FA6800-16-Q-S023_Q A.pdf

QUESTIONS RECEIVED FOR SOLICITATION FA6800-16-Q-S023

A6 NETWORK ENGINEERING A&AS

The table below reflects all questions received before the 26 Aug 16 suspense date for the solicitation referenced above and the Government’s responses to those questions.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number FA680016QS023 contain requirements similar to a current contract? If possible, please provide the current contract number. Or, is this a new requirement for the government?

This is a re-compete of FA6800-14-C-0005. Incumbent is SDS International, Inc. You can find the award value by searching for the FBO award notice.

Is there an incumbent for this work, and if so, what is the company name, contracts number and value?

Do you require the vendor to have a Security Facility Clearance at the time of response submission or will the government sponsor a facility clearance after contract award?

IAW The RFP:

52.212-2 Addendum

4. Factor A – Mission Capability (Technical)

4.3. Mission Capability (Technical) Subfactors

C. Subfactor 3 – Facility Clearance. Offeror must provide evidence that their company possesses a minimum of an active (final adjudicated) SECRET Facility Clearance from the Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of proposal submission IAW PWS paragraph 2.3.1.

In regards to AFICA - AFGSC A6 Network Engineering A&AS Solicitation Number: FA6800-16-Q-S023, will there be any sponsoring for the facility clearance?

Reference: Solicitation, 4.3. Mission Capability (Technical) Subfactors, C.

Subfactor 3 – Facility Clearance Question: If the prime contractor has a Secret Facility Clearance for this requirement and subcontracts with a small business who doesn't have a clearance, will the subcontractor's personnel be allowed to start work while the prime contractor sponsors the subcontractor for a secret facility clearance?

The prime contractor would provide the Network Engineer 1 and the subcontractor Network Engineer 2. Both proposed personnel meet the requirements as outlined in the solicitation. The subcontractor simply would not have a Secret facility clearance at the time of proposal submission.

In order for employees to use their clearance they have to be employed by a contractor with the required FCL. So in your scenario, no that would not work. The only way you could make that work is to have both the employees employed by the prime until the sub receives their FCL.

RFP Para 5.5; requires 3 CD ROMs, one for each volume. Is it permissible to place all 3 volumes on one CD?, and place that CD in the Price Volume?

The Governemtn has separate evaluation teams for each section of the proposal. Because of that, we require a separate CD for each volume

RFP Para 7.2.E Technical Solution, 3rd sentence refers to “…standards that have been established in each area…”. Presume “area” is equal to the sub-factors noted below the paragraph?

Yes. Each technical subfactor has minimum requirements/standards spelled out in 52.212-2 Addendum section 4.3 that also corresponds to standards spelled out in the PWS.

RFP, Basis of Award Section, Sub-Factor 4 – Total Compensation Plan, 2nd Paragraph, 3rd sentence, refers to “…compensation levels lower than the predecessor contractors…” Who are the predecessor contractors and what was their compensation levels?

The Government cannot dictate the specific compensation plans you have for your employees. The whole purpose of this evalaution factor is to ensure that your company is offering reasonable compensation plans and not one that is so limited that it would hinder your company’s ability to attract the level of professional employees this contract requires. We cannot reveal the incumbent’s compensation plan since that is considered proprietary/protected information. We also would not expect you to match the incumbent’s compensation plan if it went above and beyond what is normally offered to employees of this type/experience, because that would be unreasonable. If you focus on the first paragraph and propose a reasonable compensation plan for the type of employee(s) this contract requires when compared to recognized national and regional compensation surveys, etc. you will be rated as acceptable.

PWS, page 7, para 2.6.5: 1st paragraph requires a monthly status report. 2nd sentence requires a quarterly report with the same information and appears redundant. Recommend the quarterly report requirement be deleted.

The quarterly report is a less detailed report essentially “rolling up” the information contained in the monthly status report as well as other information that is not contained in the monthly status reports. This is the standard for all HQ AFGSC A&AS contracts written by AFICA/KGQ and the requirement will not be changed.

DD254, 2nd page, section 13, Period of Performance section. All dates are off by one day compared to the RFP & PWS.

RFP and PWS are correct. The DD 254 will be corrected at the time of award.

DD254, Section 13, Ref 10k: References “ACC”. Should that read AFGSC? Yes, that should be AFGSC. The DD 254 will be corrected at the time of award.

Is a draft DD254 to be included with our proposal? If so, where should it be placed? (Attachment to the Price volume?)

No draft DD 254 is required with proposals, but offerors must provide evidence that their company possesses a minimum of an active (final adjudicated) SECRET Facility Clearance from the Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of proposal submission IAW PWS paragraph 2.3.1.

Since we are require to submit letter of intent for potential candidate, does this mean we will not be require to give the first right of refusal to the current incumbent employees?

Please re-read the RFP instructions. It specifically states “a signed “Letter of Intent” or similar document for each CME is not required,”

We’ve had to include the certification process that you are proposing actual viable candidates (7.3 of the RFP) because in past source selections we’ve had companies literally just pull profiles from LinkedIn and used those people as candidates without their knowledge and the proposed candidates were actually government civilian employees and/or active duty military members who had absolutely no desire to seek employment with a contractor. In fact, one time it presented an OCI issue (the candidate they proposed was heavily involved with the source selection and was shocked to see his resume).

By demonstrating you are able to find qualified candidates who meet the technical requirements (and are actually seeking employment) you will be found technically acceptable. But that doesn’t mean if you receive the award that you don’t need to give the incumbent employees the first opportunity to stay on before turning to your proposed candidates. That is why we don’t require signed letters of intent.