EIS_RFP_QTA0015THA3003_-_SF30_-_Amend_06_(1).pdf

OMB Approval 2700-0042

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 19

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

06 1/29/2016

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 __ extended, X 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 #06

Revisions, Questions, Answers and Clarifications to the EIS RFP

This amendment includes the following:

- Questions received from potential offerors regarding the RFP. All questions received thus far have been answered.

- 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.

The RFP is amended as follows:

Question # 941 Section: Section B Section # 2.2.1.8.3

Question:

B.2.2.1.8.3, Item 3. SIP TRUNK. After analysis of the response to question 130 received on December 15, 2015, which clarified the objective of SIP Trunk Bursting, we have determined that it is not in the best interests of either party to price this feature on a purely NRC/MRC basis.

It is in the government's best interest to add a usage component which is applied only when the "standby" service is actually used. Trunk Bursting, within table B.2.2.1.8.3, contains two CLINS (VI31420 and VI32420) for capture of NRC and MRC charges respectively which provide for the ability to burst beyond the purchased number of sessions (on a temporary basis) . However, current implementations of SIP Trunk Bursting include a Usage charge in addition to the NRC and MRC. Please add an additional CLIN to SIP Trunk Bursting to account for the usage charges.

Answer:

A new “SIP Trunk: Burstable Call Path" usage CLIN will be added to account for the utilization of additional call path(s) beyond the initially purchased number of call paths within a trunk.

The RFP will be amended to reflect a change to Table B.2.2.1.8.3 to add the new “SIP Trunk:

Burstable Call Path” usage CLIN VI33445. Also, the following footnotes will be added under Table B.2.2.1.8.3 to provide further clarification on the use of the SIP Trunk bursting CLINs:

“ * SIP Trunk: Trunk Bursting feature provides the capability to burst additional call path(s) within a trunk.

** SIP Trunk: Burstable Call Path feature is the utilization of an additional call path within a trunk. For each burstable call path utilized, one usage charge shall be billed per month regardless of the number of bursting instances occurred within the same month. Requires SIP Trunk: Trunk Bursting CLINs.”

The change to Table B.2.2.1.8.3 will reflect as follows:

Usage CLIN VI33445, SIP Trunk: Burstable Call Path, Charging Unit: Concurrent Call Path

Question # 963 Section: Section B Section #

Question:

The Government anticipates that incumbent contractors - at a minimum - will propose the necessary CLINs and services in their proposals to ensure that they can submit offers to their existing customers for their current services. However, Rule ID 36 in the error checker states the following: "For a CBSA-dependent service, if an offeror opts to price an optional location (non-CBSA location), the offeror must price all mandatory CLINs for that service and optional location. For example, VPNS offered in Germany must have all mandatory VPNS CLINs priced for Germany. (Rule ID = 36)" Tests on price submissions to submit a compliant, error-free response revealed this rule forces vendors to choose one of the following choices: 1) no-bid a jurisdiction at the master contract level, where the government currently receives service (a subset of the EIS mandatory list), or 2) bid a jurisdiction by putting prices on contract where some services do not currently exist, and are not expected to exist for the foreseeable future.

This second choice puts vendors in a potential situation to receive an order for an unavailable service, in order to maintain its current service. Is this the Government's intent? This is a particular issue in OCONUS and ROW jurisdictions and countries, where service availability is less predictable, often unknown, and subject to changing laws of many sovereign nations. The third, recommended alternative, is to allow vendors to bid services that are commercially available in a OCONUS and ROW jurisdictions, but not require them to bid services that are not commercially available. Examples of Government Requiring Non-Commercially Available Pricing include but are not limited to: - VPNS - Mandatory clins go to 10G / OC192 and include burstable. There are 52 jurisdictions represented in the eval. model to include Turkey, USVI, Oman, The Dom Rep., Aruba, The Azore Islands, Barbados, etc. A bidder looking to submit a bid for VPNS in those jurisdictions would have to price 10G andOC192 port rates to be compliant. - IPS - Requires 10G port to Guam - PLS - Requires OC12 to N. Marianas + USVI Questions: 1. Is it the Government's intent to ask bidders to price a full catalog of services per jurisdiction, if some of those services are not currently in existence? If yes, this may result in bidders not bidding jurisdictions where they currently deliver services, potentially resulting in service continuity issues. 2. Specifically, if a bidder includes rates for a jurisdiction under a service only that only are "in existence", omitting for speeds that do not exist, will they be viewed as non-compliant for a service award for that jurisdiction? For example ,if a bidder omits a 10G or OC192 VPN rate to the Azore Islands or USVI, will this be viewed as noncompliant? 3.

Can bidders propose rates for jurisdictions, for optional and mandatory product offerings, that are not in the evaluation model that they offer commercially? a. Example, PLS is not required to be bid to Portugal since there is no NSC, but the bidder bids T1 to Portugal. How will that impact the bidder's pricing compliance?

Answer:

There are 4 questions and each is addressed below.

Question 1: "Tests on price submissions to submit a compliant, error-free response revealed this rule forces vendors to choose one of the following choices: 1) no-bid a jurisdiction at the master contract level, where the government currently receives service (a subset of the EIS mandatory list), or 2) bid a jurisdiction by putting prices on contract where some services do not currently exist, and are not expected to exist for the foreseeable future. This second choice puts vendors in a potential situation to receive an order for an unavailable service, in order to maintain its current service. Is this the Government's intent?"

Answer 1: It is neither the government's intent for an EIS contractor to receive an order for an unavailable service, nor for offerors to no-bid a jurisdiction where they can provide service.

Question 2. "Is it the Government's intent to ask bidders to price a full catalog of services per jurisdiction, if some of those services are not currently in existence? If yes, this may result in bidders not bidding jurisdictions where they currently deliver services, potentially resulting in service continuity issues."

Answer 2: The government is amending the RFP to reduce the number of mandatory CLINs required within a service for OCONUS and non-domestic country/jurisdictions. The amended language is summarized below after the remaining questions.

Question 3. "Specifically, if a bidder includes rates for a jurisdiction under a service only that only are "in existence", omitting for speeds that do not exist, will they be viewed as non-compliant for a service award for that jurisdiction? For example ,if a bidder omits a 10G or OC192 VPN rate to the Azore Islands or USVI, will this be viewed as noncompliant?"

Answer 3: Offerors will be reviewed for compliance based upon the amended requirements in Sections J.1.1 and J.1.2. If an offeror omits mandatory CLINs for a country/jurisdiction as described in Sections B and the amended Sections J.1.1 and J.1.2, then, the offering for that service to that country/jurisdiction will be non-compliant.

Question 4. "Can bidders propose rates for jurisdictions, for optional and mandatory product offerings, that are not in the evaluation model that they offer commercially? a. Example, PLS is not required to be bid to Portugal since there is no NSC, but the bidder bids T1 to Portugal. How will that impact the bidder's pricing compliance?"

Answer 4: Yes, offerors may propose rates for jurisdictions for optional and mandatory services that are not in the traffic model. Offerors shall propose pricing for the mandatory CLINs as described in Sections B and the amended Sections J.1.1 and J.1.2 to be compliant.

A summary of the amendment to address these questions is below:

Sections J.1.1 and J.1.2 are amended to decrease the number of mandatory CLINs an offeror shall price for OCONUS and Non-Domestic country/jurisdictions for ETS, IPS, VPNS, and PLS.

Sections J.1.1 and J.1.2 are also amended to clarify that if an offeror chooses to propose PLS to an OCONUS or Non-Domestic country/jurisdiction, then the offeror shall at a minimum propose pricing from CONUS to that country/jurisdiction.

In addition, Section J.1.2 is amended to clarify that offerors may propose any CBSA-based service to a non-domestic country/jurisdiction even if they do not propose any of the four mandatory services (VPNS, ETS, Voice, MNS) to that non-domestic country/jurisdiction.

(Please note that the error checker will be updated the week of February 2 to reflect these changes.)

Question # 935 Section: Section G Section # 11

QUESTION # 409: These sections appear to make it mandatory that all offerors provide complete NSEP services. However Section B.1.2.1.1 indicates that NSEP is optional. If this is mandatory - it will restrict competition - since these NSEP functions can only be performed by full-status carriers. Will the Government please amend the RFP Section G.11 - G.11.3.3 to allow full and open competition? ANSWER 409: The government does not intend to limit competition and believes that potential offerors are able to satisfy the NS/EP requirements regardless of their status. Section G.11 will not be amended. Sections B.1.2.1 and B.3 will be amended to indicate that NS/EP - while not a service - has required CLINs that must be priced. B.1.2.1, table B.1.2.1.1, and B.3 are removing references that indicate it is a service. As stated in G.11, offerors are referred to www.dhs.gov/topic/emergency-communications for further information on the various programs associated with NS/EP requirements. NEW QUESTION: By stating that a future amendment will state that the now-mandatory NS/EP is not a service - how does GSA reconcile that holding with Paragraph 2 of G.11 (NS/EP telecommunication services are services)?

Answer:

The RFP is amended to add 'requirements for' and remove 'services' from the second paragraph of G.11.

Authority for the NS/EP program is under the Communications Act of 1934 as well as the directives and policies described in section G.11. Furthermore, the FCC provides regulatory oversight of the NS/EP program (Title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)) and enforces rules and regulations. Service vendors whom the FCC regulates must provide priority treatment on the transmission portion of the service. The NS/EP program applies to all telecommunications service vendors involved in the provisioning or restoration of telecommunications services. The specific types of services depend upon whether a vendor can provide or restore the service on a priority basis. A telecommunications service vendor refers to any individual, association, partnership, corporation, organization, or other entity (including common carriers, telecommunications carriers, and government organizations) offering telecommunications equipment, facilities, services, or combination thereof.

Question # 504 Section: Section L

29.2.3

Question:

Question # 33 Old Question: "Item 7. This implies that only contractors with facility and cleared personnel can bid on EIS -and have classified all government communication to the TS/SCI level. Is this the intent?" 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 technical description of how it will accomplish the design -implementation -and operation of its aggregation service." New Question: These two clauses seem to conflict directly with each other. G.11.2: "Protection of Classified and Sensitive Information - NS/EP related information includes but is not limited to databases for classified information; critical users' locations identifications - authorization codes - and call records; and customer profiles. Additionally the contractor is provided access to certain classified and sensitive materials required for the planning management - and operations for NS/EP. That information is in various forms including hardcopy and electronic media. It will be identified as to its classification and shall be protected by the contractor in accordance with applicable industrial security regulations (National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual [NISPOM] and NSA-approved standards as applicable for Safeguarding Classified Information). The level of classification will be up to and including Top Secret / SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) and identified by the government." H.35: "Security Clearance Requirements To ensure the capability to respond to Top Secret requirements - the contract includes a DD Form 254 (Contract Security Classification Specification) in Section J.14. Although not mandatory - a Top Secret Facility Clearance is highly recommended. The DD Form 254 will reflect a Top Secret Facility Clearance with no safeguarding - special access or communications security (COMSEC) requirements. The contractor may request this clearance from GSA after issuance of NTP.

However - task orders may require and identify safeguarding - special access and security requirements. Additional requirements may also be identified on the agency-specific DD Form

254. When classified work is required on a task order - the DD Form 254 or agency equivalent will be issued by the OCO. The contractor is responsible for providing personnel with appropriate security clearances to ensure compliance with government security regulations - as specified on task orders. The contractor shall fully cooperate on all security checks and investigations by furnishing requested information to verify the contractor employee's trustworthiness and suitability for the position." Considering the gravity of national security requirement in EIS - does the Government intend to mitigate this apparent conflict by having GSA itself sponsor appropriate clearances of people and facilities - to avoid GSA's creation of an unfair competitive advantage to Networx incumbents who may already have such clearances secured?

Answer:

No apparent conflicts exist. The following processes are used for clearances/sponsorships:

Post award, and after Notice to Proceed, the contractor may request a EIS Contract Level DD

254. If a contractor does not already possess Top Secret facility and personnel clearances, an EIS contract level DD 254 will be awarded, and GSA will then sponsor the contractor through DSS (Defense Security Service). DSS will work with the contractor Facility Security Officer (FSO) to enable the contractor to clear a certain number of staff initially to handle any potential classified work that may be requested under EIS. Once a contractor obtains a Top Secret facility clearance it would be positioned to bid on classified task orders depending on how the ordering agency states its requirements. Task order level DD 254s will identify classified requirements for each ordering agency as necessary.

In addition, there is an additional DD 254 required for MTIPS SCIFs should the contractor bid and be awarded that optional service. Each MTIPS service provider will require a Top Secret / SCI DD 254 so that it may clear sufficient staff to handle 24 x 7 x 365 management of the SCIFs (2 each minimum). This also includes safeguarding of Top Secret COMSEC Key Material.

Separate from the DD254s described above, NS/EP clearances are handled through DHS using a different process which will allow contractors to obtain Top Secret / SCI clearances to meet NS/EP requirements.

Finally, H.35 will be amended by replacing the statement "Although not mandatory, a Top Secret Facility Clearance is highly recommended" with “A Top Secret Facility Clearance is not required to be eligible for receiving an EIS contract award; however, it may be required to meet specific agency task order requirements”. The remainder of the paragraph is unchanged.

Question # 961 Section: Section L

29.2.3

Question:

L.29.2.3 item 2 should include the following sentence at the end. Descriptions shall include locations of major POPs and Enclaves, transport types and speeds, diversity, number of hops and delays per hop.

Answer:

Section L.29.2.3 will be amended to add a clarifying sentence to the end of Item 2, which will now read in its entirety:

2. Anticipated technical approach, for each affected service, to redirect all participating agency Internet, Extranet, and inter-agency traffic to DHS EINSTEIN Enclaves, receive processed traffic from GFP within the DHS EINSTEIN Enclave, and deliver traffic to its final destination.

Descriptions shall include locations of major POPs and Enclaves, transport types and speeds, diversity, number of hops and delays per hop.

Questions and Answers That Do Not Include RFP Changes

Question # 911 Section: Section B

1.2.1

Question:

OLD QUESTION # 518: Will GSA please describe the process for adding "not listed but logical CLINs" to the contract before TO. ANSWER # 518: CLINs can be added to the contract via the contract modification process in Section J.4. New CLINs cannot be ordered within a TO before the CLIN is added to the contract. After the CLIN is added to the contract, the TO will need to be modified to add the new CLIN in coordination with the agency. OLD QUESTION # 505: Will GSA review agency task orders for Task Order Unique CLINs for scope and compliance to the EIS contract and the FAR? ANSWER # 505: Yes, GSA will require a scope review for all requirements prior to the issuance of a solicitation. Additionally, GSA will review TUCs during the administration of the contract to verify compliance with the EIS terms and conditions identified in Section G. NEW QUESTION # 518 - # 505: Rather than delaying various CLINs / requirement until contract modification process per J.4 and then delaying further with subsequent TO modification per Agency (per Answers to Question # 518 and # 505) - will the Government please share those CLINs / requirements to the extent possible _now_ (prior to EIS RFP submissions) so that both non-incumbent and incumbent contractors have more equal chances to bid on such Task Orders during EIS's 3-year Transition period?

Answer:

The government has included, to the greatest extent known, the entirety of federal requirements for services and other capabilities in the RFP. In particular, the Traffic Model includes considerable detail about the precise nature of services in use across government. This is much more information than is usually available to offerors in other federal procurements of this nature.

However, as historical data demonstrates, the government's needs can be expected to change significantly over time due to agency mission variations, technology advances, introduction of new capabilities and services, price changes, budget circumstances, and many other factors, most of which are difficult to predict with any confidence for more than a few years.

Additional CLINs (based on agency requirements) can only be added once the requirements are known. This will not be the case until each agency has developed it's TO solicitation, at which time, the need for any contract modification will be addressed.

Question # 915 Section: Section B

1.2.1

Question:

OLD QUESTION # 516: Did GSA add all of the necessary CLINs for every agency to conduct a like for like transition from Networx to EIS? ANSWER # 516: GSA's goal was to create a robust set of CLINs that represented a mix of current and future services. Not every CLIN that has been ordered on Networx is represented on EIS; however the EIS contract has the flexibility for an agency and contractor to use a mix of EIS fixed price CLINs - ICB CLINs - the contract modification process for adding new CLINs and TUCs to handle any issues. (See Question 510). OLD QUESTION # 510: If all of the necessary CLINs were not added to EIS to conduct a like for like transition - and the agency Contracting Officer will have to include the necessary requirements in the agency Task Order - how will this impact the 3 year transition schedule if there are delays in conducting Fair Opportunity and making task order awards? ANSWER # 510: The RFP includes all of the CLINs and services necessary for agencies to conduct a like for like transition. The Government anticipates that incumbent contractors - at a minimum will propose the necessary CLINs and services in their proposals to ensure that they can submit offers to their existing customers for their current services. NEW QUESTION # 516 - # 510: In answer to 516, GSA clearly stated - The Government anticipates that incumbent contractors - at a minimum will propose the necessary CLINs and services in their proposals to ensure that they can submit offers to their existing customers for their current services. We agree that incumbents do have that knowledge: now, how will GSA ensure that non-incumbents understand these requirements so they may effectively compete on the EIS IDIQ that is, how will GSA level the playing field for all contractors on the EIS IDIQ? How will GSA ensure on future Task Orders that will result in unique CLINS not identified with the EIS IDIQ that all contractors will have sufficient advance access to the TUC requirements and be able to effectively compete on the task orders?

Answer:

The government has included, to the greatest extent known, the entirety of federal requirements for services and other capabilities in the RFP. In particular, the Traffic Model includes considerable detail about the precise nature of services in use across government. This is much more information than is usually available to offerors in other federal procurements of this nature.

However, as historical data demonstrates, the government's needs can be expected to change significantly over time due to agency mission variations, technology advances, introduction of new capabilities and services, price changes, budget circumstances, and many other factors, most of which are difficult to predict with any confidence for more than a few years.

Thus, as agencies conduct their fair opportunities, their unique requirements will evolve and can not be anticipated at this time. However, agencies will be providing those requirements in SOWs for all EIS contractors to review and respond to accordingly.

Question # 916 Section: Section B

1.2.1

Question:

OLD QUESTION # 516: Did GSA add all of the necessary CLINs for every agency to conduct a like for like transition from Networx to EIS? ANSWER # 516: GSA's goal was to create a robust set of CLINs that represented a mix of current and future services. Not every CLIN that has been ordered on Networx is represented on EIS; however the EIS contract has the flexibility for an agency and contractor to use a mix of EIS fixed price CLINs - ICB CLINs - the contract modification process for adding new CLINs and TUCs to handle any issues. (See Question 510). OLD QUESTION # 510: If all of the necessary CLINs were not added to EIS to conduct a like for like transition - and the agency Contracting Officer will have to include the necessary requirements in the agency Task Order - how will this impact the 3 year transition schedule if there are delays in conducting Fair Opportunity and making task order awards? ANSWER # 510: The RFP includes all of the CLINs and services necessary for agencies to conduct a like for like transition. The Government anticipates that incumbent contractors - at a minimum will propose the necessary CLINs and services in their proposals to ensure that they can submit offers to their existing customers for their current services. NEW QUESTION # 516 - # 510: Has the Government included in the RFP all necessary CLINs for non-incumbent contractors to understand Transition requirements of the Government with regard to moving traffic from expiring LSAs and Networx contracts and thus have opportunity on par with incumbents when bidding on the EIS IDIQ?

Answer:

The government has included, to the greatest extent known, the entirety of federal requirements for services and other capabilities in the RFP. In particular, the Traffic Model includes considerable detail about the precise nature of services in use across government, from the expiring LSAs and Networx. This is much more information than is usually available to offerors in other federal procurements of this nature.

However, as historical data demonstrates, the government's needs can be expected to change significantly over time due to agency mission variations, technology advances, introduction of new capabilities and services, price changes, budget circumstances, and many other factors, most of which are difficult to predict with any confidence for more than a few years.

When agencies release their SOWs in the Fair Opportunity process, all EIS contractors will be given the same information in the SOW about expiring LSA and Networx requirements and will be provided the same amount of time to respond accordingly.

Question # 918 Section: Section B

1.2.1

OLD QUESTION # 523: How will GSA mitigate any unfair incumbent advantage as a result of not including all of the CLINs necessary for like for like contract, since the incumbent currently provides those services to the agency conducting the Task Order Fair Opportunity? These requirements should be included in the base contract? ANSWER # 523: GSA has appointed an ombudsman to review complaints from contractors and ensure that they are afforded a fair opportunity to be considered, consistent with the procedures in the contract. See Section G.3.2.3 and Section I 552.216-74 for the information on the ombudsman. Additionally, 41 U.S.C.

4103(d) and 41 U.S.C. 4106(f) allow for protests of TOs valued in excess of $10 million. NEW QUESTION # 523: Given the $10 Million threshold on Task Order protests (which many large Agencies TOs will likely exceed) and given the Government's solution (of providing an ombudsman rather than including all requirements/CLINs necessary) gives incumbents an overwhelming advantage during Transition and potentially longer on the EIS IDIQ (e.g. an Agency might issue a 15-year task order that lasts the life of the EIS IDIQ contract): will the Government please provide all requirements / CLINs before responses are due on the EIS IDIQ to mitigate overwhelming incumbent advantage?

Answer:

The government has made a good faith effort to identify the entirety of federal requirements for services and other capabilities in the RFP. In particular, the Traffic Model includes considerable detail about the precise nature of services in use across government. This is much more information than is usually available to offerors in other federal procurements of this nature.

However, as historical data demonstrates, the government's needs can be expected to change significantly over time due to agency mission variations, technology advances, introduction of new capabilities and services, price changes, budget circumstances, and many other factors, most of which are difficult to predict with any confidence for more than a few years.

Accordingly, this procurement will result in the award of multiple IDIQ contracts. By their nature IDIQ contracts need not be fully specified in advance, as described in FAR 16.501-2 and

16.504. FAR 16.504(b), in particular, describes the application of IDIQ contracts. This is precisely the nature of the requirements being competed under EIS. The government's approach to EIS is fully consistent with the FAR based on the anticipated needs of the government for these capabilities and services.

Question # 926 Section: Section B

2.8.1.3.2

Question:

OLD QUESTION # 311: Would the Government define "small", "medium", and "large"?

ANSWER # 311: The government is not defining "small", "medium", etc. The offeror shall describe their approach to device size assignment as required in Section L.34.1 Price Response, bullet #8. In addition, if an offeror decides to propose SREs, then each device shall be classified in the SRE catalog (section B.2.10.2.1 SRE Catalog - Product Specification Table), specifically the field labeled "device size". OLD QUESTION # 331: The table in B.2.8.1.3.2 specifies different CLINs for different sized devices. Please provide a better description of each size. For example: extra small may mean a desk top or hand held devices where extra-large may refer to a piece of equipment that is 10 or more rack units or larger. ANSWER # 331: The government is not defining "small", "medium", etc. The offeror shall describe their approach to device size assignment as required in Section L.34.1 Price Response, bullet #8. In addition, if an offeror decides to propose SREs, then each device shall be classified in the SRE catalog (section B.2.10.2.1 SRE Catalog - Product Specification Table), specifically the field labeled "device size". OLD QUESTION # 397: The pricing table for MNS device management has 5 CLINs (1 Extra Small - 2 Small - 3 Medium - 4 Large - 5 Extra-Large) without further description of parameters in Section C. Please describe and elaborate on bandwidth - physical size -system scope etc. ANSWER # 397: The government is not defining "extra small", "small", "medium", etc. The offeror shall describe their approach to device size assignment as required in Section L.34.1 Price Response, bullet #8. In addition, if an offeror decides to propose SREs, then each device shall be classified in the SRE catalog (section B.2.10.2.1 SRE Catalog - Product Specification Table), specifically the field labeled "device size". NEW QUESTION # 311-331-397: Answers # 311, 331, and 397 provided by the Government essentially leave classification of MNS device size up to individual offerors for pricing purposes, which may result in a wide variety of definition among offerors. The Traffic Model to evaluate MNS pricing has the following Year One quantities: MN10001 1265; MN10002 9106; MN10003 5303; MN10004

3169; MN10005 14; MN11001 213; MN11002 1631; MN11003 875; MN11004 545; ; MN11006

4. Since the Government developed quantities for these classifications in the Traffic Model - will the Government please share its own definitions that determined these quantities so that offerors (especially non-incumbents) may understand the range of equipment to manage?

Answer:

No. The classifications (XS, S, M, L, XL) used for managed devices should reflect the offeror's level of effort in managing various devices. The actual equipment and equipment maintenance are priced via the SRE catalog. The government realizes there are cost differences in managing different devices. The classifications (XS-XL) provide a tiered pricing structure for the offerer to map the management of a device to one of these managed services pricing tiers. The classification XS would be for a device that is the least costly to manage, an XL device is the most costly device to manage.

Question # 962 Section: Section B

2.10.2.3

Question:

Question: There are multiple references to MRC charges for SRE throughout section B.

However, table B.2.10.2.3 was amended to only contain an NRC CLIN for billing SRE. Does GSA intend to add the SRE MRC CLIN EQ90002 back to table B.2.10.2.3? If not, what method is intended to bill monthly SRE charges against an NRC CLIN?

Answer:

There is no need for an MRC catalog CLIN in order to offer and price monthly lease terms. The SRE MRC installment prices--identified as SRE Pricing Elements 12, 24, 36, and 48--are automatically calculated based on the SRE NRC and the monthly payment factors provided by the offeror in table B.2.10.4.1. The offeror is also required to populate the SRE MRC Options column of catalog table B.2.10.2.1 to specify which of the four monthly payment options (month-to-month, 24-month, 36-month, and/or 48-month) are being offered for a particular catalog item.

Question # 964 Section: Section B Section #

4.1.5

Table B.4.1.5 column header PCL NSC contains a single asterisk which is defined as follows:

"PCLs are defined in Table B.4.1.8.". We interpret B.4.1.8 to contain the government location NSC's. How is a PCL NSC defined in Table B.4.1.8? Shouldn't the contractor be defining the PCL NSCs just as the contractor is defining the POP NSC in table B.4.1.1?

Answer:

The offeror only defines the association between Building NSCs and PCL NSCs as well as PCL NSCs to POP NSCs. However, as stated in the paragraph preceding Table B.4.1.8:

"Tables B.4.1.8 and B.4.1.9 provide a list of domestic and non-domestic NSCs (these may be PCLs, SWCs, or government-identified buildings) and the associated location data."

Thus, Table B.4.1.8 contains more than just the government location NSCs. Table B.4.1.8 contains all NSCs maintained by iconectiv and includes not only government facilities, but also PCLs, and POPs registered by the iconectiv user base. This is the information used to define an NSC regardless of what type it is. Table B.4.1.9 provides the associated address information for each NSC regardless of type. Other tables, such as Tables B.4.1.6 and B.4.1.5, are used by the offeror to associate NSC types such as Building NSCs and POP NSCs to PCL NSCs.

Question # 800 Section: Section G

5.6.4

Question:

Item 1 - The Boundary Scope Document is a critical initial component of developing the SSP.

The requirement states establishing the system security boundary is a cooperative effort between the federal government and the contractor. For planning purposes is there guidance on how this process would work from both a scheduling and level of effort perspective?

Answer:

According to the last sentence in paragraph G.5.6.4.1: "The BSD for the information system shall initially be completed and submitted within 15 days of the NTP to include annual updates.

(Reference: NIST SP 800-37 R1)." The time frame is dependent upon the quality of the proposed definition of the assessment boundary in the BSD. Acceptance of a high quality BSD may be completed within a few weeks.

Question # 838 Section: Section G

5.6.3

Question:

Many security compliance requirements are due with the initial A&A package. Understanding that the A&A validation needs to occur within 12 months of NTP, is there guidance on when the A&A package would need to be presented to meet A&A validation to meet the NTP + 12 month requirement?

Answer:

In accordance with paragraph G.5.6.4 line 6: "The BSS SSP for the information system shall initially be completed and submitted within 30 days of the NTP to include annual updates

(Reference: NIST SP 800-53 R4: PL-2)." Dependent upon the quality of the SSP and all appendices, as well as BSS system scans with no critical or high vulnerabilities, GSA anticipates the process will take approximately 3 months or less. If this goal is reached, the completion of the security assessment and issuance of a GSA ATO should be completed within the 12 month timeframe.

Question # 933 Section: Section G Section # 11

QUESTION # 409: These sections appear to make it mandatory that all offerors provide complete NSEP services. However Section B.1.2.1.1 indicates that NSEP is optional. If this is mandatory - it will restrict competition - since these NSEP functions can only be performed by full-status carriers. Will the Government please amend the RFP Section G.11 - G.11.3.3 to allow full and open competition? ANSWER 409: The government does not intend to limit competition and believes that potential offerors are able to satisfy the NS/EP requirements regardless of their status. Section G.11 will not be amended. Sections B.1.2.1 and B.3 will be amended to indicate that NS/EP - while not a service - has required CLINs that must be priced. B.1.2.1, table B.1.2.1.1, and B.3 are removing references that indicate it is a service. As stated in G.11, offerors are referred to www.dhs.gov/topic/emergency-communications for further information on the various programs associated with NS/EP requirements. NEW QUESTION: By making NS/EP mandatory - does GSA expect all EIS awardees to comply with GETS?

Answer:

Yes. GSA expects all EIS awardees to comply with GETS requirements as defined in Section G.11.3.1.

Authority for the NS/EP program is under the Communications Act of 1934 as well as the directives and policies described in section G.11. Furthermore, the FCC provides regulatory oversight of the NS/EP program (Title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)) and enforces rules and regulations. Service vendors whom the FCC regulates must provide priority treatment on the transmission portion of the service. The NS/EP program applies to all telecommunications service vendors involved in the provisioning or restoration of telecommunications services. The specific types of services depend upon whether a vendor can provide or restore the service on a priority basis. A telecommunications service vendor refers to any individual, association, partnership, corporation, organization, or other entity (including

Question # 934 Section: Section G Section # 11

QUESTION # 409: These sections appear to make it mandatory that all offerors provide complete NSEP services. However Section B.1.2.1.1 indicates that NSEP is optional. If this is mandatory - it will restrict competition - since these NSEP functions can only be performed by full-status carriers. Will the Government please amend the RFP Section G.11 - G.11.3.3 to allow full and open competition? ANSWER 409: The government does not intend to limit competition and believes that potential offerors are able to satisfy the NS/EP requirements regardless of their status. Section G.11 will not be amended. Sections B.1.2.1 and B.3 will be amended to indicate that NS/EP - while not a service - has required CLINs that must be priced. B.1.2.1, table B.1.2.1.1, and B.3 are removing references that indicate it is a service. As stated in G.11, offerors are referred to www.dhs.gov/topic/emergency-communications for further information on the various programs associated with NS/EP requirements. NEW QUESTION: By making NS/EP mandatory - will GSA provide GETS and NGN-PS and WPS contract requirements to enable EIS vendors to price NS/EP services properly?

Answer:

No. EIS vendors are required to interoperate with NS/EP. For WPS pricing guidance please refer to http://www.dhs.gov/wps-costs. The requirements related to GETS are handing calls off for prioritization. This program is administered by DHS please see:

http://www.dhs.gov/government-emergency-telecommunications-service-gets. NGN-PS is currently not defined.

Authority for the NS/EP program is under the Communications Act of 1934 as well as the directives and policies described in section G.11. Furthermore, the FCC provides regulatory oversight of the NS/EP program (Title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)) and enforces rules and regulations. Service vendors whom the FCC regulates must provide priority treatment on the transmission portion of the service. The NS/EP program applies to all telecommunications service vendors involved in the provisioning or restoration of telecommunications services. The specific types of services depend upon whether a vendor can provide or restore the service on a priority basis. A telecommunications service vendor refers to any individual, association, partnership, corporation, organization, or other entity (including

Question # 937 Section: Section G Section # 11

QUESTION # 409: These sections appear to make it mandatory that all offerors provide complete NSEP services. However Section B.1.2.1.1 indicates that NSEP is optional. If this is mandatory - it will restrict competition - since these NSEP functions can only be performed by full-status carriers. Will the Government please amend the RFP Section G.11 - G.11.3.3 to allow full and open competition? ANSWER 409: The government does not intend to limit competition and believes that potential offerors are able to satisfy the NS/EP requirements regardless of their status. Section G.11 will not be amended. Sections B.1.2.1 and B.3 will be amended to indicate that NS/EP - while not a service - has required CLINs that must be priced. B.1.2.1, table B.1.2.1.1, and B.3 are removing references that indicate it is a service. As stated in G.11, offerors are referred to www.dhs.gov/topic/emergency-communications for further information on the various programs associated with NS/EP requirements. NEW QUESTION: By making NS/EP mandatory - does GSA acknowledge that it is in effect limiting EIS competition to "all three long-distance carriers (AT&T Sprint and Verizon)" (per undated DHS publication "How It Works: The Government Emergency Telecommunications Service:

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/How%20GETS%20Works.pdf )?

Answer:

GSA is not limiting competition. EIS awardees are not required to be a GETS carrier to support the NS/EP requirements as defined in Section G.11.

Authority for the NS/EP program is under the Communications Act of 1934 as well as the directives and policies described in section G.11. Furthermore, the FCC provides regulatory oversight of the NS/EP program (Title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)) and enforces rules and regulations. Service vendors whom the FCC regulates must provide priority treatment on the transmission portion of the service. The NS/EP program applies to all telecommunications service vendors involved in the provisioning or restoration of telecommunications services. The specific types of services depend upon whether a vendor can provide or restore the service on a priority basis. A telecommunications service vendor refers to any individual, association, partnership, corporation, organization, or other entity (including

Question # 938 Section: Section G Section # 11

QUESTION # 409: These sections appear to make it mandatory that all offerors provide complete NSEP services. However Section B.1.2.1.1 indicates that NSEP is optional. If this is mandatory - it will restrict competition - since these NSEP functions can only be performed by full-status carriers. Will the Government please amend the RFP Section G.11 - G.11.3.3 to allow full and open competition? ANSWER 409: The government does not intend to limit competition and believes that potential offerors are able to satisfy the NS/EP requirements regardless of their status. Section G.11 will not be amended. Sections B.1.2.1 and B.3 will be amended to indicate that NS/EP - while not a service - has required CLINs that must be priced. B.1.2.1, table B.1.2.1.1, and B.3 are removing references that indicate it is a service. As stated in G.11, offerors are referred to www.dhs.gov/topic/emergency-communications for further information on the various programs associated with NS/EP requirements. NEW QUESTION: By making NS/EP mandatory - will GSA facilitate and guarantee award on the FCC-governed-DHS-managed GETS contract?

Answer:

EIS awardees are not required to be a GETS carrier to support the NS/EP requirements as defined Section G.11.

Authority for the NS/EP program is under the Communications Act of 1934 as well as the directives and policies described in section G.11. Furthermore, the FCC provides regulatory oversight of the NS/EP program (Title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)) and enforces rules and regulations. Service vendors whom the FCC regulates must provide priority treatment on the transmission portion of the service. The NS/EP program applies to all telecommunications service vendors involved in the provisioning or restoration of telecommunications services. The specific types of services depend upon whether a vendor can provide or restore the service on a priority basis. A telecommunications service vendor refers to any individual, association, partnership, corporation, organization, or other entity (including

Question # 947 Section: Section J Section # 19

In Amendment 4, the Submission Matrix row for RFP Section G.4.1.7 has a "C" to the far right beyond the proposal page number column. If this "C" is intended to mean that GSA expected a "change" to this requirement, neither the Submission Matrix nor the RFP text in that Section C reference have changed. Did GSA intend to make a change to the requirement at G.4.1.7?

Answer:

The letter "C" will be removed in the updated Section J.19 Submission Matrix. Also, see question 951.

Question # 949 Section: Section J Section # 19

In Amendment 4, the text of the Submission Matrix for E.2.2.1 does not match the RFP text for E.2.2.1. Please revise the Submission Matrix to match the requirement text of the RFP.

Answer:

The only difference between the Section J.19 Submission Matrix and Section E.2.2.1 is the exclusion of "An agency may define additional testing in the TO" from the Submission Matrix.

This is because it is a condition an offeror does not need to respond to in their proposal.

Question # 951 Section: Section J Section # 19

What is GSA's definition for the letter "C" that has been added to multiple RFP Section J.19 Submission Matrices as part of Amendment 04, as well as GSA's defnition for the letter "D" that has been added only to RFP Section J.19, 1.a, C.2.2.1.2 ? These letter "C" and "D" appear in columns to the right of the proposal page number column.

Answer:

The letter C indicates that the particular requirement has been changed and the letter D indicates that the requirement was deleted in the amendment. (Note: Some of the indicators for changes in previous amendments were mistakenly left in the Section J.19 Submission Matrix in Amendment 04. These were removed in Amendment 05.)

Question # 953 Section: Section J

2.10.3.1.2

Question:

In Amendment 4, in its response to Question #674, c), d), and f), GSA added the following two fields: adjustment_detail_tax_billed and tax_item_number to the Billing Adjustment (BA) and Dispute Report (DR) data sets. In Amendment 2, GSA added the adjustment_aggregated_tax to the BA and DR data sets. The BI data set contains the billed_aggregated_tax which is a summarized total of all taxes, surcharges and fees calculated on an invoiced service charge line item.