Question-Answers_828_final_set.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Final Solicitation for 18-9138
- Solicitation number
- 18-9138
About this file
These are the final set of questions and answers.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Question-Answers_final_82418.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 180817_Grey_Wolf_Network_RFP_REV1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 180823_EDCN_Price_TemplateREV1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 180817_Grey_Wolf_Network_RFP_REV1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 180817_EDCN_Price_Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| J_&_A_Grey_Wolf_Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| 180817_Grey_Wolf_Network_RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| ARQ_FBI_18-9138.docx | DOCX document | |
| SF1449_FBI_18-9138.pdf | ||
| Question-Answers_template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Question-Answers_.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 1808002_EDCN_Price_Template_DRAFT.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Question-Answers_template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 180802_Grey_Wolf_Network_RFP_DRAFT.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Section | Industry Question | Government Answer | RFQ Revised | |
| Sect 4.1 B.2 | The RFP States: " ... 576 server/storage cabinets ... leaf components in the server/storage cabinets." But also states: " Standard capacity server/storage cabinets will have a single 48 port leaf switch in each" and "High capacity server/storage cabinets will have two 48 port leaf switches (estimate 72 cabinets)". Following the RFP requirements, it appears that "Standard Capacity" cabinets would be 504, and "High Capacity" cabinets would be 72. The sample LAN HWSW BoM calls for 576 "C1-N9K-C93180YC-FX"'s. Shouldn't that number be 504 + 144 = 648 to include the standard and high capacity cabinets? | Correct, given these numbers and assumption that all cabinets will have switches. | No | |
| Sect 4.1 B.2 | How many 100G uplinks are required out of each leaf switch? | This will depend on the requirement of the proposed solution. All paths should be redundant. | No | |
| CLIN B2 LAN HWSW | Does the FBI desire a 4 spine architecure as suggested in the Sample BoM? | The example given is one approach. Alternatives may be provided in the proposal. | No | |
| General | Request an extension until Friday September 7th at 12PM. | Not at this time. | No | |
| Section 4.2 – P.12 | ||||
| Hardware Maintenance | Will the FBI require Cisco bidders to include maintenance/support costs for years 2-5, or will those costs be covered under the umbrella SmartNet contract? | The Government would like to see pricing options for 1, 3 and 5 years of support for both the LAN and WAN. It is up to the offeror how this pricing is obtained and provided. Out year maintenance costs will be included in the best value determination. | No | |
| Section 4.2 – P.12 | ||||
| Hardware Maintenance | If option years 2-5 maintenance/support are covered under a separate SmartNet contract, will those costs be added to the evaluated price of the Cisco bids for the LAN and WAN sections? | The Government would like to see pricing options for 1, 3 and 5 years of support for both the LAN and WAN. It is up to the offeror how this pricing is obtained and provided. Out year maintenance costs will be included in the best value determination. | No | |
| Section 4.2 – P.12 | ||||
| Hardware Maintenance | We ask that either of the following approaches be adopted for option years 2-5 maintenance/support cost evaluation: |
1. That Cisco bidders be required to include maintenance/support costs as though they are not covered on a separate contract and as though they are re-bid every year individually. Additionally, we ask that no bulk discounts are allowed to be provided to any reseller that purchases 5 years of support up front, assuming at its own risk that the government will fund option years. On a contract this size, such practices place an unusually large financial burden on resellers are not sustainable.
| 2. | If any Cisco option year costs are not included in the cost evaluations, we ask that the costs for all bidders for maintenance/support beyond Year 1 (1) be removed from evaluation of the contract and (2) be placed in separate sealed responses that are not seen by the evaluators so they do not influence the evaluation of awards. | The Government would like to see pricing options for 1, 3 and 5 years of support for both the LAN and WAN. It is up to the offeror how this pricing is obtained and provided. Out year maintenance costs will be included in the best value determination. | No | |
| Section 20.1 page 58 | Given the that the government is possibly allowing additional follow-up questions per lines 16 and 89 from the response dated August 24th as well as several key questions still not answered in lines 84 through 87, will the government extend the solicitation due date by two weeks from the release of final answers/amendment? | Not at this time. | No | |
| 3.0 Contract Type, page 6 | Maintenance terms – The government does not specify the maintenance term required in the RFP. Would the government like to see a 5 year upfront option for maintenance? The request calls out 60 month licensing but does not specify a warranty term? Does this apply to both the LAN and WAN? | The Government would like to see pricing options for 1, 3 and 5 years of support for both the LAN and WAN. It is up to the offeror how this pricing is obtained and provided. Out year maintenance costs will be included in the best value determination. For subscription items, the Government would like to see options for perpetual licensing. | No | |
| 20.5 Proposal Volume Instructions, page 60 | For graphics and tables, can the Government allow for these two to be in 10-point font, New Times Roman? | Yes | No | |
| J&A Sect 3 | The "JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION" stipulates the following hardware as required to work with DMVPN. The only Cisco equipment required to support the DMVPN protocol are the Cisco ASR-9906 routers and Cisco ASR-1002-HX routers. These routers would directly terminate the DMVPN connections in the Datacenter at the WAN Edge. The remainder of the equipment used for Aggregation layer and Services layer in the Datacenter could be provided by alternate vendors since DMVPN is not used in those layers in the Datacenter. We therefore request that the government designate only the ASR edge routers within the Brand Name Only specification. All other hardware specified should be listed as Brand Name or Equal. This is the only way to ensure a fair and open competition for the WAN components are not related to the DMVPN routers. | The WAN portion of this procurement includes not only devices for the GreyWolf CEF, but also devices serving as redundant components of the current CEF's. Some of these devices are necessary for the WAN at existing CEF’s to allow connectivity to the new CEF. The decision to adopt new technology within the new CEF has been limited to the LAN portion of the project as re-engineering the Current existing CEF WAN’s is not part of this project. The WAN portion will not be separated into component parts. | No | |
| J&A Sect 5 | The "JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION" states that the FBI already has invested five years in the evaluation, testing, configuration, and accreditation of the brand name components and that it would require an additional two years to re-train, configure, test, and accredit substitute components. Please explain whether within the last five years alternate OEMs were provided an opportunity to test and accredit its components to the stated security and performance requirements. If not, please provide the rationale for why the government chose to enable a brand name limitation and avoid an opportunity to promote competition. Additionally, as the security requirements would be the same/similar between the WAN and LAN, please provide an explanation for why this stated justification applies only to the WAN components. | OEM’s may submit their products to NIST for validation. However, security testing and accreditation as mentioned in the J&A are the activities performed when placing systems into production environments within the Bureau The WAN portion of this procurement includes not only devices for the GreyWolf CEF, but also devices serving as redundant components of the current CEF's. Some of these devices are necessary for the WAN at existing CEF’s to allow connectivity to the new CEF. Only the WAN portion is being excluded from open competition as network service redundancy and unified management of the WAN portions will continue to be supported by an established enterprise network support group. The LAN portion is open for competition with a new team supporting the proposed SPINE/LEAF design and new data center LAN support tools that will be proposed. This new LAN design will establish a new standard within the CEF's | No | |
| J&A Sect 7 | The "JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION" states the FBI conducted market research with commercial sources that have experience with Cisco pricing. Market research should not be limited to the resellers of an OEM. Please explain when this research was performed by the government. Additionally, please provide additional explanation for what efforts the government undertook to explore alternate OEM solutions. The current description suggests the government presumed the competition would be limited to Cisco and did not approach the market with fair competition in mind. | Market research included Gartner, Forrester and other public sources and was not limited to only resellers of an OEM. No efforts were taken to find alternate WAN solutions due to WAN protocols currently in use and the need to duplicate components of existing CEF’s . Only LAN alternatives are being considered. This J&A is for the WAN portion which is Cisco only. | No | |
| J&A Sect 10 | The "JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION" states in section 10 that "No other companies have expressed an interest either orally or in writing." We disagree with this statement and question the validity of utilizing this as a basis for limited competition. We expressed interest both orally and in writing in our response to the FBI's Market Study on SEWP # 87854. Additionally, we are concerned with the stated reference to encouraging responses from Cisco resellers. Again, this evidences the government's narrow approach to market research and calls into questions the justification utilized by the government in the J&A. | This portion of the J&A document represents a typographical error and is superseded by the following language: The following NASA SEWP vendors provided feedback on Market Research: Affigent, Alvarz, DISYS, FCN, Force 3, Intelligent Decisions, New Tech, PCMG, Presidio, Technica, Thundercat and WWT. | No |
File details come from the government source that posted it.