OASIS Plus Questions and Answers - Group Two.pdf

OASIS+ MAC

QUESTION AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT #2

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.

● General

● Facilities Domain

● Qualifying Project Experience

● Federal Prime Contractor Experience - Competition in Multiple Award Environments

● Systems, Rates and Clearances

● Certifications

● Section F

● Section G

● Section H

● Section K

● Sections L.1 - L.4

● Sections A - E

This is the second Question and Response Document. Additional Question and Response Documents have and will continue to be posted to SAM.gov as appropriate. It is the responsibility of the Offerors to periodically check the solicitation on SAM.gov for more information.

Q&R # Question Response General

What differentiates an Oasis+ task order from eBuy methods within the same NACIS codes?

GSA eBuy is an online acquisition tool designed to facilitate Requests for Quotations (RFQ) and Requests for Proposals (RFP) for a wide range of supplies (products) and services. OASIS+ will not utilize GSA eBuy; all task order RFPs under OASIS+ will be solicited by Ordering Contracting Officers through the OASIS+ Submission Portal (OSP), also known as Symphony.

Are offerors required to submit all Domain proposals at the same time, or can we stagger our submissions until the September 13 deadline?

For example, can an offeror submit for the Logistics Domain completely, and then a month later submit for the Engineering Domain?

Yes, offerors may stagger their Domain proposal submissions up until the proposal due date (no later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on September 13, 2023). Do not forget to formally submit your proposal in Symphony by the closing date.

Can you confirm, in the J.P-1 OASIS Plus Domain Qualifications Matrix and Scorecards.xls for each Domain, such as M&A, per L.5.2.2 Qualifying Project Experience Submission, The Offeror may submit a maximum of five distinct QPs for each Domain to support L.5.2.3.1, L.

5.2.3.2, L.5.2.3.4, and L.5.6 as appropriate. Only sections L.5.3.1, L.

5.3.2, L.5.3.3, and L.5.3.4 are allowed to have additional projects as indicated on each Domain, correct?

For each Domain submission, Offerors may submit up to five Qualifying Projects to obtain credits in Section L.5.2, with the exception of up to four Qualifying Projects for the Enterprise Solutions Domain. Offerors may utilize their Qualifying Projects and/or submit additional projects as Federal Experience Projects to obtain credits in Section L.5.3 as indicated in each subsection and for each Domain.

Do Relevant QPs with "n/a" ratings for SB subcontracting disqualify an Offeror from earning credit in this category?

Relevant QPs with "N/A" ratings for SB Subcontracting do not disqualify an Offeror from earning credit in this category. QPs with "N/A" ratings will not be factored into the calculation of the overall average rating at Section M.6.6.3.

In the event that a Collection of Task Orders is being used, and only some of the Task Orders have a CPARS, are Offerors allowed to use the Past Performance Rating Form in order to gain past performance information on all the relevant Task Orders being used within a single document?

Yes, if each submitted project (task order) under a Collection of Task Orders does not have a record of past performance in CPARS, the Offeror may use the J.P-6 Past Performance Rating Form to obtain a consolidated past performance assessment of all submitted task orders in the collection. If using this method, each task order within the submitted collection must be listed in Attachment J.P-6.

In the Symphony Portal Training, there was an indication that Cover Letters would be uploaded in the same location as the SF-33.

However, the solicitation does not mention cover letters other than in H.11.3, which is not relevant at this time. Please confirm if Cover Letters are required for each proposal submission.

Cover Letters are not a requirement of the RFP.

Does the Government want us to use business days or the full 365 calendar days when calculating the average annual number of FTEs and the average annual values?

Reference Section L.5.2.1 for proper calculation of annual project value. Reference Section L.5.2.3.2 for proper calculation of annual FTEs. The 366 calendar days will be used to account for leap years.

Can the GSA please confirm that a company is eligible to bid a domain on both the UNR IDIQ and the SB IDIQ?

GSA confirms that a company may submit proposals for both the UNR IDIQ and SB IDIQ, assuming it is a small business concern.

NAICS Code 541990 is not included in the Auto Relevancy attachment (J.P-4), however for OASIS +, NAICS Code 541990 is listed as an appropriate code to use for OASIS+ task orders within each of the domains (i.e. page 26). Given this, shouldn't 541990 also be included as an auto-relevant code for each domain? For example, if we have a task order with NAICS Code 541990, we believe this should qualify for auto-relevancy for T&E, M&A, etc.

NAICS Code 541990 does not automatically, or with a high level of confidence, denote a project that is within scope of any of the OASIS+ Domains; therefore, it will not be considered for auto-relevance. An Offeror may still submit a QP with this NAICS code and obtain credit for relevance if it provides contract documentation, which may include the Award Form or SOW/PWS/SOO that describes the general scope, nature, complexity, and purpose of the services the customer acquired under the contract. Additionally, the Offeror must tag those specific written passages in the contract documentation that support a relevance determination in the proposed Domain(s) in accordance with the scope of each Domain outlined in Section C.2. If contract documentation alone cannot demonstrate relevance, Offerors may submit the Project Verification Form (either from the OSP or Attachment J.P-3) to demonstrate relevance and include a narrative statement clearly explaining how the project is relevant to each proposed Domain where relevance is claimed.

Is there a minimum amount of projects performed by the Prime offeror the Prime offeror must use in any given Domain (as either a QP or

FEP)?

There is no minimum amount of projects required to be performed by the prime offeror.

Many offerors, both large and small, will be hard pressed to claim the 1 point for "Public disclosure of Scope 1 and Scope 2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions developed in accordance with the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting". Yet many offerors would not get any points for cost plus type work, points for OCONUS work, or be able to use grants or cooperative agreements unless they are pursuing the R&D Domain. In order to provide a fair advantage and consistent opportunity to all offerors, can the Government please allow offerors the ability to claim points more equally across Domains?

The OASIS+ Acquisition Team compiled extensive research from industry surveys and customer focus groups to prepare the Domain qualifications. Each Domain qualification matrix is based on the needs of the acquisition workforce while taking into account the qualifications of industry.

The SBA's most recent publication of Table of Size Standards was released on March 17, 2023. Can the Government please advise which year Offerors should be referencing when completing the Representations and Certifications and Company Size information prompted within Symphony within the Business Factor section?

The small business size standards included in the OASIS+ RFPs are from the current U. S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards, Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes, Effective March 17, 2023.

When building a project reference, is it necessary to include information/references for all of the Project Details fields? For instance, if a project is being used only as a Federal Experience Project, details like Number of FTE and Locations are not relevant.

Please clarify.

It is not required or necessary to tag project elements that are not being claimed in the proposal. Offerors must substantiate and support only their claimed project elements. If a project is only being used for federal experience, the Offeror must ensure they tag all project elements and submit all project documentation necessary to ensure the Government can verify/validate its claimed credits.

When building a proposal asset Project, there is a Project Detail field requesting the “Total Value of Other Direct and Indirect Costs” Can the Government please clarify what this field is asking for and how it ties into the scorecards?

The “Total Value of Other Direct and Indirect Costs” field is not applicable to OASIS+ and is not necessary to fill out.

If a qualifying project does not meet the criteria for auto-relevance and the offeror annotates in the PWS how it qualifies what happens in the event GSA does not agree with the offeror's analysis/verification? Will there be an opportunity to discuss these to ensure a proper evaluation?

Reference Section M.3, which states: The Government intends to award contracts without discussions; and therefore, initial proposal submissions should contain the highest quality/best offer. The Government may conduct clarifications, as described in FAR 15.306 (a). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary.

In the event GSA disagrees with a relevance claim, we reserve the right to request clarifications, enter discussions, or to decrease the self-assessed credits without clarifications or discussions. It is the Government's intent to not conduct discussions.

If a qualifying project does not meet the criteria for auto-relevance should the offeror include the full PWS or only the specific sections/paragraphs that are annotated to show relevance?

See L.5.2.3.1, which provide an answer to the question:

In the absence of an auto-relevant NAICS Code or PSC for any submitted QP under any Domain, the Offeror must provide documentation to verify “Relevance” in accordance with Section L.

5.1.7 and its subsections, as applicable. Specifically, in accordance with Subsection L.5.1.7.1 and L.5.1.7.2, the Offeror shall provide contract documentation, which may include the Award Form or SOW/PWS/SOO that describes the general scope, nature, complexity, and purpose of the services the customer acquired under the contract.

Additionally, the Offeror must tag those specific written passages in the contract documentation that support a relevance determination in the proposed Domain(s) in accordance with the scope of each Domain outlined in Section C.2." The Offeror shall include the full Award Form or SOW/PWS/SOO, as applicable.

If you have a fixed price task order where the number of FTEs or labor categories are not itemized in the contract or PWS, what type of justification will GSA accept in order to validate the number of FTEs or labor categories?

IAW Section L.5.2.3.2 of the Solicitation:

"The Offeror must provide documentation to verify “Scale” in accordance with Section L.5.1.7 and its subsections, as applicable. As detailed in L.5.1.7.1, submission of the final proposal accepted by the Government resulting in the award or modification of the submitted QP is considered acceptable evidence of the number of FTEs, as long as it details an FTE breakdown. Additionally, labor hour reports from the offeror’s Accounting System may be provided to substantiate FTE labor counts."

Contract type is not specified; therefore, this is applicable to all contract types. If not demonstrable through contract documentation (e.g. Staffing Plan incorporated into the contract, approved/paid invoices, final proposal, etc.), the Offeror may use Attachment J.P-3 (Project Verification Form) to obtain customer verification of this element as well.

When placing a tag in a file (e.g. SCALE); should the offeror provide additional details in the comment to help explain the highlight and tag?

Yes, Offerors are encouraged to utilize comments (“tags”) in supporting documentation indicating the specific reference for verification purposes. This can include additional details to assist the Government in verifying the claimed elements. Failure to tag supporting documentation may result an the inability of the Government to validate claimed scoring.

Within any given Domain, when an Offeror adds a qualifying project to a Domain they are asked to identify whether or not that project is Relevant, link supporting document(s), and then specify where in the documents the evidence of relevancy is found (e.g., pages, paragraphs, etc.). Would the Government please confirm that using a Tag is an acceptable means of identifying the supporting evidence within the linked document(s), as opposed to listing a potentially long list of page numbers, paragraph numbers, etc.?

Yes, per Section L.4, "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."

This is the preferred method to ensure the Government can properly identify claimed elements within the supporting documentation.

In the RFP in Section C.2 there are several domains that identify NAICS that will be used for TO execution. If the TO will be awarded under a certain NAICS, shouldn't there be consistency between relevant NAICS for Domain submissions and utilization of the NAICS during contract execution? Can the government please resolve this discrepancy and add all NAICS to Domains to include the ones identified for TO award? - For Management and Administration Domain under the TO orders in C.2.1.1 541614, 541620, 541690, and 541990 are listed, however on the J.P-4 attachment those NAICS are not included.

- For Technical and Engineering Domain under the TO orders in C.

2.2.1 336611, 488190, 488999, 541350, 541360, 541380, 541611, 541990, and 611512 are listed, however on the J.P-4 attachment those NAICS are not included.

- For Research and Development Domain under the TO orders in C.

2.3.1 541330 (Including Exceptions 1, 2, and 3), 541380, 541611, 541690, 541990, and 621511 are listed, however on the J.P-4 attachment those NAICS are not included.

- For Intelligence Domain under the TO orders in C.2.4.1 531330 (Including Exceptions 1, 2, and 3), 541611, 541614, 541618, 541690, 541715 (Including Exceptions 1, 2, and 3), 541720, 541990, 561499, and 561611 are listed, however on the J.P-4 attachment those NAICS are not included.

- For Environmental Domain under the TO orders in C.2.5.1 541360, 541380, 541690, 541990, 562112, 562211 are listed, however on the J.P-4 attachment those NAICS are not included.

- For Facilities Domain under the TO orders in C.2.6.1 238990, 485999, 488190, 488999, 531311, 531312, 541330, 541611, 541614, 641690, 541990, 561990, 562112, 562211, 8113310 are listed, however on the J.P-4 attachment those NAICS are not included.

- For Logistics Domain under the TO orders in C.2.7.1 336611, 481211, 485991, 488111, 492110, 493110, 493120, 541330, 541690, 541690, 541990, 561210, 811114, 811121 are listed, however on the J.P-4 attachment those NAICS are not included.

Attachment J.P-4 only provides the NAICS Codes and PSCs, which the Government can determine with a high level of confidence, that will be automatically relevant to the proposed Domain with no further analysis or supporting documentation required. Using the Management and Advisory (M&A) Domain as an example, NAICS Codes 541690 and 541990 are included in Section C.2.1.1 as allowable NAICS codes that may be used for orders. However, these NAICS codes include broad scopes that encompass non-M&A type work; therefore, projects awarded under these NAICS Codes cannot be automatically determined relevant based on the NAICS Code alone. Therefore, these NAICS Codes are excluded from Attachment J.P-4 under the M&A Domain. An Offeror may provide documentation to support relevance for projects that fall outside of the project NAICS Codes or PSCs outlined in Attachment J.P-4 as long as the Offeror can demonstrate its relevance within the submitted project documentation (SOW, PWS, CLINs, etc) or Attachment J.P-3, Project Verification Form. Reference Section L.5.2.3.1.2 Standard Relevance Verification.

Under each domain there are several NAICS codes listed. Can you confirm that a company is eligible for an award as a small business if they qualify as a small business for some, but not all, of the NAICS?

Will the award specifically list the NAICS that the SBC is eligible to compete under?

This is correct. A company is eligible for award as a small business even if they qualify as a SB concern for some, but not all, of the NAICS Codes within a given Domain. They will only be awarded the CLINs/NAICS Code(s) where the Offeror and all team members (if applicable) represent as a small business concern. See Section M.3 for more details.

Our company is considered a small business in accordance with our primary NAICS Code. However, we would not be considered a small business in accordance with the NAICS codes listed for each domain.

Can our company submit a bid under the Small Business pools, or do we have to compete within the unrestricted pools?

As long as a company meets the qualification threshold and is otherwise eligible for award, that company can submit a proposal under any of the OASIS+ RFPs. Importantly, see Section M.3, which states: "If the Government determines the Offeror meets the qualification standard for a particular Domain, under the RFPs that are set aside for small business concerns, the firm would be awarded only the Domain CLINs in which the entity represents that it is a small business concern for the size standard corresponding with the NAICS code assigned to each CLIN. The awarded CLINs represent the fair opportunity pools in which the awardee may compete. Offerors will not be awarded any Domain CLINs in which they represent their size as other than small unless an exception to affiliation exists as set forth in 13 CFR § 121.103(b)." A company is eligible for award as a small business even if they qualify as a SB concern for some, but not all, of the NAICS Codes within a given Domain. If a company cannot represent as an SB under any of the CLINs/NAICS Codes within any of the Domains on the small business contract vehicles, then that company would need to submit a proposal under the Unrestricted RFP to be considered for award.

Average Annual Value for QPs. When the definition states completed projects with a period of performance of less than one year will not be annualized, or ongoing projects with a period of performance of less than one year will not be annualized, does that mean Offerors should use the value as the annual value?

Correct. The average annual value of a completed project or an ongoing project with a period of performance of less than one year will be equal to the total (face) value of the project.

“Does the Information Technology sub area map to more than one functional area (C.2.1 to C.2.8)?”. There is a reference to IT being ancillary to C.2. C.4 & C.2?

Referencing Attachment J.P-5, Information Technology (IT) Services Functional Area, this is only applicable in demonstrating integrated experience as part of an Offeror's proposal. This is to allow Offerors to obtain credit for those highly integrated projects under Section L.

5.2.3.3, including work that is IT-related. Section C.4 discusses the scope of allowable IT products and services performed on future OASIS+ task orders, which is considered an Ancillary Support Service or product and may be performed only when the service or product is integral and necessary to complete a total integrated solution.

If an Offeror proposes for multiple domains and fails to meet the required score for all of the domains, will the entire proposal be rejected, or only the select domains impacted?

If the Offeror fails to meet the required score for all proposed Domains, the entire proposal will be rejected. If the Offeror meets or exceeds the requirements for at least one Domain, the Offeror will be eligible for contract award. If an Offeror fails to meet the required score for certain domains, but qualifies for others, they will be awarded only those Domains where they met or exceeded the qualification threshold.

As some contracts or other supporting documentation may be marked CUI, will the government please confirm if the Symphony system is able to accept CUI information/documentation? If not, how should CUI information be submitted?

Yes, Symphony is able to accept CUI.

See this link, which provides detailed security specifications of the Symphony Procurement Suite: https://www.apexlogic.com/technical-specifications/

When entering multiple entities into the OSP portal representing a CTA, are there access or permission controls to protect company proprietary data from being viewed/accessible by other team members? Rationale: Documentation of submitted QPs contains proprietary business data or CUI/FOUO content that a Prime or Subcontractor might not want to share.

The OSP does allow teammates to individually access the portal to upload required documents; however, the offering entity has complete ability to view all documents prior to proposal submission. As noted in L.5.8.3 Financial Resources, Offerors consisting of established CTAs may submit password-protected information required by this section (e.g., financial statements) within the OSP. QP or documentation other than that in support of financial resources is not permitted.

In the J.P-9, column “H” (Year 1 rates) formula includes the escalation factor. Please confirm that escalation should begin in Year 2 and that the offerors should revise their spreadsheets to remove the escalation factor from column H.

The template is correct. GSA anticipates that evaluations, contract awards, and notice to proceed issuance will take approximately one year; therefore, we are requesting Offerors to propose their current year rates and we will escalate those rates for the first year of contract performance to take into account for the estimated timeline.

Can a QP and FEP used in a HUBZone proposal for a given Domain be repeated in a 8(a) proposal for the same Domain?

Yes.

Within the J.P-3, the #1 option under Relevant Work Meets or Exceeds Minimum QP $ Thresholds states “QP minimum average annual dollar value for each Domain where relevance is claimed.” Please confirm that for #1, Offerors should enter the number found at the top of the J.

P-1 matrix for the proposed domain (ex: $1,000,000 for the M&A UR domain).

Correct. Proposals should include the QP minimum average annual value for each Domain that is being claimed. That minimum average annual value is found in Attachment J.P-1 OASIS+ Domain Qualifications Matrix and Scorecards, on the tab for each applicable Domain and IDIQ (i.e. T&E - SB/SE = $500K).

The J.P-3 has a field for NAICS/PSC code. Are Offerors required to provide both, or just one?

Neither the NAICS Code nor PSC is required to be provided on Attachment J.P-3 as the form is used for both Federal and Non- Federal project experience verification. However, when applicable, it is only necessary to provide one code.

Section L.5.2.3.2 of the RFP pertaining to the Scale requirement allows for, "for firm fixed price awards, submission of the final proposal accepted by the Government resulting in the award or modification of the submitted QP is considered acceptable evidence of the number of FTEs." For CPFF contracts, will the Government please confirm their previous answer to question # 178 from the draft RFP, which stated that multiple LCATS on a CPFF proposal can be used to substantiate the existence of multiple labor categories and allow offerors to claim credit for the Scale Requirement?

IAW Section L.5.2.3.2 of the Solicitation:

"The Offeror must provide documentation to verify “Scale” in accordance with Section L.5.1.7 and its subsections, as applicable. As detailed in L.5.1.7.1, submission of the final proposal accepted by the Government resulting in the award or modification of the submitted QP is considered acceptable evidence of the number of FTEs, as long as it details an FTE breakdown. Additionally, labor hour reports from the offeror’s Accounting System may be provided to substantiate FTE labor counts."

Contract type is not specified; therefore, this is applicable to all contract types. If not demonstrable through contract documentation (e.g. Staffing Plan incorporated into the contract, approved/paid invoices, final proposal, etc.), the Offeror may use Attachment J.P-3 (Project Verification Form) to obtain customer verification of this element as well.

Can a specific project be used across multiple teams across different tracks?

Offerors may submit the same project across OASIS+ solicitations (e.

g., HUBZone and SB) and Domains (e.g., Technical and Engineering and Intelligence). However, projects cannot be used in more than one proposal within in a given Domain and OASIS+ solicitation. It is the Offeror’s sole responsibility to ensure that the projects submitted as part of its proposal are not submitted in any other proposals for the same Domain and solicitation.

Under the current GSA OASIS contract, qualifying for any NAICS code in a given pool qualifies you to bid on any task order released under that pool. Please confirm that the government is keeping with this use of "pools" (now called domains) on OASIS+ contract with the statement "assignment of a Primary NAICS Code does not limit Contractors’ eligibility to respond to task order solicitations or perform work outside of the NAICS assigned as their Primary NAICS on their contract".

Domains are not fair opportunity pools. Domains are functional groupings of services, which include listings of specific NAICS Codes available for placing task orders under each Domain. Each NAICS Code under a specific Domain represents a fair opportunity pool with an associated CLIN available for award on an OASIS+ master contract. A contractor must first qualify for a Domain and then qualify for award of specific NAICS Codes/CLINs under the specific Domain in order for both the Domain and NAICS Codes/CLINs to be awarded to the contractor. The applicable Domain and any NAICS Code/CLIN under a Domain will only be awarded if the Offeror: (1) meets the qualifications for the Domain, (2) meets the small business size status (as applicable on the SB and socioeconomic solicitations) for each NAICS Code/CLIN, and (3) otherwise meets all other requirements for award consideration as identified in the solicitation(s).

The structure of OASIS+ is not similar to the legacy OASIS contracts.

Fair opportunity for task orders solicited under the OASIS+ contract vehicles is at each specific Domain’s NAICS Code/CLIN level, unlike OASIS where fair opportunity is at the "Pool"/contract level. Each Pool is a separate contract family and each NAICS Code within each OASIS Pool shared the same small business size standard at the time of contract award and option exercise. Small business size standards have been significantly revised by the SBA in recent years.

Example: If a company proposes on the SB Technical and Engineering Domain, and can only represent as a small business for three of the NAICS Codes listed under that Domain, the Offeror will only be awarded three fair opportunity CLINs/NAICS Codes under the T&E Domain on their SB contract.

NOTE: All solicitations will be issued through Symphony. Symphony will allow selection of the appropriate (1) contract vehicle (SB, UR, 8 (a), WOSB, SDVOSB, HubZONE) to be selected, (2) Domain, and (3) CLIN/NAICS Code/fair opportunity pool by the Ordering Contracting Officer. Task order solicitations will be issued, based on the criteria selected by the OCO, to only those OASIS+ contract holders who have the applicable CLIN/NAICS Code in the specific Domain under the selected contract vehicle.

Bullet #6 of Section L.5.1.7.2 states "Any other verifiable contractual document (e.g., Contract Data Requirements Listing (CDRL), SF30 - Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, Staffing Plan incorporated into the contract, Letters of Technical Direction (LOTD), subcontracting plans, approved/paid invoices, contract deliverables, final proposal, award fee documents, etc.)." For contracts in which LCATS are not included within the prime contract award documents, will the Government please confirm that they will accept subcontract documents between the prime and teammates with detailed LCATS as an acceptable verification method for all criteria contained in L.5.2.3.3 Qualifying Project Experience – Integrated Experience? If not, what documentation should offerors provide for LCAT verification?

Yes, provided that the document is a contractual document that is verifiable by the Government.

Our core competency is Information Technology which is indicated as an ancillary area to all domains in C.2. Just confirming this maps to domains M&A C.2.1 and T&E C.2.2 ?

See Section C.4. IT is considered an Ancillary Support Service or product on the Domains detailed in Section C.2, and may be performed only when the service or product is integral and necessary to complete a total integrated solution. In order to be eligible for the M&A and T&E Domains, it is highly recommended to review each of those scorecards in Attachment J.P-1.

Does an offeror need to designate one NAICS code per domain or multiple? If so, how would this be done?

An Offeror does not designate NAICS codes within the OSP. See Section M.3 which states:

"If the Government determines the Offeror meets the qualification standard for a particular Domain, under the RFPs that are set aside for small business concerns, the firm would be awarded only the Domain CLINs in which the entity represents that it is a small business concern for the size standard corresponding with the NAICS code assigned to each CLIN. The awarded CLINs represent the fair opportunity pools in which the awardee may compete. Offerors will not be awarded any Domain CLINs in which they represent their size as other than small unless an exception to affiliation exists as set forth in 13 CFR § 121.103(b)."

What information is required in the Subcontractor Letter of Commitment for it to be deemed conforming?

See Section L.5.1.3.2 which identifies all information required for any Subcontractor Letter of Commitment to be deemed conforming.

The RFP mentions that the reduced threshold of 50 percent applies to projects submitted in the name of the protégé. Could you please clarify what is meant by "protégé" in this context and how it affects the evaluation of project experience?

This pertains to Mentor-Protege Joint Ventures, and provides a reduced threshold for projects submitted by proteges within those teaming arrangements, in accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e) which states "...A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally."

Does an offeror bidding as an SBA Mentor-Protege Agreement Joint Venture need to provide CTAs and/or MRCLs for the two JV members (mentor and protege companies)?

No, MRCLs are not required for Offerors proposing as an actual joint venture or with proposed subcontractors. Section L.5.1.3.1 and L.

5.1.3.2 dictates the requirements for teaming arrangements and how to properly claim credit therein. See Section L.5.1.4 for MRCL applicablity: 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. Subject to the conditions of this Solicitation, GSA will allow an Offeror to take credit for any scored evaluation element, including QPs, FEPs, past performance, system(s), certification(s), and/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.

In this instance, the first sentence statement in L.5.1.4 "(to include a member of a joint venture)" references that a joint venture member may also use a MRCL to allow the joint venture to utilize resources from a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary. It's not only limited to the Offeror, which in some cases may be an unpopulated JV.

If submitting and awarded a contract under the WOSB program will the contractor be allowed to compete on Total Small Business task orders?

No, in order to compete on OASIS+ SB task orders, the offeror must have an OASIS+ SB award.

What verification processes will the Government employ to validate information claimed in the proposal, and what documentation should Offerors provide to support their claims?

See Section M.4 of the RFP(s) for the screening and evaluation process.

What are the requirements for submitting the Technical Proposal and the Price Proposal, and what supporting documentation is needed for validation purposes? Are there separate links for the separate proposal contractors need to submit?

Please see Section L.4 which dictates proposal format and limitations.

The OASIS+ Submission Portal (OSP/Symphony) will guide Offerors through the submission process. Proposals submitted through other methods will not be considered.

See Section M.4 of the RFP(s) for the screening and evaluation process.

Recommend watching the following videos which can assist and provide an overview of Symphony:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMvwijEesGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_aR0xE71Dw

Can a small business submit a proposal under both UNR and Small Business (SB) for the same domain (Facilities) and use the same QPs for each proposal?

Yes.

RFP Language: Offeror receives credit for QPs demonstrating any of the following:

...__Staffing personnel with individual security clearances (Secret, Top Secret, Q (DOE)).

Question/Request: Is there a minimum number of personnel with individual security clearances a QP must have for this Domain, as there is for every other Domain?

If the Qualifying Project demonstrates the contractor staffed any number of personnel with individual security clearances (Secret, Top Secret, Q (DOE), the contractor will receive credit; there is no minimum. This is a distinction between the Facilities Domain and other Domains.

The RFP states that the Offeror must provide documentation to verify "Management & Staffing" in accordance with Section L.5.1.7. Could you please specify the types of documentation that are acceptable for verifying each of the mentioned criteria?

See Section L.5.2.3.4, which provides acceptable types of documentation for each Management and Staffing qualification criterion.

We ask that the Government add to the auto-relevant NAICS codes for the Facilities Domain the codes beginning with 22 and 23, especially 221310, 221320, 236220, 237110, and 237990. Design-build-operate-maintain contracts and task orders, which are certainly relevant to the Facilities domain functional areas, are frequently procured under the utility- and construction-related NAICS codes.

Thank you for your feedback. We do not plan on adding additional auto-relevant NAICS codes at this time, but continue to keep track of requests in each Domain and may do so in the future.

An Offeror may provide documentation to support relevance for projects that fall outside of the project NAICS Codes or PSCs outlined in Attachment J.P-4 as long as the Offeror can demonstrate its relevance within the submitted project documentation (SOW, PWS, CLINs, etc) or Attachment J.P-3, Project Verification Form. Reference Section L.5.2.3.1.2 Standard Relevance Verification.

For Management & Staffing, would the government consider explicitly adding health and safety response? For example, ____ Environmental Health and Safety response: Demonstrate ability to address complex environmental, health, and safety issues in a timely manner, including but not limited to: indoor air quality issues (e.g., mold, radiation); lead contamination (e.g., lead paint dust, firing ranges); root cause analyses; and injury and illness prevention.

Thank you for your feedback, at this time the Government does not anticipate altering the requirements. We will take your feedback under advisement for future interations of the OASIS+ solicitations.

Qualifying Project Experience

Will the government confirm the J.P-3 Project Verification Form is acceptable documentation for a federal government subcontract to establish the NAICS/PSC for automatic relevance?

No. Reference Section L.5.2.3.1.1 Automatic Relevance Verification:

"If a project qualifies for automatic relevance consideration under this criteria, the Offeror must submit the FPDS report and/or contract award document indicating the PSC or project-specific NAICS Code.

Non-federal projects, including federal subcontracts, are ineligible for automatic relevance consideration and must be verified using Standard Relevance Verification at Section L.5.2.3.1.2."

?Please confirm that a contract requirement of more than 5 distinct Key Personnel would be suitable to demonstrate 5+ Labor Categories.??

IAW Section L.5.2.3.3, different labor categories may be claimed for those positions that have different occupational classifications and/or vary in level of seniority in Attachment J-1 (e.g. Junior, Journeyman, Senior, SME) and level of experience. A contract requirement of more than 5 distinct Key Personnel may not demonstrate this experience as some or all of the Key Personnel may share the same occupational classifications and/or seniority levels.

If you are using a collection of task orders as a qualifying project, can the labor categories for each task order be combined to achieve the FTE threshold for L.5.2.3.3? For example, if project A within the collection of task orders has 3 labor categories and project B within the collection of task orders also has 3 labor categories, does this count as 6 labor categories and therefore qualify for credit for L.5.2.3.3?

If an Offeror chooses to submit a “Collection of Task Orders,” all minimum requirements and scored evaluation criteria are based on the Task Order Collection submitted as a whole. The labor categories for example Projects A and B must be for positions that have different occupational classifications and/or vary in level of seniority in Attachment J-1 (e.g. Junior, Journeyman, Senior, SME) and level of experience that demonstrate at least the minimum number of FTE to qualify for the claimed credit.

Multiple distinct Functional Areas (e.g., three or more) as defined in Attachment J.P-5, Functional Areas and Sub-Areas We intend to bid on Technical and Engineering Domain. To obtain credits for the Functional Areas performed in a qualifying project, are we restricted to illustrating (at least 3 of the) functional areas listed in Section 2 (of J.P-5)? Or can the 3 functional areas address work listed in Section 1.C.2.2 and Section 2?

Attachment J.P-5 states Offerors may use both Section 1 and Section 2 of this document for the purpose of claiming “Integrated Experience - Performance spanning multiple functional areas or sub-areas.”

Therefore, all identified functional areas included in Attachment J.P-5 are eligible.

This section indicates that vendors can accumulate points if “the qualifying project provided surge support (+10% LOE increase with <or = to 45 days lead time." What is the government expecting as proof of < or = to 45 days lead time?

Section L.5.1.7 Verification of Project Experience Submissions and it subsections describes supporting documentation Offerors shall submit for verification of claimed credits. Section L.5.2.3.4 provides further details specific to the Management & Staffing qualification, including Surge Capability. "In order to demonstrate qualifications for surge capability, the Contractor must provide documentation that shows surge work was funded and executed via modification or order on the original contract or formal Contracting Officer authorization to the original contract vehicle (such as a notice-to-proceed for the surge work). If the contract documentation does not unequivocally demonstrate surge capability, Offerors may, in addition to the aforementioned contract documentation, leverage customer verification through the use of completed Project Verification Form (either from the OSP or Attachment J.P-3) signed by a CO for a Federal contract or Corporate Officer/Official of the commercial entity for a Non-Federal/Commercial contract with cognizance over the submitted project verifying surge capability..."

If you are using a collection of task orders as a qualifying project, can the cleared personnel for each task order be combined to achieve the cleared personnel threshold for L.5.2.3.4? For example, if project A within the collection of task orders has 4 cleared personnel and project B within the collection of task orders also has 4 cleared personnel, does this count as 8 cleared personnel and therefore qualify for credit for L.5.2.3.4?

If an Offeror chooses to submit a “Collection of Task Orders,” all minimum requirements and scored evaluation criteria are based on the Task Order Collection submitted as a whole. The cleared personnel for example Projects A and B must be for different personnel that demonstrate at least the minimum number of cleared personnel to qualify for the claimed credit.

Will offerors receive the four evaluation credits on #1 of the scorecard (T&E Domain) for a relevant QP in which no CPARS exists and in which the customer (Fed) refuses to complete a Past Performance Rating Form, assuming all other contract documentation meets the definition of a QP (L.5.2.1) and demonstrates relevance (L.5.2.3.1)?

This is clarified in Amendment #1 in Section L.5.2.1. "To be considered a QP, each submitted project must meet all of the following minimum criteria: ...

5. ... A project with no record of past performance will be rated “neutral” in accordance with Section M.6.6.1 and is considered to meet this criteria; however, if it is discovered during the course of the evaluation that CPARS or other past performance information does exist for a project, the Government reserves the right to consider such information in its evaluation. See Sections L.5.6 and M.6.6 for more details."

A project may be considered a QP without a record of past performance, and may receive credit for QP - Relevance. However, projects with no record of past performance will be rated "Neutral" and will earn zero credits for past performance in accordance with Section M.6.6.

Will the Government clarify whether an Offeror would claim 2 points in L.5.2.3.4 if they submit a “Collection of Task Orders” where two of the five task orders manage 3 or more first-tier subcontractors/teaming partners?

Only 1 credit can be earned by each QP for the criterion of 3 or more first-tier subcontractors. If an Offeror chooses to submit a “Collection of Task Orders,” all minimum requirements and scored evaluation criteria are based on the entire Task Order Collection submitted as a whole.

The collection of task orders is treated as a single QP submission.

However, under the Management & Staffing capability, the QP is eligible for more than one credit if the other categories are present (e.

g., surge capability and/or managing five or more personnel with security clearance as required by the QP).

Please confirm that surge capability was intentionally left off of the Facilities Domain, Unrestricted, Scorecard Line #6, L.5.2.3.4, QP - Management and Staffing.

Yes, this was intentional. The Facilities Domain for the Small Business/Socioeconomic and Unrestricted scorecards has credit available QP - Management and Staffing for Urgent Work Request/Response, Emergency Work Request/Response, and Emergency Work Request/Response, as these capabilities are more commonly associated with the Facilities Services functional area than the traditional Surge capability.

Verification: The Offeror must provide documentation to verify “Integrated Experience” in accordance with Section L.5.1.7 and its subsections, as applicable.

Attachment J.P-3 only provides a check box to indicate a claim for >3 functional areas. There is no space allotted to document the functional areas. We request the Government allow 750 words, including spaces, for offerors to verify the >3 functional areas and append to J.P-3.

Please confirm.

Section L.5.1.7 and its applicable subsections state that Offerors shall submit any combination of the documentation for verification of claimed credits. The project verification for integrated experience can be done through submission of the PWS/SOW/SOO, the requirements document for the project with proper tagging, and/or any other supporting documentation that demonstrates integrated experience.

In our opinion, the automatic credit for qualifying projects is fairly restrictive. We would suggest GSA allow task orders originally competed under OASIS be deemed automatically relevant. For example, if a task order was competed under OASIS Pool 1 SB, we would suggest it be automatically relevant for the T&E SB domain regardless of the PSC code listed in FPDS.

Thank you for your feedback; however, at this time GSA is not considering changing the requirements for automatic relevance.

For more than 3 subcontractor points, will Government accept different kinds of subcontract agreement documents between the prime and each subcontractor? Or do all subcontract documents need to be identical?

Subcontract documents do not need to be identical, but they need to be related to the submitted QP. Generally, the subcontract agreement documents between the prime and each subcontractor is acceptable.

This language was slightly revised with Amendment 0002. See excerpt below: "First-tier subcontractor/teaming partner verification must directly correspond to the contract or task order number of the QP or have a clear record of connection. For example, there must be evidence of a contract or task order number on the subcontract/teaming agreement that correlates directly to the QP contract or task order number or the tagged section within the QP award document that identifies each subcontractor or consultant’s name."

1. What is the required number of Project Performance summaries needed for each Naics?

2. Can an 8(a)-company bid on a NAICs if the annual revenue for the company is less than the amount for the NAICs?

1. Qualifying projects are submitted on a domain-by-domain basis.

Offerors are allowed up to 5 qualifying projects per Domain (excluding Enterprise Solutions - only available on OASIS+ UR).

2. Reference Section M.3 which states, If the Government determines the Offeror meets the qualification standard for a particular Domain, under the RFPs that are set aside for small business concerns, the firm would be awarded only the Domain CLINs in which the entity represents that it is a small business concern for the size standard corresponding with the NAICS code assigned to each CLIN. The awarded CLINs represent the fair opportunity pools in which the awardee may compete.

This means a small business (including 8(a)) can compete on any of the Small Business RFPs, but will only be awarded those CLINs (fair opportunity pools) where they are considered small. There are some additional rules for CTAs in this same section.

Our firm was wondering if we can submit project deliverables in lieu of sending the original contract to show our qualifying project experience.

The reason we are asking this is because our contract language is very vague and highlight the domain terms that are listed in the RFP.

The project deliverables are more specific to the domains we are chasing.

Offerors are provided a number of options to demonstrate claimed qualifications. Each particular qualification includes an associated verification requirement which prescribes the allowable verification methods/documentation. Many of these link to Section L.5.1.7, which provides a myriad of options for project verification.

Could you please provide clarification as to why SBA Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures appear to be more limited than CTAs in terms of qualifying project experience?

The SBA Mentor-Protégé program helps small businesses (protégés) gain capacity and win government contracts through partnerships with more experienced companies (mentors). This additional requirement ensures that the Protégé has the necessary relevant experience. This approach seems to be 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. However, this requirement can also be satisfied by the protege or the MP-JV entity itself.

The solicitation states, "One of the QPs submitted under L.5.2 may, at the discretion of the Offeror, be…