OASIS Plus Questions and Answers - Group Three Revised 09.07.2023.pdf

OASIS+ MAC

QUESTION AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT #3 - REVISED

Thank you for your interest in OASIS+.

In addressing questions, it is the Government’s opinion that if the solicitation’s position is self-evident, the response to a question may simply be that the solicitation already addresses the matter in the manner the Government intended for the subject of the question to be addressed. While the Government may include one or more specific solicitation passages in a response to a question, interested parties are reminded that section L.3 of the solicitation states, “Offerors are instructed to read the entire solicitation document, including all attachments in Section J, prior to submitting questions and/or preparing an offer. Omission of any information from the proposal submission requirements may result in rejection of the offer.”

Questions were not extensively edited for grammar, punctuation or spelling. Not every question is shown. Due to the significant interest in OASIS+, many duplicate or similar questions were submitted. Only those questions, or portions of questions, that were frequently asked and/or those that were deemed to benefit the procurement process are shown.

Questions and responses are organized into topic areas shown below. Interested parties stand to benefit from reviewing all statements, questions, and responses.

● All Domains

● General

● Federal Prime Contractor Experience

● OASIS+ Submission Portal/Symphony

This is the third Question and Response Document. It is the responsibility of the Offerors to periodically check the solicitation on SAM.gov for more information.

ShelbaDYoung Highlight

Q&R # Question Response All Domains

1 For verification of managing first-tier subcontractors, will the Government please confirm that only portions of the subcontract agreement/teaming agreement required to verify the contract/task order number and the subcontractor or consultant's name, as well as the signature page, are required? Rationale: subcontract/teaming agreements contain proprietary information on entities that may not be a part of an Offeror's OASIS+ team.

This is clarified in Amendment 0003. When submitting verification documents, the entire document must be submitted. When submitting subcontract/teaming agreements that include proprietary information on entities that are not part of an Offeror's team, the Offeror may redact the proprietary information of the non-team members.

2 Section L.4 states, "Exception: 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 qualifying projects within the same proposal when submitting an offer as a CTA IAW Section L.5.1.3. In situations where a company submits a project they are not entitled to claim (e.g., Company A submits Company B’s project), only the unauthorized company would be penalized by having the project removed from their proposal” Example 2 in this section states, " Example 2: 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 to OASIS+ 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 the prime Offeror, each company may submit their respective QPs."

Will the Government please clarify what is meant by, "…both prime and subcontractor may claim credit for the portion of their performance under the submitted project."? In addition, please confirm that the prime contractor, who has privity of contract and is under a mutually binding legal relationship with the Government, and as such is carrying all responsibility and accountability for all aspects of contract performance, should claim the full project value as reflected in FPDS and contractual documents. If a subcontractor to the prime makes a determination to include the same project in a separate OASIS+ bid, that documentation should reflect just the portion of work relevant to the subcontract agreement with the prime. Rationale: A prime contractor with ultimate responsibility and accountability for performance of the contract, regardless of whether subcontractors are supporting certain aspects, should receive credit for the full contract value and not bear the additional burden of modifying/justifying FPDS and contract data to reflect current and projected future tasks to subcontractors.

Both companies may claim credit for the same project if they are applying independently of each other as prime contractors under OASIS+. The portion of the project applicable to each proposal will be verified through documentation provided according to L.5.1.7.

Experience and credit for managing subcontractors may be reflected in additional credits for Management & Staffing of QPs or Past Performance/SB Utilization but does not reflect automatic application of an entire project to experience.

The language in Section L.4 has been updated for clarification. We confirm that the prime contractor should claim the full project value as reflected in FPDS and the contractual documents and the subcontractor should claim only the portion of work relevant to and the dollar value substantiated by the subcontract agreement with the prime.

3 Can a minority JV member claim the project experience for an FEP? Section L.5.1.7.3 has been updated with Amendment 0003. An Offeror (to include members of a joint venture and proposed subcontractors) may use experience performed as a member of a joint venture, subject to the following conditions: 6. If the work was awarded to the Joint Venture as a prime contractor to the Federal Government, the Offeror is eligible to claim credits under Section L.5.3.

General 4 Will the Government clarify whether MRCLs are required for unpopulated Joint

Ventures?

MRCLs are not required when claiming experience from joint venture members. That is allowable based on L.5.1.3.1. See Section L.5.1.4 which clarifies this based on example #2.

5 Please confirm that Offerors can use their own Individual Subcontracting Plan as long as it complies with FAR 52.219-9 and meets the requirements of the GSA-provided model.

Yes, please review RFP Section L.5.1.8 Subcontracting Plan Submissions Required for OTSBs Only; The offeror may submit either an Individual Subcontracting Plan (preferred) or Commercial Subcontracting Plan. The offer is responsible for meeting the requirements identified in the RFP in entirety, specifically Section L.5.1.8 (including FAR 52.219-9, GSAM 519.705-4, FAR Part 19.7, and GSAM 519.7.)

6 Page 155 of 201 states that “dollars are not required to be broken out for individual contract years.”, however, FAR 19.704(15)(c) that subcontracting plans shall contain separate statements and goals for basic and for each option period. Can the government confirm the requirement on how the subcontracting statements and goals should be demonstrated in the individual subcontracting plan?

Under an Individual Subcontracting Plan, the total estimated subcontracting dollars planned for all types of business concerns must be provided, then separately state the dollars that will be subcontracted to each category. All percent for each category will be expressed as a percentage of the total subcontracting dollars to all concerns (both large and small). The provided subcontracting plan template at the following location:https:

//insite.gsa.gov/organizations/staff-offices/office-of-small-business-utilization-osbu is a model that can be used as a tool to aid in the development of offerors subcontracting plans. The goals included in the model plan are for example only. The offeror must adapt the model to fit their subcontracting situation.

7 Can the government confirm that the goals provided are only suggestions and that offerors will not be held non-compliant for proposing lower realistic and challenging goals based on expected task orders?

The goals reflected in the RFP are the subcontracting goals for the OASIS+ program. The Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan should only contain realistic goals that are attainable to the Offeror’s individual circumstances. The goals reflected in the RFP are not strictly mandatory; however, goals should be given strong consideration when preparing the subcontracting plan.

8 Is it acceptable for offerors to submit our organization's individual subcontracting plan template which includes all of the requirements covered by FAR clause 52.219-9 and additional items included within the JP-10 OASIS Plus Individual Model Subcontracting Plan? Or is it the Government's expectation that offerors specifically submit the JP-10 OASIS Plus Individual Model Subcontracting Plan template?

Thank you for your question. The provided subcontracting plan is a model that can be used as a tool to aid in the development of offerors subcontracting plans. The goals included in the model plan are for example only. The offeror must adapt the model to fit their subcontracting situation. The Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan should only contain realistic goals that are attainable to the Offeror’s individual circumstances. Therefore, the goals reflected in the RFP are not strictly mandatory; however, there should be given strong consideration when preparing the subcontracting plan.

9 Could GSA provide further guidance on tagging within a document? For example, should we specify domain, RFP Section (e.g. L.5.2.3.3), capability (e.g., Integrated experience), and Qualification (e.g., "Performance spanned 5 or more different Labor Categories"?

Additional training on tagging has been provided and additional webinars will be held to answer any questions offerors may have regarding the OSP and tagging. Please review the Interact Community page to view the webinar recording and continue to review the interact community page for further updates:

https://buy.gsa.gov/interact/community/196/activity-feed 10 May an Offeror submit a small business subcontracting plan that has been approved by

GSA elsewhere (e.g., MAS or 2GIT) in lieu of negotiating a new plan with GSA for purposes of OASIS+?

The Offeror may submit either an Individual Subcontracting Plan (preferred) or Commercial Subcontracting Plan. OASIS+ requires a unique Individual Subcontracting Plan. An Individual Subcontracting Plan means a subcontracting plan specific to the OASIS+ UR Master Contract, which covers the entire ten-year ordering period, and that has goals based on the Contractor’s planned subcontracting within the awarded domains under the Master Contract. An Individual Subcontracting Plan must apply to all NAICS/CLINs for which the contractor represents OTSB on for the OASIS+ program as a whole (e.g., the Individual Subcontracting Plan is cumulative across all proposed (and subsequently awarded) Domain(s)).

11 What shall Offerors use as the basis for the estimated contract value (p.1 of subcontracting plan template) and for the whole dollars column for the goals (p. 3-8)?

The contract value will be different for each TO, and without a sample TO how can Offerors properly estimate whole dollars to be subcontracted? Will the Government provide plug numbers or otherwise clarify these fields are not applicable?

Thank you for your question. The small business subcontracting goals are an aggregate of potential subcontracted dollars for task order(s) that a contractor plans to receive under OASIS+. The dollars included is simply a projection and does not bear any restrictions upon performance post-award provided the percentages included in the subcontracting plan are adhered to. The provided subcontracting plan template at the following location:

https://insite.gsa.gov/organizations/staff-offices/office-of-small-business-utilization-osbu is a model that can be used as a tool to aid in the development of offerors subcontracting plans. The goals included in the model plan are for example only. The offeror must adapt the model to fit their subcontracting situation.

12 Can we participate on multiple teams, but under different categories? Yes, this is allowable.

13 Would the Government allow a Commitment Basis in place of a Payment Basis for the

Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR) reporting? A Commitment Basis demonstrates the full and most accurate utilization of the commitment to small businesses?

OASIS+ Program requires that ISRs shall reflect the subcontracting dollars on a PAYMENT basis only. The Payment Basis is the process of capturing subcontract dollars no sooner than the time a Contractor pays the subcontractor’s invoices. This Payment Basis reporting method must be used for the entire contract term. Entering subcontracting dollars into the Government’s eSRS on a Commitment Basis is not permitted. (A Commitment Basis, which is not allowed for this Master Contract, is the process of capturing subcontract dollars when the Contractor executes the subcontract award documents).

14 The "percent of Planned Subcontracted Dollars" indicates a goal of 50% for total SB at the Master Contract level. This seems high and we ask the government for reconsideration.

The goals displayed in the RFP are the subcontracting goals for the OASIS+ program.

However, the Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan should only contain realistic goals that are attainable to the Offeror’s individual circumstances. Therefore, the goals reflected in the RFP are not strictly mandatory; however, they should be given strong consideration when preparing the subcontracting plan. The provided subcontracting plan template is a model that can be used as a tool to aid in the development of Offerors' subcontracting plans.

The goals included in the model plan are GSA's goals for FY 2023, which are different than the subcontracting goals for the OASIS+ program. If used, the Offeror must adapt the model to fit their subcontracting situation. The goals for each socioeconomic category are expressed as a percentage of total planned subcontracted dollars for all potential task orders combined awarded to the Contractor under OASIS+ over the life of the contract.

The goals are not based on the Master Contract ceiling (OASIS+ has no Master Contract ceiling), nor are they based on total dollars awarded.

15 Please clarify whether the Subcontracting Plan should be separated by Base and Option period goals or not. The following sections are noted as providing conflicting guidance:

1. Section M.5 Acceptability Review Paragraph 5.a. (ii) states, “Are the subcontracted dollars and percentages clearly stated for both the Base and Option Term and for all small business socioeconomic categories?”

2. Attachment J.P-10 OASIS Plus Individual Model Subcontracting Plan, Page 1, states, “For contracts with option periods, the individual plan will include: separate goals for the base period, separate goals for each option period, a sum total of all periods for entire contract term.”

3. Section L.5.1.8 Subcontracting Plan Submissions Required for OTSBs Only states, “Under an Individual Subcontracting Plan, the total estimated subcontracting dollars planned for all types of business concerns must be provided, then separately state the dollars that will be subcontracted to each category. All percent for each category will be expressed as a percentage of the total subcontracting dollars to all concerns (both large and small). Dollars are not required to be broken out for individual contract years.”

The language in M.5 Acceptability Review Paragraph 5.a. (ii) has be updated with Amendment 0003 to read: "Are the subcontracted dollars and percentages clearly stated, inclusive of the Base and Option Term and for all small business socioeconomic categories?" Attachment J.P-10 is a model; Offerors are not limited to the model and should adapt it to fit their needs.

16 The RFP states “if an Offeror chooses to use a model plan provided by GSA (see Section J., Attachment J.P-10...or Attachment J.P-11, titled, J.P-11 OASIS+ Commercial Model Subcontracting Plan) the Offeror must adapt the model to fit their subcontracting situation. The model is not a fill-in-the-blank form and the Offeror must remove all instructional language.”. This implies that offerors are not required to use the plans in Attachment J.P-10 or J.P-11. However, the proposal format table (L.4.1) on pg. 138 lists that the format for the subcontracting plan is “J.P-10 or J.P-11”, and that the page limit is “Limited to the template”. If an offeror elected to use their own template or a modified version of the template, it is unclear whether that would be accepted and also what page limits would apply. Can the GSA clarify intent as to (1) whether it is required to use the J.

P-10 or J.P-11; and (2) the intent around page limit (since the offeror could add a significant amount of information to the model plan or potentially not use it at all).

Per RFP Section L.5.1.8, GSA provides these model plans as a tool. If an Offeror chooses to use a model plan provided by GSA, the Offeror must adapt the model to fit their subcontracting situation. The model is not a fill-in-the-blank form and the Offeror must remove all instructional language. The model does not establish minimum requirements for an acceptable plan. Therefore, Offerors are not limited to the model and there is no page limit. The Page Limit in L.4.1 with respect to Individual (preferred) or Commercial Subcontracting Plan Submissions Required for OTSBs has been updated to "None" with Amendment 0003.

17 Section L.5.1.7.1 states that "If a Statement of Objectives (SOO) clearly indicates the NAICS being claimed, the SOO may be submitted. If the SOO is not clear, then the contractor-generated SOW/PWS must be submitted along with the SOO." For a QP that has an auto-relevant NAICS code in the FPDS report, we intend to submit the SOO as verification for QP - Integrated Experience (e.g. five or more Functional Areas and Subareas in the Environmental Domain). If the SOO provides Integrated Experience verification but does not list the NAICS code, must a contractor-generated SOW/PWS be submitted in addition to the FPDS report and SOO?

This has been clarified with Amendment 0003. "If a Statement of Objectives (SOO) clearly indicates Domain relevance, the SOO may be submitted. If the SOO is not clear, then the contractor-generated SOW/PWS must be submitted along with the SOO."

18 The RFP indicates "when multiple FPDS reports are available, the most recent report shall be submitted." Given the frequency of FPDS updates for incremental funding (particularly in the August-September timeframe) and time effort required to tag, review and upload documents to OSD, we envision a potential scenario of constant review and updating of FPDS reports that have no consequential change in content. Would the government allow FPDS reports beyond the most recent, or up to an established date well-before the proposal deadline (e.g., July 1?), if there is no material change in content??

L.5.1.7.1 states When multiple FPDS reports are available, the most recent report shall be submitted. Offerors may submit previous FPDS reports only as necessary for verification of claimed credits

19 Please clarify what is needed to fulfill "any combination" of the listed documents to claim credits for qualifying projects. Does this mean two of the listed documents? Please clarify the verbiage "any combination." Thank you.

This has been clarified with Amendment 0003. Offerors may submit one or any combination of the listed documents for verification of claimed credits for project experience submission unless otherwise specified in a specific subsection.

20 The government indicates the Individual (preferred) or Commercial Subcontracting Plan Submissions Required for OTSBs (Attachment J.P-10 or J.P-11) is limited to the template. Please confirm if contractors use the J.P-10 or J.P-11 as a guide, that there is no page limit.

Per RFP Section L.5.1.8, GSA provides these model plans as a tool. If an Offeror chooses to use a model plan provided by GSA, the Offeror must adapt the model to fit their subcontracting situation. The model is not a fill-in-the-blank form and the Offeror must remove all instructional language. The model does not establish minimum requirements for an acceptable plan. Therefore, Offerors are not limited to the model and there is no page limit. The Page Limit in L.4.1 with respect to Individual (preferred) or Commercial Subcontracting Plan Submissions Required for OTSBs has been updated to "None" with Amendment 0003.

21 Can the government please confirm there are no Total Contract Value Goals? The goals displayed in the RFP are the subcontracting goals for the OASIS+ program.

However, the Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan should only contain realistic goals that are attainable to the Offeror’s individual circumstances. Therefore, the goals reflected in the RFP are not strictly mandatory; however, they should be given strong consideration when preparing the subcontracting plan. The provided subcontracting plan template is a model that can be used as a tool to aid in the development of Offerors' subcontracting plans.

The goals included in the model plan are GSA's goals for FY 2023, which are different than the subcontracting goals for the OASIS+ program. If used, the Offeror must adapt the model to fit their subcontracting situation. The goals for each socioeconomic category are expressed as a percentage of total planned subcontracted dollars for all potential task orders combined awarded to the Contractor under OASIS+ over the life of the contract.

The goals are not based on the Master Contract ceiling (OASIS+ has no Master Contract ceiling).

22 The government indicates on page 155 of 120: "The following percentages reflect GSA’s subcontracting goals for OASIS+; however, the Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan should only contain realistic goals that are attainable to the Offeror’s individual circumstances.

Therefore the goals below are not strictly mandatory; however, there should be given strong consideration when preparing the subcontracting plan.

Can the government confirm it will consider "realistically achievable" SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB subcontracting goals presented by an offeror?

The Government will consider all proposed subcontracting goals presented by Offerors.

23 Will the Government provide the Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Checklist identified in GSAM 519-705-4 (c ). The documentation is only accessible if a 2-factor login is provided.

The referenced Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Checklist is for use by the Contracting Officer to evaluate an Offeror's subcontracting plan and is not intended for Offerors' use.

24 Can the Government please define what they mean by "Master Subcontracting Plans?" Master subcontracting plan is defined in FAR 52.219-9(b).

25 Will the government please provide a consistent baseline for projected total dollars to be subcontracted to ensure consistency between evaluation of Offeror Subcontracting Plans? For example, will the government please set $1,000,000 as the basis for calculations to be used in all small business subcontracting plans to ensure consistent evaluation of projected subcontract valued?

The goals are expressed as a percentage of aggregate planned subcontracted dollars for potential task order(s) awarded to the Contractor under OASIS+ and are not based on the Master Contract ceiling because there is no Master Contract ceiling. The small business subcontracting goals are an aggregate of potential subcontracted dollars for all task order

(s) combined that a Contractor plans to receive under OASIS+ for the life of the contract.

A standardized amount cannot be provided. Guidance is reflected in the RFP and Section J., Attachment J.P-10, titled, J.P-10 OASIS+ Individual Model Subcontracting Plan; or Attachment J.P-11, titled, J.P-11 OASIS+ Commercial Model Subcontracting Plan.

26 In Section L.5.1.8 on page 155, GSA lists its subcontracting goals for OASIS+ that include: Total SB, 50%; SDB, 7%; WOSB, 7%; HUBZone, 3%; VOSB, 3%; and

SDVOSB, 3%.

In the attachment J.P-10, GSA lists goals as Total SB, 20%; SDB, 5%; WOSB, 5%;

HUBZone, 3%; VOSB, 3%; and SDVOSB, 3%. Please verify if/which specific goals GSA requires.

The goals displayed in the RFP are the subcontracting goals for the OASIS+ program, while the goals in J.P-10 are sample goals. However, the Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan should only contain realistic goals that are attainable to the Offeror’s individual circumstances. Therefore, the goals reflected in the RFP are not strictly mandatory;

however, they should be given strong consideration when preparing the subcontracting plan. The provided subcontracting plan template is a model that can be used as a tool to aid in the development of Offerors' subcontracting plans. The goals included in the model plan are GSA's goals for FY 2023, which are different than the subcontracting goals for the OASIS+ program. If used, the Offeror must adapt the model to fit their subcontracting situation. The goals for each socioeconomic category are expressed as a percentage of total planned subcontracted dollars for all potential task orders combined awarded to the Contractor under OASIS+ over the life of the contract. The goals are not based on the Master Contract ceiling (OASIS+ has no Master Contract ceiling).

27 My company was the Mentor member of a 8(a) Mentor/Protege Joint Venture (JV). Can we use the experience performed in a contract awarded to the JV?

Yes, this will be accomplished in accordance with Section L.5.1.7.3. This has been revised/clarified with Amendment 0003.

28 Will the Government clarify whether an Offeror will be found noncompliant if the SF1449, Block 3 does not identify the Award/Effective Date and Block 31c does not identify the date the CO signed?

In these situations, the offeror should submit the associated FPDS report verifying the award information, for consideration by the OASIS+ CO.

If a subsequent modification was issued, it would have been signed by the Contracting Officer, which would also indicate finalization of the base award document. This should be submitted as well for consideration by the OASIS+ CO.

29 L.5.1.3.2 Proposed Small Business Subcontractors, if applicable “Section L.5.3 - Federal Prime Contractor Experience - FEP submissions may be from the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor.” (RFP p. 145 of 191)

L.5.3 Federal Prime Contractor Experience (Federal Government Contracts Only) “To be considered a FEP, each submitted project must meet all of the following minimum criteria: 1. Be a prime award for a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction between the Offeror (or joint venture/CTA member) and the Federal Government.” (RFP p. 164 of 191)

These two statements appear to contradict each other. Please clarify whether FEP submissions may be from proposed subcontractors.

Yes, this has been clarified with Amendment 0003. FEP submissions may be from proposed subcontractors.

30 Page 146, paragraph 1: If a tribally owned company submits using a letter of meaningful commitment and they process OASIS+ task orders through other subsidiaries under their parent company, can the subsidiaries complete that work as an arm of the parent organization?

Similarly, if a single subsidiary of a parent organization acquires OASIS task orders, are they able to assign that work to another subsidiary of that organization?

The OASIS+ Contractor is ultimately responsible for performance under their awarded task orders and are reminded of the limitations on subcontracting requirements at Section H.15 and FAR Clause 52.219-14 for the OASIS+ Small Business and Socioeconomic set-aside vehicles. In the second part of this question, it's unclear if the question is referring to a novation, mergers, or acquisition, which would need to be handled in accordance with Section G.3.1.7.1.

31 As Block 15A of the SF 33 does not currently have a location specified for an Offeror’s UEID, please clarify exactly where in Block 15A the UEID should be entered. Is it acceptable to add the UEID as a separate line after the Offeror’s address?

Yes, you can put the UEI number in Block 15a under the address.

32 The Representations and Certifications portion of the OSP states, "Size Standards.

Complete the largest value that your company exceeds for each of the size standards below." The drop-down menu's lowest values are $8M and 750. Our company does not exceed any size standards, yet there is no way to demonstrate this with the existing drop-downs. Will the Government correct or explain how to proceed?

You can now select “Below $8M” in OSP.

33 L.5.1.6 states, “Within the OSP, Offerors shall select the Domains under the OASIS+ UR solicitation for which they wish to submit an offer. Due to a limitation with FPDS, only a single NAICS Code may be reported with each contract action; therefore, each Contractor will be assigned a single Primary NAICS Code to its Master Contract based on their awarded Domains (CLINs). The Primary NAICS Code will be selected and assigned based on the smallest size standard within its awarded Domains. When the OASIS+ CO assigns a Primary NAICS Code, annual receipts based size standards take precedence over NAICS codes based on number of employees. See additional information at Section C.1.1 and refer to the list of Domain NAICS codes and size standards at Section C.2.

Referencing the Unrestricted Contract/R&D Domain We are a small business under 541715, which is the NAICS for all 5 of our QPs, making them auto relevant to the R&D domain (based on the list of NAICS Codes assigned to this domain). However, we are a large business under the UR primary NAICS, 541380 Testing Laboratories ($19.0 million). This implies that we are a large business under the Unrestricted R&D domain.

1. Is our overall size standard based on the 541380 NAICS Code for UR R&D?

2. If yes, do we need to then provide a Small Business Utilization Plan even if we do not have any other teammates or subcontractors on our current team?

All Offerors that represent as OTSB concerns for any NAICS codes within the proposed Domain(s) shall provide a Subcontracting Plan per FAR 52.219-9.

34 In Section L.5.1.7.1 of the solicitation it states, “Offerors shall submit any combination of the following documents for verification of claimed credits:” and the list includes “A completed Project Verification Form (either from the OSP or Attachment J.P-3), signed by a CO with cognizance over the submitted QP”. Please confirm that a signed Attachment J.P-3 is not required if other contract documents are used to validate all claimed points in sections L.5.2 and L.5.3.

Attachment J.P-3 is not required, but is one verification method to demonstrate project experience.

35 Sections L.5.1.7.1 and L.5.1.7.2 state that offerors shall submit "any combination" of the listed documents for verification of claimed credits. Please confirm that "any combination" refers to the potential need for an offeror to submit multiple documents to satisfy verification across all claimed credits, and that a single type of documentation is sufficient to verify any single claimed credit. For example, if the offeror submits a signed Project Verification Form indicating the Offeror provided surge support (>10% QP value increase) within 45 days' lead time, no other documentation (e.g., an order that shows that surge work was funded and executed via the original contract order or via a modification) would be required to verify the claimed Surge Capability credit.

This has been clarified with Amendment 0003. Offerors may submit one or any combination of the listed documents for verification of claimed credits for project experience submission unless otherwise specified in a specific subsection.

36 GSA's J.P-1 R&D worksheet states on row two (2) that, " The minimum average annual value for a QP is $1M for this Domain and socioeconomic RFPs". Since GSA has made the distinctions between QPs and FEPS, should the dollar threshold be $1M as shown in the worksheet of meet or exceed a minimum of $250K as listed in L.5.3?

The minimum dollar threshold for all FEPs are $250K (unless submitted in the name of a protege in a MP-JV teaming arrangement). This is the case regardless of which Domain/IDIQ FEPs are being submitted. The QP thresholds are unique from the FEP thresholds and generally vary based on Domain.

37 When submitting as a JV, does the JV need to register as a unique entity in Symphony? Yes. See Section L.5.1.3.1 Joint Venture which establishes the solicitation requirements when submitting an OASIS+ proposal as a joint venture.

Notable, Item #1 states: The joint venture is registered in SAM.GOV and has a corresponding UEID Number.

38 The Proposal Format Table, and specifically Section L.5.2 in the table, seems to indicate that Vendors need to upload multiple versions of Attachment J.P-1 if submitting proposals for multiple Domains: “Format or Template: Attachment J.P-1 for each Domain.” However, section L.5.1.2 Document Verification and Self-Scored Qualifications Matrix states that “Offerors do not need to submit Attachment J.P-1 with their proposal.”

Please clarify how vendors need to upload or enter Attachment J.P-1 data in OSP for multiple Domains.

See Section L.5.1.2 which states: "Offerors do not need to submit Attachment J.P-1 with their proposal." This is no longer in the proposal format table.

39 Section L.5.1.3.1, item #4(b) states “The Offeror will ONLY be awarded those Domain CLINs under this MA-IDIQ in which all joint venture members represent as small businesses under the associated size standard(s), or qualify as a small business under one of the exceptions to affiliation set forth in 13 CFR § 121.103(b).” Will the Government please confirm that a Joint Venture between the members of an SBA-approved Mentor Protégé Agreement (MPA) wherein the Majority Member/Managing Partner of the JV represents as a small business and the Minority Member of the JV represents as a large business (under the OASIS+ Domain NAICS code in which their offer is made) DOES qualify as small business and can receive an award in accordance with the exception at 13 CFR § 121.103(b) item #6?

Yes this is correct, the Offeror will ONLY be awarded those Domain CLINs under this MA- IDIQ in which all joint venture members represent as small businesses under the associated size standard(s), or qualify as a small business under one of the exceptions to affiliation set forth in 13 CFR § 121.103(b).

40 Section L.5.1.3.1(4) states that each member to a joint venture offeror will only be awarded domain CLINs in which all joint venture members are small under the associated size standards, but also states, “or qualify as a small business under one (1) of the exceptions to affiliation set forth in 13 CFR § 121.103(b).” It is not clear whether this clause is referring to each JV member or the JV itself. 13 C.F.R. 121.103(b) provides for an exception to affiliation under the mentor-protégé program. In addition, 13 CFR 125.9(d)(1) states that a mentor-protégé JV may submit an offeror for “as a small business for any government prime contract … provided the protégé qualifies as small.”

Since it is not lawful to require the mentor in a mentor-protégé JV to be small, please confirm that, when the offeror is a mentor-protégé JV, only the protégé needs to qualify as a small business under the associated size standards in order to qualify for those domain CLINs.

This is correct, in your example when an exception to affiliation based on a MP applies, only the protégé needs to qualify as small under the associated size standards for the proposed domain.

41 If a company is a Small Business at the time of submission but submits under the Unrestricted domain, does that company have to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

\All Offerors that are Other than Small Business (OTSB) concerns for any NAICS within the proposed domain(s) shall provide a Subcontracting Plan per FAR 52.219-9. Should a Small Business represent as OTSB for any NAICS within the proposed domain, a Subcontracting Plan is required.

42 If a qualifying project has multiple modifications can a conformed modification award document be acceptable as the "3. Signed copy of original contract award document"?

Yes.

43 Would the government clarify if we can us "C-Type" contracts? Yes, you can use C type contracts as Qualifying Project Experience and/or Federal Prime Contractor Experience as long as they otherwise meet the requirements at Section L.5.2 and L.5.3 to be considered a QP and FEP.

44 Can we partner with a large company under a prime/sub or CTA agreement? Yes,under the unrestricted solicitation, you may have a CTA partner with a large company. Reference L.5.1.3 for small business and socioeconomic set-asides: Offerors will not be awarded any Domain CLINs in which any team member represents its size as other than small unless an exception to affiliation exists as set forth in 13 CFR § 121.103 (b).

45 Please confirm that subcontractors are only required to upload Reps & Certs in OSP and are not required to submit L.5.7 – Cost/Price info in the OSP

Confirmed. Cost/Price submissions must be from the offering entity IAW Section L.3.1.

46 Is our self-assessment for the domain qualifications matrix automatically accepted by

GSA or will GSA re-review our matrix to determine an ultimate final score and our ability to obtain the contract?

See Section M.4 which states: "The evaluation team will evaluate and verify the proposal’ s supporting documentation for each evaluation element. If the Government determines there is a discrepancy between a claimed evaluation element and the supporting documentation, the Government will adjust the Offeror’s claimed score by the credit value of the difference between the claimed credits and the credits substantiated by the supporting documentation. However, evaluation will continue as long as the adjusted total credits meet or exceed the Domain Qualification Threshold. If the proposal does not meet or exceed the Domain Qualification Threshold, the evaluation for that proposal will stop, and the Offeror will be eliminated from further consideration for award."

47 1.Can the Government please confirm whether the Contractor SAM should reflect Solicitation NAICS Code 541990 or all the NAICS per domain? e.g Should SAM reflect all NAICS in table C.2.1.1 if submitting a proposal for Management and Advisory?

Offerors are not required to update their SAM Profile to reflect the NAICS Codes in OASIS+. This decision was made to relieve burden on industry due to the numerous NAICS Codes included under the scope of the program. However, Offerors must follow the instructions at Section K which state:

The provision at FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management, is included in this solicitation. The Offeror must complete the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM.gov website accessed through https://www.SAM.gov and upload a copy within their proposal. Additionally, the Offeror is required to complete the following representations, certifications, and other statements of offerors and return them with their proposal. The Offeror must also complete the company size information within the Offeror’s OSP Company Profile, Business Factors section.

48 In response to Section L.5.1.7.1.2 Verification of Project Experience Submission (Federal Government Contracts), does the “Copy of Contract Statement of Work,” need to have a signature on it; or can the Government confirm that having the Contract Number and program name clearly identified throughout the Copy of Statement of Work is sufficient?

No. Copy of Contract Statement of Work does not require a signature as this is one of the documents that can be submitted for verification of claimed credits.

49 For Qualifying Projects that are Federal Government Subcontracts, can the FPDS Report for the prime contract be used to document an auto-relevant NAICS?

Per L.5.2.1 for QP Experience, work performed as a “Subcontractor” means the Contractor does not have privity-of-contract with the Government, but has privity-of-contract with the Prime Contractor or another subcontractor. 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.

50 Can the GSA please clarify that tagging files is only required for evidence that supports Qualifying Project relevance? In other words, please confirm that tagging is not required for items such as Past Performance, Scale, Contractor Business Systems, etc.

Within the OSP, Offerors are encouraged to utilize comments (“tags”) in supporting documentation indicating the specific reference for verification purposes. Failure to tag supporting documentation may result in an inability of the government to validate claimed scoring. Additionally, the Offeror must tag those specific written passages in the contract documentation that support a relevance determination in the proposed Domain(s).

51 In reference to the verification method 5. The Contract’s Section B Supplies/Services & Prices or CLINs, stating "If experience matching the claimed NAICS is specifically and clearly called out in a single or in multiple CLINs, the Offeror may include that section of the contract and should tag the relevant CLINs." Is it acceptable that a single or multiple CLINs can represent relevancy to more than one Domain, if Offeror's are able to validate the annual dollar value of those CLINs meeting the minimum annual dollar value of the domain and substantiate that relevancy with appropriate mark-ups from a SOW, for example, that further detail this relevancy?

This type of verification may be used to support relevancy depending on the CLIN description, and it may be used to validate the annual dollar value in demonstrating the project met the minimum annual dollar value of the Domain and substantiate relevant work. This type of verification also may be useful to support claims of multiple different labor categories (L.5.2.3.3) or Surge Support (Section L.5.2.3.4). Relevant work is generally best demonstrated/accomplished through automatic relevance or through the SOW/PWS. See Section L.5.2.3.1. When referencing single or multiple CLINs for verification of claimed credits, the Offeror should reference that section of the contract and tag the relevant CLINs. L.5.1.7.1 verification method 5 language has been updated with Amendment 0003 to remove erroneous reference to “claimed NAICS” codes.

52 Will the Government please confirm unpopulated mentor-protégé joint ventures who meet the criteria set forth in 13 CFR § 121.103 (b)(6) are eligible to receive a small business award and/or 8(a) award so long as the joint venture represents as a 8(a) small business under the associated size standard(s)?

13 CFR 125.9(d)(1) should provide the answer to your question:

(i) SBA must approve the mentor-protégé agreement before the two firms may submit an offer as a joint venture on a particular government prime contract or subcontract in order for the joint venture to receive the exclusion from affiliation.

(ii) In order to receive the exclusion from affiliation, the joint venture must meet the requirements set forth in § 125.8(b)(2), (c), and (d).

This is why MP-JV offerors must submit evidence of SBA approval of its Mentor-Protégé Agreement. Failure to submit evidence of SBA approval of its Mentor-Protégé Agreement (such as a copy of the approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement) with the proposal will result in the proposal being rejected. Ref Section L.5.1.3.1(6).

53 In Section L.5.1.3.2, in the bullet entitled “Sections L.5.4 – Systems, Rates, and Clearances and L.5.5 – Certifications,” the RFP states, “Any systems, certifications, and clearances claimed within section L.5.4 must be in the name of the Offeror. Systems, certifications, and clearances held by proposed subcontractors will not be considered for scoring and must not be submitted within the proposal.” Please confirm that the first sentence of this bullet should state, “Any systems, certifications, and clearances claimed within section L.5.4 and L.5.5 must be in the name of the Offeror.

Thank you for your feedback. Yes, the sentence was revised to read "Any systems, certifications, and clearances claimed within section L.5.4 and L.5.5 must be in the name of the Offeror" in Amendment 0002.

54 The RFP, Section L.5.1.3, Contractor Teaming Arrangements, includes discussion about unpopulated Joint Ventures, noting (in subparagraph (b)), “The Offeror will ONLY be awarded those Domain CLINs under this MA-IDIQ in which all joint venture members represent as small businesses under the associated size standard(s), or qualify as a small business under one of the exceptions to affiliation set forth in 13 CFR § 121.103 (b).” Please confirm that this statement does not apply to SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, which (by design) can include a small protégé (who would represent as a small business under the associate sized standard) and a mentor (who does not need to represent as a small business under the associated size standard).

Correct, the exception to affiliation in 13 CFR 121.103(b) covers Mentor Protege JVs.

55 RFP, L.5.1.3.1, p. 142 Reference the following, “For offers from SBA Mentor-Protégé joint ventures, a minimum of one Relevant Qualifying Project must be from the protégé of the offering Mentor-Protégé joint venture.” For offers applying for multiple domains, please confirm that one project is sufficient to meet this requirement?

This was clarified in Amendment 0002 to state: "For offers from SBA Mentor-Protégé joint ventures, a minimum of one Relevant Qualifying Project must be from the protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé joint venture for each proposed Domain."

56 For an 8(a) bid using a SBA Mentor Protege Joint Venture (MP/JV), we understand that for Qualifying Project Experience "a minimum of one Relevant Qualifying Project must be from the protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé joint venture". We also noted this other requirement under L.5.2.2 Qualifying Project Experience Submission: "For award under the OASIS+ 8(a) IDIQ, a minimum of two (2) QPs must be from an SBA-certified 8(a) small business concern. The submitted QPs can be from an 8(a) member of a joint venture, the offering 8(a) joint venture, or a proposed 8(a) subcontractor, as described in Section L.5.1.3.1. The QPs may also include projects that the 8(a) team member performed as an other than small business or non-8(a) concern prior to becoming an SBA-certified 8(a) concern."

Please confirm that a MP/JV bidding as an 8(a) would need to both provide 1 QP from the Protege and 2 from 8(a) similarly situated team members or the JV itself. Meaning that 2 QPs from 8(a) members are required, not just 1 QP from the 8(a) Protege due to the handling for MP/JVs?

Corection: Correct, 1 QP must be from the protege or MP JV entity per Section L.5.1.3.1 and Section L.5.2.2 of 8(a) has been clarified with Amendment 0003 to state: For award under the OASIS+ 8(a) IDIQ, a minimum of two QPs must be from a 8(a) concern for each proposed Domain. To satisfy this requirement, the two submitted QPs can be from a 8(a) member of the offering joint venture, the offering 8(a) joint venture, or a proposed 8

(a) subcontractor, as described in Section L.5.1.3. The QPs may also include projects that the 8(a) team member performed as an other than small business or non-8(a) concern.

57 The RFP states, "For offers from SBA Mentor-Protégé joint ventures, a minimum of one

Relevant Qualifying Project must be from the protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé joint venture."

In accordance with RFP Section L.5.2, SBA Mentor-Protégé joint ventures are now required to submit a minimum of one relevant QP must be from the protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé joint venture. This requirement would appear to contradict SBA Regulation 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e) which prohibits the Government from treating Mentor- Protégé arrangements differently from other bidding entities, as recently confirmed in 1:

22-cv-01466 - SH Synergy, LLC. v. USA. Given that prime-subcontractor teaming relationships are not being required to submit a minimum number of references from each teammate, it would appear that the requirement is in conflict with SBA regulations and the recent Polaris protest decision. We ask that the Government remove the requirement for a minimum of one QP to come from the protégé or joint venture itself.

Per Section L.5.1.3.1, For offers from SBA Mentor-Protégé joint ventures, a minimum of one Relevant Qualifying Project must be from the protégé OR the offering Mentor-Protégé joint venture. The approach used by OASIS+ is also in-line with GAO’s ruling in B- 419956.18, which requires protégé to have some experience in the type of work to be performed under the contract. By providing the option for either the protégé or MP-JV entity itself to submit the relevant QP, and retaining Attachment J.P-7 to address what the experience of each JV member, this addresses 13 CFR 125.8(e) without setting a higher standard for the protégé.

58 L.5.1.7 states you cannot use the SOW for the master contract for a collection of Task Orders. For single award IDIQ contracts, the scope may only be defined at the IDIQ level. At the TO level, only the delivery timeline and quantities are determined. If submitting a collection of task orders under a single award IDIQ, may offerors include the SOW from the IDIQ in addition to the J.P-3 to help validate domain scope relevancy?

Additional language has been added to this section via Amendment 0003: "In exceptional cases where the task order or task order level…