GSM-ETI QA Matrix - APR 2011.doc

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

FOR

GSM-ETI

Release #1 -- 03 September 2010

QUESTION #22: GSM-O PWS Section 6.2.6 contains tasks for Operational Network Engineering that incorporate “network engineering support of GIG services/networks, including providing: regional tactical network modeling and simulation, regional tactical capacity planning, regional tactical network optimization, regional tactical traffic engineering, new requirements analysis support, configuration management system updates, and network integration support”. Furthermore, GSM-ETI SOO contains engineering tasks for network capacity planning (5.2.1), modeling and simulation (5.2.4), network optimization analysis (5.2.4), and other engineering and optimization requirements.

ANSWER #22: The Operational Architecture (OA) data, included within the GFI controlled disk, identifies the activities that fall within each RFP. Going beyond the words in titles and headers, the descriptions of the activities, outcomes, deliverables, and standards in the OA and in the PWS/SOO are generally sufficient to identify functional boundaries where coordination among contractors will be necessary. Front-end engineering activities (e.g. design, development, site prep, installation, test, and acceptance) are generally the responsibility of the ETI contractor, leading to Government acceptance of the new or revised capability. Following Government acceptance, the GSM-O contractor becomes responsible for integration of the new capability, its configuration management, and then its operation and sustainment.

We agree that the Operational Network Engineering requirements of GSM-O PWS Section 6.2.6 are an important part of providing OA&M services to the DISN under the GSM-O contract. In addition, the GSM-ETI SOO also incorporates similar engineering tasks. Please provide further clarification on the roles and responsibilities of GSM-O vs. GSM-ETI for engineering-based tasks that appear to span both contracts.

QUESTION #27: (Ref: Section G.1.b(4)) This paragraph references the ENCORE II contract.

Please verify that this should instead reference the GSM-ETI contract.

ANSWER #27: The reference is incorrect and will be corrected in the Final RFP for the GSM‑ETI effort to reflect “GSM‑ETI contract” instead of “Encore II contract”.

QUESTION #35: The FBO GSM-ETI Pre-Solicitation website note, July 2nd Change, provides revised language for RFP Section H28, and this 02 July 2010 update states the following: “1. Revised OCI language. When submission of a Mitigation Plan is necessary due to a potential, perceived or actual OCI; early submission of the plan is encouraged as the Offeror must have an acceptable and Government approved Mitigation Plan established prior to contract award. The Prime Contractor is responsible for submitting a Mitigation Plan when a potential, perceived or actual OCI exists with a subcontractor, teaming partner; etc.

Please clarify what is the standard for the basic Mitigation Plan? What should we write to?

ANSWER #35: The Offeror is responsible for submitting an OCI Mitigation Plan for actual and/or potential OCIs. The Offeror may choose the format for the OCI Mitigation Plan and shall discuss mitigation plans for any actual or potential OCI that exists with the prime contractor and all subcontractors/team partners.

QUESTION #51 a) (Ref: attachment 9,PPQ) Will the Government provide some way for Offerors to clearly identify to which team a subcontractor’s PPQ belongs in order to minimize confusion as these forms are sent in by customer points of contact?

b) Please confirm if DCAA audited and approved rates and accounting system are in fact required to prime this opportunity. In section L8.4.3.2.2.2 it appears that we just need to provide sufficient detail and then a few paragraphs later in section L8.4.5.2 we need to provide our DCAA and DCMA POCs.

ANSWER #51a) Appropriate changes will be made to the Attachment 9 to address this issue.

ANSWER #51b: See Question/Answer #19. Additionally, an approved accounting system is also not a requirement for award of a GSM-ETI contract.

QUESTION #52: H.28.b Would the government identify the current prime contractor and sub-contractors, if known for the below contracts in the final GSM ETI RFP?

- DISN Transmission Service – CONUS-

- DISN Switch/Bandwidth Manager Service-CONUS ANSWER #52: See Question/Answer #1.

Release Final RFP for the GSM-ETI Effort - January 2011

Receipt of Proposals - March 2011

Award of Multiple IDIQ Contracts - September 2011

QUESTION #75: Draft Solicitation HC1028-10-R-2001 [(GIG) Services Management – Engineering /Transition / Implementation (GSM-ETI)], Paragraph H.28 (Organizational Conflict of Interest), pages 52/53 of 108; and related Draft Solicitation HC1028-10-R-2000 [Global Information Grid Services (GIG) Management – Operations (GSM-O) draft solicitation], Paragraph H.28 (Organizational Conflict of Interest).

If we have a team partner and/or subcontractor that needs to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan, should their plan be submitted directly to you by that company or come from me as the prime?

ANSWER #75: See Question/Answer #1 and #70. The Prime shall submit the OCI plan for the prime and its subcontractors/team partners.

QUESTION #76: We took notes on how to acquire that disk but I am sure I can't reconstruct his email on my own. Please provide information on how to acquire the controlled CD ROM (disk). not sure who the POC is. … The note I took said to contact Vic Patrick but I am pretty

CD-ROM. Arrangements to obtain the CD ROM must be made prior to arrival with Mr. Vic Patrick, Victor.Patrick@disa.mil, (703-882-0095) or Ms. Katherine Prisuta, Katherine.Prisuta@disa.mil, (703 882-0214). Only authorized vendor couriers shall receive the controlled CD-ROM. Authorized vendor couriers shall arrive in person at the DISA Program Management Office, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Sky 7, Room 1W12, Falls Church VA.

QUESTION #77: Competition Concern: The referenced paragraph H.28 (OCI) precludes contract participants from providing support services across both the GSM-ETI and the GSM-O contracts. While we understand the reason that the Government might need to exclude proprietary product providers (and all affiliates) such as telecommunications carriers (terrestrial and satellite) from participating on the GSM-O and GSM-ETI contracts due to the potential for inappropriate/inadvertent influence being applied to engineering design/development activities, equipment/product selections, or to management office policy development or governance activities, a significant number of corporations interested in participating on both the GSM-O and GSM-ETI contracts fall outside of the proprietary product/telecommunications/carrier category. These corporations provide a range of vital non-proprietary generic services necessary for contract fulfillment. A company offering generic, non-proprietary services such as staff augmentation, network operations, equipment installations, logistics services, administrative activities, equipment storage and similar contract activities is currently precluded from participating on both the GSM-O and GSM-ETI contracts.

In accordance with FAR 9.5 and the guidance therein, our company believes the types of generic services described above primarily fall outside of those work activities, such s systems engineering and development of a Statement of Work that could lead to an Organizational Conflict of Interest. Therefore, the risk of a potential or actual OCI is much lower and any potential or actual conflicts with generic services can be addressed and mitigated through the provisions of paragraph L8.7.4.5 of the solicitation.

This restriction limits competitive participation across the GSM-O and GSM-ETI procurements, thereby limiting the quantity and quality of teaming, thus preventing the Government from obtaining best value. As written, H.28 will greatly limit the number of generic service providers (especially those with significant DISA/DISN experience) from teaming or subcontracting to a GSM-ETI Small Business prime offeror, thus significantly increasing the Government’s cost and technical risks associated with ensuring successful GSM-ETI contract performance. Participation by experienced and qualified Small Businesses is restricted as well, both from the standpoint of supporting Large Business under GSM-O and competing for the GSM-ETI solicitation. In addition, we assume that the reference to the GSA Alliant Small Business GWAC in paragraph b. of Paragraph H.28 is intended to restrict participation of those who will be performing under the GSM- Projects and Support (P&S) opportunity that will be procured under Alliant Small Business, and is not intended to restrict participation from companies who perform any work under Alliant Small Business as either a prime or subcontractor.

Request/Recommendation:

In order to maximize the quantity and quality of competition across the GSM-O and GSM-ETI procurements, we recommend the Government modify the wording within H.28 to enable the participation of generic service providers on both the GSM-O and GSM-ETI contracts – subject to the provisions of DRFP Paragraph L8.7.4.5, Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan. L8.7.4.5 provides a reasonable approach for the avoidance and/or mitigation of any potential OCI event across the two contracts for generic service provider team members. Recommended wording changes for paragraph H.28 (b. and c.), for GSM-ETI, follow:

“b. In recognition of the participation of the Contractor in providing the GSM-ETI support to the DISA and Department of Defense, the GSM-ETI Contractor and its subcontractors, at any tier, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, if any, shall not also provide as the prime contractor, or a subcontractor, at any tier, any service(s) that creates a conflict of interest, in support of the following contracts. In the event a conflict of interest is created, the Contractor, and its subcontractors as required, shall submit an OCI Mitigation Plan describing how the potential OCI will be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated in accordance with L8.7.4.5 (OCI Mitigation Plan) guidance.

- DISA’s GSM-Engineering, Transition, and Implementation (ETI) multiple award Contracts

- DISA’s GSM-Operations Contract

- GSA Alliant-Small Business Global-wide Acquisition GSM – Projects and Support (GSM-P&S) Contract

- Defense Information Network Systems (DISN) Video Service-Global (DVS-G)

- DISN Transmission Service – CONUS

- DISN Switch/Bandwidth Manager Service – CONUS

- DISN Transmission Service – Pacific

- DISN Transmission Services – CONUS Extension

c. For further clarification, the GSM-ETI prime contractor and/or its subcontractors, at any tier, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, if any, shall not be firms who are:

(1) terrestrial or space local or interstate exchange carriers and/or

(2) telecom/bandwidth providers (to include corporate affiliates of these parties) and/or

(3) satellite service carriers, providers, or integrators and/or

(4) providing other carrier telecommunications support under the GSM Acquisition of Services (AoS) (GSM-O, GSM-ETI, and GSM P&S)”

We would welcome the opportunity to further discuss the Organizational Conflict of Interest language in H.28. We trust the points raised in this letter provide valuable feedback to your office under the draft GSM-O and GSM-ETI RFP’s.

ANSWER #77: See Question/Answer #1. The Final RFP for the GSM-ETI effort will be revised to address the OCI issue.

QUESTION #82: Reference Clause H.28 Organizational Conflict of Interest: After review of the revised OCI language included in Draft RFP HC1028-10-R-2001 DISA GSM-ETI, we are concerned with the language as it stands and the limitations it causes for contractors. The language states that contract holders or subcontractors of the GSA Alliant Small Business Set Aside GWAC (currently 73 Small Business vendors) and any associated task orders have potential OCI with the GSM-ETI contract.

The OCI language further states that all contractors with work under DISA would be in a potential OCI situation. This includes, for example, the 26 prime Contractors and their subcontractors under the Encore contract. We believe this places undue constraints on the competitive nature of the GWAC and the multiple opportunities that are regularly released by DISA.

Moreover, we anticipate a significant administrative burden not only for the contractors but also for the Government to develop, review and administer separate OCI Mitigation plans for every solicitation and /or task order awarded by DISA.

We, therefore, request that the Government limit the potential for OCI to task order solicitations that may be written or developed as a work product solely against the GSM-ETI or GSM-O contracts.

ANSWER: #82: See Question/Answer #1.

QUESTION #86: With regard to the Sample Task Order in GSM-ETI Attachment 4, “DISN CONUS Optical 100Gb/s Upgrade” we have the following questions:

a. How many 10G lambdas are deployed on the subject links?

b. What specific wavelengths are occupied and what specific wavelengths are to be upgraded to 100G?

ANSWER #86: See #20. We will clarify the task order if it is retained in the Final RFP for the GSM-ETI effort.

QUESTION #88: Statement of Objectives, Section 5: Task Areas. Vendor’s review of the GSM-ETI task areas indicates that the Government has included planning/engineering as well as execution tasks within the SOO. Vendor understands the Government’s need to have the ability under the GSM-ETI procurement to implement various services, but Vendor believes that the current procurement structure creates internal conflicts within the various vendor teams and has the potential to result in significant inefficiencies in the execution of the various task orders. Specifically, the procurement contains both design/engineering and implementation tasks. Vendor believes the Government has recognized this issue and has attempted to counter the potential impact through an appropriately revised organizational conflict of interest clause (Para. H.28) and the mitigation requirements therein. However, the current H.28 OCI language may still preclude a large number of companies with the types of capabilities required by DISA to efficiently support the GSM procurement (and Section L.8.7.4.5 places further restrictions on teaming arrangements). Of the companies able to participate in the procurement and become part of a selected vendor team, these OCI and mitigation requirements place on the individual primes a burdensome responsibility to identify, on an individual task order basis, which of their team members can and cannot work on the task (see Section H.14).

Vendor therefore recommends that the Government consider revising the GSM-ETI draft RFP to create two separate procurements, one that is planning and engineering oriented, and another that is an implementation-oriented procurement. In the current GSM-ETI procurement. Vendor recommends removing the tasks identified below and incorporating them into the new implementation-oriented procurement.

1) Task 5.3.2: Networking Facilities Changes. This task currently has both engineering and implementation tasks. The engineering task should remain in the GSM-ETI procurement, but the following CDRLs should be incorporated into the new procurement: A011, A012, A013, A014, A015, A016, and A046.

2) Task 5.3.3: Circuit/Services/System/Deployment and Transition. This task is primarily an execution task. CDRLs that could remain in the ETI procurement include A043 and A044. The following CDRLs should be incorporated into the new procurement: A041, A042, and A045. Task 5.3.4: Last Mile Connections. This is an execution task and should be moved to the new procurement. CDRLs include: A011, A012, A013, A014, A015, and A016.

3) The GSM-ETI SOO contains a sufficient number of engineering and planning tasks to make it a very viable procurement vehicle for DISA. Tasks 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 are examples of the engineering and planning activities required in advance of any network implementation activities.

4) Task 5.7: ITIL Derived Technical Support. As currently written, ITIL concepts and practices would only be executed for ETI tasks when requested by DISA. It is not clear how DISA plans to incorporate the three ITIL areas of Service Design Process Support, Service Transition Process Support and Problem Management Process Support into the various sections 5.2 – 5.6 tasks and accompanying CDRLs. Qwest therefore requests that DISA incorporate required ITIL activities in the sections 5.2 – 5.6 tasks.

5) Task 5.8: Combatant Command Support. This Task should both remain in the GSM-ETI procurement with a focus on engineering activities in support of the COCOM, and be incorporated into the new procurement with a focus on service implementation activities.

Sections 5.2-5.6 of the SOO indicate that the “Contractor shall consider the application of ITIL®-related concepts and processes (see paragraph 5.7) to clarify and improve the outcomes of task work.” and provides the list of technical tasks that need to be accomplished. Section 5.7 of the SOO references the ITIL framework for information services, but is void of any tasks/deliverables.

It is recommended that the RFP be amended so that tasks the government wants to be governed by the ITIL process are moved from sections 5.2-5.6 into the ITIL structure of paragraph 5.7 (Service Design process, Service Transition process, and Problem Management (Service Operation). This will eliminate overlapping/redundant responses to the RFP as well as clarify when the government wants ITIL processes to apply.

ANSWER # 88: The Government intentionally divided the universe of GSM requirements into three source threads, to attain integrated O&M capabilities as a mission imperative, while identifying work that provide enabling capabilities that can, with appropriate care, be provided by smaller firms that may not be large enough for the scale of the O&M work. The ETI SOO identifies requirements that are closely associated with the O&M work, typically involving front end engineering design and implementation type work. The P&S source (to be provided via existing GSA Alliant sources) will be used for support capabilities that are functional niche type work (e.g. training services, cryptographic support, software development) or provide administrative support where networking domain expertise is less applicable. There are no plans at present to significantly revise the scope of the ETI SOO.