SECTION_J.17._ATT._(17)_Questions_and_Answers_-_Amd_04.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 368 KB Posted
- Attached to
- OASIS SB Pools 1, 3, & 4 On-Ramp
- Solicitation number
- GS00Q13DR0002P1P3P4
About this file
This is an amendment to the OASIS SB Pools 1, 3, and 4 On-Ramp solicitation, which reopens the solicitation until June 20, 2019 and incorporates Pools 3 and 4. The amendment revises various sections of the solicitation and provides for proposal submission through the Symphony system. Offerors must resubmit proposals for Pool 1 under this amendment. The solicitation seeks to procure complex professional services through OASIS SB Pools 1, 3, and 4. A virtual industry day will be held on May 7, 2019 to review the solicitation and demonstrate the Symphony submission system. Questions must be submitted through Symphony.
Amendment 04 - J.17
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 57 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Questions and Answers
| Question Number | Question Text | Reference Text | Answer |
| 1 | I'm not understanding what type of information you are looking for here | In Symphony: For Subcontractors – what are you looking for in the proposal reference line? | The reference line indicates where in the proposal (e.g., file name, page number) a specific requirement is met. |
| 2 | In Symphony: For the Core Disciplines: Do you not provide a write up of the relevant work description? What are you looking for in the proposal reference line? I'm not understanding what type of information you are looking for here | In Symphony: For the Core Disciplines | The reference line indicates where in the proposal (e.g., file name, page number) a specific requirement is met. |
| 3 | In Symphony: For Ancillary Services / Products – what are you looking for in the proposal reference line? I'm not understanding what type of information you are looking for here | In Symphony: For Ancillary Services / Products – what are you looking for in the proposal reference line? | The reference line indicates where in the proposal (e.g., file name, page number) a specific requirement is met. |
| 4 | In the Symphony Instructions (page 2, (f) (2)) it states that: "This first user will automatically be placed in the Proposal Manager Role. This role can be assigned to another user after registration is complete. This user will have access to a User Administration tool when they login to the system." – this is not true – you need to go in an manually assign this role. I just completed my sign up and it is still showing no one in the proposal manager role. I have to assign myself. | Symphony - Proposal Manager Role | Attachment 19 has been updated to provide corrected information. |
| 5 | Is it permissible to submit a proposal as prime and be a subcontractor as part of a CTA to another prime that is submitting a proposal? | Reference L.5.1.10 Page 83 | Yes, a contractor may submit proposals in multiple roles (e.g., as Prime and as first tier subcontractor), however, please be aware of the restriction on using the same project in multiple proposals. Any project found submitted for more than one offer in the same Pool will be removed from all offers unless it's a project subject to a novation/merger/acquisition IAW L.2.9 of the solicitation. |
| 6 | Since we are required to submit one pricing document, are all members of the CTA bound by the prices submitted regardless of individual company GSA schedules / rates? | Reference L.5.6 Page 105 | GSA schedules/rates are inapplicable to OASIS contracts. All CTA members are bound by the prices submitted for applicable task orders (e.g., sole source T&M/LH orders) regardless of individual company. |
7 1. What size standard are Mentor Protégé Joint Ventures allowed to use for their First Tier subcontractors?
2. References Joint Venture CTAs but does not mention the size standard required for First-Tier subcontractors to a Joint Venture. Are First-Tier subcontractors to a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture required to be small businesses under the applicable size standard?
| Page 83, Section L.5.1.10, Paragraph (d) | Any first tier subcontractors submitted as part of a CTA must be small businesses in accordance with the size standard applicable to that pool, regardless of the type of entity of the Prime Offeror (e.g., JV, Mentor-Protege JV or single legal entity). |
| 8 | 1. Page 95, Section L, L5.3.2.4: states “(a) For each Relevant Experience (Primary) Project submitted, the Offeror will receive points if the Project involves performance in Multiple Locations in accordance with Section M.5.1.4. … (d) Temporary duty locations and/or temporary travel locations less than 30 days do not count towards the number of locations. 1. Temporary duty (TDY) assignments need not be consecutive but must be performed within a twelve month period. |
Page 112, Section M, M.5.1.4 (d), Relevant Experience (Primary) Project with Multiple Locations reads: Travel Duty (TDY) assignments less than 30 days for contract employees do not count for any location.
Questions:
a. Please clarify if the offeror performs full time work at one military installation and also simultaneously sends rotating Mobile Training Teams (MTTs) to other US military installations in CONUS and OCONUS for usually 13 days at a time (and occasionally as many as 28 days), up to 13 times a year (minimum of 169 days for the year) and occasionally to the same MTT location, are we correct that this meets the requirement of the contractor performing work at multiple locations provided other locations are not within the same MSA code? For example: Primary, full time work location is Ft. Sill, OK. MTT locations are Ft. Bragg, Ft Stewart, Ft Drum, Ft Bliss, Ft Hood, Ft, Carson, South Korea, Germany; Ft Wainwright, AK, Ft. Lewis, WA, Schofield Barracks, HI.
b. If so, besides the signed contract from the Contracting Officer we plan to provide substantiating documents with the labor CLIN funding as well as the Travel CLIN funding and the PWS directing the requirement for the full time location and MTTs. Will that suffice as substantiating documentation?
Page 95, Section L, L5.3.2.4 A. Yes B. The proposed documentation appears reasonable provided it substantiates the locations and time spent at each location.
| 9 | 1. | Will GSA accept task orders / delivery orders executed under a Basic Ordering Agreement (FAR 16.703) as Primary, Secondary (mission spaces or MA-IDIQ task orders), and/or Pool Qualification projects? | (null) | The solicitation has been updated to allow Task Orders under BOAs (FAR 16.703) as Pool Qualification Projects and Relevant Experience (Primary and Secondary) Projects. |
| 10 | 2. | Will GSA accept a collection of task orders under a Basic Ordering Agreement as a Project 5(A)? | (null) | No, a collection of orders under Basic Agreements (FAR 16.703) are not permitted as Primary Project 5A. |
| 11 | 3. | Our firm is not allowed to release the SF33 associated with one of our primary projects due to the classified nature of the work. Would GSA allow us to provide an agency created award form (created for the OASIS proposal) if it met the requirements of an of an “Other Official Government Award Form” per section L.5.1.2(2)(g) and L.5.3.1(6)(g)? | (null) | Yes, this would be permissible. |
| 12 | 4. | One of the requirements of a contract we hold is to deliver monthly status reports to our government customer describing work completed. Will GSA accept core discipline references and annotations identified within this contract deliverable? Would a signed DD250, Certificate of Conformance, or any other form of government acceptance be required in combination with this deliverable? | (null) | Yes, per L.2(i) Offerors shall use Adobe Sticky Notes to clearly identify each section/paragraph that corresponds to each minimum requirement and scored evaluation criteria being claimed. Symphony also contains a reference block for Offerors to identify where (e.g., file name, page number) each requirement is met. |
| 13 | 5. | Can any contract documentation be used to identify core disciplines outside of the SOW/PWS? | (null) | 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). Per L.2(i) Offerors shall use Adobe Sticky Notes to clearly identify each section/paragraph that corresponds to each minimum requirement and scored evaluation criteria being claimed. Symphony also contains a reference block for Offerors to identify where (e.g., file name, page number) each requirement is met. |
| 14 | 6. | Can the offeror provide explanatory materials (e.g. a short write up) in order to help the evaluator understand different elements provided and how they connect to the scoring criteria being claimed? | (null) | Yes, per L.2(i) Offerors shall use Adobe Sticky Notes to clearly identify each section/paragraph that corresponds to each minimum requirement and scored evaluation criteria being claimed. Symphony also contains a reference block for Offerors to identify where (e.g., file name, page number) each requirement is met. |
| 15 | Should CTA be “offeror” or “official legal entity”? | RFP/L.5.1.10 (d.) (2.)All minimum requirements and scored evaluation criteria under L.5.1.2 and L.5.3 must have been performed by the CTA itself or the individual team members. | The "offeror" is the "official legal entity" who is the "Prime Contractor" (e.g. for a FAR 9.601 (1) CTA the "Prime Contractor" is the "JV itself" and for a FAR 9.601(2) CTA the "Prime Contractor" is the "Prime Contractor" NOTE: If the JV also has first tier subcontractors being proposed, the "Prime Contractor" would still be the "JV itself"). | |
| 16 | This requirement is listed within Volume 3 according to the table – Please confirm the government would like this requirement in Volume 4 – Past Performance rather than Volume 3 – Relevant Experience | RFP/L.4 Reference: Past Performance (Pool Qualification Projects) | The solicitation has been updated to clarify this. | |
| 17 | Can the Government confirm that if no Extension and no Question and Answer Amendment has been released by the time of the proposal due date (June 20,2019) the offeror should not submit. Also will the Government provide a timeframe of submit date and time with the Question and Answer Amendment if it is released after the due date? | RFP/L.5.1.1(2.) (a.) Offerors will not be able to submit their proposals until the Question and Answer Amendment (see Section L.2.1(a.)) is posted to FBO. | Yes, the Offeror should not submit until such time as an amendment is released providing answers to questions received. Please allow approximately 72 hours after receipt of this amendment for the submission capability to be enabled in Symphony. | |
| 18 | To ensure no projects are removed for proposals as indicated in Section L.2.l, can you confirm that using the same project for a Pool 3 and Pool 4 submission is allowed for full scoring and will not be removed from either submission's scoring? | Solicitation, Section L.2.l (page 63) | Yes, the same project can be used for a Pool 3 and Pool 4 submission without penalty. The same project could not be used in two different proposals submitted under Pool 3, for example, unless it's a project subject to a novation/merger/acquisition IAW L.2.9 of the solicitation. | |
| 19 | Will the Government consider allowing the offeror to submit proposals according to role - for example one proposal as prime contractor and one as subcontractor? | L.2(l.)"No Project, to include Pool Qualification projects, Relevant Experience Primary Projects, and Relevant Experience Secondary Projects, may be used in more than one proposal for each Pool submitted ..." | Yes, a contractor may submit proposals in multiple roles, however, please be aware of the restriction on using the same project in multiple proposals. Any project found submitted for more than one offer in the same Pool will be removed from all offers unless it's a project subject to a novation/merger/acquisition IAW L.2.9 of the solicitation. | |
| 20 | “The period of performance of OASIS SB is from the date of award through December 19, 2019 with 1 5 year option that may extend the cumulative term of the contract to through December 19, 2024 in accordance with FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, if exercised." |
| Are the cited dates accurate? | Page 22, Para F.3, first sentence | Yes. Note that the Government is in the process of exercising the 5 year option period. | ||
| 21 | On Page 76-77, Section L.5.1.2(a)5.a, the solicitation states that to be eligible to compete for a pool, the offeror "...shall identify any Two (2) projects that have One (1) of the following NAICS codes OR PSC Codes assigned to them. Does this mean that if a small business can meet this minimum requirement, we can add up to three projects that do not have that NAICS code, for Relevant Experience for Primary and Secondary Project L.5.3 Volume 3 relevant Experience for Primary and Secondary Projects (Page 86) scoring purposes? For example, if a bidder has 2 NAICS in 541612 (Pool 1) , and one in 541330 (Pool 3), 541714 (Pool 4), would this mix of examples--with 2 examples satisfying the NAICS requirement, and all 4 satisfying the Relevant experience for primary and secondary projects, be acceptable under the evaluation requirements and scoring rubric? | No. To qualify for any individual Pool offerors must have at least 2 Pool Qualification projects which have a NAICS or PSC code assigned to that Pool. Offerors must also have at least three Relevant Experience Primary projects subject to the requirements of L.5.3.1. | ||
| 22 | Im registered in Symphony now, but when i try to login I receive the following message; "Your account is inactive. Before signing in your account must first be activated by your SAM Authorized Point of Contact." I am one of the two SAM Administrators for [redacted], but i dont know what action i am supposed to take to activate my Symphony login. Can you clarify? Thank you. | As stated in J.19, only the Government POC or Alternate Government POC an activate users until a Proposal Manager is assigned. | ||
| 23 | Where in SAM does the SAM POC find where to authorize a Proposal Manager under Symphony? | This action is performed through Symphony, not SAM. | ||
| 24 | Once the SF33 has been "electronically signed", it is our understanding that a PDF can no longer be edited. Please confirm instructions in this clause. | L.5.1.1(c)(5) (Page 75) | The SF33 provided as part of this solicitation allows for the editing of the PDF after the offeror signs it electronically and then locks the form after the Contracting Officer signs it. The reason for this is so that the Contracting Officer may complete the award section of the SF33 and return it to the offeror without having the offeror fill out an SF33 again. This should save administrative time for both the Government and offerors. | |
| 25 | WRT a FAR 9.601(2) CTA team, can a subcontractor provide the two “Pool Qualifications” with the prime contractor only providing the "Primary" Qualifications? | L.5.1.2 "Pool Qualifications" (Page 75) | Yes. | |
| 26 | The referenced sections state that "[all] award and modification documents be signed by a Warranted Contracting Officer". Does this require that the PWS/SOW documents (used as proof for core disciplines, # of locations or mission spaces, for example) also be signed by a Warranted CO or just the award order documentation (i.e. SF 33 or other similar documentation)? | 5.3(b)(1)(c), 5.3(b)(2)(d) & M4.1(a) | Only the award (such as SF33 or other similar document) and modification documents (such as the SF30) must be signed. | |
| 27 | Will the Small Business Runway Extension apply to this solicitation? | Small Business Runway Extension | The SBA has released their response on this matter, which states that until the SBA issues further direction, agencies will continue to use the previous standard of 3 years when determining size status. The SB Runway Extension Act amended 15 USC 632 where it describes an alternate path where other Federal agencies can prescribe a size standard for categorizing a business concern as a small business but that also requires public notice and SBA Administrator coordination. GSA lacks the authority to deviate from the SBA's current regulations, which specify a 3 year size standard, absent coordination and concurrence from the SBA. | |
| 28 | For representing small business size standards, will the OASIS on ramps be using the old 3 year average or the new 5 year average in accordance with Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018, which became law on Dec. 17, 2018? We believe GSA should be using the 5 year average in accordance with the new law, which modified the method for prescribing size standards for business concerns by amending Section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of the Small Business Act [15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II)] by striking “3 years” and inserting “5 years”. | A.1.3 Solicitation Notice & Section K (Attachment J.11) Representations and Certifications | The SBA has released their response on this matter, which states that until the SBA issues further direction, agencies will continue to use the previous standard of 3 years when determining size status. The SB Runway Extension Act amended 15 USC 632 where it describes an alternate path where other Federal agencies can prescribe a size standard for categorizing a business concern as a small business but that also requires public notice and SBA Administrator coordination. GSA lacks the authority to deviate from the SBA's current regulations, which specify a 3 year size standard, absent coordination and concurrence from the SBA. | |
| 29 | It is our understanding that FPDS-NG does not list "Exceptions" to their stated NAICS. How does an OASIS solicitor provide proof of a NAICS Exception (i.e. Pool 3: 541330, Exception A)? | L.5.1.2(a)(5)(a) NAICS Pools | All solicitations must identify a NAICS code and business size standard. This is the preferred documentation needed to substantiate Pool 3 qualification, otherwise, the Offeror must substantiate through other documentation that the project was in fact for one of the NAICS Exceptions under 541330. | |
| 30 | Since "each individual team member must submit complete representations and certifications in accordance with section K.1", do first-tier small business subcontractors utilize the J.11 template provided in the solicitation? If so, do they identify a COCM/COPM or leave that table on page 2 blank? Also, what naming convention should be used for subcontractor's reps & certs (e.g., ABC.VOL2.RC.subcontractor_name.pdf)? | Solicitation, Section L.5.1.10 (d) (page 83) | Subcontract members do not need to submit COCM/COPMs, this information is only used at the Prime contractor level. Your example for the naming convention would be acceptable. | |
| 31 | QUESTION #1: Can a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture be a member (as a subcontractor) of a Small Business Contract Team Arrangement (CTA) per FAR 9.601(b)? | Sec L.5.1.10 (a) & (b) | Yes. The previous restriction from the SB Pool 1 On-Ramping RFP against "combination" CTAs (e.g., a JV using first tier subcontractors, or a Prime using JVs as first tier subcontractors) has been eliminated from this revised RFP. An Offeror, whether it be a single entity, or a JV, may submit the experience projects of other small business concerns (to include JVs or single legal entity small business concerns) as relevant experience if the other small business concern is either (1) within the corporate structure of the Prime Offeror and a valid and compliant Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter is provided (Reference L.5.1.9), or (2) if the other small business is a small business first tier subcontractor of the Offeror and a valid and compliant CTA agreement between the Offeror and the first tier subcontractor is provided (reference L.5.1.10). | |
| 32 | In regard to the revised L.2 (l) requirement, does GSA consider OASIS SB and OASIS 8(a) to be different pools? For example: Company ABC plans to prime on only the 8(a) pool. ABC also joins Company XYZ's Prime/Sub CTA bid in the Small Business pool. Can ABC's Project 1 appear in both bids? | L.2.(l) | The SB Pools and 8(a) SubPools are separate and distinct, you may utilize the same project in SB Pool 1 that is utilized in 8(a) Pool 1 without penalty. | |
| 33 | In regard to the OASIS SB solicitation, what is GSA's plan to incorporate the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018 for determining size standards? | A.1.3.(b).1 | The SBA has released their response on this matter, which states that until the SBA issues further direction, agencies will continue to use the previous standard of 3 years when determining size status. The SB Runway Extension Act amended 15 USC 632 where it describes an alternate path where other Federal agencies can prescribe a size standard for categorizing a business concern as a small business but that also requires public notice and SBA Administrator coordination. GSA lacks the authority to deviate from the SBA's current regulations, which specify a 3 year size standard, absent coordination and concurrence from the SBA. | |
| 34 | 1. Is this ON Ramp for all Lateral and vertical On Ramps ? |
| GS00Q-13-DR-0002 -Lateral On-Ramp | No. The Lateral and Vertical On-Ramps, pursuant to OASIS SB contract sections H.15.1 and H.15.2, are only open to existing OASIS SB contractors. Those solicitations have been released via the OASIS SB closed InterAct community. This solicitation is an open season solicitation conducted pursuant to OASIS SB contract section H.15.3. |
| 35 |
Question: If awarded an OASIS contract, must all members of the CTA be included in each Task Order we bid?
| Reference L.5.1.19 – Contractor Team Arrangement – “Any Prime/Subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) Solicitation is limited to only First Tier Small Business Subcontractors as defined in 15 USC 632 (dd)(2) as a subcontractor who has a subcontract directly with the prime contractor. 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)). | No. Subcontracting at the task order level is at the discretion of the prime contractor. |
| 36 |
Question: We are using one of more Task Orders from an IDIQ contract, and a CPAR is only executed at the IDIQ level. If a Task Order is not clearly identifiable, can we use a Past Performance Reference?
| Reference L.5.4 (g) states that “A CPAR at the master IDIQ or BPA level can be used if no CPAR is available at the individual Task Order level as long as the CPAR: (1) includes the period of performance of the Task Order Project(s) awarded thereunder, and does not reference other Task Orders while excluding the Task Order Project(s) submitted, or (2) specifically references the Task Order Project(s) awarded thereunder. “ | If the Task Order is not clearly identifiable in the IDIQ level CPAR then the CPAR is only usable if the IDIQ level CPAR does not clearly identify any other task orders. |
| 37 |
Question: Can we use a Task Order under an IDIQ contract awarded to a Joint Venture if we are the Majority Partner of that JV?
| Reference L.5.3.1 states the Minimum Requirements for Primary Projects: | Only experience projects performed as the Prime contractor are submissible. An Offeror, whether it be a single entity, or a JV, may submit the experience projects of other small business concerns (to include JVs or single legal entity small business concerns) as relevant experience if the other small business concern is either (1) within the corporate structure of the Prime Offeror and a valid and compliant Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter is provided (Reference L.5.1.9), or (2) if the other small business is a small business first tier subcontractor of the Offeror and a valid and compliant CTA agreement between the Offeror and the first tier subcontractor is provided (reference L.5.1.10). |
| 38 |
Question: We are in the middle of a rating period and we know the Government is extremely happy with our performance, can we submit a Past Performance Rating Form in lieu of the previous CPAR?
| Reference: L.5.1.2(a) 4. Pool Qualification Projects “In accordance with Section l.5.4., the Offeror shall submit the most current Government issued Past Performance rating for each Pool Qualification Project” and L.5.4 (f) Volume 4 Past Performance | If a final CPAR or interim CPAR exists then it must be submitted. | ||
| 39 | We are current OASIS SB pool 1 vendor and planning to go for lateral on ramp for pool 3, is GS00Q13DR0002P1P3P4 RFP applicable for us? | GS00Q-13-DR-0002 -Lateral On-Ramp | No. The Lateral RFP is a separate solicitation which was posted October 19, 2018 and is available via the GSA OASIS SB closed InterAct community. |
| 40 | We had Amendment 1 for Lateral Ramp and due date was 19th December 2019, do we consider the same date or should follow GS00Q13DR0002P1P3P4 RFP due date ? | GS00Q-13-DR-0002 -Lateral On-Ramp | Refer to the Lateral On-Ramping RFP, and submit questions related to that RFP in accordance with the instructions contained in that RFP. |
| 41 | It is understood individual team members of a Joint Venture must submit reps and certs. Does the JV entity also need to submit reps and certs? In other words, does a JV Team consisting of two separate companies under one JV entity need to submit 2 sets of reps and certs, or 3 sets where the JV entity also submits? | RFP Page 83 Section L.5.1.10 Para. D.1 | Yes, L.5.1.10(d)1. has been updated to clarify this requirement. |
| 42 | Please let us know if the past performance questionnaire submitted for previous pool 1 submission is valid or do we have to get past performance filled again by the customer | Solicitation notice on FBO, #3 (b) All offers submitted in response to Pool 1 will need to be resubmitted under this amendment. | Offerors may re-use whatever forms they desire from the November 2018 on-ramp provided that the content is still valid and in accordance with the solicitation requirements as they are currently stated. Significant discrepancies between the documentation provided and the solicitation requirements may result in your ineligibility for award. However, minor discrepancies, such as the header of a document having the old solicitation number, does not need to be updated. A signed NAICS code change letter, for example, could be re-used without penalty. Past Performance questionnaires already submitted remain valid, unless a CPAR for the specific project has since been released, in which case the CPAR would take precedence over a Past Performance Questionnaire and shall be submitted in accordance with RFP section L.5.4(f). |
| 43 | Please let us know if this is applicable between Pool 1 and Pool 1 8(a) as 8(a) is a sub-pool of Pool 1. Can a vendor team with one vendor providing Project 1 for Pool 1 small business and with another vendor providing same project for Pool 1 8(a) | Section L.2 (i) - No Project, to include Pool Qualification projects, Relevant Experience Primary Projects, and Relevant Experience Secondary Projects, may be used in more than one proposal for each Pool submitted under this solicitation, except in accordance with L.2.9. | Pool 1 and SubPool 1 are considered separate "Pools." The same project can be submitted in response to SB Pool 1 and SubPool 1 without penalty. |
| 44 | Please let us know if Government will accept non-DoD contracts for Pool 3 Pool Qualification Project as long as they meet NAICS code and PSC code requirement. | Section L.5.1.2 | As long as the Offeror can demonstrate that the project meets one of the NAICS exceptions, the project would be considered acceptable. For example, a contract with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for engineering of aerospace equipment would be considered an acceptable project for Pool 3 provided the contract documentation submitted clearly demonstrates that scope of work. |
| 45 | As a new Joint Venture (JV), our JV will not be showing up in SBA Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) as under 8(a) program participant. We request Government to please remove the requirement to upload a PDF printout of the SBA Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) results associated with the Joint Venture’s DUNS number clearly demonstrating that the Joint Venture is a current participant in the 8(a) program as of the date of the Offeror’s initial offer as our Joint Venture is new and SBA will only approve us under 8(a) if the contract is awarded | L.5.1.10 (c) a | Note that this has been revised via amendment, as the original solicitation incorrectly stated that JV offerors were required to upload an entity-level Dynamic Small Business Search printout evidencing 8(a) program status. For JVs, the Offeror must upload a DSBS printout showing at least one of its individual members is an 8(a) program participant. |
| 46 | If an offeror is a current 8(a) small business with NO first-tier subcontractors, please confirm we are eligible for automatic flowdown to the 8(a) sub-pool and do NOT need to submit a separate 8(a) sub-pool proposal. | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP page 83, Section L.5.1.10. Contractor Team Arrangement. | You would be eligible for automatic flowdown and would not need to submit a separate proposal, however, this assumes you would receive a SB Pool award. The number of anticipated awards resulting from the 8(a) set aside competition (not subject to flow down) will result in an additional 30, 8, 20, 8, 8, and 8 awards for each SubPool (1, 2, 3, 4, 5B and 6), respectively. As such, GSA would recommend submitting a proposal in response to both solicitations, as the submission dates/requirements are similar and, in the event that you are not the top ranked offeror for the SB Pool, you would still have a chance to be one of the top tanked Offerors to the 8(a) SubPool and gain entry to the Pool via the competitive process. |
| 47 | Please confirm that wholly-owned subsidiaries and affiliates of a Native 8(a) parent company, per 13 CFR 124.110, are NOT considered subcontractors and do NOT require a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA). | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP page 83, Section L.5.1.10. Contractor Team Arrangement. | No, they would require Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters IAW solicitation section L.5.1.9. |
| 48 | Please confirm that the relevant experience and past performance of wholly-owned subsidiaries and affiliates of a Native 8(a) parent company are allowed in the proposal, as long as offerors include a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter (MRCL) describing the relationship and commitments within a Contractor’s internal corporate structure. | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP page 44, Section H.6.12. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, and RFP Page 81, Section L.5.1.9. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters. | This understanding is correct. |
| 49 | Please confirm that wholly-owned subsidiaries and affiliates of a Native 8(a) parent company with a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter (MRCL) are NOT subject to the Prime/Subcontractor Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) requirements of the RFP. | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP page 44, Section H.6.12. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, and RFP Page 81, Section L.5.1.9. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters. | This understanding is correct. |
| 50 | Paragraph (i) states Offerors shall use Adobe Sticky Notes to clearly identify each section/paragraph that corresponds to each minimum requirement and scored evaluation criteria being claimed. May Offerors use the yellow highlighting feature in Adobe in lieu of sticky notes to clearly identify each section/paragraph that corresponds to each minimum requirement and scored evaluation criteria? | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP Page 63, Section L.2. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES, paragraph (i) | No. See Solicitation section L.2 (h) and (i). Highlighting alone does not reveal what the selected text is attempting to provide evidence for, whereas the sticky notes provide further context. Adobe Sticky Notes must clearly identify each section/paragraph that corresponds directly to each minimum requirement and criteria being claimed. |
| 51 | Paragraph (e) states Offerors may provide a Table of Contents that serves as an overall guide to what files are included. Can GSA kindly provide the Table of Contents table from RFP Pages 68-74 in MS Word format? | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP page 68, Section L.4. PROPOSAL FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS, paragraph (e) | Offerors are welcome to convert the provided PDF solicitation to MS Word in order to extract the table of contents in Section L.4 or you may create your own. |
| 52 | We are an offeror that is a current 8(a) small business. We plan to use relevant experience and past performance from one of our subsidiaries/affiliates who recently graduated from the 8(a) program (non-8(a) member). Our subsidiary/affiliate was still an active 8(a) during a portion of the period of performance of the projects we’re citing. Are we, as a current 8(a) Prime contractor still eligible for automatic flowdown to the 8(a) sub-pool who does NOT need to submit a separate 8(a) sub-pool proposal? | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP page 83, Section L.5.1.10. Contractor Team Arrangement. | Such a company would still be eligible to flow down to the 8(a) SubPool, as the requirement regarding CTA members (e.g., first tier subcontractors) being current 8(a) participants is not applicable if utilizing the experience of a Meaningful Relationship within the corporate structure in accordance with section L.5.1.9 of the solicitation. |
| 53 | Section L.1 incorporates FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors, which provides requirements for the proper identification and marking of proprietary data. |
For convenience, relevant portion of this FAR clause is found below:
“(e) Restriction on disclosure and use of data. Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall—
(1) Mark the title page with the following legend:
This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed—in whole or in part—for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this offeror as a result of—or in connection with—the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and
(2) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:
"Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.
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.
| SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP page 63, Section L.2 (j) INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES, and Page 62, Section L.1 FAR 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998). | That is acceptable. | ||
| 54 | Please confirm that submission of the GSA Form 527 satisfies the requirement for compliance. | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP page 85, Section L.5.2.1 Financial Resources. | The GSA Form 527 is not the only required submission to demonstrate compliance with Section L.5.2.1. Reference solicitation section L.5.2.1(d)(3)(c). |
| 55 | Please clarify. Is it GSA’s intent to allow Offerors to submit Primary Experience Projects and Past Performance Projects for OASIS SB Pool 1 scoring using irrelevant NAICS Codes from OASIS Pools 2, 3, 4, and 5? This opens projects to those meeting any OASIS SB Pool NAICS Codes and Business Size Standards identified in Section L.5.3.2.1, not just those for Pool 1 (as in the original RFP). | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP page 111, Section M.5.1.1. Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects under an OASIS SB NAICS Code or PCS Code. | The original RFP allowed Offerors to receive up to an additional 750 points IAW section L.5.3.2.1 if the PSC or NAICS code corresponded to any of the OASIS SB codes, not just those for the specific Pool being applied to. This requirement remains unchanged for this On-Ramping solicitation, as GSA is required to use substantially the same evaluation factors as the original OASIS SB solicitation. Note that Pool Qualification projects must still correspond to the NAICS and/or PSC for the specific Pool. |
| 56 | Page 96 states that offerors, at their discretion, may submit a minimum of 2 Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects with Mission Spaces, and page 113 states that for each Relevant Experience (Secondary) Project submitted, the Offeror will receive points if the project involves multiple mission spaces, where project performed in at least 2 Mission Spaces is worth 50 points. |
Please clarify if the minimum requirement to earn points under this section is to have at least two Mission Spaces, and may be accomplished with 1 project.
-AND-
Please clarify if we need to submit a minimum of 2 projects to even be eligible for points, even though we are covering 3 Mission Areas under 1 project.
| SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-P1P3P4, RFP page 96, Section L.5.3.3.1. Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects with Mission Spaces, if submitted, para. (a), and RFP page 113, Section M.5.1.10, Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects with Mission Spaces, para. (a). | Section M.5.1.10 has been updated to clarify this requirement. As stated in L.5.3.3.1(a)3., "Each Project will only be given credit for a single Mission Space, based upon the awarding agency unless the awarding agency conducted the procurement on behalf of a customer agency," therefore it is only possible for each Project to receive credit for a single Mission Space. A minimum of two projects will be required to obtain points for Mission Spaces. | |||
| 57 | Are Offerors required to sign and return OASIS SB SF30 Amendment 0 with the proposal submission and. if so, in which volume should it be included and is there a preferred file name format? | Page 1, SF30, Amd 0 | Offerors do not need to sign each SF30 and submit with their proposal package. Offerors must acknowledge each amendment via the SF33 provided. If necessary you may attach a continuation page to the SF33 for additional amendment acknowledgements beyond what the SF33 allows. | |
| 58 | Section L.5.3.1 (a)(8)(f) states “Offeror shall provide the Contract or Task Order Award and all Modifications 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.” | |||
| Request that the Government confirm that offerors are ONLY required to provide the Task Order Award and/or modifications that are necessary to substantiate the claimed dollar values and periods of performance and are NOT required to provide every Task Order Award and Modification that was issued by the Government for the specified task order. | Page 90, Section L.5.3.1 (a)(8)(f). | This is confirmed. An administrative modification to change the Contracting Officer's Representative, for example, would not need to be included, if not necessary to demonstrate the total dollar value obligated or period of performance claimed. | ||
| 59 | RFP G.2.6 states, “The Contractor shall assign a Corporate OASIS SB Program Manager (COPM) and Corporate OASIS SB Contract Manager (COCM) as Contractor Key Personnel to represent the Contractor...” | |||
| Please confirm that offerors are not required to identify the COPM and COCM within their proposal submission. If the COPM and COCM must be identified, request additional guidance regarding submission requirements. | Page 28, Section G.2.6, first paragraph | Offerors need to assign these through Symphony. There are no minimum requirements on who can or should be the COCM or COPM, we are requesting the names/emails for COCMs and COPMs in order to streamline post award administration. These names may be changed at any point after award with a simple email request, no modification would be required. | ||
| 60 | RFP Section K.1(a) reads, “The Offeror shall submit Section J.11., Attachment (11), titled, “SECTION K REPRESENTATIONS AND |
CERTIFICATIONS”. No other format will be considered.” However, Section L.2(j), states, “Without changing its contents, Offerors may make minor formatting changes to Section K and Section J templates used in proposal submission.”
| Request that the Government confirm that, without changing its contents, offerors may make minor formatting changes to the Section K and Section J templates used in proposal submission. | Pages 62 and 63, Section K.1 Paragraph (a) and L.2 paragraph (j) | That is correct. |
| 61 | L.5.5.10 (c) specifies that “For each Offeror claiming credit for an FCL, verification will be done by OASIS SB Program Management Office.” | |
| Request clarification regarding the documentation required from offerors who claim credit for a Facility Clearance (FCL) and the volume in which it should be included. | Page 105, Section L.5.5.10 (c) | Offerors only need to claim credit for the applicable security clearance in Symphony. The verification will be done by GSA for each company who claims a security clearance. No documentation is required by the Offeror. |
| 62 | As of 04/29/19 at 6:54 PM, the FBO site reads, “4. Allow for submission of new offers for SB Pools 1, 3 & 4. |
a. This solicitation now will have two proposal submission dates applicable, please see Section L.3 for additional information.” Section L.3 (b) specifies, “This Solicitation closes and proposals are due on Jun 20th, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).”
We have only been able to locate one proposal submission date in RFP Section L.3 (Jun 20, 2019). Request the Government provide clarification regarding the two proposal submission dates that are referenced in FBO.
| Page 67, Section L.3 (b) and FBO site sub-paragraph 4.a | This was a typographical error which has since been corrected. There is only one proposal submission deadline as detailed in RFP Section L.3. | ||||
| 63 | Can you please confirm that it is acceptable to submit completed Past Performance Rating Forms (i.e., SECTION_J.8.,_ATT._(8)_Amd_3_OASIS_SB_PAST_PERFORMANCE_RATING_FORM_POOL_1_ON_RAMP.pdf) that were originally collected for the November 2018 submission? Having to reissue and collect the same information from our customers would place an undue burden on our customers as well as small business. | Page 100, Section L.5.4 Volume 4-Past Performance (a), 3, (a) – Past Performance Rating Form | Offerors may re-use whatever forms they desire from the November 2018 on-ramp provided that the content is still valid and in accordance with the solicitation requirements as they are currently stated. Significant discrepancies between the documentation provided and the solicitation requirements may result in your ineligibility for award. However, minor discrepancies, such as the header of a document having the old solicitation number, does not need to be updated. A signed NAICS code change letter, for example, could be re-used without penalty. Past Performance questionnaires already submitted remain valid, unless a CPAR for the specific project has since been released, in which case the CPAR would take precedence over a Past Performance Questionnaire and shall be submitted in accordance with RFP section L.5.4(f). | ||
| 64 | On December 17, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018, which amends the Small Business Act to require that the size of a federal contractor be measured by an average of five years—rather than three years—of revenue for the purpose of determining small business program eligibility. As you may also know, the Act did not have a specific effective date. As such, it is our understanding that the Act is presumed to be effective immediately under longstanding principles of statutory interpretation. In this connection, we would greatly appreciate it if you would kindly confirm that we are to apply the five-year—rather than the three-year—lookback period for purposes of measuring size in connection with this specific procurement. | Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form; A.1.3, (b)2. Pool 3, Oasis SB MA-IDIQ Contract | The SBA has released their response on this matter, which states that until the SBA issues further direction, agencies will continue to use the previous standard of 3 years when determining size status. The SB Runway Extension Act amended 15 USC 632 where it describes an alternate path where other Federal agencies can prescribe a size standard for categorizing a business concern as a small business but that also requires public notice and SBA Administrator coordination. GSA lacks the authority to deviate from the SBA's current regulations, which specify a 3 year size standard, absent coordination and concurrence from the SBA. | ||
| 65 | Companies A and B are both submitting proposals for Pool 1, and both agree to subcontract to each other via reciprocal CTA's. They swap one equivalent primary project reference each to improve each other's score. Both will include these references as part of their own submissions. Will Company A and B proposals be acceptable with shared references under their CTA’s? | Solicitation | 63 | L.2 (l) | No, in accordance with RFP section L.2(l): No Project, to include Pool Qualification projects, Relevant Experience Primary Projects, and Relevant Experience Secondary Projects, may be used in more than one proposal for each Pool submitted under this solicitation, except in accordance with L.2.9. Projects used in more than one proposal in a given Pool submitted under this solicitation will be removed from all proposals and will not be evaluated as part of any Offeror’s proposal. It is the Offeror’s sole responsibility to ensure that the Projects submitted as part of its proposal are not submitted in any other proposals. |
| 66 | If an Offeror proposes for multiple Pools under separate CTA's, can an Offeror use the same projects as references for each Pool submission? | Solicitation | 68 | L.3.1.(b) | Projects may not submitted more than once for a specific Pool IAW Section L.2(l). For example, regardless of who the Offeror is, a project can appear in an Offer for Pool 1, and in a separate proposal for Pool 3, without being removed. However, if the same project is submitted under Offeror A's Pool 1 proposal and Offeror B's Pool 1 proposal, the project would be removed from both proposals and will not be evaluated as part of either Offeror's proposal. |
| 67 | With reference to the Proposal Format Table, please confirm that L.5.4 items are to be included in Volume 4 (per their labeling) and L.5.5.1 items in Volume 5 (per their labeling). | Solicitation | 72 | L4 | The solicitation has been updated to clarify this. |
| 68 | If an 8(a) Prime offeror proposes to submit under GSOOQ-13-DR-0002 with a subcontractor via a CTA, are all members of the Prime/Subcontractor CTA required to be 8(a) members? |
Also, if a non-8(a) SB Prime offeror proposes to submit under GSOOQ-13-DR-0002 with a subcontractor via a CTA, are all members of the Prime/Subcontractor CTA required to be non-8(a) members?
| Solicitation | 83 | L.5.1.10 | When responding to the SB Pools 1/3/4 RFP, all members of an 8(a) Offeror's CTA are not required to be 8(a) members, however, the 8(a) Offeror would be ineligible for automatic inclusion into the 8(a) SubPool, as all members of a Prime/Subcontractor CTA must be eligible 8(a) concerns in order to be accepted into the SubPool. If a non-8(a) SB Prime Offeror proposed to submit under the SB Pools 1/3/4 RFP, all members of the Prime/Subcontractor CTA are NOT required to be non 8(a) members (i.e., it's permissible to include 8(a) subcontractors in a non-8(a) Offeror's SB Pool proposal). | ||
| 69 | The Offeror’s Self-Score will be automatically calculated through Symphony. Section J.5 is provided only for informational purposes. Does Symphony provide a score to Offerors at the end of the document upload/submission session? | General | 78 | L.5.1.4 (a) | Symphony provides a "live score" as proposal information is entered. |
| 70 | Will the Symphony system generate a preliminary score at the time of Offeror's submissions? |
This information would be a useful cross-check for the Offerors (their self-scoring vs. Government scoring). This would also assist the Offerors in identifying discrepancies and/or items removed from consideration during the Government's evaluation. At what point will Offerors receive the system's final tabulated score?
| General | J.19 | Symphony provides a "live score" as proposal information is entered. | |
| 71 | In M.3 it states that the OASIS SB evaluation team will perform a two-step screening process for all offers received; verifying that all supporting documents exist and how that compares to the Offeror’s Self Scoring. In L.5.1.4. Self-Scoring Calculation (p. 78) however, paragraph (a) states "the Offeror’s Self-Score will be automatically calculated through Symphony”. This being the case, there is no actual self-scoring. It is replaced with government-scoring. Is a pre-evaluation score provided to the Offeror at the end of uploading documents through Symphony? |
Since scoring is performed by Symphony, and not the Offeror, shouldn't the term 'self-scoring' as in M.3 and all similar references be replaced with 'Symphony-scoring' or ‘government-scoring’?
| Solicitation | 107 | M.3 (a) | The "government scoring" is based on options selected by the Offeror within Symphony, so although the system calculates what that score is, it is derived entirely on data input from the Offeror. For example, an Offeror may claim points associated with 6 core disciplines, but upon examination by the Government, it is determined that only 4 core disciplines are met. The "Government score" would deduct points from the Offeror's system-generated self-score based on them having selected the option associated with higher level scoring than was actually demonstrated. | |
| 72 | 1. | With respect to Solicitation Section L.5.1.10(c)1.a., since SBA does not approve 8(a) joint ventures for admission to the 8(a) program, we assume that the reference to “current participant in the 8(a) program” refers to the 8(a) participant in a joint venture that is approved by SBA prior to award under 13 CFR 124.513. Is that correct? | Section L.5.1.10(c)1.a. | This is correct. Note that this has been revised via amendment, as the original solicitation incorrectly stated that JV offerors were required to upload an entity-level Dynamic Small Business Search printout evidencing 8(a) program status. For JVs, the Offeror must upload a DSBS printout showing at least one of its individual members is an 8(a) program participant. |
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. Updated .