GRISSOM ARB Q A.docx

Grissom ARB, IN FA8773-10-R-0050 Solicitation Q&A

1. What portion of the contract employees will be required to have a final DOD Security Clearance?

Microsoft Excel Database.

Yes, after contract award.

3. Section 1.3.16.3 – Does the base use Remedy?

At the north end of the DCO, Building 427.

4. Section 1.3.16.6.1 – When does the Air Force expect to launch the Cyberspace Infrastructure Planning System, Visualization Component (CVC)?

LMR does not apply to this procurement.

5. Section 1.3.16.6.2 – It is unclear how much Outside Plant Legacy information would need to be transferred to CVC, could you please clarify?

In the DCO.

6. Section 1.3.16.6.3 – Even though CVC is not currently designed to store Inside Plant information shall we assume it may have that capability during the term of this contract?

The DCO.

7. Section 1.3.16.6.3 – How much Inside Plant Legacy information would need to be transferred to CVC?

No, not at this time.

8. Section 1.3.16.6.3 - This section references maintaining Inside Plant Drawing records in the “locally approved format.” What is that format?

Generic Non-Metallic Single Channel surface Raceway.

9. Product ID 3344 thru 3355 – Fiber Cables for Inside Structure Installation

a) Should these cables be priced as PVC or plenum Rated?

b) Should the MM fiber be 62.5 or 50 micron?

a) Plenum rated.

b) For new installs I would recommend 50 microns. For runs that interface with existing 62.5 use 62.5 microns.

10. How does a company do 4 years worth of ISP/OSP work for $1.7M? This solicitation has the appearance of favoritism for an incumbent and seems the contracting office is trying to scare away competitors with a lowball price. We do ISP/OSP for the military and I know for a fact that 4 years will far exceed the $1.7M threshold. Please put out an amendment immediately and push the due date out 30 days so you can get competition. We will protest unless the solicitation is amended to be reasonable.

The current Contract and Schedule B Pricing Table was made public for REFERENCE only, after receiving numerous requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Pursuant to FAR Subpart 5.303 and the contract terms and conditions, the information was determined releasable. It is an Offeror’s Business Decision as to how they utilize the information requested; it is not a condition or threshold established by contracting for the requirement defined in the Solicitation.

The allegation that the contracting office is trying to “scare away” competition is unwarranted; it is noted, that extensive Market Research was accomplished to ensure competition existed during Acquisition Planning phase. Moreover, in accordance with the Competition In Contracting Act (CICA) and the Source Selection Method utilized, competition is highly encouraged for the subject procurement.

Likewise, the allegation that the solicitation has “the appearance of “favoritism” is unwarranted. Specifically, the Source Selection Method for this procurement in conjunction with the release of information regarding the current contractors pricing and contract promotes transparency and fairness.

If an offeror utilizes the current contract and pricing for purposes for which is was not intended, that is a Corporate Business Decision that lacks prudent business judgment and could very well render an offerors proposal unreasonable, incomplete and unbalanced.

It is noted the questions addressed in this form nor the administrative changes made to the Solicitation and attachment(s), did not cause a substantive change in said documents. As such, the proposal due date remains unchanged.