Chris M Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Has anyone had experience with a prime contractor trying to rely on a subcontractor's top secret clearance? The prime has a secret clearance. The contract would have a top secret DD254 and top secret would be required on day one of performance. Prime has proposed using the subcontractor for the work requiring top secret. I geuss I'm just kind of thrown off cause the prime, performing on their own, would not be able to perform the tasking required on day one. However, they have proposed to utilize a subcontractor that has a top secret clearance until they obtain their top secret clearance. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Has anyone had experience with a prime contractor trying to rely on a subcontractor's top secret clearance? The prime has a secret clearance. The contract would have a top secret DD254 and top secret would be required on day one of performance. Prime has proposed using the subcontractor for the work requiring top secret. I don't buy it. Take a look at NISPOM (DoD 5220.22-M) para 2-100 ("The FCL requirement for a prime contractor includes those instances in which all classified access will be limited to subcontractors") & para 2-100.a ("An FCL is valid for access to classified information at the same or lower classification level as the FCL granted"). Compliance with the NISPOM is required by FAR clause 52.204-2, which is generally prescribed for any contract that may require access to classified information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAR Fetched Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 If the Contract has TS requirements, the Prime has to have a TS. The Prime can't delegate what doesn't have (TS work). See NISPOM http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/nispom/5220_22m2.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woops85 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Govt has the option to sponsor the awardee for the TS clearance. Since prime already has Secret, the timeframe to get a TS would be a little shorter but would still require all the prime's key management personnel to get individual TS. Can you justify not sponsoring prime? If clearances are required on day one because ability to work would be limited without it, you can require TS of the prime at time of proposal (or award). GAO has previously ruled on a pre-award protest for overly restrictive RFP requirement that if agency can show the need for the clearance, then it's not overly restrictive. But sounds like maybe you are beyond that stage already. If you did not mention evaluating the TS in your RFP, be careful about using it as a determining factor in your decision. We recently lost a protest in ADR and had to re-evaluate, when the KO used lack of facility clearance as part of the trade-off analysis (viewed as performance risk) and went with higher rated, higher priced proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 If clearances are required on day one because ability to work would be limited without it, you can require TS of the prime at time of proposal (or award). ... If you did not mention evaluating the TS in your RFP, be careful about using it as a determining factor in your decision. We recently lost a protest in ADR and had to re-evaluate, when the KO used lack of facility clearance as part of the trade-off analysis (viewed as performance risk) and went with higher rated, higher priced proposal. If the requirements in the RFP require an immediate security clearance, and the evaluation criteria does not address clearances, then the apparent successful offeror's lack of a security clearance relates to responsibility. See Calian Tech. (US) Ltd., B-284814, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD ? 85. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woops85 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 If the requirements in the RFP require an immediate security clearance, and the evaluation criteria does not address clearances, then the apparent successful offeror's lack of a security clearance relates to responsibility. See Calian Tech. (US) Ltd., B-284814, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD ? 85. try telling that to GAO during an ADR call. Seriously though, problem was that RFP wasn't clear that there was need for clearance on day 1. and some work could be done without it - just made it awkward because folks had to be limited and escorted. But re-evaluated. Better proposals were still better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts