S2OS_Q_and_R_1.pdf

Questions and Responses STARS II Open Season Solicitation QTA0015MDA2001

Introduction

Thank you for the robust interest in STARS II Open Season.

In addressing questions it is the Government’s position that if the solicitation’s position vis-à-vis a question is self-evident in the request for proposals (RFP), the response to a question may simply be that the RFP already addresses the matter in the manner the Government intended for it to be addressed, or “The RFP is clear”.

A few requests have been made by organizations wanting Government assistance with proposal development. The RFP itself is supposed to serve as the basis for the competition and expresses the Government’s requirements. Procurement integrity considerations preclude the acquisition team working on this procurement from offering personal support to offerors or recommending sources that might assist in proposal preparation. Proposal preparation and related decision are matters in which interested parties should exercise business judgment.

While the Government may include one or more specific solicitation passages in a response to a question, interested parties are reminded that the solicitation’s EVALUATION section contains paragraph 1.6. that states “Offerors are expected to examine the RFP and respond based upon an understanding of the entire solicitation.”

Questions were not extensively edited for grammar, punctuation or spelling. Not every question is shown. Only those questions, or portions of questions, that were deemed frequently asked and/or those that were deemed to benefit the procurement process are shown.

Questions and responses are organized into topic areas shown below. In some topic areas there is a statement that precedes the questions and responses. While jumping to a topic area or to the response for a question might be gratifying, interested parties stand to benefit from reviewing all statements, questions and responses.

• Past Performance Survey

• Past Performance – General

• Pricing/Pricing Guideline Coefficients

• Process for Asking Questions about the Solicitation

• Placement of Documents, Page Limitations and Proposal Submission

• Industry Credential for Constellation II

• 8(a) Joint-Venture and 8(a) Mentor-Protégé

• 8(a) Eligibility

• Evaluation Criteria

• Other

As a reminder, EVALUATION Section A (including any of its subsections) addresses Constellation I and EVALUATION Section B (including any of its subsections) addresses Constellation II.

Where the response to a question indicates that the reader should consider the response to a previous question, that encompasses both the previous question and the response to it, not just the response.

Questions Responses Q1) In the initial instructions to the respondent and the offeror, you state that the offeror should take care to clearly identify the work for the respondent and the GSA contracting team, but you do not define what information is required by the contracting team to understand which contract effort the survey concerns. Is it your intention to omit the contract number, period of performance, total contract value, contract/project title? If not, how do you wish to see this information presented?

The question is not specific enough to ascertain the exact part(s) of the past performance survey that is (are) the subject the inquiry. However, this reply assumes it pertains to the “Work Description” and the “Performed by” areas of the past performance survey.

While the Government didn’t prescribe every data point to fill in at those locations, the solicitation did prescribe various requirements.

This gave offerors the latitude to select information they provide according to the circumstances of the work for which past performance information is being provided and the obligation to fulfill the solicitation’s expectations.

The proposition in the question that an offeror might omit certain, arguably useful, data points as it responds to the requirements of the “Work Description” and “Performed by” instructions would seem to run counter to fulfilling the solicitation’s requirements. Offerors should utilize business judgment to complete the past performance surveys in a way that assists the Government to see and verify that the past performance work qualifies.

Q2) How many surveys are required per constellation and Functional Area?

Refer to the EVALUATION section’s treatment of past performance.

Q3) I was unable to determine the number of past performance surveys that should be included. Can you direct me as to where I can find this information?

Consider EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.3. and B.7.4.

Q4) Do we send the document “Attachment 6 - Past Performance Survey” to clients and pick 2 responses per Functional Area (FA)?

Each offeror manages the past performance survey process per solicitation requirements.

This includes selecting the completed past performance survey(s) included in its proposal(s). The contracting officer for this procurement recognizes that this empowerment of offerors may tend to result in positive past performance findings on the completed past performance surveys. In that regard, the solicitation doesn’t limit the Government only to consideration of past performance results from completed past performance surveys that offerors submit. See EVALUATION section, paragraph A.6.5. and B.7.6.

Q5) Should I have the client complete the past performance survey or the prime contractor complete the survey?

A question phrased differently might produce understanding. The solicitation clearly states at EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.5. and B.7.6. that commercial and federal Past Performance will be considered equally. While the solicitation did restrict an offeror from using past performance of its subcontractor(s), it did not restrict an offeror from utilizing past performance it acquired as a subcontractor.

Those are entirely different propositions. A prime contractor could have been the client/customer, so to think about them (prime contractor and client) as always being distinct entities isn’t applicable. The party that the performing organization had privity of contract with is the immediate beneficiary of its performance, and therefore its customer for a project.

Q6) The client person who managed the relationship with my company is no longer with the same client and is now working for a different company. Can I still have the same person (who now works for a different company) complete the survey? If the answer is “No” and there is no person from the client who knows about the work that was performed by my company, how can I go about completing the past performance survey for that client? Can I ask the prime contractor to receive input from the client manager (who now works for a different company) and then complete the survey?

Past performance survey results must represent the position of the performing organization’s immediate beneficiary (client/customer).

Q7) Are CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) results suitable substitutes for the Past Performance Survey?

No. The solicitation has not established a substitution mechanism like that (and will not). CPARS feeds PPIRS, and PPIRS is addressed in EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.5. and B.7.6.

Q8) The past performance survey requires the offeror to fill in information in the “Performed by” area indicating that the “offeror must explain the relationship of the performing entity to the offeror.”

Three questions later, the survey respondent is asked “whether the performing organization was the prime contractor for the work described above”. 1) If the offering entity is a JV, how do we describe the relationship since the JV was not a Prime/sub relationship? 2) If an offeror is submitting a past performance Client Survey reference for a project on which the offeror did work as part of a JV, how does that work get credited to the offeror?

1) An 8(a) joint-venture offeror for STARS II can use the past performance of a constituent member of the offering joint-venture (see EVALUATION section 12.3). In the question’s scenario, the joint venture member is the performing entity for the past performance survey in question since it performed the work.

The name of the constituent member of the joint-venture offeror for STARS II should be apparent in the joint-venture agreement that the STARS II evaluation team can access (if the joint-venture offeror submitted it according to EVALUATION section 12.2).

2) The proximate question was stated, but it is the antecedent question that is foundational, and that is: What clear and convincing evidence can a joint-venture member provide to conclusively demonstrate that it alone was the performing organization for the work so that it is clear to the reasonable person that the past performance project actually belongs to it and that the past performance project doesn’t have to be parsed in an way that renders it meaningless in order for the joint-venture member to try and claim a fragment of it? The offeror would have to meet the burden to conclusively demonstrate that the work at issue should be credited to it and that it meets the terms of the solicitation. The past performance summary section and/or the free text fields that an offeror controls on the past performance survey might play a role in such an effort. The burden is clearly on the offeror in such matters.

An 8(a) prime contractor without a history of past performance that qualifies to the standards established in EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.3. and B.7.4. (for Constellation I and Constellation II, respectively) is not summarily at risk of failing the past performance evaluation.

An offeror in that position will still be subject to the other past performance requirements, including but not limited to those of A.6.5. or B.7.6., which can be dubbed the “additional past performance record review”.

A primary interest in the additional past performance record review is that no non-favorable/adverse past performance is evident. Even if such non-favorable/adverse past performance is evident, each offeror has the opportunity in the optional past performance summary established by A.6.2. and B.7.3. to address such non-favorable/adverse past performance .

Interim past performance may also be addressed in the past performance summary, and may be cited by an offeror in support of taking non-favorable/adverse past performance results head on in a way that shows adequate assurance that risk from non-favorable/adverse past performance is mitigated and managed.

Another primary interest in the additional past performance record review is addressed in A.6.7.

and A.6.8., and B.7.8. and B.7.9. The ability to use the past performance summary in that way is evident in the solicitation.

Q1) You define recent as “each project must have been completed no more than two

(2) years prior to the original open season offer deadline.” This provision means that if we or any other offeror have a current 5 year contract fitting precisely any one of the FAs but the contract has not yet ended, then we cannot use the contract as part of our past performance submission. That seems a little harsh. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to permit usage of any completed contract OR a current contract that has been in place for at least one full year? Any contract in place for at least one year will give the contract sponsor a good measuring stick against which they could do an evaluation for your review and analysis.

The solicitation focuses the range of eligible past performance to completed projects (EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.3. and B.7.4.). The Government’s requirement stands.

Q2) Since it appears that if an offeror has

NO past performance references that meet the desired criteria, the offeror will only receive a Neutral rating, is it correct that if an offeror has ONE past performance reference that meets the desired criteria, that will mean that the offeror will receive some sort of favorable/acceptable past performance rating that is higher than Neutral?

That is an insightful question. If only one qualifying past performance example in a FA is evident in an offer (meaning an offer for a particular FA in a particular constellation), and the offeror has not failed to submit past performance per EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.7. or B.7.8., then the offer will not fail the past performance evaluation on that basis. As a result, there is no need to contrast the position in which such an offeror would find itself with the position that an offeror for which EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.8.’s or B.7.9.’s approach to a neutral rating for past performance is applicable.

Q3) “Offerors may submit (up to) a six page summary per FA (per Constellation) describing their past performance efforts. Assuming that the offeror has the required credentials to qualify for Constellation II, is it acceptable for an offeror to submit the same past performance summary write-up for a Functional Area for both Constellations?

That is a business decision to be made by interested parties.

Q4) “To be considered recent, each project must have been completed no more than two (2) years prior to the original offer deadline”. Does this mean that GSA will only consider Past Performance Surveys submitted by references for “complete projects”.

See the response to Q1, this topic area.

Q5) Does “completed” mean that the contract period of performance must be completed?

The solicitation is clear. Please focus on the ordinary meaning of the word “completed”. See the response to Q1, this topic area.

Q6) Does “completed” mean that GSA will not consider contracts that are “on-going” as qualified references?

See the response to Q5, this topic area.

Q7) How is the six (6) page summary provided per FA evaluated in comparison to the Past Performance Surveys? Do they carry greater than, less than, or equal weight in the evaluation of Past Performance.

As EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.1. and B.7.1. state, past performance can shed light on the reliability of an offeror, and it provides a basis for making an assessment of the probability that an offeror will do what is has promised to do in future contractual performance. The Government intends to apply judgment in assessing the reliability of an offeror and will consider risks identified in an offeror’s past performance record consistent with its broad discretion in matters of past performance evaluation.

Offerors that have risk factors in their past performance history that the Government might consider in the course of evaluating past performance have an opportunity given in

EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.2. and B.7.3. to attempt to address such risk.

A driver for EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.7. and B.7.8. is that offerors should not hide adverse past performance results on completed projects, and instead may take those results head on in the past performance summary in a way that shows adequate assurance that risk is mitigated and managed.

Q8) Can an offeror be considered neutral for one FA where they don’t have past performance and be considered “qualified” in another where they do [and submit it] and potentially be selected for both?

Yes.

Q9) Can a single project be used for past performance in multiple functional areas if its scope is greater than $100,000 in each functional area?

This is a common question. The question is basically along the lines of, “May a project be parsed into constituent parts, and the constituent parts be applied in separate FAs for past performance purposes?” The answer to that question is “No”. The key connection test in EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.3. and B.7.4. supporting that a project is similar to a FA’s scope is that the project primarily consists of work associated with the FA.

If a project primarily consists of work associated with one FA, it is axiomatic that it cannot also primarily consist of work associated with another

FA.

The solicitation is fair and balanced in its approach to past performance, and offerors may avail themselves of the neutral past performance rating where applicable.

Q10) If an offeror only has one past performance in a FA, will that be considered neutral or unqualified?

Please consider the response to Q2, this topic area.

Q11) Regarding the functional areas and past performance, what is the appropriate FA for the following activities:

a. Help desk support?

b. Network operations?

c. IT call center support?

It is incumbent upon the offeror to demonstrate that past performance is similar. See EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.3. and B.7.4. The free text field associated with the Work Description is a befitting place for the offeror to manage that interest. Also see the response to Q9, this topic area.

Q12) Will GSA permit the identical past performance survey to be used for multiple FAs when the scope of the work covers multiple FAs?

Please consider the response to Q9, this topic area.

Q13) It is our understanding that the same two past performances required for each Functional Area can be applied to both Constellations. Is this an accurate interpretation of the requirement?

It is incumbent upon the offeror to demonstrate that past performance qualifies pursuant to the solicitation’s standards.

Q14) Our company does not have a $100,000.00 contract value for each FA. However, we have performed each FA under multiple contracts between $50.000.00 - $85,000.00. Will we be disqualified because each contract did not reach the $100,000.00 requested amount for FA performance?

No, not on that basis alone. The solicitation is fair and balanced in its approach to past performance, and offerors may avail themselves of the neutral past performance rating where applicable.

Q15) Are we allowed to submit past performance survey for contract that is under 100,000? Would that be considered as qualified past performance?

No. The Government’s requirement for each project to be valued above $100,000 (see EVALUATION A.6.3. and B.7.4) - plus other considerations- to qualify stands. The solicitation is fair and balanced in its approach to past performance, and offerors may avail themselves of the neutral past performance rating where applicable.

Q16) If one contract has covered two FA (541511 and 541512), do we need to submit one or two survey(s)?

This question is unwieldy to respond to because it could have multiple meanings (could have multiple exegeses). The best response at this juncture is that the solicitation is clear and to recommend considering the other questions and responses in this document.

Q17) Can I still use the past performance if the contract is still in progress? I was a subcontractor for NAICS codes 541511 and 541512. Can I include those projects since I was a subcontractor instead of a prime?

The RFP is clear that the Government is interested in completed past performance.

Please focus on the ordinary meaning of the word “completed”.

Please also see the response to Q5, Past Performance Survey topic area.

Q18) It has been usual to allow three years of past performance – would the GSA STARS II committee consider this?

No, previous approaches to source selection from other procurements are not dispositive for this procurement. The solicitation’s recency standard for qualifying past performance stands. The solicitation is fair and balanced in its approach to past performance, and offerors may avail themselves of the neutral past performance rating where applicable.

Q19) What if I have past performance but it does not fit the 100K or completed project requirement. Can I still submit the information in my past performance section?

The RFP is clear that the Government is interested in qualifying past performance.

Please see the response to Q14 and Q15, this topic area.

Q20) Is non-government work allowed to be included on the past performance sheets?

The solicitation is clear. See, for instance, the first sentence of EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.5. and B.7.6.

Q21) For past performance, are we allowed to use the same project for different FAs if the work spanned different FAs?

Please consider the response to Q9, this topic area.

Q22) VIII. EVALUATION, page 15, A.6 Past Performance – As required in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions of Offerors, Commercial Items, where should the past performance information (contract numbers, points of contact, phone numbers, etc.) be included? If it is not to be included in the six (6) page summary per FA, where in the Past Performance Survey forms should this information be included?

FAR 52.212-1(b)(10) ties its implementation to past performance being established as an evaluation factor. It is evident in the solicitation at EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6. and B.7. how to implement submission of past performance information.

Q23) Is it possible to use the same Past Performance example for more than one Functional Area?

Please consider the response to Q9, this topic area.

Q24) I have a contract with a base period (it happens to be for a year, and not just a few months) and with four 12-month option periods. I’ve completed the base period and am nearing completion of the first option period. May I use the base period as a completed past performance project? I’m not worried about proving the work is similar and favorable (I’ve got that covered), I just need to know if it will be considered recent and completed. If I can’t use a base period as a completed project, may I list it on the past

1) When developing a contract with options, the FAR requires a contracting officer to have determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that each option will be exercised. A contract with options was originally viewed as a whole. Work that is ongoing on a contract with options cannot be considered complete. While an interim past performance appraisal might be available, a final past performance record is not available. The basic principle is, if performance is ongoing, performance cannot be considered complete. This approach to completed past performance goes with EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.3 and B.7.4., and not the additional past performance record review.

If an offeror does not have qualifying past performance, does not have past performance evident in the additional past performance record review that is not favorable/adverse and does successfully come through the tests of EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.7. and A.6.8. or B.7.8. and B.7.9., the neutral rating will apply, and that does not adversely impact an offer’s award prospects on the basis of past performance (the offer will not fail the past performance evaluation on the basis of a neutral rating).

Past performance is not subject to comparative assessment between offers; it is a pass-fail/go-no go standard. Offerors are not competing against one another on the basis of past performance; they are trying to meet the standard for passing, as opposed to falling beneath the standard and failing. Meeting standard is all that is required to pass. There is no added benefit to exceeding standard.

Under this solicitation, if an offer did fail the past performance evaluation (if it was not favorable and not neutral), the offer might still be eligible for a SBA Certificate of Competency proceeding.

2) If offerors believe that discussing their interim performance is advantageous to their interests, or would like to mention where information about their interim past performance may be located, that could be accomplished in the past performance summary per EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.2. and B.7.3. GSA retains its broad discretion to conduct the additional past performance record review as stated in EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.5. and B.7.6.

Q25) Can we combine multiple Task Orders under a single contract to fulfill the Past Performance requirements?

That depends upon what is being asked. If the question is, “Can separate task orders be aggregated/amalgamated to create one qualifying past performance.”, the answer is “No”. If the question is, is it even feasible for separate task orders awarded under the same indefinite- delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to each be individually considered as separate projects then the answer is “Yes.”

Separate task orders in that context are each considered to be separate contracts under which privity of contract exists between the contracting parties, so the lines of separation between performance on one project and another are distinct. The past performance must otherwise qualify consistent with the solicitation’s requirements.

Q26) In order for a past performance to qualify as similar for a FA, does it have to cover the full spectrum of work feasible in the

FA?

The explicit solicitation requirement at EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.6.3. and B.7.4 for similarity addresses this matter in establishing that the offeror must clearly demonstrate each project primarily consists of work associated with the FA. The text does not explicitly indicate a full spectrum requirement that was the crux of the question.

Q1) The fully loaded hourly rate for each of the labor categories will be submitted;

however, please could you advise if any additional cost and pricing information is required in support of the fully loaded hourly rates?

The Government intends to conduct price analysis on offered prices that are called for in the EVALUATION section, expecting those prices to result from a competitive environment between approximately comparable offerors. If the solicitation does not establish an explicit requirement for other than cost or pricing data or cost data, then it is evident that offered prices alone are required.

Q2) Could you clarify whether you expect pricing to differ in any way based on functional area? Generally, our pricing would be based on the labor category and job description, and not on the functional area as such.

That is a business decision to be made by interested parties using the solicitation as the full expression of the Government’s requirements and knowing that they will be offering in a competitive environment.

Q3) With regard to ‘Government Site’ ceiling rates, is it correct to assume that the government will provide equipment such as computers, phones, remote access utilities etc as needed to fulfill the work and office facilities?

That is an insightful question. The baseline assumption at the Government Site is that the Government will provide: office space, office electrical service access, office HVAC and restroom access. Offeror’s should consider that they are pricing their proposals in a competitive environment.

Q4) Are the following labor categories intended to be senior, intermediate or junior level roles? The labor descriptions of these are generic and knowing the level of experience will help arrive at the ceiling rates.

● Applications Programmer

● Consultant

● Applications Programmer

● Helpdesk Specialist

● Business Process Consultant

The labor category descriptions are stated as intended, and are consistent with FAR 39.104 in that they are expressed in terms of competency and responsibilities, and not minimum education and experience. Also consider paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the SCOPE section.

Additionally, a response that they might be intended to be senior, intermediate or junior would mean different things/be nonspecific in the eye of different readers/beholders.

Q5) Is the multiple incumbent position intended to be at the same level as the single incumbent or are they both the same with respect to seniority?

● Telecommunications Manager –

Multiple Incumbents

● Telecommunications Manager –

Single Incumbent

Those labor category descriptions are stated as intended.

Q6) Does an offer have to provide pricing for all labor categories in each constellation and functional area in which an award is sought?

The solicitation is clear about completion of all labor category line items. See EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.7.4. and B.8.4.

That said, offerors should be aware that 8(a) STARS II offers potential customers IT services and IT services-based solutions (see, for instance, SCOPE section, paragraph 1.1.). Task order opportunities don’t have to be constrained to only work from a single FA. SCOPE section, paragraph 1.2. is clear that a given task order opportunity is to be classified in the FA it is most closely connected with/that best fits the IT services- based outcome. A logical application of that is that a task order opportunity must have its core work tied to the primary FA, but may draw in work from other FAs as part of the IT services-based solution. As a result, the Government stands to benefit from having the full range of labor categories pre-priced for every FA and it is foreseeable that they may be utilized.

Q7) Why would an 8a Company who is bidding, for example, Functional Area 3 (Computer Facilities Management Services) be required to bid a fully-committed price for a “Web Designer” when this labor position would clearly be solicited under Functional Area 1 (Custom Computer Programming Services)?

See the response to Q6, this topic area.

Pricing is a business decision to be made by interested parties using the solicitation as the full expression of the Government’s requirements and knowing that they would be offering in a competitive environment. It is conceivable that an offeror might price the labor categories for a given FA in a given Constellation differently than it would for a different FA in the same Constellation if it perceived that was advantageous to its prospects for basic contract award in a competitive environment.

Q8) Can we use the same rate for one (1) labor category throughout all the regions?

That is a business decision to be made by interested parties using the solicitation as the full expression of the Government’s requirements and knowing that they would be offering in a competitive environment.

Q9) Most pricing be submitted for all Labor Categories in a Functional Area for all Localities, or just in the area where the company resides (will market)?

The solicitation is clear about completion of all labor category line items. See EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.7. and B.8.

Q1) What is the due date for questions about the RFP?

The sooner a question is asked/directed to S2OS@gsa.gov, the earlier it may be considered.

Q1) The solicitation requires a contract manager. Where can we submit a resume for that and will that count against the page limitation?

A resume for the Contract Manager is not an explicit solicitation evaluation requirement. There certainly are performance requirements related to the Contract Manager that each contract awardee is obligated to fulfill. Each offeror should consider the Contract Administration Plan (CAP) requirements established in the EVALUATION section and use business judgment to determine if a contract manager resume is something it wants to include, or does not want to include, in a

CAP.

Q2) May the offeror include an acronym list with the CAP and MAP and will it be excluded from or included in the page count?

An offeror might include an acronym list in the CAP and/or MAP but it/they would count against the page limitation(s).

Q3) Where does an offeror place agreement to hold its offer open for the required 365 days?

Provided there is no specific indication that an offeror did not disagree to the required 365 day offer acceptance period, completion and submission of the SF1449 will satisfy that interest.

Q1) I am seeking clarification regarding how to respond to both Constellations. 1) It is my understanding that the only difference between the two Constellation requirements is the need to provide proof of industry credential. Is that correct? 2) All other components of the Constellation II proposal would mirror those in the Constellation I offer. Is that correct?

Regarding the first question, it is evident in the solicitation that Constellation II is differentiated from Constellation I by the requirement for a designated industry credential.

Regarding the second question that asks about what would go into an offeror’s proposal – that is a business decision to be made by interested parties using the solicitation as the full expression of the Government’s requirements and knowing that they would be offering in a competitive environment.

Q2) If a firm does not have the ISO certification prior to submitting a proposal, but will have the certification prior to GSA’s award, can we bid both Constellation I & II? Or are we locked into just Constellation I?

The solicitation is clear.

Q3) We will be submitting proposals for Constellations 1 & 2. I am assuming that the proposals can be identical except that the Constellation 2 proposal will contain the required Certification information. Is this permitted?

See the response to Q1, this topic area.

Q4) If we are not currently ISO Certified, we cannot qualify to offer Constellation II pricing?

The solicitation is clear.

Q5) Does the prime contractor have to be CMMI Level II certified by the time of the award of the contract in the Constellation II response

The solicitation is clear.

Q6) If an awardee of the STARS II contract in Constellation I later obtains an industry credential that would qualify for Constellation II post award, is there a mechanism to permit the contractor to “upgrade” into Constellation II?

There is no expectation of that evident in the solicitation. The solicitation requires separate offers for each FA at each Constellation (EVALUATION section, paragraph 1.9) to be considered for award in the respective FA and Constellation.

Q7) Can a proposal be submitted for Constellation II if we are in the process of receiving our CMMI level 2 certification?

The solicitation is clear.

Q8) If we cannot respond to Constellation II, but are selected based on our Constellation I proposal…Can we update our status with the 8a STARS program to be added to list of vendors with a CMMI certification when we receive it?

See the responses to Q2 and Q6, this topic area.

Q9) Is CMMI certification required at the time of submission or at the time of award? Can companies that receive certification after award move to Constellation II at any time during the period of performance?

See the responses to Q7 and Q8, this topic area.

Q10) If a company is qualified as a Constellation II vendor, can it bid on Task Orders issued for Constellation I as well?

There is no expectation of that evident in the solicitation. The solicitation requires separate offers for each FA at each Constellation (EVALUATION section, paragraph 1.9) to be considered for award in the respective FA and Constellation.

Q11) If we are certified in CMMi Level 3 do you need to confirm CMMi level 1 and level 2 compliance?

An offeror may rely upon a higher level rating for a Level II designated CMMI industry credential because the level ratings are progressively inclusive of the requirements for their lower level counterparts. Because of that relationship, a Level III or higher rating for CMMI – DEV or CMMI – SVC meets and exceeds a Level II rating for its Level III namesake. The solicitation requirements for the higher level rated designated CMMI industry credential apply - just as they would for the Level II rated designated CMMI industry credential.

Due to the structure of the designated ISO industry credentialing rubric, the level concept isn’t applicable to ISO 9001:2008.

Q1) I want to bid on the Constellation II, and while I don’t meet all of the requirements, together with my mentor we do, together. My mentor and I would like to apply for Constellation II together under the Mentor- Protégé agreement but I would separately like to apply for Constellation I. Would that suffice?

An organization may pursue Constellation I in one, some or all FAs on its own merit and form an 8(a) joint-venture to do the same in Constellation II.

Q2) Company S wants to offer on Constellation I in some mix, or all, FAs on its own merit and is then considering pursuing Constellation II in some mix, or all, FAs as 8(a) joint venture S2. Is this acceptable?

See the response the response to Q1, this topic area.

Joint venture S2 will submit with its offer the joint-venture agreement meeting all of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) requirements, subject to later SBA review and approval prior to contract award.

While GSA will determine if an offeror is qualified for award based upon the solicitation’s requirements, SBA plays a vital role per FAR 19.805-2(b), by verifying the 8(a) eligibility of 8(a) organizations. Hence, it behooves the offeror to be familiar with SBA’s requirements, e.g. 13 CFR 124.507 and 13 CFR 124.513.

Q3) Section VIII. EVALUATION, the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 states, “…. only one offer will be accepted from a single prime contractor for each Constellation and functional area pairing. Multiple or alternate offers from the same prime contractor constitutes a material nonconformity and will result in all of its offers being rejected.” Does this prohibit a prime contractor from bidding on a Constellation as a prime contractor and also as a non-managing Joint Venture partner?

It does not appear that the offers will be from the same legal entity. Two offers for the same FA in the same Constellation from the same legal entity would be deemed a material nonconformity.

Please also see the response to Q1 and Q2 in this topic area and perform due diligence on the requirements of the 8(a) program, especially those surrounding formation of an 8(a) joint-venture. A question to reach understanding about the answer to is, “Where an 8(a) organization intends to offer as a prime contractor on its own merit, may the same 8(a) organization also offer for the same requirement as the managing venturer of an 8(a) joint-venture that SBA would approve?” It is a necessary exercise that each interested party reach a conclusion in this matter via performing its own due diligence.

Q4) XYZ, inc. has been invited into a JV. The controlling company (51%) of the JV is graduating next year, how will this affect the other companies in the JV?

Each member of a joint-venture must submit separate Representations and Certifications per EVALUATION section, paragraph 12.4.

Accordingly, each JV member is also accountable individually to FAR 52.219-28.

Also note the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations applicable to 8(a) eligibility for initial contract award as well as continuing 8(a) eligibility requirements. Please also read FAR 52.219-17 and 52.219-18.

Q5) May an 8(a) organization enter into an 8(a) joint-venture agreement as the 8(a) managing venturer and have the expectation that it may rely upon a constituent member of the joint-venture to satisfy the solicitation’s requirement for a designated industry credential, e.g.

ISO 9001-2008?

Yes.

Q6) We are an 8(a) certified small business and we would like to partner with one other company who is not an 8(a). Please let me know if this is allowed or not

Please consider the solicitation’s treatment of subcontracting. Please also consider the solicitation’s approach to 8(a) joint-ventures, and 8(a) joint-ventures based upon SBA approved mentor-protégé arrangements.

Q7) We recently graduated from 8(a) status and are considering various ways to team with one or more small businesses for STARS II open season. Our understanding from reading the solicitation is that bids from joint ventures and mentor-protégé teams are acceptable, but it isn’t clear to us whether bids from teams comprising an 8(a) prime contractor and one or more large business subcontractors are acceptable and/or desirable. Can you tell us?

Please perform due diligence as to the solicitation’s treatment of subcontracting.

Please also consider the 8(a) program’s requirements for 8(a) joint-ventures, and 8(a) joint-ventures based upon SBA approved mentor-protégé arrangements.

Q8) If I am a part of a JV, can I submit another proposal as a standalone firm?

Please consider the responses to Q2, Q3 and Q4 in this topic area.

Q9) Please confirm that a joint-venture agreement (we’re not a mentor-protege) need not be pre-approved by SBA, but must be signed by the members of the JV, included with the offer, and be fully compliant with all SBA 8(a) requirements.

Confirmed.

Q1) If a company’s 8a certification expires 6 months into the evaluation of offers, what is the effect on its offer?

While GSA will determine if an offeror is qualified for award based upon the solicitation’s requirements, SBA plays a vital role per FAR 19.805-2(b), by verifying the 8(a) eligibility of 8(a) organizations. Hence, it behooves the offeror to be familiar with SBA’s requirements, e.g. 13 CFR 124.507 and 13 CFR 124.513.

A list of subcontractors and their respective merits is not an explicit evaluation requirement. There are subcontractor control and consent procedures required by the clauses includes in the solicitation that will operate as described during contract performance, e.g. 52.219-14 and 52.244-2.

That is not to say the Government isn’t interested in each offeror’s intent regarding scope fulfillment through contract compliant subcontracting risk mitigation and management. See the RFP’s treatment of subcontracting in the CAP requirements at Constellation I and Constellation II. The CAP is more interested in the “what” and “how” questions about subcontracting, not the names of the potential subcontractors that will later still be subject to the consent to subcontracting requirements and limitation on subcontracting.

Additionally, this response is intertwined with questions in the past performance area regarding the breadth of past performance required for a project to qualify as similar to the work in a functional area. The key connection test for a similarity determination is that the project primarily consists of work associated with the FA, so that if a primary NAICS code were assigned to the project, it would be the NAICS code associated with the FA, and not another NAICS code. As part of its CAP an offeror may certainly address how it will complement its own core capabilities in order to fulfill all work associated with a FA for which it does not show specific past performance.

Q1) “Technical Proficiency” is a term used in the EVALUATION section at 16.1 in association with Constellation I and Constellation II. Is it an evaluation factor?

No, EVALUATION section, paragraph 16.1 does not create evaluation factors. As indicated in EVALUATION section, paragraph 16.1, the table there is a summarization of the SCOPE section and the awardee attributes.

The EVALUATION section submission requirements are clear.

Q2) Is there a detailed description of what materials are required in the Contract Administration Plan (CAP)?

Please consider EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.4.

and B.4. The requirements there are self-evident and provide each offeror discretion on how to respond. It was not the Government’s intent to script the mechanics of how each offeror crafts a CAP.

Q3) Is there a detailed description of what materials are required in the Marketing Action Plan

(MAP)?

Please consider EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.5.

and B.5. The requirements there are self-evident and provide each offeror discretion on how to respond. It was not the Government’s intent to script the mechanics of how each offeror crafts a MAP.

Q4) Is the RFP Requirements Compliance considered to be our technical response?

See EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.3. and B.3.

Q5) Could you please give a little more guidance on the Marketing action plan (MAP)?

Please see the response to Q3, this topic area.

Q6) The MAP asks the vendors to demonstrate understanding of the small business GWAC center and the stars II industry partners. Could you give more specifics on this case?

Please see EVALUATION section, paragraphs A.5.

and B.5. The requirements there are self-evident and provide each offeror discretion on how to respond.

Q7) Section 8.1, item (c) of the RFP EVALUATION section, states:

“The font size shall be no less that 12 point except for tables, charts, graphs and figures, which shall be no smaller than 8 point.” Would using a font no smaller than 8 point for the captions that details the tables, charts, graphs and figures in the proposal be considered in compliance of the provision?

It is envisioned that tables, charts, graphs and figures will be used for the purpose(s) stated in EVALUATION section, paragraph 8.1.(e). With that in mind, a caption may be used to designate a table, chart, graph or figure and be considered as part of that table, chart, graph or figure.

Q12) The proposal instructions at A.8.2. and B.9.2. do not explicitly specify where the offeror should outline the method used for the development of labor rate for categories where they presently have no employees. Should this method be explained in the Total Compensation Plan or should it be placed as an attachment to the pricing spreadsheets.

Because such topics are addressed contemporaneously in the EVALUATION section (A.8. and B.9) that involve the Total Compensation Plan and Uncompensated Overtime Policy subjects, and because they are intertwined with the requirements of FAR 52.222-46 and 52.237-10, they should be treated accordingly.

Q13) The Evaluation instructions do not address where any cost explanation or narratives can be placed. Where can any explanation of our cost methodology be placed?

This response presumes the question is about providing a cost build up to offered pricing. Such a requirement is not in evidence in the EVALUATION section.

Q14) The proposal does not establish a start date for this contract or the start date for year one of the base period. What is the official start date?

Offerors are aware of the current offer deadline and the required minimum offer acceptance period. Also see the the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 in the EVALUATION section.

Q15) Should the offer include the ¾ of a percent (.0075) contract access fee in labor category pricing?

See PRICING section, paragraph 12.

Q1) Is there any requirement associated with STARS II for an eligible 8(a) company to have a DCAA approved accounting system in place before being eligible to compete?

While the short answer is “No, because DCAA approved accounting systems are typically applicable to cost contracting and STARS II does not contemplate cost contracting in task orders awarded under it”, that’s the kind of question that the acquisition team for this procurement would like to challenge interested parties to perform their own due diligence about in order to ascertain if such a requirement is explicitly stated, or even intimated, in the EVALUATION section or the solicitation’s requirements for contract performance. Any such requirement should be explicit/readily evident upon reading the solicitation.

Q2) CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

Section it states that “The basic contract’s pre-established labor categories and associated ceiling prices cover work at the Secret level.”

Does this statement mean that in order to qualify for an 8(a) STARS II award, the offeror needs to have a Secret facility clearance? Does this statement mean that all work on 8a STARS II will require personnel to have Secret clearances?

If a task order opportunity requires secret level clearance, or secret level clearance and comparable safeguarding, that clearance level does not constitute a basis to increase the pre-priced ceiling labor rates established in an awarded STARS II contract. Ordering contracting officers may specify the clearance level, or clearance and safeguarding level, required to compete for task order award and/or perform task order work.

Q3) It is our understanding that FA4, Other Computer Related Services, would include the following types of services: Information security, C&A, Cybersecurity, Vulnerability, Assessments, FISMA Program Management and Oversight, Security Policy & Guidance, etc. Is this correct?

See the definition of the NAICS code associated with FAs 1-4 and the treatment of FA assignment in the SCOPE section.

Q4) If an offeror proposes on more than one functional area within a constellation, can the offeror be awarded one or more of the proposed functional areas or must all proposed functional areas be successfully awarded within the constellation to qualify?

As the solicitation indicates, a single potential prime contractor could submit up to eight offers, one in each FA and constellation pairing. Those offers will be considered independently.

Q5) The proposal instructions provide guidance to the offeror for responding to the Functional Areas and the Constellations, but not for IT Services-Based Solutions (Ancillary Services and Equipment) and Ancillary Telecommunications/Wireless. Can the government provide guidance

As SCOPE section, paragraph 4 indicates, Ancillary Support will be addressed at the task order level.

regarding how they want the offeror to respond to these requirements?

Are separate Past performance and Pricing sections required for these two sections?

Q6) The Scope section of the RFP defines Functional Area 4: NAICS 541519-

OTHER COMPUTER RELATED

SERVICES as being for “establishments providing computer disaster recovery services or software installation services.” Are other IT services such as Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) and Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) included in this functional area?

See the response to Q3, this topic area.

Q7) Are we required to offer service to a foreign area?

The solicitation includes mechanisms for CONUS, non-foreign area and foreign area performance. A contract awardee is not required to offer for a task order opportunity that it does not wish to perform.

Q8) Although the four NAICS Codes mentioned in the solicitation for the Functional Areas (FA) are 541511, 541512, 541513 and 541519, only 541512 is listed on the SF1449. Is there a reason for this and does it matter if a contractor wishes to bid on one of the other three NAICS Codes?

Could you please clarify?

The citation of NAICS code 541512 on the published SF1449 is related to the requirement to identify a primary NAICS code for the overall procurement.