GSM-O Release 2 Question-Answers.doc

DRAFT RFP: HC1028-10-R-2000

QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

RELEASE #2

27 AUGUST 2010

Question #208: Based on emphasis on “End-User Experience” and wanting contractor to also “work to find a better way”, what is the list of products/tools that DISA is using and what are the selection criteria?

Answer #208: See GFI data on Controlled CD-ROM (e.g., list of OSS tools, CM tools, etc.); Updated Controlled CD-ROM available, as of 1 September 2010.

Question #209: For a contract with a projected total value of $4.6 billion, we do not understand how/why Task Orders will be used with a maximum value of $10 million. Please explain the justification for this approach.

Answer #209: The Final RFP for the GSM-Operations effort will be revised to reflect the Maximum Value of a Task Order as $300 million.

Question #210: Reference Attachment 4 GSM-O-QASP, Section 8, Standard 28 (6.4 GSM-O COOP Support).

Comment/Recommendation: In the “Acceptable Level of Performance” column, this standard states, “Complete handover of mission within 30 minutes of failure, with no loss of network control.” Given the support nature of the GSM-O contractor in COOP support, recommend that this acceptable level of performance be reworded to state, “Complete handover of mission within 30 minutes of failure, with no loss of network control directly attributable to GSM-O contractor performance.”

Answer #210: PWS ALPs and QASP Row 28 will be revised to include the condition “with no loss of network control.”

Question #211: Reference GSM-O Task Order #GSM-O-02 – Maintenance and Repair of the DISN Infrastructure, Appendix I, paragraph 4, Work Requiring Surveillance.

Comment/Recommendation: This paragraph describes work associated with more than Task Order 2. Recommend limiting the material in this paragraph to Task Order 2 scope only.

Answer #211: In each Draft QASP incorporated as part of a given task order, paragraph 4a of the QASP (which is Appendix I of the Task Order) has been revised to align the scope of that QASP with the scope of the parent Task Order.

Question #212: Reference GSM-O Task Order #GSM-O-02 – Maintenance and Repair of the DISN Infrastructure,Appendix I, paragraph 8, QASP Matrix, number 7.

Comment/Recommendation: What is the definition of “other than standard action” as used in this requirement? Does the Government mean “other than Standard Change” as defined in the Definitions (Appendix A’s to the PWS and TO’s)?

Answer #212: PWS ALP Row 7 has been deleted.

Question #213: Reference Att-4 QASP, 8, Page 9, Metric #7 Non-Standard Changes: The requirement to complete "within 24 hours of receipt of an approved validated request" may not be feasible given the undefined nature of future non-standard changes and the variance in scope that is possible. Recommend modification or deletion of this metric.

Answer #213: See Question #212, above. ALP Row 7 has been deleted. There are no Contractor actions, in the Other-than-Standard action category, that can be verified on a 24-hour response basis.

Question #214: Reference PWS Appendix C, Section 6.2.5 Performance Management, Row 23, Page C-9. Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS-O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc.

The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Please refer to:

Objective – Effectively and efficiently monitor network status to provide data that identify trends in performance sufficient to sustain and improve overall network results.

ALP – Data accuracy of 95% for new/changed data.

The objective and the ALP requirement appear to be unrelated.

What is the relationship between the ALP objective and requirement?

Answer #214: ALP row 26 column Objective is revised to read, “Provide seamless integration of Government-approved deliverables or release packages into the supported Networks and Network support.” The ALP cell is revised as follows: “Changes are incorporated within 72 hours of implementation with no unintended …” The final phrase “within 72 hours of implementation” has been deleted from the last sentence.

Question #215: Reference PWS Appendix C, Section 6.2.7 Program Integration Services, Row 26, Page C-10. Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS‑O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc.

The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Refer to:

ALP -Changes are incorporated with no unintended degradation of performance and results in ability to meet relevant Network SLAs and Performance Measures within 72 hours of implementation.

Will the GSM-O contractor be held accountable for any unintended degradation of performance due to ETI and P&S actions?

Answer #215: See Question/Answer #214, above. If the Government approves an action by another contractor that effects some part of the infrastructure, the time period while such changes are being made is not attributable to the GSM-O Contractor (e.g. a scheduled action to install a new switch).

Question #216: Reference GSM-O Draft RFP paragraph B.2, Pricing and Labor Rate Table for Task Orders, subparagraph d concerning the Labor Rate Table. This subparagraph says "The fully burdened hourly labor rates shall be one composite rate for each skill classification based upon composite inputs of the prime and subcontractors (only first-tier subcontractors allowed)." The GSM-O RFP includes no other statements specifying that only first-tier subcontractors are allowed. Questions: Can the Government please confirm that no second tier subcontractors are allowed? If so, is this an evaluation phase prohibition? Does the prohibition carry through to execution phase?

Answer #216: There will be no composite labor rates. All prime and subcontractor rates will be disclosed and included in the labor rate tables.

Question #217: Reference: B.2(d) states, “The fully burdened hourly labor rates shall be one composite rate for each skill classification based upon composite inputs of the prime and subcontractors (only first-tier subcontractors allowed). All labor related costs are part of the fully burdened labor rates.”

Comment/Recommendation: Recommend replacing the words “only first-tier subcontractors allowed” with “at all tiers.”

Answer #217: Section B will be revised to reflect: “The Section B, Labor Rate Table shall include fully-burdened hourly rates for each skill classification. The fully burdened labor rates shall include all direct, indirect, general and administrative costs and profit associated with providing the required skill. All labor related costs are part of the fully burdened labor rates.”

Question #218: Reference DRFP, L8.4.3.2.2.2, Page 104. The Government requires that 'Labor and overhead rates should include sufficient detail to sustain a DCAA audit (e.g., Direct labor rates, Overhead, Fringe Benefits, G&A, and Fee, etc.)" Given that the Government has indicated both at the pre-solicitation conference and one-on-one meetings the identified Task Orders are FFP and that the award would be made on a competitive basis, we assume that section L8.4.3.2.2.2 where detailed cost is defined does not apply to initial proposal submittal. Please confirm. We realize follow-on Task Orders that are not FFP may require detailed cost/price breakdown.

Answer #218: The initial proposal submittal will be evaluated based on Firm Fixed Prices. However, the solicitation allows for cost reimbursement type task orders and the Government must ensure the initial proposed rates are reasonable and realistic for the effort to be performed.

Question #219: Reference DRFP, M3.5, Page 114, The DRFP does not appear to explain how the proposed Labor Categories and associated rates are to be evaluated. Please clarify

Answer #219: The labor categories and associated labor rates will be evaluated within the total evaluated price. The labor categories and rates used to developed the total proposed price will be evaluated with respect to their reasonableness and realism.

Question #220: Reference DRFP, L8.4.3.2.3 , Page 104, Rounding. All costs or prices provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. Are percentages also rounded to the nearest whole percentage?

Answer #220: The Final RFP for the GSM-Operations effort will be revised to reflect “Percentages shall be limited to two decimal points; for example 25 percent shall be reflected as .25”.

Question #221: Reference DRFP, Section B – Section B does not contain Labor Categories descriptions. DRFP paragraph H.12 identifies job titles for key personnel only. The DRFP says that all Task Orders contract types will be based on the contract labor category rates. We recommend that the Government provides the Labor Categories to ensure consistency in pricing across all contractors bidding on this contract.

Answer #221: The GSM-O requirement is performance based. The Offeror shall propose the the appropriate Labor Categories to be used to support the GSM-O effort.

Question #222: Reference: Paragraph L8.7.4.1, Participation of Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB).

Comment/Recommendation: L8.7.4.1 states “… each Offeror must provide, with its offer, targets, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract value” while the overall SB Plan is based on subcontracting goals based on percentage of subcontracted dollars. Please confirm that “percentage of total contract value” is correct as used in L8.7.4.1.

Answer #222: Reference FAR Part 19.1202-4. The solicitation requires offerors “to provide with their offers, targets, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract value….and a total target for SDB participation by the Contractor”. Therefore, Paragraph L8.7.4.1 will be revised to reflect “…goals based on percentage of total contract value…” Question #223: Is the “Read Me” file that presenters are referring to (specifically referenced during Mr. Ritchie’s brief) available on the classified CD-ROM or is it available on FBO?

Answer #223: The controlled CD-ROM contains a “Read Me” file that introduces the structure of the folders and files contained within the Controlled CD-ROM. The next release of the Controlled CD-ROM is expected to be available 01 Sep 2010; but not later than release of the Final RFP. NOTE: The information on past efforts that is included as GFI; either unclassified or on the Controlled CD-ROM is to provide historical data and is not a guarantee that the same amount of work will be performed under the GSM-O contract.

Question #224A: Please provide electronic copies of all of the current DGS task orders for review by potential bidders. This information will help companies establish the current baseline of work that must be transitioned to GSM-O

224B: We recommend modifying the evaluation criteria to put more focus on several key areas we believe are missing. Those areas include 1) process innovation, 2) transition to a performance based contract, 3) cost saving strategies, 4) service delivery transformation. We believe inclusion of these areas will provide significant long-term benefits for the government.

224C: Task order 2 – Maintenance and repair of the DISN infrastructure: This task order is firm-fixed-priced and must be priced for each of the 7 potential contract years. Obtaining maintenance pricing from vendors for periods beyond 3 years is not possible in many cases due the product end of life issues and new product lifecycles. Additionally, the composition of these assets will change significantly over the GSM-O contract life. Requiring a FFP structure will force the renegotiation of maintenance pricing as assets change creating significant administrative burdens on the both the government and the contractor. We recommend changing the task order type to cost-plus so as to be more flexible over the contract life.

224D: As an incumbent vendor for the DISN providing infrastructure and maintenance services for an installed inventory, we are interested in the seamless transition of those services from the DGS prime contractor to the GSM-Ops contractor. However, we are a non-possessing facility, and therefore are not able to take possesion of the classified CD which contains the installed database information. At a One-on-One conference on 29 June, we were instructed to submit the current inventory used to calculate the CY2010 maintenance renewal pricing to Ms. Lisa Belt (NS). The file was emailed to Ms. Belt on 06 July 2010. The purpose was to compare this file with the Government’s expectation of the installed database. We receive the file from the DGS maintenance subcontractor (Verizon FNS) annually in advance of the support contract renewal period. Order activity from the previous 12 months is added to the inventory and a determination is made for all items in the inventory as being either still “in-warranty” or currently “out-of-warranty” based on the DGS contract terms and conditions.

Answer #224A: See Question/Answer #223.

Answer 224B: Section M Evaluation Factors for Award were established by the Government based upon detailed risk assessment of the entire GSM-O environment, including the considerations mentioned in the question.

Answer 224C: Section L will include instructions that offerors must provide firm fixed prices prices for the base period of one year and for each of the subsequent option periods (years 2 through 7) on each task order. The entire contract/task order life cycle will be evaluated.

Answer224D: Each potential GSM-O prime offeror must establish arrangements for the receipt and holding of classified data – beginning with GFI data on Controlled CD-ROM and also in post-award execution. The current Controlled GFI CD-ROM contains the RFP data to be used by offerors to understand the detailed infrastructure data needed for proposal development.

Question #225: Reference DRFP, H.12a, Page 44, Does the key personnel table imply that there are only 4 key personnel? For example, does the Government require a single Site Manager or a Site Manager at each field location?

Answer #225: The requirement in Paragraph H.12 is that the notification is required before key personnel become unavailable and that personnel considered “key” to the success of a specific contract task order be promptly replaced…” Under a performance based contract, the contractor shall identify and provide appropriate type and number of key personnel.

Question #226: Reference DRFP, L3, Page 91. Please provide the current DGS staffing levels (full-time equivalents) and labor categories by location as requested at the one-on-one.

Answer #226: See Question/Answer #223, above.

Question #227: Reference DRFP, L3, Page 91. Please provide the current and recent years (e.g. last three years) of DGS financial data as requested at the one-on-one. Requested data includes budget as well as actuals incurred for all elements of cost by task order (e.g. labor, purchasing, etc)

Answer #227: See Question/Answer #223, above.

Question #228: Reference DRFP, L3, Page 91. Please provide the "Task Orders issued under the DISN Global Services (DGS) contracts". This Information appears to be missing from the draft version of the reading room.

Answer #228: See Question/Answer #223, above.

Question #229: On page 91 of 115, Paragraph L.3 READING ROOM (GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION) it specifies that the Reading Room will be established concurrent with release of the draft RFP and will be available on the Federal Business Opportunities web site. We are able to locate information on the FedBizOps web site, however, we cannot locate the following information identified in paragraph (c): Task Orders issued under the DISN Global Services (DSG) contracts; Description of numbers and types of provisioning actions over the last five years; and Description of network faults and restoral actions. Please advise where this information is located and if not yet posted please advise when it will be posted. Also, is the Reading Room considered information located only on the FedBizOps web site?

Answer #229: There is no physical reading room for the GSM-O acquisition. For Reading Room Information, please refer to the GSM-O Draft RFP, Section L, paragraphs L3 and L4. The Reading Room includes information provided as attachments on the GSM-O RFP FedBizOpps site. In addition Section L, paragraph L4 refers to a Controlled CD-ROM that is part of the Reading Room information. The revised Controlled CD-ROM will contain task order data and other comparable performance data. The GSM-O RFP, Section L, Paragraph L.3c, bullets 2, 3 and 4) will be revised to reflect the following:

· Task Orders issued under the DISN Global Services (DGS) contracts for the most recent 12 months.

· Description of numbers and types of provisioning actions for the most recent 12 months.

· Description of network faults and restoral actions for the most recent 12 months.

Question #230: Reference: Section B, “DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND ORDER VALUE” (page 15 of 54); Additionally, Clause 52.216-19, Order Limitations (page 64 of 115).

Comment/Recommendation: The referenced language establishes a maximum delivery/task order maximum of $10,000,000, which does not seem to provide the Government with sufficient flexibility for the anticipated work. For example, Draft RFP Attachment 5 (Task Order 1) and Attachment 12 (Task Order 2) would appear to result in annual values in excess of this stated maximum. The Section B limitation of $10M also seems inconsistent with CFR Clause 52.216-19 (incorporated in full text to this Draft solicitation), which uses a value of $500M. Recommend that the Government change this maximum value to $200M or more to ensure that the Government has sufficient flexibility over the life of the GSM-O contract.

Answer #230: See Question/Answer #209, above.

Question #231: Reference: Draft RFP Section B, Section L, Section M, Attachment 5 Task Order 1 Comment/Recommendation: The current Draft RFP does not identify the contract type or anticipated CLIN structure for Task Order 1. Recommend that the Government release this information for comment by industry PRIOR to the 15July2010 due date for Draft RFP comments – and if possible prior to the presolicitation conference and one‐on‐one sessions. Availability of this information will dramatically improve the quality and usefulness of the inputs from industry and assist the Government in finalization of the GSM‐O RFP.

Answer #231: All task order pricing shall reflect firm-fixed prices. The Offeror’s proposed labor categories and firm-fixed price rates for the base period and all option periods shall be provided as part of the Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal.

Question #232: Reference: Draft RFP Section B, Section L, Section M, Attachment 12 Task Order 2. Comment/Recommendation: The current Draft RFP does not identify the contract type or anticipated CLIN structure for Task Order 2. Recommend that the Government release this information for comment by industry PRIOR to the 15 July 2010 due date for Draft RFP comments – and if possible prior to the pre‐solicitation conference and one‐on‐one sessions. Availability of this information will dramatically improve the quality and usefulness of the inputs from industry and assist the Government in finalization of the GSM‐O RFP.

Answer #232: Labor categories shall be provided by the Offeror as part of the Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal. All task order pricing shall reflect firm-fixed prices. (See Question/Answer #231, above.)

Question #233: Reference DRFP Section A and Section B – The DRFP says the contract is an ID/IQ contract against which FFP, FPI, CPIF, and/or CPFF type task orders will be awarded (DRFP paragraph B.1a). An Incentive Plan and definition of Incentive Fee is needed that can be used for estimating the CLINs specified in the DRFP. The CLINs are based on requirements defined in the PWS and neither the DRFP nor the PWS included an Incentive Plan. Also, if a task order is FFPI, will the Task Order include an Incentive Fee Plan?

Answer #233: Incentive Fee Plans will be identified in each task order, as applicable.

Question #234: Reference DRFP, L7, Page 94. Table 7.1 “Proposal Organization” Vol V Section C calls for a EEO Pre-Award Clearance Information. Is this the same information required under FAR 52.222-24 “Preaward On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance evlauation.”?

Answer #234: The Pre-Award Survey (Reference Section M, paragraph M5.1) may be required in accordance with FAR Part 9.105 and 9.106-1.

Question #235: Reference: Section L, Section M. Comment/Recommendation: The current Draft RFP Section L identifies separate proposals for Task Order 1 and Task Order 2 for a base year and each of six extension years. The current PWS documents for the multiple years of each task are the same or very similar. Recommend that the Government provide information on the intended purpose of the multiple proposals for the task orders to enable industry to provide meaningful comments on this portion of the Draft RFP.

Answer #235: In order to obtain pricing over the full 7-year life of the contract, the RFP contains task orders that account for a full 7 years of work. Each task order has a stated period of performance of 12 months duration. The Year-1 work is contained in two Draft task orders; each to be priced according to RFP Section L instructions. The scope of work for year-2 in each task order is slightly different (e.g. in task order-1 the Transition Task does not carry over), and those TOs are labeled Sample Task Orders. The scope of work for each subsequent year (i.e. year-3 through year-7) is the same as for year-2. The separate task order files for years 2-7 have been combined into a single file, to clarify the fact that (for pricing purposes) the scope of each of those task orders is the same.

Question #236: GSM-O Draft RFP, General Question: On the current DGS contract, credit for work performed by 2nd-Tier Small-Business Subcontractors is granted to both the Prime and subcontractors. However, the GSM-O DRFP is silent on this subject. Please clarify the Government’s intent for granting credit for the work performed by 2nd-Tier Small Businesses on the GSM-O and GSM-ETI contracts.

Answer #236: The Government does intend to grant credit for the work performed by 2nd-Tier Small Business on the GSM-O contract.

Question #237: TOPIC: Small Business Goals, DRFP Reference: N/A. Comment:

The DRFP doesn’t clearly state whether or not lower-tier small business subcontracts will be counted toward Prime Contractor subcontracting goals. Permitting the use of lower-tier subcontracts toward the prime contractor’s subcontracting plan requirements would increase the total proportion of small-business dollars allocated under the contract. It would enhance the preponderance of Mentor-Protégé relationships between firms. It would provide the prime with an incentive to adjust their use of different large subcontractors based on the level of support those large subcontractors provide to the prime’s subcontracting goals. If managed at the prime level for a large contract, the prime’s incentive would be to limit the variety of small businesses to reduce cost and management overhead, but if the goals are spread out, the management and risk requirements are spread out over multiple large businesses which would result in more opportunities for a broader variety of small businesses.

Recommendation: Permit lower-tier small business subcontracting to count toward prime Subcontracting Plan goals.

Answer #237: See Question/Answer #236, above.

Question #238: Reference: Paragraph L8.3.4, Relevant Contracts.

Comment/Recommendation: L8.3.4 states that “… information on three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant…” Request the final RFP clearly define “teaming partners” and “significant subcontractors.”

Answer #238: Paragraph L8.3.4, Relevant Contracts will not be revised in the Final RFP for the GSM-O effort. The Government’s intent is to require the Offeror to provide information on each significant participant on its team, whether performing in a recognized subcontractor role, or via some other teaming arrangement.

Question #239: Reference: B.2(f) Other Direct Charges and B.3(g) that states, “Employee taxes imposed by a Host Nation shall be compensated as an ODC under the GSM-O contract.”

Comment/Recommendation: We recommend that the Government treat all extraordinary costs associated with overseas work (e.g., TESA, SOFA, host nations taxes, DoDDS school) as ODCs under the contract.

Answer #239: The Government will not treat TESA, SOFA, host nation taxes as ODCs under the GSM-O contract.

Question #240: Reference: Paragraph L7.9.

Comment/Recommendation: The Government states, “An electronic submission which cannot be accessible from Decision Point will not be considered.” Request the Government provide a complete list of requirements and constraints associated with the tool to ensure the Government’s ability to access proposal information using the tool.

Answer #240: Section L7 of the GSM-O Draft RFP provides information needed to accommodate the Decision Point tool.

Question #241: Reference: Attachment 20 – Past Performance Information Sheet, Item N.

Comment/Recommendation: The requirement is to provide “summary level data” if EVM-type metrics were used on a cited contract reference. The content desired as “summary level data” is not clear from this requirement. Please clarify what is desired “summary level data” as part of the past performance submission.

Answer #241: References to EVM will be removed from the Final RFP for the GSM-Operations effort.

Question #242: Reference H.34, Page 56. Reference document file named GSM-O_Draft_RFP_06-04-2010.docx. The document is called Global Information Grid Services (GIG) Management-Operations (GSM-O) Draft Request for Proposal (Draft RFP). Please refer to section H.36 titled Performance Acceptance Test (PAT). Can the current system pass the Performance Acceptance Test (PAT)? Are there any exceptions made? If possible, please provide a list of the exceptions.

Answer #242: The Transition Plan for GSM-O, within the scope of Task Order-1, calls for incorporation of a PAT according to the Government-approved plan. Section H, paragraph H.34 of the Final RFP for the GSM-O effort is revised to reflect the following:

“H.34 PERFORMANCE ACCEPTANCE TEST (PAT). In addition to acceptance testing conducted as part of the execution of an approved Transition Plan which will be part of a task order issued during the first year of execution, the Government may, at its option, conduct further assessments or tests to verify that the Contractor's Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and/or Quality Control Plan, and comparable capabilities, are in an appropriate state of readiness for commencement of work under each task order. A PAT may also be required on any subsequent task order issued. Unsatisfactory results will result in termination of the transition effort and will directly impact performance incentives.”

Question #243: Reference: H.34, Performance Acceptance Test (PAT).

Comment/Recommendation: Given the requirement to perform the PAT within 30 days of contract award, please provide further definition for the scope and contents of the PAT.

Answer #243: Refer to Questions/Answers: #242-247.

Question #244: Reference PWS: Section 5.1, Contract Initiation Review (CIR); Section H, Section H.34.

Comment/Recommendation: How does the required CIR relate to the requirement for a Performance Acceptance Test (PAT) identified in Section H.34?

Answer #244: See Questions/Answers:#242-247 regarding PAT. CIR is intended to be an open meeting to ensure that the Government requirements and contract are understood by the contractor. Issues covered during the CIR can potentially be used to refine the Transition Plan which begins after conclusion of the CIR.

Question #245: Reference PWS: Section 5.2(a)(2) states, “(2) As part of the Transition Plan, within 30 days after assuming responsibility, the Contractor shall schedule an independent test and evaluation period lasting up to one week . . .”; Section H, Section H.34.

Comment/Recommendation: How does the activity described in PWS 5.2(a) relate to the PAT required in H.34?

Answer #245: See Questions/Answers: #242-247 regarding PAT.

Question #246: Reference DRFP, H.34, Page 56. The Performance Acceptance Test (PAT) is held very soon after contract start (30 days). In accordance with other criteria in Transition, we assume it is acceptable for the contractor to propose the elements of the QASP to be evaluated in PAT (please confirm). If this is not the case, please provide additional guidance on the scope of the PAT.

Answer #246: See Questions/Answers: #242-247 regarding PAT.

Question #247: Reference DRFP, H.34, Page 56, Should the statement read "…perform a PAT within 30 days of authorization to proceed" rather than "…perform a PAT within 30 days of contract award"?

Answer #247: See Questions/Answers: #242-246 regarding PAT.

Question #248: Reference PWS Appendix C, 6.2.2 Trouble Management, Alarm Surveillance/ Reporting, Row 15, PageC-7. Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS-O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc.

The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Refer to:

Acceptable Level of Performance (ALP) – In accordance with GFI reporting criteria.

What are the GFI reporting criteria?

Answer #248: The reporting criteria referenced in ALP Row 15 will be included within GFI data under heading of “Commanders’ Critical Information Requirements (CCIR)”. ALP row 15 is clarified to this effect.

Question #249: Reference PWS Appendix C, Section 6.2.2 Trouble Management, Fault Isolation and Correction, Row 16, Page C-7. Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS-O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc.

The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Refer to:

Acceptable Level of Performance (ALP) – At minimum: Average of 18 hours for all network service failure; 24 hours Maximum for any failure, 12 hours for fiber cuts. Must satisfy the applicable SLA.

Are the restoration ALPs are supported by current SLAs? Do the ALP requirements include both DISA owned and non-DISA owned fiber? Will the contractor be required to meet the ALP requirements for non-DISA owned fiber?

Answer #249: ALP Row 16: Contractor is not responsible for non-DISA owned infrastructure (thus the split between ALP Row 16 and 17). Any impact to SLAs due to confirmed source isolated to non-DISA infrastructure will not be held against Contractor. However, Contractor must have documentation to validate this non-DISA infrastructure situation, and must track and document it until resolved (this is part of its “monitor” requirement).

Question #250: Reference PWS Appendix C, Section 6.2.2 Trouble Management, Fault Isolation and Correction, Row 18, Page C-8. Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS-O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc.

The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Refer to: Standard – Year-1: n/a Year-2: 80-89% Year-3: 90-94%

ALP – From an initial assessment of CMDB accuracy, demonstrate incremental quarterly improvements in accuracy of existing CMBD data, starting at initial level + 5%, increasing by 5% or better each quarter, toward a target of >90% accuracy of this data within 3 years

The ALP requires a 5% gain per quarter while the Standard states a gain of 10% per year. These are in conflict.

What are current performance level of CMDB data accuracy?

Answer #250: In ALP row 18, the initial CMDB assessment to establish the starting point will be done after contract award, perhaps as part of Transition. When that starting point has been confirmed, then the gradual improvement per quarter will begin to be applicable. ALP row 18 cell Acceptable Level of Performance has been revised to read, “…demonstrate gradual incremental quarterly improvements in accuracy of existing CMBD data, starting at initial level + 5%, increasing by 5% or better each quarter, toward a target of >90% accuracy of this data within 3 years…”

Question #251: Reference Att-4 QASP, 8, Page 17, Metric #18 Configuration Management Database (CMDB) Accuracy: Please provide estimate of current accuracy.

Answer #251: See Question/Answer #88. ALP Row 18 has been revised. The starting point for accuracy of the CMDB will be established after award.

Question #252: PWS Appendix C, Section 7.3 Computer Network Defense Response Activities, Rows 31 and 32, Page C-12.

Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS-O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc. The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Refer to:

ALP - 97% of Incidents reported within timelines as outlined in DoD 6510.01E

What are timelines mentioned in DoD 6510.01E?

Answer #252: Refer to PWS ALP Rows 31 and 32. The ALP cell is revised to state “95% of Events/Incidents reported within 2 hours.”

Question #253: Reference PWS Appendix C, Section 8 Defense Messaging Service (DMS), Row 38, page Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS-O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc. The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Refer to:

ALP - Proactively detect at least 30% of all problems impacting the x.400 and x.500 DMS backbone infrastructure through the use of DMS element management system

Are the requirement to detect at least 30% of the all problems affecting x.400 and x.500 is based on the current performance and success rate? How are the remaining 70% of problems detected?

Answer #253: DMS support (PWS paragraph 8) is not within scope of the year-1 task orders. ALP rows 38-46 have been deleted from the table. If a future task order orders support for the DMS, the ALPs applicable to that support will be provided in the task order.

Question #254: Reference PWSAppendix C, Section 8 Defense Messaging Service (DMS) , Row 39 and 40, Page C-14. Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS-O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc.

The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Refer to:

ALP (row 39) - Resolve trouble tickets escalated from Tier 1 within 24 hours. Identify those tickets to the Government.

ALP (row 40) - Escalate trouble tickets requiring Tier III within 24 hours. Identify those tickets to the Government.

Will the contractor be responsible for Tier II activities only? What is the escalation procedure for DMS?

Answer #254: See Question/Answer #253, above. DMS support (PWS paragraph 8) is not within scope of the year-1 task orders. ALP rows 38-46 have been deleted from the table. If a future task order orders support for the DMS, the ALPs applicable to that support will be provided in the task order.

Question #255: Reference PWS Appendix C, Section 8 Defense Messaging Service (DMS), Row 41, Page C-14. Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS-O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc.

The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Refer to:

ALP - Field Engineering Notices (FEN’s) completed on time

How many FENs are there for DMS each year? Will the GSM-O contractor be responsible for authoring FENs, implementing FENS, or both?

Answer #255: See Question/Answer #253. DMS support (PWS paragraph 8) is not within scope of the year-1 task orders. ALP rows 38-46 is deleted from the table. If a future task order orders support for the DMS, the ALPs applicable to that support will be provided in the task order.

Question #256: Reference PWS Appendix C, Section 8 Defense Messaging Service (DMS), Rows 43 and 44, Page C-15. Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS-O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc.

The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Refer to:

ALP - Complete Windows, Unix system administration, hardware and software upgrades, within 24 hours of assignment.

What types of updates are required in a 24 hour period?

Answer #256: See Question/Answer #253. DMS support (PWS paragraph 8) is not within scope of the year-1 task orders. ALP rows 38-46 is deleted from the table. If a future task order orders support for the DMS, the ALPs applicable to that support will be provided in the task order.

Question #257: Reference PWS Appendix C, Section 8 Defense Messaging Service (DMS), Row 46, Page C-16. Reference document file named Attachment_1_-_PWS-O_Final_Draft_v10_05-21-2010.doc.

The document is titled Global Information Grid Services Management - Operations (GSM-O) - Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Refer to:

ALP - Complete all actions for the Bahrain Regional Node within two hours of notification.

Why are these types of updates required within 2 hour?

Answer #257: See Question/Answer #253. DMS support (PWS paragraph 8) is not within scope of the year-1 task orders. ALP rows 38-46 is deleted from the table. If a future task order orders support for the DMS, the ALPs applicable to that support will be provided in the task order.

Question #258: Reference QASP Section 7, List item 4. This specifies a 5 day time frame for invoicing both performance bonuses and penalties. It’s a very aggressive goal to be able to invoice in 5 days. Our suggestion is make this a minimum of 30 day.

Answer #258: QASP paragraph 7c(4) response periods have been revised to change 5 days to read "within 30 days”.

Question #259: Reference SOP. Please refer to two documents.

(1) SOP document file named DISA_CONUS_SOP.doc. This document is titled “METHODS AND PROCEDURES Global NetOps Support Center (GNSC) Network Event Reporting)

(2) SOP document file named SKMBT_C25310051321180.pdf. This document is titled “DISA CONUS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP) DISA CONUS Global Network Operations Support Center (GNSC) Reporting Criteria”

The first document is Methods & Procedures and the second is Standard Operating Procedures.

Does the second supersede the first?

Answer #259: References noted are removed from the GFI data. Please refer to “CCIR” documents in GFI.

Question #260: Reference SOP, Section 7, item no.7.1.2.7, Page 15. Reference document file named SOP100-55_01_GNSC_TMS_(Rev_1)_Updated_10_Sep_08_-_final.doc.

The document is titled: “DISA CONUS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP)

SOP100-55-01 GNSC TMS”.

In this document, refer to section 7 called Procedures and 7.1.2.7 called Monitor.

Is the term “ENDEXED” used in 7.1.2.7 a typographical error?.

Answer #260: Reference SOP100-55-1 GNSC TMS (7.1.2.7) “ENDEXED” is a typographical error and is revised to read “ENDED”.

Question #261: Reference SOP. Reference document file named SOP100-55-02_(Rev_1)_Network_Esclation_-_Tier_I__Tier_II_(final).doc

The document is titled “DISA CONUS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP)

10 September 2008

100-55-02 (Revision 1)

OPERATIONS

Global NetOps Support Center (GNSC)

Network Escalation Process and Responsibility Shared between Tier I and Tier II”

Are the use of the terms Incident Management and Problem Management in the document functions of Service Operation as defined by ITIL V3?

Answer #261: Yes, in those GFI documents, the terms Incident Management and Problem Management are as defined by ITIL V3.

Question #262: Reference SOP. Reference document file named SOP100-55-02_(Rev_1)_Network_Esclation_-_Tier_I__Tier_II_(final).doc.

The document is titled “DISA CONUS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP)

10 September 2008

100-55-02 (Revision 1)

OPERATIONS

Global NetOps Support Center (GNSC)

Network Escalation Process and Responsibility Shared between Tier I and Tier II”.

This document details the interaction and responsibilities between Tier I and II. Is there a similar document detailing the interaction and responsibilities between Tier II and Tier III?

Answer #262: Interactions at Tier III level may involve multiple contractors; in that context PWS paragraph 3.1d requires that the Contractor be prepared to coordinate with other GSM/DISN contractors. There is no single GFI document that discusses this Tier II – Tier III boundary.

Question #263: Reference Task Orders, Page A-1. Reference document file named Attachment_5_GSM‑O_Draft_Task_Order-1_v10_05-21-2010.

The document is titled GIG Services Management (GSM) –Operations (GSM-O) Task Order #GSM-O-01.

Is there a list of the GSM-OSS tools?

Answer #263: The Government is clarifying the final list of GSM-OSS tools that will be provided as GFI on the Controlled CD-ROM. The most current data is available, as of 1 September.

Question #264: Reference Task Orders, Appendix A Standard Change, Item a-5, Page A-2. Reference document file named Attachment_5_GSM-O_Draft_Task_Order-1_v10__05-21-2010.

The document is titled GIG Services Management (GSM) –Operations (GSM-O) Task Order #GSM-O-01.

Please refer to Appendix A, section Standard Change (item a-5).This section references 4.2.1(b). We are unable to find this section. Please provide the section 4.2.1(b).

Answer #264: In all TOs, Appendix A, definition for Standard Change: reference to APP E para 4.2.1(b) is corrected to read 6.1.2a(2).

Question #265: Reference Task Orders, Sections 4.2b, 4.2c, 4.4a, 4.5a, 4.5b, 7.4b, Pages E-2, E-3, E-4, and E-24. Reference document file named Attachment_5_GSM-O_Draft_Task_Order-1_v10__05-21-2010.

The title of the document is GIG Services Management (GSM) –Operations (GSM-O)

Task Order #GSM-O-01.

In this document should all references to Appendix C in sections 4.2b, 4.2c, 4.4a, 4.5a, 4.5b, and 7.4b be changed to Appendix F?

Answer #265: In all TOs, incorrect references (in Appendix E) to Appendix C now read Appendix F.

Question #266: Reference Task Orders, Sect ion 6b E-6. Reference document file named Attachment_5_GSM-O_Draft_Task_Order-1_v10__05-21-2010.

Please refer to document titled GIG Services Management (GSM) –Operations (GSM-O)

Task Order #GSM-O-01, section 6 called Network Operation Administration and Maintenance (OA&M) Requirements.

There is a reference to paragraph 14d in section 6(b). Upon review it appears to be unavailable.

Answer #266: In ALP table row 6 the reference is corrected to show paragraph 6a. Document references to Roll Back action checked and corrected.

Question #267: Reference Task Orders, Section 6c, Page E-6. Reference document file named Attachment_5_GSM-O_Draft_Task_Order-1_v10__05-21-2010.

Please refer to document titled GIG Services Management (GSM) –Operations (GSM-O) Task Order #GSM-O-01, section 6 called Network Operation Administration and Maintenance (OA&M) Requirements.

There is a reference to paragraph 1 in section 6(c). After reading paragraph 1, is there a relationship between section 6(c) and paragraph 1?

Answer #267: TO-1 reference corrected to read TO paragraph 3. (Note: TO-2 not affected.)

Question #268: ReferenceAttachment 4 GSM-O- QASP, Attachment 1, PWS, Appendix C; Attachment 4, QASP Comment/Recommendation: The definitions of the blue, green, yellow, and red “regions” are not consistent between the PWS Appendix C and the Attachment 4 QASP. Recommend that the Government review the definitions and make them consistent.

Answer #268: Appendix C of PWS is correct and QASP paragraph 7b is revised to be consistent.

Question #269: ReferenceAttachment 4 GSM-O- QASP, Section 7(c)(4) states, “The IDO’s authorization would be valid for only 5 days to encourage prompt invoicing. In the event that the performance is assessed as below satisfactory, such that an overall negative incentive award is appropriate, the negative incentive amount would be assessed as “credit” back to the government and the contractor would submit this credit invoice within 5 days as well.”

Comment/Recommendation: Recommend that the 5-day intervals be changed to a 30-day interval to provide a reasonable amount of time for accurate invoice processing.

Answer #269: See Question/Answer# 258. QASP paragraph 7c(4) response periods have been revised to change 5 days to read "within 30 days”.

Question #270: ReferenceAttachment 4 GSM-O- QASP, Section 8, Standard 11 (6.2.2 Trouble Management, Help Desk Support).

Comment/Recommendation: Recommend that this standard be split into four separate standards to align with the three acceptable levels of performances indicated. Specifically, we recommend a separate standard for first-call resolution; call abandonment; average answer delay; and customer satisfaction.

Answer #270: The Government’s intent is that each of the four metrics noted in the ALP is to be satisfactory or better as the basis for possible award of an incentive. ALP Row 11 is clarified to that effect.

Question #271: Reference GSM-O Task Order #GSM-O-01 – Operation, Sustainment and Assurance of the DISN Infrastructure, Paragraph 12, page 10, Security.

Comment/Recommendation: The referenced paragraph does not make any reference to cryptographic requirements. Please clarify.

Answer #271: TO-1 has no requirements for cryptographic support (such support will be provided via GSM-P&S sources).

Question #272: GSM-O PWS, Page 5, Paragraph 3.1, General Requirements: GSM-O PWS Paragraph 3.1, General Requirements, states, “The duties of the GSM contractors shall be performed at Contractor Facilities (CF) and Government Facilities (GF)…” During the 28 June 2010 GSM-AoS Pre-Solicitation Conference, a preference for the use of Government facilities was expressed. Would the Government please clarify which, if any, Government facilities are to be used by Offerors? Also, if government facilities are proposed, how are the costs of those facilities to be proposed by Offerors?

Answer #272: Because all reporting must be done on the Government’s classified network, the typical work location will be within a Government facility. If floorspace shortages require temporary use of Contractor facilities, each such situation must be Government approved; and the Contractor will be expected to move into Government facilities when space becomes available. The listing of Government facilities is provided within the GFI. Government space is provided at no cost to the Contractor.

The GSM-O PWS, paragraph 3.1a is revised to state, “a. Place of Performance: The duties of the GSM contractors shall be performed at Government Facilities (GF), including but not limited to the following locations: Scott AFB (IL); Stuttgart, GE; Honolulu, HI; Tampa, FL; Manama Bahrain; Skyline 7 (DISA building), Arlington VA; and 701 S. Courthouse Road (DISA building) Arlington VA. The efforts performed at the Skyline 7 and 701. S Courthouse Road facilities in VA are planned to be transferred to the BRAC-directed Government facility at Ft. Meade, MD at a future time no later than the end of FY11. The use of Contractor Facilities (CF) requires Government approval. Other work locations within and outside the Continental United States shall be as specified in each individual Task Order.”

Question #273: Reference GSM-O Task Order #GSM-O-02 – Maintenance and Repair of the DISN Infrastructure, Appendix E, paragraph 6.2.2(5), paragraph 6.2.2(6).

Comment/Recommendation: These requirements state, “coordinating with other service providers as necessary.” Is the requirement to coordinate with other service providers part of this task order or Task Order 1, and if both, please explain the intent and how the Government anticipates cost and performance differentiation?

Answer #273: The GSM-O PWS, paragraph 6.2.2 describes requirements that map across both task orders for integrated execution. The Contractor must “coordinate with other service providers as necessary,” where and as applicable. The Contractor is responsible for performance under both task orders even if it chooses to use subcontractors in a manner that draws additional lines to be managed. Internal cost management is a Contractor responsibility.

Question #274: GSM-O DRFP Attachment 2, DD-254 (Block 11, subpart h.), and the GSM-O PWS: The GSM-O DD-254 (Block 11, subpart “h”) does not require a COMSEC Account. Further, the GSM-O PWS does not describe any COMSEC requirements. Would the Government please clarify their COMSEC support requirements? What is the Government’s vision for COMSEC logistics support and COMSEC key management?

Answer #274: Refer to Question/Answer: #134. COMSEC support is a GSM-P&S function.

Question #275: 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: Referencing the language identified in Attachment 12, we recommend that the Government consider providing the existing spare and repair parts to the winning contractor as Government Furnished Equipment.

Answer #275: The existing spare and repair parts as listed as GFI (Controlled CD-ROM) will be made available to the GSM-O contractor after award of contract. Details of facilitating the transfer are to be determined after award.

Question #276: Reference: Section L7.1, Table 7.1; Section M3.3.3. Comment/Recommendation: Draft RFP Table 7.1 indicates the specific RFP PWS paragraphs to be addressed in the various Technical Proposal sections. The following inconsistencies were noted in review of the Draft RFP with the associated recommended actions.

a) PWS 4.1 was omitted from the Volume II, Section C requirements in Table 7.1, but PWS 4.1 is called out in the associated Section M section (i.e., M3.3.3. Recommend that PWS 4.1 be added to the PWS paragraph requirements for Volume II, Section C in Table 7.1

b) Section L7.1, Table 7.1, does not identify any place in the technical proposal where requirements specified in PWS 8, 9, and 10. While these requirements are not included in the two Task Orders, they appear to reflect scope that will be critical to the successful performance of…