Final_WCOSS_RFP_-_Q&A_Posting__1_(7-19-19).pdf

Question Number

Page Number

Section Paragraph Question / Comment Government Response

DOES RESPONSE

REQUIRE RFP

EDITS? YES OR NO

SECTION OF RFP

TO CHANGE DUE

TO Q&A

RFP SECTION CHANGES TO BE

MADE

CHANGE MADE?

1 Att. J-4 Para. 2.2

APPENDIX I - BENCHMARK INSTRUCTIONS

define capability and capacity benchmarks.

Att. J-4 - Paragraph 2.2 states the objective "Obtain a Phase 1 WCOSS capability that delivers the maximum compute capacity and storage (e.g. capacity, I/O bandwidth, etc.) over the expected life of the task order, within the estimated available budget. " Does this objective mean that the total number of hours proposed for the capacity benchmark (GFS T574) is more important than the performance on the capability benchmarks (FV3 C768 and NMM

9KM)?

No, all benchmarks specified for the Sample Task Order are of equal importance. The referenced section of Att. J-4 will be updated to clarify this item.

Yes Att. J-4 - Section 2, Para. 2.2

Reword paragraph to state the following: "...delivers the maximum compute capability and capacity, as well as the storage capacity and I/O bandwidth over the expected life of the task order, within the estimated available budget."

NO - Change to be incorporated in future Amendment 0001 posting.

Att. J-4 -

Appendix I

The benchmark instruction - "Each capability benchmark has an associated required number of post processing benchmark copies that must be run and completed before that capability benchmark completes." can be interpeted in more than one way. For instance the post-processing jobs could be run to completion followed by the execution of the capability jobs. Would the Gov please confirm the intent is that the post-processing jobs be running at the same time as the capability jobs?

Yes, the Government's intent is for the post-processing jobs to be run at the same time as the capability jobs. As such, Appendix I to Att. J-4 will be updated to clarify this item.

Yes Att. J-4 - Appendix

I

Add language to Att. J-4 - Appendix I specifying that the post-processing jobs should be run at the same time as the capability jobs.

NO - Change to be incorporated in future Amendment 0001 posting.

3 15 C.4.2.3

In IDIQ section C.4.2.3 states the Government reserves the right to provide additional GFP in accordance with FAR 52.245-1. Can offerors assume for facility planning purposes over the life of the contract NOAA may add less than five additional racks for WAN?

For purposes of proposal preparation in response to this solicitation, Industry may make this assumption.

No N/A N/A N/A

Attachment J-8 WCOSS Request for Proposal 1305M4-19-R-NWWX001 (FINAL RFP)

Industry Questions and Answers Template (Questions Received from 06/28/2019 - 07/18/2019) FBO Posting Date: 07/19/2019

4 Att. J-4 Section 2.2 and 3.4.3.2.1

Is it NOAA’s intent for the WCOSS solution for the first delivery to be all new equipment and not repurposed equipment from a previous delivery and all the compute nodes have the same CPU model?

The Government is unclear of what is meant by "repurposed equipment from a previous delivery". See Att. J-4 - Sections 3.4.3.1 and

3.4.3.2 concerning the requirements for compute nodes. The Government contends that there is no explicit requirement for the HPC system components provided with the Offeror's WCOSS solution to be "new" from an OEM (i.e. no previous users), only that the equipment meet the performance requirements in Att. J-4 and Section C. As an additional note, for purposes of proposal preparation, the Offeror should assume that the only items to be provided as Government Furnished Property for the Sample Task Order would be those as specified in Section C.4.2 and Att. J-4.

No N/A N/A N/A

5 Att. J-4 Section 3.3.10

Is it NOAA’s intent to allow three generations of equipment only for future task orders instead of the initial delivery for

WCOSS?

The 3 generations limitation applies to both the Sample Task Order (i.e. Phase I - initial system delivery) and Phase II, as well as any additional upgrades/phases delivered over the life of the resultant contract. The basis for the 3 generation limitation is to reduce both the technical and management complexities of the systems delivered.

(NOTE: Three generations of technology is not intended to be a minimum requirement;

rather, it is a "maximum" limitation should the Contractor propose more than one generation/version of a given technology for the Sample Task Order/Phase 1, or for any additional upgrades/phases required over the life of the contract.)

No N/A N/A N/A

Section L.10.3.5.2 &

Att. J-4 - Appendix I

Section L.10.3.5.2 requires Offerors to price the Sample Task Order solution proposed under Factor 2: Technical Solution, and to price it NTE the Program Maximum Budget of $150 million. However, Appendix I to Att. J-4 specifies that the Offeror should provide actual/projected benchmark results for a system based on "Base Funding" and "Base + Optional Funding".

Taken together, does this mean that Offerors need to propose a system that meets both the Base Funding benchmarks (i.e. Tables 1a and 1b of Appendix I) AND the Base + Optional Funding benchmarks (i.e. Tables 2a and 2b in Appendix I), while also pricing the solution NTE $150 million?

NO, the Government's intent was for Offerors to design and price a Sample Task Order solution that, among the other minimum requirements in Att. J-4, meets or exceeds the minimum benchmark results for Appendix I - Tables 1a and 1b ONLY.

The "Base Funding" term specified in Appendix I - Tables 1a and 1b was intended to refer to the $150 million Program Maximum Budget in Section L.10.3.5.2. As such, Tables 2a and 2b will be deleted from Att. J-4 - Appendx I for clarity.

Yes Att. J-4 - Appendix

I

Delete all references to Base + Optional Funding, and delete

Tables 2a and 2b.

NO - Change to be incorporated in future Amendment 0001 posting.

Section L.10.3.5.1

Att. J-1

Section L.10.3.5.1, Para. A

In the Government Q&A response to Question 119 from the 6/12 FBO posting, the Government advised that Government Site labor rates would be deleted from the proposal submission requirements.

However, the requirement remains in the Final RFP. Can the Government please clarify whether it intends to receive this submission or not, and why?

The Government initially advised that Government Site labor rates would not be required. However, upon further review, the Government has determined it in its best interest to receive Government Site Rates in the event that Government Site labor is required over the life of the contract.

Offerors shall provide Base IDIQ labor rates for Contractor Site and Government Site labor as specified in Section L.10.3.5.1.

No N/A N/A N/A

Section

L.10.3.5.2 L.10.3.5.2.2

In the previous Draft RFP, Utility Costs, Travel Costs, and Shipping Costs were classified as reimbursable items in the Offeror's price proposal. The Final RFP appears to have changed all of these items to FFP. Please confirm that it is the Government's intent to receive prices for these items on a FFP basis.

Yes, upon further review internally, it is now the Government's intent to receive pricing for the aforementioned items, as well as all other components specified for the Section II

- Sample Task Order Pricing in Section L.10.3.5.2, on a FFP basis. Offerors should adhere to the pricing instructions provided in Section L.10.3.5.2.

No N/A N/A N/A

Section

L.10.3.2.9

Is Industry required to submit a Cancellation Ceiling proposal with its offer?

What if the Offeror's technical solution for the Sample Task Order, as well as the proposed price for the aforementioned, do not create any unamortized costs, or what if the Offeror determines that the annual NTE $30 million would cover all anticipated costs for the Sample Task Order?

As stated in Section L.10.3.2.9, if an Offeror determines that a Cancellation Ceiling is not required as part of its proposal for the Sample Task Order, the Offeror shall explicitly state as such in its proposal under Section IX of Volume I, and provide a brief narrative explaining why it is not required.

Offerors should note that the Cancellation Ceiling is NOT an evaluation factor/element in this solicitation.

10 Section L.9.1 Para. 1 Is the Government amenable to a proposal due date extension beyond August 14, 2019?

Yes, the Government is amenable. If Offerors require an extension, please contact the solicitation POCs specified in Section L.9.1 directly, and as soon as possible.

No N/A N/A N/A

11 Section L.9.2 Para. 3 Are Offerors prohibited from submitting additional questions after the July 22nd cutoff?

No, Offerors may submit additional questions beyond the July 22nd cutoff.

However, the Government does not guarantee that it will answer all questions received after July 22nd.

Sheet1