Question and Answers - Solicitation 47QREB-20-R-0001.pdf

Q# Question Answers

L.5.1 Eligibility- Bidding as SBA approved 8(a) Mentor Protege JV. As we review the HCATS 8(a) On Ramp Solicitation, it appears that GSA is limiting the use of SBA approved Mentor Protege Joint Ventures. Can GSA confirm if SBA approved 8(a) Joint ventures are allowed to submit bid for the On Ramp. Below are few rulings related to the Mentor Protégé JVs.

Under SBA rules, small businesses can pair up with larger businesses in a mentor-protégé joint venture (MPJV). A MPJV is an exception to the usual restrictions on larger businesses participating in small business set-aside federal contracts. Congress amended the Small Business Act at 15 U.S.C. § 644(q)(1) to require procuring agencies to consider the past performance and capabilities of the individual members of the JV when the JV as a whole did not demonstrate sufficient capabilities or past performance experience to be considered for award. The Small Business Administration (SBA) promulgated regulations implementing this change at 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e), which provides that " Past performance and experience. When evaluating the past performance and experience of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously".

HCaTS is not a bundled requirement and IAW FAR Part 52.207-6 consideration of Joint Ventures does not apply. Proposals from Contractor Teaming Agreements (CTAs) or Joint Ventures will not be accepted under this solicitation, including SBA-approved 8(a) joint ventures. However, existing 8(a) SBA-approved Protege firms may submit a proposal. See the governing rules as stipulated in Title 13 Part 125.9 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR).

2 L.5.1 Eligibility- Can GSA confirm if SBA approved 8(a) Joint ventures are allowed to submit bid for the On Ramp. No. See answer to Question #1.

We are an SBA 8(a) certified joint venture. I believe this to be a single entity. However, the solicitation states "Offeror must on consist of more that one entity". Is our JV considered a single entity?

See answer to Question #1.

If a company has documentation used in a previous HCaTS proposal submission documenting a commercial contract, and if nothing has changed with respect to that reference and the work, may the offeror reuse that documentation?

Specifically (1) a document showing the work performed and KSAs covered, and (2) the completed past performance questionnaire.

The submitted relevant experience projects must meet the definition and the minimum requirements set forth in the solicitation Section L.5.3.

Question and Answers Solicitation 47QREB‐20‐R‐0001

We perform work relevant to the KSAs. Rather than option periods, the government issues a brand new contract each year for the same work. Will GSA accept each of these contracts performing identical services as separate relevant experience?

No.

6 Section L. Are there any restrictions for SBA Approved Mentor Protégé Joint Ventures that would not allow them to respond to this solicitation? See answer to Question #1.

7 Section L. Can Relevant Experience Projects and Past Performance be accepted from the individual companies of an SBA Approved Mentor Protégé Joint Venture? See answer to Question #1.

8 Section L.6.3 Can a Joint Venture respond to this RFP as the Prime Offeror? No. See answer to Question #1.

9 Can a SBA-approved 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture submit a proposal? No. See answer to Question #1.

And, if so, do the REPs have to come from the JV as an entity, or can they come from either / both of the JV members?

For example, ABC is an 8(a) and XYZ is a non-small business, and is ABC’s mentor. ABC and XYZ companies form an SBA-approved 8(a) mentor-protégé joint venture called Apple JV. Do the REPs have to be under the entity Apple JV, or can XYZ submit REPs from its work and ABC submit REPs from its work that support Apple JVs bid?

See answer to Question #1.

Recently in the GSA HCaTS SB Pool 1 on-ramp, the Government allowed small business contractors to use first tier subcontracts for federal work as commercial REPs. Would the Government be willing to permit this for the HCaTS 8(a) solicitation?

Yes. If an Offeror has performed as a subcontractor (or first-tier subcontractor), the subcontract may be submitted as a REP and will be considered a Non-Federal type REP. All of the supporting documents must be under the Offeror's name.

To clarify this please see the following example:

If the Government awards contract #C1 to Company A, and Company A subcontracts a portion of that under contract #C2 to Company B: To submit a proposal under HCaTS SB- Pool 1, Company B (as an Offeror) can use the contract #C2 as a Non-Federal REP. To substantiate the minimum requirements and scoring elements, Company B can use contract #C2 as a supporting documentation. The contract #C1 documents shall not be used to substantiate the requirements for the REP, except the documents that specifically show information regarding the contract #C2 and Company B.

For the same REP, the past performance form (Att J.5) must be filled out by the awarding party (Company A). To substantiate the NAICS code, refer to documents for Non-Federal REPs under Section L.5.3.2.

Note: The Contract #C2 can be a subcontract or a First-Tier subcontract. And it will be treated as a Non-Federal REP.

During GSA's HCaTS SB On-Ramp, a question was asked regarding Mentor Protege Joint Ventures. Question: “Can we use SBA approved Mentor Protege Joint Venture to bid this opportunity? In another word, can we use the large business JV member's past performance?

The Government replied : An existing SBA‐approved protege can submit a proposal. Note: See the governing rules as stipulated in Title 13 Part 125.9 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR).”

Will the Government please confirm that SBA-approved Mentor Protege Joint Ventures are permitted to submit proposals for the HCaTS 8(a) solicitation and use of the other than small business JV member's past performance is permitted.

An SBA-approved mentor-protege joint venture may not submit a proposal. However, an 8(a) protege in the SBA-approved mentor-protege program may submit a proposal. As such, the past performance must come from the 8(a) protege-firm itself. See answer to Question #1.

13 We’ve reviewed the posted solicitation for the HCATS SB 8a onramp but can’t find any word on allowance for Joint Ventures. Do you all ASMPP approved 8a JVs on this vehicle? See answer to Question #1.

14 Would the Government consider JVs, CTAs, or Prime/Sub relations and allow the Offeror to use projects from any team member for scoring? See answer to Question #1.

15 Would the Government consider changing the required number of projects within a Pool NAICS to 3 instead of 4? No.

Page 69 – Section L.3 – Proposal Submission Instructions - 1.Will GSA accept proposals from

SBA-certified 8(a) All Small Business approved Mentor Protégé (ASMPP) Joint Venture? Where the protégé is certified 8(a) firm and the Mentor is a large business?

See answer to Question #1.

If the answer is yes to the above, can the individual firms (Protégé & Mentor) provide their current projects as Relevant Experience Projects (REPs) and past performance to qualify for POOL 1 and POOL 2.

N/A (the answer to above question is No).

18 How would the govt recommend vendor calculate the Period of Performance and Annual Dollar Value for the Collection of Task Orders (COTS)?

For COTs:

- Period of Performance is the aggregated period of performance of all task orders.

- Per RFP Section L.5.3.5, the Annual Dollar Value is the Total obligated dollars divided by the total number of months of performance (performed) multiplied by 12. In this calculation, for COTs, the Total obligated dollar value is the aggregated obligated dollar value for all the task orders.

Attachment J.5 - Can the Attachment J.5 Past Performance Evaluation Form be signed by Contracting Officer Representative or the Program Officer, who has direct knowledge of the Contractor's past performance?

If Att J.5 is being used solely for Past Performance Evaluation, any program official with knowledge of the contract/task order performance can sign the form. However if Att J.5 will be also used to substantiate the NAICS code, it will need to be signed by a duly warranted contracting officer. Stated another way, if Att J.5 is not used to substantiate the NAICS Code, it does not have to be signed by a duly warranted contracting officer.

Note: Please see the Solicitation Amendment #01, the Attachment J.5 has been updated to calrify the note regarding this question.

20 Attachment J.3 - Can the Government confirm if the existing HCaTS Contractors in both Pools, are required to submit Att J.3 - Self-Scoring Worksheet in their proposals?

Attachment J.3 is not required if the Offeror is an Existing HCaTS contract holder (IAW Solicitation Section M.2.1).

General: Currently a wholly owned entity of our parent company holds the HCATs SB contract.

That entity has out-grown the small business size standard and is not able to bid on the HCaTS 8(a) solicitation. Can another wholly-owned 8(a)-certified entity bid on the HCaTS 8(a) solicitation?

This question is unclear. An 8(a)-certified entity may submit a proposal under this solicitation;

however, IAW solicitation Section L.3, "If an offeror is sharing resources from other entities by way of a Meaningful Relationship within a Corporate Structure, only one proposal from that Corporate Structure shall be submitted (see Section L.6)."

22 Self-Scoring Form #8 - Why is small business a factor? There should be no small business utilization goals for a small business contract.

This was a clerical mistake. Meeting or exceeding the total subcontracting goal applies to Other Than Small Business contracts (HCaTS Unrestricted). This element of scoring will be removed; see Solicitation Amendment #01.

Note: The Offeror shall leave blank Question #8 of the Att J.3 (Self-Scoring Worksheet).

Otherwise, the total points for this element will be deducted from the total self-score.

Self-Scoring Form #7 – Why are points included for teaming? A small business should be able to self-perform a contract and teaming with other companies should not be a factor. Shouldn’t this item be not applicable to small business?

As noted in Section L.5.3.5, the scoring detailed in Section M.4 is for additional points based on subcontracting/teaming with at least three separate entities. This is to receive additional points and is not a minimum requirement. Available additional points related to this scoring element are not substantial compared to the maximum possible "Total Self-Score".

Additionally, the Government intends to keep the same scoring as the original solicitation.

24 Self-Scoring Forms #7-8 – Were these questions left on this from the large business/unrestricted pool for HCATS? See the answer to Questions #22 and #23

Att. 9 GSA Form 527, Section III & IV – Our Financial Statements for Dec 2019 will most likely not be ready by the time this solicitation is due in January. Please confirm we can use the Nov 2019 Financial Statements.

Yes, the latest Financial Statement is acceptable.

Att. 9 GSA Form 527, Section VII: this section indicates we are to provide construction/service contracts information for public buildings service contracts only. Please clarify if we are to provide our current contracts at other locations or is this section not applicable?

IAW solicitation Section L.5.2: "For GSA Form 527, the Offeror must fill in Section I – General Information, Section II - Government Financial Aid and Indebtedness, Section III - Financial Statements (Prepared Financial Statements with notes may be provided in lieu of completing Section III), Section IV - Income Statement, Section V - Banking and Finance Company Information, Section VIII - Remarks (if remarks are necessary), and Certification; Sections VI and VII can be left blank if not applicable."

27 Att. 9 GSA Form 527: Some of the Sections, such as Section VI, do not apply to us. Do we note Not Applicable? Yes please note if not applicable. Also see the answer to Question #26.

28 Att. J 7 #Price – There are approximately 100 labor categories. Please clarify if we need to provide the fully burdened labor rate for all 100 labor categories.

Att J.7 (Price Worksheet) includes 84 Labor Categories on each Tab for both the Government Site and the Contractor Site. Offerors must submit the fully burdened rates for ALL labor categories (168 total labor categories).

29 Att. J.10 – Please confirm we complete only the boxes with the red border. Or do we complete #14, 15B, and enter CODE and FACILITY. The code and facility are not required; block #14 is for acknowledging amendments (if any).

30 To establish pricing on Excel J.7, can you confirm that you want us to use the direct labor ranges provided in J.7.1?

Offerors may not use the direct labor rates provided in Att J.7.1. See the answer for Question #54.

31 How many contractors are you projecting to be awarded in each POOL? The Government intends to make approximately 20 awards under each Pool (IAW solicitation Section M.2- See the solicitation amendment #01)

1.On the Attachment J.5—Past Performance Evaluation Form, page 3, Utilization of Small

Business, does this element apply to an 8(a) firm, which does not have Small Business goal requirements?

See answer to Question #22.

33 2.In Attachment J.4, what are the limitations on characters or words for the form fields under each of the KSA topics, Scope Explanation and Customization Explanation? The limitation for each block is 999 charachters.

34 3.In the RFP, page 87, Section M.2 Basis for Awards, do incumbent 8(a) contractors need to submit a proposal for an onramp HCaTS contract award? Yes.

35 4.In the Attachment J.3—Self-Scoring Worksheet, under the topic “Value,” should the value we report include Option Years not yet exercised?

No. IAW solicitation Section L.5.3.5, for calculation of the Annual Dollar Value, the number of months of performance must correspond with the total obligated dollar value in the calculation.

36 5.In the Attachment J.3—Self-Scoring Worksheet, under the topic “Small Business Goals,” does this apply to an 8(a) firm, which does not have Small Business goal requirements? See answer to Question #22.

6.In the RFP, page 73, under Acceptable Estimating System, can this requirement be met by referencing that we use an acceptable estimating system held by a sister company under common ownership within the same holding company enterprise? If so, what is the proper form of documentation required to demonstrate the correctness of our claim to the full score for our Acceptable Estimating System?

Yes. IAW solicitation L.6.3, "Within a corporate structure, an Offeror may utilize resources from a parent organization, affiliate, division, and/or subsidiary." The Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter showing the relationship between the entities must be submitted.

Can you please answer a question on 8(a) eligibility to allow us to determine if we can respond to the subject matter solicitation, which is an 8(a) set-aside.

Network Runners was awarded a GSA Schedule (GS-35F-505BA), originally as an 8(a) back in 2014. We recently graduated from the 8(a) program, however, our company status on GSA eLibrary is still showing to be an “SBA Certified 8(a) Firm”, with all of the following designations:

Small business, Woman Owned business, Women Owned (WOSB), Women Owned (EDWOSB), SBA Certified Small Disadvantaged business, SBA Certified 8(a) Firm. Please confirm that we are eligible to propose for this solicitation as an 8(a).

No. Active 8(a) status is required and the award is contingent on SBA's acceptance.

39 Is this a Schedule 70 solicitation? No.

40 Att. J.5.1 NAICS Code Confirmation Form: The field for the Email address of the Contracting Officer is not editable. Can you please provide a corrected form?

This was a clerical mistake. Please see the revised version under the solicitation Amendment #01.

Page 76 – Section L.5.3 VOLUME 3 - REPs and Past Performance Will the government accept REP's and Past Performance Provided by the Vendor as a Subcontractor to a large firm.

Yes. Please see the answer to Question #11 for further detail.

Section L.5.3. Please confirm that a joint venture between a small business and a large business is considered small if the joint venture agreement has been approved as a participant in the SBA’s 8(a) mentor-protégé program.

See answer to Question #1.

Section L.5.3. Under each Pool an offeror must submit six (6) Relevant Experience Projects (REP) to be eligible. If submitting as an 8(a) Mentor-Protégé JV how many REPs need to come from the Mentor and how many from the Protégé?

See answer to Questions #1 and #12.

In the case of a SBA approved 8(a) Mentor Protégé JVs, where the SBA permits the JV to assume the mentor's certifications and systems for competitive purposes, would the government consider acceptable to use the Industry Certification (L.5.4) of the Mentor to obtain these points for HCATS SB?

See answer to Questions #1 and #12.

L.5.3 Volume 3 – REPs and Past Performance. In accordance with 13CFR and precedent in similar GSA GWACs including OASIS and Alliant where Joint Ventures were permitted to bid as Prime, can a Joint Venture prime HCATs?

No. See answer to Question #1.

N/A. Three years after the expiration of a contract, CPARS are archived and vendors can no longer access them. Will the Government evaluate archived CPARS that vendors can no longer access?

The Government reserves the right to review the CPARS documents for the purpose of the responsibility determintation or the recency of the CPARS review. However, each proposal MUST include all required and substantiating documents for the minimum requirements and scoring requirements under Section L.5.3.3 and L.5.3.4. The Government will not search outside the proposal for the CPARS report documents.

47 L..5.3.3 section 7 Past Performance Rating. Please confirm that if a CPAR exists, the CPAR will be evaluated and not an Attachment J5, Past Performance Evaluation Form.

Yes, IAW solicitation Section L.5.3.3, "Offerors must submit the most recent CPARS/PPIRS report; if the report is not available, submit Attachment J.5 (Past Performance Evaluation Form) completed and signed by a duly warranted Contracting Officer for Federal projects, or the customer for Non-Federal projects. If the Government discovers a more current CPARS/PPIRS report, it will be used in lieu of Attachment J.5 (Past Performance Evaluation Form) or any other less current CPARS/PPIRS report that was submitted."

L.5.3.3 section 7 Past Performance Rating. For the J5 Attachment, can the CO or COR sign on behalf of the Government to represent the performance of the REP? In some cases, COs have retired or left the Government and cannot be reached for their input.

See answer to Question #19.

49 Section L.5.3.5, REPs Scoring Elements. When calculating annual dollar value, do we use the NET obligated amount? (Inclusive of all obligations and de-obligations?) Yes.

Section L.5.3.5, REPs Scoring Elements. When calculating the obligated dollar value for on-going projects, can we use DAYS to calculate the prorated obgliated amount, or do we have to use MONTHS performed?

The number of months of performance should be used for calculation of the Annual Dollar Value and it must correspond with the total obligated dollar value in the calculation.

51 Section L.5.3.5, REPs Scoring Elements. Does a cost-reimbursable other direct cost CLIN for travel count as a "cost-reimbursement" type REP?

Per L.5.3.5, proposals will receive additional points for a maximimum of two REPs that include any percentage of cost-reimbursement types prescribed in FAR 16.3.

Section L.5.3.3, REP Minimum Requirements. Reference p. 77 of RFP, Execution. Does the DATE need to be in block 31.c of the SF 1449? One of our award documents was signed with a digital certificate, and the date is in the signature block (31.a.)

That is acceptable.

Section L.5.3.3, REP Minimum Requirements. Reference p. 77 of RFP, Execution. Reference p.

76 of RFP, Execution - will the Government accept a statement that says "Signature on File" in block 31.a of the SF 1449 in lieu of an ACTUAL signature? This is standard from some federal customers.

Yes.

L.5.5.1, Direct Labor Rates. The price workbook asks for fully-burdened rates (i.e., inclusive of all indirect costs). The established labor ranges provided in Attachment J.7.1 provides reasonable DIRECT labor rates, EXCLUSIVE of indirect costs. How will the Government evaluate our proposed pricing against the rates in J.7.1 if the rates we proposed are burdened, but the established labor ranges are not burdened?

The direct labor rates provided on Attachment J.7.1 are for a reference to all offerors; the proposal pricing will be compared to the establish high and low range under HCaTS Pool 1 and Pool 2 pricing. IAW solicitaion Section M.3.4, "The current HCaTS SB contracts for Pool 1 and Pool 2 have an established uniform pricing range for all HCaTS Labor Categories that has been determined fair and reasonable. For the contracts awarded as a result of this solicitation, the Government intends to use the established pricing range.

The Government established the direct labor rates on Att J.7.1 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) labor rates. Please note that the Attachment J.7.1 is provided solely for the reference and guidance to the offerors; the proposal pricing will not be validated against Att J.7.1 labor rates. The pricing under the HCaTS contracts are fully burdened ceiling rates for T&M/L-H task orders/CLINs placed on a sole-source basis or when adequate price competition is not anticipated; therefore, the proposed fully burdened ceiling rates do not apply to fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, or T&M/L-H task orders when adequate price competition is anticipated.

Using Attachment J.7 (Price Worksheet), the Government will review the proposed pricing for all labor categories and notify the contractor if any of the proposed rates are outside the established pricing range. The Government will conduct exchanges during this phase if the proposed pricing is outside the range for one or more labor categories."

55 L.5.5.1, Direct Labor Rates. Does the Government require we show our wrap rate (i.e., indirect costs) in the pricing workbook (Attachment J.7)? Offerors must propose fully burdened rates on Attachment J.7 - Pricing Worksheet.

Section L.5.3.3, REP Minimum Requirements. Reference p. 79 of RFP, Past Performance Rating. Will the Government accept a past performance evaluation form (Attachment J.5) that shows TWO signatures - one from the COR and the other from the Contracting Officer? Our Contracting Officer would not sign the document without the COR's signature on it as well.

Yes.

Attachment J.2 Proposal Checklist and Attachment J.8 Accreditation List Both of these attachments reference ISO 9001:2008, which is now ISO 9001:2015 Will the government provide updated forms to reflect the latest ISO 9001:2015 standard?

That was a clerical error. See the solicitation Amendment #01.

Section L.4.1, Proposal Format Table, page 72, Section L.6.3, page 86, Section M.3.3 page 89, Section H.8 page 45

In the Volume 2 and Volume 3 (Pool 1 and Pool 2) sections of the Proposal Format Table, the RFP states “each MRCL shall be separate and distinct.” The last paragraph in Section L.6.3 states “… the parent organization may prepare a single MRCL” if under common control.

Please confirm that entities under common control of a parent organization are not required to submit “separate and distinct” MRCLs.

In this case, the MRCLs do not require to be separate and distinct. Additionally, per solicitaiton Section L.6.3, "In the event that a parent organization has complete and full control over all meaningful relationship entities, the parent organization may prepare a single MRCL that identifies all elements required above. "

Section L.5.3.2, 4th bullet, page 77 The terminology “modified for any reason” indicates if a contract has had 50 modifications, the contractor must submit all 50 documents.

Please confirm the government only wants modifications that validate HCaTs minimum requirements and REP Scoring Elements.

Yes, the modifications for the purpose of substantiating the minimum requirements or the scoring requirements are suffice.

Section L.5.3.4, page 80 The RFP states “if an Evaluation Area was not rated, that Evaluation Area will not be averaged into the final score.”

If an additional Evaluation Area (outside the 6 stated areas) was scored, will the Government exclude that area as well?

Yes.

Section L.5.5.1, page 84 The RFP states “Attachment J.7.1 contains direct labor rate ranges found acceptable by the Government for all HCaTS labor categories.”

Would the Government describe the source used for the acceptable direct labor rates?

See the answer for Question #54.

Section M.5, page 92 Key Personnel is not included in the Proposal Format Table in Section L.4.1. We assume the designation of Key Personnel is not to be included in our proposal submission. Please confirm.

Correct, designation of Key Personnel is not required at the time of proposal submission.

However, before award, all apparent awardees will be required to submit Key Personel Information.

Section F.4, page 26 Attachment J.7 Price Worksheet, Section F.4 states the Base Year PoP is “Notice to Proceed to 9 November 2021” which conflicts with cell E4 on Attachment J.7 “Award date to Nov-2020.

Would the Government please clarify the dates of the Base Period?

The Base Period is the Award Date to 9-Nov-2021.

Section L.5.3.3.5, page 78 Section L.5.3.5, bullet 2, page 81, For a Collection of Task Orders (COT), are each of the task orders required to meet all three KSAs in order to claim 3 KSAs on Attachment J.4?

No, each task order under a COT is not required to meet all three KSAs in order to claim 3 KSAs for the COT as a whole. Rather, a COT receives credit for the scope of all its task orders collectively. For example, if the Task Orders' scope collectively meet three KSAs, then the COT will receive the credit for three KSAs.

Section L.5.3.5, bullet 4, page 81 For a COT, will the Annual Dollar Value be calculated for each of the task orders and then be added together for the collection?

See answer to Question #18.

Att J.5.1 NAICS Code Confirmation Form.pdf does not allow entering of text for the email address. The email form field is currently formatted as a phone number. Per Section L.4 modification of the solicitation documents is prohibited. How would you like offerors to provide the email address of the contracting officer?

It was a clerical mistake. Please see the corrected version under the solicitation Amendment #01.

L.5.2, Volume 2 - Responsibility, p. 74. This section states that we must submit an 8(a) certification approved by the SBA. However, Section L.5.2 in the proposal format table on page 72 says that section of Volume 2 is limited to the SAM Reps and Certs.

Where should we include the 8(a) certification?

Please include the 8(a) certification under Volume 2.

68 GENERAL QUESTION: Do you require proof of other socioeconomic statuses (e.g., SDVOSB, EDWOSB), or only 8(a)> The SAM record must reflect the Offeror's socioeconomics status.

Attachment J.3 Please confirm that Question #8 regarding small business goals should NOT be completed or evaluated for the 8(a) onramp.

See the answer to Question #22.

70 L.4 Proposal Format Instructions Please confirm if electronic signatures are acceptable. Electronic signatures are acceptable.

M.5 Key Personnel Please clarify where within the proposal volumes the two key personnel should be designated and if resumes are required.

Apparent awardees shall designate two Key Personnel for the resulting contract before award, but this information is not required to be submitted with the proposal.

Attachment J.5 The form states: "If the project was awarded by the federal government, this form shall only be filled out by a duly warranted Contracting Officer." In our environment, the KO has limited to no knowledge of the specifics of our performance. Request this be changed to read: "If the project was awarded by the federal government, this form shall only be filled out by a duly warranted Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer's Representative, or the relevant Program Manager."

See the answer to Question #19.

L.5.3.1 REP Definition We have an IDIQ contract with 15 task orders awarded to date. We plan to use 2 of these TOs as individual REPs. Will the government allow us to use other TOs within the same IDIQ as Collections of TOs? For example, will the government allow the following configuration:

REP 1: Contract ABC TO 1 REP 2: Contract ABC TO 2 REP 3: Contract ABC TO 3, 4, 5 REP 4: Contract ABC TO 6, 7, 8 REP 5: Contract DEF REP 6: Contract GHI

Yes. However, the supporting documents to substantiate the scope and other minimum requirements must specifically correspond to the task orders for each REP.

74 General Can the Government unlock/unsecure the solicitation PDF files so that we can copy text? Yes.

General

During the HCaTS 8(a) Existing HCaTS Contractors teleconference on 18 November 2018, a “Priority Pass” for existing 8(a) HCaTS contractors was discussed; however, I see no such reference in the released solicitation. Do existing 8(a) HCaTS contractors still have to complete Attachment J.3 (Self-Scoring Worksheet)?

Please see solicitation Section M.2.1. Existing HCaTS SB contractors will be given priority to be included in the Top 20 regardless of their total self-score; Attachment J.3 is not required for existing HCaTS SB contractors.

L.5.3 Volume 3 – REPs and Past Performance, pg. 76 of 92

“Under each Pool, to be eligible for award, the Offeror must submit six (6) REPs and each REP must meet the definition and minimum requirements in this section. The Offeror shall not submit more than six REPs.

If applying for both Pools, a maximum of two (2) REPs under Pool 1 may also be used under Pool 2. However, Offerors must ensure at least four (4) of the REPs submitted for Pool 2 are tied to Pool 2 NAICS codes.”

So do four (4) of the six (6) REPs have to be different between our Pool 1 and Pool 2 submissions? Can we use the same REPs for both our Pool 1 and Pool 2 submissions?

You may use two REPs in both your Pool 1 and Pool 2 submissions.

Four out of six REPs must be distict and different.

L.5.3.1 Collection of Task Orders, pg. 76 of 92

How many task orders must be submitted for a contract to count as a COT? Only two task orders?

Per Attachment J.4.1, each COT must have at least two task orders and can contain a maximum of six task orders.

L.5.3.3 REP Minimum Requirements, 6. NAICS Code, pg. 79 of 92

“Four (4) out of six (6) REPs must be tied to one of the corresponding Pool NAICS codes:

NAICS Codes for Pool 1: 611430, 611699, 624310 NAICS Codes for Pool 2: 541611, 541612, 541613, 541618, 611710”

So can we use four (4) NAICS Codes that fall under Pool 2 for our submission to Pool 1? And vice versa?

The question is unclear. For each Pool, four out of six REPs must be tied to the Pool's NAICS codes. Additionally, the REPs with Pool 1 NAICS codes, can not be used for a submission under Pool 2 unless Attachment J.5.1 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) is being submitted to substantiate that they are tied to Pool 2's NAICS codes as well. Only two (2) REPs can be used for both Pool 1 and Pool 2.

L.5.3.3 REP Minimum Requirements, 6. NAICS Code, pg. 79 of 92

Can you get your KO to fill out Attachment J.5.1 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) two different ways for the same REP? So assign two different NAICS from two different Pools to the same

REP?

Yes.

L.5.3.3 REP Minimum Requirements, 6. NAICS Code, pg. 79 of 92

“The following documents can be used to substantiate the NAICS code requirement and shall be submitted for a REP:

•For Federal projects: Award documents, FPDS-NG Report, CPARS/PPIRS report, Attachment

J.5 (Past Performance Evaluation Form). If the Pool NAICS code being claimed is not on or conflicts with the award documents, FPDS-NG report, CPARS/PPIRS report or Attachment J.5, the offeror must submit Attachment J.5.1 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) that has been completed by a duly warranted Contracting Officer to confirm the preponderence of the work performed falls under one of the Pool's NAICS codes.”

Do you have to provide all of these documents for the NAICS Code confirmation?

No, you do not need to submit all of the listed documents. One of these documents is sufficient to substantiate the NAICS code.

L.4.1 File Naming Conventions;

Attachment J.4 REsP Summary Form

L.4.1 File Naming Convention: For each file, include your company name abbreviation at the beginning of the file's name. For example, for ABC Company, Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist) should be named: "ABC_Att J.2.pdf."

Attachment J.4: For each file, include your company name abbreviation at the beginning of the file's name. For example, for ABC company, this attachment should be named:"ABC_Att J.4_REPs Summary Form.pdf"

The file naming convention is different between these two documents/references. Which is the correct file naming convention?

Either is acceptable. For each file, insert your company name abbreviation at the beginning of the existing file name followed by an underscore. Examples: "ABC_Att J.2 Proposal Checklist.pdf" or "ABC_Att J.2.pdf"

82 Would the Government please tell us the scoring point range to be considered for award?

A minimum score or score range has not been established for this solicitation. Principally, the source selection methodology is the Top 20 proposals with the highest score to be considered for award. Please see the solicitation Section M.2 Basis for Awards for the source selection methodology.

Attachment J.3. Is it the government’s intent to place the final Self-Scoring Worksheet (J.3) in PDF format? We are not able to self-score, as the current PDF sheet does not auto-calculate.

Perhaps the government may consider using an Excel Spreadsheet to meet this requirement.

Attachment J.3 auto calculates the total self score. See the solicitation Amendment #01, attachment J.3 has been updated to include a place for the Total Self-Score if the Offeror believes the form calculates it incorrectly.

Attachment J.3. How will an offeror, using the government’s scoring method, determine the threshold for entry? If offerors are to consider the feasibility of bidding, we must first determine if we meet a numerical floor that puts us in a minimally competitive position.

See answer to Question #82.

M.21. Will the government please publish the scores of 8(a) vendors currently holding an HCaTs SB contract? They are the universe of potential awardees in each pool, and if that number exceeds 40, there’s no room for additional awardees

This is a separate and independent solicitation and the awardees will not be compared/scored against the HCaTS SB awardees. Please see the answer to Question #82.

M.21. If the current HCaT SB vendors who are also 8(a) certified do not have business using their SB vehicle, will they be grandfathered into the 8(a) vehicle if they elect to bid; or will the government off-ramp inactive contract holders? We request clarification how current vendors with no existing business will be treated as part of the grandfather method used.

The Government will not grandfather in the existing HCaTS SB contract holders. However, existing HCaTS contractors with an active 8(a) status receive a "priority pass" to be included in the Top 20 proposals regardless of their total self-score. No consideration will be given to whether the existing HCaTS 8(a) contractor has been awarded any task orders under HCaTS.

87 M.2. We would like to inquire if the same past performance could meet multiple KSP areas, if they apply? Can task orders also be used, if the scope is related to the KSP’s? The question is unclear. A task order (or a single contract) can meet multiple KSA areas.

88 Attachment J.7 appears to contain an error in cell E4 of the Contractor Site Labor Rates Tab which should read “Award Date to Nov-2020”. Does the government intend to correct this?

That was a clerical error. Please see the corrected version under the solicitation Amendment #01.

Attachment J.7. The labor categories in Attachment J.7 do not appear to use any IT related LCATS traditionally associated with NAICS 541511, 541512, and 541513? Is it the government’s intent to add additional LCATS at the task order level? If so, how will that be accomplished if required as part of Pool 2?

The HCaTS labor categories correspond to the HCaTS KSA areas. Additional labor categories may be added at the task order level.

90 Attachment J.7. If labor categories are added to the vehicle after award, will the contractor be able to apply individual fully burdened rates, if required? If so, how will this be handled?

Additional labor categories can be added at the task order level and the Ordering Contracting Officer will be required to make a fair and reasonable determination of the proposed pricing.

Also, HCaTS pricing is solely for Time & Material or Labor-Hour sole-source task orders. All other types of task order pricing is based on the competition at the task order level.

91 Attachment J.7. Are the Minimum and Maximum Direct Labor Rate Ranges in Attachment J.7.1 intended to reflect Government Site Rates, Contractor Site Rates, or both? See the answer for Question #54.

Attachment J.3 references the “Top 30” proposals, however Sections M.2, M.2.1, M.3.1, and M.3.2, all reference the “Top 20”. Is the governments intent to award 20 awards per pool or 30 awards per pool?

Top 20 is correct. It was a clerical mistake on Attachment J.3. Please see the corrected version under the solicitation Amendment #01.

Attachment J.3. Attachment J.3 references the “Top 30” proposals, however Sections M.2, M.2.1, M.3.1, and M.3.2, all reference the “Top 20”. Is the governments intent to award 20 awards per pool or 30 awards per pool?

See answer to Question #92.

Attachment J.3. The instructions for Attachment J.3 make reference to questions 1 to 15, but the worksheet only contains question 1 to 10. Does the government intend for proffer additional questions or will the instructions be amended to reflect the number of questions currently in the worksheet?

It was a clerical mistake. Questions 1 to 10 is correct.

Attachment J.3. Question 7 of Attachment J.3 award points for subcontracting with multiple entities which seems counter-intuitive. Wouldn’t an 8(a) who has proven itself capable of performing 100% of its awarded work be rewarded more handsomely than those that had to subcontract? Is this an artifact of the full-and-open competition?

See answer to Question #23.

96 Attachment J.3 – question 8. Inasmuch as this competition is among 8(a) entities, wouldn’t every offeror automatically meet the small business goals? See answer to Question #22.

97 Attachment J.3. The points scoring per area. Do the current points apply as follows 50 points for each area or 50 points for the overall section? This is an example of one area? 50 points for the overall total score.

Attachment J.3. To limit competition, will the government consider including a Facilities Clearance as part of the accreditation scoring and evaluation criteria at the secret or top secret level in the event is required at the Task Order level? This offeror suggests a 50 point accreditation score.

The Government does not intend to limit competition. Additionally, this solicitation keeps the scoring principles of the original solicitation.

99 Att J.1- HCaTS Standardardized Labor Categories - Could you please clarify which of the labor categories are for Pool 1, and which are for Pool 2.

The labor categories correspond to HCaTS' scope, which is identical for both Pool 1 and Pool 2.

100 M.2.1 Existing HCaTS Contractors: Priority for existing contractors: How many of the existing HCaTS 8(a) contractors hold an active 8(a) status?

You can view the list of current HCaTS SB contractors on our website in the 'Who Is On HCaTS' section along with their socioeconomic status(es).

Volume 3 – Pool 1 REPs and Past Performance: Our company provides training & coaching services to various government agencies, and Prime contractors too. However, these trainings are being supplied under a different NAICS code. May we be allowed to use those project references as our Past Performance?

Yes. Only four out of six REPs must be tied to the Pool's NAICS code. Additionally, if the Pool NAICS code being claimed is not on or conflicts with the award documents, FPDS-NG report, CPARS/PPIRS report, the Offeror may use Attachment J.5 (Past Performance Evaluation Form) or Attachment J.5.1 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) to substantiate the NACIS code requirement.

L.5.3.4. REP Minimum Requirements :1.Under SBA regulations, JVs can be awarded no more than three contracts. If submitting as an 8a Joint Venture (JV), will award of the actual HCaTs prime contract counts as one contract award, or will each individual task order award count as separate contracts?

See answer to Question #1.

L.5.3.4. REP Minimum Requirements: 2.If submitting as an 8a Joint Venture (JV), is past performance of the individual JV partners acceptable, or does past performance pertain to the JV entity?

See answer to Question #1.

104 General Question:.If a company’s 8(a) expires during the contract period of performance, will the company be grandfathered to the end of the contract?

Under HCaTS 8(a), awardees will have 8(a) status until the end of the Base period (even if it expires during this time). At the time of the Option period, all contractors will be required to re-represent (IAW FAR 19.804-6). Once verified, that status will remain active until the contract completion date (Nov-2026).

L.5.3.4. REP Minimum Requirements: 4.If a JV partner is currently a prime contractor on the

HCaTs full and open contract, is it acceptable to reuse that company’s REPs, COTs and past performance as part of a JV submission?

See answer to Question #1.

106 Will the Government accept an HCaTS 8(a) on-ramping application from a Joint Venture (JV) where an 8(a) firm serves as the managing member? See answer to Question #1.

Solicitation L.5.3, Page 76: Please confirm that the Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters should be included in Volume 2 per the Proposal Checklist and not in Volume 3 per L.5.3 of the Solicitation Instructions.

MRCLs can be included in either Volume 2 or 3.

Solicitation L.5.2, Page 74: Can the Government confirm that in the case of an unpopulated SBA Certified 8(a) Joint Venture (JV), all JV members must submit the following Volume 2 responsibility documents: Professional Employee Compensation Plan, Uncompensated Overtime Policy, and GSA Form 527 along with Financial Documents?

See answer to Question #1.

Solicitation H.6, Page 43: Section H.6 of the solicitation states that accreditations are optional.

Please consider removing the points awarded for accreditations in section M.4, and the corresponding reference in L.5.4 as awarding points for these accreditations removes their optional nature.

No. The Government intends to keep the same scoring principles as the original solicitation.

110 Solicitation H.6.1, Page 43: Please provide more clarity on what offerors are required to submit for the CFA standards for the accounting system evaluations.

Offerors are not required to submit documents for this section. The proposal contents are listed in Section L of the solicitation. The Section H is for after the award that will be an optional accounting system review when requested by HCaTS PMO office.

Solicitation L.5.3.1, Page 76: For the Collection of Task Orders (COTS), please provide more clarity on how the past performance will be evaluated as contract vehicles and master contracts are typically given Satisfactory scores across the board or all areas are not rated.

For COTs, the CPARS/PPIRS report or Att J.5 must list each task order. The CPARS/PPIRS report of the master contract is also acceptable. It is not required that all areas contain ratings.

112 Solicitation M.2.1, Page 87: Please confirm that if one member of a JV is an existing HCaTS contractor that the JV’s proposal will also be included in the “Top 20” for evaluation. See answer to Question #1.

L.4 Proposal Format Instructions states, "Submitting attachments or documents from other solicitations or the draft solicitation is not acceptable." Will the Government make an allowance for re-using past performance questionnaires and NAICS code confirmation forms recently submitted for the HCaTS bid? Other than the header, these documents will contain identical information as the new 8(a) solicitation templates. This will save project contracting officers the effort of re-completing forms they have already completed.

No. Attachments and documents from the draft solicitation or other HCaTS solicitations are not acceptable.

Section L.5.2, Attachment J.9 (GSA Form 527), page 75 The RFP states “All financial documents shall be submitted in the Offeror’s legal business name.”

For subsidiaries owned by a parent company, will the Government allow financial documents from the parent company, provided a MRCL exists in accordance with Section L.6.3?

Yes.

Section L.5.3.3 - 6. NAICS Code: If a Pool NACIS Code is listed on the Award Document but the NAICS Code listed on the FPDS-NG Report for the same REP is different from that listed on the Award Document, is an Attachment J.5.1 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) required?

No. If the Pool's NAICS code is provided on one of the supporting documents, that is sufficient.

L.5.3.5, page 81, Scoring Elements: Would the government please confirm, that as with prior HCaTS solicitations, the Cost-Reimbursement Type REP scoring element includes any REP with a cost-reimbursement type line item?

Yes.

L.5.3.3, REP Minimum Requirements: Would the government please confirm, that as with prior HCaTS solicitations (e.g., HCaTS SB Pool 1 On-Ramp), federal work performed as a first-tier subcontractor is eligible as a non-federal REP, with the prime contractor serving as the customer for the REP?

See answer to Question #11.

L.5.3.3, Minimum Requirements, #7, p. 79: The solicitation reads: “For Non-Federal REPs:

Offerors must submit Attachment J.5 (Past Performance Evaluation Form) completed and signed by the customer. For REPs without a record of past performance, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.” The meaning of these two sentences in conjunction isn’t clear to us. Does this mean J.5 is not required for non-federal projects, to meet the minimum requirements?

Those are two separate sentences.

Per solicitation Section L.5.3.4(7), to meet the minimum requirement, the Past Performance Rating (PPR) must be calculated to be equal or greater than 3; however, if a REP does not have a past performance evaluation document, it will not be disqualified and it will receive zero point for past performance.

For Non-Federal REPs, Offerors must use Attachment J.5 to substantiate the Past Performance Evaluation. However, if an Offeror chooses to not submit a Past Performance document for a REP, it will receive zero points for that REP's PPR.

119 L.5.3.3, Minimum Requirements, #7, p. 79: Following with the previous question, does this mean that J.5 must be completed but is not required to include the ratings? See the answer to Question #118.

120 L.5.3.3, Minimum Requirements, #7, p. 79: Following with the previous question, what is intended by “REPs without a record on past performance?” See the answer to Question #118.

121 If a task order or past-performance reference is ongoing but has had at least 3 months of continuous service but the base period is still active, can it be submitted as a reference?

Yes; however, the period of performance after the solicitation closing date will not be accounted.

122 If task orders from the same BPA are submitted separately (not as COT) is there a limit as to how many REPs they can count for?

Each Task Order can be submitted as a seperate REP; however, please note that the documentation for each minimum requirement must come from the specific task order and not from the master BPA. Also see the answer to Question #73.

RE: Clause G.3.1, page 33: The offeror assumes the .75% Contract Access Fee (CAF) will be proposed on a task order by task order basis. Please confirm. Yes. The Contract Access Fee (CAF) is paid by the ordering agency. Per Section G.3.1, HCaTS contractors shall always propose a CAF in reponse to task order solicitations.

RE: Clause H.19, page 51: The 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence states: "For example, if the Contractor is On-Ramped to the contract in Year 1, the Contractor would be expected to attain a minimum of two task order awards or total task order estimated value of $500,000, or show a good faith effort in responding to competitive solicitations released under the Contractor's respective Pool(s) from the time it was On-Ramped prior to the exercise of Option I". Will an offeror be placed in dormant status if they responded to solicitations but were not awarded 2 task orders or total task order estimated value of $500,000? The intent of this language is somewhat ambiguous and requires clarification.

The intent of this section is to ensure good faith efforts by the HCaTS contract holders to remain active and responsive during the period of performance; however, it is based on the 'totality of the circumstances' to inclued the HCaTS customer pool and other considerations that will be (and have been) discussed during the program review meetings with the HCaTS contractors.

RE: Clause L.5.2, page 74: Please confirm that the requirement for SAM record registration and representations and certifications will be satisfied by submitting a copy of the FAR report from SAM.gov, under the Reps & Certs section.