BOEING Questions and Clarifications Q1. What criteria and trade-offs will be applied in determining which of the eight alternative approaches to pursue since they accomplish somewhat different management objectives? A1. The criteria to be used will be included in the analysis report due to be published in August 1994. Q2. Is Alternative 8 a serious candidate under consideration for the post-FTS2000 environment since returning to individual Agency acquisitions would be a return to the situation that existed prior to 1988 or even earlier? A2. All enumerated alternatives were considered serious and viable options at the beginning of the government's analysis. Alternatives will be deleted and/or refined during the course of the analysis. Q3. Since the IMC analysis of alternatives will not be available for comment until August 14, 1994 and industry comments are not due until September 24, 1994, it appears that the October 1994 milestone date shown in Figure 1-1 of the White Paper will be difficult to meet. Does Figure 1-1 take into account the potential consolidation of the post-FTS2000, DISN, and GETS acquisitions? Are the milestone dates for draft RFP release in March 1995 and release of the final RFP in September 1995 still achievable with consolidated GSA and DOD acquisitions? If not, what are the revised milestone dates? A3. The government's analysis of alternatives is addressing the consolidation of DISN and GETS into the post-FTS2000 program. At this time, the government intends to adhere to the schedule shown in Figure 1-1. The following reflects a revised schedule for August and September: o August 30 - release of major analysis findings o September 13,14,15 - written and oral comments to be received by the government (Department of Commerce auditorium) o September 30 - last date for submission of written comments Q4. If integration support services are part of the post-FTS2000 acquisition strategy, will the integration support contract(s) be awarded in time to support the acquisition of post-FTS2000 carrier services? A4. The government intends to award all contracts supporting the post-FTS2000 acquisition strategy in time to perform their appropriate functions. Q5. The roles and responsibilities of the Technology Infusion Advocate referred to in the first bullet at the top of page 1-8 are not clearly defined. Will this function be similar to the DISA/ARPA new technology initiative as proposed for FISN? A5. The government is still refining specific roles as part of its analysis. At this time the role of the Technology Infusion Advocate is envisioned as ensuring that new commercially-available telecommunications services are infused into the post- FTS2000 environment in an effective and timely manner. Q6. A reading of the assumption at the top of page 2-3 that "maximum effective economies of scale for bulk service purchases are achieved at traffic volume levels much lower than those anticipated for the post-FTS2000 environment" would logically lead one to conclude that bundling of services as proposed in several of the alternatives will not result in cost savings, but award of a larger number of contracts for short periods of time could result in more complex contract management over the life of the contract. Please clarify the trade-offs and criteria that will be employed by the Government in assessing the alternatives and explain how the Government will apply economies of scale in selecting an acquisition strategy. A6. As noted in A1, the government will include the relevant criteria in the August analysis report. Due account will be taken of both cost and management issues, among others. Q7. Table 3-1 in Section 3.2.1 (Span of Service) shows physical end points that extend far beyond the service delivery points in the current FTS2000 environment. Is the Government considering extending the span of service for the post-FTS2000 to include customer premises equipment serving end users? This approach seems to be counter to the approach that is widely prevalent within the Government today where local authorities manage and control end user equipment and services rather than some distant centralized authority. A7. The government has not yet finalized the scope of the post-FTS2000 acquisition or acquisitions. Extension of the span of service beyond the current FTS2000 environment is being considered, among other options. Q8. If the Government elects to expand the span of service to include customer premises equipment and facilities such as PBXs, LANs, routers, building wiring, etc. as indicated in Table 3-1, would the carrier service providers be expected to provide the equipment and services within buildings and campuses for the broader span of service or would these services be provided by integration contractors (non- carriers)? A8. The government has not yet finalized the scope of the post-FTS2000 acquisition(s). In the event that scope is extended to include CPE, the provision of CPE would be determined by the alternative selected. Q9. It would appear that several of the alternatives would require the Government to implement network management centers to manage end-to-end services in a multiple service provider environment rather than relying on the FTS2000 service providers managing service between SDPs as is currently the case with the existing FTS2000 services contracts. If this is a correct interpretation, will network management services be acquired from sources other than carriers and acquired separately from transmission services? A9. Provision of network management, transmission services, and other services depends on the alternative selected. Tables 4-1 through 4-7 of the white paper indicate the government's current thinking. These tables will be refined during the course of the government's analysis. US West Questions and Clarifications Q10. Please clarify the role of billing as a value added management service for each of the eight alternatives. A10. Where multiple providers are used, either to provide end-to-end service for a single type of service or for different services, agencies may wish to be presented with a single bill for services. The aggregation of multiple bills from different vendors is envisaged as service that may be provided by an integration contractor. Q11. Please explain why the contract lengths and usage policy vary among the eight alternatives. A11. While the contract lengths shown in the white paper are not necessarily exact, differences in contract duration are intended to illustrate differences of approach. It is intended that several dimensions (e.g., contract length, usage policy) for the eight alternatives will be refined during the government's analysis. Q12. How will the alternatives be updated or amended to reflect changes in the MFJ or other pending legislation affecting communications policy? A12. The alternatives selected are intended to be fairly robust with respect to regulatory and legislative changes. The government is monitoring regulatory and legislative issues, and will update or amend alternatives as necessary. Q13. In describing Alternative 4 (Regional Comprehensive Contracts) the White Paper states that regions will not necessarily adhere to the "current" Regional B[e]ll Operating Company boundaries. Does that statement hinge upon MFJ legislation or are there other circumstances under which a regionally structured procurement would not adhere to federally mandated RBOC boundaries? (reference page 4- 16) A13. Alternative 4 anticipates increased competition in local access. The statement referenced does not hinge upon MFJ legislation. Q14. In its September 1993 comments to Industry regarding the DISN, the DISA stated that the systems integrator would be prohibited from providing network services. In a post-FTS2000 acquisition, would the same prohibitions be included for the systems integrator? A14. The government is refining specific roles and prohibitions as part of its analysis. Q15. How will GSA make allowances for White Paper comments of a proprietary nature? A15. The government will no longer accept comments of a proprietary nature in the post-FTS2000 concept development context. Q16. How will the Source Evaluation Team weight/evaluate the "effectiveness" of the bidders in addressing the "high pay-off initiatives?" Please provide a model toward which they can bid. (Reference page 1-9) A16. The government believes that discussions of bidding or the activities of a possible Source Evaluation Team are premature at this time. Q17. Will the RFP address the level of service (line size/traffic volumes, etc.) which will be required by state and local governments, if they are to be integrated into the post-FTS2000 environment? (Reference page 1-9) A17. The government has not yet finalized the scope of the post-FTS2000 acquisition or acquisitions. Extension to State and Local government users is being considered, among other options. Appropriate data will be included in any RFP(s) for the selected alternative. AT&T Questions and Clarifications Q18. What are the requirements that the government would seek to satisfy through the acquisition alternatives delineated by the Acquisition Working Group (AWG)? A18. The alternatives are addressing requirements defined in the reports of the Future Communications Services Working Group and the Joint Concept Review Committee. Q19. What communities of need would be served? A19. The alternatives are addressing requirements defined in the reports of the Future Communications Services Working Group and the Joint Concept Review Committee. Q20. How has the work of the Joint Concept Review Committee factored into these acquisition strategies? Given that the White Paper suggests the possibility that the Department of Defense (DOD) requirements may be included in the post- FTS2000 environment, what military unique features will be included in as part of special requirements? . A20. The government has not yet finalized the scope of the post-FTS2000 acquisition or acquisitions. The extent to which agency unique requirements are to be met is under analysis. Q21. Does the AWG believe that the government's vision of NPR and NII may be implemented through each of the acquisition alternatives? A21. The government's analysis of alternatives will take into account their effectiveness in supporting various initiatives including the NPR and NII. Q22. How would/could partitioned services be offered on an integrated basis? A22. Please see A23 Q23. How would interoperability and a high level of reliability and accountability be achieved using multiple service providers and multiple integrators under separate contracts? A23. The government's analysis will address fundamental differences between the alternatives, including the provision of integrated versus partitioned services, interoperability, and reliability. Q24. In each scenario, describe how the government will assure that best value will be achieved. Give us the government's approach to developing best value criteria for (then list each alternative). A24. The government believes that discussions of bidding or the activities of a possible Source Evaluation Team are premature at this time. Q25. What sort of evaluation criteria would be used to evaluate offers in each of the acquisition alternatives? A25. The government believes that discussions of bidding or the activities of a possible Source Evaluation Team are premature at this time. Q26. How would the government ensure a stable, predictable performance environment for the contractors in each of the acquisition alternatives? A26. The government is not clear as to what was meant by this question. However, the contractors will be responsible for responding to changes in the performance environment. Q27. Is each of these alternatives able to be implemented within the current statutory and regulatory framework? A27. The alternatives selected are intended to be fairly robust with respect to regulatory and legislative changes. The government is monitoring regulatory and legislative issues, and will update or amend alternatives as necessary. Q28. When/how is the decision made for what is mandatory and what is optional? Could the telecommunications requirements of future systems integration programs also be made mandatory in a post-FTS2000 acquisition? Define the criteria. A28. The government has not yet finalized the scope of the post-FTS2000 acquisition or acquisitions. Changes in usage policy are being considered, among other options. Q29. With the concept of end to end service, does GSA intend to award different contracts for inter-exchange service and another for local exchange service? A29. Alternatives that are partitioned by span provide this option. Q30. Is it the Federal Government's intent to include State and Local government requirements in a post-FTS2000 procurement? A30. The government has not yet finalized the scope of the post-FTS2000 acquisition or acquisitions. Please see A17. Q31. Will the services provided as a result of current and future delegations of procurement authority be required to transition to the post-FTS2000 acquisition? A31. The government anticipates that these issues will be decided upon a case-by-case basis. Q32. How would the government acquire uniform services with interoperability if each agency were to conduct their own procurements? A32. The government's analysis will address fundamental differences between the alternatives, including the provision of integrated versus partitioned services, interoperability, and reliability. Q33. Upon what basis does the government conclude that "maximum effective economies of scale associated with bulk service purchases are achieved at traffic volumes much lower than those of the total anticipated post-FTS2000 environment?" (page xiii) and that economies of scale can be achieved for voice traffic at traffic volumes lower than the total anticipated post-FTS2000 environment? What is the forecast of minimum voice traffic volume to achieve economies of scale? A33. Please see the report of the Joint Concept Review Committee. Q34. How does the government expect to achieve postalized rates with multiple vendors? Would a postalized rate be sensitive to the parameters of time-of-day, distance, duration, CONUS, OCONUS, and/or international? A34. Pricing structures for post-FTS2000 are still under consideration. The intent of a postalized rate structure would be to create prices insensitive to the parameters such as time-of-day, distance, duration, CONUS, OCONUS, and/or international. In considering possible pricing structures, the government intends to follow commercial practices to the maximum extent possible. Q35. Does the government plan to offer any safeguards against continuous frivolous litigation? A35. The post-FTS2000 program must be procured in accordance with the appropriate Acquisition Regulations. Decisions to litigate or not litigate are controlled by the vendor community. Q36. Under Alternative 2, will the systems integrator contractor be allowed to provide the telecommunications services directly; or in instances where these services are competed, will the systems integrator contractor be allowed to compete? A36. Please see A14. Q37. What acquisition experience can the federal government cite to support procuring telecommunications services on a partitioned basis? Please give examples. Were the results favorable/unfavorable? A37. The government has defined a varied set of alternatives based on its requirements and comments received from industry. These alternatives attempt to minimize cost while providing quality services and reflecting the current and future telecommunications environment. The government's analysis will address numerous criteria that will be included in the August report. Q38. How receptive is the federal government to new alternatives? A38. The purpose of the Concept Development Record is to enable an ongoing public discussion between industry and the government. Any new alternatives may be submitted to the Concept Development Record prior to September 30, 1994 at cdr@post.fts2k.gsa.gov or at General Services Administration, Attention: Concept Development Record, 7980 Boeing Court, Vienna, VA 22182-3988. Q39. Has the federal government considered the real cost of acquisition when the services are recompeted at frequent intervals less than 10, 5, or 3 years? A39. Acquisition costs are being considered as part of the government's analysis of alternatives . Q40. Since the current FTS2000 is such a success, what is the central element or problem that the government is seeking to solve through each of the acquisition alternatives described? A40. The post-FTS2000 program, like the FTS2000 program, seeks to provide quality telecommunications services at economical and competitive prices. The defined alternatives address the continued provision of such services in a changing technological, marketplace, and government requirements environment. The government believes that the Concept Development Conference and the report of the Future Communications Services Working Group together indicate that future acquisition strategies must reflect such a changing environment. Q41. What is the nature of the software that the government envisions will be needed for end to end connectivity? A41. As the differences between telecommunications and computing equipment continue to blur, and as telecommunications equipment continues to become based on computer hardware and software solutions, software is inherently required in all aspects of end-to-end connectivity . Q42. Why are local access and switching services associated with each as a single span element that may be procured under one contract? Would not more flexibility and competition be obtained if these items were separated? A42. As stated in the question, the rationale and specifics of further separating local access and switching services are not completely clear. The government would appreciate further elaboration of this idea. Q43. How does the AWG define competition? What is the scope of the telecommunications market? A43. Competition is to be given its usual meaning. We do not understand what you mean by "the scope of the telecommunications market." Q44. What would be the specific responsibilities and authority of the Technology Infusion Advocate and how would the Advocate be selected? A44. The government is still refining specific roles as part of its analysis. At this time the role of the Technology Infusion Advocate is envisioned as ensuring that new commercially-available telecommunications services are infused into the post- FTS2000 environment in an effective and timely manner. Q45. Reference is made to "Key Issues for Post-FTS2000 Acquisition Planning," and the item related to "innovative electronic government applications," what is meant by integrated electronic benefit transfer and integrated electronic access to government information services? A45. These concepts are discussed in the National Performance Review document "Reengineering Through Information Technology" Q46. How does the government envision integrated electronic access being provided? How will the AWG measure effectiveness of alternatives in supporting these initiatives? A46. The Government Information Technology Services (GITS) working group is responsible for coordinating the implementation of the National Performance Review Information Technology recommendations, including integrated electronic access. The criteria to be used in evaluating alternatives will be described in the analysis report due to be published in August 1994. Q47. Given the direction of the telecommunications community, especially the consideration being given to 15-digit dialing, how can 7-digit dialing be adequate? How does the government envision establishing 7-digit dialing and interoperability across different providers' networks? A47. We presume you are referring to the concept of a Federal Area Code (white paper section 1.4.4). These issues are being investigated. Q48. Given the AWG's statement that the "Open" systems are proliferating rapidly, does the government envision abandoning government internal standards such as ADA and GOSIP? A48. The post-FTS2000 environment will recognize applicable federal standards. Q49. Regarding a Federal Area Code and 7-digit dialing, does the government propose to limit dialable entities to 10 million? How many Federal Area Codes is the government considering? A49. Consideration of a Federal Area Code is in the early stages. No details are available as yet. The government is interested in hearing industry's views on the future of voice and data dialing in the context of virtual private networks. Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) Questions and Clarifications Q50. The White Paper has done an excellent job of identifying FTS2000 acquisition alternatives. However, incorporation of DISN and GETS are not addressed. How will these DOD needs be addressed and incorporated into the acquisition alternatives? A50. The government's analysis of alternatives is addressing the consolidation of DISN and GETS into the post-FTS2000 program. DOD and other agencies are continuing to provide their requirements. Q51 Integration Contractors are discussed for roles in both Categories I and II. Different terms are used: Integration Contractor (Category I, Option 2); Systems Integration and Support Services (Category II, Options 3, 4, 6); and Management and Customer Support Services (Category II, Option 7). Category II, Option 5 uses still another terminology. What functions are the "integration contractors" expected to perform for each of these different terminologies? A51. The government is refining specific roles as part of its analysis. In general, in Alternative 2, the Integration Contractor is intended to serve in a comprehensive, pro-active role. In the other alternatives, the Integration Contractor is seen as playing a support role to the user. Q52. Category I lists two Options, "Continue Current Comprehensive Contracts" and "Integration Contractor". Is it the government's intent to exercise only one of these Category I Options, or if the Category I approach is chosen would an "Integration Contract" be put in place to oversee/manage the new "Comprehensive" contracts? A52. It is the intent of the government to exercise only one alternative. However, the white paper notes that the alternatives are expected to be modified during the course of the analysis, and the one eventually chosen may incorporate features of several of the eight developed to date. Q53 Since DISN and GETS requirements are not discussed in this White Paper, we assume the Integration Contractor options discussed are for FTS2000 only, and not the newly proposed joint procurement. Is this assumption correct? A53. No. Alternatives discussed in the White Paper are applicable for post-FTS2000 DISN and GETS requirements. Q54. DISA had intended to release a Draft RFP for the DISN "Integration Support Contract" (ISC) prior to the now planned merger of FTS2000, DISN and GETS. a) Is a DISN ISC procurement still planned? b) What is the expected schedule for the ISC procurement? When will the Draft RFP and RFP be released? c) Is the ISC contractor to be the systems integrator for DISN, or will DISA be the systems integrator, using the ISC contractor in a support role? d) Will this ISC contract be separate from the systems integration contract(s) discussed in this White Paper, or when DISN and GETS are incorporated into the White Paper will they potentially be merged into a single contracting need? A54. (a), (b), and (c) Questions relating to the DISN ISC procurement should be addressed to DISA. (d) System integration concepts discussed in the white paper are different in scope and role from the DISN ISC. As noted in the white paper, these concepts are subject to refinement as the government's analysis progresses. Specific questions about the ISC procurement should be addressed to DISA. Q55. Given a potential merger of FTS2000, DISN and GETS, which of the previously planned contracts will most likely still occur, and which are most likely to be canceled? What is the anticipated procurement schedule for those that survive? If none of these planned programs survive and are replaced by a new joint program, what is the anticipated procurement schedule for this new program? A55. Questions relating to DISN and GETS activities should be addressed to the cognizant agencies. Q56. Will current DISA communications networks be provided as GFE to the systems integrator(s)? Will current networks be consolidated by the system integrator(s) or by the government? A56. The government's analysis of alternatives is addressing the consolidation of DISN and GETS into the post-FTS2000 program. The government has not yet finalized the scope of the post-FTS2000 acquisition or acquisitions. Q57. What is or will be the role of NTIA in this acquisition? A57. Under the Brooks Act, GSA is the mandated agency responsible for the procurement of telecommunications services for the Federal Government. GTE Federal Systems Division Questions and Clarifications Q58. How may the report of the Joint Concept Review Committee (JCRC) affect the FTS-2000 Acquisition Alternatives? A58. Please see A20, A50 and A53. Q59. Will the JCRC effort limit the alternatives, leave them the same or require that other alternatives be considered? A59. Please see A20, A50 and A53. Q60. If additional DOD requirements are to be included in the PFTS-2000 effort will it be necessary to expand, modify, or redo the report "Networking for a Reinvented Government: Federal Telecommunications Requirements and Industry Technology Assessment?" A60. DOD requirements were reviewed as a part of the analysis leading up to that report. The government does not anticipate revising the referenced report. However, the government continues to refine and detail its requirements for the Post-FTS2000 environment. DOD requirements will be fully analyzed during the acquisition strategy selection process. Q61. What is the basis for the statement "The AWG also believes that economics of scale for voice traffic can be achieved at traffic volumes lower than the total anticipated Post FTS-2000 environment?" Doesn't the current FTS-2000 contract provide for lower than current voice rates if volumes increase? Don't we expect this to continue? A61. Please see A33. The acquisition strategy selection process will analyze the relative merits of fewer, larger contracts versus more, smaller contracts. Q62. How is the final list of services offered to be determined? Will the vendor community be permitted to provide input in this area? A62. The final list of services offered will be determined during the acquisition strategy selection process based on several criteria. The criteria will be included in the analysis report due to be published in August. The government has and will continue to accept input from the vendor community. Q63. The paper does not go into the complexities of offering global services and potentially integrating global requirements of DOD and the State Department. Is there an interest to give this area more attention in future papers? A63. These services are being considered as part of the analysis of the post-FTS2000 scope. See also A7.