Industry Q_A _ Feedback from Draft RFP 1 - Phase 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 141 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 #2
| 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 consolidated and selected the most relevant questions for publishing in this document. Futhermore, due to the volume of questions received, GSA selected a two-phase approach with the release of Q&A. A portion of Q&A was released simultaneously with Draft RFP #2 on March 6, 2023. This is the second set of Q&A. | ||||
| Question | ||||
| Number | Reference | Category | Question | GSA Response |
| 1 | H.12 | GSA Decisions | "A Contractor may be placed in dormant status for any reason as determined by the OASIS+ CO to ensure the Government’s best interests are protected." |
If "any OASIS+ CO can determine that any competitor can be placed into Dormant (inactive) Status" at their sole discretion, then how can "GSA ensure that Contractors receive impartial, fair, and equitable treatment"?
What process does a competitor have to appeal an arbitrary, improper, or unfair Dormant Status decision by a CO? We agree that this language could be interpreted as an overreaching authority and this language has been removed from the RFPs.
To address your concern as to dormancy appeals, 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.
Thank you for this feedback.
| 2 | UR RFP, H.11 On-Ramping | Onboarding | RFP Text: GSA reserves the right to periodically review the need for and determine whether or not it is in the Government’s best interest to conduct on-ramping procedures to add contractors to one (1) or more of the OASIS+ IDIQs to meet Government demand for any given Domain. | ||
| Question: Please provide additional details on the process for on-ramping frequency and competition requirements. (The language in this section is very vague). | The OASIS+ Program anticipates conducting frequent on-ramps, with the goal of being continuously open. During these on-ramps, prospective Offerors and existing OASIS+ contractors may submit proposal(s) for any of the OASIS+ IDIQs for which they are eligible. Section H.11 does not identify a cycle time or timeframes for frequency or iteration as the OASIS+ program is currently forecasting volume based on variability. However, as the language states, the goal for the OASIS+ program is to be continuously open. | ||||
| 3 | H.11.3 Domain Enhancement (page 61) | Onboarding | H.11.3 Domain Enhancement (page 61) allows “…existing OASIS+ contractors … to submit a proposal to add Domains that they do not already hold under their awarded contract(s) through a contract modification.” Please describe the competitive procedures GSA will use to allow other OASIS + contract holders to submit proposals for adding Domains. | The procedures outlined in H.11.3 are not of a competitive nature. They are outlined in a manner that is directed to the parts of a proposal that would require technical qualification on the J.P-8 Attachment to receive award of that Domain. All previously supplied applicable documentation as well as new project information is relevant for submission under the Section H.11.3 procedures. Similar to the "Add Special Item Number (SIN)" modifications under the GSA multiple award schedules (MAS) program, this is a procedure that allows current OASIS+ contractors to enhance their offerings through modification to add additional Domains to their OASIS IDIQ. | |
| 4 | Re: OASIS+ Draft RFP of Nov 15, 2022, G.3.1.7.3 | Onboarding | We are a company that is currently SB but is likely to become OTSB within a year or two. (1) If we become qualified as TOTAL-SB under OASIS+, will we automatically be reclassified into UN when our size exceeds the limit for SB given our primary NAICS code? (2) Or should we and can we submit under the OASIS+ RFP for both TOTAL-SB and UN initially? | ||
| Recommendation: Clarify, and specify that any company can submit in one of the SB programs and also the UNRESTRICTED. | IAW FAR 52.219-28, the offeror will be required to re-represent business size within 30 days after execution of a novation agreement; within 30 days after a merger or acquisition that does not require a novation; and, within 60 to 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of the contract. An offer who is representing as a SB concern may wish to submit for the SB IDIQs where applicable as well as the Unrestricted. Rerepresentation will be required for all actively awarded Domains. Those Domains the offeror no longer represents as a SB concern shall be placed into dormant status; however, the OASIS+ contractor by that point may also wish to submit for the Unrestricted IDIQ to propose those Domains that were put dormant on the SB IDIQ. | ||||
| 5 | OASIS+ MAC Program, IDIQ RFP No. 47QRCA21N0001, Attachment J.P-3 Project Verification Form | Other | Please confirm Attachment J.P-3 Project Verification Form should be sent back to the offeror to include in their proposal submission. | If the offeror utilizes a completed Project Verification Form (either from the OSP or Attachment J.P-3) to help substantiate claimed credits, then it must be signed according to the instructions in Section L.5 and submitted with the proposal in the OSP. | |
| 6 | L.5.3.3 Federal Prime Contractor Experience – Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts (Federal Government Contracts only) | Other | This section does not state how many qualifying contracts the offeror is allowed to submit, and the credits received for the offeror’s submission. In addition, the FEP Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts does not appear in the J.P-8 Domain Qualifications Matrix for Technical & Engineering (Small Business). | In OASIS+ Qualification Matrix (Attachment J.P-8) for T&E - SB/UR, the offeror can submit up to two additional projects for FEP-Cost Reimbursement type contracts. |
Section L.5.3.4 states that Offerors may claim credits for FEPs that demonstrate cost-reimbursement type contract experience. This particular qualification is only included in the Research & Development Domain, and therefore it may not be claimed by offerors submitting a proposal to the Technical & Engineering Domain.
| 7 | J.P-8 OASIS+ Domain Qualification Matrix | Other | Qualification metrics for the Small Business RFP seem surprisingly favored towards the larger end of the small business spectrum. According to the evaluation criteria, a small business would likely need to have 5+ QPs, span numerous LCATs, have been afforded the opportunity to employ surge, and maintain ISO/CCMI certifications, to reach the threshold. Will there be additional points awarded for special category small business (SDVOSB, VOSB, WOSB, MOSB, etc) that could allow smaller businesses to be competitive? | No, currently the OASIS+ socioeconomic categories will retain the same scoring methodology as OASIS+ SB. | |
| 8 | Other | Would GSA consider grandfathering or auto validating the need for another small business subcontractor (SUBK) plan to be submitted for OASIS + if an offeror just recently (6 months ago) submitted a SUBK Plan to GSA and received approval of that plan as part of their next 20 MAS Schedule application and approval package? | No. FAR 52.219-9 defines an Individual Subcontracting Plan as applying to a specific contract, so the use of another contract's approved plan would not be eligible. Further, Per Section L.5.1.8, Master Plans and Commercial Plans will not be accepted. | ||
| 9 | DRAFT+OASIS+Plus+SB+RFP+11-15-2022 | ||||
| 106 of | |||||
| 149 | Other | An Offeror (as identified in Block 15A of the SF33) may submit a proposal to be considered for any of the solicitations it is eligible for (i.e., A HUBZone small business Offeror may submit a proposal to be considered for the HUBZone set-aside and a | |||
| separate proposal to be considered for the small business set-aside). Would the Government consider allowing a small business that also qualifies under the socio-economic set-asides to submit one proposal for all applicable set asides since the requirements are the same? (or seem so in the draft and this assumes they will be the same in the final RFP) | OASIS+ consists of six contract programs. Five for each of the small business categories and one for unrestricted. These are separate solicitations and require individual proposals to qualify for each set-aside or unrestricted vehicle. The OASIS+ Symphony Portal (OSP) will streamline the process of submitting multiple proposals. | ||||
| 10 | Section L.3 Proposal Submission Instructions, Draft RFP Page 115 of 159, Para. 7 | Other | Would the Government clarify what qualifies as a “minor” formatting change, relative to the Section K and Section J templates? | Offerors may make minor formatting changes to Section K and Section J templates used in the proposal submission. For example, minor formatting changes include such things as adjusting page breaks, adding corporate identification logos, including disclaimers of proprietary information. | |
| 11 | J.P-8 - OASIS+ Domain Qualification Matrix | Other | For calculating a company's qualification, will they be evaluated against an individual Domain or multiple in their chosen category (SB vs UNR)? | Offerors will be evaluated on the specific Domain(s) and OASIS+ solicitation(s) (e.g. small business, 8(a), etc.) for which they choose to submit offer(s). | |
| 12 | H.13 OFF RAMPING | Other | How and/or how often will GSA determine whether a contractor that no longer meets the small business size standard be off-ramped? | Per 13 C.F.R. § 121.404 (f)(3), for Multiple Award Contracts with durations of more than five years (including options), a contracting officer must request that a business concern recertify its small business size status no more than 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of the contract, and no more than 120 days prior to exercising any option thereafter. Therefore, absent any other rerepresentation triggering event (such as a merger or acquisition), rerepresentation will be required 120 days prior to the five year anniversary from the date of contract award (not notice to proceed date). Date of award will be the date that the GSA CO signed and awarded the master contract. Ordering Contracting Officers may, at their discretion, request representation at the task order level. This can be found in the SB RFP(s), Section G.3.1.7, Handling of Size and Status Re-representations. | |
| 13 | M.7 VOLUME 7 - RESPONSIBILITY [page 149- 4th paragraph] | Other | The draft RFP mentions several pre-award activities like one in M.7 on page 149, including: |
Pre-Award On-site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation (FAR 52.222-24) Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Pre-Award Evaluation Basic Safeguarding Questionnaire within Attachment J-3.
| Are there other pre-award activities where the bidder would need to provide documentation? | Please refer to Section L.5.7, Volume 7 - Responsibility, for a list of documents required to make a determination of responsibility. However, to be considered for an award, the Offeror must adhere to the directions and submit all of the required proposal volumes in accordance with Section L.5. | ||||
| 14 | Page 109 of SB RFP | Other | Will offerors have the ability to respond to GSA prior to a QP being removed from all proposals because of possible duplication? For instance, if there is a prime and two subcontractors on a single project, isn't it true that all three firms could put that project forward as a QP in the same domain and solicitation? If not, how can an offeror "ensure that the projects submitted as part of its proposal are not submitted in any other proposals for the same Domain and solicitation," when we have no control over what other offeror's submit? | Prime contracts and subcontracts are considered unique projects, and both the prime and subcontractor may claim credit for the portion of their performance under the submitted project. However, a prime contractor and subcontractor may not claim credit for their performance under the same project as two separate QPs within the same proposal when submitting an offer as a contractor teaming arrangement (CTA). See RFP Examples at L.4. |
We will be clarifying the final RFP that if a company submits a project that they're not entitled to claim (e.g., company B submits company A's project), only the unauthorized company would be penalized. GSA intends to enter clarifications to address such issues.
| 15 | L.5.1.7.1, paragraph 3 | Other | For Verification of Project Experience Submission (L.5.1.7.1, paragraph 3) the RFP mentions a "signed copy of original contract award documentation." | |
| In our experience, there are many times the contracting officers submits documentation and simply types "//SIGNED//" on the signature line of a digital document. Will the Government please clarify what is a valid "signed copy" of the requested documentation? Are documents marked "//SIGNED//" or something similar acceptable, or must it be pen and ink, or a digital signature? | RFP Section L.4. states, to the maximum extent practicable, all proposal documents should be in Adobe (pdf) format. While certified digital signatures are the preferred means of providing signatures to GSA, documents marked "//SIGNED//" are acceptable as long as the QP/FEP can be verified through FPDS. | |||
| 16 | C.4 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & NON-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | Other | The definition of information technology in section C.4 is almost identical to the description of IT in section C.3 of the original OASIS 2013 RFP. It offers no recognition that the role of IT has evolved in the past decade and does not provide a useful working distinction between which services are information technology and which are not in a current context. | |
| The difference between IT and Non-IT is a little confusing. Some more clarification and examples would help. For instance, Non-IT equipment and services pertaining to the National Security System, if we have to implement a system that integrates with a military CAC Card Reader, for example, will the equipment and services pertaining to that be considered “Non-IT” or would it be included as part of IT services? Also, it states that Non-IT are part of the primary scope of Domains in C.2. Does this mean it is treated the same way as IT services? What is the difference? And why do we need to differentiate between IT and Non-IT? How would it be different from an Other Direct Cost (ODC)? | Section C.4 contains the same description currently provided in the FAR (see Parts 2 and 39). The purpose of OASIS+ is to deliver Best-In-Class (BIC) contracts for non-IT services. We understand IT is prevalent in most acquisition to some extent or another, and section C.4 describes how ancillary IT support is considered. Services for IT and Non-IT such as equipment or services related to a National Security System IAW 40 USC § 11103 (a), as well as embedded IT components including software, IT hardware, and other items and services traditionally considered IT or IT requirements would be considered ancillary support services. | |||
| 17 | DRFP Sections G.3.1.7.3 Post Award Small Business Changes In Size & H.12 Dormant Status ambiguities | Other | Please provide further clarification regarding these two statements that seem to contradict each other. | |
| H.12 states: “OASIS+ contractors that have been placed into dormant status due to representation as Other Than Small Business, shall not be eligible to return to an active status for dormant OASIS+ SB domain(s) due to subsequent novations or mergers or acquisitions which do not require novation.” But G.3.1.7.3 states: “If a subsequent merger or acquisition, with or without novation, triggers paragraph G.3.1.7.2, and the result of the rerepresentation is that the Contractor is deemed to be a small business concern with the same small business program status that qualified the Contractor for the awarded CLINs, then paragraph G.3.1.7.3. will no longer apply….” | Section H.12 refers to an SB contractor who re-represents as an OTSB concern for the primary NAICS code assigned to their master contract, resulting in their contract placed into dormant status. Once in dormant status, contractors cannot return to active status for dormant SB domains due to subsequent novations or other transactions that do not require novations. Section G.3.1.7.3 refers to a still active SB concern which must re-represent due to a transaction, with or without novation, but remains a SB concern with the same SB program status that qualified the contractor for the awarded CLINs. |
Contractors placed into dormant status under their SB contract(s) may still submit a proposal to be considered for the unrestricted vehicle in accordance with Section H.11.1.
18 OASIS+ MAC Program, IDIQ RFP No. 47QRCA21N0001, Section L.3.1, Page 107, Section L.5.1.1, Para. 3, and Page No. 110 Other The solicitation states the official Legal Offering Entity, or “offeror,” will be determined by Block 15A of the SF33. If a company is bidding with their entity’s headquarters office location with a unique UEI, please confirm that GSA will consider the systems, certifications, and clearances as being from that Prime offeror SF33 entity even if the documentation cites another office location/other UEIs for that same prime offeror entity? See Section L.5.1.4, Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters (MRCLs). Within a corporate structure, an Offeror (to include a member of a joint venture) may utilize resources from a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary. GSA will allow an Offeror to take credit for any system(s), certification(s), or clearances from a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary so long as there is a meaningful relationship to the Offeror and commitment letters are provided to the Government.
Please note that when an Offeror is sharing resources from other entities by way of a meaningful relationship within a corporate structure, only one proposal from that Corporate Structure may be submitted within a given Domain and OASIS+ solicitation.
19 L.5.1.7.1 Verification of Project Experience Submission (Federal Government Contracts) Pre-Award Other Providing the verification materials can become an extensive exercise of paper, GSA has stated this in industry interactions. To remove undue burden on contract representatives, will the Government confirm that if the supporting data for project experience submissions is in FPDS, copy of SOW, and original contract award documents, then no additional signature verification should be required for the Project Verification form to claim credits for Federal Government contract (Section L.5.1.7.1)? Signature requirements for Attachment J.P-3 differ depending on the type of verification needed. For example, according to RFP Section L.5.1.7, to verify the work performed as a member of a MAS CTA, the Project Verification Form must be signed by a member of the CTA or the CO, COR, or other Government employee with cognizance over the submitted project, verifying the Offeror performed the work detailed in Parts II and III of the form.
Additionally, there may be situations where contract documents (e.g. FPDS Report, SF33, PWS, etc.) do not demonstrate the verification requirements (e.g. classified contracts where an FPDS report is not available). In these situations, the offeror may submit the completed form (either from the OSP or Attachment J.P-3) signed in accordance with L.5.1.7 to support the claimed credits.
20 L.5.7.1 Professional Employee Compensation Plan (page 138) third and fourth paragraphs Other L.5.7.1 Professional Employee Compensation Plan (page 138) third and fourth paragraphs state:
The Offeror must submit a Professional Employee Compensation Plan that addresses the Offeror’s methodology for determining salaries and fringe benefits for their professional employees in preparation of future task order requirements under OASIS+. Submission of the general compensation practices printed in the Offeror’s employee handbook including salary and fringe benefits will often be sufficient. The Professional Employee Compensation Plan will be incorporated by reference into any resulting OASIS+ IDIQ
| Please confirm that specific salary ranges need to be included in the Offeror’s proposal. | Submission of the general compensation practices printed in the Offeror’s employee handbook including salary and fringe benefits will be sufficient. | ||||
| 21 | I.2 MASTER CONTRACT CLAUSES | Other | Please remove FAR 52.227-3 Patent Indemnity from I.2.1 FAR 52.252-2 Clauses Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998); this clause is incompatible with FAR 52.227-1 Authorization and Consent. | Thank you for this feedback; however, due to the various combinations of contract provisions / clauses which may be required for an individual task order based on the contract type, statement of work, dollar value, and other specific customer agency requirements, the OASIS+ IDIQ(s) cannot predetermine all the contract provisions / clauses for future individual task orders. However, all ‘Required’ and ‘Required when Applicable’ provisions / clauses set forth in FAR 52.301 automatically flow down to all orders, based on their specific contract type, statement of work, and dollar value. |
The OCO must identify any Optional, and / or Agency-specific provisions / clauses for each individual task order solicitation and subsequent task order award. The OCO must provide the provision / clause number, title, date, and fill-in information (if any), as of the date the task order solicitation is issued.
22 L.5.1.7.4; p. 128 UR and p. 121 SB Other As noted within Section L.4, "QPs and FEPs used in more than one (1) proposal in a given Domain and OASIS+ solicitation will be removed from all proposals and will not be evaluated as part of any Offeror’s proposal". Would the government please clarify/confirm, the “and” referenced above, when including “solicitation” means that: a project in fact may be used once in a specific domain for a Small Business proposal and still be able to be used for the same domain for an Unrestricted proposal, since they are different solicitations?
Additionally, that a project may be used for a given socio-economic category proposal response (i.e., HUBZone) and still be used for another proposal response (i.e., SDVOSB) for the same domain? Example: (is this allowed?)
| • | Company A submits Project XYZ against the M&A Domain for a HUBZone submission | ||||
| • | Company A also submits the same Project XYZ against the M&A Domain for a SDVOSB submission on a different team | ||||
| • | Company A also submits the same Project XYZ against the M&A Domain for Unrestricted submission on a different team | That is correct; the limitation at the IDIQ level is for the same domain AND solicitation. An offeror may propose on the same domain under different solicitations (e.g. M&A on HUBZone, M&A on SDVOSB), as long as the offeror is eligible for these set-asides. | |||
| 23 | OASIS+ MAC Program, IDIQ RFP No. 47QRCA21N0001, Section K, and L.5.1.5, Page 117, and Attachment J-4 Department of Defense Required Provisions and Clauses for Task Orders | Other | Currently, the solicitation does not mention instructions for Attachment J-4 Department of Defense Required Provisions and Clauses for Task Orders, only instructions for Section K. Are offerors required to submit Attachment J-4 Department of Defense Required Provisions and Clauses for Task Orders with their offer and, if so, in which volume would these clauses need to be submitted in? | The "Department of Defense Required Provisions and Clauses for Task Orders" are available for the OCO to use on DoD contracts. Contract type, requirements, and acquisition strategy will all dictate what clauses are required in a task order. This attachment is a reference guide. | |
| 24 | L.3 Proposal Submission Instructions, (page 107), third full paragraph | Other | L.3 Proposal Submission Instructions, (page 107), third full paragraph, please provide a copy, or link to, GSA Class Deviation CD-2020-14. | The class deviation can be found here: https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/CD-2020-14%20with%20sups%201-2.pdf | |
| 25 | CONUS Standardized Labor Categories - Section B.8.1; Attachment J-1 | Other | This section states that the CONUS standardized labor categories will correspond to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS), but Attachment J-1 is blank, except reference to the OMB Labor Categories. QUESTION - Does this mean that all of the 867 detailed occupations (jobs) can be utilized at any or all of the 4 levels, Jr, Journeyman, Senior, SME (3,468 possible LCATS) and we mapping will be done by SOC or will there be only specific CONUS standardized labor categories (SOCs) identified in Attachment J-1 in FINAL RFP? | The Master Contract provides the flexibility for Ordering Contracting Officers (OCOs) to use OASIS+ standardized labor categories, custom or specialized labor categories or directed, non-standard custom or specialized labor categories. Attachment J-1, OASIS+ Labor Categories and Bureau of Labor Statistics Standard Occupational Classifications, is provided as a reference for use by OCOs. |
Contractors may deviate from the defined labor categories when responding to task order solicitations so long as the deviations are clearly identified in their task order proposal. For example, a Contractor might label an employee as “Junior” even though the employee has more than 3 years experience. Deviations shall be clearly identified in proposals submitted in response to task order solicitations.
These labor categories are NOT required to be used by the OCO. The task order solicitation indicates whether or not the OASIS+ labor categories will apply. However, contractors are required to map all labor categories subject to task order reporting to these standardized labor categories when reporting task order awarded rates and prices paid in the Sales Reporting Portal (SRP).
| 26 | L.5.1.7.1 Verification of Project Experience Submission (Federal Government Contracts), p. 124 | Other | If Offerors submit the same project across multiple domains, will we only need to submit the verification documents one time to include all information needed to verify all domains for which they are bidding, or will we be required to submit separate verification documents for each domain? | The OASIS+ Symphony Portal (OSP) is designed for processing the proposal in a manner that allows the offeror to submit the supporting documentation and apply it to whatever Domain is in the proposal. The OSP will include a "Tagging" function which will allow the offerorto identify those areas of the document are applicable to the claimed criteria in each Domain, but beyond relevance, the criteria carries over across Domains. |
| 27 | Draft OASIS Plus UR RFP | Other | If a Contractor is successful proposing 2 Domains – will they be awarded 1 Master Contract or 2? | The offeror would be awarded one (1) master contract per solicitation (SB, UR, WOSB, etc.) and each domain for which they propose and qualify. |
| 28 | Draft OASIS Plus SB RFP 11-15-2022, Paragraph L.3.1, page 107 of 149 | Other | This paragraph requires that all evaluation elements an offer submits must be in the offeror’s name as submitted on the SF33. Please advise how an offeror is to proceed who has had a name change (no merger or acquisition; no change in CAGE Code or UEI; etc.), and has submitted name change paperwork with its customers, but has not retroactively changed the name on previous contractual documents. Would it be sufficient to provide a trace showing the direct link from the previous name to the current name? What other documentation would be required? | The project(s) should follow the awarded entity (i.e., SAM UEI and CAGE code). It would be helpful for processing if annotation of the difference in names were included in the J.P-3, Project Verification Form, indicating where and on what projects the names are different and why. |
| 29 | Scorecard | Other | Based on the latest draft solicitation it appears that if a vendor submits a response with validated scorecard points of 36 or more under Technical and Engineering - Small Business, the vendor will receive an award under that category. Is this accurate? | The proposal must first meet all of the acceptability review requirements in Section M.4 of the solicitation. To be eligible for a Domain award, the offer must meet or exceed the Domain-specific qualification threshold at Section M.6 (i.e. 36 for SB T&E) through the submission requirements in Section L. |
| 30 | L.5.2.1 on page 122 | Other | In L.5.2.1 on page 122, why are “Offerors … limited to the submission of one (1) “Collection of Task Orders” per Domain submission”? If a Small Business contractor has several IDIQ contracts – each with multiple task orders that meet the requirements of a specific domain - it would demonstrate expertise with managing several large IDIQ vehicles simultaneously, and each of them ought to be acceptable as a QP demonstrating relevant experience for that domain. Please consider changing this limit. | GSA is not consider increasing the limit for collections of task orders on OASIS+. The RFP does not preclude offerors from using individual task orders from the other IDIQs as separate QPs. Offerors can even use TOs from the same IDIQ in which they submitted their collection, as long as the TO is not included within the submitted collection. See Section L.5.2.1 for more details on this. |
A perfect example would be a current OASIS contractor that has won multiple task orders with independent scopes of work. Each task order would be issued under the parent IDIQ (assuming they are issued under the same contract family), and this is still a representation of a contractor's capabilities that should be considered.
| 31 | Other | Please confirm that an Offeror’s good faith efforts to provide all verifiable contract documentation in combination with a completed and signed J.P-3 will satisfy requirements for scoring elements under the OASIS+ Solicitation. For example, if a contractor is unable to provide contract or other documentation from | The submitted question was incomplete, but still warrants a response. OASIS+ offers many avenues for project verification as detailed in Section L.5.1.7 and its subsections. This includes FPDS reports, Statements of Work, Performance Work Statements, Contract Documents, etc. However, we understand certain elements of the OASIS+ evaluation criteria may not be evident within the contract documents and, therefore, we've also allowed the submission of a completed project verification form (either from the OSP or Attachment J.P-3) to substantiate claimed project elements. The Offeror is ultimately responsible for submitting the necessary and appropriate supporting documentation to substantiate each claimed credit. Allowing a "good faith effort" for this type of criterion would not be enforceable and would likely build more ambiguity into the evaluation process. | |||
| 32 | Page 125 of SB RFP | Other | At the end of the first paragraph "While a project performed as a subcontractor will likely be part of a larger project, only the work identified in the specific subcontract may be utilized for scoring as a QP." For QPs submitted by a subcontractor, how should we determine value? The value of the prime contract or the value of our subcontract? | The value of the subcontract. Prime contracts and subcontracts are considered unique projects, and both the prime and subcontractor may claim credit for the portion of their performance under the submitted project. However, a prime contractor and subcontractor may not claim credit for their performance under the same project as two separate QPs and/or FEPs within the same proposal when submitting an Offer as a CTA IAW Section L.5.1.3.2. For example, Company X performed QP#1 with Company Y as their subcontractor. QP#1 is the contract between Company X and the Government while QP#2 is the subcontract between Company X and Company Y for a portion of the work under the same project. If Company X submits their proposal with Company Y as a member of their CTA IAW Section L.5.1.3, only one of these QPs may be submitted. However, if Company X and Company Y submit two separate OASIS+ proposals as a prime offeror, each company may submit their respective QPs. | ||
| 33 | Draft RFP | L.5.1.7.1 | p. 124 | Other | The Draft RFP states "If necessary and allowable, Offerors may submit any combination of the following documents for verification of claimed credits." Please confirm if there is a minimum number of documents to submit to verify claimed credits. | There is no prescribed minimum number of documents. Offerors are responsible for submitting the necessary amount of documentation for project verification. |
| 34 | RFP L.4 | Other | Will GSA provide detailed formatting guidelines (font style and size) for any written elements? | There is no requirement for a specific font style and size. However, documents must be legible. It is the sole responsibility of the offeror to ensure the electronic files submitted are virus-free and can be opened and read by the Government. | ||
| 35 | Draft+OASIS+PLUS_UR+RFP+11-15-2022 Section L.5.1.7.2 Verification of Project Experience Submission (Non-Federal Contracts and Federal Government Subcontracts)\ | Other | Section L.5.1.7.2 states that this verification method should be used when project experience was performed as a subcontractor, even if the subcontract was to a Prime Contractor performing a federal government contract. Offerors may submit any combination of the following documents for verification of claimed credits: |
1. Project Verification Form (either from the OSP or Attachment J.P-3) signed by a Corporate Officer/Official of the commercial entity with cognizance over the submitted project.
| The J.P-3 Project Verification Form is also used for JV's and CTA Members and has the appropriate areas to populate for a Joint Venture or CTA, but is unclear on how this form would be utilized as a Subcontractor participating on a Federal Contract. Example Company B is a significant subcontractor on a GSA IDIQ Task Order contract to Company A as the Prime contractor. Question: Will the government provide clarification specific to the Subcontractor situation for completion of Attachment J.P-3 Project Validation Form. | For your federal subcontract, you would submit verification documents in accordance with Section L.5.1.7.2 for Verification of Project Experience Submission (Non-Federal Contracts and Federal Government Subcontracts). If necessary to verify claimed elements of your submitted project, you would complete Attachment J.P-3 Project Verification Form and send it to the Corporate Office/Official of the commercial entity with cognizance over the submitted project. This form would be used to verify the subcontractor's project experience if the subcontractor is proposing to OASIS+ as a prime contractor. | ||||
| 36 | DRAFT OASIS Plus SB RFP 11-15-2022; L.5.1.3.2; pg. 114 | Other | Sections L.5.2 and L.5.3 use language such as “from the offeror,” but in L.5.7, the language “for the offeror,” is used. The words “from” and “for” can mean two different things, as “for” can be potentially submitted by a subcontractor “for the offer.” Please clarify what is meant by “from” or “for” in the context of this instruction. | This information has been updated in the draft solicitation to read: |
Section L.5.2 - QP Experience may be from the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor.
Section L.5.3 - FEP submissions may be from the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor.
37 Other Is there any prohibition against two separate affiliates owned by the same parent firm receiving prime contract awards in different domains? No; however, recommend referencing Section H.23 for post-award cross teaming limitations. See excerpt below:
To mitigate the risk of an OCI in accordance with FAR 9.505, an OASIS+ Contractor (including affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, or joint venture participants) may only participate as a prime Offeror or subcontractor in the submission of one proposal in response to a specific task order. For example, if an OASIS+ prime awardee who is a Joint Venture submits a proposal for a task order solicitation, a Contractor designated in the OASIS+ IDIQ as a member of the Joint Venture may not also propose to the same task order solicitation as an order-level first tier subcontractor or separate OASIS+ prime Offeror.
| 38 | DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Section L.5.2.1 Page 131 Par. Qualifying Project Experience (Definitions) #3 | Other | For the purpose of demonstrating that a cited project meets the minimum annual value for the domain for which it is proposed, if the contract documentation doesn't allow for attributing contract value to specific scope (i.e. firm fixed price task) will the Government accept the total value of the task order/contract? If not, how will offerors demonstrate minimum qualifying value when citing this type of project/task order. | Attachment J.P-3 has been revised to allow for relevance verification in Part II. 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. Offerors may also automatically demonstrate relevance if the project NAICS or PSC Code is in the list within Attachment J.P-4 for each Domain. | |||
| 39 | General | Other | When a reference has been extended via a bridge contract; where a new contract number has been placed on that reference does the government intend for companies to use this as one reference or is this now seen as 2 distinct contracts since they have different and distinct contract numbers? | Yes, each contract is distinct and may be submitted under L.5.2 as a QP as long as each contract meets the definition of a Qualifying Project (e.g. separate PoP, contract number, and funding from the previously completed contract; meets minimum annual value; has at least six months of completed performance or completed within five years of RFP issuance; etc.). | |||
| 40 | OASIS+ MAC Program, IDIQ RFP No. 47QRCA21N0001, Section L.5.2.3.2, Page 127 | Other | Would GSA provide examples of possible verification documents proving the number of FTEs on an IDIQ SATOC task order? | An example of a verification document proving the number of FTEs is a copy of the final negotiated proposal accepted by the Government which resulted in award or modification of the QP. Depending on the contract, this could also be verified through the CLIN structure if hours are broken out. If verifiable contract documentation does not exist, Offerors may use Attachment J.P-3, Project Verification Form, to request customer verification of that claimed element. | |||
| 41 | I.3.3 FAR 52.216-19 Order Limitations (Oct 1995) | Other | The maximum order fill-in states "Not Applicable." We recommend an order maximum be provided, so a schedule holder does not feel compelled to accept a Task Order that they are ill-equipped to perform. | OASIS+ is not a schedule contract. Task orders under this MA-IDIQ contract are only awarded in response to a proposal submitted by a contractor in response to a task order solicitation for a specific requirement. If an OASIS+ contractor feels ill-equipped to perform any task order requirement, they should not submit a proposal in response to that task order solicitation. | |||
| 42 | Draft RFP | L.3 | p. 115 | Other | The Draft RFP states "Offerors may make minor formatting changes to Section K and Section J templates used in proposal submission. For example, minor formatting changes include such things as adjusting page breaks, adding corporate identification logos, identifying proposal volume identifiers in the headers and footers, including disclaimers of proprietary information." Adding headers to existing documents poses challenges when submitting Government documents and encourages offerors to edit otherwise official documents. We respectfully recommend using a cover page for each file submitted rather than adding a header to an existing official document. | Offerors are allowed to submit documents using cover pages in lieu of adding headers and footers. | |
| 43 | I.3.6 FAR 52.219-13 Notice of Set-Aside of Orders | Other | There is an apparent discrepancy between this FAR clause and what is stated in Section H.4.1 regarding the set-aside of task orders under OASIS+ UR to small businesses. We believe that this FAR clause would govern and that the language at Section H.4.1 conflicts with it. | Thank you for the feedback. FAR 52.219-13 is not included in and does not apply to the Master IDIQ level for the Unrestricted RFP as this is full and open competition. With regard to Section H.4.1, please note that this section does not preclude the OCO from utilizing the statutory exemptions to the fair opportunity process (e.g. urgency, only one source, etc.) as identified in FAR 16.505(b)(2). | |||
| 44 | Section H.16.1 | Other | Meetings - The Contractor's Key Personnel shall attend and actively participate in all meetings, including all Procurement Management Review (PMR) Meetings. | ||||
| Question: Will the Government consider making all meetings virtual? Otherwise, recommend reimbursement. Alternatively, would the Government consider in person attendance only required after they've been awarded orders under the IDIQ? Requiring Contractors to attend meetings at IDIQ level before we have any performance required on this contract is unreasonable. | Thank you for the feedback. There is no impropriety resulting from the RFP language cited in the question. The cost mentioned in the solicitation excerpt references the OASIS+ required Program Management Reviews (PMRs), where contractors will gather together with GSA to discuss contract administration and business opportunities from customer agencies, as well as other topics. The cost of the PMRs (which are normally held virtually) are considered a general cost of doing business associated with administering the OASIS+ contract at the master contract level. This is a cost that is most appropriately factored into a company's G&A and is not an allowable direct labor charge, as there is no direct labor charged at the master contract level. The contractor is expected to recover their cost through an indirect allocation per the company's Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (GAAP) and/or Cost Accounting Standards (CAS)-compliant procedures on an order-by-order basis. |
GSA will conduct scheduled PMRs in the most cost-efficient manner available. However, it is the contractor's responsibility to include the resources required to attend.
| 45 | F.3. Comment | Other | We applaud the intent of GSA for OASIS+ utilizing procurements authorities for continuous onramp, no ceiling. While the 10 year term is good, given the construct of OASIS+, we believe that the format of OASIS+ would benefit as an evergreen contract where individual domains are updated at 5 year intervals where contract holders with no work in a domain recertify in that Doman against the updated criteria. This would dramatically reduce contract administration for the government and reduce investment costs for the Industrial base. | Thank you for the feedback. We broached the subject of an evergreen contract, similar to MAS/GSA Schedule contracts when developing OASIS+, and we will look to exploring the evergreen acquisition strategy for the follow-on to OASIS+ in the future. | |
| 46 | dRFP Section E Inspection and Acceptance, pg 23 | Other | 52.246-4 Inspection of Services - Fixed Price (Aug 1996) is incorporated | ||
| Question: The dRFP allows for T&M, Cost Plus Fixed Fee cost types. Is the Government planning to add Inspection & Acceptance clauses to cover these cost types? | FAR 52.246-4, Inspection of Services - Fixed Price (Aug 1996), is only applicable at the Master Contract level with regard to contract administration duties conducted by GSA. Any other clauses regarding task order inspection and acceptance will be incorporated by the OCO. |
This has also been clarified with the new subsection within Section I denoting SCLS/CWRR specific task orders and clause applicability.
| 47 | G.3.2.4 and B.8.1 - Reporting of Standardized Labor Categories CONUS Standardized Labor Categories | Other | We understand that reporting of the SOC LCATS is important for maintaining BIC classification when SOC LCATS are being used. However, if an OCO chooses not to use the standard SOC LCATS, it typically means those categories are not appropriate so requiring contractors to force a mapping potentially creates misleading data. If reporting must be done on every task order, then OCO's should be required to use the SOC for all task orders. Otherwise, contractors should not be required to report for task orders that opt not to use the SOC LCATS. | The contractor is required to map awarded labor categories to the standardized labor categories for purposes of transactional data reporting. | |
| 48 | Other Certifications | L5.5 Can the government confirm that a prime contractor cannot use their subcontractor’s | |||
| certifications for the Domain Qualifications Matrix? | Systems, rates, and clearances held by proposed subcontractors will not be considered for scoring and must not be submitted within the proposal. | ||||
| 49 | L.5.1.2 Document Verification and Self-Scored Qualifications Matrix | Other Certifications | In item number 12, when it states that one credit will be received for having one of “any” of the listed certificates, does that mean that regardless of having more than one of the listed certificates, only one credit will be issued? | Yes, only one credit will be issued for having any of the listed certifications. | |
| 50 | Reference: Draft OASIS Plus UR RFP 11-15-2022 | Other Contracts | Question/Comment: Will the Government consider adding DFARS 252.226-7001 Utilization of Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns? | At this time, GSA is not considering the addition of DFARS 252.226-7001. | |
| 51 | Other Contracts | Alliant 3/OASIS+ Overlap. Would the Government's Alliant 3 team please work with the OASIS+ team to make maximum efforts not to overlap those two proposal development timeframes? | GSA is making every attempt to lessen any burdens with both Alliant 3 and OASIS+ being released during the same timeframe. However, with OASIS expiring in late 2024, OASIS+ must be awarded before the end of FY24. | ||
| 52 | L.5.1.7 | Other Contracts | Multiple methods are cited (Tagging; Highlighting; Indexing) for how an Offeror should call out specific information within documentation that will be used to verify claimed credits or alignment with NAICS/Domains. Would the Government consider using a single, consistent method and description for how an Offeror should indicate the relevant information so as to avoid confusion and unequal evaluation of Offers? This will support a fair and equal evaluation of Offers. | We have removed all references to index, highlight, comments, etc. GSA will provide detailed instructions on how to cite (tag) information with proposals. | |
| 53 | Other Contracts | Does a contractor need to have another GWAC vehicle prior to applying for BIC MAC/OASIS? | No, as long as the offeror meets the qualification threshold for the proposed Domain(s) and is considered otherwise eligible for award in accordance with Section L&M, the offeror will receive an OASIS+ award for the IDIQ(s) in which they submitted their proposal. | ||
| 54 | L.4.1 Proposal Format Table pg 49 | Other Contracts | RFP Section L.5.1.6 Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) is noted to have a "Recommended 10-page maximum." Ten (10) pages is generally insufficient to fully address all requirements of FAR 52.222-46. Would the Government increase the page limit to 20 pages? | ||
| If the government cannot grant additional page count beyond the 10 pages, would the Government consider issuing instructions for the PECP response that are scaled down from the detailed requirements of FAR 52.222-46? | OASIS+ does not recognize a 10-Page Limitation for PECP. There may be confusion with the RFP sections. L.5.1.6 reference Domains and NAICS Selection on both the SB and UNR Draft RFPs and there isn't a L.4.1 on either Draft. | ||||
| 55 | Other Contracts | Can we compete for individual domains, not all 7 to qualify? Example: M&A, T&E, and IS, but not | |||
| R&D, Logistics, etc., or do we have to develop a team where we have to compete for all of them as a whole? | Potential Offerors are invited to compete for any one (1) or up to all available Domains. There is no restriction or requirement on the number of domains. | ||||
| 56 | General | Other Contracts | The Draft RFP Cover Letter states, "The qualification matrices for all proposed socio-economic vehicles that will be included in the final RFP will mirror the Total Small Business qualification matrices." Does this mean the Section A-M requirements in the SB Draft RFP are identical to the Section A-M requirements in the remaining 4 socio-economic solicitations? | Requirements for all Small Business contracts will mirror one another except for the specific clauses and terms & conditions exclusive to each socio-economic category. However, qualifying requirements are nearly identical. Primary differences will be around specific requirements related to socioeconomic certification, which may include tailored requirements for Contractor Teaming Arrangements based on the applicable regulations. |
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 .