Q&A__2.pdf

No. REFERENCE COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/CONCERNS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 Past Performance

[An offeror] has a key contract that has clear relevance to this particular requirement in several areas of the PWS. The contract came to term [in] 2015. The NAICS Code for this requirement is on the lower scale of business size IAW revenues defined by the SBA Size Standards by NAICS Code. As such, companies our size most probably are challenged to have three contract with relevance to the solicitation’s PWS with a three-year recency window. Question: Would the government consider a 4-year window?

No. Companies with no recent and relevant past performance will be considered acceptable.

2 Past Performance

The government communicated through the structure of the solicitation that personnel are a key element for success on this contract. In our 15 years as a federal / defense contractor, we have encountered authority to use the past performance of proposed personnel as a suitable submission for past performance requirements. Question: Would the Government consider permitting personnel’s past performance?

The Government will consider past performance of offerors in accordance with the RFP.

3 Submission Deadline Our team has multiple proposal requirements currently under way, which poses a serious challenge to complete the submission by the published deadline. Question: Would the Government consider an extension to Noon, EST on the 15th of November?

The deadline for Proposal submission is firm.

4 Contract Type

FAR 16.207-3 Firm-Fixed Price, Level of Effort (FFP-LOE) Term Contracts describes the condition under which an FFP-LOE contract is appropriate. The nature of the requested work in this solicitation is budgetary, finance and legislative support that doesn’t have the well-defined deliverables that would normally be suitable for any FFP type solicitations.

Also, the government has requested that Labor-hours utilization (expended and forecasted) be tracked in a monthly report, which seems more suited for a Time and Materials (T&M) effort. QUESTION: Would the government consider changing the contract type to T&M?

No. The Government has determined that the resultant contract will be FFP-LOE.

5 SECTION B

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES described in Amendment 0001, QUANTITY should reflect 12 rather than 1, and UNIT should reflect MO-Month rather than LOT. This will allow for incremental monthly billing consistent with Section 3.9 Services Summary Table #4 which instructs the contractor to invoice on a monthly basis.

QUESTION: Will the government modify SECTION B to adjust the QUANTITY from 1 to 12 and the UNIT from Lot to Month?

No. Incremental billing and payment is allowable under "Lot" quantities.

6 Evaluation Type

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) is an unfortunate choice for a professional services solicitation; especially for a customer with such a critical national security mission. LPTA makes sense for highly commoditized product purchases or highly “productized” services (Help Desk, Call Centers, etc), but not for professional services contracts where cost and technical tradeoffs in the source selection process are material to contract effectiveness. The National Defense Authorization Act 2017 (NDAA) specifically recommends avoiding LPTA for “systems engineering and technical assistance services, or other knowledge-based professional services.” It is of note that the abbreviated title of the solicitation specifically calls out “SETA”. Whereas the CN&GT Program Management Office requires very high service quality, as corroborated by the mean seniority for commensurate federal workers at GS-15, Step 5, the LPTA nature of the solicitation underscores that the least expensive cost of a compliant resource unit is the most desirable – this inherent conflict is incongruous. LPTA incites a “pricing race to the bottom to, in essence, buy the contract”. LPTA incentivizes slashing prices, which results in compromised quality; in an LPTA there are no Value Propositions. You are either the cheapest or you are not; and you are either compliant or you are not. QUESTION: Would the government consider modifying the solicitation from Lowest Price Technically Acceptable to Best Value?

No. The Government has determined it is in its best interest to evaluate based on lowest price technically acceptable procedures. Prices will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, realism, and balancing.

7 Facilities Clearance

With the new amendment to FA489019R0006, it now states that a firm must already have an FCL in place. [Redacted].

We started working on this solicitation when the draft came out, both the draft and initial indicated that AMIC would sponsor the FCL and the winning firm only needed to be capable of getting an FCL, not actually have one. As you may know, for a small business it is very challenging to get an FCL, essentially you are in a catch 22, where you can't get one if you don't have a sufficient number of employees, but getting a sufficient number of employees requires being on a contract that enables you to get an FCL. This is why it is critical that small business set asides such as this one enable firms to gain their FCL, because without it, they are not able to compete, based solely on a credential the Government controls.

[Redacted] our teaming partner will be able to hold individual clearances until [offeror's] FCL is in place.

Is this risk mitigation strategy sufficient, or will we be disqualified technically?

The Government will evaluate all proposals based on procedures outlined in Sections L and M in the solicitation. In the case of teaming arrangments, facility clearances may be submitted from one or more of the offerors within that team for evaluation.

Sheet1