S2 Solicitation Questions by Topic R2.pdf

Questions and Responses Solicitation QTA609MCA0010

Introduction

Thank you for the robust interest in STARS II.

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.

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 Placement of Documents, Page Limitations and Proposal Submission Industry Credential and Constellation I – Constellation II 8(a) Joint-Venture and 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Evaluation Criteria Other

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

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

Past Performance Survey

An 8(a) prime contractor without a history of past performance that qualifies to the standards established in EVALUATION subsections A.6.3. and B.7.4. (for Constellation I and Constellation II, respectively) is not summarily at risk of failing the past performance evaluation. An offeror in that position will still be subject to the other past performance requirements, including but not limited to those of A.6.5. or B.7.6., which can be dubbed the “additional past performance record review”. A primary interest in the additional past performance record review is that no non-favorable/adverse past performance is evident. Even if such non-favorable/adverse past performance is evident, each offeror has the opportunity in the optional past performance summary established by A.6.2. and B.7.3. to address such non-favorable/adverse past performance as suggested in the response to Q10 in the Past Performance – General topic area in from the Questions and Responses released on FedBizOpps 8/24/2009. Interim past performance may also be addressed in the past performance summary, and may be cited by an offeror in support of taking non-favorable/adverse past performance results head on in a way that shows adequate assurance that risk from non-favorable/adverse past performance is mitigated and managed. Another primary interest in the additional past performance record review is addressed in A.6.7. and A.6.8., and B.7.8. and B.7.9.

The ability to use the past performance summary in that way is evident in the solicitation.

Questions Responses Q1) Amendment 0001 providing the “Past

Performance Survey” forms was issued without a SF30. The SF30 dated August 5, 2009 issued Amendment 0002, wherein Block 14 states “Amendment 01 of this solicitation was the posting of “Attachment 6

– Past Performance Survey” on FedBizOpps on July 31, 2009. There was no SF30 completed for Amendment 01.”Question #1.

Does acknowledgement and execution of Amendment 02 sufficiently comprise the acknowledgement and execution of Amendment 01?

Yes, understanding that the past performance survey released in Amendment 01 is meant to be implemented as designated in the solicitation’s EVALUATION section, and that simply acknowledging Amendment 01 does not amount to properly using the past performance survey.

Q2) GSA published Amendment 1, which included a copy of the Past Performance Survey. Will GSA be publishing a corresponding Standard Form 30?

No. Also see the response to Q1, this topic area.

Past Performance – General

Q1) VIII. Evaluation, page 15, A.6 Past Performance – As required in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions of Offerors, Commercial Items, where should the past performance information (contract numbers, points of contact, phone numbers, etc.) be included? If it is not to be included in the six (6) page summary per FA, where in the Past Performance Survey forms should this information be included?

A.6. and B.7. work in combination with, and elaborate upon the past performance requirement of FAR 52.212-1(b)(10).

Q2) I have a contract with a base period (it happens to be for a year, and not just a few months) and with four 12-month option periods. I’ve completed the base period and am nearing completion of the first option period. May I use the base period as a completed past performance project? I’m not worried about proving the work is similar and favorable (I’ve got that covered), I just need to know if it will be considered recent and completed. If I can’t use a base period as a completed project, may I list it on the past performance summary as an example of a positive trend in my past performance?

1) When developing a contract with options, the FAR requires a contracting officer to have determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that each option will be exercised. A contract with options was originally viewed as a whole. Work that is ongoing on a contract with options can not be considered complete. While an interim past performance appraisal might be available, a final past performance record is not available. The basic principle is, if performance is ongoing, performance can not be considered complete.

This approach to completed past performance goes with EVALUATION subsections A.6.3 and B.7.4., and not the additional past performance record review.

If an offeror does not have qualifying past performance, does not have past performance evident in the additional past performance record review that is not favorable/adverse and does successfully come through the tests of EVALUATION subsections A.6.7. and A.6.8. or B.7.8. and B.7.9. (understanding that the former subsections go with Constellation I offers, while the latter go with Constellation II offers), the neutral rating will apply, and that does not adversely impact an offer’s award prospects on the basis of past performance (the offer will not fail the past performance evaluation on the basis of a neutral rating). As the response to Q10 in the Past Performance – General topic area in the questions and responses released on FedBizOpps on 8/24/2009 in connection with solicitation QTA609MCA0010 indicates, a purpose envisioned for the past performance summary (which is optional and provides each offeror great discretion on how to use it) mentioned in EVALUATION subsection A.6.2. and B.7.3. is for offerors to address adverse past performance.

Past performance is not subject to comparative assessment between offers; it is a pass-fail/go-no go standard. Offerors are not competing against one another on the basis of past performance;

they are trying to meet the standard for passing, as opposed to falling beneath the standard and failing. Meeting standard is all that is required to pass. There is no added benefit to exceeding standard.

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

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

Provisions and Clauses

Q1) The table given herein has several provisions highlighted in yellow. The instructions at the bottom direct the offeror to complete and submit all these highlighted provisions as part of the offer as these are representations and certifications. However, we find that the following highlighted provisions/clauses are just statements by the GSA or instructions to the offerror and there is nothing for the offerror to certify or fill in.

52.216-1 Type of Contract 52.234-2 Notice of Earned Value Management System – Pre-Award IBR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

Do we still have to include the above three in our offer?

That really depends upon the definition of the word “include”. To say that something doesn’t have to be included in an offer because it does not require a representation or certification is not a position the Government can take.

The instructions on page 1 of the FAR FULL TEXT PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES section do not state that all highlighted provisions contain requirements for representations or certifications.

As part of their due diligence it is anticipated that every offeror will have read the entire solicitation.

Offerors should identify representations and certifications required by the solicitation. Those representations and certifications requiring an offeror to fill in information shall be included in the folder designated in EVALUATION section 15.2.

Clauses and provisions that do not require a representation or certification do not have to be included in the folder designated in EVALUATION section 15.2.

Q2) [From EVALUATION section] It is stated that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with the offer. Under the caption

“FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION

(48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS”, six (6) provisions have been presented. Again, in the subsequent sections, some more FAR clauses/provisions are provided. Do we have to include all of these?

See the response to Q1, this topic area.

Q3) As per the instructions given herein, we have to submit “Filled-In Clauses & Provisions” along with the offer. Several provisions are provided through out the solicitations like in V. FAR Provisions and Clauses, VI. Full Text Provisions and Clauses and VII. GSAM Provisions and Clauses and also in this document. Do we have to include all of them in our offer?

See the response to Q1, this topic area.

Q4) There are multiple references to the same FAR in different sections of the solicitation.

For example, the following are referred to in V. FAR Provisions and Clauses as well as in VIII. Evaluation

1. 52.203-11: Certification and Disclosure Regarding Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions

2. 52.212-1: Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items.

3. 52.214-34: Submission of Offers in the English Language

4. 52.214-35: Submission of Offers in U.S. Currency

May we request the Government to issue one single document listing the FAR provisions/clauses containing the certifications and assurances that are to be included in the offer?

See the response to Q1, this topic area.

Additionally, please understand that items in the EVALUATION section typically fall away after contract award, so some necessary duplication of FAR coverage is warranted in order to bring the benefits to task order opportunities downrange.

Q5) In regards to the FAR full text clauses, page 38 of 40, section b of the representation of limited rights data and restricted computer software (Dec 2007), how can the offeror check a box until the task orders are reviewed to determine whether or not the is limited right data or restricted computer software?

Correct. It is appreciated that you read the provision. Since no specific data delivery requirements have been delineated in the solicitation, it follows suit that it is applicable at the task order level. It is acceptable and will be considered compliant if an offeror completes the required representation by not checking either option in 52.227-15(b) and by stating in the location at 52.227-15(b)(2), where free text completion is provided, “this representation is applicable to task order requirements” & submits it per solicitation instructions.

Pricing Worksheets/Pricing Guideline Coefficients

Q1) Section VIII, EVALUATION. Appendix A, Paragraph A.7. PRICE EVALUATIONS states that “Each offeror shall propose ceiling fully burdened labor rates” in the pricing schedules for ALL labor categories. The Pricing Worksheets have columns for “On-Site” and “Off-Site” ceiling rates.Question #2. Must all labor categories reflect both “on-site” and “off-site” ceiling rates? Or, is one or the other sufficient?

Please use the ordinary definition of the term

“ALL”.

Q2) The RFP has provided guidance for escalation of fifth year hourly rates as the basis for option period pricing in years 6- 10, but I did not see any guidance concerning the required methodology for escalating years 2-5 labor hour category rates for the basic contract period.

Offerors should use business judgment to produce pricing that responds to the solicitation.

Q3) The fully loaded hourly rate for each of the labor categories will be submitted in the excel worksheets; however, please could you advise if any additional cost and pricing information is required in support of the fully loaded hourly rates?

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

Placement of Documents, Page Limitations and Proposal Submission

Q1) We are required to submit only an Electronic copy of proposal (No paper) and no paper copy is required for submission. However in Section 8.1 – Page 8, several instructions are given for formatting, particularly sub section (f) which talks about single side. Is this only for the soft copy or are we required to submit a paper copy as well?

Please follow the EVALUATION section’s instructions. It is appreciated that you are trying to be conscientious. The round of questions and responses published on FedBizOpps on 8/24/2009 addresses the subject of electronic and paper submissions for offers, and clearly emphasizes that the limited exception for paper to be used in an offer is tied to past performance surveys alone. Please conceive of the possibility that the files might be printed and vetted with the formatting criteria and/or subjected to a visual compliance screening.

Industry Credential and Constellation I – Constellation II

Q1) CMMI version 1.1 has changed to CMMI

1.2 ( DEV) however, at ML II both the versions are identical if SAM process area is excluded which is possible in both version. I would them assume that you would accept ML II attainment under both versions to qualify under Constellation I

CMMI version 1.1 is not considered current. The sunsetting period for CMMI version 1.1 ended on August 31, 2007. Any appraisal using either the v1.1 model or the v1.1 method is considered a v1.1 appraisal.

The acquisition team doesn’t concur with the premise that v1.1 and v1.2 are identical sans the SAM process area. For a summary of changes between v1.1 and v1.2, see:

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/adoption/pdf/v12-model-changes.pdf

Furthermore, SAM is highly relevant in that performing and/or controlling outsourced work IAW designated industry credential is a key consideration (are key considerations) per Amendment 03.

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

Q1) XYZ, inc. has been invited into a JV. The controlling company (51%) of the JV is graduating next year, how will this affect the other companies in the JV?

Each member of a joint-venture must submit separate Representations and Certifications per EVALUATION 11.2. Accordingly, each JV member is also accountable individually to FAR 52.219-28. Also note the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations applicable to 8(a) eligibility for initial contract award as well as continuing 8(a) eligibility requirements. Please also read FAR 52.219-17 and 52.219-18.

Evaluation Criteria

Q1) 4 Paragraph A.8.4, of the Constellation I Evaluation criteria under Section VIII, Evaluation of the RFP, lists four additional items apparent successful offerors must provide within three (3) calendar days of the Government's request for the purpose of financial responsibility evaluate. Please clarify the difference between Financial Statements [item (c)], and Income Statement included in item (d).

There is no need to read those as mutually exclusive items. The exact mix required from each offeror may vary upon individual offer circumstances. The spectrum of feasible information was identified.

Q2) The Contract Administration Plan (CAP), as detailed in Part VIII, Paragraph A.4., is described as having a Responsibilities component in addition to the separately stated requirement in Part VIII, paragraph A.8 (Constellation 1). Are we correct in assuming that only the information outlined in Part VIII, Evaluation, Section A.8 is required for the Constellation 1, Proposal component labeled "Responsibilities"?

The use of the term “responsibilities” in EVALUATION subsection A.4.1. (or its Section B counterpart) is related to the CAP. The context of EVALUATION subsection A.8.

(or its section B counterpart) is associated with FAR 9.1.

Though both subsections (both in A, or both in B, respectively) use a form of the same word, they apply it differently.

Q3) Under A.4.1 of the Evaluation section (where the directions for response refer to the writing of the Contract Administration Plan) CAP – ((relating to ---1. “fulfill the scope through contract compliant subcontracting risk mitigation and management”))

Is the correct assumption for response as follows:

That GSA STARS II would like to be sure that the Companies selected to receive award fully understand the liabilities and associated risks as it relates to:

((Should the response be focused on just (a) and (b) below or (a), (b) and (c)?))

a) The 8(a) Prime Contractor, when contracted for services, will actually perform at least 50% of the cost of the contract incurred for personnel with its own employees – that the Prime Contractor is expected to perform at least 50% of the work itself

The solicitation reasonably articulates the requirements at EVALUATION subsection A.4.1. (and its Section B counterpart). The contracts requirements and the Code of Federal Regulations governing the 8(a) program serve as self-evident references.

(ensuring that the “Pass Through” practice be eliminated).

b) And that the OCO’s may in fact elect to monitor subcontracting compliance by requiring an Order Invoice level subcontracting report from the 8(a) Prime (again ensuring that the Pass Through is not taking place).

c) And as it relates to a Task Order contract -- That the 8(a) Prime Contractor has in place procedures and standards of practice for the administration and management of subcontractor compliance and subcontractor performance, as it relates to Risk management- ie;

Identifying, Analyzing, Prioritizing, Mitigating and Reporting of Risks.

That, in summary, the CAP response needs to clearly demonstrate that:

((Are you looking for just an explanation that demonstrates an understanding and acknowledgement of (3) below or all of it below?))

1. They are a legitimate, value-identifiable Company

2. That they should convincingly demonstrate they have procedures and practices in place to administrate and manage Risk issues particularly relative to- subcontractors, subcontractor compliance issues, and contract compliance issues

3. That they are aware of the regulations cited by DoD, FAR & CFR for services performed (task order contracts) that state clearly the expectations of the 8(a) Prime to perform at least 50% of the work.

Other

Q1) If an offeror proposes on more than one functional area within a constellation, can the offeror be awarded one or more of the proposed functional areas or must all proposed functional areas be successfully awarded within the constellation to qualify?

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

Q4) Solicitation Reference: II. Basic Contract Scope, 4. IT Services-Based

Solutions, page 4, and 5. Ancillary Telecommunications/Wireless, page 5.

Question: The proposal instructions provide guidance to the offeror for responding to the Functional Areas and the Constellations, but not for IT Services-Based Solutions (Ancillary Services and Equipment) and Ancillary Telecommunications/Wireless. Can the government provide guidance regarding how they want the offeror to response to these requirements? Are separate Past performance and Pricing sections required for these two sections?

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

Q5) Reference: RFP Evaluation Section B.1.1

Question: Will the Government issue task orders specific to a constellation?

Please consider SCOPE subsection 1.4., as amended.