EIS_RFP_QTA0015THA3003_-_SF30_Amendment_0013_ALL.docx

OMB Approval 2700-0042

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

CODE

General Services Administration/FAS/ITS Office of Acquisition Operations 1800 F Street, NW, 4th Floor Washington DC 20405

QTA0015THA3003

1710 H. Street, NW, 7th Floor

10/16/2015

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

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.

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.

Timothy Horan Contracting Officer

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

RFP # QTA0015THA3003

Amendment #0013

Revisions to the EIS RFP

This amendment includes the following:

· Instructions for acknowledging the amendment.

· Changes to the RFP Sections.

· Clarifications regarding the RFP.

The revisions are listed based on the UCF Sections.

Amendment Acknowledgement

Offerors shall acknowledge this amendment in the Business Volume of their final proposal revision.

The RFP is amended as follows:

Section B

1. Section B.1.1, last paragraph, is amended to read as follows:

“The contractor shall not process orders nor will the government pay invoices until the contractor has submitted these prices into GSA Systems (see Section J.2.3). The contractor shall submit into GSA Systems a copy of the resulting TO for purposes of validating the orders, bills and invoices as defined in Section J.2. For a complete description of the ordering requirements, refer to Section G.3.”

2. Section B.1.3.1, first paragraph, is amended to delete the words “for commercial items” from the end of the second sentence.

3. Section B.1.3.1, third paragraph, is amended to delete the words “the item shall be considered non-commercial and” from the twelfth bulleted item.

4. Section B.2.1.4.2, second paragraph, is amended to read as follows:

“For PLS transport avoidance features, additional mileage shall be calculated as the difference between the avoidance route miles and the distance calculated using the V&H coordinate formula in Section B.1.2.7.”

5. Section B.2.2.1, second paragraph, item 1, is amended to read as follows:

“IPVS (Includes unlimited on-net to on-net and unlimited CONUS on-net to CONUS off-net calling):

a) Hosted.

b) Premises-Based.”

6. Section B.2.2.1.1, first paragraph, item 1, is amended to read as follows:

“Basic service per telephone number (Includes unlimited on-net to on-net and unlimited CONUS on-net to CONUS off-net calling)”

7. Table B.2.2.1.2.3, Notes column, first sentence, is amended to read as follows:

“Includes unlimited on-net to on-net and unlimited CONUS on-net to CONUS off-net calling.”

8. Section B.2.2.1.6.1, first paragraph, item 1, is amended to read as follows:

“Basic Service (Includes unlimited on-net to on-net and unlimited CONUS on-net to CONUS off-net calling)”

9. Table B.2.2.1.6.4, Notes column, first sentence, is amended to read as follows:

“Includes unlimited on-net to on-net and unlimited CONUS on-net to CONUS off-net calling.”

10. Section B.2.2.1.7, first paragraph, is amended to read as follows:

“Unlimited on-net to on-net and unlimited CONUS on-net to CONUS off-net calling shall be included with SIP Trunk Basic Service.”

11. Table B.2.2.1.8.3 is amended to add CLIN VI31445 SIP Trunk: DID Number Capture.

12. Section B.2.2.2.2, first paragraph, item 1, is amended to read as follows:

“Unlimited on-net to on-net and unlimited CONUS on-net to CONUS off-net calling)”

13. Table B.2.2.2.3.3 is amended to add the following sentence in the Notes column for CLIN VS14410:

“Usage is billed via CSVS usage-based CLINs VS13010/VS13020.”

14. Table B.2.2.2.3.3 is amended to delete CLIN VS14450.

15. Table B.2.2.2.3.3 is amended to change the charging unit for CLINs VS11435/VS12435 to “Implementation” and change the Notes to read as follows:

“NSP.

Feature may be administered by number and/or by location.”

16. Table B.2.2.2.3.4.2 is amended to add CLIN VS11250 ISDN PRI: DID Number Capture.

17. Section B.2.8.2.1, second paragraph, is amended to read as follows:

“The price structure for WCS includes the following elements:

18. Section B.2.9.1.7, second paragraph, is amended to read as follows:

“Special Access Construction prices shall not be applicable to provision a circuit ordered by the CLINs in Table B.2.9.1.5 if:

1. A domestic building NSC is mapped to a PHub ID in Table B.4.1.7 for which a price exists on contract in Table B.2.9.1.1, or

2. A non-domestic price exists for the NSC/CLIN combination in Table B.2.9.1.2 unless the contractor proves that sufficient capacity is not available solely for the Government.”

Section C

1. Section C.1.8.8 bullet 3 is amended to add the following at the end of the item. “These contractor-performed actions related to EINSTEIN--whether performed for DHS, GSA, or customer agencies--are intended to be assistance provided to the Secretary of DHS in accordance with 6 U.S.C. § 151”.

Section G

1. Section G.2.2.1.1 is amended to change the phrase in the first paragraph to "per OGP 4800.2I" vs. “per ADM 4800.2H”.

Section G.3 is amended to change the phrase in the first paragraph to "per OGP 4800.2I" vs. “per ADM 4800.2H”.

Section I

1. Section I is amended to update the dates on various clauses.

Section J

1. The RFP will be amended in Section J.2.4.1.10, bullet 3, sub-bullet 3 to “The value to be provided as the UBI state is defined by combining the Band Low and Band High values from the associated Section B table separated by a single colon. For example, if the Band Low value is 10 and the Band High value is 100, the UBI state is 10:100." vs. "The state is the actual band name/designator as defined in Section B or in the TO".

2. The RFP will be amended in Section J.2.5.1.5.1 to replace all current text with the following:

The contractor shall support one or both of the following proration types:

1. Month-Length Proration, defined in Section J.2.5.1.5.1.1

2. Normalized 30-Day Month Proration, defined in Section J.2.5.1.5.1.2 The contractor shall indicate which proration type or types are supported in its proposal. The contractor shall also indicate the proposed proration type in its response to each customer agency solicitation.

If a contractor does not support the proration type specified on a customer TO solicitation, the contractor may respond to the solicitation provided it clearly indicates in its response that it does not currently support the requested proration type.

The contractor may add support for a previously unsupported proration type at any time without contract modification by following the BSS Change Control process in Section G.5.5.1. The contractor shall complete successful retesting of the BSS test cases associated with proration prior to billing.

3. The RFP will be amended in Section J.3, last paragraph to read "OGP 4800.2I" vs "ADM 4800.2H".

4. The RFP will be amended in Section J.12, entry for "Authorized User" to read "OGP 4800.2I" vs "ADM 4800.2H".

5. The RFP will be amended in Section J.12, entry for "Customer" to read "OGP 4800.2I" vs "ADM 4800.2H".

Section L

1. Section L.27.2 number 3 (c) is amended to state: line spacing does not apply to the Table of Contents.

Clarifications to the RFP:

In Amendment 12, the government included the following language to Section B.2.9.1, below Table B.2.9.1.7, for Special Access Construction: "Special Access Construction prices shall not be applicable if: 1. A domestic building NSC is mapped to a PHub ID in Table B.4.1.7 for which a price exists on contract in Table B.2.9.1.1, or 2. A non-domestic price exists for the NSC/CLIN combination in Table B.2.9.1.2 unless the contractor proves that sufficient capacity is not available solely for the Government." Access providers price access through tariffs, MSAs, or schedules that establish price levels defined for general areas of coverage that are subject to the availability of facilities. Service providers to the government in turn price access based upon the existing tariffs and available coverage information from access providers, but without a guarantee of availability. Actual service availability (SDP-specific), availability of facilities, and/or capacity at the SDP are only obtained at the time of order, and are outside of the EIS offerors' control in a pre-award environment. Special Access Construction allows for the associated availability risk to be assessed only in situations where it is needed. It has also been a mechanism that reflects the commercial pricing practices, tariff-based pricing, and special build charge framework overseen by the FCC. The revised language in Section B.2.9.1 also conflicts with a subsequent reference in the paragraph that states Special Access Construction will be based on TO requirements and site survey output, and also conflicts with the provisions under C.2.9.1.1 for the applicability of special construction to scenarios beyond capacity unavailability. The Amendment 12 change also requires EIS offerors to guarantee availability for priced sites and to absorb special construction costs for locations mapped in Table B.4.1.7 and priced in Table B.2.9.1.1. This will result in higher charges across all priced locations and bandwidths, or may inadvertently cause a significant reduction in the number of NSCs that can be assigned to PHubs. In addition, this is a significant deviation from commercial practices, comes late in the procurement cycle, and will negatively affect EIS offerors' proposal coverage and pricing. Furthermore, charges, and methodologies for defining these charges, while overseen and approved by the FCC, vary from one LEC to the other in relation to the assessed cost for the build or required expansion, and are typically attached to the order that requires the build, and without allocation to future beneficiaries of the build. Therefore, the burden of proof that the capacity is needed for the sole use of the government adds a constraint outside of the offerors' span of control. We request the government remove this added language altogether, or at a minimum, amend it as follows to ensure the highest coverage and lowest pricing is proposed available to the government? "Special Access Construction Prices shall only be applicable if: 3. The requested access is unavailable due to capacity or other facility constraints, or due to TO-specific requirements for alternate routing, as defined in the provisions under section C.2.9.1.1. 4. Suitable access alternatives are either unavailable or do not meet the needs of the contracting agency, and 5. Appropriate documentation identifying the rationale and estimated cost for the Special Access Construction is provided."

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to clarify that the restrictions for special access construction do not apply to diverse routes (See Section B, Item 18 above). In addition, since the restrictions apply to CLINs and NSCs where the price exists, then it does not apply to a TO-specific requirement for alternate routing which is ICB. The restrictions are also clear that they do not apply to the situation where there isn't sufficient capacity.

An example of sufficient proof of the lack of sufficient capacity would be a letter signed by the EIS vendor that states the current capacity of the facility or infrastructure, how much is utilized, the remaining capacity, and the requested government capacity and the rationale why adding capacity without special construction is not possible.

Question:

Amendment 12 was just released asking for pricing updates but there is no response date posted. Can the government please provide the response deadline for Amendment 12?

Answer:

Offerors that are in the competitive range have received instructions regarding how to acknowledge Amendments 0012 and 0013.

Question:

Is the due date for accomplishing the B-Table re-upload required in the GSA e-mail; Notice to EIS Offerors - Acquserve Changes - Action Required, firmly established as July 7th or will offerors have some period of time to assess the Amendment 12 changes before re-upload?

Answer:

The due date for accomplishing the B-Table re-upload described in the GSA e-mail was not July 7th. Offerors may repopulate these tables at any time prior to the next proposal submission deadline. Offerors will be advised of the submission date for revised proposal by the CO at a later date.

Question:

Are offerors required to revise only the six B-Tables identified in the GSA e-mail; Notice to EIS Offerors - Acquserve Changes - Action Required dated 27 June, to acknowledge/account for the changes in these six tables included in Amendment 12?

Answer:

The six B-tables identified in the GSA e-mail were called out for special handling because GSA was making structural changes to the tables that might destroy the data stored in the tables. Offerors should check those tables and repopulate them if necessary. Offerors are free to update any and all pricing tables at their discretion prior to the call for final proposal revisions.

Question:

Should offerors assume that any pricing changes potentially resulting from Amendment 12 would not be addressed at this time in the re-upload of tables identified in the GSA e-mail; Notice to EIS Offerors - Acquserve Changes - Action Required dated 27 June?

Answer:

Offerors are free to make changes to their pricing tables at any time between now and when the CO requests final proposal revisions.

Question:

On 7/6/16, AcquServe posted: "Added BTables 221331, 22171, 222191 to Rule 39." However, as of Amendment 12, BTable 221331 no longer exists (renumbered to 22135). Can the government please confirm that BTable 22135 was added to Rule 39?

Answer:

The table previously numbered 221331 is numbered 221351 as of Amendment 12, and this table (221351) was added to error checker rule 39 for Amendment 12.

Question:

This vendor is confused by the phrase "sufficient capacity is not available solely for the Government." Does this mean that if there is sufficient available capacity to meet the Government's requirements, regardless of commercial requirements into the same location, the Government will not pay for Special Access Construction? TelCos generally increase access capacity in excess of the current need to reduce overall costs. In the case where there is not sufficient available capacity to meet the Government's requirements, is the actual portion of the build covered by the Government negotiated on a TO by TO basis? Please clarify.

Answer:

If there is no need for special construction to add capacity to service a government location, then there is sufficient capacity, regardless whether the existing capacity is serving government or commercial customers.

If there is not sufficient capacity, the cost of the special construction is negotiated within the task order.

Question:

B.2.8.2.4.2 Web Conferencing Event-Based Pricing Instructions Table has been amended to include three CLINs each for both Audio Streaming and Video Streaming, with user increments of "up to 1,000 attendees," "1001-2000 attendees," and "2001-3000 attendees." Would GSA consider changing the four CLINs that apply to Audio and Video streaming to over 1,000 attendees (CLINs WC00102, WC00104, WC00112, and WC00114) to "ICB" so that these CLINs could be priced at the Task Order stage? Commercially, we see no demand for these services at these levels.

Answer:

GSA will not change these CLINs to ICB. This is not a new requirement. New CLINs were added to allow for a different charge for each range of attendees commensurate with the resources deployed with each range.

Question:

Tables B.2.8.3.2.1 Unified Communications CONUS Service Prices Table and B.2.8.3.2.2 Unified Communications OCONUS and Non-Domestic Service Prices Table have been amended to replace "Price per Seat" with "Variable Price." It is unclear what is meant by "variable" in this context. Would GSA provide a clarification or an example of how offerors would apply Variable Price for Unified Communications Service?

Answer:

Section B.1.2.4 describes the difference between fixed price banding and variable price banding and provides examples of how prices are calculated using each banding type. With variable price banding, the banded value serves as an index into the price table to select the correct row, and then the value in the variable price column of that row is multiplied by the banded value to arrive at the CLIN price.

For UCS, the CLINs in instruction table B.2.8.3.2.3 use a charging unit of "Seat". To price these CLINs in banded price tables B.2.8.3.2.1 and B.2.8.3.2.2, you would use the number of seats to select the appropriate row in the price table, then you would multiply the number of seats by the unit price in the Variable Price column to obtain the CLIN price.

Question:

New language in the amended B.2.9.1.7 states that Special Access Construction prices shall not be applicable when pricing exists "unless the contractor proves that sufficient capacity is not available solely for the Government." Would GSA please provide examples of what it would accept as proof that sufficient capacity is not available solely for the Government? In addition, would GSA please clarify what is meant by "solely for the Government" (as opposed to "for use by the Government")?

Answer:

An example of sufficient proof would be a letter signed by the EIS vendor that states the current capacity of the facility or infrastructure, how much is utilized, the remaining capacity, and the requested government capacity and the rationale why adding capacity without special construction is not possible.

"Solely for the government" refers to the capacity requested solely for the use by the government.

Question:

The amended B.2.10.2.1 SRE Catalog - Product Specification Table, now includes a new note #3 that reads "For each unique case number, the combination of Manufacturer+Model No.+Part No. shall be unique." The majority of manufacturers do not provide model numbers that could be used as unique identifiers. However, the combination of Manufacturer+Part No. would still create a unique combination for the case number. Would GSA consider revising note #3 in B.2.10.2.1 to remove the requirement for a Model No.?

Answer:

Table note #3 will not be revised. Table note #3 does not say that model numbers need to be unique. It says that when you concatenate the Manufacturer and Model No. and Part No., that combined character string must be unique.

The Model No. column of the SRE Catalog Product Specification Table B.2.10.2.1 is a required column. For catalog items where there is no model number, the offeror shall populate the Model No. column with "N/A", as specified in Table note #2.

Question:

The OCONUS OWS Transport Pricing Table (2.1.3.2.3), the Non-Domestic OWS Transport Pricing Table (2.1.3.2.4), and PLS Transport Pricing Table (2.1.4.1.2) have been amended to include an entry for "Variable" Price Per Mile. It is unclear what is meant by "variable" in this context. Would GSA provide a clarification or an example of how offerors would apply Variable Price Per Mile to their pricing?

Answer:

Section B.1.2.4 describes the difference between fixed price banding and variable price banding and provides examples of how prices are calculated using each banding type. With variable price banding, the banded value serves as an index into the price table to select the correct row, and then the value in the variable price column of that row is multiplied by the banded value to arrive at the CLIN price.

The word "Variable" was added to the Variable Price Per Mile columns to clarify that those price columns use the variable price banding calculation, not the fixed price banding calculation.

For the three OWS/PLS price tables in question, the quantity of miles is used to select the appropriate row in the price table, then the number of miles is multiplied by the unit price in the Variable Price Per Mile column to obtain the variable price component. Lastly, the variable price component is added to the unit price in the Fixed Price column to obtain the total CLIN price.

Question:

The RFP specifies two sources for NSCs. - Source 1: Section J.2.10.1.1.3 states that a contractor shall use CLONEs database to derive the NSC. B.4.1.5.1.1 also states: "The contractor shall interface with and use the iconectiv CLONES system to obtain and maintain NSC data" - Source 2: Section B.1.2.17.2, Government-Maintained Tables, the government will maintain each reference table for contractors to access via GSA Systems. Examples include Country/Jurisdiction Identifications Table B.4.2.1 and Network Site Codes Table B.4.1.8. Can a contractor chose one or the other at their preference, providing the same results to the government?

Answer:

The contractor would use one or the other depending upon the existence of the NSC. If the NSC already exists for the desired location, the contractor would use Table B.4.1.8. If an NSC does not yet exist for the desired location, the contractor would work with iconectiv to have an NSC created in the CLONES database and would use the information from the CLONES database until that information makes its way into Table B.4.1.8.

Question:

In Amendment 12, GSA amended Section B.2.1.2.3 to delete the second paragraph that states: "when an EVC spans CONUS and OCONUS, OCONUS rates shall apply. An EVC spanning CONUS and/or OCONUS with non-domestic shall be priced as non-domestic." With the deletion of this paragraph, can GSA please confirm (1) what rates will apply when an EVC spans CONUS and OCONUS and (2) what rates will apply when an EVC spans CONUS and/or OCONUS with non-domestic?

Answer:

E-LINE EVC rates are determined by the originating and terminating country/jurisdiction IDs that are populated in E-LINE EVC price Table B.2.1.2.3.1. The country/jurisdiction ID columns can be populated with CONUS, OCONUS, or non-domestic IDs as needed.

Question:

In Amendment 12, GSA added the haversine great-circle distance formula to OWS Transport avoidance features. Commercial best practice typically uses V&H coordinates to calculate distance formulas. Use of the haversine-based formula could result in minimal differences in mileage calculations but will require offerors to maintain separate non-standard mileage calculations for avoidance. Please amend the RFP to either allow the provider to state what calculation basis it will use, or require a V&H coordinate-based formula.

Answer:

In Amendment 12, GSA added the haversine great-circle distance formula to OWS Transport, not to OWS Transport avoidance features (which do not exist for OWS) as the offeror is asserting. Section B.2.1.3.2 states that CONUS-to-CONUS distances shall be calculated using the V&H coordinate distance formula listed in Section B.1.2.7. Amendment 12 amended Section B.2.1.3.2 to add that distances involving OCONUS or non-domestic locations shall be calculated using the shortest airline miles obtained from the haversine great-circle distance formula. The RFP will not be amended.

Question:

GSA has heretofore pledged to ensure that non-incumbent bidders receive all current Networx non-proprietary information that can be made publicly available. This includes inventory reports as well as pricing available on the Networx Unit Pricer. However, there is one area that has been overlooked that places non-incumbents in a very unfavorable position when Agency Task Orders are issued. Networx ICB pricing is supposed to be available, but it requires knowledge of the ICB specific Case Numbers. Currently case numbers are only available to the Networx incumbents. Vital information available to the Networx incumbents with regard to ICBs and case numbers, is currently unavailable to non-incumbents for areas such as MNS, Access Arrangements, and various data transport services. In order to ensure that meaningful competition is fostered, how will GSA make ICB Case Numbers available to all offerors?

Answer:

As stated in the answer to question 48, current and past year Networx fixed-price CLINs are available on the Networx Pricer per the T&Cs of the contract and we will not be providing additional information at this time.

Meaningful competition is fostered at the task order stage when agencies release their requirements to the EIS contractors. Incumbents as well as non-incumbents will be provided the same requirements to offer proposals and price ICB CLINs as necessary to meet those requirements.

Question:

Table B.1.2.1.1 is amended to require contractors to price the required NS/EP CLINs under B.3.2.2 NS/EP Pricing Instructions Table. However, the CLINs in B.3.2.2 only reference the Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) system of NS/EP. In addition to TSP, G.11.3 Department of Homeland Security Office of Emergency Communications Priority Telecommunications Services also requires contractors to fully comply with both Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) and Wireless Priority Service (WPS). G.11.3 also states: "There is no cost to enroll in GETS, though usage fees may apply." B.2.6.7.2 Wireless Feature Pricing Instructions Table includes a usage-based CLIN (WL02000) for WPS. We recommend that GSA also provide a similar CLIN for GETS under B.2.2.1 Internet Protocol Voice Service and B.2.2.2 Circuit Switched Voice Service. This would allow contractors to recover the corresponding usage fees for GETS if required.

Answer:

The RFP will not be changed. Section B is consistent with how the government has permitted contractors to recover costs for providing this service on other contracts.

Question:

The government makes the following reference to failing to price EVCs (CLINs EN00010 through EN00046) for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico in the "ets_eline_evc_prices" table but there is no error produced by the error checker for that table in EIS AcquServe: "The offeror's proposal_mandatory_cbsas table contains CBSAs in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. However, the offeror failed to price any EVCs (CLINs EN00010 through EN00046) for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico in the ets_eline_evc_prices table." Will the government update the error checker to reflect that the EVCs (CLINs EN00010 through EN00046) for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico in the ets_eline_evc_prices table are required?

Answer:

The government will not update the AcquServe Error Checker to address the problem cited in the ets_eline_evc_prices table. The automated AcquServe Error Checker is not designed to detect all possible problems in an offeror's proposal. The government used a manual error detection process to discover the errors mentioned in the offeror's question.

In Amendment 12, the following statement was added to Section L.35:

"The AcquServe Error Checker exists to assist the offeror in preparing a complete and accurate proposal but it is not exhaustive and its use does not absolve the offeror of its responsibility to submit a complete and accurate proposal."

Question:

The amended E.2.1 states "Test data, as described in Section E.2.1.3, and test verification criteria will be provided at the time of BSS testing." The final BSS Verification Test Plan is due 30 days after NTP. If the test data and verification criteria will not be provided until BSS testing what is expected in the final test plan? Will this deliverable include the reference data for the 32 tables in section J.2.10.2.2?

Answer:

The EIS RFP Section E.2.1 states "In support of BSS testing, GSA will provide test parameters as follows. BSS test scenarios are provided in Section E.2.1.2. BSS test cases are provided in Section E.2.1.3. Test metadata (including approximate number of TOs, SOs, and other data sets to be used in testing) will be provided not later than NTP. System reference data, as described in Section J.2.3, will be provided not later than NTP." This information is sufficient for offerors to finalize the BSS test plan that is due 30 days after NTP.

Question:

Amendment 12: No. 72 Section J.2.4.1.5 Contract Line Item Number changed a reference section from J.2.3.3.3 to J.2.4.3.2 and states: "Each orderable element is identified by a Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), which may be associated with a case number. The government has the following CLIN requirements for ordering: 1. The contractor shall provide the CLIN and any associated ICB data element(s) for each line item in all ordering deliverables as required in Section J.2.4.3.2 Contractor Provided Data Sets: Deliverables." However, only the SOCN deliverable/dataset contains the CLIN data element within the referenced table. Please revise the requirement to read: 1. The contractor shall provide the CLIN and any associated ICB data element(s) for each line item within the SOCN deliverable as required in Section J.2.4.3.2 Contractor Provided Data Sets: Deliverables.

Answer:

The government does not agree with the recommendation as it has no material impact on the requirement and increases the complexity and risk associated with long-term contract management.

Question:

With reference to question # 101 of the current Amendment 12, at the time of submission, we explained in our pricing narrative (Vol. 6, Section 1.5 --Geographic Coverage Strategy) that our coverage strategy is two-fold. First, we provided CONUS pricing for mandatory CLINs in the Top 25 CBSAs. Our CONUS geographic strategy is one of economies of scale, as we recognized that a significant amount of the services that shall be provided during the performance of this contract will occur in the top-25 CBSAs. Nonetheless, we have a robust nation and world-wide team, and continue to desire to expand our services to non-domestic and OCONUS locations. Will an amendment allow us to include these in our proposal?

Answer:

No. Amendments to the RFP are not a means to allow offerors to revise their proposals. Furthermore, offerors should not be asking questions with regards to their proposals.

Question:

With reference to the current Amendment 12, will the offerors in the competitive range be required to submit a the revised proposal and if so will we be allowed to submit pricing data for non-domestic and OCONUS services at that time if these were not included in our original submission?

Answer:

Please refer to FAR Subparts 15.306 and 15.307 for specific guidance on this issue.