QA II Final NFP-RFP-2010 102810.pdf

No. Topic Question Response 1 AFFILIATED ENTITIES Are there any special rules that will apply if a wholly owned affiliate is utilized?

The Department will work with affiliated entities in a manner consistent with the law.

2 AFFILIATED ENTITIES What impact does having both an eligible not‐for‐profit lender in its own right and an eligible wholly owned affiliate have on the state servicer vs national servicer issue (could an entity that has both an eligible not‐for‐profit lender and an eligible wholly owned affiliate pursue a state servicer contract with one entity and a national servicer contract with the other entity)?

Each "eligible" and "qualified" entity may receive a contract award, consistent with the law and the terms of the solicitation. Each entity should indicate as part of their proposal whether they wish to pursue the national or state option.

3 ALLOCATION We are considering the state contractor model for [STATE] and would like to know the number of [STATE] borrowers we might expect in the initial allocation and the number in future years.

Initial allocations will be provided from borrower accounts currently on the Department's Direct Loan Servicing System (DLSS). A table showing the distribution of DLSS accounts by State and status is attached.

4 ALLOCATION Near the end of the call, we understood from someone at FSA that if the initial allocation of borrowers for a state contract was less than 100,000 borrowers that the NFP will be assigned additional borrowers to reach its 100,000 allocation. Is this correct? Within what period of time will the additional borrowers be assigned?

For Entities that select the State Option and have less than 100,000 borrowers in its state, the Department will pursue other viable and reasonable options in order to comply with the law.

5 TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS We would like further clarification on the consortium idea and if it still going to be a possibility? We were under the assumption that a prime for the consortium would be elected and they would be the responsible party for a) responding to the RFP on the NFP’s behalf and b)providing all future communication to the Department on behalf of the consortium. Has this changed and if so how? Would we as an approved NFP, need to submit our own RFP, even if we are sub contracting with a Prime and servicer?

Teaming arrangements are allowable under the solicitation.

To be acceptable to the Department, such arrangements must conform to the prime/subcontractor team model described in the question and the solicitation. Consortia will not be accepted as provided in the September 13, 2010 and October 25, 2010 Question and Answers. See FAR Subpart

9.6 also for Teaming Arrangement information. See Section D of the solicitation for instructions on what must be submitted in response to the RFP.

6 SOLICITATION/CONTRACT Amendment 0001 revised Section B.13.N.1 from servicing of Direct Loans only during initial task orders to "all types of Title IV student financial aid". Is the Department's intent for the Entities to also service TEACH Grants, Perkins, etc.?

No. The Department has further revised this section in order to clarify, as part of Amendment 0002.

QA II Final NFP‐RFP‐2010 102810 Sheet1 (2) 1 of 2

No. Topic Question Response

7 SOLICITATION/CONTRACT Regarding the question posed about the various Representations & Certifications…I ask that your follow‐up guidance require these attestations to be provided at the time a contract is signed, rather than when the Offering is submitted. This would allow NFP Offerors the opportunity to perform gap analysis and remediation activities on a parallel track with any other tasks that would be specified in the MOU (NIST compliance, etc).

Rationale

You mentioned that the normal process requires these certifications to be provided when RFP is submitted. Essentially, the RFP becomes the contract, once evaluated and accepted by the Government. My understanding is that the NFP RFP process is structured differently.

Analysis of the Offering will result in a negotiated contract with final pricing, and an MOU. Presumably, this later contract document will also include these Representations and Certifications in order to affirm that FAR (etc) compliance is in‐place at the time the Agency enters into contract with the Government.

Representations and Certifications must be included as part of the offeror's proposal submission, in accordance with FAR 52.212‐1(b). Submitted Representations and Certifications (completed as applicable) may be validated prior to award.

QA II Final NFP‐RFP‐2010 102810 Sheet1 (2) 2 of 2

In School In Repayment Total

Alabama 52,626 119,419 163,382 Alaska 3,985 10,004 13,591 Arizona 62,026 158,612 209,551 Arkansas 15,914 37,344 51,579 California 311,323 752,884 1,022,866 Colorado 89,866 144,017 222,756 Connecticut 37,258 85,561 119,403 Delaware 10,829 22,921 32,564 District of Columbia 7,425 28,303 33,652 Florida 182,177 328,652 490,620 Georgia 131,859 282,947 391,459 Hawaii 5,027 15,462 19,876 Idaho 29,522 55,195 78,746 Illinois 180,310 407,100 563,008 Indiana 105,296 161,678 254,997 Iowa 67,710 151,187 207,682 Kansas 44,509 84,135 123,153 Kentucky 39,331 87,961 121,620 Lousiana 18,776 60,468 76,961 Maine 15,323 30,926 44,329 Maryland 79,232 172,734 238,769 Massachusetts 97,735 205,912 292,416 Michigan 202,996 348,528 522,736 Minnesota 86,508 158,205 234,857 Mississippi 17,577 48,225 63,179 Missouri 57,972 147,594 197,317 Montana 3,722 14,894 18,110 Nebraska 19,054 45,969 62,597 Nevada 18,564 47,683 63,159 New Hampshire 12,436 30,155 41,352 New Jersey 110,592 241,306 340,977 New Mexico 8,536 32,180 39,615 New York 224,364 543,709 736,560 North Carolina 64,557 168,071 221,879 North Dakota 5,033 15,038 19,283 Ohio 203,094 396,867 569,882 Oklahoma 23,754 61,602 82,370 Oregon 47,580 126,817 166,711 Pennsylvania 108,022 223,749 322,509 Puerto Rico 16,359 40,645 55,412 Rhode Island 11,046 27,853 37,896 South Carolina 32,237 82,667 110,075 South Dakota 5,680 12,996 18,095 Tennessee 62,186 113,963 167,610 Texas 191,217 373,400 546,203 Utah 14,074 19,567 32,541 Vermont 3,556 11,328 14,428 Virginia 89,700 206,334 282,748 Washington 61,283 172,684 224,861 West Virginia 31,568 65,216 90,666 Wisconsin 49,215 113,759 157,397 Wyoming 2,439 7,153 9,323

Total 3,379,898 7,322,119 10,250,044

Direct Loan Servicing System Portfolio By State (Accounts by borrower's residence as of August 2010)

In School includes borrowers who have never entered repayment; In Repayment includes borrowers in grace, active repayment and all deferment or other entitlement statuses, including in-school deferments.