FirstNet addresses network performance, rural partnerships and post-RFP negotiations in latest Q&A
One of the most-discussed aspects of the FirstNet RFP has been a stipulation that requires offerors to submit proposals in which rural partners address at least 15% of the rural coverage proposed. Previous answers have clarified that rural partners must be telecommunications providers, and multiple answers in this release clarified several other aspects of this requirement, including:
- The 15% rural-coverage figure for the rural partner is computed on a nationwide basis, so a rural partner is not required in all states or territories.
- The calculation is based on the percentage of rural coverage that is classified as “persistent,” which means that it served by infrastructure that is permanent, not temporary.
- The calculation is based on the contractor’s rural coverage plan submitted in the RFP process. The requirement would not be recalculated if any states or territories pursue the “opt-out” alternative to deploy the radio access network (RAN) within their jurisdictions.
Although it did not result in a change to the RFP, another answer clarified the fact that the federal government does have the right to have “discussions” with an offeror that could result in a revision to a bid.
“The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary,” the answer states. “Discussions are negotiations that may, at the Contracting Officer’s discretion, result in the Offeror being allowed to revise its proposal. Additionally, in accordance with FAR Part 15, at a minimum, the Contracting Officer must indicate or discuss deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past-performance information to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond.
“The Contracting Officer also is encouraged to discuss other aspects of the Offeror’s proposal that could, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award. However, the Contracting Officer is not required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of the Contracting Officer’s judgment.”
