Section_J.17_-_Questions_and_Answers_GS00Q-13-DR-0001-P1P3P4_Amd_0003.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 158 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- GS00Q-13-DR-0001-P1P3P4
About this file
J.17
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A For Posting
| QUESTION NUMBER | REFERENCE_TEXT | QUESTION | ANSWER |
| 1 | Page 111, Section L.5.4., Paragraph (f)3. | We submitted a bid under Pool 4 on the Small business on-ramp on June 27, 2019. To minimize extra work for our government clients, may we use the Past Performance Questionnaires completed for the SB on-ramp for the full and open submission? | Yes. |
| 2 | Page 116, Section L.5.6 Cost/Price, paragraph (e) and (h) | (e) states “The Offeror must propose ceiling rates for sole source T&M/L-H Task Orders. These ceiling rates are to be based upon the highest qualified employee within a given labor category or group, working on the highest paid area within CONUS, on highly complex requirement, excluding Secret/Top Secret/SCI and ONCONUS work.” |
(h) states “Offerors are strongly encouraged to propose a Direct Labor rate for each OASIS labor category with the ranges provided in Section J.2.”
Question: Please confirm that Offerors must propose ceiling rates based on actual employee salaries of the highest qualified employees instead of using an average/composite rate for each labor category. Use of the highest qualified employees might result in the proposal of rates that are outside of the ranges included in Section J.2.
| GSA cannot direct Offerors on what labor rates an offeror uses in its proposal. Section L.5.6(h) allows the offeror, at its discretion, to propose labor rates outside of the range in J.2 with the "CAUTION" that if a labor rate is submitted outside of the range in J.2, a clear and convincing rationale is to be provided to support the lower or higher rate. | ||
| 3 | Section L.5.4.1 - Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals (Relevant Experience Primary Projects Only) | The proposal requirements for the OASIS Unrestricted On-Ramp for Pools 1, 3 and 4 require that bidders provide SF294/295 documenting Total Small Business Goals for the Relevant Experience programs utilized as qualifications to score points for meeting Small Business Goals. Would the government allow small businesses that exceed the small size standards bidding on the OASIS Unrestricted to submit a self-completed SF294/295 based on actual small business utilization during execution for each Relevant Experience example? |
To date, the government has awarded most of the OASIS awards in Pools 1 and 3, with $4,000,000,000.00 in Pool 1 and over $3,000,000,000.00 in Pool 3. As such, the preponderance of small business which exceed the OASIS SB standard for Pools 1 and 3, have been excluded from participating as a prime in the majority of the OASIS competitions.
For businesses to grow and exceed the size standards, a Small Business primarily accomplishes this by winning large prime small business awards. In winning prime awards, they manage businesses, small and large, as subcontractors. However, because these awards do not require a formal SF294/295, their score in this category for the OASIS competitions will be zero given the current criteria. This arbitrarily eliminates many companies that could otherwise effectively compete in these preferred Pools.
Making these allowances for the SF294/295 will increase competition and allow GSA to award more dollars to companies that did not have to formally submit SF294/295s but can demonstrate excellent small business utilization on its Relevant Experience programs.
| This subfactor has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety | |||
| 4 | General | Will the Government allow Offerors a submission test run at least one week prior to the submission date in order to verify Symphony is operating properly? | Registration in Symphony opened on 7/29/2019. The opening of the registration allows Offerors to log into Symphony and build their Proposal Assets as well as attach projects to the specific solicitations in order to verify that the scoring/Symphony system is operating properly. |
| 5 | Page 75, Section L.4. Proposal Format Table; "Format or Template" column, Paragraph 3 | On page 75, the Proposal Format Table in L.4. lists "For scored evaluation criteria: All Information in a contractual document necessary for meeting each scored evaluation criteria taking credit for." |
In the Small Business Q&A, question 13 asks "Can any contract documentation be used to identify core disciplines outside of the SOW/PWS?" The Government's answer was "Yes, provided this additional "contract documentation" is actually part of the contract/order (e.g. a monthly status report being submitted under the contract/order)........"
| Can the Government confirm if they will accept Monthly Status Reports delivered to the Government as a form of Core Discipline integration and/or Ancillary Support Products and Services proof? | Yes. | ||
| 6 | Page 101, Section L.5.3.2., Paragraph b.2. | Paragraph b. 2. in section L.5.3.2. states that (for a collection of task orders) "Total Project Value, Core Disciplines, Locations, Subcontracting/Teaming, Ancillary Support Services and/or |
Products, Cost Reimbursement, and OCONUS will be based on the “Collection of Task Orders” as a whole."
| For a SA-IDIQ that is still ongoing and being used for Project 5A, will the Government accept the IDIQ Award Document and all corresponding MODs as proof of the total estimated value (ceiling value) for the collection of task orders under the SA-IDIQ? | No. Section L.5.3.1(a)(8)(f)(1) states that if a collection of task orders is submitted, the average annual value will be calculated by adding up the actual and/or estimated value of each task order award that is submitted under project 5A and dividing the total by the total number of months awarded for the task orders (see solicitation for example). | ||
| 7 | Page 101, Section L.5.3.2., Paragraph b.2. | Paragraph b. 2. in section L.5.3.2. states that (for a collection of task orders) "Total Project Value, Core Disciplines, Locations, Subcontracting/Teaming, Ancillary Support Services and/or |
Products, Cost Reimbursement, and OCONUS will be based on the “Collection of Task Orders” as a whole."
| If the SA-IDIQ level SOW covers all of the Core Disciplines, will the Government accept the IDIQ-level SOW (with highlighting) as proof of Core Discipline integration or are Offerors to submit ONLY task order-level SOWs? | Evaluation on the incorporation/performance of the Core Disciplines is evaluated on the collection of the task order level SOWs. | ||
| 8 | Pages 100 - 101, Section L.5.3.1., Paragraphs 7.b. and 8.f.3. | Paragraph 7.b. in section L.5.3.1. states "For the purposes of validating the period of performance for a “Collection of Task Orders” under a Project 5A, the period of performance of the Single-Award IDIQ contract or Single-Award BPA will be used for meeting this requirement." |
The example provided in paragraph 8.f.3. shows period of performance at the task order level to calculate combined annual value.
| Can the Government confirm what period of performance should be used for the Collection of Task Orders under Project 5A? | GSA will use the SA-IDIQ or SA-BPA to verify the requirement at Section L.5.3.1(a)(7)(a). GSA will use the total number of months of the task orders to calculate the combined annual value as required by Section L.5.3.1(a)(8). | ||
| 9 | Page 100, Section L.5.3.1., Paragraph 7 | Please confirm a task order, used as part of the “collection task orders” under a single award IDIQ, can be used if it does not have a full year of performance yet but is ongoing, as long as at the IDIQ level there is at least a year of performance? |
For example: IDIQ-level contract PoP started in January 2018. Task orders 1 -3 have a PoP of January 2018 - January 2019 (completed). Task order 4 has a PoP of October 2018 - October 2019. Can task order 4, which is still ongoing and does not have a full year of performance yet, be used towards calculating total annual revenue, verifying locations, and subcontractors, etc. for the collection of task orders?
| Per question #16 in the 2014 Solicitation Amendment #5 Q&A: "Response: A collection of task orders includes all task orders awarded under a Single-Award IDIQ or BPA. There must be at least cumulative year of performance on the IDIQ or BPA itself, but the requirements do not apply to the individual task orders....." | GSA confirms the evaluation of this solicitation will be in accordance with the response to question number 16 from the 2014 solicitation Q&A | ||
| 10 | Pages 101 - 102, Section L.5.3.2., Paragraph b.3. | Paragraph b.3. in section L.5.3.2. states "The Offeror must limit the number of Task Orders submitted as a single Project 5A to only the number of Task Orders necessary to claim the maximum amount of points obtainable." |
| For Project 5A (collection of task orders) - if one task order can cover all six core disciplines, can we stop mapping the core disciplines at that task order and still use all of the remaining task orders to prove things like places of performance, annual revenue, subcontractors, etc.? | Yes | |||
| 11 | Pages 125 - 127, Sections M.5.2.3; M.5.2.4. | Can the Government please clarify how Past Performance will be evaluated for the collection of task orders when using the Past Performance Rating Forms? Is the Offeror to submit Past Performance Rating Forms for ALL task orders used under the collection of task orders or only those that are used to map Core Disciplines? | GSA will evaluate past performance for the collection of task orders in accordance with Section M.5.2.4. The offeror is required to submit past performance rating forms for all task orders used under the collection of task orders. | |
| 12 | Page 115, Section L.5.5.5., Paragraphs b. - e. | If an Offeror is expecting their CMMI certification to be finalized shortly after the Proposal Submission Date, will the Government allow the Offeror to submit an amendment to their proposal with the proper CMMI verification documents to obtain those 200 points? | No. Section M.2(d) states GSA intends to award contracts without discussions and the initial proposals must contain the best offer. | |
| 13 | Page 119, Section M.2., Paragraph c. | Paragraph c. in section M.2. states that 40 additional MA-IDIQ contracts are anticipated to be added for UNR Pools 1, 3, and 4 (40 per pool). Can the Government confirm if the 40 awardees per pool includes contractors from the lateral and vertical on-ramps? | The anticipated number of 40 awardees per pool is independent of vertical on-ramps. Lateral on-ramps would not apply as those are specific to the OASIS Small Business Vehicle. | |
| 14 | General | Will the Government require Offerors to have a score equal to or higher than the lowest evaluated score from the 2014 awards? For example, the lowest evaluated score for Pool 1 (Unrestricted) was 7,825. Are all Offerors going after Pool 1 for the Unrestricted On-Ramp required to score at least 7,825 in order to be considered? | No. In Open Season On-ramps conducted IAW Section H.15.3 the minimum score to qualify is determined by the competition received in response to the solicitation. | |
| 15 | Page 98, Section L.5.3., Paragraph b.1.c. | Paragraph b.1.c. in section L.5.3. states that "all award and modification documents provided as part of the proposal submission must be signed by a Warranted Contracting Officer." Will the Government allow a digital signature from Contracting Officer (when it indicates "digitally signed by")? | Yes | |
| 16 | Page 128, Section M.5.2.5., Paragraph b. | Paragraph b. in section M.5.2.5. states "The Offeror’s Total Small Business Past Performance projects will be initially evaluated on a pass/fail basis in regards to meeting the minimum submission requirements in Section L.5.4.1." |
| Can the Government please confirm what the pass/fail minimum submission requirements are for Total Small Business Past Performance projects? | The pass/fail minimums are in compliance with the submission requirements outlined in Section L.5.4.1 | |||
| 17 | RFP Page 94-95, Section L.5.1.10 - Contractor Team Arrangement | Will the Government please confirm the following regarding CTAs. 1) CTAs can be made up of more than one first tier subcontractors,. 2) All CTA members, to include the Prime, must be small businesses under the applicable size standard. 3) Pool qualification, Relevant Primary, and Relevant Secondary projects used in the Offeror's proposal can come from any member of the CTA (prime or subs) without limitations. | 1. Yes, CTAs can be comprised of more than one small business first tier subcontractor. |
2. If the CTA is a Prime/Subcontractor CTA, per FAR 9.601(2) , all CTA members to include the Prime must be a small business under the applicable size standard. For FAR 9.601(1) CTAs (e.g., Joint Ventures), the Offeror (e.g., the Joint Venture itself) must be a Small Business concern. Reference FAR 19.101(7)(i) for the definition of a joint venture for size determination purposes. Other than small businesses may enter into a Mentor-Protege JVs with a small business, as long as the small business is the managing partner, IAW Section L.5.1.10(d)(7)
3. Pool Qualification, Relevant Experience Primary Projects and Relevant Experience Secondary Projects may come from any of the CTA members subject to the limitations stated in Section L.2(l), the exception at Section L.2.9, and L.5.1.10(d)(2) ("If an individual team member’s experience is submitted under a Joint Venture, all individual members must submit at least one Relevant Experience (Primary) Project as defined in Section L.5.3.1 outside the Joint Venture.")
| 18 | RFP Page 105 & 122, Section L.5.3.2.3 & M.5.1.3 - Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects with Performance/Integration of Multiple Core Disciplines | What is the definition of what qualifies as core disciplines on a project? For example, if the PWS/SOW states that the contractor is to perform specific service(s) to the Government and as part of that service, the PWS/SOW also states that the Contractor is also to provide program management, training, and/or financial analysis & reporting that is required to support the contract. Does the latter core disciplines count towards the total core disciplines (to include the primary services areas) for the project? | The definitions of the core disciplines are defined in Section C.2.2. Please use the descriptions of the core disciplines and examples to define which task(s) fall under the applicable core discipline. Note that per L.5.3.2.3(b), Contract administration duties under the Project are not considered Core Disciplines (e.g., tracking of contractor costs on a cost-reimbursable contract would not constitute financial management services, training of contractor employees to possess the requisite knowledge to perform the PWS/SOW activities would not constitute training, etc.). |
| 19 | RFP Page 96, Section L.5.1.10(d)6 - Contractor Team Arrangement | Will the Government please clarify/confirm that under a CTA, the Offeror (Prime) cannot use any of the Section L.5.5 systems or certifications from any of its first tier subcontractors unless the Prime also has met the same systems or certification requirements. | Yes, this is correct. |
| 20 | RFP Page 114, Section L.5.5.3 - Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) | Will the Government please confirm that the EVMS requirement is only for compliance and not certification. Also, that the compliance must be from a Government entity. | Section L.5.5.3(c) defines verification as "submitting a copy of the Offeror's official audit report from DCMA, DCAA or other CFA" |
| 21 | RFP Page 65, Part III - List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments Section J - List of Attachments | Attachment 7 - Section J.7 - Relevant Experience (Primary) Project Template is not provided with the solicitation package. Please confirm that there is no template to use to document the relevant experience primary projects. | There is no Section J.7 - Relative Experience (Primary) Project Template. This attachment is listed as "reserved" in Section J. |
| 22 | Eligibility question | As a large business (Mentor) we formed an SBA approved Mentor-Protégé JV with a small business (Protégé) and submitted a bid for the OASIS small business Pool 1. Can we (Mentor) also bid on the OASIS Unrestricted Pool 1 solicitation either as an independent entity or part of another CTA/JV? | Yes, assuming the company follows the limitations for CTAs outlined in Section L.5.1.10 |
| 23 | Eligibility question | If a company (ABC) who is currently a Prime on OASIS small in Pools 1 and 2, forms a CTA with another company (XYZ), submits a proposal for OASIS Unrestricted Pool 4 and is awarded a spot, will the current Prime (ABC) company be placed in dormant status in their OASIS Small Business Pools 1 and 2? |
| Award of an UNR contract to a small business would not automatically trigger dormant status on the OASIS SB contracts. | |||
| 24 | Eligibility question | If a company (ABC) that already bid on OASIS small business Pool 4 last month as a Prime forms a CTA with another company (XYZ), can the CTA pursue OASIS Unrestricted Pool 4 as a Prime? | Yes, assuming the company follows the limitations for CTAs outlined in Section L.5.1.10. |
| 25 | Section L.5.5.6 (a) of the OASIS Unrestricted Solicitation specifies “ISO 9001:2008” as the standard that outlines the requirements for an organization’s certified quality system. Section M.5.3 (e) (7) indicates that an ISO 9001:2008 Certification is worth 200 points. However, the 2008 version has been replaced by ISO 9001:2015 as the certification standard. | Will the Government please confirm that an ISO 9001:2015 certification is acceptable, and will be worth 200 points for an Offeror? | ISO 9001:2015 certification is acceptable. If the certification is submitted IAW the instructions at Section L.5.5.6, then IAW Section M.5.3(e)(7) the certification is worth 200 points |
| 26 | RFP Page 98, Section L.5.3.1 - Minimum Requirements for Relevant Experiences (Primary) Projects and Page 75, Section L.4 - Proposal Format Instructions | Under Section L.5.3.1(a), it states that "The Offeror must submit 5 distinct Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects". However, Section L.4 under "Project Experience", the number of minimum relevant primary projects listed is 3 and maximum 5. Please advise which is correct. | Section L.5.3.1(a) is correct. The chart in L.4 has been revised to reflect the mandatory submission of 5 Relevant Experience Primary Projects |
| 27 | N/A | Page 98/Section L5.3.1/Paragraph number (b): |
'Is the statement “The Offeror shall submit 5 distinct Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects” correct?'
Page 75/Section In Table. No Number/Paragraph number 1:
'If the answer to question 1 is correct, please explain the apparent discrepancy where it is stated that we must provide a “Minimum of 3 and Maximum of 5 Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects “.
| Section L.5.3.1(a) is correct. The chart in L.4 has been revised to reflect the mandatory submission of 5 Relevant Experience Primary Projects. | |||
| 28 | Page 98/Section L5.3.1/Paragraph number (b) | Is the statement “The Offeror shall submit 5 distinct Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects” correct? | Yes. |
| 29 | Page 75/Section In Table. No Number/Paragraph number 1 | If the answer to question above is correct, please explain the apparent discrepancy where it is stated that we must provide a “Minimum of 3 and Maximum of 5 Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects “. | The inadvertent discrepancy came from the OASIS SB requirements, and has since been revised. |
| 30 | RFP Sec. L.5.1.10 (a) and (b), pages 94-95 -Background: The UNR Pool 2 On-ramp RFP (2018) and the original UNR OASIS RFP (2013) both contained statements in Sec. L.5.1.10.(b) that "Any Prime/Subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) is not allowable and will be non-conforming to the solicitation and rejected." Only CTAs in the form of Partnerships or Joint Ventures IAW FAR 9.601(1) were/are permitted. | The UNR Pool 1, 3 & 4 On-ramp RFP does not contain this specific language regarding Prime/Subcontractor CTAs as defined in FAR 9.601(2). Further, there is an apparent disparity between other than small business Offerors and small business Offerors in the ability to form a Prime/Subcontractor CTA for this UNR On-ramp. |
For this Unrestricted On-ramp, can the Government please confirm that where the Prime Offeror is NOT a small business concern, Prime/Subcontractor CTAs as defined in FAR 9.601(2) are still not allowable and will be non-conforming to the solicitation and rejected?
| Please see Section L.5.1.10(a) for the limitations on CTAs for this on-ramp; if an Offeror is not a small business concern and adds team members and projects performed by those team members, the Offeror is advised that GSA will not consider those projects as part of its offer. No. The terms and conditions for conducting open season on-ramps (Section H.15.3(2)&(5)) state that the award decision for on-ramps is to be based on substantially the same evaluation criteria factors/sub-factors as the original solicitation; and must also be issued under current Federal procurement law. The original solicitation did not allow for consideration of the qualifications of individual members of CTAs. Since the issuance of the original solicitation, 15 USC 644(q)(1) went into effect, requiring the experience of individual team members in a CTA, to include Prime/Subcontractor CTAs per paragraph (B) and Joint Ventures per paragraph (C), to be considered; however the law only applies to small business concerns. Current Federal procurement law does not require the Government to consider the experience of individual members of Other Than Small CTAs. Significantly, IAW Section H.15.3(5), GSA is also required to utilize substantially the same evaluation factors/subfactors as the original solicitation with respect to Other Than Small Business CTAs. Namely, that any proposal qualifications (experience, past performance, systems/certifications/clearances) must be in the name of the Offeror itself for the Offeror to receive credit. | ||
| 31 | RFP Sec. L.5.1.10 (a) and (b), pages 94-95 - Background: The UNR Pool 2 On-ramp RFP (2018) and the original UNR OASIS RFP (2013) both contained statements in Sec. L.5.1.10.(b) that "Any Prime/Subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) is not allowable and will be non-conforming to the solicitation and rejected." Only CTAs in the form of Partnerships or Joint Ventures IAW FAR 9.601(1) were/are permitted. | The UNR Pool 1, 3 & 4 On-ramp RFP does not contain this specific language regarding Prime/Subcontractor CTAs as defined in FAR 9.601(2). Further, there is an apparent disparity between other than small business Offerors and small business Offerors in the ability to form a Prime/Subcontractor CTA for this UNR On-ramp. |
For this Unrestricted On-ramp, can the Government please confirm that where the Prime Offeror is a small business concern, Prime/Subcontractor CTAs as defined in FAR 9.601(2) are allowed, subject to the constraint that all CTA members must be small businesses under the applicable size standard?
| The understanding is correct that Prime/Subcontractor CTAs as defined in FAR 9.601(2) subject to the constraint that the Prime and all CTA members must be small businesses under the applicable size standard are allowable. Please see Section L.5.1.10 for the limitations and requirements regarding CTAs for this on-ramp. | |||
| 32 | RFP Sec. L.5.3.1.(a).8. (g), page 101 states, for Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects: “The Offeror must provide the Contract or Task Order Award and all Modifications or latest FPDS-NG Report required to substantiate the claimed dollar values and periods of performance in accordance with Section L.5.3.1(b) 1.c. of this Solicitation.” | We are unable to locate RFP Section L.5.3.1(b) 1.c in the RFP; can the Government please identify where this section can be found? | This citation should state "Section L.5.3(b)1.c; the RFP has been revised to correct this clerical error. |
| 33 | RFP Sec. L.5.3.3 Minimum Requirements for Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects, if submitted on page 107, reads, in part: 2. For the purposes of validating the period of performance of Task Order Awards under a Multiple-Award IDIQ (MA-IDIQ) contract or Multiple-Award BPA (MA-BPA), the period of performance of the Multiple-Award IDIQ contract or Multiple Award BPA will be used for meeting this requirement. | For the purpose of validating the period of performance of a TO award under a MA-IDIQ contract, will the Government also allow the use of the signed award form and applicable modification(s) as evidence of the actual POP for Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects? This is, after all, acceptable evidence for Relevant Experience (Primary) Project period of performance. | Section L.5.3.3(b)(2) states that the MA-IDIQ or MA-BPA will be used for validating the period of performance for meeting the requirement at L.5.3.3(b)(1). |
| 34 | RFP Sec. L.5.3.3 Minimum Requirements for Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects, if submitted on page 107, reads, in part: 2. For the purposes of validating the period of performance of Task Order Awards under a Multiple-Award IDIQ (MA-IDIQ) contract or Multiple-Award BPA (MA-BPA), the period of performance of the Multiple-Award IDIQ contract or Multiple Award BPA will be used for meeting this requirement. | Will the Government also allow offerors to use the latest CPAR, not to show past performance, but rather to show duration of performance using the Award Date and Completion Date therein? | Yes, this is permissible IAW Section L.2(g). |
| 35 | RFP Sec. L.5.1.2(a).5 | For a Pool Qualification project for Pool 3, is the evidence for the assigned Pool 3 NAICS Code or PSC fully met by submitting our FPDS report that shows both PSC R425 and NAICS Code 541330, and DEPT OF THE NAVY as Funding Agency? | Yes, it is permissible to use the FPDS report to comply with the requirements of Section L.5.1.2(a)(5). |
| 36 | L.5.3.1. Minimum Requirements for Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects, P. 98 | We understand that if we are submitting a project that was a part of a Joint Venture, it is required that the offeror (one of the JV members) must have performed greater than 50% of the project to qualify. Is that the correct understanding? | This understanding is not correct. If an Offeror is submitting a project that was performed by a JV, the Offeror must meet one of the following two conditions: (1) the offeror is a Small Business concern under the applicable size standard, the JV is also a Small Business concern as of the RFP closing (e.g., the JV entities are not affiliated per 13 CFR 121.103, or if they are, they are still small in light of affiliation), and the JV is considered a first tier subcontractor with a valid and compliant CTA agreement submitted per L.5.1.10, OR (2) the JV itself is within the Offeror's corporate structure with a valid and compliant MRCL submitted per L.5.1.9. Simply having performed more than 50% of the work on a specific past requirement would not constitute being "within the Offeror's corporate structure" or satisfy either of the above conditions. |
| 37 | Page 112 L.5.4.1.(c) Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals | If a primary contract was issued as a small business set aside and meets all of the other OASIS criteria, but did not require a small business subcontracting plan and therefore reporting to the government, can that contract count towards total small business goals? If companies that were previously small cannot achieve the 200 points assigned to small business utilization, this appears to punish current and former small businesses from qualifying. | This subfactor has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety |
| 38 | RFP Page 100 L.5.3.1(a)8a. Annual Project Value | Can GSA please clarify is the minimum annual project value for each project must be greater than $3M per year or $5M per year as indicated in the self-scoring sheet? | IAW Section L.5.3.1(a)(8)(a) each individual Relevant Experience Primary Project must have an annual project value of $3M or greater. |
| 39 | RFP Page 82 Proposal Assets -Documents regarding CMMI maturity level | On page 82, instructions for uploading documents to Symphony ask for documentation for CMMI Maturity Level 2 or higher but section H.6.11. states “Contractors are encouraged to have CMMI Maturity Level 3 or higher.” This is reiterated in L.5.5.5. Can GSA confirm if the reference to Level 2 on page 82 is an error? | The reference to Level 2 on page 82 is an error. Section L.4 has been revised |
| 40 | Page 95, L.5.1.10 (a) | May small business and large businesses team together under a JV or CTA? If yes, may the project experience of all members be considered? | Small businesses and large businesses may team together under a Mentor Protege Joint Venture, provided the Mentor Protege Agreement is approved by the SBA. For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, SBA’s approval of the Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture Agreement (ref. 13 CFR 125.9(d)(1)(i), 13 CFR § 124.520(d)(1)(i)) shall be provided upon proposal submission. |
| 41 | L.5.1.10. | Please clarify if the terms offeror, joint venture, and CTA are used interchangeably and are all considered to be the offeror for purposes of this solicitation. | The terms "offeror", "joint venture" and "CTA" are not interchangeable. "Offeror" indicates the official legal entity as defined in L.2.8. There are two types of CTAs, those detailed under FAR 9.601(1) (e.g., Joint Ventures), and those described under FAR 9.601(2) (i.e., Prime/Subcontractor CTAs). In FAR 9.601(1) CTAs (i.e., Joint Ventures), the JV itself is the Offeror/Official Legal Entity. In FAR 9.601(2), the Prime Contractor is considered the Offeror/Official Legal Entity. Refer to L.5.1.10 for additional information. Where the solicitation refers to "CTA" without distinction between a FAR 9.601(1)/Joint Venture CTA or FAR 9.601(2)/Prime/Subcontractor CTA, the requirement applies to both types of CTAs. |
| 42 | Page Number: 94 Section Number: L.5.1.10. Paragraph Number: (b) | This section states: “All CTA members must be small businesses under the applicable size standard, as reflected in their representations and certifications (see L.5.1.10 (d)(1)).” If firm A and firm B intend to submit an OASIS bid as a Prime/Subcontractor CTA (as defined in FAR 9.601(2)), please confirm that both firm A and firm B must be small businesses under the applicable OASIS pool size standard. | This understanding is confirmed. |
| 43 | Page Number: 94 Section Number: L.5.1.10. Paragraph Number: (d) | Please confirm that a Joint Venture CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(1) may be comprised of entities that are “other than small” (i.e. large businesses). | Small businesses and large businesses may team together under a Mentor Protege Joint Venture, provided the Mentor Protege Agreement is approved by the SBA. For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, SBA’s approval of the Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture Agreement (ref. 13 CFR 125.9(d)(1)(i), 13 CFR § 124.520(d)(1)(i)) shall be provided upon proposal submission. |
| 44 | Page Number: 98 Section Number: L.5.3.1. Paragraph Number: (4) | Our organization has a pending modification to a task order under a Single Award IDIQ in consideration for submission as a primary project. The modification is expected to significantly increase the overall annualized value of the task order which could result in our organization being able to claim additional points under section L.5.3.2.2. of the OASIS scorecard. The only issue is that the modification may be issued shortly after OASIS proposals are due (September 13th). Would GSA allow our organization to provide a “Letter of Intent” from the federal agency customer / contracting officer, which would provide specifics around the additional funding to be established by the pending modification? We are hoping to use this as evidence of the additional funding in order to prepare an annualized value for the task order. | No. Section L.2(g) requires offerors to provide official and verifiable documentation to validate minimum requirements and/or scored evaluation criteria. Section L.5.3(b)(1)(c) further requires that all award modification documents provided as part of the proposal submission be signed by a warranted Contracting Officer. |
| 45 | Page Number: 122 Section Number: M.5.1.4 Paragraph Number: (c) | In previous Q&A issued by GSA, one organization asked “In reference to section M.5.1.4 (c), “anything OCONUS will be considered a single location at the Metropolitan city level.” How does GSA evaluate the number of locations for remote locations? For example, Afghanistan has approximately 60 cities but in some instances military bases are not located in the cities themselves. How would GSA evaluate two military bases located vast distances from each other but outside of a metropolitan city. Would these military installations not count as a location? If it would be counted as a location, is there a specific mileage threshold that would be sufficient for GSA to consider two OCONUS military bases as two separate locations?” |
GSA responded with “We allow for multiple OCONUS locations. The "city level" distinction means that multiple OCONUS locations must be in different OCONUS cities. For example, if Rome, Italy and Venice, Italy are places of performance that is counted as 2 places of performance and both are OCONUS.”
In this response, is GSA saying that an organization that is serving multiple military bases NOT located in a metropolitan city could not claim these military bases as a performance location? Please note that this could work to the detriment of many vendors with a long history serving DOD entities.
| The GSA response was intended to give an example distinguishing two different OCONUS locations. It was not meant to restrict these locations to literally be within an official city limits. Multiple locations could be distinguished by performing requirements on different installations. It is not required for a place of performance to be "located in a metropolitan city" to claim the OCONUS credit. The intent of the referenced language is that, when claiming performance in multiple locations, the locations must be in different OCONUS cities/metropolitan areas on order to constitute multiple locations. For example, an Offeror could claim credit for work performed at Bagram AFB, but could not also claim performance within Bagram, Afghanistan at a location separate from Bagram AFB as a separate performance location - they would both default to a single location of Bagram. | |||
| 46 | Page Number: 105 Section Number: L.5.3.2.2 Paragraph Number: (a) | Can our organization submit contracts that have been awarded in a currency other than USD? To validate annual value, would GSA recommend that we provide evidence of the currency exchange rate to USD at the date of contract award? | Yes. See the revised RFP language at Section L.5.3.1(8)(*). |
| 47 | Page Number: 112 Section Number: L.5.4.1. Paragraph Number: (a) | As this section states, “Offerors will be rated more favorably if the project meets or exceeds “Total” small business percentage goals.” Does GSA give consideration to the goals on a dollars basis? Meaning, if an organization has exceeded their dollar goal – but not their percentage goal, would they not be awarded points under Section L.5.4.1.? | This subfactor has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety |
| 48 | Page Number: 128 Section Number: M.5.3 Paragraph Number: (e)(11) and (e)(12) | Section M.5.3. indicates that an organization can acquire points for having a Secret or Top Secret Facility Clearance for 100 or 200 points, respectively. |
As stated in Section B.1, “The services to be provided under OASIS are intended to meet the professional service mission requirements of all Federal agencies ….”
Organizations primarily serving Quality of Life mission space agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), are at a disadvantage as USAID does not issue contracts, which would enable a contractor to acquire these facility designations.
Would GSA consider allowing these organizations to produce evidence of meeting or exceeding small business goals for relevant experience (primary) projects that do not have an ISR or SSR report associated to it, in order to compensate for the disadvantage in this area?
It is correct that IAW Section M.5.3(b), "Offerors who have approved Systems, Certifications and Clearances will be considered more favorably"
This subfactor, Meeting or Exceeding the Total Small Business Goals has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety
| 49 | p. 112, Section L.5.4.1 | If a Small Business Offeror has met equivalent "Total Small Business Goals" on a Relevant Experience Primary Project, due to an award of a Small Business Set-Aside contract where the Offeror is qualified as a Small Business, is that contract eligible for earning points for meeting Total Small Business Goals without having an associated ISR, SF294, SSR, or SF295? | This subfactor has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety |
| 50 | L.5.4.1. Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals | For small business set-asides, there is no Small Business (SB) goals established. It is unclear how to evaluate SB the 200 points per primary project when this factor is Not Applicable (N/A). With such contracts, we lose out on 1000 points even if we had successfully subcontracted to other small businesses. We recommend small business offeror receive 200 points per project when the SB goals and CPARS reference SB participation as N/A. | This subfactor has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety |
| 51 | Page Number: 112 Section Number: L.5.4.1. Paragraph Number: (c) | As mentioned in previous Q&A, the heaviest users of OASIS today are DoD customers, and DOD primarily uses standard contracts (stand-alone contracts, single and multiple award contracts with task orders, BPAs, etc.) to acquire services from industry members. Since OASIS only allows these types of contracts to be used as qualification, experience, and past performance references, the pool of OASIS contractors is heavily skewed toward DoD providers. Contractors that service agencies such as HHS, USAID, and the Peace Corps compete for OASIS at a disadvantage given that Cooperative Agreements and grants are the primary method of procurement. This inherently drives these “Quality of Life” agencies away from OASIS if their primary contractors cannot qualify for the vehicle. |
In addition to these alternative procurement methods, Quality of Life agencies often do not require their contractors to meet small business subcontracting goals. However, as a non-profit, our company highly values the involvement of small businesses, which is demonstrated in our consistent and extensive subcontracting to small businesses, CONUS and OCONUS.
Per FAR 19.702, Small Business Subcontracting Plans are required for 1) contracts in which the estimated dollar value exceeds $700,000, 2) when further subcontracting opportunities exist, and 3) when the offeror is classified as an “other than small business”. In several international projects we have performed for USAID, we have exceeded these criteria, but were not required to prepare a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
Per L.5.4.1, we understand that GSA requires an ISR or SSR for SB subcontracting points, however for organizations serving Quality of Life agencies like USAID, would GSA consider allowing organizations to produce alternative evidence of meeting or exceeding small business goals? We would be more than willing to produce contract documentation, financial reports, invoices, or a letter from the contracting officer to prove our dedication to small business subcontracting. We believe this will improve the breadth of OASIS, and demonstrate GSA’s dedication to its Best-In-Class stature as a Government-wide acquisition vehicle.
| This subfactor has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety | |||
| 52 | RFP Page #80, 112. Section L.4 and L.5.4.1 - Submission Table | Please provide instructions for the submission of documentation supporting Total Small Business Goals (L.5.4.1) including symphony location, format, page limitations, and file name. | This subfactor has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety |
| 53 | RFP Page #90. Section L.5.1.8(c). Paragraph #3 | The instructions state that "The Offeror must only submit a single Subcontracting Plan that applies to the OASIS program as a whole (e.g. the Subcontracting Plan is cumulative across all Pool(s) the Contractor has applied for.) Please confirm that offerors who have submitted a Subcontracting Plan for UNR Pool 2 can provide an updated Subcontracting Plan in response to UNR Pools 1, 3, and 4. | If the Offeror is a current UNR Pool 2 contract holder, it would be correct to provide an updated plan in response to this RFP that covered the pool(s) the offeror was applying for. |
| 54 | RFP Page #90. Section L.5.1.8(c) and L.5.1.8(d) | Please confirm that BOTH recommended formats for the Subcontracting Plan - Attachment J.12 AND a model based on the General Services Administration Manual (GSAM), Appendix 519A - are compliant and acceptable means for meeting this requirement. | Section J.12 - Attachment 12 is based off the model subcontracting plan found at GSAM Appendix 519A. Section J.12 has been revised to comply with the current deviation (Aug 2018) of FAR Clause 52.219-9. Utilizing the template at Section J.12 is the only acceptable means for meeting this requirement IAW Section L.5.1.8(c), subcontracting plans must be submitted IAW Section J.12, no other format will be considered. |
| 55 | RFP Page #74 and 94. Section L.4 - Submission Table and L.5.1.9(f) | The table indicates that each MRCL must be distinct per pool qualification project, relevant experience project (primary and secondary), system, certification, and facility clearance unless parent organization controls all entities. In instances where a parent organization controls all entities, please confirm that each entity covering multiple projects, systems, or certifications may submit a single MRCL. Please provide instruction as to how these files should be named. | A single MRCL may be submitted in instances where a parent organization controls all entities providing resources under that MRCL. Section L.4 has been revised to incorporate a file name |
| 56 | Section L.5.5.1 Approved Purchasing System and Section L.5.5.4 Acceptable Estimating System | Amendment 0001 of the solicitations removes the language from the original solicitation allowing the use of a Qualified Private Auditor (QPA), for scoring purposes, in Section L.5.5.1 Approved Purchasing System and Section L.5.5.4 Acceptable Estimating System. With less than two months to submission, shifting to a DCMA or other CFA to receive, schedule and conduct a System review is prohibitive. Will the Government consider allowing QPAs as before? | No. The original OASIS solicitation did not allow for the use of QPAs - this language was included erroneously and has since been removed. |
| 57 | Section L.3. Proposal Submission Instructions | The Government awards a significant number of contracts in the last two weeks of each fiscal year. With a September 12, 2019 due date for the “open on-ramp” OASIS Unrestricted P1, P3, P4; awards made at the end of the fiscal year will not be eligible for consideration for past performance. Would consideration be given to changing the submission due dates to October 01, 2019 or later to allow submission of task orders that do not have one year of past performance until the fiscal year ends? | Any extension to the solicitation closing date will be solely determined by GSA based on the best interest of the Government |
| 58 | M.5.2.5.c on page 127-128 | M.5.2.5.c on page 127-128 states that Offerors will receive points for meeting small business goals by assessing the “Goal” and “Actual” columns on the ISR or SF 294 forms. In cases where an Offeror is citing projects/task orders under the Seaport-e IDIQ multiple award contract, the contract value in an ISR or 294 form is a “plug in amount from the government” and covers the value across all awardees. That amount (which can be in the billions) was then used to derive the contract value plug in amount for Small Business subcontracting goals. As a result, the Individual Subcontracting Report information will appear skewed as it is unreasonable to assume that only one of the awardees under the Seaport-e IDIQ would receive all of the task order contract awards and thus meet the goal established using the dollar value across all awardees. In addition to submitting the ISR for the IDIQ, will the government accept a screenshot of the goals reported in the Seaport-e system for the project that the Offeror is submitting to validate the Offeror has met their specific total small business goal for the individual project(s)/task orders? | This subfactor has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety |
| 59 | L.5.1.10. Contractor Team Arrangement | We respectfully request the Government to remove restrictions that an Offeror under FAR 9.601(1) must be small business concern. The solicitation is full and open with increased thresholds, whereas the small business set aside had significantly lower threshold requirements. We feel that limiting Offerors under 9.601(1) to small business CTAs/JVs is unduly restrictive. Concurrently, we are requesting the Government to remove requirement that the CTA/JV lead must be a small business in L.5.1.10(d)(4). | GSA is unable to remove the requirement that the CTA/JV lead must be a small business. The terms and conditions for conducting open season on-ramps (Section H.15.3(2)&(5)) state that the award decision for on-ramps are to be based on substantially the same evaluation criteria factors/sub-factors as the original solicitation; and must also be issued under current Federal procurement law. The original solicitation did not allow for consideration of the qualifications of individual members of CTAs. Since the issuance of the original solicitation, 15 USC 644(q)(1) went into effect, requiring consideration of the experience of individual team members in a CTA, to include Prime/Subcontractor CTAs per paragraph (B) and Joint Ventures per paragraph (C); however the law only applies to small business concerns. Current Federal procurement law does not require the Government to consider the experience of individual members of Other Than Small CTAs. Significantly, IAW Section H.15.3(5), GSA is also required to utilize substantially the same evaluation factors/subfactors as the original solicitation with respect to Other than Small Business CTAs. Namely, that any proposal qualifications (experience, past performance, systems/certifications/clearances) must be in the name of the Offeror itself for the Offeror to receive credit. |
| 60 | L.5.4.1. Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals | Can the Offeror claim maximum points per project in the event the Offeror is a graduated Small Business whose primary projects were awarded while Small, therefore Small Business Goal requirements did not exist? | This subfactor has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety |
| 61 | L.5.4.1. Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals | We respectfully request GSA to reconsider its methodology to apply points for primary projects to allow fair opportunity to graduated Small Business whose projects were awarded while small therefore Small Business Goal requirements did not exist. | This subfactor has been removed from the solicitation in its entirety |
| 62 | Page 68, Section L.2.1, Solicitation Questions (a) | Page 68, Section L.2.1, SOLICITATION QUESTIONS (a) of the final RFP (page 68), the Government has provided the following: “The Offeror must submit all questions related to this solicitation via the OASIS Symphony Online Proposal System (hereafter “Symphony”), accessible at the following link: {link will be provided in final solicitation}.” |
We request the link.
| The current language at Section L.2.1(a) (amendment 0001) states "The Offeror must submit all questions related to this solicitation via the OASIS Symphony Online Proposal System (hereafter “Symphony”), accessible at the following link: https://oasis.app.cloud.gov/." | ||
| 63 | Page 68, Section L.2.1, Solicitation Questions (b) and (b)(1) | In Section L.2.1, SOLICITATION QUESTIONS (b) and (b)(1) of the final RFP (page 68), the Government has provided the following “All questions related to this solicitation (with the exception of questions related to Symphony) must be submitted by (firm date will be provided in the final solicitation). Any questions submitted after this deadline, or through any means other than Symphony, will not be considered by the Government.” Similar placeholder information is provided in (b)(1). |
We request the dates.
The current language at Section L.2.1(b) and (b1) (amendment 0001) states "(b) All questions related to this solicitation (with the exception of questions related to Symphony) must be submitted by 5 pm EST on August 15th, 2019. Any questions submitted after this deadline, or through any means other than Symphony, will not be considered by the Government.
1. Questions regarding Symphony (e.g., access, system issues, and upload issues) must be submitted by 11 pm EST on September 11th, 2019. These questions must be submitted through Symphony via the Symphony helpdesk at client.support@apexlogic.com. If an Offeror is having issues submitting its question, the Offeror must contact the helpdesk. The helpdesk is only obligated to respond to tickets that are received 36 hours in advance of the closing of the deadline to submit questions. Any questions regarding Symphony submitted after this deadline, or through any means other Symphony, will not be considered by the Government. The Offeror is solely responsible for an Offeror’s inability to submit a proposal due to issues with Symphony that were not submitted to the Symphony helpdesk prior to 11 pm EST on September 11th, 2019."
| 64 | Page 71, L.4 Proposal Format Instructions, subpart (c) | The Government provides a Note “If the Offeror’s file exceeds the maximum upload size…” In answers to questions previously, the max file size was provided as 20mg. Is that still accurate? | |
| The max file size is 20MB. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.