EIS_RFP_QTA0015THA3003_-_SF30_-_Amend_07_1).pdf

OMB Approval 2700-0042

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 12

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

07 2/05/2016

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 #07

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 may revise more than one section of the RFP.

The RFP is amended as follows:

Question # 965 Section: Section B Section # 2.8.2.4.2

Question:

Web conferencing event-based CLINs WC00100 and WC00110 are NRC CLINs but use a charging unit of 15 minutes, which suggests these should be usage CLINs. Will the government change the billing frequency from NRC to Usage?

Answer:

Yes, the government will amend the RFP to change the billing frequency to Usage for WC00100 and WC00110.

Question # 966 Section: Section B

2.2.4.3.6

Question:

CSDS CLINs CS20001 and CS20101 are MRC CLINs but use a charging unit of 6 second increments, which suggests these should be usage CLINs. Will the government change the billing frequency from MRC to Usage?

Answer:

Yes, the government will amend the RFP to change the billing frequency to Usage for CS20001 and CS20101.

Question # 979 Section: Section B

1.2.11.1

Question:

According to our Progress Panel in Acquserve, it is showing our Access Services as unpriced solely due to our not submitting to submit Table B.1.2.11.1 Auto-Sold CLINs. This has been confirmed to us by the Acquserve Help Desk with no direction on how to rectify. We fail to see the connection between having an empty Auto-Sold table and Access pricing. As time moves quickly toward the February 22 submission date, we have lost very precious time waiting for resolution in order to be able to run pricing reports and assess results. Can GSA please advise how Auto-Sold is related to Access pricing? If a fix is needed in the System, this would dictate an extension in the submission date as we have been unable to proceed for 4 days since the issue has been unresolved by the Help Desk.

Answer:

While the Proposal Progress panel guides offerors on what tables should be populated based on the selections they have made in Steps 1-5 in the AcquServe portal, offerors are not prevented from proceeding with populating any tables, running the error checker or assessing results from the pricing reports as a result of the tool indicating that the auto-sold table is incomplete. Thus there is no need for an extension. The auto-sold table is associated with Access, because Access is required to be priced, and the auto-sold table was a required table to be populated.

Section B.1.2.11 of the RFP will be amended to indicate that the auto-sold table does not need to be populated. By not populating the auto-sold table, the offeror would be indicating that the offeror does not intend to charge or receive payment for additional capabilities delivered as a consequence of delivering an underlying service whose priced CLIN does not include those additional or ancillary capabilities. By way of illustration, the offeror should consider the following examples that could be charged as auto-sold CLINs:

1: If an offeror selects IPVS as their voice offering, then CLIN VI23010 is a candidate auto-sold CLIN with the packages IPVS Hosted or IPVS Premises-Based CLINs. Without the auto-sold CLIN table pre-populated as part of their offer, in this example, the offeror would not be able to charge for or bill for or receive payment for completing off-net calls to OCONUS or Non- Domestic locations unless each order for such service also specified all such potential charges for each and every off-net termination location.

2. Similarly, if the offeror chooses CSVS as their voice offering, then CLINs VS13010 or VS13020 are candidate auto-sold CLINs with the voice packages in Table B.2.2.2.2.2. Without the auto-sold CLIN table pre-populated as part of their offer, in this example, the offeror would not be able to charge for or bill for or receive payment for completing off-net calls to OCONUS or Non-Domestic locations unless each order for such service also specified all such potential charges for each and every off-net termination location.

3. If the offeror chooses either CSVS or IPVS, and the associated Non-Domestic Mobile Termination Surcharge CLIN is not pre-populated in the auto-sold table, then the offeror would not be able to charge for or bill for or receive payment for completing off-net calls to mobile phones in Non-Domestic locations unless each order for such service also specified all such potential charges for each and every mobile termination location.

Question # 980 Section: Section B Section # 4.1

Question:

We appreciate the Amendment 2 update. However, there now seems to be a growing list of NSCs that are present and valid in Networx (wdm_networx) but not available in EIS (wdm_eis).

According to Sec. B (B.4.1.1, B.4.1.2, B.4.1.3, B.4.1.4 and B.1.4.5), vendors must provide actively registered NSC's for their POPs that conform to B.4.1.8, which is provided by the Government. In addition, Vendors must provide actively registered NSC's for their PCL's (Table B.4.1.5 and B.4.1.6) that conform to B.4.1.8 (provided by the Government). Will GSA update wdm_eis for tables "loc_nsc" and "loc_nsc_address" so that a vendor can accurately populate its tables. Or, if a vendor is proposing an active NSC as a POP or PCL, should the vendor ignore the error checker findings that result from the PCL/POP NSC's not being present in Tables B.4.1.8 and B.4.1.9?

Answer:

The government will not update the loc_nsc or loc_nsc_address at this time. However, the RFP will be amended to indicate that offerors may include in their price proposal explanations for any findings from the error checker they believe should be ignored for reasons such as an outdated loc_nsc table. Section L.27.2 table will be amended to add the Error Checker Explanation with a page count of Unlimited. Section L.35 will be amended to say "Offerors may include explanations, in their price volume, for why they believe an item in the error report is incorrect in a document to be entitled “Error Checker Explanation.”

Question # 987 Section: Section C

2.8.4.5.4

Question:

In Section C.2.8.4.5.4 item 17 the word 'if' should be changed to 'of' and 'TICAPs olution' should be changed to 'TICAP solution'.

Answer:

Section C.2.8.4.5.4 item 17 will be amended as follows: The word 'if' should be changed to 'of' and 'TICAPs olution' will be changed to 'TICAP solution'.

Question # 968 Section: Section H Section # 23

GSA's response to Question #125 states that the functionality for fully loaded CLINs will be included in the scope of BSS Verification Testing. The ability to support fully loaded CLINs is an option for TOs and is not required for the base contract. While this is a capability we will develop to support TOs, we do not plan to have this functionality completed at the time of BSS Verification testing. We are prioritizing base contract development for BSS Verification testing, and will introduce fully loaded CLIN functionality if and when a specific TO requires this capability.

Answer:

As noted in our response to Question 125, fully loaded CLIN functionality must be tested prior to its use under EIS. The contractor may propose this testing either as part of their initial BSS functionality testing or as part of the BSS Change Control process (Section G.5.5.1.) as they would with any other changes to their BSS including those required to meet other TO-specific requirements.

Any testing that is required due to TO-specific BSS changes will be performed according to Section G.5.5.1 BSS Change Control.

To provide additional clarity, the RFP will be amended in Section G.5.5.1, 4th bullet to add "including those specified in a TO award" and Section G.5.5.1(4) to add "Relevant BSS testing must be successfully completed for any new functionality that impacts GSA Conexus before it becomes operational."

Question # 969 Section: Section J

2.10.1.1.4.2.2

Question:

The RFP has encouraged vendors to use their commercial practices. Our commercial practice, which conforms to industry standards, is that the addition of a feature and corresponding CLIN to an existing service is a "Change" order and not an "Install" Order as section J.2.10.1.1.4.2.2 states for the Header Order Type. We take exception to GSA's requirement to title this Header Order type as an "Install" Order, and we will continue our commercial practice to support this scenarios as "Changes."

Answer:

The RFP will be amended in Section J.2.10.1.1.4.2.2 under the "installation of new features and CLINs" bullet to read "Header Order Type = Change" vs "Header Order Type = Install" Note: The duplication in this section is intended to clarify that feature changes have identical data requirements regardless of the need to change CLINs or not.

Question # 971 Section: Section J

2.10.3.1.2

Question:

The fields outlined in Section J.2.10.3.1.2 are not commercially available and are not provided to customers as part of standard industry practice. If these fields become available in commercial systems in the future, we commit to providing this information. We request that GSA remove the following fields from the Contractor Data Interaction Plan in Table J.2.10.3.1.2, or we will have to take exception to them: Maintenance_Service_Agreement_Code Maintenance_Service_Agreement_Company Maintenance_Service_Agreement_Number UPC Local_Primary_Interexchange_Carrier_Code

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to remove the following items from Section J.2.10.3.1.2, J.2.10.2.1.12, and J.2.10.2.1.18:

1. maintenance_service_agreement_code

2. maintenance_service_agreement_company

3. maintenance_service_agreement_number

4. local_primary_interexchange_carrier_code

5. primary_interexchange_carrier_code

Sections J.2.10.1.3.3.1 and J.2.10.1.3.3.2 update the attachments with files containing XSDs and WSDLs to reflect the above changes.

However, the government requires the UPC, if applicable, for catalog items per section B.2.10.2.1.

Question # 972 Section: Section J

2.10.1.1.4.2.4

Question:

The RFP has encouraged vendors to use their commercial practices. Our commercial practice, which conforms to industry standards, is that the removal of a service existing service is a "Disconnect" order and not a "Change" Order as section J.2.10.1.1.4.2.4 states for the Header Order Type. We take exception to GSA's requirement to title this Header Order type as a "Change" Order, and we will continue our commercial practice to support these scenarios as "Disconnects."

Answer:

The RFP will be amended in Section J.2.10.1.1.4.2.4 in the first bullet to read "Header Order Type = Disconnect" vs "Header Order Type = Change"

Question # 981 Section: Section J

2.10.2.1.4

Question:

J.2.10.2.1.4 J.2.10.2.1.9, J.2.10.2.1.10, Prior Q&A #931. As part of a prior Q&A response to contractor Question # 931, with Amendment 5, GSA added billing_invoice_line_sequence_number to the TAX (BI, Tax Detail) file to provide a value to identify the BI Line number. This same field was also added with that amendment to the Billing Adjustment(BA), Dispute and Dispute Report Files, but there appears to have already been a data element within those files that served this purpose (i.e., original_bill_line_item_sequence_number). Although the data element names and definitions differ, they appear to be duplicative in nature/content. Q: For the BA Dispute and Dispute Report Files can GSA explain the difference between original_bill_line_item_sequence_number and billing_invoice_line_sequence_number and provide examples of when both may be applicable?

Answer:

The RFP will be amended as follows:

In Sections J.2.10.2.1.4, J.2.10.2.1.9, J.2.10.2.1.10, J.2.10.2.1.24, and J.2.10.3.1.2 delete line for element billing_invoice_line_sequence_number In Section J.2.10.2.1.24, insert the following line after detail_tax_billed:

Element Name: original_bill_line_item_sequence_number Value Requirement: Always

This response supercedes the response provided in Question 931.

Question # 984 Section: Section J

J.19

Question:

Regarding Section J.19, Submission Matrix tab Vol 6. The second item in row 3, cell A3 lists L.27.3, L.34.2, L.34.3, J.17, and J.18 under the heading Requirement Section Reference. It is not clear why Sections J.17 and J.18 are listed in the Price Volume submission matrix.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to remove Sections J.17 and J.18 from the matrix.

Question # 985 Section: Section J Section # 19

Since BOD was removed from C.2.1.2.2, should not row 125 of the volume 1a submission matrix be deleted?

The RFP will be amended. Row 125 of the volume 1a submission matrix will be deleted.

Question # 974 Section: Section L

27.2

Question:

In the response to Question 547, GSA indicated that the requirement for a submission matrix is satisfied by completion of a submission matrix in the AcquServe portal, but Section L.27.2 still states that a submission matrix is required in each of the six volumes of the proposal. Will GSA amend the solicitation to remove the requirement for a submission matrix in each volume of the proposal that is in Section L.27.2?

Answer:

Table L.27.2 will be amended to remove the Submission Matrix listing as part of a requirement under each Volume. The submission matrix shall be submitted as one document via AcquServe.

There is no need to submit duplicate submission matrices with each Volume of the proposal.

Section L.25 #1 will be amended to remove the words "for each volume" in the following sentence.

The offeror shall complete the submission matrix in its entirety via AcquServe. A copy of the matrix is in Section J.19.

Question # 986 Section: Section L Section # 25

How would the Government like the offerors to acknowledge receipt of amendments 05 and 06 on SF-33? There is room for only 4 amendments on the SF-33.

Answer:

Section L.32.4 is amended to add the following sentence: 'Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of Amendment 05 and greater with an affirmative statement in its Business Volume.'

Question # 975 Section: Section L

27.3

In loading files into the AcquServe portal, is each proposal volume required to be consolidated into a single file, or can multiple files be submitted to the portal for each proposal volume For example, can each Appendix be submitted as a separate file? RFP Section L.27.3 indicates one file name per volume, and the AcquServe User Instructions for EIS Proposal Submissions is not clear on this topic.

Answer:

The AcquServe Portal will allow more than one file per volume. The second paragraph in Section L.27.3 will be amended to state: 'The file names shall identify the offeror’s name, volume name, date, sequence number (for multiple files), and revision number (if appropriate).'

Questions and Answers That Do Not Include RFP Changes

Question # 973 Section: Section B Section #

GSA's clarification of jurisdiction requirements and the error checker in Amendment 6 was very helpful. We have discovered another issue with the error checker function in AcquServe: To comply with requirements for CONUS to ROW off-net termination for a voice product (e.g., IPVS, CSVS, or CSDS), the error checker requires the bidder to select the off-net termination jurisdiction for these product (CSVS, IPCS and/or MWS). However, by selecting a jurisdiction for service availability, the error checker then requires the bidder to offer all mandatory CLINs for that particular jurisdiction. For example, if a bidder offers voice services from CONUS to Albania, the error checker creates an error if the bidder doesn't also offer all mandatory services FROM Albania as well. This is inconsistent with J.1.2 Non-Domestic Service Coverage, which states, "Non-domestic service is not required except as defined below. Table J.1.2.1 shows countries/jurisdictions where the contractor is required to support off-net voice terminations for Internet Protocol Voice Service (IPVS), Circuit Switched Voice Service (CSVS) and Wireless Service (MWS)." Please change the error checker so that bidders may choose jurisdictions for service end-points without also being required to offer all mandatory CLINS for those jurisdictions as origination points. We respectfully suggest that this change should apply to all two-side products.

Answer:

The error checker does not require an offeror to select, in step 5 of the Service Selection Tool, the off-net termination jurisdiction for those services (CSVS, IPCS and/or MWS) in order to comply with the requirements in Table J.1.2.1.

Offerors comply with the requirements in Table J.1.2.1 by populating the corresponding Section B tables for CSVS, IPVS, and/or MWS.

Offerors are not required to offer all mandatory CLINs for those jurisdictions in Table J.1.2.1 as origination points unless they intend to offer service in those jurisdictions which is accomplished by making the selections the offeror refers to, and by populating the appropriate B tables.

Question # 978 Section: Section B

2.2.2.1.8

Question:

When selecting OCONUS and NONDOM regions for CSVS in Step 5 of Service Selection tool, should we select the regions that coincide with originating jurisdiction, terminating jurisdiction, or both?

Answer:

If the offeror wishes to propose offering CSVS as an originating service in a non-CONUS location, then the offeror must select those non-CONUS locations in step 5.

The offeror shall price terminating CSVS calls in the list of country/jurisdictions in Table J.1.2.1, and does not need to indicate in Step 5, which country/jurisdictions they are terminating service.

Question # 967 Section: Section C

2.8.8.4

Question:

In the notes section of C.2.8.8.4, GSA defines the Grade of Service for Video Teleconferencing Service as being "calculated as the ratio of the number of locations successfully completing a VTS call divided by the total number of locations scheduling a VTS call within a calendar month". The definition continues "The contractor shall compute the number of service requests denied by counting the cumulative number of locations associated with each VTS conference that could not be scheduled for a particular date and time requested in a calendar month." We take exception to this definition of Grade of Service for Video Teleconferencing Service. This formula will reduce the Grade of Service when end users schedule and then do not make any attempt to join the conference. The second part of the definition measures scheduling capacity as opposed to service availability.

Answer:

This question was answered in Q&A #580 and Section C.2.8.8.4.1 Note 2 was changed in Amendment 04. A new sentence was added after the second sentence of Note 2 and reads as follows: "Locations that schedule a Video Conference and then decide not to join will be treated as successfully completing a VTS call for Grade of Service (Completed Service Requests)."

Question # 970 Section: Section C

2.8.4.1.2

Question:

Section C.2.8.4.1.2 states "MTIPS Shall comply with "current and future regulations, policies, requirements, standard and guidelines" The contractor shall update its SCRM Plan to include any future changes to the NIST SCRM Guidelines". In addition, section L.30.2.2 states "The offeror shall update its SCRM Plan to include any future changes to the NIST SCRM Guidelines and all such modifications shall be implemented at no cost to the government." We cannot commit to comply with undefined requirements. We assume that if a future change to a requirement impacts cost of performance, we will have the opportunity to request an equitable adjustment to the contract. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we will make every effort to comply with future, undefined regulations, policies, requirements, standards and/or guidelines.

If MTIPS is proposed, offerors shall comply with SCRM requirements as specified for MTIPS in C.2.8.4.5.4 Item 17 which states: "The contractor shall develop and maintain a Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan. The contractor shall develop a SCRM Plan to reduce supply chain risks to performance and security of the contractor’s MTIPS throughout the contractor’s Muli-Agency TICAP solution life cycle. The contractor shall provide an SCRM Plan for the information system with its proposal to include annual updates (References: NIST SP 800-161 and NIST SP 800-53 R4: SA-12)."

In addition, compliance with MTIPS SCRM requirements will be assessed post-award per C.2.8.4.5.3.

Section C.1.8.4 applies to all EIS services and states: " Throughout Section C, references are made to standards (including interim standards, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Requests for Comments (RFCs), or de-facto standards) as they existed at the time of contract award. If a standard is defined by a specific version and/or date, then that specific version of the standard shall be implemented. Otherwise, compliance with the latest versions of these standards is expected." These are not considered new requirements but standards or de-facto standards and shall require compliance.

Separately, a Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan is required by G.6.3 and related instructions in L.30.2.2. In order to clarify the last sentence in the last paragraph of G.6.3 and L.30.2.2, the last sentence shall be amended to read: The offeror shall update its SCRM Plan to include any future changes to the NIST SCRM Guidelines and all such modifications to the Plan shall be made at no cost to the government.'

Question # 982 Section: Section J

2.10.2.2.9

Question:

J.2.10.2.2.9, J.2.10.3.2.2. "Section J.2.10.3.2.2 definition for agency_identifier states, "Agency bureau code identifies the agency / sub-agency; Alphanumeric 8; Ref:

ABCODE.agency_Identifier". In reviewing the data mapping for ABCODE reference dataset in J.2.10.2.2.9, the construct of the agency_identifier is unclear as is the intended use for the ABCODE reference table within the contractor's BSS. Q: Since agency_identifier is a key component throughout the prescribed data structure and understanding from prior Q&A, a comprehensive list of agency_identifer code will not be provided until following award, can GSA at least provide 1 or 2 sample data records in the prescribed ABCODE reference data format as an example to aid in the contractors' analysis and design of agency_identifier within its BSS?

Answer:

The following are sample entries from the ABCODE reference table (note: these values are samples only and may or may not change with the release of the official ABCODE reference table).

agency_identifier: 04701000 agency_description: GSA-Office of Administrator new_ab_code: 04701 sub_bureau_code:

active: Y old_ab_code: 4701 agency_name: GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION bureau_name: Office of Administrator sub_bureau_name:

agency_identifier: 07002000 agency_description: DHS-United States Coast Guard new_ab_code: 07002 sub_bureau_code:

active: Y old_ab_code: 7002 agency_name: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY bureau_name: United States Coast Guard sub_bureau_name:

agency_identifier: 01302000 agency_description: COMMERCE-Minority Business Development Agency new_ab_code: 01302 sub_bureau_code:

active: Y old_ab_code: 1302 agency_name: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE bureau_name: Minority Business Development Agency sub_bureau_name:

agency_identifier: 01637000 agency_description: LABOR-Mine Safety and Health Administration, Office of Assessments new_ab_code: 01637 sub_bureau_code:

active: Y old_ab_code: 1637 agency_name: DEPARTMENT OF LABOR bureau_name: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Office of Assessments sub_bureau_name:

agency_identifier: 03309000 agency_description: SMITHSONIAN-Freer Gallery of Art new_ab_code: 03309 sub_bureau_code:

active: Y old_ab_code: 3309 agency_name: SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION bureau_name: Freer Gallery of Art sub_bureau_name:

agency_identifier: 06801000 agency_description: EPA-Office of Water Programs new_ab_code: 06801 sub_bureau_code:

active: Y old_ab_code: 6801 agency_name: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY bureau_name: Office of Water Programs sub_bureau_name:

Question # 976 Section: Section L

27.3

Question:

We request that GSA provide an additional training session concerning the AcquServe portal (and especially the population/uploading process for the Submission Matrix) due to the release of the December 21, 2015 v.1.2 of the AcquServe User Instructions for EIS Proposal Submissions

Answer:

An additional Acquserve portal training session has been scheduled for Wednesday, February 10, 2016 from 1:00 p.m to 3:00 p.m. Instructions for joining the session are as follows:

To access the training, copy the following link into a web browser:

https://meet.gsa.gov/eisacquserve/ Additional information on the meeting is listed below:

- Audio Conference Details: Participant Code: 369898, Conference Number(s): US (Toll): 1-719- 325-2013; US (Toll Free): 1-866-928-2008

- If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before: test your connection:

https://meet.gsa.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm

- Get a quick overview: http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html

Question # 977 Section: Section L

27.3

Question:

Why was "Tech_Vol.txt" shown in a screen shot on page 47 of the revised AcquServe User Instructions for EIS Proposal Submissions under both 1. Technical and 3. Past Performance?

And why do both entries not comply with the file naming convention required in L.27.3?

Answer:

The user guide was describing the process for selecting a file and was not intended to be read by the user to indicate any file name conventions.