Copy_of_QA_about_Factors_and_Attachments_for_ED-FSA-16-R-0009 _Version_2.pdf

QUESTION ABOUT FACTORS

FACTOR 1 ‐ PAST PERFORMANCE

Could you provide more details on how Factors 1, 2 and 3 are weighted? Specifically, is there a point score with each and, if so, what are the percentages or maximum points associated with each factor, noting that Factor 3 is less important than either Factor 1 or Factor 2.

63 of 67 E.2.1 Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

Relevant Past Performance It is industry common knowledge the collection (cash, rehabilitation, AWG and consolidation) of federal student loans requires significant experience to have a high probability of success.

In using the term “Relevant” and in “Size, Scope and/or Complexity” please clarify if ED considers experience in the collection of federal student loans for ED or Guaranty Agencies to be the most relevant experience?

Does ED intend to score or weight relevant experience using a standard, threshold or minimum qualifier?

Is three references for contracts collecting federal student loans considered more relevant than a lesser number or contracts that do not include federal student loans?

Are three references mandatory?

Page 58 of 67 Section E – Solicitation Provisions

It is up to each Offeror to determine if the contracts/project submitted meet the criteria for relevance of past performance; See para E.1.1; Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

Quality of Past Performance

Please clarify if ED is assessing or comparing Offeror’s comments relative to recovery rate or cure rate with other Offeror’s responses?

Or, is ED interested in how the Offeror compares to peers competing on the same project?

Does ED require quoting recovery rates or is competitive statistics sufficient if validated by the client reference?

How will ED rate or score the quality of past performance when comparing offerors?

Page 59 of 67 Section E – Solicitation Provisions

It is up to each Offeror to determine if the information provided meets the criteria for quality of past performance. See para E.1.1; Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304 (d).

Negative Judgments – We applaud ED for inquiring as to the status of negative judgments.

Will ED also include in the requirement to report any administrative, civil actions or investigations taken by any client (including any representative of the client) related to the performance, accounting, money handling, or fraud where the Offeror was found to be in violation?

Page 57 Section E – Solicitation Provisions

Negative judgments include but are not limited to loss of a civil lawsuit (not to include settlements), criminal conviction of a corporate official that was related to financial mismanagement of the Offeror’s organization, and/or a fine or loss of a license as determined by a governing body. (Para E.1, page 57)

When considering Offeror projects and ED PWS similarities in size, scope, and complexity, how are these weighted or ranked? What is the importance level of each?

63 of 67 E.2.1 Sub factor 1.a. Relevance of Past Performance

It is up to each offeror to determine if the contracts/project submitted meet the criteria for relevance of past performance; See para E.1.1; Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

Offeror will submit information on no more than three contracts or projects with a 5 page limit per contract or project. Can offeror exceed the 5 page limit for one contract or project and limit the pages from other contracts or projects as long as the total pages do not exceed 15 for all three contracts, projects combined? i.e. Project One is 10 pages. Project Two is 3 pages. Project Three is 2 pages for a total of 15 pages.

59 of 67 E.1 Factor 1 Past performance Yes

If an Offeror has one client (contract) and within that client there are several different unique streams (projects). Can Offerors use this as one contract, project, or does each stream (project) have to be listed as separate projects?

59 of 67 E.1 Factor 1 Past performance It is up to each offeror to determine if the contracts/project submitted meet the criteria for relevance of past performance; See para E.1.1; Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

Subfactor 1.a. ‐ Relevance of Past Performance, it states, "The three projects or contracts identified by the Offeror in its proposal will be examined to determine the relevance of the Offeror's past performance, considering similarities in size, scope, and complexity of those projects..." Do the contracts/projects provided need to meet each of these three criteria in order to be relevant?

63 of 67 Factor 1, Subfactor 1.a. Yes.

Under Subfactor 1.b. ‐ Quality of Past Performance, it states, "This assessment of past performance quality may include the following factors, among similar others:" It appears that information has been left out after the colon. Can the Department please provide this information?

63 of 67 Factor 1, Subfactor 1.b. See Amendment 0001

Subfactor 1.a. ‐ Relevance of Past Performance, it states, "The three projects or contracts identified by the Offeror in its proposal will be examined to determine the relevance of the Offeror's past performance, considering similarities in size, scope, and complexity of those projects..." Which of these criteria is most important to the Department?

63 of 67 Factor 1, Subfactor 1.a. All are equally important.

Please provide the factors to be evaluated for past performance. The document states ".. May include the following factors, among similar others:"

but no factors are listed after this statement.

63 of 67 (pg. 61) Subfactor 1.b ‐ Quality of Past Performance

See Amendment 0001

In Section E.2.1 Evaluation Factors, Subfactor 1.a. – Relevance of Past Performance (page 61), if size, scope and complexity of the requirements of the PWS are equal, will other collection industry contracts (i.e. Top 10 US Banks), in comparison to student loan/FSA contracts, be considered less relevant ?

61 Section E.2.1 Solicitation Document Each Offeror's proposal will be evaluated on their own merit.

In Section E.2.1 Evaluation Factors, Subfactor 1.b. – Quality of Past Performance (page 61), will other collection industry contracts, in comparison to student loan/FSA contracts, be considered lesser quality ?

61 Section E.2.1 Solicitation Document Each Offeror's proposal will be evaluated on their own merit.

Are incumbents to use CPARS and PPIRS references? If not, should they request a reference from Patty Queen‐Harper? 57, 58 E.1 Relevant Past Performance Incumbents can use any past performance references they deem appropriate. No reference will be provided by the Contracting Officer/Contracting Specialist due to the fact that this is a conflict of interest

“This assessment of past performance quality may include the following factors, among similar others:” There are no following factors listed‐‐?? 61 E.2.1 Quality of past performance See Amendment 0001 Will FSA look unfavorably if past performance only ED and no other references included? 63 e.2.1b No If currently working on the ED contract , can we use them as one of the 3 past performance contracts? 57 E Yes On Pactor 1 for Past Performance, is Government contracts going to be graded higher than other types of contracts? 60 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors See paragraph E.2.1 How does ED intend to grade based on Relevance & Quality of Past Performance? 61 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors See paragraph E.2.1

Subfactor 1.b states the Quality of Past Performance assessment "... may include the following factors, among similar others :" but then does not include any factors. What factors will be considered when determining quality?

63 E.2.1 Subfactor 1.b See Amendment 0001

What is the minimum number of months of performance that must be included for the " Three projects or contracts" identified for the Past Performance category? Without providing minimum requirements, Offerors may be able to provide FSA with skewed performance data by selecting, for example, a single month to demonstrate high recovery rates when a longer‐term view may not show the same level of proficiency.

63 E.2.1 Subfactor 1.a and 1.b There are no minimum requirements for project/contract performance periods. See Amendment 0002, paragraph E.1, Section B

Will ED use an adjectival rating system and, if so, what adjectives will be used for each evaluation criteria? 62 of 67 E.2.1 Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

If ED will not use an adjectival rating system, what system will be used, and what details can be shared now? 63 of 67 E.2.1

Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

For Subfactor 1.a, what project "size" will receive the maximum credit for this criterion? 63 of 67 E.2.1 It is up to the Offeror to determine what contract/project to submit.

Could you provide more details on how Factors 1, 2 and 3 are weighted? Specifically, is there a point score with each and, if so, what are the percentages or maximum points associated with each factor, noting that Factor 3 is less important than either Factor 1 or Factor 2.

63 of 67 E.2.1 Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

Will the government evaluate an offeror in a lesser way if the offeror has less than three past performances? 60 E.2.1 No Do subfactors 1.a and 1.b weigh equally into the overall rating for Factor 1? 61 E.2.1 Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

How does FSA plan on evaluating the relevance of Past Performance with regards to the collection of various debts? 61 E.2.1 See paragraph E.2.1 Would experience working on FSA previous contract be considered the most relevant experience? 61 E.2.1 It is up to each offeror to determine if the projects/contracts submitted meet the criteria of relevance of past performance.

Would experience collecting on credit card debts for a demanding credit grantor be considered as relevant as collecting on student loans which has various repayment options such as loan rehabilitation?

61 E.2.1 It is up to each offeror to determine if the projects/contracts submitted meet the criteria of relevance of past performance.

Would collecting on defaulted FFELP loans with a guaranty agency be more relevant than collecting non‐student loan debt? 61 E.2.1 It is up to each offeror to determine if the projects/contracts submitted meet the criteria of relevance of past performance.

The description of Factor 1.b ends abruptly as if there is something to follow although the sentence simply ends after "among similar others:".

Could ED please share factors that will be used to evaluate the quality of past performance?

61 (63 in footer) E.2.1 Factor 1.b Refer to Amendment 0001

What weighting will be considered in evaluating factors 1.a and 1.b to determine the overall Factor 1 rating? 61 (63 in footer) E.2.1 Section E.2.2 Evaluation Methodology, which states Factors 1 and 2 are equally important. Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

Does FSA believe that contract performance as an ED PCA is the most relevant past performance as it relates to size, scope and complexity outlined in the SOW? Are past performance contracts related to federal student loan debt collections or servicing more relevant than other varieties of consumer collection contracts?

Pages 62‐63 of 67 E.2.1 Subfactor 1.a. ‐ Relevance of Past Performance

It is up to each offeror to determine if the projects/contracts submitted meet the criteria of relevance of past performance.

If an Offeror is currently an ED PCA, is it necessary to submit additional past performance references? Will FSA rely on published CPCS rankings and other quality references?

Pages 62‐63 of 67 E.2.1 Subfactor 1.a. ‐ Relevance of Past Performance

Subfactor 1.b. ‐ Quality of Past Performance

All offerors must comply with the paragraph E.1

Are three contracts or project required? If less than three projects or contracts are submitted will ED determine the offeror's proposal as less than responsive ?

page 61 E.2.1 Subfactor 1(a) The submission of multiple past performance references does not necessarily equate to a more favorable rating

It appears that there is missing information at the end of Subfactor 1(b) as there are no "following factors" listed. Please provide the missing factors as indicated by the language of this paragraph.

page 61 E.2.1 subfactor 1(b) Refer to Amendment 0001.

What are the factors that will be evaluated for the assessment of past performance? 61 Subfactor 1.b. See paragraph E.2.1 Has the FSA defined a time period for data supporting past performance? 60 & 61 Section E There is no specific time period. See Amendment 0002, paragraph E.1, Section B For relevant experience, will ED consider longevity in serving clients? For example of an offeror has been providing services for 10 years versus an offer has provided services for 5 years is there any preference?

Page 60 of 67 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors Each Offeror's proposal will be evaluated on its own merit.

Please confirm the span of time / period you are seeking performance data that FSA deems as most relevant to this solicitation. 60 E.2.1 Relevant Past Performance B(a) There is no specific time period. See Amendment 0002, paragraph E.1, Section B Under Sub factor 1.a. Relevance of Past Performance, it states that “proposal will be examined to determine the relevance of the Offeror’s past performance…” Does that statement imply that a vendor without applicable (large FFEL or Direct Loan Portfolios) student loan expertise/experience will be determined to be non‐responsive or receive a very low score under Factor 1?

61 E.2.1 Subfactor 1.a., Relevance of Past Performance

No

Are Sub‐Factors 1.a. and 1.b. in Factor 1 weighted differently? If so, please indicate the order of importance. 61 E.2.1 Subfactor 1.a., Relevance of Past Performance and Subfactor 1.b., Quality of Past Performance Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

Will the past performance be evaluated for subcontractors? If so, how will it be weighed against the prime’s past performance experience? 60‐61 E.2.1 Factor 1, Past Performance No, only the past performance of the prime will be evaluated Can additional information be provided to give a better understanding of how quality of past performance will be compared and evaluated? 63 Subfactor 1.b. ‐ Quality of

Past Performance E.2.1 Evaluation Factors Factor 1 ‐ Past Performance. Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

If our company has retained a 3rd party to perform network security monitoring, is the 3rd party also required to leverage PIV/PIV‐I cards to perform its duties? p. 40 Attachment 1 ‐ Performance Work Statement / Section

7.9.3 PIV‐I Requirements to

Only if the 3rd party has access to ED's systems

FACTOR 2 ‐ MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Resumes of Key Personnel

Is there a limit to the number of key personnel?

How or what factors will be used to assess the quality of key personnel?

Is ED weighting key personnel in the evaluation of the Offeror?

Page 59 of 67 Section E – Solicitation Provisions

There is no limit to the number of key personne but please remember page limitations. Key personnel are evaluated under Factor 2 ‐ Management Approach. Additional rating methods are not releasable pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

Quality Control Plan To provide a thorough and complete QC plan it is necessary to review the current ED Procedure Manual.

Will ED provide the current procedure manual upon request of the Offeror?

Page 60 of 67 Section E – Solicitation Provisions

Yes, send a request to mpddcteam@ed.gov.

Which sections and which items (bullet points) in those sections are taken into consideration for Factor 2 Management Approach 63 of 67 E.2.1 Factor 2 Management Approach See paragraph E.2.1, Factor 2

This factor is as important as factor 1. Can the Government explain further on how this factor is determined, or weighted? 63 of 67 E.2.1 Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

Should Key Personnel resumes be limited to the Contract Representative and the Project Manager, or is the Offeror allowed to include resumes for other employees it considers “key”?

57 E.1 Key Personnel Offerors may include other personnel but be aware of RFP page limittaions.

Under Evaluation Factors for Factor 2, Management Approach, how is ED grading the importance to each of the capacities for quality controls, management structure, processes and qualified personnel? And is one criteria graded more favorably than another?

60 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors Additional rating methods are not disclosed pursuant to FAR 15.304(d).

"Effective management structure" is noted in the evaluation criteria, but is not specifically addressed in the instructions on page 57. Does this mean that ED would like to see an org chart or structure as part of the management plan section?

61 E.2.1, Factor 2 The requirement for documenting an effective management structure is at the discretion of each Offeror

"Qualified personnel" is mentioned as part of the criteria. Can ED provide a general position description for the two key personnel positions listed in C.3.22 on page 37 or some additional information on how personnel will be assessed as qualified?

61 and 37 E.2.1, Factor 2 C.3.22, Key Personnel No. Each offeror is responsible for determing their key personnel to administer the requirements of the contract. Contract Representative and Project Manager have been identified as the minimum key personnel.

Please confirm that the Quality Control Plan provided in Section C is evaluated under this evaluation criterion. 58 E.1 Correct; See paragraph E.2.1, Factor 2 Does FSA require that only Key Personnel currently employed by the prospective contractor be included in proposals? Should Offerors identify contingency hires?

Page 63 of 67 E.2.1 Factor 2 ‐ Management Approach

Each proposal will be evaluated on the capability of the offeror to manage and perform the work effectively […] as evidence by[…]qualified personnel.

The offeror should identify all key personnel with their proposal.

Subfactor 1.a. states relevant past performance will be examined to determine the relevance of the Offeror's past performance, considering similarities in size, scope and complexity of those projects to the requirements of the PWS. Could you define how ED will evaluate non‐default student loan contracts such as large scope and size bank card project compared to defaulted student loan contract of a smaller size than a bank card project? Will defaulted student loan projects receive a higher weight for relevance than a non‐defaulted student loan project?

61 Section E Subfactor 1.a. Relevance of Past Performance

Each Offeror's proposal will be evaluated on their own merit.

Factor 1, Past Performance, Subfactor 1.b‐ Quality of Past Performance seems to be incomplete. It states: "This assessment of past performance quality may include the following factors, among similar others:" It abruptly ends and then continues into the other weighted factors, Factor 2 and Factor 3, but there is nothing in Factor 1 Subfactor 1.b. after the colon. Please explain the following factors of Subfactor 1.b.

62 Section E Factor 1, Subfactor 1.b See Amendment 0001

Factor 2‐ Management Approach, please define what ED considers "qualified personnel" and the types of key personnel resumes ED would like to review with the offerors' proposals.

61 Section E Factor 2 Management Approach Refer to paragraph C.3.22

Management Plan ‐ Are charts permitted and if so can they be 11x17 fold out counting as one page provided they are not all used at text but rather in chart or graph form?

61 E.1 Yes; but please consider page limitations

FACTOR 3 ‐SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

ED will review an offeror's plan to determine if it is in accordance with FSA's subcontracting goals. Is it possible to receive an "Acceptable" rating without committing to specific sub‐categories of Small Businesses (i.e. the offeror commits to SB only, but not to specific goals of WOSB, SDVOSB, or HUB‐Zone?

63 E.2.1 Factor 3 No

If the answer to the above is yes: Is a higher percentage of SB commitment without breakdowns of additional SB sub‐categories more favorable than a lower percentage with a breakdown into sub‐categories? i.e. Offeror A commits to 12% Small Business subcontracting, with no further categories defined. Offeror B commits to 11% (5% WOSB, 3% SDVOSB, and 3% Hub‐Zone). With all other considerations being identical, would Offeror A be ranked higher than Offeror B?

63 E.2.1 Factor 3 No. The factor is rated "acceptable" or "unacceptable".

It appears a list is missing from the end of this paragraph. Could the list of factors please be provided? 63 E.2.1 1.b See Amendment 0001 Are we required to provide the name of our Subcontracting partner? page 60 of 67 Section D of Proposal ‐

Subcontracting Plan Yes, if it is available to submit with your Subcontracting Plan.

ED has required small businesses must perform the entire collection process. We agree that collection, rehabilitation, skip tracing and consolidation. However, to perform all tasks related to AWG and or administrative resolutions may place an undue burden on the small businesses. Will ED clarify the small businesses must receive their contracted portion of the revenue for these functions so as to allow QC oversight?

Addidtionally, the AWG process is more complex and requires specialized training. The small businesses volume per classification (women owned etc.) would not make that a full time position and we believe for compliance and accuracy it requires a full time staff committment. Will ED allow the small businesses to identify, validate and submit AWG accounts to the prime contractor for entering into the AWG system?

60 Section E – Solicitation Provisions, Section D Subcontracting Plan

Refer to Amendment 0001

ED will review an offeror's plan to determine if it is in accordance with FSA's subcontracting goals. Is it possible to receive an "Acceptable" rating without committing to specific sub‐categories of Small Businesses (i.e. the offerror commits to SB only, but not to specific goals of WOSB, SDVOSB, or HUB‐Zone?

63 E.2.1 Factor 3 No

If the answer to the above is yes: Is a higher percentage of SB commitment without breakdowns of additonal SB sub‐categories more favorable than a lower percentage with a breakdown into sub‐categories? i.e. Offeror A commits to 12% Small Business subcontracting, with no further categories defined. Offeror B commits to 11% (5% WOSB, 3% SDVOSB, and 3% Hub‐Zone). With all other considerations being identical, would Offeror A be ranked higher than Offeror B?

63 E.2.1 Factor 3 No

It appears a list is missing from the end of this paragraph. Could the list of factors please be provided? 63 E.2.1 1.b See Amendment 0001 Does the Government feel that Offeror subcontracting goals that align with FSA subcontracting goals are challenging? 63 of 67 E.2.1 Subcontracting Plan Subcontracting goals should align with ED's subcontracting goals; See Amendment 0002 Are the goals listed on attachment 2, Subcontracting Plan template current and up to date? 63 of 67 E.2.1 Subcontracting Plan Yes There isn't a section on attachment 2 for Offeror to propose its commitment percentage of account transfers to a small business (for debt collection work). The prior solicitation had a separate form for this information? Where does the Government want this information?

63 of 67 E.2.1 Subcontracting Plan See Amendment 0002

Can the Government elaborate on "Offerors goals are consistent with their cost or pricing data information other than cost or pricing data?" Can the Government provide an example of goals being consistent and examples of inconsistent goals?

63 of 67 E.2.1 Subcontracting Plan See Amendment 0001 and 0002

How does the subcontracting plan tie to the cost or pricing data information other than cost or pricing data? What data, and/or which numbers specifically need to be consistent?

63 of 67 E.2.1 Subcontracting Plan See Amendment 0002

Factor 3 ‐ Subcontracting Plan indicates under (b) "The Government shall evaluate and rate the subcontracting plan as "acceptable" or "unacceptable" and outlines the criteria for each rating. Is this Factor considered to be pass/fail or is there a measurable percentage assigned to this Factor?

Page 63 of 67 Factor 3 Subcontracting Plan The factor is rated as "acceptable" or "unacceptable".

In section C.3.41 (page 50) of the Solicitation, it states that no organization may participate in more than one contract for comparable default collection services – as an awardee, a member of a team arrangement or as a “subcontractor” – to the extent that it would in essence be competing against itself, as determined by the Contracting Officer. Please confirm that subcontractors identified in an Offeror’s proposal will be able to handle subcontract work for multiple other awardee contractors under Solicitation ED‐FSA‐16‐R‐0009.

50 C.3.41 Solicitation Document It is the responsibility of the Prime contractor to ensure that subcontractors can perform

In Section D of the Proposal (page 59) states: ‘Offeror shall list all subcontractors’. However on page 18 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) there is a requirement that the list of subcontractors be submitted within 10 days of the date of the contract award. If circumstances warrant, between the time of the submission of its response and the date of the award of the contract if the Offeror is a successful bidder, will the Offeror have flexibility to change subcontractors?

59 Section D Performance Work Statement and Solicitation Document

Yes

Section 6.0.3.1 (page 27) Use of Subcontractors: Please provide a list of the 'certain restrictions' that will govern the use of subcontractors.

Subcontractors shall be permitted to perform collection, clerical and skiptracing and data processing. Must a subcontractor perform all collection functions (as described on page 59 of the solicitation document) or may a subcontractor be permitted to perform 'a part' of the collection, clerical, skiptracing or data processing function? Some potential subcontractors provide highly effective and specialized functions and we believe it is reasonable to employ them for these specialized functions as it benefits performance on the task order. Will ED permit subcontractors for specialized functions in addition to providers that provide all collection functions?

27 Section 6.0.3.1 Performance Work Statement and Solicitation Document

Refer to page 2 of 5 in Amendment 0001.

The statement, “which is defined as the percentage of the Offeror’s account transfers received from FSA that will be subcontracted to small business. The small business subcontracting percentage is restricted to collection efforts only, e.g. the small business subcontractor must perform the entire collection process from skip‐tracing through collections, to include rehab and consolidation, as well as administrative wage garnishment and not just one part of the collection process, such as skip‐tracing,” conflicts with using the Subcontracting Plan document. Which is

58 E.1 Subcontracting Plan See Amendment 0001 and 0002

The "Unacceptable" category states " The subcontracting plan fails to meet a requirements …" Is this supposed to read "a requirement", "all requirements" or something else?

64 3(b) No, this is correct.

The bullets on financial statements and clauses don't seem like they should be included in a subcontracting plan section. Please confirm that these belong in Section D instead of a business proposal volume or something similar.

59 E.1, Section D See Amendment 0001 and 0002

Can a Small Business subcontractor be included in more than one Offeror's Subcontractor Plan? 61 E.1 Subcontracting Plan Yes If the answer to the previous question is "Yes", what would happen if a small business is included in two separate responses that both are awarded a unrestricted contract?

61 E.1 It is the responsibility of the Prime contractor to ensure that subcontractors can perform

Related to Subcontracting Plan, FSA states, "Offerors will be rated favorably for committing to a high small business subcontracting percentage."

Will an Offeror that proposes 35% small business subcontracting rank higher that an Offeror that proposes 31%?

60 E.1 No. Subcontracting plans are rated as "acceptable" or "unacceptable".

Is Factor 3 being evaluated as a "Pass" or "Fail"? 60 E.1 No, Acceptable or NonAcceptable; See Amendment 0001 and 0002 We read this statement as meaning that all “acceptable” subcontracting plans will be weighted equally for evaluation purposes. Is our understanding of this statement correct?

61 Attachment Page, E.2.1 Evaluation Factors

Factor 3 – Subcontracting Plan ‐ This section indicates that “The Government shall evaluate and rate the subcontracting plan as “acceptable” or “unacceptable.”

Subcontracting plans will be evaluated and rated either "acceptable" or "unacceptable".

The offeror is to propose a percentage of accounts to be placed with a small business for collections, however there does not appear to be a vehicle (form or attachment) to provide this requirement. Where should offerors list this percentage in the proposal response?

61 E.2.1 Refer to Attachment 2, Subcontracting Plan

Can a bidder simply select "No" for many of the terms and conditions in the subcontracting plan (Section 3.1) and decline to check off things in other areas (Section 4.1) and be determined a responsible bidder? 6 Subcontracting Plan Attachment 2

No, the subcontracting plan will be rated unacceptable in accordance with FAR 52‐219‐9

Where can a bidder that is aware of past negative performance related to subcontracting by a PCA report information that may be considered by ED within the bid process? 2 Subcontracting Plan Attachment 2

This information is not required to submit a proposal under this solicitation..

Can an offeror opt out of core collection subcontracting due to a perceived inability of small businesses to meet a PCA's requirements, or should the PCA help foster small business growth by removing subcontracting participation requirements, "which might tend to restrict or prohibit small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, women‐owned small, veteran‐owned small, and service disabled veteran‐owned small businesses" in conformance with this section? 6 3.1.E and F

Subcontracting Plan / Attachment 2

Offerors must comply with C.3.7, FAR 52.219‐9.

If ED is considering past subcontracting compliance as a part of evaluation factor 3, will ED require bidders to produce documents within the bid process demonstrating they have complied with requirements substantially similar to Sections 3.1.A through K, Section 4, and Section 6 related to their three past performance examples, if those projects required such activities? 6 3.1 through 8

Subcontracting Plan / Attachment 2

See Amendment 0002

How can a small business that has been unsuccessful in getting a subcontract to date report information to ED about recent PCA subcontracting procurements that do not follow the letter or spirit of either A). The PCA's GSA contract subcontracting plan or B). The subcontracting compliance terms of Attachment 2, which ED may use to make a responsibility determination for this procurement? 1 1 through 8

Subcontracting Plan / Attachment 2

This information is not required to submit a proposal under this solicitation..

Factor 3 ‐ Subcontracting Plan states that to be considered Acceptable an "…Offeror has demonstrated an ability to meet prior subcontracting plan goals and honor the terms of subcontract agreements." A Offeror will receive an Unaccpetable rating for this section if "...the Offeror has a history of failing to honor subcontract agreements." How does a non‐incumbent offeror receive an Acceptable rating if they have never had a Goverment contract with subcontracting goals/requirements?

62 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors FSA will evaluate whether the offeror has proposed subcontracting goals that are challenging and attaintable; See Amendment 0002.

We found no area in attachment 2 or elsewhere in the solicitation that was specific for reporting the percentage of transfers that the offeror commits to subcontract to small businesses. Please clarify where and how an Offeror should include this percentage of accounts transferred to be subcontracted to small businesses in their proposal? Will a separate attachment be provided for consistency?

page 61 Factor 3 Subcontracting Plan, item (a) 6th bullet point

See Amendment 0002

Based upon the criteria of acceptable or unacceptable this is a pass/fail evaluation factor. If the small business plan is deemed unacceptable, will the offeror be afforded an opportunity to negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan as provided in FAR 19.702(a)(1)? What is the anticipated time frame that the Contracting Officer will provide the a potentially successful Offeror to negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan as specified in FAR 19.702(a)(1) before deeming the Offeror ineligible?

page 61 and 62 Factor 3 Subcontracting Plan, item (b)

See Amendment 0002

Can ED elaborate on how subcontracting progress will be measured? 61 See Amendment 0002

How is Factor 3 being incorporated into the evaluation methodology as it states in the RFP that Factor 3 is an acceptable or unacceptable rating. Is there an actual weighting for Factor 3?

61‐62 E.2.1 Factor 3, Subcontracting Plan See Amendment 0002

1st bullet “Acceptable” states “The Offeror has demonstrated an ability to meet prior subcontracting plan goals…” No other government contract that we participate in has had such strict requirements, as set forth above. Therefore, it would be unfair to compare the FSA’s current goals against current performance, wherein all subcontracts (direct and indirect) are currently included in those achievements.

62 E.2.1 Factor 3, Subcontracting Plan This is not a question; This requirement is in accordance with FAR 52.219‐9

How can subcontractors to PCAs who have not been paid timely under recent task orders formally register with ED instances in which they have not been paid by a PCA to enable ED to have all relevant past performance information as a part of this solicitation process?

Page 63 of 67 Section E.2.1 Evaluation Factors Offeror has honored the terms of subcontract agreements (i.e., timely payments of amounts owed, use of firms cited in proposal, etc.) in previous contracts;

This information is not required to submit a proposal under this solicitation..

This section states that the small business subcontracting is restricted to collection efforts only. Does this mean that an offeror cannot include ancillary services (ie. letter vendors, system support, and consultants) in its small business commitment percentages? 60 of 67 Section D of Proposal

See Amendment 0001

Is it ED's intent to allow or require the PCA subcontractors to subcontract core ED collections to next‐tier or tier‐two subcontrators? 26 of 67

C.3.7 52.219‐9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Alternative III (l)

Core ED collections should be subcontracted no more than one tier from the prime contractors (First tier subcontractors only)

Please clarify if the evaluation is a pass fail or acceptable or unacceptable? 61 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors See Amendment 0002

Subcontracting requirements are not a requirement of guaranty agencies which is the most relevant experience compared to ED. How will ED assess the “demonstrated an ability to meet prior plan goals” for offerors who have projects that do not require subcontracting?

61 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors FSA will evaluate whether the offeror has proposed subcontracting goals that are challenging and attaintable.

Or is there any advantage to an offeror who commits to subcontracting a greater percentage than another offeror? 61 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors No What is ED’s plan during the task order to ensure subcontractors are not affiliates (following SBA Guidelines) of their prime PCA “client?” Will you do an annual review that requires the subcontractor’s financials or ask the SBA to do an annual size or status determination? How will small business reporting be validated?

61 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors SBA determines size standards. FAR 52.219‐28 is applicable to the resulting contract. ED will do a responsibility check before exercising any options periods on the contract and task orders and annual reporting will be done in eSRS

A key part of Factor 2 is validation if an offeror has complied with past subcontracting requirements. We believe affiliation is a key factor where some prior PCA's may have used small businesses to the extent they would be considered affiliated under SBA rules thereby rendering them ineligible for small business credit in the first place. Will ED require offerors to provide names of their past subcontractors as part of past performance and make an affiliation or size determination pursuant to this evaluation factor prior to contract awards?

61 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors SBA determines size standards. FAR 52.219‐28 is applicable to the resulting contract. ED will do a responsibility check before exercising any options periods on the contract and task orders and annual reporting will be done in eSRS

If offeror's have been found to use small businesses that were affiliated, and not really small businesses in the first place, will that render the offeror ineligible for award?

61 E.2.1 Evaluation Factors See Amendment 0002

Are the pass through requirements intended to apply to all types of subcontractors used by the contractor, whether or not they directly participate in performing services related to this contract? (e.g. janitorial services, food services, etc.)

45 C.3.36(d), Pass‐Through of Security Requirements to Subcontractors

Yes

Will all subcontractors be subject to ED investigation criteria, or will it only apply to subcontractors who are accessing FSA systems? 50 C.3.42, Security Clearance and User ID Requests

Refer to C.3.19, EDAR 3452.239‐71, Department Security Requirements (Mar 2011) Modified

In addition to the Subcontracting Plan, Offerors are required to list all subcontractors in their proposal/submission. Is this actually due along with their Subcontracting Plan? Offerors that are not incumbents may not have selected subcontractors by the original submission date.

59 Section E.1 ‐ Solicitation Provisions, Section D

See Amendment 0001 and 0002

Offeror's subcontracting plan will be evaluated as "acceptable" or "unacceptable". How will ED continue to monitor a Contractor's adherence to its Subcontracting Plan and ED's small business initiatives if it is only evaluating Small Business Mentoring in the Contractor Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Process (Page 47, Section C.3.37(5))?

61 Section E.2.1 Evaluation Factor 3 ‐ Subcontracting Plan

Page 47, Section C.3.37(5) SB Mentoring is not part of the CPME score (See Amendment 0002); The subcontracting plan will be monitored in accordance with FAR Part 52.219‐9 and 52‐219‐16.

Please clarify how the cost of pricing or information other than cost or pricing data (Attachment 3) fits into the small business Factor 3 Subcontracting Plan bullet 2? What is required regarding subcontracting on the description requirement on the attachment?

61 Factor 3 Bullet 2 See Amendment 0002

Will ED request a size determination of each incumbent PCA's subcontractors and verify any special socioeconomic status asserted by each as a part of its responsibility determination related to Factor 3? 63 of 67

Factor 3 ‐ Subcontracting Plan

SBA determines size standards; The subcontracting plan will be monitored in accordance with FAR Part 52.219‐9 and 52‐219‐16.

Will ED use an incremental scoring methodology based on percentage participation above the 5% or how will this factor be scored? 63 of 67 Factor 3 ‐ Subcontracting Plan

See Amendment 0002

QUESTION ABOUT ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 ‐ PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

If an Offeror is awarded a Task Order through this solicitation, successfully obtained their ATO through ED, and has completed all Start Up Deliverables identified in the PWS will that offeror be eligible to receive placements prior to 210 days from contract award?

17‐21 Performance Work Statement Section 5.0 Contract Deliverables If the ATO is still current and no changes are required to meet all the requirements of this contract, then the Government may leverage the existing ATO in an effort to minimize additional cost and resources on both parties. Therefore allowing accounts to be received prior to 210 days.

In section 1.0.2 of the PWS, language suggests that contract start date might be phased‐in based on ATO approval dates. Is ED considering a phased in approach instead of a single implementation ‘go‐live’ date?

1 PWS Introduction See: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data‐center/student/default

The link http://fsacollections.ed.gov cited in Section 1.1 of the Statement of Work is not working. Is there an updated link where we can find volume and account characteristic information?

3 PWS General Account Characteristics See: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data‐center/student/default

Section 1.3 of the PWS says initial account transfer will be 5,000 to 15,000 accounts. Will transfers be made monthly, quarterly, etc.? 4 PWS 1.3 Transfer of Accounts Monthly

In section 1.3 (Transfer of Accounts), what is the number of accounts and total dollar balance of accounts currently placed with vendors? As a result in the cancelled solicitation and that timeline, Is there a backlog of unplaced inventory that ED will place immediately after award? If so, what are those volumes? What does ED estimate the average number of new transfers going forward? What is the average balance of current loan rehabilitations. What is the average dollar amount of those qualifying payments and what is the percentage of all payments?

4 PWS 1.3 Transfer of Accounts See: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data‐center/student/default

6.0.3.1 mentions 'certain restrictions' that will govern the use of subcontractors. What are these restrictions? Must a subcontractor perform all collection functions or can a subcontractor be perform a specialized function only, such as skiptracing?

27 PWS Use of Subcontractors Ssee paragraph 6.0.3.2 of PWS

Incumbents that have office in place and ATO; will they be eligible for placements prior 210 days? Or will all Awardees start at the same time? 1 1.0.2 If the ATO is still current and no changes are required to meet all the requirements of this contract, then the Government may leverage the existing ATO in an effort to minimize additional cost and resources on both parties. Therefore allowing accounts to be received prior to 210 days.

Section 4.0.4 states " Contractors are no longer allowed to return accounts unless instructed to do so by FSA ." Please confirm this means Contractors will not be able to return unresolved accounts to FSA at the current standard of 6 months after the date of transfer.

16 4.0.4 PWS Guidance on specific default collection procedures will be provided when contracts are awarded.

Additional clarification is needed on incarcerated borrowers. The PWS states the Contractor " may recommend" recall on borrowers incarcerated for at least 9 months but less than 9 years and " shall recommend" recall on borrowers incarcerated for a period exceeding 9 years. However, the section B.2.4 of the RFP states Contractors only receive administrative resolution fee and "resolved factor" credit for borrowers incarcerated for at least 10 years. Does this mean Contractors are required to recommend recall, but will not receive commission or resolved factor credit, for borrowers incarcerated for at least 9 years but not 10?

14 3.4.2.3 RFP B.2.4 Guidance on specific default collection procedures will be provided when contracts are awarded.

The chart on page 18 shows deliverable dates that are primarily 210 days from contract award. Does FSA intend to have all Contractors begin collection activities at the same time, or could they begin at different times as they become ready?

18 5 ED has not made a decision about a phased in or single "go ‐live " date.

What percentage of accounts are known to have bad addresses at the time of transfer? 10 Attachment 1, section 3.0 This information is not available at this time.

Will PCA’s be permitted to use automated dialing platforms to reach all borrower phone numbers, including cellular phones for transferred accounts?

10 Attachment 1, section 3.0 No, not at this time.

What is the definition of a “gratuitous payment”? 11 Attachment 1, section 3.0.5 Payments which are made by the borrower but without the proper repayment agreement in place.

Is there any limitation as to the location where clerical, skip tracing or data processing tasks may be performed? 27 Attachment 1, section 6.0.3.1

Performance cannot be overseas (See C.3.28)

The 3 rd Paragraph states “The Contractor must inform all parties that calls will be recorded and/or monitored for quality review purposes.”

___________ currently informs all parties that they are on a recorded line. As our recordings are used for quality review and legal purposes, we cannot limit the scope of our purpose for recording.

7 2.3.1. Remote Call Monitoring

Attachment 1: Performance Work Statement (PWS)

This is not a question.

Section 3.0.3. states “Except when the borrower is pursuing rehabilitation, the Contractor shall draft and send a “Repayment Agreement” letter…..”

_________ currently sends a “Repayment Agreement” letter on all accounts where the borrower has Promised to Pay, whether the borrower is pursuing rehabilitation or not.

11 3.1.3. Attachment 1: Performance Work Statement (PWS)

This is not a question.

Section 3.4.2.2. indicates if a borrower claims to be disabled the contractor shall refer the borrower to FSA’s TPD servicer. Are the contractors no longer required to connect the borrower directly to Nelnet, but instead either provide Nelnet’s number or website? How long must the Contractor wait for the borrower to call FSA’s TPB servicer?

14 3.4.2.2. Disability Attachment 1: Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Guidance on specific default collection procedures will be provided when contracts are awarded.

Section 3.5.1. states “The Contractor shall immediately suspend collection activity for a reasonable period of but no less than 10 business days...”

when “ The borrower disputes the amount owed………, raises a legal defense against repayment……, or requests a hearing for tax offset or AWG.”

_____________ at times can resolve the dispute upon receipt and currently resumes collection activity after 5 days from sending the verification of debt.

15 3.5.1. Attachment 1: Performance Work Statement (PWS)

This is not a question.

Given the clear and appropriate focus of the RFP on customer satisfaction, would ED share any specific measures it is contemplating so we can assure that our measures are aligned?

The PWS contains the performance expectations required by ED to contract for the services of PCAs supporting collection and administrative resolution activities on debts msaintained by

ED.

Please provide how ED defines “complaints” and “quality” during call evaluations. What are the “customer satisfaction” measures on the call evaluation forms?

7 2.3.1 Remote Call Monitoring Guidance on specific default collection procedures will be provided when contracts are awarded.

Can ED provide a copy of the “quality review and complaint review” section of the remote call monitoring form? 7 2.3.1 Remote Call Monitoring Guidance on specific default collection procedures will be provided when contracts are awarded.

If a borrower agrees to repayment under a “non‐FSA program”, with said payment falling below the minimum payment amount: 11 3.0.4 Repayment of Accounts This is not a question.

o How much time is granted to the borrower to return the standard financial statement? 11 3.0.4 Repayment of Accounts Guidance on specific default collection procedures will be provided when contracts are awarded.

o If the borrower fails to return the standard financial statement within the specified time, can the agency pursue alternative measures such as Administrative Wage Garnishment?

11 3.0.4 Repayment of Accounts Guidance on specific default collection procedures will be provided when contracts are awarded.

Are contractors required to offer all “FSA‐program” repayment options prior to offering a compromise settlement? 12 3.0.6.1 Compromise / Settlement Guidance on specific default collection procedures will be provided when contracts are awarded.

Will FSA provide the estimated (current and future) of borrowers that have previously Rehabilitated to that of the current defaulted portfolio? 12 3.2.1 Loan Rehabilitation See: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data‐center/student/default Because an admission of complaint validity could have unintended negative consequences, can ED confirm that for purposes of this section, either "complaints" do not include pending litigation or that the PCA need not include a validity determination in the report?

23 5.1.3.4.5 Report Details Guidance on specific default collection procedures will be provided when contracts are awarded.

Will file layouts for returning accounts PIF/CER be be provided to PCAs? 27 6.0.2 Computer System Reqirements Guidance on specific default collection procedures will be provided when contracts are awarded.

Many State and/or federal licensing/regulatory authorities have the right to audit PCA conduct, which audits may include provision of documentation reflecting PCA conduct with respect to borrowers. Can ED confirm that the obligations to purge/sanitize do not apply to the extent retention is required for these purposes provided that proper safeguards are maintained, including adherence to any Privacy Act requirements?

45 8.0.8 Closeout/disposal See paragraphs 8.0.1‐8.0.07 and 8.0.9, which provides guidance on the information the PCA must provide to ED during contract closeout. This information can be used to satisfy any audit requirements.

Please define how “customer satisfaction” is…