Attach_6_-_Govt_Responses_11-2-15.pdf

As of 11/2/2015

RFP SP330016Q0016 for LAN-WAN Telecommuncations for DDSP

Q1: Regarding the Telecommunications Planning and Maintenance requirement under the solicitation number SP330016R0016. I'd like to know if this is an entirely new effort or is there an incumbent currently providing the services? If so, can you please provide the incumbent contract information?

A1: The LAN/WAN requirement is not new. The incumbent is NES associates on SP3300-11-C-1025; continued contract from SP3300-10-C-0018.

Q2: According to FBO this contract will be awarded to a SDVOSB. What contract vehicle will be used (i.e. Vets GWAC, GSA schedule)?

A2: the decision is to compete this open market as the Synopsis states, resulting in an FFP Contract IAW FAR 12 & 15. The synopsis would state that it would be a Part 8 acquisition if it were going to use any optional Federal Supply Schedules.

Q3: I see that this is listed as a “set aside” for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business. Does this exclude us because as the Owner I am not service-disabled, yet we have service-disabled employees on staff? Do we need secure a GSA contract or what prerequisites are required to be able to submit a response to your RFP when released?

A3: In order to be able to compete on the upcoming solicitation the company must be in the category of SDVOSB. You would want to check with SBA on what makes up, and how to obtain such a designation. I believe that ownership has to be at least 51% belonging to an individual with such a Service –Disabled Veteran status.

Q4: I was wondering if a site visit is scheduled?

A4: A site visit is not planned as it has been determined not necessary to submit a proposal.

Q5: In the event the prime is awaiting approval of a Facility Security Clearance at the time of RFP closing, will the COR allow the awarded vendor to use its sub-contractor (submitted as a RFP Response Team member’s) facility clearance?

A5: No. The prime must always possess the clearance even if the sub-contractor will be the only entity performing the classified functions. Using another FCL is never allowed. Even if two cleared companies joined together as a Joint Venture they would need a new FCL because the business entity performing as the prime is neither company, but an entirely separate business entity.

Q6: There seems to be some conflicting information on the DLA PWS in reference to the period of performance.

Section 1 Introduction 4th paragraph reads: “The work performed and completed by this performance work statement shall be for a period of one (1) base year with one, six-month option period, following contract award, and shall be limited to the technical support area of data telecommunications.” and Section 1.2.1 Period Of Performance states: A. The period of performance for the contract action will be for one (1) base year with four

(4) one (1) year option periods. Can you provide some clarification?

A6: Section 1 Introduction 4th paragraph is the correct description.

“The work performed and completed by this performance work statement shall be for a period of one (1) base year with one, six-month option period, following contract award, and shall be limited to the technical support area of data telecommunications.”

Q7: I would just like to confirm that the proposal submission date for the above referenced SDVOSB Set Aside RFP is in fact 23 Nov 2015 as opposed to the Solicitation Cover page that states a contrasting date of 17 Nov 2015?

A7: The latter date is the correct one, 11/23.