GNS_RFP_Comment_Matrix_20150423.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Global Network Services (GNS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HC1013-15-R-0003
- Issued by
- Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
GNS RFP Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 28
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Completed Questions
| Cmt No. | RFP Page # | RFP Para | RFP Sentence (first few words) | Specific Question or Recommendation INCLUDING your rationale for asking | DISA Response |
| 1 | 49 | L 2.4.3(b) | Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures | The referenced RFP Section requires text for tables, charts, graphs, and figures to be no smaller than 12-point. Use of the 12-point font size makes it difficult and in some cases impossible to illustrate effectively in figures, tables, etc. We recommend that the last sentence of the referenced section be changed to read, “For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be clearly legible and in no case smaller than 8-point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font. | Section L, paragraph 2.5.3(b) has been updated to state, "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be clearly legible and in no case smaller than 8-point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font." |
| 2 | 48 | L 2.5.1 | Table 2.5.1. Proposal Organization | Given the size and complexity of the proposal material to be included in Volume II, Subfactor 1, we request that the page limit be increased from 50 pages to 75 pages. This change will enable offerors to provide full responses to all applicable solicitation requirements. | The page limit will remain 50 pages |
| 3 | 48 | L 2.5.1 | Table 2.5.1. Proposal Organization | The information presented in Table 2.5.1 for Volume III (i.e., Part A through E and the associated Section L paragraph numbers) do not match the material presented in the narrative portion of Section (i.e., paragraph 5.1, Volume III Organization, and subsequent paragraphs. Please clarify. | Table 2.5.1 Proposal Organization has been revised. Volume III "Organizational Structure Change History" and Volume IV "Other Information" have been removed from the table. The corresponding language in Section L has been updated and a template for Volume III "Consent Letters" has been added as attachment L7 to Section L. |
| 4 | 54 | 5.1 | The offeror shall use the PWS… | The information presented in Table 2.5.1 for Volume III (i.e., Part A through E and the associated Section L paragraph numbers) do not match the material presented in the narrative portion of Section (i.e., paragraph 5.1, Volume III Organization, and subsequent paragraphs. Please clarify. | Table 2.5.1 Proposal Organization has been revised. Volume III "Organizational Structure Change History" and Volume IV "Other Information" have been removed from the table. The corresponding language in Section L has been updated and a template for Volume III "Consent Letters" has been added as attachment L7 to Section L. |
| 5 | 53 | L.4.0 | The offeror shall use the PWS… | The referenced RFP section cites the basis for offeror’s “proposed approach and catalog of services”. Please confirm that “catalog of services” refers strictly to the content/services included in our offer vs a specific deliverable expected with our response. This term is not repeated elsewhere in the solicitation. | Section L, paragraph 4.0 revised to state, "… as a basis for the description of its capabilities and ability to propose appropriate services when ordered in specific future task orders." |
| 6 | 54 | 5.2(a) | For each identified effort, if any, performed for a non-government commercial customer… | The referenced paragraph states that “a client authorization letter” is to be submitted and then further refers to “attachment L6” which is a format for a Past Performance Questionnaire. Is there a specific format for the required “client authorization letter”? | This reference was included inadvertently and has been removed from Section L, paragraph 5.2.a. No specific format is necessary for a client authorization letter. |
| 7 | 1 | Atch L5 | Past Performance Information | We understand the material provided in Attachment L5 specifies the information required for each contract reference. In reviewing the proposal instructions, we understand that we can format the required material specified in Attachment L5 in any manner that is consistent with Section L instructions. Please confirm our understanding. | Concur. To facilitate the evaluation, the requested materials should follow the structure provided in Attachment L5. Minor formatting such as page breaks, etc. is permitted. |
| 8 | Attach. L5 | Top of page 1 | Section L, Attachment L4, Past Performance Information | The heading on the Information Sheet is mislabeled as “Attachment L4” and should read “Attachment L5.” Please clarify. | Attachment L5 has been updated to correct the heading. |
| 9 | Attach. L6 | Top of page 1 | Section L, Attachment L5, Past Performance Questionnaire | The heading on the Questionnaire is mislabeled as “Attachment L5” and should read “Attachment L6.” Please clarify. | Attachment L6 has been updated to correct the heading. |
| 10 | 46 | Section L.2.5.1 | Proposal Organization | The instructions state, “For Volumes II and Volume III only, the offeror’s company name/information shall be reflected only on the title page of the offeror’s proposal.” However, Attachment L6, Past Performance Questionnaire, requires the Offeror’s name as item 1 of the Questionnaire. Please confirm that it is acceptable for the Offeror’s name to be provided on Line 1 of Attachment L6. | RFP Section L, paragraph 2.5.1 has been revised to clarify that the offeror's name shall be reflected on the title page of Volume II and Volume III as well as on each of the referenced Section L attachments (L5, L6, and L7) provided in support of Volume III. |
| 11 | 46 | Attachment L6 | Proposal Organization | The instructions state, “For Volumes II and Volume III only, the offeror’s company name/information shall be reflected only on the title page of the offeror’s proposal.” However, Attachment L6, Past Performance Questionnaire, requires the Offeror’s name as item 1 of the Questionnaire. Please confirm that it is acceptable for the Offeror’s name to be provided on Line 1 of Attachment L6. | RFP Section L, paragraph 2.5.1 has been revised to clarify that the offeror's name shall be reflected on the title page of Volume II and Volume III as well as on each of the referenced Section L attachments (L5, L6, and L7) provided in support of Volume III. |
| 12 | Attachment L6 | Section L, Attachment L5, Past Performance Questionnaire | SECTION IV. RETURN OF COMPLETED FORM provides an address for submission of the completed form, not a fax or e-mail. However, the RFP Section L.5.4 states, “…Questionnaires shall be emailed directly to the GNS CO no earlier than 15 days after release of the Final GNS RFP and no later than the date indicated for proposal submission. … Electronic submission is preferred; however, hardcopy will be accepted if mailed to the address listed in Section L 2.10.” Please verify that e-mail submission of questionnaires is acceptable and please provide the correct e-mail address for questionnaire submission and the recommended subject line for the e-mail submission. | The GNS Contracting Officer name and e-mail address is stated in Section L, paragraph 2.4.5(a). This reference has been added to Section L, paragraph 5.4. | |
| 13 | 56 | L 6.2.2 | To enable the Government to evaluate pricing . . . | After reviewing the solicitation requirements, including the material provided in Attachment J6, it is our understanding that the proposed MRC for each of the circuits contained in Section L, Attachment L1, Representative Pricing Table, must include all applicable MRC costs for the local access carrier portion of the circuit. Please confirm our understanding. | Confirmed. In accordance with RFP Section L, 6.2.2(i) "Prices shall not include charges for path avoidance/diversity." Furthermore, in accordance with RFP Section L, 6.2.2(k): "k. All prices shall be proposed in U.S dollars and shall include all costs of currency exchange, tariffs, taxes, surcharges, and Universal Service Fee (USF)." |
| 14 | all | Atch L1 | Representative Circuit Pricing Table | After reviewing the solicitation requirements, including the material provided in Attachment J6, it is our understanding that the proposed MRC for each of the circuits contained in Section L, Attachment L1, Representative Pricing Table, must include all applicable MRC costs for the local access carrier portion of the circuit. Please confirm our understanding. | Confirmed. In accordance with RFP Section L, 6.2.2(i) "Prices shall not include charges for path avoidance/diversity." Furthermore, in accordance with RFP Section L, 6.2.2(k): "k. All prices shall be proposed in U.S dollars and shall include all costs of currency exchange, tariffs, taxes, surcharges, and Universal Service Fee (USF)." |
| 15 | 20 | Atch J1 4.2.9 | The SDP, identified in the TO | After reviewing the solicitation requirements, including the material provided in Attachment J6, it is our understanding that the proposed MRC for each of the circuits contained in Section L, Attachment L1, Representative Pricing Table, must include all applicable MRC costs for the local access carrier portion of the circuit. Please confirm our understanding. | Confirmed. In accordance with RFP Section L, 6.2.2(i) "Prices shall not include charges for path avoidance/diversity." Furthermore, in accordance with RFP Section L, 6.2.2(k): "k. All prices shall be proposed in U.S dollars and shall include all costs of currency exchange, tariffs, taxes, surcharges, and Universal Service Fee (USF)." |
| 16 | 2&3 | Atch J6 | Commercial Carrier PoP Co-located with SDP | After reviewing the solicitation requirements, including the material provided in Attachment J6, it is our understanding that the proposed MRC for each of the circuits contained in Section L, Attachment L1, Representative Pricing Table, must include all applicable MRC costs for the local access carrier portion of the circuit. Please confirm our understanding. | Confirmed. In accordance with RFP Section L, 6.2.2(i) "Prices shall not include charges for path avoidance/diversity." Furthermore, in accordance with RFP Section L, 6.2.2(k): "k. All prices shall be proposed in U.S dollars and shall include all costs of currency exchange, tariffs, taxes, surcharges, and Universal Service Fee (USF)." |
| 17 | Page 2 | CDRLS | Contract Deliverable Requirements List (CDRL) | There are a number of inconsistencies between the CDRL Item numbers in the table on page 2 of Attachment J2 and the actual CDRLs themselves. Specific inconsistencies noted include: |
• A019 in the table [A025 in the CDRL itself] Escalation Procedures & Contacts
• A020 in the table [A019 in the CDRL itself] Reason for Non-Predicted Outage
• A021 in the table [A020 in the CDRL itself] Alternate Routing Solution
• A022 in the table [A021 in the CDRL itself] Predicted Outage Report
• A023 in the table [A022 in the CDRL itself] Primary and Alternate NOC descriptions
• A024 in the table [A023 in the CDRL itself] Outage Notification (unplanned)
• A025 in the table [A024 in the CDRL itself] Trouble Ticket Interface Plan
Request that the Government clarify the item numbers.
| Items numbers have been updated in the revised Attachment J2 dated April 20, 2015. | ||||
| 18 | Section B | Please clarify specifically what values are intended to be included in CLIN 0001 and 0002. It is unclear what pricing the Government is asking for by referencing “Monthly recurring charge (MRC) for the services provided as specified in the PWS and corresponding TO.” Is the Government requiring offerors to price the MRC for the 269 circuits listed in Attachment L-1? Is the Government requiring offerors to price the MRC for the 59 circuits listed in Attachment L-3? | In accordance with the Amendment 0001 to the RFP, Section L, paragraph 7.1.2 was updated to clarify no pricing is required for the CLINs listed in Section B. Attachment L1, Representative Circuit Pricing Table, is to be completed in accordance with Section L, paragraph 6.2.2. Attachment L3, Circuit List for Network Solution, shall be used by the offeror to develop a "network solution" in accordance with Section L, paragraph 4.4.3. | |
| 19 | Section B | Are CLINS 0003 through 0008 intended to reflect offerors’ pricing for each single event of the required service, irrespective of the location (CONUS/OCONUS) of the required service? | In accordance with the Amendment 0001 to the RFP, Section L, paragraph 7.1.2 was updated to clarify no pricing is required for the CLINs listed in Section B. | |
| 20 | Section L, Table 2.5.1 | Proposal Organization and Section 5.1 Volume III Organization | Section L Table 2.5.1 and Section L.5.1 (including the PWS references) appear to be out of sync. For example, the table indicates that Vol III Part B is to consist of “Consent Letters,” whereas Section L 5.1.2 indicates that Part B is comprised of “Past Performance Information Sheets”. Additionally, Table 2.5.1 indicates Vol III Part C is to be comprised of “Client Authorization Letter” whereas Section L.5.1.3 indicates Vol III Part C is “Past Performance Questionnaires.” Would the Government please clarify whether the structure of Volume III Parts should be in accordance with Section L Table 2.5.1 or Section L.5.1? | Table 2.5.1 Proposal Organization has been revised. Volume III "Organizational Structure Change History" and Volume IV "Other Information" have been removed from the table. The corresponding language in Section L has been updated and a template for Volume III "Consent Letters" has been added as attachment L7 to Section L. |
| 21 | Section L, Table 2.5.1 | Proposal Organization and Attachment L4 | Table 2.5.1 Vol V Part F lists an Organizational Change History requirement of 4 pages and references RFP paragraph # 5.6, however, there is no 5.6 language in Section L. The clause pertaining to Organizational Change History that was in the draft Section L appears to have been deleted in the final RFP. Is the Government still requiring an Organizational Change History as referenced in Table 2.5.1 Proposal Organization? If so, will the Government provide language governing the content of the Organizational Change History requirement? | Table 2.5.1 Proposal Organization has been revised. Volume III "Organizational Structure Change History" and Volume IV "Other Information" have been removed from the table. The corresponding language in Section L has been updated and a template for Volume III "Consent Letters" has been added as attachment L7 to Section L. |
| 22 | SOW Section L 2.5.1 | Proposal Organization and Attachment L4 | Section L.2.5.1 indicates that “For Volumes II and Volume III only, the offeror’s company name/information shall be reflected only on the title page of the offeror’s proposal. The remaining pages within Volume II and Volume III of the offeror’s proposal shall not be provided on company letterhead and shall be free of any watermarks, trademarks, legends, logos or similar markings, i.e., offeror’s company name/information shall be reflected only on the cover page of the offeror’s proposal.” |
This requirement prevents offerors from mentioning the prime contractor’s name—and the name of its partner companies—anywhere within Volumes II and III, except for the cover page, however, Section L, Vol III Attachment L4, Past Performance Information requires the Offeror’s Name (Company/Division)
| Are offerors required to exclude offeror’s company name/information and the company name/information of its subcontract partners from appearing on any pages within Volume II and III with the exception of: 1) the cover page and 2) the Past Performance Information Sheet attachment? Please clarify the requirements for identifying information. | RFP Section L, paragraph 2.5.1 has been revised to clarify that the offeror's name shall be reflected on the title page of Volume II and Volume III as well as on each of the referenced Section L attachments (L5, L6, and L7) provided in support of Volume III. | |||||
| 23 | SOW Section L 2.5.3 | Page Size and Format | Section L 2.5.3 indicates that “For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 12-point Ariel, Times New Roman or Courier New font for all text included in a table.” Because the minimum legibility government standard for procurements tends to be no less than 8 point font size for tables, charts, graphs and figures, would the Government consider allowing bidders to use font sizes of no less than 8 or 10 points for these proposal components? | Section L, paragraph 2.5.3(b) has been updated to state, "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be clearly legible and in no case smaller than 8-point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font." | ||
| 24 | SOW Section L 7.3 | Small Business Participation Plan | All offerors shall provide their proposed goals in terms of percent of total value of all task orders awarded for the period of performance. Would the Government consider excluding those prime offerors that qualify as small business under NAICS Code 517110 from the requirement to provide a Small Business Participation Plan as part of their bid submission? | No. Small Business Participation Plans are required for all offerors. | ||
| 25 | 50 | Section L 2.5.3.a Page Size and Format | Pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches in format size. | Can pages of 11 x 17 inches in format size be used to present large graphics and tables? And if so, will each side of the 11x17 count as two pages? | Yes. No more than 5 pages of 11 x 17 inches in format size will be permitted for graphics in Volume II only. Section L, paragraph 2.5.3.a. has been updated accordingly. | |
| 26 | 51 | 2.10.a 2) Proposal Submission | Offerors are encouraged to limit file size to reduce delay… | Is there a file size limitation for files transmitted via email? | The Government's email server will reject any email whose size exceeds 10 MB. | |
| 27 | 56 | L6.2.2 e | The cost proposal shall be submitted using Microsoft Excel 2010 spreadsheets and shall include all formulas and calculations, as applicable | Section B (pages 3 through page 23) includes pricing tables with CLINs from 0001 through 5008. In addition, Section L7.1 (page 60) requires the offeror to complete Section s A through K. However, Section L7.1.2 refers – in conjunction with Section B of the Contract – to the Representative Circuit Pricing Table in Section J. |
Question: Please clarify if the Offeror is required to price the CLINs in the B tables for this submission.
| In accordance with the Amendment 0001 to the RFP, Section L, paragraph 7.1.2 was updated to clarify no pricing is required for the CLINs listed in Section B. Attachment L1, Representative Circuit Pricing Table, is to be completed in accordance with Section L, paragraph 6.2.2. | |||||
| 28 | 56 | L6.2.2 e | The cost proposal shall be submitted using Microsoft Excel 2010 spreadsheets and shall include all formulas and calculations, as applicable | Question: If the CLINs listed in Section B are required to be priced in this submission, would DISA allow the vendor to use To-Be-Determined (TBD) or Individual-Case-Basis (ICB) due to the fact that these items cannot be priced without the specific requirements? For example, “Special Study”, “ Site Survey”, etc. | In accordance with the Amendment 0001 to the RFP, Section L, paragraph 7.1.2 was updated to clarify no pricing is required for the CLINs listed in Section B. Attachment L1, Representative Circuit Pricing Table, is to be completed in accordance with Section L, paragraph 6.2.2. |
| 29 | PWS: Section 11.5, page 49 | “The contractor shall include a draft of its proposed trouble ticketing interface plan, to include how the contractor proposes to provide trouble ticketing information electronically in near real-time to DISA, with its CIP submission. The contractor shall provide, 30 days after award, a final draft of its trouble ticketing interface plan (to include process and methods of how the contractor proposes to provide trouble ticketing information electronically in near-real-time) to the Government. for review and approval .” | Since Section 3.4 indicates that a CIP is to be submitted only when required by a TO, should vendors interpret “30 days after award” to be considered business days after award of the Task Order? | The PWS was revised prior to RFP release to state, "The contractor shall provide, 30 days after their initial TO award, a final draft of its trouble ticketing interface plan…" This revision clarifies that the requirement is after the initial TO award, not the contract award. | |
| 31 | L.2.5.3.b | For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 12-point Ariel, Times New Roman, or Courier New font for all text included in a table. | Issue: 12 point text in figures will make them less practical and informative |
Question: Will the Government reconsider and revise this to a 10 point minimum?
| Section L, paragraph 2.5.3(b) has been updated to state, "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be clearly legible and in no case smaller than 8-point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font." | |||
| 32 | 2.5.1 Proposal Organization | For Volumes II and Volume III only, the offeror’s company name/information shall be reflected only on the title page of the offeror’s proposal. The remaining pages within Volume II and Volume III of the offeror’s proposal shall not be provided on company letterhead and shall be free of any watermarks, trademarks, legends, logos or similar markings, i.e., offeror’s company name/information shall be reflected only on the cover page of the offeror’s proposal. | Issue: Volume III is Past Performance and Naming of Subcontractors/Teammates |
Question A: Does the Government want past performance questionnaires to be submitted without the company name cited?
| RFP Section L, paragraph 2.5.1 has been revised to clarify that the offeror's name shall be reflected on the title page of Volume II and Volume III as well as on each of the referenced Section L attachments (L5, L6, and L7) provided in support of Volume III. | ||||
| 33 | 2.5.1 Proposal Organization | For Volumes II and Volume III only, the offeror’s company name/information shall be reflected only on the title page of the offeror’s proposal. The remaining pages within Volume II and Volume III of the offeror’s proposal shall not be provided on company letterhead and shall be free of any watermarks, trademarks, legends, logos or similar markings, i.e., offeror’s company name/information shall be reflected only on the cover page of the offeror’s proposal. | Issue: Volume III is Past Performance and Naming of Subcontractors/Teammates Question B: For Volumes II and III are subcontractor/teammate names allowed to be mentioned? | Yes, you may include the names of subcontractors/teammates in Volumes II and III. |
| 35 | Section M | Issue: Evaluation Criteria for the Executive Summary |
Question: What are the evaluation criteria for the Executive Summary?
| None. Factor 1 consists of subfactors 1 and 2 which do not include assessment of the Executive Summary. | ||
| 36 | 2.5.3.a | Issue: Page size |
Question: Are offeror’s allowed to use 11x17 pages for proposal graphics and figures?
| Yes. No more than 5 pages of 11 x 17 inches in format size will be permitted for graphics in Volume II only. Section L, paragraph 2.5.3.a. has been updated accordingly. | ||
| 38 | Section L Table 2.5.1 (p. 50 of 71); Section L.5.6 | Issue: In the Table, Volume III Part F Organizational Structure Change History is cross-referenced to Section L.5.6, but Section L does not contain a section with this paragraph number, nor are there directions for Part F elsewhere in Section L. |
Question: Was L.5.6 inadvertently omitted, or did the Government intend to remove the requirement to provide Organizational Structure Change History?
| Table 2.5.1 Proposal Organization has been revised. Volume III "Organizational Structure Change History" and Volume IV "Other Information" have been removed from the table. The corresponding language in Section L has been updated and a template for Volume III "Consent Letters" has been added as attachment L7 to Section L. | ||
| 43 | PWS 11 | Issue: Loopback Testing |
Question: Can the government adopt “Use of commercial best practice (30 minutes) for loopback testing DS-3 and below is required” instead of 24 hour testing? Please note that the cost to perform 24 hour testing is a significant price driver on low speed, low priced circuits.
| This requirement will remain as written. | ||||
| 44 | General | Respectfully request an extension to the due date from 18 May 2015 9:00am EDT to 1 June 2015 9:00am EDT. | The Government is not considering an extension at this time. | |
| 45 | PWS Section 3.1 Contractor Personnel | states that the awardee shall have established program management offices/facilities that enable its key personnel to participate in a meeting, during the work week, with Government regional POCs within three (3) hours of being notified by the Government POC. This includes meetings at DISA Headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland as well as DISA regional office locations (e.g., DISA PAC, DISA EUROPE). | Respectfully request the government clarify physical location of the regional program management offices and is it acceptable for the program managers to participate via PHONCON in meetings, during the work week, with Government regional POCs vice in person? | Phone conferences are acceptable, but the contractor must still adhere to the regional requirements detailed in the PWS. |
| 46 | HC1013-15-R-0003-001, Table 2.5.1 Proposal Organization | Vol II Part B and Part C page count was reduced to 50 pages from the Draft Section L which was 100 pages. |
Respectfully request that the page count for these sections be increased to 75 pages.
| The page limit will remain 50 pages. | |||||
| 47 | 49 and 55 | Sec L 2.5.1 and 5.0 | Regarding volume III are a few discrepancies between the table 2.5.1 (with 5 parts A/B/C/D/E) and the description in sec. 5.0 (with 3 parts A/B/C). Which organization of volume III (Past Performance) is required? | Table 2.5.1 Proposal Organization has been revised. Volume III "Organizational Structure Change History" and Volume IV "Other Information" have been removed from the table. The corresponding language in Section L has been updated and a template for Volume III "Consent Letters" has been added as attachment L7 to Section L. | |
| 48 | 40 | Sec J | The attachments J7/J8/J9 are missing. We assume that these attachments are required for volume V, Part C/D/E. Is this correct and do we receive these attachments? | Attachments J7/J8/J9 are parts of the contractor's proposal submission that will be incorporated into Section J. These are placeholders for attachments provided at a future time. | |
| 49 | 47 | PWS 11.1 | Would it be an acceptable option to operate the primary NOC in Mexico? | As stated in PWS paragraph 11.1, the primary NOC must be located in CONUS. | |
| 50 | 47 | PWS 11.1 | Would it be an acceptable option to have primary NOC operators in USA and the NOC key infrastructure in Europe | As stated in PWS paragraph 11.1, the alternate NOC may be in Europe, but the requirement is that the Primary NOC must be in CONUS. | |
| 51 | 10 | PWS 3.1 | In the PWS the requirement "Each MAC awardee shall provide all materials, services, personnel, planning, direction, coordination,...” was defined. Regarding materials: does DISA expects suppliers to own all assets/hardware as well as provide them? | No, DISA does not expect suppliers to own all assets/hardware | |
| 54 | 11 | PWS 3.2 | The government requires vendors to "participate in Government-hosted VTCs, as requested by the Government. It will be the contractor’s responsibility to maintain conferencing systems that are compatible with those used by the Government over the PoP of the TO and to maintain a sufficient number of operable VTC sites such that all key personnel are able to participate at the Government’s request." Request the Government amend the PWS to identify the system requirements and specifications for the VTC system used by the Government. | The Government's systems continually evolve, as such VTC requirements will be coordinated prior to the Government requested meeting. | |
| 55 | 14 | PWS 3.4.4 | The government states the contractor shall include the following data in its CIP -- "Detailed Straight Line Diagrams (SLDs) for all DS-3 and above circuits. Diagrams may be requested by the Government for lower bandwidths on a case-by-case basis." Request the Government amend the PWS to clarify under what circumstances diagrams may be required for circuits less than DS3. This information will assist offerors in workload planning. | This is not something that the Government can determine at this time. CIP requirements will be specified at the task order level. | |
| 56 | 17 | PWS4.2.1 | “The Government will individually compete and award routine orders via the designated procurement writing system (e.g., IDEAS, PD2), . . .” Please amend the PWS to provide definition and technical details including requirements to access for PD2. | This reference in the GNS PWS, paragraph 4.2.1 is only providing examples of current DISA procurement writing systems. No contractor access is required for the utilization of PD2. | |
| 58 | none | Section L.2.5.3 | The font size requirement for figures is confusing. Requiring 12-pt type for graphics actually makes them less clear because the text in the graphic is more crowded. Please consider amending the RFP to return this requirement to that in the earlier draft: 8-pt. type for figures. | Section L, paragraph 2.5.3(b) has been updated to state, "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be clearly legible and in no case smaller than 8-point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font." | |
| 59 | none | Section L.2.5.3 | Request the Government reconsider the requirement "These displays . . . shall not exceed a single page in size" and amend the RFP to allow 11x17" pages for diagrams.” There are several large complex diagrams and amending the requirement to 11x17” will be provide more legible documents for review purposes. | Yes. No more than 5 pages of 11 x 17 inches in format size will be permitted for graphics in Volume II only. Section L, paragraph 2.5.3.a. has been updated accordingly. | |
| 61 | 18 | PWS 4.2.2 | The government requires “ 24 to 72 hour expedited delivery for sites that have existing services and facilities available to accommodate service installation requirements”.Will the government please clarify in an amendment to the solicitation the circumstances under which a service might be expedited? | Expedited orders will occur any time a customer requires a 24-72 hour response. The circumstances cannot be determined at this time. | |
| 63 | 46 | PWS 10.2 | Table 10.2 does not address delay/latency when avoidance routing is specified and required in task orders. It also does not address variable scenarios where cost and optimization may take priority over latency performance, e.g. meshed network topologies. Request the government amend the solicitation to include latency and to provide that individual task order requirements for latency may vary based on technical, price and other factors. | The requirement will not change when avoidance routing is specified. | |
| 64 | none | RFP 2.5.1 | Please amend the RFP to clarify the conflicting instructions in RFP Section 2.5.1, Proposal Organization, with regards to use of the offeror’s company name in Volume III. Offerors are instructed to not use company-identifying information, but also instructed to include forms with company-identifying information in Volume III. | RFP Section L, paragraph 2.5.1 has been revised to clarify that the offeror's name shall be reflected on the title page of Volume II and Volume III as well as on each of the referenced Section L attachments (L5, L6, and L7) provided in support of Volume III. | |
| 65 | (L.4.4.3.b.5.b) | ||||
| Will the task order specify the QoS specifications as to; jitter, latency number of dropped packets. | Yes, this information will be provided in the task order. | ||||
| 66 | PWS 4.2.7 | Where possible, all electrical transmission equipment shall be connected to Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) uninterruptible power supplies. | will the task orders specify when the UPS would be supplied by the Government | The contractor should discover the power requirements during the site surveys for the specific task order. | |
| 67 | PWS 4.2.8b | End-to-end transmission services shall include, but are not limited to, the off-site or facility and the provided/coordinated on-site or facility infrastructure and support services, necessary for successful delivery and operation of end-to-end services (SDP to SDP). After at least three (3) unsuccessful attempts to contact the POC, or if the POC is unavailable to coordinate access within 3 business days, the contractor shall notify the COR within 24 hours. | Please clarify the second part of the question | It is unclear what clarification is needed. | |
| 68 | PWS 4.2.9a | All contractor equipment at the SDP must be properly identified/labeled as specified by this PWS and the order. Circuit/services must be labeled with the Government provided identifier (e.g. CCSD), contractor’s circuit ID, the ALLA number (when applicable) and any other identifying information required by the Government. The contractor shall identify for Government personnel the exact termination point of the service once service installation is complete. | Is the label tagging format in vendor selected format, if the government has a format please provide | The site will provide the contractor the labeling format during the site survey. | |
| 69 | 4.3.12b | The contractor’s provided encryption devices and associated services shall be IAW DoD policy and security requirements, the contract, and the respective order(s). | Please reference the applicable DoD policies | The references are contained in the GNS PWS, paragraph 4.3.12 as well as the reference section of the PWS (Appendix A). | |
| 70 | PWS 4.3.3 a-g | Please reference the applicable DID policies | It is unclear what reference is requested. | ||
| 71 | PWS 4.3.6 | Test results shall be provided in a format proposed by the contractor, utilizing Microsoft Office or Adobe products, subject to COR approval. All contractor testing and acceptance activities and test reports shall comply with the contract and TO requirements. | Are the test results to be specified in the applicable task order | Please refer to CDRL A015 for test results reference. | |
| 72 | PWS 4.3.7 | The contractor shall provide Final Design Layout Record (FDLR) drawings, for DS-3 and above (or European equivalent) non-satellite services and for all satellite services, to the Government for review and acceptance. | When is the FDLR due, is there a required format or will the format be vendor choice | Please refer to CDRL A016 for FDLR format and due date. FDLR is to be provided with the Completion Report. | |
| 73 | PWS 6.1d | The contractor shall utilize existing commercial interface standards for terminating circuit/services as defined by the Government. | Please list the applicable commercial standards or reference in table 6.1 | All standards in Table 6-1 are applicable. | |
| 74 | PWS 6.2.2a | At locations where a Government clock is not available, sufficient, or its use has not been authorized, the contractor shall provide a Stratum 1 reference clock signal (ANSI T1.101-1999) for the transmission service and equipment. | Is the use of GPS clock be acceptable where thy are Stratum 1 certified | Please refer to the standard provided in the PWS (ANSI T1.101-1999). | |
| 75 | PWS 12 | The contractor shall demonstrate that they are capable of meeting the following security requirements, including, but not limited to: DoD 5200.1-R, DoD 5200.2-R, DoD 5220.22-M, DoD 8570.1-M, DoD 8551.01, DoD Directive (DoDD) 8581.1E, DoD Instruction (DoDI) 8500.01, DoDI 8500.2, DoDI 8510.01, COMSEC and other Cyber Security/IA references included in the Appendix. | DoD Instruction (DoDI) 8510.01 (Reference (a)) in accordance with the authority in DoD Directive (DoDD) 5144.02 (Reference (b)) specifies that DoD Information systems (IS) use security controls from NIST SP 800-53 (Reference (f)), and use assessment procedures from NIST SP 800-53A (Reference (g)). Please specify the security standards that are primarily applicable and the security levels required for systems contemplated in the TOs. | Additional security requirements will be specifically identified upon release of the task orders. | |
| 76 | L2 Tech Extract 2.1.3 | Dynamically allocates and automatically reallocates bandwidth among SDPs in the network in near real-time to support priority services or alleviate congestion | The supplier would like to know if the reallocation of bandwidth should have manual (human) control or be all automatic | The Government’s intent regarding the phrase “dynamically allocates and automatically reallocates bandwidth” is that the offeror’s proposed network solution could be fully automated or could involve a person-in-the-process to confirm the details of the reallocation. | |
| 79 | L2 Tech Extract 2.2.1 | The proposed network solution shall meet or exceed ALL applicable performance requirements of the GNS PWS. | Please specify the time. For example if a primary path fails the system will switch/ route the a back-up path within 100 ms | If not specifically identified in the task order, the offer may be requested to propose their network reliability for consideration in a best value, tradeoff evaluation. | |
| 80 | L2 Tech Extract 2.2.2 | The proposed network solution shall meet or exceed ALL applicable performance requirements of the GNS PWS. | Please specify the time. For example if a path a path (both primary and secondary) fails the system will switch/ route the a back-up path within 20 minutes | If not specifically identified in the task order, the offer may be requested to propose their network reliability for consideration in a best value, tradeoff evaluation. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .