Offerors should note that GSA reverted to the draft RFP 1 language by bringing back the ability for offerors to submit as a partnership. It’s also great to see that OTSB JVs and SB JVs can claim scoring credit for relevant experience, past performance, systems, certifications and clearances from the existing JV or an individual member of the JV which opens the door for offerors to get creative with their point scoring strategy.
Notably, offerors should be aware of an important distinction that exists between OTSB and SB offerors with one or more other companies acting as proposed first-tier subcontractor(s) (subs). While SB offerors can use experience and capabilities (i.e., relevant experience, past performance, systems, certifications and clearances) from its proposed first-tier subs, OTSB offerors with first-tier subs are not allowed the same luxury. The condition for SB offerors being that GSA will only allow the SB offeror with proposed first-tier subs to claim scoring credit for relevant experience projects and past performance from its subs so long as all members of the SB CTA are identified as a small business concern under the size standard for NAICS code 541512 in SAM.gov and the SB sub will perform primary and vital requirements of a task order under the contract. Also, a SB CTA offeror claiming scoring credit for a system, certification or clearance from one of its SB subs will have to provide a detailed description of how the SB CTA will leverage the sub’s capabilities in contract performance, including the roles, responsibilities and contributions of each SB sub-CTA member.
Lastly, GSA provides SB offerors with a third CTA offering entity option—the small business mentor-protégé (SBMP) arrangement. If submitting as an SBMP arrangement, the SBMP will need to formalize its collaboration through written agreement. This agreement must specifically identify the business assistance that the mentor will provide to the protégé to “augment, supplement or acquire needed capabilities” to support the score claimed. It is important to note that the term of a mentor-protégé relationship cannot exceed six (6) years, and if the relationship is terminated the mentor-protégé joint venture will be obligated to complete any previously awarded work unless a stop work order is issued. OTSB offerors thinking of proposing as an SBMP should note that they cannot submit multiple offers via multiple mentor-protégé relationships (such as mentor-protégé, joint ventures, and partnerships).
Meaningful relationship commitment letters (MRCLs)
GSA changed the language in the final RFP to allow offerors to claim affiliates relevant experience, past performance, systems, certifications and facility clearances through a meaningful relationship (except for MRCLs offered by FAR 9.601(2) OTSB CTA first tier subcontractor members). This updated language is in line with the first draft of the solicitation as well as GSA’s previous treatment under other major acquisition programs.
Offerors should also be cognizant of the new language added regarding sharing resources from a holding company. GSA will not allow offerors to use a holding company for a meaningful relationship unless the holding company has a 51% majority share ownership of, and operational control over, the business functions and composition of the boards of directors of both the offeror and the meaningful relationship entity. In this case, the holding company would be treated as a parent company and allowed for meaningful relationships.
Similar to the proposal submission limitations noted in the section above, only one proposal from a member of the corporate structure may be submitted.
Contractor business systems
The following contractor business systems are not minimum or mandatory requirements; however, offerors can earn additional points if they can demonstrate they meet the RFP verification requirements.
- Acceptable accounting system
- Approved purchasing system
- Earned value management system (EVMS)
- Acceptable estimating system
As stated in our last Alliant 3 article, GSA will allow for third-party CPA verification of accounting, purchasing and estimating Systems. However, GSA has stayed firm in their third-party CPA verification requirements in that these systems are to be “audited” and that third-party CPA “reviews” will not be accepted as a substitute. For third-party CPA business system verification, the following requirements apply:
Adequate cost accounting systems must be audited and found acceptable by generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
Approved purchasing systems must be audited by a CPA and found acceptable in accordance with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) Guidebook.
Acceptable estimating systems must be audited by a CPA and found acceptable in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.215-7002, Cost Estimating System Requirements.
For all claimed contractor business systems, offerors must certify that there have been no material changes to the claimed contractor business system since the last audit. GSA further clarified that an accounting system must be established, maintained and determined as adequate at the time of an award, and maintained in good standing throughout the performance of the base contract, for any cost-type task orders awarded under a master contract.
When reviewing for contractor business system verification documentation, potential offerors should be aware that each of the key contractor business systems included in the Alliant 3 final solicitation has varying degrees of detail, trigger words with specific meaning and acceptable forms of documentation to meet the solicitation scoring criteria. Be sure to read these sections in detail and do not paint with a broad brush for all contractor business systems.
Pricing requirements
With the release of the final solicitation, offerors are finally getting their first real look at the pricing requirements for Alliant 3. We can confirm that GSA did not deviate far from the pricing requirement they originally hinted at in the second draft RFP.
The final Alliant 3 pricing requirements consist of three sections with various requirements. The first section requires offerors to use the provided Alliant 3 price template spreadsheet to input pricing information for 15 years of government worksite and 15 years of contractor worksite fully burdened labor hour rates for 31 unique information technology (IT) senior skill level labor categories (62 total). These labor categories (LCATs) are based on the Alliant 2 published price list. The 15 years of pricing constitutes a five-year base period and five-year option period (ordering period), plus an additional five years to cover any task order that has a term beyond the ordering period. Offerors should note that GSA set the escalation factor at 3.93% and will not allow offerors to propose their own factor. The fully burdened labor hour rates will be used by the government to establish the maximum ceiling rate for time & material (T&M) and labor hour (L-H) task order/contract line-item numbers (CLINs) only. The proposed ceiling rates will not apply to fixed-price or cost-reimbursement type task orders/CLINs.
The second section of the pricing requirement states that the evaluation will be based on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” assessment. Offerors are advised to propose maximum rates that reflect the senior skill level within a given LCAT working in the highest paid geographic area (CONUS only) and accommodate the U.S. government security classification through secret level. For any proposed labor hour rates that exceed the government referenced Alliant 2 published labor hour rates, the offeror will have to provide evidence showing the proposed higher rates have been accepted on T&M/L-H federally awarded government contract. GSA will not accept forward pricing rate agreement (FPRA) or a forward pricing rate recommendation (FPRR) as evidence to support any proposed higher rates.
The third and final section of the pricing requirement is a relatively new requirement for other major acquisition programs. Offerors are instructed to provide a total price for the government to perform a fair and reasonable determination in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(1). The total price is the aggregate of the offeror’s proposed fully burdened contract year one government worksite labor hour rates for the ten most frequently used and highest dollar usage Alliant 2 LCATs, multiplied by 2,000 labor hours. The ten LCATs for the total price calculation are:
- Labor ID #153 Senior Computer Network Support Specialist
- Labor ID #173 Senior Computer Programmer
- Labor ID #183 Senior Computer Systems Analyst
- Labor ID #193 Senior Computer Systems Engineer/Architect
- Labor ID #273 Senior Information Security Analyst
- Labor ID #283 Senior Information Technology Project Manager
- Labor ID #293 Senior Management Analyst
- Labor ID #303 Senior Network and Computer Systems Administrator
- Labor ID #313 Senior Software Developer, Applications
- Labor ID #323 Senior Software Developer, Systems Software
The resulting total price will be used to determine the fairness and reasonableness of the offeror’s final price, and a rating assignment of acceptable or unacceptable.
Other updates/important deadlines
On July 10, GSA issued Amendment 0001 on SAM.gov to correct technical issues and update attachments J.P-9, J.P-10, J.P-12 and J.P-13. GSA also announced its intent to issue a pre-recorded preproposal conference after questions were received from potential offerors.
UPDATE: On Aug. 23, GSA announced that the proposal submission date is now changed from Oct. 28, 2024, to Jan.10, 2025. GSA considers the Alliant 3 schedule adjustment “a strategic movement forward” to ensure they provide the maximum clarity to industry stakeholders. Within the same announcement, GSA also provided the first set of Q&A responses which can be found on SAM.gov. Additionally, GSA plans to issue a pre-recorded, pre-proposal conference for Alliant 3 on or around Nov. 08, 2024.
Offerors can track Alliant 3 updates via the GSA Alliant 3 GWAC Community Interact site.
How can Baker Tilly help?
With the release of the final solicitation, many companies are working diligently to understand the RFP requirements and how to prepare qualified, high-scoring proposals within the allotted timeframe. Timely, accurate and responsive proposals will be critical to moving through the phased evaluation process set forth by GSA in the RFP.
Baker Tilly stands ready to assist in the following areas:
- Scorecard/RFP readiness
- Pricing development and evaluation
- Proposal support and preparation
- Proposal compliance assessment
- Cybersecurity supply chain risk management (C-SCRM) plan development
Baker Tilly is familiar with the self-scoring methodology employed for complex governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC) vehicles like Alliant 2, HCaTS, ASTRO, CIO-SP4, OASIS, OASIS+ and NASA SEWP VI. These types of acquisitions place maximum burden on the offeror to prove that they have the requisite experience and capabilities to meet government requirements.
Baker Tilly has assisted leading government contractors through the relevant experience review process, facilitating the successful selection of the right combination of projects to achieve an organization’s maximum score. Baker Tilly has also advised during the pre-proposal stage on teaming and partnering arrangements should it appear an offeror’s ability to achieve a successful award is in doubt. Whether an offeror is seeking support in making a bid/no-bid decision or would like assistance with ‘soup-to-nuts’ proposal preparation, we offer tailor-made assistance to address your unique needs.
