A3 GR Set 01_08.23.24.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Alliant 3 GWAC, Request for Proposal (RFP) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 47QTCB24R0009
- Issued by
- GSA Federal Acquisition Service
About this file
This document contains the Government Responses to the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Alliant 3 Governmentwide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) solicitation issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Acquisition Service. The RFP consists of an SF-33 contract form and 18 attachments that provide detailed instructions and templates for offerors to submit their proposals. Key details include:
The Alliant 3 GWAC is seeking proposals for a 10-year contract period with a 5-year base and two 5-year option periods. Offerors must submit proposals by October 28, 2024. The RFP provides instructions on how to use the Symphony proposal submission tool, complete templates like the Relevant Experience Project, Emerging Technology Project, Subcontractor Experience, and Small Business Engagement, as well as submit required documents such as the GSA Form 527 and Contractor C-SCRM Responsibility Questionnaire. The RFP also addresses pricing, labor categories, security clearance requirements, and other administrative and technical requirements. Offerors are instructed to submit questions through a Google Form by July 26, 2024, and responses will be provided by August 23, 2024.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Alliant 3 GWAC, Request for Proposal (RFP) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
GR Set 01_08.23.24
| Alliant 3 Government Responses to Request For Proposal (RFP) Feedback GR Set 01_08.23.24 | ||||
| Response # | RFP Paragraph Reference | Specific RFP Location | Comment/Question | Government Response |
| GR1 - 01 | General/Not Listed/Other | General Comment (Attachments) | Can GSA define Symphony Tagging and provide detailed instructions and training on how to do Symphony Tagging for the sections that substantiate the claims? Note: Several of the Attachment notices contain the requirement “to pinpoint specific sections within the document(s) through Symphony Tagging to substantiate the claim.” | Tagging in Symphony is like the “Find” feature in a document, users can select the text located in the document or add a note/comment to the PDF. The text that is in the document or the comment is the text that you would add to the “text field” in Symphony. |
For instance, an organization has a scope document (scopeDoc.PDF) for a specific Past Performance that validates the organization’s claims for Artificial Intelligence, demonstrates “Cost Reimbursement”, and shows OCONUS - Foreign performance.
In the documents where these claims are validated, the user would either select a keyword from the text OR add a sticky note/comment with a word that could be used in the tag field inside of Symphony. The user would then upload the document in the respective project that have been prepared with the following tags:
1.Emerging Technology – TAG: “Artificial Intelligence” (Directly from the document)
2. Cost Reimbursement – TAG: “CR” (Added as a sticky note)
3. OCONUS - Foreign performance – “OCONUS” (Added as a sticky note)
When completing the data elements in Symphony, the user would select scopeDoc.PDF in the drop down and add the corresponding tag text in the place provided for each claim.
Why do we do this? To help the evaluators validate an organization’s claims more easily and expedite the evaluation process.
More information on this can be found at: https://offerorsupport.apexlogic.com/support/solutions/folders/35000238397
| GR1 - 02 | (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template | J.P-2, Part I | If an offeror plans to submit the required supporting documentation for relevant work under another NAICS code, should the offeror select the NAICS code that identifies (closest) to the NAICS codes provided or should the Offeror leave this field blank? | If the Offeror is planning to submit the required supporting documentation for relevant work under another NAICS code, the Offeror should select one of the five NAICS codes that identifies (closest) to the project and request Contracting Officer confirmation using Attachment J.P-2. |
| GR1 - 03 | (Attachment J.P-7) A3 Federal Contract FPDS Crosswalk Sample | L.5.2.3.4 | Please clarify how projects that are associated with one Funding Agency ID number in FPDS and originates from multiple agencies are to be scored in this part of the scorecard. | If submitting a collection of Task Orders or BPA calls with multiple funding IDs in FPDS under one IDIQ, Offerors must use only one (1) funding agency ID as a grouped task order, single project submission. |
| GR1 - 04 | (Attachment J.P-9) A3 Model Individual Subcontracting Plan | G.22 | Please clarify if an offeror should only complete the J.P-9 A3 Model Individual Subcontracting Plan Template spreadsheet as the formal Small Business Subcontracting plan and what format is expected. | Offerors may choose the initial document format for the Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan. However, the final document that is submitted (Proposal Attachment J-7 Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan) must be reformatted to a pdf. file and digitally signed. |
References to J-7 in RFP Section G.22 should be understood as the Offeror’s Proposal Attachment J-7 is the Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan which is the Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Per FAR 19.702 and FAR 19.705 the negotiated Attachment J-7 Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan will become a material part of the contract upon award.
| GR1 - 05 | (Attachment J.P-10) A3 GSA Form 527 Contractor Qualification and Financial Information | L.5.5.1 | Would the government accept a signed GSA Form 527 rev 10/2021 instead of the rev 10/2015 that was issued with RFP? | In accordance with Amendment 0001, the GSA Form 527 rev 10/2021 was incompatible with Symphony. The revised GSA Form 527 rev 10/2021, noted by V2 at the end of the name, must be used in order to conform to the solicitation requirements. |
| GR1 - 06 | (Attachment J.P-10) A3 GSA Form 527 Contractor Qualification and Financial Information | J.P-10, L.5.5.1 | Please clarify if an offeror may submit audited annual financial statements and/or a recent DCMA Financial Capability Review as an alternative to J.P-10, GSA Form 527 to be compliant with the requirements of the RFP. | Offerors are required to submit attachment J.P-10, GSA Form 527 to be compliant with the requirements of the RFP. |
| GR1 - 07 | (B.11.5) Time-and Material and Labor-Hour Contract Types | B.11.5.1 | Would the government confirm that if at the Task Order level, will offerors have the ability to exceed the maximum rates proposed if the security classification requirement exceeds the Secret level? | Maximum ceiling rates only apply to the Senior Skill Level for CONUS locations up to the Secret security classification level for T&M and L-H Task Orders/CLINs. Labor rates involving the other skill levels for T&M and L-H Task Orders/CLINs will be negotiated at the task order level (RFP Para B.6.2 (b)). |
| GR1 - 08 | (L.1) FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference (FEB 1998) | L.1 | Please clarify where an offeror should include a title page with a proposal disclaimer in order to be compliant with solicitation marking instructions and FAR 52.21519(e). | A title page for each document under Symphony is not required, however the offeror is required to identify proprietary information through a header, footer, or title page to ensure the government is cognizant of sensitive information. |
| GR1 - 09 | (L.4) Proposal Format | L.4 | We request that the Government provide offerors with the file size limit for Symphony. | The maximum file size for uploaded documents is 100 MB. |
| GR1 - 10 | (L.4) Proposal Format | L.4 | Part 1: Currently, Symphony is pulling scoring elements from OASIS+ into our Alliant 3 submission. In many cases, these documents, certifications, MRCLs, C-SCRM, facility clearance, FPRR, etc., will need to be replaced with updated versions or have entirely different requirements. Note: We received many similar questions about this concern. |
Part 2: We have found that some elements that were scored on OASIS+ aren't being "claimed" for Alliant 3. All of the Qualifying Projects and Federal Experience Projects from OASIS+ are included in My Company even under the Alliant 3 view. We are concerned that this data is co-mingled, particularly since OASIS+ is still under evaluation. Note: We received many similar questions about this concern.
Part 1: The Symphony tool allows Offerors the option to utilize proposal documents from a previous GSA solicitation (such as OASIS+), for your Alliant 3 proposal submission. Offerors bear sole responsibility to ensure their ALLIANT 3 proposal contains correct and complete information, including all required documents. Offerors exclusively assume any and all risks arising from their use of the Symphony document option, including but not limited to: inaccuracy, inadequacy and other discrepancies within the Symphony documents, and potential proposal submission failures. The option to leverage documents and data from a previous solicitation made through Symphony is not an indication that GSA has deemed these documents adequate or appropriate for submission on ALLIANT 3. Neither the Government nor Symphony warrant the suitability, accuracy or reliability of the Symphony tool, and are not liable for any aspect of the Offeror’s use of Symphony’s previous solicitation documents for their proposal submission.
Part 2: All previous submissions are frozen and not affected in any way by changes made to company assets. The Offeror can test it by deleting a document in My Company and Viewing their submitted documents. Starting August 19th, Symphony will allow Offerors to archive projects that were used on a previous solicitation, update non-project assets, unclaim an asset, upload a new document, delete an old document, and reclaim an asset. Inside of the submission, the Offeror can view all the criteria for the Alliant 3 RFP and verify that all the documents are up to date.
| GR1 - 11 | (L.4.1) Proposal Format Table | L.4.1; RFP Section L.5.1.3 | Would the government confirm Other than Small Businesses can provide an Individual Subcontracting Plan that follows FAR 19.704 in a PDF file that includes all additional requirements of the RFP outside of those required by the FAR? | Yes, it is allowed. See RFP Section L.5.1.3, Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Required for Other than Small Business Offerors) and Section M.4.2.1, The Offeror’s Individual Subcontracting Plan Must Be Determined Acceptable, for a listing of required information. |
| GR1 - 12 | (L.5.1) General | L.5.2.4.4 | Please clarify if for Small Business Emerging Technology Solutions Engagement the project can be under a federal or commercial contract as a prime or subcontractor. | For Small Business Emerging Technology Solutions Engagement the project can be under a federal or commercial contract as a prime or subcontractor without a scoring distinction. |
| GR1 - 13 | (L.5.1.1) Standard Form (SF) 33 and SF-30 for Amendments | L.5.1.1 | Please clarify if an offeror is allowed to act as a subcontractor for various prime contractors simultaneously? | First-tier subcontractors are allowed to team with various prime contractors simultaneously. |
| GR1 - 14 | (L.5.1.6) Professional Employee Compensation Plan | L.5.1.6 | Does GSA require that the Professional Employee Compensation Plan include labor categories and associated labor rates or ranges of rates? | Labor categories and their associated rates or rate ranges do not need to be included in the Professional Employee Compensation Plan. |
| GR1 - 15 | (L.5.1.6) Professional Employee Compensation Plan | L.5.1.6 | Please confirm whether the Professional Employee Compensation plan is to be submitted in the name of the Offeror, if the Offeror is a CTA (Joint Venture) or, if it's an unpopulated joint venture, whether each CTA member is to submit a Professional Employee Compensation Plan. | For Offerors proposing as an Unpopulated Joint Venture or Partnership, a Professional Employee Compensation (PEC) Plan must be submitted for each member of the Joint Venture or Partnership. For a Populated Joint Venture, a PEC Plan must be submitted for the Joint Venture and each member of the Joint Venture. |
| GR1 - 16 | (L.5.2) Relevant Experience | L.5.2.3.2, J.P-2 | Would the government please confirm that other contract deliverables in addition to a PWS or SOW may be submitted to substantiate how project tasks are relevant to a NAICS for non-federal contracts? | Primary Relevant Experience for Non-federal contracts require attachment J.P-2, a Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Work (SOW) per section L.5.2.3.2. Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) or additional documents not listed in Section L.5.2.3.2 are not required to detail the scope and type of work performed on the contract. |
| GR1 - 17 | (L.5.2) Relevant Experience | L.5.2.4.2, J.P-3 | Would the government please confirm that other contract deliverables in addition to a PWS or SOW may be submitted to substantiate a type of emerging technology was integral to a project? | The offeror should use the narrative section in both J.P-2, A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template, and in J.P-3, A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template. The narrative section should explain why the project fits under the claimed NAICS and how the selected Emerging Technology (ET) was integral to performance of the project. |
| GR1 - 18 | (L.5.2) Relevant Experience | L.5.2.4.4 | Please clarify whether the J.P-5 entry refers to a target NAICS for work under A3, or the NAICS associated with the project presented by the Small Business to the Offeror in our one-on-one meeting. | Small Business Engagement Emerging Technology Projects listed in L.5.2.4.4 do not require an associated NAICS code. |
| GR1 - 19 | (L.5.2) Relevant Experience | L.5.2.4.4 | If a Small Business presents its Emerging Technology Solution to multiple OTSBs, can all of those OTSBs use this same project instance to claim points for Small Business Emerging Technology Solutions Engagement? | In the event a Small Business presents its Emerging Technology Solution to multiple OTSBs, all of the OTSBs that participated in the engagement can use this same project instance to claim points for Small Business Emerging Technology Solutions Engagement. |
| GR1 - 20 | (L.5.2) Relevant Experience | L.5.2 | Would the Government accept signed JP Forms if data has changed between post-customer signature, or will additional time to secure new/revised signatures be granted? | The Government will accept signed JP Forms when more current or updated data exists in FPDS post-customer signature. |
| GR1 - 21 | (L.5.2) Relevant Experience | L.5.2.4.4 | May an offeror submit a signed J.P-5 template version released on April 10th, 2024, which was before the final RFP release, or the June 28th version of the J.P-5 template? | The Government will accept either a signed J.P-5 template version released on April 10, 2024, which was before the final RFP release, or the June 28, 2024 version of the J.P-5 template. |
| GR1 - 22 | (L.5.6) Organizational Risk Assessment | L.5.6(d) | Please confirm that a Mentor-Protege SBCTA can be a Mentor-Protege JV with an OTSB mentor and a SB protege. | Per RFP Section L.5.1.4.3-Alt and pursuant to 13 CFR 121.103(h)(2) and 13 CFR 125.9(d), the mentor in a Mentor-Protege Joint Venture may be a small business concern or an other than small business. |
| GR1 - 23 | (L.5.6) Organizational Risk Assessment | L.5.6(d) | For a Mentor-Protege JV to receive each ORA point, must they have performed on each project exclusively together, and must any subcontractors added to the teaming arrangement have participated in the relevant experience project to receive the ORA points? | For a Mentor-Protege JV (and their Small Business CTA (SBCTA) First-Tier Subcontractors), to receive each ORA point, they must have all performed exclusively and together on each relevant experience project. |
Small Business CTA (SBCTA) First-Tier Subcontractors, must have participated in the CTA's relevant experience project (together and exclusively) to receive the ORA points.
GR1 - 24 (L.5.8.2) Fully-Burdened Rate Evaluation L.5.8.2 For pricing purposes, will the government please confirm that the total Master Contract Ordering Period will be October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2035? The estimated contract period is inclusive of a 5-year base period, 5-year option period, and a 5-year coverage beyond the ordering period with an estimated start date 1 October 2025.
GR1 - 25 (M.5.3) Systems, Certifications, and Clearances M.5.3 May offerors utilize all certifications, systems and clearances from our major subcontractors if we are forming a Prime-Sub relationships? Small Business CTAs (not OTSB CTA) are permitted to use the systems, certifications, and clearances of their First-Tier Subcontractors in a Small Business with Subcontractor teaming arrangement.
&P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .