Attachment 11 - Solicitation Additional Questions and Answers.pdf

1. Follow on to original question #3 “would the Government reconsider allowing contractors to submit past performance information on contracts where they serve in a subcontractor position?”

a. What is the rationale for not allowing prime contractors to submit past performance in which they performed as a subcontractor, so long as the prime contractor’s subcontract past performance size, scope, and complexity is similar to the Altus BTS? Most US Air Force BTS contracts must be procured via the “mandatory buy” requirements of the NETCENT contract. So, 8(a) contractors who have past performance specifically on USAF BTS contracts will ALL be subcontractors to NETCENT primes. There are no 8(a) NETCENT primes. This “no subcontract past performance” restriction unjustly eliminates the use of nearly all other USAF BTS contracts as past performance references, thus creating an unrealistic and overly restrictive requirement that can only be met by the incumbent contractor, creating the overt, yet unnecessary, appearance of favoritism.

b. Would the government please reconsider its position on this matter and allow past performance submissions where offerors performed as either the prime contractor or as a subcontractor equally, or explain the justification of such an excessive restriction?

c. ANSWER - Based on the unique situation that NETCENTS presented during the last contract, the Government will allow prime and subcontractor performance submissions.

Subcontractor submissions should address the extent of contract administration that was also performed by the subcontractor.

2. Follow on to original question #12 “there is insufficient information for the pricing item of #2256 Miscellaneous Materials/Equipment/Services, can the Government provide a dollar value placeholder or NTE value for all contractors to use for this.”

a. The question is concerning “details necessary to estimate costs” not markup methodology. Please note in CLIN 0003, PIDS 2250, 2251, 2252, 2253, 2254, and 2256 the Government is asking contractors to estimate a UNIT PRICE for EACH JOB for each of these PIDS. So for instance, what information has the Government provided in this solicitation that would give contractors enough information to put down a price in ATTACHMENT 2, spreadsheet TAB A & B (CLINs 0002 – 3), CELL G333 that would then multiply to the EST QTY in CELL C333 that would yield an EXTENDED PRICE in CELL H333 that would then be transferred to the spreadsheet TAB Summary & CLIN 0001, CELL F10? There is no information about how to cost estimate a “miscellaneous/materials/equipment/services” job to then develop a UNIT PRICE for any of these PIDS.

b. Would the government clarify the information needed and what should be put in CELLS G328 – H333?

c. ANSWER – Contractor should base these CLINS on their company’s percentage mark up for these items. This is an individual business decision.

3. Follow on to original question #15 “please provide a maximum quantity of cable locates that must be performed per year under the O&M portion and add a CLIN for cable locates in excess of the maximum O&M quantity.”

a. Just as the government provided historical estimates for other requirements in CLIN 0001 and 0002 in APPENDIX 7.1 – WORKLOAD ESTIMATES, there must be “historical averages/quantities” for cable locates as well, otherwise how would a contractor be expected to provide a firm fixed price on an unknown quantity or value? As it stands, the cable locates could be anywhere between quantity 1 and 1 million. If this is truly an unknown number then this pricing should be in CLIN 0002, which represents the IDIQ PIDs, and not CLIN 0001 which represent FFP values. Certainly the government and the incumbent contractor has this historic information and by not providing such puts all other contractors at an unfair disadvantage.

b. Please either provide historical averages or move the pricing for this requirement to

CLIN 0002.

c. ANSWER - Cable locates are part of O&M and will not be CLIN’d separately. The contractor is responsible to perform any and all cable locates for dig projects on base.

This normally will be less than 50 per year but may exceed that number if CES or CS projects increase. This is no different than “Call OKIE”, or any other utility line locator, the contractor is responsible for the cable on base for the duration of the contract under O&M.

4. Follow on to original question #34 “would the government please provide a rough percentage breakdown of annual contract funds/value between the CLINs?”

a. The question addressed here has to do with understanding the overall historic value (as a percentage) of the different CLINs so that contractors can adequately address how they will support such in their Tech Volume based on volume/magnitude. In other words, is the CLIN 0001 “O&M” portion representing perhaps 15% of the yearly $5M estimated annual revenues from this contract, while the CLIN 0003 “Unique Requirements” represent perhaps 75% of this value? This is also important to know in order for contractors to determine what the impact would be on a contractors forecasted provisional DCAA indirect rate structure, how this might impact the markup/G&A or material handling rate applied to CLIN 0003.

b. The government did not adequately answer the original question.

c. ANSWER: Under the current contract, the O and M portion is roughly 10% of the entire contract value. This percentage fluctuates yearly, because we receive funding from other bases and this varies based on the projects that they can fund at the time. This is all dependent on the appropriated budget for the fiscal year.

5. Follow on to original questions #7 and #37

a. Given the government answers to Q&As #7 and #37, removed the requirements for either SEC+ or CCNA for the Line Linemen (Inside Plant) and the Linemen (Outside Plant), would the Government please correct the PWS Section 1.1.1 and remove the “key personnel” designation from both of these positions or modify the statement that currently states “key personnel assigned to this contract must have and maintain a current SEC+ or CCNA” Collaboration Certification” to “Only the on-site engineer (OSE) assigned to this contract must have and maintain a current SEC+ or CCNA: Collaboration Certification” as this would be consistent with the government’s answer in Q&A #38.

b. ANSWER: The PWS has been updated

6. Given the volume of information still needed for contractors to properly respond to this solicitation, and no doubt that is it in the best interest of the Government to maximize competition, would you kindly extend this solicitation due date out for an additional 2 weeks once such information has been provided?

a. ANSWER: Amendment 3 has extended the response date for this solicitation 02 November 2020 at 1300hrs CST

7. This procurement has identified NAICS code 517311, however that NAICS 517311 is specifically used for large TELCO/Utility providers (think AT&T, Verizon, etc.) in which the telephone company “owns and/or leases” its equipment or networks to the US government, not for O&M support of government owned equipment/networks.

a. Either NAICS 517919 (All Other Telecommunications) or 811213 (Communication Equipment Repair and Maintenance) would be appropriate for this scope of work, but certainly not 517311 by description. Would you please change the NAICS code?

b. ANSWER: The NAICS code 517311 was approved by the Small Business Administration specifically for this procurement. Based on the full definition of this NAICS, the Government determined that it covers this procurement accurately.

8. The government’s threshold value for PP of $20M - $40M does not fairly correlate to the incumbent contract, which according to our research is approximately $22M total, or specifically about $4M - $5M per year. We request that the government reconsider the original threshold, and allow offerors to submit PP with $5M or greater value in a single year within the least 3 years (as measured by the amount received by the contractor submitting the PP reference)?

a. As some past performance may have the same $5M yearly value but only for 2 or 3 years instead of 5, but as long as the yearly value was around $5M, that would adequately reflect the approximate “yearly value” of the Altus BTS. Otherwise, such a stringent past performance requirement of $20M - $40M would unfairly bias the incumbent and very few 8(a) contractors have total contract values of that magnitude.

b. ANSWER - The Government will revise Section M, Volume 3 , #2 Past Performance Relevancy to read “Magnitude will be defined as a contract value of $5M Annually”

9. Volume 1 Price: f. Completed representations and certifications – Is the government requiring a copy of the company’s Reps and Certs that are in SAM (System for Award Management) or just fill out the sections in the solicitation? Both a current SAM registration and the filled out Reps and Certs are required.

10. Volume IV Other Ancillary Information – Offer will complete all SF30, SF33, and RFP fill-in information relating to the offeror and the offer as it is required in the RFP. Is the RFP fill-in the same as the Reps and Certs or is Section B the only fill-in required? Both a current SAM registration and the filled out Reps and Certs are required.