Special_Notice_for_Questions_ _Responses__Release_No.1_24JUL2016.pdf

Alliant 2 GWAC Unrestricted RFP # QTA0016JCA0003 - Questions & Responses: Release #1

Alliant 2 GWAC Unrestricted RFP Questions & Responses

(Release #1)

24 July 2016

Note to Interested Offerors: The Alliant 2 Unrestricted acquisition team provides the following questions and responses to clarify common questions and address common concerns that have arisen since the RFP issuance on 24 June 2016. The team anticipates the issuance of more questions and responses in the near future. If you have submitted questions previously, but do not see your question answered here, please do not re-submit your question, but simply wait for the next release.

Please remember to check the Alliant 2 FedBizOpps (FBO) website on a daily basis for important announcements regarding the RFP. As of the date and time of this Q&A FBO posting, six (6) “Special Notices” of Amendments to the RFP have been posted at the Alliant 2 Unrestricted FBO portal (www.fedbizopps.gov) which address errors and other inconsistencies in the RFP. Revised templates of RFP worksheets are also available at the FBO site.

Please note that the Government cannot furnish specific advice on individual offers, respond to questions which are outside the scope of the RFP, questions which are answered in the plain language of the RFP, or respond to questions which have been addressed in previous communications. Offerors are encouraged to thoroughly review the RFP, the Special Notices of Amendments to the RFP, and all posted Questions and Responses regarding the RFP for guidance in addressing questions or concerns.

Question and Response topics

• SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

• PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE

• REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

• RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

• PAST PERFORMANCE

• COST ACCOUNT AUDITS & TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION

• RESPONSIBILITY REVIEW

• CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION (POST AWARD)

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

Reference RFP Sections G.22.1 & L.5.1.3

QUESTION 1: Will the Government provide a value or permit the use of percentages in lieu of dollars or require a Plan at Task Order level? Will the Government please indicate what total contract dollars should be used as a plug number from which to base planned subcontracting dollars?

RESPONSE: The Government requires both the anticipated subcontracted dollars and percentages for the full Base and Option Period to be stated on the Individual Subcontracting Plan in order to be deemed Acceptable. The Offeror should establish an estimate of what the Offeror hopes to achieve in task order awards, and may review its past subcontracting achievements on similar IT contracts as a starting point to projecting subcontracted dollars when developing its Alliant 2 Individual Subcontracting Plan.

QUESTION 2: Does the Offeror need to identify its small business teammates within the Individual Subcontracting Plan?

RESPONSE: No, teammates do not need to be identified.

QUESTION 3: Please verify that the individual subcontracting plan submitted in response to “L.5.1.3 Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan” also satisfies the requirement for a subcontracting plan defined within section L.5.1.3.2 “GSAR 552.219-72 Preparation, Submission, and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans (MAR 2012).”

RESPONSE: No, the Offeror will need to thoroughly review both RFP sections to ensure all elements are addressed in their Individual Subcontracting Plan. Only one Individual Subcontracting Plan for the Master Contract is required.

QUESTION 4: Per Section L.5.1.3. "A Commercial and Master Subcontracting Plans will not be accepted." However, Section L.5.1.3.2 states "The subcontracting plan will be negotiated concurrently with price and any required technical and management proposals, unless the Offeror submits a previously-approved commercial plan." Please clarify whether or not an Offeror can submit a previously-approved commercial plan for a Subcontracting Plan.

RESPONSE: For purposes of the Alliant 2, the Government will accept only the Individual Subcontracting Plan. Neither a Master Plan or Commercial Plan will be accepted as attachments to the Individual Subcontracting Plan. The GWAC Program has no “previously approved” Commercial Plans for this GWAC.

QUESTION 5: GSA is requesting that the Offeror address whether the firm has failed to meet any of the small business goals on similar IT Professional Service interagency contracts (GWACS/MACS), or standalone IT Service Contracts, limited to no more than three. Is the limitation of three a combination of GWACS/MACS and IT Service Contracts?

RESPONSE: Yes.

QUESTION 6: Is the Government seeking “payment basis” reporting for reporting subcontracting dollars? Will the Government allow for “commitment basis” reporting?

RESPONSE: The Government requires “payment basis” reporting for the Subcontracting Report. “Commitment basis” reporting will not be accepted.

PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE

Reference RFP Section L.4.1

NOTE TO OFFERORS: Many questions were received identifying inconsistencies / numbering errors within the Proposal Table. The Government has addressed those errors and provided those corrections via Special Notice of Amendment No. #3, posted to the FBO site on July 18, 2016.

QUESTION 7: Will the government allow Offerors to include a cover sheet/title page?

Should it be included as a separate file or placed before the Table of Contents and included with that file?

RESPONSE: The Offeror may provide information and a layout within the prescribed files shown on the Proposal Format table that will aid the Government evaluator to perform adequate Offeror determination. Cover sheets (title pages and/or table of contents) will not count toward total page numbers if used.

QUESTION 8: For both PSC and LET projects, the Offeror is limited to one PDF file per project, which consists of a variety of supporting documents such as FPDS reports, award pages, and statements of work/performance work statements. Since some of these documents include "native" page numbers (those associated with the original document), in order to avoid confusion, would GSA please confirm that Offerors may add a footer to the combined PDF that includes (1) page numbers that Offerors may reference within their project templates, and (2) a confidentiality footer?

RESPONSE: In general, the Offeror should exercise its own discretion regarding formatting;

the specific examples noted in the question above would not disqualify a submission.

QUESTION 9: Please confirm if an Offeror is an established business entity, that no files need to be submitted to receive the points for this section.

RESPONSE: Confirmed if an individual company, or an other than small business Offeror. This question also answers an Organization Risk Assessment question. The Offeror must indicate its status on the J.P-1 scoring sheet at cell C164, and if the Offeror is an established business entity and is not a newly formed JV/CTA, no file is needed for this section.

QUESTION 10: Not all Offerors will need to submit every document defined in this table.

How should Offerors indicate that a document has been omitted? Should we still create a file for that document but state within the file that it is not required for our submission? When an Offeror is intentionally not submitting documents for a given element (scored or unscored), how would the government like Offerors to indicate this in our proposal?

RESPONSE: No submission of a document is needed when a given element does not apply to the Offeror. An Offeror’s completed J.P-1 Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet will demonstrate that a given element does not apply to an Offeror’s proposal.

QUESTION 11: For Volume 1, Sections L.5.2.2 and L.5.2.3 state “no page limitations.”

Please confirm that this applies to the Part III: Project Description text box in the template and the supporting documents.

RESPONSE: Section J.P-2/ J.P-3 Templates are limited to three pages in total for each template, with no page limit for the supporting documentation. These two templates will not be revised and amended.

QUESTION 12: If an Offeror is unable to provide a Compensation Plan in the requisite 10 pages, may the Offeror exceed the limit for submitting the Plan?

RESPONSE: Ten (10) pages is the recommended maximum page count for providing a summary of the plan; however, Compensation Plan summaries that exceed 10 pages will not be disqualified. The Government recommends writing concisely. The guidance will be incorporated into the L.4.1 Proposal Format Table as well as at L.5.1.6 via amendment.

QUESTION 13: May Offerors provide a Table of Contents (TOC) for each Volume to be placed in the front of the applicable Volume, for ease of review? Similarly, may Offerors insert title pages for each Volume and, if necessary, a list of acronyms?

RESPONSE: Per RFP Section L.4, Proposal Format, Table(s) of Contents are optional and will not count towards page limitations. Title pages and acronym lists are also optional and will not count toward page limits. The Offeror should exercise its discretion and judgement when developing its proposal format.

QUESTION 14: On the Proposal Format Table referring to Vol 2, RFP Section L.5.2.2 and L.5.2.3, the instructions indicate that there should only be a maximum seven (7) PDF files and thirty (30) files respectively (one for each project tendered). Will the Government please confirm that you want all the supporting documents (FPDS, Contract Award, SOW, etc.) inserted into the same project PDF file of the J.P-2 and J.P-3, respectively?

RESPONSE: Yes.

QUESTION 15: RFP Section L.5.1.4 states that Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters (MRCL) are treated on a pass/fail basis. If this document is not applicable to an Offeror, would the government like to receive a file titled, ""CompanyName.VOL1.MRCL1.pdf"" that includes a statement that the requirement is not applicable to an Offeror's proposal submission?"

RESPONSE: The Offeror should note on the J.P-1 “Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet” whether it has included a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters (MRCL).

No further files are needed if one or more of the scoring elements do not apply to the Offeror, see Question #10, above.

QUESTION 16: Does GSA have sizing requirements to assure readability? If necessary, may an Offeror modify headers and footers to assure readability?

RESPONSE: A 10-point font and larger is acceptable for readability.

REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Reference: RFP Section L.4.1 and Section K

QUESTION 17: The instructions for Section K state that "the Offeror shall complete the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM website." However, Section L.4.1 states that companies must provide a PDF of representations and certifications. Please clarify if companies should submit this electronically through SAM or provide a PDF, or do both.

RESPONSE: The Offerors shall complete the RFP Section K Representations and Certifications and submit it with its proposal package. The screen shot of the SAM.gov is not required to be submitted with its proposal. FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management, is included in this solicitation, requiring annual review and/or update to contractor’s representations and certifications electronically via the SAM website, when applicable.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Reference: L.5 et seq.

QUESTION 18: Will GSA allow bidders to include projects in Group II under PSC codes R407, R409, R414 and R421? Also, will GSA please modify the RFP to include a brief statement indicating that if any of the PSC Group projects were assigned the predecessor codes of PSC codes such as R410 and R425, that those predecessor codes are also acceptable?

RESPONSE: Any legacy PSC codes which have ended and have been officially merged into current PSC codes may be submitted and will be credited under the current PSC code. Examples from the 2011 merger of codes include the following: PSC codes R407 and R409 were merged into R410, and R414 and R421 were merged into R425.

QUESTION 19: Please clarify if separate and distinct Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters are required between the Offeror's business entity and each different business entity within a corporation where a system or certification might reside.

RESPONSE: Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters are required when a system or a certification or an experience reside in / emanate from other than the official legal offering entity claiming the credit for that element. Otherwise, they will not earn points in the evaluation.

QUESTION 20: Where verification entails signature by a cognizant official, the RFP specifies certain titles. In the case of the signature of a contracting officer, it is assumed that “contracting officer” means a person with authority cited in FAR Part 1.6. The RFP also contemplates that a Branch Chief can sign, but they might not be a contracting officer. Is that ok?

RESPONSE: Yes. The solicitation is stated as intended. Additionally, a Branch Chief position might be called by another title depending on the agency, such as Supervisory Contract Specialist or Director of Contracting. Regardless of the acquisition official’s name title, they must have the current cognizance of the Project. Also be aware that if the cognizant Contracting Officer is unattainable, the Government will accept the signature of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) directly associated with the project.

QUESTION 21: Where do I add an SF-30 signed Amendment into the Proposal volumes?

RESPONSE: In Volume 1, the Offeror can acknowledge up to four Amendments on the SF-33.

However, the Offeror must provide an SF-30 acknowledged with a signature, if there are over four Amendments issued by the A2 PCO. All signed SF-30 Modifications, if and when more than four SF-30s are issued, will need to be placed in Volume 1 as a single pdf format in accordance with Table L.4.1 (Amended).

QUESTION 22: Are all of the Special Notices posted on FBO since the RFP release date (24 June 2016) for A2 Unrestricted official amendments that require my acknowledgement with a signature on an SF-33 or SF-30?

RESPONSE: The individual Special Notices do not require Offeror acknowledgement via signature. The Special Notices are meant to provide “just in time” notice of changes to the RFP as the Government becomes aware of necessary changes for the benefit of the Offerors.

The PCO will issue official amendment(s) to the RFP as SF-30(s) which will capture all of the RFP changes already noticed via the Special Notices. This is meant to relieve the administrative burden on the Offerors of acknowledging/signing multiple amendments.

Offerors will be required to acknowledge via signature on the SF-33 and/or the SF-30(s).

QUESTION 23: Can a small business place an offer on Alliant 2 Unrestricted (A2) and Alliant 2 Small Business (A2SB)?

RESPONSE: Yes, a small business may submit an offer on both contracts because A2 and A2SB are two separate contract vehicles. However, a small business concern must meet the RFP Section L and M criteria and standards on the A2 Unrestricted procurement as all Other than Small Business Concerns. The Small Business Offeror must also comply with all A2 Unrestricted terms and conditions should they receive an A2 Unrestricted award, including all performance metrics (with the exception of Small Business Subcontracting goals).

QUESTION 24: Does an individual company, who is not offering as a JV/CTA, need to submit any documents for verification in Volume 5 Organization Risk Assessment to earn the points for Organization Risk Assessment?

RESPONSE: No. Verification is not required whether you are an individual small business entity or an individual other than small business entity. Additionally, an other than small business established joint venture/partnership is only required to submit documents into Volume 1, and nothing into Volume 5. This issue is further clarified in the A2 Amended L.4.1 Proposal Table, featured in Special Notice #3 from July 18, 2016.

QUESTION 25: The RFP states that PSC Group and LET Relevant Experience Projects must be ongoing or have been completed within 5 years from the date the Alliant II proposal submissions are due. Will the Government please establish the 5-year effective date will remain 8/29/2016 for PSC and LET Relevant Experience Projects regardless of any RFP proposal extensions.

RESPONSE: Yes. the 5-year effective date will remain 8/29/2016 for PSC and LET Relevant Project Experience, regardless of any proposal extensions

QUESTION 26: (a) For PSC and LET projects where the project was Novated due to a change in ownership, can supporting documentation required be limited to only the SF-30 Modification of Novation signed by the Contract Officer or the actual Novation Agreement with all the party signatures without all of the additional supporting documentation to the Novation agreement? (b) And, what about an internal reorganization where there was a name change? Same question as in (a).

RESPONSE: (a) Yes, as long the Government has copies of the official documentation effecting the Novation or transfer of ownership. It is not necessary to include any more documentation than necessary for the A2 PCO to verify the change of ownership.

(b) If there was an internal reorganization of your company, i.e., a subsidiary transfer to another entity still under the parent/holding company, where the Offeror's name has changed, a completed and signed Change of Name Agreement SF-30 Modification is acceptable. Only if the internal transfer can be sufficiently demonstrated via a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter, would that also be acceptable.

QUESTION 27: Will digital signatures (including CAC Authenticated Electronic Signature) by Contracting Officers, CORs, Cognizant Contracting Officials, and Corporate Officers be accepted?

RESPONSE: Yes, digital signatures by Contracting Officers, CORs, Cognizant Contracting Officials, and Corporate Officers will be acceptable.

QUESTION 28: Assuming that form changes are not substantive and/or represent minor editing changes, will the Government confirm that it will accept signed versions of the J.P-2 and J.P-3 forms released with the original 24 June 2016 RFP, instead of requiring Offerors to get the form re-reviewed and re-signed using the latest version of the form?

RESPONSE: Yes, signed versions of the J.P-2 and J.P-3 from the Official RFP, released on 24 June 2016, will be accepted.

QUESTION 29: Please confirm that if a FPDS-NG is available and provides verification for all information included on Attachment J.P-2, that the J.P-2 does NOT require a signature by a Contracting Officer.

RESPONSE: Confirmed. If the FPDS-NG is available and provides verification for all information included on Attachment J.P-2, then the J.P-2 does NOT require a signature by a Contracting Officer.

QUESTION 30: If a contract Statement of Work / task requirements are written broadly and do not feature the associated LET keywords in its description, will the project description connecting the LET to the SOW, combined with the Contracting Officer's signature, be acceptable to verify the LET experience?

RESPONSE: Yes, if the project description confirms the LET and the SOW accompanies the J.P-3 Relevant Experience LET Project Template signed by the Contracting Officer (or other recognized official), the evaluator will use these documents to validate the credits being claimed.

QUESTION 31: How does one submit a classified SOW and what is the max classification that can be accepted?

RESPONSE: In order to receive credit, the Offeror is responsible for submitting declassified documents. And redactions are not acceptable.

QUESTION 32: The solicitation states, "Minimum Dollar Thresholds: Projects used to satisfy the Leading Edge Technology (LET) experience citations must have a value of at least $1 Million inclusive of Options. The Leading Edge Technology experience portion within the project does not necessarily have to be valued at or above this minimum threshold. NOTE: The LET performed within the project submitted may comprise only a portion of the overall Scope in the Project rather than be required to comprise the entire Scope; consequently, the dollar value of the LET requirement/deliverable may be a less than the required minimum of the $1-Million-dollar project. Thus, there is no minimum dollar value set specifically for the LET if listed in a contract line item or the LET estimated dollar value if incorporated as part of the overall dollar value of the contract." Will the Government allow a lower minimum dollar threshold for “stand-alone” LET projects?

RESPONSE: No, the Government will not allow a lower minimum dollar threshold for “stand-alone” LET projects.

QUESTION 33: Can a prime contractor, on a multiple or single award IDIQ or BPA, who has been awarded chronologically sequential task orders or calls for the same work based on the original SOW, combine the total value of those tasks/calls to submit as a single project? Ref:

RFP Sect L.5.2.1.

RESPONSE: Yes, when a Multiple or Single Award Indefinite Delivery task order contract or BPA procurement 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. The Offeror must list every task order that is covered, and this collection of task orders can only be used once for claiming credit for PSC/LET.

QUESTION 34: The instructions say that if a PSC Group project was performed for "an extended period of time" in a foreign location, additional credit will be given. Can you please define how long is an "extended" period of time? If the contract statement of work does not list the OCONUS location(s), will GSA accept a list of performance locations approved by the contracting officer?

RESPONSE: To receive credit for Foreign Work projects, the validation will be either the Statement of Work listing the foreign location(s) or the place of performance references a foreign location code in the FPDS. No other verification will be accepted. An “extended period of time" is any amount of time that is not considered Temporary Duty Travel (TDY).

QUESTION 35: May an Offeror redact dollar amounts in the required forms for RFP Section L.5.2.3, but include the annotation in the box called “Project Value:” that validates “Project Greater is than $1M” which is signed by the Offeror’s customer?

RESPONSE: No. The Offeror may not redact any dollar values.

QUESTION 36: Can an Offeror submit a redacted SOW to support PSC and/or LET for relevant experience?

RESPONSE: No. Redacted Statements of Work (issued by Federal or Non-Federal Entities) are not acceptable. Offerors may mark pages containing sensitive or proprietary information with an appropriate legend in the header or footer. Additionally, the Offeror may submit password-protected documents. See Response to Question #37.

QUESTION 37: May we submit password-protected contract documents?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Government will accept password-protected documents as long as access instructions/passwords are also provided to enable proposal review. Be advised that the Offeror bears the risk that password-protected documents will not be accepted if the Government is unable to access the information contained therein. Offerors are therefore cautioned to thoroughly test any password-protected documents for accessibility.

QUESTION 38: Per RFP Section L.5.2.2.4, an attached FPDS-NG Report verifying the submitted cost-type project is required for earning points in this section. Will GSA allow another means of verification for cost-type projects?

RESPONSE: If claiming credit for Cost Reimbursement (as defined in FAR 16.3) projects, the Government will evaluate projects that have a preponderance of cost reimbursement work and must be recorded in the FPDS-NG Report Type of Contract as a Cost-type project. Time and Material, Fixed Price, or multiple Contract Types that includes less than a preponderance of cost-type work will not be accepted for this scoring element. The Government will not accept an alternate means of cost-reimbursement verification under any concditions.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Reference RFP Sections L.5.3.1 / L.5.3.2

QUESTION 39: The RFP Section L.5.3, paragraph 4 states, "Only in the event PPIRS information is not available….". If the last PPIRS available is more than 5 years old (but the contract is less than 5 years old), does that PPIRS still qualify, or does the Government require a J.P-5 completed and submitted?

RESPONSE: In the above circumstances, since the PPIRS record is over 5 years old, it is unacceptable, and an Offeror would be required to use the J.P-5 Past Performance Rating Form. Note also that the contract must have been active in a time within the past five years from the RFP proposal due date, 29 August 2016.

QUESTION 40: Will the Government accept an Offeror’s copy of a final CPARS if it is not available in the PPIRS database?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Government would accept a completed CPARS, interim or final assessments, if this same assessment is not available in the PPIRS.

QUESTION 41: When using a past performance that is a Task Order under an ID/IQ contract, can a CPARS at the ID/IQ level be used if a CPARS at the Task Order level is unavailable?

RESPONSE: If you have CPARS reports for each individual task order, then the CPARS report for the IDIQ does not likely cover task order performance, so only send the CPARS reports from each individual task order. If you have a CPARS report for the IDIQ that does cover each individual task order (i.e., there is no CPARS done at the task order level), then submit the CPARS report for the IDIQ.

QUESTION 42: May a rater of an Offeror’s Past Performance submit the completed Past Performance Rating Form directly to the GSA Alliant 2 Contracting Officer?

RESPONSE: No. Past performance assessments, whether completed in CPARS/PPIRS or using the J.P-5 Past Performance Rating Form, require review of the performance assessment by the Offeror. The Government will not accept completed performance assessment surveys that have not been reviewed and submitted by the Offeror.

COST ACCOUNT AUDITS & TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION

Reference RFP Section L.5.4.1/ L.5.4.3

QUESTION 43: Does the Government require the official Audit Report or will an official letterhead from DCAA or DCMA verifying the acceptability of the accounting system and indicating rates have been audited and determined acceptable meet this requirement?

RESPONSE: The Government will accept such a letter on official letterhead from DCAA or DCMA that unequivocally states acceptability of the accounting system and that rates have been audited and determined acceptable of the named entity claiming credit for this scoring element.

This will be the subject of Special Notice of Amendment #7, to be issued shortly after the posting of these Questions and Responses.

QUESTION 44: Would the Government accept a third party independent audit of a firm’s Cost Accounting System?

RESPONSE: No, the Government will not accept any third party independent audits for this procurement.

QUESTION 45: Will the Government accept an Offeror’s interim facility clearance at proposal submission?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Government will accept an Interim Facility Clearance Level (FCL) if claiming credit for this scoring element. The Offeror may include supporting documents that further supports the FCL points to aid the evaluator in making its determination. Additionally, for the Prime Contractor with Subcontractor relationship, the Prime Contractor must have the clearance. For a Joint Venture (JV) the facility clearance can be either in the name of the JV, or all members of the JV must have it. This interim FCL allowance is incorporated in an RFP amendment.

RESPONSIBILITY

Reference RFP Section L.5.6

QUESTION 46: The Offerors must be in compliance with the required submission of the VETS-4212 Report in all cases where the contractor or subcontractor has received an award of $150,000 or more. (a) Are Offerors required to submit documentation in the proposal to validate compliance with this requirement? (b) How will the Government determine compliance regarding the VETS-4212 report as it relates to Responsibility? (c) Please verify that to be compliant with this requirement, an Offeror must have their respective VETS-4212 for 2016 submitted within the required timeframe; (d) What if I submit the report after August 1, 2016?

RESPONSE: (a) No, the Offeror is not required to submit evidence of compliance with the VETS-4212 Report with its Alliant 2 proposal package. (b) The Government will utilize the Department of Labor Filing Verification for the VETS-4212 Federal Contractor Reporting to determine that Offeror is in compliance for the 2015 filing season. (c) Any reports entered prior to August 1, 2016 are considered part of the 2015 filing cycle. (d) If your report was submitted during the 2016 filing season, on or after August 1, 2016 please advise us in the body of your proposal and the Government will inquire with the Department of Labor. There is no required format for this notification in an Offeror’s proposal submission.

QUESTION 47: If an Offeror’s consolidated financial statement includes income data, will the Government accept the financial statement in lieu of Sections III and IV of the GSA Form 527?

RESPONSE: No, the Offeror should provide enough information on the GSA 527 with supporting documentation that will aid the evaluator to making an informed decision.

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION (POST AWARD)

QUESTION 48: How comprehensive will the Government Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) be, and will there be new PBA requirements above those in the contract? Also please confirm that there are no proposal submission requirements for a Quality Control Plan (QCP) at this time.

RESPONSE: The QASP will, in part, request that the awarded Contractor develop internal procedures into a QCP document that will be followed by the awarded Contractor to ensure a satisfactory level of performance on the Master Contract PBAs. The Government does not prescribe the specific internal QCP procedures for the Contractor. The QCP is a post-award requirement; therefore, a QCP is not required with the proposal. And for clarification, new PBA requirements are not anticipated beyond those detailed in the Master Contract - Contractor Engagement and Small Business Subcontracting.

(End of Questions & Responses: Release #1)