EIS_RFP_QTA0015THA3003_-_SF30_-_Amend_02.pdf

OMB Approval 2700-0042

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 33

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

02 12/11/2015

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

CODE

General Services Administration/FAS/ITS Office of Acquisition Operations

1800 F Street, NW, 4 th

Floor

Washington DC 20405

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR () 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

QTA0015THA3003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

1710 H. Street, NW, 7 th

Floor 10/16/2015

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is X extended, __ is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copy of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE

HOUR AND DATA SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and data specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

() A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor _ is not, _ is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

SEE ADDITIONAL PAGES

Except at provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Timothy Horan Contracting Officer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Computer Generated Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.24

RFP # QTA0015THA3003

Amendment #02

Revisions, Questions, Answers and Clarifications to the EIS RFP

This amendment includes the following:

- An extension of the proposal due date.

- Questions received from potential offerors regarding the RFP. The list does not include all of the questions received thus far.

- Answers to the questions listed. Answers include changes to the RFP Sections and clarifications that do not require changes to the RFP Sections.

The revisions, questions, answers and clarifications are listed based on the UCF Sections. The question numbers are from the Acquserve portal and are not in sequential order. Please note that some answers revise more than one section of the RFP.

Extension of Proposal Due Date

The proposal due date is extended. Proposals are due no later than January 29, 2016, 4:00 PM (Eastern Time Zone). Section L.17 has been amended to reflect this change.

Question # 58 Section: Section B Section # 2.4.3.2

Question:

What scope of service is included in the Host Administrative Tasks CLINs (CH32004 and CH31004)? Will the Government consider making CH32004 and CH31004 ICB CLINs instead of NSP since (a) the Charging Unit is "per server" and there is no other Server based CLIN listed and (b) offeror's have no way to project the number of tasks or scope of tasks necessary in a given amount of colocated hosting space?

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to add the following definition to CLINs CH31004 and CH32004 in Table B.2.4.3.2:

"On behalf of the agency, IDC staff shall intervene and perform minor unscheduled tasks including:

· Rebooting of government-furnished equipment (limited to power cycling).

· Manual entry of commands to servers from a keyboard.

· Inspection and reading of alarm indicators and displays.

· Securing cabling to connections.

· Setting a dip switch.

Other minor tasks as appropriate."

These feature CLINs will be amended in the RFP to be fixed price.

Question # 117

Section: Section B

2.8.2

Question:

Item 3. WCS is an IP service. It will use IP transport services such as VPN or IPS. We request the Government consider changing this sentence to: "WCS may use underlying transport services such as VPN or IPS to provide connectivity."

Answer:

Section B.2.8.2.1 of the RFP is amended to say:

"WCS may use underlying transport services that may be IP centric (such as VPNS or IPS).

Voice or toll-free service may also be used to provide connectivity."

Question # 211 Section: Section B

2.1.2.1

Question:

Paragraph 2 states "All configurations of Quality of Service (QoS) are defined in Section C.2.1.2.1.4. Capability #29 shall be included in the port price (i.e., NSP)." However, Section C.2.1.2.1.4, does not define Capability #29.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended for B.2.1.2.1 paragraph 2 to reference technical capability #26 instead of #29.

Question # 213 Section: Section B

2.1.2.5.2

Question:

Table B.2.1.2.5.2 includes 3 Bandwidth-on-Demand (BoD) CLINs that overlap with B.2.1.2.4.2 'E-LAN Port Pricing Instructions Table' CLINs. Please confirm if the Table B.2.1.2.5.2 Ethernet Transport Feature Pricing Instructions Table CLINS apply to both E-LINE and E-LAN.

Answer:

BoD only applies to E-LAN. The RFP will be amended to remove the B.2.1.2.5.2 Ethernet Transport Feature Pricing instructions Table. Price table B.2.1.2.5.1 will be marked as reserved for future use. The additional speeds that were in the Feature table, but not in the B.2.1.2.4.2 E- LAN Port Pricing Instructions Table, will not be added to the latter.

Question # 219 Section: Section B

2.4.2.2

Question:

CHS Pricing Instructions. Since power is being included in the Full Rack Space CLIN, can the Government change the Power per Kilowatt hour Usage CLIN (CH13005) to ICB?

Answer:

The government will not change the CLIN CH13005 to ICB. An MRC per Kilowatt hour (CH13005) provides a standard method of covering all power variations. It also reduces administrative efforts. The CLIN CH13005 is used to handle specific power configuration needs.

RFP will be amended to add a note to the "Full Rack Space" MRC CLIN (CH12003) in Table B.2.4.2.2 to state that it includes standard power.

The RFP will also be amended to update the language for Section B.2.4.2 as follows (see last sentence below):

"The prices for CHS are applicable to all domestic locations. The contractor shall charge a monthly recurring charge for rack space (see Section C.2.4.1). This charge shall include all elements necessary to provide the services, such as building/facilities, power systems, fire suppression, cooling systems and security. The full rack space monthly price includes standard power of 30 amps and 208 volts."

Question # 271 Section: Section B Section # 2.1

Question:

Table B.2.1.6.3.2. Would the government change CLIN DK09005 Splicing to ICB? The location and quantity of splices that may be required will vary by dark fiber implementation.

The RFP will amended to change the splicing CLIN DK09005 from fixed price to ICB.

Question # 289 Section: Section B

2.8.7.3.2

Question:

Item 4. Would the government please change the charging unit for the ACS Reservation Pricing table B.2.8.7.3.2 to per minute versus per conference given per minute is the commercial structure?

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to change the following listed CLINs’ “Charging Unit” to “Bridge port per minute” (Table B.2.8.7.3.2 - ACS Reservation Pricing Instructions):

AC21002 -- Executive unused reserved port.

AC21003 -- Reservation-less Automated Dial In (RADI) - Toll Free.

AC21004 -- Reservation-less Automated Dial In (RADI) - Caller Paid.

AC21005 -- Reserved Automated Dial In (ADI) - Toll Free.

AC21006 -- Reserved Automated Dial In (ADI) - Caller Paid.

Question # 352 Section: Section B

2.8.4.4.2

B.2.8.4.4.2, page 126. What is the difference between the clins defined for MT00004 MTIPS - 10 Mbps Port MT00031 MTIPS - Ethernet - 10Mbps Both 10 Mbps speeds represent ethernet.

Will GSA please define the difference in these 2 CLINs?

Answer:

CLIN MT00004 represents 10 Mbps fractional T3 which is different than CLIN MT00031 (10 Mbps Ethernet).

Also, the RFP will be amended to update CLINs MT00002, MT00003 and MT00004 in the table "B.2.8.4.4.2" as follows:

"MT00002 MTIPS -- FT3 -- 3 Mbps MT00003 MTIPS -- FT3 -- 6 Mbps MT00004 MTIPS -- FT3 -- 10 Mbps".

Question # 363 Section: Section B

2.2.1.6.1

Question:

The requirement states that "charges for access arrangements shall not be included in SIP Trunk Service pricing, but shall be provided as described in Section C.2.2.1.4.2." Section C.2.2.1.4. is the Performance Matrix for IPVS, and #2 refers to Grade of Service (Packet Loss).

If this is the correct reference, will the Government please explain how C.2.2.1.4.2 relates to charges for SIP access arrangements? If not, please provide the correct reference.

Answer:

This was a typographical error. The RFP will be amended to update the reference from Section C.2.2.1.4.2 to Section C.2.2.1.6.

Question # 390 Section: Section B Section #

Section B has basic subscriber line within the access arrangement section B.2.9 as optional to bid, yet there is significant historical data suggesting there is customer need for it to complete the CSVS circuit. GSA should consider making basic subscriber line mandatory when CSVS is bid. GSA should also consider making it mandatory for offerors when PLS Analog transport is bid.

Answer:

The Notes column for the following CLINs in Section B.2.9.1.5, Access Pricing Instructions Table, will be amended to state:

CLINs AA00001 and AA00101AA (basic subscriber line (4KHz)): Mandatory if CSVS or PLS analog transport is offered, otherwise optional.

Furthermore, Section C.2.9.1.4 (12) will be changed to say:

(Mandatory if CSVS or PLS analog transport is offered, optional otherwise.) Analog Line (4

KHz). This category of AA shall support 2 wire analog lines and trunks without access integration for voice service.

Question # 392 Section: Section B

2.2.1.6.1

Question:

The requirement states that "charges for access arrangements shall not be included in SIP Trunk Service pricing, but shall be provided as described in Section C.2.2.1.4.2." Section C.2.2.1.4. is the Performance Matrix for IPVS, and #2 refers to Grade of Service (Packet Loss).

If this is the correct reference, will the Government please explain how C.2.2.1.4.2 relates to charges for SIP access arrangements? If not, please provide the correct reference.

Answer:

This was a typographical error. The RFP will be amended to update the reference from Section C.2.2.1.4.2 to Section C.2.2.1.6.

Question # 483 Section: Section B

B.2.5.2

Question:

The instructions for table B.2.5.2.2 state that the percentage discount should be an integer value, but price table cloud_srvc_class_disc will not permit entries greater than 1. Can you confirm that the cloud_srvc_class_disc table should be populated with decimal values rather than integer values?

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to state that all catalog service class discount tables (such as cloud_srvc_class_disc) require percentage discount values consisting of decimal numbers between 0 and 1, inclusive. The affected sections/tables are:

B.1.3.1 B.2.5.2.2 B.2.6.5.2 B.2.6.6.4 B.2.7.1.6 B.2.8.5.3 B.2.10.2.2

Question # 618 Section: Section B

1.2.2

Question:

The Amendment #1 Q&A indicates that "The only ICB CLINs that may be proposed are catalog CLINs, which are mandatory if the service is being proposed. All other ICB CLINs are proposed at the task order level only." However, the Error Checker (Rule #35) on the AcquServe asks prices for ICB CLINs (AA00008-AA00011, AA00014-AA00018) from the relevant price table.

Please clarify.

Error checker rule 35 will be amended so that it does not enforce pricing of any ICB access CLINs.

Question # 688 Section: Section B

B.2.8.7.2.2

Question:

Table B.2.8.7.2.2 states that AC11012, International Global Meet, is for OCONUS and Non- Domestic use only. However, AC11012 appears in the traffic table with a CONUS AOW ID and country/jurisdiction ID. Will the government please address this apparent contradiction in the use of AC11012?

Answer:

The instructions in table B.2.8.7.2.2 for AC11012 are correct. The traffic table will be amended to use AC11012 at non-domestic locations rather than CONUS locations.

Question # 878 Section: Section B

B.1.3.1

Question:

Section B.1.3.1, Requirements for Catalog Pricing Information, contains the requirement, "Catalog items shall belong only to a single discount class." We assume this does not mean that all catalog items are to be assigned to the same discount class, rather that multiple discount classes may not be assigned to the same catalog item. Will the government please confirm?

Answer:

The offeror's assumption is correct. The statement in B.1.3.1 will be amended to read, "Each catalog item shall belong to only a single discount class."

Question # 9 Section: Section C

2.8.9.4

Question:

C.2.8.9.4 states that performance metrics will be defined in the TO but G.8.2.1.1.1 lists 5 KPIs for DIPSS. Please clarify whether there are required KPI(s) for DIPSS and whether they are mandatory or optional.

Answer:

Section C is correct. Section G.8.2.1.1.1 will be amended to state: 'Performance metrics for this service shall be defined in the TO.'

Question # 23 Section: Section C Section #

2.1.1.1.4

VPNS Capability #10. Would the Government reword the last line to state "multiple layers of security" rather than "multiple levels of security"?

Answer:

Yes. The RFP will be amended as suggested to read: "The contractor shall provide layered security architecture to ensure that attackers will not find a single point of entry but will be faced with multiple layers of security."

Question # 31 Section: Section C

2.8.1.2

Question:

Item #1. Would the Government confirm that the requirement is for SRE maintenance and not GFP maintenance?

Answer:

The Government will amend the RFP to state that maintenance is required for both GFP and SRE. Item 1 will be amended to read as follows: "GFP and SRE Maintenance. The contractor shall maintain and repair GFP and SRE."

Question # 43 Section: Section C

2.8.4.5.4

Question:

GSA IT Security Procedural Guide 09-44 "Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)" is referred to in Section C. There are numerous references (with links) to it throughout GSA web site but all links result in error page. Searches on the GSA web site result in this document:

"CIO_P_2100.1H_GSA_Information_Technology_Security_Policy_September_24_2012_Casey _Coleman" with many references to the guide. Another document "CIO_Policy-Security 09- 48"• has many references also but no actual guidance. Please provide the document or a correct reference.

Answer:

RFP Section C.2.8.4.5.4 (23) will amend reference "GSA IT Security Procedural Guide 09-44, "Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)" to reference "GSA IT Security Procedural Guide 06- 30, "Managing Enterprise Risk."

RFP Section G.5.6.3 item 21 will also be amended to change the following reference: "GSA IT Security Procedural Guide 09-44, "Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)" to reference "GSA IT Security Procedural Guide 06-30, "Managing Enterprise Risk."

Question # 51 Section: Section C

1.8.3

C.1.8.3 states at the end: The eight standard KPIs used for most services as specified within this contract are defined below. [Agency provided table to Tim Horan on 10-28 but it cannot be loaded into AcquServe/AcquTrak due to formatting] However, there are only seven KPI’s listed here. I checked against the draft RFP and found the 8th KPI to be Bit Error Rate. Was this omitted from the final RFP on purpose?

Yes it was omitted. Section C.1.8.3 will be amended to change eight to seven.

Question # 65 Section: Section C

2.1.1

Question:

The service description states that the VPNS shall provide secure, reliable transport of agency applications across the providers high-speed unified multi-service IP-enabled backbone infrastructure. On page 18 Connectivity states that VPNS shall connect government locations and trusted business partners via leased lines for site-to-site access or broadband for remote access to provide direct connectivity between all sites as a partially or fully-meshed WAN. The first statement indicates that the service is provider edge to provider edge VPN across the backbone, but the second statement states that this is an access service that provides point-to-point VPNS between customer sites. Are we correct in assuming that the VPN service is a combination of the Internet Protocol Service (C.2.7) and an access arrangement (C.2.9.1) overlayed with a tunneling technology to provide a site-to-site or partially or fully meshed sites connections?

Answer:

No. IPS is not addressed in C.2.7 but rather in C.2.1.7 and has nothing to do with VPNS. VPNS is not a technical overlay on IPS.

RFP Section C.2.1.1.1.3 will be amended to delete the reference to leased lines.

Question # 69 Section: Section C

2.1.3.1.4

Question:

Item 7, "7. (Optional) Channelization. For framed wavelengths, the contractor shall support channelized UNIs as per Section C.2.1.3.4." Should reference be C.2.1.3.3?

Section 2.1.3.1.4 Item 7 will be amended to delete the reference to Section C.2.1.3.4.

Question # 74 Section: Section C

2.1.5.1.4

Item 6: Is the sub element starting with the text, "The contractor shall support the following" intended to be marked as sub element c)?

Yes. Section C.2.1.5.1.4 will be amended to mark the third set of items as 'c'.

Question # 75 Section: Section C

2.1.5.1.4

Question:

Item 11: sub element iii. "Virtual Concatenation shall be supported" NOTE: Virtual concatenation is identified as an (Optional) in C.2.1.5.1.4 feature 6.b) on page 56. What is the GSA's intent?

Answer:

The RFP will be amended in Section C.2.1.5.1.4. Feature 11 "iii. Virtual Concatenation shall be supported " will be defined as Optional to be consistent with RFP requirement C.2.1.5.1.4 feature 6.b).

Question # 89 Section: Section C

2.9.1.4

Question:

There appears to be a classification inconsistency between what is outlined in Section "B" and Section "C" for Wireless Access Arrangements. In Section "C", Wireless Access Arrangements specifically "Line of Site, Using Licensed Frequencies" are classified as "Mandatory". But, in Section "B", the Link for Wireless Access services is "ICB, Optional". Does Section "B" CLIN table supersede the requirements in Section "B" SOW?

Answer:

RFP Section B.2.9.1.5 will be amended to delete Optional in "ICB, Optional" in all Wireless Access CLINs.

Question # 122 Section: Section C

2.2.1.1.3

Question:

Interoperability to all public voice networks is achieved through connectivity to the PSTN. This requirement seems to ask for separate facilities to be created to connect to other vendors and Satellite-based voice networks. Suggest the government re-word this requirement to say: IPVS shall connect to and interoperate with wireline and wireless voice networks, other EIS contractor voice networks, and satellite-based voice networks, in both domestic and non-domestic locations, using interconnects to the PSTN.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended. C.2.2.1.1.3 will be amended to remove Items 1, 2 and 3. The paragraph shall say:

IPVS shall connect to and interoperate with wireline and wireless voice networks, other EIS contractor voice networks, and satellite-based voice networks, in both domestic and non-domestic locations, using interconnects to the PSTN.

Question # 127 Section: Section C

2.2.1.4

Question:

Note 2. An ICMP test, such as PING, would not be valid for packet loss on the transport for this service. IP Voice services are provided using IP Transport that is configured with preferential packet forwarding mechanisms such as DifServe. In these preferential forwarding schemes, ICMP packets are considered low priority packets and can be discarded during congestion (creating apparent packet loss) while the voice RTP packets are not being lost. Recommend that the Government remove the statement "The packet loss can be measured with an ICMP test."

The RFP will be amended to delete the last two sentences of Note 2 in Section C.2.2.1.4.

Question # 133 Section: Section C

2.8.1.1.4.2

Question:

Item 12q. Recommend the Government change the requirement to the following: "Provide Tier- 1/Tier-2/Tier-3 support to agency NOC for the components of the Agency's network that are managed by the Vendor". The term "government's network equipment" is not specific.

Agencies may have a network that is comprised of vendor-managed and agency-managed components.

Answer:

Section C.2.8.1.1.4.2 12q will be amended to state:

q) Provide Tier-1/Tier-2/Tier-3 support to agency NOC for the components of the Agency's network that are managed by the contractor

Question # 138 Section: Section C

2.2.3.2

Question:

ID number 27. This capability is typically provided by a contact center service as it requires outbound calling, which is outside the scope of Toll Free Service. It is recommended that the Government move this requirement to Contact Center Solution.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended. The feature will remain in TFS as feature 27, but will also be included as a feature in CCS.

CCS Section C.2.3.1.5 Item # 16 will be amended to state:

Virtual Queue: The contractor shall provide a capability whereby callers can choose to remain waiting on-line for an attendant or receive a call back in turn.

Section B will be amended to add three Virtual Call Queue - Host Based CLINs to CCS table B.2.3.2.4.2 and three Virtual Call Queue - Premises Based CLINs to CCS table B.2.3.2.4.3.

Question # 142 Section: Section C

2.5.1.1.4.1

Question:

Item 4. We request the Government clarify this technical capability? List item 4 ends in a colon

- should there be sub-bullets under list item 4, or are list items 5 through 8 considered part of list item 4?

Answer:

The RFP will be amended. The colon at the end of C.2.5.1.1.4.1 item 4 should include bullets 5 and 6 and will read as follows:

4. Virtualized elastic computing infrastructure:

a. Virtual Machines (VMs)

b. Network Storage

The numbering after Item 4 shall be amended to reflect the removal of Items 5 and 6.

Question # 172 Section: Section C

2.1.2.1.4

Question:

C.2.1.2.1.4 No. 7. It appears that the requirement for point-to-multi-point EVC was included in error as it is not applicable as defined by the MEF. Will GSA amend the solicitation to remove this requirement Number 7?

Answer:

The RFP will be amended as follows:

- In C.2.1.2.1.4 Item 7, the words "point-to-multi-point" will be replaced by “Rooted multipoint.”

- In C.2.1.2.1.4 Item 22b, the words, "Point-to-Multi-point (i.e., hub-and-spoke)" will be replaced with "Rooted Multipoint".

Question # 175 Section: Section C

2.1.2.1.4

Question:

C.2.1.2.1.4 No. 22 (d). Ring topology appears to have been included in error since this topology is not defined within MEF standards. Will GSA please delete the requirement?

The RFP will be amended and Section C.2.1.2.1.4 (22 d) will be deleted.

Question # 177 Section: Section C Section #

2.8.3.1.4

C.2.8.3.1.4 Item No. 6. Current commercially available WAN Optimizing devices do not interoperate with many UC platforms. Will GSA amend the solicitation to make this requirement optional?

The RFP will be amended and Section C.2.8.3.1.4 (6) will be changed to optional.

Question # 178 Section: Section C

2.8.4.4.2

Question:

C.2.8.4.4.2 Note 1 of the RFP states: "For critical user type, the contractor would provide essentially 100% uptime for customer's Internet connection with high availability equipment, redundancy, automatic restoration, and reconfiguration." This statement appears to contradict the critical level KPI for Av(Port). Will GSA amend note 1 to conform the solicitation to the critical AQL of >= 99.995%?

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to delete the following language from C.2.8.4.4.2 Note 1:

'For critical user type, the contractor would provide essentially 100% uptime for customer’s Internet connection with high availability equipment, redundancy, automatic restoration, and reconfiguration.

Question # 194 Section: Section C

2.8.4.1

Question:

The March 24, 2011 date of the TIC 2.0 Spec does not represent the latest version of the TIC

2.0 Spec (October 1, 2013). Will the Government please update the reference?

Answer:

RFP Section C.2.8.4.1 will be amended to remove the date for the TIC 2.0 reference.

Compliance with the latest version is required per Section C.1.8.4

Question # 232 Section: Section C

2.8.3.1.4

Question:

Item 4-g-iii.Web browsers are not a common user interface for accessing messages. Would the government consider making "web browsers" optional?

The RFP will be amended to make Section C.2.8.3.1.4 (4)(g -iii): "Web browsers" optional.

Question # 261 Section: Section C

2.1.5.1.4

Question:

Item 5 Transmux Capability. Since STS1 is optional, it is recommended that the Government make the requirement to support DS3/STS1 transmuxed to DS1 optional.

The RFP will be amended to make Section C.2.1.5.1.4 item 5 a) optional.

Question # 276 Section: Section C

2.8.9

Question:

Also reference L.29.2.1. DHS has an existing program that will facilitate the DHS IPSS service.

The program contract prohibits the release of information about the program that would facilitate the response to the DHS IPSS. Would the GSA work through DHS to either: 1) provide common information set about the DHS program that can be used by vendors for the DHS IPSS response; 2) provide an exception document that will allow vendors on the DHS program to share information that will be used for the EIS DHS IPSS response.

Answer:

No. GSA will not provide any common information about the DHS IPSS program beyond the requirements already specified in the RFP and no exception documents will be sought to allow incumbents on the DHS program to share information that is specifically constrained under DHS agreements. GSA places no constraint on potential offerors to discuss DHS's ‘current’ IPSS program with DHS.

Question # 277 Section: Section C

2.5.1.1

Question:

The FedRAMP Office has not finalized the TIC Overlay document. Would the Government consider adding to the requirement: the ability to establish direct, private connections to Cloud Services?

Answer:

As most stardards and reference architecture documents published by the government are subject to periodic review and change, the fact that the TIC Overlay document for FedRAMP is not finalized does not warrant amending any EIS RFP requirements. The FedRAMP TIC Overlay is an undated reference in the RFP, and as such (per C.1.8.4) offerors are responsible for meeting the requirements of referenced documents as those documents are updated.

Furthermore, nothing in the TIC Overlay requirements precludes offers of direct, private connections to Cloud services per se.

Question # 280 Section: Section C Section # 4

Sections L and M exclude instructions for addressing Section 508 requirements from Section C. If Section 508 requirements are to be addressed in Volume 1, please provide Section L instructions.

Answer:

L.29 3 c) states:

Technical Volume documents to be addressed separately:

c) Technical Evaluation Matrices within the Submission Matrix (Section J.19)

Contractor responsibilities are identified in Section C.4. The J.19 Submission Matrix will be amended to include Section C.4 requirements under the Vol 1a tab.

Question # 292 Section: Section C

C.2.1.3.1.2

Question:

Delete "commercially available" from C.2.1.3.1.2 Item 14: All new versions, amendments, and modifications to the above documents and standards when commercially available.

Answer:

RFP Section C.2.1.3.1.2 Item 14 will be amended to read: All new versions, amendments, and modifications to the above documents and standards.

Question # 293 Section: Section C

C.2.1.6.1.2

Question:

Delete "when available" in section C.2.1.6.1.2 Item 8: All new versions, amendments, and modifications to the above documents and standards when available.

Answer:

RFP Section C.2.1.6.1.2 Item 8 will be amended to read: All new versions, amendments, and modifications to the above documents and standards.

Question # 294 Section: Section C

C.2.2.3.2.1

Question:

Delete "commercially available" in section C.2.2.3.2.1: The contractor shall also provide any historical or real-time reports that are commercially available with its TFS reporting packages.

RFP Section C.2.2.3.2.1 will be amended. The sentence just before the table will be changed to say: The contractor shall also provide any historical or real-time reports that are available with its TFS reporting packages.

Question # 295 Section: Section C

C.2.8.2.1.4

Question:

Delete "commercially available" from section C.2.8.2.1.4 Item 4: The WCS shall be compatible with commercially available Web browser software packages. Appropriate plug-ins shall be provided in order to deliver WCS to the user. (Delete bold text)

Answer:

RFP Section C.2.8.2.1.4 Item 4 will be amended to say: The WCS shall be compatible with available Web browser software packages. Appropriate plug-ins shall be provided in order to deliver WCS to the user.

Question # 296 Section: Section C

C.2.8.7.2

Question:

Delete entire note in section C.2.8.7.2 (10): [Note: government-furnished encryption unit at the customer premises will be based on commercially available encryption devices (Standard:

NIST DES/AES). The contractor must synchronize the encryption key of similar encryption unit(s) of the audio conference bridge before each conference.]

Answer:

The RFP will amend section C.2.8.7.2 (10) to remove the entire note: [Note: government-furnished encryption unit at the customer premises will be based on commercially available encryption devices (Standard: NIST DES/AES). The contractor must synchronize the encryption key of similar encryption unit(s) of the audio conference bridge before each conference.]

C.2.8.7.2(10) will be say:

"10. (Optional) Secured Audio Conference. Support sensitive voice conferences with end-user encryption for discussions of a CUI nature between multiple locations with protection from unauthorized interception (i.e., eavesdropping)."

Question # 297 Section: Section C

C.2.9.1.4 (11)

Question:

Delete "commercially available" in section C.2.9.1.4 (11): (Optional) SONET 768. This category of AA shall support a line rate of 40 Gbps where commercially available, which may be used to provide channelized OC-768 or concatenated OC-768c service as follows:

The RFP will amend section C.2.9.1.4 (11) to say: (Optional) SONET 768. This category of AA shall support a line rate of 40 Gbps, which may be used to provide channelized OC-768 or concatenated OC-768c service as follows:

Question # 298 Section: Section C

C.1.8.5 (2)

Question:

Delete "when they become commercially available" in section C.1.8.5 (2): Features. All features identified as mandatory in each service description shall be provided to non-domestic SDPs when they become commercially available in the areas involved.

Answer:

RFP Section C.1.8.5 (2) will be amended to say: Features. All features identified as mandatory in each service description shall be provided to non-domestic SDPs in the areas involved.

Question # 299 Section: Section C

C.2.1.2.1.4 (2)

Question:

Delete "commercially available in section C.2.1.2.1.4 (2 b): Inter-City ETS – Ethernet connections shall be delivered at domestic and non-domestic locations (CONUS/Metro, OCONUS/Non-Domestic)where commercially available.

Answer:

RFP Section C.2.1.2.1.4 (2 b) will be amended to say: Inter-City ETS – Ethernet connections shall be delivered at domestic and non-domestic locations (CONUS/Metro, OCONUS/Non- Domestic).

Question # 300 Section: Section C

C.1.8.6

Question:

Delete commercially available in section C.1.8.6: The contractor shall support interoperability for given service offerings so that a user of a service from one EIS contractor shall be able to communicate with users of services from other EIS contractors with performance equivalent to that commercially available.

Answer:

RFP Section C.1.8.6 first sentence will be amended to read: The contractor shall support interoperability for given service offerings so that a user of a service from one EIS contractor shall be able to communicate with users of services from other EIS contractors with equivalent performance.

Question # 308 Section: Section C

1.8.8

Question:

Does the term "Einstein Enclave" (latest generation) refer to IPSS, or does it refer to MTIPS, or does it require both IPSS and MTIPS or something else entirely?

Answer:

To clarify, Section C.1.8.8 paragraph 3 states "any service offering under EIS (VPNS, Ethernet Transport, IPS, Cloud, MTIPS or otherwise) transporting Internet, Extranet, and Inter-Agency traffic shall identify and route said government traffic through a secure DHS EINSTEIN Enclave for processing by the latest generation of EINSTEIN capabilities." The "latest generation" refers to EINSTEIN processing capabilities provided by DHS not EINSTEIN Enclaves themselves.

EINSTEIN Enclaves are logically distinct from IPSS and MTIPS; they are secure physical locations where contractor identified and re-directed government traffic pass through for processing by DHS provided equipment. These are different than MTIPS that are certified TIC v2 compliant services to meet OMB TIC compliance mandates. IPSS is also different than EINSTEIN Enclaves and the traffic identification and re-direction requirements of C.1.8.8; IPSS are services that could be procured by DHS to implement and maintain specific cyber security protections.

Per Section C.1.8.8, DHS establishes legally sufficient agreements with Departments and Agencies (D/As) authorizing in-line traffic inspection and modification, and such activities may include the interception, modification, use, and disclosure of D/A traffic. Upon obtaining these agreements, DHS would establish task orders with contractors for Traffic Aggregation services described in Section C.2.8.1.2 under Managed Network Services, and redirection of traffic would occur (and be funded) under these task orders.

Question # 309 Section: Section C

1.8.8

Question:

Is the Offeror required to have a valid/current facilities clearance and cleared staff as specified in M.2.1 (4) c (vi and vii) and L.29.2.3 (6 and 7)? If so, would the Government clarify the requirement in Section C.1.8.8?

Answer:

As stated in RFP L.29.2.3, the offeror is not required to have established infrastructure supporting the National Policy requirements described in Section C.1.8.8 in order to respond to the EIS RFP. However, the offeror shall provide a detailed description of how it will accomplish the design, implementation, and operation of its aggregation service to meet the National Policy requirements described in Section C.1.8.8; this description shall include how (and where) the offeror will establish the secure data center facilities to serve as DHS EINSTEIN Enclaves as well as obtain TS/SCI-cleared personnel capable of handling DHS supplied equipment in those facilities.

Question # 310 Section: Section C Section #

1.8.8

For Offerors that are not IPSS providers, what requirements does the Government have for those Offerors to connect their proposed services to the IPSS providers?

Answer:

Recognizing that IPSS is not related to the National Policy requirements specified in Section C.1.8.8, the RFP places no specific requirement on contractors to connect their proposed services to IPSS providers, nor does the RFP prohibit contractors from adding value to their traffic identification and aggregation services by being interoperable with IPSS providers.

Question # 359 Section: Section C

2.1.2.2

Question:

C.2.1.2.2, page 28. Features ID#2 and ID#3 (Reserved Protection Bandwidth & Shared Protection Bandwidth) are typically used to improve Ethernet service resiliency associated with Dedicated Ethernet provider architectures, such as those delivered via Ethernet over SONET.

For example, the ITU-T G.8032 Ethernet Ring Protection Switching standard is designed to provide a failure path across a ring topology with performance comparable to APS (automatic protection switching) in a legacy SONET ring. Providing these types of Ethernet protection features may not be feasible when implemented via a Shared Ethernet Provider architecture such as MPLS. Given, EIS ETS may be delivered through a Shared Ethernet architecture, will the GSA please make these two features optional?

Answer:

Section C.2.1.2.2 will be amended to delete: Feature 2 Reserved Protection Bandwidth and Feature 3 Shared Protection Bandwidth.

Question # 367 Section: Section C

2.1.4.1.4

Question:

Within the PLS transport environment, the routing of PLS traffic through an Einstein Enclave will create an inefficient and more costly service path. For example, a point to point circuit may be required between Omaha and St. Louis. To support this requirement the circuit's path will be extended to the nearest EINSTEIN location which would extend the circuit by several hundred miles. While the carrier can control the physical route of the PLS circuit to an EINSTEIN enclave, the carrier will have no protocol specific routing information or control above layer 1.

The data carried by the PLS circuit may not be IP or may be Type 1 encrypted at layer 1 -inspection in these cases would not be possible. Please identify use cases where routing of PLS traffic through an EINSTEIN enclave. To compensate for additional costs, please consider creation of TUC CLINS or specific CLINS related to EINSTEIN routing.

Answer:

There are instances of PLS circuits originating at agency locations and terminating at non-agency locations or otherwise meeting the conditions established in Section C.1.8.8. Circuits covered by a memorandum of agreement between the agency and DHS would be subject to being inspected at an EINSTEIN Enclave under a DHS task order. While agencies are responsible for their own EIS task orders, DHS is responsible for task orders under Section C.2.8.1.2(4) to redirect government traffic through EINSTEIN Enclaves.

There is sufficient flexibility under the Traffic Aggregation feature of Managed Network Services for DHS and contractors to discuss whether existing secure facilities should be used or if new, more optimally located facilities should be established. Regardless of any potential future discussions and per Section L.29.2.3, as part of their response to the RFP, the offeror is required to provide a detailed technical description that includes the location of the offeror's existing or planned ANSI/TIA-942 and ICD 705 certified facilities that can serve as DHS EINSTEIN Enclaves capable of hosting DHS GFP at or near appropriate traffic-access locations.

As with any other EIS service that is subject to C.1.8.8, any encryption applied by the contractor as part of their service would need to be removed at the EINSTEIN Enclave to allow inspection and processing by DHS EINSTEIN capabilities and then re-applied as the contractor receives the processed traffic from DHS and transported by the contractor to its final destination. The contractor is not expected (nor required) to decrypt or remove agency-applied encryption.

Question # 373 Section: Section C

2.7.1.3

Question:

The contractor shall provide space segments to meet the requirements specified in Table C.2.7.3.1. What is the correct table number to replace Table C.2.7.3.1 cited in paragraph C.2.7.1.3, since the table cited is not contained in Section C?

Answer:

Section C.2.7.1.3 of the EIS RFP will be amended and the reference to Table C.2.7.3.1 will be changed to Section C.2.7.3.

Question # 44 Section: Section E

2.1.2

Question:

Section E.2.1.2 refers to Section G.5.5.1 as titled BSS Testing. G.5.5.1 is Titled "BSS Change Control" and addresses Change Control activities and requirements. A Word search on Section G failed to find any mention of BSS Testing. Please clarify where BSS test requirements are found.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended for Section E.2.1.2 to cross reference 'Section G.2.3 BSS Final Contract Acceptance' vs 'G.5.5.1 BSS Testing' and for Section G.5.5 to add the statement 'BSS functional testing requirements are defined in Section E.2.1. BSS security testing requirements are defined in Section G.5.6.'

Question # 45 Section: Section E Section # 2.2

Reference is made to Section 0. Please Provide the correct Section number.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to remove the hyperlink that pointed to E.2.2 and replace it with the words ‘this section.’

Question # 179 Section: Section E

2.1.2.2

Question:

E.2.1.2.2, pages 4-7. Scenarios TS04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 and 10. Each of these test cases includes the wording "Using the direct data exchange method..., the contractor shall demonstrate that its ordering system can provide all required CDRLs including:" The wording of this sentence is not correct as the ordering system does not provide the CDRL outputs. Will GSA amend the solicitation to revise this wording to the following: "Using the direct data exchange method..., the contractor shall demonstrate that its BSS can provide all required CDRLs including:..."?

RFP will be amended to change "ordering system" to "BSS" throughout section E.2.1.2.2.

Question # 273 Section: Section E

2.2.2.1

Question:

Please confirm that the Acceptance Criteria for Service TS-03 should be C.2.1.6.1.4.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to correct the Acceptance Criteria reference to Section C.2.1.6.4 instead of Section C.2.6.1.4

Question # 144 Section: Section F Section # 2.1

ID number 85. Is this report to be submitted with each new TO, with the first awarded TO, or is it to be submitted upon NTP?

Answer:

The RFP will be amended for Section F.2.1, ID 85 (Climate Change Adaptation, Sustainability, and Green Initiatives Report): in the Frequency column to read 'Initial: By Award' vs 'Initial:

With TO'.

Question # 1 Section: Section G

8.2.1.1.1

Question:

The PLS POP to POP Availability is shown as optional in G.8.2.1.1.1 but as mandatory in C.2.1.4.4. Please clarify whether the PLS POP to POP Availability is optional or mandatory.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to change Section G.8.2.1.1.1 for Private Line Service (PLS) to indicate that the POP-to-POP Availability KPI is 'mandatory' vs 'optional'.

Question # 2 Section: Section G

8.2.1.1.1

Question:

G.8.2.1.1.1 shows connector KPIs for return loss, insertion loss, connector loss SMF, and Fusion Splice Loss SMF. However, these KPIs are not in C.2.1.6.4. Please clarify whether return loss, insertion loss, connector loss SMF, and Fusion Splice Loss SMF are required and whether they are mandatory or optional.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to change Section G.8.2.1.1.1 for Dark Fiber Service (DFS) to remove the final KPI bullet, 'Connectors', as well as the four sub-bullets under it: 'Return Loss', 'Insertion Loss', 'Connectors Loss SMF', and 'Fusion Splicing Loss SMF'.

Question # 3 Section: Section G

8.2.1.1.1

Question:

G.8.2.1.1.1 lists Latency as a KPI for CDNS but latency is not listed in C.2.5.4.4.1. Please clarify whether latency is a required KPI and whether it is mandatory or optional.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to change Section G.8.2.1.1.1 for Content Delivery Network Service (CDNS) to remove the Latency (Static content download) KPI.

Question # 4 Section: Section G

8.2.1.1.1

Question:

C.2.7.3 lists KPIs for CFSS (EFS, SES, DM, MTTLBCI) that are not listed in G.8.2.1.1.1.

Please clarify whether EFS, SES, DM, MTTLBCI are required and whether they are mandatory or optional KPIs.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to change Section G.8.2.1.1.1 for Commercial Fixed Satellite Service (CFSS) to insert KPIs for Error Free Seconds (EFS), Severely Errored Seconds (SES), Degraded Minutes (DM), and Mean Time to Loss of BCI (MTTLBCI).

Question # 5 Section: Section G

8.2.1.1.1

Question:

C.2.8.1.4 states that MNS KPIs will be specified in the Task Order but G.8.2.1.1.1 lists Availability as a required KPI. Please clarify the KPI(s) for MNS and whether they are mandatory or optional.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to change Section G.8.2.1.1.1 for Managed Network Service (MNS) in the KPI column to state 'MNS performance levels will be specified in the TO' vs 'Availability (Network End-to-End)' and in the Section C Reference column to state 'C.2.8.1.4' vs 'C.2.8.1.3'.

Question # 6 Section: Section G

8.2.1.1.1

Question:

C.2.8.4.4.1 lists Av(TIC Portal) Critical as a required KPI but has no performance standard or AQL listed. Please remove critical Av(TIC Portal) or clarify the required associated performance standard and AQL.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to remove the critical level KPI for Av (TIC Portal) in Sections C.2.8.4.4.1 and G.8.2.1.1.1.

Question # 7 Section: Section G

8.2.1.1.1

Question:

G.8.2.1.1.1 lists Availability as a required KPI for MMS but Availability is not listed as a KPI in C.2.8.6.4.1. Please clarify whether Availability is a required KPI and whether it is mandatory or optional.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to change Section G.8.2.1.1.1 for Managed Network Service (MNS) in the KPI column to state 'MNS performance levels will be specified in the TO' vs 'Availability (Network End-to-End)' and in the Section C Reference column to state 'C.2.8.1.4' vs 'C.2.8.1.3'.

Question # 8 Section: Section G

8.2.1.1.1

Question:

G.8.2.1.1.1 does not list GOS as a required KPI for ACS but GOS is listed as a KPI in C.2.8.7.4. Please clarify whether GOS is a required KPI and whether it is mandatory or optional.

The RFP will be amended to change Section G.8.2.1.1.1 for Audio Conferencing Service (ACS) to insert a new KPI:'GOS (Operator Assistance Response Delay)'.

Question # 47 Section: Section G

5.6.6

Question:

Additional Security Requirements States "• The deliverables identified in Section C.6.6 shall be labeled "CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION"• (CUI) or contractor-selected designation per document sensitivity. External transmission/dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) data to or from a GSA computer must be encrypted. Certified encryption modules must be used in accordance with FIPS PUB 140-2 "Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules."• Section C ends at C.4.5 Section 508 Provisions Applicable to Reporting and Training. Please provide the correct reference.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended for Section G.5.6.6 to read "The deliverables identified in paragraph G.5.6.4 instead of "The deliverables identified in Section C.6.6".

Question # 92 Section: Section G

3.3.1.2

Question:

Can auto-sold CLINs be specific to a TO? The RFP implies that new auto-sold CLINs must apply to all previous orders of the parent CLIN.

Answer:

All auto-sold CLINs must to be specified on the contract. A TO may exclude one or more auto-sold CLINs.

The purpose of the requirement for capturing auto-sold CLINs on the contract is for contractors to inform GSA and the customer agencies what is automatically available, usable, and thus billable when a base CLIN is ordered. Contractors are required to populate Table B.1.2.11.1 with all the CLINs that will be auto-sold for each base CLIN offered. Some agencies may require in a task order that certain auto-sold CLINs be removed from this list. Table B.1.2.11.1 shall be populated with a task order number for each base CLIN to auto-sold CLIN relationship that is to be removed for the specified task order.

The RFP will be amended in Section G.3.3.1.2 to replace:

"If new auto-sold CLINs are added through a TO modification, the contractor shall issue new Service Order Completion Notices (SOCNs) for all applicable previously provisioned orders."

with the following:

"The contractor may add new auto-sold CLINs to the contract with GSA approval via a contract modification. Such newly added auto-sold CLINs shall not be applicable to any previously issued TO unless specifically added via TO modification. If a TO modification is issued to add a new auto-sold CLIN, the contractor shall issue new Service Order Completion Notices

(SOCNs) for all applicable previously provisioned orders under that TO."

Question # 159 Section: Section G

4.11.1

Question:

G.4.11.1 Separate Billing of Taxes, Fees and Surcharges: "The contractor shall separate billing amounts for taxes, fees and surcharges. Taxes, fees and surcharges shall be provided as individual components or amounts on the BI, whether they are part of an original charge or an adjustment. The agency may elect to request prices that include all taxes, fees and surcharges in its solicitation (see Sections H.14 and H.23 for specific guidance). In this case, the contractor shall bill the prices that were proposed, accepted and included in the TO." H.14 Taxes and H.23 Fees and Surcharges reference: "Agency Request for Fully Loaded CLIN Prices": "A direct-billed agency may elect, at its discretion, to request that all allowable fees and surcharges be included in the CLIN prices proposed in response to an agency task order solicitation. For any task order requiring that all allowable fees and surcharges be included in the CLIN prices, the ordering agency will be responsible for ensuring that only applicable and allowable fees and surcharges have been assessed and included in the CLIN prices.