Release No. 5 - Questions 389-421.doc

QUESTION #389: Reference CD-ROM: The task order files on the CD-ROM contain only Section C of each TO. We request that the Government provide the remaining relevant data of each TO to enable a more complete understanding of the current environment on the part of offerors. In particular, please provide the following information per TO: place of performance, total labor in $$, total travel in $$, total purchases in $$ (separated by HW and SW), total ODC in $$, total HW maintenance purchases in $$, and total SW maintenance purchases in $$. Please refer to the "DGS-SAIC" and "DGS-APPTIS" tabs of this spreadsheet for details. On these tabs, we have added columns to the Government's "GSM attachment.xls" spreadsheet from the unclassified CD-ROM.

ANSWER #389: After careful consideration, the DGS Contracting Officer and Program Management Office will not release the level of cost breakout detail requested. Year 2009 and active DGS Task Order descriptions have been provided on the controlled CD. Each of descriptions accurately depicts the DGS work being performed currently and in the prior year. The dollar value of each of those task orders and some staffing data is also included in those descriptions. As a reminder, those descriptions identify the "as is" on DGS and not necessarily the "to be" on GSM. A significant portion of the active task orders will be included in GSM-O Task Orders 1 & 2, which have been published on FedBizOpps.

QUESTION #390: Reference CD-ROM: In reference Q&A #158, 275, 296, the Government responses indicate that a complete list of items classified as "spares or repair parts" is provided on the CD-ROM. The CD-ROM contains a list of hardware and software items that have annual maintenance agreements (reference file "equipment maintenance example data_05202010.xlsm"). However this file does not identify items as "spare" or "repair". We have not located any other file(s) that contain this information. Request that a file be provided which contains a list specifically of spares and repair parts with the following information per part:

* OEM and OEM part number

* Country and city of the spare/repair parts where currently warehoused

* Quantity of all parts expected to be transferred (per Q&A #158) to the winning bidder.

ANSWER #390: Answers #158, 275 and 296 are incorrect. Section L Instructions, (reference Q&A item #296) require the offeror to assume, for proposal purposes only, that all required parts will be provided by the Offeror (i.e. that warehouse parts are not available).

The offeror is free to organize spare/repair parts according to its own logistics strategy.

The Government has already stated that in execution, if a bill of materials contains an item that could come from a Government source, the Government will decide whether to provide the item as GFE or to require the Contractor to purchase/provide it.

QUESTION #391: Reference PWS, Appendix C, C-4. In reference to QASP ALP #8, we assume that the “original request” is equivalent to an approved, funded TR. Is this correct?

ANSWER #391: No. The action begins with contractor receipt of a completed Telecommunications Request (TR) which identifies the basic requirement. The contractor engineers a proposed solution and estimated cost, at which point the metric clock stops while the proposed solution is coordinated with the DISN user for concurrence and funding approval. When concurrence and funding have been received, then the timed activity resumes for the contractor to write the TSO within the remainder of the seven day window for that phase of the work. Implementation is then covered by the next 7/14/21 day time frames. ALP 8 Objective cell will revised to add, “Time attributable to Government coordination with the user to obtain user concurrence and funding does not count against the 7-day period for completion of the TSO.”

QUESTION #392: Reference PWS, Appendix C, C-4. In reference to QASP ALP #8, we assume the Request Fulfillment timeline (and metrics evaluation) ends at Service Activation Complete following testing from demarc to demarc. Is this correct?

ANSWER #392: No. Following completion of the TSO phase (see question 391), the next phase of activity, and the metrics timeline noted in ALP 8, ends with completion/activation of the portion of the total effort that is within the GSM-O contractor’s responsibility, as documented in Data Capture item B005 Completion Report (see PWS 6.2.1d). (Many times the effort will involve further non-GSM-O work to install last mile infrastructure or install user terminal equipment, etc which are not within the scope of the GSM-O contractor’s responsibility.) ALP 8 Objective cell will revised to add, “the request fulfillment timeline ends with recording of data related to Data Capture item B005 in the OSS tool.”

QUESTION #393: Reference PWS, 6.2.1. Does the GSM-O PWS require the GSM-O contractor to perform any aspect of B/P/C/S last half mile wiring as part of Request Fulfillment? Or, is this function solely allocated to the ETI contract (reference GSM-ETI Operational Architecture Section 2.4)?

ANSWER #393: The GSM-O contractor’s responsibility in a request fulfillment action ends at the network point of presence or (if a commercial lease is involved) at the user location identified in the TSO, which is often a point not within a B/P/C/S facility. Beyond that point, further work, if any, would be the user responsibility to include possible use of GSM-ETI support (see GSM-O SOO paragraph 5.3.4) if the user selects that option.

QUESTION #394: Reference PWS, Appendix A, A-2. PWS Appendix A provides the definition of a standard change; however several items are not clear:

a) Is the fulfillment of a request considered a standard change if the fulfillment requires the leasing of a circuit?

b) Is the fulfillment of a request considered a standard change if the fulfillment involves support to a non-GSM-O contractor performing B/P/C/S last half mile wiring or other activities?

ANSWER #394: (a) When a request fulfillment TSO has been fully designed and approved, four things could direct the work depending on the content of the approved solution:

(1) If the solution involves actions that will change backbone bandwidth at the designated location, (e.g. as a result of a circuit lease that has that effect) then by PWS Table 1 row 4, the Government will transfer that work to the ETI contractor for execution. When completed, the final integration of the ETI-performed action would be addressed in GSM-O PWS 6.2.7.

(2) The Government could, for various reasons, declare/direct that the work is to be executed as an Other-Than-Standard action per Table 1 row 6.

(3) If neither of the first two situations is applicable, and if the action completely complies with all six of the criteria for being a Standard Change action, it will be executed as a Standard Change action. This path could involve obtaining a circuit lease (e.g. an access circuit) as part of the approved solution – i.e. leasing per se does not exclude the action from being a Standard Change action. (Reference Question/Answer #388, previous release. The ALP clock will stop while DITCO obtains the lease.)

(4) Finally, if in (3) the approved solution does not satisfy all of the criteria for being a Standard Change, then by application of Table 1 rows 9 and 10, the action will be executed as an Other-Than-Standard action.

(b) See Question/Answer 393, above. “Last mile” connections are GSM-ETI actions, see GSM‑ETI SOO paragraph 5.3.4. If the GSM-O contractor is still involved in a role of providing support to that action, the GSM-O activity would be in the Other-Than-Standard category, see PWS Table rows 6 and 10.

To help clarify how Table 1 is to be interpreted, several definitions (e.g. Access Bandwidth, Backbone Bandwidth, and possibly others) are being added to PWS Appendix A.

QUESTION #395: Attachment 1, Task Order 01, Paragraph 6.1.2, E-7. Task Order 1 Section 6.1.2 on page E‑7 defines three implementation modes of execution for the Request Fulfillment and Trouble Repair/Restoral functions. Section 6.1.2a(2) (Other-than-standard change) states that the “Government’s control over specific actions to be taken by the Contractor will be as described in the applicable Task Order(s)”. It is not quite clear what this means- is this in reference to a different task order than Task Order 1? i.e., is this paragraph suggesting that Other-than-Standard changes will be executed based on requirements in separate (future) Task Orders, and not as part of Task Order 1? If this is not the case, and other-than-standard changes are executed as part of Task Order 1, please provide further detail on the definition and scope of other-than-standard changes, given the context of the FFP task order.

ANSWER #395: The Government’s intent in establishing the category of Other-Than-Standard actions was to provide a way for the Government to assert added control over an action when circumstances (e.g. security, technical complexity, cost etc) indicate that intermediate Government decisions, beyond those in the Standard Change type of action, might be needed. Metrics that apply to Standard Change actions do not apply when the action becomes, or is declared to be, of the Other-Than-Standard type. The definition will typically apply at the level of an action within a task order. Therefore PWS paragraph 6.1.2a(2) and the same paragraph in TO Appendix E have been revised to state “(2) Some requested work will remain GSM-O work but will be executed via Other-than-Standard procedures. In these situations, Standard Change procedures are not applicable, in order to give the Government a greater degree of control over the required process outcome. Note that, as a mode of implementation, an Other-than-Standard work outcome is not different per se, but the degree of Government participation is. The Government may, at its option at any time, change the category of work from a Standard Change action to one under this paragraph, by notification to the Contractor by an authorized Government person (e.g. by a Task Monitor or comparable authority).”

QUESTION #396: PWS, Paragraph 6.2.1. The third sentence of PWS Section 6.2.7 states that “the definition and criteria of Standard Change actions (see Appendix A) is applicable to this paragraph.” The intent of this sentence is not clear. The definition of "Standard Change" in Appendix A suggests that an activity requiring inter-contactor program integration is, by definition, not a Standard Change. If this understanding is not correct can the Government please provide an example of a standard change that requires inter-contactor program integration.

ANSWER #396: PWS paragraph 6.2.7 has been revised to delete the second and third sentences which read “This includes changes resulting from Standard Change actions, Other-than-Standard actions (see PWS 6.1.2 a(2)) and actions resulting from contingency/emergency support as applicable (see PWS 6.3). The definition and criteria of Standard Change actions (see Appendix A) is applicable to the activities of this paragraph.” Instead the following sentence is added: “Table 1 allocation rules are not applicable to program integration activities.” As a consequence, PWS requirement 6.2.7 has been removed from the scope of GSM-O Task Order-1 and instead will be addressed after award via a separate task order, comparable to the approach being used to address Contingency support under PWS 6.3.

QUESTION #397: As part of the ongoing efforts to ensure that industry has a complete understanding of the current environment, we believe that it is important for industry to be afforded the opportunity to visit the DISN operational sites where the GSM-O work will be performed. Site visits play an important complementary role to accurately interpreting the data provided on the CD-ROM and in the Q&A. We have been trying to avoid troubling you with site visit requests, so are attempting to arrange tours of these facilities on our own.

ANSWER #397: All questions, requests for information (to include site visits, tours, etc) related to the GSM-O solicitation shall be addressed with the GSM-O contracting officer by submitting an email to the DISNGSM@disa.mil email address.

QUESTION #398: Reference: Draft RFP, H.5(c) The referenced provision states, "Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). For purposes of the GSM Acquisition of Services, all equipment installed on the Government side of the demarc shall become GFE." Question: This provision would imply that all equipment in the network would be provided to the contractor as GFE. Is this the Government's intent? If so, please give direction on how contractors will access, control and legally account for the GFE when it is under the Government's physical control?

ANSWER #398: RFP Section H.5c remains as stated. Language in the PWS related to GFE has been removed. The Government will work with the GSM-O contractor after award to finalize procedures for property accountability of the DISN infrastructure.

QUESTION #399: Reference: Unclassified CD ROM. In analyzing the equipment listings on the Government-provided CD ROM, it appears that a substantial portion of the equipment in the network that would be subject to contractor-provided maintenance is already at end-of-life (currently looks like over 30% of equipment listed is at end-of-life). As such, manufacturer / OEM quotes for spare parts are not available (i.e., Vendors denied our requests to provide valid quotes for spare parts for the end-of-life equipment items). Only the incumbent contractor will be able to determine reasonable costs for these items through their knowledge of current DGS contract maintenance.

This situation will likely result in offerors making vastly different assumptions regarding the cost of spares items, and result in the Government not being able to reasonable sort out which proposed costs are realistic and reasonable. To further complicate this issue, the Government has indicated through their Q&A that specific information regarding how and at what cost offerors may acquire currently owned Government spares will not be disclosed or discussed until after award.

We recommend that the Government provide a “plug number” for all bidders to use for the spare parts portion of the maintenance costs. This approach would provide a common, fair and reasonable baseline for evaluation across all bids. This approach will also eliminate the likely scenario where the Government will be unable to adequately evaluate proposed maintenance costs due to the large portion of end-of-life equipment provided in the Government’s listings on the CD ROM. Additionally, this approach will eliminate any unfair advantage the incumbent contractor will have through unique knowledge only available to them as a result of performance on the current DGS contract and will eliminate the need for the other offerors to base our bids on unsupportable guesswork and pricing.

ANSWER #399: The level of data requested is not available at this time; however, the Government is continuing attempts to obtain information. If information becomes available, an announcement will be made and the information will be provided on an updated CD-ROM.

QUESTION #400: Reference: Government response to Questions #306 and #309. The Government’s response to the referenced questions indicate that the Government will incorporate language addressing “transitioning from the current T&M contracting environment to a performance-based contract…”

All bidders have been asked to perform startup activities for GSM-O, which is from inception, a performance-based contract. However, this language appears to give the incumbent another inherent advantage. The incumbent bidder will be the ONLY offeror who is actually transitioning from a T&M environment on their DGS contract to GSM-O’s performance-based environment. We believe that this perceived bias toward current incumbent contractors is not in the Government’s best interests and will result in a flawed evaluation outcome, high probability of protest and reduction of competition as potential offerors further conclude that this acquisition is “wired” for the incumbent.

We strongly recommend that the Government rescind its response to the referenced questions and remove any such incumbent-friendly language from Subfactor 2 (Transition) and the broader solicitation.

ANSWER #400: RFP Section L Instructions to Offerors and Section M Evaluation Factors for Award have been reviewed and will be revised in the Final RFP.

QUESTION #401: Reference: Q and As Release #3 – 24 Sep 2010, Answer 331(e):

The answer to Question 331 part e) states "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."

We request that the Government provide sufficient detail in this historical data for the contractor to assess the level of effort. This data includes:

* Location of installation

* Start/stop times for field service

* Designation of standard vs. non-standard (according to GSM-O definition)

* Description of service performed (equipment, commercial lease usage, system/network identification, etc)

* Provisioning Performance Metrics over this time period:

- TSR-to-TSO times

- TSO-to-completion times

- By service (IP, dedicated, etc)

ANSWER #401: The October release of the secret CD contains the top level provisioning actions for the past nine years. Data captured in this file include the number of amendments, changes, starts, cancellations, and re-awards, broken out geographically. The level of data requested is not available at this time; however, the Government is continuing attempts to obtain information. If information becomes available, an announcement will be made and the information will be provided on an updated CD-ROM.

QUESTION #402: Reference CD-ROM: The Government-provided CD-ROM includes more than 36K trouble tickets, but without sufficient detail to assess the historical level of effort for trouble management support. We request that this data be augmented with the following:

* DCCC/helpdesk created tickets for last 12 – 24 months (this does not appear to be on the CD)

* Ticket date/time information

* Data dictionary to aid in the understanding of the ticket database fields (e.g., Spt Site 1, Spt Site 2, Service 1, Service 2, Service 3, Element ID, RFO 1, RFO 2

ANSWER #402: The level of data requested is not available at this time; however, the Government is continuing attempts to obtain information. If information becomes available, an announcement will be made and the information will be provided on an updated CD-ROM.

QUESTION #403: The most recent CD-ROM #4 contained some new task order files and summary sheets of the task orders. Some of the task orders did not contain funding information, and for those that did, it was not clear if the funding applied to only the period of performance of the task order or it also applied to work in prior periods. In order to enable bidders to have a more complete understanding of the current environment, please provide the information requested in the yellow highlighted columns of the "DGS-SAIC" and "DGS-APPTIS" worksheets of this Excel spreadsheet: Total funding $, total labor in $, total travel in $, total incidentals in $, total purchases in $ (separated by HW and SW), total ODC in $, total HW maintenance purchases in $, and total SW maintenance purchases in $.

Please provide funding associated only with the period of performance of the "Current" task order per the CD-ROM (as opposed to cumulative funding of the task order since inception).

ANSWER #403: After careful consideration, the DGS Contracting Officer and Program Management Office will not release the level of cost breakout detail requested. Year 2009 and active DGS Task Order descriptions have been provided on the controlled CD. Each of descriptions accurately depicts the DGS work being performed currently and in the prior year. The dollar value of each of those task orders and some staffing data is also included in those descriptions. As a reminder, those descriptions identify the "as is" on DGS and not necessarily the "to be" on GSM. A significant portion of the active task orders will be included in GSM-O Task Orders 1 & 2, which have been published on FedBizOpps.

QUESTION #404: We welcome the industry site visit to the GNSC. We believe it is the Government’s best interest to ensure that industry has a complete picture of the DISN OA&M environment, and that this visit supports that objective. Since the GSM-O tasks are performed across multiple sites, we request additional site visits to the DCCC and the TNC in Europe to fully satisfy objective.

ANSWER #404: The Government may offer additional site visits for offerors who are interested in submitting a proposal as a prime contractor for GSM-O solicitation. However, the vendor is requested to be more specific as to the intent of the site visits to the DCCC and the TNC in Europe. It is possible that the floor plans and other information provided on the FOUO and Classified CDs provide sufficient information.

QUESTION #405: Overall, what are the top issues (e.g. 3-5) that the GNSC is addressing today across all of the PWS areas?

ANSWER #405.

QUESTION #406: What are the driver(s) of the most common outages experienced? What are the driver(s) of the most serious outages? Approximately how often does each of these types of outages occur?

ANSWER #406: According to data collected at the GNSC, a common area is incomplete crypto updates (supposed to be updated monthly), and an area of serious impact is cable cuts (average is about once per quarter in CONUS).

QUESTION #407: What are the areas for highest end-user satisfaction?

ANSWER #407: According to customer survey data collected at the GNSC, an area of end-user satisfaction would be Timely Problem Resolution.

QUESTION #408: What are the areas for highest end-user dissatisfaction?

ANSWER #408: According to customer survey data collected at the GNSC, an area of end-user dissatisfaction would be Long Term Outages.

QUESTION #409: How often or COOP exercises performed? When was the last time COOP was exercised.

ANSWER #409: COOP exercises are required quarterly, and performed as needed. Last COOP for CONUS was performed September 2010.

QUESTION #410: What are the near term GNSC improvements planned, and when?

ANSWER #410: The only known improvement at GNSC is the New Facility scheduled for approximately 2015.

QUESTION #411: What activities are performed at other sites that differ from that performed at GNSC?

ANSWER #411: Scope of GSM-O core processes is identical at all sites.

QUESTION #412: As-Is Tool set of platforms. Do engineering activities share platforms with operations activities? If so, which platforms are shared and for what engineering activities? If not, where are engineering activities performed?

ANSWER #412: Tool-related applications/platforms (within the OSS suite including CM, EMS, etc) are shared among GSM-O, GSM-ETI and GSM-P&S work contexts

QUESTION #413: Ref. PWS Para 6.2.1-Request Fulfillment. Are there a set of metrics specific to TSP, Emergency, and Urgent requests? How does the Request Fulfillment process differ for these priority orders?

ANSWER #413: TSP actions do not have specific metrics. Support under PWS 6.3 for Contingency/Emergency Response is addressed in ALPs 27a, 27b. The Government is not currently tracking these metrics. “Urgent” requests are not defined in the PWS as a separate category. There are no differences in the processes themselves, but the context varies in terms of priority.

QUESTION #414: Ref. PWS Para 6.2.1-Request Fulfilllment. Please provide detail on the concept of operations for Inter-regional provisioning ANSWER #414: By definition, an Inter-regional provisioning action will modify the backbone and by PWS Table 1 become a GSM-ETI action.

QUESTION #415: Ref. PWS Para 6.2.2 Trouble Management. Please describe GNSC interaction with DCCC. Please describe any regionally-unique interactions

ANSWER #415: DCCC provides help desk support to the GNSC for all services and supports other NetOps centers for services that are managed globally. PWS 6.2.2 describes requirements for Help Desk capabilities.

QUESTION #416: Ref PWS Para 6.2.5 Performance Management. As you demo, please point out the operational metrics used for trend analysis and reporting. How are the metrics collected, collated, reported and presented? And how often?

ANSWER #416: The site visit briefings described a sampling of current processes and metrics now being used. The GSM-O PWS 6.2.5 describes Performance Management requirements as they will be after award, which may not be the same as what the visit described or demonstrated. Reports are provided on a monthly or as-required basis to Government, DISN customers, and [contractor] engineering support staff; refer to CDRL descriptions in the RFP.

QUESTION #417: Ref. PWS Para 6.2.5 Performance Management. Does DISA CONUS provide automated performance management reporting of the IP network?

How is this scripted?

Is there unattended operation?

Who are the recipient(s) of reports?

Is ad hoc reporting supported?

Is there customer-facing reporting?

ANSWER #417: The site visit briefings described a sampling of current processes and metrics now being used. The GSM-O PWS 6.2.5 describes Performance Management requirements as they will be after award, which may not be the same as what the visit described or showed. Reports are provided on a monthly or as-required basis to Government, DISN customers, and [contractor] engineering support staff; refer to CDRL descriptions in the RFP.

QUESTION #418: Ref. Para 6.4 COOP. How often are COOP exercises performed?

When was the last time COOP was exercised? What were the key lessons learned from the event?

ANSWER #418: COOP exercises are required quarterly, and performed as needed. Last COOP for CONUS was performed September 2010.

QUESTION #419: Ref. Para 7.0 Net Assurance. What is the overall system architecture for CNDSP? Where are the CNDSP devices located (e.g., IDS, monitoring devices, etc)?

Where is the Net Assurance Center of Excellence located?

ANSWER #419: The location and architecture of CND capabilities is classified, and will be on the restricted CD released with the RFP.

QUESTION #420: Ref. Para 7.0 Net Assurance. Is there a Net Assurance Support/Service Desk for customer issues? Where is it located? What tool is used for Net Assurance trouble ticketing (e.g., Remedy).

ANSWER #420: All four (4) regional centers have a Net Assurance service desk. Remedy is used for CND management hardware (e.g. sensors); the tool DCID is used for incident reporting.

QUESTION #421: Bahrain was not mentioned as a location of work support on any of the slides. Please clarify.

ANSWER #421: The information presented during the DISN GSNC site visit will be corrected to reflect that Bahrain is a location supported by the GNSC.