D -- Request for Industry Comment'Advantages/Disadvantages of Centralized Local Exchange Service Contracts

The purpose of this RFI is to determine the feasibility of pursuing a state-wide consolidation of local telephone exchange service contracts. We are contemplating issuing a firmed-fixed, - Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ or - D) type contract per state subject to PUC required tariff increases. Task orders will be issued against the - D contract for each Air Force location upon expiration of their current contract. This concept will require the contractor to be certified by the PUC within each state; however, we would consider teaming arrangements to fulfill this requirement. A teaming arrangement does not include prime/sub relationships where one company is certified and the other is not; every member of the team must be a certified provider. Interested parties are requested to provide comments or discussion on the following areas of concern: (1) Would industry be able to propose prices that are valid state-wide (i.e., commercial business line price consistent from one city to another for a recruiting office)? (2) Will a charge be applied for a yearly update to the Appendix 10 (list of current services) of the Statement of Work? (3) How would industry address diversity issues at the - D contract level, or do you foresee this being addressed at the task order level? (4) Should DSL requirements be included in this consolidation approach? (5) Would industry be able to price taxes on a state-wide basis? (6) Can industry offer any special discounts based on this consolidation effort; based upon the potential quantities of telephone services, what volume of savings is realistically to be expected by the USAF? (7) Would industry be able to provide pricing for non-common high bandwidth-type services at individual sites using a consolidated state-wide pricing table? (8) Would industry be able to provide pricing for services associated with a mileage charge using a consolidated state-wide pricing table? (9) What impact would the rural exemption areas have on this type of requirement, or could this be an area to be considered for a teaming arrangement? (10) What does industry consider to be a fair base period given allowance for cutover, if necessary? (11) If not a state-wide consolidation, can you recommend other consolidation approaches (i.e., BPA-type arrangement)? Responses shall be provided via e-mail to contact@example.gov and contact@example.gov . The government may consider one-on-one meetings with industry in the future. The suspense date for submitting responses is 24 May 2004.