NCTAMS LANT N0018926RL014 QA PART2 6-4.pdf

NCTAMS LANT

N0018926RL014

Questions and Answers Part 2

Q1: Is the "Past Performance Information Form" in addition to Volume II, Factor II - Past Performance or is the

"Past Performance Information Form" the only required documentation for Volume II, Factor II - Past Performance?

A1: The Past Performance Information Form is part of Factor II, it is not in addition to Factor II. This form is the minimum for what is to be included in your Factor II submission. You can elaborate on the information that is provided on that form in whatever manner you wish, as long as you don’t exceed the total page count of 12 pages and follow the formatting instructions. The Past Performance Report Form is a separate document for the customer of the subject reference to be complete to be sent via email. The Report Form does not count toward the page count.

Q2: Should the Little Creek maximum price be $11,530,000.00 totaling the base price plus the ordering period as outlined in the CAP?

A2: No, it should be $8,800,000.00. The base and ordering period totals were also updated for Little Creek. Please see “CAP v1” for more information.

Q3: How many minutes of long distance per user does the Government want to include in the phone service?

A3: Offerors should propose a flat-rate billing model for all local and domestic long-distance (CONUS) calling;

therefore, a specific minute bucket for CONUS calling is not required.

For International (OCONUS) calling, offerors should base their pricing evaluations on the following estimated monthly usage, broken down by location based on historical data:

Location Estimated Monthly OCONUS Minutes

NAS Key West 3

NAVSTA Great Lakes 100

NAVSTA Norfolk 28

JEB Little Creek 8

NSA Mechanicsburg 48

NSA Philadelphia 84

PNYA 68

Total Estimated OCONUS 339

Q4: Is direct Inward and Outward Dialing required for all sites?

A4: Yes, Direct Inward Dialing (DID) and Direct Outward Dialing (DOD) are fundamental requirements for telephone service at all locations.

Q5: What type of Information Systems Platform infrastructure exists at each location currently for Call Control?

A5: The current legacy voice environment consists of various decentralized, locally managed TDM and PBX systems. The Navy's primary enterprise IT data network is the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). However, it is critical to note that the new telephone service will not utilize the NMCI infrastructure for call control, routing, or network transport.

As outlined in the PWS and previous Government responses, the awarded offeror(s) is required to provide, host, and maintain their own independent call control infrastructure and network solution. The Government's legacy call control platforms are being fully replaced and should not factor into the offeror's proposed architecture, as the vendor's system must operate independently of NMCI

Q6: The desired services for each of the 7 sites include "E911", then section 4 outlines NG911 in places. Is the intent/desire to initially have the capability provide E911 and a future path to NG911?

A6: The intent is for the proposed solution to be NG911 compliant upon implementation, complying with modern regulatory requirements including Kari’s Law and the Ray Baum’s Act (delivering dispatchable location data to the building, floor, or suite level). Specifically, the proposed solution must connect to and route all emergency calls to the appropriate Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) Regional Dispatch Center (RDC).

Q7: In the Pricing file, please clarify what CLIN A004 and A005 ATA hardware and license are aligned to in the

PWS.

A7: Due to the nature of legacy analog devices being utilized across the installations, it is expected that ATAs

(Analog Telephone Adapters) will be utilized to convert the transmission capabilities to IP. CLIN A004 is aligned to the physical ATA hardware required, and CLIN A005 is aligned to the associated licensing. The estimated quantities and costs for these CLINs provided in the pricing file were based on Government market research and modeling for the anticipated number of legacy devices requiring conversion.

Q8: Is the intent/desire to have the solution be compatible with existing user "sets" (telephones) that exist at a given location?

A8: Yes.

Q9: What current "network" connectivity facilitate digital and Internet Protocol (IP) phones, Video Teleconferencing

(VTC) systems, Secure Terminal Equipment (STE), Voice over Secure IP (VoSIP) devices, TSG-6 approved phones, voice mail systems, and other approved peripheral devices.

A9: Currently, these devices are facilitated by existing commercial business telephone services and legacy

TDM/PBX infrastructure over Government-owned Inside Plant (ISP) cabling.

Q10: Can the Government provide the Bldg. location/address info where the current telephony systems at all these locations are installed, with space, power, cooling and copper/fiber connectivity currently available at those locations?

A10: Due to the scale of this requirement, which encompasses approximately 20,000 endpoints across multiple installations, it is not feasible to provide building and room-level details for each endpoint prior to award. Offerors should base their proposals on the locations and endpoint counts specified in the PWS. Detailed site information necessary for implementation will be provided to the successful contractor(s) upon award.

Q11: The solicitation indicates that enforceable small business commitments will be “weighted more heavily” than non-enforceable commitments; however, no evaluation methodology or criteria describing this distinction is provided.

Can the Government provide additional detail on how this weighting will be assessed (e.g., scoring impact, relative importance within the factor, or evaluation standards) to ensure offerors can structure their proposals accordingly?

A11: The distinction between an enforceable and non-enforceable commitment relies on whether the subcontract would be legally enforceable (i.e. binding in court); we cannot provide legal advice as to what that would constitute and you are encouraged to consult your own legal counsel if you have questions on that. Regarding how these commitments are weighed: the particular bullet point you are referencing in factor III is not a subfactor that will be receiving a separate rating, nor is there a mechanical formula as to how that one particular bullet point will be weighed. Rather, the contracting officer will be considering all 5 listed bullet points in Factor III in a holistic manner when establishing the Small Business Participation Plan rating. For that bullet point, enforceable commitments will give that bullet point more weight in the overall factor III evaluation than non-enforceable ones, however the contracting officer is not using a mechanical formula to devise this rating.

Q12: The narrative for Key West outlines 1,113 endpoints to include IP replacement for seven (7) T1 circuits and five (5) ISDN circuits. Are the five (5) ISDN circuits BRI or PRI and can the Government provide similar information about the other sites?

A12: The specific breakdown of BRI versus PRI for the ISDN circuits is not available, as the baseline inventory provided by the NAS Key West Base Communications Office (BCO) did not specify the circuit type. However, as stated in PWS Section 3.1.1.1, the requirement is for the IP replacement of these circuits. The Government's objective is to modernize these connections, so offerors should propose a solution that upgrades these legacy services to an IP-based delivery method rather than maintaining legacy handoffs.

Q13: Can the Government define their current Information Systems Platform and is it the Government's intent to keep it?

A13: Please refer to the Government's response Q5.

Q14: Is the solicitation requesting just telephone services at these sites or is it the Government's intent to replace the

TDM to IP gateway infrastructure as well?

A14: The purpose of this solicitation is to procure a solution that will replace the existing TDM commercial telephony services. The legacy TDM network is currently active and will be replaced by the solution awarded under this contract. The current legacy TDM services are delivered via commercial central offices, meaning the existing core infrastructure and gateways are commercially owned, not Government-owned.

The purpose of this solicitation is a complete replacement. Therefore, the awarded offeror(s) is responsible for providing both the telephone service and all necessary on-premise network infrastructure including any required IP gateways, routers, or Analog Telephone Adapters (ATAs) to successfully deliver their IP-based service to the

Government's existing endpoints.

Offerors must engineer a complete, end-to-end solution. The awarded offeror(s) will finalize their specific hardware, gateway, and engineering requirements during their post-award site surveys.

Q15: Can the Government confirm whether all IDIQ awardees will compete for task orders across all seven locations, or if task orders will be structured and issued by site or grouped requirements?

A: Up to 7 IDIQs may be awarded. Task orders will be site specific and will not be further competed, but will be awarded to the contractor chosen to perform at that site. The Government is not issuing a Multiple-Award Contract.

Q16: For task order awards under this IDIQ, will evaluation be based solely on price, or will technical approach and past performance be considered as part of a best value determination?

A16: Task orders are based on price. The vendor shall be determined responsible prior to each task order award.

Q17: Will the initial transition from legacy TDM/CENTREX environments to VoIP be executed as part of the base

IDIQ award, or will transition activities be issued and competed at the task order level?

A17: All work is issued and competed at the task order level.

Q18: Can the Government provide any additional high-level detail on the current telephony environments at each location to support accurate transition planning and pricing assumptions?

A18: All relevant information is in the PWS and/or answered in this document or the Q&A Part 1 that was posted on

SAM.gov on 5/5/2026. As stated in previous Government responses, detailed site-specific technical breakdowns will not be provided prior to award. However, the Government has provided the following high-level details across the

PWS and official Q&A documents:

• The current environment is a legacy Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM) service delivered from commercial Central Offices.

• The new solution must be an independent, vendor-owned and maintained IP network that will not utilize the NMCI network.

• Vendors may utilize existing, suitable Government-owned Inside Plant (ISP) cabling.

• Endpoint devices are existing Government-owned assets of various types.

The awarded offeror(s) will be responsible for conducting their own post-award site surveys to determine the specific engineering and implementation details required for their proposed solution.

Q19: Can the Government clarify expectations regarding responsibility for the underlying network infrastructure in relation to service delivery and performance accountability?

A19: The Government expects the vendor to provide a complete, end-to-end, managed "dial-tone" service.

Regarding infrastructure responsibility and performance accountability, the boundary is defined as follows:

• Vendor Responsibility (Active Infrastructure): The vendor is fully accountable for the performance, reliability, and security of the entire service delivery chain. This includes the core call control (hosted at the vendor’s facility/cloud), the wide-area network transport, the building demarcation point, and all required on-premise active infrastructure (e.g., edge routers, IP gateways, ATAs, and any necessary PoE injection/switches). The vendor owns the SLA. If the service degrades or fails due to any of these components, the vendor is accountable.

• Government Responsibility (Passive Infrastructure): The Government is solely responsible for providing and maintaining the passive, physical Inside Plant (ISP) cabling (e.g., the copper or fiber running from the

MDF/IDF to the wall jack). The new service will not utilize the Navy's active data network (NMCI).

If the vendor chooses to utilize the Government's existing ISP cabling to reach the endpoint, the vendor is responsible for testing and validating that the specific cable run is suitable for their IP service. If a specific ISP cable run is found to be defective, the Government will repair or replace it. However, overall service delivery and performance accountability rests entirely with the vendor.

Q20: Will the Government define a required order of implementation across the seven sites, or should offerors propose a recommended sequencing strategy as part of their technical approach?

A20: Offerors should propose a recommended, general sequencing strategy and transition timeline as part of their technical approach to demonstrate their capability to manage a multi-site deployment.

However, the Government will ultimately define the final order of implementation and exact timeline post-award.

This schedule will be driven by the expiration dates of the various legacy telephony contracts currently supporting the seven sites, as some locations will require transition sooner than others to prevent gaps in service. The final implementation schedule will be mutually agreed upon with the awarded offeror(s) during the post-award kickoff phase.

Q21: Can the Government clarify expectations for on-site support, particularly whether full-time presence is required at any locations during transition and/or steady-state operations?

A21: The Government does not explicitly mandate a full-time, steady-state on-site presence at any location, provided the vendor can meet all required Service Level Agreements (SLAs), including the 99.9% availability requirement and necessary response times for outages. However, a significant on-site presence is expected during the transition and implementation phases (including site surveys, equipment installation, cutovers, and immediate post-cutover support) to ensure a seamless migration. Offerors must propose a support model (remote vs. on-site dispatch) that guarantees SLA compliance.

Q22: Can the Government confirm whether VoSIP, STE, and TSG-6 devices will be Government-furnished, contractor-provided, or integrated into the proposed solution?

A22: As stated in the PWS and previous Q&A responses, all endpoint devices—including VoSIP, STE, and TSG-6 approved phones—are Government-owned and Government-furnished. The contractor is not responsible for providing these specialized end-user devices.

Q23: Should offerors assume responsibility for delivering a fully compliant NG911 solution (Kari’s Law and Ray

Baum’s Act), or will portions of this capability be Government provided or already in place?

A23: Offerors must assume full responsibility for delivering a fully compliant NG911 solution. The Government will not provide portions of this capability. As stated in previous Q&A, the proposed solution must be capable of delivering dispatchable location data to the appropriate Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) Regional

Dispatch Center (RDC) via NG911 architecture upon implementation.

Q24: You provided a breakdown by site of the number of analog digital IP endpoints. Is the assumption that all of these endpoints will be IP or will some remain analog?

A24: As established in previous Q&A regarding the use of Analog Telephone Adapters (ATAs), offerors should assume that a portion of the existing endpoints will remain analog (e.g., fax machines, specific alarms, or certain secure voice terminals that cannot natively accept an IP connection). The Government's goal is to modernize the underlying transport and call control to an IP-based system. The vendor's solution must provide the necessary gateways or ATAs to convert their IP service to support any existing legacy analog endpoints that the Government determines must remain in use.

Q25: Can you please define what the current ISP infrastructure and end-user instruments consists of? Manufacturer and quantity.

A25: To clarify the terminology, the Government refers to ISP as Inside Plant cabling infrastructure, not Information

Systems Platform. The contractor is required to utilize the existing Inside Plant (ISP) cabling (e.g., copper, fiber, Cat

5/6) where available and suitable for their solution. Due to the scale of this requirement across approximately 20,000 endpoints, detailed building-level Inside Plant cable records cannot be provided prior to award. The successful offeror will be responsible for assessing and utilizing the existing ISP during the site survey and implementation phases.

Q26: Is it the intent of the Navy to require the contractor to install their own IP network to deliver the VoIP service on?

A26: Yes. As explicitly stated in multiple previous Q&A responses and the PWS, the solution must operate on an independent, vendor-owned and maintained distribution network. The vendor's core call control and logical network transport must remain entirely separate from the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). The vendor may utilize existing, passive, Government-owned Inside Plant (ISP) physical cabling (copper/fiber) to reach the endpoints, but the logical network and active infrastructure must be provided by the contractor.

Q27: Please define what specific NG911 services are being requested?

A27: The required NG911 services are defined by compliance with Kari’s Law and the Ray Baum’s Act.

Specifically, the system must support dynamic, dispatchable location routing (providing building, floor, suite, or room-level data, as appropriate). The system must be capable of delivering this location data and natively interfacing with the appropriate Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) Regional Dispatch Center (RDC).

Q28: With current DoD Unified Capabilities Requirements (UCR) specification being obsolete and currently being updated by DISA, and with the sunsetting of the Approved Products List (APL), please define all DoW specific features that need to be delivered.

A28: Offerors must comply with the current, active baseline of DoW security and interoperability requirements at the time of proposal submission, including the DoW Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide (CC SRG) and

FedRAMP guidelines as outlined in the PWS. Specific telephony features required for this acquisition (e.g., standard voice features, E911/NG911, DID/DOD, and site-specific mission requirements like crash nets) are defined within the PWS. The Government does not require legacy DoW-specific UCR features beyond what is explicitly stated in the solicitation documents and the mandated cyber-security frameworks.

Q29: PWS section 4.2 cannot be met. If the requested VOIP service is to be delivered on a contractor owned and operated IP network, that network cannot connect with DoW IP networks. VoSIP devices are proprietary and are only operational on SIPRNET working off the DISA ECVOIP Softswitch Backbone. Legacy digital phones are also proprietary and will not work independent of the PBX they are associated with. Even if the intent is to remain with the current vendor technology, the gateway [MCC, G650, and G450 v1 and v2] technology supporting digital phones is vendor unsupported and is end of life by the manufacturer. Any commercially provided solution will meet

Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) open standards for VoIP, and will not support legacy proprietary endpoints. How does the agency intend for bidders to comply with this requirement?

A29:1. Regarding VoSIP/SIPRNET: The vendor’s unclassified commercial IP network is not expected to directly connect to or route classified VoSIP traffic traversing the SIPRNET. The vendor's responsibility regarding VoSIP or

STE devices is limited to providing the necessary unclassified transport (e.g., an analog or digital line via a gateway/ATA) to the secure boundary device or encryptor, allowing the secure device to dial out over the commercial network. The vendor is not providing the secure call control.

2. Regarding Legacy Digital Phones: The Government acknowledges that legacy proprietary digital phones tied to

End-of-Life PBXs cannot be directly supported by a modern SIP-based commercial VoIP service. If a specific legacy endpoint is determined to be technically incompatible with open SIP standards or cannot be supported via an

ATA/gateway, the Government will be responsible for procuring a compatible, standards-based SIP endpoint to replace it. Offerors should base their proposals on delivering standard, open-SIP compliant service (and necessary analog conversions) to the endpoint locations.

Q30: E911 is not an auxiliary and/or collaborative system. CrashNet is a legacy call routing option that was enabled on older Nortel telephone switches. Can you please specify specifically what auxiliary and collaborative systems actually need to be interconnected to this requested independent commercial VOIP service? For example, if this new service is to peer with Microsoft 365 Teams (e.g., Flankspeed), or some third-party contact center solution, those requirements need to be defined.

A30: The requirement for the new VoIP service to interoperate with "auxiliary and collaborative systems" does not imply peering with broader enterprise IT platforms like Microsoft Teams/Flank Speed or third-party contact center solutions, unless specifically stated as a site requirement. The PWS uses this terminology to encompass localized, mission-specific systems that rely on voice transport, such as existing physical Crash Nets, giant voice/mass notification systems, alarm dialers, or localized paging controllers that currently interface with the legacy PBX. The awarded offeror(s) will engineer connections to these existing auxiliary systems via standard analog or SIP interfaces during post-award site surveys.

Q31: If the Crash Net is current support on the Avaya Intuity system can you please provide the requirement that the new system must replicate? If the Crash Net is a 3rd party system please provide the vendor, version and interface(s) available.

A31: The offeror’s assumption is incorrect; the existing Crash Net is not supported on an Avaya Intuity system. It currently operates via the legacy TDM Centrex service.

As the Government is procuring a complete replacement of the TDM Centrex service, the new system must replicate the core operational capability of the Crash Net. This requirement is the capability to provide instant, simultaneous, non-blocking voice conferencing with priority override to a designated group of emergency response endpoints. The awarded offeror(s) must engineer a solution capable of triggering this conference (e.g., via a dedicated physical endpoint, an ATA, or SIP integration) and reliably bridging the required parties within their proposed IP architecture.

Detailed interface specifications for any existing 3rd party emergency controllers at specific sites will be provided to the awarded offeror(s) post-award.

Q32: Can you clarifiy what do you mean by NG911 infrastructure? This needs to be specific. Text-to-911 is a capability provided within PSAP call handling equipment, and is not something provided as part of a desktop VoIP service offering. If you are looking for legacy location capabilities as currently delivered with E911 services, that needs to be specified. If the Navy is looking for this new service provider to provide NG911 location information services as part of their VoIP service and deliver 9-1-1 calls to a designated Emergency Service IP Network

(ESINET), then that needs to be specified as well.

A32: The Government requires the vendor's VoIP service to provide NG911 location information services and deliver 9-1-1 calls directly to the appropriate Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) Regional Dispatch

Center (RDC).

At a minimum, to comply with Kari's Law and the Ray Baum's Act, the vendor's solution must be capable of delivering a dynamic, "dispatchable location" (including building and floor/suite data) for every endpoint to the

CNIC RDC. The Government acknowledges that features like Text-to-911 depend on the receiving dispatch center's capabilities; the core requirement is that the vendor's voice network and location database are fully NG911 capable upon implementation to support the CNIC RDC architecture.

Q33: PWS section 4.5- How is this service level to be measured and validated? Is this per endpoint, or for the overall service for all endpoints?

A33: The 99.9% Service Level Agreement (SLA) availability requirement applies to the overall core service (call control, routing, and network transport) for all endpoints across the enterprise. It is not calculated on a perindividual-endpoint basis for localized hardware failures (e.g., a single broken phone or a bad wall jack). The SLA is measured against the availability of the vendor's core platform and wide-area network to process and complete calls. The vendor shall provide monthly SLA performance reports to the Government as part of their invoicing process.

Q34: Could you define what kind of call plan the Navy is looking for? Telephone services are billed based on local

CONUS calling and separate OCONUS calling. Most calling plans offer flat rate billing for CONUS calling, while

OCONUS are subject to international rates billed by the minute. If international dialing is a requirement, a list of what international countries that need to be called should be listed. Telephone services are still subject to tariffs, thus billing will be in compliance with such tariffs.

A34: Offerors should propose a flat-rate billing model for all local and domestic long-distance (CONUS) calling.

Due to the global operational nature of the U.S. Navy, international (OCONUS) dialing is a requirement. Offerors should assume standard OCONUS calling capabilities are necessary and state their approach to billing for international dialing (e.g., standard commercial tariff/per-minute rates billed in arrears).

However, to prevent toll fraud and align with security protocols, the Government maintains a list of restricted/blocked international country codes. The awarded offeror(s) will be provided this restricted list post-award and must be capable of blocking outbound calls to those designated locations at the system level.

Q35: If bidding on multiple locations, is the Offeror required to submit a separate Volume I - Technical Approach for each site, or can the Offeror submit a single Volume I - Technical Approach that covers all of the locations the offeror is bidding on?

A35: Submit one single technical approach that covers all locations, but as the solicitation states, please identify which locations you are bidding on and please organize the content within the technical approach so we can logically follow what location you are talking about, or if you are discussing something generically that applies to all locations. The page limit for the Technical Approach has been increased to 20 with Solicitation 3.

Q36: Can the Government confirm the CAP ceiling for Little Creek is correct as stated?

A36: Please see Question 2.

Q37: Can the Government confirm that International Dialing is one of the required features, and provide a usage based CLIN for international dialing in the Pricing Spreadsheet?

A37: As stated in the response to Question 34, International (OCONUS) dialing is a required capability (subject to

Government-provided country restrictions). However, the Government will not add a separate usage-based CLIN to the Pricing Spreadsheet for evaluation purposes. Offerors should include their standard commercial international rate sheet as an attachment to their proposal to demonstrate their per-minute billing approach for authorized OCONUS calls.

Q38: In Attachment XII – Pricing Spreadsheet – CLIN A003 – Implementation & Transition Services is a one-time charge included in every Base tab for each location. QUESTION: Since Cell H11 calculates as H10 × 5, which multiplies the A003 one-time implementation price by five across the performance period on each Base tab. Can the

Government clarify if this is a mistake and make corrections to the Pricing Spreadsheet?

A38: Pricing Spreadsheet has been updated. See Amendment 0003.

Q39: In Attachment XII – Pricing Spreadsheet – CLIN A002 – NG911 – appears on every tab for all locations.

QUESTION: It appears that the A002 formula in cell G6 copies D6 directly (G6 = D6) without multiplying by 12, unlike the formula for A001 which applies a ×12 multiplier. Can the Government confirm that CLIN A002 should be priced per seat per year, not per seat per month, and make the necessary corrections to the Pricing Spreadsheet?

A39: Pricing Spreadsheet has been updated. See Amendment 0003.

Q40: Section 4.0 states, "The solution will operate on an independent vendor owned/maintained distribution network and is not expected to interface directly with existing legacy or conventional voice sub-systems."

Does this statement refer to both interbuilding connections (building to building) and station wiring (inside wiring within the building)?"

A40: No, that statement refers to the logical network, active transport equipment, and call control infrastructure, not the physical cabling. The vendor is responsible for providing all active networking equipment (e.g., core routers, edge switches, gateways, ATAs) to create their "independent network" without use of Government-provided OSP assets.

Q41: Section 4.0 states, "The solution will operate on an independent vendor owned/maintained distribution network and is not expected to interface directly with existing legacy or conventional voice sub-systems."

Does each building require its own network connectivity?"

A41: Not necessarily. The architecture of the network connectivity is at the discretion of the offeror.

Q42: If the answers to questions 40 and 41 are "yes", please add a CLIN for network connectivity.

A42: See answers to Questions 40 and 41.

Q43: Please provide the number of endpoints per building per site.

A43: As stated in previous Government responses, building-level endpoint data will not be provided prior to award due to the scale of this requirement. Offerors must base their proposals on the installation-level endpoint counts provided in the PWS. Detailed building information will be provided to the awarded offeror(s) post-award to facilitate implementation.

Q44: Please confirm VoSIP (voice over secure IP) phones are vIPer phones.

A44: The Government cannot confirm that all VoSIP phones are General Dynamics vIPer phones. While vIPer is a common secure endpoint within the DoW, commands procure their own devices, and the inventory may include other approved Secure Terminal Equipment (STE) or VoSIP endpoints. Offerors must propose a solution capable of providing standard transport (e.g., analog or digital lines via gateways/ATAs) to support the transmission requirements of standard DoW secure voice devices.

Q45: Is support for vIPer phones required?

A45: Support for the transmission capabilities of vIPer phones, along with other standard DoW STE and VoSIP devices, is required as outlined in PWS Section 4.2. As clarified in previous responses, the vendor's unclassified network is only required to provide the underlying transport (the "dial tone") to the secure boundary device; the vendor is not responsible for the encrypted call control or the secure device itself.

Q46: Please confirm whether this requirement refers to maintaining local TDM circuit handoffs or to inbound traffic capacity that will be replaced with SIP trunks.

A46: The Government's objective is a complete modernization to an IP-based solution. The requirement refers to inbound/outbound traffic capacity that should be delivered via modern SIP trunks (or equivalent IP routing) by the awarded offeror(s). Maintaining legacy local TDM circuit handoffs (e.g., copper T1s) to the Public Switched

Telephone Network (PSTN) is not required or desired for the core service, unless a specific legacy handoff is technically mandated to support an existing, isolated Government system (e.g., a specific alarm or crash net interface that cannot be converted).

Q47: Please provide make and model of all end user instruments and equipment including digital and Internet

Protocol (IP) phones, Video Teleconferencing (VTC) systems, Secure Terminal Equipment (STE), Voice over Secure

IP (VoSIP) devices, TSG-6 approved phones, voice mail systems, and other approved peripheral devices.

A47: A detailed list of end-user instruments will not be provided because each individual command purchases their own devices (i.e. customer premise equipment). Consequently, there is a wide variety of equipment in use across the installations. As stated in the PWS, the contractor's proposed solution must be able to support a variety of standard endpoint types, including digital and IP phones, VTC systems, STE, and VoSIP devices based on common industry standards.

Q48: Please provide either concurrent calls or number of T1 and ISDN circuits being replaced for each location, similar to how it was provided for the Key West location in PWS Section 3.1.1.

A48: As stated in the response to Question 32, the details provided in the PWS reflect the baseline inventories exactly as submitted by the Base Communications Office (BCO) at each respective installation. Additional circuitlevel breakdowns or historical concurrent call volume are not available for the remaining sites prior to award.

Offerors should base their network capacity and gateway sizing assumptions on standard commercial best practices for the endpoint counts provided in the PWS.

Q49: Please provide additional details regarding the Airfield Crash Net Support requirement, including diagram and call flow and existing wiring type.

A49: Detailed engineering diagrams, call flows, and existing wiring types for the Airfield Crash Net will not be provided prior to award. As stated in the response to Question 31, the core operational requirement is the capability to provide instant, simultaneous, non-blocking voice conferencing with priority override to a designated group of emergency response endpoints. Offerors must propose a solution (including any necessary gateways or SIP integrations) capable of delivering this core capability.

Q50: Are all locations ready for IP-based voice services or will additional inside wiring be required?

A50: The vendor is not responsible for inside plant wiring (ISP). The vendor is responsible for delivering VoIP services to each building and affect connection to the existing ISP.

Q51: Can vendors provide additional CLIN listings?

A51: No.

Q52: Would the Government consider extending the proposal due date by two (2) additional weeks to allow adequate time to review the solicitation requirements, questions and answers, and develop solutions and proposals that fully address all stated requirements and evaluation criteria, including the requirement that each reference complete the Past Performance Report Form?

A52: The Government will extend the due date until 08 June 2026 at this time.

Q53: We request an extension to the quote due date by two weeks from the release of questions & answers to provide sufficient time for offerors to provide a complete, compelling, and compliant offer.

A53: See Question 52.

Q54: Which listed voice auxiliary systems have NG911 interoperability with existing telephony systems?

A54: The requirement for NG911 compliance (delivering dispatchable location data to the CNIC RDC) applies to standard end-user voice endpoints capable of dialing 9-1-1.

Voice auxiliary systems (such as legacy physical Crash Nets, giant voice/mass notification systems, or specific alarm dialers) are distinct requirements. These legacy auxiliary systems generally operate via standard analog or digital transmission and do not possess native NG911 interoperability. The vendor is responsible for providing the necessary standard transport (e.g., analog lines via ATAs) to integrate these auxiliary systems into the new IP network, but is not expected to engineer NG911 location data specifically for these localized, non-standard auxiliary components unless they are utilized to dial emergency services.

Q55: Is there an incumbent contractor, and if so, who?

A55: This is a new requirement. The legacy services at Norfolk, Little Creek, Mechanicsburg, Philadelphia and

PNYA are being provided by Verizon. Key West and Great Lakes is AT&T.

Q56: Instructions to offerors states "The offeror is permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, compliance matrix, table of contents, tabs, and dividers." Does this apply to each volume individually? i.e., can each volume have its own cover page and table of contents?

A56: Yes, this applies to each volume individually.

Q57: We see total endpoints are provided for each site, but no exact concurrent call paths; can the government please provide a number of concurrent call paths needed?

A57: Please refer to the Government's response to Question 48.

Q58: PWS 4.2 "End-User Instruments and Equipment: The solution should support continued use of various existing endpoint types including digital and Internet Protocol (IP) phones, Video Teleconferencing (VTC) systems, Secure

Terminal Equipment (STE), voice over Secure IP (VoSIP) devices, TSG-6 approved phones, voice mail systems, and other approved peripheral devices."

Can the Government provide a list of devices that need to connect to the contractor's VoIP network? Who will be responsible for reprogramming existing or new devices to work on the Contractor's platform?

A58: As noted in the response to Question 8 (Q&A Part One, posted 5/5/26), this level of detail cannot be provided because each command purchases their own devices, leading to a highly varied hardware landscape.

Q59: Each location has a listed number of analog endpoints and then a lesser number of ATAs. Does the

Government already own ATAs for the other endpoints, or is the Government looking for a standard analog handoff such as a 66 or 110 block for the remaining endpoints? Or are the ATAs intended to be multiple ports; the ratio appears to be 8:1, so is the contractor to provide 8 port ATAs? If so, can a higher density ATA be proposed?

A59: The Government does not own existing ATAs for this solution. The estimated quantity of ATAs provided in the solicitation was modeled based on the use of 8-port devices to support the total number of analog endpoints.

Offerors are not restricted to proposing 8-port ATAs. Offerors may propose higher-density ATAs (e.g., 24-port or

48port) where technically feasible and appropriate to provide the most efficient solution.

Q60: The Key West location lists 7 T1's and 5 ISDN circuits. Is the Government looking for a modern T1 solution for those circuits and what is the use for the t1 circuits? Is the Government also looking for 5 PRI circuits to plug into an existing PBX?

A60: No, the Government is not looking to maintain legacy T1 or PRI handoffs to plug into existing PBXs. As stated in PWS Section 3.1.1.1 and clarified in the response to Question 32, the requirement is for the IP replacement of these legacy circuits

Q61: Is a complete technical required for each site the offeror is proposing? If so, does the 12-page limit apply to the technical proposal for each site, or is 12 pages the limit even if an offeror is proposing all seven sites?

A61: Please see Question 35.

Q62: Can the Government confirm the quantity of concurrent call paths and DIDs per location?

A62: Please refer to the Government's response to Question 48 regarding concurrent call paths.

Q63: Can the Government provide a system/network diagram depicting their onsite systems/equipment with required vendor/contractor handoff requirements?

A63: Detailed system/network diagrams and specific handoff requirements will not be provided prior to award. As stated in previous responses, offerors must base their proposals on the information provided in the PWS and will be required to conduct post-award site surveys to finalize engineering and integration plans.

Q64: Can the Government confirm they have systems in place that provide the features listed in PWS Section 4.1?

A64: The features listed in PWS Section 4.1 (e.g., voicemail, caller ID, call forwarding) define the required capabilities of the contractor's proposed solution. The Government is procuring these features as part of the replacement service; the vendor must provide them.

Q65: Can the Government confirm they have Equipment and End-User Instruments that are able to be communicate over a SIP trunk?

A65: The Government's endpoint inventory is decentralized and includes a variety of instruments (IP, analog, and proprietary digital). While some existing IP phones may natively communicate via SIP, many legacy devices will not. As established in previous responses (e.g., Q29 and Q58), the contractor's solution must support these existing devices by providing the necessary ATAs or gateways to convert transmission capabilities to their IP network.

Q66: PWS 4.2- Can the Government confirm the onsite local Government systems are able to communicate over a

SIP trunk?

A66: The Government cannot confirm that all onsite local systems (e.g., legacy auxiliary systems, alarms, or crash nets) can natively communicate over a SIP trunk. The contractor is responsible for providing the necessary gateways or ATAs to successfully integrate these legacy Government systems into their proposed IP network.

Q67: PWS 4.3- Can the Government confirm the onsite local Government systems are able to communicate over a

SIP trunk?

A67: Please refer to the Government's response to Question 66.

Q68: PWS 4.4- Can the Government confirm the onsite local Government systems are able to communicate over a

SIP trunk?

A68: Please refer to the Government's response to Question 66.

Q69: Will employees need access to DOWIT systems for this project?

A69: No. As stated in previous Government responses, the vendor's solution will operate on an independent network and will not utilize the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) or other DoW IT networks. Therefore, contractor employees will not require logical access to DoW IT systems to perform the core technical requirements of this contract.

Q70: Will the DON CO, COR, or PM provide a sponsorship letter for the DBIDS requirements?

https://www.cnic.navy.mil/Operations-and-Management/Base-Support/DBIDS/

A70: Yes. The designated Government sponsor (e.g., the COR or local site point of contact) will provide the necessary sponsorship documentation post-award to facilitate Defense Biometric Identification System (DBIDS) registration for required on-site contractor personnel.

Q71: Will there be any CUI associated with the project?

A71: Yes. As the system will handle Government voice communications and associated metadata (e.g., Call Detail

Records), offerors must assume the system will process, store, or transmit Controlled Unclassified Information

(CUI). The proposed solution must meet all security requirements outlined in the PWS (including

FedRAMP/DoWCC SRG compliance) to protect this data.

Q72: If we are providing a commercial solution, will employees need to submit for the sf-86 or sf-85 background investigation to perform on this contract?

A72: Yes. Regardless of the commercial nature of the solution, contractor personnel requiring physical access to

Navy installations must meet the background investigation requirements necessary to obtain base access (e.g., DBIDS credentials). The specific investigation level (e.g., Tier 1/SF-85) will be determined post-award in coordination with local installation security protocols.

Q73: Can the Government please identify the quantities and models of the ISDN endpoints located at each of the seven (7) sites? Does the Government plan to replace those endpoints?

A73: Please refer to the Government's responses to Questions 32, 59, and 65. The Government does not plan to centrally procure replacement endpoints. Offerors must base their proposals on the information provided in the PWS and propose standard transport (e.g., SIP conversion or ATAs) to support existing Government-owned devices.

Q74: “IP replacement for seven (7) T-1 circuit and five (5) ISDN circuits” – Please provide more information on the type of facilities desired, quantities, and DID information. Has the Government received validation that block(s) of

DID numbers can be migrated to Contractor-provided facilities/network?

A74: Please refer to the Government's responses to Questions 32 and 59 regarding the requested facilities and quantities. Regarding DIDs, the Government currently owns/controls the existing blocks of telephone numbers. The awarded offeror(s) will be responsible for coordinating with the Government and the incumbent carriers to facilitate the porting/migration of all required existing numbers to the new IP network.

Q75: Would the Government be willing to provide the network facilities?

A75: No. As explicitly stated in PWS Section 4.0 and multiple previous Government responses, the solution must operate on an independent, vendor-owned and maintained distribution network.

Q76: This solicitation states that the Firm Fixed Pricing should be includes of all taxes, fees, charges. Etc. What taxes are the US Navy / Buyer subject to from which you are not exempt?

A76: A firm fixed price contract means the price is fixed and will not be adjusted just because the contractor incurs costs that were higher than the contactor anticipated. If you are required to pay taxes as part of running your business and providing these services to the government, that is your responsibility and the contract must include any taxes (or fees etc) that you incur in providing these services. FAR 29.302(a) does state that the federal government is generally exempt from state and local taxation. As a contractor, you are not an agent of the federal government that is immune for purposes of taxation (see FAR 29.302), however if you intend to not assess a tax on a service provided to us because of federal government immunity, you should consult with your own legal counsel or tax advisor on whether that is permissible. The federal government cannot provide you either tax advice or legal advice. The federal government will, however, provide evidence required to establish its own exemption if the contractor reasonably requests it (see FAR clause 52.229-3).

Q77: SSBI/Access to Systems (PWC Pg 5) - Is this in lieu of clearance? If our engineers have Secret and TS clearance, does that supersede this?

A77: Yes. Active collateral security clearances (Secret or Top Secret) meet or exceed the baseline background investigation requirements for physical unescorted access to the installations.

Q78: 8.0 Service Contract Reporting – was this intentionally left blank? Are there any reporting requirements associated with this RFP?

A78: See Amendment 0004

Q79: Are there any insurance requirements associated with this Solicitation?

A79: Insurance is required in accordance with FAR clause 52.228-5, Insurance – Work on a Government

Installation.

Q80: PWS Pg7 – Background Check - What is the Original Signed Release Statement referred under this section? Is this included in the applicable/background check or a document included in the form or solicitation?

A80: The "Original Signed Release Statement" refers to the standard authorization form (e.g., the release portion of an SF-85 or equivalent installation-specific security form) required by local base security to initiate a background check. This is not a specific attachment to the solicitation; it is part of the standard credentialing package the successful contractor will submit post-award

Q81: Are there any CMMC requirements associated with this Solicitation?

A81: No.

Q82: Please specify the make/model/release of the Crash Nets.

A82: Please refer to the Government's responses to Questions 31 and 49. Specific make/model information will not be provided prior to award.

Q83: Please specify the make/model and quantities of the types of endpoints at each site

A83: Please refer to the Government's responses to Questions 8, 12, and 73. A detailed list of end-user instruments will not be provided prior to award. Offerors must base their proposals on the endpoint counts provided in the PWS and propose a solution capable of supporting common device types.

Q84: Please specify how Contractor should assume to integrate with third-party or adjunct solutions (i.e. Crash Nets, etc). Should we assume SIP connectivity

A84: Offerors should assume standard commercial integration methods based on the nature of legacy environments.

While SIP connectivity is the preferred modern standard and should be utilized where possible, offerors must also assume that older, legacy auxiliary systems may require standard analog or digital handoffs via ATAs or gateways.

The successful vendor will finalize the specific integration method (SIP vs. analog) during post-award site surveys based on the capabilities of the existing Government equipment.

Q85: Solicitation (19-20) – Please specify the ceiling price if one has been determined or how one will be determined.

A85: The ceiling price for each site is listed on Attachment “CAP”.

Q86: Should Bidders assume that the QASP flows down to Contractors, Subcontractors and OEM?

A86: Ultimately the prime is held responsible for performance as that is who the Government has a contract with. It is the prime contractor’s responsibility to ensure contractual compliance and quality assurance for any OEMs or subcontractors.

Q87: The pricing spreadsheet makes no mention of T-1 and ISDN circuits. How are the bidders to provide pricing for these items?

A87: Bidders can change Analog to T-1 or ISDN on the Pricing Spreadsheet. Additional CLINs cannot be added.

Q88: Does the Government intend to own…