SECTION_J.17._ATT._(17)_Questions_and_Answers_continued_-_Amd_05.xlsx

Gform

Section L.5.1.10, paragraph (b), appears to allow First Tier Subcontractor to a CTA prime contractor. Is performance as a first tier Subcontractor to a CTA prime contractor considered conforming relevant experience for evaluation purposes?

2. Is a joint venture between an 8(a) Participant and another small business concern to perform under an any of the 8(a) SubPool contracts eligible for an award if the joint venture is supported by a joint venture agreement that is approved by SBA prior to the award of the 8(a) contract, even if the agreement is not approved as of the date of the Offeror’s initial offer?

Not Provided 1. 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.

2. Yes, per the revised solicitation, provided that the SBA approves the JV Agreement prior to award of the OASIS SubPool IDIQ contract.

2. Is a joint venture between an 8(a) Participant and another small business concern to perform under an any of the 8(a) SubPool contracts eligible for an award if the joint venture is supported by a joint venture agreement that is approved by SBA prior to the award of the 8(a) contract, even if the agreement is not approved as of the date of the Offeror’s initial offer?

Not Provided 1. This assumption is correct. Note that this has been revised via amendment, as the original solicitation incorrectly stated that JV offerors were required to upload an entity-level Dynamic Small Business Search printout evidencing 8(a) program status. 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.

2. Yes.

(a) After review of the OASIS Order Guide (Appendix A), is this the same as a "Primary NAICS Code" due to the limitations of the FPDS-NG system?

(b) If there is a "Primary Code", then what are the "Secondary Code(s)"?

(c) How can this limitation not affect the objectivity of the OCO in assigning TO NAICS determinations?

(d) How is "the greatest percentage of anticipated task order price/cost" calculated?

(e) The OASIS Order Guide (Appendix A) cites Pool 1 with a $14M Size Standard and the newly released (2019) Solicitation cites Pool 1 with a $15M Size Standard. Please clarify. Not Provided (a) Yes, this is referring to a similar concept, which is that FPDS requires a single NAICS code at the IDIQ level (e.g., the "predominant NAICS code"), and that NAICS automatically applies to any task orders issued against that IDIQ, even if a more appropriate NAICS code is applicable at the task order level.

(b) There are not secondary codes. FPDS only recognizes one code.

(c) Contracting Officers are required to assign the NAICS code most appropriate for the work performed. When system limitations prevent them from selecting a NAICS that accurately reflect the order-level work, attachment J.15 exists to allow them to designate the most appropriate NAICS reflecting the order-level work. It is not appropriate for GSA to question the objectivity of Contracting Officers.

(d) This is at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

(e) The applicable size standard is $15M. The ordering guide is designed to assist Ordering Contracting Officers in using the vehicle and should not be construed as governing the terms and conditions of this solicitation.

9 OASIS SB ON-RAMP Pool 1, 3, and 4 -- Page 83 -- L.5.1.10. Contractor Team Arrangement, if applicable -- Paragraph #(b) and (d).2 -- (b) All CTA members must be small businesses under the applicable size standard, as reflected in their representations and certifications (see L.5.1.10(d)(1))

1. Can a joint venture that is an 8(a) certified Joint Venture, offer a successful proposal, even if one of the JV partners to the 8(a) Certified JV, is not itself an 8(a) certified firm. L.5.1.10.(c) on page 97seems to allow this.

2. What is the reason and/or regulatory authority to require that all members of a teaming agreement (to include joint ventures), be 8(a) firms (see L.5.1.10.(b) on page 97)? This requirement appears to be contrary to FAR 9.6 and 13 CFR § 124.513(1). If the intent is to ensure that at least 50% of the work will be performed by the 8(a) prime contractor, or a “similarly situated subcontractor”, could that not be addresses under Limitations on Subcontracting (see 13 CFR § 125.6) without violating FAR 9.6 and 13 CFR § 125.6?

3. Can we use a professional employee compensation plan for a sister company with a MRCL (see L.5.1.5 on page 92)?

4. Regarding Vol 2 – Responsibility, If an 8(a) Certified JV is proposing, would a 527, financial statements, and reps and certs be provided just for the JV, or for each firm that formed the JV (see L.5.2 on page 99)?

5. Are Pool Qualification Projects required to be Federal projects (see L.5.1.2 on page 85)?

6. L.5.3.1, Minimum Requirements for Primary Relevant Experience Projects says that these projects can by US Federal Government, State government, or commercial. L.5.3.2.1 says we are to provide evidence of the assigned NAICS code for each Relevant Experience Primary Project. What do we provide for projects that are not US government, such as commercial projects, which are unlikely to have an assigned NAICS?

7. L.5.2.1.(d)3, on page 100, says one year of financial statements must be provided for the most currently completed fiscal year and also interim financial statements. How current should the interim statements be (i.e., April 30, 2019, May 31, 2019, etc.)?

8. For Joint Ventures, does each member of the JV need to submit representations and certifications or just the JV itself. (see section K.1 on page 70)

9. For the previous SBA on ramp submittal in November 2018, were any evaluations completed, and if so, were the scores ever made public?

Not Provided 1. Yes.

2. The determination that all CTA members in a Prime/Subcontractor CTA submitting to the 8(a) On-Ramp must be eligible 8(a) concerns was made by the SBA itself, not by GSA. While not all CTA members in an 8(a) JV need to be 8(a), the 8(a) JV as an entity is ultimately subject to SBA approval before award; therefore, the SBA must review and approve the 8(a) JV agreement to ensure compliance with 13 CFR 124.513. No such approval process exists for 8(a) Prime/Subcontractor CTAs.

3. The professional employee compensation plan you submit will apply to the Legal Bidding Entity as defined in L.2.8.

4. Per L.5.2.1(b)(2): In the case of unpopulated Joint Ventures under Section L.5.1.10 each member of the Joint Venture shall submit Section J.13., Attachment (13) a. In the case of populated Joint Ventures (those formed prior to issuance of 81 FR 48557, August 24, 2016) a single Joint Venture level submission is permissible.

5. Yes.

6. If a project does not have an assigned NAICS, it is not eligible to receive additional evaluation points pursuant to L.5.3.2.1.

7. Section L.5.2.1(a)3.c. requires submission of the last full fiscal year statement and subsequent interim statements. All interim statements since your last full fiscal year statement should be submitted as a single PDF.

8. The language in L.5.1.10(d)(1) is unambiguous.

9. Evaluations were initiated but not completed, and no, the scores were not ever made public.