POLARIS HUBZone Questions and Responses 1.pdf

POLARIS HUBZone GWAC

QUESTION AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT #1

Thank you for your interest in the Polaris HUBZone GWAC.

Legacy questions and responses (Q&R) from the Polaris SB and Polaris WOSB Request for Proposal (RFP) are provided. These Q&Rs are applicable to the Polaris HUBZone RFP.

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

● Polaris Submission Portal (PSP)

This is the first Q&R document. Additional Q&R documents will be posted to SAM.gov as appropriate. It is the sole 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.

2 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 offerors use the same form on all proposal submissions) for all pools 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 all 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 for each 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."

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. In accordance with Section L.

5.2.2.1.1(2)(b), Verification of Primary Relevant Experience Submission (Federal Government Contracts), if the cognizant Contracting Officer’s signature is unattainable, the Government will accept the signature of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or other Government Employee with cognizance over the submitted Project. The Project Verification Form must include both cognizant CO’s and verifying government employee’s direct telephone numbers and email addresses.

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.

If a vendor is SDVOSB, are they able to submit a proposal for the SB Pool and the SDVOSB pool?

Or can you only submit one proposal as prime across all pools?

An offeror may propose to each pool for which it is eligible. An Offeror is limited to one (1) contract per pool.

29 Where is the scorecard? Please refer to M.6, Polaris Scoring Table.

Can you please help me find the J-2 attachment and the other Master Contract Document attachments?

Attachments J-1 through J-4 are provided within the RFP file after Section M.

L.5.1.3.2 What is the file naming convention for each "Subcontractor Letter of Commitment"?

No prescribed naming conventions or volume structure is required.

Documents will be associated with the claimed elements within the

PSP.

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.

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.

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

35 Where in block 15A of the SF33 should the UEI be included?

Per L.5.1.1, the Offeror must include their UEI (SAM) within Block 15A on the SF33. The UEI can be included in the same text field as the offeror's address.

Our address recently changed but this is not yet reflected in our SAM account as it is pending validation. Can we submit supporting documents to explain the difference in the address on our SF33 compared to SAM?

Yes. If the address in SAM differs from the address included on the SF33, attach a cover letter indicating the reason for this discrepancy. No additional documents are necessary to demonstrate the current address beyond the cover letter.

Relevant Experience Q&R # Question Response

37 May multiple NAICS be claimed from a single project?

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, 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 multiple 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.

49 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.

52 Can multiple NAICS be claimed for a single project?

See 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.

● 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?

Per L.5.2.2 and L.5.2.3, Projects must have at least six (6) 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 HUbzone and use the same project in the SDVOSB 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 exclusive Federal Government experience only.

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 requirements 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.

71 Can projects be reused in different pools of Polaris?

Relevant Experience Projects may be claimed in offers for multiple 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); (5) a single task order placed under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) (FAR 8.405-3 or FAR 13.303); (6) a single task order placed under a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) (FAR 16.703); (7) a single Other Transaction Authority (OTA) award issued under 10 U.S.

C. 4021 or other applicable authority; or (8) a single grant.

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 the SB, WOSB, HUBZone and SDVOSB 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 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?

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.

Can Offerors utilize experience from a project that is coded as NAICS 541330 but was for the performance of IT services?

As NAICS 541330 is not one of the NAICS included in L.5.2.2.1, Primary Relevant Experience NAICS Areas, it may not be utilized for relevant experience. However, if the project includes performance in one of the NAICS listed in L.5.2.2.1, that experience may be claimed utilizing the verification process of L.

5.2.2.1.1(2).

Section L.5.2.2.1.1 requires “original contract award document” (for Federal Government Contracts) and Section L.5.2.2.1.2(2) (Non- Federal Contracts and Federal Government Subcontracts) requires “Award Form.” May Modifications be used as a means of verification?

The contract award form must be provided when required by L.

5.2.2.1.1 or L.5.2.2.1.2; however, as noted in 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. Contract modifications would be additional verifiable documentation that may be submitted in addition to the required documentation.

Can two contracts for a single program be submitted as a project?

No, two contracts may not be submitted as a single Relevant Experience Project. Refer to the definition of a Relevant Experience Project within L.5.2.1.

When we started performance on a contract there was just OCONUS travel. During the course of the contract, the Government decided to station some personnel directly in OCONUS locations. A subsequent contract mod has been issued for the same.

However FPDS still shows the primary place of performance as DC. Will the contract modification and a signed J.P-6 suffice to claim the OCONUS points?

As noted in L.5.2.2.6, 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). For the described situation, in addition to the J.P-6 and contract modification, Offeror must also submit the contract award form and SOW. See L.5.2.2.1.1(2).

89 What is the "Non-Government Award Form"?

A contract or award document from other than a federal government entity. Must explicitly identify the Contractor, Non-Government Customer, Contract Value, and the date the customer awarded/signed.

90 Can a contract be split into multiple projects based on CLIN?

No, CLINs within a single contract may not be split into multiple Relevant Experience Projects.

Refer to the definition of a Relevant Experience Project within L.5.2.1.

L.5.2.2.1.1 Verification of Primary Relevant Experience Submission

– related to the documents, if you use item 2, a-e. Are you only required to send one of the documents listed in item 2 or all the documents?

When providing verification in accordance with L.5.2.2.1.1(2), item

(a) must be provided when available if it provides verification of any claimed scoring elements. Items (b), (c), and (d) must all be provided.

Item (e) is optional and may be included if experience matching the claimed NAICS is specifically and clearly called out in a single or in multiple CLINs.

Related to Section L.5.1.3.3 and J.P-2, can the government clarify whether experience claimed from a Joint venture will be considered a Federal Government Contract for additional scoring?

If the work was awarded to the Joint Venture as a prime contractor to the Federal Government, the Offeror would be eligible for the additional points under Sections L.5.2.2.3, L.

5.2.2.4, L.5.2.2.5 and L.5.2.2.6. As noted in L.5.1.3.3(1)(d), any relevant experience elements claimed must be validated for both the Joint Venture contract/order and the Offeror’s project. Only the portion of work performed by the Offeror will be considered for the project meeting the requirements or scoring elements of L.5.2.

Our contract is federal but the end customer is a state and local government. Please advise if we will get points for either L.5.2.2.3 or L.5.2.2.5 or for both?

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.

Regarding L.5.2.2.3 Demonstrating Experience with Multiple Federal Government Customers (Federal Government Contracts Only), can GSA confirm the point value for demonstrating experience with two or more federal government customers?

Scoring available for L.5.2.2.3 is as follows: •Two Funding IDs will receive 500 points •Three Funding IDs will receive 1,000 pts •Four Funding IDs will receive 1,500 pts •Five Funding IDs will receive 2,000 pts Offerors providing one Funding ID would not meet the requirements for additional points

Can the government please clarify if industry should upload the provided J.P-6 word attachment 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 submissionrequirements of L.

5.2.2.1.2 and the RFP are met.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 inL.5.2.3.1 Emerging Technology Listing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

118 Is scoring available for L.5.2.2.5 for a multiple award BOA?

Yes, Verification must be provided as required by L.5.2.2.5.

Can offerors provide narrative statements justifying why a certain phrase in the statement of work does indeed justify awarding points for an emerging technology, NAICS code, or cybersecurity?

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.

Please confirm our assumption that projects based on a single U.

S. government federal grant are acceptable to use as relevant experience projects.

Yes, see Section L.5.2.1.

Regarding L.5.2.1, what documentation is required to show that performance was through the IDIQ itself and not under task orders?

As noted in 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. This could be demonstrated through obligations in the FPDS-NG Report or the contract award form.

Do offerors need to provide the full FPDS-NG report or only the fields required for verification?

When submitted for verification, the complete FPDS-NG Report should be provided. 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.

Can offerors provide either an FPDS-NG Report or a contract/task order cover page as acceptable documentation of a project's NAICS code?

See L.5.2.2.1.1. If the FPDS-NG Report is not available or the FPDS- NG Report does not substantiate all claimed scoring elements, the identified documents must be submitted for verification. That includes the Project Verification Form, contract award document, and Statement of Work.

For ongoing federal Projects that prove values using FPDS, kindly confirm the FPDS figure is the total column for the field labeled as "Base And Exercised Options

Value:"

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. As noted in J.P-3, for ongoing projects this would be demonstrated by the Total “Base and All Options Value (Total Contract Value)"

If a non-Federal award or contract…