**Fair Opportunity**

**For**

**Networx**

**Version 1.0**

**May 31, 2007**

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Section 1 Introduction 3](#__RefHeading___Toc168992198)

[Section 2 Planning and Preparation Phase
3](#__RefHeading___Toc168992199)

[**2.1 Develop Transition Strategy** 4](#__RefHeading___Toc168992200)

[**2.2 Assign Selection Committee for Service Competition Packages**
4](#__RefHeading___Toc168992201)

[**2.3 Select Acquisition** 5](#__RefHeading___Toc168992202)

[**2.4 Develop Evaluation Criteria** 5](#__RefHeading___Toc168992203)

[**2.5 Develop Evaluation Process** 5](#__RefHeading___Toc168992204)

[Section 3 Execution Phase 6](#__RefHeading___Toc168992205)

[**3.1 Initiate FO Assessment** 6](#__RefHeading___Toc168992206)

[**3.2 Gather Evaluation Data** 7](#__RefHeading___Toc168992207)

[**3.3 Document FO Decision** 8](#__RefHeading___Toc168992208)

[3.4 Exceptions to the Fair Opportunity Process
8](#exceptions-to-the-fair-opportunity-process)

[**3.5 Execute SOW Process** 9](#__RefHeading___Toc168992210)

[Section 4 Change History 10](#__RefHeading___Toc168992211)

ATTACHMENTS

A: FAIR OPPORTUNITY SEQUENCE AND TIMELINE

B: EXAMPLE FO NOTIFICATION LETTER

**Section 1 Introduction**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992198 .anchor}

As directed by the Interagency Management Council (IMC) Transition
Working Group (TWG), the Fair Opportunity sub-committee has developed
this document to provide Agency personnel with a template for their Fair
Opportunity (FO) process. This document specifically addresses what and
how an Agency may perform a FO selection. By no means is it intended to
be the only prescribed way of conducting a FO selection process. We have
tried to address issues and concerns in general ways. Many more
questions and specific issues may arise from your endeavors that may
need clarification and guidance from GSA's contracting officials. The
approach and recommendations described within this document are to
assist all agencies large and small. For the majority of government
agencies, a contracting officer (CO) is responsible for the oversight
and final authority signature on the FO process. Furthermore, a
notification letter from your contracting officer to GSA is required for
each fair opportunity decision your agency makes.

The Fair Opportunity Timeline (Attachment A) is divided into two
detailed processes. The first section describes the planning and
preparation phase and includes those activities an Agency may have
performed prior to the Networx contract awards. The second section
describes the execution phase and includes the Agency evaluation and
selection process(es) following the award of the Universal and
Enterprise contracts. This FO process is designed for both the Universal
and Enterprise acquisitions. There are, however, some legal restrictions
for applying the process in this dual-acquisition environment (see
section on Select Acquisition). Note that the Interagency Management
Council (IMC) is currently investigating the need for Agencies to
complete an alternatives analysis to substantiate the choice of Networx.
This document will be updated when that decision is known.

The planning and preparation phase will directly affect the
effectiveness and timeliness of the execution phase. Each government
Agency with large network infrastructures should complete the planning
and preparation phase as soon as possible. Failure to conduct timely and
effective planning will not only delay the execution phase but may also
jeopardize the integrity of the Fair Opportunity process, the ability of
an Agency to meet the deadlines for receipt of Transition Credits, and
the overall goal of the government to transition from the FTS2001 and
Crossover contracts to the Networx contracts in a timely manner.

Agencies that require minimal services presently on the FTS2001 Bridge
contracts and are planning on using Networx can contact their GSA Global
Account Manager (GAM) for assistance in meeting the FO guideline
requirements.

**Section 2 Planning and Preparation
Phase**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992199 .anchor}

**2.1 [Develop Transition
Strategy]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992200 .anchor}

The first step in the Planning Phase is to develop a strategy for
transitioning from the current FTS2001 contracts to the Networx
contracts. Development of a transition strategy will identify how an
Agency's services will be grouped for the FO evaluation and selection.
This strategy may take the form of a site-based transition, a
network-based transition, or a service-based transition or a combination
of them. The strategy may be based on several factors such as the
organizational structure and size, Agency mission, technical
architecture, and time and resources available for transition. The
Agency team that develops the strategy should be small but comprised of
those individuals with telecommunications expertise and who understand
the Agency's mission and supporting infrastructure as well as future
operational milestones and events.

The result of the strategy effort should be a Service Competition
Package, which is a grouping of services that will be the subject of a
FO evaluation and selection. This grouping may range from all required
Agency services for all sites\--for a small Agency\--to a group
consisting of only one service for one location\--for a very large
Agency. The Networx contracts provide the Agencies with the flexibility
to define a wide variety of groupings that meet their mission needs.

Furthermore, the Service Competition Package could consist of any of
three types of requirements upon which the FO decision is to be made.
The first type could be simply a list of priced Contract Line Item
Numbers (CLINS) for which an Agency is considering only price as the
deciding factor. Secondly, the package could be a Statement of
Requirements (SOR); these are requirements that are already priced on
the contracts, and therefore do not require a modification, and for
which the Agency will be considering factors in addition to price.
Lastly, the third type is a Statement of Work (SOW), which will have to
go through the SOW process for proposals and modification to the Networx
contract. This document discusses the SOW process in greater detail
under the section entitled "Execute SOW process."

**2.2 [Assign Selection Committee for Service Competition
Packages]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992201 .anchor}

This committee or team can be comprised of one individual or more
depending on the size of the organization. The size of the committee
should (a) be manageable, (b) contain or have access to subject matter
experts (SMEs), and (c) include any other interested parties who can
constructively contribute to the process so as to prevent the team from
becoming overwhelmed with detailed discussions and delayed due to
differentiating opinions. It is critically important to identify subject
matter experts (SMEs) that can be called in at any time for
clarification or explanations. SMEs will likely be heavily involved in
the technical evaluation of specific services and associated Operational
Support Systems (OSS). The Agency must determine which CO will make the
final decision and include the CO in the process going forward.

Agencies must make sure that, regardless of how they determine to move
services, all mission areas, program managers, and appropriate
information technology (IT)-related review bodies are aware of Agency
decisions and agree and support the recommendation. This is the time to
ensure all parties involved with this endeavor come together and move
toward a common goal.

**2.3 [Select Acquisition]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992202
.anchor}

Once the Agency has assembled its Service Competition Packages, the
Agency must decide for each one whether the Universal acquisition or the
Enterprise acquisition is most appropriate to meet the Agency's needs
for the services in the package. Universal is designed for Agencies
looking for a single, full-service provider or a broad geographical
coverage, allowing them to provide service continuity from the current
contracts. Enterprise is appropriate for Agencies seeking alternative
sources with nationwide secure IP coverage or wireless services.
Agencies may need to conduct market research in order to make the
acquisition selection and may also base the decision on the Agency's
transition strategy requirements. Agencies should note the FAR 10.001
states,"2) Conduct market research appropriate to the
circumstances...(ii) Before soliciting offers for acquisitions with an
estimated value in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold,"
which is \$100,000. For large projects, market research could even take
the form of a request for information (RFI) or draft SOW, which the
Agency should provide to GSA to release to the contractors. Once the
Agency has selected an acquisition, it must conduct the FO process
within the contracts awarded under that acquisition only, not across
both the Universal and Enterprise acquisitions.

**2.4 [Develop Evaluation
Criteria]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992203 .anchor}

Each Agency needs to determine what will be its FO evaluation factors.
These could include price, experience, technical capability, geographic
coverage, continuity of operations, diversity, transition approach as
documented in the contractor's Transition Management Plan, or results of
OSS test and verification. In addition, the Agency may want to designate
a weighting for each rating factor. For example, the highest rating
factor may be price, technical capability, experience, or OSS
verification results, although Agencies could have others, depending on
each Agency's requirements. For example, pricing may be an Agency's
highest rating factor and service performance the lowest. Also, pricing
must consider the total value over the life of the contract, meaning
that if an Agency conducts fair opportunity in the first year, the
pricing must include all 10 years of the contract. The main purpose is
that the evaluation be fair, objective, and supportable. Agencies can
use various evaluation rating schemes such as; adjectival, color coding
or numerical. Regardless, documentation of the evaluation criteria and
the resulting ratings is essential.

**2.5 [Develop Evaluation
Process]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992204 .anchor}

At this point, each Agency will have determined how it wants to
transition and what the Agency's primary considerations are in
evaluating vendors. Agencies must then plan how they actually will carry
out the processes in detail. How many evaluation teams will there be?
This will likely vary according to the size of each Agency and the
transition requirements. Documentation at this stage is critical.

How will the Agency collect the data for the evaluation factors it has
decided are relevant? Agencies will develop a FO process to provide a
fair opportunity to be considered for an order to all contractors that
offer the required services and coverage. Formal evaluation plans or
scoring of quotes or offers are not required. However, the amount of
acquisition planning and evaluation should be commensurate with the
estimated value and importance of the order. (See Gather Evaluation
Data.)

The Agency's fair opportunity decision may be based on either:

1.  1\. Total price or cost alone (which may include price-related
    factors), or

    2\. Some combination of technical, past performance, OSS
    verification or management approach and price or cost. (For example,
    a decision to order a new data network interconnecting multiple
    locations may weigh technical issues more highly than a decision to
    install a single link between two locations where technical issues
    may be less complex). Consideration of total price or cost to the
    Government must be included.

**Section 3 Execution Phase**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992205 .anchor}

After the Networx contract awards are made and Notices to Proceed (NTP)
are given, each Agency should implement its plan through the evaluation
process. However, the intent of this document is not to provide Agencies
with any directions as it relates to their procurement processes, but
rather the intent is to provide guidance for Networx FO selection. The
goal is to provide Agencies with useful information that can be used to
guide an Agency in the FO process, specifically with GSA's Networx
contracts.

**3.1 [Initiate FO
Assessment]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992206 .anchor}

Once the Agency has selected the appropriate Networx acquisition
(Universal or Enterprise) for each Service Competition Package, the
Agency conducts the FO assessment for all the contractors that offer the
services in the package based upon the pre-established evaluation
criteria. If the services in the package are existing, priced CLINS on
the contracts, the Agency may obtain the prices for those services
directly from the contract pricing tables; the Agency may also solicit
price proposals from the contractors through the SOR or SOW process that
follows. If the Agency FO process is more formal and includes evaluation
plans that include factors other than price, the Agency should use the
SOR along with evaluation criteria to guide the selection. This could be
fashioned after the SOW process described below but streamlined as much
as possible. Furthermore, if the Agency discovers that its needs cannot
be satisfied by use of existing CLINs alone or that a serving wire
center must be added to accommodate and price service to the service
delivery location, it must follow the SOW Process (see "Execute SOW
Process").

**3.2 [Gather Evaluation
Data]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992207 .anchor}

To make the fair opportunity evaluation and selection, the Agency should
consider available information, including but not limited to, the
contractor's Web site, contract award evaluation data, contract data,
output from Government order placement decision support tools, output
from contractor order placement decision support tools, other current
contractor-provided information (e.g., marketing materials, product
specifications, etc.) and post-award performance data (if available).
The contractor has been encouraged to maintain the currency of
information presented to the Government. The Agencies may rely on these
systems and the data contained therein when making fair opportunity
decisions.

The Agency may hold discussions, whether oral, written or a combination
of the two, with all contractors that offer the services to be selected.
It is critical that the team has a Subject Matter Expert (SME) available
at the interviews to ensure all service information is captured as
needed. Once an Agency has met with the vendor(s), the Agency should
refine their evaluation, based on the additional information collected.

The Agency may also, if desired, request proposals, either oral or
written, from all contractors that offer the services to be selected. If
necessary, the selection team could request clarifications from all
offerors. The selection team will receive, read, and score the vendors'
proposals, as they become available in accordance with the streamlined
solicitation instructions. It is important that during this time, the
selection team refers to the evaluation criteria developed prior to
service order award, to properly conduct the evaluation.

Alternatively, an Agency could use a model-based approach to evaluating
all contractors based on information collected from the Networx award
evaluation, pricing tools, other decision support tools or other
contractor sources. GSA offers a pricing tool for the Networx contracts,
and it will be available through a link off the Networx website
(www.gsa.gov/networx). The Pricer is a secure system and access is
restricted to official users. Instructions for registration are
available on the Networx website.

When the selection team has gathered the necessary information, the
selection team should compile an updated evaluation and begin reviewing
results of the OSS verification tests of the vendors, once they become
available on the Networx website. According to the Networx contracts,
OSS systems must pass OSS Verification Testing and be available to
process orders within 60 days after notice to proceed (NTP) or after GSA
approves the contractor's test plan, whichever is later. It is
recommended that a SME be present during OSS demonstrations to ensure
that the OSS meets the Networx contract and Agency requirements.
Agencies who wish to observe OSS Verification Testing should contact
their GSA GAMs to be included.

Once the selection team has reviewed each OSS test results, OSS pass or
fail could be added to the evaluation score for each vendor if it was
included in the FO evaluation criteria. A final review of the evaluation
of vendors should present a vendor which best fits an Agency's needs.

If an Agency encounters delays in obtaining any information needed for
the FO process, it should contact its GSA GAM for assistance and
escalation.

**3.3 [Document FO
Decision]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992208 .anchor}

Initial fair opportunity decisions for transition in addition to future
project orders, bulk orders, multiple orders placed simultaneously, and
orders resulting from a SOW will need to be documented by the Agency
Contracting Officers. Agency COs may describe the basis for future
exceptions (see Exceptions to the Fair Opportunity Process) to fair
opportunity to facilitate ordering by Agency Designated Agency
Representatives (DARs ) when ordering additional services, in accordance
with 41 USC §253j, who may not be warranted. DAR guidelines are
obtainable at the TWG web site. The Agency CO's described exceptions
must appear on all orders administrated by non-warranted DARs.

GSA requests that each Agency notify, through a letter signed by an
Agency CO., the respective GSA Networx contracting officer of the
Agency's selected vendor(s) as fair opportunity decisions are made. An
example of a notification letter is provided (Attachment B). GSA is
designing an on-line system for collecting this information and will add
details to this document as they are released.

### 3.4 [Exceptions to the Fair Opportunity Process]{.underline}

Orders may be issued with exception to the fair opportunity process
whenever circumstances warrant the exercise of any exception as set
forth in 41 United States Code (USC) §253j. The table below describes
the possible exceptions and provides examples that an Agency may
determine apply under these contracts.

Certain Agencies may have additional requirements for use of an
exception to the fair opportunity process. Under those circumstances,
the Agency or an Agency conducting the fair opportunity process on
behalf of another Agency must meet the Agency's additional requirements.
Agencies will consider the following in conducting and documenting the
fair opportunity order placement decision. These examples are provided
only for illustrative purposes:

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Exception         | Examples that Qualify as Exceptions              |
| Provided for by   |                                                  |
| 41 USC §253j      |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Unusual urgency   | -   Natural disaster or other emergency          |
| that would lead   |                                                  |
| to unacceptable   | -   Military/mobilization                        |
| delays            |                                                  |
|                   | -   Immediate short-term need arising on short   |
|                   |     notice                                       |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Only one capable  | -   Only one contractor offers service           |
| contractor        |                                                  |
|                   | -   Only one contractor offers service to        |
|                   |     locations needed                             |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Only one contractor can demonstrate it is    |
|                   |     capable of providing service as required by  |
|                   |     user or to required locations                |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Economy,          | -   Orders associated with any moves, additions, |
| efficiency, and   |     changes, or similar needs                    |
| logical follow-on |                                                  |
| to an order       | -   Incremental orders for same or new service   |
| already issued    |     to locations where service already exists or |
| under Fair        |     has been ordered                             |
| Consideration     |                                                  |
|                   | -   Orders placed to minimize inefficiencies or  |
|                   |     additional costs that would result from      |
|                   |     introducing multiple maintenance,            |
|                   |     operations, training, network management, or |
|                   |     other support systems                        |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Orders placed to augment or maintain         |
|                   |     engineering and operational integrity of     |
|                   |     established telecommunications capability    |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Need to satisfy   | -   Self explanatory                             |
| Minimum Revenue   |                                                  |
| Guarantees (MRGs) |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

**3.5 [Execute SOW Process]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992210
.anchor}

It is expected that from time-to-time Agencies will require services
that, although within the scope of the contract, either cannot be
obtained by placing an order for established CLINs or where additional
value may be delivered by a particular application of existing CLINs. In
these cases, the Government may employ a SOW process in conjunction with
contract modification and fair opportunity order placement processes.
The SOW will be performance-based to the greatest extent possible. After
issuance of a SOW, an Agency holds discussions with all contractors that
offer the services. The Government intends to place orders for these
cases using the fair opportunity process described above with the
following modifications, which are extracted from Section G.4.5 of the
Networx RFPs:

1.  Written SOWs will always be used. The SOW will be reviewed by a GSA
    CO and the GSA CO will issue an initial scope determination and the
    Agency notified. Once the determination that the SOW is within scope
    is issued, the SOW will be released by the GSA Contracting Officer
    to the contractors.

2.  Contractors that do not provide the requested proposal, including a
    proposal describing their proposed approach to meeting the Agency's
    requirements within 30 business days or a different interval
    specified in the SOW, will not receive further consideration for
    placement of the order.

3.  Once the Agency has made the order placement decision, the Agency
    will notify GSA of its selection decision. A Contract Modification,
    as necessary, will be negotiated prior to the placement of an order
    in accordance with Attachment J.4 of the Networx contracts.

Any changes to the SOW or expansion of the original requirement during
the fair opportunity process will require an additional scope review by
the GSA CO. There will be a final scope determination prior to the award
of the contract modification.

**Section 4 Change History**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc168992211 .anchor}

  ---------- ------------------ ------------- -----------------------------
  VERSION    DATE OF CHANGE     AUTHOR        EXPLANATION

  1.0        5/31/2007          Randy Clifton Initial version approved by
                                              TWG

                                              

                                              
  ---------- ------------------ ------------- -----------------------------

ATTACHMENT A

FAIR OPPORTUNITY SEQUENCE AND TIMELINE

Form Networx Services Selection Committee **Completed**

Department Develops Transition Strategy

1.  \- Site based transition

    \- Service based transition

Determine Service Competition Packages **Initiate at Universal Notice to
Proceed, March 2007**

1.  \- Wireless, Voice, Data Together

    \- Region based

    \- Individual service based

Develop Evaluation Criteria

1.  \- Price

    \- Experience

    \- Program Planning

    \- Etc.

Develop Evaluation Process

Execute Fair Opportunity Evaluation Process

1.  \- [Universal Winners]{.underline}

    1.  o Proposal review by Selection Team

        􀂃Receive Proposals

        􀂃Read Proposals

        􀂃Score Proposals

        o Vendors interview with Selection Team

        􀂃Schedule Interviews

        􀂃Execute interviews

        􀂃Score Interviews

        o Evaluate OSS demonstrations from winning vendors

        􀂃Review demonstrations

        􀂃Score OSS

        o Final Score/Evaluation of Vendors

    \- [Enterprise Winners]{.underline}

    1.  o Proposal review by Selection Team to determine if Enterprise
        Proposals meet pre-determined service requirements

        􀂃If Enterprise proposals meet requirements, continue with
        interview and OSS

        􀂃If Enterprise proposals do not meet requirements, make
        selection from Universal Contract

        o Vendors interview with Selection Team

        􀂃Schedule Interviews

        􀂃Execute interviews

        􀂃Score Interviews

        o Evaluate OSS demonstrations from winning vendors

        􀂃Review demonstrations

        􀂃Score OSS

> Evaluate Scoring, Compare Proposals, Select Contract and Vendors to
> Provide Services

**Complete Fair Opportunity Process for all Transition Orders by Sep 30,
2008**

ATTACHMENT B

EXAMPLE

FO NOTIFICATION LETTER

Mr. Jack Braun (for Networx Universal)

Mr. Robert Abood (for Networx Enterprise)

Networx (Universal/Enterprise) Contracting Officer

General Services Administration

10300 Eaton Place

Fairfax, VA 22030

Dear Mr. Braun/Mr. Abood,

As the designated Contracting Officer for the ([enter Agency/Bureau Name
here]{.underline}) I would like to take this opportunity to advise you
of our selection of (Networx vendor name) under Networx contract ([enter
number here]{.underline}) as our preferred provider for the following
Networx Service Competition Package:

(Agency then identifies their "Service Competition Package" here by an
Agency tracking number and a list of the services in the package)

We have assigned (Mr./Ms. [enter name here]{.underline}) to be the
Designated Agency Representative (DAR) Administrator(s) for this
selection, under our Agency Hierarchy Code(s) (AHCs) ([enter AHCs
here]{.underline}). Mr./Ms. ([enter name here]{.underline}) can be
contacted at ([enter phone numbers and e-mail addresses
here]{.underline}).

Please be advised that our decision was based upon our evaluation
criteria as determined necessary for the fair opportunity assessment of
all those Networx vendors awarded contracts under the Networx Universal
or Enterprise acquisition identified above. This decision has been
properly documented and placed in our files accordingly.

Should you have any questions regarding this notification, please
contact ([enter POC name, phone nr and/or e-mail here]{.underline}).

Sincerely,

Contracting Officer