Questions and Answer for GSM-ETI - 04 March 2011.doc

Questions and Answers for

GSM-ETI

Release #2 04 March 2011 QUESTION #118: (Ref: Section G.1.b(4)) This section allows a bidder to designate a specific task order of their choice to be sole sourced in order to ensure that they are able to satisfy the $100,000 minimum order amount on the GSM-ETI contract vehicle. However, with no upper limit on the value of this sole-sourced task order, the Government will not be assured of best value for potentially very large task orders.

Recommend setting an upper limit of $10M (same threshold for non-protestable task orders per Section 843 of 2008 Defense Authorization Act) for the sole source task value.

ANSWER #118: This verbiage will be deleted from the Final GSM-ETI RFP.

QUESTION #119: (Ref: Section L.8.3.1 General). The second sentence reads “This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform fifty percent (50%) or more in the case of teaming partners and/or joint venture partners.”

a) What is the difference between teaming partners and joint venture partners?

b) Is 50% the intended level of contract performance, such that the maximum set of information the Government would receive would be from two companies each doing half the work? Please clarify this sentence.

ANSWER #119: a) FAR Part 9.6 describes a Contractor team arrangement as an arrangement in which (1) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) A potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. A joint venture is a type of teaming arrangement. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 13 CFR 121.103(h) defines a joint venture as an association of two or more individuals or concerns formed to undertake a particular business transaction or project, rather than one intended to continue indefinitely.

b) The Final GSM-ETI RFP has been revised to reflect: “This information is required for the offeror and all teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or subcontractors: (1) who the offeror expects to perform twenty percent (20%) or more of the services on the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or (2) that the offeror is proposing to perform aspects of the effort that the offeror considers critical to the overall successful performance of the proposed effort.” The Final GSM-ETI RFP also include verbiage indicates the requirement for submitting past performance examples is “no more than a total of ten (10) contracts/task orders (including past performance information submitted for teaming partner and/or significant contractors)”.

QUESTION #120: (Ref: Section L.8.3.3) Please verify that subs may provide “up to” three contract references each and are not required to provide exactly three each.

ANSWER #120: The Final GSM-ETI RFP has been revised to reflect: “The offeror shall submit information …. on a minimum of two (2) but no more than three (3) recent contracts that the prime offeror considers most relevant…”. The Final GSM-ETI RFP includes the following: “In addition the offeror shall include information on a maximum of two (2) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner…”.

QUESTION #121: (Ref: Section L.8.3.4 and attachment 5) Please verify that this paragraph specifically points to Sections G through M of the PPI form and that responding to those sections addresses Section L.8.3.4.

ANSWER #121: The Final GSM-ETI RFP will be revised to include a reference to the Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letters attachment.

QUESTION #122: Section M.3.4.2 discusses that small business participation will be evaluated as part of past performance. Given that this program is a small business set-aside and that small businesses are generally exempt from this requirement on federal contracts, can this requirement be removed?

ANSWER #122: The Final GSM-ETI RFP will be revised to remove this requirement.

QUESTION #123: Reference L8.2.4, and Section M3.3. Currently, the two technical/management factor subfactors (M.3.3.1 Subfactor 1 - Telecommunications Engineering; M3.3.2 Subfactor 2 - Service Transition, Implementation and Integration) do not address Connection Approval Services. Recommend this SOO requirement be integrated into one of the existing two subfactors.

ANSWER # 123: The Government will examine the recommendation.

QUESTION #124: a. Table 7-1 Proposal Organization shows the page limitation for Volume III only as “2 pages per relevant contract.” The government’s

Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment 6) is three pages. Would the government consider the following changes—1) allow five pages per relevant contract to allow offerors to fully answer the questions in the template; 2) allow for a five page introduction to the volume, which will allow the offerors to describe their team composition and roles and provide an overview showing how the volume in its entirety meets the relevancy requirements.

b. L 8.3.3 states, “Also include information on three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort.” Would the government consider changing the language to state “no more than three?” Requiring information on exactly three recent contracts from every company that meets the definition of teaming partner or significant subcontractor will lead to the submission of very large past performance volumes and greatly increase the government’s burden during evaluation.

c. L 8.3.1, Volume III Organization shows Section 7 of Volume III should contain “Questionnaires.” Please consider defining this section to be a table showing the customer points of contact and date of delivery for each required questionnaire.

ANSWER #124: The Final GSM-ETI RFP has been revised to reflect:

a. 5 Pages, for each reference Past Performance example.

b. See Question/Answer #119, above.

c. Remove the requirement to submit Past Performance Questionnaires as part of the offeror’s proposal.

QUESTION 125# Attachment 6, para. M to the draft RFP asks “estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed” each subcontractor in the GSM-ETI procurement. Since this is an IDIQ task order contract, it is not possible to know which uniquely qualified talent will be required from any individual subcontractor until the task order is issued. Recommend delete the requirement to estimate a percentage of the total proposed effort.

ANSWER #125: Attachment 6 is requesting Past Performance Information; not future performance. Past Performance Information is required for the award of the GSM-ETI Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

QUESTION #126: Attachment 6, para. I to the draft RFP asks to specify, by name, any key individuals who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant procurement. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both procurements. Since the GSM-ETI is a task order IDIQ, it is not possible to know what talent will be required for any individual task order until it is issued. Recommend delete the requirement to identify those proposed to support the instant procurement.

ANSWER #126: Attachment 6 is requesting Past Performance Information; not future performance. Past Performance Information is required for the award of the GSM-ETI Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

QUESTION #127: Are you able to tell me who the Task Managers are for GSM? If not, would you please refer me to someone who can?

ANSWER #127: The task managers for the GSM-ETI efforts have not been assigned at this time and will be assigned when a task order is issued.

QUESTION #128: RE: QUESTION #81: Will there be a specific set aside for 8(a) companies in the GSM-ETI portion of the procurement? ANSWER #81: No. A set-aside for 8(a) companies is not a consideration of the approved Acquisition Strategy.

There has been some indication that DISA would use the GSA 8(a) STARS vehicle for procuring ETI support. Q 81 seems to indicate that may not be the case. Can you clarify if GSA 8(a) STARS will be used for the ETI procurement?

ANSWER #128: The use of the 8aSTARS contracts to accomplish the GSM-ETI efforts is not included in the GSM Acquisition of Services (AoS) Acquisition Strategy.

QUESTION #129: RE: QUESTION #18: Have you considered using the small business ceiling of SOO personnel instead of the annual dollar revenue figure? This would increase the stable of competitors for this opportunity. ANSWER #18: Yes. The Contracting Officer has reviewed the requirements for the GSM-ETI effort and descriptions of many NAICS codes to determine the appropriate NAICS code for the GSM-ETI RFP. Is “SOO personnel” at typo? Should “SOO” be a number, and if yes, what is that number? If not, what is the meaning of “SOO personnel”? Although the question was answered, it appears that the NAICS codes cited in current solicitation document remains as stated. Is that correct?

ANSWER #129: The question reference was to 500 people; not SOO people. The question was copied as received. The answer previously provided (Q/A #18) is appropriate.

QUESTION: #130: As past performance is currently written in the DRFP, Primes are required to include 3 past performances for each significant teaming partner / subcontract. Will the government consider revising the RFP Past Performance Requirements so that team members, who are on the team to support specific area of the SOO requirements, will only be graded based on the areas of the GSM-ETI SOO that they will support, and not the entire Part Performance requirements. Further request that the requirement to provide 3 be changed to reflect “up to three”.

ANSWER #130: See Q/A #120. Requirement for Past Performance examples has been revised. As provided in the final GSM-ETI RFP, the Government’s evaluation of past performance will include recency and relevancy of past performance examples submitted by the offeror.

QUESTION #131: We have had discussions in the past regarding the GSM NAICS size standard. We appreciate the confidence the government is placing in companies that qualify as small business under NAICS 541512. To date we have made and are making significant investment in developing our teaming relationships, maturing our infrastructure, expanding our geographic footprint, and developing a GSM-ETI solution based on the current DRFP. Our teammates, small and large, are making similar investments. We are confident that we have assembled the right balance of NAICS qualifying businesses and other teammates to meet DISA’s ETI goals and requirements.

We continue to receive unofficial feedback that companies who do not qualify under this NAICS size standard are working to have the GSM-ETI NAICS changed. Our company is planning to bid this solicitation as a prime. A change in NAICs at this point, will be highly disruptive to industry, and result in significant loss of resources for our company and our teammates.

We respectfully request the government continue with the current acquisition strategy and NAICS in order to allow industry to continue its focusing on the current DRFP and building teams that are dedicated to DISA’s objectives.

ANSWER #131: Noted. The appropriate NAICS Code will be reflected in the Final GSM-ETI RFP.

QUESTION 132: Reference Section L 8.3.1 General. The RFP states that past performance information, in accordance with format at HC1028-10-R-2001, Section J Attachment 6 is required for the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and or joint venture partners who are proposed to do fifty percent (50%) or more in the case of teaming partners/and or joint venture partners.

As our team is comprised of both small and large businesses, it is difficult to determine for any given future task order which team members will do fifty (50%) or more of the work. Please clarify your direction on which companies on a Team are required to submit past performance per Section J. Attachment 6.

ANSWER # 132: See Questions/Answers #119, 125 and126, above.

QUESTION #133: Since this is such a larger procurement in dollar value, please consider using the NAICS Code of 541712 of 500 FTEs which will allow you to have the small business with significant horse power so that it will not be large subcontractor driving the small business and it will reduce the risk to the Government. Thanks for your consideration.

ANSWER #133: The Government has considered the use of NAICS Code 541712; however, NAICS Code 541712 is not the best fit for the GSM-ETI requirements.

QUESTION #134: We would like to request the current DC-Rom for the GSM-ETI procurement. Please advise what information you need from me.

ANSWER #134: Reference Draft RFP, Section L, Paragraph L4. “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 courriers shall arrive in person at the DISA Program Management Office, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Sky 7, Room 1W12, Falls Church VA.” Please note that the contact phone numbers have changed to: Mr. Patrick: 703-681-1373 and Ms. Prisuta: 703-882-0214.

QUESTION # 135: Reference Section L Table 7-1. The current technical/management page volume page count is 75 pages for subfactors 1 and 2, 50 pages for subfactor 3, and 100 pages for the STO. Would the government consider reducing the page counts to 50 pages total for subfactors 1, 2 and 3 and 50 pages for the STO. This will not only accelerate the government’s review time, but is sufficient to adequately address the RFP requirements.

ANSWER #135: The Government anticipates the following page number limitations will be reflected in the Final GSM-ETI RFP:

Volume II, Part B - GSM-ETI PWS – 25 pages Volume II, Part C - Subfactor 1 – Telecommunications Network Engineering – 50 pages

Volume II, Part D - Subfactor 2 – Sample Task Order – 75 pages

Volume II, Part E - Subfactor 3 – Service Transition, Implementaion and Integration – 50 pages

Volume II, Part F - Subfactor 4 – Management Plan – 50 pages

QUESTION #136: The draft RFP, section 7.1 specifies volume II page counts for sections A,B,C and a separate page count for section E (sample task). Due to the wording of the evaluation factors in section M and the instructions of section L, are the 100 pages of the sample task also included in the page counts for sections A, B & C?

ANSWER #136: See Question/Answer #135, above. The page limitation referenced for the sample task order is separate from the other page limitation requirements.

QUESTION #137: We are a small business with a Secret Facilities Clearance and are planning to prime the GSM-ETI HC1028-10-R-2001. The DD254 requires a Top Secret Facilities Clearance. If one of our teammates has a Top Secret Facilities Clearance will that meet/satisfy the DD254 requirement?

ANSWER #137: The Prime Contractor must have a Top Secret Facilities Clearance.

QUESTION #138: In Sample Task Order #ES-01, Section 5.c, the matrix table does not include SOO 5.2.3 Stds Dev & Analysis activity, but the sample task order does include CDRLs that were defined in SOO 5.2.3 (Network Arch & Eng Master Plan, SLAs, OLAs). Please explain?

ANSWER #138: The Sample Task Order for the Final GSM-ETI RFP has been revised and cross-reference has been revised.

QUESTION #139: In SOO 5.2.3 Stds Dev & Analysis, is CDRL A027, Network Arch & Eng Master Plan, written and delivered once for all Task Orders, or is it specific to the work in each Task Order and delivered for each Task Order?

ANSWER #139: At a minimum, required CDRLs will be addressed in each individual task order.

QUESTION #140 Will there be a Task Order to build a foundation and deliver CDRLs to be applied for all other Task Order work (master plans, standards, “As-Is” service architecture, existing service portfolio and catalog, formation of an engineering review board for all Task Order activity, etc)?

ANSWER #140: Deliverables are not required at the contract level. At a minimum, required CDRLs will be addressed in each individual task order.

QUESTION #141: We would like to request that the government consider having a half hour one-on-one sessions with companies that replied to discuss their individual capability and past performance.

First we concur on the ITIL and eTOM lack of direct experience since we do not do any business directly with DISA as a small business. However, we were the team that performed the Systems Engineering, Network Management and

Information Assurance on the Regional HUB Node as well as Teleport for PM

DCATS and Joint Network Node (JNN) for PM WIN-T. We have personnel that has worked on WSOC as we were the Software Engineering Project Lead for

GSCCE. So the issue becomes Capability versus contract in that we cannot build a capability without the contract even though we feel that we can deliver given the opportunity.

Again Thank You for the consideration and we will continue to track if the

Government considers our recommendation on one-on-one sessions as well as our interest in the RFP once sections L&M are released.

ANSWER #141: The Government does not plan on having one-on-one sessions with the companies who submitted Advisory Multi-Step Process information. Please note, the Government’s response to the submitted information is advisory.

QUESTION #142: Based on the current DRFP we are expending effort to prepare our response to the Sample Task. If this is going to change, removed or replaced please advise as soon as possible as we need to spend our B&P funding as effectively as possible. Significant changes to the Sample Task will potentially result in wasted money and effort. Further if the government intends to include additional sample tasks, we request that the government inform industry of this intent and increase the response times for the final RFP to more the 30 days.

ANSWER #142: The Sample Task Order for the Final GSM-ETI has been revised. The revisions have not resulted in substantial changes. The Government is “considering” a proposal response time of no more than 45 days; however, the proposal due date will be as provided in the Final GSM-ETI RFP.

QUESTION #143: 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 #143: Not applicable for GSM-ETI solicitation and will be addressed under GSM‑O solicitation.

QUESTION #144: 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 #144: Not applicable for GSM-ETI solicitation and will be addressed under GSM‑O solicitation.

QUESTION #145: Reference the incidental equipment called out in paragraphs 3.2.k and 6.2.1.b(4). In order for offerors to include costs for the incidental equipment required in support of Request Fulfillment in proposed pricing, the Government will have to provide significant additional information regarding what types of equipment are anticipated/required, the quantities of the items required, the projected schedule for equipment requirements, etc. Because some of the incidental equipment items will represent a significant cost (e.g., customer-facing cards such as T-1 router interface cards, GBICs, test equipment) the total cost of these items could be a significant factor in the cost evaluation.

As the requirement is currently written, only the current incumbent contractor would have sufficient information to estimate quantity and types of equipment required to meet performance thresholds. This situation appears to provide the current incumbent with a significant and unfair advantage in this area.

We recommend that the Government define the incidental equipment items as cost reimbursement items under the GSM-O contract and establish a Government-provided “plug number” for use by all offerors in the cost/price portion of the GSM-O proposal. Providing a “plug number” establishes a fair and equitable basis for proposal cost/price evaluation. Treating the incidental items as cost reimbursable items under the GSM-O contract further ensures that the Government only pays for specific items required during program execution

ANSWER #145: Not applicable for GSM-ETI solicitation and will be addressed under GSM‑O solicitation.

QUESTION #146: I'm sure you guys are up to your eyeballs in GSM activities.......just had a general question relating to DGS and GSM. Today under DGS, our company is a subcontractor to SAIC as you know and provides our company’s products and services to DISA through that vehicle. In the GSM docs, it says that future product purchases (post DGS) may be handled through "other Govt contracting vehicles".

Our question is this.....in the post DGS world, would DITCO consider a BPA or BOA directly with our company for the procurement of our company’s products? We believe that our company Services are well covered under GSM. But there is a gray area as it relates to future product purchases. As DISA represents a significant piece of our Federal product sales in any given year, we are interested in assuring the least interuption as we continue to provide solutions for DISA requriements. Any insight would be appreciated.

ANSWER#146: The GSM Program Manger will consider whether or not the suggested contracting vehicles are beneficial to the government.

QUESTION#147: In the draft RFP, section H 12, key personnel are described in the context of the task order, not in the context of the overall contract. Is it the government's intention to have these four key personnel categories listed as part of each task order? If not, is it the intent that each of the four key personnel be named in response to the overall procurement? Please clarify.

ANSWER #147: The Task Order SOO provided as an attachment to the Final GSM-ETI RFP is a Sample task order to be used for evaluation purposes. However, upon award of a contract and/or task order, the Government may require that key personnel be identified at the contract level and/or at the task order level.