Industry Q_A _ Feedback from Draft RFP 1 - Phase 1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 126 KB Posted
- Attached to
- GSA’s OASIS+ MAC Draft Request for Proposal #2
- Solicitation number
- 47QRCA21N0001
- Issued by
-
GSA Federal Acquisition Service
View the file
Other files
Show all 45
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A & Feedback Round #1
| Industry Q&A & Feedback from Draft RFP #1 | ||||||
| Thank you for providing your questions and feedback during the Q&A open period for Draft RFP #1. The OASIS+ team considered each comment carefully and implemented changes and clarifications to the second draft RFP where needed. Due to the sheer number of questions that were provided, which included many duplicates, it would be inefficient to post every answer here. As such, GSA has consolidated and selected the most relevant questions for publishing in this document. Futhermore, due to the volume of questions received, GSA has selected a two-phased approach with the release of this Q&A. A portion of the Q&A is being released simultaneously with Draft RFP #2, and the remaining Q&A will be released in the near future. | ||||||
| Question | ||||||
| Number | Reference | Category | Question | GSA Response | ||
| 1 | Acquisition Strategy | We’re a WOSB and SDVOSB that will be submitting a response to the final OASIS+ RFP once it hits the street. We're looking to capture Total Small Business, WOSB, and SDVOSB contracts for two different domains. Will our proposal submissions for WOSB and SDVOSB contracts look identical to the Total Small Business proposal submission with the exception of having to include documentation verifying our WOSB and SDVOSB status? We're just trying to understand how much different, if any, will the proposal submissions be for the socio-economic category contracts versus just the standard Total Small Business. | At this time, GSA anticipates proposal submissions across Domains to be nearly identical, excluding the verification of socio-economic status. We will provide additional clarity upon issuance in the near future, or with the release of the final RFP. | |||
| 2 | Reference: Draft OASIS Plus UR RFP 11-15-2022, Section B.6 | Acquisition Strategy | The Government indicates use of FAR Part 16, which implies a subjective evaluation process and is not favored by many offerors. In a FAR Part 16 evaluation, the Government has a lot of discretion to make decisions and offerors sometimes are confused on evaluation criteria and become frustrated with the process. | Since OASIS+ is an IDIQ as prescribed under FAR subpart 16.5, task orders under OASIS+ shall follow FAR 16.505. Proposals submitted in response to the OASIS+ RFP will be conducted using FAR Part 15 procedures discussed in Section L and M. | ||
| 3 | Page 11, C.1.1, Primary NAICS Code states, “Due to a limitation with the Federal….” | Acquisition Strategy | Section C.1.1 states, "Due to a limitation with the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), only a single NAICS Code may be reported with each contract action; therefore, each Contractor will be assigned a single Primary NAICS Code..."Does this sentence mean that if an offeror wins award under the Technical & Engineering Domain (541330) and the Management & Advisory Domain (541611), that the offeror must choose one of the two NAICS codes (either 541330 or 541611) for the awarded contract? In other words, the offeror could not choose a NAICS code other than 541330 or 541611 even though the below sentence, further down in the same section and copied below, seems to indicate that there will eventually be multiple NAICS codes within each domain. | |||
| “Once federal regulations and systems can accommodate, GSA anticipates issuing a mass modification to all awarded contracts in accordance with Section H.19 to include the assignment of multiple NAICS codes and corresponding size standards within each Domain, deemed to be within the existing scope, which will be represented by separate CLINs.” | GSA has re-evaluated its direction on how NAICS will be assigned to each individual domain. This has been updated in the second draft RFP. | |||||
| 4 | C.1.1, Page 12 | Acquisition Strategy | Once federal regulations and systems can accommodate, GSA anticipates issuing a mass modification to all awarded contracts in accordance with Section H.19 to include the assignment of multiple NAICS codes and corresponding size standards within each Domain, deemed to be within the existing scope, which will be represented by separate CLINs. As part of initial proposal evaluation, GSA is requiring all Contractors to represent size status for each awarded Domain, including exceptions where applicable, to ensure fair opportunity within each Domain. The chosen order-level CLIN will determine the NAICS code and corresponding size standard based on the awardees size at the time of IDIQ offer (or most recent Master Contract representation) for that NAICS code, unless the OCO’s task order solicitation explicitly requires a size rerepresentation from all Offerors at the order level. Note: GSA is discussing internally regarding the application of multiple NAICS codes at the contract level and will provide additional context and information prior to the issuance of the Final RFP. | |||
| Question: Can the government please clarify how will this work for proposal submission purposes, as well as at time of TO release? What if a company does not have work at the primary NAICS code level, but does in related NAICS codes? Based on the current language, we recommend the government open this up to all relevant NAICS code to allow maximum flexibility. | GSA has re-evaluated its direction on how NAICS will be assigned to each individual domain. This has been updated in the second draft RFP. | |||||
| 5 | L.5.1.8 Subcontracting Plan | Acquisition Strategy | L.5.1.8 requires the Individual Subcontracting Plan include the estimated subcontracting dollars planned to all types of business concerns, then separately state the dollars that will be subcontracted to each category. Does the Government intend to provide an estimated contract value to use in determining the subcontracting dollar allocation? Additionally, is the POP to be used in preparing a subcontracting plan 10 years (no option periods)? | OASIS+ is designed to have no cap on awardees and no maximum ceiling value. In accordance with Section F.3, OASIS+ master contracts will have a period of performance of 10 consecutive years without any options. Subcontracting requirements have been updated at L.5.1.8 which should provide clarity to your remaining questions. | ||
| 6 | DRAFT_OASIS_Plus_UR_RFP_11-15-2022 | B.3, pg. 4 and B.10, pg. 9 | Acquisition Strategy | Section B.3 Total Solutions mentions OCONUS labor. Please specify what OCONUS services are expected to be required and in what locations. | OASIS+ is designed to satisfy requirements for federal customers. All OCONUS requirements are dependent on the needs of the federal customer. | |
| 7 | H.18 | Acquisition Strategy | The government intends to employ addition, deletion, or modification of scope, potentially enabling individual competitors to propose unique or personalized domains. If those Domain proposals are unique to a competitor, how does the government intend to ensure that all Domains are effectively open to all competitors on an equal and competitive basis? | |||
| Suggest expanding H.18 to re-state and articulate how mechanisms will be employed so that "GSA will ensure that Contractors receive impartial, fair, and equitable treatment." | Potential future Domains will be determined based on needs from our federal customers. GSA does not intend to entertain unique or personalized domains from industry. | |||||
| 8 | B.8.1 CONUS Standardized Labor Categories | Acquisition Strategy | This RFP Section states that "If non-standardized labor categories are used at the task order level, the contractor is required to map awarded labor categories to the standardized labor categories when reporting in accordance with Section G.3.2.4." The requirement at Section G.3.2.4 is that "When the Contractor is awarded a task order where it proposed non-SOC system labor categories, the Contractor shall convert the proposed labor categories to the closest SOC system labor categories...". Is the requirement to select the closest SOC system category the result of all BLS SOC categories being considered standard OASIS+ labor categories? | Yes. | ||
| 9 | G.3.1.1 Contractor Key Points of Contact | Acquisition Strategy | Draft RFP Section 3.1.1 states "All costs associated with COPM and COCM duties shall be handled in accordance with the Contractor’s standard accounting practices; however, no costs for COPM and COCM duties may be billed directly to GSA." Please confirm that this applies efforts at the Master Contract level, not task order level. In other words, if a contractor's standard practice is to invoice COPM and COCM time for their direct support on projects, contractors are allowed to do so, even if the federal agency customer is the GSA. | Yes, this only applies to GSA OASIS+ at the Master Contract Level and not at the task order level. This section has been revised to clarify that no costs for COPM and COCM duties may be billed directly to GSA. | ||
| 10 | Draft RFP, Section L.3, page 106 and J.P-3 Project Verification Form.docx; Part III, pages 2-5 | Attachments | While L.3 states, “Offerors may make minor formatting changes to Section K and Section J templates” (page breaks, corporate logos, disclaimers, etc.), a lot of Attachment J.P-3, Project Verification, Part III, Project Qualifications, attributes do not apply to specific domains and fewer yet remain once contractual verification documentation is gathered to supported self-scores in applicable domain qualification matrices. That said, would the Government allow Offerors to edit this Section to include only applicable Capabilities and Qualifications (i.e., delete all non-applicable Capabilities and Qualifications) making it easier for Customers to verify and Government personnel to evaluate the attributes described and claimed by the Offeror in J.P-8, Domain Qualifications? Reducing Capabilities and Qualifications to just those that require client verification will effect timely results from both customers and Government evaluators. | Attachment J.P-3 is built based on ALL qualifications within the RFP and is included as an attachment for posterity purposes. Symphony Procurement Suite will generate this attachment on a project-by-project basis when proposal assets are uploaded. If the Offeror requests a Project Verification Form be generated to request verification from the customer agency, Symphony will generate the document with only those claimed capabilities/project attributes. | ||
| 11 | Project Verification Form - Level of Detail | Attachments | When utilizing the Project Verification Form (Attachment J.P-3) for Verification of Non-Federal Contracts and Federal Government Subcontracts - Section L.5.1.7.2, what details are required to identify the funding agency ID/customer, cost-reimbursement, and advanced R&D claims? Does this simply needs to be identified in checking the items in Part III and signing or does further documentation need to be included for verification of claims? | When utilizing Attachment J.P-3, Project Verification Form, to obtain customer project experience verification in accordance with L.5.1.7.1 and L.5.1.7.2, the form must be sent to the cognizant Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, other Government employee, or Corporate Officer/Official (customer) to verify the claimed project elements (qualifications). The customer must provide verification within Part IV of this form, verifying the Offeror performed the work detailed in Parts II and III. | ||
| 12 | L.5.1.7.2 (1) | Attachments | Will the Government confirm that the project verification form can be used for Subcontract projects/contracts, in which case the prime contractor would sign? | Confirmed. | ||
| 13 | M.4 Acceptability Review | Attachments | Confirming Attachment J.P-8 does not need to be completed for subcontractor arrangements (Note: Attachment is now J.P-7). | Confirmed. The form is for Joint Ventures only. | ||
| 14 | Section J, Attachment J-1 | Attachments | It appears that the OASIS+ Standard Labor Categories include the entire listing within the BLS SOC site identified within this Attachment (https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/soc_2018_manual.pdf), and that each of those BLS SOC categories have the four skill levels (Junior, Journeyman, Senior, SME). Is this correct or will specific OASIS+ labor categories be added to this Attachment? | This is correct. OASIS+ will include the entire listing within the BLS SOC. In the event that, during the course of the OASIS+ period of performance, the BLS SOC is updated, GSA reserves the right to incorporate the updated BLS SOC system into the contract unilaterally for the purposes of task order pricing and/or reporting if determined to be in the Government’s best interest. | ||
| 15 | OASIS+ MAC Program, IDIQ RFP No. 47QRCA21N0001, Section L.5.2.3.5, Page 129, J.P-8 OASIS+ Domain Qualifications Matrix | Attachments | Attachment J.P-3 Project Verification Form does not align with the requirements of Attachment J.P-8 Domain Qualification Matrix. For example, the Small Business Environmental Domain requires specific Specialized Functional Experience to meet/exceed a minimum annual value threshold. How does an offeror use the J.P-3 Form to verify level of effort of Specialized Functional Experience? | Attachment J.P-3, Part III, Project Qualifications, has been updated to change the bullets to checkboxes. This form has been corrected to match the qualifications within Attachment J.P-8, Domain Qualification Matrix. However, as stated above, it is recommended Offerors use the Project Verification Form generated from Symphony based on each specific project. | ||
| 16 | JP3 - Part II (Page 2) | Attachments | Confirm the Project Verification form (J.P-3) will be submitted more than once if the contractor is claiming relevancy for multiple 'project NAICS' (one QP is being used for more than one Domain). | J.P-3 has been revised to allow for relevance verification in Part I. If the Offeror is submitting a QP across multiple Domains, this form may be used to demonstrate/verify relevance for additional proposed domains by copying the two rows and providing the requested information for each additional Domain. | ||
| 17 | Attach J5 Functional Areas and subareas | Attachments | It appears based on Attachment J.P-5, if you are using a contract for the Technical and Engineering Domain, you can claim Management and Advisory work, or Intelligence work as a Functional Areas, in addition to any of the other areas in Section 2 of this Attachment. Is that correct? If this is not correct, can GSA please clarify what is considered functional and sub-areas to obtain the points under this element. | With the exception of Enterprise Solutions, each Domain included in this solicitation is considered a distinct functional area, as detailed in Section 1 of this document. Additional functional areas are detailed in Section 2 of J.P-5. Each Domain is a functional area. | ||
| 18 | Section M.5.6.3 | Attachments | Section M.5.6.3 on page 158 states that "If the entity performing project was SB at time of award, that project does not factor into the overall average rating. If all QPs were performed as a small business concern, the Offeror can claim credit for this element." Can the Government please add a section to Attachment J.P-3 where this can be verified/attested to since Attachment J.P-6 does not have a section for this and CPARS only discusses the extent to which something was competed and Offerors will need a place to confirm that they performed work as a small business when acting as a Subcontractor if using a QP where they were not the Prime Contractor. | If a QP was performed as a small business and a past performance rating form was used, this would be indicated within Attachment J.P-6, Item 5, Small Business Subcontracting, in the 'Not Applicable' block which includes a space for comment. It could also be included in the "Additional Comments" Section. Note: This only applies for OASIS+ Unrestricted. | ||
| 19 | J.P-8, OASIS Domain Qualifications Matrix and DRAFT OASIS Plus UR RFP 11-15-2022; J.P-8 within all Domain Tabs; All UNR Domains; J.P-8 within all Domain Tabs | Attachments | Within Attachment J.P-8, all Domain Tabs. |
For UNR Domains it states "minimum average annual value for a QP will be $1M for this Domain and unrestricted RFP" For SB Domains it states "minimum average annual value for a QP will be $500K for this Domain and socioeconomic RFP."
Request Clarification: We presume that any completed task orders (QPs), irrespective of competition type (UNR or socioeconomic) can be used as a QP for any solicitation and domain. As stated, the language can be interpreted as limiting. For example, a HUBZone company who has won multiple contracts as a HUBZone set-aside (at the time of award), will NOT be able to provide any QP or submission under the SB or UNR solicitation since none of their QPs were SB or UNR. Similarly, a well performing SB or graduated SB with large SB competed QPs will not be able to bid as UNR if they do not have enough QP's that were awarded as an UNR RFP.
This language is confusing and unduly restricts competition by not allowing SB/socioeconomic concerns to bid on other MA-IDIQs.
Per Section M.5.6.3 Credits Assigned to SB Utilization (SB Subcontracting) Evaluation states "If the entity performing project was SB at time of award, that project does not factor into the overall average rating. If all QPs were performed as a small business concern, the Offeror can claim credit for this element." Based on this language we can assume the above stated restriction should not apply.
| We recommend that the Government eliminate the confusion by changing it so that it states "the Minimum average annual value for a QP of $xM" and not have any language about "and unrestricted RFP" or "and socioeconomic RFP." | Offerors are not limited by their socioeconomic status when they performed QPs or FEPs. The current language simply states the annual values for QPs apply to those particular matrices (scorecards). An Offeror's socioeconomic status is based on their current status as of time of offer submission. We've hopefully clarified this language as it applies to M.5.6.3 as it relates to past performance subcontracting in the new Draft and Final RFP(s). This was never intended to limit or discriminate against small businesses, but instead, still give them an opportunity to claim those credits if they performed all of their QPs as a small business. | ||||
| 20 | J.P-5 Functional Areas and Sub-Areas / All | Attachments | Concern: J.P-5 equates Domains to Functional Areas, i.e., "each Domain included in this solicitation is considered a distinct functional area." Recommendation: To provide clarity, the Government should change "Functional Area" references to "Domain." | Functional areas included in Attachment J.P-5 equate to Domains with the significant distinction that the listed functional areas include future Domains (e.g., Business Administration, Human Capital, etc.) that offerors can use demonstrate an expanded scope of integrated experience outside of the current scope of OASIS+. Offerors trying to achieve credit for integrated experience should look at the exact criteria listed in the proposed Domain (i.e. QP demonstrates performance spanned X or more functional areas) and they need to tag those specific areas of the PWS/SOW/Contract that demonstrate those functional areas, or validate through use of Project Verification Form (Attachment J.P-3). | |
| 21 | J-3 Cyber Security Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) C-SCRM Plan Template | C-SCRM | 1.4 - Supply Chain Provenance - this section asks "is a threat analysis performed for each distributor?" but the Requirement wording below it states "this standard is met when the prime contractor documents the process to perform a threat analysis for distributors of ICT supplies and services that will be sold to the government through this contract." - Which activity needs to be done - performance of the validation process or documentation of the validation process? | At this time, GSA is requiring documentation of the process and trusting that contractors are following their own written policies and procedures. Since this is a yes/no question, contractors attest to performing this analysis and then provide the documentation as backup. | |
| 22 | Attachment J-3 | C-SCRM | Attachment J-3 references NIST 800-53 as opposed to NIST 800-171. NIST 800-171 relates to non-federal systems and organizations, while NIST 800-53 is for federal organizations. In addition, utilizing NIST 800-53 could have ramifications on small business participation due to the expense involved with meeting requirements. Request the references be changed to NIST 800-171. | NIST SP 800-53, in section 1.1 Purpose and Applicability, states that “the controls can be implemented within any organization or system that processes, stores, or transmits information.” NIST SP 800-171 maps to NIST SP 800-53 Security Controls in Appendix D, tables D-1 through D-14. These references are provided to assist contractors with answering the questions in the Basic Safeguarding Questionnaire. | |
| 23 | RFP Section H.17.2 | C-SCRM | Section H.17.2 (Page 72) states that “[c]contractors should begin preparing for SCRM accreditation…”. Given the substantial number of requirements that will be required to be tracked and reported on the annual J-3 submission, will the Government be providing a minimum level of funding to OASIS+ contract holders to comply with these SCRM requirements that will be specific to the OASIS+ contract but not Task Order specific? | Section H.17.2’s reference to SCRM accreditation relates to agency specific SCRM accreditation that may be required on task orders. Since this is a Governmentwide Acquisition Contract, agencies outside of GSA may use this vehicle for their acquisition needs. If a contractor wants to pursue work with an agency that has a SCRM accreditation requirement such as Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), the contractor needs to be prepared to meet the requirements listed by the agency. The Government will not provide funding for contractors to track changes or updates to their existing policies in order to comply with the post-award requirement in J-3. | |
| 24 | C-SCRM | C-SCRM | Will the C-SCRM Plan include the corporate enterprise, or will it be limited to procurement at the IDIQ or task order level? | The C-SCRM Plan is for the entity and is not intended to be project specific. | |
| 25 | RFP Section H.17.2 | C-SCRM | The requirements outlined in Attachment J-3 are aligned to NIST 800-161. These are different from other cybersecurity or supply chain controls such as CMMC or NIST 800-53. Industry will require additional investment in order to comply with NIST 800-161, and this may become a barrier for certain mid-size and small companies. Is GSA willing to work with industry partners to amend this requirement? | The Post-Award C-SCRM Plan deliverable in Attachment J-3 was developed to ensure that GSA and awarded contractors can appropriately manage C-SCRM risks. Since NIST SP 800-161 provides guidance on the development of C-SCRM Plans, it was included as a reference to assist contractors with developing their C-SCRM Plans. | |
| 26 | General | CAF | Do you intend to have MOUs in place for reduced CAF based on projected spend as has been the practice for OASIS or one fee across agencies? | At this time, there will only be a single fee. GSA does not intend to implement Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with customer organizations for reduced CAF rates. | |
| 27 | G3.2.2.6 Page 54 of 159 Unrestricted RFP | CAF | Please confirm that CAF will no longer be required to be funded and tracked as a separate CLIN. | In accordance with the draft RFP Section B.11, based on the established CAF rate, the Contractor must include the estimated CAF in each task order proposal based on the total estimated order value. The Contractor must include the CAF as a separate line item (CLIN) on all proposals and invoices to the Government, regardless of contract type. | |
| 28 | G.3.2.1 Transactional Data: | ||||
| Monthly Invoicing Data | CAF | The Government is requesting Monthly Invoicing Data reporting. For consistency among GSA Contracts and Schedules, we recommend Quarterly Invoicing Data reporting. Quarterly reporting ensures accuracy and completeness in reporting by allowing the contractor more time to verify and reconcile the data. In addition, a Quarterly Invoice Data reporting requirement would be in alignment with most GSA Schedules and Contracts, such as Alliant, Alliant 2 and OASIS Pools 1-6. | Monthly reporting is required per GSAR 552.216-75 Transactional Data Reporting, which states that transactional data must be reported monthly (within 30 calendar days from the last calendar day of the month). RFP Section G.3.2.6 states that CAF remittance will be quarterly (within 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter). | ||
| 29 | Draft OASIS Plus UR RFP, p.9 | CAF | Will CAF changes apply only to new orders (e.g., assuming existing orders will remain at accepted CAF at time of award in order not to disrupt awarded price)? | Downward adjustments to the CAF rate have previously been made on GSA MA-IDIQ MAC contracts that were applicable to options exercised on existing task orders after the effective date of the change. Therefore, we will not specify that CAF changes would only apply to new orders placed after the effective date of any CAF rate change. | |
| 30 | GSA OASIS+47QRCA21N0001, H.22 Minimum Contract Sales Requirement, p.33 | Contract Management | This is a 10 year IDIQ, do we have to meet a minimum sales each year to stay on this or duration is 10 year regardless? Will a subcontract qualify to meet the $250,000 threshold by the 5th year or only Prime contracts? | According to Section H.22, Minimum Contract Sales Requirements, Contractors are expected to meet the minimum contract sales requirement prior to the end of the fifth year of the Master Contract period of performance. The minimum contract sales requirement is $250,000 in awarded task order value for each contract and applies to the prime contractor (contract holder) for the OASIS+ contract. | |
| 31 | Minimum award amount | Contract Management | Will there be a minimum award to offset the cost of bidding? | As stated in Section B.4(a), The minimum guaranteed award amount for this IDIQ contract is $2,500.00 per contract for the full term of the Master Contract. | |
| 32 | C.2 | Contract Management | Would there be separate or unique reporting for the Domain CLINs? Also, will contract award be made a on domain-by-domain basis, resulting in separate contracts for each domain? Or will there be a single contract award inclusive of all domains awarded? | For the first question: IAW Section G.3.2.2.1, "the Contractor must provide the OASIS+ IDIQ CLIN for each awarded task order when it is initially reported in the Government designated system, within the date specified in Section F.4.1. This information is required to identify the NAICS code and OASIS+ Domain of each awarded task order." For the second question: Each master contract award will be per IDIQ RFP/contract (i.e., Unrestricted, Total Small Business, SDVOSB, WOSB, HUBZone, or 8(a)), inclusive of all Domains that the Offeror submitted a proposal for, qualified for, and was subsequently awarded (a maximum total of 7 Domains for small business or 8 for Unrestricted). | |
| 33 | Section G.3, G.3.2 | Contract Management | Contract Administration Requirements, Contractor Reporting Requirements | ||
| Question: Will the Government consider requiring reporting and deliverables only AFTER a Contractor has been awarded orders under the IDIQ? | G.3.2, Contractor Reporting Requirements, as well as H.16 and H.17 do refer to deliverables once a task order is awarded. However, G.3.1, Contract Administration Requirements, will continue to refer to the Master Contract and task orders. | ||||
| 34 | C.6 other Direct Costs/Ancillary Support Services and Products | Contract Management | Is there a limit to using labor categories not on the schedule (e.g., a dollar threshold or % of contracted dollars)? | OASIS+ is not a schedule contract. Attachment J-1 delineates that the OASIS+ labor categories align to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) maintains compensation data. Section G.3.2.4, Reporting of Standardized Labor Categories, provides information on steps to take when utilizing non-SOC system labor categories. It states, "When the Contractor is awarded a task order where it proposed non-SOC system labor categories, the contractor shall convert the proposed labor categories to the closest SOC system labor categories, as outlined in Attachment J-1, Labor Categories and Bureau of Labor Statistics Standard Occupational Classifications." | |
| 35 | H.16 Partnering (page 65) | Contract Management | H.16 Partnering (page 65) states that “… GSA intends to encourage the foundation of a cohesive partnership between contractors, GSA, and federal agency customers …” Please provide a detailed explanation about how GSA plans to accomplish this partnership. | H.16's subsections all provide strategy that will encourage the foundation of a cohesive partnership. This coupled with measurement of participation through data calls outlined in Section G.3.1.15 and the DPA training for OCOs that will encourage the use and reach of the OASIS+ program. | |
| 36 | G.3.1.8.1 Minimum Subcontracting Goals | Contract Management | Will subcontractor goals be measured at the Task Order level or overall contract level? | IAW G.3.1.8.1 Per FAR 52.219-9(d)(10), Contractors submitting Individual Subcontracting Plans are required to: (a) Cooperate in any studies or surveys as may be required; (b) Submit periodic reports, which show compliance with their subcontracting plan; (c) Submit Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) and Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSRs); and (d) Ensure that subcontractors with subcontracting plans agree to submit their ISR and SSR. The ISR covers subcontract award data related to this Master Contract and shall be submitted semi-annually until final task order completion. The SSR encompasses all contracts with GSA and is submitted annually. The ISR and SSR shall be submitted electronically via the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) at www.esrs.gov and must be received within the date specified in Section F.4.1, Deliverables, of this Master Contract. Reports are due, regardless of whether there has been any subcontracting activity since contract inception or since the time of previous report submission. | |
| 37 | G.3.1.12 Service Contract Reporting | Contract Management | This deliverable pertains to the reports that are submitted via SAM per FAR 52.204-15. The reference to submittal to the OASIS+ CO via OSP appears to be in conflict with instructions from the FAR clause for this reporting requirement. | In addition to the reporting through SAM.gov, contractors shall provide a report to the OASIS+ CO, via the OASIS+ Symphony Portal (OSP). This report shall be delivered annually, by the due date indicated in Section F.4.1. | |
| 38 | G.3.2.2.2 Fixed Price Labor Reporting, pages 31 and 54 of Unrestricted RFP | Contract Management | Can the government clarify the required reporting frequency for Fixed Price labor reporting? Page 31 suggests this is a monthly requirement, page 54 suggests it is a one-time requirement. ? | Fixed price labor reporting is a monthly requirement. G.3.2.2.2, Fixed Price Labor Reporting states, "The Contractor shall report its proposed breakdown for the five (5) labor categories with the highest proposed level of effort for the overall task order period of performance (inclusive of options) to the OASIS+ CO in the Government designated TDR system, within the date specified in Section F.4.1." | |
| 39 | F.3 | Contract Management | Does coterminous mean that say a 5 year TO awarded in year 8 or 9 would expire at expiration of OASIS + or would the TO continue post OASIS+? | No. When GSA refers to a coterminous period of performance, we specifically mean that each contract family will have the same end date. For instance, all 8(a) master contracts, no matter when they are awarded, will share the same end date. A task order issued on the last day of the active order period of performance may have a period of performance of up to five years, per the clause at 52.216-22. Section F.3 needs to be read with the clause at 52.216-22. | |
| 40 | C | Contract Management | Post award, will there be any oversight that the correct Domain was used by the customer for that task order? | OASIS+ plans to provide routine oversight and task order management to identify potential issues and remedial actions. | |
| 41 | H.16 Partnering | Contract Management | Will the Government provide more detail on the execution of tasks post award, where and how capability statements will be maintained and how they will be utilized for market research in determining contract and domain to be utilized? What is expected in a capability statement and when will they be required to be uploaded? | Please refer to Section H.16.3, Contractor OASIS+ web page where it states that the Contractor shall develop and maintain a current, publicly available web page that will house information, including but not limited to capability statements. The expectation is that they will contain information regarding the Contractors capability on OASIS+ and they must be uploaded no later than 30 days after the Notice to Proceed. | |
| 42 | Page 29, G.3.2.1, Transactional Data, Monthly Sales reporting | Contract Management | What sales does this refer to? Task Order Award Data and Task Order Modification Data are addressed in the two Descriptions below Monthly Sales reporting. | Section G.3.2.1, Transactional Data, Monthly Sales Reporting, refers to task order sales realized each month. Section G.3.2.1, Task Order Award Data, refers to the actual award of a task order and Section G.3.2.1, Task Order Modification Data, refers to an instance that a task order is modified. | |
| 43 | H.16 Partnering (page 65) | Contract Management | H.16 Partnering (page 65) provides that “…failure to attend meetings, maintain a Contractor OASIS+ Vendor Profile within Symphony, or otherwise comply with this section may result in activation of Dormant Status and/or a Contractor being off-ramped.” Please describe: |
a) how much written notice GSA will give to an OASIS + Contractor in these circumstances; and
| b) whether the OASIS + Contractor will be provided with an opportunity to cure such defects. | See Section H.12, Dormant Status. Dormant Status will only be imposed after careful consideration of the situation and collaboration with the Contractor to resolve the issues. To place a Contractor in Dormant Status the OASIS+ CO will first send a letter, in writing, to the Contractor regarding the poor performance or non-compliance issue. The Contractor shall have reasonable time, at the discretion of the OASIS+ CO, to provide a remediation plan to correct the deficiencies or to contest the purported factual basis of the deficiencies. If the OASIS+ CO is satisfied with the Contractor’s response, the Contractor will not be placed in Dormant Status as long as the Contractor successfully follows the remediation plan. If the OASIS+ CO is not satisfied with the response, or the remediation plan is not effective, the OASIS+ CO may issue a final decision, in writing, placing the Contractor in a Dormant Status. The OASIS+ CO final decision may be appealed to the GSA Master Contract Ombudsman identified in Section G.2.1.3.1, under Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR), as defined in GSAM 533.214 and FAR subpart 33.201. Using ADR does not waive the Contractor’s right to appeal to the Agency Board of Contract Appeals or United States Court of Federal Claims. | |||||
| 44 | RFP G.3.1.1 | Contract Management | Can the Corporate OASIS+ Program Manager AND Contract Manager be the same individual? Do they require clearances? Will we need to submit resumes for key personnel? | The COPM and COCM roles may be occupied by a single person or multiple people. There are no minimum qualification requirements established for the COPM and COCM at the master contract level. However, the COPM and COCM must be proficient in the performance of their duties. It is possible that these same personnel will provide direct support on task orders which may have additional requirements for clearances or resumes. | ||
| 45 | Page 65, H.16.1 | Contract Management | Are the OASIS+ Ecosystem (EO) meetings intended to be similar to the current OASIS PMRs? | The goal of the OASIS+ Ecosystem meetings is to provide a platform for OASIS+ contractors, OASIS+ Program Staff, and other agency representatives to communicate current issues, resolve potential problems, discuss business and marketing opportunities, review future and ongoing initiatives, create networking opportunities between OASIS+ prime contractors, introduce small businesses with unique or special skill sets/products, and address OASIS+ Fundamentals. | ||
| 46 | F.4.1 | Contract Management | RFP section F.4.1 states "The Government does not waive its right to add reporting requirements, performance standards, or other deliverables or reports not specifically listed in the table below by modification at no additional expense to the Government." | |||
| Can the Government clarify the intent of this statement? As written, it is completely open ended, and it seems unlikely any company could realistically sign up to such an open-ended requirement while guaranteeing no additional expense to the Government. | The intent of the statement refers to the government being able to align the OASIS+ contract with new statutory or regulatory requirements. | |||||
| 47 | DRFP Section H.15 | Limitations On Subcontracting | Contract Management | Please clarify the apparent contradictory statements. The first paragraph states that the contractor must meet requirements of FAR 52.219 by end of the Master Contract POP. But the fourth paragraph states that the contractor is expected to meet the requirement prior to the end of the 5th year of the contract or it may be made dormant. If the master contract has a 10-year POP, the two statements appear to be contradictory. | Section H.15 has been revised to clarify that the Contractor is responsible for... meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, by the end of the performance period for each order issued under the contract. | |
| 48 | Solicitation paragraph F.5 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE | Contract Management | How does the government intend on capturing task order performance in an IDIQ CPAR? Will those CPARs still be individual? | The OASIS+ CO will not administer or evaluate task order performance. It is the sole responsibility of the OCO using the process and criteria set forth in CPARS. | ||
| 49 | G.3.2.2.2 | Contract Management | Business practices do not support the breakdown of FFP billing to report sales data at labor category level. Suggest the Government remove reporting of the proposed breakdown for the five (5) labor categories with the highest proposed level of effort for the overall task order period of performance (inclusive of options). | The required reporting is only if an OCO requests a breakdown of labor by category, hours, and fully burdened rates. The reason for this is because the government intends to make the data available to customers at an aggregate level, based on the average of all the contractor's reports. The data will not be identified or disclosed at the individual contractor/company level. | ||
| 50 | H.21 SmartPay page 74 Unrestricted RFP | Contract Management | The second paragraph of this section starts "for Order Payments above the MPT" but the rest of the section seems to apply to Orders above the MPT. Can you please confirm this is applicable to orders above the MPT and not just potentially smaller payments on any specific order?? | The second paragraph applies to order payments above the Micro-Purchase Threshold (MPT). GSA is allowing ordering agencies/organizations the option to accept the GSA SmartPay® purchase card as a form of payment for orders above the MPT. | ||
| 51 | Contract Management | The RFP states, "The Offeror will ONLY be awarded those Domain CLINs under this MA-IDIQ in which the Offeror and all proposed subcontractors represent as small businesses under the associated size standard, or qualify as a small business under one (1) of the exceptions to affiliation set forth in 13 CFR § 121.103(b)". Please clarify that if a subcontractor outgrows their size after award, it will not impact the IDIQ as long as the Prime remains small under the NAICS and complies with limitations on subcontracting. | If a small business contractor qualifies with proposed small business subcontractors, and any of those subcontractors outgrow their size status, it will not affect the prime as long as they remain small under the assigned Primary NAICS and complies with limitations on subcontracting. However, if requesting Domain Enhancement in accordance with Section H.11.3, you may be unable to use those proposed subcontractors to claim credits if they are no longer a small business for the newly requested Domains. | |||
| 52 | UR RFP, B.8.5 Service Contract LCATS | Contract Management | RFP Text: When applicable, the OCO shall incorporate wage determinations subject to wage rate requirements in the task order award. | |||
| Question: Will GSA modify the Master Contract to incorporate Applicable Wage Determinations? Or will the WD's be applicable to just specific orders? Will the OCO be required to list the applicable WD in the RFP for the individual task order? | Wage determinations (WDs) will be task order specific and OCOs will provide applicable WDs in their RFPs. | |||||
| 53 | Reference: Draft OASIS Plus UR RFP 11-15-2022, Section H.12 | Contract Management | Question/Comment: Dormant Status, please confirm a Contractor in dormant status who continues work on previously awarded task orders will continue to be paid for the work on the active task order(s). | Yes, dormant contractors are required to continue work under existing task orders and will be paid in accordance with that task order. | ||
| 54 | Reference: Draft OASIS Plus UR RFP 11-15-2022, Section G.3.1.1.1 | Contract Management | Question/Comment: How will the Government verify or certify a "guarantee" for corporate high-level support for Program Management? Recommend requiring a Letter of Guarantee or Commitment to ensure this is provided and should follow all guidance for notification timelines when changed. | In Section K.4, it states the Offeror is instructed to provide the Name, Title, Telephone Number, and E-Mail Address of the persons responsible for the COPM and COCM duties set forth in Section G.3.1.1.1 and G.3.1.1.2 in the designated field(s) in Symphony. This information shall be kept updated. The contractor is ultimately responsible for providing these positions and ensuring master contract performance and deliverable requirements are met. The Government will not scrutinize COCM or COPM selections, but will instead measure overall master contract performance. | ||
| 55 | DRAFT OASIS Plus SB RFP 11-15-2022; G.3.1.3; pg. 40 | Contract Management | G.3.1.3 calls for maintaining insurance coverage for each OASIS+ Master Contract held by the contractor. Since each domain covers a diverse set of scope areas, coverage may be cost prohibitive without knowing more specifics about the work of each task order. We suggest the Government reconsider this requirement to address only work being performed at the task order level, once scope areas are specified, and the customer environments are known. | Section G.3.1.3 states that FAR subpart 28.3 specifies the minimum insurance coverage under certain circumstances, as applicable, and for certain types of perils (e.g., workers’ compensation). This is required to be maintained for the duration of your master contract. Task orders may also specify additional insurance coverage based upon the work in that task order. The contractor is responsible for ensuring that additional coverage or higher limits are obtained as required when a task order is awarded. | ||
| 56 | G.3.2.1 Transactional Data: Monthly Sales Task Order Award Data Task Order Modification Data Monthly Invoicing Data | Contract Management | The GSA Sales Reporting System (SRP) is listed as the Government designated system/location for submission of the Referenced Transactional Data reporting requirements. SRP does not currently appear to accommodate these Transactional reporting activities. We recommend using GSA's Contract Payment Reporting Module (CPRM) as it is currently used for Transactional Data reporting requirements on other GSA Contracts, such as Alliant, Alliant 2 and OASIS Pools 1-6. | The GSA SRP is currently being developed to accommodate all transactional data reporting requirements for non-Multiple Award Schedule contracts. New contract vehicles, such as Polaris, Alliant 3, and OASIS+, will use SRP for Transactional Data Reporting (TDR). | ||
| 57 | Draft OASIS Plus UR RFP | Contractor Business Systems | Please provide guidance for Offerors on how to obtain approved systems. And if there is a difference between “adequate” and “approved” systems, if any. | FAR 9.105 states the surveying activity shall obtain from the auditor any information required concerning the adequacy of prospective contractors’ accounting systems and these systems’ suitability for use in administering the proposed type of contract. |
DCAA performs audits of accounting, estimating, and material management and accounting systems and opines whether these systems are acceptable in accordance with the applicable DFARS contractor business system criteria. Relying upon DCAA's opinion, DCMA makes a determination as to whether these systems are acceptable. DCAA also performs pre-award surveys of prospective contractor accounting systems and opines whether the design of the contractor's system is acceptable for the award of a prospective Government contract in accordance with the SF 1408 criteria.
In accordance with FAR 44.3, DCMA performs contractor purchasing system reviews and the ACO grants approval of or disapproves the contractor's purchasing system.
FAR 52.245-1 states the contractor shall have an adequate property management system to satisfy the requirements of that clause. DFARS 252.245-7003 discusses the criteria for acceptable property management systems. DCMA Property Adminstrators perform property management system analyses and the ACO makes a final determination regarding approval or disapproval of the contractor's property management system.
FAR 52.234-4 states the contractor shall use an EVMS that has been determined by the Cognizant Federal Agency to be compliant with the guidelines in EIA-748. DFARS 252.234-7002 discusses the criteria for acceptable EVMS. DCMA performs EVMS compliance reviews and the cognizant CO determines the acceptability of the contractor’s EVMS and approves or disapproves the system.
A federal entity will request a DCAA audit of an applicable system if determined necessary; contractors cannot request an audit.
| 58 | DRAFT OASIS Plus SB RFP 11-15-2022; G.3.1.10; pg. 47 | Contractor Business Systems | DCAA does not always provide timely approval of submitted contractor provisional billing rates. If DCAA has not provided acceptance of PBRs as of proposal submission date, what evidence may contractors provide to receive credit? | Acceptable documentation includes current verification from DCAA, DCMA, or CFA of Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRA), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRR), Provisional Billing Rates (PBR), or other approved billing rates (e.g. Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreements (NICRA)) that have been audited or reviewed and determined acceptable for generating estimates of costs and other data included in proposals submitted to customers. |
| 59 | Draft OASIS Plus UR RFP, p.49 | Contractor Business Systems | P.49 states that per 16.301-3a3 “only those contractors that maintain an adequate accounting system shall be eligible for Cost Reimbursement (all types) or Non-Commercial Time-and-Materials or Labor-Hour type task order solicitations and awards.” Does this mean that the Contractor must have an approved system by a federal agency or is there another way to establish adequacy? Is the SF-1408 submission the beginning of the approval process? | Refer to FAR 9.105 Procedures. The contracting officer shall obtain from the auditor any information required concerning the adequacy of prospective contractors’ accounting systems and these systems’ suitability for use in administering the proposed type of contract. It is the contracting officer's responsibility to obtain information as they deem necessary in order to make a determination of responsibility. A federal entity will request a DCAA audit of an Offeror's accounting system if determined necessary; contractors cannot request an audit. |
| 60 | L.5.4- Contracting Business Systems | Contractor Business Systems | Due to the current backlog within DCAA can an offeror submit their expired DCAA approval letter (as long as there have been no changes to their accounting system) obtained for OASIS to meet the documentation requirement to obtain the points in the self-scoring documentation? | Credit will be given for current, valid determination letters where the system has not subsequently been disapproved, the determination of adequacy has not expired (if an expiration date is indicated in the letter), or been withdrawn, and there have been no determinations of significant deficiencies or material changes to the system. |
| 61 | Section L.5.4.2 [Forward Pricing Rate Agreements, Forward Pricing Rate |
Recommendations, Provisional Billing Rates, or Other Approved Billing Rates] -amended to state “the Offeror must provide verification for the previous calendar year,
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .