. Please clarify whether a subcontractor or teaming partner may participate on different Offeror teams competing in different zones, or whether participation on one GLS Max team restricts that entity from participating on another Offeror's team in another zone.

a. Stated under paragraph M.1, “The limitation of only holding one contract applies only to award of prime contracts under the IDIQ and does not restrict subcontracts.”

67. Organizational Conflicts of Interest / Existing Brokerage Relationships - Because national and regional commercial real estate firms may simultaneously represent building owners, tenants, and other private-sector clients, please clarify whether an Offeror's proposed brokerage subcontractor or team member may continue its unrelated commercial brokerage activities during GLS Max performance, provided appropriate conflict walls and the solicitation's disclosure and mitigation procedures are followed. Additionally, would an existing representation relationship involving a particular property or owner disqualify only the affected firm/personnel from that specific Task Order, or could such a relationship affect the eligibility of the entire GLS Max Contractor team?

a. Please refer to Section H.13. Contractor Conflict of Interest (COI) Information

68. Small Business Size Determination for Teaming/JV Structures - For purposes of eligibility for the small business set-aside portion of GLS Max under NAICS 531210, please clarify whether GSA will determine size solely based upon the small business prime Offeror or whether the size/status of proposed joint venture members or FAR 9.6 team members will also be considered in determining eligibility.

a. Eligibility for the small business portion of the GLS Max procurement is based on the size status of the Prime Offeror. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, the Joint Venture must qualify as a small business in accordance with applicable SBA regulations (e.g., 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)). The size or socioeconomic status of proposed subcontractors or team members is not considered in determining the Prime Offeror's eligibility for the small business portion. Please note that FAR 9.6 in this question refers to the legacy FAR and not the FAR Overhaul.

69. Changes From Draft Solicitation Following Partial Set-Aside Decision - Because the July 1 draft solicitation preceded GSA's announcement that the acquisition is anticipated to be partially set aside for small business, will the forthcoming solicitation include revised Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4, teaming, subcontracting, and/or evaluation provisions specifically addressing how small business Offerors may utilize teaming partners and subcontractors? If so, we would appreciate identification of those revised provisions when the solicitation is released.

70. RFP Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form; and L.5.2 Price Proposal - Price Proposal PDF document, SF 1449, Solicitation, Offer, and Award document titled as follows: (Offeror Name) SF 1449 - Pages 6 and 61 - Will the Government please provide a SF 1449.

a. The RFP has been revised from SF1449 to SF 33, an SF 33 has been provided.

71. RFP C.4.3; C.4.4; C.4.5 - In addition to the duties listed under Lease Acquisition above in 2.4.2, the Contractor must perform all Acquisition Planning/Pre-Solicitation Requirements activities (Programming Services) and all Post Award activities (Post Award Services) as defined in the LDG - Pages 13 to 16 - Section 2.4.2 is not in this solicitation. Will the Government please confirm what section is supposed to be referenced?

a. See updated RFP. The references to Section 2.4.2 and 2.5.2 have been updated to Section C.4.2.

72. RFP - Section C.5.1.1, Post-Award Meeting - The Contractor will be required to participate in 1) a post-award kick-off meeting and 2) short progress updates via email or phone on a biweekly basis. The kick-off meeting will be conducted by a conference call with the COR and any other GSA personnel identified, for discussion and interpretation of all instructions. The meeting will be scheduled within two (2) weeks of the award. Within 60 days after the contract’s award, the appraiser will provide a draft market analysis and highest and best use analysis to GSA - Page 17

- Section C.5.1.1 states that, within 60 days after contract award, “the appraiser” will provide a draft market analysis and highest-and-best-use analysis to GSA. Will the Government issue an amendment defining the required appraiser role, minimum qualifications, geographic and analytical scope, deliverable format, and acceptance criteria.

a. See updated RFP. “Within 60 days after contract award, the appraiser will provide a draft market analysis and highest-and-best-use analysis to GSA” was removed from the RFP.

73. Section C.5.1.1. Post-Award Meeting (Base Contract) - The last sentence of this paragraph, which refers to an appraiser providing a draft market analysis and highest and best use analysis, appears to be in error and should be deleted. Please confirm that appraisals are not required under GLS Max.

a. See answer to question 72.

74. C.5.1.1 Post-Award Meeting (Base Contract) (page 17) - The final sentence in this section states, “Within 60 days after the contract’s award, the appraiser will provide a draft market analysis and highest and best use analysis to GSA”. Is this language included in the Request for Proposal (RFP) mistakenly? If not, can GSA please provide additional context around this requirement?

a. See answer to question 72.

75. RFP - Section H.7, On-Ramping and Off-Ramping Procedures - OFF-RAMP = The Government reserves the unilateral right to off-ramp Contractors. Contractors that are off-ramped will not be eligible to receive new Task Orders but will be required to continue performance on all active Task Orders until the period of performance for such Task Orders ends. The off-ramp process under this contract will be executed via termination of the contract for convenience or by cause, in accordance with the contract - Page 31 - Will the Government amend Section H.7 to establish objective off-ramp standards for task-order participation and performance issues, including written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure? Please confirm that a contractor will not be off-ramped solely for declining task-order opportunities unless it fails to propose on at least 50% of applicable task-order requests during the applicable contract year.

a. The Government has reviewed the request to amend Section H.7. The current provisions regarding off-ramping, which are executed via termination for convenience or for cause, are consistent with standard contract procedures. The Government will not be establishing additional off-ramp thresholds or cure periods beyond those already provided in the contract's terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to evaluate contractor performance and participation on a case-by-case basis throughout the contract period.

76. RFP - L.5.3. Submission And Content of Proposals - Pages 60 and 64 - Page 60: Management

Plan - Narrative Not to Exceed 3 pages and Page 64 "Offerors must submit an Organizational Chart accompanied by a Narrative, not to exceed 3 pages." Page 60 seems to indicate that the Organizational Structure and Organizational Chart are included in the 3 pages allocated as part of the Management Plan.

a. The Organizational Chart is not included in the Narrative 3 page limit, but is included in the Factor 1, 15 page limit.

77. RFP Section L 5.3 Submission & Content, Factor 1: Management Plan - Pages 60 and 65 - Please confirm whether the Organizational Chart should be included in the “Management Plan – Narrative” (three-page limit) or the “Staffing Plan – Narrative” (three-page limit). The chart’s placement in the list on page 60 appears inconsistent with the description on page 65.

a. See answer to question 76.

78. RFP - Section L.5.3, Submission and Content of Proposals; Section M.2 - Price Proposal; iii.

Other Proposal Documents; c. Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors;

and d. Sub-Contracting Plan (as applicable) - Page 62 - Besides and SF 30 or 33, will the Government please identify what "other proposal documents" are required? Will the Government please confirm that the "other proposal documents" are not part of the GLS Max Pricing Worksheet submission, but as a separate Price Proposal document that also contains c.

Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors, and d. Sub-Contracting Plan (as applicable)? Will the Government allow the SF 1449 to be submitted as part of the "Other Proposal Documents" submission ?

a. The 'other proposal documents' required under Section L.5.4 consist of: (c) Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors (including evidence of SAM registration and compliance with cited provisions) and (d) Sub-Contracting Plan (as applicable). These documents are separate from the GLS MAX Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 1). Offerors should submit these documents as part of their Price Proposal package. Regarding the SF 1449, Section L.5.3 explicitly requires the SF 33 (changed from SF1449) to be submitted as a PDF document as a core component of the Price Proposal; it is not categorized as an 'Other Proposal Document' and must be included with the Price Proposal submission.

79. RFP - Exhibit 2A; 2B, and 2C; Exhibit 3 - L.5 Instructions For Submitting Proposals - Pages 73 to 79 - Section L.5 Instructions For Submitting Proposals does not reference Exhibit 2 or 3. Will the Government please confirm that the exhibits are to be completed and submitted with subsequent task orders? Section L.5 Instructions For Submitting Proposals does not reference Exhibit 2 or 3. If the exhibits are to be completed and submitted with RFP submission, in what volume/document do the Government want the completed Exhibit(s)?

a. Those are part of task order and not required for RFP submission.

80. RFP Section L Factor 2: Firm Experience - Pages 60 and 67 - Factor 2 requires detailed descriptions of three projects and specifies a 6,000-character limit for each project narrative.

Please clarify whether this limit includes spaces, tables, captions, and section headings.

a. The limits will be based on Microsoft Office character count with spaces.

81. C.4.4 Occupancy Services (Module 3) (page 14/15) - The table indicates that the number of on-site inspections is driven by the size (rentable square footage) of the project with larger projects requiring additional inspections. Has GSA considered tailoring the number of inspections to both the project’s size and its complexity? In certain situations, for timely completion of post-award, smaller sized projects that have a complex scope of work require more inspections than larger projects with a basic scope of work.

a. The number of required progress…