Consolidation D-F CNECTS_Finalized_Redacted.pdf

SEMPER VENATOR

Cheyenne Mountain SFS 21 CS Communications and PEDS separate.”

Of the firms that did recommend alternatives, the alternatives included either a lesser degree of consolidation, or a multiple-award IDIQ. For the reasons described in this paragraph and paragraph 5.a.iv below, neither alternative is considered feasible.

Based on the RFI responses, all options for a lesser degree of consolidation do not appear to have any substantive impact (positive or negative) on small business participation in this effort. The only apparent impact is the magnitude of the savings to the government in terms of monetary benefits and efficiencies gained. Thus, the only de facto viable options are either full consolidation or no consolidation.

iv) Multiple-award IDIQ. A multiple-award IDIQ would allow the Government to award multiple contracts to meet the overall CNECTS requirement. However, multiple awards under an IDIQ are only appropriate when the requirement meets the conditions in FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii), including ensuring that the projected task orders are not so integrally related that only a single contractor can reasonably perform the work. Rather, a single award providing additional benefits not available under multiple awards as noted in FAR 16.504(c)(ii)B(B), (B) The contracting officer must not use the multiple award approach if-

(1) Only one contractor is capable of providing performance at the level of quality required because the supplies or services are unique or highly specialized;

(2) Based on the contracting officer’s knowledge of the market, more favorable terms and conditions, including pricing, will be provided if a single award is made;

(3) The expected cost of administration of multiple contracts outweighs the expected benefits of making multiple awards;

(4) The projected task orders are so integrally related that only a single contractor can reasonably perform the work;

(5) The total estimated value of the contract is at or below the simplified acquisition threshold; or

(6) Multiple awards would not be in the best interests of the Government.

(C) The contracting officer must document the decision whether or not to use multiple awards in the acquisition plan or contract file. The contracting officer may determine that a class of acquisitions is not appropriate for multiple awards (see subpart 1.7).

For this consolidated requirement, it realistically only makes sense for a single contractor to perform the work. The scope of the requirements overlap and are integrated with each other, both across requirements and across locations. For example, the Communications Focal Point (CFP) requirement spans across all installations and touches virtually every other requirement area. The CFP is the central hub to which all help tickets come in, and from there, depending on the nature of the problem, are either delegated to the other work centers, or handled immediately by the CFP tech.

Therefore, it would be impractical to split this requirement either by location or function.

If a different contractor did this at each location, it would neutralize the consolidation savings and benefits. If one contractor executed this function, but other contractors did other functions the CFP relies on, artificial seams would be created, and accountability