Round2 Q A 4-3-08.doc

Solicitation Number: RTAS-RFP-08002 April 3, 2008

ROUND 2 - QUESTIONS and Answers Regional Telecommunications Acquisition Services (RTAS) RFP

1. Question: We respectfully ask the Government to extend the due date of this RFP response from March 14, to April 25, 2008, an additional six weeks. This time is needed to allow offerors sufficient time to receive answers from the GSA to all industry questions, and to prepare complete responses for submission of a compliant response.

Response: The RFP due date has been extended to 04/16/2008.

Question: Round 2: We respectfully ask the Government to extend the due date of this RFP response from April 16, 2008 to May 28, 2008. The RFP changes received in Amendment 2 are not clear, offerors are attempting to compare original RFP requirements with unmarked, newly written requirements to note changes, and price workbooks are in need of further clarification, which is causing delays in development of pricing. Offerors need sufficient time to work on this solicitation following receipt of answers from the GSA to all industry questions, and to prepare complete responses for submission of a compliant price and technical response.

Response: Round 2: The RFP has been extended to May 19, 2008.

B.1.4 Instructions for Pricing The second paragraph states that, “…the Offeror may not propose any additional price elements not included in the formatted structure.” However, in B.5, Optional Services Proposed by Offeror, the Government states, “…Offeror may propose optional services for inclusion in the RTAS contract and provide pricing….” There seems to be some contradictions within the RFP scope regarding additional products/services not identified in the RFP. B.1.3 and B.5 allow optional products. B.1.4, B.5, and L.31.4 do not allow optional products.

7. Question: Will the Government provide further explanation of what is not allowed and/or define “price elements”?

Response: The price elements are the charges developed for each CLIN (SIC and MRC). The SIC and MRC would be the raw rate of the service, the tax portion will include all taxes, surcharges and fees associated with the SIC or MRC and the Total Inclusive Price is the total of those two amounts.

Question: Round 2: The Government answer to Section B, Question #7 “…the tax portion will include all taxes, surcharges and fees associated with the SIC or MRC ” seems to contradict B.1.3; H.16 and H.27 and also the answer to Question # 65. Will the Government please clarify?

Response: Round 2: The SIC and MRC would be the raw rate of the service including all surcharges and fees, the tax portion will include only the mandatory taxes associated with the SIC and MRC and the Total Inclusive Price is the total of those two amounts.

C.1.3.2.1 Geographic Boundaries This section defines the six state footprint of IL, IN, MI, MN, OH and WI, but does not have any exclusion.

17. Question: Will the Government please detail its plans for incorporating or excluding the recently awarded contract in Chicago and the active solicitation in Cincinnati?

Response: The RTAS solicitation covers all Regional locations, the services in Chicago and Cincinnati will be re evaluated after RTAS is awarded to determine the best price for the service required.

Question: Round 2: The original synopsis for the RTAS requirement explicitly stated that Chicago and Cincinnati were excluded. However, the subsequent solicitation included these cities. Has the GSA considered the fact that its decision to include these additional requirements after publishing its intent could represent a material change in the Government’s requirement? Specifically, this factor could have had significant influence on a potential Offeror’s decision to participate/not participate in this procurement and therefore provide the basis for a protest of the solicitation or subsequent award.

Moreover, in the GSA Response to Q&A Question #17 dated March 10, 2008, the GSA stated that the RTAS solicitation covers all Regional locations, “the services in Chicago and Cincinnati will be re evaluated after RTAS is awarded to determine the best price for the service required”. Please clarify how services in Chicago and Cincinnati will be "re evaluated" after RTAS is awarded.

Is the GSA expanding the realm of fair consideration to include CALSC and Cincinnati contract holders? If so, please explain how the GSA will conduct an equitable “Fair Consideration” evaluation during the administration of these contracts. (Also See Items 33 and 89).

Response: Round 2: The geographical boundaries of the Greater Cincinnati area and Northern Kentucky (the originating and terminating service area defined as within the boundaries of the Area Codes 513 and 859) and the Metropolitan Chicago area (the originating and terminating service area defined as within the boundaries of the Area Codes of 224, 312, 630, 708, 773, and 847) have been excluded from this requirement.

C.2.1.2.6

The Government states: “…Each federal building shall be reviewed individually for this requirement by the offeror and any questions or concerns about its applicability shall be discussed with the COTR and CO.”

22. Question: Will the Government please provide details on how the Government expects each building to be reviewed individually?

Response: In order to transition the services at each building, GSA will provide the existing quantity of services and the RTAS vendor shall work with the incumbent vendor regarding delivery of those required services. A transition plan will then be developed by all parties involved.

Question: Round 2: Will the Government please detail incumbent provider requirements regarding building reviews and transition plans? This additional clarity will help bidders better understand what level of detail will be provided during individual building reviews.

Response: Round 2: A site survey identifies the incumbent’s method of service delivery. After site survey has been conducted transition plan will be developed. Vendor may provide a different solution of the service delivery.

C.2.1.2.9 The Government states they “…may require the Offeror to perform a system certification of the inside wiring…prior to acceptance.”

26. Question: What acceptance is referenced in “…prior to acceptance.”? Acceptance of the order?

Response: Acceptance of the TOPS service order.

Question: Round 2: Will the Government explain in Section C (C.2.1.2.9) how said “system certification of the inside wiring” is to be accomplished by receiving and accepting the TOPS order that will be issued to perform the work that would require certification? It seems that the answer to this question is like putting the “cart before the horse.”

Response: Round 2: After receiving the TOPS order the Government may require the offeror to perform a system certification of inside wiring between Government – designated points (e.g., the NETPOP and SDP) to determine whether the order can be completed based on the original service request.

C.2.1.7 Interoperability The Government states: “The GSA recognizes that different levels of interoperability (i.e., partial or full) exist commercially, particularly in the area of data networking.”

31. Question: How does the Government expect compliance with this requirement given that some services have no interoperability between platforms or across industry providers?

Please provide examples.

Response: Please clarify, GSA does not understand “given that some services have no interoperability between platforms or across industry providers?” Provide examples of services which have no interoperability between platforms or across industry providers.

Question: Round 2: How does the Government expect compliance with this requirement of interoperability as stated in Section C (C.2.1.7) given that some services have no interoperability between platforms or across industry providers? Examples: Abbreviated dialing between Centrex and POTS within the same Vendor’s network or between that Vendor’s network and another’s. A second example, voicemail sharing may work within the same Centrex, but it wouldn’t work between Vendors. Another example: Sending a broadcast message. It is a function of the VMS specific to that vendors VMS platform.

Response: Round 2: The GSA recognizes that different offerings of interoperability (i.e., partial or full) exist commercially, particularly in the area of data networking. Interoperability shall be made available for any service offered by the Offeror and be interoperable with other RTAS Offerors service. The Offeror shall notify GSA of the details regarding the degree of interoperability available for the services.

32. Question: “The Offeror shall support interoperability for service offerings to allow a user of a service from one RTAS contract to be able to communicate with users of services from other service providers, RTAS and others, with equivalent service.” So Offerors better understand the requirement, will the Government please provide clarity on “…and others…” in this sentence?

Response: RTAS is a multi award contract; we are looking for interoperability between all RTAS awarded vendors and the vendors of other GSA contracts, such as Networx.

Question: Round 2: Upon further review of the definitions, industry requires further specifics regarding interoperability.

Response: Round 2: See response to Question 31.

C.2.1.8.1 Numbering Plan and Dialing Plan

This paragraph references the NXX blocks in Section J.3.1. When reviewing Section J.3.1, it is the NXX listing from CALSC.

33. Question: Will the Government provide a new list of NXXs and revise Section J.3.1?

Response: Yes, a list of NXXs related to the RTAS area has been provided in Attachment J-5.

Question: Round 2: As requested in Item 17 above, could the Government clarify its intent with regards to the inclusion/exclusion of Chicago and Cincinnati under RTAS?

Response: Round 2: See response to Question 17.

Table C.2-3 Required VS Basic Capabilities and Features

47. Question: Will the Government provide a further breakdown structure on the capabilities and functionalities for the various types of lines? Offeror requires further definition of an RTAS line and an RTAS trunk.

Response: A RTAS line is any of the following; analog line (Centrex or POTS), ISDN BRI, a RTAS trunk refers to a DOD or DID trunk as well as PRI.

Question: Round 2: Will the Government provide a further breakdown structure on the capabilities and functionalities for the various types of lines as part of this solicitation as stated in Section C (Table C.2-3)? Not all features and functionalities work for the various types of services. More information is needed from the Government about which feature is to work with each type of line service.

Example: Intercom dialing cannot be achieved dialing in or out of a POTS line.

Response: Round 2: Provide what features you offer commercially with each type of line service.

C.2.5.2 Features

C.2.5.2 through C.2.5.2.1.8

Seems to be missing for the Features section of the RFP

57. Question: Will the Government provide requirements for this Features section of the RFP?

Response: This has been changed, the reference to C2.5.2.1.9 Service Level Guarantee / Restoration of Service has been moved to C3.5.4.4 and a reference added to C.2.1.10.4. The other paragraphs have been removed.

Question: Round 2: NOTE: all of C.2.5.2 and its subsections have been deleted. Is this what the Government intended?

Response: Round 2: Paragraph C.2.5.2 was not in the original RFP. Paragraph is “Reserved”.

C.3.2.4 Provide Price Quotes

This requirement states the Offeror will provide price quotes to an agency (DODB) or to a GSA representative.

61. Question: Will the Government confirm whether the Offeror will be required to provide price quotes to GSA representatives for Centrally-Billed orders? If so, will the Government provide the GMF that is to be incorporated into the quoted rate?

Response: Yes, the offeror will need to provide the contract price quote. The GMF is not required to be quoted.

Question: Round 2: Will the Government confirm whether the offer will be required to provide price quotes including the GMF to the DODB Government DAR?

Response: Round 2: The price quotes to the DODB Government DAR will include the Associated Government Fee (AGF). The AGF is not required to be quoted separately. It would be all inclusive.

C.3.2.11.1 Service Order Completion and Acceptance The Government states: “…The Offeror shall be responsible for coordinating with any other Offerors who may be involved in activating the service to ensure that everything necessary to complete the service order has been accomplished. If we provide service and have tested to SDP1, then a hand-off will occur and installation requirements will have been satisfied.

63. Question: Will the Government please define what is meant by “…shall be responsible for coordinating….”

Response: The RTAS vendor issued the TOPS order shall coordinate services to the SDP requested.

Question: Round 2: The answer to Question #63 doesn’t account for “…coordinating with any other Offerors” as stated in C.3.2.11.1. Please explain what the Government means by “coordinating with any other Offerors”. Also provide an example.

Response: Round 2: Example, using another CLEC for service delivery.

C.3.4.3.2.7

Requirement states that, “The Offeror shall itemize all mandatory state and local taxes, surcharges, and fees on the invoice….”

65. Question: Will the Government provide clear explanation for how this itemization should appear given the requirements in Section B to include the surcharges in the base price of the service?

Response: The taxes, surcharges and fees shall be included in the service (CLIN) MRC not individually on the invoice; this has been changed in C.3.4.3.2.7.

Question: Round 2: Will the Government please provide clarity with regard to Surcharges. Are they supposed to be included as part of the base monthly price per product, or included as part of the taxes, as detailed on answer to Questions #7 and 101.

Response: Round 2: See response to Question 7.

H.25 Associated Government Fee(s)

The contractor shall collect the RTAS Associated Government Fee(s) from Direct Billed Customers on a monthly basis throughout the life of the contract. This fee represents any direct or indirect costs incurred by the Government associated with the RTAS program such as, but not limited to, the contract management fee.

86. Question: Will the Government please clarify the difference between the Contract Management Fee shown above and the Associated Government Fee?

Response: The two fees are different, The AGF is associated with the services billed to an agency Direct Order Direct Bill (DODB), the other is the fee GSA charges for management and delivery of the RTAS services.

Question: Round 2: Will the AGF only apply to DODB customers? Is the Contract management Fee the only fee the Government will charge End User agencies when services are purchased from the GSA via centralized billing?

Response: Round 2: The last sentence from H.25 will be omitted from the RFP.

The AGF is associated with the services billed to any agency Direct Order Direct Bill (DODB), therefore the AGB only applies to DODB customers. There is no contact management fee for the RTAS contract; however there is a GSA Region 5 surcharge that the Government will charge End User agencies when services are purchased from the GSA via centralized billing.

H.29 Historical Buildings The Government requires all work in historical buildings to conform to a set of special requirements.

87. Question: Please confirm that all 599 buildings identified on the Excel workbook titled “Copy of RTAS-Reg5-Historical Buildings. List,” which includes buildings like 230 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL., is a list of historical buildings.

Response: The list provided is GSA most current list of historical.

Question: Round 2-A: Historical Buildings have special requirements regarding contractor work. It seems as though every Government Agency building in support of RTAS is on the Historical Buildings list. Will the Government please provide details of how they determined all of these buildings to be historical?

Response: Round 2-A: A correct list will be attached.

Question: Round 2-B: Is it the Government’s intention to have Offerors follow all Historical Building special set of requirements as detailed in H.29, H.29.1 and H.29.2 in compliance with 36 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR Part 800 and all aspects of the Secretary of Interior’s Standard for the Treatment of Historic Properties”) for all 599 buildings on this list including seeking approval documents by the Public Building Service?

Response: Round 2-B: There are 13 buildings that are nationally registered and 22 that are eligible for a total of 35. See correct list.

SECTION J

J.3 RTAS Service and Location Information Seems to only address Chicago, IL, yet this contract is for six states. Further, J.3.1 suggests the Government provides a listing of current NPA-NXXs served by RTAS, but Table J.3-1 RTAS NPA-NXXs only has the metro-Chicago NPAs listed.

89. Question: Please provide the appropriate NPA-NXXs for RTAS.

Response: Attachment has been added in Section J. See Attachment J-5.

Question: Round 2: As requested in Item 17 and 33 above, could the Government clarify its intent with regards to the inclusion/exclusion of Chicago and Cincinnati under RTAS?

Response: Round 2: See response to Question 17.

SECTION L

L.31.5 Computational Rules

The offeror shall submit complete prices for all five years of the contract period.

101. Question: The sentence shown above from the Government’s requirement states that the offeror shall submit prices for all five years of the contract. In Section B.1.2, the Government states that the RTAS opportunity is “…a four year base with four option years.” Will the Government please clarify which is correct for the RTAS opportunity?

Response: This has been changed to read eight years.

The remainder of this requirement references the application of surcharges into the Total Evaluated Discounted Cost. Surcharges are to be included in the base price of service.

Question: Round 2: This answer as stated seems to be consistent with the Government’s answer to Question #7, yet seems to contradict the answer as stated in Question #65 and the Solicitation Sections B.1.3, H.16 and H.27. Please provide direction as to where Surcharges are to go.

Response: Round 2: See response to Question 7.

110. Question: Additionally on the Usage worksheets of all states but IL, the title of the table is CLSC Usage pricing Table. Again, please define CLSC.

Response: This has been changed to read “RTAS area usage”.

Question: Round 2-A: On the Q&A Pricing Workbook section, the Government has indicated in response to question #110 that CLSC “…has been changed to read “RTAS area usage.” As offerors refer back to the pricing workbooks for each state, it is evident that only IL reflects RTAS and all other states still reflect CLSC. Request the Government to update all other states and resubmit pricing workbooks.

Response: Round 2: Correction to Usage workbook has been made.

Question: Round 2-B: The Government’s labeling of “RTAS area usage” is confusing. It is understood the Government is seeking local usage as it would apply throughout the RTAS footprint. Suggest the Government change the column titled “Charge Type” on the usage tab from “RTAS area usage” to “IL local usage” for Illinois and use the same format for the other states.

Response: Round 2: The workbook has been changed in the “Charge Type” column. Offerors shall insert the applicable usage coverage area.

On the Other Charges Pricing Table There are labor category entries for: WEB Authoring/Developer; LAN/WAN Integrator; Voice Communications Specialist; Data Communications Specialist; Data Entry Operator; Program Manager; Project Manager; and Documentation Specialist. However, in Section C.3.3.4, under Professional Support and Table C.3-2, there are no Labor Categories for the labor types.

111. Question: Please provide clarity on these entries on the Other Charges Pricing Table and those identified in Section C.3.3.4 and Table C.3-2.

Response: The pricing tables have been corrected.

Question: Round 2: On the Q&A Pricing Workbook section, the Government has indicated in response to question #111 that the RTAS pricing tables have been corrected. Upon further review, Amendment 2 reflects no changes in the pricing workbooks and there is still a discrepancy between what is asked for in Section C.3.3.4 and Table C.3-2 when compared with the “Other Charges” tab of the Pricing Workbooks for all six states. Request the Government to update all states and resubmit pricing workbooks.

Response: Round 2: Table C.3-2 is just an example of the types of charges listed in the other charges table.

On the Other Charges Pricing Table There is an entry for End User Training. However, in Section C.3.6, Customer Training and C.3.6.1 as stated: “The Offeror shall provide customer training to the following groups:” the GSA details the groups to be trained. No training is identified for End-User Training.

112. Question: Please provide clarity on this entry on the Other Charges Pricing Table and that identified in Section C.3.6.

Response: The requirement has been removed.

Question: Round 2: On the Q&A Pricing Workbook section, the Government has indicated in response to question #112 that the requirement has been removed for End User Training. Upon further review, the IL Pricing Workbook Amendment 2 still asks for End-User training, but the other states have been updated to remove this requirement. Request the Government either update all states to remove this requirement and resubmit pricing workbooks or define End-User training in Section C.3.6.

Response: Round 2: The requirement for End-User training has been removed.

125. Question: C.1.3.3 Mandatory RTAS services – C.1.3.3.1 states of the six service groups three will be mandatory, voice, DTS and IAS. However it appears that section C.1.3.3.2.implies that CSDS service are mandatory as well. Please clarify and change the language in C.1.3.3.2 to state “Offerors may propose CSDS services to be eligible for award”.

Response: The reference has been will be corrected to state “……may propose CSDS …” Question: Round 2: Will the Government please review Amendment 2 Section C.1.3.3.2 for verification the Government as stated offerors “…may propose CSDS…”? Upon further review of C.1.3.3.2, no such specific reference to CSDS is found. Please update response to Question #125 or Amended Section C.1.3.3.2 accordingly.

Response: Round 2: The correct reference to this question for Circuit Switched Data Services (CSDS) is C.1.3.3.1.2. An amendment to the RFP for section C.1.3.3.1.2 will state the following: Offerors may propose data services. The Government has specified data services described herein.

132. Question: B.1.3.1 Will the government allow vendors to offer volume discounts (per line) based upon total number of lines installed at a given location? This would be in addition to volume discounts for total monthly billed revenue and would reflect to cost of provisioning analog lines where a digital circuit can replace multiple analog lines more cost effectively. In this case the vendor would be responsible for the conversion of digital to analog and hand off of the correct interface at the customer premises.

Response: Yes, GSA encourages the use of this type of service delivery.

Question: Round 2: Will the Government please further define volume discounts and provide an example as to when and how the volume discounts would apply?

Response: Round 2: It is the Offerors determination on how to apply volume discounts based on your own business practice.

134. Question: C.2.1.2.1 Inside Wiring. Is the government requiring vendors to provide a single CLIN price for a service type regardless of where in the building the service terminates (SDP1-SDP4)? Please specify that the CLIN for voice, data internet services etc are for delivery to the MPOP and service delivered beyond the MPOP to SDP 2-4 may incur additional charges for labor and materials. The industry standard practice is to provide a single price to the MPOP, and should the SDP move away from the MPOP additional charges may be incurred and should be passed along to the government. This is accommodated via the CLIN for cabling and inside wiring in the B Tables. B.1.3.2

Response: A diagram providing the definitions of each Service Delivery Point (SDP) and the vendor responsibilities to each SDP for 1) transition of services, 2) new service installations and 3) maintenance to each SDP will be provided by February 29, 2008.

Question: Round 2-A: In the Pricing Workbook section of the Amendment 2 Q&A, Question #134, will the Government provide further specifics on the diagram which was to have been provided by February 29, 2008? If the diagram has been provided, please detail the document name.

Response: Round 2: The document which was provided in Amendment No. 2 is titled, GSA SDP Requirements.

Question: Round 2-B: How does this diagram differ from the SDP diagram originally provided (Figure C.3-3 which has been re-titled Figure C.4-3)?

Response: Round 2: Figure C.4-3 is a diagram and Attachment J-4 titled GSA SDP Requirements is a written description of the diagram.

143 . Question: Reference Section B.1.2 - The price schedules contain only one column to input the applicable tax on each CLIN. However, there are multiple taxes that may apply depending on the municipality or county. The price schedule format does not allow for identification of the taxes as requested. Will the Government please revise its schedules or advise bidders on how to populate the tax column?

Response: The applicable taxes shall be described using Section B.1.3 which references Tables B.1-1 and B.1-2. Also reference Section B.1.3.2, item 7. Mandatory Taxes. The total of these taxes, surcharges and fees shall be placed in the respective pricing table column “Mandatory Taxes on SIC” and “Mandatory Taxes on MRC” with the associated CLIN.

Question: Round 2: Will the Government please provide clarity with regard to Surcharges? Are they supposed to be included as part of the base monthly price per product, or included as part of the taxes, as detailed on answer to Questions #7 and #101?

Response: Round 2: See response to Question 7.

156 . Question: Reference Pricing Tables, Tab "Usage" –

a. This pricing table has the term "CLSC," which is not defined in J.1. What is the meaning of this term?

b. What percentage of the traffic will be switched / dedicated termination?

Response: a. The reference has been corrected to read RTAS. b. That will depend on your response and the network that supports your service.

Question: Round 2: Please refer to subsequent question related to Pricing Workbook question #110 and GSA’s answer. Updates are still required. Request the Government to update the pricing workbooks for all states and resubmit pricing workbooks.

Response: Round 2: See response to Question 110, 2-B.

157. Question: Reference B.1.6 - Pricing Table Section J-4 is referenced. Does the Government mean Attachment J-3, or is there a missing document?

Response: This has been corrected to reference J-3.

Question: Round 2: Industry is still confused with regard Government’s answer to Question #157. When looking at Section B.1.6, no reference to attachment J-3 can be found. Also, when looking at Attachment J-3, it references Service Contract Act Wage Discriminations. Industry did notice attachment J-6 referenced in Section B.1.6, which relates to Pricing Workbooks. Is the update to Section B correct and the answer to Question #157 inaccurate?

Response: Round 2: The correct reference is Attachment J-6.

159. Question: Reference Pricing Tables, TAB DTS - This table does not specify transmission speed, it only shows NPA to NPA combinations. What speeds need to be priced?

Response: DTS Tab has been removed. Pricing should be included on tab entitled, Dedicated Access PT to PT Pricing Table. This tab has been added in Pricing Tables.

Question: Round 2: In reviewing Government’s response to Pricing Workbooks question #159 which inquires about DTS and the lack of specified transmission speeds, the Government has indicated the DTS Tab has been removed and that a Dedicated Access Pt to Pt Pricing Table has been added to the Pricing Workbooks. When checked, all six states still have the DTS tab in the Pricing Workbooks and none of the six states have this new tab titled “Dedicated Access Pt to Pt Pricing Table.” Request the Government provide further direction with regard to the DTS tab and the aforementioned Dedicated Access Pt to Pt Pricing Table tab. Request the Government update Pricing Workbooks for all six states to account for said changes.

Response: Round 2: The DTS tab has been removed. Use “VS-DS Dedicated Access Service” tab.

162. Question: Reference Pricing Tables , Tab DTS - This table only specifies NPA to NPA combinations. Pricing for these circuits is typically mileage-sensitive. Is the Government looking for postalized rates for NPA to NPA combinations with no mileage charges?

Response: No, the Government is not looking for postalized rates. DTS circuits will need to be priced per mile on a case by case basis. A change has been added to the pricing table to add “per mile”

Question: Round 2: In reviewing Government’s response to Pricing Workbooks question #162 which addresses mileage on transport, the Government refers to a change on the DTS table to accommodate for mileage. Yet, in the Government’s answer to question #159, the Government has indicated the DTS tab has been replaced. No update as detailed in answer to question #162 is found on any of the six state specific Pricing Workbooks, nor has any other tab been found as a replacement to the DTS tab for any of the six state-specific Pricing Workbooks, as detailed in the Government’s answer to question #159. Request the Government provide further direction with regard to the DTS tab and mileage. Request the Government update Pricing Workbooks for all six states to account for mileage or allow Industry to add the mileage components to transport services accordingly.

Response: Round 2: The Government will allow industry to add the mileage component to transport services accordingly.

164. Question: Reference B.1.6.3 - Is the DTS Pricing Table intended to be used standalone, or in connection with another Pricing Table?

Response: Yes, table is intended to be used as a standalone.

Question: Round 2: In reviewing Government’s response to Pricing Workbook question #164 which addresses the intent of GSA’s DTS tab, the Government affirms it is to be used as a stand-alone tab. Yet, when Industry evaluates the DTS tab, no transport bandwidths are mentioned at all. There was an example in Section B.1.6.3 of a Concatenated OC-12. Is industry to provide all mileage only for OC-12 service as was the example in B.1.6.3? Or is the Government going to address the different bandwidths of transport with regard to mileage? Or is this tab going to be replaced by another tab which will account for the various forms of mileage associated with all the requested bandwidth levels of transport. Or, will the Government allow Industry to accommodate for mileage accordingly? Request the Government either clarify or allow Industry entries related to transport mileage.

Response: Round 2: The Government will allow entries related to transport mileage.

167. Question: Reference Pricing Tables, Tab Other Charges - Please provide the specifications for the End User Training that is requested. The charging unit is “each”. Is this for each person or each class?

Response: This requirement has been removed.

Question: Round 2: On the Q&A Pricing Workbook section, the Government has indicated in response to question #167 that the requirement has been removed for End User Training. Upon further review, the IL Pricing Workbook Amendment 2 still asks for End-User training, but the other states have been updated to remove this requirement. Request the Government either update all states to remove this requirement and resubmit pricing workbooks or define End-User training in Section C.3.6.

Response: Round 2: The requirement for End-User training has been removed. Pricing workbooks will be corrected.

178. Question: Reference Pricing Tables, DTS tab - The NPAs for each of the state tables are only for Illinois. How would these be used in states outside of Illinois?

Response: All states have been included.

Question: Round 2: In reviewing Government’s response to Pricing Workbook question #178 which addresses the inclusion of all states for use with the GSA’s DTS tab, the Government affirms the DTS tab is to be used for all six states. Yet, upon review of the IL DTS tab, all NPAs are within the Metro-Chicago area and no NPAs are listed outside of the Metro-Chicago area, therefore no NPA coverage addresses the rest of the state of IL. Upon review of the remaining 5 state-specific DTS tabs, none of them have any entries for Originating NPAs or Terminating NPAs. Further, when the Government answered Pricing Workbook question #159, the Government has indicated that the DTS tab has been removed and replaced by a “Dedicated Access Point to Point Pricing Table.” Request the Government provide further direction regarding NPAs or update Pricing Workbooks for all six states to account for mileage for each transport bandwidth or allow Industry to add the mileage components to transport services accordingly.

Response: Round 2: NPAs have been deleted. Industry to provide NPAs based on what is commercially available.

179. Question: Reference Pricing Tables, Features tab - CLINs 0217 through 0220 do not appear to apply to the voice transport services shown in the columns. Can the Government explain how these features can be used in this table?

Response: The CLINs have been removed.

Question: Round 2: In reviewing Government’s response to Pricing Workbook question #179 which addresses CLINs 0217 through 0220, the Government states it has removed these CLINs. Upon review of the Features Tab of all six pricing workbooks for all years of service, the CLINs 0217 through 0220 still remain on each state-specific Pricing Workbook Features tab. Request the Government to update the Features tabs to remove the CLINs as the Government has indicated in answer to Pricing Workbook question #179 or request Government provide explanation as requested in the original question #179 as to how these features can be used for voice services addressed on this table.

Response: Round 2: The CLINs have been removed.

191. Question: Reference Excel Spreadsheet Tables, Tab IAS-- Please confirm that this tab only includes the Internet port and that access is obtained via the “VS-DS Dedicated access Svc" Tab.

Response: Yes Question: Round 2-A: In reviewing Government’s response to Pricing Workbook question #191 which addresses port-only charges on the IAS tab, the Government refers Industry to the VS-DS Dedicated access Svc” tab. What tab is the Government referring to as VS-DS Dedicated access Svc tab? No tab exists on the pricing workbooks for any of the six states. Request Government correct response to answer of question #191 or provide said “VS-DS Dedicated access Svc” tab.

Response: Round 2:

Question: Round 2-B: It is industry practice to provide IAS using a single transport Local Distribution Channel (LDC). The Government may have been referring to VS-CSDS Dedicated Access Svc in their answer to question #191. If this is the case, Industry delivers a Point to Point circuit using two (2) LDCs. If the Government intends on directing IAS pricing to VS-CSDS Dedicated Access Svc tab for the transport, the Government will be over billed by one Local Distribution Channel. It would seem prudent to allow IAS to include the single LDC transport element as part of the IAS price. Remember, with any LDC, mileage may be a factor. No accommodations for IAS mileage have been made. Request the Government provide further direction on IAS and its associated transport or request Government allow industry to embed LDC price as a cost element of IAS and modify the state-specific IAS pricing workbooks to account for mileage.

Response: Round 2-B: The Government will allow industry to embed LDC price as a cost element of IAS and modify the state specific IAS pricing workbooks to account for mileage based on what is commercially available.

CLINs 0217 through 0220, the Government states it has removed these CLINs. Upon review of the Features Tab of all six pricing workbooks for all years of service, the CLINs 0217 through 0220 still remain on each state-specific Pricing Workbook Features tab. Request the Government to update the Features tabs to remove the CLINs as the Government has indicated in answer to Pricing Workbook question #179 or request Government provide explanation as requested in the original question #179 as to how these features can be used for voice services addressed on this table.

Response: Round 2: The CLINs have been removed.

192. Question: Reference Excel Spreadsheet Tables, Tab DTS, B.2.3--Please confirm that this tab only includes the transport requirement and that access is required per the Excel spreadsheet tables "VS-DS Dedicated access Svc" Tab. Please also elaborate how bandwidth speeds are designated in the spreadsheet.

Response: DTS Tab has been removed. Pricing should be included on tab entitled, Dedicated Access PT to PT Pricing Table. This tab has been added in Pricing Tables.

Question: Round 2: In reviewing Government’s response to Pricing Workbook question #192 which inquires about DTS and transmission bandwidth speeds, the Government has indicated the DTS Tab has been removed and that a Dedicated Access Pt to Pt Pricing Table has been added to the Pricing Workbooks. This answer is consistent with the Government’s answer to question #159, also inquiring about DTS. When checked, all six states still have the DTS tab in the Pricing Workbooks and none of the six states have this new tab titled “Dedicated Access Pt to Pt Pricing Table.” Request the Government provide further direction with regard to the DTS tab and the aforementioned Dedicated Access Pt to Pt Pricing Table tab. Request the Government update Pricing Workbooks for all six states to account for said changes.

Response: Round 2: The DTS tab has been removed. Use “VS-DS Dedicated Access Service” tab.

197. Question: Reference C.3.1.4.1 begins with the statement: “The Marketing Plan shall include:”, but there is no information regarding the content of the desired Marketing Plan. Is it the Government’s intent to provide a framework or outline for the Marketing Plan, or are the Offerors responsible for developing a Marketing Plan for this contract?

Response: C.3.1.4.1 has been changed.

Question: Round 2: In reviewing Government’s response to Section C (C.3.1.4.1) question #197, which addresses the Marketing Plan, the Government has indicated in response to that question, that C.3.1.4.1 has been changed. Upon review of amended Section C.3.1.4.1, no change has been made and the statement still reads “The Marketing Plan shall include:” and offers no further information or direction. It is missing information which has not been added as a result of Amendment 2. Request the Government either remove the requirement of C.3.1.4.1 or provide specifics as to what the Government would like the Marketing Plan to include.

Response: Round 2: Section C.3.1.4.1 has been amended to read the following: The Marketing Plan shall be developed after award.

198. Question: References C.3.2.8.1.3 and C.3.2.8.2 refer to service availability in emergencies. C.3.2.8.2 states that the Offeror is to work with the ACO to respond to emergencies. However, there is no reference to emergencies that require Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) until Section C.6.7.1. Should TSP be addressed as part of Service Availability Intervals when discussing emergency services? If yes, would the Government please modify the RFP to include TSP in the requirements for service availability in emergencies?

Response: A change in reference to TSP has been made in Section C.3.2.8.1.3.

Question: Round 2: In reviewing the Government’s response to Section C (C.3.2.8.1.3 and C.3.2.8.2) question #198, which addresses emergency services and TSP, the Government has indicated a change in Section C.3.2.8.1.3 has been made to accommodate for TSP. Upon review of Amended Section C, no said TSP reference in Section C.3.2.8.1.3 can be found. Request the Government provide further direction with regard to emergency services and TSP in section C or correct the Government’s answer to question #198 to state no reference to TSP has been made.

The Government indicated in response to that question, that C.3.1.4.1 has been changed. Upon review of amended Section C.3.1.4.1, no change has been made.

Response: Round 2: The correct response is no, the restoration of services is depended upon the TSP code assigned to the facility.