Attachment 10 - FA441926R0001 - Questions and Answers FINAL.pdf

Altus AFB BTS – RFP FA441926R0001 Questions and Answers

Q1: Can the government share details on current incumbent FTEs supporting O&M portion of the program?

A1: There are currently 3-4 full-time and 2 part-time incumbent FTEs supporting the O&M portion of this program. However, contractors should be aware that the current award (and anticipated award) are performance-based service acquisitions. This means the focus is on the results achieved, not the number of hours worked, or the staffing plan used.

Contractors are responsible for determining the appropriate staffing levels required to successfully meet or exceed the standards outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will evaluate performance based on the outcomes delivered, not the contractor's internal resource management.

Q2: Can the Government share details of any significant work orders or O&M activities planned for the Base year?

A2: Work orders are entirely dependent on funding and are subject to the availability of funds, evolving mission requirements, and Government prioritization. For this reason, a definitive list of approved projects for the upcoming base year cannot be provided.

O&M activities include all actions taken by the contractor to operate and maintain equipment and systems in a serviceable condition or to restore them to service.

These actions are detailed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) under paragraph

2.1.1 and are covered by the regular monthly payments.

Q3: Does the Government anticipate the current O&M effort will stay the same with the new contract. Any significant adds or deletes from the historical O&M scope anticipated in the new contract?

A3: The Government does not anticipate any significant changes to the current O&M scope for the new contract.

Q4: Are past performance references mandatory for all Teaming Partners?

A4: As stated in the revised Section L, paragraph 7.3 “If a teaming agreement/Joint Venture is contemplated for this solicitation, offerors shall submit any recent and relevant performance information on previous teaming arrangements/Joint Ventures with the same partner or as the same CAGE in this Solicitation. If this is a first-time joint effort and there is no combined past performance for a total of 5 projects, both team members can be submitted with at least two (2) projects from each team member.” Any past performance information submitted in excess of five contracts will not be evaluated.

Q5: In the pricing spreadsheet, the Government separates Base BTS O&M from Hospital BTS O&M. The PWS does not provide specific details that delineate Base vs.

Hospital O&M support. How should offerors separate the PWS requirements in order to provide these 2 separate prices?

A5: The separation of Hospital BTS O&M and Base BTS O&M on the pricing spreadsheet is due to different funding streams and is intended for the Government's internal accounting purposes. There are no differences in the support provided to the Hospital vs. the Base. To derive the two separate prices, offerors should calculate their total O&M cost and allocate approximately 1.8% to the Hospital BTS O&M line item.

Q6: How do offerors handle local service vendors? Do they need to be official teaming partners in the proposal or added to post award work orders?

A6: Local service vendors do not need to be designated as official teaming partners within the proposal. The PWS affords the prime contractor the flexibility to add specialized vendors through post-award work orders as tasks requiring unique expertise arise.

However, the prime contractor retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring all subcontractor activities comply with the requirements detailed in Section 1.2.3 of the contract.

Q7: Would the Government consider reducing the $5M annual contract value to $2M annually or $5M overall contract value for past performance relevancy? The current requirement significantly reduces the pool of qualified 8(a) offerors.

A7: Section M, paragraph 7.3 has been updated to reflect “Magnitude will be defined as a contract value of $3M annually.”

Q8: Cisco Certification Requirement (Ref: PWS 1.1.1) Our company currently holds Cisco Select Partner status with Network and Small/Medium Business specializations. Will Cisco Select Partner status meet the Government’s requirement in PWS 1.1.1, or is Cisco Gold Partner with Master Collaboration strictly mandatory?

A8: Based on Cisco new modeling, this has been removed in the PWS (see Q33 for further details). The intent of the higher-level support was to ensure a reach into Cisco should catastrophic failure occur beyond the contractor’s expertise.

Q9: Staffing / Hours of Coverage Requirements (Ref: PWS 2.1.6; PWS 2.2.3) Please clarify which positions must be physically on-site during after-hours, and whether any 24/7 on-site staffing is required to meet emergency response timelines.

A9: There is no requirement for any positions to be physically on-site on a 24/7 basis. To meet emergency response timelines, the contractor is required to be reachable by phone during off-hours for any emergency outages as assigned by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).

Q10: O&M vs Work Order Boundaries (Ref: PWS 2.1; PWS 4.0–4.4; CLIN Structure) Please provide examples of tasks considered O&M versus billable work order items, especially for MACDs, minor ISP/OSP rewiring, AV/PA tasks, and equipment installs.

A10: Operations & Maintenance (O&M) covers routine tasks to maintain existing services, such as swapping out a phone, adding a phone, repairing an inoperable jack, or fixing a fiber that has gone inoperable. In contrast, billable work orders are for new capabilities or major restorations, like installing new Inside Plant (ISP), installing new Fiber Optic Cable (FOC) or repairing a cut outside plant (OSP) cable.

Q11: CAIRS & CVC Baseline Data Quality (Ref: PWS 3.0–3.5; PWS 2.1.2) Can the Government provide information on current CAIRS, CVC, and CIPS accuracy levels and any known backlogs that should be accounted for in our Transition Plan?

A11: The Government confirms that CAIRS, CVC, and CIPS data are currently up to date, with no known backlogs to account for in the Transition Plan. Furthermore, the CAIRS database at Nellis recently integrated with a new E911 system, which provides SNMP updating for improved data accuracy.

Q12: Existing BTS Documentation & Tools (Ref: PWS 3.0–3.7; PWS 6.0) Will the Government provide existing dial plans, CAIRS exports, CVC data, OTDR traces, and ISP/OSP drawings at contract start?

A12: The requested documentation and tools, which include existing dial plans, CAIRS exports, CVC data, OTDR traces, and ISP/OSP drawings, will be provided to the selected contractor once they have achieved network access.

Q13: BTS System Inventory Versions (Ref: PWS Appendix 7.2 – GFP List) Can the Government confirm the current hardware/software versions and quantities for CUCM, gateways, crash systems, and BTS equipment?

A13: The current hardware and software versions for the requested systems are as follows:

• CUCM 15.x/InformaCast 11.5.2

• The previous VG350s have been replaced with three (3) VG450s.

• There are two (2) Consortium III systems running Version 11.1.

• The Vebra system has been replaced by Eleveo1 software.

Q14: Technical Evaluation Clarification (Ref: Section M – Factor 2; Section L – Volume III) Are there any desirable technical attributes beyond Acceptable/Unacceptable, such as enhanced staffing levels or improved PM frequencies?

A14: No, there are no desirable technical attributes beyond "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable." As stated in Section M – Factor 2, the only rating that will be assigned is acceptable or unacceptable based on the submitted technical volume. The Technical volume will be evaluated solely on whether it meets the requirements outlined in the solicitation and PWS, and there are no provisions for a higher rating for "desirable" attributes such as enhanced staffing levels or improved PM frequencies.

Q15: Material Handling CLIN Clarification (Ref: CLIN 0003; PWS 4.0 & 4.4) Does the material handling percentage under CLIN 0003 apply only to materials or to associated labor as well for non-pre-priced work orders?

A15: For unique, non-pre-priced work orders processed under CLIN 0003, the material handling percentage applies to the total cost, which includes both materials and the associated labor. For example, if a new electrical outlet is needed in an equipment rack, a quote would be obtained from an electrician that covers the total cost of the job (both materials and labor). This combined invoice is then processed by the BTS contractor under

CLIN 0003.

Q16: Cybersecurity / RMF Responsibilities (Ref: PWS 1.1; PWS 2.1.2; PWS 2.1.2.2) Does the contractor maintain RMF artifacts (POA&M, STIG checklists), or will the Government retain ownership while requiring contractor technical inputs?

A16: The Government will retain full ownership and maintenance responsibility for all Risk Management Framework (RMF) artifacts, including the Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) and Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) checklists. The contractor's responsibility is to provide the necessary technical inputs to support these Government-owned artifacts.

Q17: Antenna/Tower, Giant Voice, AV, and Special Systems Scope (Ref: PWS 4.4) Please confirm that all support for Antenna/Tower, Giant Voice, AV/PA, cameras, and towers is work-order-based only and not part of baseline O&M under CLIN 0001.

A17: Support for Antenna/Tower systems, AV/PA systems, and cameras is managed on a work-order basis only and is not included in the baseline Operations & Maintenance (O&M) under CLIN 0001. However, the Giant Voice system is an exception. The contractor will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance, troubleshooting, and performance of Preventive Maintenance Inspections (PMIs) for the Giant Voice system as part of the baseline O&M requirements. This system was newly installed in December 2025. A revised PWS has been provided to reflect this change.

Q18: Transition and Incumbent Overlap (Ref: PWS 1.1.2.1; Section L Subfactor 1) Will the Government permit overlaps with incumbent staff during the 30-day transition, and are there any access restrictions?

A18: The Government will permit an overlap with the incumbent staff during the 30-day transition period. This allowance is contingent upon the winning vendor's personnel successfully obtaining the required base and network access.

Q19: (Ref: PWS 1.1.2.1) Paragraph states that the Government highly recommends the recruitment and hiring of incumbent personnel. Since only the incumbent contractor has access to these employees, will the Government please provide contact information for all incumbent personnel, or at a minimum, provide wage and experience information for each incumbent?

A19: The Government cannot provide direct contact information, wage rates, or experience details for incumbent contractor personnel prior to contract award, as this information constitutes contractor-proprietary and private employee data.

This is a performance-based service contract, and as outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), offerors are responsible for proposing a staffing approach that ensures successful performance. While the Government highly recommends the recruitment of incumbent personnel to retain critical knowledge (PWS 1.1.2.1), the responsibility for proposing a staffing plan rests with the offeror. Applicable Service Contract Labor

Standards (SCLS/SCA) wage determinations are included in the solicitation and establish the minimum wages and fringe benefits with which contractors must comply.

Beyond these published wage determinations, no additional incumbent personnel information will be released pre-award. However, per PWS section 1.1.2.1, the contract includes a transition period not to exceed 30 calendar days from the date of award. During this time, the winning contractor will work with the incumbent to ensure a seamless transition, which will allow for the necessary information to be shared to facilitate the recruitment and hiring of incumbent personnel.

Q20: (Ref: PWS Appendix 7.1 Workload Estimates) No metric for Cable Locates is provided. Theoretically, the Government could request unlimited Cable Locates each month or Contract Year, with no mechanism for Contractor to be paid for this service.

Will the government please provide an estimated monthly or annual footage for Cable Locates to be included in O&M?

A20: Cable locates are a fundamental component of the baseline Operations & Maintenance (O&M) services and will not be itemized or paid for separately under a different CLIN. While a precise metric for annual footage is not available due to the fluctuating nature of construction and excavation projects on base, we can provide an estimated workload. The contractor should anticipate performing fewer than 20 cable locates per year. However, this number may be exceeded if there is an increase in projects managed by the Civil Engineer Squadron (CES) or Communications Squadron (CS).

The contractor is responsible for performing any and all required cable locates for digging projects on the installation for the duration of the contract. This responsibility is analogous to standard public utility locating services (such as "Call OKIE" or 811) and is considered an integral part of maintaining the base's cable infrastructure. The primary objective is to prevent damage to Government assets.

Q21: (Ref: Section L; 2.5.2) The Statement says font size shall be less than 12 pitch.

Additionally, due to the digital age, font size is defined in Point rather than Pitch because Pitch measures horizontal spacing (characters per inch) for fixed-width fonts (like old typewriters), while point measures vertical height (1/72 of an inch) for digital/proportional fonts, defining the overall size, with different fonts at the same point size varying in actual width. Essentially, Pitch = Horizontal Density, Point = Vertical Size. Does the government intend to have said font size shall be NO less than 12 point?

A21: Section L, paragraph 2.5.2 has been updated to reflect “font size shall be no less than 12 point.”

Q22: (Ref: Section L; 2.5.2) There is no difference for tables, graphics or headers and footers stated for Font size. Will the government consider font size restrictions do not apply to the cover page, and headers and footers?

A22: Section L, paragraph 2.5.2 has been updated to reflect “Tables, Graphics, Headers, and Footers shall be no less than 10 point.”

Q23: (Ref: Section L; 2.5.2) There is no difference for tables, graphics or headers and footers stated for Font size. Will the government allow the font size of Tables and Graphics to be 10 point?

A23: Section L, paragraph 2.5.2 has been updated to reflect “Tables, Graphics, Headers, and Footers shall be no less than 10 point.”

Q24: (Ref: Section L; 2.5.5) The government identifies the only Table of Contents not within page count. Will the government allow the cover/title and list of exhibits page also outside page count?

A24: Section L, paragraph 2.5.5 has been updated to reflect “Proposal cover, cover letters, table of contents, and lists of exhibits page excluded from the page count.”

Q25: (Ref: Section L 7.1 and 7.3 and Section M PDF Page 4) Section L 7.1 and Section M Section 7.1 clearly state that Past Performance information submitted in excess of five contracts will not be evaluated. Section 7.3 allows for each party to submit 5 contracts, but does not mention any increase in page count. Will the government clarify that if there is an allowance for more past performance information and increased page count to accommodate teaming arrangements which fall within the parameters of section 7.3?

A25: A revised Section L, paragraph 7.3 has been incorporated. It states, “If a teaming agreement/Joint Venture is contemplated for this solicitation, offerors shall submit any recent and relevant performance information on previous teaming arrangements/Joint Ventures with the same partner or as the same CAGE in this Solicitation. If this is a first-time joint effort and there is no combined past performance for a total of 5 projects, both team members can be submitted with at least two (2) projects from each team member.”

Any past performance information submitted in excess of five contracts and/or 10 pages will not be evaluated.

Q26: (Ref: Section L; 7.3) Section 7.3 states that “If this is a first-time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide past performance information on no more than five contracts each.” All other sections specify “Teaming/joint venture” will the government clarify that teaming arrangements also can provide the additional 5 contracts?

A26: A revised Section L, paragraph 7.3 has been incorporated. It states, “If a teaming agreement/Joint Venture is contemplated for this solicitation, offerors shall submit any recent and relevant performance information on previous teaming arrangements/Joint Ventures with the same partner or as the same CAGE in this Solicitation. If this is a first-time joint effort and there is no combined past performance for a total of 5 projects, both team members can be submitted with at least two (2) projects from each team member.”

Any past performance information submitted in excess of five contracts will not be evaluated.

Q27: (Ref: Section M; 7.6) Section 7.6 states that sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Does this include those proposals that include teaming documentation?

A27: Yes, the evaluation methodology outlined in Section M, paragraph 7.6 applies to all proposals, regardless of whether they include Teaming Agreements. The Government's evaluation centers on the "Principal Offeror," which is the single legal entity submitting the proposal. This company is the prime contractor and will hold a direct contract with the Government and bears the ultimate responsibility for total performance. While teaming agreements clarify the business relationships between partners, they do not alter this core structure for the purposes of the evaluation. From the Government's perspective, a Teaming Partner is still a subcontractor. The past performance of the principal offeror is given the most weight. The past performance of any subcontractor, including a Teaming Partner, will be considered for its relevance, but it will not be weighed as heavily as the Principal Offeror's record.

Q28: (Ref: Section M 7.6 and Section L 7.6) Section M paragraph 7.6 states that sub-contractors that will perform manor or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

Section L allows more PP citations for teaming/JV partners. Will the government clarify how they will be assessing past performances of Offerors vs. Subcontractors?

A28: As stated in the revised Section L, paragraph 7.3 “If a teaming agreement/Joint Venture is contemplated for this solicitation, offerors shall submit any recent and relevant performance information on previous teaming arrangements/Joint Ventures with the same partner or as the same CAGE in this Solicitation. If this is a first-time joint effort and there is no combined past performance for a total of 5 projects, both team members can be submitted with at least two (2) projects from each team member.” Any past performance information submitted in excess of five contracts will not be evaluated.

Section M, paragraph 7.6 applies to all proposals, regardless of whether they include Teaming Agreements. The Government's evaluation centers on the "Principal Offeror," which is the single legal entity submitting the proposal. This company is the prime contractor and will hold a direct contract with the Government and bears the ultimate responsibility for total performance. While teaming agreements clarify the business relationships between partners, they do not alter this core structure for the purposes of the evaluation. From the Government's perspective, a Teaming Partner is still a subcontractor.

The past performance of the principal offeror is given the most weight. The past performance of any subcontractor, including a Teaming Partner, will be considered for its relevance, but it will not be weighed as heavily as the Principal Offeror's record.

Q29: (Ref: Section M 7.6 and Section L 7.6) Section M paragraph 7.6 states that sub-contractors that will perform manor or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

Section L allows more PP citations for teaming/JV partners. Will the government clarify how they will be assessing responses with 5 past performances vs. responses with 10 past performances? For example, if one response has 5 strong past performances and another response has 4 strong past performances from the prime offeror, with 5 strong past performances from the subcontractor, how is the comparative past performance assessed?

A29: As stated in the revised Section L, paragraph 7.3 “If a teaming agreement/Joint Venture is contemplated for this solicitation, offerors shall submit any recent and relevant performance information on previous teaming arrangements/Joint Ventures with the same partner or as the same CAGE in this Solicitation. If this is a first-time joint effort and there is no combined past performance for a total of 5 projects, both team members can be submitted with at least two (2) projects from each team member.” Any past performance information submitted in excess of five contracts will not be evaluated.

Section M, paragraph 7.6 applies to all proposals, regardless of whether they include Teaming Agreements. The Government's evaluation centers on the "Principal Offeror," which is the single legal entity submitting the proposal. This company is the prime contractor and will hold a direct contract with the Government and bears the ultimate responsibility for total performance. While teaming agreements clarify the business relationships between partners, they do not alter this core structure for the purposes of the evaluation. From the Government's perspective, a Teaming Partner is still a subcontractor.

The past performance of the principal offeror is given the most weight. The past performance of any subcontractor, including a Teaming Partner, will be considered for its relevance, but it will not be weighed as heavily as the Principal Offeror's record.

Q30: (Ref: PWS 2.1.1) RFP Documents provide inadequate information to determine required staffing – there are many tasks required for which workload estimates are not provided. For instance, how many Manhole/Hand Hole PMI’s are required per month or year? Or how many Workstation Relocates, Installations or Removals per month?

Lacking complete Workload Estimates for each of the Tasks identified in the PWS (2.1.1), we request that the Government either provide detailed historical workload estimates for EVERY expected task under the O&M or provide required or expected staffing (Labor Categories and quantity of personnel) in order to provide a fair and equal opportunity for non-incumbent bidders.

A30: The Government cannot provide prescriptive staffing requirements; however, we can offer the following clarifications on the tasks mentioned:

• Manhole/Hand Hole PMIs: There is no set minimum or maximum number of Preventive Maintenance Inspections (PMIs) for manholes and hand holes per year.

These inspections are not typically performed on a fixed, recurring schedule.

Instead, they are generally conducted opportunistically in conjunction with other Outside Plant (OSP) projects or as conditions on the ground necessitate.

• Workstation Relocations: The contractor is not responsible for the relocation of user workstations.

• Telephone Installations and Removals: The quantity of telephone installations and removals is variable and directly dependent on base activities, such as mission changes, personnel movements, and office reconfigurations. Removals are typically infrequent. Please note that end-users are not permitted to move their own telephones; all such work is to be performed by the contractor.

The Government will not provide the required staffing plan (i.e., specific labor categories or quantity of personnel). Offerors are responsible for proposing a staffing solution that, in their judgment, is sufficient to meet all performance requirements outlined in the PWS.

Q31: (Ref: PWS 1.1.1) PWS lists “On-Site Engineer” as a Key Position but provides no details about the required experience and certifications for this position, and provides NO description or duties and responsibilities or workload estimates for this position.

Please provide minimum or required experience, training and certifications for OSE Position, and provide detailed description of duties and responsibilities for OSE Position.

A31: The OSE should have experience in running OSP and setting appropriate pathways for ISP. Certifications like RCDD are acceptable but not required; experience is weighted more heavily.

The PWS does not provide a detailed list of duties, responsibilities, or specific workload estimates for the OSE, it does mandate the following certifications for this position:

• DoDD 8140 IAT Level II: The OSE must possess and maintain a current, approved DoDD 8140 IAT Level II certification.

Q32: (Ref: PWS 1.1.1) What specific knowledge, skills, and experience beyond OEM minimums does the Government view as value added for key personnel in this environment (e.g., integration with other base systems, cyber defense, AI-based monitoring), and how should offerors demonstrate those “betterments?”

A32: No, there are no specific knowledge, skills, or experiences that the Government considers "value added" beyond the stated minimums. As stated in Section M – Factor 2, the only rating that will be assigned is acceptable or unacceptable based on the submitted technical volume. The Technical volume will be evaluated solely on whether the proposed key personnel meet the requirements outlined in the solicitation and PWS, and there are no provisions for a higher rating for "betterments" such as advanced experience in cyber defense, AI-based monitoring, or cross-system integration.

Q33: (Ref: PWS 1.1.1 and 1.3.4) The PWS requires that “The successful Contractor must be or must subcontract a Cisco Gold Partner with a Master Specification in Collaboration.” However, this references are to the “legacy” Cisco Partner Program (the old partner levels – Select, Premier and Gold), which is outdated and does not reflect the changes instituted in February 2025 to the “new” Cisco 360 Partner Program. Furthermore, these partner designations and specializations have been replaced by Cisco’s recent overhaul of its partner program with the introduction of the

Cisco 360 Partner Program, marking this the most significant evolution of its partner program in nearly three decades. In order to align with the new Cisco 350 Partner Program, please remove all Cisco restrictions and specializations except for the requirement to be a “Federally Authorized Cisco Partner” at any level (the new partner levels are: Cisco Partner and Cisco Preferred Partner). Premier and Gold partners under the old program had access to enhanced Cisco support; however, the Cisco 360 Partner Program streamlines support through a unified Cisco Partner Incentive program, ensuring that all partners have access to adequate support resources. Will the Government please revise PWS section 1.1.1 – Company and Personnel Qualification to remove all references to “Cisco Gold Partner with a Master Specification in Collaboration” and replace with “Federally Authorized Cisco Partner” to correctly align with the new Cisco 350 Partner Program? Also, for the same reasons, would the Government please remove “Collaboration” from 1.3.4.

A33: The intent of the requirement is to ensure that the winning contractor possesses a high-level support channel to Cisco's technical experts, particularly for catastrophic failures that might exceed the on-site team's expertise.

The following revisions have been made:

• The requirement for a "Cisco Gold Partner with a Master Specification in Collaboration" has been removed from the PWS.

• This has been replaced with the requirement for the contractor to be a "Federally Authorized Cisco Partner."

• Additionally, the specific requirement for "Collaboration" in section 1.3.4 has been removed.

A revised PWS has been provided to reflect this answer.

Q34: (Ref: PWS 1.1.1 - DoDD 8570 / SEC+ / CCNA) How does the Government envision balancing DoDD 8570 and OEM certification requirements with continuity of operations, and what latitude exists for training plans, cross training, or apprenticeship models to build a resilient bench of qualified personnel over the life of the contract?

A34: The governing policy has been updated from DoDD 8570 to DoDD 8140. This directive grants personnel a six-month grace period from their start date to obtain required certifications, such as those for CUCM administration.

Q35: (Ref: PWS 1.1.1.1) How does the Government define a “seamless transition” from the incumbent in measurable terms (for example, user experience, backlog levels, ticket aging, or outage metrics), and what information will be available pre or post award to facilitate thoughtful incumbent capture and knowledge transfer?

A35: As the Government, a "seamless transition" from an incumbent contractor is defined by the uninterrupted and efficient transfer of all operational responsibilities to the new contractor, with minimal disruption to our customers and no degradation of service quality.

We recognize that minor issues can arise when transitioning between contracts, but our primary goal is to ensure continuity and maintain a high level of service.

Q36: (Ref: PWS 1.2.1) In what ways does the Government expect the contractor to proactively identify and recommend technology changes, reconfigurations, or routing/diversity enhancements that improve resiliency, security, or user experience beyond the stated baseline?

A36: The Government expects the contractor to act as a subject matter expert, proactively recommending innovations for ISP/OSP and voice systems that enhance resiliency, security, or user experience. For example, a past contractor identified that dedicated VoIP speakers would be more effective than using phones for warehouse paging. While you should bring forward such improvements, be aware that the Government is responsible for sourcing and owning the equipment through its required channels.

Q37: (Ref: PWS 1.2.2 Accident/Incident Reporting, Paragraph 1) How will accident and incident trends be shared with the contractor, and what analysis, preventive actions, and lessons learned processes does the Government expect the contractor to implement to reduce recurrence and improve safety performance over time?

A37: While the contractor is responsible for the initial accident report, the Government expects a proactive safety partnership. The contractor must analyze root causes, implement preventive actions, and document lessons learned to prevent recurrence.

These findings and overall trends will be collaboratively reviewed, typically with the COR, to continuously improve safety performance over the life of the contract.

Q38: (Ref: PWS 1.3.1 Customer feedback system) How does the Government currently measure customer satisfaction with BTS services, and what expectations exist for the contractor to design, administer, and respond to user feedback mechanisms (e.g., surveys, focus groups, SLAs for complaint resolution)?

A38: The Government's current method involves the COR sampling work orders to gauge end-user satisfaction.

As stated in the PWS, the contractor shall establish and monitor a formal customer feedback system to manage and resolve validated complaints as part of their Quality Control Program (Section 1.3.1). This defines specific Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for responding to and resolving issues, contractually obligating the contractor to meet measurable standards for customer satisfaction beyond the Government's own sampling.

Q39: (Ref: PWS 1.3.2 Security) Beyond following local procedures, how does the Government expect the contractor to participate in risk management of the controlled switch room (for example, access auditing, configuration hardening, incident response) and how will success be evaluated?

A39: As stated in the PWS, the contractor's security responsibilities extend beyond just managing physical access. Section 1.3.2 makes the contractor broadly "responsible for the area and its security" as directed by the COR. Current local procedures include a “sign-in sheet” for the Switch Techs from AT&T and Sparklight.

More specifically, the contractor is required to perform configuration hardening by maintaining systems in accordance with DISA Security Technical Implementation Guidelines (STIGs), as stated in Section 2.1.2.4. Success will be evaluated under the general Contractor Performance Assessment framework (Section 5.0), which measures whether performance meets all contractual terms and conditions.

Q40: (Ref: PWS 1.3.4 Local Files Check/Network Administration) How does the Government envision managing administrative access to CUCM and related systems (e.g., role-based access, privileged access monitoring, separation of duties), and what role should the contractor play in defining and enforcing those controls?

A40: While the contractor will have full access to the CUCM, this access is not unrestricted. The PWS requires all systems to be maintained in accordance with DISA Security Technical Implementation Guidelines (STIGs) (Section 2.1.2.4). Therefore, the contractor is expected to implement and enforce the specific controls for role-based access, privileged access monitoring, and separation of duties as mandated by the relevant STIGs for the CUCM. Government personnel will retain oversight and administrative access to ensure these security principles are upheld.

Q41: (Ref: PWS 1.3.5.8 SF 85P) How does the Government anticipate onboarding timelines and SF 85P processing times impacting contract performance, and what strategies does the Government recommend for managing personnel pipeline and coverage during investigation/reinvestigation periods?

A41: Historically, onboarding typically takes 7-14 days. The PWS establishes a strict condition in Section 1.3.5.8 that employees must pass a favorable SF 85P investigation to perform work and must be replaced if they do not, which could significantly impact performance. To mitigate this, the Government's primary recommended strategy, found in Section 1.1.2.1, is for the contractor to recruit and hire incumbent personnel, who are more likely to have the required investigations complete. The PWS is clear that the contractor is solely responsible for ensuring sufficient, qualified personnel are available at all times, including during the 30-day transition period. If the contractor submits all required documents timely, any Government delay will not be held against the contractor.

Q42: (Ref: PWS 1.3.6 IP Security Clause) What metrics and reporting mechanisms does the Government use to monitor badge and pass control performance, and how should the contractor structure internal controls, audits, and corrective actions to reduce the risk of access violations or loss of base pass privileges?

A42: As stated in PWS Section 1.3.6, the contractor is directly responsible for safeguarding all government-issued passes and badges. The primary performance metric is the contractor's adherence to the requirement to immediately report any lost or compromised pass to the COR. To meet this standard, the contractor must establish robust internal controls, including regular audits and a clear corrective action process, as any failure to control passes or report losses will be reflected in their overall performance assessment.

Q43: (Ref: PWS 2.1 O&M Actions) How does the Government expect the contractor to balance O&M and work order workload when both compete for limited resources, and what planning assumptions or prioritization rules should be described in the proposal to demonstrate effective resource management?

A43: The PWS contractually dictates prioritization through the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) outlined in Section 2.2.3. These established timelines for Emergency, Priority, and Routine issues provide the definitive framework for resource allocation. The contractor is responsible for developing and executing a resource management plan that ensures all SLA-driven Operations & Maintenance (O&M) actions and scheduled work orders are completed within their respective deadlines. A successful proposal will demonstrate a management approach that proves the contractor can effectively meet these competing requirements.

Q44: (Ref: PWS 2.1.2.1 JITC Configuration) What is the Government’s preferred process and timeline for evaluating, approving, and implementing changes driven by updated JITC, interoperability tests, or DoDIN APL modifications, and how should the contractor plan for testing, rollback, and coordination with external stakeholders?

A44: Per PWS Section 2.1.2.1, the process begins with the contractor, who is required to inform the Government of any changes to JITC configuration, Interoperability (IO) tests, or the DoDIN Approved Products List (APL) within three business days of new documentation being released. The Government retains final authority over all deployments and configurations, implying it will provide approval before implementation.

Q45: (Ref: PWS 2.1.2.2 Telecommunications Management/CAIRS) How does the Government view the risk and impact of CAIRS accuracy dropping below 90%, and what expectations exist for the contractor’s internal QA, reconciliation frequency, and remediation steps to maintain high fidelity records?

A45: PWS Section 2.1.2.2 contractually requires the contractor to maintain the CAIRS database with an accuracy of no less than 90%. While the update method may now be automated, the responsibility for the data's integrity remains with the contractor. Failure to meet the 90% accuracy standard is a direct failure to meet a key performance outcome, and the government expects the contractor to implement whatever internal QA, reconciliation, and remediation processes are necessary to ensure this critical threshold is consistently met.

Q46: (Ref: PWS 2.1.3 Perform ISP & OSP O&M) What challenges or recurring issues has the Government observed with ISP/OSP cabling and UFC-3-580-1 compliance, and how should the contractor propose inspection, testing, and remediation strategies that address these specific pain points?

A46: None – the Government's expectation is that the contractor, as the on-site subject matter expert, will proactively identify and document these deficiencies during routine activities. Therefore, the contractor’s proposal should detail a systematic inspection and testing process that will provide the government with the actionable data required to plan and fund future remediation projects.

Q47: (Ref: PWS 2.1.4 PMIs) How does the Government prioritize PMI findings, and what expectations exist for categorizing, tracking, and closing PMI identified deficiencies within specific timeframes or risk levels?

A47: The government expects the contractor to implement a systematic process for managing all PMI-identified deficiencies. This includes proactively categorizing each finding by its risk to mission, safety, or system performance (e.g., critical, major, minor).

The contractor is responsible for tracking all open items in a formal deficiency log, which will be regularly reviewed with the COR. This collaborative review will determine the final priority and inform the government's budgeting and timeline for implementing corrective actions.

Q48: (Ref: PWS 2.1.6 Work Orders & Trouble Tickets Under O&M) How does the Government want the contractor to triage and schedule zero cost O&M tickets versus funded work orders to ensure mission needs are met while controlling costs and avoiding hidden backlog growth?

A48: The Government expects the contractor to manage this workload by adhering to the established Service Level Agreements (SLAs). "Zero-cost" O&M tickets must be triaged and resolved according to the PWS-defined timelines for Emergency, Priority, and Routine issues to ensure immediate mission needs are met. The contractor is responsible for distinguishing these standard O&M tasks from requests that constitute new or expanded work. Such requests should be identified and formally proposed as funded work orders to be scheduled separately, ensuring cost control and preventing the growth of an un-resourced backlog.

Q49: (Ref: PWS 2.1.8 CAIRS) How does the Government wish to integrate CAIRS with other base or enterprise systems (e.g., service desk, asset management, GIS), and what constraints exist on interfaces, data sharing, or automation that the contractor should address in the technical approach?

A49: Based on the revised PWS, the sole integration requirement for CAIRS is to ensure the SNMP interface with the recently integrated E911 system is active and operational. The contractor's performance will be measured by their ability to successfully validate this interface on a monthly basis. The PWS does not outline requirements or constraints for integrating CAIRS with other enterprise systems like service desks or GIS. Therefore, the contractor's technical approach should focus exclusively on maintaining the integrity and successful operation of the specified E911 interface.

Q50: (Ref: PWS 2.2 and 2.2.1 System and Service Outages & Contractor Availability) How does the Government intend to monitor compliance with the two-hour emergency response requirement, and what level of documentation and communication during afterhours events will be most useful to mission leadership?

A50: The government will monitor compliance with the two-hour emergency response requirement by using auditable, time-stamped records, such as facility access control logs, to verify the contractor's on-site arrival time. For after-hours events, the most useful communication for mission leadership includes an initial status report upon arrival, periodic updates with an Estimated Time to Restore (ETR), and a final notification once the outage is resolved. It is worth noting that major after-hours emergencies have been historically infrequent, with only 3 incidents occurring in the last 10 years, all caused by off-base cable cuts.

Q51: (Ref: PWS 2.2.2 Scheduled Outages) How does the Government prioritize scheduling windows for changes and outages (e.g., training schedules, flying windows, exercises), and what planning assumptions should be reflected in the contractor’s change management and staffing models?

A51: No system configuration changes may be performed without Government consent. To schedule any work requiring an outage or reboot, the contractor must coordinate with the COR and the local helpdesk. This process ensures maintenance windows are deconflicted with all operational priorities.

Q52: (Ref: PWS 2.2.3 Outage Restoration/Trouble Calls/Tickets, Table) How does the Government define “restore service” for routine, priority, and emergency outages (e.g., full restoration vs temporary workaround), and what metrics or reporting formats should the contractor use to show compliance with each restoration category?

A52: The definition of "restore service" is mission dependent. For Emergency and Priority outages, restoration is achieved when the primary, mission-essential function is back online, even if through a temporary workaround. For instance, if a major cable is cut, restoring the critical alarm circuits would meet the immediate SLA requirement, with the full repair scheduled as follow-on work.

The contractor is responsible for documenting the time of restoration in the trouble ticket management system. Compliance will be measured by auditing these timestamps against the specific restoration timeframes for each category as defined in the table in PWS Section 2.2.3.

Q53: (Ref: PWS 3.0 BTS Work Center Records) What attributes or characteristics distinguish “high quality” work center records in the Government’s view (e.g., timeliness, completeness, standardization, accessibility), and how should the contractor’s solution leverage automation or integration to achieve that standard?

A53: For the Government, "high quality" work center records are primarily distinguished by their timeliness and completeness. It is the contractor's responsibility to propose the specific technical solution, including their approach to automation and integration, that will be used to meet and maintain that standard.

Q54: (Ref: PWS 3.1 Outside Plant) How does the Government envision the division of responsibilities between the contractor and CSIR Manager regarding CVC edits, quality control, and approval workflows, and how should the contractor design internal QC processes to align with that model?

A54: Following the completion of the Outside Plant (OSP) work, the contractor gathers the required GeoSpatial coordinates and enters the data into the CVC system as a draft. The contractor then notifies the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), who is responsible for reviewing and finalizing the record.

Q55: (Ref: PWS 3.3 Fiber Optic Cable Install/Repair Readings) How should the contractor structure the content, format, and distribution of fiber test reports so they are most actionable for Government engineering, planning, and cybersecurity stakeholders?

A55: Following any fiber optic installation or repair, the contractor must provide a soft copy (electronically) report to the Government. This report must contain Optical Time Domain Reflectometer (OTDR) readings for every individual strand from both ends, with each reading documented with the date, time, location, classification, and the name of the performing technician.

Q56: (Ref: PWS 4.2) What historical patterns has the Government observed in routine vs priority vs emergency work orders, and how should the contractor tailor its resourcing, inventory, and escalation processes to address those patterns?

A56: Historically, the workload consists of approximately 98% routine work orders, with priority and emergency events being rare. Given this pattern, the contractor is responsible for proposing a resourcing and inventory model that is optimized for high-volume routine tasks while still guaranteeing compliance with the SLAs for all work categories. The government expects the contractor’s technical approach to detail a robust escalation process, demonstrating how it can effectively shift resources from routine duties to meet the stringent response and restoration times required for any priority or emergency event as defined in the PWS.

Q57: (Ref: PWS 4.3 Required Information on Work Orders) Are there additional data elements or tagging conventions the Government would like to see on work orders (e.g., mission owner, system criticality, cyber risk level), and how should these inform performance reporting and analytics?

A57: PWS Section 4.3 outlines the minimum required data. No additional data is expected.

Q58: (Ref: PWS 4.4.1–4.4.7 Unique Work Orders, Multiple Paragraphs) For each unique work order type (removal of drops, A/V, shelters, antennas/giant voice, cabinets, electrical, general construction), what success criteria and acceptance standards does the Government use, and how should these be reflected in checklists and closeout documentation?

A58: For these unique work orders, which are often performed by the contractor's third-party partners, final acceptance is granted upon approval from all required Government parties. While the contractor is responsible for ensuring the work meets all technical standards to secure this approval, ultimate success is formalized when the Government approves the invoice upon job completion.

It's important to note a distinction for the Giant Voice system, where the contractor has direct, ongoing Preventive Maintenance Inspection (PMI) responsibilities in addition to any specific work orders.

Q59: (Ref: PWS 5.0 Contractor Performance Assessment) For each performance area (O&M performance, ticket/work order performance, timeliness, records management, working relationship), what specific behaviors, artifacts, or outcomes differentiate “Exceptional” from “Very Good” in the Government’s view?

A59: Please see Performance Work Statement, Page 18 - Definitions (Performance Level).

The primary differentiator between an “Exceptional” and a “Very Good” rating is the extent to which the contractor exceeds the contractual requirements to the Government's benefit.

This distinction holds true across all specified performance areas, including O&M performance, ticket/work order performance, timeliness, records management, and the working relationship. A "Very Good" rating is achieved when a contractor meets all contractual requirements and exceeds some of them in a way that benefits the Government. In contrast, an "Exceptional" rating is reserved for when the contractor not only meets all requirements but exceeds many of them for the Government's benefit. In both cases, the rating acknowledges that minor problems may have occurred, provided the contractor took effective corrective actions.

Q60: (Ref: PWS 6.0 and 6.2 Government-Furnished Property and Services) Given that work and storage areas are limited, what constraints or preferences does the Government have regarding on-base vs off-base staging, and how should the contractor propose logistics, inventory control, and secure storage to optimize operations?

A60: The Government provides an on-base laydown yard for project material for OSP (fiber spools, manholes, etc) and considers the space adequate.