Alliant 2 Principles 1. Capitalize on Alliant’s Success The initial Alliant contract was successful for government and industry. In order to maximize customer loyalty and minimize customer disruption, the basic structure of the contract should be maintained absent a specific problem or notable opportunity for improvement. 2. Maintain Flexibility Alliant 2 should eliminate to the maximum extent possible burdensome or technical requirements at the contract level. Granting government customers maximum flexibility at the task order level increases competition, best value and sound performance outcomes to meet customer agency missions. Flexibility at the task order level also fosters more effective and efficient contract management for both government and industry. GSA should not overload requirements at the contract level. GSA should focus on empowering customers to accomplish their goals at the task order level. Streamlined requirements at the contract level with flexibility to meet customer agency requirements at the task order level are the hallmark of Alliant’s success. Alliant II should strive to maintain these key features. 3. Addressing Customer Needs Under Alliant 2 The Coalition appreciates the focus on innovation and the need to provide new emerging technologies to government customers. Innovation is best achieved by structuring a flexible agreement that embraces the use of commercial terms and reduces barriers to offering new technology within the scope of the contract. a. Requirements to offer Leading Edge Technologies must be balanced with the reality that most requirements under Alliant have been for typical IT services. b. Leading Edge Technologies may be included as a component of Alliant 2 but should not be the primary focus. Based on work conducted under Alliant, we anticipate that Alliant 2 will be used most for more standard IT support, infrastructure and development services. Too heavily focusing on Leading Edge Technologies could cause some customers to seek another contract vehicle versus transitioning to Alliant 2. c. An itemized list of technologies runs the risk of becoming outdated or too restrictive over the long term which also runs the risk of artificially limiting the overall scope of the contract (e.g. if a technology is not listed it may not be considered within the scope of the contract). GSA should focus on creating flexible contract structures that promote innovation at the task order level rather than attempting to define, identify and evaluate innovation and “leading edge” technologies at the contract level. Moreover, to the extent a listing of technologies is included in the contract; it should be as expansive as possible to ensure adequate scope to meet customer requirements.
4. Maximize Competition a. GSA should ensure that the upcoming Alliant 2 contract is designed so that companies of all sizes that can provide best value IT solutions are able to participate. b. Contract structures that focus heavily on specifically listed Leading Edge technologies, utilize pooling by NAICS, focus on the total dollar value of a relevant project over the complexity, and emphasize system certifications, when combined, will tend to limit competition at the contract level. This is especially a concern for mid-size companies that will have to compete under Alliant 2 Unrestricted. c. The number of Alliant 2 awards should be at the natural break in scores rather than an arbitrary predetermined number with the goal of awarding at least 60 contracts. d. To increase competition, increase the number of prime contractor awards rather than include mandatory bid rates for task orders per H.30 and H.31 of the RFI. Delete the mandatory bid rate—it is an artificial measure that unnecessarily increases costs for contractors and government. The focus should be on developing clear, sound customer agency requirements for task order competition. Sound requirements development drives competition at the task order level not an artificial “forced bid” mechanism. 5. Optimize Industry Input a. Through the Alliant 2 Community on GSA Interact, ask industry how they recommend reaching certain objectives versus proposing solutions and gathering feedback. This approach is likely to generate more creative solutions for GSA’s consideration to the benefit of the final Alliant 2 contract. 6. Select Highly Qualified Vendors Using Simple, Clear and Measurable Evaluation Criteria Representing all the Elements Required for GWAC Success a. Give credit for the ability to manage similar IDIQ contracts (government or commercial examples, including GSA IT Schedule 70), offering credit for: i. Serving multiple agencies or commercial customers ii. Multiple sites iii. CONUS/OCONUS b. Make it easy to demonstrate experience: i. Minimize dependence on contracting officers to sign-off on/validate relevant experience for past performance—the current RFI requires up to 60 signatures for LET references and up to 7 for PSC codes ii. Accept Relevant Experience submissions from all IT PSC codes and do not limit through PSC code Tiering/Grouping/Pooling iii. Allow a single, large contract to demonstrate relevant experience in more than one technology, when applicable c. Provide clear, easy to demonstrate Past Performance criteria d. Maintain the simplicity of the Alliant Program Manager requirements e. The evaluation criteria should focus on factors, discriminators and certifications that are relevant to federal customer requirements
