PACTS III Solicitation Question and Answer_4_12_24_Final_Correction.pdf

Document Page No. Section 1 Just reaching back out to see if the solicitation has been released for PACTS III? Yes, it was posted on SAM.gov on 2/5/2024.

I saw your solicitation on SAM.gov, and wanted to see if you might have a few minutes to review and discuss a potential “easy button” option from a contracting perspective using the Ability One program for FUTURE opportunities? I have attached a description of one contract vehicle that may be an option in the future, but have a couple of others if you or your other contracting officers have time to review? Thank you for your time and consideration!

The PACTS III Team is not having discussions about the PACTS III solicitation with any contractor and does not intend on using the Ability One program for FUTURE opportunities on PACTS III.

3 Would you like me to schedule a quick meeting so we can discuss further? The PACTS III Team is not having discussions about the PACTS III solicitation with any contractor.

4 Will you consider expanding the socioeconomic set-asides to small disadvantage business or total small business?

No, we will not expand the socioeconomic set-asides to small disadvantage business or total small business. This acquisition is set-aside for SDVOSB, WOSB, HUBZone and 8(a) types of small businesses only since based on market research, there is adequate competition among these concerns.

5 Functional Category 3 RFP

(70SBUR24R00000003)

As I'm reviewing the video and PIEE documents make a reference to No Wet signature is to be scanned in but the mandatory documents are to be uploaded to the PIEE system. Does this mean electronic signatures only or NO signatures? Offerors should be able to provide a digital signature by clicking in box 30 on the first page of the SF 1449 (RFP Pg. 3).

6 Would a firm be eligible to submit a proposal in response to this solicitation if 8(a) certification is pending at the time of proposal submission (i.e., 8(a) application submitted but pending approval)?

No, the firm would not be eligible to submit a proposal in response to this solicitation if 8(a) certification is pending as 13 CFR 124.501(h) states, “For a competitive 8(a) procurement, a firm must be a current Participant eligible for award of the contract on the initial date specified for receipt of offers contained in the solicitation”.

7 FC1_RFP_70SBUR24R0000

0001.pdf Pg. 76 4.3.1.1.1(g)(i)

The new language alters the text of the 40% rule from the 3rd draft, which read: "40% of the total number of projects claimed and verified by the DHS under a SBTA must be from the partner(s) of the joint venture that possess the socioeconomic status associated with the track the Offeror is proposing." In the case of joint ventures, the new language requires 40% of the projects to come from the managing venturer or the JV itself. The new language does not appear in any applicable regulation. It is unduly restrictive with respect to teammates who share the socioeconomic status associated with the track the offeror is proposing. As long as the total number of examples from the managing venture and its similarly situated teammates meets or exceeds 40%, the team should be deemed compliant. Would the Government please consider reverting to the prior language: "40% of the total number of projects claimed and verified by the DHS under a SBTA must be from the partner(s) of the joint venture that possess the socioeconomic status associated with the track the Offeror is proposing."

To ensure fairness, the Government applied the 40% rule to the party(ies) that must possess the certifications that enable the Offeror to propose to certain tracks on PACTS III, is contributing more than their socioeconomic status. Therefore, we are only allowing the managing partner of the Joint Venture or the Joint Venture itself to contribute since in order for the Joint Venture to propose to a certain socioeconomic track the managing venturer and the Joint Venture itself must possess the certifications that enable the Offeror to propose to the tracks it chooses.

8 Not successful in downloading three attachments related to subject updates.

You can download the PACTS III solicitation by going to the one you are interested in on sam.gov and clicking the link highlighted in blue that says “PIEE Solicitation Module Link for 70SBUR24R0000000X”. This will take you to the PIEE system where the solicitation is located. Once there, scroll to the bottom of the page and you will find all the solicitation documents. You can either download all the attachments at once by clicking “Download All Attachments” at the bottom or you can download them individually by clicking on the blue link under “File/URL”. If you are still having difficulties, please contact the PIEE Help Desk at 866-618-5988.

9 As we are going through our relevant projects for our PACTS III submittal, we have more than 50 projects we plan to submit. We kindly request an additional Self-Scoring Sheet(s)/Workbook(s).

Before we can provide you with an additional Self-Scoring Sheet(s)/Workbook(s), would you please let us know how many projects do you anticipate submitting and under which dollar range(s) so we can ensure the extensions in the additional Self-Scoring Sheet(s)/Workbook(s) and PIEE are sufficient? Please use the extension provided in the amendment 0001 that was posted. If you require additional sheets beyond the one extension which allows for 100 projects per dollar range, please let us know.

I wanted to inquire about the need for Land Surveying and Mapping services that fall under NAICS code(s) 541360 and 541370 on this RFP. Currently, our firm is an A/E prime contractor for the USACE – Jacksonville providing surveying and mapping services here in Puerto Rico. We also provide civil engineering professional services under 541330 as well.

As stated in Part I - Continuation of SF 1449, "The suite of PACTS III contracts is comprised of the three (3) Functional Categories (FCs) listed below for commercial services. The Statement of Work (SOW), Attachment 1 delineates the details of the services and solutions for each of the three (3) FCs. The three (3) FCs have a primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code that further describes the scope of work that will be procured under each FC. The scope of each of the FCs is further refined by the Product Service Codes (PSCs) associated with each of the NAICS codes in the Functional Category NAICS/PSC Relationships, Attachment 2. All three

(3) of the FCs have specific requirements that will be further identified and defined at the Task Order (TO) level. The FC and associated NAICS codes are as follows:

• FC1: Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services:

NAICS Code: 541611;

• FC2: Office Administrative Services; NAICS Code: 561110;

• FC3: Engineering Services; NAICS Code: 541330" NAICS code(s) 541360 and 541370 are not within scope of the PACTS III requirement.

In accordance with section 2.4.7 in the above-mentioned RFPs, we kindly requests several additional Self-Scoring Sheets/Workbooks for FC1 and FC3 as we expect to substantially exceed the 50-project allotment. Thank you for your prompt response. TechOp is still in the process of confirming our total project set in light of the changes that came with the final RFP, so we do not yet have a final number. Would it be possible for me to follow up with that information once we have our list tallied, and if so, is there a deadline by which industry needs to request additional worksheets?

Before we can provide you with an additional Self-Scoring Sheet(s)/Workbook(s), would you please let us know how many projects do you anticipate submitting and under which dollar range(s) so we can ensure the extensions in the additional Self-Scoring Sheet(s)/Workbook(s) and PIEE are sufficient? There is not a deadline for when you need to request additional sheets. We did provide one additional workbook/sheet to everyone in the amendment 0001 that allows for 100 projects for each dollar range so you only need to request an additional one from us if you extend the 100 projects.

We are requesting an additional 6 scoring sheets. Due to the significant change in the Final RFP FedWriters is required to rebuild their team and is currently re-evaluate all the projects to reflect the change around the 40% stipulations. Currently there isn’t a finalized exact number of projects or points value. If the government prefers, we can finalize our projects and tally our points before asking for additional sheets.

To confirm, you have 300 projects that fall within the range of a single dollar range in the Self-Scoring Sheet so you need six (6) additional Self-Scoring Sheets; is that correct? We just want to make sure you do not have 300 across multiple dollar ranges as the existing Self-Scoring Sheet may accommodate that. The Government provided one continuation/extension of the Self-Scoring Sheet in its Amendment 0001 that allows for an additional 50 projects for each dollar range. If you determine that you will have more than 100 projects for a specific dollar range, please let us know so we can provide additional Self-Scoring Sheet continuation/extensions.

Question # Reference Question Government Response

Document Page No. SectionQuestion # Reference Question Government Response

13 RFP Page 79 of 139 4.3.1.2.1 Federal Government Projects, (f) If we have CPARS for an IDIQ that has multiple claimed task orders under it, can we use IDIW-Level CPARS for each task order, or are CPARS required at the task order level?

CPARS are required at the task order level. If a CPARS is only completed at the IDIQ level, then the Offeror must treat it as though one does not exist and follow the guidance in the addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph 4.3.1.2.1(f) and submit a completed Project Verification Form.

14 RFP Page 79 of 140 4.3.1.2.1 Federal Government Projects, (f) Will "Draft" CPARS meet the requirement to substantiate our performance or are the CPARS required to be "Final" in the

CPARS system? CPARS are required to be "Final" in the CPARS system.

15 RFP Page 77 of 139 4.3.1.1.2 Project Recency Can you please confirm that the solicitation date of 02/05/2024 will be used to determine the Obligated Period of

Performance for project recency? Yes, the solicitation date of 02/05/2024 will be used to determine the obligated period of performance for project recency.

16 RFP 4.3.1.1.2 - Project Recency

If one or more of our prospective FC 3 (541330) subcontractors performed, or continues to perform, as the small business prime on a contract/TO that met all 4.3.1.1 relevance and recency qualifications, but has since technically grown out of the 541330 NAICS (in 31 DEC 22 or 31 DEC 23 as a result of trailing revenue) for future procurements, will DHS allow us to utilize that subcontractor and their QP since that contract/TO did or may continue to meet the requirements of 4.3.1.1?

Only projects from members/partners of a team may submit projects and a subcontractor is only considered a member of a team if they are part of a Prime / Subcontractor type of SBTA. Additionally, if you were providing an offer as a Prime/Subcontractor type of SBTA, the subcontractor would be required to be small businesses in accordance with FAR Provision 52.207-6 which it no longer is. Therefore, the subcontractor could not be a part of your team and consequently, none of its projects can be used.

17 Request for Proposal Pg. 62 52.212-1, Addendum, Para. 1.3

1. If an offeror elects to be considered for more than one socioeconomic track within a Functional Category, can the offeror receive an award in more than one socioeconomic track within that one Functional Category?

2. If the offeror is limited to winning only one award per Functional Category (when eligible to submit a proposal for more than one socioeconomic track), how does DHS decide under which socioeconomic track to award the offeror?

1. Yes, an offeror can receive an award in more than one socioeconomic track within that one Functional Category.

2. This question does not apply since the Offeror may win an award for each track it proposes to, if it is chosen as one of the HTRO-FRP.

As stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 paragraph 1.1, "The DHS will only accept and evaluate one (1) proposal as described in FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, paragraph 1.3, from each Offeror for each Functional Category [...] To be considered as a HTRO-FRP Offeror, the proposal must score amongst the highest rated offers received from the same offeror type for the track within the Functional Category."

18 Attachment_9_Proposal_Org ___Naming_Conventions Pg. 2-6 Volume II: Experience and Past Performance

The current file naming conventions seem like they could cause some confusion. It currently asks for each project to be named as follows under each contract value range [i.e., Subfactor 1.1(a) - (h)]:

i. Project Cover Sheet (Naming Convention: Ex. 01_Company XYZ_Project Cover Sheet)

ii. Project Supporting Documentation (i.e. Contract, FPDS, SOW, PVF, Partner/Sub Agreement, etc) (Naming Convention: Ex. 01_Company XYZ_FPDS) (Naming Convention: Ex. 01_Company XYZ_Contract)

As a result, offerors could have a project 01 for each of the ranges [i.e. Subfactor 1.1(a) Range: $250K < $400K or Subfactor 1.1(b) Range: $400,000.01 < $600K]. Would DHS consider adding the specific subfactor or the contract value range to the naming conventions to differentiate between project 01 in multiple price ranges?

Thank you for the recommendation. We updated the naming conventions of projects in Attachment 9 and the PIEE template in Amendment 0001 which will help distinguish projects between each contract value range.

19 Request for Proposal Pg. 70-71 52.212-1, Addendum, Para. 3.1(p)-(s)

For each socioeconomic track, offerors are required to provide a time stamped screenshot to verify their socioeconomic status. The RFP requires that this verification should have a "time stamp reflecting the date the Offeror submits its proposal."

As a result, offerors cannot prepare this element until the day of proposal submission. Typically, offerors prefer to have their proposals completed a few days prior to the day of proposal submission in order to have time to review their final submission files. Would DHS consider amending this requirement to instead require time stamps dated after the solicitation release date (i.e., after 2/5/2024)?

Thank you for the recommendation; however, this requirement will remain unchanged.

20 We would love to set up a one-on-one meeting to collaborate on our capabilities. Please feel free to select a time on our calendar. Thank you in advance for your consideration. The PACTS III Team is not having discussions one-on-one meetings about the PACTS III solicitation with any contractor.

21 RFP FC1 9 Part I, Continuation of SF 1449 Please describe/explain:(1) the primary differences between the three (3) PACTS III RFPs; and (2) will DHS adds more FC RFPs?.

As stated in Part I - Continuation of SF 1449, "The suite of PACTS III contracts is comprised of the three (3) Functional Categories (FCs) listed below for commercial services. The Statement of Work (SOW), Attachment 1 delineates the details of the services and solutions for each of the three (3) FCs. The three (3) FCs have a primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code that further describes the scope of work that will be procured under each FC. The scope of each of the FCs is further refined by the Product Service Codes (PSCs) associated with each of the NAICS codes in the Functional Category NAICS/PSC Relationships, Attachment 2. All three

(3) of the FCs have specific requirements that will be further identified and defined at the Task Order (TO) level. The FC and associated NAICS codes are as follows: FC1: Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services:

NAICS Code: 541611; FC2: Office Administrative Services; NAICS Code: 561110; FC3: Engineering Services; NAICS Code: 541330".

Each of the solicitations is for one of the three FCs mentioned above. They are all three very similar; however, there are some areas that are different. Some of these areas include but are not limited to the point system and the content in FAR provision 52.219-1.

No, the DHS does not intend to add any more FCs to the PACTS III RFPs.

22 RFP FC1 9 Part I, Continuation of SF 1449 Please confirm that an Offeror can submit a proposal for each of the three (3) PACTS III RFPs.

That's correct. As stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 1.3.1, "Under PACTS III, interested small businesses will be able to submit one (1) proposal from each Offeror for each Functional Category. The Offeror is not required to submit a proposal for all three Functional Categories but rather only the one(s) it qualifies for and would like the DHS to consider. For example, if the Offeror would like to be considered for Functional Categories 1 and 2, the Offeror shall submit two, separate and distinct proposals, one for each Functional Category in response to its respective solicitation." Also, see response to question #17 above.

23 RFP FC1 11 Part II, Contract Clauses, FAR 52.227-14, Rights In Technical Data-General, (MAY 2014) and FAR 52.227-17, Rights In Data-Special Works, (DEC 2007) are typically used for contracts requiring the development and delivery of new technical data and/or computer software, however, because the PACTS III RFPs are procuring commercial services those clauses appear to be inappropriate.

Recommend that those clauses be deleted and that FAR 52.227-19, Commercial Computer Software License, (DEC 2007), be added instead.

Thank you for your recommendation. After conducting research we believe it is appropriate to keep 52.227-14, 52.227-17 and add 52.227-19. Although these clauses may not apply to most task orders procured under PACTS III, we are not able to say without a doubt that they would not apply since we are not aware of the details associated with every task order that will be issued off PACTS III. The clauses in PACTS III are only, as applicable at the task order level.

24 RFP FC1 41 Part III, Terms and Conditions 10.0, Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI), first paragraph

First paragraph (Page 41) states that the TOCO may require the Contractor to sign an OCI Statement. Please describe/clarify the contents of the OCI Statement or provide a copy of the OCI Statement.

Part III, paragraph 10.0 covers organizational conflicts of interest at the task order level. If a contractor is required to sign an OCI statement, this requirement will be identified in the task order solicitation.

25 RFP FC1 42

The first paragraph states "To mitigate the risk of an OCI in accordance with FAR 42.1204(d), a PACTS III Contractor (including affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, or joint venture participants) may only participate as a prime Offeror or subcontractor in the submission of one proposal in response to a specific task order. For example, if a PACTS III prime awardee who is a Joint Venture submits a proposal for a task order solicitation, a Contractor designated in the PACTS III IDIQ as a partner of the Joint Venture may not also propose to the same task order solicitation as an order-level first tier subcontractor or separate PACTS III prime Offeror. "(Emphasis Supplied) Please identify/explain:

a) the rationale for limiting teaming with a Joint Venture partner; and

b) whether this restriction has been coordinated with the Small Business Administration or other Government Small Business officials.

This relates to post-award contract administration and is implemented to mitigate the risk of OCI.

26 RFP FC1 61

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services,

1.2 Approach

This section states that the aggregate PACTS III ceiling is $ 8.4B. Please identify/describe how DHS plans to allocate the ceiling among the 3 FCs.

TOCOs will conduct market research in accordance with FAR Part 10 for each requirement to determine which Functional Category and socioeconomic track is best suited to meet the Component's needs. Competition will ultimately determine how the ceiling will be allocated among the three Functional Categories.

27 RFP FC1 62-63

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, 1.3.3

The market research results from the first PACTS III draft, which are nearly one year old. Please provide any more recent market research results.

The most recent market research results can be found under the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 1.3.3. Please see the disclaimer on the survey results.

28 RFP FC1 64

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services,

2.1.1 Questions

This section allows less than one week for submitting questions. Based upon the sheer amount of information that needs to be reviewed, it is respectfully requested that the period for questions be extended by at least ten (10) days.

Thank you for your recommendation. Since the PACTS III team has issued three (3) draft solicitations and hosted one (1) Industry Day over the last year, the deadline for submitting questions will remain unchanged at this time.

29 RFP FC1 74

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, 4.3.1, Experience and Past Performance (Subfactor 1.1)

Please confirm that experience and past performance from non-DHS federal agencies will receive the same number of claimed points as experience and past performance from DHS agencies

Experience and past performance from non-DHS federal agencies will receive the same number of claimed points as experience and past performance from DHS agencies.

30 RFP FC1 79

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, 4.3.1.2.1, Federal Government Projects (d)(iii) Copy of PWS/SOW/SOO (Subfactor 1.1)

This section requires the Offeror to highlight “those specific written passages in the PWS/SOW/SOO that demonstrates the predominant scope of work being performed is similar to the services outlined in the SOS…” However, Q and A 914 subparagraph (2) states that Offerors are “not allowed to insert comments on the SOW” and should use their “best judgment to highlight those sections that best demonstrate the predominant scope of work.” Please clarify whether Offerors may insert comments when they highlight relevant PWS/SOW/SOO passages.

Offerors are not permitted to insert comments when they highlight relevant PWS/SOW/SOO passages.

31 RFP FC1 82 NOTE

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services,

4.3.2.1 Qualification For Adequate Accounting System

NOTE: If an Offeror’s accounting system is pending an adequacy determination at the time the PACTS III solicitation is issued, then the Offeror will not receive any points for Subfactor 1.2. (Emphasis Supplied)Withholding points under these circumstances seems rather harsh and unfair to Small Businesses. We respectfully request that this provision be modified to allow Offerors with an accounting system that is pending an adequacy determination to either provide a Narrative Statement to explain/describe the unavailable CPARS or receive partial credit.

Thank you for your recommendation; however, this requirement will remain unchanged. An Adequate Accounting System is not a requirement for contract award.

32 RFP FC1 119

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Products and Commercial Services, 1.0, Source Selection Methodology

The source selection process on PACTS III will neither be based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable nor Tradeoffs.

Within the best value continuum, FAR 15.101 defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. For PACTS III, the best value basis for awards will be determined by the Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price. The PACTS III contract will require the Government to order and the contractor to furnish at least a stated minimum quantity of supplies or services. Please identify/describe: (1) DHS’ prior experience with procurements where the Basis For Award is best value being determined by the Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price (HTRO-FRP); and (2) the contract prices for those procurements.

The PACTS III team does not have personal knowledge of all the procurements that have been executed at DHS; therefore, it is not able to speak for DHS as a whole on its use of HTRO or the prices for those procurements. HTRO is a valuable method when trying to fill a pool with highly qualified offerors.

33 RFP FC1 119

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Products and Commercial Services, 1.0, Source Selection Methodology

Please identify/describe: (1)whether DHS will employ non-Government evaluators for any of these RFPs; and (2)whether DHS will use the same group of evaluators for all three (3) RFPs.

DHS does not intend on employing any non-Government evaluators for any of the PACTS III RFPs. It is the Government's intent to use the same group of evaluators for all three (3) RFPs. However, evaluators from the large group may each be evaluating proposals under separate Functional Categories.

34 RFP FC1 121

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Products and Commercial Services, 1.7 (3), Discussions

This section states "If the Government decides to conduct exchanges and allow proposal revisions, the Government may elect to allow revisions from the most highly rated proposals, or, for administrative convenience allow revisions from a subset of the most highly rated proposals or in the alternative, with all the technically acceptable proposals." Please clarify the Government process for determining which of the three (3) exchange methods it will use.

The Government will determine which method is appropriate, if and when it is necessary. Please refer to FAR 14.407 and FAR 15.306(b)(3)(i).

35 RFP FC1 122

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Products and Commercial Services, 2.1, Grouping/Ranking

Please identify/describe the Government source selection procedure to be used for breaking a tied score between two or more Offeror(s) within a grouping having the same number of claimed points.

Since the number of projects is unlimited, it is very unlikely that there will be a tied score between two or more offeror(s) within a group having the same number of claimed points. However, the DHS has sole discretion on determining the final number of awards for each track and may therefore deviate from the estimates stated if it's in the best interest to the Government as stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 2.2.

36 RFP FC1 126-127

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Products and Commercial Services, 2.3 Acceptability Review

Please clarify whether an Offeror will be afforded an opportunity to cure a PQP that fails the Acceptability Review.

No, an Offeror will not be afforded an opportunity to cure a PQP that failed the Acceptability Review as stated the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 2.3, states "Any PQP that fails the Acceptability Review will be removed from consideration for award and future on-ramping and notified, in accordance with 52.212-1 Addendum paragraph 2.5".

37 RFP FC1 133

Part IV, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Products and Commercial Services, 4.1.2.1.1 Federal Government Experience and Past Performance (g)(Element 7)

This section states that DHS will retrieve the Offeror’s Performance Assessment Report from the CPARS system from the last three (3) years. If the CPARS record cannot be retrieved by DHS from the CPARS database, please identify/describe any allowable “work-around” alternate procedures for the Offeror.

As stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212.-1, paragraph 4.3.1.2, "As a reminder, if an Offeror is claiming a federal project and that project is not in CPARS, it shall provide a completed Project Verification Form in accordance with paragraph 4.3.1.2.1(f) below."

38 RFP FC2 75 52.212-1, Addendum, Para. 4.3.1.1.1.d

Reference: "The project was executed under a contract defined in FAR Subpart 2.101. This includes but is not limited to, a single contract (including prime contracts, first-tier subcontracts, commercial contracts, purchase orders); a single task order/call awarded under a single award or multiple award IDIQ, Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA), Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or similar type master contract or a single task order awarded under a Federal Supply Schedule.

Note: Typically, IDIQs, BPAs and BOAs themselves are not contracts since funds are not obligated until orders/calls are issued from these contract vehicles. However, there may unique circumstances, such as a GSA IDIQ that does include funding on the IDIQ itself. Please ensure if a IDIQ, BPA or BOA itself is used to claim a project, that is has funds obligated on the contract vehicle itself and not just the orders and the work performed is within the scope of

PACTS III."

Question: Can the agency please provide clarity on if Master Contracts can be used to claim points under PACTS III or not?

Yes, master contracts can be used to claim points under PACTS III as long as the Government can verify all the measures of merit based on that contract. For example, the master contract must have funds obligated on the contract vehicle itself for a specific scope of work. If orders contain this information, then orders shall be used an not the master contract. Also, please ensure that the work performed under the master contract is within scope of PACTS III. Another consideration is, can the Government confirm satisfactory performance for specific scopes of work on the contract through CPARS?

39 RFP FC2 N/A General

We reviewed the Q&A received through the Industry Day as well as the Final Solicitation but could not get clarity on the NAICS/PSC requirements of the projects to be submitted.

(Quoting a few questions for your reference.)

Q 996) If our Project FPDS Report lists NAICS 541990, but the preponderance of the work being performed is within the scope of FC3 (NAICS 541330) services, will the(DHS) accept this project relevant if we submit the Project Verification Form and Statement of Work (SOW) as evidence? Please note the NAICS code on the FPDS is not necessarily incorrect.

Ans) No, the NAICS codes assigned to projects are supposed to represent the predominant portion of the work (Ref. 52.212- 1 Addendum para. 4.3.1.1.l(b) & FAR 19.102(b)). The NAICS codes and PSC of the project must match with the Functional Category the offeror is proposing (Ref. FAR Clause 52.212-2 Addendum, para. 4.1.2.1.l(d) and 4.l.2.l.2(d). If the offeror believes either the NAICS/PSC was incorrectly assigned, it may follow the process outlined in 52.212-1 Addendum, para.

4.3.1.2.l(d).

This project could possibly count. However, DHS would need to review all areas of the measure of merit through the verification process in order to determine if points being claimed can be granted. A good question to ask yourself when making this determination is, could the Contracting Officer of use the NAICS code associated with the Functional Category I am proposing to for this project I am submitting?

40 RFP FC2

Q 1016) If our Project FPDS Report lists NAICS 541990, but the preponderance of the work being performed is within the scope of FC3 (NAICS 541330) services, will the (DHS) accept this project relevant if we submit the Project Verification Form and Statement of Work (SOW) as evidence? Please note the NAICS code on the FPDS is not necessarily incorrect.

Ans) Possibly; however, DHS would need to review all elements of the verification process in order to determine if points could be claimed.

The above-mentioned questions are the same, but they have been answered differently.

Question: We would really appreciate it if the agency could give us some clarity on claiming the projects with different NAICS/PSC compared to PACTS III, but the services (4 to 5 services) on the projects are similar to the FC listed under PACTS III. Should we submit those projects or not?

See response to question #39 above.

41 RFP FC2 78 52.212-1, Addendum, Para 4.3.1.2.1 (b) (ii)

Reference: "These codes shall be the same as the primary NAICS code, and a PSC identified in Attachment 2 that is associated with the Functional Category the Offeror is proposing to and the FPDS-NG report or the Project Verification Form;"

Question: Does the NAICS for the federal projects need to be the same as the functional category? If we are using "project verification forms (PVF)," what are the specific criteria that qualify us to submit the PVF for a particular federal project, and what if the project provided similar work mentioned in SOW of PACTS III but the NAICS does not match?

As stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4.3.1.2.1 (d), if the FPDS report does not substantiate all elements that the offeror must submit Attachment 14, Project Verification Form (PVF), in its entirety. PSC codes that are not associated with the Functional Category the Offeror is proposing (Attachment 2, Functional Category NAICS PSC Relationships) will not be acceptable. Meaning, the Offeror is not using the PVF to convince the Government that the PSC that was stated on the FPDS is within scope of PACTS, the Offeror is using the PVF to state that the requirement could have used one of the PSCs in Attachment 2 and not just the one stated on the FPDS. The Government is only considering those PSCs that are listed in Attachment 2 as being within scope of PACTS III.

A NAICS or PSC does not always capture the full scope, therefore COs are supposed to choose a NAICS/PSC that represents the principal purpose it is acquiring under its requirement (FAR 19.102(b)). If the NAICS /PSC represents the predominant service being provided and it does not match the NAICS/PSC of the Functional Category, then the offeror should not claim that project. If the offeror believes the CO have of used a different NAICS/PSC to represent the predominant service, then it can use the process outlined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, paragraph 4.3.1.2.1(d). However, if the offeror believes other portions of the project that are not the predominant service matches the Functional Category but the predominant service does not, the offeror should not claim that project as it does not meet the definition of relevant as defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4.3.1.1.1(b)).

42 RFP FC2 61 52.212-1, Addendum, Para 1.3.1 (c)

Question: Going through the solicitation, it appears that Large Business may be able to submit proposals for PACTS III under the Mentor Protégé Teaming Arrangement {FAR 52.207-613 13 CFR 121.103(h)(3)(ii) or (iii)}.

Can you please confirm if this is true or not and provide the details/conditions under which Large Businesses will be able to act as a Mentor.

Yes, a large business can be part of a Mentor/Protégé as long as the Mentor Protégé abides by the SBA regulations that govern large businesses being part of a Mentor/Protégé. A mentor can provide up to 60% of the experience as the addendum to 52.212-1, para.

4.3.1.1.1(g) states, minimum of 40% of the total number of projects claimed and verified by the DHS under a SBTA must be from the protégé in a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture or the Mentor Protégé Joint Venture itself (52.207-6(a)(2). If more than 60% of the projects that are claimed and verified under an Offeror’s proposal are performed solely by the Mentor(s) in a Mentor Protégé relationship, the Offeror’s proposal will be deemed non-compliant and ineligible for award.

43 RFP FC2 79 52.212-1, Addendum, Para 4.3.1.2.1 (e)

Reference: "Partner and/or Subcontractor Agreements (Applicable to SBTAs only). For each relevant and recent project submitted by a SBTA where the managing venturer or Prime Contractor has directly managed a team that is equal to or greater in size to which the Offeror is proposing, the Offeror shall provide a copy of the agreement(s) that proves the managing venturer or Prime Contractor directly managed the size of team it is claiming. The team being managed on the project does not have to be the same team that is submitting a proposal to PACTS III. The term “size” in this context means, number of contractor entities for a given project that the managing venturer or Prime Contractor directly managed (i.e. First- Tier Subcontractors)."

Question: Does this apply to the Mentor Protege Joint Venture?

Yes, this applies to Mentor Protege Joint Venture type of SBTAs since they require a managing venturer.

44 RFP

I have questions that I would like to submit for the Questions due tomorrow by 5 PM and I am unsure where I can go to submit my questions. Am I supposed to just send my questions to this email address, or is there a submission portal that I should be submitting my questions to?

Please document your questions on Attachment 15 of the solicitation and send them to this email address no later than 5pm ET today.

45 RFP FC1 Pg 81 4.3.1.2.2 (c) (ii), "Project Verification Form (Attachment 14)"

For First Tier Subcontractors, it is required that the Project Verification Form is signed by the Prime contractor, in addition to the signatures required in 4.3.1.2.1(d)(ii) and 4.3.1.2.2(c)(i). Paragraph 4.3.1.2.1(d)(ii) requires that the Project Verification Form be signed by the CO, COR, or government employee with cognizance over the submitted project.

First Tier Subcontractors typically do not have a direct relationship with government personnel, only with their Prime Contractor. So accessing Government personnel will be difficult or impossible, and government personnel will typically not have direct insight into the specific work a First Tier Subcontractor is performing for the Prime.

In light of this, would the government consider eliminating the paragraph 4.3.1.2.1(d)(ii) signature requirement for these Project Verification Forms?

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will adjust the RFP in the Amendment 0002 that will require only the Prime Contractor of the project to sign the Project Verification Form if the Offeror is claiming it performed the project as a First-Tier Subcontractor. Please keep in mind that if an Offeror performed the project as a First-Tier Subcontractor, it had to have performed the entire predominant portion of that project in that capacity.

46 RFP FC1 74 4.3.1.1.1

In order for a project to be deemed relevant, does it have to match the NAICS code or is it relevant if the services performed are similar. When the NAICS codes do not match, yet services are similar and relevant, what supporting documentation can be provided to deem the contract relevant?

As stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4.3.1.2.1 (d), if the FPDS report does not substantiate all elements then the offeror must submit Attachment 14, Project Verification Form (PVF), in its entirety. PSC codes that are not associated with the Functional Category the Offeror is proposing (Attachment 2, Functional Category NAICS PSC Relationships) will not be acceptable. Meaning, the Offeror is not using the PVF to convince the Government that the PSC that was stated on the FPDS is within scope of PACTS, the Offeror is using the PVF to state that the requirement could have used one of the PSCs in Attachment 2 and not just the one stated on the FPDS. The Government is only considering those PSCs that are listed in Attachment 2 as being within scope of PACTS III.

A NAICS or PSC does not always capture the full scope, therefore COs are supposed to choose a NAICS/PSC that represents the principal purpose it is acquiring under its requirement (FAR 19.102(b)). If the NAICS /PSC represents the predominant service being provided and it does not match the NAICS/PSC of the Functional Category, then the offeror should not claim that project. If the offeror believes the CO have of used a different NAICS/PSC to represent the predominant service, then it can use the process outlined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, paragraph 4.3.1.2.1(d). However, if the offeror believes other portions of the project that are not the predominant service matches the Functional Category but the predominant service does not, the offeror should not claim that project as it does not meet the definition of relevant as defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4.3.1.1.1(b)).

47 RFP FC1 76 4.3.1.1.1 Can a PP reference from any CTA member apply as a proposal PP reference?

Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTAs) apply to the GSA Schedule Program only. Members/Partners to Small Business Teaming Arrangements, however, are able to provide projects (past performance) as long as they meet all the requirements of the solicitation (Ref.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4.3.1.1.1(g)).

48 RFP FC1 76 4.3.1.1.1 (g)(I) and Table 7 Can the government clarify if the 40% requirement applies to the prime only or does it apply to subcontractors in the same socioeconomic status also? Can PP references satisfying the 40% requirement be provided by both the prime and subcontractors of the same socioeconomic status?

Only the Prime Contractor in a Prime/Subcontractor type of Small Business Teaming Arrangement contribute to the 40% requirement.

49 RFP FC1 76 4.3.1.1.1 (g)(I) and Table 7 Can the government reduce the Prime's past performance contribution to 20% instead of 40%? It would be extremely challenging for a small HUBZone business to meet the 40% requirement. Thank you for your recommendation; however, this requirement will remain unchanged.

50 Request for Proposal 76 4.3.1.1.1 (g)(i)

“The revised RFP limits the use of JV member past performance and corporate experience such that 40% must come from the managing member of the JV, even where the JV is made up of similarly situated entities. This appears to be inconsistent with SBA regulations which allow for use of experience and past performance of all JV members, and appears to be unduly restrictive of competition. Further, it appears to conflate the performance of work rules with those dealing with use of JV member experience. Even then, 40% of the work need only be performed by similarly situated members of the JV, not the management member. Given these facts, does the agency intend to revise the RFP to allow for all JV member’s experience and past performance to be used?”

To ensure fairness, the Government applied the 40% rule to the party(ies) that must possess the certifications that enable the Offeror to propose to certain tracks on PACTS III, is contributing more than their socioeconomic status. Therefore, we are only allowing the managing partner of the Joint Venture or the Joint Venture itself to contribute since in order for the Joint Venture to propose to a certain socioeconomic track the managing venturer and the Joint Venture itself must possess the certifications that enable the Offeror to propose to the tracks it chooses.

51 zip file for PACTS III Application n/a Ex. 52.212-1, Addendum, Para. 2.3

Our company would like to apply for the PACTs III program under FC1. We are a HUBZone and VOSB IT Services company and new to the government sector. Is there someone that can assist us? We have reached out to a DHS Small Business Specialist, and a DHS Procurement Officer. Is there a more recent zip file with all the steps? All I have is the third draft... I just found the Feb 5th announcement and would greatly appreciate guidance with applying. My office number is

XXX-XXX-XXXX.

Thank you for your question. If you are interested in submitting an offer in response to the PACTS III solicitations, you can find the solicitations on sam.gov. Please see the links below for your convenience.

Functional Category 1: https://sam.gov/opp/a908b4c3b89e42ffa5fb6febab59ce7d/view Functional Category 2: https://sam.gov/opp/802cacbe136747e09c3a205c94e5a14e/view Functional Category 3: https://sam.gov/opp/09000e113376405eafa93ff05308735e/view

We plan to submit the proposal for "70SBUR24R00000003: Program Management, Administrative, Clerical, and Technical Services (PACTS) III - Functional Category 3". If we submit the proposal using our small business Joint venture, will the joint venture's past performance be considered for the evaluation? Please advise.

Yes, the Offeror may claim projects that the JV itself performed as long as it meets all the requirements in the solicitation (Ref.

Addendum to 52.212-1, para.4.3.1.1.1(f) and (g).

53 RFP pg. 76 4.3.1.1 Qualifications (g) (1) and Table 7 Please clarify that rounding the 60% of total projects up is intended. For example if the Protégé has 5 projects, 5 is 40% of 12.5… so 13 total?

Yes, should the ratio of projects require rounding, the Government will round based on the value of the number in the third position from the decimal. If the number is 5 or greater the Government will round up, 4 or less it will round down. However, note that in the scenario you provided, the 12.5 would not occur as we intend to divide the projects from the qualifying partners/members into the total number of projects submitted to determine whether, the 40% requirement was met. Therefore, in your example, since you cannot submit .5 of a project, it would either be 12 or 13 total projects. If it was 12 total projects and 5 of those was from the protege, that would be 41.6% or 42%. This would qualify since 41.6% is 40% or greater. However, if the Offeror submits 5 projects from the protege and there were 13 total, that would not qualify since 5 is only 38.4% of 13 total projects and that is less than 40%.

54 RFP pg. 72 4.2. Self-Scoring Sheet(s)/Workbook(s) Please clarify if double points are also available to an SBA-approved Mentor/Protégé JV (only specifies managing venturer or Prime Contractor of an SBTA.

Yes, the doubling of points is available to an SBA approved Mentor/Protege, as that type of SBTA also requires a managing venturer. The types offerors identified in the solicitation will receive double the amount of points for a project if it can be verified that as part of that project they directly managed a team that is equal to or greater in size to which they are proposing. Size is referring to number of contractors the managing venturer or Prime Contractor directly managed on a project.

For example, an offeror is a Joint Venture that consist of a managing venturer and three partners. The managing venturer of that Joint Venture has a project that it would like to claim and on that specific project the managing venturer managed three JV partners. These partners do not need to be a part of the same JV that the offeror is on PACTS III. The managing venturer could not have been part of a JV at all for this project and could have been a Prime Contractor that managed at least three, first-tier subcontractors directly as well. The goal of this element is to see if the managing venturer has experience directly managing a team that is similar to the one it will be managing on PACTS III if it receives an award. By doing so, will give the DHS confidence that because the managing venturer has experience managing a team of similar size than the one it will have on PACTS III, it should be able to do it well when executing PACTS III orders.

55 RFP pg. 77 4.3.1.2 Project Supporting Documentation Please clarify if CPARS provided at the IDIQ level can be referenced. e.g. PACTS II only provided IDIQ-level CPARs

No, CPARS is required at the order level since if CPARS is completed at the IDIQ, it is only assessing how the contract holder is doing with the requirements of the IDIQ. For example, is the Offeror providing deliverables required at the IDIQ level on-time. The assessment is not about whether the contract holder did well on specific orders when CPARS is completed at the IDIQ level. The Government needs to be able to verify that the work completed was done at a satisfactory level or higher at the task order level, where the work was performed. Since the Contracting Officer that is in charge of the IDIQs themselves do not have direct insight into how the contractor is performing on the orders, where the work is actually occurring, it is difficult for the CO of the IDIQ to make a direct assessment of that specific work. Therefore, if the actual work was performed through a order off a IDIQ and there is only a CPARS record at the IDIQ level, the Offeror must complete a Project Verification Form in its entirety and have the CO from that specific order confirm the Offeror had satisfactory performance on that specific order.

56 RFP pg. 82 4.3.3 Facility Clearance (Subfactor 1.3) Joint Ventures are not normally provided a Facility Clearance (unpopulated entity). For a Mentor-Protégé MPP, does both the Mentor and Protégé have to document a Facility Clearance at the same level? Or does either one convey for the JV?

Per 13 CFR 121.103(h)(5), Facility security clearances. A joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility security clearance where either the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work has (have) a facility security clearance. (i) Where a facility security clearance is required to perform primary and vital requirements of a contract, the lead small business partner to the joint venture must possess the required facility security clearance. (ii) Where the security portion of the contract requiring a facility security clearance is ancillary to the principal purpose of the procurement, the partner to the joint venture that will perform that work must possess the required facility security clearance.