Polaris Question and Response 1.pdf

POLARIS GWAC

QUESTION AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT #1

Thank you for your interest in the Polaris GWAC.

In addressing questions, it is the Government’s position 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 it 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 a proposal. 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. Only those questions, or portions of questions, that were deemed 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 Relevant Experience Past Performance Systems, Certifications and Clearances Organizational Risk Assessment Teaming Representations and Certifications Responsibility Other Specific to WOSB Solicitation

This is the first Question and Response Document. Additional Question and Response Documents will 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.

General

Q&R # Question Response

Where can the title page markings for restriction on disclosure and use of data be included?

Concerning the markings identified in FAR 52.215-1, an optional cover page may be attached within the PSP document submission.

Will the Government be providing a SCRM Plan template?

As noted in G.17.1, GSA will provide a C-SCRM Plan template to contractors post-award, prior to the submission dates indicated in Section F.6, Deliverables.

Can the Contractor Program Manager and the Contractor Contract Manager described in G.5.1 and G.5.2, respectively, be the same person?

There is no restriction on the same individual fulfilling both roles.

Can the Government please clarify the distinction between deliverables 11 and 13? The table implies that the deliverable is identical for these two items. Thus it is unclear for specifically which deliverable # will the contractor's performance be assessed.

Deliverable 13 refers to the remittance of CAF while Deliverable 11 is the reporting of this remittance.

5 How should Offerors acknowledge amendments?

Reference L.5.1.1, the Offeror must acknowledge each amendment number and date in Block 14 of the SF33 or complete Blocks 8 and 15 of the SF30 for each amendment.

F.2, Master Contract Ordering Period, states ordering period of this contract to be from (To Be Determined) through (To Be Determined). Is there any additional information available on these dates?

The contract ordering period for the Master Contract is from the date of the Notice-To-Proceed through five years thereafter, with one, five-year option that may extend the cumulative term of the contract to 10 years.

Does the Government intend to award to companies based on their initial submission, or does the Government plan to have a second proposal phase?

Per section M.2, Basis for Awards, the Government intends to award contracts without discussions.

Proposals must contain the best offer.

8 Is vessel or aircraft insurance required?

See G.9 (d) and (e), the applicable insurance is required when task order performance involves the use of aircraft or vessels.

Will digital signatures be accepted on the J.P-2, J.P-4, and J.P-6?

Yes, digital signatures may be utilized.

Would the Government clarify that the Contractor Program Manager identified in Section G.5.1 is not expected to serve at the Task Order level and that a separate Program Manager may be proposed for Task Order support?

In accordance with G.5.1, the Contractor Program Manager is not required to serve at the task order level. A separate Program Manager may be proposed when necessary for a given task order.

May SBs use the same form on all proposal submissions under other socio-economic bids (i.e., SB, WOSB) to alleviate having to reach out to customers multiple times for the same input?

Yes, the same supporting documentation (J.P-4, J.P-6, etc.) may be submitted for proposals for both the Small Business and WOSB Pools.

Does GSA have a prescribed naming convention for the documents that will be uploaded to the PSP?

No prescribed naming conventions or volume structure is required. Documents will be associated with the claimed elements within the PSP.

Will GSA provide detailed formatting guidelines (e.g., page limit, font style and size)?

Please confirm if there is no specific formatting requirement.

The RFP sets no specific formatting requirements regarding font, size, headers, footers or page limits.

Is a PDF file acceptable for any supporting documentation required for scored evaluation, including attachments to the RFP originally in Microsoft Word format?

All files submitted must be in PDF format. This includes RFP attachments that were originally in Microsoft Word format.

Please confirm if the Offerors need to fill out a scoresheet with our own listing of scoring points as in the M.6 Polaris Scoring Table, or is that calculated by GSA.

The Offeror's claimed score will be calculated within the PSP based on scoring elements claimed.

Does the Government intend to provide a self-scoring matrix for Offerors to calculate and submit their self-scores as part of the proposal submission? If not, where are Offerors expected to identify their total self-score?

The claimed score is calculated and visible within the PSP during proposal preparation and submission.

17 Do we need to submit resumes for Key Personnel?

The RFP identifies no key personnel or resume requirements.

May the GSA Form 527 and other forms be password protected?

See L.4. Proposal submissions must not be locked, encrypted, or otherwise contain barriers to opening.

Will the government advise the minimum number of total points required for Offerors to qualify for an award under the Small Business Pool?

The RFP does not establish a minimum score for an award. Reference M.2, Basis of Award.

Are small businesses permitted to participate in multiple teams as subcontractors?

Yes, as noted within L.3, Proposal Submission Instructions, "A small business concern may participate under multiple proposals (e.g., Offeror, proposed subcontractor, joint venture member), however, per L.5.2, Relevant Experience, no project, to include Primary Relevant Experience and Emerging Technology Relevant Experience, may be used in more than one proposal under this Solicitation."

Is a small business that submits a prime contractor proposal allowed to join another’s team as a subcontractor?

Yes, as noted within L.3, Proposal Submission Instructions, "An Offeror (as identified in Block 15A of the SF33) may only submit a single proposal for this Pool. ... A small business concern may participate under multiple proposals (e.g., Offeror, proposed subcontractor, joint venture member), however, per L.5.2, Relevant Experience, no project, to include Primary Relevant Experience and Emerging Technology Relevant Experience, may be used in more than one proposal under this Solicitation."

Can an SB Offeror submit a proposal as a prime Offeror in the SB pool and submit a 2nd proposal as a member of a JV in the same Pool?

Yes, as noted within L.3, Proposal Submission Instructions, "An Offeror (as identified in Block 15A of the SF33) may only submit a single proposal for this Pool. ... A small business concern may participate under multiple proposals (e.g., Offeror, proposed subcontractor, joint venture member), however, per L.5.2, Relevant Experience, no project, to include Primary Relevant Experience and Emerging Technology Relevant Experience, may be used in more than one proposal under this Solicitation."

SAM.gov has moved away from using DUNS numbers for each entity. The SF33 does not have a block for the new 12-digit GSA Unique Identifier. Where would the Government like to Offerors to input this new 12-digit Unique Identifying number?

Per L.5.1.1, the Offeror must include their UEI (SAM) within Block 15A on the SF33.

In submitting verification documents for projects, may support documents include redactions?

Redactions within verification documents are acceptable; however, the unredacted information must provide sufficient information to validate the claim.

In the situation where the CO’s signature is unattainable (due to the fact the CO has retired or left the Agency), what should be noted for their direct telephone number and email address?

The Contracting Officer's previous telephone number and email address should be included on the form.

Please confirm that Offerors are not required to submit any pricing or rate information with their proposal.

Confirmed. In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 3306(c) and associated GSA Class Deviation CD-2020-14, cost and pricing information will not be considered at the Master Contract level.

Can project values be rounded up in order to get the commensurate number of points?

No, specific project values should be entered.

Values should not be rounded.

Is a link to subcontractors webpage from primes Polaris page allowed?

Per G.7, the subcontractor information may reside on the prime contractor’s Polaris webpage.

29 How should the required indexes be formatted?

See Amendment 0002. References to providing indexes have been replaced. To aid evaluators in reviewing submitted documentation, submitted verification documents should include tags to the specific reference for verification purposes.

Instructions on adding tags to submitted documents will be available within the PSP.

Relevant Experience

Q&R # Question Response

30 May multiple NAICS be claimed from a single project?

See Amendment 0002, Section L.5.2.2(a). Only one NAICS may be claimed for a project.

Can Offerors receive points for cost-reimbursement projects even if there is only one cost reimbursable CLIN?

Yes, see amended L.5.2.2.4, the Offeror will receive additional points if the Projects (either the contract or a specific CLIN) are United States Federal Government Cost-Reimbursement, specifically any of the cost-reimbursement contract types specified under FAR Subpart 16.3, Cost-Reimbursement Contracts.

Can the Government confirm that the Emerging Technology projects do not need to be from the 3 – 5 Relevant Experience projects submitted for L.5.2 (Paragraph a.)?

Confirmed. Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects may be distinct from Primary Relevant Experience Projects. However, as noted within L.5.2.3, Emerging Technology Relevant Experience, it is acceptable for the same Project to be submitted for both Primary Relevant Experience and Emerging Technology Relevant Experience.

The RFP states: "It is acceptable for the same Project to be submitted for both Primary Relevant Experience and Emerging Technology Relevant Experience." Please confirm that it is not required for the Emerging Technology Relevant Experience to have been submitted as primary Relevant Experience.

Confirmed. There's no requirement for an Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project to be submitted as a Primary Relevant Experience Project.

What is the minimum number of required relevant experience projects for Emerging Technology?

Submission of Emerging Technology Relevant Experience is not mandatory; however, Offerors who demonstrate Emerging Technology Relevant Experience within their proposal will receive additional points per scoring table, Section M.6.

It is our understanding that the emerging technology references do not need to be included in the NAICS listing provided in L.5.2.2.1. Will the government please confirm this is correct?

Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects submitted for Section L.5.2.3 are not required to map to the Primary Relevant Experience NAICS Areas identified at Section L.5.2.2.1.

Given that it is an evaluation requirement, and a source of points on the scorecard, may GSA clarify if emerging technologies that are not listed within the RFP are acceptable to submit, and will count towards the scorecard total?

Per section L.5.2.3, Emerging Technology Relevant Experience, each Project must have included the performance of one of the Emerging Technologies listed in L.5.2.3.1, Emerging Technology Listing, to be eligible for scoring.

In the Emerging Technology block on form J.P-6, does the Government want Offerors to provide a narrative of the emerging technology claimed, or only provide the emerging technology category from RFP L.5.2.3.1?

The Offeror should identify the claimed emerging technology from L.5.2.3.1, Emerging Technology Listing. No narrative is requested.

We currently hold a Federal Prime contract with an Intelligence Community customer for which we have our unclassified contract and statement of work.

However, given the IC policy to not include their contracts in the publicly available FPDS we are not able to submit reports from FPDS as evidence of our contract. Please confirm the Government will accept the official contract documents to validate the required scoring elements.

Reference L.5.2.2.1.1 (2), Verification of Primary Relevant Experience Submission (Federal Government Contracts), which identifies the documents required for verification when an FPDS- NG Report is not available.

Is the Offeror required to meet all the services under a specific Innovative Solutions and/or Performance Area section to meet the requirements of the RFP? For example, under IT Operation and Management, we do not have helpdesk experience however, we possess system administration experience.

Reference Section M.2, Basis for Awards. The solicitation includes no requirement for the Offeror to demonstrate all the services under a specific innovative solutions and/or performance area. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the instructions and evaluation criteria set forth in Sections L and M of the solicitation.

Section L.3.2,Mergers, Acquisitions, and Novations, as Applicable states, "By the closing date of this solicitation, if a company has acquired part or all of another company, the transferee company (the company acquiring the other company) may claim credit for the additional points for Relevant Experience Projects and the Past Performance Projects so long as a Government approved novation of a U.S. Federal contract from one contractor to another has been made." Does this apply to Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects as well?

This reference to "Relevant Experience Projects" encompasses all relevant experience projects within L.5.2, both Primary Relevant Experience Projects and Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects.

Can the same relevant experience projects be used in both SB and WOSB “pools”?

There is no restriction on utilizing the same Relevant Experience Projects and Past Performance in proposals for separate Polaris pools. However, as noted within Section L.5.2.1, projects submitted as Primary Relevant Experience Projects or Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects may not be used in more than one proposal for a Pool.

42 Is the J.P-2 for Offerors proposing as a joint venture?

The J.P-2 is specific to experience performed as a member of a joint venture being claimed in accordance with L.5.1.3.3.

If a NAICS code being claimed is different than the primary NAICS code specified on the FPDS-NG report, how should this be specified on the Project Verification form?

The claimed NAICS should be identified on the project verification form.

Instructions require Offerors to submit a copy of the Contract SOW/PWS when FPDS does not verify the NAICS claimed, to demonstrate claims for emerging technology, and to substantiate relevant experience for cybersecurity scoring elements. Are Offerors to provide the entire Contract SOW/PWS or would the Government prefer to only receive excerpts that demonstrate the claimed NAICs be provided to support ease in the Government's evaluation?

Offerors are to submit a copy of the SOW/PWS in its entirety.

45 Can multiple NAICS be claimed for a single project?

See amended Section L.5.2.2, only one NAICS may be claimed for a project.

Can a PSC be used for verification of Primary Relevant Experience instead of NAICS?

The RFP does not provide for verification based on

PSC.

Can federal contracts with non-federal governments be counted for scoring in L.5.2.2.3?

As stated in L.5.2.2.3, These points are only available for Relevant Experience Projects performed as a prime contractor to the Federal Government. Task orders with a state or local government are not eligible for this additional scoring.

Can Cybersecurity experience for L.5.2.2.7 be from outside the federal government?

Section L.5.2.2.7 includes no requirement for the experience to be with the Federal Government.

Please confirm that Prime Offerors are permitted to submit past performance references from Sub-contractors in Teaming Agreement.

See L.5.1.3.2(3),

● L.5.2 Relevant Experience - Relevant Experience Projects may be from the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor.

● L.5.3 Past Performance - Past performance examples may be from the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor.

With respect to performance, each Primary Relevant Experience Project must be complete or have at least one year of performance. Can the government please verify this is one year from proposal due date, similar to the requirements for project to be completed within five years of when proposals are due?

See Amendment 0002. Per L.5.2.2 and L.5.2.3, Projects must have at least six months of performance by the date proposals are due.

Can a Project submitted as an Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project in one proposal for this pool be used as a Primary Relevant Experience Project in a different proposal for this pool, and vice versa?

No, reference L.5.2.1, "Projects submitted as Primary Relevant Experience Projects or Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects may not be used in more than one proposal for this Pool.

Projects used in more than one proposal for this Pool will be removed from all proposals and will not be evaluated as part of any Offeror’s proposal. 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 this pool."

Per L.5.2.1 not allowing the same relevant experience to be used in more than one proposal in the same pool, is a vendor allowed to use the same relevant experience in multiple/different pools? For example, use one in the Small Business Pool and use the same project in the WOSB Pool?

There is no restriction on using the same project across multiple pools.

If the Offeror holds a task order with contract renewals/continuation of services (with exactly the same scope) awarded under different contract numbers, can the Offeror consider this a single project for scoring purposes?

No, for the purposes of evaluation, separate contract awards cannot be aggregated into a single Relevant Experience Project.

Does the government have a means to receive a classified Statement of Work to submit an experience that is for classified work?

No. Classified information must not be submitted through the PSP or through any other means in response to the Polaris RFP.

For the relevant experience verification, can rate information be redacted as long as total project value is revealed?

Yes, rate information can be redacted as long as the total project value can be validated.

Can ALL the submitted projects be non-federal? or is there a minimum of federal experience needed?

L.5.2.1 states, any combination of federal government and non-federal Projects can be submitted. There is no requirement for Federal Government experience.

Please confirm whether a single contract that is used for L.5.2.2 Relevant Experience AND for L.5.2.3 Emerging Technology may use a single J.P-6 Project Verification Form for documenting scoring elements, or whether these need to be provided as two separate artifacts, one for the project under L.5.2.2 Relevant Experience scoring and one for the project under L.5.2.3 Emerging Technology scoring.

A single Project Verification Form may be used when a Project is being submitted for both L.5.2.2 and L.5.2.3.

Will the Government confirm that an Offeror is permitted to use a proposed Subcontractor's relevant experience project as one of its (5) five primary relevant experience projects even if the Subcontractor was not the prime on the contract?

Yes, an Offeror can use its subcontractor's experience as one of the 5 Relevant Experience Projects. The requiremenoconusts of L.5.1.3.2 must be met. Additionally, if the project was performed as a subcontractor, the verification method at L.5.2.2.1.2 Verification of Primary Relevant Experience Submission (Non-Federal Contracts and Federal Government Subcontracts) must be utilized.

Does the Offeror need to submit anything else besides the FPDS-NG to receive point credit for NAICS Code, Cost Reimbursement, Dollar Size, Multi-Govt Customers (Funding Code), Multi-Award, &

OCONUS?

Per L.5.2.2.1.1(1) Verification of Primary Relevant Experience Submission (Federal Government Contracts), Offerors should submit a FPDS-NG Report(s) that provides verification of all claimed scoring elements. If the FPDS is not available, or does not substantiate ALL scored elements, the verification process at L.5.2.2.1.1(2) should be used.

No additional documentation is required if a FPDS- NG Report provides verification of all claimed scoring elements.

To confirm, if an Offeror submits an FPDS-NG Report that provides verification of all claimed scoring elements, then the Offeror is NOT required to submit additional verification documents such as a signed copy of original contract award document, copy of contract statement of work, etc., correct?

Correct. See L.5.2.2.1.1. When a FPDS-NG Report provides verification of all claimed scoring elements, no additional documentation is required for verification. Note - FPDS cannot provide verification of L.5.2.2.7, Relevant Experience Project Providing Cybersecurity Services, or L.5.2.3, Emerging Technology Relevant Experience.

Could you reconfirm that if FPDS-NG Report provides verification of all claimed scoring elements, then the Offeror need not submit the contract award form or SOW?

Per L.5.2.2.1.1, no additional documents must be submitted when the FPDS-NG Report that provides verification of all claimed scoring elements. Note - FPDS cannot provide verification of L.5.2.2.7, Relevant Experience Project Providing Cybersecurity Services, or L.5.2.3, Emerging Technology Relevant Experience.

Can we provide a narrative to support the additional SOW verification?

A narrative detailing the work performed is not requested or required; however, note Section L.3 - While some sub-sections of Section L may indicate an Offeror must provide a particular form of documentation for validation purposes, Offerors may provide additional verifiable documentation to validate any claimed scoring elements.

Per section L.5.2.2.1.2, if claiming experience as a subcontractor to a prime on a federal contract, does the experience count towards federal contracts experience?

Per L.5.2.2.1.2, Verification of Primary Relevant Experience Submission (Non-Federal Contracts and Federal Government Subcontracts), This verification method should be used when relevant experience was performed as a subcontractor, EVEN if the subcontract was to a Prime Contractor performing a federal government contract. NOTE: Non-federal Contracts are not eligible to receive points for elements L.5.2.2.3, L.5.2.2.4, L.5.2.2.5, or L.5.2.2.6.

Can projects be reused in the different pools (SB, WOSB) of Polaris?

Relevant Experience Projects may be claimed in offers for both Polaris pools. As noted within L.5.2.1, Projects submitted as Primary Relevant Experience Projects or Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects may not be used in more than one proposal for a specific Pool.

Could an entire Blanket Purchase Agreement be used as a "Project"?

An entire BPA may not be utilized as a project per L.5.2.1. A Relevant Experience Project (also referred to as a “Project”) is defined as (1) a single contract or subcontract; (2) a single task order awarded under a Multiple Award contract (as defined below); (3) a single task order awarded under a master Single-Award Indefinite Delivery task order contract (Definite Quantity, Requirements, or Indefinite Quantity) (FAR 16.5); (4) a single task order placed under a Federal Supply Schedule contract (FAR 8.405-2); or (5) a single task order placed under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA)

(FAR 8.405-3)

Will GSA allow multiple task order awards under a single award BPA or IDIQ count toward relevant size?

No, separate contract awards or task orders cannot be aggregated into a single Relevant Experience Project.

The RFP states “The Offeror must submit a MINIMUM OF THREE (3) and may submit a MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) distinct Primary Relevant Experience Projects” under Primary Relevant Experience and Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects. Please confirm the total maximum number of projects we can submit. Are we to submit a minimum of 6 with a max of 10?

L.5.2.2, Primary Relevant Experience Submission states, "The Offeror must submit a MINIMUM OF THREE (3) and may submit a MAXIMUM OF FIVE

(5) distinct Primary Relevant Experience Projects."

and L.5.2.3, Emerging Technology Relevant Experience states, "the Offeror may submit a MAXIMUM of three (3) Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects."

Offerors must submit a minimum of three Primary Relevant Experience projects) and may submit up to eight total relevant experience projects (up to five Primary Relevant Experience projects and up to three Emerging Technology Relevant Experience projects).

Will the Government please confirm that offerors may submit more detailed Contract Deliverables (e.g., Monthly Status Reports) as acceptable documentation aligning to Primary Relevant Experience Performance Areas and to Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Areas?

Yes, note Section L.3 - While some sub-sections of Section L may indicate an Offeror must provide a particular form of documentation for validation purposes, Offerors may provide additional verifiable documentation to validate any claimed scoring elements.

Section L.5.2.1 Relevant Experience Projects (Definitions) lists several standard forms and documents that are used as award documents. Will the Government also accept the most recently signed SF 30 modifying an award as an award document?

A signed SF30 may be provided in addition to the required contract award form.

Reference Section L.3 - While some sub-sections of Section L may indicate an Offeror must provide a particular form of documentation for validation purposes, Offerors may provide additional verifiable documentation to validate any claimed scoring elements.

Will you consider contracts with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) in lieu of Federal experience to allow for points under section L.5.2.2.3, L.5.2.2.4, L.5.2.2.5 and L.5.2.2.6?

No, WMATA is not a federal agency. Contracts with WMATA will be considered as non-federal.

Do each of the five maximum projects allowed for scoring under a Task Order against a Federal Multiple-Award IDIQ Contract have to be against a unique Multiple-Award IDIQ Contract, or can more than one project still qualify for additional scoring if it is under the same Multiple-Award IDIQ contract as another project?

Relevant Experience Projects do not need to be under different Multiple Award IDIQs in order to receive points for L.5.2.2.

Can the Government confirm that these requirements in L.5.1.3.3 only apply to joint venture offerors who plan to submit relevant experience examples performed by the joint venture as the prime contractor, and not joint venture offerors who plan to submit relevant experience examples performed by either the mentor or the protege as the prime contractor?

L.5.1.3.3 is specific to the use of experience performed as a member of a joint venture.

When proposing in multiple pools, are offerors allowed to use the same signed J.P-2 Joint Venture Experience Template (or J.P-6 Project Verification Form) across multiple submissions?

The same verification documents may be utilized for both the SB and WOSB solicitations.

Is there any exception to the requirements of L.5.2.2.1.1(2), L.5.2.2.1.2 and L.5.2.3.1.1 for award documents and statements of work that we are not authorized to release?

No. To receive claimed scoring, the applicable verification documents must be submitted.

In a situation where a series of task orders are issued against a Single-Award IDIQ contract; can the offeror claim the total project size based on the IDIQ?

See Amendment 0002, L.5.2.1, An indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract may not be claimed as a project unless performance is evident through funding at the contract level. Typically, performance on an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract is through one or more task orders. As noted in the L.5.2.1, a task order may be submitted as a project.

Additionally, task orders may not be aggregated for project value.

Can the Government please clarify the difference between the Project Verification Form from the PSP and the J.P-6 Attachment provided by the Government?

As noted within Amendment 0002, the Project Verification Form from either the PSP or Attachment J.P-6, Project Verification Form, may be utilized when required by L.5.2.2.1.1, L.5.2.2.1.2, or L.5.2.3.1.1.

The Project Verification Form from the PSP is prepopulated with the information input into the PSP.

The Attachment J.P-6, Project Verification Form, is an alternative that must be manually completed when utilized.

Would the Government please provide examples of acceptable documentation to demonstrate breadth of relevant experience?

As noted within L.5.2.2.8, Scoring for this element is only available through the Projects submitted under L.5.2.2.

Please refer to L.5.2.2.1.1 Verification of Primary Relevant Experience Submission (Federal Government Contracts) and L.5.2.2.1.2 Verification of Primary Relevant Experience Submission (Non- Federal Contracts and Federal Government Subcontracts) for verification requirements.

Past Performance

Question Response

78 Please confirm that for a project that has been completed, and a final CPARS has not been submitted by the customer but other CPARS information exists, the Offeror must submit the CPARS, and not the J.P-4 Past performance rating form.

Correct. As noted in L.5.3.1, Past Performance (When CPARS information exists), if the Government has interim or final ratings in CPARS for the Relevant Experience Project(s) being utilized, the Offeror must provide a copy of this rating(s) report with its proposal. If a final CPARS rating is not available, the most current past performance information from CPARS will be used.

79 Our company has been awarded a multiple award contract against which a Federal Government agency has issued task orders. Rather than creating CPARS for each individual task order, the Government's contracting team has generated one, consolidated CPARS report for the entire multiple award contract. If we use a task order from this multiple-award contract as an example of past performance, can we submit the consolidated CPARS report to satisfy the requirements of L.5.3.1? Or, do we have to provide a signed J.P-4 report to fulfill the requirements of L.5.3.2?

When a task order is submitted for the project, but the CPARS was completed at the contract level, the contract level CPARS should be submitted for L.5.3.

80 L.5.3 states "Only in the event CPARS information is not available will an Offeror be allowed to submit Attachment J.P-4, Past Performance Rating Form." Please confirm this applies only for Prime Federal Contracts where the Offeror was the prime for the project.

As CPARS will not be available for non-federal contracts (including projects performed as a subcontractor), Attachment J.P-4 should be utilized in accordance with L.5.3.2.

81 May we use a CPARS that came out after the solicitation was released but before the submission due date?

Yes, the most current past performance information at time of proposal should be included with the submission.

82 In Section L.5.3.2, if there's no final or internal CPARS, may the Offeror use the Past Performance Rating Form?

Offerors must use J.P-4, Past Performance Rating Form when CPARS information does not exist.

83 If the Offeror is unable to obtain a record of past performance on one of the five projects (either CPARS or Attachment J.P-4), and submits the required documentation stating this, will the Offeror still receive the maximum available Past Performance points (20,000)?

In this scenario, the Offeror would still be eligible to receive the maximum points (20,000). Reference M.5.2.2. If the Offeror submits less than five Primary Relevant Experience Projects, or a past performance assessment is unable to be obtained for a submitted Primary Relevant Experience Project, the per project point values will be adjusted to equal the maximum points possible for this factor.

A total of 20,000 points are designated to this Past Performance evaluation factor, regardless of the number of past performance assessments received.

The points available per assessment is dependent upon the number of assessments received.

84 Points are mentioned for 4 and 5 assessments, but not mentioned for 3 assessments.

Is it safe to assume 3 assessments can get the maximum 20,000 points?

Yes, per Section M.5.2.2, Points Assigned to Past Performance Assessments, a total of 20,000 points are designated to this Past Performance evaluation factor, regardless of the number of past performance assessments received. If the Offeror submits less than five Primary Relevant Experience Projects, or a past performance assessment is unable to be obtained for a submitted Primary Relevant Experience Project, the per project point values will be adjusted to equal the maximum points possible for this factor.

85 How will the government be assessing past performance?

Do we automatically receive points for just submitting 5 past performance projects?

Reference Section L.5.3. Past performance will be evaluated using Projects submitted under L.5.2.2 Primary Relevant Experience Submission. A past performance assessment must be submitted for each Relevant Experience Project submitted under L.5.2.2. No Past Performance assessments are required or requested for any projects submitted under L.5.2.3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience.

86 M.5.2.2 states that an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will receive 10,000 points. Please confirm.

Confirmed.

Systems, Certifications and Clearances

Q&R

Question Response

87 Are there any certifications, systems, or clearances that are mandatory for Polaris?

As noted in L.5.4, the identified Systems, Certifications, and Clearances are not minimum or mandatory requirements; however, Offerors who demonstrate having these Systems, Certifications, and Clearances within their proposal will receive additional points.

88 Would the Government please confirm that for Joint Venture bidders, only one member of the JV need have the requisite paperwork to prove an approved accounting system?

Per L.5.1.3.1, Joint Venture, if applicable, L.5.4 Systems, Certifications, and Clearances - Offerors submitting as a joint venture must provide evidence of any claimed system, certification, or clearance in the name of the joint venture itself or in the name of a member of the joint venture.

89 Will GSA confirm that DCMA approval must not have been obtained within a certain time period? For example, approval from 10 years ago is still valid.

There is no defined timeframe for DCMA approval, but per L.5.4.1, Accounting System and Audit Information, by claiming scoring for this element, the Offeror certifies there have been no material changes to the accounting system since the last audit of its accounting system.

90 There appears to be a discrepancy between Section H.13, Accounting System, and L.5.4.1, Accounting System and Audit Information. H.13 does not include verification from a Third-Party Certified Public Accountant (CPA) as an option.

Please explain.

There is no discrepancy. H.13, Accounting System, states the requirement for Offerors responding to cost-reimbursement type task orders. L.5.4.1 provides the criteria for obtaining points for evaluation at the Polaris master contract level.

91 Offerors submitting as a joint venture must provide evidence of any claimed system, certification, or clearance in the name of the joint venture itself or in the name of a member of the joint venture. In a JV bid, if all members of a JV hold certifications and FCLs at the same level, should the Offeror submit for just the one member, or submit for all members that hold the certifications?

Offerors submitting as a joint venture may provide supporting documentation for all members that hold a claimed system, certification or clearance.

92 Must any of the cited systems, certifications and clearances have been valid as of the initial proposal delivery date of May 13, 2022?

Systems, certifications and clearances must be held at the time of proposal submission.

93 Please confirm that in the case of any Small Business Joint Venture, the Facility Clearance Level (FCL) must be held by all JV members and that points will be awarded based on the highest FCL held by all members.

As noted in L.5.1.3.1, Offerors submitting as a joint venture must provide evidence of any claimed system, certification, or clearance in the name of the joint venture itself or in the name of a member of the joint venture. Points will be received for the highest level FCL held by the joint venture itself or a member of the joint venture.

Organizational Risk Assessment

Q&R

Question Response

94 Please clarify whether a Joint Venture and its proposed subcontractor must have previously performed together on a contract or if it would be acceptable for a proposed subcontractor to have previously performed with one of the Joint Venture constituent companies, provided there is proof of a relationship.

See L.5.5.1, Organizational Risk Assessment, "Each proposed subcontractor has previously performed on a contract or order as a subcontractor to the offering prime contractor." For offers from a joint venture, the subcontractor must have previously subcontracted to the offering prime contractor, in this case the joint venture.

95 Does the Government require all firms in a joint venture to have previously worked together?

The Government does not require all members of a joint venture to have previously worked together.

The evaluation factor, defined at L.5.5.1, Organizational Risk Assessment, is not mandatory for submission but does provide additional scoring for demonstrating the Offeror has previously performed in the proposed business arrangement.

96 For the purposes of a business arrangement, must the prime contract that the proposed subcontractor performed on be a federal contract? Or can it be a commercial existing business arrangement in order qualify for the risk assessment points?

See L.5.5.1. This section includes no requirement for prior performance to be on a federal contract.

97 If an offeror is submitting a proposal as CTA with a subcontractor, do the offeror and the subcontractor have to have worked on a particular contract together in order for that contract to be submitted as a Relevant Experience Project, or as an Emerging Technology Relevant Experience?

No, the parties do not have to have worked together previously in order for the project to be submitted as a Primary Relevant Experience Project or an Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project;

however, consistent with L.5.5.1, the offering business arrangement must have previously performed in the same business arrangement to receive scoring for the Organizational Risk Assessment factor.

98 Can the government please confirm that the offeror can claim points for Organizational Risk Assessment (L.5.5.1) for non-federal contract work as well as federal contract work?

Yes, to claim scoring for L.5.5.1, Organizational Risk Assessment, contracts or orders may be federal or non-federal.

99 Under Section L.5.5 Risk Assessment, does the Government require the contract/work previously performed together by the JV to also fall within the relevant NAICS codes of the solicitation?

The RFP does not contain a requirement for previously performed work to be within a relevant NAICS for consideration under L.5.5.1, Organizational Risk Assessment.

Teaming

Question Response

100 Is there a specific format that joint venture agreements must be presented to the government?

See L.5.1.3.1, Joint Ventures. The Offeror must submit a complete copy of the joint venture agreement that established the CTA relationship, and the agreement must meet the requirements of FAR 52.207-6, 13 CFR 125.8 and/or 13 CFR 125.9, as applicable.

101 If a subcontractor performed work for a prime contractor that may also compete for Polaris, will the project be removed if the prime also submits it as a project?

The prime contractor would be able to submit its prime contract as a Relevant Experience Project, AND the subcontractor would be able to submit its subcontract as its own Relevant Experience Project.

The subcontract performance would be considered a commercial project.

102 Can the Offeror use their subcontractor's Approved Purchasing System that was approved by DCMA or CFA?

No, per L.5.1.3.2(3) Proposed Subcontractors, if applicable, Any systems, certifications, and clearances claimed within Section L.5.4 must be in the name of the Offeror. Systems, certifications, and clearances held by proposed subcontractors will not be considered for scoring and must not be submitted within the proposal.

103 Are additional documents required to be submitted for the conditions of L.5.1.3.1 (1) and (2)?

No additional documents are required beyond those already identified in L.5.1.3.1 (3) - (6).

104 Can the Government please clarify if a managing partner of a Joint Venture can only submit one single proposal per pool, or can they submit two proposals per pool: one as the prime and one as the managing partner of the Joint Venture?

As noted within L.3, Proposal Submission Instructions, "An Offeror (as identified in Block 15A of the SF33) may only submit a single proposal for this Pool. ... A small business concern may participate under multiple proposals (e.g., Offeror, proposed subcontractor, joint venture member), however, per L.5.2, Relevant Experience, no project, to include Primary Relevant Experience and Emerging Technology Relevant Experience, may be used in more than one proposal under this Solicitation."

105 Can an Offeror include projects from its subcontractor when the project done by that subcontractor was done as part of a JV/CTA entity?

Reference amended L.5.1.3.3. An Offeror (to include members of a joint venture and proposed subcontractors) may use experience performed as a member of a joint venture, subject to the identified conditions.

106 Would GSA consider accepting a copy of the submitted mentor protégé agreement to the SBA, pending approval?

As stated in L.5.1.3.1(5), Joint Venture, if applicable, "If proposing as a Small Business Administration (SBA) Mentor-Protégé arrangement, the Offeror must submit evidence of SBA approval of its Mentor- Protégé Agreement."

107 Can an Offeror include a joint venture as a proposed subcontractor and use experience from the members of that joint venture?

Per L.5.1.3.2, Proposed Subcontractors, if applicable, Relevant Experience Projects may be from the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor.

Experience must be directly from the proposed subcontractor (not individual members or affiliates).

108 Can a SBA approved Joint Venture Mentor Protégé submit to GSA Polaris if the Mentor is an other than small business?

Yes, a mentor can be other than small business so long as the protégé is a small business for NAICS 541512.

Reference 13 CFR 121.103(h)(1)(ii) - Two firms approved by SBA to be a mentor and protégé under § 125.9 of this chapter may joint venture as a small business for any Federal government prime contract or subcontract, provided the protégé qualifies as small for the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the procurement, and the joint venture meets the requirements of § 124.513

(c) and (d), § 125.8(b) and (c), § 125.18(b)(2) and (3), § 126.616(c) and (d), or § 127.506(c) and (d) of this chapter, as appropriate.

For WOSB, reference 13 CFR 127.506(a)(2) - A joint venture between a protégé firm and its SBA-approved mentor (see § 125.9 and § 124.520 of this chapter) will be deemed small provided the protégé qualifies as small for the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the WOSB Program procurement or sale.

109 Can a joint venture offer also include proposed subcontractors?

See L.5.1.3.1, Joint Venture, if applicable, which notes, "Additionally, if a joint venture submits a proposal utilizing small business subcontractors, the instructions in L.5.1.3.2, Proposed Subcontractors, if applicable, are to be followed in addition to L.5.1.3.1, Joint Venture, if applicable."

110 Can a vendor form subcontract arrangements after GSA Polaris GWAC award?

Yes, Polaris contractors have flexibility to establish subcontract relationships to fulfill task order requirements within the limitations identified at Section G.16.

111 Will the Government clarify if SBA Mentor-Protégé Approval Welcome Letters fulfill the requirement for evidence the SBA approved its Mentor- Protégé agreement?

Yes, the SBA Mentor-Protégé Approval Welcome Letter can satisfy the requirement of L.5.1.3.1(6) for evidence of approval. The approved agreement must also be submitted.

112 Can contractors add subcontractors at the task order level, or do they need to be approved at the IDIQ level first?

Subcontractors are not approved at the contract level. Contractors may utilize subcontractors at the task order level. Reference Section G.16.

113 Are all joint venture members required to provide an Attachment J.P-1 Representations and Certifications from Section K, in addition to providing a copy of the annual representations and certifications completed electronically within SAM.gov?

As stated within L.5.1.3.1 - The joint venture must submit both their annual representations and certifications completed electronically within SAM.gov as well as Attachment J.P-1 Representations and Certifications from Section K.

Each member of the joint venture must also submit both their individual annual representations and certifications completed electronically within SAM.gov as well as Attachment J.P-1 Representations and Certifications from Section K.

114 Please confirm that Polaris Prime Offerors can submit their subcontractors’ representations and certifications as part of their prime bid package.

Confirmed. Both the individual annual representations and certifications completed electronically within SAM.gov as well as Attachment J.P-1 Representations and Certifications from Section K must be submitted for each proposed subcontractor.

115 Do subcontractors in a CTA arrangement have to qualify as small as well?

See L.5.1.3.2, The Offeror and all proposed subcontractors must represent as small businesses for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541512 within SAM.gov.

116 Please clearly define "similarly situated entities"

See FAR 52.219-14; Similarly situated entity, as used in this clause, means a first-tier subcontractor, including an independent contractor, that—

(1) Has the same small business program status as that which qualified the prime contractor for the award (e.g., for a small business set-aside contract, any small business concern, without regard to its socioeconomic status); and

(2) Is considered small for the size standard under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code the prime contractor assigned to the subcontract.

117 As per L.5.1.3.2 it requires to submit the subcontractor letter of commitment for each individual subcontractors, our question is – do we also need to submit the Prime – Sub teaming agreement document apart from subcontractor letter of commitment?

Per L.5.1.3.2, The Offeror must submit a Subcontractor Letter of Commitment for each proposed subcontractor. The RFP includes no additional requirement for submission of a subcontractor teaming agreement.

118 If we have an approved Mentor- Protege agreement but the Protege has grown to be a large business for NAICS 541512, will the JV be allowed to submit an offer on Polaris?

No, a mentor-protege joint venture with a protege who has outgrown its small business status may not compete in Polaris.

Reference 13 CFR 121.103(h)(1)(ii) - Two firms approved by SBA to be a mentor and protégé under § 125.9 of this chapter may joint venture as a small business for any Federal government prime contract or subcontract, provided the protégé qualifies as small for the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the procurement, and the joint venture meets the requirements of § 124.513

(c) and (d), § 125.8(b) and (c), § 125.18(b)(2) and (3), § 126.616(c) and (d), or § 127.506(c) and (d) of this chapter, as appropriate.

For WOSB, reference 13 CFR 127.506(a)(2) - A joint venture between a protégé firm and its SBA-approved mentor (see § 125.9 and § 124.520 of this chapter) will be deemed small provided the protégé qualifies as small for the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the WOSB Program procurement or sale.