QTA0016AWA0001_-_Q R__3.pdf

VETS 2 GWAC

QTA0016AWA0001

QUESTION AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT #3

Thank you for your interest in VETS 2.

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

While the Government may include one or more specific solicitation passages in a response to a question, interested parties are reminded that section L.3 of the solicitation states, “Offerors are instructed to read the entire solicitation document, including all attachments in Section J, prior to submitting questions and/or preparing an offer. Omission of any information from the proposal submission requirements may result in rejection of the offer.”

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. Interested parties stand to benefit from reviewing all statements, questions, and responses.

Contractor Teaming Arrangements Cost/Price Evaluation Past Performance Proposal Submission Relevant Experience Risk Assessment Systems, Certifications, and Clearances

This is the third Question and Response Document. The first was posted on May 2, 2016. The second was posted on May 11, 2016. Additional Question and Response Documents will be posted to FBO as appropriate. It is the responsibility of the offerors to periodically check the solicitation on FBO for more information.

As a reminder, Offerors shall address all questions via e-mail to the VETS 2 GWAC PCO at VETS2@gsa.gov. All questions must be submitted in the format identified in L.3.5 of the solicitation.

Contractor Teaming Arrangements

Q&R # Question Response

3.1

Does each proposed subcontractor have to have already performed on a contract under the Prime, or is it enough that they have been a sub to the prime on an IDIQ contract for over a year?

The solicitation is clear. Section L.5.1.3.2 identifies the conditions for including proposed subcontractors within a proposal.

3.2

The solicitation states that an offeror may agree with one or more other small businesses to have them act as its subcontractors under a potential VETS 2 award. Does that exclude bringing in large businesses?

The solicitation is clear and stated as intended. Suggest reviewing L.5.1.3.2 for the conditions applicable to proposed subcontractors.

3.3

For the GSA Form 527, Subcontractor forms will not correspond to the Prime contractor entity on the SF33 – is this acceptable?

This instruction provided for Block 1A of the GSA Form 527 is intended for the offeror itself. It is understood that the name on the SF 33 will not match the name on the GSA Form 527 for proposed subcontractors or joint venture members.

3.4

To aid the government in version control, is it acceptable for offerors to use the following file naming convention for its subcontractors?

Offeror name.VOL7.527.subcontractor name.pdf

As stated in L.4, Offerors must include their company name or company name abbreviation and Volume Number in the filename. Offerors may make minor adjustments to the file naming methodology so long as the resulting file names and organization are clearly understood.

Including the subcontractor name in addition to the offeror name would be acceptable as a minor adjustment to the file naming methodology.

3.5

For joint venture members and proposed subcontractors submitting their individual Representations and Certifications, should Section K be used even though the member/subcontractor is not the Offeror?

Yes, as instructed in L.5.1.3.1 and L.5.1.3.2 joint venture members and proposed subcontractors must also submit the Representations and Certifications in Section K. It is understood that these joint venture members and proposed subcontractors are not the offeror, however, Section K should still be utilized.

Cost/Price

3.6 Please confirm the labor rate ranges provided in Attachment J.P-10 are correct.

The direct labor rate ranges within J.P- 10 have been reviewed and are as intended.

3.7 What is the difference between burdened and direct labor rates?

As stated in B.8.4, the maximum allowable burdened labor rates include the direct labor cost, general and administrative expenses (G&A), overhead, fringe benefits, and profit.

As stated in L.5.6.2.1, Direct Labor Rates are labor rates that are not burdened with indirect rates such as Fringe Benefits, Overhead, General and Administrative expenses, and/or Profit.

3.8

Within L.5.6.1, for “(2) Indirect Costs,” which set of instructions should the Offeror use when stating their Indirect Costs methodology?

Both (i) and (ii) shall be addressed within the offeror's Basis of Estimate.

3.9

Will the Government please specify years’ experience and education levels for each of the four skill levels (Junior, Journeyman, Senior, and Subject Matter Expert)?

Definitions for each knowledge/skill level are provided within Attachment J-

2. There are no minimum experience or educational requirements associated with these knowledge/skill levels.

Evaluation

Q&R # Question Response

3.10

If the Government disagrees with a particular section of our proposal, is the proposal rejected as a whole or are points deducted only from the particular section of the proposal in question?

The solicitation is clear. Suggest reviewing M.3, Screening and Evaluation Process.

Past Performance

3.11

Would a J.P-8 Attachment Past Performance filled out for a multi-year project that is ongoing with less than one year of performance count as an Interim CPARS and make this project a candidate REP?

The solicitation is clear. As stated in L.5.2.2(3) Each project must have at least one year of performance unless one of the following situations exist:

a. The project had a base period of performance less than one year and that period of performance is complete.

b. The project has an Interim or a Final

CPARS.

c. The project has a completed Award Fee Determination.

The J.P-8 Attachment is not the same as an Interim or Final CPARS.

3.12

We would like to submit Projects that are task orders under an existing Single Award IDIQ, however the CPAR reviews were done at the IDIQ contract level. Question: In this instance, can an Offeror use the IDIQ contract CPARS, or does an Offeror have to furnish CPARs at the task order level?

As stated in L.5.3, A past performance assessment must be submitted for three of the relevant experience projects submitted under L.5.2.2.

Suggest reviewing L.5.2.1 for the definition of a project.

The CPARS must be for the specific project submitted, otherwise, the Offeror shall submit Attachment J.P-8.

3.13

If all the task orders under a BPA are not included in CPARS, should this be used for Past Performance or should we do a J.P-8 for the whole BPA?

As stated in L.5.3, A past performance assessment must be submitted for three of the relevant experience projects submitted under L.5.2.2.

Suggest reviewing L.5.2.1 for the definition of a project.

The CPARS must be for the specific project submitted, otherwise, the Offeror shall submit Attachment J.P-8.

3.14

The government is requiring Offerors to verify whether past performance ratings exist in the PPIRS database. Request the government provide instructions on how Offerors are to verify whether past performance ratings exist in PPIRS.

Suggest visiting www.ppirs.gov. As stated on the PPIRS website, "Contractors may view only their own data. A contractor must be registered in the "System for Award Management" (SAM) system and must have created a Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) in the SAM profile to access their PPIRS information."

3.15

In the J.P-8 Attachment, the last field in this section, “Relevant Experience Project”, looks like it used to be a dropdown menu. It does not work that way and the field is locked from editing.

We cannot enter the Relevant Experience Project reference in this field because it is locked down. Can you fix the form so it can be fillable?

The proposal templates were developed in Microsoft Word 2010. The templates allow for the form fields to be completed. Through our review, the posted templates are functional.

Proposal Submission

Q&R # Question Response

3.16 Does the Amendment 1 SF30 need to be signed and submitted with the proposal?

Suggest reviewing Page 3 of Amendment 1 which states, "Acknowledgement of this amendment is not required."

3.17

Attachment J.P-12, Line #9. Foreign Locations often do not appear as the formal Place in the FPDS; rather tasks have a requirement for foreign location work embedded. Recommend ask for explanation if Foreign location is claimed but not the listed Place for the contract.

As stated in L.5.2.2.2, Verification must also be provided by either attaching the FPDS Report that indicates a foreign location as the Place of Performance or by authorized signature as described in L.5.2.2.1.1.

Suggest reviewing L.5.2.2.1.1(2) for the verification process if an FPDS-NG Report for a project does not provide appropriate verification for all claimed scoring elements.

3.18

When submitting the proposal through the mail, does the deliverer need special rights or clearances to access the GSA facility to drop off the proposal?

No special rights or clearances are necessary for proposal delivery.

Suggest reviewing L.3.4 for appropriate mailing address.

3.19

In the Proposal Format Table, some of the files required for submission have font requirements while others do not.

Other than adhering to template formats where specified, should the Offeror use the Arial, 10-12 point font requirement in all of its files?

The font type and size is only required as indicated.

3.20 Will the Government allow a cover page for each file that is exempt from page count to clearly identify the file?

The solicitation is clear. Section L.4, Proposal Format Table identifies the applicable page limit for each document. All pages included in a file are counted towards the stated page limitation. The Volume Folder Structure and File Name should provide appropriate identification of each file.

3.21

In the Proposal Format table, many documents have a page limitation. Will the Proposal Front Page and the Table of Contents be counted towards this page limit?

In other words will the government all allow offerors to add a Proposal Front page and a Table of Contents Page for a particular volume in excess of the page limitation is that described for that volume.

The solicitation is clear. Section L.4, Proposal Format Table identifies the applicable page limit for each document. All pages included in a file are counted towards the stated page limitation.

3.22

Will the Government please confirm that the J.P-7 form, in its entirety, shall be no more than 2 pages for each relevant experience project?

As stated in the Proposal Format Table in L.4, Attachment J.P-7 Template is limited to two pages for each Relevant Experience Project. No page limitations for supporting documents.

3.23

Should the Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet be in Excel format as indicated in the second paragraph or in .pdf as indicated in the Proposal Format Table?

Suggest reviewing Amendment 1 which updated the Proposal Format Table.

3.24

In the Proposal Format Table, the Joint Venture and Subcontractor Team Project Listing (Attachment J.P-6) has an File Name of ABC.VOL1.JP6.pdf.

This is an Excel document. Should this file name actually be

ABC.VOL1.JP6.XLS?

The solicitation is clear. As stated in L.4, All proposal documents shall be in Adobe (pdf) format except for the Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet in Attachment J.P-5 and Cost/Price Template in Attachment J.P-

9. The Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet and Cost/Price Template shall be in Microsoft Office Excel format.

3.25

In the Proposal Format Table, If there are multiple subcontractors, do we bundle all the Reps & Certs into one file (ABC.VOL1.RC) or do we submit a separate file for each subcontractor.

Please clarify.

Either method is acceptable for the submission of Representations and Certifications from joint venture members and proposed subcontractors.

3.26 May we include a COVER PAGE or TRANSMITTAL LETTER in Volume 1?

No cover page is requested, however, L.4 of the solicitation provides allowance for a Table of Contents that serves as an overall guide to what files are included, where they are located and brief descriptions of what the documents are.

3.27

The government states “Volume 6 – The cost/price proposal shall be for the offeror. Specific subcontractors and separate subcontractor pricing shall not be included in the cost/price proposal.”

Is it the government’s intent that the subcontractor submits a separate cost/price proposal and all attachments in a sealed package or DVD+R disk?

As stated in L.5.1.3.2, The cost/price proposal shall be for the offeror.

Specific subcontractors and separate subcontractor pricing shall not be included in the cost/price proposal.

Suggest reviewing L.5.6 for Cost/Price Proposal instructions. It is evident that separate subcontractor pricing shall NOT be included in the proposal.

Relevant Experience

Q&R # Question Response

3.28 If a contract has multiple mods, which FPDS record do you want to see?

Suggest reviewing Amendment 1, Section L.5.2.2.1.1 which states, "If multiple FPDS-NG reports are available for a single project, the most recent report shall be submitted as well as any previous reports necessary for verification of claimed scoring elements."

3.29 Can an Offeror use experience of a JV they are a member of?

Suggest reviewing L.3.1, Official Legal Bidding Entity, and L.5.1.3, Contractor Teaming Arrangements.

As stated in L.3.1, "All the evaluation elements an Offeror is claiming credit for in accordance with Section L.5., Volumes 1 through 7, must be in the Offeror’s name...The only exceptions to this requirement are detailed in Section L.5.1.3, Contractor Teaming Arrangements." It is evident within L.5.1.3 that no exception is made for work performed as a member of a previous joint venture.

3.30

Section L.5.2.2 states: “Each Relevant Experience Project….must have at least one year of performance…"

Question: ….one year of performance from what point?

This was addressed in a previous Question and Response Document.

Suggest reviewing Question and Response 2.34.

3.31

In reference to L.5.2.2.1.1, for ease of locating and verifying the description of the work performed relevant to the Performance Area being claimed, would GSA allow Offerors to highlight the specific portions of the Statement of Work that are cited in the project description?

It is evident there is no restriction on highlighting portions of a submitted statement of work.

3.32

Please confirm that if all information included on the J.P-7 is validated by the FPDS record, the Offeror is not required to submit a copy of the original contract award form or a copy of the contract statement of work, and is not required to have the J.P-7 signed by the CO/COR.

The solicitation is clear. The verification requirements of L.5.2.2.1.1 (2) are only necessary if an FPDS-NG Report for the project is not available, or information within the report does not provide appropriate verification for all claimed scoring elements

3.33

If the FPDS record does not completely verify all Relevant Experience Submission information, but this information is validated on a different document, would GSA waive the additional verification requirements of L.5.2.2.1.1(2)?

The solicitation is clear. The verification documents identified in L.5.2.2.1.1 (2) must be included if an FPDS-NG Report for the project is not available, or information within the report does not provide appropriate verification for all claimed scoring elements

3.34

What would be acceptable documentation for verifying a different NAICS than what is listed in FPDS for a task order?

The solicitation is clear. The verification documents identified in L.5.2.2.1.1 (2) must be included if an FPDS-NG Report for the project is not available, or information within the report does not provide appropriate verification for all claimed scoring elements, i.e., the NAICS being claimed was not the NAICS entered in FPDS-NG.

3.35

For work performed as a subcontractor, is project value of relevant experience projects the full amount of the contract value awarded to the prime or the amount awarded to us as a sub?

Suggest reviewing L.5.2.1, which states, while a project performed as a subcontractor will likely be part of a larger project, only the work identified in the specific subcontract may be utilized for scoring as a relevant experience project.

3.36 Do funding agency codes apply to projects that are conducted as a subcontractor?

The solicitation is clear. As stated in L.5.2.2.5, This additional scoring is only available for relevant experience projects performed as a prime contractor to the Federal Government.

3.37 Can experience under different NAICS codes be accepted and scored?

The solicitation is clear. As stated in L.5.2.2 (1), Each project must have been for the performance of one of the Performance Areas listed in L.5.2.2.7 Relevant Experience Performance Areas. The Relevant Experience Performance Areas are associated with relevant IT Based NAICS codes. The Performance Area claimed must have been the principal purpose of the project.

If an FPDS-NG Report for the project is not available, or information within the report does not provide appropriate verification for all claimed scoring elements, i.e., the NAICS being claimed was not the NAICS entered in FPDS- NG then verification must be provided as detailed in L.5.2.2.1.1(2).

Risk Assessment

Q&R # Question Response

3.38

For L.5.5.1, if an offering prime contractor has a prime-sub relationship in the reverse, wherein it is a subcontractor to the entity now serving as subcontractor in the VETS-2 proposal, might it count as an applicable condition?

The solicitation is clear. As stated in L.5.5.1, A business arrangement is considered to have previously performed if each applicable condition is met...3. Each proposed subcontractor has previously performed on a contract or order as a subcontractor to the offering prime contractor.

Systems, Certifications, and Clearances

Q&R # Question Response

3.39 Can an Offeror’s Cost Accounting System be certified by a cognizant auditing agency?

The solicitation is clear. L.5.4.1 details the requirements to claim credit for Cost Accounting System and Audit Information.

3.40

For L.5.4.1, the first paragraph states "The offeror must certify that there have been no material changes to the accounting system since the last audit of its accounting system." Does submission of the audit letter qualify as certification that no material changes have been made since the audit of the accounting system?

Submission of a proposal with verification of an acceptable accounting system that has been audited and determined adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract constitutes certification that there have been no material changes to the accounting system since the last audit of the accounting system.

3.41 Will the government accept as verification of accounting system a letter from a CPA Firm?

This was addressed in a previous Question and Response Document.

Suggest reviewing Question and Response 2.46.