GSM-ETI QA FRFP 6-149- 13 Jun 2011.doc
DOC document 234 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Global Information Grid Services Management - Engineering, Transition and Implementation (GSM-ETI) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HC1028-10-R-2001
- Issued by
- Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
Questions/Responses - FRFP 6 through FRFP 149
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 34
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
RELEASE NO. 2
FOR GSM-ETI
FRFP #6 - 149— 13 June 2011
| QUESTION # |
| ANSWER # |
FRFP 6: RFP Section L8.4.4 states the offeror shall complete and submit Section B - Attachment 01 and shall also complete the spreadsheet provided as Section J – Attachment 15. Further, it states that the information reflected in Section J – Attachment 15 will take precedence over the information reflected in Section B – Attachment 01. We are not able to locate Section J - Attachment 15 in the RFP. Please advise if perhaps there is a typo in the attachment number and it should be Section J – Attachment 10.
FRFP 6: Please refer to Amendment 0001 to Request For Proposal (RFP) HC1028-10-R-2001 issued 02 May 2011. Amendment 0001 corrects the reference to RFP Section J – Attachment 10 instead of RFP Section J – Attachment 15. References to RFP Section J - Attachment 15 have been removed throughout the RFP.
FRFP 7: Section B – Attachment 01 and Section J – Attachment 10 do not allow for the entry of the “total evaluated price”, defined in Section M.3.5.2 as the sum of the proposed labor rates for each labor category multiplied by the corresponding estimated hours specified by the Government. Please advise specifically where in the proposal document the offeror is to provide the total evaluated price for each contract year 1 – 5.
FRFP 7: RFP Section J - Attachment 10 is revised to add a Total Evaluated Price summary page and to include a requiremen to total the entries for each year. The revised RFP Section J - Attachment 10 is included in Amendment 0004.
| FRFP 8: In Section H7 – KEY PERSONNEL, the RFP indicates that the offeror is to identify one Program Manager by name, yet Section B – Attachment 01 reflects a total of 3,760 hours per year for the Program Manager labor category which would indicate two full-time equivalents (FTEs) at 1,880 productive hours each (1,880 x 2 = 3,760 hours). Please confirm that the total of 3,760 hours per year for the Program Manager is correct in Section B – Attachment 01 for all contract years. |
| FRFP 8: RFP Section B, Attachment 01 is revised to reflect the estimated quantity of hours for the Program Manager as 1880 hours instead of 3760 hours for each year. RFP Attachment 10 (excel spreadsheet) is revised accordingly. |
| FRFP 9: Ref L.8.2.5.3. The requirement to provide a PWS in the Sample Task appears to be in conflict with Attachment 4, GSM-ETI Task Order Guide, item e(4), which indicates that technical proposals for task orders should provide a technical approach. There is no mention of submitting a PWS with the technical proposal for a task order. We recommend that this conflicting information be rectified to ensure a compliant response. |
| FRFP 9: The offeror shall respond to RFP Section C – GSM-ETI Performance Work Statement (PWS) with their technical approach (Reference RFP Section L, paragraph L8.2.5.2.) Further, the offeror shall respond to the sample task order Statement of Objectives (SOO)with a PWS, technical approach and specified deliverables as indicated in Section L, paragraph L8.2.5.3. The Task Order Guide (Attachment 4) provides a template that the offeror shall follow. The offeror shall complete Sections 3 through 14 of the PWS. The offeror shall demonstrate competencies in all areas required within its PWS response. |
| FRFP 10: Ref L.8.2.5.3. A Technical Approach and a Management Approach is required for the Sample Task Order response. A PWS identifies WHAT is to be performed, while an approach describes HOW the contractor will perform the work. Will the Government clarify whether the Sample Task Order response should include a PWS with a Technical Approach and Management Approach imbedded in the PWS or is it the Government's intention for the Sample TO response to include a PWS with a Technical Requirements section and a Management Requirements section, PLUS a description of the Technical Approach and Management Approach (in addition to and outside of the PWS section)? |
| FRFP 10: See Question/Answer #FRFP 9. |
| FRFP 11: Ref M.3.3.2. The Evaluation Criteria states that the response must demonstrate that the Offeror has applied the PWS requirements (RFP Section C) 5.2 through 5.5.3 to the objectives and constraints of the Sample Task Order. This indicates that the Sample Task Order must comply with the PWS in Section C. If this is correct, then what is the purpose of providing a second PWS in the Sample Task Order? Should the PWS requirement for the Sample Task Order be deleted or should the evaluation criteria be restated so that the offeror addresses the requirements in the Sample Task Order PWS? |
| FRFP 11: The purpose of the offeror’s PWS and technical approach at the task order level is for for the vendor to provide specific information on how they propose to complete the sample task as a turn-key solution. Reference RFP Section M, paragraph M3.3.2. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the Sample Task Order demonstrates the offeror’s application of its proposed technical approach to PWS requirements 5.2 through 5.5.3. The requirement for the PWS in response to the Sample Task Order E01 SOO will not be deleted. The evaluation criteria will not be restated. |
FRFP 12: Ref L.8.2.5.3. The request in Section L.8.2.5.3 to provide “completed deliverables/data reports” appears to be an incorrect instruction. Completed deliverables/data is not normally produced until after the task order is awarded. Also, please refer to Attachment 4 Section e(4), which identifies items to be included in a task order response technical proposal; it does not have a requirement for including “completed deliverables/data reports” Would the Government modify Section L.8.2.5.3 by: (a) removing the phrase “completed deliverables/data reports” and
(b) removing the entry “III. Deliverables, with detail” from the sample task order proposal outline.
FRFP 12: See Question/Answer FRFP #9.
| FRFP 13: Ref Attachment 3, Section 4.1.b A reference is made to “paragraph 14 of the basic PWS”. That paragraph does not exist in the PWS provided in Section C (PWS) of the RFP. Should the reference be to Section 4.3 of the basic PWS contained in Section C of the RFP? |
| FRFP 13: Sentence should read, “All activities described in the TO are subject to the conditions and constraints as described in paragraph 4 of the basic PWS”. |
| FRFP 14: Ref Compliance Matrix (Section L, Attachment 1). The compliance matrix is missing a row for PWS paragraph 5.2.8. Would the Government please add the missing row? |
| FRFP 14: RFP Section L Attachment 1 - Compliance Matrix is revised to add PWS Paragraph 5.2.8 – Technical Laboratory Engineering Support as a cross-reference. |
| FRFP 15: Ref Attachment 3, Table 1; M.3.3.2. The entry for 5.2.4 appears to be an error in Table 1. The only reference to modeling & simulation in the descriptions of the phases in Attachment 3 is in Phase One (Section 5.1), and Phase One has a “No” across from 5.2.4. Would the Government please resolve this apparent discrepancy? |
| FRFP 15: RFP Section J - Attachment 3 - GSM-ETI Sample Task Order E01 paragraph 3a scope table is revised to include PWS 5.2.4 in scope of the Sample Task Order. |
| FRFP 16: Ref Attachment 3, Table 1; M.3.3.2. The entries for Section 5.5.3 in Table 1 indicate that the Problem Management Process Support does not apply to any of the Phases of the sample task order work; however, Section M.3.3.2 indicates that the sample task order must demonstrate “the offeror’s application of PWS requirements 5.2 through 5.5.3 to the objectives and constraints of the Sample Task Order”. Would the Government please resolve this apparent discrepancy? |
| FRFP 16: RFP Section M, Paragraph M3.3.2 is revised to state “…of PWS requirements 5.2 through 5.5.2 to the objectives …”. |
Table 1 in the Sample Task Order is correct.
| FRFP 17: Ref L.8.2.5.5, L.8.2.3.2, L.8.2.5.5, and M.3.2. M.3.2 describes the Government's approach to assessing the risks of the offeror's Technical/Management approach. Is this evaluation criteria intended to apply ONLY to the information provided in the offeror's response to the Part E- Risk Matrix requirement? |
| FRFP 17: No. The offeror is to develop a Risk Matrix identifying (for the Government) any/all risks that are associated with the offeror’s proposed approach (See Section M, pagraph M3.2.1). The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Factor 1 - Technical/Management proposal (to include subfactors 1, 2 and 3) in accordance with Section M. Section M, paragraph M3 explains that two separate but related assessments will be made. Section M, paragraph M3.2 and subparagraphs explain the technical solution will be rated separately from the risk. |
| FRFP 18: Ref L.8.2.5.4. The instructions for preparing the Management Plan states "Including the Teaming Agreements ". Offers could have numerous subcontractors; therefore, this seems unreasonable because it will consume a significant portion of the Management Plan's allowed page count and will not be equitable (some offerors might have 1 or 2 subcontractors while others could have tens of subcontractors). If DISA wants the Teaming Agreements included, the only reasonable way they could be be submitted is as an attachment to the Mangement Plan and not be included in the page count. Please clarify that the requirement for "including" Teaming Agreements is for a description of any Teaming Arrangements we have in place, or a copy of a notional Teaming Agreement - not a requirement to include the actual Teaming Agreements. Or would DISA alter the instructions regarding page count for that Mangement Plan and exclude the Teaming Agreement pages from the total page count for that section or request that Teaming Agreeements be included in Volume V? |
| FRFP 18: In Volume II – Factor 1 – Technical/Management Approach, Part D (reference Paragraph L8.2.5.4), The offeror shall provide include information describing its Organizational Structure. The actual “Teaming Agreement” does not need to be provided in Volume II, Part D. Instead, copies of the “teaming agreement” may be provided in RFP Volume V, Part C. Section L, paragraph L8.2.5.4 is revised to reflect “teaming arrangement” vice “teaming agreement”. Volume V, Part C. , Part C is revised to reflect no page limit. |
| FRFP 19: Ref RFP Section C, PWS paragraph 5.2.7 (GSM-O Originated) Order Processing and Request Fullment Support and C. 5.4.3 Government Infrastructure Request Fulfillment Support. Although these subsections are not identical, the requirements are nearly identical. Please confirm that there was not an error made and that the Government meant for both subsections to be included and should be addressed as separate in the offerors' Technical responses. |
| FRFP 19: RFP Section C – GSM-ETI PWS requirements/paragraphs 5.2.7 and 5.4.3 are provided as separate requirements because the first has its origin within GSM-O actions that the Government assigns to the GSM-ETI contractor due to the application of the Table 1 work allocation rules (see GSM-ETI PWS Table 1). The other requirement, which uses similar networking engineering skills, deals with Government-originated engineering work to be applied to the core of the infrastructure; because the work is not DISN customer-originated the internal payment thread for this work is different. Therefore each requirement shall be addressed in the offeror’s proposal. |
FRFP 20: Ref L.7.1. L.7.1 states "The offeror’s company name/info shall not be reflected on any page of Volume II-Factor 1 - Technical/Management. The offeror’s Volume II-Factor 1 – Technical/Management proposal shall not be provided on company letterhead and shall be free of any watermarks, trademarks, legends, logos or similar markings, i.e. Company name/information, etc. may appear on all pages of Volume I, Volume III, Volume IV and Volume V.
There is some disagreement as to what the Government intended by this requirement. One interpretation is that logos, pictures and fancy fonts are not to be place inside the headers and footers of Volume II ; however, including the name of the Prime and subcontractors in the body text and graphics of Volume II is permitted. Another interpretation is the the Government wants a "blind" proposal.
Also, because this is a Small Business set-aside, many of the teams will have invested strength in their subcontractors. Providing blind "proof" statements, org charts, etc will be very cumbersome if we can not identify team members by name, discussing the team in general will be unnecessarily complicated and possibly confusing, and in trying to do so - particularly when addressing risk and the organization structure- it will still be obvious to many evaluators who the team members are; therefore making of the purpose of the "blind" requirement moot. Would the Government be more specific regarding the use of the prime and subcontractors names throughout the proposal? Does the Government desire a "blind" proposal or does the Government simply not want any decorative and elaborate headers and footers in Volume II that identifies the offeror? - for example Logos, pictures and fancy fonts would not be allowed in headers and footers ; however, including the name of the Prime and subcontractors in the body text and graphics of Volume II is permitted. Would including the name of the offeror in standard Time New Roman text in the header also be permissable?
FRFP 20: Volume II of the offeror’s proposal shall be free of any identification of the prime and/or teaming partner, joint venture, subcontractor, etc. The purpose of this requirement in Volume II is to ensure proposals are evaluated appropriately.
| FRFP 21: Ref Section C, Appendix C, page 89. Items B001 through B010 reference PWS sections 5.9 and 5.11. Those sections do not exist in the PWS in Section C. The correct reference should be 5.2.7 (old 5.9) and 5.4.3 (old 5.11) Would the government please correct the information in the RFP? |
| FRFP 21: RFP Section C- GSM-ETI PWS is revised to reflect correct references. |
| FRFP 22: Ref Attachment 3 , Section 3, paragraph d., bullet 1. The referenced section states that the Contractor shall assume that the exiting fiber optic links that carry the 10 Gb/s transport, including the existing optical line amplifiers (OALs), will support the 100 Gb/s upgrade. If the new 100 Gb/s systems re-use the existing fiber optic links and OLAs, should bidders include the decommissioning and recovery of the existing 10 Gb/s systems in their bids? |
| FRFP 22: Offerors shall assume that any decommissioning and/or recovery of equipment necessary to complete the full end‑to‑end solution is part of the Task Order activity. |
FRFP 23: Ref Attachment 5, Past Performance. The following suggestions will ensure that offerors can meet the 5-page limit with complete, clear, and non-repetitive responses that will be easier to evaluate.
Regarding Items J and K. During the Draft RFP phase, the Government’s response to Question #122 stated that Items J and K would be removed in the final GSM-ETI RFP. They are still in the template. Please correct this oversight.
Regarding Item L. Item L appears to be redundant to Item C, bullet 4, Period of Performance, and Item E, Completion Date. Because Items C and E address the requirement for past performance that was completed no more than 3 years ago and started not less than 9 months ago we recommend that Item L be deleted.
Regarding Items H, M and N. We suggest that items M and N be be combined because as written they seems redundant to item H. We recommend Item M be restated as follows: As related to the technical/management subfactors and cost/price factor, identify relevant past experience that demonstrates the ability to:
· Perform complex installations from the planning state to customer handoff
· Managed multiple complex projects concurrently
· Provide high capacity optical network solutions with a broad geographic
CONUS and OCONUS scope We would greatly appreciate an early response to these suggestions or further guidance for completing the template correctly to ensure that we will be able to provide compliant Past Performance and send out corresponding Questionnaires at least 2 weeks before the proposal due date.
FRFP 23: Reference RFP Section J – Attachment 5 – Past Performance Information has been revised as follows: Paragraphs K, L M and N have been deleted in their entirety. Paragraph J has been revised to reflect the following: “J. As related to the technical/management subfactors and cost/price factor, identify relevant past experience that demonstrates the ability to:
- Perform complex installations from the planning state to customer handoff
- Managed multiple complex projects concurrently
- Provide high capacity optical network solutions with a broad geographic CONUS and OCONUS scope.”
Note: The Government will accept the original and/or the revised version of the past performance questionnaire.
FRFP 24: Reference: Section B.3 – Fixed Burden Factor. The RFP appears to require offerors to provide a fixed burden factor for each year of the contract for travel and incidental other direct costs. The RFP requires a factor for each year of the contract from 2012 through 2017 even though the period of performance ends on 12/31/2016. Please confirm that offerors are required to provide a fixed burden factor for travel and incidental ODCs for 2017.
FRFP 24: RFP Section B, Paragraph B.3, second and third paragraphs are deleted. The requirement to provide a fixed burden factor for travel and incidential ODCS is removed.
FRFP 25: Reference: Section B, Attachment 2 and Attachment 10. Section B, Attachment 2 defines the Program Manager labor category as "contractor's single contract manager…" Attachment 10 provides for a total of 3760 hours for the Program Manager labor category. This equates to roughly two full time equivalents. How are multiple persons expected to meet the "single contract manager" as defined in Section B, Attachment 2?
FRFP 25: Reference Question/Answer #FRFP 8.
| FRFP 26: Reference: Section C – PWS Section 3d Table 1, GSM Work Allocation Table. The Work Allocation Table presents criteria and statements (yes/no) directing whether or not certain work falls under GSM-ETI or one of the other GSM AoS procurements. Step 6A is incomplete, “Yes: Refer to Government COR for Support via [text missing].” Please clarify. |
| FRFP 26: RFP Section C – GSM-ETI PWS, Table 1, Step 3 is revised to reflect, “Refer to Government COR for Support via GSM-ETI or other Government-designated source.” |
FRFP 27: Reference: PWS Section 4, paragraph d. The last sentence refers to paragraph 3e. Should this reference be to paragraph 3d and Table 1? Please clarify.
FRFP 27: RFP Section C – GSM-ETI PWS paragraph 4.1.d is revised to delete “paragraph 3e and” from the last sentence.
FRFP 28: Reference: PWS Section 4.3c. PWS Section 4c.3 states "Completed installations shall meet or exceed Government provided standards or industry best practices where approved by the Government. As a minimum performance standards shall be in accordance with application DISA SLAs." There were no Government SLAs provided as part of the RFP. Can you please provide applicable Government standards and SLAs that pertain to this PWS?
FRFP 28: Appropriate SLAs are included on the FOUO-level GFI CD,-ROM entitled “ DISN Telecommunications Reference Documents”. The CD-ROMs are referenced in RFP Section L3 and L4 and RFP Section J – Attachments 11 and 12.
NOTE: After consideration of vendor questions, it has become apparent that vendors may require the technical files containing SLA data.
FRFP 29: Reference: PWS Section 5.2.6. Section requires Telecommunications Network Engineering to own problems referred to GSM-ETI by the GSM-O Contractor "until resolution." This assumes that all problems referred by GSM-O are telecommunications network engineering problems. If Analysis, Testing, Modeling and Simulation show that the problem is not a network engineering issue, is the GSM-ETI contractor still required to "own" the problem until resolution or can referral of a problem back to the GSM-O contractor be considered resolution?
FRFP 29: Problems referred to the GSM-ETI contractor in this context will be handed off from the Government, and not the GSM-O contractor. If the root cause is determined to be outside the realm of an “engineering problem”, this will be handled by the Government Task Monitor.
FRFP 30: Reference: PWS Section 5.2.1 – Engineering Analysis and Design. Section 5.2.1 states: "…the Contractor shall provide engineering support for network analysis and design, system engineering planning and development support to problem management, etc…” CDRL A065 ‘Transition Results Report’ is identified as a deliverable. Is it feasible that an engineering and design function will be producing the ‘Transition Results Report’ prior to implementation? Shouldn’t this report be an output of Section 5.3 Service Transition and Implementation instead, i.e., post-implementation?
FRFP 30: The referenced CDRL could apply to either location, and would be based upon individual task order.
FRFP 31: Reference: Section L7.1. Section L7.1 states “The offeror’s company name/info shall not be reflected on any page of Volume II-Factor 1 - Technical/Management. The offeror’s Volume II-Factor 1 – Technical/Management proposal shall not be provided on company letterhead and shall be free of any watermarks, trademarks, legends, logos or similar markings, i.e. Company name/information, etc. may appear on all pages of Volume I, Volume III, Volume IV and Volume V.” Please confirm that the only information that must be redacted from Volume II is the company's name, watermarks, trademarks, company legends, logos or similar markings and company address.
FRFP 31: See Question/Answer #FRFP 20.
FRFP 32: Reference: Section L7.1 and L8.2.5.4. Section L7.1 states “The offeror’s company name/info shall not be reflected on any page of Volume II-Factor 1 - Technical/Management.” However, Section L8.2.5.4 states “At a minimum, the Management Plan shall include: Organizational Structure (including teaming agreements, subcontractor management, staffing plan, and key personnel which identify the size, scope and structure of the offeror’s GSM-ETI organization)…” Please clarify how offerors can be compliant to Section L8.2.5.4 in providing Organizational Structure information without naming the offeror and its subcontractors and teaming partners?
FRFP 32: See Question/Answer #FRFP 18 and Question/Answer #FRFP 20.
FRFP 33: Reference: Section L7.7(a). Section states “Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any.” Please confirm that this means that individual parts of each volume are to be separated by volume. If so, should offerors provide the volume cover page, volume table of contents and glossary of acronyms within the files for Part A of each volume or as their own file?
FRFP 33: RFP RFP Section , paragraph L7.7 refers to the electronic version (CD-ROM) of the offeror’s proposal. The data files on the CD-ROM shall be separated at logical breakpoints versus being provided as a single data file. L7.7c explains that the offeror shall prepare a “readme” file.
FRFP 34: Reference: Section L7.10. Section references due date time to be Central Standard Time (CST). Please clarify if this is meant to be Central Daylight Time (CDT).
FRFP 34: The reference in RFP Section L7.10 is to local time (Scott AFB, IL); which is considered to be in the Central Time Zone.L7.10 is revised to reflect “Central Time Zone”.
FRFP 35: Reference: Section L8.2.1. This section forbids the inclusion of "FOUO" information, yet the Sample Task Order is marked FOUO, and presumably derivative information from the STO should be designated FOUO. Please clarify.
FRFP 35: The header “FOUO” will be removed from the Sample Task Order. In accordance with Section L, paragraph L8.2.1, Volume II shall not include “For Official Use Only” information.
FRFP 36: Reference Section L8.3.5 Recent and Relevant Contracts
SBA limits the number of contracts that an SBA mentor-protégé joint venture can have and, until recently, the number of proposals that they can submit. Consequently, many SBA mentor-protégé joint ventures have performed few, if any, contracts even though each company in the joint venture may have extensive relevant experience on its own. As currently written, the first paragraph appears to prevent the companies in a mentor-protégé joint venture from submitting references for the work they performed individually. Will the Government revise the first paragraph so that it reads as follows:
The offeror shall submit information in accordance with HC1028-10-R-2001-Section J - Attachment 5, Past Performance Information Sheet, on a minimum of two (2) but no more than four (4) recent contracts that the prime offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. The information submitted shall reference the offeror’s past performance, rather than past performance of the offeror’s teaming partners, joint venture partners and/or significant subcontractors. For offerors proposing in joint ventures consisting of SBA-approved mentor-protégé firms, the references may be submitted for the joint venture submitting the proposal, the mentor firm or the protégé firm. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Section M, provision M3.4 -Factor 2: Past Performance and subparagraphs, thereto
FRFP 36: RFP Section L8.3.5 “Recent and Relevant Contracts: is revised as follows:
a. The offeror shall submit information in accordance with HC1028-10-R-2001-Section J - Attachment 5, Past Performance Information Sheet, on a minimum of two (2) but no more than four (4) recent contracts that the prime offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. The information submitted shall reference the offeror’s past performance, rather than past performance of the offeror’s teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or significant subcontractors. For offerors proposing in joint ventures consisting of SBA-approved mentor-protégé firms, the references may be submitted for the joint venture submitting the proposal, the mentor firm or the protégé firm. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Section M, provision M3.4 -Factor 2: Past Performance and subparagraphs, thereto.
Note: Subsequent subparagraphs will be relabeled accordingly.
FRFP 37: Reference: Section L8.4.4. Section L8.4.4 references Section B – Attachment 01 and Section J – Attachment 15. However, there is no reference to Attachment 15 in Section J or in the RFP files. Are the spreadsheets in the file “Attachment 10 - GSM-ETI Labor Category_Rate.xls” supposed to be used for completing Section B – Attachment 01? Are there two distinct files that need to be completed?
FRFP 37: See Question/Answer FRFP #6.
FRFP 38: Reference: Section L8.4.4.2. The dates in the table for the period of performance do not include December 31 for any of the years. Please clarify if the period of performance is supposed to include December 31 or not.
FRFP 38: Section L, paragraph L8.4.4.2 is revised to reflect 31 December for each year.
FRFP 39: Reference: Section L8.4.4.2. Section L8.4.4.2 states, “All costs or prices provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.” Given the quantity of hours being evaluated, this could have a significant impact to the cost to Government. Please revise requirement to allow for rounding to nearest penny.
FRFP 39: RFP Section L8.4.4.2 is revised to reflect costs/prices are to be rounded to the nearest “penny”.
FRFP 40: Reference: Section L8.2.5.3. Section L8.2.5.3 states “The offeror shall use the templates provided as HC1028-10-R-2001, Section J, Attachment 9 to submit a proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS) and technical approach and the completed deliverables/data reports in response to HC1028-10-R-2001 – Section J - Attachment 3.” As these deliverables would typically be provided upon completion of the phases of an actual project in accordance with the project schedule, please confirm if the Government is requesting the offeror’s approach to developing the deliverables.
FRFP 40: See Question/Answer FRFP #9.
FRFP 41: Reference: Section M3.5.2. Section M3.5.2 references estimated hours in Section B – Attachment 02. This attachment only has labor category descriptions. Does the Government mean Section B – Attachment 01?
FRFP 41: The correct reference is RFP Section B – Attachment 01. RFP Section M, paragraph M3.5.2 is revised to correct the reference to “Section B – Attachment 01.
FRFP 42: Reference: RFP Sections G, H, and I – Clauses Incorporated by Reference
The solicitation includes several clauses that either do not appear online at http://farsite.hill.af.mil in either the FAR, DFARS, or DARS, or are reserved. Please provide the full text of these clauses or a source where offerors can find them online.
Section G:
52.201-9200 CONTRACTING AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY JUN 1996
252.243-9200 TECHNICAL ENHANCEMENTS JUN 1996
Section H:
52.228-9200 CONTRACTOR ACQUIRED INSURANCE JUN 1996
Section I:
252.215-7003 Excessive Pass-Through Charges—Identification of Subcontract Effort MAY 2008 [Current DFARS shows this clause is Reserved]
252.215-7004 Excessive Pass-Through Charges MAY 2008 [Current DFARS shows this clause is Reserved]
252.225-7997 (DEV) Alleged Crimes by or Against Contractor Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan (DEVIATION) DEC 2009
FRFP 42: The GSM-ETI RFP is revised to reflect the following clauses in full text: 52.201-9200, 252.243-9200, 52.228-9200, 252.225-7997. The following clauses have been deleted: 252.215-7003 and 252.215-7004.
FRFP 43: Reference: Contract Clauses Out-of-Date. The solicitation includes several contract clauses that are out-of-date. For example, Section L, Clauses Incorporated by Reference includes 52.215-20 Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data (OCT 1997). However, the online FAR (http://farsite.hill.af.mil) shows this clause as 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Oct 2010). As you can see, both the titles and dates are different. Which version governs, OCT 1997 or OCT 2010? Will the Government please verify/validate the contract clauses in the final solicitation?
FRFP 43: The correct reference is 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Oct 2010). The GSM-ETI RFP is revised to reflect the appropriate label.
FRFP 44: Reference: Attachment 1 – DD254. DD254, Section 11h DD254 indicates that that no COMSEC account is required. Continuation Sheet Section i. states that “STU-III or STE terminals installed at the contractor's facilities shall be supported by a COMSEC account (of the contractor of DISA).” Please clarify which section of the DD254 is correct.
FRFP 44: At contract startup, no COMSEC account is required. However, during the course of the contract, the establishment of a COMSEC account may be required, but is considered unlikely.
FRFP 45: Reference: Attachment 1 – DD254, Continuation Sheet Reference Item 10f. What level of clearance and investigation is required for the SAP and what are the special requirements that we will have to meet for that program?
FRFP 45: Contractor clearance requirements will be called out in the individual task orders.
FRFP 46: Reference: Attachment 2. None of the contract data requirement list (CDRLs) have associated Data Item Descriptions (DID) specifying the information to be contained in each CDRL. Was this an omission or is the Contractor free to provide as much information as they deem necessary?
FRFP 46: The field states “per contractor recommended format”, the offeror is free to provide as much information as they deem necessary to provide a viable and effective proposal.
FRFP 47: Reference: Attachment 3 – Sample Task Order. Section 2b references Table C in Appendix A. As there is no Table C in Appendix A, please clarify where this information is found.
FRFP 47: RFP Section J - Attachment 3 – GSM-ETI Sample Task Order E01 Section 2b reference to Table C will be revised to read Table A-3.
FRFP 48: Reference: Attachment 3 – Sample Task Order – Appendix A – DISN Infrastructure Data. Will these wavelengths identified in Table-C (according to Section 2b) of Appendix A be mapped to the ITU-T grid standards? Please confirm.
FRFP 48: Refer to Answer #FRFP 47,corrected reference regarding Table A-3.
Yes, the offeror is required to map the wavelengths identified in Table C (according to Section 2b) of Appendix A to the ITU grid.
FRFP 49: Reference: Attachment 3 – Sample Task Order, Section 4.1a. Section 4.1a states in part " The task activities described in paragraph 6 require the…" There is no paragraph 6 in Attachment 3. Is this supposed to reference paragraph 5? Please clarify.
FRFP 49: The reference should be to paragraph 5. RFP Section J - Attachment 3 – GSM-ETI SampleTask Order E01, paragraph 4.1a is revised to reflect “paragraph 5” instead of “paragraph 6”.
FRFP 50: Reference: Attachment 3 – Sample Task Order, Section 4.1b. Section 4.1b states in part "…constraints as described in paragraph 14 of the basic PWS." The PWS only contains paragraphs up through 5.5.3. Please clarify what reference is intended.
FRFP 50: See Answer #FRFP 13 for correction.
| FRFP 51: Reference: Attachment 3 – Sample Task Order, Sample Task Order, Sections 5.1 through 5.5. Sections 5.1 through 5.5 state "The Contractor shall provide the appropriate documentation, as selected from the CDRLs provide in the ETI PWS, including but not limited to the deliverables as shown in Appendix C, Table C-1, which are required." The release of the Final RFP added CDRLs 066 through 077 to Attachment 2. Appendix C, Table C-1 of Attachment 3 only shows CDRLs through 065. Can we assume that CDRLs 66 through 67 are not applicable to the Sample Task Order or is Appendix C, Table C-1 of Attachment 3 incomplete? |
| FRFP 51: RFP Section C - Attachment 3 – GSM-ETI PWS Table C1 has been corrected to indicate which CDRLs are applicable to the TO. |
FRFP 52: Reference: Attachment 3 – Sample Task Order, Section 5.1a(2) and 5.1a(3). Will the upgrade to SN9K and Cisco 7600 router be applied to Link-1 only or to all 4 links? Please confirm for accuracy (only Link-1 is mentioned).
FRFP 52: The upgrade will be applied to site 1 (of link 1) only
FRFP 53 Reference: Attachment 3 – Sample Task Order, Section 5.1a(3). What are the current interfaces/circuits of the Cisco 3500 that are required to be transitioned to the Cisco 7600 router?
FRFP 53: Additional Supplemental Information will be provided with the solicitation as Attachment 15, to provide additional data points to answer this question.
FRFP 54: Reference: Attachment 3 – Sample Task Order, Section 5.1a(2). What will DISA use in each of the 4 links for Terminals in sites-1 and S-OADMs in mid-nodes (e.g., SN9K, ONS-15454, etc.)? Please confirm.
FRFP 54: Assume a terminal is on each end of a link and OADMs are used in mid nodes. All other sites will continue to use ONS‑15454s. Site 1 (link 1) is the only change. This is consistent with DISA current policy.
FRFP 55: Reference: Attachment 3 – Sample Task Order, Section 5.1a(2). Is there a high level block diagram that details the equipment, their connectivity and interfaces for this backbone network? Please confirm.
FRFP 55: The offeror shall use the data provided and make any assumptions needed to facilitate a viable solution.
FRFP 56: Reference: Attachment 3 – Sample Task Order. Is DISA providing any “vendor-agnostic” generic Modeling & Simulation (M&S) software tool to the bidders to perform this task as part of GFI? Please confirm.
FRFP 56: For the purpose of providing a solution, the offeror shall provide any M&S tools that are available as part of your solution. Use of M&S tools must be justified in your proposal.
FRFP 57: Page 15 of 211, paragraph B2 of the RFP states:
"a. The offeror shall not propose (fill in) "UNIT", "UNIT PRICE", MAX
AMOUNT", NET AMT", "TARGET COST", "TARGET PROFIT", "TOTAL TARGET PRICE",
"CEILING PRICE", SHARE RATIO ABOVE TARGET", "SHARE RATIO BELOW TARGET", "MAX
COST", "FIXED FEE", "TOTAL COST", "TARGET FEE", "TOTAL TGT COST AND FEE",
"MINIMUM FEE", OR " MAXIMUM FEE" at the contract level.
b. The Government will identify appropriate CLINs in each individual task order and offeror shall propose (fill-in) the appropriate price/cost information with submission of its offer for each individual task order."
Question: Are pages 3 through 15, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs are to be submitted blank or not at all?
FRFP 57: The offerors shall include pages 3-15 as part of its proposal. Fill-ins may be left blank.
FRFP 58: Page 15 of 211, paragraph B3 of the RFP states: "The fixed burden factor for travel and incidental other direct costs (identified below) will be used through the life of the contract in individual fixed price task orders. In the spirit of competition, contractors may propose lower rates when competing on individual task orders." However, the Fixed Burdened Factor is not provided for years 2012 through 2017.
Question: Will the Fixed Burden factor for travel and incidental other direct costs going to be provided by the government?
FRFP 58: Reference Question/Answer #FRFP 24.
FRFP 59: Page 198 of 211, paragraph L8.4.4 of the RFP states:"GSM-ETI Labor Rate Table, HC1028-10-R-2001 - Section B - Attachment 01 and HC1028-10-R-2001-Section J - Attachment 15. The offeror is required to submit prices for all Government-provided labor categories, for all of the contract years (Year 1 through Year 5). The offeror shall complete and submit HC1028-10-R-2001 - Section B - Attachment 01 and shall also complete the spreadsheet provided as HC1028-10-R-2001 - Section J - Attachment 15. Note: Information reflected in HC1028-10-R-2001 - Section J - Attachment 15 will take precedence over the information reflected in HC1028-10-R-2001 - Section B - Attachment 01."
Question: There is no Attachment 15 referenced in Section J or in Part B of paragraph L8.4.2 Volume IV Organization of Cost/Price Volume, what is Attachment 15 and will it be provided by the government?
FRFP 59: See Question/Answer #FRFP 6.
FRFP 60: Reference: Section L8.2.5.3. Question: This section states, "The offeror shall use the templates provided as HC1028-10-R-2001 . . . and technical approach and the completed deliverables/data reports in response to HC1028-10-R-2001 - Section J - Attachment 3." The CDRLs required for the Sample Task Order (i.e., listed in Attachment 3, Appendix C) all require first delivery after task order start. As such, it appears inappropriate to require "completed deliverables/data reports" with the proposal response. Please clarify what information is required in the offeror's proposal response for the requirement "completed deliverables/data reports in response to HC1028-10-R-2001 - Section J - Attachment 3."
FRFP 60: The offeror shall interpret the request to assume that the task order has been awarded to the offeror for execution and provide the CDRLs (vendor suggested format) as they would appear after the tasks were completed.
Reference Question/Answer FRFP #9
FRFP 61: Reference: RFP Attachment 8, GSM-ETI PP Questionnaire; Section L8.3.7. Question: The proposal instructions require the offeror to provide the past performance cover letter and questionnaire to each of the offeror's points of contact identified for each of the relevant past performance efforts. The cover letter in Attachment 8 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." [emphasis added] Does the Government plan to conduct a telephone conversation with the referenced points of contact before the offeror's send the questionnaires? Please clarify the reference to "initial phone contact" in the Government's cover letter.
FRFP 61: The Government makes an assumption that the offeror will make contact with the points of contact identified for each of the relevant past performance efforts. The Government does not plan to conduct a telephone conversation with the referenced points of contact before the offerors’ questionnaires are received. If the offeror does not plan to contact the points of contact prior to issuing the letter, the letter provided in RFP Section J, Attachment 8 can be edited accordingly.
FRFP 62: Reference: Section L.5.e
Question: This section states, "The proposal acceptance period is specified in Standard Form (SF)-33 of this solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date." The SF-33 proposal acceptance date is 03 June 2011. Would the Government prefer that the proposal validity date extend to the start of performance which is scheduled to be January 1, 2012?
FRFP 62: The offeror shall complete RFP Section A, Item 12 indicating that the proposal is valid through a specific period of time. The Government will not provide a preference; but the offeror should consider an effective award date of no later than 01 January 2012.
FRFP 63: Minor typos - the following appear to be minor typos
a. Reference: L8.4.4, reference to Section J, Attachment 15
Question: There is no Attachment 15. Should this reference be to Attachment 10?
b. Reference: RFP Attachment 3, Sample Task Order
Question: Paragraph 4.1 states, "a. The task activities described in paragraph 6." Should the reference be to paragraph 5?
c. Reference: Section C Performance Work Statement Section 3.d.Step 6A
This sections states, Step 6A
Criterion: Does the work require changes in facilities, floorspace footprint, power/HVAC? E.g. new node; new equipment?
Yes: Refer to Government COR for Support via
No: GSM-ETI or other Government-designated source
Question: Please confirm that an answer "yes" for Step 6A should read, "Refer to Government COR for Support via GSM-ETI or other Government-designated source"
d. Reference: Section D ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS Section 4.1.d
Question: This section refers to "paragraph 3e" which does not exist.
FRFP 63: Information addresed in Question #FRFP 63 is revised as follows
a. Reference Question/Answer #FRFP 6.
b. Reference Question/Answer #FRFP 49.
c. RFP Section C - GSM-ETI PWS – step 6a is revised. See Question/Answer #23.
d. Reference Question/Answer #FRFP 27. The Government is assuming the correct reference in Question 63d is to the PWS, Section 4 – Administrative Requirements.
| FRFP 64: RFP Section L.8.2.5.3. “The offeror shall use the templates provided as HC1028-10-R-2001, Section J, Attachment 9 to submit a proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS) and technical approach and the completed deliverables/data reports in response to HC1028-10-R-2001 - Section J - Attachment 3.” Q: Is it the intention of the Government for the offeror to literally complete the referenced PWS Template? If so, how should the offeror address sections for which information is not provided? |
| FRFP 64: See Question/Answer FRFP #9. |
| FRFP 65: RFP Section L.8.2.5.3. “The offeror shall use the templates provided as HC1028-10-R-2001, Section J, Attachment 9 to submit a proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS) and technical approach and the completed deliverables/data reports in response to HC1028-10-R-2001 - Section J - Attachment 3.” Q: Can the government further clarify the requirement to provide completed deliverables/data reports? |
| FRFP 65: The offeror shall submit CDRLs that they believe are appropriate to validate evidence of the activity referenced. |
| FRFP 66: Sample TO E01, Section 2(c) “Contractor is required to install a SN9k router at site 1 and transition all circuits from the existing Cisco 15454s to the new SN9k.” Q: Should the offeror assume that any proposed solution eliminates the remote MSPPs (i.e., nodes 30, 40 , 50, and 70)? |
| FRFP 66: No, that is an incorrect assumption. |
FRFP 67: Sample TO E01, Section 2(d) “Contractor is required to install a Cisco 7600 router or OEM vendor specified equivalent to replace existing small Cisco router at site 1 and transition all circuits from existing small Cisco router.” The objective identifies the replacement of one router. However, the site diagram appears to depict two ‘gray’ NIPR routers, three ‘red’ SIPR routers, and two ‘green’ SIPR routers.
Q: Is the Government’s objective to replace only one Cisco router?
FRFP 67: The router has been identified in diagram B-4.
FRFP 68: Sample TO E01, Table 1, Row 5.2.4“Modeling & Simulation – Phase 1 – No” There is a discrepancy between the ‘No’ entry in the table and Section 5.1(b), which states “analysis shall be supported by application of appropriate techniques, including modeling and simulation (M&S)”
Q: Is the Government requesting the use of M&S techniques for Phase 1?
FRFP 68: The Government will not be providing any tools to offeror to complete this activity for the purposes for RFP Attachment 3 – GSM-ETI Sample Task Order E01.
The offeror shall use any M&S tools they feel appropriate for the task and provide rationale for use.
| FRFP 69: Sample TO E01, Section 4.1(b) “All activities described in this TO are subject to the conditions and constraints as described in paragraph 14 of the basic PWS.” Q: Should the reference to Paragraph 14 be a reference to GSM-ETI PWS Section 4.3 – Technical Constraints instead? |
| FRFP 69: Refer to Question/Answer #FRFP 13. |
| FRFP 70: Sample TO E01, Section 5.1(a)(3) “At Link 1, upgrade the existing Cisco 3500 router to a CISCO 7600 equivalent router and transition/move the circuits that are currently on the CISCO 3500 service and move them to the new router to be recommended by the Contractor.” Q: Should the reference to the Cisco 3500 router be a reference to a Cisco 7500 router instead? |
| FRFP 70: See Question/Answer FRFP #67. |
| FRFP 71: Sample TO E01, Appendix B, Table B-1 See Diagram. Q: Should the reference 3xPA-8T-V35-4/8 0/8 0/8 = 4/16 be a reference to 3xPA-ST-V35-4/8 0/8 0/8 = 4/24 instead? |
| FRFP 71: Reference RFP Attachment 3 – GSM-ETI Sample Task Order E01. The label on the diagram is revised to reflect: "3xPA-ST-V35-4/8 0/8 0/8 = 4/24". |
| FRFP 72: Sample TO E01, Appendix B, Table B-1 See Diagram. Q: What do the acronyms ‘mc’ and ‘nmc’ stand for? |
| FRFP 72: “mc” refers to “mission critical”. |
nmc refers to non-mission critical
| FRFP 73: Sample TO E01, Appendix B, Table B-2 See Table. Q: Should the title of Table B-2 be ‘MSPP Example Data Interface Data’ instead of ‘SN9K Example Data Interface Data’? |
| FRFP 73: Reference RFP Attachment 3 – GSM-ETI Sample Task Order E01. Yes, the title of Table B-2 is revised to reflect: “MSPP, Table B-3 is also revised to reflect "MSPP" rather than "SN9K" |
| FRFP 74: Sample TO E01, Appendix B, Table B-2 See Table, Node 60. Q: Are there two OC-192 interfaces (as noted in Table B-2) or three OC-192 interfaces (as depicted in the site diagram)? |
| FRFP 74: Reference RFP Attachment 3 – GSM-ETI Sample Task Order E01. Table B-2 is revised. |
| FRFP 75: Sample TO E01, Section 4.1(a) “The task activities described in paragraph 6 require the application of various capabilities of the ETI PWS.” Q: Does paragraph 6 refer to Section J, Attachment 9 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) Template? |
| FRFP 75: See Question/Answer #FRFP 49. |
FRFP 76: Sample TO E01, Section 2(c), Section 2(d), Section 5.1(a)(2), Section 5.1(a)(3) “Contractor is required to install a SN9k router at site 1 and transition all circuits from the existing Cisco 15454s to the new SN9k.”
“Contractor is required to install a Cisco 7600 router or OEM vendor specified equivalent to replace existing small Cisco router at site 1 and transition all circuits from existing small Cisco router.”
“At Link 1, upgrade the existing Cisco 15454 router to a Sycamore SN9K and transition/move the circuits that are currently on the CISCO 15454 service to the new Sycamore SN9K services.”
“At Link 1, upgrade the existing Cisco 3500 router to a CISCO 7600 equivalent router and transition/move the circuits that are currently on the CISCO 3500 service and move them to the new router to be recommended by the Contractor.” Sections 2(c) and 2(d) state that SN9k and Cisco 7600 installs (respectively) occur at site 1. Sections 5.1(a)(2) and 5.1(a)(3) refer to Link 1.
Q: Is there just one site on one link (i.e., Site 1, Link 1) that is being upgraded or is the Government’s intention to upgrade the Site 1’s at each of the 4 links?
FRFP 76: Only site 1 (Link 1) will be upgraded.
FRFP 77: Sample TO E01, Section 5.1(a)(1), Section 5.1(a)(2), Section 5.1(a)(3) “For four identified network links, from the current capacity of 10 Gb/s to 100 Gb/s and transition/move the circuits that are currently on the 10 Gb/s service to the new 100 Gb/s services.”
“At Link 1, upgrade the existing Cisco 15454 router to a Sycamore SN9K and transition/move the circuits that are currently on the CISCO 15454 service to the new Sycamore SN9K services.”
“At Link 1, upgrade the existing Cisco 3500 router to a CISCO 7600 equivalent router and transition/move the circuits that are currently on the CISCO 3500 service and move them to the new router to be recommended by the Contractor.”
A: Are the three upgrade requirements to be considered independent or are they to be considered as an integrated upgrade?
B: If integrated, which router depicted in Table B-4 is being upgraded? Q77C: Which OC192’s are being moved onto the 100G?
C: Is this site 1?
FRFP 77:
A – This is an integrated upgrade.
B See Question/Answer FRFP #67.
C: Any of the OC192s that are appropriate should be moved.
FRFP 78: Sample TO E01, Appendix B, Table B-2 See Table. The text in several cells appears to be truncated.
Q:…
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .