NOTE: Please note that the questions and answers provided within this document were not asked during, but after, the Symposium. As always, we are communicating both questions and answers in our attempt to give all interested parties the same information.
STRATCOM INDUSTRY DAY
OFFUTT AFB/17-18 Sep 96
CESAR QUESTIONS ASKED AND ANSWERED
AFTER THE SYMPOSIUM
If the government awards a single contract for the full scope of the candidate CESAR efforts, that contractor will clearly have both authority and responsibility to integrate. If we segment the efforts into two or more contracts we will be introducing greater complexity into the integrator's lines of authority. That complexity is not desirable to the government so we will strive to establish a structure which provides the greatest degree of authority and responsibility to the integrator. We expect to reach closure on contract structure within the next 90 days.
No matter what contract architecture we choose, we envision 1) the government establishing the requirements, 2) the integrator proposing various solutions and identifying values and vulnerabilities of each solution, and 3) the government selecting the solution for the contractor to execute. Thus, the contractor authority will have limits.
Criteria will include 1) applicability of past contractor efforts and their relevance to the proposed CESAR effort (in terms of size, duration, scope, etc.) This will include a summary of the lessons learned, risks encountered, and perceived differences between the project and CESAR and how they could be applied to CESAR. 2) Contractor references: we are keenly interested in hearing how past clients view a contractor's work.
(Please note, this response satisfies the question only. Other evaluation criteria would consider technical leadership qualifications, level of understanding, and proposed program planning.)
Oral presentations will occur in two separate phases. During the Qualification Phase, they will be used to determine the "most/best" qualified from the "more" qualified. During the Solicitation Phase, this presentation would augment the written proposals. This gives the contractor the opportunity to provide added emphasis to qualifications or portions of their proposal which they feel are key areas for consideration. It also gives the government the opportunity to ask questions and clarify portions of the proposal which they have evaluated. Two contracts in Mr. Gilligan's portfolio of programs have used the technique recently: the Integrated Maintenance Data System (recently awarded to Andersen Consulting) and the Joint Simulation System (planned for award in December 1996). We plan to learn everything we can from those experiences.
4. During the first phase of the down selection plan, in addition to the prime, will the government also review capabilities of companies teamed with the prime?
During the first phase of the down selection plan, the government plans to use a statement of corporate capability and past performance to provide feedback to industry identifying companies that are "more qualified". The statement of corporate capability will focus on the prime integrator's current expertise and their plan to gain the expertise to satisfy our requirements in all areas. If teaming arrangements are needed to gain this expertise, we will review your plan to acquire the expertise and focus on the expertise listed in your plan. In phase one, we will not specifically evaluate the proposed teaming candidate(s).
The purpose of the "more qualified" list is to inform industry of those companies we believe are better qualified to satisfy our requirements. Non-selection to the "more qualified" list does not preclude a company from submitting a proposal.