FRFP QUESTIONS - Release 1- 1-43.pdf

QUESTION #

ANSWER #

POSTED

DATE/

Amend #

FRFP 1. L.7.1 States: "The offerors company name/information shall be reflected only on the title page of the offeror's proposal." Does this resriction apply to offeror responses to Section L.8.2.4.4 Management Plan, for example, that requires the offeror to describe the organizational structure of the company and /or team; Organizational structure (including teaming agreements, subcontractor managment, etc.)? This restriction prevents an offeror's opportunity to present it's approach for the accomplishment of the program through the capability and capacity of it's team, throughout the proposal.

Recommend the Government remove this restriction.

FRFP 1. Section L7.1 has been revised to reflect that the offeror‟s company name may appear on all pages of Volumes I, III and V; however, the offeror‟s company name, watermarks, legends, etc., shall appear only on the first page of Volume II and

Volume IV.

Amend

FRFP 2. Background: The RFP provides instructions for Volume II Part B

(Technical Solution) and its evaluation with three different PWS reference lists:

* RFP Section L7.1 defines the scope of Volume II Part B to include PWS 3, 4.1

- 4.5, 5.1 - 5.4, 6.1 - 6.2.8, 6.3, 6.4, and 7

* RFP Section L8.2.4.1 defines references for Volume II Part B to include: 5.1 -

5.4, 6.1 - 6.2.8, 7

* RFP Section M3.3.1 provides a list of PWS sections as follows: 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4a, 6.2.4b, 6.2.5a, 6.2.6a, 7.

Furthermore, L8.2.4.2 requires a "concise description of how the offeror plans to implement the efforts described in the GSM-O Performance Work Statement

(PWS)". This would appear to imply all sections of the PWS

Question/comment: The PWS sections relevant to Volume II Part B and its

FRFP 2. The Government‟s intent is that the offeror‟s proposal must address PWS 3-7 only. PWS requirements 8-10 are future options that are not required to be addressed by the proposal.

Therefore RFP paragraph L5.A is reworded to state, “The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)

(excluding paragraphs 8-10 which are requirements for future task orders at the Government‟s discretion), Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) and Section

H Special Contract Requirements.”

Table L7.1 column 2 (RFP Para Ref) is revised as follows: Part B scope is “PWS paragraph 3 with all subparagraphs thereto; paragraphs 6.1 through 6.2.8;

Amend evaluation appear to conflict

Remedy: Update sections L7.1, L8.2.4.1, and M3.3.1 to identify the following sections as relevant: PWS 6.1, 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.2.6, 6.2.7, 6.2.8, 7.1 - 7.4, 8, 9.1-9.4, 10.1-10.4

Rationale: Focuses the Technical Solution on the technical requirements of the

PWS, with PWS Management (Sec 4) and Transition (Sec 5) Requirements covered by Volume II Parts D and E respectively. Also incorporates future task orders to provide the Government with full visibility into the bidder's offer and capabilities paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4; and paragraph 7 with all subparagraphs thereto.”

FRFP 3. Background: PWS 6.2.2a (1) has been changed from "Help Desk

Support" to "Operational Help Desk support". The requirement has changed from providing helpdesk support that "Serves as the Single Point of Contact

(SPOC) for the DISN customers and users" to helpdesk support that "Serves as the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for the DISN customers and users to report operational, but not informational, problems."

Question/comment: Does this change indicate that the DCCC is within scope of

GSM-O, but that any information requests to the DCCC are not in scope (e.g. the

~83,260 requests described at the GNSC site visit on 03 Dec 2010). Or, does this change indicate that the DCCC is not within scope of GSM-O. Note that the

Operational Architecture Sec 2.2.2.2 refers to the DCCC.

Remedy: If DCCC is within scope, please update RFP Task Order 1 Appendix

B.3 to include the DCCC location. If it is not within scope, please remove from the OA.

Rationale: Clarification required to ensure proper scope

FRFP 3. There are multiple functions that occur at the DISA Columbus location that are not within the scope of GSM-O. Currently, the only fuction that needs to be considered in vendor proposals is what occurs on the help desk. The Term DCCC is removed from the OA node tree description document, paragraph 2.2.2.2.

FRFP 4. Background: It appears the QCP has been removed as a separate section with a 15 page allocation and has now been included in Part D -

Management Plan

Question/comment: Volume II Part D Management Plan has retained its 50 page allocation and does not provide an increased allocation to accomodate the QCP

Remedy: We recommend increasing the page allocation for Vol II Part D

Management Plan from 50 pages to 65 pages to allow for a complete QCP

Rationale: Ensures the Government is provided a detailed QCP to assess

FRFP 4. Reference Table L7.1, Volume II, Part D –

Management Plan. The page limitation is revised to reflect 65 pages.

FRFP 5. Request that FAR 52.215-6 "Facilities Capital Cost of Money (JUN

2003)" be incorporated in Section I.

FRFP 5. FAR Clause 52.215-16 “Facilities Capital

Cost of Money” will be added to the solicitation. FAR

52.215-6 is not the correct reference for the Facilities

Capital Cost of Money clause.

Amend

FRFP 6. DFAR 252.215-7003 "Excess Pass-Through Charges-Identification of

Subcontract Effort (MAY 2008)' and 52.215-7004 "Excessive Pass-Through

Charges (MAY 2008)" cannot be found in current edition of DFARS where the noted clauses are noted as "Reserved". Recommend these clauses be deleted from Section I.

FRFP 6. DFARS Clause 252.215-7003 “Excess

Pass-Through Charges-Identification of Subcontractor

Effort” and DFARS Clause 252.215-7004 “Excessive

Pass-Through Charges” will be deleted from Section I of RFP #HC1028-10-R-2000.

Amend

FRFP 7. DFAR 252.225-7023 "Preference for Products or Services from Iraq or Afghanistan (APR 2010)" and 252.225-7004 "Requirement for Products or

Services from Iraq or Afghanistan (APR 2010)" are identified in Section K.

However, the answer to Question 381 of the Matrix of GSMO Ques-Answers posted on FedBizOps file indicates they do not apply to this solicitation and would be deleted in the final RFP. Is it the Government's intention to still delete these clauses?

FRFP 7. DFARS Clause 252.225-7023 “Preference for Products or Services from Iraq or Afghanistan” and DFARS Clasue 252.225-7024 “Requirement for

Products or Servcies from Iraq or Afghanistan” will be deleted from Section K of RFP# HC1028-10-R-2000.

FRFP 8. Volume IV Part A Introduction is limited to 5 pages. To adequately provide the information requested in L8.4.3.1 and subparagraphs will require more than 5 pages. Request that the page limitation be removed from Volume

IV Part A.

FRFP 8. The page limitiation for Volume IV – Part A will be changed to reflect “No limit”.

Amend

FRFP 9. Volume IV Part D Other Information is limited to 1 page. To adequately provide the information requested in L8.4.5 and subparagraphs will require more than 1 page. Request that the page limitation be removed from

Volume IV Part D.

FRFP 9. The page limitation for Volume IV – Part D will be changed to reflect “No limit”.

FRFP 10. The Small Business Plan is limited to 20 pages, request that the page limitation be removed.

FRFP 10. The page limitation for Volume V – Part E will be changed to reflect “No limit”.

FRFP 11. Section L 8.4.3.2.2.3 states that the start date for the TO 2 repair/maintenance activities and maintenance agreements is 01 October 2011, Attachment 01 PWS Paragraph 6a states January 2012, and Attachment 07 PWS

Paragraph 5c states January 2013. For pricing purposes, please de-conflict the start date for the TO 2 repair/maintenance activities and

FRFP 11. Dates in PWS and the TOs are now consistent.

TO-2 will be issued by the Government at a date after award; the first activity of TO-2 is to establish the set of 70 maintenance agreements, all of which are to become operative in January of the next year so there will be no gap in coverage by agreements, all of which expire in January. See TO-2 task 6.1.

Amend

FRFP 12. L.8.5.4.1 lists the DISA subcontracting goals, however L.8.5.4 requests dollars and percentages as an expression of total contract value. Should the Small Business Plan be written to Total Subcontract Value or Total Contract

Value?

FRFP 12. Section L, Paragraph L8.5.4 addresses the

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation

Proposal. In accordance with FAR 52.219-24, each offeror must provide, with its offer, targets expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract value, for

SDB participation.

Section L, Paragraph L8.5.4.1 adresses the Small

Business Subcontracting Plan which is to be submitted in accordance with FAR 52.219-9; which requires goals be expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns as subcontractors.

FRFP 13. In L.8.5.4.1, the Government indicates that "Credit for work performed by 2nd Tier Small-Business Subcontractors will be granted to the

GSM-O Prime contractor". Please confirm that small businesses employed by a

Prime contractor's first tier subcontractors can be included in calculating the small business percentages for the Prime contractor.

FRFP 13. The final solicitation for the GSM-

Operations requirement (HC1028-10-R-2000) correctly reflects that “credit for work performed by nd

Tier Small-Business Subcontractors will be granted to the GSM-O Prime contractor.

FRFP 14. M3.6 states “At a minimum, the offeror describes its planned use of initiatives for development of new sources of services required by this solicitation and the initiative to identify and use small businesses such as small disadvantaged businesses (includes historically black college or university, minority institutions), woman-owned small businesses, HUBZone businesses, and service disabled veteran-owned small businesses which have the capabilities to satisfy requirements of this contract.” Public Law 10 ISC 2323 gave the authority to count HBCU/MI as small and small disadvantaged businesses. It expired September 30, 2009. DFARS 219.704 and 215.304 have not updated since the law expired. Please revise M3.6 to remove HBCU/MI as a socio

FRFP 14. Paragraph M3.6 will be revised to delete

“(includes historically black college or university, minority institutions)”.

economic category.

FRFP 15. Paragraph 6.2.4 in Attachment 01, PWS is inconsistent with

Paragraph 6.2.4 in Attachment 06, Task Order 01, Appendix E PWS. For example, in Attachment 01, PWS Paragraph 6.2.4b(6) is GSM-OSS Enclave

Security; and Attachment 06, Task Order 01 Appendix E PWS Paragraph

6.2.4b(6) is GSM-OSS COOP. Please update Attachment 06, Task Order 01, Appendix E PWS to match Attachment 01 PWS.

FRFP 15. TO-1 Appendix E has been corrected to be c onsistent with the same material in the PWS

Amend

FRFP 16. Paragraph 6.2.4 in Attachment 01, PWS is inconsistent with

Paragraph 6.2.4 in Attachment 07, Task Order 02, Appendix E PWS. For example, in Attachment 01, PWS Paragraph 6.2.4b(4) is GSM-OSS Baseline;

and Attachment 07, Task Order 02, Appendix E PWS Paragraph 6.2.4b(4) is

GSM-OSS Maintenance Support. Please update Attachment 07, Task Order 02, Appendix E PWS to match Attachment 01 PWS.

FRFP 16. TO-2 Appendix E has been corrected to be consistent with the same material in the PWS

FRFP 17. Request that DFAR clause 252.219-7004 (Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (Test Program)) be added to the solicitation.

FRFP 17. DFARS Clause 252.219-7004 “Small

Business Subcontracting (Test Program) will be included in Section I of RFP HC1028-10-R-2000.

However, if the company is participating in the Small

Business Subcontrcting Program and has an approved plan, the approved plan must be submitted with the offeror‟s proposal or earlier.

Amend

FRFP 18. T The tables in H.37 (Incentive Fee Plan) map the ALPs to each of the five Task Orders by PWS Area. In some cases, that mapping is inconsistent with the Draft QASP tables provided as Appendix I in RFP Attachment 6 (Task

Order 1), Attachment 7 (Task Order 2), and Attachment 8 (Task Order 3):

TO-1 Draft QASP (Att 6, App I) - ALPs 21 and 22 are not included, but H.37

FRFP 18. The PWS table of ALPs has been reviewed and the mapping of ALPs into the TOs corrected as shown in revised TO-1, TO-2, and TO-3. Based upon this mapping, H.37 Tables 1 and 2 have been corrected to be consistent with the TOs.

The Government reviewed PWS Appendix C and all identifies them as TO-1

TO-2 Draft QASP (Att 7, App I) - ALPs 6, 21, 22, and 47 are included, but

H.37 identifies them as TO-1 (not TO-2)

TO-3 Draft QASP (Att 7, App I) - ALP 47 is included, but it seems to be a TO-1

ALP

Please clarify.

ALPs now have a Blue range. ALPs 1, 30, 33, 34, and

35 have been revised to provide a performance Blue range.

The PWS table of ALPs has been reviewed and the mapping of ALPs into the TOs corrected as shown in revised TO-1, TO-2, and TO-3. Based upon this mapping, H.37 Tables 1 and 2 have been corrected to be consistent with the TOs.

Files affected by these changes are as follows:

PWS Appendix C rows 1, 30, 33, 34, and 35.

QASP Table of ALPs rows 1, 30, 33, 34, and 35.

In TO-1: ALPs table in Appendix I, rows 1.

In TO-2: ALPs table in Appendix I, rows 1,2,3,4.

In TO-3: ALPs table in Appendix I, rows 1, 2,3,4, 30, 33, 34, and 35.

RFP Section H.37 tables 1 and 2.

FRFP 19. The Incentive Fee Plan defined in clause H.37 requires the

Contractor to achieve a Blue performance rating for every ALP associated with a task order's PWS area in order to receive the 5% incentive fee associated with that PWS area. The PWS and QASP identify five ALPs (1, 30, 33, 34, 35) for which a Blue rating is defined as Not Applicable (i.e., the highest attainable rating is Green). As a result, it is impossible for the Contractor to receive an incentive for TO-1 Admin/Security (5% of the TO-1 pool), TO-3 CND-Protect

FRFP 19. See answer FRFP 18

(25% of the TO-3 pool), and TO-3 CND-Sustain (25% of the TO-3 pool). We recommend that H.37 be clarified to allow a monthly incentive fee for a task order PWS area if all of the ALPs for that area are Blue or Green, with at least one of the ALPs in that area rated Blue.

FRFP 20. The Incentive Fee Plan defined in clause H.37 requires the

Contractor to provide monthly metrics data to the Government QARs (quality assurance reviewers) for each ALP to enable the QARs to determine the monthly performance rating for each ALP. The RFP does not define the mechanism/document to be used to provide that data to the QARs. Does the

Government envision this monthly data submittal to be a formal document such as a CDRL, or is a less formal mechanism satisfactory?

FRFP 20. RFP Section H.37 paragraph 4 will be revised to add, “Content and procedures detailing how the Contractor collects and forwards this data to the

Government will be as described in the final approved

QCP, and will also be attached as a separate appendix to CDRL A005 Quarterly Program Review.”

Amend

FRFP 21. Task Order 1 states that "It is anticipated by the Government that this

GSM-O TO will have been issued to the new GSM-O Contractor at a date during mid-2012". RFP Section L8.4.3.2.2.3 indicates that Task Order 1 starts on 01 Oct 2011. Please de-conflict.

FRFP 21. Wording in PWS paragraph 6a and in

TO-1 has been revised.

Amend

FRFP 22. References: RFP Attachment 1, GSM-O Performance Work

Statement, Paragraph 6.2.4.b(4), (6) and (7) (Page 22); and, RFP Attachment 6, GSM-O Task Order 01, Appendix E, Paragraph 6.2.4.b (Pages E-14 thru E-16).

Question/Comment: The referenced requirements for “Support to Network

Operations Centers and Operational Support Systems (OSS)” do not correspond.

Can we assume that the requirements in Attachment 1, GSM-O PWS are the requirements to be addressed in our response to Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2, Task Order 1?

FRFP 22. Wording in PWS paragraph 6a and in

TO-1 has been revised.

Amend

FRFP 23. References: RFP Attachment 1, GSM-O Performance Work

Statement, Paragraph 6.2.4.b(4) (Page 22); and, RFP Attachment 7, GSM-O

FRFP 23. See Question/Answer FRFP #16 Amend

Task Order 02, Appendix E, Paragraph 6.2.4.b (Pages E-6 thru E-7).

Question/Comment: The referenced requirements for “Support to Network

Operations Centers and Operational Support Systems (OSS)” do not correspond.

Can we assume that the requirements in Attachment 1, GSM-O PWS are the requirements to be addressed in our response to Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2, Task Order 2?

FRFP 24. Reference: RFP, Section H, Paragraph H.37 Paragraph 5 (Page 91)

Question/Comment: The referenced paragraph states, “At the beginning of each

12-month period, to the extent that funding is available and options are exercised, funding will be applied to the Incentive Fee CLIN.” Can we assume that the appropriate incentive fee CLINs are applicable to all task orders exercised within a given contract period, and that funding for the incentive fee

CLINs will be commensurate with the task order values of the exercised tasks?

FRFP 24. Each task order will include the appropriate incentive fee ALPs. CLIN 0006 –

Incentive Fee will be included in the appropriate task orders and will be used for invoice/billing purposes.

Funding for the incentive fee CLINs will be commensurate with the total task order value.

FRFP 25. Reference: RFP Section L7.1 (Page 146), The RFP reference states, "The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization

Table (Table L7.1 below). The offeror„s company name/information shall be reflected only on the title page of the offeror„s proposal. The remaining pages 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. The remaining pages 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."

Question/Comment: Is it the Government's intent that the offeror's company name should not appear on any portion of the proposal other than the title page?

If so, does this restriction apply to all proposal volumes or Volumes I and II

FRFP 25. See Question/Answer FRFP #1. Amend only? If the restriction applies to all volumes, this appears to create conflicts in the required information for some of the proposal volumes that will require clarification of the RFP instructions (e.g., Volumes III Attachment 9, where company names are required; Volume IV and V, where company names are required).

FRFP 26. References: RFP, Section L, Paragraph L5.A (Page 145); RFP, Section L, Paragraph L7.1, Table L7.1 (Page 146); and, RFP, Section L, Paragraph L8.2.4.2 (Page 154); RFP, Attachment 1, Performance Work

Statement, Paragraphs 8 through 10 (inclusive) (Pages 33-36)

Question/Comment: Referenced Table L7.1 and L8.2.4.2 do not include any reference to PWS Paragraphs 8 through 10, while L5.A states, “The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement

(PWS)…” Can we assume that the PWS paragraphs 8 through 10 were inadvertently left out of the Table L7.1 and L8.2.4.2 instructions and should be addressed in our Subfactor 1 Technical Solution proposal response?

FRFP 26. See Question/Answer FRFP 2.

FRFP 27. Reference: RFP Attachment 1, PWS, Paragraph 3.2.i

Question/Comment: The reference states, “All changes shall conform to DISA approved Change Management processes and be approved by DISA Change

Advisory Board." [emphasis added]. Please clarify how this requirement applies/relates to a „Standard Change‟?

FRFP 27. PWS paragraph 3.2i is being revised to add, “The contractor can assume that a Standard

Change action conforms to DISA Change Advisory

Board guidance, hence no further CAB action is required. Other-Than-Standard actions may require

CAB action for work to proceed.”

Other files affected by this change:

TO-1, TO-2 para 14k

Amend

00001

FRFP 28. Reference: RFP Attachment 11, Client Authorization Letter, 1st FRFP 28.RFP Attachment 11, Client Authorization, Amend paragraph

Question/Comment: The reference states, “In an effort to assist the

Government's Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following client authorization letter be completed by any commercial customers identified in your proposal.” We assume that the instruction should read … client authorization letter for completed for any commercial customers identified in your proposal. Please confirm.

st paragraph will be revised to reflect that the client authorization letter be completed “for” any commercial customers identified…instead of “by” any commerical customers identified…”

FRFP 29. References: RFP Attachment 8, GSM-O Task Order 03, Appendix

B, Table B-1 (Page B-1); and, Attachment 1, PWS, Paragraph 7.4 (CND

Sustainment Activities) (Page 32)

Question/Comment: There appears to be an inconsistency between requirements and location information provided in the solicitation. Please clarify if the

Contractor is required to perform the functions listed in PWS paragraph 7.4 at

Warner Robins?

FRFP 29. TO-3 Appendix B has been revised to add

Warner Robins AFB.

Amend

FRFP 30. References: RFP, Section L, Table L7.1 (Page 148), Paragraph

L8.4.1 (Page 157), and Paragraph L8.4.3 (Page 158)

Question/Comment: So that the Offeror may provide adequate Cost/Price information, which supports and describes Cost/Price Reasonableness and

Realism, describes the utilized Estimating Techniques and Methods, and provides a description of the Offeror‟s Accounting, Estimating and Purchasing

Systems, would the Government please change the Page Limit for Volume IV, Part A, INTRODUCTION (Table L7.1), from “5 Pages” to “No Limit?”

FRFP 30. See F Question/Answer FRFP #8. Amend

FRFP 31. References: RFP, Section L, Paragraphs L8.4.3.1.2, L8.4.3.1.3 and

L8.4.3.1.4 (Page 158)

Question/Comment: May the Offeror provide evidence of Accounting System, Estimating System and Purchasing System approval in the form of letters and/or reports to be provided as Appendixes to Volume IV?

FRFP 31. Evidence of a system approval could be

DCAA Audit Report number and date or other

Government approval document.

FRFP 32. References: RFP, Section L, Table L7.1 (Page 148), and Paragraph

L8.4.5 (Pages 159-160)

Question/Comment: So that the Offeror may adequately describe our rationale and any assumptions/clarifications relative to the proposed prices (and the

DCAA and DCMA Points of Contact Information), would the Government please change the Page Limit for Volume IV, Part D, OTHER INFORMATION

(Table L7.1), from “1 Page” to “No Limit?”

FRFP 32. See Question/Answer FRFP #9. Amend

FRFP 33. Reference: RFP, Section H, Paragraph H.28 (Page 78)

Question/Comment: The FAR reference „19.101(v)‟ does not appear to be a valid heading/paragraph number in the current version of the FAR (12 January

2011). Request the Government verify this reference and update/correct as appropriate.

FRFP 33. Section H, Paragraph H.28 – “Teaming

Arrangements” will reflect a reference to FAR

19.101(7)(iii)(vi) instead of 19.101(v).

FRFP 34. Reference: RFP, Section I, Contract Clause 52.216-24 (Page 110)

Questions/Comments: Would the Government please clarify the intent of the

$1,000,000 and $500,000 thresholds inserted in this clause? As prescribed in

16.6034(b)(2), 52.216-24 is typically included when a letter contract is contemplated. Is the Offeror permitted to subcontract in amounts greater than

$1,000,000? Would Government approval and/or consent to subcontract in

FRFP 34. RFP #HC1028-10-R-2000, Section I, FAR

Clause 52.216-24 “Limitation of Government

Liability” will be deleted in its entirety.

amounts greater than $1,000,000 supersede this clause?

FRFP 35. Reference: RFP, Section L, Paragraph L8.2.4.4 (Page 154)

Question/Comment: This section defines the contents of the Management Plan and seems to imply/require inclusion of copies of subcontractor teaming agreements. Please advise the Government‟s intent for this requirement, given the 50 page limit for the Management Plan (Table L7.1). If the Offeror is required to provide actual copies of subcontractor teaming agreements may the

Offeror include them as an Appendix to the Management Plan? Please note that the size of the average subcontractor teaming agreements for this Offeror, including SOW/PWS is 51 pages, not including attachments to the SOW/PWS.

FRFP 35. See Question/Answer FRFP #4. Amend

FRFP 36. Reference: RFP Attachment 08, Task Order 3, GSM-O Net

Assurance Support, Appendix I, page I-11, RFP Attachment 01, PWS Appendix

C, page C-13 and RFP Attachment 05, QASP, page 24 and QASP ALP number

Question/Comment: The referenced QASP ALP 29 deals with “Timely

Dissemination of Anti-Virus updates.” However, the scope of work for Task

Order 3 does not appear to include any requirements for the dissemination of anti-virus updates. Recommend that the Government delete ALP 29 from Task

Order 3.

FRFP 36. PWS requirements as stated in paragraphs

6.2.6 and 7.1 remain unchanged. ALP 29 has been revised to deal with dissemination of IAVAs.

Files changes resulting from this change are as follows:

PWS App C row 29.

QASP row 29.

TO-3 App I row 29.

Amend

FRFP 37. On September 24, in reference to Question #376, a request that the

Government assume a constant cost factor for transition when evaluating the total price of each bidder‟s offer for Task Order 1, the Government answered

FRFP 37. In response to question #1, reference

Question #376. The Government developed a strategy to transition the requirements from two non-overlapping;

they “will consider cost variances of less than $10M between vendor proposals to have an equal value and weight. If there is a greater than $10M variance between vendor transition cost proposals, the Government will conduct a risk assessment.” As the incumbent has a natural cost advantage for transition, we request that the RFP be amended to include the answer to Question #376 as this language does not appear, as the Government stated it would be, in the final RFP for the Transition subfactor in Sections L and M. If the constant in the

Government‟s answer is not an option for the Government, we request that the

Government amend the RFP to state that transition prices will be excluded from the evaluation.

but, complementary DISN Global Solution (DGS) contracts and work previously accomplished by the

Government workforce to the GSM-Operations (GSM-

O) acquisition. Transition costs were carefully analyzed and discussed during the Draft Request for Proposal

(DRFP) phase of the GSM-O acquisition. A decision was made that evaluation of transition costs is not possible when requirements are transitioned from two non-overlapping DGS contracts, at least one DNMSSG contract and the Government workforce and comingled among a minimum of three GSM-O firm-fixed price task orders. Additionally, in the case of the GSM-O acquisition, all offerors will be exposed to costs associated with transition. Finally, the RFP states that the final transition plan will be finalized after award of the contract. For the above reasons, the Government has decided to revise the evaluation criteria to make transition the least important subfactor. Further, the

Government has determined that transition costs will not be evaluated as a separate cost. As provided in the Final

GSM-O RFP (HC1028-10-R-2000); Section M, paragraph M3.5 and subparagraphs thereto, the offeror‟s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and affordability. The Government may also evaluate the realism of the offeror‟s proposed costs. The RFP will not be amended to address a “cost variance” associated with transition costs. Please be advised that, if needed we will address any issues associated with cost variance during discussions.

FRFP 38. Also on September 24, in reference to Questions and Answers #306 and 309, the Government agreed to revise paragraphs L8.2.4.2 and M3.3.2 of the

Final RFP to add … “proposed approach for transitioning from the current T&M contracting environment to a performance-based contract… ” into the Transition subfactor in Sections L and M. Request that the RFP be amended to include this language, as the Government indicated in their answer, as the transition from

T&M to performance-based is a significant change for the Government who will be managing contractor performance in a different way, not just the Industry partner.

FRFP 38. In response to question #2, reference

Questions # 306 and #309. The requirement for GSM-

Operations is a performance based contract with task orders primarily utilizing firm fixed prices (FFP) to commence upon contract award. Hence, there is no requirement to transition from time-and-materials pricing to performance based services. Question #400 suggested that an evaluation factor that considers transition from a T&M environment to a performance-based environment would favor the DGS incumbents as they are currently responding to the Government‟s direction to do the same. The Government contemplated the suggestion and provided a response indicating: “…Evaluation Factors for Award have been reviewed and willbe revised in the Final RFP.”

Additionally, the Government has stated in Section M, paragraph M3.4.4-Relevancy Assessment, that

“Consideration will be given to performance based services, contract pricing arrangement (Firm-Fixed

Price and/or Cost Reimbursement)…” Thus, each offeror‟s past performance information will be analyzed to assess any recent and relevant experience that includes transition from a T&M contracting environment to a performance based contracting environment utilizing Firm-Fixed Prices and Cost

Reimbursement. The evaluation factors of the RFP will not be amended to include: “proposed approach for transitioning from the current T&M contracting environment to a performance-based contract…”

However, the Past Performance Questionnaire

(HC1028-10-R-2000, Attachment 12) will be revised to include “Transition from non-performance based contract to performance based contract” under the

Transition/Phase-In section of the questionnaire.

FRFP 39. In a third set of questions from September 24, specifically #305 and

308, the Government stated they would revise the Final RFP to add sentences to

Section L, paragraph L.8.2.4.1, and to Section M, paragraph M3.3.1, “… 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.” Request that the RFP be amended to include the language as stated by the Government.

FRFP 39. In response to question #3, reference

Questions #305 and #308. Attachment 1 of the Final

RFP (GSM-O Performance Work Statement), paragraph reflects: “The PWS provides the Contractor with flexibility to conceive and propose innovative approaches and solutions.” The offeror‟s technical proposal will be evaluated as stated in the Final GSM-O

RFP, paragraph M3 and subparagraphs thereto.

Paragraph M3.3.1 will be revised to reflect the following:

“The Government will consider the offeror‟s response to the following services/ requirements in the evaluation of the Technical Solution (Subfactor 1) to assess the offeror‟s approach for delivering Network Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OA&M) technical solutions that improve service delivery, reduce cost, reduce risk and/or present an innovative approach.”

The following language will be deleted from paragraph

M3.3.1: “The Government will consider the offeror‟s response to the following services/requirement in the evaluation of the Technical Solution (Subfactor 1) to assess the vendor‟s overall success of the GSM-O program.”

Amend

FRFP 40. Reference:

a) GSM-O Attachment 12, GSM-O Past Performance Questionnaire

b) Section L8.3.7, Questionnaires

FRFP 40. Attachment 12 cover letter is revised.

Offerors shall use the document as provided.

Question: Reference b indicates that offerors shall provide the past performance questionnaire and cover letter in Attachment 12 to each of the customer points of contact identified for each of the relevant past performance efforts. The cover letter signed by the Contracting Officer and incorporated as part of Attachment

12 states, “As discussed in our initial phone contact with your office, our schedule is extremely tight and we need your written response no later than 15 calendar days after your receipt of this letter.”

The language in the letter implies that the Government has contacted the points of contact prior to receiving the questionnaire and that the questionnaires are due within 15 days.

Our understanding of the requirement is that offerors‟ are required to send the questionnaires to the points of contact and that completed questionnaires should be returned directly to the Government on or before the closing date for the solicitation. Please confirm our understanding.

If our understanding is correct, are offerors‟ free to change the cover letter to indicate the correct sequence for questionnaire completion and submission.

FRFP 41. References: PWS Paragraph 5; Section L - ATCH 1; Attachment 6 paragraph 6.2; Attachment 7; and Attachment 8

Comments: This question pertains to Transition requirements for GSM-O, per the cited references. Section L - ATCH 1 uniquely allocates Transition to

TO1/CLIN0001, with no reference to the other TO's. Neither Attachment 7 nor

Attachment 8 makes reference to Transition, per PWS 5.

Question a): Is it the Government's intent for Offerors to include estimated costs for TO2 and TO3 Transition in TO1's cost?

Question b): If the cost is not to be included in TO1, then please define how

Transition should be costed and whether Attachments 7 & 8 will be modified to include PWS 5 requirements.

Question c): If the cost of TO2‟s Transition is included in TO1, should the first

12 months of TO2 be based on 12 full months of Maintenance Delivery?

FRFP 41. The the three TOs attached to the GSM-O

RFP are being revised as follows.

a. TO-1: Task 6.2 Transition is clarified that CIR and

Transition Plan/execution activities apply to the scope of this TO, only.

b. TO-2: Task 6.1 Transition has been added, containing the same clarification that CIR and

c. TO-2: due to the addition of Task 6.1, Appendix E text has been revised to incorporate the applicable

Question d): If the cost of TO3‟s Transition is included in TO1, should the first

12 months of TO3 be based on 12 full months of Network Assurance Delivery?

portions of PWS paragraph 5. The CDRLs table and

CDRLs appendix have added CDRLs associated with

PWS 5 requirements. The QASP table (Appendix I) has added ALP 5 associated with PWS 5 requirements. And Tables 1 and 2 in RFP Section

H.37 Incentives have been revised to incorporate the addition of ALP 5 as the basis for a performance incentive.

d. TO-3: Task 6.1 Transition has been added, containing the same clarification that CIR and

e. TO-3: due to the addition of Task 6.1, Appendix E text has been revised to incorporate the applicable portions of PWS paragraph 5. The CDRLs table and

CDRLs appendix have added CDRLs associated with

PWS 5 requirements. The QASP table (Appendix I) has added ALP 5 associated with PWS 5 requirements. And Tables 1 and 2 in RFP Section

H.37 Incentives have been revised to incorporate the addition of ALP 5 as the basis for a performance incentive."

FRFP 42. In Section L7.10 Proposal Submission it states that the offeror must deliver the proposal in two(2) hard copies and one (1) CD format to the address shown in Block 7 of the SF 33, “Solicitation, Offer and Award‟. Understand that the delivery point as Scott AFB per the SF33, however, no other detail is provided. Need to know where exactly to deliver and to who: for example:

building number, point of submission, POC for signature receipt, any access/pre-arrangement details, hours of operation (at delivery point), any specific marking/ labeling details.

FRPP 42. Paragraph L7.10 is revised to include location to which hard copies of proposals and/or CD with proposals are to be delivered

FRFP 43. Section H.12 – Small Business Classification

It is important for the procuring agency to assign dominant weight to a single

NAICS code. SBA's regulation regarding size standards for multiple item procurements state in part, "If the procurement calls for more than one specific end item or type of service and an offeror is required to submit an offer on all items, the offeror may qualify as a small business for the procurement if it meets the size standard of the item which accounts for the greatest percentage of the total contract value." (13 CFR 121.407) (emphasis added). If DISA does not make 517110 the single NAICS code applicable to this procurement, will it apply this NAICS code to the "greatest percentage" of the total contract so that offerors will clearly know whether they qualify as a small business for this procurement?

The requirements of the GSM-O are evenly distributed across NAICS Code 517110 and NAICS Code

541513; therefore, the Contracting Officer will not apply only one NAICS code to the GSM-O procurement.