Section_J.17_Attachment_(17)_Solicitation_Q&As.pdf

Date Posted/Updat ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

9/27/2018 1 Can you clarify for me where the past performance scores come from under L.5.4?

Our CPARS are qualitative, not quantitative.

Information regarding the scoring of Past Performance, including examples, can be found in M.5.2.1 through M.5.2.4.

9/27/2018

OASIS seems to provide an advantage to one class of offerors over another. For example, DoD and IT contractors appear to have an advantage over other firms such as us that specialize in international development (this includes contracts with USAID, State Department, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, amongst others).

OASIS does not provide any advantage to one “class” of Offeror over another. As evidenced by our OASIS Dashboard, OASIS is utilized by a large number of different agencies.

9/27/2018

Many of the USG International Development agencies do not provide an actual numerical rating for CPARS, which are required under the OASIS self-rating scale (Acceptability Review). They tend to provide criteria ratings such as “excellent”, “good”, etc., instead. Also, the Acceptability Review only requests CPARS for prime contracts held by the offeror. Many small businesses still hold IDIQ contracts as a prime contractor, for which we have not received CPARS yet. Additionally, the OASIS scoring tables favor a contractor that has been awarded two or more task orders under a contract such as an IDIQ or IQC, but many small business IDIQ contracts do not offer that many task orders to meet these criteria.

The numerical equivalent that corresponds to your criteria ratings can be found in M.5.2.1 through M.

5.2.3, with examples of how to calculate them under M.5.2.4. Information on what to submit when your CPARS are not available is available under L.5.4. While Offerors will receive additional evaluation points for award of multiple task orders under an MA-IDIQ/MA-BPA, this is not a requirement to receive award under OASIS SB.

9/27/2018

Many USG agencies in international development do not typically require government facility clearances at either the Secret level of Top Secret level, which is another criteria used by OASIS. Additionally, many SBA’s cannot obtain a facility clearance until they have actually been awarded projects that require a security clearance.

Facility clearances are not a requirement to receive award under OASIS SB, but do provide additional points if the Small Business has already obtained one.

9/27/2018

The original pool 1 solicitation included NAICS code 541330 Engineering Services.

Has this NAICS been dropped from Pool 1 and if so is it being added to another Pool we should pursue? This solicitation also contains NAICS 541330 as shown in the table in Section A.1.3.

9/27/2018 6 Is the 9/10/18 updated to the pool 1 a draft or is it the final RFP that interested parties should track and respond to if interested? This is a final, not a draft RFP, for SB Pool 1 On-Ramping

9/27/2018

7 As of right now the only two Pools that are open are Pool 1 and 2? Is there a timeframe when Pool 3 and Pool 4 will be open and will they include Pools 521330 and 541712 per their original release?

Currently, the only OASIS SB On-Ramp open as of the date of this Q&A posting is OASIS SB Pool 1.

The timeframes for additional Pool On-Ramps are provided in the FAQ on the OASIS website. Each Pool will contain the same NAICS as the original solicitation with allowances for the updated 2017 NAICS codes.

9/27/2018 8 The SF 33 was not included as page 1. Please provide. The SF 33 has now been uploaded to FBO via Amendment 01 (posted September 20, 2018).

9/27/2018 9 From reading the Proposal Submission Instructions, it references Pool 2 instead of Pool 1. Please clarify. RFP has been updated to clarify Pool 1, not Pool 2.

9/27/2018

Can you please clarify if there is a requirement for small businesses in Pool 1 ($15M size standard) to have primary projects with a value of $750 Thousand per year times the number of Projects submitted?

The Primary projects total value must be $750,000 per year times the number of projects submitted.

Each project cannot have an annual project value less than $150,000.

10/19/2018 11 The FBO Announcement states proposals are due Monday, November 5th at 2pm the Solicitation states, November 8th. Which is correct? Proposals are due Tuesday, November 13th at 11am.

9/27/2018 12 Can members of JVs or CTAs be on multiple teams, for instance over/under situations, so they can give their points to as many bidding primes as they want? There is nothing in the solicitation that prohibits this arrangement.

9/27/2018 13 Can I have other companies on my team that are also bidding to be a prime to take advantage of their points as well? There is nothing in the solicitation that prohibits this arrangement.

9/27/2018 14 If I am priming but don’t have any pool qualification projects, can I get them from a sub? Yes, in accordance with L.2.8 and the revised L.5.1.10

Attachment J.17 OASIS SB Pool 1 On-Ramp, Amendment 03 ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

9/27/2018 15 The terms "Primary projects" and "Secondary projects" are used throughout the solicitation. Can you please clarify The definitions of Primary and Secondary projects are found under section L.5.3.

9/27/2018

I am just verifying the documents posted on FBO for Oasis SM pool on ramping are all WORD documents that appear like they can be edited. These are the final documents correct? These are final documents; the amended RFP itself has been made a PDF.

9/27/2018 17 When a Small Business is awarded a contract in Pool 1, how frequently must they re-certify their size status? Small business re-representation is required IAW FAR 52.219-28.

9/27/2018

18 Why is “Approved Purchasing System” worth 500 points? That is extremely high compared to the other point values in the categories in the Systems, Certifications, and Clearances section.

The OASIS SB open season On-Ramping must adhere to the following contract condition: the award decision under the open season Solicitation is based upon substantially the same evaluation factors/sub- factors as the original Solicitation. Consequently, an approved purchasing system is worth 500 points because the original OASIS solicitation valued it as such.

9/27/2018

I have received notice of the solicitation for Pool 1 On Ramp, but in this solicitation, I cannot seem to find the date that proposals are due. I see that there is a “notice to proceed” through June 19th, 2019. Is this last day we have to submit?

The proposal submission deadline can be found in section L.3. Proposals are due Tuesday, November 13th at 11am.

9/27/2018

In Part III, Section J - List of Attachments on page 62, it lists para. J.17 Solicitation Questions and Answers as Attachment 17. However, the FBO notice for this solicitation posted on 10 Sep 2018 does not include Attachment 17. Was this attachment omitted in error, and if so, will it be released in a subsequent FBO posting? Attachment 17 (this document) has now been uploaded with your received questions and our answers.

9/27/2018

It appears that individual company experience/PP is now allowed in the current Pool 1 SB solicitation. Am I reading this correctly, or do you still require the JV to possess demonstrated PP?

Requirements related to Joint Venture experience, and submission of individual Joint Venture partner experience, can be found in L.5.1.10.

9/27/2018

If we form a CTA [Pg. 82, L5.1.10, Paragraph a] as a potential Prime Contractor with one or more other companies who’ll agree to act as our Subcontractors, can we submit all our CTA Subcontractors’ [Pg. 83, L5.1.10, Paragraph d-1] Projects in to fulfill the Pool Qualification Projects [Pg. 75, Section L.5.1.2, Paragraph b], Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects [Pg. 86, Section L.5.3.1, Paragraph b] and Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects [Pg. 95, Section L.5.3.3, Paragraph c] requirements without including a Prime contract of our own? There is nothing in the solicitation that prohibits this submission.

9/27/2018

I noticed the listed solicitation on FBO.gov and I wanted to get clarification. Is this only an on-ramp for Pool 2 or can we respond to on-ramp to other pools, more specifically Pool 4?

This solicitation is only for OASIS SB Pool 1. No other OASIS SB Pools will be On-Ramped via this solicitation.

9/27/2018

In section: “L.5.1.9. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, if applicable”, it says: “Within a corporate structure, an Offeror may utilize resources from a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary. GSA will allow an Offeror to take credit for any evaluation element, including relevant experience project(s), system (s), or certification(s) from a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary so long as there is a meaningful relationship to the Offeror and commitment letters are provided to the Government.” Can an Offeror (managing partner of relevant JV projects, use these projects to apply of OASIS SB Pool 1 on-ramp?

You are referencing language from the original solicitation which was revised in the posting of this OASIS SB Pool 1 solicitation on 9/10/18. Please review the current solicitation section L.5.1.9. An individual company, that is proposing individually to OASIS or OASIS SB, which is also part of a Joint Venture, may only utilize the experience projects, systems, or certifications IAW L.5.1.9 of the solicitation provided the Joint Venture is within the same corporate structure as the Offeror and a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter is submitted meeting the requirements of L.5.1.9. Note: If the Joint Venture is no longer in existence, then a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter in L.

5.1.9 is not possible and therefore the experience cannot be used.

9/27/2018

We are working our ISO 9001:2015 currently and unsure if we can finish it by 5 November. If we were 90% complete with ISO 9001 when we submit our packet, would this apply to the certification requirement rating? You must have a completed certification in order to obtain points for the purposes of On-Ramping.

9/27/2018 26 How many slots are available to HUBZone/Veteran Owned Businesses? Information on the number of socio-economic set-asides are available under M.2 (j).

ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

9/27/2018 27 If a Small Business only has subcontracts (no primes), are they still eligible for award?

Relevant Experience projects must be as the prime, not as a subcontractor. However, Offerors may propose prime contracts performed by its first tier subcontractors in accordance with Section L.5.1.10.

9/27/2018 28 Is there a minimum Self-Assessment Score for award eligibility?

There is no predetermined minimum score for award eligibility. The minimum score for award eligibility will be determined by the top 190 proposals in accordance with section M.3.

9/27/2018

I participated in the OASIS SB Program Open Season On ramp Overview webinar on July 10, 2018. During that webinar it was repeatedly emphasized that in order for a JV to be responsive to the requirements under Section L5 of the solicitation, the JV had to hold the prime contract and that relevant experience must be that of the JV, not that of the individual JV partners. In the “Condensed+OASIS+SB+Open+Season+Onramp+Cheat+Sheet.pdf” handout that was distributed after the webinar

GSA’s approach to Joint Venture experience was revised after the referenced Webinar in light of the statutory/regulatory requirements. Please refer to this solicitation for all guidance on submission of proposal documents. Any previously provided information may or may not apply to each individual On- Ramp. In order to be responsive to this solicitation you will need to follow the instructions provided in this OASIS SB Pool 1 On-Ramp solicitation.

9/27/2018

In solicitation A.1.1.b the list of NAICS code is provided for small business size standard of $15M. These solicitations cover mostly non-technical services. Will the government include NAICS Code 611710 for Education Support Services that also complies with the $15M size standard? Without this NAICS code included in the solicitation as a qualified NAICS Code, small businesses that wish to submit a proposal for the pool 1 onramp is prejudicially harmed and may lead to protests of interested parties that deliver large education support services contracts under a $15M size standard NAICS Code.

The list of applicable NAICS for Pool 1 is provided under A.1.3 (b), as well as in Section L. GSA does not have the ability to add NAICS codes to OASIS, with the exception of NAICS codes which have been replaced by subsequent codes, such as 541712 which was retired in 2017 and replaced by 541713 and 541715. Please note that either NAICS OR Product Service Code can be used to qualify.

See L.5.1.2(b)(5).

9/27/2018

We have significant relevant projects but they are in the private sector. Past projects awarded to us by the Federal Government are either below the $150,000 /year value threshold; or beyond the 5-year window for completion. Would the Government consider allowing us to submit private sector projects as Pool Qualification Projects, and for the subsequent section for Relevant Experience? We respectfully suggest that the Government would benefit from experience gained in the private sector in applying that expertise to government agencies.

GSA does not have the ability to change its evaluation criteria as requested, as the OASIS SB open season On-Ramping must adhere to the following contract condition: the award decision under the open season Solicitation is based upon substantially the same evaluation factors/sub- factors as the original Solicitation. Removing the requirement for Pool Qualification projects to be awarded by the Federal Government would constitute a substantive change to the evaluation factors.

9/27/2018

The revenue limitations of the NAICS included in Pool 1 ($15M), when combined with the requirement for at least 3 “relevant experience (primary) projects as a Prime Contractor,” creates a difficult window for small business contractors to fit into. Most small businesses below the $15M threshold have a large number of subcontracts, and a smaller number of prime contracts. For example, we have two prime contracts along with six subcontracts; if we had a third prime contract that met the qualifications, we would be over the $15M threshold. In order to maximize the pool of potential awardees, would the Government consider allowing at least one of the 3 minimum relevant projects to be a subcontractor project vice a prime contractor project?

GSA does not have the ability to change its evaluation criteria as requested, as the OASIS SB open season On-Ramping must adhere to the following contract condition: the award decision under the open season Solicitation is based upon substantially the same evaluation factors/sub- factors as the original Solicitation. Removing the requirement for relevant projects to be performed as a prime contractor would constitute a substantive change to the evaluation factors.

9/27/2018

How should a company address using classified tasks for examples of Prime work performed that will ensure they are eligible to pursue OASIS SB Pool 1? What documentation can we submit and is there a process to rate qualified classified work for submission?

GSA does not have clearance to review classified materials in the OASIS source selection process.

Companies may choose to propose using classified contract work if it determines that it is able to sufficiently demonstrate its experience/past performance with redacted (IAW all policies/procedures of the awarding office) contract documentation. Whether the redacted versions sufficiently demonstrate the qualifications required under OASIS is a business decision at the discretion of the Offeror.

ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

9/27/2018

This section addresses Mentor Protégé JVs and restricts the experience a Mentor can submit. This seems to contradict 13 CFR 125.8(e) which states “When evaluating the past performance and experience of an entity submitting an offer for a contract aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously.” Given what the CFR says will GSA remove restrictions on the amount of experience a Mentor can provide in a solicitation evaluation?

The regulation states that a procuring activity must consider work done individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Neither the referenced regulation, 13 CFR 125.8, nor the statute from which its authority is derived, 15 U.S. Code § 644(Q)(1) (C), describe exactly how agencies should consider/weight the experience of individual Joint Venture members. Case precedent has consistently upheld Federal Agencies’ authority to determine the manner in which it implements this individual consideration of members of a Joint Venture (see B- 412036.4, B-415175). As such, GSA will not remove restrictions on the amount of experience a Mentor can provide, if that Mentor is not a Small business concern.

9/27/2018

We have multiple commercial contracts with commercial and/ or partner nation government agencies performing similar work that the U.S. government awards under NAICS code 541690. However, commercial and non-U.S. government contracts do not assign NAICS codes for their contracts. We understand in these situations that if one of these commercial customers and/or non-U.S. government agencies will assert via formal letter that the work performed falls within an applicable NAICS code we may then use this as a qualifying project. Please confirm this understanding.

That interpretation is not correct. IAW L.5.1.2 (b) “1. Each Pool Qualification Project must be awarded by the U.S. Federal Government as follows:” Commercial and non-U.S. Government contracts cannot be used as Pool Qualification Projects under L.5.1.2.

9/27/2018

Section H.4 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) mentions the Small Business Administration. What is the OASIS qualification for determining small business certification? Is it a rolling 3 year average as The Small Business Administration (SBA) operates? Also, if during the course of the contract we exceed the small business standard, are we still able to participate in task order solicitations?

Small Business Size is determined IAW 13 CFR 121.104. If a contractor exceeds the applicable size standard during the course of the contract, it will remain small under the contractor until it is required to rerepresent its size status in accordance with FAR 52.219-28.

9/27/2018

Place of Performance- if the contract requires you to travel and complete work in other locations, would that be considered multiple locations? I could not find any direction on whether or not travel is allowed to be included. These locations are not listed up-front in the contract as place of performance.

L.5.3.2.4(c) states, “Temporary duty locations and/or temporary travel locations less than 30 days do not count towards the number of locations.”

9/27/2018

Approved Accounting System- we currently have an approved accounting system, we are however transitioning to a different accounting system that supports DCAA Compliance. Does this exclude us from bidding if our new accounting system will not have time to be audited? Can we submit the previous approval letter and a written explanation of why we are changing?

The Offeror does not need an approved accounting system at the time of proposal submission in order to be considered for award. In accordance with L.5.1.7, the Offeror must have an acceptable accounting system ready for a DCAA Pre-Award Survey audit. No format other than the SF 1408 is acceptable.

9/27/2018

Our company has a recent BPA that was awarded to an 8(a) joint venture comprised of an 8(a) firm and our firm. Our firm is the minority member (the non 8(a). Can our company use this BPA or Task Orders under that BPA as a Relevant Experience (Primary)? For reference, the 8(a) member was a three person firm at award and our firm was the larger of the two JV members. Our firm provided significant coaching to the 8(a) lead and performed all accounting and other back-office functions for the JV since we were more experienced in managing federal contracts.

An individual company that is proposing individually to OASIS or OASIS SB, which is also part of a Joint Venture (Joint Venture), may only utilize the Joint Venture’s experience projects, systems, or certifications in accordance with L.5.1.9 of the solicitation, provided the Joint Venture is within the same corporate structure as the Offeror and a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter is submitted meeting the requirements of L.5.1.9. Note: If the Joint Venture is no longer in existence, then a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter in L.5.1.9 is not possible and therefore the experience cannot be used.

ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

9/27/2018

Ref: Attachment 10, Question 1: How many Contracts or Task Orders supporting Mission Spaces are being provided in your proposal? Is this question specific to Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects, or is it specific to both Relevant Experience Primary and Secondary projects, or is it looking for the number of Mission Spaces? For example, we are including 5 Task Orders as Relevant Experience (Primary) in our proposal. We may decide to include 2 BPAs as Relevant Experience (Secondary) projects, however each BPA is in Mission Space

4. So would we check “5” to reflect the five Relevant Experience (primary) projects, “2” to reflect the two Relevant Experience (secondary) BPAs, or “1” to reflect the one Mission Space that those two BPAs support?

Attachment 10 is specific to Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects only, per the document title “Relevant Experience (Secondary) PROJECT TEMPLATE” and the question reference of M.5.1.10.

Please be aware that if you are submitting projects in accordance with L.5.3.3.1, they must meet the criteria under paragraph #5 of that section. Additionally, per L.5.3.3.1 paragraph #4, additional credit for the same mission space will not be give once a mission space is covered.

9/27/2018

The Relevant Experience (Primary) template requires that bidders “shall provide excerpts of Contract or Task Order documentation.” Does GSA require that the entire contract document be scanned and the appropriate sections be highlighted in some manner, or does GSA prefer that only the excerpts from Task Order documents be provided and appropriately referenced with the T.O. number and document title? If the former, this could be a large number of files and pages for GSA to go through.

Offerors need only provide as much information as required to substantiate that the projects meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation, and the points claimed in its proposal. Whether the submitted documentation sufficiently demonstrates that it meets the qualifications required under OASIS is a business decision at the discretion of the Offeror.

9/27/2018

Comment: The guidance in 8.d 1. contradicts the guidance in 8.c for completed projects and the first sentence of 8.d. is contradicted by 8.d.2. for determining the Annual Value of on-going projects in that the formulas for determining the Annual Project value for completed and on-going projects are different. Can GSA please provide clarification?

L.5.3.1 paragraph 8 d 1 has been moved to c 1 to provide clarification. Additionally, the method for calculating annual value has been adjusted.

10/19/2018

The narrative description of the formulas “Total estimated value (inclusive of all option periods) divided by the total number of days of performance (inclusive of all option periods) is divided by 30, then multiplied by 12” is confusing and does not match the example shown in 8.f. The narrative leads you to believe you take the project value divide it by the number of days of performance then divide that number by 30 and multiply by 12. Recommend the narrative be changed to: Determine the total days of performance, divide by 30 to determine the number on performance months, divide the total obligated or estimated value by the number of performance months and multiply by 12.

The solicitation has been revised to clarify that the total estimated value should be calculated by dividing the total value by the number of months of performance, then multiplying that number by 12.

To establish the total number of months of performance, the total number of days is divided by 30. The previous formula for calculation of annual value when partial months are involved allowed extrapolation based on the number of days, which was determined to be inappropriate because it would allow extremely short term contracts to meet the minimum thresholds (e.g., a $450, one day contract would equate to $164,250 annual value). The revised formula based on monthly value is determined to be more appropriate.

9/27/2018

In order to reduce the burden on our customers, would you consider this same rule for the Collection of Task Orders’ OASIS SB Past Performance Rating Form (Section J.8. Attachment (8)) as long as the specific Task Orders are identified on the form in the “Contract or Order Number” field? For example, a COTOs that requires 10 TOs to maximize points; would it be permissible to cover all 10 TOs under one master IDIQ OASIS SB Past Performance Rating Form?

If a CPAR is available at the task order level, the individual task order CPAR must be provided. If there is no CPAR available at the task order level, a master IDIQ CPAR/Award Fee Plan or Attachment 8 may be used, provided that the task orders are covered by the master IDIQ CPAR/Award Fee Plan/PPQ.

ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

9/27/2018

45 Is there a potential for separate ordering periods between the Top 40 awardees and the other 150 awardees?

Upon award, the ordering period of each vendor shall be coterminous with all other vendors on OASIS SB IAW Section H.15.3. The reason for staggering the awards as such is to prevent the current OASIS SB Pool 1 from becoming depleted upon rerepresentation in April, 2019. The ordering period for the top 40 (Stage 1) will likely commence before #41 -190 (Stage 2), although GSA intends to complete the award of Stage 2 Offerors as quickly as possible to allow performance to commence for Stage 2 awardees during Q3 of FY2019. By combining awards 1-40 and 41-190 into one solicitation, GSA is able to greatly reduce the amount of time for the 150 Stage 2 awards to be made. Splitting these into two separate solicitations would necessitate waiting until Q3 of FY 2019 to release the solicitation for the 150 Stage 2 awards in Pool 1, which would therefore delay the period of performance for Stage 2 Offerors until Q1 of FY 2020.

9/27/2018

I've been unable to backtrack the labor data in Attachment 2 to the May 2017 (the most recent) BLS data. Can you identify your source data (was it the May 2017 data?) and show an example of how you got the direct labor rates? For example, the May 2017 BLS data does not break out Junior, Journeyman, Senior and SME levels. How did you do that?

Please refer to sections B.2.1 and L.5.6 for additional information related to how the direct labor rates were developed.

The labor rates used are from the original solicitation (May 2012 BLS data) as the original solicitation provided rates throughout the entire ordering period of OASIS. The current high/low rates are extrapolations of those values which were derived based on the average, 75th percentile, and 90th percentile.

9/27/2018

At L.5.6.(h) you say the “low” end of the direct labor rate range is the National estimate and the “high” end of the direct labor rate range is the estimate data for the State identified as the highest paid. Are these national and state estimates averages or something else, such as 75th percentiles? And why use state level numbers instead of metropolitan area numbers, which typically are higher than state level numbers, as your cutoff for fair and reasonable?

Yes, the average, 75th percentiles, and 90th percentiles for National and State levels were used to develop these rates from the original solicitation (using May 2012 BLS data). The original architects of OASIS determined that State levels were to be used instead of metropolitan areas; as such, all On- Ramps must follow the same methodology.

9/27/2018

If an offeror acquires another company during the RFP process, but prior to proposal submission, can the “parent company” use the past performance of the wholly-owned subsidiary in its own bid? Note: The subsidiary is not an OASIS contract holder.

Yes provided a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter is submitted in accordance with L.5.1.9 for the wholly owned subsidiary.

9/27/2018

On Page 75, #2 states that the offeror should submit a copy of the contract or task order award for each pool qualification project. Do you want the entire contract or just SF 33?

L.5.1.2(b) 2. States, “The Offeror must submit a copy of the Contract or Task Order Award Form for each Pool Qualification Project:”. The requirement for this paragraph is only to submit the Award Form.

However, for each Pool Qualification project enough documentation must be submitted to verify the project meets the minimum requirements of L.5.1.2 and L.5.4.

9/27/2018 50 How can we get the most current government issued past performance rating? Once we submit comments back to CPARS, it’s no longer visible to the vendor.

Once the CPARS is finalized by the Government and submitted you should have full visibility of your final CPARS rating.

9/27/2018

Offeror is asking for confirmation to apply NAICS Exception to NAICS Code 541330 which list (3) different titles. Currently, the Small Business Administration (SBA) assigned business size standard to the same NAICS code, 541330 under different titles.

Contractors are not to utilize a NAICS Exception to 541330 for this solicitation. This solicitation not under an exception and is subject to the $15M size standard IAW A.1.3 (b) of the solicitation.

Additionally, H.4.2 also specifies that the NAICS included in the table are under a $15M size standard.

Please note that the NAICS 541330 Exceptions are covered under a different OASIS SB Pool, Pool 3, which GSA intends to On-Ramp through a separate On-Ramping solicitaiton.

ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

9/27/2018

Will the Government please issue an amendment to update RFP Section L.5.6(k) to reflect the current OASIS contract period?

Will the Government please issue an amendment to update the fields and calculations in the Cost/Price template to start with the current OASIS contract period?

This has been updated via amendment.

9/27/2018

On the self scoring worksheet is the prime contractor evaluated only or is the worksheet evaluated on a prime and teaming partner overall scoring if partnership is formed?

Are there any teaming restrictions for Small Business Pool 1?

Please see L.5.1.10 for evaluations and restrictions of Contractor Teaming Arrangements.

9/27/2018 54 For pool qualification purposes, relevant experience must be reported under a Pool 1 corresponding NAICS Code or PSC Code; is this correct? That is correct.

9/27/2018

Will the Government please clarify if they will accept a project that does not have a NAICS Code under Pool 1, but it does have a PSC Code? For example, if an offeror has a project that's reported in FPDS with NAICS Code 541512, but the PSC is reported as R408 or R426; will the Government accept the PSC Code for Pool Qualification Project?

That is acceptable.

9/27/2018

Solicitation para L.5.1.2.b states “the offeror shall submit two [2] distinct Pool Qualifications Projects.” OASIS FAQs as of 8202018 Tracking #125 Answer states “3 Pool Qualification Projects must be submitted IAW Section L.5.1.2.” Can the government provide definitive clarity on the number of Pool Qualification Projects that are required for the SB Pool 1 On-ramping?

OASIS FAQ #125 is under the category of OASIS UNR Pool 2 On-Ramp. OASIS Unrestricted has higher qualification standards than OASIS Small Business. For this OASIS SB Pool 1 On-Ramp, please refer to the solicitation itself as the FAQs posted to our website are only for information purposes not to be construed as the official solicitation Q&A.

9/27/2018

Solicitation para L.5.1.2: Will the government consider an offeror’s performance covering individual periods of performance (e.g., Base Period and Option Years) on a Single Award Contract, which are not assigned by Task Order, but do have a completed CPAR, as individual Pool Qualification Projects? This is assuming each period of performance project also satisfies the additional requirements found in this section.

For example:

Single Award Contract #123ABC

• Project 1: Base Period (9/1/15 – 8/31/16) with evaluated CPAR, valued at $5M

• Project 2: Option Period 1 (9/1/16 – 8/31/17) with evaluated CPAR, valued at $6M

• Project 3: Option Period 2 (9/1/17 – 8/31/18) with evaluated CPAR, valued at $7M

No, individual contract periods may not be used as individual projects for the purposes of pool qualification OR Relevant Experience.

ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

9/27/2018

Solicitation Section L, paragraph L.3(g), page 69, states “proposal documents shall be submitted in Adobe (.pdf) format except for the Self-Scoring Worksheet…..and Cost/Price Template.” The Proposal Format Table in Solicitation L, paragraph L.4(a), page 71, states the General Correspondence Template in Volume 1 shall be submitted in Word (.docx) format. Should the General Correspondence Template be submitted in Adobe (.pdf) or Word (.docx) format?

L.3(g) has been revised to allow the submission of Attachment 18 as a Word document.

9/27/2018

Nowhere in Solicitation Section L, paragraph L.5.1.2, pages 76-79, is annual project value listed as a minimum requirement for a Pool Qualification Project. The Proposal Format Table in Solicitation Section L, paragraph L.4(a), page 70, lists annual project value documentation as part of the format for submission of Pool Qualification Projects. Is annual project value documentation required for Pool Qualification Projects?

L.4 has been revised. There is no annual project value required for Pool Qualification projects.

9/27/2018

Does performance offered that was performed by an individual team member have to have been performed while that team member was a member of the proposing JVT? For example, a newly formed JVT is comprised of partners that each have previously performed contract efforts that are relevant, but were not awarded under the JVT. Would the newly formed JVT offeror be able to use those individual team member efforts for evaluation scoring purposes in all areas?

Performance of the contract may be prior to formation of the Joint Venture.

9/27/2018 61 For the past performance requirement we have 1 Prime CPAR. Can we use our subcontractor Open Rating grade of 94% which is from 19 customers. Performance as a subcontractor is not permitted under this solicitation.

9/27/2018

Will GSA allow a joint venture made up of a large company and a small company to submit a proposal for the GSA OASIS SB Pool 1 on ramp? Does the small business need to own 51% of the JV according to the SBA rules?

Joint Ventures may be made up of a Large and a Small Business as long as they are an approved SBA Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture and comply with the requirements of L.5.1.10. Other CTAs/Joint Ventures must consist of small businesses IAW FAR 19.101(7)(vi).

9/27/2018 63 Would the Government consider modifying this requirement to include projects completed within the past 5 years prior to the Solicitation issue date?

No. All pool qualification and Relevant Experience (Primary) projects must have been completed within the past 5 years prior to the solicitation closing date or be ongoing.

9/27/2018 64 Please clarify what is meant by a “Non-U.S. Federal Government/Commercial” project.

Non-U.S. Federal Government/Commercial projects are projects that are not performed for the US Federal Government or are Commercial projects. For example, a contract to perform work for a foreign Government, a US State/Local Government, or a commercial business entity.

10/19/2018

Please clarify that the exception means that work by a First Tier Small Business Subcontractor can be used to satisfy minimum requirements and scored evaluation criteria.

IAW L.5.1.10(5) for CTAs the Official Legal Entity must have an acceptable accounting system, for Joint Ventures either the Joint Venture or all members of the Joint Venture must have acceptable accounting systems. IAW L.5.1.10(6) scored evaluation criteria under L.5.5 must be held either by all individual members of the existing Partnership or Joint venture or by the Offeror itself. Any projects provided by the OASIS first tier subcontractor must have been performed as the Prime. For example, if company A proposes to OASIS SB with company B as a first tier subcontractor, any projects performed by company B must be prime contracts between company B and the Agency/customer.

Note: this answer was provided via Amendment 02, but is being updated via Amendment 03 due to the changes in the paragraph reference numbers.

9/27/2018

L.5.3.1(b)8.c.1 says the annual project value for completed projects that start/end on other than the first day of the month is determined by “Total obligated dollars divided by the total number of days of performance than multiplied by 365”. The example calculation in L.5.3.1(b)8.f on page 90 uses a different method. Please clarify which is the correct calculation for this situation.

The example has been updated to reflect the revised method of calculation. The language has been changed for contracts covering partial months to calculate annual project value based on the monthly average value instead of a daily average value so as not to allow extremely short term (e.g., several days) projects to disproportionately impact the annual average value.

ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

9/27/2018

For Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects: “For the purposes of validating the period of performance of Task Order Awards under a Multiple-Award IDIQ contract or Multiple-Award BPA, the period of performance of the Multiple-Award IDIQ contract or Multiple- Award BPA will be used for meeting this requirement.” Does this determination of the period of performance apply when a Task Order under a Multi- Award BPA is being submitted as a Relevant Experience (Primary) Project ?

This language was inadvertantly included in the RFP and has been revised to the following: 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 Task Order Award itself, not the MA-IDIQ or MA-BPA, will be used for meeting this requirement. For the purposes of validating the period of performance of a MA-IDIQ or MA-BPA, pursuant to section L.5.3.3.2, the period of performance of the MA-IDIQ or MA-BPA will be used for meeting this requirement.

9/27/2018

Please confirm that the Offeror may create a discrete Title Page for its submittal to be compliant with these marking requirements and amend RFP instructions to indicate location/Volume for this Title Page.

That is acceptable.

9/27/2018

Can GSA kindly clarify if a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture must also have a prior contract under the name of the Joint Venture entity itself in order to qualify for consideration under the OASIS Small Business On-Ramp (Pool 1)?

The Joint Venture does not require prior contracts in the name of the Joint Venture prior to submission of their OASIS SB Pool 1 proposal.

9/27/2018

If the offeror is submitting as a newly formed joint venture (JV), does the Gov't require each member of the JV to submit an SF 1408 and GSA Form 527 or does the Gov't require a form from the majority member only?

If the Offeror itself (i.e., the Joint Venture) is not providing these forms, the forms would need to be submitted by each individual member of the Joint Venture.

9/27/2018 71 Does the Gov't consider home offices or telecommuting in different MSAs as acceptable locations for multiple locations? No. Home offices and/or telecommuting do not count as acceptable places of performance.

9/27/2018 72 Does the Gov't consider subcontractors / 1099s working in different MSAs as acceptable locations for multiple locations ?

Yes, assuming the contractor can provide enough evidence within a Contract or Task Order document and/or other verifiable contractual documents to substantiate the multiple locations.

9/27/2018

There are several documents in the solicitation in FBO beginning from 2013. My question is the following,

- Do we just look at the latest, starting from Mod#6, 7 and 8 only.

- Do these latest Mods provide complete package or if we need to look at any packages from the past.

The OASIS SB Pool 1 On-Ramp documentation begins with Modification 06, posted 9/10/2019.

Modification 7 and Modification 8 are essentially duplicate mods. When posting Mod 07, we anticipated having the ability for it to display as "Modification 06, Amendment 01," but the system wouldn't allow this and auto-generated it as Modification 07. Modification 08 updated the nomenclature to reflect SB POOL 1 On-Ramp AMENDMENT 01 instead of "Modification 06, Amendment 01." Other than having different titles, the documentation is essentially the same from Mod 7 to Mod 8. Future Amendments will be numbered however the system decides to number them (FBO is unpredictable) and in the notice details, will show as SB POOL 1 On-Ramp AMENDMENT 02, SB POOL 1 On-Ramp AMENDMENT 03, SB POOL 1 On-Ramp AMENDMENT 03, etc. We apologize for any confusion caused.

9/27/2018

I'm trying to determine the difference between "Modification 7" and "Modification 8".

They appear identical to me. Can you tell me what I'm missing? Both appear to be "Modification 6, Amendment 01".

The OASIS SB Pool 1 On-Ramp documentation begins with Modification 06, posted 9/10/2019.

Modification 7 and Modification 8 are essentially duplicate mods. When posting Mod 07, we anticipated having the ability for it to display as "Modification 06, Amendment 01," but the system wouldn't allow this and auto-generated it as Modification 07. Modification 08 updated the nomenclature to reflect SB POOL 1 On-Ramp AMENDMENT 01 instead of "Modification 06, Amendment 01." Other than having different titles, the documentation is essentially the same from Mod 7 to Mod 8. Future Amendments will be numbered however the system decides to number them (FBO is unpredictable) and in the notice details, will show as SB POOL 1 On-Ramp AMENDMENT 02, SB POOL 1 On-Ramp AMENDMENT 03, SB POOL 1 On-Ramp AMENDMENT 03, etc. We apologize for any confusion caused.

10/19/2018

The list of examples for the Pool Qualification Project lists a lot of forms but some of our contracts were awarded on Optional Form 347, which is not listed. Can you add Optional Form 347 to the list?

It would not be practical to list all potential Official Government Award Forms. Section L.5.1.2 (b) 2. a.

through f. lists specific examples of common forms used. However, paragraph g. states that any other Official Government Award Form may be used (such as the OF 347).

ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

10/19/2018

We interpret this to mean that evaluation scoring would be conducted such that if Company A (mentor) and Company B (protégé) submit as individuals of a Joint Venture (CTA), and each meet the minimum pass/fail criteria of the original solicitation, their cumulative scores under the self scoring worksheet would be totaled and required to exceed the threshold of 5925 points. Meaning, Company A would receive points for the maximum (1) Pool Qualification Project as defined in L.

5.1.2, maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects as defined in L.

5.3.1, and a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects as defined in Section L.5.3.3, and Company B would receive points for the minimum (1) Pool Qualification Project as defined in L.5.1.2, minimum of two (1) Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects as defined in L.5.3.1, and Optional Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects as defined in Section L.5.3.3. Can the government confirm this interpretation?

This understanding is at least partially incorrect. There is no minimum points threshold with the subject OASIS SB Open Season Pool 1 On-Ramping, as the minimum score will be determined by the number of awards made. The top scoring 190 Offerors will receive an award. In terms of the scoring for a Mentor-protege Joint Venture, one consolidated self-scoring worksheet must be provided for the Offeror, but it can cite Relevant Experience projects from the Joint Venture itself and/or its individual members, provided that (1) each member is represented by at least one project and (2) if the Mentor is not a small business concern under the applicable size standard, the number of projects performed by the Mentor is limited as follows: (1) Pool Qualification Project as defined in L.5.1.2, maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects as defined in L.5.3.1, a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects as defined in Section L.5.3.3.1, and a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects as defined in section L.5.3.3.2. Note that this amendment increases the number of Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects, as defined in Section L.5.3.3, allowed to be submitted by an Other Than Small Mentor to four total (two for L.5.3.3.1 and two for L.5.3.3.2), as this was the original intent.

10/19/2018

Will the government consider allowing the Mentor to submit a maximum of three (3) Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects as defined in L.5.3.1?

No. Note that this amendment increases the number of Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects, as defined in Section L.5.3.3, allowed to be submitted by an Other Than Small Mentor to four total (two for L.5.3.3.1 and two for L.5.3.3.2), as this was the original intent.

10/19/2018

Will the government consider revising the requirements to allow scoring to be awarded at the level met or exceeded by only the Protégé in the Joint Venture of the CTA, since the Protégé takes the lead in the Joint Venture? No.

10/19/2018

If the number of offerors who score above the lowest score for POOL 1 SB is less than 190, will the government consider offerors who score below the previous POOL 1 SB threshold?

Contract Section H.15.3 (7) is not applicable to this open season On-Ramp as the intent of this solicitation is to “add” contractors IAW H.15.3 (8).

10/19/2018

Based on section L.5.3.1, (b)1 on page 88 (Mod 6; Amendment 1), it states “Involve the performance and/or integration of at least three (3) out of the six (6) OASIS SB Core Disciplines.” However, according to section J.5.1., Attachment 5(a) (Mod 6;

Amendment 0); under section L.5.3.2.3 the first option states “Does EACH Project Integrate AT LEAST 4 out of 6 Core Disciplines BUT NO MORE THAN 4 out of 6 Core Disciplines?” Please clarify if relevant experience is based on 3 out of the 6 core disciplines or 4 out of 6.

Section L.5.3.1 states the minimum requirements for Relevant Experience (Primary) projects while attachment 5a is related to additional points. The minimum requirement to submit a Relevant Experience (Primary) project is 3 core disciplines however Offerors will be provided additional points if they have between 4 and 6 core disciplines. For projects with only 3 core disciplines no additional points will be granted.

10/19/2018 81 Contracts with multiple CPAR entries, please specify how the Government will evaluate the scores, and how vendors should rate themselves.

Past Performance must be submitted IAW L.5.4 and will be evaluated IAW M.5.2. Examples of how to calculate scores are provided in M.5.2.4.

10/19/2018

After being a comprehensive government contractor since 1985 but with the last contract ending in March of 2018, we are now predominately a commercial contractor. Can we still submit a proposal if the majority of our contracts are not identified by a NAICS but the work correlates with the Core Disciplines?

The only minimum requirements that must be awarded by the Federal Government are Pool Qualification projects required under L.5.1.2. Other sections, such as L.5.3.2.1 and L.5.3.3, provide additional evaluation points for work that must have been awarded by the Federal Government, however, these are not minimum requirements.

10/19/2018

On pages 7 - 10 of the Solicitation Amendment 01, there are a total of 21 NAICS Codes listed. On page 10 of the document, the second paragraph under B.1.

Background states "OASIS SB is a family of 7 separate Government-wide MA- IDIQ task order contracts that span 29 NAICS Codes and 6 NAICS Code Exceptions under the economic subsector 541, Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services." Since there are only 21 NAICS Codes listed in this solicitation, can you please clarify specifically which NAICS Codes are sought for this solicitation? Since NAICS Code 541511 is a NAICS code under the economic subsector 541, would this be considered in on-ramping for OASIS SB Pool 1?

The NAICS codes applicable to this solicitation can be found within Sections A.1.3, H.4.2, and L.5.1.2.

As NAICS 541511 is not provided in any of the above sections it is not permissible under this solicitation.

ed by GSA Tracking # Question Answer

10/19/2018

If an offeror is submitting a Pool Qualification, Primary, or Secondary Project that was the result of a merger or acquisition that does not require a novation, what validation documentation is required per Section L.2.9.? Would an executed purchase agreement or term sheet between ABC, Inc. and XYZ, Corp showing the date of transfer be sufficient to validate?

Section L.5.1.9. (i) has been amended to allow Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters (MRCL) usage for individual…