GNS_RFP_Comment_Matrix_20150504.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 |
| 30 | Representative Circuit List | Issue: There are no street addresses for the “A” and “Z” locations of the circuit, and the SDP name can be either a city name or open to interpretation. Without additional information, the “A” and “Z” locations are up to various interpretations of the offerors on a circuit-by-circuit basis. As an example, offerors could chose to price POP-to-POP, center city-to-center city, assumed SDP to SDP, or combinations. |
Question: Will the government please either provide the street addresses or explain how bidders are to price the circuits?
| Attachment L1, Representative Circuit List list is labeled SDP to SDP. Street addresses will not be provided at this time. | ||
| 34 | PWS 11.5 | Issue: secure Web Services Technologies |
Question: Can the Government provide specific examples as to what is meant by secure Web Services Technologies?
Web Services describe a machine-to-machine interface that utilizes Web technologies, such as Hypertext Transport Protocol Secure HTTP(S), Extensible Markup Language (XML), and Uniform Resource Locator (URL), for interoperability over a network. Although Web Services use Web technologies, the term does not imply a Web site that can be accessed by a browser. Web Services are defined by a number of standards that specify:
· Message exchange
· Web Service description
· Web Service discovery Appendix B: Definitions of the PWS has been updated to include a definition for Web Services.
37 PWS 3.3 Issue: Section 3.3 of the PWS shows Semi-Annual IPRs in the title but there is no content requesting a response for the semiannual IPR. The content only focuses on the initial and monthly IPRs.
Question: Please define the requirements for the Semi-Annual IPRs required in addition to the initial and monthly IPRs?
| The government has reviewed PWS Section 3.3 and has determined that it adequately addresses all requirements of the initial IPR as well as subsequent IPRs. | ||
| 39 | Attachment L5 Past Performance Information, Part F | Issue: The instruction states, “For Government contracts, provide current information on all three individuals”; however, there are only two roles listed – Program Manager and Contracting Officer. |
Question A: Who is the third point of contact that should be listed or is it at the discretion of the offeror?
| Attachment L5, Past Performance Information, Paragraph F. has been revised to state, “For Government contracts, provide current information on the Program Manager and the Contracting Officer.” | |||
| 40 | Attachment L5 Past Performance Information, Part F | Issue: The instruction states, “For Government contracts, provide current information on all three individuals”; however, there are only two roles listed – Program Manager and Contracting Officer. | |
| Question B: Are the Program Manager and Contracting Officer required for all questionnaires, or are offerors allowed to use other points of contact? | Attachment L5, Past Performance Information, Paragraph F. has been revised to state, “For Government contracts, provide current information on the Program Manager and the Contracting Officer.” | ||
| 41 | Network Solution circuit list, circuit 15 | Issue: This circuit has the same A and Z SDP |
Question: Can the Government please clarify that circuit 15 is listed correctly?
| Attachment L3, Circuit List for a Network Solution, has been updated to remove the previously identified circuit number 15. All others circuit numbers have been sequentially updated for a total of 58 circuits. | ||
| 42 | PWS Table 10-2 | Issue: Latency Formula |
Question: Will the Government consider modifying the latency requirement on an individual case basis? The formula in Table 10-2 will not support challenging geographic routing. This can be seen in existing circuits such as Afghanistan to Japan where a great circle route is not physically or politically possible.
| Individual task orders may modify requirements on a case-by-case basis. | |||||
| 52 | 57 | PWS 6.1.5 | European circuits / local loops etc. will be charged by the local carriers in Euro instead of USD. As DITCO-Europe receives already invoices in Euro for these services - will this still be possible for upcoming (european) TOs? | The contractor must adhere to the currency requirements as stated in the task order. | |
| 53 | 30 | PWS 4.3.13 | The government states in the first paragraph of this section that in order to obtain approval before initiating an outage, a written DISA ASI Request Form must be submitted via email to the appropriate DISA ASI Manager with a copy sent to that Watch Officer (WO). However, under section marked "Demand", the Government states: "ASI processing will be accomplished via the SIPRNet, although NIPRNet processing may be accomplished as an exception, IAW the DISN Classification Guide." Request the Government amend the PWS to clarify the reporting and management of ASI. Does the SIPRNet and/or NIPRNet requirement apply exclusively to DEMAND ASI instances? Should SIPRNet and NIPRNet connectivity be required for ASI management, the offeror requests the Government provide additional details, for example, the timing of DISA's authorization of vendor connections to SIPRNet and NIPRNet and whether vendors will be provided a Government issued email address to use for ASI managment. | The Government's ASI team has confirmed these requirements as written. No amendment is being considered at this time. | |
| 57 | 48 | PWS 11.2 | The contractor is required to provide two (2) physically diverse routed T-1 circuits, as primary and redundant connections, between the contractor’s primary NOC and the designated Government NOCs,” and “between the contractor’s alternate NOC and the designated Government NOCs.” Request the Government identify which designated Government NOCs the two (2) physically diverse routed T-1 circuits from contractors primary and alternate NOCs are to be connected. This is needed for responding to the Government requirement for FDLR drawings. | The Government NOC will be specified in the task order. The primary NOC will be in CONUS and the alternate NOC can be in any other AOR. GNS PWS paragraph 11.1 has been updated to include the following statement, "If both NOCs are in CONUS, the contractor shall use geographic diversity to avoid power grid vulnerability." | |
| 60 | 17 | PWS 4.2 | The government states: “U.S. carriers shall conduct priority restoration of transmission services IAW the TSP designation in the order. Non-U.S. carriers shall conduct priority restoration of transmission services in an equivalent manner, subject to approval by the Government.” Is the Government requesting that each Non-U.S. carrier standardize the five levels of TSP priority and provide documentation for approval, or simply requesting best effort on provisioning and restoration as defined in the FAQ's on the DHS website? | The contractor will be required to adhere to the references listed in the GNS PWS: "When Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) is specified in the TO, the contractor shall provide the service IAW the Government specified TSP priority level for transmission services, DISA Circular 310-130-4 and the National Communications Systems (NCS) Service Contractor Handbook." | |
| 62 | 32 | PWS 4.3.17 | Request the Government amend the PWS to clarify the term "sun outages." | "A sun outage, sun transit or sun fade is an interruption in or distortion of geostationary satellite signals caused by interference from solar radiation." Appendix B: Definitions of the PWS has been updated to include a definition for Sun Outage. | |
| 77 | L2 Tech Extract 2.1.5 | Provides node and route diversity | Please define "node" and "route". | A node is a connection point; either a redistribution point or an end point for transmission. The route is the cable path between SDPs. Appendix B: Definitions of the PWS has been updated to include a definition for Node and Route. | |
| 78 | L2 Tech Extract 2.1.6 | Provides backbone network surge capacity | What level of surge and what direction is needed. For example to be able to surge to 150% of bandwidth for up to 24 continues hours. | Attachment L2, Technical Extract for a Network Solution, paragraph 2.1.6 has been updated to state, "Provides backbone network surge capacity of 150% of bandwidth for up to 24 continuous hours" | |
| 81 | Circuit List | In order to provide the price of the circuits listed in attachment L1 and L3 a technical feasibility of the available infrastructure is needed. For this reason we kindly request to have the correct address and building of the demarcation point for each site (location A and location Z ) | Attachment L1, Representative Circuit List list is labeled SDP to SDP. Street addresses will not be provided at this time. | ||
| 82 | PWS NOC Section | With reference to the requirement to have a Primary Network Operation Center (NOC) located in CONUS, considering that the contract will be an IDIQ with a multi source selection of the vendors and that many circuits are located in Europe, we notify to you that: |
- potentially, in Europe, an european carrier that owns an European network could be very competitive and it could be awarded only for European circuits portion
- looking at the requirements that carrier should implement a NOC in USA for the circuits installed in UE with additional costs
- this requirement seems to be a constrain for the European carriers and introduces a loss in the competition
For the reason above we kindly request to remove the constrain to have a NOC (primary and/or secondary) located in USA.
| The Government NOC will be specified in the task order. The primary NOC will be in CONUS and the alternate NOC can be in any other AOR. GNS PWS paragraph 11.1 has been updated to include the following statement, "If both NOCs are in CONUS, the contractor shall use geographic diversity to avoid power grid vulnerability." | ||
| 83 | Table 10-2 | Issue: Not all metrics are typically tested either during in-service or during test and turn-up |
Question: Will the Government amend the opening sentence PWS Section table 10.2 to: “Where operational practical, the contractor shall monitor, manage and report the performance of all provided services 24x7x365 to ensure that services are delivered and maintained in accordance with PWS and requirements of each awarded service order.”?
| The requested change to the PWS does not meet the Government requirement. | ||
| 84 | PWS 4.3.6 | Issue: Loop Back Testing |
Question: Would the government allow contractors to use loop back testing?
| The requested change to the PWS does not meet the Government requirement. | |||
| 85 | Section L.2.5.3.b | Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed a single page in in size. | Issue: Length of Proposal Tables |
Question: Will the government allow tables longer than one page to be allowed with the use of a repeating header? Please note that the government has tables longer than one page in the GNS RFP materials.
| Section L, paragraph 2.5.3.b. has been revised to include the following statement, "Tables whose total length (number of rows) exceeeds a single page may be continued by the use of repeating headers." | |||
| 86 | P. 3 | H. 52.211-11 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--SUPPLIES, SERVICES, OR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (SEP 2000) | (a) If the Contractor fails to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in this contract, the Contractor shall, in place of actual damages, pay to the Government liquidated damages of 3.3% of the awarded Task Order’s monthly recurring charge per calendar day of delay. B.2 PRICING METHODS |
The GNS contracts are structured and managed in accordance with the rules for task order contracts, as specified in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 16. In particular, task and delivery order awards issued against this contract will be based on the procedures for “fair opportunity to be considered.”
Individual task orders may require the contractor to structure its pricing to accommodate changes, both increases and decreases in usage or service delivery, within scope of the task order. For example, specific task orders may require rates such as per service delivery point, per gigabyte of bandwidth transmission, or other similar basis. To accommodate these pricing rates, task order contract line item structures will be further defined and separately identified and priced at the subline item.
| The Government is requiring the Contractor to pay liquidated damages of 3.3% of the awarded TO's MRC charge per calendar day of delay. Please clarify that the Liquidated Damages pertains to 3.3% of the individual circuits of a TO that is delayed. We recommend that the clarification be issued that these damages are applicable on a per circuit basis, versus a grouping of circuits in a “network solution”. In the case of a “network solution,” we recommend that the government clarify that the damages will be assessed per service point basis. applicable on a per circuit basis as was indicated in Section B.2 Pricing Methods of the Solicitation released on April 1. | |||
| The damage is applied when service is interrupted. The CLIN structure will be single MRC for the network solution. Therefore there will not be an MRC for individual circuits. | |||
| 87 | P. 3 | H.52.211-11 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--SUPPLIES, SERVICES, OR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (SEP 2000) | (b) If the Government terminates this contract in whole or in part under the Default--Fixed-Price Supply and Service clause, the Contractor is liable for liquidated damages accruing until the Government reasonably obtains delivery or performance of similar supplies or services. These liquidated damages are in addition to excess costs of repurchase under the Termination clause. |
| Part b) We request that the government consider amending the language, in the case of termination, when there is an existing service, that the damages be limited to the cost difference between the existing service and the “terminated” service. This will assure that the government is made whole, until new service is installed. |
| The referenced language is the approved language for the referenced FAR clause. | |||
| 88 | p. 15 | Section 5.3 (a) Recent Contracts | The offeror shall submit information in accordance with attachment L5 of this solicitation, Past Performance Information Sheet, on a minimum of two (2) but no more than three (3) recent Government contracts that the prime offeror, or the prime offeror’s teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or significant subcontractors, considers most appropriate in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. The information submitted shall reference at least one effort from the prime offeror’s past performance. Include rationale supporting your assertion of appropriateness. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in evaluating this information, see Section M, Factor 2: Past Performance and subparagraphs, thereto. |
a. If an offeror submits past performance information for an indefinite delivery contract, then the offeror must identify a specific task order under the indefinite delivery contract.
| One of our major contracts is a single award IDIQ on which we have executed multiple task orders for individual circuits. We would like to show the entire scope of work on this single award IDIQ contract to highlight the entire size, scope and complexity of our work. Further, the evaluation criteria states "The past performance evaluation factor will assess whether the offeror’s present/past performance is appropriate to the global effort being acquired and whether the offeror has performed in an acceptable/unacceptable basis for these present/past contracts. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements." We request that the Government modifythis statement to the following: "a. If an offeror submits past performance information for an indefinite delivery contract, then the offeror may identify a specific task order or multiple task orders under the indefinite delivery contract. " | The requested change is not necessary to satisfy the Government's requirement for Past Performance. | ||
| 89 | p. 18, 19, 20 | RFP, Amendment 0001, 6.2.2, Part B; Section 7.1.2 Section B - Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices | RFP, Amendment 0001, 6.2.2, Part B |
c. Note: Due to the structure of the RFP which selects multiple awardees for future TO level competitions, there are no primary services at the contract level that can be priced.
e. The cost proposal shall be submitted using Microsoft Excel 2010 spreadsheets and shall include all formulas and calculations, as applicable. The offeror shall propose firm fixed prices, separately for each circuit in the list, for all years, for requirements reflected in the GNS Representative Circuit List.
i. For each year, the Offeror shall provide its proposed fixed Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) for that circuit for that year. Prices shall not include charges for path avoidance/diversity. (Nonrecurring Charges shall not be proposed as they will vary according to details of each location which may be provided in future TO competitive solicitations.)
7.1.2 Section B - Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices - The MRC shall be a fixed price, which includes all applicable MRCs for the circuit for that year. Nonrecurring Charges (NRC) are not considered in this proposal because they will vary according to details of each location. Prices shall not include charges for path avoidance/diversity.
| Upon contract award, the pricing schedule shall be used as Market Research in future TOs if/when ordered. All CLINs listed in Section B will remain unpriced at the contract level and will be competitively priced or negotiated for each specific TO. | The Government has updated several sections of the RFP and Section L, paragraph 7.1.2 to clarify no pricing is required for the CLINs listed in Section B which still includes the MRC CLIN for the GNS Representative Circuit List. Can the Government please clarify, that pricing required is only for the MRCs for the circuits in the GNS Representative Circuit list and not for the NRCs? | Nonrecurring Charges (NRC) are not considered in this evaluation because they will vary according to details of each location. Only Monthly Recurring Charges (MRCs) will be evaluated. | ||||
| 90 | p. 18, 20 | RFP, Amendment 0001, 6.2.2, Part B; Section 7.1.2 Section B - Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices | d. The Government does not guarantee that any of the circuits on the Representative Circuit List will be ordered. The prices provided in response to the GNS Representative Circuit List shall be used as Market Research in future TOs if/when ordered via a competitive task order. 7.1.2 Section B - Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices ......Upon contract award, the pricing schedule shall be used as Market Research in future TOs if/when ordered. All CLINs listed in Section B will remain unpriced at the contract level and will be competitively priced or negotiated for each specific TO. | Will the Government please clarify whether the circuits on the Representative Circuit List "can or will" ever be ordered if they are only for Market Research purposes in future TO's as stated in the sections cited here? | As stated in the referenced paragraphs of Section L of the RFP, the Government does not guarantee that any of the circuits on the Representative Circuit List will be ordered. | |
| 91 | 17 | 4.1 | The Government may request estimated pricing and/or estimated provisioning timeframes, identified as a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), in advance of a TO solicitation for the purposes of market research. The requested response time for a ROM inquiry will be ten (10) working days, unless specified by the Government. | Would the Government amend the language to state that the requested response time for ROM be 10 days for routine orders and 30 days if diversity is required. | The language as written reflects the Government's requirement. | |
| 92 | 24 | 4.3.5 | The Government will notify the contractor and reject the service order completion notice if it determines that the circuit/service has been incompletely or improperly labeled, or is not operable IAW contract requirements or the respective order(s). The contractor shall be responsible for rectifying any labeling problems or operational failures. | This statement, as it is worded implies that the Contractor is responsible for rectifying any labeling problems or operational failures that may come months after service order completion; however, the longer a circuit has been installed and out of the contractor's control, the more likely a label could be removed etc. We request that the Government revise the PWS language to state, "The Government will notify contractor within 5 working/busines days if it determines that the ciruit/service has been incompletely or improperly labeled, or is not operable IAW contract requirements or the respective order(s)." | The language as written reflects the Government's requirement. | |
| 93 | 24 | 4.3.6 | The contractor shall provide test results to the COR for review and acceptance within three (3) days following completion of testing. | Would the Government specifiy whether test and accepetance is within 3 days total; OR whether it is 3 days to submit test and the Goverment has an additional 3 days to accept test, for a total of 6 days to total acceptance. | The requirement as written only refers to the contractor's obligation to provide the test results to the COR within 3 days of completion. | |
| 94 | 18 | 4.2.1, a) I, ii, iii | a) Service Delivery (end-to-end): Not To Exceed (NTE) four (4) months if the service requires build-out of new facilities or infrastructure. Otherwise, delivery shall be as follows: |
i. NTE one (1) month for all bandwidths if service can be supported by existing facilities and infrastructure.
ii. NTE three (3) months if service requires upgrade of existing facilities and infrastructure.
| iii. All contractor FFP submissions shall identify which provisioning interval above applies for its priced offer. The Government may request that ROMs identify which facilities condition above applies. | We would like the Government to recgonize that any capacity checks given during a ROM request could be subject to change, so offerors can make the best effort to provide this ROM with the provisioning interval. However, additional services could be ordered by other customers between the ROM exercise and the Government's placement of the order that could result in a change in the available facilities. We recommend the Government require the Contractor to provide a best effort provisioning interval associated with the ROM. | Thank you for your response, the Government will take this recommendation under advisement. | ||||
| 95 | 50 | L.2.5.2 | Exception: Title/cover pages, table of contents, glossaries and blank pages shall not be counted. | The List of Figures/Exhibits was not mentioned in this statement. We request that the List of Figures be excluded from page count as well. | The Government interprets the Table of Contents to include Lists of Figures and Table of Tables. | |
| 96 | p. 51 | L.2.9 | Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries of Abbreviations and Acronyms do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes. | The RFP Table 2.5.1 does not include the Glossary of Abbreviations in the order of the documents. We suggest that the Glossary of Abbreviations come after the Table of Contents and List of Figures. | This section can be placed in the document at the offeror's discretion. | |
| 97 | p. 50 | L.2.5.3, b | c. The RFP states, “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. “ | Graphics appear more legible in Arial 10 pt font; and tables are more manageable in Arial 10 point font. We request that the Government chang the requirement to allow "tables, charts, graphs and figures be no less than 10-point Arial font". | Section L, paragraph 2.5.3(b) has been updated in Amendment 0002 to the RFP stating, "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." | |
| 98 | p. 51 | L.2.8 | This section states that, "Tab indexing shall be used to identify parts." | Would the Government please clarify what "tab indexing" means? Or remove this statement? Since the proposal is bein submitted electronically, there will not be any tabs. | Section L, paragraph 2.8 has been revised to delete the referenced sentence. | |
| 99 | p. 51 | L 2.1.0 a 3) | The RFP states,"“If necessary, separate the electronic files of the proposal at logical breakpoints using the table of contents as a guide. Each file must be autonomous and complete.”" | Would the Government please clarify whether a "file" includes all parts of that volume, for example, the file for Volume II would include only one document, consisting of Part A, B, C, with logical breakpoints within the file for each "part". | The contents of each "file" are at the offeror's discretion. Each file must "stand-alone". Please note that the Government cannot received E-mails larger than 10MB. | |
| 100 | p. 54 | 4.4.1 | The RFP States, "Part A – Compliance and Cross Reference Matrix. The offeror shall fill out the Compliance and Cross Reference Matrix (see Attachment L4)". However, the Compliance Matrix document is titled L.3 within the header of the document. | Would the Government please change the title to Attachment L.4? In addition, the date on the document states, "March 5, 2014". | This information was updated in Amendment 0002 of the RFP. | |
| 101 | p. 55 | Section 5.1.2 | The Past Performance Information Sheet is labeled L5; however, it is titled L4 in the title area of the document. | We request that the Government please reconcile the numbering of the document. | This information was updated in Amendment 0002 of the RFP. | |
| 102 | p. 55 | Section 5.1.3 | The Past Performance Questionnaire is labeled L6; however, it is titled L5 in the title area of the document. | We request that the Government please reconcile the numbering of the document. | This information was updated in Amendment 0002 of the RFP. | |
| 103 | p. 52 | Section 2.10 a 4) | The RFP states, "4) Virus Check. Offerors shall perform a virus check prior to proposal submittal. Virus checking will be conducted at the source selection site prior to the beginning of the evaluation." | Does the Government require a "Virus Free Certification" document be included on the CDs at submission or does the Contractor need to state this in a specific section of the proposal? | No, a "Virus Free Certification" document is not required. Also, please note that CDs are not an acceptable format for submission. | |
| 104 | P. 58 | Section 6.2.1 | The RFP states, "Part A – Introduction. Include table of contents; glossary of abbreviations and acronyms; summary descriptions of accounting, estimating, and purchasing systems; and changes to estimating, or accounting practices as applicable to this solicitation." | Would the Government amend this section to allow the Contractor to include "Assumptions"? | Section L, paragraph 6.2.1 has been updated to include "assumptions." | |
| 105 | p. 9 & p. 15 | Table 2.5.1 and Section 5.1 & 5.2 | In Amendment 0001, the requirement to include Consent Letters and Client Authoration Letter is included in Table 2.5.1, but not included in the Past Performance section detail within Section 5.1. The Client Authorization Letter is then referenced as Attachment L6 in Section 5.2a. | Can the Government clarify whether Consent Letters and Client Authorization letters are required. If so, please provide the attachments. If those requirements are removed, would the Government please update Table 2.5.1 accordingly? The Client Authorization Letter is then referenced as Attachment L6 in Section 5.2a. Will the Government provide an Attachment L6 if the Client Authorization Letter is required with the solicitation? | Table 2.5.1 Proposal Organization has been revised in Amendment 0002 to the RFP. 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. | |
| 106 | Attachment L7 | Issue: The instructions in Attachment L7 state: “In an effort to assist the Government’s Past Performance Evaluation Team in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following consent letter be completed by the major subcontractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal. “ |
Question: Is a consent letter required for each subcontractor, or only those for whom we are providing a completed Attachment L5 Past Performance Information?
| A consent letter will be required for each subcontractor or teaming partner that is specifically identified in the offeror's past performance volume. | ||
| 107 | Section 11.1 | Issue: MTOSI Standard |
Question: Would the Government accept other types of feeds and displays aside from the MTOSI standards?
| These are the standards that DISA requires for GNS. | ||
| 108 | Section 10.2 | Issue: Table 10-2: GNS Performance Specification: BBER (Background Block Error Ratio) |
Question: Will the Government view ES (Errored Seconds) and SES (Severely Errored Seconds) in lieu of BBER?
| These are the overarching performance standards that DISA requires for GNS. | ||
| 109 | PWS Section 11.1 – NOC | Issue: Service Management Plan / Service Management Interface Plan |
Question: Section 11.1 references both a Service Management Plan (“The contractor shall establish an interface with the Government’s DISN NOCs within 45 days of approval of the contractor’s service management plan”) and a Service Management Interface Plan (“The contractor shall provide a service management interface plan with documented processes”). Are these the same plan? Is it intended that this plan be part of the CIP or a separate deliverable, if a separate deliverable, is it part of the current Attachment J2 CDRL list?
| The Service Management Interface should be addressed as part of the overall Service Management Plan, which should be included in the CIP submission referenced in PWS paragraph 3.4, number 9. | ||
| 110 | PWS Section 11.5 – Trouble Ticketing | Issue: Trouble Ticketing Interface Plan |
Question: Section 11.4 refers to a Trouble Ticketing Interface Plan. How is this plan related to the Service Management Interface Plan referenced in section 11.1? Attachment J2 item A04 indicates the draft Trouble Ticket Interface Plan is to be Included with CIP submission. The Final Trouble Ticket Interface Plan is due “30 days after award”. Could the Government confirm that the final Trouble Ticket Interface Plan is due 30 days after award of an initial Task Order as indicated in the PWS?
| The Trouble Ticketing Interface Plan should be addressed as part of the overall Service Management Plan, which should be included in the CIP submission referenced in PWS paragraph 3.4, number 9. | |||||
| 111 | PWS 9.1.1 | 41 Paragraph 1 | In the case where fixed channelization is provided, the Government shall be permitted to request changes to the channelization at no additional cost. | Recommend that the government revise requirement to read “...changes to the channelization for onnet service at no additional cost. Offnet channelization changes subject to NRC.” Unless onnet, channelization change of SONET/SDH services can be time consuming and costly as a result of charges from last mile providers. Recommend that the government ensure that channelization is properly designed for the service, and if not, incur the costs required to change the configuration. | The requested change to the PWS does not meet the Government requirement. |
| 112 | PWS 6.2 | Section 6.2, Paragraph 1 | The Government reserves the right to request changes to the timing configuration at no additional cost. | Depending on the nature of the service, changes to timing configuration can result in material cost impacts to the contract. Recommend "no additional cost" language be deleted and section revised to allow Service Change CLINs to apply to timing configuration changes. It is imperative that timing requirements be properly determined as part of the initial service design. | The requested change to the PWS does not meet the Government requirement. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .