7. RFI Questions and Answers_Amendment 0001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA442726Q0008
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document from Amendment 0001 to RFQ FA442726Q0008 for Local Telecommunication Services at Travis AFB, California, issued on 1 May 2026. The solicitation is a reacquisition from the incumbent contractor, Granite Telecommunications, LLC (prior contract FA442726P0023), and is set aside 100% for small business concerns. The requirement encompasses comprehensive local and long-distance telecommunication services across three Travis AFB locations: 631 E Street (72 CCP, 11,500 DID), 101 Bodin Circle (72 CCP), and 148 Dixon Avenue (120 CCP), supporting an average of 110 maximum concurrent calls daily with occasional peaks to 250 CCL. The government will provide PRI circuits from the Voice Protection System; contractors must provide, configure, and maintain Adtran Total Access 908e PRI/SIP bridges at each location. Services must be delivered digitally via SIP with voice, modem, fax, and alarm capabilities. Camp Parks CSL requires location-based E911 services, while the Travis site CSL E911 is handled by the Base PSAP. International long-distance and 5G access circuits are not required. Base cabling infrastructure is available for utilization.
The RFQ deadline was originally 4 May 2026 at 12:00 PM PDT but was extended to 18 May 2026 at 12:00 PM PDT following a two-week extension request. The government's intent is to award prior to the current contract expiration on 31 July 2026 to allow cutover transition. While offerors requested a minimum 60-90 day transition period citing typical carrier lead times and the complexity of porting 14,500 telephone numbers, the government maintains its requirement for a 30-day cutover timeframe, prioritizing expedited transition before contract end date. The incumbent contract number for reference is FA442725P0001. Contractors are required to provide two years of past performance records within the last three years, with an exemption for contractors with prior CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) and SPRS (Supplier Performance Risk System) ratings. Dedicated circuits to each site are preferred to provide redundancy.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 FA442726Q00080001 Combined Synopsis Solicitation Local Telecommunication Service, Travis AFB, CA Questions & Answers 1 May 2026 V1
| # | Reference | Question | Answer |
| 1 | General | We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number? | This is a reacquisition. The incumbent is GRANITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC (Current contract FA442726P0023 and prior contract FA442725P0001). |
| 2 | General | Confirming that this requirement is set a-side to Small Business? | Yes, 100% Smal Business Set A-side |
| 3 | Attachment 2 Contractor Responsibility Verification (c), Performance Record; |
| Solicitation Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters, 6 Past Performance | Attachment 2, section (c) states that offers are to "Provide in the submission two (2), at a minimum, past performance record within the last 3 years". It also states that there is an "Exemption: Contractors that had previously satisfied contracts with the Government for which CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) and SPRS (Supplier Performance Risk System) ratings were received." What does the exemption apply to? Are offerors with CPARs and SPRS Ratings required to submit Attachment 3 and send out Attachment PPQs? | Refer to SF 1449 Solicitation under provisions of FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors and 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services for Past Performance instructions and evaluation. Attachment 2, Contractor Responsibility Verification, is amended accordingly. | ||
| 4 | General | Is there an incumbent contractor, and if so, who? | The incumbent is GRANITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC | |
| 5 | PWS | Is international long distance capability required? If so, to which countries? | International is not required | |
| 6 | General | We request an extension to the quote due date by two weeks from the release of questions & answers to provide sufficient time for offerors to provide a complete, compelling, and compliant offer. | Extended | |
| 7 | PWS 5.4.4 and Diagram 1 | Diagram 1 shows 120 CCP to 148 Dixon Ave, but 5.4.4 shows 72. |
Diagram 1 shows 72 CCP and 11,5000 DID to 631 E Street, but 5.4.4 shows 120 CCP and 11,300 DID.
Please confirm the number of CCP and DID at each location. PWS Para. 5.4.4 is incorrect and corrected 631 E. St. Travis AFB, CA. 94535 = 72 CCP 101 Bodin Circle. Travis AFB, CA 94535 = 72 CCP 148 Dixon Ave. Travis AFB, CA. 94535 = 120
| 8 | General | What is the installation date? | Current contract expires 31 July 2026. Government’s Intent is to award prior to allow cutover IAW PWS. |
| 9 | PWS, page 10, Section 5.1 | The solicitation indicates a requirement for a 30‑day cutover timeframe for transition of telecommunications services. Based on prior Department of Defense and U.S. Air Force transition efforts of similar scope, Offerors note that the porting of approximately 14,500 telephone numbers, combined with the provisioning of new access circuits and the installation and testing of customer‑premises equipment required to support IP‑PRI services, is typically constrained by carrier lead times and third‑party coordination. |
Historically, these activities require a minimum of 90 days to complete in a controlled and operationally non‑disruptive manner. Accelerated transitions of this scale introduce increased risk of service interruption and mission impact.
Please clarify whether the Government will:
Permit a phased transition approach extending beyond 30 days to complete full porting and cutover;
Interpret the 30‑day requirement as applying to initial service availability rather than full enterprise‑wide migration; or Consider an adjusted transition timeline consistent with carrier provisioning intervals and industry best practices.
| This clarification will enable Offerors to propose a technically sound and low‑risk transition plan aligned with mission continuity requirements. | Current contract ends 31 July 2026, request an expedite cutover to ensure transition prior to end of current contract. | |||
| 10 | General | Would the Government consider extending the proposal due date by two (2) additional weeks to allow adequate time to review the soliciation requirements (and any additional answers to questions) and develop proposals that fully address all stated requirements and evaluation criteria? | Extended | |
| 11 | General | Should offerors include the 5G access circuit in our technical approach and pricing for this solicitation? | 5G access circuit not needed at this time. | |
| 12 | PWS 5.1 | Standard provisioning and installation timelines for transitioning telephone services, especially for contracts this size and scope, typically exceed thirty (30) days. Will the Government consider extending the cutover date to a minimum of 60 days after contract award? Porting 15,000 telephone numbers (TNs) is classified as a "Project Port" or "Bulk Port" due to its high volume and complexity. Unlike standard ports, which take minimum 15 days, a project of this scale requires a minimum of 30 days to obtain an FOC date from losing carrier. | Current contract ends 31 July 2026, request an expedite cutover to ensure transition prior to end of current contract. | |
| 13 | PWS 5.1.3 | Will the Government be providing the edge boundary controller (EBC), if so, what is the make/model of this device? | Government will be providing PRI circuits from the Voice Protection System (VPS) and request to interface with a PRI/SIP bridge such as the ADTRAN Total Access 908e provided and maintained by the contractor. | |
| 14 | Diagram 1 | This diagram is showing what appears to be the EBC at each location connected to Adtrans to provide PRI emulation. Is the Government responsible for providing and programming the EBC(s)and Adtran(s), or would this be contractor provided? Which model of Adtran does the Government have (if Government provided and programmed?) | Adtran Total Access 908e. Request contractor provide, configure and maintain. | |
| 15 | PWS 5.3.1 | What type of handoff does the Government require for the CSLs? | PIP, SIP | |
| 16 | PWS 5.3.1 | Will location based E911 be required for each of the CSLs? | For Travis site CSL, E911 location is handled by the Base PSAP, Location based E911 will be required for the Camp Parks CSL. | |
| 17 | PWS 5.3.1 | Can these CSLs be delivered digitally with SIP and a POTS emulation device? | Each CSL shall be delivered digitally with SIP and provided with a PRI/SIP bridge such as an Adtran Total Access 908e. The Pleasanton CA location should also be delivered digitally with SIP and interface with a PRI/SIP bridge. I have updated the PWS to reflect the change remove the POTS requirement. | |
| 18 | PWS 5.3.1 | Can the Government provide the use type for each of the CSLs, modem, alarm, voice only, fax, etc.? | Voice, modem, fax, alarm for each location | |
| 19 | General | Is a dedicated circuit required at each address, or do we have the ability to utilize base fiber on a single large circuit at one address extending to individual buildings? | Prefer dedicated to each site to provide rundancy | |
| 20 | General | Is there base cabling infrastructure currently in place that can be utilized for this effort to deliver service from the base dmarc location to all of the locations listed in the SOW? | Yes | |
| 21 | General | Is there historical usage data that can be provided? | Current data indicates an average of 110 max concurrent calls per day with occasional max peaks up to 250 CCL. | |
| 22 | Additional Information | Corrected the PWS Para 5.4.4 to reflect the correct Call Path requirement. |
Added Camp Parks requirements to the table and removed the table from para 5.3.1 requesting POTS lines for that location.
Camp Parks has the capability to interface with an IP SIP circuit.
I modified diagram 1, SIP Vendor Solution to reflect this change.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .