GSP Questions and Responses 17 OCT 2022.pdf

Reference Concern /Question /Comment Recommendation /Rationale Govt Response

1 Can the government confirm whether or not small business companies are allowed to form a CTA with other small businesses with different socioeconomic statuses (WOSB, 8(a), SDVOSB, and HUBZONE)?

The solicitation does not preclude a small business from partnering or teaming with a small business(es) with a different socio-economic status, provided that they qualify as a small business and otherwise meet the requirements of the solicitation. Large businesses may subcontract to the JV or team, provided the team also meets the requirements of FAR 52.219-4, Limitations on Subcontracting.

1.1 The opportunity is currently not uploaded to the PIEE Solicitation Module.

Request the Government let offerors know when the opportunity will be visible in the PIEE submission portal cited in 1.1.

The PIEE Solicitation Module will be used for submission of proposals. A GSP solicitation will be created for proposals to be uploaded prior to the solicitation closing and sufficient time given for offerors to respond.

1.1 We logged into the PIEE Solicitation Module, but could not locate the GSP solicitation within the system using the solicitation number and/or title. We contacted DISA Helpdesk with this issue, and they were not able to find the solicitation either. Can the Government please advise Offerors how to locate it?

This is required to view any Amendments and to submit proposals.

The PIEE Solicitation Module will be used for submission of proposals. A GSP solicitation will be created for proposals to be uploaded prior to the solicitation closing.

1.1 Please advise when the solicitation will be available within Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module at https://piee.eb.mil?

The PIEE Solicitation Module will be used for submission of proposals. A GSP solicitation will be created for proposals to be uploaded prior to the solicitation closing.

1.1 Can the government confirm if the solicitation is posted to PIEE? If not, can the government confirm when it will be posted?

The PIEE Solicitation Module will be used for submission of proposals. A GSP solicitation will be created for proposals to be uploaded prior to the solicitation closing.

1.11 Please clarify the use of the term "final" as CPARs are usually interim (for on-going contracts) or final (for completed contracts). If an Offeror has an on-going contract with a CPARs, we assume the most recent CPARs will be acceptable for submission.

Please see updates in the amended solicitation. Either interim CPARS reports or final CPARS reports may be submitted; however, all reports must have been issued by the AO, reviewed by the contractor, and finalized by the AO or RO, as appropriate.

1.2 Please provide an extension to Submission Date for Questions to 7 October

This will provide one-week from when the Solicitation was released.

Thank you for this question, the Government does not anticipate changes.

1.2 Given the number of supporting files required for submission, it is possible that the resulting PDF file will exceed 20MB. Please provide instruction on how files should be named if muiltiple support files are required.

20MB only applies to emails which may be exchanged through the course of the solicitation phase. The Government does not anticipate this being a limitation on the proposal submission itself.

1.3 Proposal Volumes are labeled using Roman numerals on page 2. The file naming convention provided for Volume I is listed as the following: "OFFEROR NAME VOL_1" using Arabic numberals.

Recommend the Government clarify whether proposal file names should label Volumes with Roman or Arabic numerals as identified in 1.3.

Please folllow the prescribed naming convention.

1.3 May offerors use their company abbreviation/acronym in file naming conventions, particularly if the offeror's name is longer than 25 characters?

Yes.

1.3 Offerors are instructed to provide a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used for each Volume. If a PWS used for substantiating qualifications includes its own list of abbreviations and acronyms, may offerors refrain from including those in the GSP Proposal Volume acronym list? Additionally, would the Government consider allowing offerors to provide definded acronyms only for cited PWS/SOW documents vice all pages that appear in substantiation documents that may be unrelated/adjacent to cited evidence.

Recommend the clarification of requirements for the acronym list.

Please follow the instructions in paragraph 1.3.

1.3 Formatting instructions indicate that Arial 12 point double-spaced is required for the cover page file. Would the Government confirm that double-spaced text is not required for tables that may be included in offeror-generated content (e.g., OCI plans)?

Recommend clarification of formatting requirements for offeror generated written content.

Unless prescribed in the solicitation, offeror-generated content is at the offeror's discretion so long as the Government is able to read it.

1.3 The government states in Section 1.3 that "Each Volume of the Offeror’s proposal shall include a cover file which includes a table of contents for that Volume, as well as a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used. The cover file shall clearly label the Offeror’s name, cage code, and Volume number. The cover file shall be prepared using a standard, 12-point Arial Font, double spaced, with 1” margins, and 8.5”x 11” page size." Will the government confirm that the requirement for 12-point Arial Font , double spaced pertains to the table of contents and acronym list sections of the cover page PDF and that the cover itself may use any font size above 8pt as long as the Font Style is Arial, as one would expect with graphics?

Recommend that the first page of the Cover Page PDF (i.e., the cover itself) be allowed to use any font size above 8pt as long as the Font Style remains Arial.

Please follow the instructions in paragraph 1.3.

1.3 Would the government consider revising the spacing from double space to single space? This will allow us to provide more content within the page limits for our proposal.

Allowing the contractors to use single space instead of double space will allow us to provide more content for our proposal response and eliminate any unnecessary space in our proposals

Please follow the instructions in paragraph 1.3.

1.3 The government indicates that Cover Page files shall be formatted to the following specifications: "Each Volume of the Offeror’s proposal shall include a cover file which includes a table of contents for that Volume, as well as a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used. The cover file shall be prepared using a standard, 12-point Arial Font, double spaced, with 1” margins, and 8.5” x 11” page size." Will the government allow the headers and footers of the Cover Page, as well as the consolidated Volume I Administrative Information PDF headers and footers, be reduced to single-spaced 9-point Arial Font?

Recommend allowing the headers and footers of the Cover Pages and the consolidated Volume I PDF to be reduced to single-spaced 9-point Arial Font.

Please follow the instructions in paragraph 1.3.

1.3 Can the Government confirm that the 25 character limit refers to "Offeror Name" and not to the entire file name including file extension?

Correct.

1.3 The second to last paragraph states: "All files for Volume I shall be converted and combined into a single PDF file prior to submission and shall conform to the following file naming convention: Can the government confrim they want the number "1" instead of the roman numeral "I" in the file naming convention?

Please folllow the prescribed naming convention.

1.3 Can the government confirm if each volume is a set of separate files? I.e. each Volume consists of a separate cover page and each corresponding evidence file.

Yes.

1.4 Offerors are instructed to "align and narrow evidence to that which supports the identified qualification". When submitting PWS files, should offerors submit copies of complete PWS/SOW documents with relevant information highlighted, or should offerors remove unrelated pages and only submit pages that contain relevant PWS/SOW references?

Request the Government clarify the meaning of "align and narrow." Recommend that offeror's only submit the first page of the PWS/SOW identifying the contract and relevant pages with highlights to effectively narrow the evidence provided.

The Government's intent is to limit superfluous submissions. Either alternative suggested would be acceptable and appreciated.

1.4 May offerors include "Tags" and "highlights" on the evidence used to support Offeror's Qualifications in order to facilitate easier evaluation?

Yes, both this be acceptable and appreciated.

1.4 Instructions for evidence advise "the Offeror shall align and narrow evidence to that which supports the identified qualification." Is it the Government's intention for Offerors to limit submitted pages to those which directly provide evidence? Or would the Government prefer Offeror's submit the full document (i.e., PWS, SOW, contract award doc)?

The Government's intent is to limit superfluous submissions. Either alternative suggested would be acceptable and appreciated.

1.4 Bullet one says to enter the offeror name in Row 1, Column B, which is locked.

Meanwhile Cell 2E has a place for contractor name. What are contractors supposed to do with Row 1, Column B?

Use Cell 2E for the contractor name. Please see updates in the amended solicitation.

1.4 Would the government consider modifying the Technical Qualification Worksheet to allow contractors to expand/alter the rows, i.e. "wrap text" to allow for the data to fit?

The file is set up for the text to automatically wrap. For standardization purposes, the Government does not want the file to be altered. However, the text included in the cells will still be visible to the Government when the file is submitted.

1.5 This section requires that all files be searchable PDFs. Some files provided by Government customers are not searchable (e.g., PWS', SOWs, other RFP documents). Offeror's will not have a way to make these documents searchable.

Please remove this requirement as substantiation documents provided may already be in a non-searchable format. Tables of contents provided by the offeror with each Volume will have page/paragraph references.

Please see updates in the amended solicitation.

1.5 There are up to 2 references for Combined Scope Areas 1, 2, and 5 Qualifications and Performance Validation. Kindly confirm the names of the files should be OFFEROR NAME_COMBINED_SCOPE_AREAS_REF_1.pdf and OFFEROR NAME_COMBINED_SCOPE_AREAS_REF_2.pdf and OFFEROR NAME PV_COMBINED_SCOPE_AREAS_REF_1.pdf and OFFEROR NAME PV_COMBINED_SCOPE_AREAS_REF_2.pdf respectively.

Please see updates in the amended solicitation.

1.5 For the combined scope areas, should file names include "_>_REF_<" for each of the two references allowed for this combined scope area? This applies to both Volume III and Volume V.

Please see updates in the amended solicitation.

1.5 The instructions state: "Although there are no page count limitations, the Offeror shall align and narrow evidence to that which supports the identified qualification." Please confirm the Government only wants those sections of the SOW/Award document that validate the scope? Or are we to provide the entire SOW/Award document and Highlight the sections for validation?

The Government's intent is to limit superfluous submissions.

1.5 1.5 states "Evidence for each Reference Project shall be combined into one PDF and shall be submitted conforming to the following file naming conventions". Does this mean all evidence related to one project should be one pdf to cover multiple areas? Later in the section, Bullet 2 says "each qualification identified shall have its own evidence file". Based on this, what should be combined into the "one PDF" file?

There may be multiple pieces of evidence associated with one referenced project which would need to be combined and submitted as one file. For example, a referenced project may have the contract award document which shows the contractor name and period of performance AND the PWS which shows the work required on that referenced project. Please refer to the definitions in 1.6.

1.5 Bullet 2 says "each qualification identified shall have its own evidence file". Is a "qualifiation identified" equivalent to a "Reference Project" mentioned in 1.5?

Not necessarily. A qualification could be substantited by multiple referenced projects, where allowable. Please refer to the definitions in 1.6.

1.5 Bullet 2 says "each qualification identified shall have its own evidence file" while bullet 3 says "All evidence shall be submitted in a searchable PDF file".

Is the Government looking for multiple files or one file?

Each referenced project submitted should have its own file. Please refer to the definitions in 1.6.

1.5 When using evidence from a small business Joint Venture member do we use the Joint Venture member company name or the Joint Venture name to comply with the file naming convention for “OFFER NAME”?

The name of the offeror submitting the proposals should be used in all instances of naming evidence.

1.5 During the virtual pre-solicitation conference presentation on September 15th, on page 29 of the presentation, the Government listed the file name as "SUPPORT_AREA_1_REF_1" for Support Area 1: Prime Contractor Managing Multiple Subcontractors. Yet, the instruction requires vendor to include the OFFER NAME in the file naming convention. In your example, should the file name have been shown as Alpha-Bravo JV SUPPORT_AREA_1_REF_1?

Please follow the instructions in paragraph 1.5.

1.5 The ITO suggests that supporting evidence for combined scope areas 1, 2, and 5 should be combined into one PDF each for volumes 3 and 5. Can the Government clarify whether this is correct or whether the supporting evidence be submitted as separate reference files (like the evidence for scope areas 3, 4, 6, and 7)?

All other reference files except the "combined scope area" files for volumes 3 and 5 split out the reference projects into separate files.

Yes, however for the combined scope areas the offeror is limited to two referenced projects.

1.6 Are offerors required to provide CLIN cross references to a PWS/SOW for evidence of performance in a Scope Area or are CLIN cross references optional based on documentation available to provide evidence? CLINs are often not worded to show specific work support as listed in the Scope Areas.

Recommend the Government clarify that CLIN cross referencing is optional provided offerors can show the relevant support through a SOW or PWS.

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6.

1.6 Section 1.6 defines Evidence sufficient to support Scope Area references. Are all of these documents required as evidence or are a subset of these documents acceptable if they provide the information necessary to validate the work claimed?

Recommend the Government provide a specific list of documents that are required vice optional/additional.

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6.

1.6 Evidence includes a referenced project or contract award or execution document, including its SOW/PWS that cross references with CLINs.

Not all contracts have different CLINs to differentiate services or labor categories (combined to one CLIN). To provide evidence, would the government find it acceptable for the contractor to reference the SOW/PWS service and/or labor requirements and cross reference to the single CLIN?

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Government has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

1.6 Regarding evidence documentation for project verification, is a report from the government website Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS.gov) admissible as proof of claim of contractor name, contract and task order numbers, CAGE code, contract value, period of performance, multiple award contract vehicle, and customer name? If FPDS.gov reports are deemed acceptable, will contract award documents still need to be included to make the same claims of evidence?

Recommend the government consider FPDS.gov reports as equal evidence of claims as contract award documents.

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6.

1.6 In the definition of Evidence, we question the necessity of cross-referencing SOW/PWS tasks to CLINS per the statement, “…the following are examples of evidence which may be sufficient: referenced project or contract award or execution document, including its Statement of Work (SOW)/PWS that cross references with Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)”. If the contract award document is linked to the PWS why is there a need to also cross reference SOW/PWS tasks to CLINS? It is time intensive and a large effort to obtain documentation that includes every CLIN (as some are added and subtracted across multiple contract MOD documents) then successfully cross-reference every CLIN linked to each claim of performance in the SOW/PWS tasks. If a contract award document which is successfully tied to the SOW/PWS with the claims of performance identified in the SOW/PWS without being further cross referenced to CLINS be deemed an acceptable level of evidence provided?

Recommend the government not require the evidence to cross reference with contract line item numbers

(CLINS).

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Government has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

1.6 The RFP requires offerors to provide “evidence” that referenced projects/contracts contained certain work requirements. (CP1 Addendum to 52.212-1: Section 1.6 Definitions) The RFP provides that contract award or execution documents, including a PWS or SOW may be provided as evidence “to support the reasonable belief that a particular act has occurred,” and that offerors must provide a mapping of their prior work to the GSP work requirements. (CP1 1.6) However, many contracts/PWSs/SOWs are too high-level and lack the required level of detail to adequately demonstrate that certain work was, in fact, performed under that contract. This makes it difficult for offerors to ensure that their proposal meets the Government’s standard for finding there is “reasonable belief” the work was performed.

We recommend that the Government amend its definition of evidence for Scope Areas and Geographic Breadth Qualifications to include the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). To do this, the Government would also need to allow PPQs to be provided in addition to, or in place of, CPARs.

Thank you for this question, the Government does not anticipate changes.

1.6 How is evidence evaluated as valid/authentic? For example, what criteria must "evidence" meet to be accepted as valid/authentic? Contract/TO Signatures pages? FPDS.gov records?

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Government has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

1.6 What is considered “Evidence” beyond the Contract award, SOW/PWS, CPAR, and questionnaire mentioned?

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Government has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

1.6 Do “Official Contract documents” count as evidence (i.e., SOO, deliverables, customer, monthly/weekly report, etc.)?

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Government has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

1.6 To valiate location, Period of performance, Dollar value, etc., do FPDS.gov records count as evidence?

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Government has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

1.6 Does customer communications count as evidence (i.e., emails, letters, etc.)? Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Government has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

1.6 Is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) acceptable evidence? Evidence must be sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act has occurred and directly links to the entity for which a qualification is being identified. Typically, an MOU alone does not show a binding obligation that will will be, or has been performed; however if the MOU contains a proper and actionable contract, it may in some case be sufficient evidence.

The Government cautions against the use of MOUs or MOAs in lieu of submitting clearly bindong contractual arrangments.

1.6 Is a single award IDIQ acceptable evidence as a "single contract" if the services provided are for the same Agency/organization and work?

Evidence must be sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act has occurred and directly links to the entity for which a qualification is being identified. Typically, a IDIQ alone does not include work, the work is performed at the order level. Offerors are advised to submit evidence of both an order(s) performed, or being performed, under the single award IDIQ and information on the single award IDIQ itself.

1.6 Is a single award BPA acceptable evidence as a "single contract" if the services provided are for the same organization and work?

Evidence must be sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act has occurred and directly links to the entity for which a qualification is being identified. Typically, a BPA alone does not include work, the work is performed at the order level. Offerors are advised to submit evidence of both an order(s) performed, or being performed, under the BPA and information on the BPA itself.

1.6 The Government states "A referenced project may be one in either the public or private sectors with the exception of Support Area 3 in Volume II." Does this mean a referenced project may not be in the public sector for Support Area 3 in Volume II?

Correct.

1.6 Will the Government consider contract deliverables, such as, Monthly Status Reports (MSRs) or Trip Reports as evidence to support the claim in Scope Area Qualifications and Geographic Breadth Qualifications?

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Govenrment has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

1.6 Will the government accept classified documents from the subcontractors directly to maintain the confidentiality of the classified projects that are being submitted as proof?

Please see 1.3, which says "Offeror’s proposals shall not contain classified data."

1.6 Will the offeror be allowed to submit FOUO documents in a confidential manner rather than submitting them in the proposal volumes?

Please see 1.3, which says "Offeror’s proposals shall not contain classified data."

1.6 When submitting past performance for Top Secret and Classified projects, what would the government consider as acceptable proof given the sensitive nature of the documents?

Please see 1.3, which says "Offeror’s proposals shall not contain classified data."

1.6 As Offerors are required to address "all" areas, please confirm other forms of evidence that would be acceptable to the Government if the SOW/PWS does not entirely reflect the level of service/support as detailed in the GSP Scope requirements for each scope area. For example, monthly reports, deliverables, IT environment snapshots and/or data that are not sensitive/classified.

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Govenrment has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

1.6 "Recent" is currently defined as three (3) years. Offerors may have relevant project experience that extends back more than three years.

Change "Recent" definition to "five (5) years prior to the closing date of the solicitation."

Thank you for this question, the Government does not anticipate changes.

1.6 Would the government also accept a signed letter from the COR as evidence to meet this requirement?

Maybe, please refer to the definition of Evidence in 1.6, which says evidence must be sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act has occurred and directly links to the entity for which a qualification is being identified.

1.69 Would the government consider a Contract Deliverable Item List (CDRL) (i.e., a Monthly Status Report or Trip Report) as an execution document and acceptable evidence in conjunction with a PWS/SOW?

PWS/SOW documentation can be general or high level scope statements that may not have sufficient detail to support proof that the scope areas requirements were met. For example, cybersecurity may be a scope statement, but "IAVA" is not specifically stated. A CDRL would provide the additional evidence that "IAVAs" are performed.

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Government has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

PWS 1.8 Can the Government correct “complaint” to “compliant”? Please see updates in the amended solicitation.

2 Will the government please elaborate on how they will evaluate our Scope

Area projects for relevancy? (i.e., scope, magnitude, complexity) The government has provided the recency period for the projects but not how the projects will be evaluated. In order to better narrow down our projects for submission, we politely request guidance on how the scope area projects will be evaluated.

Please see the addendum to 52.212-2 for the evaluation process.

2.1 CP2 Addendum to 52.212-2 Section 2.1 Page 1 - says amendments will be posted on PIEE and offeror should check PIEE periodically.

Please see updates in the amended solicitation.

2.1 What is meant by award of “basic” contracts under a Multiple Award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (MA IDIQ) contract?

IDIQs issued as a result of the GSP solicitation are the basic contracts refered to in this section.

2.1 CP2, Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services, paragraph 2.1, page 1 states, “This solicitation is a Request for Proposals (RFP) for award of ‘basic’ contracts under a Multiple Award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (MA IDIQ) contract…” What is meant by “basic” in this sentence and why is it in quotation marks?

IDIQs issued as a result of the GSP soictation are the basic contracts refered to in this section. Please see updates in the amended solicitation.

2.4 What would be in the "public interest" to reject proposals? The "public interest" is a case by case determination.

2.5 Section 2.5 says "Contractor teaming arrangement and structure shall be sufficiently evidenced". Question is can the Government further refine what this means.

Suggest a short list of what is expected here (e.g.

teaming partners - state prime or sub, structure in terms of subcontractor, JV or other arrangement. Is teaming agreement necessary as evidence?

Documentation required to be submitted in Volume I is sufficient.

2.5 What level of similarity is required for the Government to determine whether the evidence provided demonstrates acceptable experience related to each respective qualification area?

Please refer to the definition of Evidence in 1.6

2.5 The Government states "A proposal that is evaluated as materially incomplete or unacceptable in any technical qualifications criterion (i.e., the Offeror has not demonstrated that it meets the minimum qualification requirements stated in the solicitation for any criterion), the overall proposal is ineligible for award of an IDIQ contract." Does this mean that any cells marked as "Not Applicable" on Attachment RFP1 would deem the proposal ineligible for award? If not, please identify where "Not Applicable" is acceptable.

No. "Not Applicable" is acceptable where an offeror is able to substantiate its qualification with less than the maximum number of referenced projects.

2.5 The Government states "A proposal that is evaluated as materially incomplete or unacceptable in any technical qualifications criterion (i.e., the Offeror has not demonstrated that it meets the minimum qualification requirements stated in the solicitation for any criterion), the overall proposal is ineligible for award of an IDIQ contract." Does this mean an entire row marked as "Not Applicable" on Attachment RFP1 would deem the proposal ineligible for award?

Yes.

2.5 Would an indication of "NOT APPLICABLE" in the Technical Qualifications Worksheet for any Geographic Qualifications make an offeror ineligible for award?

Not necessarily. "Not Applicable" is acceptable where an offeror is able to substantiate its qualification with less than the maximum number of referenced projects.

2.5 The third paragraph states "The Government will only consider final Past Performance ratings that are Satisfactory or above to be technically acceptable, and will consider ratings information related only to the three performance categories of Quality, Schedule, and Management." A Recent project that has not been completed but has contract performance having occurred within the three (3) years will only have Interim rating within the CPAR system.

Recommend Change to: "The Government will only consider final Past Performance ratings for closed projects that are Satisfactory or above to be technically acceptable, and will consider ratings information related only to the three performance categories of Quality, Schedule, and Management. If a final CPARS rating is not available, the most current past performance information from CPARS will be used"

Please see updates in the amended solicitation. Either interim CPARS reports or final CPARS reports may be submitted; however, all reports must have been issued by the AO, reviewed by the contractor, and finalized by the AO or RO, as appropriate.

2.6 CP2, Addendum to 52.212-2, paragraph 2.6 Likelihood of Offering Other than Fair & Reasonable Pricing for Future Task Orders, page 3 states, “The Government reserves the right to also review any other relevant information it may separately obtain from its information system(s) or other legitimate sources of information if deemed necessary.” a. Under what circumstances would the Government find it necessary to seek out additional information to determine whether an Offeror is likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing on future Task Orders? b. If the Government determines that an Offeror is unlikely to provide fair and reasonable pricing in future Task Orders and is therefore determined unacceptable, will that Offeror be provided an opportunity to respond to the information obtained by the Government prior to being eliminated from the competition?

A. As indicated in 2.6, "The Government will additionally assess information on an Offeror (including proposed team members) to determine if any information provides a reason to believe, or significant cause for concern, that the Offeror would likely offer other than fair and reasonable pricing when competing for future Task Orders under this solicitation." B. As indicated in 2.4, "The Government intends to evaluate proposals and select awardees without discussions between the Government and Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to seek information through clarifications or discussions with Offerors, if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary."

PWS 3.0 Can the government elaborate on use of government owned vehicles? Will the government provide transportation, insurance and fuel for VIP equipment transport activities?

These details will be provided upon issuance of a Task Order proposal request.

PWS 5.1 Can the government provide more information on tools and methodology in use or recommended for IT business management? Does the government currently have a KM system in place or a recommended tool for KM?

These details will be provided upon issuance of a Task Order proposal request.

PWS 6 The PWS states, "If a subcontractor or teaming partner to Contractor has no FCL or an FCL lower than the required classification level indicated, the Contractor must sponsor its subcontractor or teaming partner for a new FCL or an FCL upgrade." Please clarify if the Contractor just needs to initiate the request and the Government will be the sponsor to sign the request form?

Following contract award, when the prime contractor has received its DD254 from the government, the prime contractor may sponsor its subcontractor for an FCL if the subcontractor is anticipated to perform work that requires Secret clearances. Additional information on the facility clearance process can be found at: https://www.dcsa.mil/mc/isd/fc/."

PWS 1 1.6 The Government states, "…referenced project or contract award or execution document, including its Statement of Work (SOW)/PWS that cross references with Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)". Shall Offerors include both base year and option year exercise documentation in the CLIN cross references to accurately portray the end date of the referenced project?

This will enable the reference evidence to accurately portray the start and end date, as well as the total obligated dollar value.

Please refer to the definition of Evidence in 1.6

PWS 1.11.10 Can the government elaborate on it's current COOP plan or provide this document?

If applicable, these details will be provided upon issuance of a Task Order proposal request.

PWS 1.11.12 Can the government provide information on Physical Security staffing and structure? How will costs associated with safe guarding government equipment be handled? (Access control systems, alarms, badging systems, safes?)

These details will be provided upon issuance of a Task Order proposal request.

PWS 1.11.7 With the COVID pandemic as precedence, extended emergency services performed beyond exercising the contingency plan for a single incident can overtax a fixed amount of employees (i.e. FTEs), thus adversely affecting retention and performance; with this in mind, can the government add a statement to the PWS regarding conditions under which TO requirements can be revisited and modified to accommodate extended exigent circumstances?

These details will be provided upon issuance of a Task Order proposal request and in Task Order PWSs. Also, DFARS 252.243-7002, Request for Equitable Adjustment is included in the RFP and expected to flow down to Task Orders.

PWS 1.11.8.1 This is no longer a Federal requirement. The Government plans to follow the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) per site requirements.

Noted, thank you.

PWS 1.12.1 Do we need to identify any Key personnel for the IDIQ response or will the key personnel be required at the Task Order level?

This is not a requirement for this solicitation, however may be required at the Task Order level.

PWS 1.12.2 Given the high demand, high volatility of the IT talent pool and to promote a strong client/vendor partnership, will the Government consider the following adjustments?

i. Rewriting Sentence 1: Contractor shall not transfer, reassign, or remove any Contractor Personnel from their Key Personnel position (or announce its intention to do

so) without prior coordination with the Government. ii.

Removing Sentence 2: The Government may withhold any such approval if it is not in the Government’s interest. iii. Rewriting Bullet 2: Within thirty (30) days of the notice, obtain Government’s coordination on a suitable replacement, and have that Key Personnel replacement performing

This type of requirement, if needed, would be defined at the Task Order level.

PWS 1.15.2 Because deliverables frequently contain foundational information and/or antecedents required for ensuing Contractor execution of tasks, as well as in context of GSP1 PWS 1.15.4 provisions, can the Government provide a time limitation (e.g., 30 days) for providing its written acceptance of deliverables to the Contractor?

The Government will consider this recommendation when writing the ordering guide by which Task Orders will be issued.

PWS 1.15.6 Can the Government rewrite the statement to read: “With exception to corporate internal (i.e., non-DoD IT) information systems specifications (e.g.

architecture, controls, etc.) which require protection in the context of complying with GSP1 PWS 6.7 & 6.8, in no event shall the Contractor submit any document or other deliverable for performance of Contractor services marked “Proprietary.”?

Thank you for this question, the Government does not anticipate changes.

1.3. Can we submit a Cover Letter for the entire submission as a separate attachment?

Please folllow the proposal submission instructions.

1.3. Since Volumes II-V contain multiple files that require specific file names, please confirm if all the PDFs identified in section 1.5 should be combined into a single PDF for the specific Volume.

Clarification if the specific, multiple PDFs should be concatenated into a single Volume file (Section 1.3) or remain as multiple files using the naming convention indicated in Section 1.5.

Please see 1.5, which says, "Evidence for each Reference Project shall be combined into one PDF…" Each referenced project should be a separate file.

1.3. 1.3 states that Each Volume of the Offeror’s proposal shall include a cover file which includes a table of contents for that Volume, as well as a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used. The cover file shall clearly label the Offeror’s name, cage code, and Volume number. The cover file shall be prepared using a standard, 12-point Arial Font, double spaced, with 1” margins, and 8.5” x 11” page size. The file shall be converted to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) before submission. Please confirm that the standard, 12-point Arial Font, double spaced does not apply to our responses included in each Volume 1-5 and only applies to the "Cover File." Please confirm that the 12-point Arial Font double-space does not apply to headers/footers.

That is correct.

1.3. 1.3 states that Each Volume of the Offeror’s proposal shall include a cover file which includes a table of contents for that Volume, as well as a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used. Please confirm if a cover file is required for each Volume including Volume II-V or only for Volume I.

Each volume should have a cover file. Please refer to 1.3.

1.3; 1.7.3; and, 1.7.5

The government indicates that Cover Page files shall be formatted to the following specifications: "The cover file shall be prepared using a standard, 12-point Arial Font, double spaced, with 1” margins, and 8.5” x 11” page size."

However, no such formatting instructions for the Letters of Commitment (section 1.7.3) and Past Performance Consent Letters (section 1.7.5) have been provided.

Recommend changing Font requirements from double-spaced to single-spaced and assuring formatting consistency by applying cover page formatting requirements (standard, 12-point Arial Font, single spaced, with 1" margins, and 8.5"x11" page size) to the Letters of Commitment and Past Performance Consent Letters.

Preparation instructions referenced in this question only apply to the cover files.

1.6 and 1.7.9 Will DHA accept another government client's written confirmation of performance of the GSP PWS for a functional task area on their referenced program as valid evidence?

This specific approach takes into account that no two programs define functional sub-tasks exactly the same way. Also, the contractual SOW/PWS will not always capture all the actual work performed by the contractor over the course of the PoP.

Evidence must be sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act has occurred and directly links to the entity for which a qualification is being identified. Please note, the Scope Area qualifications are as delineated in the 1.7.9, not the GSP PWS.

PWS 1.6.1.2 Can the government elaborate on time frames allowed for on-boarding

OCONUS?

Please see 1.11 of the PWS. This topic will be further discussed at the Post Award conference or prior to issuance of a Task Order.

PWS 1.6.1.2.2 How will the government provide information on the status of current projects?

Some incumbent information has already been posted to SAM.gov. Further, as Task Order requirements mature, they will be communicated to the MA IDIQ holders.

PWS 1.6.1.2.3 How will transfer of hardware warranties and software licenses from previous contractors be managed?

Please see 3.4 of the PWS. This topic will be further discussed at the Post Award conference or prior to issuance of a Task Order.

PWS 1.6.1.2.3 Can the government elaborate on expectations for how orientation should be facilitated, duration, location and web platform etc.

This will depend upon the Task Order requirements as they develop when existing contracts end.

1.7.1 Does the Government want completed Representations and Certifications in Volume or just an assertion that our Representations and Certifications are up-to-date in SAM.gov?

Clarification as to what the Government is seeking with Representations and Certifications

Representations and certifications may be completed electronically, but please also refer to the instructions in FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, contained in the solicitation for more detailed information. As indicated in the 52.212-3, the Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically in the System for Award Management (SAM) accessed through https://www.sam.gov. If the Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically, the Offeror shall complete only paragraphs (c) through (v) of this provision.

1.7.1 Section 1.7.1 states that Offerors " Offerors shall have completed all representations and certifications for each proposed team member (see 1.7.2 and 1.7.3) in the Online Representations and Certifications at the System for Award Management (SAM)." Please confirm that if an Offeror is registered and active in SAM.gov, they do not need to complete the Solicitation fill-ins under Clauses Incorporated by Reference.

We recommend clarifying in Section 1.7.1 that Offerors do not need to submit Clauses Incorporated by Reference with their IDIQ Proposal submissions.

Correct. As indicated in the 52.212-3 addendum, The Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically in the System for Award Management (SAM) accessed through https://www.sam.gov. If the Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically, the Offeror shall complete only paragraphs (c) through (v) of this provision.

1.7.1 What is the window of time for transition in for OCONUS Task Orders? This will depend upon the Task Order requirements as they develop.

1.7.1 & 1.7.7 Can the government clarify what specific representations and certifications are required to be included per the last bullet of section 1.7.7 Fair and Reasonable Pricing Determination? Are they different than what is required to have completed in SAM.gov per section 1.7.1 Representations and Certifications?

Please see updates in the amended solicitation.

1.7.1, 1.8 Volume I, Section 1.7.1 requires that offerors, all JV members, and all teammates be registered in SAM, but there are no instructions for submission of Reps and Certs. Would the Government confirm that representations and certifications are not required for submission other than for the prime offeror for section 1.8?

Please see updates in the amended solicitation.

1.7.1. For Section 1.7.1, please clarify if the Government requesting a copy of the Offeror's SAM representations and certification.

Representations and certifications may be completed electronically, but please also refer to the instructions in FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, contained in the solicitation for more detailed information. As indicated in the 52.212-3, the Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically in the System for Award Management (SAM) accessed through https://www.sam.gov. If the Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically, the Offeror shall complete only paragraphs (c) through (v) of this provision.

PWS 1.7.1.1 How and when will virtual contractor roles be determined and approved? When applicable, virtual roles and requirements will be specified within Task Orders.

PWS 1.7.1.3 Can the government specify telework requirements? When applicable, telework will be specified within the Task Orders.

PWS 1.7.1.4 Does telework also permit remote work? When applicable, telework will be specified within the Task Orders.

1.7.10 For an offeror to be deemed "Acceptable" and awarded an IDIQ contract, does an offeror have to hold experience in all Geographic Areas per 1.7.10.1 through 1.7.10.6?

Allow Offerors to be deemed "Acceptable" and awarded an IDIQ contract without experience in all Geographic areas because it is rare for a small business to hold experience in specific OCONUS countries and multiple states in each region.

Yes. An offeror must meet all qualifications to be found Acceptable.

1.7.10 Can the government clarify if work performed in geographic areas can include personnel being assigned Temporary Duty to a location to perform tasks such as a network refresh or is it the government's intent that personnel must be permanently assigned and physically located full time at the geographic location?

Recommend the government consider any tasks performed for a geographic location, regardless if by Temporary Duty personnel, that it meets the requirement.

For the purposes of proposal submission and substantiating qualifications, if an offeror's evidence supports the performance occurred in required location, temporary duty is acceptable. For execution of performance in resulting GSP Task Orders, temporary duty and travel will be approved on a case by case basis.

1.7.10 If services are performed remotely for example from Virginia for a site in another state such as California, can this be considered qualifying as performing work in California?

Recommend the government allow remote services performed, especially considering how the epidemic has modified the workplace environment, as acceptable evidence for meeting services performed in a particular geographic location.

An offeror's evidence shall support the performance occurred in the required location. Remote work does not meet this requirement.

1.7.10 If a reference performs services in one of the geographic areas, but this is not reflected in its PWS/SOW/SOO or other contract documentation, can offerors submit documentation in the form of (1) a government-provided form signed by the CO/COR, (2) an email from the CO/COR, or (3) other official/signed documentation to verify where the work was performed? If a signed government-provided form is acceptable, will the government please provide the form?

We recommend the government provide a form for Offerors to verify qualifications that are not explicitly outlined in their contract documents.

Please refer to the definitions in 1.6. The Govenrment has given examples of Evidence within the definition.

1.7.10 For evidence for Geographic Areas, is a travel list in the PWS/SOW acceptable?

Travel lists represent areas in which services are performed.

Maybe. Evidence must be sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act has occurred and directly links to the entity for which a qualification is being identified. Without knowing what your travel list stataes, we cannot answer this question.

1.7.10 The Proposal Instructions addendum says: "At least one referenced project shall come from the small business prime or a small business Joint Venture member." The Worksheet says "File Name of Evidence from the SB Prime or any SB Member of the Joint Venture". These appear conflicting.

With reference to the disconnect between the Instructions and the Worksheet, it may be a typo. We recommend the language in the proposal instruction

1.7.10 (all sections .1 - .6) be replicated exactly in the Worksheet. Specifically, the Worksheet headers in Column D should read : "At least one referenced project shall come from the small business prime, small business Joint Venture member, or small business first-tier subcontractor" to match the proposal instructions." The Worksheet should match the proposal instructions. And according to the CFR below "a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture"(i.e., the small business Joint Venture member). The Rationale for this is clear in the CFR language below:

Your quoted language in 1.7.10 subparagraphs is incorrect. It states, "At least one referenced project shall come from the small business prime, small business Joint Venture member, or small business first-tier subcontractor."

Please ensure you are referencing the correct/latest version of documents.

1.7.10 Is a contractor rated higher for providing 2 recent referenced projects versus providing just 1, if both substantiate qualifications related to 1.7.10 Geographic Breadth Qualifications?

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s qualifications on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis only.

1.7.10 For each geographic area, do the referenced projects have to have services performed in 2 states/areas? Or can the Offeror submit 2 projects that collectively fit within 2 of the states/areas (e.g., one project in Hawaii and one project in Kansas submitted together to satisfy Geographic Area 2)?

Evidence submitted shall collectively address all the qualifications.

1.7.10 Must projects submitted for Geographic Breadth Qualifications (Volume IV) also be projects that are submitted for Scope Area Qualifications (Volume III)?

No.

1.7.10 Do services performed during contract travel qualify as relevant experience? Yes, so long as the evidence submitted by the offeror sufficiently supports that performance did occur in the required location(s).

1.7.10. Will the government please confirm PWS tasks 1 through 9 are valid as evidence for Volume IV requirements.

Rationale: The Geographic Breadth Requirements for each area 1 through 6 include: "Services performed relate to at least one (1) of the GSP…