A3 GR Set 04_11.08.24.pdf

Alliant 3 Government Responses to Request For Proposal (RFP) Feedback GR Set 04_11.08.24 Response # RFP Paragraph Reference

Specific RFP Location

Comment/Question Government Response

GR4-01 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER General Comment Can the government please clarify if there is a minimum number of awards that will be issued?

Per RFP Section L.2.2, the government anticipates that Multiple Awards shall be made up to a maximum of 76 awards.

GR4-02 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER General Comment Does the government have a projected minimum points threshold for vendors to meet to be considered for award?

No, there is not a minimum point threshold for Alliant 3. The Government intends to make 76 awards. In order to be considered for award the proposal must score amongst the top 76 (plus ties) Highest Technically Rated Offerors with Fair and Reasonable Price.

GR4-03 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER General Comment What is the estimated award date? The estimated award date is October 1, 2025. See GR1-24 for more information.

GR4-04 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER General Comment Will the government please confirm the GSA address to include in any letters required for our proposal submission?

The address for GSA's headquarters for letterhead is 1800 F St NW, Washington, DC 20006. No physical mail will be accepted.

GR4-05 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER General Comment If an Offeror can go large or small, where exactly in the proposal response can an offeror designate whether they are submitting as a small business are large business?

The Offeror will not designate whether or not they are submitting as a small business or large business, Symphony will pull the information from SAM.gov.

GR4-06 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER General Comment Can an offeror submit project deliverables (either under new or existing projects) under the Alliant Program through the Master Contract and an Alliant Task Order?

An Offeror can submit a Relevant Experience Project when it conforms to RFP Section L.5.2 and L.5.2.1.

GR4-07 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER General comment You previously provided award data and statistics from Alliant 2 on the average number of competed tasks, their average value, and other statistics. Can you update this information so we can consider our ability to meet the performance standards on A3 if we were to win an award? We understand that competing for and winning a spot on A3 is challenging, we want to make sure that if we are fortunate enough to compete and win a spot, we will be successful on the contract and remain on it.

We understand that competing for an award on Alliant 3 is a significant undertaking and that every company must make a business decision on where to invest their bid and proposal resources. The Alliant 3 GWAC is a performance-based master contract. See RFP Sections F.6 Performance Standards and F.7 Performance and Deliverables.

GR4-08 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER J.P-2, J.P-3 Please clarify which CTA member is required to sign the J.P-2 (Primary NAICS Code REP) and J.P-3 (Emerging Technology REP) when an offeror is claiming projects from an existing SBMP CTA. This would be similar to the instructions provided for the J.P-1 (CTA Template).

The Offering CTA member that is associated with the existing SBMP CTA is required to sign attachment J.P-2 and J.P-3. Offerors are required to submit their MRCL and business relationship information in Symphony. The Symphony configuration allows the offeror to identify all entities and UEIs for which they will be claiming evidence and identify each evaluation element with the relationship information or entity for that element, when applicable. The cognizant government project official is required to sign J.P-2 or J.P-3 for a Federal contract and the cognizant corporate official is required to sign the J.P-2 or J.P-3 for Non-Federal contracts.

GR4-09 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER J.P-2, J.P-3. The J.P-2, J.P-3, and J.P-6 Forms contain fields for Offeror Name and Offeror UEI, but do not contain fields for the Prime Contractor name or UEI, which may be claimed but differ from that of the Offeror (e.g., where Prime Contractor for a specific contract is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Offeror). Will the government please update the form to include optional fields for this purpose.

Offerors are required to submit the MRCL and relationship information in Symphony. The Symphony configuration allows the offeror to identify all entities and UEIs for which they will be claiming evidence and identify each evaluation element with a pulldown listing all the entities identified in the MRCL or relationship information for that element, when applicable. See L.5.1.5 Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, If Applicable for MRCL requirements.

GR4-10 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER L.5.1.4 Will the government allow offerors to team with others in order to fulfill Relevant Experience requirements?

Please refer to RFP Section L.5.1.4 for more information regarding Contractor Teaming Arrangements.

GR4-11 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER L.5.2.4.4, Symphony Are Small Business Emerging Technology Solutions Engagement companies to be listed in the Symphony portal as Team Members?

No, per RFP Section L.5.2.4.4 under the Small Business Emerging Technology Solutions Engagement (OTSB Only) paragraph, "The OTSB Offeror need not have previous working experience or commit to future subcontracts with the SB to receive points for this engagement."

GR4-12 GENERAL/NOT LISTED/OTHER L.5.8 Section L does not include instructions for a cost narrative. Is a cost narrative required? If a cost narrative is required, will the government provide instructions?

IAW FAR 15.404-1(a)(2) Price analysis shall be used when certified cost and pricing data are not required. The Alliant 3 evaluation will be based on price analysis, which does not require Certified Cost or Pricing Data at the Master Contract level, therefore, a cost narrative is not required.

GR4-13 (Attachment J.P-1) A3 Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) Template

J.P-1 Previous GSA FSS CTA task orders are very common and will be used by CTA members for REP (e.g. the offeror performed as a member of the previous FSS CTA task order). The RFP does not clearly specify which forms are to be used when the offeror submits a REP where they performed as a member of a previous GSA FSS CTA task order. Please clarify if form J.P-1 is the correct form vs form J.P- 4.

A previous task order awarded to a GSA FSS CTA is allowable as a Relevant Experience from an Existing or Previous CTA (L.5.1.4.1). The Offeror must use the A3 Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) Template (Attachment J.P-1) for each Relevant Experience Project that was performed under an existing or previous CTA.

Attachment J.P-4 exclusively applies to subcontractor experience projects.

Please also see Amendment 3, items 47, 51, 52, 53, 55, 61, 63, 69, and 75.

GR4-14 (Attachment J.P-1) A3 Contractor

Teaming Arrangement (CTA) Template J.P-1, Part I Part I table requires "CONTRACTOR TEAMING ARRANGEMENT

UEI:" Previous GSA FSS CTA task orders are very common and will be used by CTA members for REP (e.g. the offeror performed as a member of the previous FSS CTA task order). The table requires the UEI for the previous CTA itself. GSA FSS CTAs do not have a unque UEI for the CTA itself, but rather fall under the UEI of the CTA team lead. Please correct the table to indicate that for previous GSA FSS CTA task orders used as REP, the UEI of the team lead should be indicated.

GSA FSS CTA Task Orders are issued to each individual CTA member. Each team member is responsible for duties outlined in the CTA document, and each team member has privity of contract with the government. Each team member under a GSA FSS CTA operates as a prime contractor for the portion of the work they perform. Therefore, the change to J.P-1 for GSA FSS CTA REPs is not required.

GR4-15 (Attachment J.P-1) A3 Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) Template

J.P-1, Part II May we include the dollar value performed by the offeror in the J.P-1 narrative and validate it with the signed J.P-1 form? If not, please add a field for "Project Value Performed by Offeror."

Yes, the dollar value performed by the offeror may be included in the J.P-1 narrative and validated with a signed J.P-1 form.

GR4-16 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-2 The Cost-Reimbursement field of Attachment J.P-2 states, "This form element is only applicable to Classified Federal Projects with no FPDS record as specified in Section L.5.2.3.5."

Question: Can the Government please confirm that Offerors should leave this form section blank for projects that are not classified and do have FPDS records?

As stated on form J.P-2, COST-REIMBURSEMENT: This form element is only applicable to Classified Federal Projects with no FPDS record as specified in Section L.5.2.3.5. Offerors should leave this form section blank for projects that are not classified and have an FPDS records.

GR4-17 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-2, J.P-3 The Project Title field on Attachments J.P-2 and J.P-3 does not wrap text and so cuts off longer project titles. Can the Government please provide versions of these forms that wrap text?

Adobe will allow input of text longer than the field. Reviewers will use arrow keys to get to the end of the text. Note that there is not a limit to characters anywhere except the narrative.

GR4-18 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

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

Is Symphony tagging required on Part III of the form within the 5,000 character description of the J.P- 2 (J.P-3, J.P-4, and J.P-5) or only on the other associated documentation we need to submit?

Symphony tagging or an index cover page is required for evidence documents other than the J.P forms. J.P forms themselves should not be tagged or indexed.

Please refer to Amendment 3, item 19 for additional information.

GR4-19 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS

Code Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-2, J.P-3, J.P-6 Can the Government confirm that "offeror" in the Relevant Experience Project and Emerging Technology J.P forms (e.g., J.P-2, J.P-3, J.P-6) should be the actual contractor performing the work. In the case that the parent company is the actual "offeror," they can include the note "see attached MRCL" for reference, to clearly show how the Offeror is related to the contractor company completing the form? We want to be sure the Government POCs filling out the J.P forms understand what company it's coming from, while making it clear to Alliant evaluators what "offeror" team the experience falls under. The same question applies for companies submitting work under a company within their Joint Venture team.

Offerors are required to submit the MRCL information in Symphony. The Symphony configuration allows the offeror to identify all entities and UEIs for which they will be claiming evidence and identify each evaluation element with the MRCL information or entity in a pulldown, when applicable. Once a file or document is upload in Symphony the Offeror can access and use that file that corresponds with multiple elements in their proposal.

GR4-20 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-2, L.5.2.3.1 Can the Government confirm that the J.P-2 Project Description only needs to address discrepancies on the FPDS Report?

Per RFP Section L.5.2.3.1, If the FPDS-NG Report is not available or the FPDS- NG Report does not substantiate all claimed scoring elements (e.g., an Offeror claims a different NAICS code than the NAICS code assigned in FPDS-NG), the following verification documents must be included: (a) FPDS Report and (b) a signed J.P-2 form - narrative statement clearly explaining how the project met the claimed NAICS code (Not to exceed 5,000 characters), signed by a Contracting Officer (CO) with cognizance over the submitted Project. In addition to all other verification documents required in RFP section L.5.2.3.1.

Specific RFPResponse # RFP Paragraph Reference Comment/Question Government ResponseLocation

GR4-21 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-2, L.5.2.3.1, L.

5.2.3.2

Our company has an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture (JV), where we act as the mentor (a large company). Can we use the experience and total contract value from this JV to claim points for the NAICS Code, project size, and other scoring criteria? Additionally, should we submit the CTA as part of our submission?

An Other Than Small Business mentor in a Small Business Mentor Protege Joint Venture (MPJV) contract teaming arrangement (CTA) may outline the work performed in that existing CTA per RFP Section L.5.1.4, L.5.1.4.3-Alt. However, the Mentor is subject to the 13 CFR 125.9 and cannot submit a competing offer when their protégé is also an offeror, nor can mentors with multiple protégés submit competing offers through different MPJVs in response to this RFP.

GR4-22 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-2, L.5.2.3.1(b) For classified projects that do not have an FPDS but were awarded under one of the relevant NAICS codes, will a statement on the signed J.P-2 suffice stating, "The project is classified and does not have an FPDS but falls under relevant NAICS code 541519."

For classified projects that do not have an FPDS Report, a signed J.P-2 and relevant verification documents as stated in L.5.2.3.1 are required. If a project is classified and does not have an FPDS but falls under relevant NAICS code 541519, the cognizant government project official will confirm the applicability of the NAICS code through a signed J.P-2 template. Also see Section L.3 on instructions for classified information.

GR4-23 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-2, Part I In J.P-2, in the field that asks if the project was under an existing or previous teaming agreement, it should cite Section L.5.1.4.1.

The J.P-2 form references L.5.1.4 under which sections for each different type of relationship is specified, which includes the subparagraph L.5.2.4.1. No change to J.P-2 will be applied to the form.

GR4-24 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-2, Part III Will the Gov't clarify if the Offeror shall prepare a single, standalone index that corresponds to the SOW for each Relevant Experience Project (REP) that meets the criteria of Section L.5.2.3.2c or could the Offeror prepare one index that spans all SOWs for each REP meeting the criteria?

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Response# GR2-25 from the Attachment A3 GR Set 02_09.27.24.

GR4-25 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-2, Part III If a contract's primary NAICS code as shown in the FPDS report doesn't align with one in Table 26, does the Offeror also need to highlight and submit specific NAICS-related passages in the

SOW/PWS?

If a Primary NAICS code IS in the FPDS report and aligns with Table 26, please confirm if the highlighted/tagged SOW/PWS and index also need to be submitted.

If a contract's primary NAICS code as shown in the FPDS report doesn't align with one of the NAICS codes in RFP Section L.5.2.3, Table 26, the CO will need to sign the J.P-2 saying that the NAICS could have been one of the NAICS codes in Table 26 instead of what was listed in the PWS or FPDS-NG. L.5.2.2 (a) (2) states, "Offeror claims a different NAICS code than the NAICS code assigned in FPDS-NG. The NAICS being claimed is one of the five (5) NAICS codes listed in L.5.2.3 (a) (2) and can be verified in accordance with L.5.2.3.1 or L.5.2.3.2."

GR4-26 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-2, Symphony For J.P-2, When combining task orders for the REP, should we list the Periods of Performance separately? Related, how would we enter these series of POPs in Symphony?

For a collection of Task Orders or BPA Calls, the start of the Period of Performance would be the start date of the earliest awarded Task Order or BPA Call. The end date would be the end date of the latest Task Order or BPA Call.

Any individual Task Order or BPA Call included in a collection, must have been active within the 5 year window. You may not use any Task Order or BPA Call where performance ended prior to the allowable period.

Please refer to Amendment 3, item 21.

GR4-27 (Attachment J.P-2) A3 Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience Project Template

L.5.2.3.1 Can the Government confirm that J.P-2 is only required if the FPDS Report does not contain all the relevant information for the elements being scored (NAICS, Size, Funding Agency, Cost Reimbursement, and Foreign Location)?

Per RFP Section L.5.2.3.1, If the FPDS-NG Report is not available or the FPDS- NG Report does not substantiate all claimed scoring elements (e.g., an Offeror claims a different NAICS code than the NAICS code assigned in FPDS-NG), the following verification documents must be included: (a) FPDS Report and (b) a signed J.P-2 form - narrative statement clearly explaining how the project met the claimed NAICS code (Not to exceed 5,000 characters), signed by a Contracting Officer (CO) with cognizance over the submitted Project. In addition to all other verification documents required in RFP section L.5.2.3.1.

GR4-28 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3 Part III of Attachment J.P-3 states: “The Offeror is required to pinpoint specific sections within the document(s) through Symphony Tagging that substantiate the claim.”

With reference to “document(s)”, is the Government referring to the supporting documents (SOO, SOW, PWS etc.)?

Tags should be to the specific location in the evidence document for the scoring element being evaluated. The required documents are listed in L.5.2.4.2. Please refer to Amendment 2, item 28 for more information regarding tagging.

GR4-29 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3 For J.P-3, When combining task orders for the REP, should we list the Period of Performance separately? Related, how would we enter these series of POPs in Symphony?

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to amendment 2, item 53.

GR4-30 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3 Part I In J.P-3, in the field that asks if the project was under an existing or previous teaming agreement, it should cite Section L.5.1.4.1.

The J.P-2 form references L.5.1.4 under which sections for each different type of relationship is specified, which includes the subparagraph L.5.2.4.1. No change to J.P-2 will be applied to the form.

GR4-31 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, J.P-2 In J.P-2 and J.P-3, will the Government consider using the Alliant 2 language to verify project details? “Signature below by a Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, or Corporate Official for the ordering activity constitutes acceptance of the above project information to be accurate as ordered and received by the listed entity.”

No adjustments to J.P-2 or J.P-3 will be made at this time. Please see Amendment 0003 for related edits made to the RFP to provide further clarity and alignment between the signatory requirements of the J.P attachments and the instruction in the RFP.

Please refer to Amendment 3, item 49 and 71.

GR4-32 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, L.5.2.4 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects: (The submitted projects must meet the conditions listed in L.5.2.4.): Will the Government consider reducing the Individual Project Value to less than $500k per project reference?

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.

GR4-33 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, L.5.2.4 Our company has an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture (JV), where we act as the mentor (a large company). Can we use the experience from this JV to claim points for the Emerging Technology experience scoring criteria? Additionally, should we submit the CTA as part of our submission?

A member of a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture (MPJV) may use the experience from projects previously performed by the MPJV to claim points for Emerging Technology Relevant Experience so long as the project meets the conditions listed at RFP Section L.5.2.4 and the Attachment J.P-1 is provided per RFP Section L.5.1.4.4-Alt.

GR4-34 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, L.5.2.4.2 Since some government CO and CORs may not wish to sign a J.P-3 due to various reasons, for small ET projects can an offeror's Program/Project Manager sign the J.P-3 form as the Cognizant official?

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 3, item 71.

GR4-35 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, L.5.2.4.2 If a form was signed by a COR or CO; however, is missing a piece of information including phone number, agency, or title, or if the phone number or email has been updated since the time of signature, can Offeror's leave a tag with the most up to date contact information for the COR and/or CO?

Yes, Offeror's can leave a tag with the most up-to-date contact information for the COR and/or CO.

GR4-36 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, L.5.2.4.2 On the J.P-3 form it allows for a Cognizant Project Official, not specifically the COR, to sign. In the RFP section L.5.2.4.2, it states on the J.P-3 that "If the cognizant Contracting Officer’s signature is unattainable, the Government will accept the signature of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) directly associated with the Project. The Attachment J.P-3 must include both cognizant CO’s and COR’s direct telephone numbers and email addresses."

Will the government please update the solicitation so that it matches the J.P-3 form?"

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 3, item 71.

GR4-37 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, L.5.2.4.2 Will the government please consider removing the required CO/COR signature on J.P-3 for verification? We feel like requesting signature on so many ET project forms would cause an undue burden on our customers.

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 3, item 71.

GR4-38 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, L.5.2.4.2 Instructions on J.P-3 requires information and signature of the ‘Cognizant Project Official’ or ‘Contracting Officer (if not Cognizant Project Official)’ Please advise what constitutes a ‘Cognizant Project Official’ and why a Contracting Officer would not qualify as such.

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 3, item 71.

GR4-39 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, L.5.2.4.2 The instruction in Section L does not match the instruction on form J.

P–3. Section L.5.2.4.2 states that the form must be ‘signed by a Contracting Officer (CO) with cognizance over the submitted Project… If the cognizant Contracting Officer’s signature is unattainable, the Government will accept the signature of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) directly associated with the Project.’ However, J.P–3 requires information and signature of the ‘Cognizant Project Official’ or ‘Contracting Officer (if not Cognizant Project Official)’.

Please clarify roles and requirements or revise the Section L instruction and/or the J.P–3 instruction to be consistent.

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 3, item 71.

GR4-40 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, L.5.2.4.2 In the case of a completed contract or task order where the Cognizant Project Official has changed positions, please confirm or correct our assumption that form J.P–3 must be signed by an individual who was the Cognizant Project Official at the time the offeror performed the work being attested.

A signature is required from a Cognizant Government Official who can attest to the accuracy of the information. An explanation of name, agency, and title changes should be provided as part of the narrative on J.P-3.

GR4-41 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, L.5.2.4.2 In cases where Cognizant Project Officials have changed positions within the Federal Government, their information (agency and title) may not match the work being attested on J.P–3. Please advise how offerors should account for any discrepancy between the Cognizant Project Official’s current agency and title and the agency and title that constitute cognizance over the relevant experience being attested.

A signature is required from a Cognizant Government Official who can attest to the accuracy of the information. An explanation of name, agency, and title changes should be provided as part of the narrative on J.P-3.

GR4-42 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, Part I Under "Offeror Name," should this be the name of the Alliant 3 Prime Offeror or the name of the company whose relevant experience is being submitted?

"Offeror Name" should always be the name of the offering entity. Offerors are required to submit mergers, acquisitions, novations, name-change agreements, and MRCL information in Symphony. Symphony allows the Offeror to select the associated entities and UEIs to an evaluation element to claim points, when applicable. Once a file or document is uploaded in Symphony the Offeror can use the file that corresponds with the elements in their proposal.

GR4-43 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, Part III The narrative text box in the J.P-3 form limits the visible text to 3,000 characters, before generating a scrollbar for the remaining narrative.

These forms risk losing the ability to access the non-visible characters, up to 2/5 of the narrative, when physically signed or made static in PDF. May offerors reformat the text box to shrink the narrative font size to show all 5,000 characters before the form is digitally signed?

Adobe will allow input of text longer than the field. Reviewers will use arrow keys to get to the end of the text. Note that there is not a limit to characters anywhere except the narrative.

GR4-44 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

J.P-3, Part III We respectfully recommend the Government add Tags in Symphony specific to emerging technology claims or clarify the requirement in the J.P–3 instructions. No tags are available consistent with form J.P–3’s instruction to ‘pinpoint specific sections within the document(s) … that substantiate the claim’ that ‘the selected Emerging Technology [ET] was integral to performance of the project…’

As stated in L.3 Proposal Submission Instructions, For each scoring element, an index can be attached as a cover page to the evidence document pdf file to direct evaluators to the specific page, paragraph number, and line number within the document. Alternatively, offerors can use Symphony’s Evidence Document Tagging Feature as described at the following Apex Logic Link: https:

//industrysupport.apexlogic.com/support/solutions/articles/35000255900-tagging-for-alliant-3 to point to the exact location of the scoring element evidence within the document.

GR4-45 (Attachment J.P-3) A3 Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project Template

JP-3 Will the government accept images or diagrams within the J.P-3 narratives so long as they further illustrate the vendor services provided in the given emerging technology category?

No, Adobe will not accept diagrams or images inside the narrative section.

GR4-46 (Attachment J.P-4) A3 Subcontractor Experience Project Template

J.P-4 Attachment J.P-4 requests that a pull-down selection be made for the NAICS Group Project Identifier. Please define NAICS Group Project Identifier and explain how to make an accurate selection for the J.P-4 form.

Attachment J.P-4 lists a dropdown for both NAICS and ET so that the Offeror will only have to submit one (1) form if they're submitting the same project for both NAICS & ET credit. Please note, the drop downs are listed as "if applicable".

GR4-47 (Attachment J.P-4) A3 Subcontractor Experience Project Template

J.P-4 If the subcontractor is unable to obtain and validate the prime's project value, is it permissible to leave this field blank?

No, the prime's project value must be included on the (Attachment J.P-4) A3 Subcontractor Experience Project Template. In most instances, the project value can be obtained via the FPDS report.

GR4-48 (Attachment J.P-4) A3 Subcontractor Experience Project Template

J.P-4 Can the Government clarify if the Total Period of Performance required in Part I of the J.P-4 is for the Prime’s award or the Offeror’s subcontract?

The project period of performance for an Offeror claiming a project with experience performed as a subcontractor should reflect the period of performance, including any option(s), associated with the prime contract on the A3 Subcontractor Experience Project Template (J.P-4).

GR4-49 (Attachment J.P-4) A3 Subcontractor Experience Project Template

J.P-4, L.5.2.3, L.5.2.4 If we are using the federal subcontract and using this subcontract experience for NAICS and Emerging Technology Experience, can we submit one J.P4 including NAICS and ET experience, or do we have to submit a separate JP.4 for NAICS and ET experience?

Attachment J.P-4 provides Offerors a pulldown option to select both NAICS & ET Project identifiers for a single attachment signature. Once a file or document is uploaded in Symphony the Offeror can use the file that corresponds with the elements in their proposal, as applicable.

GR4-50 (Attachment J.P-4) A3 Subcontractor Experience Project Template

J.P-4, Part I In J.P-4, in the field that asks if the project was under an existing or previous teaming agreement, it should cite Section L.5.1.4.1.

The J.P-2 form references L.5.1.4 under which sections for each different type of relationship is specified, which includes the subparagraph L.5.2.4.1. No change to J.P-2 will be applied to the form.

GR4-51 (Attachment J.P-4) A3 Subcontractor Experience Project Template

J.P-4, Part I When using a subcontract from an affiliate, subsidiary, or acquired company, where should offerors record the name and UEI of the affiliate, subsidiary, or acquired company to which the subcontract was issued? 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)?

The J.P-4 form has a field to enter the name and UEI of the Offeror as well as the Prime Contractor. Symphony allows the Offeror to select the associated entities and UEIs to an evaluation element to claim points, when applicable. Once a file or document is uploaded in Symphony the Offeror can use the file that corresponds with the elements in their proposal.

GR4-52 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5 If the J.P-5 form is fully filled in and signed by the small business company officer as instructed, does the offeror still need to obtain and submit a copy of the original award form from the small business?

Some companies are not willing to provide an award document to another contractor for any reason.

Yes, the offeror needs to obtain and submit a copy of the original award form from the small business to be compliant with RFP instructions in Section L.5.2.4.4.

GR4-53 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5 Where should the offeror put the Small Business Prime Contractor Representatives that performed the SB emerging technology project J.

P-5 Template?

Attachment J.P-5, Part I, Small Business Contractor Name, Small Business Contractor UEI, Engagement Under this NAICS code. Part II, Name, Title, Small Business Contractor Name, Phone, Email. Part IV, Name, Date, Signature are for the Small Business that performed the SB emerging technology project.

GR4-54 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5 May tags be labeled PART I, PART II, PART III, PART IV, or are separate tags required for relevant rows?

Tags should be to the specific location in the evidence document for the scoring element being evaluated.

GR4-55 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5, L.5.2.4.4 Please modify J.P-5 and only require document tagging for non- Federal projects per L.5.2.4.4 item (c)."

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 2 item 66.

GR4-56 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5, L.5.2.4.4 Will the Government please clarify whether Attachment J.P-5 Part I should describe the "one on one" OTSB and SB engagement information or the SB's project experience in support of one of the ETs listed in section L.5.2.4.1 (Emerging Technology Listing)?

Yes, Attachment J.P-5, Part I should describe the "one on one" OTSB and SB engagement information and the SB's Emerging Technology Solution project for any single Emerging Technology listed in L.5.2.4.1.

GR4-57 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5, L.5.2.4.4 Part III of this form states that “The Offeror is required to pinpoint specific sections within the document(s) through Symphony Tagging that substantiate the claim.” However, Section L.5.2.4.4 (c ) doesn’t ask for a PWS or SOW for federal projects for SB Engagement substantiation. Should the Symphony Tagging requirement be only for non-federal projects?

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 2, items 66, 28.

GR4-58 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5, L.5.2.4.4(a) Can an attestation on the J.P-5 that the SB is a Small Business at time of submission be included in the Part III Project Description since that is the only free form field provided?

An attestation on the J.P-5 that the SB is a Small Business at time of submission may be included in the Part III Project Description.

GR4-59 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5, Part I The Small Business Emerging Technology Solution Verification Form (J.P-5) includes a field that states "ENGAGEMENT IS WITH SMALL BUSINESS UNDER THIS NAICS CODE". The corresponding instructions in section L.5.2.4.4 (Small Business Emerging Technology Solutions Engagement) does not state which NAICS codes are acceptable for this field. Will the Government please provide instructions for which NAICS codes are to be added by offerors and evaluated for acceptance by the Government?

The NAICS code requested on the Attachment J.P-5 is the NAICS Code assigned to the Small Business Engagement Project claimed per RFP Section L.5.2.4.4.

GR4-60 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5, Part II We are unable to enter text in J.P-5, Part II. The government was unable to replicate this issue. No revision has been made to the form.

GR4-61 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5, Part II Attachment J.P-5 does not appear to align with the instructions in L.

5.2.4.4 (Small Business Emerging Technology Solutions Engagement). Part II requires "PROJECT REFERENCE INFORMATION" but it is unclear if the information should represent a cognizant official from the Small Business OR a cognizant official of the customer who can verify the SB's performance. Will the Government please clarify whether Part II should describe the cognizant official of the 1) Small Business, a 2) Government official (as in J.P-3 and J.P-5), or a 3) Prime (when J.P-4 applies)?

J.P-5 form PART II: PROJECT REFERENCE INFORMATION Cognizant Project Official (For Federal or Commercial Projects) contains fields for the Name, Title and Company Name for the Small Business demonstrating the Emerging Technology.

GR4-62 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5, Part II Please confirm the name and title of the Small Business' Cognizant Project Official is what is required in this section.

Yes, for attachment J.P-5, Part II, the name and title of the Small Business Cognizant Project Official is what is required in this section. See GR3-21 under attachment A3 GR Set 03_10.25.24.

GR4-63 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5, Part III It is our recommendation to have a single index for the entire Small Business Emerging Technology Solutions Engagement section.

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 2, item 28.

GR4-64 (Attachment J.P-5) A3 Small Business Engagement Template

J.P-5, Part III Part III. Project Description of Attachment J.P-5 Small Business Engagement Template indicates, "Note that the character limit does not encompass the required Index, which is to be presented separately and is not a part of this narrative section." Does the Government have a preferred format and location for the Index?

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 2, item 28.

GR4-65 (Attachment J.P-6) A3 Past Performance Rating Template

J.P-6 The provided template does not contain a signature block for the Government Assessing Official. Please indicate where/how the Assessing Official should sign to validate the information?

Please see signature box provided on RFP Attachment J.P-6 page 1. Rating must be provided by a Warranted Contracting Officer or Corporate Officer or cognizant government official for Federal Projects or a Corporate Official with cognizance over the project for the ordering activity for Non-Federal Projects. If the rating is not supplied by the Contracting Officer, the cognizant government official that provided the rating must fill out the Contract Officer information box (provided on RFP Attachment J.P-6 page 1) for Federal Projects.

GR4-66 (Attachment J.P-6) A3 Past Performance Rating Template

J.P-6, L.5.2.4(c) Regarding Solicitation Section L.5.2.4(c ) states that "If the relevant experience project was not fully completed, but at least one year of performance was not completed in the base period, then either an interim or final CPARS report, or a completed Award Fee Determination document or signed Attachment J.P-6 must be submitted with the proposal." On the government form it has two sections that are relevant to NAICS Relevant Experience Projects, the line for "NAICS CODE" and the line "NAICS CODE RELEVANT

EXPERIENCE PROJECT."

Can the government please confirm that if the project is only being used for an Emerging Technology project, not one of the 7 NAICS projects, that these areas may be left blank?

The government confirms that if a project is being used exclusively for an Emerging Technology project, not for, or with one of the Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience projects in L.5.2.2, the following lines in Attachment J.P-6 can be left blank: NAICS CODE and NAICS CODE RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

PROJECT.

GR4-67 (Attachment J.P-7) A3 Federal Contract FPDS Crosswalk Sample

J.P-7 Please clarify if fields that are in an orange/yellow font and contain an asterisk at the end of the field name in the Sample Indefinite Delivery Vehicle FPDS report and the Sample Contract/Order FPDS report will have any bearing on the Offeror's response. Additionally please clarify if in the J.P.7 Crosswalk Table 1) For Order Number, should FPDS field "Award ID" be "Referenced IDV ID",

2) For Project Value, should FPDS field "Based and Exercised Options Obligated Value" be "Base and Exercised Options Value", 3) FPDS field "Base and All Options Estimated Value" should be "Base and All Options Value (Total Contract Value)", and 4) FPDS field "Contract Type" should be "Type of Contract"?

The screenshot of the FPDS report containing the yellow text with asterisks is a function the FPDS website. Those are the mandatory fields a CO completes when entering contract data in the program. Since this sample is blank, they remain yellow with an asterisk.

1. For "Order Number", this is in reference to the second FPDS Sample Contract/Order Report specific to starting on Page 6, and the correct field to reference for this is "Award ID". "IDV ID" is referenced in the first sample on page 3 for an Indefinite Delivery Vehicle.

2 and 3. "Project Value" depends on the status of a project, ongoing or complete.

Please refer to Amendment 3, item 1.

4. Type of Contract is synonymous with Contract Type. To provide evidence of a cost type contact in J.P-2, the "type of Contract" field will/must contain one of the following: Cost No Fee, Cost Plus Award Fee, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Plus Incentive Fee, or Cost Sharing.

GR4-68 (Attachment J.P-7) A3 Federal Contract FPDS Crosswalk Sample

J.P-7 For completed projects, can we consider the contract value displayed for Base And Exercised Options Value in FPDS as all the option years exercised.

Yes, for completed projects the "Base and Exercised Options Value" in FPDS is used to report the contract value. As stated in L.5.2.2, Project value for completed federal Projects is determined by the total obligated dollars. For ongoing projects the "Base and All Options Value (total contract value)" in FPDS is used to report the contract value. As stated in L.5.2.2, Project value for ongoing federal projects is determined based on the total estimated dollars.

Please refer to Amendment 3, item 1.

GR4-69 (Attachment J.P-9) A3 Model Individual Subcontracting Plan

J.P-9 We request instructions on how to complete the J.P-9 Subcontracting Plan Template.

Please refer to instructions provided in the first tab of Attachment J.P-9 A3 Model Individual Subcontracting Plan Template V.3 for steps to complete the attachment. Additionally, as stated in RFP Section L.5.1.3, Attachment J.P-9 is designed as a tool to help contractors meet the subcontracting plan requirements by offering a structured format for presenting their subcontracting goals.

GR4-70 (Attachment J.P-9) A3 Model Individual Subcontracting Plan

J.P-9 Offerors are instructed to enter $ amounts in cells B22, B23, B26, and B27. Since the value of Task Orders to be competed/won in the Base Period are unknown, how will offerors know the amount to use? Will the Government consider that offerors merely provide the percentages instead of an actual $ amount?

GSA expects the Offeror's small business subcontracting plan to be compliant with FAR Clause 52.219-9. The Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan should only contain realistic goals that are attainable to the Offeror’s individual circumstances. This includes the Total Contract Value and Total Planned Subcontracted Dollars.

Below is historical information from Alliant 2's competed task orders for a six year period:

1. An average of 67.33 competed task orders per contract year.

2. The average value of competed task orders was $143.7M For more information on Alliant 2 historical sales data and trends please see:

https://d2d.gsa.gov/report/gsa-fas-gwac-sales-dashboard

GR4-71 (Attachment J.P-9) A3 Model Individual Subcontracting Plan

J.P-9, Tab 1 Goals are not generated correctly from this tab to Tab 2. Example, if 50% of total contract is to be subcontracted and 70% of said 50% is for Socio Economic concerns, Tab 2 shows the total subcontracting as 50% of the contract total. This makes the formulas in the Socio Economic breakdown incorrect.

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 1, item 1.

GR4-72 (Attachment J.P-10) A3 GSA Form 527 Contractor Qualification and Financial Information

J.P-10 GSA Form 527 will not open on SAM.gov. It shows an error message stating: "We can't open this file. Something went wrong."

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. Please refer to Amendment 1, item 2.

GR4-73 (Attachment J.P-10) A3 GSA Form 527 Contractor Qualification and Financial Information

J.P-10 Please add fillable fields to all “totals” cells/boxes for offerors to properly complete the form.

If the offeror downloads the form and saves it on their desktop the total will auto-calculate after they fill in the fields. If the auto-calculation does not occur, the offeror may print the form and manually fill in the total fields, and scan the document to their computer to be able to upload it to Symphony.

GR4-74 (Attachment J.P-11) A3 Contractor C- SCRM Responsibility Questionnaire

J.P-11 Attachment J.P-11 requires completion by each member of a Joint Venture, if a Joint Venture is submitting as the Offeror. When completing the information in the form for the Offeror (i.e., "Name of the Offeror"), should a JV member include its legal name, as well as the name of the Joint Venture Entity? For example, "Company X, member of Joint Venture X"?

Yes, a joint venture member should include its legal name, as well as the name of the Joint Venture Entity in Attachment J.P-11.

GR4-75 (Attachment J.P-11) A3 Contractor C- SCRM Responsibility Questionnaire

J.P-11 Is it mandatory to submit the J.P-11 A3 Contractor C-SCRM Responsibility Questionnaire form?

Yes, it is mandatory to submit attachment J.P-11, A3 Contractor C-SCRM Responsibility Questionnaire. Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C- SCRM) is evaluated on a pass/fail basis and is not a scored element. Please refer to Amendment 2, item 17.

GR4-76 (Attachment J.P-12) A3 C-SCRM References

J.P-12 Will the government confirm what change occurred to J.P-12 document between RFP and Amendment 1? Documents appear to be identical.

RFP Attachment J.P-12, C-SCRM References was updated to correct a file property error that affected the way the intended title was displayed. This amendment corrects the file title’s property in the PDF. (See Amendment 1, item 3)

GR4-77 (Attachment J.P-12) A3 C-SCRM References

J.P-12, J.P-13, G.20.4, L.5.5.2

Will the Government please confirm that J.P-12 and J.P-13 are files that are not required to be included in the final Proposal submission?

Yes, the government confirms that J.P-12, C-SCRM References and J.P-13, C- SCRM Plan Template are not required to be included in the final Proposal submission.

GR4-78 (Attachment J.P-16) A3 Self-Scoring Worksheet

J.P-16 The 6th NAICS Project has different values from the other Projects ($35M, $100M, $275M) as opposed to $7.5M, $35M, $275M.

The government acknowledges receipt of your question. This information may have been on a draft version of the RFP issued during a Request for Information (RFI). The official solicitation of the Alliant 3 RFP, attachment J.P-16 does not contain this information.

GR4-79 (Attachment J.P-16) A3 Self-Scoring Worksheet

J.P-16, L.5.1.9, L.5.5.2 Will the Government please confirm that while the topic of C-SCRM is addressed in two separate sections (L.5.1.9 and L.5.5.2), Offerors are ONLY required to submit a completed J.P-11?

Yes, Offerors are only required to submit a completed J.P-11 attachment in their proposal for C-SCRM. The C-SCRM plan (J.P-13) is a post award deliverable.

Please refer to Amendment 2, item 7 and 10.

GR4-80 (Attachment J.P-16) A3 Self-Scoring Worksheet

J.P-16, Rows 151-157 The scoring value in Attachment J.P-16 is listed as 2500 for all drop-down options (Positive, Neutral, Negative with Narrative) except Negative. Could you please clarify if this is the intended scoring approach?

Attachment J.P-16 is corrected to show 2500 points for drop-down options Positive and Neutral. The drop-down options Negative and Negative with Narrative are assigned 0 points. See RFP Section L.5.3.3 for more information.

Please refer to Amendment 3, item 2.

GR4-81 (Attachment J.P-16) A3 Self-Scoring Worksheet

L.5.2, L.5.2.2(e) Can you please confirm that these numbers for the GSA Alliant 3 Relevant experience are correct. Each project that we submit as Relevant Experience must be more than $35m each, with several being more than $100m.

Per RFP Section L.5.2.2 (e) the minimum "Individual Project Value must be equal to or greater than seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($7,500,000)."

Additional points may be earned for projects over $7.5M, see RFP section M.6 and Attachment J.P-16 for additional information.

GR4-82 (Attachment J.P-16) A3 Self-Scoring Worksheet

L.5.2.2 Recommend the Government consider reserving a certain % of awards for OTSB that are under $200M in 5 year annual revenue. This would allow this group to compete on scoring against each other vs competing against companies with more than >$1B revenue companies.

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.

GR4-83 (Attachment J.P-18) A3 Labor Rate Attestation

J.P-18, L.5.8.2 Can the Government confirm that the referenced Alliant 2 rates are to be used in comparison to Base Year proposed rates only for the Attachment J.P-18 Labor Rate Attestation?

Per RFP section L.5.8.2 "Proposed labor-hour rates that exceed the Government referenced Alliant 2 published labor-hour rates must be supported with evidence showing that the proposed higher rates have been accepted on a T&M/L-H Federally awarded Government Contract (Attachment J.P-8, Tab 3a and Tab 3b).

Offeror will submit Attachment J.P-18 to attest to the validity and accuracy of the provided evidence."

GR4-84 (A) Solicitation/Contract Form SF-33 L.5.4.10 Will the Government accept any FCL Verification date after the RFP release date? Or does the Government require the verification report be dated closer to the submit date?

The government acknowledges receipt…