QTA0016AWA0001_-_Q R__4.pdf

VETS 2 GWAC

QTA0016AWA0001

QUESTION AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT #4

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

• Other

• Past Performance

• Proposal Submission

• Relevant Experience

• Responsibility

• Risk Assessment

• Systems, Certifications, and Clearances

This is the fourth Question and Response Document. The first was posted on May 2, 2016. The second was posted on May 11, 2016. The third was posted on May 20, 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.

Contractor Teaming Arrangement

Q&R # Question Response

4.1

We are not using subcontractor qualifications or past performance in our VETS 2 proposal but do expect to use subcontractors for specific task orders. Do we still need Letters of Commitment or any other documents from these expected teammates?

As stated in Section G.16 of the solicitation, the Government has not pre-approved any subcontractors in making awards for the Master Contract.

Section L.5.1.3.2 of the solicitation provides the conditions for utilizing subcontractors within a VETS 2 proposal.

If a proposed subcontractor is not being used for scoring purposes, they should not be included within the VETS 2 proposal.

4.2

Is project work from a proposed subcontractor where that subcontractor performed as a subcontractor (i.e., it is not a prime contract for the proposed sub) allowed to be used as a Relevant Experience Project?

Suggest reviewing L.5.1.3.2 and L.5.2.

It is evident the solicitation includes no restriction relating to submission of a project that was performed by a proposed subcontractor as a subcontractor.

4.3 Will the Government restrict scoring to only

relevant experience from SDVO SBCs?

The solicitation is clear and stated as intended. 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." Section L.5.1.3 identifies the conditions for proposing as a contractor teaming arrangement.

4.4

If submitting with a proposed subcontractor, do both companies need to have a system, certification, or clearance for it to count toward our point total?

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

4.5 Can subcontractor certifications be used for

scoring by an Offeror?

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

Cost/Price Q&R # Question Response

4.6 Are Offerors able to submit supporting

documentation for the Basis of Estimate?

Suggest reviewing Amendment 2, Section L.4 Proposal Format Table which has been amended to allow for supporting documentation as instructed in L.5.6.1(b).

Other Q&R # Question Response

4.7 Are the Q&A responses provided prior to release of the RFP considered to be authoritative?

No, any information shared concerning the Draft RFP or other market research was pre-decisional. The FBO.gov Announcement for solicitation QTA0016AWA0001 is the official source of information.

Past Performance Q&R # Question Response

4.8 Can offerors submit past performance that does not fall directly under the five (5) NAICS codes provided in L.5.2.2.7?

The solicitation is clear. As stated in L.5.3, past performance will be evaluated using projects submitted under L.5.2.2 Relevant Experience. As stated in L.5.2.2, 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.

4.9

Is the offeror permitted to select any three (3) projects submitted under L.5.2.2 Relevant Experience to be evaluated for Past Performance ?

Yes, as stated in L.5.3, past performance will be evaluated using projects submitted under L.5.2.2 Relevant Experience. A past performance assessment must be submitted for three of the relevant experience projects submitted under L.5.2.2. Offerors must identify the three projects being utilized for past performance on the J.P-5 Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet. Acceptable forms of past performance assessments are detailed in L.5.3.1 and L.5.3.2.

4.10

If interim ratings and a final rating are available within PPIRS should all of the interim ratings along with the final be submitted or just the final rating?

No, only the final rating should be submitted. Suggest reviewing L.5.3.1, for the purposes of this solicitation, the final past performance information will be used on a relevant experience project. If a final rating is not available, the most current past performance information will be used.

4.11

If a final rating is not available within PPIRS but an interim rating is, should the offeror submit the interim rating AND a past performance rating form?

No, only the PPIRS rating should be submitted. Suggest reviewing L.5.3.1, for the purposes of this solicitation, the final past performance information will be used on a relevant experience project. If a final rating is not available, the most current past performance information will be used.

The J.P-8 Past Performance Rating Form should only be submitted if no interim or final ratings are available in

PPIRS.

Proposal Submission Q&R # Question Response

4.12 Some carriers require a phone number for

deliveries; what is the appropriate information?

For delivery purposes, offerors may use 816-823-2067. NOTE - No questions concerning the solicitation will be answered at this number.

4.13 Will the Government extend the due date for

proposal submission?

See Amendment 2 for information on the extended due date.

4.14 May proposals be sent via courier, such as

FedEx or UPS?

Instructions within L.3.4 for mailed proposals also apply to proposals delivered by couriers such as FedEx or

UPS.

4.15 What version must documents be saved in in order for the government to be able to read submitted files?

Suggest reviewing L.4 of the solicitation. 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 (.xls).

4.16 What is the process for submitting a revised proposal if necessary after a proposal has already been submitted?

Up until the solicitation closing date and time, if an offeror wishes to submit a revised proposal after a previous proposal was already submitted, the offeror shall include a one-page paper cover letter that identifies the previous proposal to be withdrawn and that the enclosed replacement proposal is submitted for evaluation.

4.17

How would the government like to see the file name format for the Section K being submitted by a Subcontractor, as required under Section L.5.1.3.2? Should it follow the same file name format as the Subcontractor Letter of Commitment so there is a correlation for the government, i.e. create ABC.VOL1.SubRC1.pdf to relate to ABC.VOL1.SubLOC1.pdf? If the government concurs then the file name format for a Subcontractor’s Section K will follow the format ABC.VOL1.SubRC1.pdf for the first Subcontractor and ABC.VOL1.SubRC2.pdf for the second Subcontractor.

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.

4.18

For financial information from proposed team members, will you allow information to be sent directly to the government or allow files to be password protected within our CD’s and have the passwords sent directly to you through email?

No, separate submissions and password-protected files are not allowed.

Suggest reviewing Amendment 1, L.4 which allows for sealed envelopes for each team member within the same package as the submitted proposal.

Additionally, proposal submissions shall not be locked, encrypted, or otherwise contain barriers to opening.

Relevant Experience Q&R # Question Response

4.19 If multiple customers are involved in a project, which Agency Funding ID should be used?

As stated in L.5.2.2.5, Federal Government Customer is determined by the Funding Agency ID identified within the FPDS Report.

4.20

In the attachment J.P-7 Relevant Experience Project Template and Attachment J.P-8 Past Performance Rating Form, if our role is a subcontractor on a Government program will it be acceptable for the form to be signed by the prime contractors designated Contracts or Program Management representative?

Suggest reviewing Amendment 2. As stated in L.5.2.2.1.1(2), for a project performed as a subcontractor, the completed Attachment J.P-7, Relevant Experience Project Template, must be signed by a Corporate Officer/Official of the Prime Contractor (or higher tier subcontractor) with cognizance over the submitted project.

4.21

If we are submitting a Relevant Experience Project where we performed as a subcontractor, should we fill out J.P-7 with the prime contractor as the “customer” and the contract number, period of performance, and value being between the prime and us?

As stated in L.5.2.1, 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.

All information provided should be specific to the subcontract. Any forms should be completed for the subcontract with the prime (or higher-tier) contractor identified as the customer.

4.22

If we are submitting a Relevant Experience Project where we performed as a subcontractor, when filling out J.P-7 should we just leave the COR/COTR section blank?

The solicitation is clear. As stated in L.5.2.2.1 and within the J.P-7, contact information of the COR/COTR is only required if the COR/COTR is providing signature verification.

4.23 On the J.P-7, please confirm that the Part IV Signature should be the same POC named in Part II.

Yes, for verification of a relevant experience project through L.5.2.2.1.1(2), the official with cognizance over the project that signs in Part IV of the J.P-7 must also be identified in Part II of the J.P-7.

4.24 If we have a task order against a commercial multiple-award contract, how should we address it on the J.P-5 and J.P-7?

As stated in L.5.2.2.3, This additional scoring is only available for relevant experience projects performed as a prime contractor to the Federal Government.

Neither the J.P-5 nor the J.P-7 should claim scoring unless the project was performed as a prime contractor to the Federal Government and the project is a task order against a multiple-award Federal Government contract

4.25

The task order FPDS Report makes reference to the multiple award contract number under the item "Referenced IDV ID:"; however, on the same FPDS Report under the "Competition Information" section there is no reference to a Multiple-award type contract. What information should I submit for verification?

Suggest reviewing L.5.2.2.3 which provides the verification requirements for a Relevant Experience Project Representing a Task Order against a Multiple-Award Contract.

Also suggest reviewing Amendment 1, Attachment J.P-12 which provides a crosswalk for elements within Part I of the J.P-7 Relevant Experience Project Template and data fields within FPDS- NG that can provide verification of the claimed scoring elements.

4.26

Does "collection of task orders" mean a collection under a single award indefinite delivery task order contract and/or single award

BPA?

Suggest reviewing Amendment 2, Section L.5.2.1.

When a Single-Award Indefinite Delivery task order contract or Single Award BPA’s requirements are well defined, for a specific purpose(s), and task orders are issued on a recurring basis, a collection of task orders placed under it may be combined and submitted as a single project.

4.27

If claiming relevant experience as a subcontractor, does the $500,000 minimum project value apply to the subcontract dollar amount or prime contract dollar amount?

As stated in L.5.2.1, 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.

All information provided, including project value, should be specific to the subcontract.

4.28 What can we do if we are not able to find our Federal Government contract/task order in

FPDS?

Suggest reviewing Attachment J.P-12 for instructions on locating an FPDS Report. If searching with the contract/order number is not successful, suggest searching by company name or DUNS.

4.29

For signatures on the J.P-7 and J.P-8, reference is made to both "Corporate Officials" and "Corporate Officers." Is there a difference between these two terms?

For the purposes of this solicitation for Relevant Experience and Past Performance, Corporate Officer with cognizance over the submitted project and Corporate Official with cognizance over the submitted project are synonymous and both are acceptable.

4.30 If we are using work where we are performing as a subcontractor, do we need to submit the FPDS-NG report for the prime contract?

No, if the project was performed as a subcontractor, the Prime Contractor's FPDS report should not be submitted as verification.

As stated in L.5.2.1, 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.

All information provided should be specific to the subcontract. Any forms should be completed for the subcontract with the prime (or higher-tier) contractor identified as the customer.

4.31

If we are submitting a Relevant Experience Project where we performed as a subcontractor, does the subcontract agreement between the prime and us (the subcontractor) satisfy L.5.2.2.1.1(2)(b)?

For a non-government project, such as a project performed as a subcontractor, suggest reviewing the last bullet in L.5.2.2.1.1(2)(b).

■ Non-Government Award Form (Must explicitly identify the Contractor, Non- Government Customer, Dollar Value, and the date the customer awarded/signed)

4.32

If we are submitting a Relevant Experience Project where we performed as a subcontractor, should we use the SOW that the prime contractor sent us or the SOW from the original solicitation for the prime contract?

As stated in L.5.2.1, 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.

All information provided should be specific to the subcontract.

4.33 If a SOW is classified and there is no redacted version available, what alternative supporting documents can we use, if any?

Section L.5.2.2.1.1 is clear with the requirements for verification of relevant experience submission.

4.34

If a subcontractor on a foreign location relevant experience project, does the offeror need to have been directly involved in this element of the work?

As stated in L.5.2.1, 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.

4.35

Is an order against a Multiple Award Federal Supply Schedule available for additional scoring as a Task Order against a Multiple- Award Contract for L.5.2.2.3?

Suggest reviewing L.5.2.2.3 which states, the Offeror will receive additional points if the project is a task order against a multiple-award Federal Government contract.

L.5.2.1 provides the definition for Multiple-Award Contract which includes a Multiple Award Schedule contract issued by GSA (e.g., GSA Schedule Contract) or agencies granted Multiple Award Schedule contract authority by GSA (e.g., Department of Veterans Affairs) as described in FAR part 38.

4.36

For a task order against a multiple award contract, should we use the Funding Agency ID for the task order or the multiple-award contract?

The J.P-7 should be completed for the submitted project. Suggest reviewing L.5.2.1 for the definition of a project. If the task order is the submitted project, then the Funding Agency ID for the task order should be used.

4.37 May we use the Funding Office ID instead of

the Funding Agency ID?

No. As stated in L.5.2.2.5, Federal Government Customer is determined by the Funding Agency ID identified within the FPDS Report.

4.38

To demonstrate a different NAICS than what is shown on the FPDS Report for a task order, may we submit other evidence such as the

RFQ?

This was addressed in a previous Question and Response Document.

Suggest reviewing Question and Response 3.34.

Responsibility Q&R # Question Response

4.39

How does the Government intend to ensure that an offeror proposing with a team can be considered a responsible SDVO SBC eligible for award in accordance with FAR Part 9?

A determination of responsibility will be made in accordance with FAR Part 9.

As stated in M.8, in making the overall determination of responsibility, information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), exclusions denoted in the System for Award Management (SAM), the representations and certifications with SAM and Section K, the Offeror’s Financial Resources (See Section L.5.7.1), and other pertinent data will be considered.

4.40

Page 103 of Solicitation Amendment Number 1 contains a “Note” which states that “[t]he GWAC PCO may provide the information to GSA financial analysts who may contact an Offeror after their initial financial review for clarification or additional information, if necessary.” It is unclear how this will be done with respect to information contained on a subcontractor’s/teammate’s GSA Form 527.

Please explain how such interaction by GSA financial analysts with the offerors will ensure the protection of the information contained on the offerors’ subcontractors’/teammates’ GSA Form 527s, and preclude any and all questions or discussion concerning the content of a subcontractor’s/teammate’s GSA Form 527 with their prime offeror.

Any specific questions about the submitted GSA Form 527 of a joint venture member or proposed subcontractor will be direct to the joint venture member or proposed subcontractor.

Risk Assessment Q&R # Question Response

4.41

If an offeror submits a Relevant Experience Project in Section L.5.2.2 from a subcontractor(s) with whom they have no previous “business arrangement” (as defined in Section L.5.5.1), will the offeror be eligible to claim the points associated with Volume 5 Risk Assessment, Section L.5.5.1?

No. For this example the offeror would be unable to claim the scoring for L.5.5.1 as each proposed subcontractor has not previously performed on a contract or order as a subcontractor to the offering prime contractor.

4.42

To claim scoring for L.5.5.1 must the Offeror have performed in the “same business arrangement as proposed” with all proposed subcontractors, or can the arrangement have been with a subset of the proposed subcontractors?

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.

4.43

For L.5.5.1, if the Offeror proposes Subcontractors A and B for VETS 2, and provides the prescribed verification documentation of previously subcontracted work from the Offeror to Subcontractor A on Contract/Task Z, and Subcontractor B on Contract/Task Y, does this sufficiently meet the requirements to claim previous performance as proposed?

Yes, with the required verification, this example would meet the definition provided in L.5.5.1 of a business arrangement that has previously performed together as each proposed subcontractor has previously performed on a contract or order as a subcontractor to the offering prime contractor.

4.44 Would providing only a Subcontractor Letter of Commitment meet the requirements for scoring contained with Volume 5.5.1?

The solicitation is clear. As stated in L.5.5.1, previous performance for joint ventures, or a prime contractor with a proposed team of subcontractors, must be verified through submission of

• the contract or order for which the work was performed and

• evidence of the business arrangement such as a joint venture agreement that identifies all members or a copy of the subcontract(s)

Systems, Certifications, and Clearances Q&R # Question Response

4.45

Can an audit report from the Defense Contract Audit Agency demonstrating an acceptable accounting system be submitted as verification for L.5.4.1?

An audit report from DCAA, DCMA, or CFA would be considered the same as a letter if it indicates unequivocally that the offeror’s accounting system was audited and determined adequate for cost reimbursement contracting.

4.46 How do companies that have adequate accounting software obtain the SF 1408 or letter received from the auditing agency?

As stated in L.5.4.1, if claiming credit for this scoring element, the Offeror must provide verification from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), or any Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) of an acceptable accounting system that has been audited and determined adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order in accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3). GSA’s GWAC Program Office will not sponsor a “Pre- Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System” or an Adequacy determination on behalf of any Offerors for scoring purposes.

4.47

We passed a DCAA audit of our accounting system but do not have a copy of the report or a letter to verify this. Can we claim the scoring if we provide the audit report number in lieu of the actual report?

The solicitation is clear. Verification must be provided as identified in L.5.4.1.

4.48 Will the Government provide credit for the ISO

27001:2005 certification?

Section L.5.4.5 is clear. If claiming credit for this scoring element, the Offeror must provide verification of a current ISO 27001:2013 Certification.