Amendment0003.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

58) Reference PWS Paragraph 3.2.2.3 The requirement appears to dictate the technical architecture and leave little opportunity to offer technical innovation, performance improvements and cost savings. Does the Government, in its evaluation of Price Proposals, intend to compensate in some way for the competitive disadvantage faced by offerors (other than the incumbent) who are required to replace the existing TNCC infrastructure (at substantial cost) that is available at little or no cost to the incumbent contractor?

ANSWER: It is not within the Government’s purview to place all offerors on an equal footing. The Government’s duty is to treat all offerors in a fair and impartial manner, thereby preserving the integrity of the acquisition process.

59) Reference PWS Paragraph 3.2.2.3 The current requirement and the response to Question 13, Amendment 1, appear to be in direct contradiction to the Government’s previously stated intent to consider alternate technical approaches to providing hub services (Reference: “TROJAN Recompete Vendor RFI Questions”, Question 17, 12 June 2007 shown below). Additionally this requirement seems inconsistent with the overall intent of performance based contracts which seek to dictate performance requirements rather than the technical solution.

Will the Government either (a) remove the specified technical solution to permit Offerors to propose innovative technical designs, or (b) relax/reduce the Performance and Service Level requirements if the specified technical solution will remain unchanged?

“17.

Reference: PWS Paragraph 3.2.1.1

Question: Will the Gov accept an alternate Contractor provided hub services than the existing two at Fort Belvoir and Fort Bragg?

Answer: The government will consider alternate hub services if they meet the performance requirements and operational support requirements for the government's transportable terminals and a practical way of terminating the each service at the TNCCs is proposed.”

ANSWER: An offeror’s response should not be influenced in any way by a Request For Information (RFI). The offeror must only use the information and instructions in the RFP to develop their proposal.

As previously stated, the PWS and Question 13, Amendment 1, reflect the government’s requirement. The Government will not alter the PWS service requirements.

60) In consideration of the potential impact of the Government’s responses to Questions 58 and 59 (above) on our solution design we respectfully request a 14 day extension to the due date for the delivery of proposals to permit adequate time to develop an alternate technical solution that conforms to the restrictive nature of PWS Paragraph 3.2.2.3 should that requirement remain unchanged.

ANSWER: Your request for extension is denied. Offeror’s should focus on compliance with the requirements detailed within the PWS

61) Reference Amendment 1, Vendor Questions, Response to Question 25 Since the timing of providing new services affects the availability and pricing of those services, please identify what services expire, date of expiration, and capacity for each during the one year transition period so that pricing and availability of new, replacement capacity and equipment can be scheduled and priced competitively.

ANSWER: The Government is attaching a revised Section B that outlines the months that services come up for renewal (for planning purposes only). This may be used for proposal purposes, but in no way obligates the government.