HCaTS RFP Q A Part 2.pdf

Date Question Answer

9/4/2015 In Attachment J2, row 65 and 66, the column to enter the document and file names are blacked out. Will the government provide a corrected form? Please identify where in the checklist offerors should include the completed Attachment(s) J.9, J.12.1, .2, .3 and .4, if applicable.

Fixed in Amendment A01.

9/4/2015 (J2) Please identify where in the checklist offerors should include the completed Attachment(s) J.9, J.12.1, .2, .3 and .4, if applicable.

Should the CPARS, and/or Attachment J.6, Past Performance Substitute Form, be included in response to “Past Performance Rating” section for each REP in Volume 2 and also in Volume 3?

It seems that the form does not have adequate space to document all proposal submission requirements. For example for Volume 3, L.5.3.1 PPIRS seems to have space for a maximum of 4 entries, Volume 2/3 L.5.3.3 Meeting/Exceeding Subcontracting Goals seems to have space for a maximum 6 entries. Request the form be corrected, or further instructions for document submission documents be provided.

Fixed in Amendment A01 and A03.

9/4/2015 In Attachment J2 rows 67, 98, 129, 160, 191, 222 are labeled with REP# for Pool1, Pool2 REPs are similarly numbered. What information should contractor’s include in columns designated Document Name and Filename for those rows?

The filenames and document names shall be in accordance with Section L.4.1.

9/4/2015 In the Attachments J.12.3 and 12.4:

Question 9 drop down list allows only for selection of the Pool NAICS Code. Request that the attachment drop be corrected to include an option for “other” since the RFP allows 2 of the six REPs to be other than the Pool NAICS codes (RFP pg 128).

Question 13, the form content the form content for the TOs is corrupted, seems to default to the value selected for TO 2, not able to select a different value for other TOs.

Question 16 form field for total period of performance defaults to “$”

Fixed in Amendment A01.

9/4/2015 (J.12.1 and J.12.2) Question 3 drop down lists, the first drop down allows for two overlapping projects, however the second drop down list allows for selection of one project

Fixed in Amendment A01.

HCaTS Request for Proposal (RFP) FAQ

9/8/2015 ( Section L.5.3.3 Page 138) Please clarify meets or exceeds "Total" small business percentage goals. Is this meeting/exceeding the one overall Small Business goal or all 6 of the small business goals (overall SB goal plus each of the 5 major subcategories - SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB)?

IAW L.5.3.3, "total" small business for purposes of this scoring element includes all small business socio-economic subgroups combined.

9/8/2015 (Re-submit of Qs)

1. Please give answering this question high priority, as this issue has very significant impact on how bidders, many of whom are TMA incumbents, organize and present their Relevant Experience Projects.

Over the years, OPM contracting has organized work under the TMA vehicle in various ways, each of which could be considered a “project.”

We request that GSA review these examples of the various ways OPM TMA has structured “projects,” and in consultation with OPM Contracts staff, confirm that each of these configurations is a single project for HCaTS evaluation purposes. For instance:

- One management plan, more than one task order, one project code

– Is this one “project” for HCaTS purposes?

- One management plan, more than one task order, more than one project code– Is this one “project” for HCaTS purposes?

- One management plan, one task order, one project code– Is this one “project” for HCaTS purposes?

Section L.5.2. sets forth the parameters for a permissible "collection of task orders" submission for a Relevant Experience Project. In the scenaio you have described, an Offeror would be permitted to:

- Utilize up to six individually awarded task orders (e.g. Form 347s) associated to the one project code to form one "collection of task orders" so long as those Form 347 awards meet the requirements set forth in Section L.5.2.

- Utilize up to six individually awarded task orders (e.g. Form 347s) associated to one project code to form one "collection of task orders" so long as those Form 347 awards meet the requirements set forth in Section L.5.2 (NOTE: IAW the definition provided at L.5.2 in this example, the "collection of task orders" must have been placed under a master contract vehicle (e.g., Project Number/Title) so only those task orders associated to one Project Code could be utilized); or

-Utilize the one awarded task order (e.g. Form 347s) associated to the one project code and one mangement plan to form one Relevant Experience Project.

9/8/2015 (Re-submit of Qs) 2. Some clients have informed us that their internal Agency policy prevents them from providing a Past Performance evaluation. In one case the Agency does not permit employees to complete any Past Performance evaluations, and in another the Agency allows employees to complete Past Performance evaluations only if they are submitting them directly to the government.

These policies will have a significant negative impact on our proposal submission. Can you please provide guidance regarding how GSA would like contractors to proceed when such Agency policies arise?

GSA cannot comment on individual Federal agency capacity for Offeror-requested form completion.

9/8/2015 Attachment J.12.4 Pool 2-Collection of Task Orders --- Question 13 requires vendors to indicate from a drop-down list the number of KSAs under each task order. When the answer is chosen for Task Order 1, that same answer is automatically populated in the Task Order 4 area.

When choosing the answer for Task Order 2, Task Area 3, 5, and 6 are automatically populated with that answer. Indicating a different answer in another Task Area box changes other answers. Will the government kindly consider reissuing this form so that vendors are able to respond accurately?

Fixed in Amendment A01.

9/9/2015 Can you please provide when the responses will be provided (and where), and well as if additional questions can be asked?

HCaTS responses to questions received by August 28, 2015 5:00pm were posted in the corrected version in Amendment A02 on September 24, 2015. Questions received after the August 28th deadline are to be answered at the Contracting Officer's discretion.

9/9/2015 We noticed that your Attachment J.8 referenced what appears to be hourly rates for the various labor categories. We have the following questions for clarification:

1. Concerning your Attach. J.8 Rates: We assume the rates do not have any loading factors applied such as G&A, etc? If this is the case, should we provide rates that are unloaded in order for a comparison to be made between your rate range and our proposed rates?

2. Concerning your rates: What geographic location are your rates based on?

3. If you want proposed rates to be fully loaded, how are you going to compare our loaded rates to your unloaded (Direct) rates?

1.The Offeror shall only provide fully burdened labor rates on Attachment J.7.

2. The direct labor rate ranges provided in Attachment J.8 cover

CONUS.

3.Offeror's fully burdened rates will be determined fair and reasonable in accordance with Section M.7.

9/11/2015 Reference: Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form); Page 4; Section II-C. Task Order Numbers

Question: The fields in Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form); Page 4; Section II-C. Task Order Numbers are limited to 10 characters. Given that task order numbers often contain many more than 10 characters, would the Government consider revising the Attachment to remove the character limit from the fields in question? If this is not possible, would the Government consider allowing an addendum to the form for those Offerors attempting to reference task order numbers longer than 10 characters?

Fixed in Amendment A01.

9/15/2015 Attachment J.12.1 (Relevant Experience Projects Supplemental Form Pool 1) and Attachment J.12.2 (Relevant Experience Projects Supplemental Form Pool 2):

In “Section L Pool Summary,” question 3a allows the offeror to pick that there are 2 REPs that overlap Pool 1 and 2, but in 3b, the offeror must specify which REPs overlap and there is only one drop down box so the offeror can only pick one REP.

9/15/2015

Attachment J.12.1 (Relevant Experience Projects Supplemental Form Pool 1) and Attachment J.12.2 (Relevant Experience Projects Supplemental Form Pool 2) In “Section L Pool Summary,” question 3a allows the offeror to pick that there are 2 REPs that overlap Pool 1 and 2, but in 3b, the offeror must specify which REPs overlap and there is only one drop down box so the offeror can only pick one REP.

Fixed in Amendment A01.

9/15/2015 I am writing to inquire about using a grant-funded past performance example, where the work was completed at a federal agency. For example, we have a 5+ year initiative at a cabinet-level agency, where the work (HR consulting, training, coaching, etc.) is entirely funded by a private foundation. Therefore, there is no CPARS rating, etc. Is this work eligible to use as a past performance example in our HCaTS submission? If so, will it be rated lower than an example that is funded by a federal agency? Would we simply need to follow the instruction on page 137, section L.5.3.2 in the RFP? Would there be any other required documentation in order to submit this as a past performance example?

IAW L.5.2, the definition of Relevant Experience Projects relevant to this example limits experience to a single contract as set forth in FAR Section 2.101 which sets forth that contracts do not inlcude grants or cooperative agreements. Thus, your example would not qualify as a valid Relevant Experience Project.

9/16/2015 Many relevant experience projects have supporting documentation that our clients consider internally sensitive. Will GSA confirm that sensitive documentation may be submitted, so long as the documentation was provided to a Government agency as a project deliverable, and labeled accordingly?

Confirmed.

9/16/2015 Attachment J.6 requests the evaluator to include the contract number.

For contracts with no assigned contract numbers, can we assume that it is acceptable if the client returned the form with “not applicable” or “N/A” in that field?

No; a contract number shall be supplied as set forth at L.5, Item No. 5.

9/16/2015 Reference: Attachment J.9 (Collection of Task Order Confirmation Form); Page 1; Section II-B-1-Award Date and Page 2; Section III-Date (mm/dd/yy) Question: The field for “Award Date” for Task Order number 1 on page 1 of Attachment J.9 (Collection of Task Order Confirmation Form) is linked to the field for “Date” on page 2 of the attachment and the same date appears in both fields. There is no way to separate the fields or use Adobe tools such as typewriter or text box because the document is secured. Would the Government consider revising the attachment to avoid confusion and potential inaccuracies?

9/16/2015 Reference: Page 104 of the Proposal Format Table in Section L.4.1 and Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2 Question: Rows 2 and 3 on Page 104 of the Proposal Format Table in Section L.4.1 provide example file names for Attachment J.5.1 and J.5.2 using a .xlsm format. However, Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2 were provided in .xlsx format. Please confirm Offerors should submit Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2 in the .xlsx format.

Fixed in Amendment A01.

9/16/2015 Reference: Page 106 of the Proposal Format Table in Section L.4.1 and Attachment J.7 Question: The last row on Page 106 of the Proposal Format Table in Section L.4.1 provides an example file name for Attachment J.7 using a .xls format. However, Attachment J.7 was provided in a .xlsx format. Please confirm Offerors should submit Attachment J.7 in the .xlsx format.

Fixed in Amendment A01.

9/16/2015 Reference: Page 111 Section L.5.1.5, Modified Pre-Award Survey and Attachment J.3 Question: Section L.5.1.5, Modified Pre-Award Survey, Second Paragraph on Page 111 states that the SF1408 shall be signed by the individual responsible for the design of the Offeror’s accounting system. However, Attachment J.3 does not include a section for the signature. Please clarify if the signature is required on the SF1408 and if so, where on the form Offeror’s shall include the signature.

Requirements for SF1408 will be removed in Amendement A03.

9/16/2015 Reference: Task Order 5 Phone and E-Mail Fields under Question 7 of Section I in Attachments J.12.3 and J.12.4. Question: Text entered into the Phone and E-Mail Fields for the Primary Reference auto-populates the text in the Phone and E-Mail Fields for the Alternate Reference so that the two entries are identical and vice versa. Can the government please revise the form to correct the fields or confirm that hand written pen-and ink changes will be acceptable.

Fixed in Amendment A01.

9/16/2015 Page 136 L.5.3.1 - PAST PERFORMANCE (PPIRS INFORMATION

EXISTS)

If a project preformed under an IDIQ or single award BPA does not have a CPARS report for it, can the IDIQ contract CPARS be used?

Yes, Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) that covers the specific task order and its full period of performance may be submitted if CPARS information only exists at the master (base) IDIQ or BPA contract level.

9/16/2015 1. What should prospective offerors do if OPM completed a J10 form but did not update the NAICS code section on the corresponding J6?

(P. 5 of the HCATS Vendor Past Performance Evaluation Instructions dated 6/25/2015 instructed that block IID should initially reflect the NAICS code as awarded on the Task Orders, that we should also attach a J10, and that OPM would “update” the J6 appropriately.)

The prescribed order of precendence set forth at L.5.2.1 shall apply. See L.5.2.1, page 125, which sets forth, "This order of precedence applies unless a duly warranted Contracting Officer responsible for the Relevant Experience Project submits an Attachment J.10 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) that indicates the NAICS Code that they select in Attachment J.10 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) represents the preponderance of work performed."

9/16/2015 2. Several years ago, OPM changed its financial system from Protrac to CBIS. During the transition, all projects/task orders/etc. were automatically given new project codes by OPM mid-project.

Therefore, contractual documentation relating to these projects will comprise multiple task orders or project codes. This was an administrative exercise and the projects were not recompeted at that time. Should prospective offerors provide this explanation on all affected Relevant Experience Projects? If not, how does GSA want us to handle these projects?

Yes; IAW the "Instructions" Tab on J.2, Offerors may elect to utilize the "Explanation - If Neccessary" (Column P) to provide this information.

9/17/2015 We are preparing response for the HCaTS opportunity and needs assistance regarding the preparation of Attachment J.12.4.

Specifically, we are having an issue with the response fields in question 13. When selecting a response under a task order field, the field directly across automatically updates to the same answer (Example: Task Order 1 and Task Order 4 appear linked) Will GSA provide an updated form or provide guidance on how to correct the issue? Please advise at your earliest convenience.

9/17/2015 When do you plan to release answers to RFP questions?

We ask because, although the proposals are due 16 October, OPM (per Kenneth Munson’s email to TMA vendors on 30 July 2015) requires that all industry requests related to Relevant Project Experience be submitted to OPM three weeks before the closing date of the HCaTS RFP – which would be in six business days, by next Friday, September 25.

Many industry questions request additional direction and clarification on acceptable methods of presenting specifically OPM TMA work – for instance, is all work associated with a management plan considered a single project, even if it includes multiple task orders (as was the case in the prior TMA contracts), or does such work need to be presented as a collection of task orders? If the latter, this would apply to all TMA work carried out under the prior TMA contract. This has major implications for how bidders organize and present their Relevant Project Experience, and effectively limits bidders to presenting only two OPM TMA projects conducted prior to 2011, when the bridge contract was put into place.

Thus, you can understand why we ask that the HCATS Q&A be released in the next few days, or an extension be considered.

HCaTS responses to questions received by August 28, 2015 5:00pm were posted in the corrected version in Amendment A02 on September 24, 2015. Questions received after the August 28th deadline are to be answered at the Contracting Officer's discretion.

9/18/2015 "The form J.9 has fields for TO 1 Award Date (B.1) and signature date of the Contracting Officer. When a date is entered in one of the fields, the same date automatically populates in the other date field. Hence, the Award Date of TO 1 and the date the CO signed the J.9 are linked fields"... Will the Government please correct the J.9 template to enable the two fields, “TO Award Date” and the “Date Signed by the Contracting Officer” to be independent of one another and accept unique entries? .

FIxed in Amendment A01.

9/18/2015 We are in the process of completing the Modified Preaward Survey (SF 1408) and having difficulty inserting our comments regarding our accounting system in the boxes provided. Can you please distribute a SF1408 that is not secure so we can provide the information that is requested?

Requirements for SF1408 will be removed in Amendement A03.

9/21/2015 Can GSA provide an update and/or an estimate of when interested offerors should expect to see an amendment providing answers to previously submitted questions?

HCaTS responses to questions received by August 28, 2015 5:00pm were posted in the corrected version in Amendment A02 on September 24, 2015. Questions received after the August 28th deadline are to be answered at the Contracting Officer's discretion.

9/22/2015 We have reviewed Amendment 1 to the HCaTS RFP and found Attachment J.12.2 – Relevant Experience Projects Supplemental Form Pool 2, Question 6 in Section II contains an error. The drop down list to select the NAICS code that applies for the relevant experience project has the Pool 1 NAICS codes, not Pool 2. It is incorrect for all of the six relevant experience projects.

9/23/2015 In the recently released Q&As, page 60, Q: L.5.2 - Volume II (Pool Application and Certification) pg. 122 Please confirm that a task as part of a collection of task orders can be concurrent and not a follow on task order. For example, Task 1 has a period of performance of October 15 - December 15. Task 2 has a period of performance of November 1 - December 15. The tasks are related but not necessarily follow-on.

A: In order for the task orders to represent logical follow-on services to a predeccessor task order, the start date of each successor task order must start after the end date of the predeccessor task order. An Offeror cannot utilize task orders that overlap in period of performance for purposes of establishing a "collection of task orders".

Clients in order to prevent a break in service or having a need to obligate funding so they do not to lose it, often award the follow-on task order prior to the end of the POP of the previous task order. Thus it is not unusual for the CO to issue a follow on task order award that has an overlap POP with the previous task order. For example Task Order #1 might be to conduct focus groups, with a PoP of Aug. 1 – Aug. 31.

Task Order #2 could be to conduct analysis and develop an “As Is” model, with a PoP of Aug. 20 – Sept. 30. It is reasonable to expect that if the first deliverable is completed prior to Aug 31 Task 2 would start prior to the official end of, and overlap with Task 1.

L.5.2 clearly states (numbered 1 – 7) the restrictions that apply to a “collection of task orders” and there was no mention that task orders could not overlap in period of performance. This is a significant change requiring vendors to potentially find 4 new past performance projects. We respectfully request that an offeror be allowed to utilize task orders that overlap in a period of performance for purposes of establishing a “collection of task orders”.

Correction of original answer provided in Amendment A02.

Task orders' periods of performance may be concurrent

9/23/2015 Reference: Amendment 1 Q&A page 56 - Last Q&A on page Question: The Government's response reads, "In accordance with the calculation parameters set forth at L.5.2.4.3, the total annual project value for a completed 6 month task order awarded for $5M would be determined as follows: $5M (total obligated dollars) divided by 6 months (total number of months of performance) multiplied by 12 for a total project value of $10M." This would suggest that the Government intends to give credit for $10M to a contract only awarded in the amount of $5M. The application of this methodology within the HCaTS scoring environment would enable Offerors with relevant experience projects with periods of performance of less than a year to artificially inflate their scores. Please confirm that the Government intends to give credit for funding in excess of the contracted award value based on the methodology in the Q&A.

Confirmed; calculation shall be based on the methodology as set forth at L.5.2.4.3.

9/23/2015 HCaTS Amendment 01 - Attachments J.12.2 and Attachment J.12.4 are for projects under Pool 2. The allowable NAICS list in J.12.2 Section II Q6 and J.12.4 Q9 is not accurate for Pool 2. Please provide these Attachment with the corrected NAICS list for Pool 2.

Fixed in Amendment A02.

9/23/2015 Q: The RFP Accreditations section states that – “An award matrix will be published in the HCaTS PMO website publicizing which accreditations Contractors incorporated in their contract.” It is requested that the Government advise if it is their intent to publish this information on a public website or on an internal site available only to the Government (including OCOs).Most companies would consider this data to be proprietary; accordingly, it is requested that this information not be posted publicly. (p. 58) A; Yes, the Government intends on publicizing all Contractor's accreditations on a publically available website. Offerors are advised that by submitting a proposal in response to the HCaTS RFP, they are accepting all terms and conditions as prescribed therein (to include publication requirements such as with accreditations held) which shall be incorporated into the resulting contracts.

FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS:

1. Does the “Accreditation Matrix” include the all the systems and certifications in Volume 4, Accreditations, such as the Estimating System, Approved Purchasing System, FPRA/FPRR/Approved Billing Rates, EVMS certification, ISO 9001 certification, and ISO 97001 certification?

2. Does the matrix include the existence of these certifications and systems, or the actual artifacts themselves?

1. Yes.

2. Copies of the accreditations themselves will not be published in the matrix.

9/23/2015 We have discovered that the amended J.12.2 and J.12.4 for both HCaTS SB and HCaTS have the incorrect pool NAICS codes in them.

Can you please revise the form and provide another amendment?

J. 12.2 questions #6 for all references

J.12.4 question #9

Fixed in Amendment A02.

9/24/2015 We continue to experience issues with our DUNS number starting in “0” to appear properly in row 11 in Attachment J.2, row 10 in Attachment J.4, and row 8 in Attachment J.5.2. It appears J.7 Is functioning properly. We request that you acknowledge that a comment in J.2 regarding the files is sufficient, or provide revised excel attachments J.2, J.4, and J.5 that recognize a number starting in 0, as either a number or as text.

These attachments were corrected to allow for DUNS Numbers that start with a 0 in Amendment A01. The HCaTS team has confirmed that the Attachments released in Amendment A01 are functioning properly. Download the most current version of the attachments from FBO.gov.

9/24/2015 I have a question regarding the opportunity: Human Capital and Training Solutions Small Business (HCaTS SB) (GS02Q15CRR0002).

How do we identify the differences between the HCaTS SB and HCaTS Contract Vehicles. Is there a repository to provide all the required documents for these opportunities? Please advise

Questions pertaining to the Solicitation GS02Q15CRR0002 shall be addressed to the apropriate inbox as set forth in Section L.3.5 of that Solicitation.

9/24/2015 Attachment_J.12.2_(Relevant_Experience_Projects_Supplemental_Fo rm_Pool_2)_Amendment_01.pdf (attached) has only Pool 1 NAICS codes in Section II, #6 of each Relevant Experience Project. The same error appears on Attachment_J.12.4_(Pool_2- Collection_of_Task_Orders).pdf (also attached) in Section I, #9.

Fixed in Amendment A02.

9/24/2015 The updated form “Attachment_J.12.2_(Relevant _Experience_Projects_Supplemental_Form_Pool_2)_Amendment 1.pdf” only has the Pool 1 NAICS codes available in the item 6 drop-down box for each of the “Section II. Relevant Experience Project XXXX.” Will the HCaTS PMO correct this form to enable selection of Pool 2-relevant NAICS codes?

Fixed in Amendment A02.

9/24/2015 Reference the Government’s answer that stated “the Government intends to publicize labor rates awarded at the task order level within GSA’s Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW).”

Please confirm that the Government will be publicizing task order labor rates within the Government only, and will not be making labor rates available to the general public / contracting community. Task order prices are highly sensitive and proprietary, and are reflective of pricing strategy and go-to-market data that is confidential to each firm

Yes, the Government intends on publicizing task order level labor rates on the EDW website. Offerors are advised that by submitting a proposal in response to the HCaTS RFP, they are accepting all terms and conditions as prescribed therein (to include publication requirements such as with task order level pricing) which shall be incorporated into the resulting contracts.

9/24/2015 Reference the Government’s answer stating that they will publicize all Contractor’s accreditations on a publicly available website.

Contractor accreditations are confidential and proprietary. Making this information public causes competitive harm: This information, in the hands of competitors, has the potential to impact many other contracting opportunities Government-wide, as it would inform competitors about whether a Contractor is qualified to bid, how they may score technically, and whether they may receive award for opportunities that require or score these certifications. Please reconsider the publication of contractor accreditations to a publicly available website.

Yes, the Government intends on publicizing all Contractor's accreditations on a publicaly available website. Offerors are advised that by submitting a proposal in response to the HCaTS RFP, they are accepting all terms and conditions as prescribed therein (to include publication requirements such as with accreditations held) which shall be incorporated into the resulting contracts.

9/24/2015 For Amendment 1 1.) RPF Amendment 1; Page 136; L.5.2.4.2.:

The RFP requires that for a relevant experience project to be considered a Federal project, the Agency must follow the FAR. While Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is not required to follow the FAR, it has voluntarily elected to follow the FAR. Please confirm REPs for PBGC will be considered Federal projects.

No, this will be considered a Non-Federal government Relevant Experience Project.

9/24/2015 2.) Q&A Amendment 1; Page 16, Q1: We ask GSA to reconsider allowing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) projects to be considered Federal projects. FAA follows the Acquisition Management System (AMS) which closely resembles the FAR’s governing framework and many clauses are very similar.

No, this will be considered a Non-Federal government Relevant Experience Project.

9/24/2015 3.) Form J.12.4 Amendment 1; Page 3; #9: The drop down menu in this form lists only the NAICS for Pool 1. Please revise to provide NAICS for Pool 2.

Fixed in Amendment A02.

9/25/2015 Our firm intends to submit proposals in response to both HCaTS and HCaTS SB. Must we submit separate versions of Attachment J.6 (HCaTS Past Performance Substitute Form) in response to each solicitation? The forms are identical with exception to the header and introductory paragraphs which differ only in the reference to HCaTS or HCaTS SB. In order to reduce the burden on our clients, we hope GSA will consider allowing submission of either form under both solicitations.

Separate versions as required under HCaTS and HCaTS SB shall be utilized as set forth in the respective Solicitation.

9/25/2015 Would the government please clarify, the J.6 Form (Amendment 01) states, “The Assessing Official shall be an individual who has direct knowledge of the contract, task order, or purchase order and be authorized to provide the rating. For US Federal contracts, task orders or purchase orders, the Assessing Official shall have been a Federal government employee at time of contract, task order or purchase order performance.”

Can we assume that the statement referencing US Federal contracts would be the same standard for non-Federal contracts?

Signature by the Assessing Official on J.6 signifies the individual has complied with all requirements of the Form (including authorization and ability to act in the capacity of an Assessing Official). Nothing further is required from the Offeror.

9/25/2015 Reference: HCaTS_SF_30_Amendment_02 and HCaTS_RFP_Amendment_02

Question: Item 8 of the Amendment 2 SF 33 instructs Offerors to submit offers to “General Services Administration/Federal Acquisition Service c/o Ms. Kimberlee Wallentine, HCaTS Contracting Officer.”

However, page 100 of the Amendment 2 RFP and page 7 of the Amendment 2 SF 30 instruct Offerors to submit offers to “Attn: Gail Schneider, Jimmy Hahn or Nasim Lashaninejad.” In addition, the SF 33 appears to allow hand delivery since there is an address in the corresponding field of item 9. We request that the Government clarify to whom, at what address, and in what manner offers should be submitted to ensure compliance and timely delivery.

The RFP will be amended to provide clarification.

9/25/2015 We discovered errors in the self-scoring worksheets, Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2. The scores for exceeding small business goals for the relevant experience projects do not subtotal or get included in the total points scored at the bottom of the sheet. This error is in both spreadsheets for Amendment 1 issued earlier this week.

Corrected J.5.1 and J.5.2 will be provided via Amendment A03.

9/25/2015 Attachment_J.5.1_(HCaTS_Self_Scoring_Worksheet_Pool_1)_Amend ment_01.xlsx The form provided as part of Amendment 0001 does not compute the Subtotal Score for Section L.5.3.3 anymore. Consequently, a vendor’s total score is not calculated accurately. The formula is in a locked cell and cannot be altered by vendors. Please provide a corrected version of this form.

Corrected J.5.1 and J.5.2 will be provided via Amendment A03.

9/28/2015 Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2, to Amendment 01, have a formula problem; cell E83 does not sub-total the relevant rows above. Will GSA please provide corrected attachments?

Corrected J.5.1 and J.5.2 will be provided via Amendment A03.

9/28/2015 Does GSA require that the Offerors sign and submit HCaTS Amendments with the proposal submission, or will it suffice that the Amendments be acknowledged on the SF33? Also, on the assumption there could be more than 4 Amendments, will GSA allow Offerors to acknowledge the Amendments on one line – for example, “Amendments 1-6” (and include date of submission).

In accordance with L.5.1.1, if any amendments to the solicitation are issued, the Offeror shall acknowledge each amendment number and date in Block 14 on the SF 33.

9/28/2015 Based on previously identified issues with Forms J.5.1, J.5.2, and J.2, it is assumed that GSA will be updating these forms. Please advise.

Corrected J.5.1 and J.5.2 will be provided via Amendment A03.

9/29/2015 Attachment_J.12.3, Section I, question 9 “What NAICS Code, if any, was the master contract or BPA awarded under for this Relevant Experience Project”? The drop down box does not record the NAICS code selection when selected. When I click on the NAICS code and proceed to the next question it resets it back to “Select”.

The HCaTS team has tested the Attachment J.12.3 that was released via Amendment A01 and has confirmed that it is properly functioning. Download the most current version of the attachments from FBO.gov.

9/29/2015 Reference: HCaTS_RFP_Amendment_02; Section L.4.1; Page 102 Question: There is neither volume number nor example file name provided for the SF 30 for Amendments 1 and 2 to the solicitation. We request that the Government provide instruction for completion and inclusion of the SF 30s. We suggest language to include:

“Each SF 30 provided as a part of a published amendment shall be signed by a person authorized to commit the Offeror and included in proposal Volume 1. Files shall be named as follows:

· Amendment 1 SF 30: ABC.VOL1.SF331.pdf

· Amendment 2 SF 30: ABC.VOL1.SF332.pdf

· Any further SF 30s published as part of an Amendment shall be numbered sequentially.”

In accordance with L.5.1.1, if any amendments to the solicitation are issued, the Offeror shall acknowledge each amendment number and date in Block 14 on the SF 33.

9/29/2015 1.) We appreciate GSA’s decision to allow related task orders with concurrent period of performances to be submitted as part of a collection of task orders. Due to this significant change—published on September 28—we will need to resubmit the Past Performance Substitute Forms to our clients. We request GSA extend the due date to October 23 to allow us to sufficiently address this change

Amendment A03 will provide proposal submission deadline extension information as applicable.

9/29/2015 Will the Government allow Offerors to point to contractual documentation/evidence (i.e., Monthly Status Report, page 3) via the Comments feature? Adding location indicators to supporting documentation will expedite the Government's time in locating the substantiating evidence.

Yes; IAW the "Instructions" Tab on J.2, Offerors may elect to utilize the "Explanation - If Neccessary" (Column P) to provide this information.

9/30/2015 Form J6 states that “if the Contractor performed work on the contract, task order, or purchase order as a first tier subcontractor, the Assessing Official shall have been an individual of the prime contractor who has direct knowledge and is authorized to provide the rating. If the Assessing Official is no longer with the prime contractor, who shall they be authorized by to provide the rating, is the Offeror required to demonstrate this authorization, and if so, how is the Offeror required to provide this authorization?

Signature by the Assessing Official on J.6 signifies the individual has complied with all requirements of the Form (including authorization and ability to act in the capacity of an Assessing Official). Nothing further is required from the Offeror.

9/30/2015 On Amended Attachment J2 Proposal Checklist, where is the Offeror to account for the J.12 Relevant Experience Projects Forms which summarize all 6 projects for each pool? The Government has blacked out the rows on L.5.2 for each pool, where the J.12 form logically should be included. Are we to include the J.12 form filename on each

REP?

Corrected J.2 will be provided via Amendment A03.

9/30/2015 The J.4 (Pool Application and Certification) form includes fields on lines 11 and 12 in which the Offeror is to identify whether it is an “Individual Entity” or a “Contractor Team Arrangement-Joint,” however, these fields do not appear to be active. Will the Government please provide an updated J.4?

The HCaTS team has tested the Attachment J.4 that was released via Amendment A01 and has confirmed that it is properly functioning. However, a revised Attachment J.4 is being provided via Amendment A03 to remove reference to accounting systems. Download the most current version of the attachments from FBO.gov.

9/30/2015 To whom it may concern:

GSA posted Amendment 0002 on Thursday the 24th and notified vendors through Interact on Monday the 28th. We believe the material change in the definition of a "collection of task orders," which now allows “overlapping or concurrent” task orders is a much more accurate reflection of the nature of a project and we are in agreement that this was a much needed change. However, given the significance of the redefinition, we are requesting a two week extension to reassess how this impacts our selection of past performance projects and to potentially request NAICS code confirmations and/or approval for a revised collection of task orders. This material change has a significant impact on the selection of projects and subsequent award of appropriate points to each project.

Amendment A03 will provide proposal submission deadline extension information as applicable.

10/1/2015 Page 52, G.3.5 Insurance, states that insurance coverage specified in FAR 28.307-2 Liability is the minimum insurance requirement for HCaTS.

Paragraph (d) of the FAR clause states: “Aircraft public and passenger liability.When aircraft are used in connection with performing the contract, the contracting officer shall require aircraft public and passenger liability insurance. Coverage shall be at least $200,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, other than passenger liability, and $200,000 per occurrence for property damage. Coverage for passenger liability bodily injury shall be at least $200,000 multiplied by the number of seats or passengers, whichever is greater.”

This language is applicable only in the case where a contractor would be using a privately-owned aircraft for performance under the contract.

If we do not provide “Aircraft public and passenger liability” will this be acceptable?

Yes.

10/1/2015 1. On Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist), under Volume 2 Section L.5.2.1 (NAICS Code), there is a check box but the File Submitted column is blocked out. What should we do?

2. On Attachment J.5.1 (HCaTS Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1), the points for L.5.3.3 Relevant Experience Project Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals are not subtotaling. There appears to be an error in the spreadsheet. Please advise.

3. On Attachment J.5.2 (HCaTS Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2), the points for L.5.3.3 Relevant Experience Project Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals are not subtotaling. There appears to be an error in the spreadsheet. Please advise

1.If the Offeror is not using Attachment J.10 to substantiate the Relevant Experience Project's NAICS Code, the Offeror shall use the lines below Attachment J.10 to provide the substantiating document(s).

2 and 3. Corrected J.5.1 and J.5.2 will be provided via Amendment A03.

10/4/2015 For the period of performance, we need five documents to substantiate. However there are only 3 rows in the J2 Form. Where may we insert the file names of the other two documents? Thanks and we appreciate your time in responding to our question.

The Offeror may either combine files into one file so that they fit in the space alloted or may use the space at the end of the Proposal Checklist that allows for additional documents.

CUSTOMER QUESTION(S)

9/25/2015 CO submitted Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) to hcats@gsa.gov.

First, let me thank you for taking the time to complete the attachment to our RFP. Second, the Offeror should have informed you to return the completed form back to them so they could include it in their proposal. We are not accepting attachments sent directly by those who completed them. If you haven't already done so, please send the completed form back to the Offeror.