24 SEP 2010 Q As.doc

QUESTION #292: GSM-O PWS (Appendix A), page A-1: Given the definition of “Incidental Repair Item” what is an example of a “non-incidental” item?

ANSWER #292: Reference the GSM-O PWS, paragraph 3.2, subparagraphs k, l, m. A major item of equipment would not be considered “incidental.”

QUESTION #293: Reference DRFP, L3, Page 91, Please provide the provisioning actions over the last five years. This information appears to be missing from the draft version of the reading room. Request that this information be categorized according to number, type, and description of provisioning actions that are

* new/change connections

* class/unclass connections

* Intra-theater CONUS only

* Intra-theater Europe only

* Intra-theater Pacific only

* Intra-theater South West Asia (SWA) only

* Inter-theater between CONUS & Europe

* Inter-theater between CONUS & Pacific

* Inter-theater between CONUS & SWA

Please also provide the average length of time from DDOE Service Request to Activation for each area, and the average time from Connection Approval Request initiation to obtaining Connection Approval.

ANSWER #293: The Government has collected additional GFI provisioning data, which will be on the Controlled CD-ROM that goes out with, or prior to, the Final RFP. Also, see Questions/Answers #315 and #330 regarding staffing data being released in lieu of specific activity data

QUESTION #294: Will the DISN technical evolution plan be made available to industry.

ANSWER #294: The Government does not plan to release the DISN technical evolution plan, which is still being coordinated. It is not needed to respond to the requirements of the task orders.

QUESTION #295: Reference GSM-O Task Order #GSM-O-02 – Maintenance and Repair of the DISN Infrastructure, Paragraph 12(a).

Comment/Recommendation: Is there a minimum security clearance level required for contractor staff at the start of the contract?

ANSWER #295: As a historical reference only, today on the DGS contract – the clearance level breakout is 57% TS, 35% S, and 8% TS/SCI.

QUESTION #296: Reference: Attachment 12, paragraph 5, Scope, item d states, “With respect to network maintenance and repair activities, where an existing Maintenance Agreement is not controlling, the Contractor may, at its option, purchase spare and repair parts from the existing Government inventories of such items.”

Comment/Recommendation: Given that the Government intends for offerors to purchase spare and repair parts from the existing Government inventories of such items:

a. Is the listing of spare and repair parts contained on the Classified CD the authoritative list of items available?

b. The dollar values contained on the Classified CD released with the Draft RFP are the manufacturers’ suggest retail price (MSRP) for the items listed. What is the “fair market” value of each item that the Government intends bidders to use in building their costs for Task Order 2 where the offeror assumes purchasing spares / repair parts from the Government? Without specifying the “sale price” for the hardware, the Government is likely to receive maintenance bids that make significantly different assumptions regarding what price will be paid to the Government for these items, making a fair and consistent evaluation difficult if possible at all.

ANSWER # 296: Reference QUESTION/ANSWER #158. The listing of parts on the Controlled CD ROM is all-inclusive, ranging from spares, to items identified for projected installations. Vendors should prepare equipment estimates, as if they were purchasing items from their respective suppliers. The Government will work with the winning GSM-O vendor for disposition of the existing spare equipment.

QUESTION #297: Reference DRFP, G.1.b.(3), Page 27. What is the Govt's anticipated volume and content for follow-on Task Orders for standard and non-standard ECPs?

ANSWER #297: At this point, there is no way to estimate the volume and content for standard and non-standard actions. The best advice the Government can issue is to review the existing historical documentation on the FedBizOpps web site and the Controlled CD ROM.

QUESTION #298: Reference DRFP, G.9, Page 33, FAR 52.204-9201 Security Clearance: Reference to "appropriate security clearances" is made. Also, DD Form 254 states that "The number of personnel required to have access to SCI is determined by the COR/TM and the DISA SSO". In order for bidders to properly staff GSM-O, can the Government provide reference information regarding the quantity of SCI and TS level personnel working DGS today? Is the same level of security level staffing required for GSM-O?

ANSWER # 298: See Question/Answer # 295. As a historical reference only, today on the DGS contract – the clearance level breakout is 57% TS, 35% S, and 8% TS/SCI

QUESTION #299: Reference DRFP, L8.4.3, Page 102. Pricing for Maintenance and Repair of the DISN Infrastructure (Task Orders #GSM-O-02, etc.). Do all of the maintenance agreements need to be priced for all 7 years? If so, will additional proposal instructions be provided? For example, does the Government want to see the priced bill-of-materials or is a bottom-line price for the task order sufficient? Will end-of-life info be provided for each SW/HW line item? Currently in the DRFP, there is not any guidance on how the purchase content is to be provided in our cost volume. Please provide.

ANSWER #299. Reference PWS, Section 3.2a. All such agreements run for 12-month periods which expire on 01 January annually. For proposal purposes, vendor can assume no hardware or software items will reach end-of-life for the scope of the individual task orders.

QUESTION #300: Reference DRFP, L8.4.3, Page 102. Since Appendix B to the task orders is classified, please provide direction on how we are to present priced maintenance agreements in an unclassified proposal, assuming this pricing is required. (refer to previous question).

ANSWER # 300: The Controlled CD ROM contains some classified data and other data that is not classified. The maintenance agreements are unclassified. Determining a price for Task Order 02, which addresses maintenance (including the maintenance agreements), can be done without incorporating any classified data.

QUESTION #301: Reference Att-1 PWS, 6.2.2(6) , Page18. Please provide the current SLAs with other service providers.

ANSWER #301: The Government has separate negotiated SLAs in place for each and every circuit in our inventory. At this time, there is no way to provide a comprehensive listing of what is in place today. Other than monitoring functions, the GSM-O vendor is not responsible for infrastructure outside their control.

QUESTION #302: Reference GSM-O Task Order #GSM-O-02 – Maintenance and Repair of the DISN Infrastructure, Appendix B, item 1.Comment/Recommendation: Should DECCs be listed as a customer in this list?

ANSWER #302: Physical devices located within the DECCs are not within GSM-O contractor maintenance responsibility. Software (OSS etc.) on such servers is subject to GSM-O support., QUESTION #303: Recommend that the GSM-O RFP specify that the Government will provide, as GFI, the logistics analysis and recommended spare parts lists for any newly installed components provided by another GSM AoS contractor. We further recommend that the Government provide all user manuals, operator guides, and training materials for such newly installed components.

ANSWER #303: PWS 3.1 has been revised to add the following papragraph, “n. When the Government accepts a new networking capability into the installed DISN infrastructure, for subsequent operation and sustainment by the GSM-O Contractor, the Government will provide, as added GFI, the manufacturer’s recommended spare parts lists, user manuals, operator guides, and training materials, as applicable, that are associated with the newly-installed capability.” A comprehensive listing/DB of equipment currently under warranty has been provided on the Controlled CD ROM.

QUESTION #304: Reference: Paragraph L8.2.4.2, Section B – Sub-Factor 2, Transition Plan.

Comment/Recommendation: Suggest the Government include a requirement for describing the 30-day performance acceptance test as part of the transition portion of the proposal.

ANSWER #304: RFP Sec L provides offeror instructions for submitting the proposal. The vendor question pertains to RFP language that has been changed. See Question/Answer #242. There no longer is a 30-day testing period.

QUESTION #305: Reference DRFP, L8.2.4.1, Page 99. Please see following verbiage for recommended updates for the Section L Technical Solution section:

L8.2.4.1 Section A - Sub-Factor 1 - Technical Solution. Offerors shall provide a clear, concise description of how the Offeror plans to implement the efforts described in the GSM-O Performance Work Statement (PWS), and how the work will be performed. As part of the description, Offerors shall provide a mapping showing traceability between the Operational Architecture (OA) and requirements of the PWS. Within this sub-factor, the Offeror shall describe how the ITIL process is incorporated into the proposed solution; how the solution addresses the effectiveness and efficiency of sustainment support of the DISN;

--"approach for delivering operations and maintenance capabilities seamlessly and efficiently as the DISN evolves to a unified networking infrastructure; approach for delivering innovative OA&M technical solutions that improve service delivery, reduce cost, or reduce risk; approach for providing maintenance capabilities for the installed infrastructure; "--approach for providing request fulfillment; approach for net operations and approach for net assurance. In addition to the technical response to the GSM-O PWS, Offerors shall submit a technical proposal in response to each of the GSM-O task orders that are included as HC1028-10-R-2000, Section J, Attachments 5 through 18.

ANSWER #305: Section L, paragraph L8.2.4.1 of the Final RFP for the GSM-O effort will be revised to add in the third sentence, "Within this sub-factor, the Offeror shall describe how the ITIL process is incorporated into the proposed solution; how the solution addresses the effectiveness and efficiency of sustainment support of the DISN; [add:] approach for delivering operations and maintenance capabilities seamlessly and efficiently as the DISN evolves to a unified networking infrastructure; approach for delivering innovative OA&M technical solutions that improve service delivery, reduce cost, or reduce risk; approach for providing maintenance capabilities for the installed infrastructure ..."

QUESTION #306: Reference DRFP, L8.2.4.2, Pages 99-100. Please see following verbiage recommended updates for the Section L Transition Plan section:

L8.2.4.2 Section B - Sub-Factor 2- Transition Plan. Offerors shall provide a detailed Transition Plan, responding to PWS 5.2, describing how the Offeror will transition from current environments to the new GSM-O environment, to include baseline control and property accountability. The Transition Plan shall also describe: (1) minimizing the operational impact to existing user community business functions and facilities;

--"(2) proposed approach for transitioning from the current T&M contracting environment to a performance-based contract;"--

(3) transfer of service maintenance and support to the contractor from the incumbent; (4) deployment, training, outreach, communications, and operations and maintenance approach necessary to a successful, efficient, and timely transition; and (5) how it will accomplish a clean handoff of responsibility for operations/maintenance outcome without adverse operational impact.

ANSWER #306: The recommended change to the Section L Instructions to Offerors was considered; Section L, paragraph L8.2.4.2 of the Final RFP will be revised to add the proposed new verbiage “ … (2) proposed approach for transitioning from the current T&M contracting environment to a performance-based contract; …”

QUESTION #307: Reference DRFP, L8.2.4.3, Page 100. Please see following verbiage for recommended updates for the Section L Management Plan section:

L8.2.4.3 Section C - Sub-Factor 3 - Management Plan. Offerors shall provide a complete description of how the Offeror intends to manage the GSM-O requirements in a performance-based environment. Identify the plan for managing the contract at the corporate, contract and task order levels to include any management challenges unique to GSM-O. Include a description of the organizational structure of the company and/or team, along with organizational charts, which identifies the size, scope and structure of the Offeror's GSM-O organization. At a minimum, the Management Plan shall include: Organizational structure (including teaming agreements, subcontractor management, staffing plan, and key personnel); Change Management Plan, i.e., process for responding to program priorities and constraints, version control, release management, Cost Reduction Plan, i.e., proposed approach for reducing the overall cost of the contract during the total contact life;

--"program management processes, including planning, scheduling, risk management, supplier management, proactive decision analysis, protection of intellectual property, and organizational conflict of interest; approach for providing quality management and continuous process improvement with the use of”--proactive and predictive management and program reporting tools and techniques which provide visibility into program status and performance measures and metrics;

--"Offeror's ability to manage and execute a FFP performance-based contract”--

Offeror's corporate commitment, corporate policies and procedures to manage and perform on this performance based contract; degree to which the management structure and approach foster an open, performance-based Government-contractor relationship that leverages shared goals and objectives; and partnering approach that enhances confidence credibility and trust

Answer #307: The recommended change to the Section L Instructions to Offerors was considered; Section L, paragraph L8.2.4.3 of the Final RFP for the GSM-O effort will be revised to add the following verbiage:

In sentence #3, insert the following:

“… during the contract life [current text] [add:] “program management processes, including planning, scheduling, risk management, supplier management, proactive decision analysis, protection of intellectual property, and organizational conflict of interest; approach for providing quality management and continuous process improvement with the use of” proactive and and predictive management and program reporting tools and techniques which provide visibility into program status and performance measures and metrics;

[add] “Offeror's ability to manage and execute FFP and other types of performance-based task orders”;.

QUESTION #308: Reference DRFP, M3.3.1, Page 111. Please see following verbiage for recommended updates for the Section M Technical Solution section.

M3.3 Factor 1: Technical/Management.

M3.3.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Solution. The Offeror's proposed technical approach to delivering the PWS requirements using the best practices of framework as outlined in the PWS will be evaluated. This element will be evaluated on the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of how DISA is using the ITIL framework to describe its requirement and the degree to which the vendor includes ITIL or other equivalent framework best practices to deliver DISN services.

--"The evaluation will also consider the degree to which the Offeror's proposal addresses the effectiveness and efficiency of sustainment support of the DISN, an approach for delivering maintenance capabilities seamlessly and efficiently as the DISN evolves to a unified networking infrastructure, and an approach for delivering innovative OA&M technical solutions that improve service delivery, reduce cost, or reduce risk."--

This element will also be evaluated on the degree to which the Offeror's proposal addresses all contractor processes listed in the Operational Architecture, and the degree to which each contractor proposed process fully satisfies the DISN requirement for each process.

ANSWER #308: The recommended change to the Section M Instructions to Offerors was considered; Section M, paragraph M3.3.1 of the Final RFP for the GSM-O effort will be revised to add the following verbiage:

After the second sentence, add “… The evaluation will also consider the degree to which the Offeror's proposal addresses the effectiveness and efficiency of sustainment support of the DISN, an approach for delivering maintenance capabilities seamlessly and efficiently as the DISN evolves to a unified networking infrastructure, and an approach for delivering innovative OA&M technical solutions that improve service delivery, reduce cost, or reduce risk."

NOTE: Reference Section M, Paragraph M.2 Evaluation Factors. The Government has also revised the “relative importance” of the Subfactors under Factor 1-Technical/Management for the GSM-O effort. Subfactor 1-Technical Solution is more important than Subfactor 2-Management Plan, and Subfactor 3-Task Order Approach is less important than Subfactor 2; but more important that Subfactor 4; Transition Plan.

Question #309: Reference DRFP, M3.3.2, Page 111. Please see following verbiage for recommended updates for the Section M Technical Solution section.

M3.3.2 Subfactor 2: Transition Plan. The Offeror's proposed transition approach that transfers the vendor DISN mission from existing contractor and government personnel to the Offeror's solution will be evaluated.

--“The Offeror's proposal will also be evaluated to determine the degree to which the proposed approach allows for a seamless transition from the current T&M contracting environment to a performance-based contract.”--

The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the vendor solution can provide competent support from the vendor's specified transition schedule that minimizes operational impact to existing DISN user services as described in GSM-O PWS subparagraphs 6.2.1, 6.2.2, --" 6.2.6,"--and 6.2.7. A shorter transition time for GSM-O PWS subparagraphs 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 and 6.2.7 will be considered superior to a longer transition period given an otherwise equal approach.

ANSWER #309: The recommended change to the Section M Instructions to Offerors was considered; Section M, paragraph M3.3.2 of the Final RFP for the GSM-O effort will be revised to add the following verbiage:

add as the second sentence “ The Offeror's proposal will also be evaluated to determine the degree to which the proposed approach allows for a seamless transition from the current T&M contracting environment to a performance-based contract."

In the next sentence, add reference to PWS subparagraph “6.2.6” to the other references. Finally, the last sentence beginning: “A shorter transition time …” has been deleted from the subfactor.

Note: See Question/Answer #309 referencing Section M, Paragraph M.2 Evaluation Factors (Relative Order of Importance).

QUESTION #310: Reference DRFP, M3.3.3, Page 111. Please see following verbiage for recommended updates for the Section M Technical Solution section.

3.3.3 Subfactor 3: Management Plan. The Offeror's proposed management approach that shows how the Offeror will administer the contract during the contract period of performance will be evaluated, --"to include planning, scheduling, risk management, cost reduction, quality management, reporting, continuous process improvement, supplier management, decision analysis, protection of intellectual property, and organizational conflict of interest."--

The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the Offeror's management plan provides the capabilities detailed in GSM-O PWS subparagraphs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.

--"The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the vendor provides an efficient approach for managing the program with performance-based firm fixed price elements."—

ANSWER #310: The recommended change to the Section M Instructions to Offerors was considered; Section M, paragraph M3.3.3 of the Final RFP for the GSM-O effort will be revised to add the following verbiage:

The offeror’s proposed management approach that shows how the Offeror will administer the contract during the contract period of performance will be evaluated, --“to include planning, scheduling, risk management, cost reduction, quality management, reporting, continuous process improvement, supplier management, decision analysis, protection of intellectual property, and organizational conflict of interest.”-- The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the Offeror's management plan provides the capabilities detailed in GSM-O PWS subparagraphs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.

--"The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the vendor provides an efficient approach for managing the program with performance-based FFP and other price elements."

NOTE: See Question/Answer #309 referencing Section M, Paragraph M.2 Evaluation Factors (Relative Order of Importance).

QUESTION #311: GSM-O Draft RFP, Page 111, M3.3.1 (Subfactor 1: Technical Solution): Section M, Evaluation Factors, do not require an evaluation of an Offeror’s compliance with applicable Government directives, circulars, or standard operating instructions.

The following paragraph provides a recommended modification to Section M to ensure an evaluation of each Offeror’s compliance with these mandated compliance documents to ensure a level playing field:

“M3.3.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Solution. The Offeror's proposed technical approach to delivering the PWS requirements using the best practices of framework as outlined in the PWS will be evaluated. This element will be evaluated on the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of how DISA is using the ITIL framework to describe its requirement and the degree to which the vendor includes ITIL or other equivalent framework best practices to deliver DISN services. This element will also be evaluated on the degree to which the Offeror's proposal addresses all contractor processes listed in the Operational Architecture, and the degree to which each contractor proposed process fully satisfies the DISN requirement for each process and fully complies with all Directives an d Instructions listed in Appendix B of the GSM-O PWS.” (revised wording in bold italics)

ANSWER #311: Compliance with the directives listed in PWS Appendix B is required. As such, the notion of “degree of compliance” as evidenced in the offeror’s proposal is not anticipated to be a discriminating factor and thus is not called out for separate consideration within Section M subfactors.

QUESTION #312: Reference DRFP, H.12a, Page 44. Please provide a description of the Key Personnel Labor Categories and responsibilities of each (1 - 4).

ANSWER #312: See Question/Answer #225 (Release #2, dated 27 August 2010). Section H, Paragraph H.12a of the Final RFP for the GSM-O effort will be revised to include: “The offeror shall identify those positions or labor categories that it deems to be “Key” from the perspective of being critical to the success of the offeror’s approach and performance.”

QUESTION #313: OSS Program Plan, 4.3, 4-8, While Section 2.4 appears to describe the As-Is architecture of the OSS as of the time of this document's writing (Feb 2008), Section 4.3 describes the then-planned enhancements to this As-Is baseline. In order for the contractor to accurately estimate the GSM-O workscope, it is important to have an understanding of the current up-to-date OSS As-Is baseline. Please provide updated information regarding the progress to-date of the enhancements described in Section 4.3, as well as any other enhancements that may not be described in Sec 4.3

ANSWER #313: Updated information on the OSS tools and management of those tools has been provided on the Controlled CD ROM (as of 01 September 2010).

QUESTION #314: We request the Government provide a response to our draft OCI plan submittal prior to the release of the FRFP, with sufficient time for the contractor to review

ANSWER #314: OCI plans are under review; responses will be provided by the Government as soon as possible, prior to Final RFP release.

QUESTION #315: DRFP, L3. We are resubmitting our question about the current staffing: "Please provide the current DGS staffing levels (full-time equivalents) and labor categories by location as requested at the one-on-one."

In particular, we have the following questions:

1) The CD-ROM provides current contractor staffing levels for Scott (DISA CONUS), HI (DISA PAC), Tampa/Bahrain (DISA CENT), and Stuttgart (DISA EUR). However, the PWS states that GSM-O contractors will support DISA HQ and possibly other locations as well. What current contractor staffing levels are at these other locations?

2) Are the contractor staffing levels provided for the four locations in the CD-ROM reflective of future GSM-O scope, as opposed to future ETI/P&S or other contract scope?

3) If not, can your provide the approximate percentages for each location performing work consistent with future GSM-O scope

4) If there are additional locations, please provide these additional locations and the current contractor

ANSWER #315: As a historical reference only, there are currently approximately 1500 contractor FTEs supporting the DGS contract at locations in CONUS and OCONUS. At this time, we anticipate approximately 51% of the overall GSM Acquisition of Services to be directed to GSM-O, 23% to GSM-ETI, and 26% to GSM-P&S. Today, the rough distribution of contractor FTEs to DISA locations is:

DISA PAC 165

DIS EUR 155

DISA CONUS 550

DISA CENTCOM 95 (split btwn CONUS/OCONUS)

NCR Support 500

Columbus 30

Offerors are reminded that because the DGS labor approach is being revised to use performance-based execution, past/current contracting staffing levels may not be indicative of the total effort that will be needed to execute under the new approach. Any staffing data that has been provided as GFI was only provided as historical information, and describes the "as-is" and not necessarily the "will-be." See Question/Answer #293.

As another critical historical data point, current DGS task order descriptions have been provided on the Controlled CD ROM, as of 1 September 2010.

QUESTION #316: DRFP Section H, 52.204-9201 In reference to the Government Q&A #108, we have a follow-up question: Question #108: Does the Government require that all personnel working on the resulting GSM-O have a SECRET clearance (at a minimum)?

Answer #108: The GSM-O Contractor shall provide personnel who have the appropriate clearance levels as specified in the contract; to include all attachments to the contract (i.e., DD 254). Please provide an estimate of the percentage of personnel that will require a TS clearance. Similarly, please provide an estimate of the percentage of personnel that will require a TS/SCI clearance. If the answer is location dependent, please provide by location.

ANSWER #316:As a historical reference only, today on the DGS contract – the clearance level breakout is 57% TS, 35% S, and 8% TS/SCI

QUESTION #317: DRFP, L8.4.3 We have the following questions regarding maintenance/warranty:

a. We recommend that the final RFP the Government remove the requirements for pricing maintenance/warranties in Task Order GSM-O-02 since the maintenance and warranty agreements have already been established between the incumbent and the vendors, providing an unfair competitive advantage.

b. If the Government does not remove the requirements in TO-2 for maintenance/warranty pricing, we request that the Government provide the contents of the file "maintenance agreement_052010.xlsm" in an unclassified format to assist in the development of an unclassified proposal.

c. In addition, if the Government does not remove the requirements in TO-2 for maintenance/warranty pricing, do all of the maintenance agreements need to be priced for all 7 years? If so, will additional proposal instructions be provided? For example, does the Government want to see the priced bill-of-materials or is a bottom-line price for the task orders sufficient? Will end-of-life info be provided for each SW/HW line item? Currently in the DRFP, thre is not any guidance on how th epurcahse content is to be provided inour cost volume. Please proivde.

ANSWER 317:

317(a) The warranty agreements must be renewed annually and will be a GSM-O contractor responsibility as described in Task Order #2. The prices for the agreements are to be included within the total price.

317(b) The file referenced here is classified (per Security Classification Guide(s) 300-110-3, and 300-115-3 provided on the Controlled CD ROM). However, a second file (minus specific location data) titled “equipment maintenance example data” has been provided on the FOUO disk, which will be available for distribution on 27 September 2010.

317(c) The Government asks that vendors provide their best estimates for 7 year pricing on maintenance and warrantees. The Government will address task order pricing in Section M of the the Final RFP for the GSM-O effort.

QUESTION #318: Ref: PWS 4.3a (6). The GSM-O PWS references the annual development of a Transition-Out plan to assist the Government in planning for the next contract following GSM-O. Similarly, to assist a smooth transition from DGS to GSM-O, please provide the latest Transition-Out Plan for DGS.

ANSWER #318: A Transition-Out Plan for the DGS is not available.

QUESTION #319: PWS, 6.2.4b (1). The term "server" is somewhat ambiguous as it may be interpreted to mean the servers hosting the OSS applications in the DECC. We assume that DECC infrastructure is outside the scope of GSM-O, please clarify.

ANSWER #319: See Question/Answer #302. Physical devices located within the DECCs are not within GSM-O contractor maintenance responsibility. Software (OSS etc) on such servers is subject to GSM-O support.

QUESTION #320: PWS, 6.2.4b (2). Please clarify that the "Operational LAN Support" task applies to those LANs supporting the OSS in the GNSC and TNCs and not the related OSS infrastructure in the DECCs

ANSWER #320: See #302. Physical devices located within the DECCs are not within GSM-O contractor maintenance responsibility. Software (OSS etc) on such servers is subject to GSM-O support.

QUESTION #321: PWS, 6.3.2. At the DISA Customer/Industry Partnership conference, the initial rollout of NCCM prior to GSM-O contract start was discussed. In order to fairly assess the scope and level of effort of the PWS Configuration Management task, please provide supplemental documentation on the architecture and implementation details of NCCM

ANSWER #321: Offerors are required to bid against the GFI data provided with the RFP. Conference briefing information regarding future OSS capabilities was for context only; data pertaining to the NCCM is not in the current OSS GFI.

QUESTION #322: PWS, 6.3.1. With the recent organizational changes, does the JTF-GNO language still apply? Also- please clarify the reference to DCC- is it the Document Control Center as stated, or the DISA Command Center.

ANSWER #322: We have added PWS paragraph 3.1h stating "h. Due to changes in the organization of DoD announced in August 2010, specific titles (e.g. Commander JTF-GNO, etc) are subject to change. Such titles shall be interpreted as meaning, 'or the successor to this office if applicable'." The acronym DCC definition in the PWS appendix now has two meanings, to include DISA Command Center in addition to Document Control Center.

QUESTION #323: PWS, 7.2 and 7.4. In order to fairly assess the scope and level of effort of the CND Detect and CND Sustain tasks, Please provide supplemental documentation on the details of the CND infrastructure relevant to these tasks, including architecture and SOPs.

ANSWER #323: Net Assurance tasks (to include CND) have been removed from GSM-O Task Orders 01 and 02. Descriptions of this work will remain in the PWS as a placeholder for potential future work.

QUESTION #324: PWS 9.1 - 9.4. The description of each User Selected service does not provide adequate context to assess the scope. Please provide additional text or additional reference material that describes each service in more detail.

ANSWER #324: These are placeholders for possible future tasks. Section L requires that offerors address PWS 9.1 thru 9.4 in the technical proposal.

QUESTION #325: Please provide a list of all Government attendees who attended the GSM-O One-on-One session held on 8 July 2010

ANSWER #325: The information will be provided to the requestor via separate email.

QUESTION #326: QASP, Metric Table 1, 4.2 Security Requirements. Contractor shall adhere to security policies and procedures to minimize classified “spillage” incidents. Please clarify that "credit" should be replaced with "penalty"

ANSWER #326: In PWS ALP row 1, the word “credit” has been replaced by the word “penalty”.

QUESTION #327: QASP. Metric Table 2. 4.2 Security Requirements. Implement security measures with minimum incidents. Please provide further clarification on what types of incidents are measured by this metric. Per JP 1-02, an "incident" is any event of attempted entry, attack, etc., on an automated information system. Presumably that is not what is being addressed here

ANSWER #327: A security-related incident is any action that violates an established security regulation or policy that requires a specific response to determine the level and scope of security breach and includes mitigation actions to eliminate/minimize the impact. The context of PWS 4.2 includes information security, document security, network security, AIS security, physical security of facilities and equipment, personnel security clearance and access policies, and comparable areas where Government security policies are operative.

QUESTION #328: QASP, Metric Table 4, 4.5a Business-Related Metrics. Business related activities as measured by business metrics should show improvement.

a) What business metrics, if any, are maintained today?

b) Please provide the performance against those business metrics (if any) over the last 12 months, by month. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available

ANSWER #328: As provided in a previous response, the current DGS environment does not include business metrics as described in the PWS. The Government's intent is for the offeror to propose its best commercial practices to help the Government improve the quality of GSM execution from a business perspective.

QUESTION #329: QASP, Metric Table 6. 6a Network Operation, Maintenance, Administration. Upon Government direction, execute roll-back actions effectively to ensure that a former state can be reinstated, per planning data.

a) Please provide the performance against this metric over the last 12 months, by month. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available

b) Is GSM-O contractor responsible to develop roll-back plan or will this come from ET&I contactor? Or from either, depending on scope?

ANSWER 329:

a) There have been zero roll-back actions in more than the past 12 months.

b) The GSM-O contractor is responsible for planning, and being prepared to execute, the actions needed to accomplish the effect of roll-back in each situation where such action might be needed. There is a comparable requirement in the GSM-ETI SOO, and where the ETI contractor is doing something, the ETI contractor's planning will probably have to include coordination with the GSM-O contractor given that the focus of the requirement is on the installed infrastructure prior to the beginning of the action being performed.

QUESTION #330: QASP, Metric Table 7, 6.1.2a(2) Other than Standard Actions. Seamless and efficient process to allow Non-standard change orders processed and service available with a target of providing proposed solutions within 24 hours of receipt of an approved validated request(s).

a) Please provide the performance against this metric over the last 12 months, by month. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available

b) A non-standard order could take on unbounded scope and thus 24 hours cannot be met in all cases. Recommend deletion of this metric due to inability to quantify, or modification of metric to apply to "mutually agreed-upon non-standard change"

ANSWER 330:

a) PWS Table 1 is a new model; DGS data to illustrate how it would have been used in the past is not available.

b) ALP row 7 has been revised to remove the time metric, recognizing your comment.

In lieu of historical activity counts, the government is providing historical staffing data at major facilities. See Questions/Answers #293 and #315.

QUESTION #331: QASP Metric Table 8, 6.2.1a Order Processing & Request Fulfillment, Customer Support and Validation. Seamless and efficient process to allow customer orders processed and service available within a maximum of 21 days, to meet the requirements of the DISN Service Level Agreement (SLA). Note: if a circuit requires C&A or crypto actions by user, vendor is not responsible for that time period

a) Based on sample metrics provided at the DISA partnership conference, these values (e.g. 7 days, 14 days, etc) appear much more stringent than the current performance DISA is experiencing. Please clarify.

b) Please clarify what is the DISN SLA that is referred to.

c) The phrase "when only additional DISA provider edge access" is unclear, please clarify/complete the sentence.

d) Please clarify the scope of the customer orders measured by this metric - are they solely for new/modified circuit requests, or would other potential user services be covered here?

e) Please provide the performance against this metric over the last 12 months, by month. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available. In particular, please provide the following:

* Number of service requests for both new and change classified and unclassified connections

* Average length of time from DDOE Service Request to Activation for each area

* Average time from Connection Approval Request initiation to obtaining Connection Approval.

Please provide these statistics by theater:

* Intra-theater CONUS only

* Intra-theater Europe only

* Intra-theater Pacific only

* Intra-theater South West Asia (SWA) only

* Inter-theater between CONUS & Europe

* Inter-theater between CONUS & Pacific

* Inter-theater between CONUS & SWA

ANSWER #331: (Reference to Question/Answer #70, Release #1, 9 August 2010).

a) The GSM-O standard is as stated in the ALP.

b) ALP row 8 has been revised in the Objective column to state " Seamless and efficient processing of customer orders. Note: if a circuit requires C&A or crypto actions by user, Contractor is not responsible for that time period." The DISN SLA is a document provided as GFI.

c) The phrase "when added DISA provider edge access is needed" refers to a situation where a third-party provided circuit is involved.

d) In the ITIL functional context, PWS 6.2.1a includes capabilities beyond mere circuits per se. e) Performance data pertaining to customer fulfillment (aka provisioning) actions: see Question/Answer #293. The Government is compiling provisioning data for a period of up 36 months. We expect to have this data on the Controlled CD-ROM that goes out with, or prior to, the Final RFP. In addition, to assist in scoping the potential work the Government is providing historical staffing data at major facilities. See Question/Answer #315.

QUESTION #332: QASP, Metric Table 9, 6.2.1a Order Processing & Request Fulfillment, Customer Request Processing. Maximize availability of the order entry system to customers.

a) Please provide the performance against this metric over the last 12 months, by month. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available

b) Please provide the projected order entry system availability at contract start (May 2011)

c) Is the selection of (future) order entry system applications under the control of GSM-O? If not, recommend excluding failures due to software from the order entry system availability metric assigned to GSM-O

ANSWER #332: See Question/Answer #293.

a) The Government has collected provisioning data for a period of up 36 months, and this data will be on the Controlled CD-ROM that goes out with, or prior to, the Final RFP.

b & c) Future capabilities will be described to the contract awardee at time of award. Proposals are to be prepared in response to the data included with the Final RFP.

Note: In lieu of historical activity counts, the Government is providing historical staffing data at major facilities. See Question/Answer #315.

QUESTION #333: QASP, Metric Table 11. 6.2.2 Trouble Management, Help Desk Support. Within 90 days of contract, achieve and maintain established service levels for First-call resolution rate, Call Abandonment Rate, Average Answer Delay, and Customer Satisfaction.

a) Please provide the performance against these four metrics over the last 12 months, by month. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available.

b) Is Customer Satisfaction a subjective rating or based on results of online surveys?

c) Is Automatic call distribution (ACD) in place and applicable metrics recorded?

d) Recommend separating into four individual QASP metrics in order to levy incentives/penalties per metric.

ANSWER #333: In the current DGS environment the specific metric noted in this question is not currently operative, and is not a requirement in current task orders. Data associated with performance under this metric has not been collected to date and does not currently exist.

a) Trouble Ticket data on the Controlled CD-ROM is the best available.

c) A full "ACD" capability is now in use to distribute calls.

d) The Government's intent is that the incentive would be earned only if each of the four parts is exceeded, thus a combination metric.

In lieu of historical activity counts, the Government is providing historical staffing data at major facilities. See Question/Answer #315.

QUESTION #334: QASP, Metric Table 12 6.2.2 Trouble Management, Alarm Surveillance/ Reporting. Alarm Surveillance: Document trouble events that are projected to require labor expenditure. Please provide the performance against this metric over the last 12 months, by month. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available

ANSWER #334: Trouble Ticket data on the Controlled CD-ROM is the best available. In the current DGS environment the specific metric noted in this question is not currently operative, and is not a requirement in current task orders. Data associated with performance under this metric has not been collected to date and does not currently exist.

In lieu of historical activity counts, the Government is providing historical staffing data at major facilities. See Question/Answer #315.

QUESTION #335: QASP, Metric Table 13, 6.2.2 Trouble Management, Alarm Surveillance/ Reporting. Data in trouble ticket to be accurate. Please provide the performance against this metric over the last 12 months, by month. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available

ANSWER #335: Trouble Ticket data on the Controlled CD-ROM is the best available. In the current DGS environment the specific metric noted in this question is not currently operative, and is not a requirement in current task orders. Data associated with performance under this metric has not been collected to date and does not currently exist.

In lieu of historical activity counts, the Government is providing historical staffing data at major facilities. See Question/Answer #315.

QUESTION #336: QASP, Metric Table 14, 6.2.2 Trouble Management, Alarm Surveillance/ Reporting. Provide timely, accurate and relevant incident management documentation. This includes description of incident, root cause of incident, current status/actions to resolve and final corrective action(s) (if known).

a) Please provide the performance against this metric over the last 12 months, by month and by network/theater. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available

b) The 15 min limit does not provide adequate time for initial root cause analysis. Recommend revised text: "Open TMS tickets within 15 minutes of network alarm or reported incident/event. Initial ticket shall include description of incident at a minimum. Update trouble ticket within 15 minutes of a change in status/actions to resolve"

ANSWER #336: In the current DGS environment the specific metric noted in this question is not currently operative, and is not a requirement in current task orders. Data associated with performance under this metric has not been collected to date and does not currently exist.

a) Trouble Ticket data on the Controlled CD-ROM is the best available.

b) ALP row 14 has been revised. It should be clearly understood that "notification of an issue" timeline does not imply the need for providing 'root cause analysis'. It merely identifies the requirement to 'notify' that there "IS" a problem/issue.

In lieu of historical activity counts, the Government is providing historical staffing data at major facilities. See Question/Answer #315.

QUESTION #337: QASP, Metric Table 15, 6.2.2 Trouble Management, Alarm Surveillance/ Reporting. Reporting: The Contractor’s staff will utilize GSM-OSS tools to immediately notify Government representatives of identified incidents.

a) Please provide the performance against this metric over the last 12 months, by month. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available

b) Please clarify which GFI document contains the reporting criteria

c) "Immediately" is difficult to assess- recommend revised text: "The Contractor’s staff will utilize GSM-OSS tools to notify Government representatives within 15 minutes of identifying an incident and opening a TMS ticket"

ANSWER #337: In the current DGS environment the specific metric noted in this question is not currently operative, and is not a requirement in current task orders. Data associated with performance under this metric has not been collected to date and does not currently exist.

a) Trouble Ticket data on the Controlled CD-ROM is the best available.

b) The ALP cell in row 15 has been revised to state, "In accordance with GFI “CCIR” reporting criteria."

c) The Objective cell has been revised to state, "Reporting: The Contractor’s staff will utilize GSM-OSS tools to notify Government representatives of identified incidents IAW guidelines outlined in GFI CCIR's after identifying an incident and opening a TMS ticket."

In lieu of historical activity counts, the Government is providing historical staffing data at major facilities. See Question/Answer #315.

QUESTION #338: QASP, Metric Table 16, 6.2.2 Trouble Management, Alarm Surveillance/ Reporting. When fault analysis isolation confirms that the trouble is attributable to infrastructure under GSM-O control: Restore failed services promptly.

a) Please provide the performance against this metric over the last 12 months, by month and by network/theater. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available

b) Does the current OSS provide a clear indication of all failed services affected by a given fault?

c) We recommend that travel time be excluded from the acceptable level of performance timelines

ANSWER #338: In the current DGS environment the specific metric noted in this question is not currently operative, and is not a requirement in current task orders. Data associated with performance under this metric has not been collected to date and does not currently exist.

a) Trouble Ticket data on the Controlled CD-ROM is the best available.

b) OSS capabilities are described in GFI and are being improved continuously. At present OSS does not provide clear indication of all failed services affected by a given fault.

c) The metric stands as stated for now, because the Government cannot anticipate what the offeror’s approach for responding might be. When the GSM-O contract is awarded, the awardee can offer/negotiate an alternative for the ALP during the CIR (see PWS 5.1).

In lieu of historical activity counts, the Government is providing historical staffing data at major facilities. See Question/Answer #315.

QUESTION #339: QASP, Metric Table 17, 6.2.2 Trouble Management, Alarm Surveillance/ Reporting. When fault analysis isolation confirms that the trouble is attributable to infrastructure not under GSM-O control: Coordinate with Government to ensure applicable provider responds IAW applicable SLA. Please provide the performance against this metric over the last 12 months, by month and by network/theater. If 12 months of data is not available, please provide as much data as is available

ANSWER #339: In the current DGS environment the specific metric noted in this question is not currently operative, and is not a requirement in current task orders. Trouble Ticket data on the Controlled CD-ROM is the best available. This metric is not currently in effect, thus no direct data available pertaining to it.

In lieu of historical activity counts, the Government is providing historical staffing data at major facilities. See Question/Answer #315.

QUESTION #340: QASP, Metric Table 18, 6.2.3 Configuration Management (CM): Configuration Management Database (CMDB) Accuracy. Show positive quarterly trends in the accuracy of existing configuration data-base items.

a) Please provide the current CMDB accuracy estimate.

b) Please provide the projected CMDB accuracy estimate at contract start (May 2011), based on the planned activation of Network Change and Configuration Management (NCCM) system in Aug 2010.

ANSWER #340: In the current DGS environment the specific metric noted in this question is not currently operative, and is not a…