A3 GR Set 03_10.25.24.pdf

Alliant 3 Government Responses to Request For Proposal (RFP) Feedback GR Set 03_10.25.24 Response #

GR3-01

GR3-02

GR3-03

GR3-04

GR3-05

GR3-06

GR3-07

GR3-08

GR3-09

GR3-10

GR3-11

GR3-12

GR3-13

GR3-14

GR3-15

GR3-16

GR3-17

GR3-18

RFP Paragraph Reference

GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER

GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER

GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER

(Attachment J.P-1) A3 Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) Template

(Attachment J.P-1) A3 Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) Template

(Attachment J.P-1) A3 Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) Template

(Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

(Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

Specific RFP Location

General Comment

J.P Templates

L.5.2.1(d)

J.P-1, L.5.1.4-Alt

J.P-4, J.P-1, L.5.1.4, L.5.1.4.1

J.P-1, L.5.1.4

J.P-2, C.2

J.P-2, J.P-3, J.P-4, J.P-5

J.P-2, J.P-3, J.P-4, J.P-5

J.P-2, Part I

J.P-2, Part III

J.P-2, Part III

J.P-2, J.P-3, Part I

J.P-3

J.P-3, J.P-4

J.P-3, L.5.2.4

J.P-3, L.5.2.4.2

J.P-5

Comment/Question

Are the vendors with no prior experience in federal IT projects eligible to bid for this engagement?

We recommend that the Government consolidate forms into one encompassing all elements of J.P-1, J.P-2, J.P-3, J.P-4.

If an Offeror combines a subset of task orders under an IDIQ, may it still cite other task orders under the master IDIQ as separate projects?

When an offeror is in a teaming arrangement, how does an offeror highlight the services that can be offered in addition to the common services we both offer, such as, my company offers cybersecurity products and related services?

Can the Government confirm that an individual company Offeror claiming a project awarded to its existing JV only needs to submit a J.P-1?

Is it mandatory that only an existing joint venture arrangement can bid for this opportunity? Can we form a new Joint Venture arrangement who has the capabilities and past performances bid for this opportunity?

Would the Government include NAICS codes 517110, 517311, and 517111 as applicable NAICS for this procurement in addition to the five NAICS codes listed in the RFP?

Please confirm that all relevant experience to be added as part of documents – JP2,3,4,5 needs to be verified by client-side project Corporate Officer/Official who has cognizance over the submitted project.

Please clarify if an Offeror can use multiple projects from the same client to meet the requirement for relevant experience.

Is it permissible to include both the offeror and the affiliate, subsidiary, or acquired company in the same field (e.g., for Offeror Name: XYZ Company via its affiliate ABC company; for UEI: XWZ Company: XXXXXXXXXXXX; ABC company: YYYYYYYYYYYYY)?

Please modify J.P-2 to align with the RFP and only require document tagging for non-Federal projects per L.5.2.3.2 item (c)."

Are specific tags required for the PWS/SOW, or can one tag label be used for all sections within one PWS/SOW?

Is it permissible to include both the offeror and the affiliate, subsidiary, or acquired company in the same field (e.g., for Offeror Name: XYZ Company via its affiliate ABC company; for UEI: XWZ Company: XXXXXXXXXXXX; ABC company: YYYYYYYYYYYYY)?

For the J.P-3, would the government consider allowing a portion of narratives to be signed by a recognized officer of the offering company instead?

We recommend that the government allow Offerors to submit a J.P-4 in lieu of a J.P-3, rather than in addition to it.

Will the Government consider allowing each project reference to be used across multiple Emerging Technologies if the Statement of Work supports the technology scope?

As original contract awards cannot reliably provide accurate/current contract data, and since all ET J.P-3 forms must be reviewed and signed off on by a CO or COR with cognizance of the project, we recommend the Government streamline ET verification requirements by using the J.P-3 form as the primary means of contract data verification (e.g., dollar value, POP, prime contractor).

Attachment J.P-5, A3 Small Business Engagement Template, calls for a signature in Part IV "From the Prime Contractor Representative identified in Part II." Part II requires information (name, title, phone, etc.) on the "Cognizant Project Official" and the "Small Business Contractor Name."

Can you confirm that the only signature needed is from the Small Business Contractor Representative and NOT from their end-client?

Government Response

Vendors with no prior experience in Federal IT projects are eligible to submit a proposal for Alliant 3.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

Yes, an Offeror may combine a subset of task orders under one IDIQ and it may cite other individual task orders under the master IDIQ as separate projects for Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience or Emerging Technology Relevant Experience as defined in L.5.2.2 or L.5.2.4 . The individual task order cannot be part of the combined subset of task orders.

RFP Section L.5.1.4-Alt Small Business Contractor Teaming Arrangements, If Applicable, provides instruction to Offerors proposings as Small Business Contractor Teaming Arrangement.

A Joint Venture (JV) Offeror with an existing contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) claiming experience gained from a relevant experience project that the offeroring JV performed as a prime contractor will need to submit an A3 Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) Template (J.P-1).

A Joint Venture (JV) Offeror with an existing contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) claiming experience gained from a relevant experience project that the offeroring JV performed as a subcontractor will need to submit an A3 Subcontractor Experience Project Template (J.P-4).

Per RFP Section L.5.1.1, “Offeror” means an official legal offering entity with a single registered UEI Number in SAM.gov (https://www.SAM.gov), that corresponds solely to the Offeror, which may consist of the following business arrangements: OTSB (b) An established Joint Venture or Partnership, SB (b) An established Joint Venture or Partnership.

An Offeror, including a newly formed joint venture, must be the official legal offering entity identified on Block 15A of the SF 33.

No, the five authorized NAICS codes in section L.5.2.3 are the only applicable NAICS codes. If the Offeror believes a Relevant Experience Project supports one of the five authorized NAICS codes, but the Primary NAICS Code in FPDS-NG from the Relevant Experience project is not one of the five authorized NAICS codes, an Offeror can apply for an authorized NAICS code credit via Attachment J.P-2 with the cognizant Contracting Officer (CO) over the submitted project. Please refer to RFP Section L.5.2.3.1(b).

Sections L.5.2.3.1, L.5.2.3.2, and L.5.2.4.2 state, "NOTE: If a Project requires a signature for verification and is not signed by the appropriate party (or parties) as indicated throughout Section L, the associated points will not be earned."

An Offeror can use multiple projects from the same client to meet the requirement for relevant experience. The Offeror would not receive additional points for multiple agencies if they only use examples from one client. Please refer to the second paragraph of L.5.2.3.4.

The J.P-2 form has a field to enter the name and UEI of the Offeror. The Symphony Application will provide a list of affiliates, subsidiaries, and relationship entities in a pull-down for selection when attaching the evidence for the scoring element.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

As stated in L.3 Proposal Submission Instructions, the Offeror can provide an index to the evidence for the evaluation element as a cover page to the document or use the Symphony's tagging feature.

The J.P-2 and J.P-3 forms have a field to enter the name and UEI of the Offeror. The Symphony Application will provide a list of affiliates, subsidiaries, and relationship entities in a pull-down for selection when attaching the evidence for the scoring element.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

Yes, the only signature on the J.P-5 form required is that of the Small Business Contractor Representative demonstrating the Emerging Technology.

Response # RFP Paragraph Reference

Specific RFP Location

Comment/Question Government Response

GR3-19

GR3-20

GR3-21

GR3-22

GR3-23

GR3-24

GR3-25

GR3-26

GR3-27

GR3-28

GR3-29

GR3-30

GR3-31

GR3-32

GR3-33

GR3-34

(Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

(Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

(Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

(Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

(Attachment J.P-6) A3 Past Performance Rating Template

(Attachment J.P-16) A3 Self-Scoring Worksheet

(Attachment J.P-16) A3 Self-Scoring Worksheet

(Attachment J.P-16) A3 Self-Scoring Worksheet

(Attachment J.P-16) A3 Self-Scoring Worksheet

(Attachment J.P-16) A3 Self-Scoring Worksheet

(A) Solicitation/Contract Form SF-33

(B.4) Maximum Contract Ceiling and Minimum Contract Guarantee

(B.11) Task Order Pricing (All Order Types)

(C.2) Scope of Work Overview

(F.7.3) Table of Deliverable and Performance

(G.10) Contractor Web Page

J.P-5

J.P-5, Part II

J.P-5, Part IV

J.P-5. Part IV

J.P-6, L.5.3

J.P-16, B.5, B.10, L.5.2.3.5

J.P-16, L.5.2

L.5.2.2

L.5.2.2

L.5.2.2

L.5.1.1

B.4(c)

B.11.5.1(a)

C.2

F.7.3 Table 5, ID 10, #4

G.10

Would the Government please add an ET reference number in the J.P-5 form to indicate which ET the SBE is related to?

In Part II, the customer name, period of performance, and value are requested, but no contract number is required.

Please clarify if in the J.P-5 A3 Small Business Engagement Template under Part IV the Small Business Contract Attestation should be from the Small Business Contractor Representative listed in Part II instead of from Prime Contractor Representative.

Will the government please confirm that the "Cognizant Project Official" and "Prime Contractor Representative" referred to in the J.P-5 are the same person and are an official of the small business performing the contract?

Can a company use past performance, once for a JV and the other as itself for a separate submission?

RFP paras B.5 and B.10 state that priority for Task Orders will be for Firm Fixed Price. The self-scoring worksheet, however, awards points only for cost-based contracts, and none for fixed-price ones.

Why are offerors getting points for contracts that are not the preferred method described in B.5 and B.10?

If a Prime-Sub arrangement is possible, can the subcontractor's experiences be used to meet the relevant experience in section L.5.2?

The current scoring criteria for relevant experience benefit very large companies and put mid-tier companies at a disadvantage.

Recommend re-evaluating the size standards for projects so that emerging small businesses and mid-tier companies can realistically compete for this contract.

Is there any consideration for a mid-tier company and the size standard for projects? For example, companies that average under $100M under the past 5 years may earn max points for projects until $30M?

Recommend the Government consider allowing mid-tier OTSB, who are less than $100M in annual revenue, use relevant past experience of sub-contractors. (not as a JV or CTA) In the SF 33, the Government requires a minimum acceptance period of not less than 365 calendar days. Due to changing economic conditions and the frequency which they occur, we normally do not offer validity periods on procurement offers in excess of 180 days. We respectfully request that the acceptance period as defined be adjusted to a minimum of 180 days on the SF-33.

According to GSA.gov, Class Deviation CD-2023-01 applies only to the One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Plus (OASIS+) Program. What is the maximum dollar ceiling for the GSA Alliant 3 Unrestricted GWAC Master Contract and subsequent Task Orders?

Can it be assumed that the maximum rate definition may be a blend of a prime contractor and subcontractor costs + profit given the expectation is 50% SB subcontracting plan (G.11.2)?

To whom it may concern: We would like clarification on the sentence, “The scope of the Master Contract includes every conceivable aspect of IT Services, including but not limited to:”

We’re trying to understand whether this means that 1) all of the IT Services listed within scope must be performed in-house by the Contractor, 2) some of the IT Services can be contracted out by the Contractor but that is limited to a certain percentage of the funds/activities in scope, such as 80% in-house minimum, or 3) the awarding of this RFP to up to 76+ applicants means that although the total pool of awardees will cover the comprehensive list of IT Services, individual awardees/Contractors only need to provide some of the IT Services as part of their contribution to the Master Services Agreement.

Frequency #4 states, "Correction to Data: Due within five (5) calendar days of the GSA request for correction." Will the government please consider ten (10) calendar days to account for any absence of the data reporter. Many companies have only one person performing this function, and should a request come in during an absence (i.e., vacation), it may be difficult to meet the 5 calendar deadline. Also, if a request happens on a Friday afternoon, two of the calendar days would fall on a weekend allowing the contractor only 3 calendar days which may not be enough time to address the correction.

Could the agency provide a sample or references for developing the web page.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

Yes, J.P-5, PART IV: SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTOR ATTESTATION must be signed by the Small Business Prime Contractor demonstrating the Emerging Technology and must be the individual identified in PART II: PROJECT REFERENCE INFORMATION Cognizant Project Official (For Federal or Commercial Projects).

Yes, that is correct. In attachment J.P-5, PART II: PROJECT REFERENCE INFORMATION, Cognizant Project Official, (name, title) and PART IV: SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTOR ATTESTATION, Prime Contractor Representative identified in Part II (signature), both reference the Small Business that performed the Emerging Technology Project work.

If the projects are separate and distinct an Offeror may submit two separate past performance reports. If the project is the same, the offeror cannot submit two past performance reports as two separate submissions to count as two separate projects.

Also see Section L.5.1.1, "An Offeror must ensure that only one proposal is submitted in response to this solicitation. Offerors shall not submit multiple offers under their own entity, an affiliated entity, or via an offer in which they are participating through a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA)."

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

A Small Business Offeror with First-Tier Subcontractors may use the relevant experience in section L.5.1.4.2-Alt Small Business with Subcontractors, if applicable. However, an Other Than Small Business Offerors with first-tier subcontractors will not be allowed to use the relevant experience, past performance, systems, certifications, and clearances of the First-Tier subcontractors for their proposal submission per RFP Section L.5.1.4.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 2, item 19.

As authorized by CD-2022-08, there is no maximum dollar ceiling for the Alliant 3 Master Contract or for each individual Task Order.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

Specific RFP Location

Comment/Question Government Response

GR3-35

GR3-36

GR3-37

GR3-38

GR3-39

GR3-40

GR3-41

GR3-42

GR3-43

GR3-44

GR3-45

GR3-46

GR3-47

GR3-48

(G.12) Standard IT Service Labor Category Crosswalk Matrix

(H.6.3) Additional Cybersecurity and Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) Requirements

(H.8) Security- Security Clearances

(H.14) Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPV6)

(H.21) On-Ramp for Master Contract

(H.21) On-Ramp for Master Contract

(J-3.1) Background

(J-5.A.8) Off-Ramp Tradeoff of Annual Production Standards

(K.7) FAR 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certification

(JUN 2020)

(L.1) FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

(FEB 1998)

(L.1) FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

(FEB 1998)

(L.3) Proposal Submission Instructions

(L.3) Proposal Submission Instructions

(L.3.1) Official Legal Offering Entity

G.12

H.6.3

H.8

H.14

H.21

H.21.1

J-3.1

Attachment J-5.A.8.3

K.7

L.1

L.1

L.3

L.3

L.3.1, L.5.1.5, L.5.1.1

In section G.12, the government states: The Contractor shall provide a completed Standard IT Service LCAT Crosswalk Matrix, via a GSA GWAC Program approved file format, that maps to the Contractor’s internal corporate specific IT Service LCATs to the list of Standard IT Service LCATs defined in Attachment J-3, Alliant 3 Labor Categories and BLS Service Occupational Classifications. Considering that all offerors do not have established internal corporate specific IT Service LCATS and if they do, there is no consistency with the corporate LCATs across industry to establish a reliable comparison, would the government consider removing the aforementioned requirement to provide such mapping?

If a company is compliant with 800-171, will it be sufficient for Alliant C-SCRM requirements?

Section H.8 references a DD 254, but there was no draft/blank form provided in the attachments. Please confirm that the DD 254 will be provided with Task Order RFPs and is not required at the IDIQ level.

(Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPV6)) states that (1) all deliverables that involve IT that uses IP (products, services, software, etc.)

comply with IPv6 Standards and interoperate with both IPv6 and IPv4 systems and products; and (2) it has IPv6 technical support for fielded product management, development, and implementation available. If the Contractor plans to offer a deliverable that involves IT that is not initially compliant, the Contractor shall (1) obtain the Task Order OCO’s approval before starting work on the deliverable;

and (2) have IPv6 technical support for fielded product management, development and implementation available."

Please clarify that if a cloud-based solution, such as SaaS or PaaS is provided as a Service, and the Contractor is restricted from meeting IPv6 because the underlying Cloud infrastructure provider does not meet IPv6 and cannot be otherwise required to meet IPv6, the Contractor would notify the relevant OCO but would not have to receive OCO approval, and/or Contactor would not have to have IPv6 technical support for field product management, development and implementation available, as such technical support could not meet IPv6 without the Cloud infrastructure provider meeting this requirement.

To minimize protests and provide continuous access to best in class contractors, would the government be willing to consider a more frequent and consistent on-ramp process, e.g. every two years?

Does the Government intend to keep public a list of order regarding on-ramping? Will Offerors that do not make the initial 76 awards know where they stand as it pertains to a potential on-ramping activity?

Will the Government please provide required years of experience for the 4 knowledge/skill levels described in Section J-3.1

Please confirm/explain how to read the attachments. Is the rating determined by selecting the rating in the cell at: (1) the column where our total production $ amounts shown in the next to last row and (2) the row with the number of proposals submitted that year (from rows 2–6)? For example, if we have, for contract year 2, $5,000,000 in production and three (3) proposal submissions, do we receive a rating of “satisfactory”?

Section K.7 requires offerors to complete FAR 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certification. Is it GSA's understanding that for Alliant 3, as a GWAC with a Production standard requiring each Offeror to obtain a minimum of $55M in task order awards by Master Contract Year 10, any Other than Small Business offerors that have not previously been required to submit a CAS disclosure statement must submit a disclosure statement via email to alliant3@gsa.gov before the proposals due date to remain compliant with CAS disclosures related to contracts to be awarded in the following period?

In the absence of a title page, is the offeror permitted to add their own proprietary statement to the footer of pages containing sensitive or proprietary information in place of the legend referenced in FAR 52.215-1(e)(2)?

The solicitation contains FAR 52.232-38 Submission of Electronic Funds Transfer Information with Offer. If this information is required at the MCL with the Alliant 3 proposal, where in the proposal should offerors include it?

Must all redacted supporting materials be sanitized to an Unclassified level? Or may bidders submit redacted documents at a higher classification level (e.g., CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET)?

Section L.3 states: "However, an Offeror may submit redacted documentation with the understanding that it does so at the risk of not receiving credit for the redacted submission if the Government source selection team cannot sufficiently verify the information submitted."

QUESTION: Will the Government elaborate on the process used to determine adequacy of redacted supporting material? What additional information (e.g., KO contact information) can bidders provide to assist in the verification process and avoid disqualification?

Can the government confirm that a legal offering entity leveraging MRCLs to claim credit for scored evaluation elements is considered “an individual company” consistent with L.5.1.1?

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

When classified work is required on an individual Task Order, the Contract Security Classification Specification, (DD Form 254 or agency equivalent) will be issued to the Contractor by the requiring agency, at the Task Order level.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

See RFP Section Attachment J-5 - Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) Table 14 - Performance Objectives for more information.

Example: If an Alliant 3 Prime Contractor has $3M - $5.9M in production and three (3) proposal submissions in contract year two they will receive a satisfactory rating. See RFP Section Attachment J-5.A.8.2, Performance Rating Table Contractor Engagement, Contract Year 2.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

Yes, the offeror can add their own proprietary statement to the footer of pages.

Per RFP Section L.3, Offerors may mark pages containing sensitive or proprietary information with an appropriate legend in the header or footer.

This information will be required at time of award.

Per RFP section L.3, The Offeror shall not submit classified information without redaction, sanitization, and government official authorization. An Offeror may submit redacted documentation with the understanding that it does so at the risk of not receiving credit for the redacted submission if the Government source selection team cannot sufficiently verify the information submitted.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

Yes, a legal offering entity leveraging MRCLs to claim credit for scored evaluation elements can be the sole proposal response from the Offeror as “an individual company” consistent with L.5.1.1.

Specific RFP Location

Comment/Question Government Response

GR3-49

GR3-50

GR3-51

GR3-52

GR3-53

GR3-54

GR3-55

GR3-56

GR3-57

GR3-58

GR3-59

GR3-60

GR3-61

GR3-62

GR3-63

GR3-64

GR3-65

(L.3.2) Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations, and Change-of-Name Agreements, as Applicable

(L.3.4) Proposal Due Date and Proposal Intake System Location

(L.4) Proposal Format

(L.4) Proposal Format

(L.4) Proposal Format

(L.4) Proposal Format

(L.4.1) Proposal Format Table

(L.4.1) Proposal Format Table

(L.4.1) Proposal Format Table

(L.4.1) Proposal Format Table

(L.4.1) Proposal Format Table

(L.4.1) Proposal Format Table

(L.4.1) Proposal Format Table

(L.4.1) Proposal Format Table

(L.4.1) Proposal Format Table

(L.4.1) Proposal Format Table

(L.5) Proposal Content

L.3.2

L.3.4

L.4

L.4.1

L.4.1

L.5.1.1, Table 22 RFP Ref L.5.1.1

L.4.1

L.4.1

L.4.1, L.3.2, L.5.2

L.5.2.3.1

L.5.2.4.2

Table 22 RFP Ref L.5.2.3.4

Table 22 RFP Ref L.5.2.3.3

Table 22 RFP Ref L.5.2.3.5

Table 22 RFP Ref L.5.4.10

Table 22 RFP Ref L.5.6.

L.5.1.10

Please explain what documentation is required for Mergers, Acquisitions and Novation's.

Will the Government consider email submissions, since Symphony is not user-friendly? Industry has had issues with Symphony in the past. In addition, it is very time-consuming.

For any required document without a government issued template or form (e.g., OCI Plan, Uncompensated Overtime Policy, Professional Employee Compensation Plan), are there any minimum font (size) and mandatory typeface requirements for text, tables, and graphics?

Can the Government confirm that Offerors are allowed to use an abbreviated version of their company name when naming files?

Are Offerors allowed to add "CUI" to a file name?

Please clarify if Offerors are to complete SF33 and SF30(s) in Symphony or are to upload the SF33 and SF30(s) into Symphony.

The names of the files released with the Final RFP and Amendment 001 do not match the file names listed in Table 22, Sample File Name. This indicates that file naming conventions are flexible.

QUESTION: Are bidders correct in assuming that file titles listed in Table 22 are suggestions and that bidders may deviate from the file names listed in Table 22?

Please confirm that offerors are permitted to use underscores in the file names instead of the periods used in the sample file name structure shown in Table 22 - Proposal Format Table.

Please clarify if Offerors are to upload the same files required under L.3.2 multiple times i.e. for each project or only once under the Business Factors tab for Organization Changes: Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations. Otherwise, will the functionality in Symphony allow for tagging of the L.3.2 documentation under each project to link back to the Organization Changes: Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations tab under Business Factors?

(1) Can the Government please clarify whether Offerors must submit the J.P-2 template for all NAICS Code REPs, including those for which the FPDS-NG report verifies all scoring elements?

(2) If the answer to the above is “yes,” can the Government please confirm that Offerors must complete only the first portion of the form (Part I: Project Identification)?

Request that additional technical supplemental information be accepted as evidence to verify Emerging Technology scope as the SOW/PWS in some instances may not provide a clear tie. Suggest other verifiable contractual documents be added such as (e.g.

Monthly Status Reports, Contract Data Requirements Listing (CDRL), SF30 - Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, Staffing Plan incorporated into the contract, Letters of Technical Direction (LOTD), subcontracting plans, approved/paid invoices, contract deliverables; final proposal that have been incorporated into the contract; and award fee documents, etc.). Also, please define how such items should be addressed in the Proposal Format Table.

For Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience - Demonstrating Experience with Multiple Federal Government Customers (Federal Government Contracts Only), can an offeror submit an Attachment J.P-1 CTA document to verify multiple federal government customers using a previous/existing CTA project?

For Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience - Project Size, can an offeror submit an Attachment J.P-1 CTA document to verify project size for a previous/existing CTA project?

For Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Projects with Cost-Reimbursement (Federal Government Contracts Only), can an offeror submit an Attachment J.P-1 CTA document to verify projects with cost-reimbursement using a previous/existing CTA project?

Do Offerors who have had a change of name need to submit a Change of Name letter?

The Page Limit and Format column does not define a limit and format. Will the government provide a page limit and format for this required proposal document?

L.5.1.10 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan requires that an OCI Mitigation Plan must be submitted as part of the proposal.

The guidelines and procedures of FAR Subpart 9.5 will be used in identifying and resolving any issues of a conflict of interest under Alliant 3 as no specific Task Opportunity is being responded to, may the Contractor instead supply an OCI Statement in which the Contractor (and any Subcontractors or teaming partners) confirms it has no known/perceived OCI with the Alliant 3 RFP, understanding that Task Orders would require a similar OCI Statement and submission of a Mitigation Plan if an OCI is identified?

As stated in RFP Section L.3.2 paragraph 3, "For any claimed evaluation element identifying a different name other than that of the Offeror (due to a merger, acquisition, novation, or change-of-name agreement); the Offeror has the burden to establish that the claimed evaluation element should be attributed to the Offeror. To do so, the Offeror must provide evidence of the merger, acquisition, novation, or change-of-name agreement, as well as a justification demonstrating how the evaluation element being claimed is applicable to the Offeror. Furthermore, it is important that source documents maintain the original name of the company awarded the contract, without substitutions." This evidence could be the acquisition agreement, SEC filing, Secretary of State filing, SAM entry or an equally as supportive document.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

There is no prescribed font size or mandatory typeface requirements for documents without a government issued template.

Abbreviated company names in file names are acceptable as long as the correct files are attached to each applicable scoring element within Symphony.

Please see RFP Section L.3, Offerors may mark pages containing sensitive or proprietary information with an appropriate legend in the header or footer. The Offeror shall not submit classified information without redaction, sanitization, and government official authorization.

SF33 and SF30 documents are to be uploaded to Symphony.

The required evidence files must be attached to each scoring element within the Symphony application as defined in the RFP, and these files should be named as recommended in Table 22. Please see Amendment 2, items 33-48.

RFP Section L.4.1, Proposal Format Table, provides specific instructions on permissible file names for claimed scoring elements.

Offerors are required to submit the Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations, and Name-Change Agreements in Symphony. Symphony allows the offeror to select the entities and UEIs from the Offeror's uploaded documents to provide evidence and claim points for each scored element, when applicable. Once a file or document is uploaded in Symphony the Offeror can access and reuse that file that corresponds with other elements in their proposal.

Attachment J.P-2 is not required when the FPDS-NG Report substantiates all claimed scoring elements per RFP Section L.5.2.3.1.

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Response# GR1-17 from the Attachment A3 GR Set 01_08.23.24.

Demonstrating Experience with Multiple Federal Government Customers (Federal Government Contracts Only), an offeror must submit an Attachment J.P-1 CTA document to verify multiple federal government customers using a previous/existing CTA project in addition to the requirement in L.5.2.3.4 that the Offeror must provide a FPDS-NG Report that indicates the Funding Agency ID for verification purposes.

For Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience to establish project Size, the Offeror must submit an Attachment J.P-1 CTA document to verify project size for a previous/existing CTA project as well as other documentation required by L.5.2.3.1 or L.5.2.3.2.

Yes, for Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Projects with Cost-Reimbursement (Federal Government Contracts Only), an offeror can submit an Attachment J.P-1 CTA document to verify projects with cost-reimbursement using a previous/existing CTA project. The Offeror must provide an FPDS-NG report that indicates a Cost-Reimbursement Contract type. Attachment J.P-2 will not be accepted as evidence, unless the contract is Classified and contains no FPDS record as prescribed by L.5.2.3.5.

Yes, Offerors that have executed a change of name are required to submit a Change-of-Name Agreement. See RFP Section L.3.2 for more information.

Page limits are only required for some of the documents. If a limit is not defined, then there is no required limitation.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis

Specific RFP Location

Comment/Question Government Response

GR3-66

GR3-67

GR3-68

GR3-69

GR3-70

GR3-71

GR3-72

GR3-73

GR3-74

GR3-75

GR3-76

GR3-77

GR3-78

GR3-79

(L.5.1) General

(L.5.1.3) Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Required for Other than Small Business Offerors) (L.5.1.3) Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Required for Other than Small Business Offerors)

(L.5.1.3) Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Required for Other than Small Business Offerors)

(L.5.1.3) Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Required for Other than Small Business Offerors) (L.5.1.4) Existing Contractor Teaming Arrangement, if Applicable

(L.5.1.4) Existing Contractor Teaming Arrangement, if Applicable

(L.5.1.4) Existing Contractor Teaming Arrangement, if Applicable

(L.5.1.4-Alt.) Small Business Contractor Teaming Arrangements, If Applicable

(L.5.1.4-Alt.) Small Business Contractor Teaming Arrangements, If Applicable

(L.5.1.4.1) Claiming Relevant Experience from an Existing or Previous

CTA

(L.5.1.5) Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, If Applicable

(L.5.1.5) Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, If Applicable

(L.5.1.5) Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, If Applicable

L.5.1

L.5.1.3

L.5.1.3

L.5.1.3 (Table 23)

L.5.1.3(e) & (f)

L.5.1.4

L.5.1.4

L.5.1.4-Alt

General Comment

L.5.1.4-Alt

L.5.1.4- Alt(c)

L.5.1.5

L.5.1.5

L.5.1.5

Between the RFP issuance date and the proposal due date, the Government may issue new/updated CPARS, FPDS updates, contract modifications and other changes at any moment that could impact how offerors prepare their scorecard. Recommend setting the RFP issuance date (June 28) as the cut off date for additional documentation verification to streamline submission process. For example, if an update is made to an offerors FPDS report on September 13 but an offeror is using the FPDS report as of at least June 15, the June 15 report should be considered acceptable for the purposes of claiming scorecard points.

In the Subcontracting Plan in section L.5.1.3 (and Table 24), is the government provided figure of $150,000,000 representative of the required total subcontracting value for Alliant 3?

The RFP states that Attachment J.P-9 (Model Individual Subcontracting Plan Template) "does not establish minimum requirements for an acceptable plan." Para M.2.4.1 elaborates that the Plan must address "the required elements in FAR 52.219-9(d) paragraphs (1) through (11)." It would be most helpful for offerors who opt to use the it to know which required elements are either a) not in the template, or b) are not fully satisfied by completing the template. Can the Government provide this information?

Are the vendors expected to meet all categories listed in the table 23

- subcontracting goals?

Please clarify if an offeror may add additional rows or tabs to the J.P-9 to address the requirements in Section L.5.1.3(e) and (f).

We recommend reverting to the draft RFP requirements in the areas of CTA requirements and subcontracting.

Will the government consider removing the requirement that CTAs have a separate and distinct UEI in SAM.gov?

Please clarify if it is required that all seven submitted projects must have been performed by the SBCTA in order to receive the Organizational Risk Assessment credit.

Can we form a Prime - Sub relationship with more than 4 major subcontractors?

We are a small business, can we take a large business as a subcontractor?

Please clarify if there a limit to how many relevant experience projects can be submitted by the mentor in a mentor-protege JV and if the protege is required to submit any relevant experience projects.

Please clarify if an organizational chart provided with the corresponding MRCL, outlining the meaningful relationship between entities (e.g. parent/offeror and subsidiary), meets the requirement to provide the "Operating structure between the entities, to include internal organizational reporting lines and management chains for “lines of business” that operate across the formal corporate subsidiaries." Or if not, what other documentation will satisfy this requirement for MRCLs?

Please clarify that if an Offeror has several unique entities that are considered Meaningful Relationships and the Parent fully controls all of those entities as the Offeror itself, an Offeror can prepare a single MRCL for the Parent entity identifying all of the required elements of L.5.1.5(a)-(f).

Section L.5.1.5 (Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, If Applicable) states that an offeror "is not allowed to use a Holding Company (as defined below) for a Meaningful Relationship." Will the Government please confirm that sentence should be updated as follows: “An Offeror, including an individual CTA member, is not allowed to use a Parent Company (as defined below) for a Meaningful Relationship"?

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

No, the 150,000,000 figure in Section L.5.1.3 is an example. It is not representative of the required total subcontracting value for Alliant 3.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

Yes, vendors are expected to meet all subcontracting categories in RFP Section L.5.1.3, table 23, subcontracting goals.

Yes, an Offeror may add additional rows to attachment J.P-9 to address the requirements in Section L.5.1.3(e) and (f).

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis of your question or comment, we believe the RFP is well-defined in this area and supportive of a competitive proposal.

Yes. Per 13 CFR 125.3(b). However, the RFP adheres to 13 CFR Part 121 to determine SB Size. FYI Per 13 CFR 121.103(h)(3) this relationship may be treated as a JV for affiliation for size determination.

Per RFP section L.5.1.5 "Attention Small Business Concern Offerors: This solicitation encourages the strategic use of CTAs and/or MRCLs to enhance offeror’s competitiveness and capabilities. However, all aspects of such arrangements, including CTAs and MRCLs, must comply with the applicable regulations per 13 CFR Part 121. These regulations govern size standards and the performance of work requirements related to small business concerns. It is the responsibility of each offeror to ensure that their CTAs and MRCLs fully comply with these regulations."

There is no restriction or limit in the RFP regarding the number of relevant experience projects that can be submitted by the mentor in a mentor-protégé joint venture (JV) offeror's proposal. Both the mentor and protégé in the JV may submit relevant experience projects, and all relevant projects will be evaluated according to the criteria set forth in Section L.5.2.2. However, Organizational Risk Assessment (ORA) points will only be granted if the CTA (mentor-protege JV) members have performed exclusively together on the relevant projects, as specified in the RFP Section L.5.6 Organizational Risk Assessment.

Mere ownership of an entity within a corporate structure is insufficient to demonstrate a meaningful relationship, thus a wiring diagram or organizational chart alone will not meet the MRCL requirement. Offerors must demonstrate the functionality of the MRCL, and not just ownership. In addition to demonstrating corporate ownership structures with wiring diagrams or ownership charts, Offerors must explain the identities of the entities involved in the MRCL, and how they interact with the Offeror in order to perform the project for which relevant experience is claimed. Contractors must identify the internal and external processes and procedures undertaken by the Offeror and meaningful relationship entity which allow the Offeror and claimed MRCL entity to share their resources and perform work together. See L.5.1.5(a) - (f) for the list of matters which must be addressed in order to obtain relevant experience credit for a MRCL entity within a corporate structure.

Yes, as stated in RFP section L.5.1.5, "In the event that a parent organization has complete and full control over all meaningful relationship entities, the Parent entity, as the Offeror, may prepare a single Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter that identifies all elements required above." This is inclusive of all the required elements in section L.5.1.5(a) - (f). If the Offeror is not the Parent company, individual meaningful relationship commitment letters should be established between the Offeror and each entity with which the Offeror seeks to obtain meaningful relationship credit.

The government appreciates your feedback. After a careful review and analysis

Specific RFP Location

Comment/Question Government Response

GR3-80

GR3-81

GR3-82

GR3-83

GR3-84

GR3-85

GR3-86

GR3-87

GR3-88

GR3-89

GR3-90

GR3-91

GR3-92

GR3-93

GR3-94

(L.5.1.5) Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, If Applicable

(L.5.1.5) Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, If Applicable

(L.5.1.5) Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, If Applicable

(L.5.1.5) Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, If Applicable

(L.5.1.10) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan

(L.5.1.10) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan

(L.5.2) Relevant Experience

(L.5.2) Relevant Experience

(L.5.2) Relevant Experience

(L.5.2) Relevant Experience

(L.5.2) Relevant Experience

(L.5.2) Relevant Experience

(L.5.2) Relevant Experience

(L.5.2) Relevant Experience

(L.5.2) Relevant Experience

L.5.1.5

L.5.1.5

L.5.1.5, L.5.2.4.2

L.5.1.5(f)(1)

L.5.1.10

L.5.1.10

J.P-2 Part III, L.5.2.3.1, L.5.2.3.2

J.P-3, L.5.2.4

J.P-5, L.5.2.4.4

L.5.2

L.5.2

L.5.2

L.5.2

L.5.2

L.5.2.1, L.5.2.4

Please confirm that in the case where one parent organization has complete control over all meaningful relationships as stated in L.5.1.5, that only one MRCL in PDF format is required for submission.

In the case where one parent organization has complete control over all meaningful relationships and therefore only one MRCL is required to identify all entities, please confirm that offerors may upload their singular MRCL for each subsidiary that is entered into Symphony for the purposes of the Alliant 3 proposal.

Can Offeror claim credit for Emerging Technology relevant experience of an Affiliate if we have a dual signed MRCL?

In L.5.1.5(f)(1), the Government requests offerors provide a list of "the assets, facilities, services, personnel, subcontracts, permits, licenses, etc., that the Meaningful Relationship entity will provide to the Offeror for use in performing Task Orders under the Master Contract." Large businesses have many assets, facilities, services, personnel, subcontracts, permits and licenses in each corporate entity. We do not believe it is the Government's intent to have a very lengthy list of thousands of employees and subcontracts. We recommend that the Government qualify this by requesting a set number of each one of these items, to show confidence to the Government that this is a populated entity while reducing how onerous this requirement is on offerors.

FAR 9.504 provides the allowance to "avoid creating unnecessary delays, burdensome information requirements, and excessive documentation" related to Organizational Conflicts of Interest. Given at the Master Contract Level, for Alliant 3 there would be few applicable conflicts of interest, would the Government update L.5.1.10 to require a statement from Offerors to disclose any MCL OCIs and to provide a mitigation plan in the event that there are any OCIs?