SECTION_J.17,_ATT._(17)_SOLICITATION_QUESTIONS_AND_ANSWERS_-_Amd_04_-_OASIS_SB_8(a)_SubPool.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 104 KB Posted
- Attached to
- OASIS SB 8(a) SubPool On-Ramping
- Solicitation number
- GSOOQ-13-DR-0002-8(a)
About this file
This is a pre-solicitation notice announcing the intention to issue a Request for Proposal for On-Ramping to the One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Small Business contract vehicle. The notice outlines plans to conduct a competitive 8(a) small business set-aside to create new SubPools within existing OASIS SB Pools 1, 2, 3, 4, 5B and 6. Anticipated multiple-award contracts will result from the competition, with approximately 30 awards for SubPool 1, 8 awards each for SubPools 2, 4, 5B and 6, and 20 awards for SubPool 3. The scope of work will cover professional services supporting all federal agencies. The period of performance for the SubPool contracts is from date of award through December 2024. Task orders may extend up to five years beyond the SubPool terms. The final RFP is expected to be available on February 8, 2019, with proposal due dates to be specified.
SECTION J.17, ATT. (17) SOLICITATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - Amd 04 - OASIS SB 8(a) SubPool
View the file
Other files
Show all 50
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 | Are Joint Venture (including Mentor Protégé JVs) allowed to have First Tier subcontractors? |
| Page 96, Section L.5.1.10, Paragraph (b) | Yes, however, please be aware of the restriction on using the same project in multiple proposals (ref. L.2(l)). | ||
| 2 | What size standard are Mentor Protégé Joint Ventures allowed to use for their First Tier subcontractors? | Page 96, Section L.5.1.10, Paragraph (b) | 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). |
| 3 | Outside of the requirements for maximum Pool Qualification and Relevant Primary and Secondary Experience projects for the Mentor in an approved Mentor-Protégé JV – are MP JVs allowed to use First Tier subcontractors projects for the Pool Qualification and Relevant Primary and Secondary projects? | ||
| Page 96, Section L.5.1.10, Paragraph ( c) 2 | Yes, however, please be aware of the restriction on using the same project in multiple proposals (ref. L.2(l)). | ||
| 4 | Cited CFR paragraphs 13 CFR 124.513(j) Certification of compliance (i) and (iii), require that: |
“Prior to the performance of any 8(a) contract by a joint venture, the 8(a) BD Participant to the joint venture must submit a written certification to the contracting officer and SBA, signed by an authorized official of each partner to the joint venture, stating as follows:
(i) The parties have entered into a joint venture agreement that fully complies with paragraph (c) of this section;
(iii) The parties have obtained SBA's approval of the joint venture agreement and any addendum to that agreement and that there have been no modifications to the agreement that SBA has not approved.
| QUESTION: Does this mean that the JVA (or addendum), that specifically addresses this IDIQ 8(a) Subpool On-ramp must be approved by the SBA prior to submission of the proposal? Or must the JVA (or addendum) be approved by the SBA prior to the award as stated in 3 CFR 124.513(e). And if the latter (prior to award), is this requiring SBA approval prior to the IDIQ (8(a) on ramp selection, or prior to award of a Task Order? | Sec L.5.1.10 (c)7 | For Mentor-Protege JVs, the SBA must approve the Mentor-Protege Agreement before the firm may submit an offer (reference 13 CFR 125.9(d)(1)(i), 13 CFR § 124.520(d)(1)(i)). For 8(a) Joint Ventures where all members are small under the applicable size standard per 13 CFR 124.513(e), the SBA must approve the JVA prior to award of the IDIQ contract(s), not prior to submission of an offer. 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. The SBA approval would need to occur prior to IDIQ award, not prior to award of a specific task order. Award of the IDIQ is contingent upon SBA approval. For JVs, the Offeror must upload a DSBS printout showing at least one of its individual members is an 8(a) program participant. | ||
| 5 | 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 | |||
| Reference: L.5.1.10 (c) a | For Mentor-Protege JVs, the SBA must approve the Mentor-Protege Agreement before the firm may submit an offer (reference 13 CFR 125.9(d)(1)(i), 13 CFR § 124.520(d)(1)(i)). For 8(a) Joint Ventures where all members are small under the applicable size standard per 13 CFR 124.513(e), the SBA must approve the JVA prior to award, not prior to submission of an offer. 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. | |||
| 6 | 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-0002-8(a), RFP page 95, 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. | |
| 7 | 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-0002-8(a), RFP page 95, Section L.5.1.10. Contractor Team Arrangement. | No, they would require Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters IAW solicitation section L.5.1.9. | |
| 8 | 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-0002-8(a), RFP page 49, Section H.6.12. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, and RFP Page 93, Section L.5.1.9. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters. | This understanding is correct. | |
| 9 | 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-0002-8(a), RFP page 49, Section H.6.12. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, and RFP Page 93, Section L.5.1.9. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters. | This understanding is correct. | |
| 10 | 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-0002-8(a), RFP Page 70, 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. | |
| 11 | 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 76-82 in MS Word format? | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-8(a), RFP page 76, 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 may create their own. | |
| 12 | 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-0002-8(a), RFP page 95, 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. | |
| 13 | Section L.1 incorporates FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors, which provides requirements for the proper identification and marking of proprietary data. For your 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-0002-8(a), RFP page 71, Section L.2 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES, para. (j), and Page 69, Section L.1 FAR 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998). | That is acceptable. | ||
| 14 | Please confirm that submission of the GSA Form 527 satisfies the requirement for compliance. | SOLICITATION NO. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-8(a), RFP page 97, 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). |
| 15 | Page 110 states that offerors, at their discretion, may submit a minimum of 2 Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects with Mission Spaces, and page 128 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-0002-8(a), RFP page 110, Section L.5.3.3.1. Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects with Mission Spaces, if submitted, and RFP page 128, 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. | ||
| 16 | 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-0002-8(a), RFP page 126, 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. |
| 17 | Will the Government please consider amending the naming convention for all relevant experience (primary and secondary) project documentation, including NAICS Code and Merger, Acquisition, Novation, and Change of Name documentation, to include pool numbers in order to provide clarity for Offerors bidding on multiple pools? | Page 78, Section L.4, Table, Volume 3 | In accordance with L.4(d), Offerors may make minor adjustments to the file naming methodology so long as the resulting file names and organization are clearly understood; any file names and/or organization that are not clearly understood by the Contracting Officer may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. |
| 18 | Can non-8(a) CTA members submit "relevant" projects for points so long as the prime 8(a) offeror submits 2 other pool "qualification" projects? In other words, must all past performance be performed by 8a entities | GS00Q-13-DR-0002-8(a), page #: 84 Section #: L.5.1.2 Paragraph #: 1.a | If an Offeror is a Prime/Subcontractor CTA, all projects must be performed by 8(a) entities per SBA's direction on this issue. If an Offeror is an 8(a) Joint Venture pursuant to 13 CFR § 124.513 or 13 CFR § 124.520, all projects need not be performed by 8(a) entities in accordance with the SBA regulations governing these Joint Venture programs. |
| 19 | Company A is an 8(a) company and plans to submit a proposal for the OASIS 8(a) solicitation. Company B is a Small Business and plans to submit a proposal for the OASIS SB-P1P3P4 solicitation. Both companies are subsidiaries under an ANC parent company. |
Can Company A submit a proposal under OASIS 8(a) and Company B submit a proposal under OASIS SB-P1P3P4? If so, can both companies use the same Primary, Secondary, and Qualifying projects for both solicitation responses, provided the Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter clearly states the relationship between all subsidiaries and the parent company?
| L.2(l), page 71 | Yes, as the SB Pools are separate from the 8(a) SubPools, which will be their own MAC upon award, it is permissible for the same projects to be submitted in, for example, an Offer for SB Pool 1 and an offer for the 8(a) SubPool 1. Similarly, the same projects could be used for SB Pool 3, SubPool 3, etc., however, could not appear in multiple offers under the same Pool. |
| 20 | Company A is an 8(a) company and plans to submit a proposal for the OASIS SB P1P3P4 solicitation and the OASIS 8(a) solicitation. |
Can Company A use the same Primary, Secondary, and Qualifying projects for both solicitation responses?
| L.2(l), page 71 | Yes, as the SB Pools are separate from the 8(a) SubPools, which will be their own MAC upon award, it is permissible for the same projects to be submitted in, for example, an Offer for SB Pool 1 and an offer for the 8(a) SubPool 1. Similarly, the same projects could be used for SB Pool 3, SubPool 3, etc., however, could not appear in multiple offers under the same Pool. |
| 21 | This Offeror is an 8(a) subsidiary under a parent company bidding on OASIS 8(a). |
May the Offeror’s Small Business sister subsidiary, under the same parent, bid on the OASIS SB-P1P3P4 proposal using the same Qualifying, Primary, and Secondary projects as the Offeror plans to submit on the 8(a) proposal?
| L.2(l), page 71 | Yes, as the SB Pools are separate from the 8(a) SubPools, which will be their own MAC upon award, it is permissible for the same projects to be submitted in, for example, an Offer for SB Pool 1 and an offer for the 8(a) SubPool 1. Similarly, the same projects could be used for SB Pool 3, SubPool 3, etc., however, could not appear in multiple offers under the same Pool. |
| 22 | This Offeror is a wholly owned subsidiary within the corporate structure of a parent organization and we will use projects, systems, and certifications from sister subsidiaries that are also within the corporate structure of the same parent organization. Bullet (c) states formal “commitment letters” must be provided by both parties, which conflicts with bullet (f) which states “the parent entity may prepare a single Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter….” |
If we utilize projects from multiple sister subsidiaries under the same parent organization, will one MRCL prepared by the Offeror, containing the information outlined in bullet (e), signed by the parent, and signed by all applicable subsidiaries under the parent, meet the government’s requirements?
| Section L.5.1.9(b), (c), (e), and (f), page 94 and 95 | Yes, one MRCL for a parent organization is acceptable provided it complies with L.5.1.9(f). |
| 23 | Pathway 1: SB Pool Flowdown: “Any Offeror already possessing a contract in the affected pool will automatically be included in the newly formed SubPool if the Offeror can provide pool qualification projects for the new SubPool.” |
If an 8(a) company submits a proposal under the OASIS Small Business P1P3P4 solicitation and is awarded a contract, will they automatically flow down to the 8(a) IDIQ contract SubPools? Will companies that flow down to the 8(a) SubPool be allowed to compete on task orders issued to the SB awardees?
| Industry Day Slides, page 92-93 (solicitation section H.15.4, page 59-60) | The company will automatically flow down, provided their proposal submitted in response to the SB P1P3P4 solicitation also complies with the 8(a) requirements (e.g., if a Prime/Subcontractor CTA, all members are 8(a)). Companies who flow down to the 8(a) SubPool will still be allowed to compete on task orders issued to the SB awardees, as their SubPool award would be a distinct contract from the SB Pool award and would not have any impact on the Pool contract. |
| 24 | “Following identification of flowdown SubPool awardees, 8(a) set aside competition awardees will then be identified; most highly rated Offerors not already in SubPool through flowdown, per below anticipated award numbers.” |
Will 8(a) companies who receive an award on the 8(a) IDIQ-level competition be allowed to compete on task orders issued to the SB awardees?
| Industry Day Slides, page 94 | No, companies who receive a SubPool award are not eligible to respond to task orders solicited under the SB Pool, as the SB Pool is a separate contract for which those companies have not qualified. | ||
| 25 | Would the Government please include page numbers to the solicitation that was released so vendors may properly reference for questions? | No page number L.2.1 (c) | Page numbers were included in the top right header. |
| 26 | Which submission volume should include the PDF printout of the SBA Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) results associated with the Joint Venture’s DUNS number? | 96, L.5.1.10 c(1)(a) | Volume 1 - General |
| 27 | Since OASIS small business solicitation 8(a) Sub-pool on-ramping RFP (solicitation number GS00Q-13-DR-0002-8(a) is separate from OASIS small business solicitation on-ramp (Pools 1,3, and 4) (solicitation number GS00Q-13-DR-0002) it is our assumption that all projects (Primary & Secondary) used for scoring for a pool (e.g. Pool 1) can be repeated for both the solicitation responses. Is our assumption correct? | 71, L.2.(l) | Yes, as the SB Pools are separate from the 8(a) SubPools, which will be their own MAC upon award, it is permissible for the same projects to be submitted in, for example, an Offer for SB Pool 1 and an offer for the 8(a) SubPool 1. Similarly, the same projects could be used for SB Pool 3, SubPool 3, etc., however, could not appear in multiple offers under the same Pool. |
| 28 | If the submitted contract related documents are compliant but if there is a data entry error in the Symphony system (typo or administrative error) would GSA designate the proposal as in-compliant? | 75, L.3.(a) | Per L.2(j)(1): The Contracting Officer reserves the right to waive minor clerical errors and/or minor formatting discrepancies, provided the information is available in the proposal in a format that enables the Government to proceed with evaluation of the proposal. The determination of whether such clerical errors and/or formatting discrepancies are considered minor enough to enable evaluation is at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. |
| 29 | It appears that there is tremendous data entry to be done in the Symphony system for proposal response. Would GSA consider extending the deadline by another two weeks? | 75, L.3.(a) | GSA is not currently considering additional extensions to the proposal submission deadline, as the time provided substantially exceeds the required minimum of 30 days per the FAR and provides potential Offerors adequate time to propose. |
| 30 | Would GSA consider going back to the GACA system that was used in the last submission (Nov 2018) for proposal submission instead of Symphony? | 75, L.3.(a) | No, substantial issues were encountered with the GACA system that prevent it from being a viable option for a procurement with the expected level of competition of this On-Ramping effort. GSA has a responsibility to ensure proprietary proposal and source selection information is appropriately safeguarded by the Government so as to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure. The GACA system included fundamental vulnerabilities from this perspective that make it an unacceptable submission method given the expected level of competition. Symphony has a number of key safeguards from a procurement integrity and IT security perspective that make it a substantially superior submission method in this regard. GSA is prioritizing security over a method involving the potential for unauthorized disclosures. |
| 31 | As an 8(a), SDVOSB, small business if we make it in the top 190 awardees in the OASIS small business on-ramp (Pools 1, 3, & 4) would we be automatically on-ramped to the 8(a) sub-pool in the given pool? Or, would our separate proposal for 8(a) sub-pool on-ramp still need to be scored? | 10, A.1.3.(b)2. | If an Offeror receives an award for the OASIS SB Pool, they are not required to submit a separate proposal for the 8(a) SubPool, provided their SB Pool proposal complies with the requirements of the 8(a) SubPool RFP as well (e.g., if a Prime/Subcontractor CTA, all members are 8(a)). However, GSA encourages 8(a) concerns to submit for both the Pool and the SubPool, as the Symphony system greatly reduces the level of effort involved with responding to multiple solicitations.Additionally, an Offeror may narrowly miss the threshold for award under a SB Pool (e.g., be ranked #191 for Pool 1), yet still be most highly rated under the SubPool (e.g., be ranked #1 of Offerors who have not already received a corresponding SB Pool award); if an Offeror relies upon the SB Pool award to qualify and does not also respond to the 8(a) solicitation independently, they may inadvertently miss the opportunity to be included in the SubPool in the event that they don't receive the Pool award. |
| 32 | If the submitted contract related documents are compliant but if there is a data entry error in the Symphony system (typo or administrative error) would GSA designate the proposal as in-compliant? | 75. L.3.(a) | The type and magnitude of the error would be up the to Contracting Officer's discretion for how they will handle it. |
| 33 | As an 8(a), SDVOSB, small business if we make it in the top 190 awardees in the OASIS small business on-ramp (Pools 1, 3, & 4) would we be automatically awarded the 8(a) sub-pool in the given pool? Or, do we need to submit a separate response to the 8(a) sub-pool on-ramp? Can we use all of the projects (Relevant experience primary and secondary projects) for scoring in the OASIS small business on-ramp (Pools 1, 3, & 4) response again for 8(a) sub-pool on-ramp response? | 10, A.1.3.(b) 2. and 71. L.2.(l) | If an Offeror receives an award for the OASIS SB Pool, they are not required to submit a separate proposal for the 8(a) SubPool, provided their SB Pool proposal complies with the requirements of the 8(a) SubPool RFP as well (e.g., if a Prime/Subcontractor CTA, all members are 8(a)). However, GSA encourages 8(a) concerns to submit for both the Pool and the SubPool, as the Symphony system greatly reduces the level of effort involved with responding to multiple solicitations.Additionally, an Offeror may narrowly miss the threshold for award under a SB Pool (e.g., be ranked #191 for Pool 1), yet still be most highly rated under the SubPool (e.g., be ranked #1 of Offerors who have not already received a corresponding SB Pool award); if an Offeror relies upon the SB Pool award to qualify and does not also respond to the 8(a) solicitation independently, they may inadvertently miss the opportunity to be included in the SubPool in the event that they don't receive the Pool award. And yes, the same projects may be used in response to SB Pool and an 8(a) SubPool, as the SB Pools are separate from the 8(a) SubPools, which will be their own MAC upon award. It is permissible for the same projects to be submitted in, for example, an Offer for SB Pool 1 and an offer for the 8(a) SubPool 1. Similarly, the same projects could be used for SB Pool 3, SubPool 3, etc., however, could not appear in multiple offers under the same Pool. |
| 34 | Previously GSA had indicated offerors would be able to resubmit previously completed forms from the GSA OASIS SB on-ramp. Are offerors allowed to resubmit the Section J.8 ATT 8, J.14 ATT 14, J.15 ATT 15 forms completed and signed by our customers from the 2018 OASIS SB On-Ramp proposal? | General | 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). |
| 35 | Page 31, Paragraph 8(a) Set-aside, This is an amended solicitation, not a new solicitation. Size determinations are made as at the date of the initial offer in response to the solicitation (see 13 CFR 121.404 (g) quoted below). By the same logic, the 8(a) determination is made as at the date of the initial offer, which in this case is November 13, 2018. We made our initial offer as an 8(a) company, and then exited the 8(a) program during January 2019, which is after the initial offer. Therefore are unfairly and unfavorably affected by a new 8(a) determination date as of the date of the amended (versus initial) offer. The proper date to use for the 8(a) determination status is the date of the initial offer, which is November 13, 2018. ----------------------------------- begin 13 CFR 121.404(g) quote ------------------------------------ 13 CFR 121.404 (g) A concern that represents itself as a small business and qualifies as small at the time of its initial offer (or other formal response to a solicitation), which includes price, is considered to be a small business throughout the life of that contract. This means that if a business concern is small at the time of initial offer for a Multiple Award Contract (see § 121.1042(c) for designation of NAICS codes on a Multiple Award Contract), then it will be considered small for each order issued against the contract with the same NAICS code and size standard, unless a contracting officer requests a new size certification in connection with a specific order. Where a concern grows to be other than small, the procuring agency may exercise options and still count the award as an award to a small business. -------------------------------- end quote ---------------------------------------------------------------- Will you use this proper date, please? | G.3.2.1.4 | The 8(a) solicitation is a distinct solicitation from the SB Pool 1 On-Ramping solicitation. The 8(a) SubPool requirement had not even been formally accepted into the SBA's 8(a) BD program as of the time of SB Pool 1 proposal submission. An offer in response to SB Pool 1 is only that - an Offer for SB Pool 1, and does not equate to an offer for the separate 8(a) SubPool On-Ramping solicitation. The capability to qualify for automatic flowdown into the SubPool is caveated by the contract language: GSA may elect to restrict SubPools to contractors qualifying as any of the socioeconomic programs described in FAR 19.000(a)(3) (e.g. an "8(a) Only SubPool"). If a company is not an eligible 8(a) BD participant at the time the 8(a) SubPool solicitation closes, the SBA will not accept them into the 8(a) program and the award cannot be issued. Similarly, an existing OASIS SB contractor who was 8(a) at the time of initial offer in 2013, who later graduated from the 8(a) program (for example, they graduated from the 8(a) program in December, 2013) would not be eligible to qualify for the 8(a) SubPools which are being created in 2019 after their exit from the program. Even if a firm elects to flow down to a SubPool by virtue of their OASIS SB Pool contract, the "offer" is not their original SB Pool 1 proposal itself, but their election to be considered for inclusion into the 8(a) SubPool, which corresponds to solicitation GS00Q-13-DR-0002-8(a). |
| 36 | In regards to this statement: “Government intends to make award to all eligible existing OASIS SB contractors who automatically qualify for each SubPool.” Please confirm that all 8(a) contractors that remained in OASIS SB Pool 1 after Recertification are eligible for automatic qualification. |
| Page 9, Section A, A.1.2(b) OASIS 8(a) Set-Aside SubPool On-Ramping; Page 9-10, Section A. A.1.3(b).2, and (c) Solicitation Notice; Page 59-60, H.15.4.4, Focused On-Ramping (SubPool Creation); and Page 73, Section L. Paragraph L.2.6: | These contractors would only be eligible for automatic qualification if they meet the requirements of the 8(a) solicitation, for example, reference section A.1.3(e). | ||
| 37 | If all 8(a) contractors that remained in OASIS SB Pool 1 after Recertification are eligible for automatic qualification, please also confirm that the only requirement for submission is in compliance with L.5.1.2 Pool Qualification Projects? | ||
| Page 9, Section A, A.1.2(b) OASIS 8(a) Set-Aside SubPool On-Ramping; Page 9-10, Section A. A.1.3(b).2, and (c) Solicitation Notice; Page 59-60, H.15.4.4, Focused On-Ramping (SubPool Creation); and Page 73, Section L. Paragraph L.2.6: | These contractors would only be eligible for automatic qualification if they meet the requirements of the 8(a) solicitation, for example, reference section A.1.3(e). | ||
| 38 | Regarding SYMPHONY, and based on the presentation offered on 5/7/2019, if an existing 8(a) Pool 1 Contractor only has to submit the qualification files, will the system let us submit what would seem to be an "incomplete" submission if not all files are posted ? | Page 9, Section A, A.1.2(b) OASIS 8(a) Set-Aside SubPool On-Ramping; Page 9-10, Section A. A.1.3(b).2, and (c) Solicitation Notice; Page 59-60, H.15.4.4, Focused On-Ramping (SubPool Creation); and Page 73, Section L. Paragraph L.2.6: | GSA has provided specific instructions via email on May 29, 2019 to current OASIS SB contract holders interested in being included in the 8(a) SubPool. |
| 39 | We assume Contractors expecting to automatically qualify must also submit SF33 in accordance with L.5.1.1. Please confirm this assumption is correct. | Page 83, Section L, L.5.1.1 Standard Form (SF) 33 | GSA has provided specific instructions via email on May 29, 2019 to current OASIS SB contract holders interested in being included in the 8(a) SubPool. |
| 40 | Does the government intend to supply a checklist akin to the proposal format table in L.4 for existing 8(a) contractors to assure we provide a compliant and complete response? | Page 77, Section L. L.4 Proposal Format Instructions | GSA has provided specific instructions via email on May 29, 2019 to current OASIS SB contract holders interested in being included in the 8(a) SubPool. |
| 41 | Do the qualification projects submitted for the 8(a) SubPool need to be designated as 8(a) set aside contracts? | Page 84, Section L.5.1.2 Pool Qualifications Projects | No. |
| 42 | According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, the District of Columbia (DC) was established as a Federal District. DC is funded and overseen by Congress. Congress approves DC laws and budgets and the President appoints its judges. Despite years of lobbying to become a State, DC is still not a State Government nor is it a local Government because it has direct representation in Congress. It is a Federal District as established by the Constitution. The preceding shows that DC is part of the Federal Government and that a contract with the District of Columbia (DC) should be valid for purposes of Mission Space 5. Will GSA except DC contract past performance for an “other Federal Agency” for purposes of Mission Space 5? If not, why not?’ | Page 110, Section L.5.3.3.1. Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects with Mission Spaces: For Mission Space 5, the Government is using https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a to determine if an Agency is a Federal Agency or not. This reference site incorrectly lists the District of Columbia as a state or local government. | The solicitation has been updated to specifically include DC as a valid Mission Space under Mission Space #5. |
| 43 | L.5.1.10 - All evaluation criteria under L.5.5 must be held by either: a. All individual members of the CTA... Scoring will only be awarded at the levels met or exceeded by all members of the existing partnership or Joint Venture; AND L.5.5.10 - A FCL may be granted at the Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret or non-DoD equivalent levels having reciprocity with the Defense Security Service (DSS); however, only Secret or Top Secret or non-DoD equivalent levels having reciprocity with the DSS will be scored evaluation criteria and paragraph 1. For example, the Department of Energy Q Facility Clearance has reciprocity with the DSS as equivalent to a Top Secret Facility Clearance. Any Offeror having this clearance would receive points equivalent to having a Top Secret Facility Clearance and paragraph (c). For each Offeror claiming credit for an FCL, verification will be done by the OASIS SB Program Management Office and paragraph (d) CAUTION: If the Offeror anticipates a FCL in DSS under a Name and Cage Code within a corporate structure but, other than the Official Legal Entity in accordance with Section L.2.8., the Offeror must have submitted an acceptable Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter in accordance with Section. L.5.1.9 or be a CTA in accordance with Section L.5.1.10 to receive credit for the FCL. We are bidding as an SBA Mentor/Protegee Joint Venture where the protegee has a DOE “Q” facility clearance and the mentor has a DoD Top Secret facility clearance. Can our Mentor/Protegee Joint Venture claim credit for a top secret FCL? | Page 97, Section L.5.1.10, paragraph (c) 6: and Page 119, Section L.5.5.10, paragraph (b) | Yes, as the DOE Q FCL has reciprocity with the DSS as equivalent to a Top Secret FCL, therefore, each individual JV member would be considered to have met or exceeded the Top Secret FCL level with respect to obtaining evaluation points. |
| 44 | We are an SBA Mentor/Protegee Joint Venture. Are we required to complete Attachment 20 the OASIS SB CTA AGREEMENT? | Page 69, Section J.20 OASIS SB CTA AGREEMENT – Attachment (20) | The CTA Template (Attachment 20) has been provided for the convenience of the offeror and is an optional format. A CTA Agreement is required, but Attachment 20 may or may not be used at the firm's discretion to fulfill this requirement. |
| 45 | If the Offeror’s previously submitted against the original SB Pool 1 open season on-ramp, are we required to resolicit Past Performance Rating Forms or are the previously completed forms acceptable provided the offeror is utilizing the same project examples. | Page 115, Section L.5.4, paragraph (h): When a Past Performance Rating Form is applicable… | 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). |
| 46 | L.5.10 - For a Joint Venture CTA, the Offeror shall also 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, including price AND A.1.3 - All awards are subject to confirmation of eligibility to receive a competitive 8(a) award by the SBA. If the SBA determines an apparently successful Offeror to be ineligible, no award will be made to that Offeror. |
We talked to the SBA and their policy is that they will not certify a mentor-protegee 8(a) joint venture (MP/JV) as an 8(a) until after the joint venture has been selected for an award. Therefore, our MP/JV is not listed in a DSBS as an 8(a) even though the protegee firm is an 8(a) program participant and we have no ability to rectify this on our own.
The current language in the RFP limits competition because our MP/JV can’t be certified by the SBA as 8(a) in DSBS until we win OASIS and we can’t win OASIS until the SBA certifies our MP/JV as 8(a).
Will GSA adjust the RFP language such that for a MP/JV, only the protegee must demonstrate that it is a current participant in the 8(a) program via DSBS as of the date of the Offeror’s initial offer (as opposed to the MP/JV)? The RFP language in A.1.3 suggests that the 8(a)-eligibility check will be performed on all the apparent winners anyway so our requested change would create no additional burden on the Government.
| Page 96, Section L.5.1.10, paragraph (c).1.a and Page 10, Section A.1.3, paragraph (b): | For Mentor-Protege JVs, the SBA must approve the Mentor-Protege Agreement before the firm may submit an offer (reference 13 CFR 125.9(d)(1)(i), 13 CFR § 124.520(d)(1)(i)). For 8(a) Joint Ventures where all members are small under the applicable size standard per 13 CFR 124.513(e), the SBA must approve the JVA prior to award, not prior to submission of an offer. 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. The SBA approval would need to occur prior to IDIQ award, not prior to award of a specific task order. Award of the IDIQ is contingent upon SBA approval. For JVs, the Offeror must upload a DSBS printout showing at least one of its individual members is an 8(a) program participant. | ||
| 47 | We are an 8(a) prime with CTAs with two other 8(a) companies. Should we submit under just the 8(a) portal in Symphony or can we submit for both opportunities - SB and 8(a). | (null) | If an Offeror receives an award for the OASIS SB Pool, they are not required to submit a separate proposal for the 8(a) SubPool, provided their SB Pool proposal complies with the requirements of the 8(a) SubPool RFP as well (e.g., if a Prime/Subcontractor CTA, all members are 8(a)). However, GSA encourages 8(a) concerns to submit for both the Pool and the SubPool, as the Symphony system greatly reduces the level of effort involved with responding to multiple solicitations.Additionally, an Offeror may narrowly miss the threshold for award under a SB Pool (e.g., be ranked #191 for Pool 1), yet still be most highly rated under the SubPool (e.g., be ranked #1 of Offerors who have not already received a corresponding SB Pool award); if an Offeror relies upon the SB Pool award to qualify and does not also respond to the 8(a) solicitation independently, they may inadvertently miss the opportunity to be included in the SubPool in the event that they don't receive the Pool award. |
| 48 | Since Subpool 4, 5B, and 6 all have different PSC Code Requirements. For Example, Subpool 4 is all Category A R&D Codes not assigned to another Subpool, 5B Exclusive to AC2 and RD PSC Codes, and Subpool 6 Exclusive to AC1 and AS1 R&D Codes. If an offeror's FPDS Report for a Pool Qualification Project aligns to one of these PSC Codes do they still have to provide additional documentation for verification of NAICS Code Exceptions? | P. 88 - 89, Pool 4, 5B, and 6 Subpool Qualification Tables | Yes, in accordance with L.5.1.2(a)5.a., the projects must have either one of the NAICS or PSC Codes assigned to them and provide verification documentation for Exceptions. |
| 49 | Since Subpool 3 has a specific PSC Code Requirement (R425). If an offeror's FPDS Report for a Pool Qualification Project aligns to PSC Code R425 do they still have to provide additional documentation for verification of the NAICS Code Exception? | P. 87 - 88, Pool 3 Subpool Qualification Table | Yes, in accordance with L.5.1.2(a)5.a., the projects must have either one of the NAICS or PSC Codes assigned to them and provide verification documentation for Exceptions. |
| 50 | Is there a streamline process for existing firms with a GSA contract and 8a certified . | (null) | A firm's status as a GSA contract holder or 8(a) certified company does not impact their proposal submission requirements. |
| 51 | With regards to the language referring to “under this Solicitation”, we interpret this to suggest under the 8(a) Solicitation only, meaning a project can be used under both the 8(a) Solicitation and the SB Solicitation since they are separate acquisitions, with different Solicitation numbers, without the risk of the project being “removed from all proposals”. Is this interpretation correct? |
| For example, if Company A is bidding as a prime under the 8(a) Pool 1, and uses Project A under their prime bid, can another company (Company B) submit a prime bid under SB Pool 1, and use Company A’s Project A without risk or conflict of having Project A removed from all proposals? | Sec L.2 (l); Page 71 - "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 Section 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." | This interpretation is correct. Pools and SubPools are considered distinct. | ||
| 52 | We are a certified SBA 8(a) and HUBZone company that teamed on the prior small business (SB) solicitation Pool 1 and teaming again on the re-submission. We are also seeking to submit as a Prime for the 8(a) Solicitation on-ramp in Pool 1. As we understand the rule, the intent is that the same company cannot use the same project across multiple teams in the same solicitation and competitive pool. In the above scenario, is the SB Solicitation and 8(a) Solicitation considered different solicitations and therefore allows the use the same project only once in a small business proposal and once in a the 8(a) proposal? solicitations. | Solicitation L.2.l, page 63 states 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 | 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. | |
| 53 | For Prime/Subcontractor CTAs, is it correct that L.5.5 certifications only need to be held by the Prime in order to gain points? | P. 98, Section 5.1.10, paragraph (c) 6 b | Yes, this is correct. | |
| 54 | May Offerors use the same Project, to include Pool Qualification projects, Relevant Experience Primary Projects, and Relevant Experience Secondary Projects, when responding separately to the same Pool(s) in the 2 separate open RFPs, the OASIS SB Pools 1, 3, & 4 On-Ramp Solicitation Number: GS00Q13DR0002P1P3P4, and the OASIS 8a Set Aside Sub Pool Solicitation Number: GSOOQ-13-DR-0002-8(a)? | On page 71 under "L.2. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES", it states (l) Offerors may choose the same Project(s) between Pool Qualification, Primary, and/or Secondary Projects. 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 Section L.2.9. Projects used in more than one proposal in a given Pool. | The SB and 8(a) Pools are separate and distinct, you may utilize the same project in an SB Pool that is utilized in the corresponding 8(a) SubPool without penalty. | |
| 55 | The government states that “If an individual team member’s experience is submitted under a Joint Venture, all individual members shall submit at least one Relevant Experience (Primary) Project…outside the Joint Venture.” Is this applicable only to Relevant Experience (Primary) Projects, or is it also true of Pool Qualification projects and Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects? May one member of the JV submit both Pool Qualification projects or all Relevant Experience (Secondary) Projects? | L.5.1.10 (c) 2 | This requirement is limited to Relevant Experience, Primary Projects. | |
| 56 | In the event that the government re-releases the solicitation for the purpose of amendments, would the Government consider adding page numbers? | (null) | Page numbers have been included in the top right header. | |
| 57 | In Symphony, when adding a project, we are to select the Prime Contractor. We are registered in the system under our Joint Venture, so that is the only contractor available. Should we add the individual members of the Joint Venture under Team Members so we can mark projects outside the Joint Venture as primed by Company A or Company B? Or should we simply mark all projects as primed by the Joint Venture? | (null) | Yes, a JV should add its individual members as team members to be able to select projects performed by them. | |
| 58 | The Solicitation states: “When an Offeror is sharing resources from other entities by way of a Meaningful Relationship within a Corporate Structure, only one Offer (e.g. proposal) from that Corporate Structure shall be submitted”. Does this restriction apply per Pool or across all Pools? For example, can one entity from a Corporate Structure submit a proposal in Pool 1, and another entity in the same Corporate Structure submit a proposal in Pool 3? | Section L.2 (e), page 70 | This restriction applies per Pool. One entity from within a corporate structure may submit a proposal in Pool 1 and another entity in the same corporate structure may submit a proposal in Pool 3 without penalty. |
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 .