Polaris Question and Response 3.pdf

POLARIS GWAC

QUESTION AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT #3

Consistent with the previous Question & Response Documents, 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

• Organizational Risk Assessment

• Past Performance

• Systems, Certifications, and Clearances

• Teaming

• Representations and Certifications

• Responsibility

• Polaris Submission Portal (PSP)

• Specific to WOSB Solicitation

This is the third Question and Response Document (Q&R #3) starting with Q&R #175.

Interested parties should also review the previously shared Question and Response Documents (Q&R #1 and Q&R #2), containing Q&R #1-174. The Government plans to provide additional responses. Any additional Question and Response Documents will be posted to SAM.gov. It is the responsibility of the Offerors to periodically check the solicitation on SAM.gov for more information.

General Q&R # Question Response 175 Can the Contractor add Labor

Categories at the ID/IQ level at the time of submission of this proposal response?

No, additional labor categories may not be added at this time. Reference B.7 for information on utilizing additional labor categories when necessary to provide an IT services-based solution for a specific task order.

176 G.5.1 and G.5.2 indicate that the Contractor Program Manager and Contractor Contract Manager must be a "direct employee of the company."

Can these personnel be employees of a parent company?

Yes, the Contractor Program Manager and Contractor Contract Manager can be from the parent company of the contractor.

177 On the SF33, does the Government still wish for Offerors to update Block 13 or add a discount for CALENDAR

DAYS (%)?

No entry is required in Block 13. Offerors may offer prompt payment discount terms;

however, it will have no bearing on the award decision as cost and pricing information are not being considered at the master contract level.

Relevant Experience Q&R # Question Response 178 Can the government please clarify if industry should upload the provided J.P-6 word attachment from Amendment 0002 into the Symphony portal, or should industry use the "generate as PDF" button to generate a new J.P.6 for the government to sign?

Either is acceptable for the Project Verification Form.

179 Given that a project’s SOW/PWS are not always fully inclusive of all work being performed on a contract or task order, will the Government allow for further verification of Emerging Technology via other verifiable contractual government documents?

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.

180 If two separate offerors are subcontractors to the same prime contractor under the same prime contract #, and both wish to use their subcontract as a primary relevant experience or emerging technology qual, please confirm the restriction on using a project once in a pool does not apply to this condition?

In this situation, each subcontractor would be able to submit its subcontract as its own Relevant Experience Project. Each subcontract would be considered a separate and unique project.

181 Referencing L.5.2.2.1 Primary Relevant Experience NAICS Areas:

Our project has an erroneous NAICS Code listed in FPDS, and the correct NAICS Code listed on the contract award form. Will the government accept just the signed contract award form with the correct NAICS Code instead of all document requirements listed in L.5.2.2.1.1(2)?

The government will not accept just the signed contract award form for verification. If the FPDS-NG Report does not substantiate all claimed scoring elements, all documents required by L.5.2.2.1.1(2) must be submitted for verification.

182 When submitting the Primary relevant project artifacts for each project, does the government want the offeror to submit a copy of FPDS-NG, Project Verification form or J.P-6 form, Contract Award, and SOW/PWS in one file or a separate file for each artifact?

Either approach is acceptable.

183 Will the Government allow the most recent FPDS-NG report to be from the time of the RFP release and any other reports afterwards not required?

As noted in L.5.2.2.1.1, when multiple FPDS-NG Reports are available, the most recent report must be submitted as well as any previous reports necessary for verification of claimed scoring elements. The most recent report available at time of submission should be included within the proposal.

184 How should offerors handle documentation with multiple components? For example, if multiple FPDS-NG records are required for substantiation, should each record be submitted as a separate file, or can they be combined?

Either method is acceptable. Documents may be combined or submitted as separate files.

185 Referencing L.5.2.2.1.1(2)(d) Relevant Experience Statement of Work requirements: If an amended SOW/PWS/SOO has been issued under the contract, please confirm only the most recent version should be provided?

Confirmed. If a SOW has been amended/modified, only the current (most recent) version should be submitted.

186 Section L.5.2.2.1.2 - Would a fully executed subcontract that includes all required information serve as an acceptable Award Form?

A fully executed subcontract would meet the requirements for the award form if it explicitly identifies the Contractor, Non-Government Customer, Contract Value, and the date the customer awarded/signed; so long as all other documentation submission requirements of L.5.2.2.1.2 and the RFP are met.

187 When the FPDS does not indicate cost reimbursement, does the offeror need to only submit the contract award documentation indicating cost reimbursement to receive the 3,000 points? Is there other documentation required?

Offeror must provide verification in accordance with L.5.2.2.1.1(2) which includes the Project Verification Form, Contract Award Form, and Statement of Work. This must include contract award documentation that indicates a cost-reimbursement contract type (for the contract or a specific CLIN).

188 Project with Cost Reimbursement.

Can a project used be a subcontract for work under a prime Federal government cost reimbursable contract where the offeror serving as a subcontractor has cost reimbursable CLINs flowed down in the subcontract?

No. As noted in L.5.2.2.4, these points are only available for Relevant Experience Projects performed as a prime contractor to the Federal Government.

189 For L.5.2.2.5, please confirm that points for this scoring element are available to an Offeror for prime task order awards performed by its proposed subcontractors against their Multiple award contract.

In this scenario, if the relevant experience project submitted is from a proposed subcontractor, and it meets the criteria of L.2.2.5, then it would be eligible for points.

190 For the Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Submission, if the FPDS-NG report is available, can it be used instead of the Attachment J.P-6?

No, in order to verify emerging technology experience, the project verification form, contract award document, and statement of work must be submitted in accordance with the requirements of L.5.2.3.1.1.

191 Must the J.P-6 be submitted for all Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Submission even when the Contract document and SOW is available for verification?

Yes, as noted in L.5.2.3.1.1, the signed Project Verification Form must be submitted in order to receive points for each submitted Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project.

192 Does the Government wish to receive the referenced SOW/PWS material in its entirety or just the pages with the tagged passages of the supporting documentation?

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

193 Can other emerging technologies beyond those listed in L.5.2.3.1 be submitted for scoring?

No, as stated in L.5.2.3, each Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project must have included the performance of one of the Emerging Technologies listed in L.5.2.3.1 Emerging Technology Listing.

194 To receive points for each submitted Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project, the RFP states:

"The Project Verification Form from the PSP signed by a Contracting Officer (CO) with cognizance over the submitted Project." Please confirm that for those projects being used as an Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project, offerors do not need to complete the information related to the Relevant Experience section (e.g., NAICS, OCONUS, etc.)

if the project is not one from that group.

Correct. Information specific to Primary Relevant Experience Project Scoring is not required to be completed on the J.P-6 if the project is solely being utilized for Emerging Technology Relevant Experience.

195 Regarding L.5.2.2 Primary Relevant Experience Submission, can the offeror utilize subcontractors to meet the minimum of 3 Primary Relevant Experience Projects?

Yes. See L.5.1.3.2 for information on proposed subcontractors. As noted in L.5.1.3.2(3), Relevant Experience Projects may be from the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor.

196 Does the offeror need to tag each item (NAICS Code, Cost Reimbursement, Dollar Size, Multi-Govt Customers (Funding Code), Multi-Award, & OCONUS) on the FPDS-NG for each project submission to receive credit for point credit for these items?

Tagging is not required for verification provided by FPDS but can be included to assist evaluators in validating the claimed scoring.

197 For L.5.2.2.5, how should a task order against a multiple-award contract be demonstrated when the task order was through a BPA under Multiple Award Schedule?

For L.5.2.2.5, to receive scoring for orders against a BPA on MAS, the Offeror should submit the FPDS records for the task order, BPA, and for the multiple-award contract that indicates “Multiple Award” within the “Multiple Or Single Award IDV” field.

198 In multiple places the RFP states “Note: Project value for completed federal projects is determined by the total obligated dollars. Project value for ongoing federal projects is determined based on the total estimated value (inclusive of all option periods).” J.P-3 FPDS Sample does not indicate how the Government will determine if a project is ongoing or completed. Would the Government please clarify how it will make this determination?

The Government will determine a project's status of ongoing or completed as of the proposal due date.

199 Is tagging areas of a primary project’s PWS pdf file sufficient to justify other NAICS than what is listed in FPDS OR will the Government require additional project summary description/documentation as part of our submission?

Refer to Section L.5.2.2.1.1 Verification of Primary Relevant Experience Submission (Federal Government Contracts). If the FPDS-NG Report is not available or the FPDS-NG Report does not substantiate all claimed scoring elements, a signed Project Verification Form, Contract Award Document, and SOW must be provided.

200 If the offeror is submitting a Task Order that qualifies as a Relevant Experience Project will that Task Order also qualify as an award against a Multiple-Award Contract if the Task Order was issued under a single-award BPA that was procured under the GSA MAS? Assuming that the FPDS record shows a clear connection between the award under the MAS and the Task Order award.

Yes, the offeror should submit the FPDS records for the task order, BPA, and for the multiple-award contract that indicates “Multiple Award” within the “Multiple Or Single Award IDV” field.

Organizational Risk Assessment Q&R # Question Response 201 For the organizational risk element, what portions of the contract or order does the Government require?

See Amendment 0003, the award form for the contract or order for which the work was performed must be submitted.

202 Can partial points be received for Organizational Risk Assessment for previous performance among some but not all of the proposed team?

No, the 5,000 points for Organizational Risk Assessment will be provided on an all-or-none basis in accordance with the requirements of L.5.5.1.

Past Performance Q&R # Question Response 203 The Solicitation states "If the FPDS-

NG report indicates that the principal place of performance was a CONUS location, then the Offeror must provide a copy of the contract SOW or documents from the contract that detail the OCONUS location(s) at which work was performed, contract award form and an authorized signature as described in L.5.2.2.1.1(2)."

If a CPARs verifies OCONUS support, would the Government allow this as supporting document in lieu of a signed J.P-6 form?

In this situation, the CPARS may be provided as additional documentation to support the claim; however, all documents required by L.5.2.2.1.1(2) must also be provided.

204 Should the J.P-4 be utilized for a Federal subcontract?

Yes, please refer to L.5.3.2.

Systems, Certifications, and Clearances Q&R # Question Response 205 Can a single Facility Clearance Letter document be used for SB and WOSB pools?

Yes, the same facility clearance letter document may be used for SB and WOSB.

206 For certifications, can the POC information be included in the same file as the certification?

Either a single file or separate files is acceptable.

Teaming Q&R # Question Response 207 Will the Government allow offerors to modify the J.P-7 Joint Venture Work and Qualifications template to adjust column widths?

Yes, Offerors may make minor formatting changes to Section J and Section K templates used in proposal submission per L.3.

208 Will the Government allow offerors to modify the J.P-7 Joint Venture Work and Qualifications template to adjust font size to Arial 10?

Yes, Offerors may make minor formatting changes to Section J and Section K templates used in proposal submission per L.3.

209 Does the protégé have to provide only one primary relevant experience OR Emerging Technology Relevant experience project or both?

As noted within L.5.1.3.1, for offers from SBA Mentor-Protégé joint ventures, a minimum of one Primary Relevant Experience Project or Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project must be from the Protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture.

210 In a Mentor-Protégé- Can a Mentor submit 3 Primary Relevant Experience Projects and 1 Emerging Technology Project?

Yes. As noted in L.5.1.3.1, no more than three Primary Relevant Experience Projects may be provided by the Mentor.

211 Will points be provided for L.5.1.3.1(5), Attachment J.P-7?

No, this is not a scoring item on the Polaris Scoring Table, see M.6.

212 Can a single Letter of Commitment document be used for SB and WOSB pools if the same subcontractor is being used on both the pools?

Yes, a single Letter of Commitment may be used for both SB and WOSB pools. The letter must be submitted in the PSP for each pool.

213 Do the subcontractors also need to complete GSA Form 527, Prof Employee Compensation Plan, Uncompensated Overtime Policy, etc.? Or, is this for Prime only.

Per L.5.1.3.2, responsibility information (including GSA Form 527, Professional Employee Compensation Plan, Uncompensated Overtime Policy, etc.) must be submitted for the Offeror.

Responsibility information should not be submitted for any proposed subcontractors.

214 Would the Government please confirm that the parent entity may prepare a single MRCL that identifies all elements in accordance with L.5.1.4, even if the parent organization is not the offeror? In other words, can a parent organization write a single MRCL that addresses meaningful relationships between the subsidiaries it controls, when it is one of those subsidiaries that is the offeror?

Yes, a single MRCL is allowed even if the parent organization is not the offeror.

215 We were a lead member of a Small Business Joint Venture where we performed work as a lead member of the JV. Can we utilize the relevant experience from that JV on a bid with another JV?

Reference L.5.1.3.3 for the ability to use experience performed as a member of a joint venture.

216 Can a subcontractor classify an eligible NAICS code with justification, even though the prime contract prime contract has a different code?

See L.5.2.2(a)(iii). It is acceptable for a subcontract NAICS to differ from the NAICS for the prime contract. Verification for the claimed NAICS must be provided in accordance with L.5.2.2.1.2.

217 Please confirm that an individual company submitting a proposal as itself including MRCLs qualifies as a “business arrangement” for which “No additional verification is required for an individual company offering as itself.”

For the purposes of L.5.5.1, no additional documentation is required for an individual company utilizing a MRCL.

218 If a small business is bidding as a prime, can that company also be a sub-contractor in another company’s Small Business proposal?

Yes. As noted in L.3, An Offeror (as identified in Block 15A of the SF33) may only submit a single proposal for this Pool.

An Offeror found submitting more than one proposal will have ALL of its proposals disqualified and removed from further award consideration. 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.

219 Does the meaningful relationship commitment letter (MRCL) apply to a subcontractor of the prime offeror, in which subcontractor is a subsidiary of another company?

No, a meaningful relationship commitment letter may not be provided for a proposed subcontractor. As noted in L.5.1.4, the MRCL may be utilized by an offeror (to include a member of a joint venture).

220 Would the government please clarify whether an SBA Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture with two similarly situated members (i.e. – 2 members that are SDVOSB’s) can provide the maximum number of relevant experience examples without restriction?

The restriction on the number of primary relevant experience projects that may be provided by the mentor is still applicable in this situation. See L.5.1.3.1.

221 Would the Government confirm that, If the Offeror chooses to prepare a single MRCL that identifies all required elements, the parent company's signature is the only signature required on the MRCL?

Yes, per L.5.1.4, in the event that a parent organization has complete and full control over all meaningful relationship entities, the parent entity may prepare a single MRCL that identifies all elements required.

222 If a Joint Venture is the proposing offeror does the attachment J.P-2 need to be used for every Relevant Experience claimed by the individual members in Joint Venture or just for experience claimed by Joint Venture as the Prime?

The Attachment J.P-2 is only to be utilized when claiming relevant experience performed as a member of a joint venture.

223 In the event that the members of a JV have worked together but have not worked together in the structure of a JV (i.e., initially worked as Prime/sub), how should this be notated in the J.P- 7?

Information such as this may be noted within the “Work Done” field for the Joint Venture.

224 "The Government provides an example table requesting information on “Work Done - Identify experience and past performance through listing of services."

QUESTION: Can the Government provide a clarification—for Attachment J.P-7, does each member of the JV provide a generalized listing of services, as to what the company offers as a whole on current/past performances OR do we insert listing of services pertaining to the contracts we reference in our submission?

Information submitted through J.P-7 is meant to provide work done and qualifications held generally and not be limited to the projects referenced and submitted for Polaris.

225 For the J.P-7, are we only to include work done and qualifications included for scoring elsewhere in the proposal?

No, the J.P-7 is not limited to work done and qualifications submitted for scoring.

226 Will past performances and/or certifications for members of the JV be accepted and evaluated for the team or does the lead of the JV need to have all qualifications?

As noted in L.5.1.3.1, Past performance examples may be from the joint venture or an individual member of the joint venture. As for certifications, 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.

227 Section L.5.1.3.1 states “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”. Does this mean that reps and certs for members are optional?

No. Representations and Certifications are not optional for joint venture members. As noted in L.5.1.3.1, 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.

228 Are there any special considerations for DoD Mentor-Protege participants?

No. The conditions of L.5.1.3.1 apply to any joint venture offeror.

229 We are submitting a proposal as an SBA approved Mentor-Protege JV.

Protege has a past performance as a subcontractor to a large business on a DOD contract. Will protege's experience satisfy the minimum requirement listed above and be used to claim points for primary relevant experience?

This can satisfy the requirement if the project meets requirements of L.5.2.2 and/or L.5.2.3 as applicable. Appropriate verification documents must also be provided.

230 For the attachment J.P-2, if an offer is being submitted by a joint venture and a joint venture member is claiming experience performed as a member of a previous joint venture; how should Part I of J.P-2 be completed?

Within Part I of Attachment J.P-2:

Offeror's Name - This field should identify the JV member that performed the work identified within Part IV. In the described situation, it would also be acceptable to note both the member and the name of the JV offering for Polaris.

Joint Venture Name and UEI - These fields should identify the name and UEI for the Joint Venture awarded the contract or order identified within Part II of the Attachment J.P-2.

231 M.4.2 states: "Teaming arrangements without required documentation establishing the relationship will result in removal of claimed scoring elements and/or rejection of the proposal." For proposed subcontractors, what must be submitted for this requirement?

As noted in L.5.1.3.2, the Offeror must submit a Subcontractor Letter of Commitment for each proposed subcontractor.

Representations and Certifications Q&R # Question Response 232 Do the reps and certs have to be signed by each individual teaming member?

Signatures are not required on submitted reps and certs.

Responsibility Q&R # Question Response 233 Can a single GSA Form 527 document be used for SB and WOSB pools?

Yes, the same GSA Form 527 may be submitted for both pools.

234 Would the Government please confirm if the intent is for offerors to provide within their Professional Employee Compensation Plans the actual LCATs relevant to Polaris as provided in RFP Attachment J-2? If yes, would the Government please confirm that a single salary range per Labor Category that covers the salary across all knowledge/skill levels with the range starting at Junior and ending with Subject Matter Expert be acceptable?

Salary rates or ranges do not need to be specifically identified for each skill level, only the overall labor category. For example, a salary range may be identified that encompasses all skill levels for a labor category (rather than separate rates or ranges for Junior, Journeyman, Senior, and SME categories individually).

235 Is responsibility documentation (financial information, compensation plan, overtime policy) required from proposed subcontractors?

No, financial information, compensation plan and overtime policy are not required from proposed subcontractors. See L.5.1.3.2.

236 L.5.1.3.1 states for Uncompensated Overtime Policy “may be either from the Joint Venture or from each member of the joint venture”. Can GSA confirm that as long as one member submits, this requirement is satisfied?

No, as stated in L.5.1.3.1, the Uncompensated Overtime Policy may be either from the Joint Venture or from each member of the joint venture.

If not provided from the joint venture, the Uncompensated Overtime Policy must be submitted by all members of the joint venture.

237 Who is required to complete J-P.5 GSA Form 527 in a JV relationship?

As noted in L.5.1.3.1, Financial responsibility documents required by L.5.6 must be submitted for each member of the joint venture.

238 Should financial statements be attached to the submission as separate documents or appended directly to the GSA Form 527 as a single document?

Either method is acceptable.

Polaris Submission Portal (PSP) Q&R # Question Response 239 Does the Government have specific requirements related to the file naming convention for each file uploaded to the PSP (e.g., OfferorName_L.5.1_SF33)?

No, the Government does not have specific naming conventions for files uploaded to

PSP.

240 Are there any file size limitations Offerors should be aware of for uploading documents to the Polaris Submission Portal?

Each file must not exceed 20MB.

241 Are offerors able to submit multiple PDF files in response to a single RFP requirement?

Yes, Offerors may submit multiple PDF files.

242 Please confirm it is acceptable to use Adobe's PDF Portfolio file to combine multiple electronically signed PDF documents into a single file so it can be submitted through the portal.

PDF files will be viewed in a web browser. It is not recommended to use portfolio files because neither MS Edge or Google Chrome browsers support viewing portfolio

PDF.

243 Can the Government please confirm that “tags” for all supporting documentation to be submitted via ‘Tools’ and selecting the add ‘Comment’ feature within Adobe?

The comment feature is one method of tagging that works. Sticky Notes are another.

244 What are “performance factors” referenced in the Polaris Submission Portal?

For the purposes of the PSP, Performance Factors are data elements that are solicitation specific. After you add a project to a submission you will be able to add this information in the list of projects by selecting the “begin” button in the Functional Factors column. The next page will show you the Performance Factors that you can claim.

245 Please confirm that the PSP requirement to “tag” documentation only applies to required and scored elements for Relevant Experience Projects L.5.2 elements? For other required or scored elements under L.5 that are obvious, it does not appear that tagging would be necessary or required.

Per L.4 (Amendment 0003), Offerors are encouraged to utilize comments (“tags”) in Relevant Experience supporting documentation indicating the specific reference for verification purposes. Failure to tag supporting documentation may result in an inability of the government to validate claimed scoring.

246 There doesn’t appear to be a section in the PSP to upload the SF 30s.

Please clarify where and how offerors should submit this documentation.

The SF 30 is uploaded in the submission documents button on the left menu inside of each submission.

247 Is there any tagging required for the J.P-1 and SAM reps and certs submission?

No tagging is required for J.P-1 or SAM Representations and Certifications.

248 If an offeror is proposing as a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA), can the Government please clarify how to add this team member in the Polaris Submission Portal? In the "New Team Member'' section - the PSP only provides the option to add the following types of partnerships: 1) Subcontractor; 2) Joint Venture Member; 3) Joint Venture Subcontractor; 4) Mentor in an SBA Mentor Protégé Program; and 5) Protégé in an SBA Mentor Protégé Program.

When adding a team member, the type of Contractor Teaming Arrangement as provided by L.5.1.3.1 or L.5.1.3.2 must be selected from the dropdown.

249 Based on the PSP, it is unclear where the JV agreement referenced in L.5.1.3.1 should be uploaded.

Upload the JV agreement referenced in L.5.1.3.1 inside the team members documents upload.

250 L.5.1.3.2 4. Where does the offeror submit the "Subcontractor Letter of Commitment (LOC)" within the PSP for each subcontractor on the offeror's team?

The Subcontractor Letter of Commitment (LOC) is uploaded in the Team Member's Supporting Documentation area.

251 Will the Government please confirm that the offeror is allowed to use virtual sticky notes in addition to the highlights inside of submitted SOWs/PWSs to provide further elaboration/explanation on vague task descriptions, and that these will be read and evaluated?

Tags should be used within documents to identify the specific location of supporting information. Further elaboration/explanation should not be provided and will not be considered.

252 In the PSP, when entering Project information in the Tab "Complete Your Project Details" will the optional entries "Locations for project performance" and "Were subcontractors/teaming partners involved in this project" impact the number of points awarded for the primary relevant projects?

No, these fields are not applicable to M.6, Polaris Scoring Table and will not be evaluated.

253 The Solicitation states "Project Verification Form (Either from the PSP or Attachment J.P-6) signed by a Contracting Officer (CO) with cognizance over the submitted Project." Our plan is to submit the Government provided J.P-6 signed form via the PSP as a PDF. Since the Government mentioned "either," Is there another option offered by the

PSP?

In the PSP, you can generate the form in the project page by clicking the “Generate as PDF” button in the My Company/Projects/Project name.

Both the Project Verification Form from the PSP or Attachment J.P-6 are acceptable.

254 When entering project information in the PSP, should the claimed Funding Agency ID be selected for the customer agency?

Yes, the customer agency selected should be based on the claimed Funding Agency

ID.

255 Within the PSP, where can offerors indicate a project's relevance to Emerging Technology?

After you add a project to a submission, you will be able to add this information in the list of projects by selecting the “begin” button in the Functional factors column.

256 Could GSA provide a guide for “tagging” in PSP?

Reference the Help link within the PSP for tagging instructions:

https://industrysupport.apexlogic.com/suppor t/solutions/articles/35000192996-how-tags-work-in-symphony-for-polaris

257 Please confirm if the submission document in the PSP titled “Confidentiality Disclosure Statement” is reserved for the optional cover page mentioned in the Q&A.

Correct, the optional cover page may be submitted through the Confidentiality Disclosure Statement in the dropdown.

258 Where should offerors upload the required Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture Agreement and SBA Approval document with their proposal package?

Teaming documents should be included inside the team members documents upload.

259 In the Relevant Experience section there are questions regarding "How many locations?" and "Were teaming partners involved?" Can you please confirm if bidders are required to complete these fields?

There are several optional fields in the Project Details screen since this project data may be used for other solicitations that require this information. They are optional for entry and do not impact the Polaris submission.

260 Will the Government please add an upload area for the J.P-7?

The J.P-7 upload is in the submission documents button on the left menu inside of each submission.

261 What should I do if the funding ID is not available on the drop down menu?

If you do not see the funding office in the select field, please submit a copy of the FPDS report to the Symphony Help Desk. If the FPDS report does not exist, this field should be left blank as it is ineligible for scoring in accordance with L.5.2.2.5.

262 For Primary Relevant Experience, Emerging Technology Relevant Experience, and Cybersecurity files, where is this information provided?

Since this data is solicitation specific, after you add the project to a submission you will be able to add the "location in the file" information or tag by selecting the begin button in the Functional Factors column.

263 Please confirm that if two companies have formed an SBA Mentor Protégé Joint Venture, those two companies shall register as separate Team Members under the JV's UEI ("My Company") in the portal.

Yes, add them to the Team Members of the Joint Venture.

264 When adding Primary Relevant Experience projects to our proposal in PSP on the “Performance Factors” page, the PSP requires us to select the file reference and state the location in the file (page number, section, paragraph, etc.). It is unclear how offerors are supposed to complete the “location” field since there’s many different scoring elements. Unlike the Emerging Technology and Cybersecurity fields that relate to a particular page in our contract SOWs, there’s no one location that we can point the evaluators to for the entire Primary Relevant Experience project. The reference file for this element is some combination of the FPDS report, contract award document, Attachment J.P-6, etc. What “location in the file” is the government looking for?

Use a single tag to identify where support for the claimed Primary Relevant Experience (NAICS) is found in all your documents.

Using the same tag in multiple locations and files makes it easier to find the proof of your claims.

265 The tags legend includes "TCV" for "Total Contract Value" However, the term, "Total Contract Value" is not consistent with the RFP. In Section L.5.2.2.2, the Government states that, "Project value for completed federal Projects is determined by the total obligated dollars. Project value for ongoing federal Projects is determined based on the total estimated value (inclusive of all option periods).

Project value for non-federal contracts is determined based on the contract value listed on the Non-Government Award Form.) In this context, would the Government please define "Total Contract Value?' And, if a contract's total obligated dollars or total estimated value conflicts with the "Total Contract Value," which project value should an Offeror tag?

The TCV tag should be utilized for the claimed project value.

266 Is portal access restricted to Prime Offerors only?

Prime offerors may provide teammates access to the proposal within PSP.

267 For the Organization Risk Assessment, will the government confirm that if an individual company is offering as itself, they do not need to upload any supporting documents on the PSP and can simply check the “I Certify the claim of Organizational Risk Assessment.” checkbox?

Yes, as noted in L.5.5.1, an individual company [not proposing as part of a joint venture or with proposed subcontractor(s)] will receive scoring for Organizational Risk Assessment. No additional verification is required for an individual company offering as itself.

Specific to WOSB Solicitation Q&R # Question Response 268 Can a WOSB subcontractor's subcontract experience be counted on their prime bid as relevant experience? Example: WOSB W is bidding as a prime offeror on POLARIS and wants to include proposed subcontractor S. Company S has a past performance as a subcontractor to large business on a DOD contract. Can company S's experience be used in the W's bid?

A WOSB subcontractor's experience may be used when it meets the requirement of L.5.1.3.2. In this scenario, a WOSB subcontractor's relevant experience may be from the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor.

269 In order to qualify as WOSB, does the company have to be certified by SBA as WOSB or is self-certification sufficient?

Reference FAR 52.219-30 and 13 CFR

127.504. In order for a concern to submit an

offer on a specific WOSB set-aside requirement, the concern must qualify as a small business concern under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract, and either be a certified WOSB pursuant to § 127.300, or represent that it has submitted a complete application for WOSB certification to SBA or a third-party certifier and has not received a negative determination regarding that application from SBA or the third party certifier.

270 Is it correct to assume that the managing partner of a Joint Venture must be a WOSB?

Please refer to 13 C.F.R. 127.506 as noted in L.5.1.3.1