POLARIS HUBZone Questions and Responses 3.pdf

POLARIS HUBZONE 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

● Systems, Certifications and Clearances

● Organizational Risk Assessment

● Polaris Submission Portal (PSP)

This is the third Question and Response Document (Q&R #3) starting with Q&R #320*.

Interested parties should also review the previously shared Question and Response Documents (Q&R#1 and Q&R#2), containing Q&R #1-319. It is the responsibility of the Offerors to periodically check the solicitation on SAM.gov for more information.

*This is a combined Q&A encompassing both the HUBZone and SDVOSB Pools. Questions 323 and 324 are not applicable to the HUBZone Pool.

General

Q&R

Question Response

320 How will Polaris verify HUBZone status of the offeror? Will it be through SAM.gov or will we have to provide additional documentation?

HUBZone-certified business status will be verified using the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) and the Dynamic Small Business Search

(DSBS).

321 L.3 Proposal Submission Instructions

Please clarify what is meant by ‘Primary Relevant Experience’.

Section L.5.2 defines Relevant Experience for the purpose of the RFP.

The Primary category of relevant experience is tied solely to the Projects submitted under Section L.5.2.2, Primary Relevant Experience Submission.

322 Does the Polaris HUBZone and SDVOSB acquisitions require the vendor to have a GSA schedule to bid the opportunity?

There is no requirement for an Offeror to have a GSA contract/schedule to submit a proposal for Polaris.

323 If a Small Business (SB), which is also an SDVOSB, wins the SB Polaris contract, will they, similar to OASIS SB Pool 1 and the OASIS 8(a) pool, be automatically awarded a Polaris SDVOSB contract?

No, as noted in L.3, separate submission is required within the PSP for other Polaris Pools, each under a distinct solicitation.

324 Will GSA delay the Polaris solicitation until after the SBA SDVOSB rule change has been implemented in order to make SBA CVE certification mandatory?

No, the SDVOSB due date for proposal submission remains unchanged.

325 Will the GSA Polaris GWAC Team consider a two (2) week extension on the GSA Polaris HUBZone and SDVOSB Proposal Submission date?

No, the proposal due date for the HUBZone and SDVOSB pools remains unchanged. Proposals are due no later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on November 18, 2022.

Relevant Experience

Question Response

326 In reference to L.5.1.3.3, can the government please clarify the J.P-2 form? Is this to only be used when we are referencing a project from a previous Joint Venture or are we as an offering Joint Venture for Polaris to submit this form?

The Attachment J.P-2 is only to be utilized when claiming relevant experience performed as a member of a joint venture being claimed in accordance with L.5.1.3.3.

327 Reference - L.5.2.2.1.1, 2 c, page 74 of 120.

Question - May the Government accept Optional Form 347 and Optional Form 348 to satisfy the requirement for "signed copy of original contract award document"?

In accordance with L.5.2.2.1.1, 2 c, a signed copy of an original contract award document, may include Other Official Government Award Form not identified above (Must explicitly identify the Contractor, Government Agency, Order Number, Dollar Value, and the date the Contracting Officer awarded/signed).

328 L.5.2.2.1.1 With respect to FPDS reports to support claims, the RFP states "the most recent report must be submitted". Many bidders have submitted a bid for Small Business and/or WOSB with the most recent FPDS records at time of that submission. If we are linking to the same project references now for HUBZone and SDVOSB, can we change the project files if a new FPDS record is released? The same is true for any new/changed artifacts associated with My Company, Business Factors, Project, and Past Performance document libraries. Please advise since the document library is part of an active proposal evaluation, as well as pre-submission bids.

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.

Submitting new FPDS reports for HUBZone/SDVOSB will not impact previous submissions in the SB and WOSB pools.

Systems, Certifications and Clearances

Question Response

329 L.5.4.7

Would the government accept a Top- Secret clearance from the Mentor in a MPJV as an acceptable submission for the Facility Clearance Level (FCL) scoring element?

Yes, 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.

330 Is the Offeror required to maintain a CMMI-DEV or CMMI-SVC appraisal at Maturity Level 2 or higher during the term of the contract?

Offerors are not required to possess or maintain a CMMI-DEV or CMMI-SVC appraisal at Maturity Level 2 or higher.

In accordance with L.5.4.3, if claiming credit for this scoring element, the Offeror must provide verification of a current CMMI-Development (CMMI- DEV) or CMMI-Services (CMMI-SVC) Appraisal at Maturity Level 2 or higher.

331 Is the Offeror required to maintain an active ISO 9001:2015 registration during the term of the contract?

Offerors are not required to possess or maintain an ISO 9001:2015 registration.

In accordance with L.5.4.4, if claiming credit for this scoring element, the Offeror must provide verification of a current 9001:2015 Certification.

332 Is the Offeror required to maintain an active ISO 20000-1:2018 registration during the term of the contract?

Offerors are not required to possess or maintain an ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018 registration. In accordance with L.5.4.5, if claiming credit for this scoring element, the Offeror must provide verification of a current ISO/IEC 20000- 1:2018 Certification.

333 Is the Offeror required to maintain an active ISO 27001:2013 registration during the term of the contract?

Offerors are not required to possess or maintain an ISO/IEC 27001:2013 certification. In accordance with L.5.4.6, if claiming credit for this scoring element, the Offeror must provide verification of a current ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Certification.

334 Is the Government seeking Billable Fully Burdened Rates in the Professional Employee Compensation Plan?

No, please refer to the requirements at L.5.6.1 Professional Employee Compensation Plan and FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

335 L.5.6.1 Professional Employee Compensation Plan

Can the Government clarify if required education and years of experience should be included to define the complexity of various disciplines and professional job difficulty?

Section L.5.6.1.1 FAR 52.222-46 does not include a requirement to include education and years of experience to define the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty.

336 Would the Government consider Offerors ISO 17020:2012 Certification in lieu of ISO 9001:2015?

No, in accordance with L.5.4.4 ISO 9001:2015 Certification, if claiming credit for this scoring element, the Offeror must provide verification of a current 9001:2015 Certification.

337 This is specific to our most recent audit/assessment. Our CPA firm performed an assessment of our accounting system to ensure it is aligned to FAR 16.301-3(a)(3) in October 2018. Is this assessment report acceptable for this scoring element? Is this sufficient to substantiate our claim that we possess and utilize and acceptable accounting system?

There is no defined timeframe for DCAA approval or CPA Audit, 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.

Offerors must provide a copy of a Pre- Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System (SF1408) or a letter from the auditing agency/CPA, on auditing agency/CPA letterhead, from DCAA, DCMA, CFA, or CPA indicating unequivocally that the Offeror’s accounting system has been audited and determined adequate for determining costs applicable to a cost-reimbursement type contract or order in accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3). If both the SF1408 and auditing agency/CPA letter exist, one must be submitted with the proposal but both may be submitted with the proposal.

338 Regarding Facility Clearance is it okay to send the notification letter or does it have to be a letter specifically from you officer signed?

Reference L.5.4.7 Offerors must submit a letter signed by their Facility Security Officer identifying the Offeror’s CAGE code, Facility Clearance Level (FCL), and cognizant security office, such as the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) Office, verifying a facility clearance (secret, top secret, or higher) has been granted.

Organizational Risk Assessment

Question Response

339 Section L.5.5.1 Organizational Risk Assessment

Will an MPJV who has been awarded an IDIQ but does not have any work under it receive points for the organizational risk assessment. We are an MPJV as defined in L.5.5.1 proposing by ourselves however the government states “an IDIQ contract or BPA without performance does not satisfy the requirement of this element for previous performance”. Please clarify.

No, as noted in L.5.5.1, an IDIQ contract or BPA without performance does not satisfy the requirement of this element for previous performance.

340 Section L.5.5.1 Organizational Risk Assessment

Question: Since the companies are forming Joint Venture between Members who have worked together as Prime/Sub but not as a Joint Venture, and the Members are forming the Joint Venture specifically targeted for this Polaris bid, the JV entity will be a new entity and there will be no pre-existing Joint Venture with the same members.

Hence there will be No instances where the proposed subcontractor would have worked under the offering Joint Venture

(i) or any Joint Venture composed of the same members as the offering joint venture (ii).

Can the government please confirm the submitting JV entity satisfies the requirement as “having previously performed in the same business arrangement” and can gain full points for the Organizational Risk Assessment when bidding as Joint Venture, if the proposed subcontractor to the new Joint Venture has either (1) worked with one of the JV members in a Prime/Sub arrangement on a contract / task order OR (2) worked with each of the members of the Joint Venture in a Prime/Sub arrangement on a contract or task order.

No, see L.5.5.1, Organizational Risk Assessment, "Each proposed subcontractor has previously performed on a contract or order as a subcontractor to (i) the offering joint venture or (ii) a joint venture composed of the same members as the offering joint venture."

341 Can the government please clarify whether if we are proposing as SBA Approved Mentor-Protégé JV, with one subcontractor, and the JV protégé is a prime contractor with the JV mentor and subcontractor as subcontractors on a current contract, would that business arrangement meet the requirements of L.5.5.1 Paragraph 2c and Paragraph 4.

No. L.5.5.1 requires that for a JV with subcontractors, each proposed subcontractor has previously performed on a contract or order as a subcontractor to (i) the offering joint venture or (ii) a joint venture composed of the same members as the offering joint venture.

Polaris Submission Portal (PSP)

Q&R

Question Response

342 Polaris has several different pools (SB, WOSB, etc.) and a particular Primary Relevant Experience might be a better fit in a different part of the score sheet and it might require a different NAICS code. Within the Polaris Submission Portal (PSP), can an offeror have more than one J.P-6 with different NAICS codes as long as it’s signed by the Contracting Officer?

The Offeror can claim a different NAICS code for the same relevant experience project in separate pools. However, as noted within section L.5.2.2(a) only one NAICS may be claimed for a project.

The claimed NAICS should be identified on the project verification form

Separate submission is required within the PSP for other Polaris Pools, each under a distinct solicitation.