S2 Solicitation Questions by Topic.pdf

Questions and Responses Solicitation QTA609MCA0010

Introduction

Thank you for the robust interest in STARS II.

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”. In a related matter, 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 knowing that that this is a competitive environment.

While the Government may include one or more specific solicitation passages in a response to a question, interested parties are reminded that the EVALUATION section contains subsection 1.6. that states “Offerors are expected to examine the RFP and respond based upon an understanding of the entire solicitation document”. A response to a question does not relieve an offeror from its responsibilities, and offerors are advised to avoid selective attention.

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.

Some questions that are shown below may be addressed by Amendments one, two or three. In those cases a short statement that the response to the question was overtaken by an amendment, a/k/a “OBA” and the amendment number might be shown. For example, “OBA3” represents the response the question was overtaken by amendment three (also known as amendment 03).

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 Provisions and Clauses Pricing Worksheets/Pricing Guideline Coefficients Process for Asking Questions about the Solicitation Placement of Documents, Page Limitations and Proposal Submission Industry Credential and Constellation I – 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 indicates both the previous question and the response to it, not just the response.

Past Performance Survey

Questions Responses Q1) Will the Government be providing the Past

Performance Survey template or does the Government want the offerer to create their own?

OBA1

Q2) Evaluation section refers to a "past performance survey attachment" yet we can not find any such attachment. Please clarify

OBA1

Q3) The Evaluation section, part A 6.3 of the STARS II Solicitation makes reference to a “past performance survey attachment”. I do not see this in the solicitation documents. Have I overlooked something?

OBA1

Q4) We were unable to locate the attachment titled, "Past Performance Survey".

OBA1

Q5) Can you please direct me to where I may find a “standard” Past Performance Survey form? Or is it left up to the offeror to create a form?

OBA1

Q6) I have not found the past performance survey, either as a separate document posted to FBO or embedded within a document. Could you please point out the location of this survey?

OBA1

Q7) Past Performance – Are there standard forms that you are requiring? If so, where can I get copies?

OBA1

Q8) 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 released by Amendment

01. 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.

Q9) How many surveys are required per constellation and Functional Area?

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

Q10) Are completed surveys to be returned to the government via: E-mail, Fax, Returned to the offeror and included with our electronic submission?

For context first read EVALUATION Sections 6, 9 and 15. Then read EVALUATION subsections A.6.3. and B.7.4. The Government would appreciate completed past performance surveys to be scanned in and included in the electronic offers (meaning on compact disc in a file format designated in Section 6). However, the Government recognized that there might be circumstances where a hardcopy of one or more completed past performance surveys might need to be submitted, wanted to provide for that exception and won’t penalize an offer for relying upon that exception. Completed past performance surveys are the only exception to the general rule requiring electronic submission of proposal content. Non-electronic submission of completed past performance surveys is still subject to all other solicitation requirements, including the single common outer package requirement at Evaluation Subsection 9.1.

Q11) Do paper copies of the past performance surveys have to be submitted or can they be submitted in .pdf format on the CD-Rs in the appropriate folder(s)?

See the response to Q10, this topic area.

Q12) Will a scanned copy of the original past performance survey be permissible to be included in the FA#/Past Performance folder?

See the response to Q10, this topic area.

Q13) How should we handle a situation where our client will not provide a "viewable" copy of a past performance survey for us to include as part of our proposal or will only submit it directly to the GSA for reason of confidentiality or policy?

The solicitation affords each offeror the opportunity to select the past performance source(s) it seeks past performance survey results from. Presumably, the offeror has a productive working relationship with each party from which it seeks past performance survey results and is already aware of its customers’ impressions of their performance.

The acquisition team does not subscribe to the notion that past performance results should be withheld from the performing organization.

While that position doesn’t dictate what others do, an analogy to that position is in the business rules for the Federal Government’s Past Performance Information and Retrieval System mentioned in EVALUATION subsections A.6.5. and B.7.6. In that system the performing organization has the opportunity to view the Federal Government’s position on past performance for Government work and to respond with its own position in turn.

If a customer is reluctant to allow the past performance survey results to be viewed by the offeror, the two parties are at liberty to work out a confidentiality/non-disclosure (no peek) arrangement and for the customer to be assured by the offeror that it may submit the past performance survey in a sealed-envelop to the offeror, and that the offeror will not open the envelope or otherwise attempt to view its contents. Such an envelope(s) may be further labeled by the offeror in submitting a hardcopy of one or more completed past performance surveys. Also see the response to Q10 above, this topic area.

Q14) Are we to submit the surveys with our proposals completed by our customers?

See the response to Q10, this topic area.

Q15) Will GSA accept surveys in hardcopy and in sealed envelopes along with the rest of the proposal on the appropriate compact discs?

See the response to Q10, this topic area.

Q16) Could you provide some instructions on how an evaluator could return the survey to the contracting office? Would fax of the survey be accepted?

If by “contracting office” the question refers to the contracting officer for this solicitation, no, no provision for faxing completed past performance surveys to the contracting officer has been provided for in the solicitation. See the response to Q10, this topic area.

Q17) When must the Past Performance questionnaires be returned to GSA?

Consider EVALUATION subsections A.6.3. and B.7.4. Note that they address offerors being responsible for submitting completed past performance surveys in their electronic proposals? Note that Evaluation Section 9 is clear about the Proposal Due Date, Packaging and Distribution? Don’t forget to update the proposal due date based upon Amendment 03’s offer due date extension. For the sake of clarity, the proposal due date is synonymous with the offer due date.

Q18) I have searched through the documents in the RFP to find the Past Performance Survey attachment mentioned in paragraph A.6.3 of VIII. EVALUATION, but I cannot find it. Can you please direct me to where this might be located?

OBA1

Q19) 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 subsections A.6.3. and B.7.4.

Q20) 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 subsections A.6.5. and B.7.6.

Q21) Are the survey recipients to return the completed questionnaires to the offeror for inclusion with the proposal submission?

That is consistent with the solicitation, and the response to Q10, this topic area.

Q22) Are the questionnaires to be returned directly to GSA by the reference points of contact? If to GSA, will the Government provide instructions with an email or fax address for the survey recipients to return the questionnaires?

See the response to Q10, this topic area.

Q23) When are the Past Performance surveys due to you?

See the response to Q17, this topic area.

Q24) 1) In the Evaluation Section, page 7 of

26 of the solicitation, 6.1 states "With the exception of the past performance surveys, paper proposals will be disregarded". Does this mean that GSA will not accept a PDF version of the Past Performance Surveys to be included on the CD?

2) If GSA is willing to accept a PDF version of the Past Performance Surveys with specify where in the proposal the Surveys should be provided as it relates to the proposal format specified in the Evaluation Section, page 12 of 26? If GSA will only accept a paper version of the Past Performance Surveys, please specify the format in which the Surveys are to be submitted and how they are to be packaged.

Regarding the first question, see the response to Q10, this topic area.

Regarding the second question, it seems the question is inquiring about where to place the completed past performance surveys if they are scanned, saved as .pdf files and saved on compact disc. With that understanding, EVALUATION subsection 15.2 depicts the folder and subfolder taxonomy for electronic proposals, including where .pdf files containing completed past performance surveys tied to a FA should be placed.

Folder and subfolder names in offerors’ compact disc(s) should closely resemble the folder and subfolder names identified in EVALUTION subsection 15.2, but don’t have to be verbatim matches.

The parenthetical text shown in EVALUATION subsection 15.2 for folders and subfolders is not required to be keyed in for folder and subfolder names on compact disc, it is shown in the solicitation as guidance for placement of materials within folders and subfolders.

Folders and subfolders shown in EVALUATION subsection 15.2 may be in a different order/sequence than shown in the solicitation, but the folder and subfolder taxonomy must be as depicted.

The solicitation does not dictate exact file naming conventions offerors must adopt for files an offeror places in folders and subfolders shown in EVALUATION subsection 15.2. In that regard, offerors may select file names that they believe clearly identify file contents in a way that facilitates both identification and review of file contents.

Q25) Page 7 indicates a hardcopy version of the Past Performance Survey should be included in the delivery, while Page 12 and 16 indicate the Offeror is responsible for submitting an electronic Past Performance Survey. Please clarify – should the Past Performance Survey be sent in hardcopy, electronic version, or both? If hardcopies are required for the Past Performance Surveys, please indicate whether they should be delivered in sealed envelopes.

See the response to Q10, this topic area.

Q26) 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 subsections A.6.5. and B.7.6.

that commercial and exclusively 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.

Q27) 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).

Q28) 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 subsections A.6.5. and B.7.6.

Q29) 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 the solicitation’s treatment of this subject. Wouldn’t the joint venture member be the performing entity for the past performance survey in question since it performed the work? Wouldn’t the name of the constituent member of the joint-venture offeror for STARS II be apparent in the joint-venture agreement that the STARS II evaluation team can access (if the joint-venture offeror submitted it according to the solicitation’s requirements) to help determine if the past performance from the survey is truly applicable to the joint-venture offeror for

STARS II?

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.

Past Performance – General

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

(2) years prior to the original 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 can not 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. The Government’s requirement stands.

Q2) While the company has been subcontracting on federal prime contracts since 2001, it has never performed as a prime contractor. Has strong capability but no direct federal past performance records. Given the requirements of the STARS II contract, Could we qualify – despite its strong capability?

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. Also, see the response to Q26 in the Past Performance Survey topic area.

Q3) Can successful completion of a Task or Deliverable related to a particular FA that is valued at >$100,000 and was completed within the last two years qualify as a completed “project?”

The question is laden with words not adopted in the solicitation; therefore they will not be the subject of a response. Instead, please focus on the ordinary meaning of the word “project”. Also, see the response to Q26 in the Past Performance Survey topic area.

Q4) 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. Past performance is a go-no go evaluation criterion (either the offer does or does not qualify) as established in EVALUATION subsections A.2.1 and B.2.1. 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 subsections A.6.7. or B.7.9., then the offeror will not fail the past performance evaluation for that offer 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 subsections A.6.7.’s or B.7.9.’s approach to a neutral rating for past performance is applicable.

Q5) “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 writeup for a Functional Area for both Constellations?

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.

Q6) “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.

Q7) 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”.

Q8) Does “completed” mean that GSA will not consider contracts that are “on-going” as qualified references?

The solicitation is clear. Please focus on the ordinary meaning of the word “completed”.

Q9) “A neutral rating for past contractual performance is possible if there is a TOTAL ABSENCE of qualifying past contractual performance information, and not a failure to submit even a single instance of qualifying past contractual performance information that does exist.” Does this mean that GSA will consider past performance references from projects that have not been completed as compliant and possibly grant a greater than neutral rating for these references?

The solicitation is clear. Please focus on the ordinary meaning of the word “completed”.

Please also consider the response to Q4, this topic area.

Q10) 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 EVALUTION subsections 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 subsections A.6.2. and B.7.3. to attempt to address such risk. A driver for EVALUTION subsections A.6.8. and B.7.9. 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.

Q11) 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?

That is possible. Just a reminder that past performance is only one evaluation criterion among many on which each offer will be assessed in a competitive environment.

Q12) Can a single reference be used in multiple functional areas if its scope is greater than $100,000 in more than one

FA?

This is a common question. However, it depends upon the meaning of the word “reference”.

In order to respond to the perceived underlying question and stay on point, the question is rephrased to swap out the word “reference” in favor of the solicitation’s word “project”. That rephrased question is basically along the lines of, “May a project be parsed into constituent parts, and the constituent parts be applied in separate FAs?” The answer to that question is “No”. The key connection test in EVALUATION subsections 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 it primarily consists of work associated with one FA, it is axiomatic that it can not 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. Also see the response to Q4, this topic area.

Q13) If an offeror only has one past performance in an FA, will that be considered neutral or unqualified?

Please consider the response to Q4, this topic area.

Q14) Must a contact be 100% complete to be evaluated or can it be an ongoing, potentially multi-year effort?

The solicitation is clear. Please focus on the ordinary meaning of the word “completed”.

Q15) 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 subsections 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 Q12, this topic area.

Q16) 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 Q12, this topic area.

Q17) Is A.6.2 the same requirement as A.6.3? Or, is one a summary, 2 for each FA per Constellation and the other a survey (2 for each FA per Constellation) using the survey form Attachment 6, (amendment 1)?

The solicitation is clear.

Q18) 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.

Q19) 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.

Q20) 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 (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.

Q21) 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.

Q22) 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 project 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 Q26, Past Performance Survey topic area.

Q23) 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. Please also see the response to Q26, Past Performance Survey topic

Q24) 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 Q20, this topic area.

Q25) 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 subsections A.6.5. and B.7.6.

Q26) For past performance, are we allowed to use the same contact/contract for different FAs if the work spanned different FAs?

There is a significant difference between the terms “contact” and “contract”. Please consider the response to Q12, this topic area.

Q27) The Past Performance does not have any specific quantity that we need to do.

That statement, taken as a question, is unwieldy to respond to because it could have multiple meanings (could have multiple exegeses). The solicitation is clear regarding past performance.

Q28) Past performance, does it have to relate directly to the areas we are pricing or is it for any government projects / commercial projects we have completed?

The solicitation is clear. See, for instance, EVALUATION subsections A.6.3. and B.7.4.

Q29) Will a completed Task Order be accepted as a “completed project”?

It has to satisfy the solicitation’s requirements for past performance.

Q30) Is it possible to use the same Past Performance example for more than one Functional Area?

Please consider the response to Q12, this topic

Q31) 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.

Q32) Due to the overall slowdown in the economy, would the government consider extending the past performance qualifying period to 3 years?

No, see the response to Q23, this topic area.

Q33) How many projects can we address in each past performance summary for each FA? Can we mention more than two projects for each? If we can only mention two, must they be the same two as the projects in the references for that FA?

A.6.2. and B.7.3. are clear.

Q34) 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 subsection A.6.3. 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.

Ordering contracting officers may establish different approaches and requirements for evaluating past performance on task order opportunities than is established for basic contract award.

Provisions and Clauses

Q1) Evaluation Pg 5, Para 1.3; The Government has instructed the Offerer to “...complete and submit as part of their offer the provisions in the FAR Full Text Provisions and Clauses section calling for representations and certifications.” Our question is in what section should we include these and will these be included in the page count of that Section?

Please consider what is presented in EVALUATION subsection 15.2 regarding this.

See, for instance, the third folder for each compact disc. Also ascertain if the EVALUATION section specifies a page limitation for that material.

Q2) Clause 52.234-2 Notice of Earned Value Management System – Pre- Award IBR states “(a) The offeror shall provide documentation that the Cognizant Federal Agency has determined that the proposed earned value management system (EVMS) complies with the EVMS guidelines in ANSI/EIA Standard – 748 (current version at time of solicitation). “ Does GSA maintain a list of systems that you have determined do comply with ANSI/EIA Standard – 748?

The EVALUATION section does not explicitly implement FAR 52.234-4, but given that offerors have to fill in/complete various clauses and provisions and submit them in a folder designated in EVALUATION subsection 15.2, that is a viable question.

An approved/compliant EVMS is not required for basic contract award. EVMS capabilities may often be applicable for task orders and ordering contracting officers may establish approval or competitive EVMS requirements by implementing FAR 52.234-4 or other means in task order competitions.

Q3) As part of the VI. FAR Full Text Provisions and Clauses 52.234-2 Notice of Earned Value Management System – Pre-Award IBR, there is a reference to an approved EVMS. If a offeror does not have an approved system is the offerer required to submit a comprehensive plan for compliance with the EVMS guidelines as part of this proposal? If so, what folder should it be inserted? If not required for this proposal, is it required prior to receiving a STARS II award?

See response to Q2, this topic area.

Q4) In the doc “VI. FULL TEXT

PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES” on page 39 (section 52.234-2 Notice of Earned Value Management System – Pre- Award IBR) it says : “The offeror shall provide documentation that the Cognizant Federal Agency has determined that the proposed earned value management system (EVMS) complies with the EVMS guidelines in ANSI/EIA Standard – 748 (current version at time of solicitation).” Do we need a response here? If so, can we say that we are developing a proposed earned value management system (EVMS) that complies with the EVMS guidelines?

See response to Q2, this topic area.

Q5) FAR full text clauses – If the company already has an ORCA record, how do I let GSA know in the RFP that the company has an ORCA record?

Should I complete only paragraph (b) of section 52-212-3? Or should I do anything to indicate that the company has an ORCA record?

Read and apply FAR 52.212-3. Also consider EVALUATION subsection 15.2.’s depiction of where Filled-in Clauses & Provisions are to be placed.

Pricing Worksheets/Pricing Guideline Coefficients

The government has received a few requests for locked fields on the pricing spreadsheets to be unlocked. Those requests are not accepted. The pricing worksheets are unprotected where offerors are to key in pricing data. Requiring use of the pre-established spreadsheets that include locked fields builds significant efficiency into the evaluation process. If offerors were allowed access to embedded formulas in the pricing spreadsheets and submitted them as part of their offer(s), the Government might have to painstakingly review apparent cell values AND underlying formulas, adding significant time to the evaluation of offers. Similarly, if the offered pricing wasn’t submitted on the pre-established spreadsheets, it would slow the ability of the Government to readily work in the spreadsheet environment to conduct price analysis. Offerors may rest assured that it is each CLIN’s unit price multiplied by the CLIN’s estimated hours that produces the CLIN extended total. If the Government identifies an inaccurate embedded formula that it, itself, created in the pricing spreadsheets that it published, the Government will rely upon the offered CLIN unit price (that the offeror fills in for each CLIN) multiplied by the CLIN’s estimated hours (that the Government pre-established for each CLIN) to produce each CLIN extended total. Offerors are expected not to key in or place any additional formulas in their submitted pricing worksheets as the Government may copy and paste values from the completed CLIN unit prices and extended totals, and not formulas.

Q1) Can you take a look at the pricing work sheets (ceiling rates by year)?

Year one work sheets look ok, but in years 2,3,4 and 5, look at the heading in spreadsheet row 2: the row 2 headers still say “Year 1 Total” even though they are in an option year.

Shouldn’t they say “Year 2 Total”, “Year 3 Total”, etc for years 2, 3, 4 and 5?

OBA2

Q2) I noticed that Pittsburgh does not have a coefficient listed. For that reason, are we to assume that we use the “Rest of the US” coefficient for Pittsburgh?

OBA2

Q3) The spreadsheets are locked. Is there any reason for this? I’m asking because I unlocked the spreadsheet that was included in the draft and found several errors in the summation of columns. I was also able to include a table of our rates and easily populate rates for each labor category and locality through a simple means of referencing our rates and applying the locality differential. This method provided a 100% reliable method of populating the table. In addition I was able to pick up on the summation problems. In the current version I can’t even expand the columns to see the totals. How do I know if they are accurate and match my draft computations if I cannot see them? Is there any reason why we cannot receive unlocked versions of the tables? This would make things a lot easier to deal with and prevent any kind of error from being introduced that would knock us out of the competition. If you would like to see the sample cost spreadsheet that I created after I unlocked the sample I will be happy to send it to you and discuss over the phone if you like.

Regarding the first question, requiring use of the pre-established spreadsheets that include locked fields builds significant efficiency into the evaluation process. If offerors were allowed access to embedded formulas in the pricing spreadsheets and submitted them as part of their offer(s), the Government might have to painstakingly review apparent cell values AND underlying formulas, adding significant time to the evaluation of offers. Similarly, if the offered pricing wasn't submitted on the pre-established spreadsheets, it would slow the ability of the Government to readily work in the spreadsheet environment to conduct price analysis.

Regarding the second question, the yearly total columns for government and contractor sites (e.g. Excel column E, column G, etc.) for each labor category will display total dollar values up to eight digits including the two digits after the decimal. If the total dollar value for a labor rate cannot be seen, one can hold the cursor over the cell and the amount will display. The same applies to the “Year <x> Locality Total” at row 146 and the “Year <x> Grand Total” at cell E148 on each pricing spreadsheet. The yearly Grand Totals are also displayed by site and year on the “Base Period Total” tab.

Q4) Could you clarify whether you expect pricing to differ in any way on these worksheets 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 would be offering in a competitive environment.

Q5) 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.

Q6) 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.

CLIN 1 Applications Programmer

CLIN 19 Consultant CLIN 1 Applications Programmer CLIN 53 Helpdesk Specialist CLIN 4 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 SCOPE sections 4, 5 and 6.

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.

Q7) Is the multiple incumbent position intended to be at the same level as the single incumbent or are they both the same wrt seniority?

CLIN 120 Telecommunications

Manager – Multiple Incumbents CLIN 121 Telecommunications Manager – Single Incumbent

Those labor category descriptions are stated as intended.

Q8) Are we only allowed to submit pricing for states we currently have Workers compensation Insurance coverage?

Or, can we submit our offer �olicitat of all areas of our interest, and then upon Award of an Order, we would obtain Workers Compensation Insurance in that state prior to starting the service?

The solicitation is clear about completion of all pricing line items. See EVALUATION subsection A.7.4. and B.11.4.

Q9) Can pricing offers for both Ancillary Support and Ancillary Equipment be offered under Constellation I?

Ancillary Equipment is a subcategory of Ancillary Support. See SCOPE sections 4, 5 and 6.

The EVALUATION section designates the labor category line items that offerors are to price which are applicable to evaluation for basic contract award.

Q10) Request for clarification “Evaluation, Pricing, Section A.7.4” The pricing worksheets provided as attachments in the solicitation include 141 Labor Categories. The identical Labor Categories appear in every functional area pricing worksheet. Are bidders required to submit pricing for all 141 Labor Categories regardless of relevance to the Functional Area that is being proposed? For example, FA4 specifically excludes custom programming, systems integration design and facilities management, yet a significant number of Labor Categories in the provided worksheet support those activities and seemingly would not apply. Would bidding only the applicable labor categories in FA4 be considered non-compliant?

The solicitation is clear about completion of all labor category line items. See EVALUATION subsections A.7.4. and B.11.4.

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 subsection 1.1.). Task order opportunities don’t have to be constrained to only work from a single FA. SCOPE subsection 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 principal 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.

Q11) The final version of the pricing spreadsheets for STARS II omits Pittsburgh on the Locality Coefficients tab. The draft version included Pittsburgh with the coefficient 0.951.

We assume this was a mistake, and the Government still intends to use

0.951 in evaluating pricing for Pittsburgh. Is this correct?

OBA2

Q12) Upon opening all spreadsheets we find that the same 141 positions are listed for each Functional Area. Is this intended or can we expect an amendment differentiating which labor categories require pricing per Functional Area? If this is the intention then why are 4 or 8 spreadsheets required when 1 or 2 would suffice. Secondly, 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 Q10, 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.

Q13) In examining the templates, specifically the ‘Locality Coefficients’ sheet, I note that there is no longer an entry for the Pittsburgh area, which was previously noted to have a coefficient of 0.951. However, the pricing sheets for years 1 through 5 in all of them have entries for billing rates for the Pittsburgh area, and the ‘Locality Definitions’ sheet still contains the entry for the Pittsburgh- New Castle,PA area. Are we to complete the entries on the years 1-5 sheets for the Pittsburgh area? And if so, are we to continue to use the previously noted locality coefficient of 0.951? Also, in examining the list of CLINs and labor categories on the Years 1-5 sheets in the pricing templates provided, I note that there is a conflict between the CLIN Numbers and titles for 3 entries:

Attachment 3, Labor Category Definitions lists:

CLIN 90 - Operations/Network LAN

Administrator CLIN 91 - Operations/Technical Support Analyst CLIN 92 - Operations/Technical Support Manager While the Excel pricing templates list these as, with () added:

CLIN 90 – Operations/Technical Support Manager (CLIN 92 In Attachment 3) CLIN 91 – Operations/Network LAN Administrator (CLIN 90 in Attachment 3) CLIN 92 – Operations/Technical Support Analyst (CLIN 91 in Attachment 3)

Since there could be confusion in the future should an agency order by CLIN only without specifying labor category title, request clarification as to what the correct CLIN numbers are for each of those 3 categories. May I suggest that Attachment 3 be revised to agree with the information in the pricing templates? This would appear to be a solution that would cause minimum disruption to vendors submitting for this effort; most have probably based their cost estimations based on labor title/description rather than CLIN number. Revising Attachment 3 would be least intrusive to the entire process.

Regarding Pittsburgh Locality Coefficient – OBA2

Indeed there is a disconnect in the contract line item number (CLIN) between some labor categories listed in the pricing worksheets and the number of labor category definitions in Attachment

3. Regardless, the labor category definitions are correct in explaining their designated labor category titles. Please cross reference the labor category titles, as opposed to the contract line item numbers between the pricing worksheets and Attachment 3. In effect, the CLIN numbering system can be dropped from Attachment 3 without consequence.

Q14) If we are interested to supply

Desktops, Laptops, and Monitors under EPEAT, are we to add additional pricing for EPEAT in our offer? Or, will EPEAT be listed as a RFQ and we can submit pricing to the RFQ, it doesn’t have to be listed in our awarded Basic Contract?

The potential…