RFP_Q A_20160926.pdf

Question 145: The government's response of "The Government will provide the Lat/Long at the Task Order level as physical street addresses may not be available" makes providing a price quote for terrestrial services almost impossible. Offerors will not be able to provide an accurate FFP price for CLINS x002, x004, or x005. Most carriers will not price a local access line without knowing the exact street address, this is true even for the most detailed geography including in the United States. It is not uncommon for a carrier to have access on one side of a street and not on the other, to provide service on the street without current access can result in infrastructure build out costs which increases the cost to provide the services.

To price a firm fixed price service the same need for the street addresses, as in the example above, for the areas such as the different bases in the different AOR's would be necessary.

The only offeror that could provide an accurate FFP quote would be the incumbent who has the exact locations, every other offeror is at a disadvantage and would have to provide higher price quotes to compensate for the significant risk of not having specific location information either in the form of an address or detailed latitude and longitude coordinates. In the Government's Amendment 1 response to questions and answers the Government stated in Answer 37 "Lat Long is provided" and now the Government in Amendment 2 has changed its answer to the very same question to providing "Lat/Long at the Task Order level." If the Government has this information what is the rationale for not providing this to offerors so that all offerors can provide an accurate FFP price quote?

The terrestrial work required for CLINs x002, x004, and x005 would seem to require a cost plus approach, would the government consider making these CLINS cost plus and providing plug numbers which would place all offerors on an even level for these CLINs?

Answer 145: The Government has provided sufficient location information at this time to identify demarcation points for each of the existing internet cafes. The plug numbers provided for the service initialization CLINs are intended to cover the unknown costs associated with last mile connectivity from the demarcation point to the actual MWR internet café location. For security purposes, more specific MWR internet café location (lat/long) information will be provided at the task order level.

Question 146: PWS 6.2.1.7

PWS Paragraph 6.2.1.7 states the following:

"Generally, the facilities and/or shelters housing Internet Cafés will be Government facilities, such as permanent or temporary buildings, and will use Government furnishings (e.g., desks and chairs), unless otherwise indicated per task order. However, the future locations and corresponding facilities available at each location are undetermined, and in extreme cases, the Government may furnish only empty land area for an Internet Café. In those cases as specified in individual task orders, the contractor shall be required to provide/establish shelter, power, and furnishings for the Internet Café. The shelter must be sufficient to house all Internet Café equipment with environmental protection, appropriate to the Café size and type.

An individual work area with a desk/table and chair shall be provided for each computer and each phone.

Phones shall be kept separate from computers to allow privacy while supporting different users of each device. The Government will specify the ground area and conditions for the Internet Café location in the task order. Shelters shall be non-permanent, such as a shipping container or tent"

When we review the CLIN’s for the requirement we find that the Government is evaluating 25% of the overall café’s has having a standalone shelter included with the pricing. While this may be the Governments intent, we find this misleading when compared to the PWS Paragraph 6.2.1.7. Is it the Governments intent to have shelters provided in extreme cases or for one of every four cafes, as indicated in our CLIN calculations? This has a significant impact on the evaluated cost and can materially unbalance the pricing if it is not 25% of the total Cafes that are priced.

We would like the government to answer the following questions:

1. Is it the Governments intent to have shelters provided in extreme cases or for one of every four cafes?

2. If the Government is going to use the shelter in Extreme cases can they define the number of shelters required in the CLIN list?

3. If the Government anticipates using shelters in one of every four locations can you remove the term Extreme so the pricing will not appear to be unbalanced?

4. Will the Government consider a two week extension to allow the price quotes resulting from the answers to be processed to give the Government the best possible price?

Government should update the CLIN list to have 1 each or a lower quantity of Shelters included for the base year as well as the option years. Otherwise, industry will need an extension for the due date of proposals given that multiple Shelters are required in the CLIN list.

Answer 146:

1. Quantities are provided for evaluation purposes only.

2. Quantities are provided for evaluation purposes only.

3. The PWS has been updated to remove the term “extreme.”

4. A 1-week extension has been granted. Proposals are due at 8:00 AM (CDT) on October 3, 2016.