Amend_No._004_FINAL_SET_of_QsAs_thru_478_.doc

Solicitation D12PS00316 Questions and Answers

Amendment No. 004

Foundation Cloud Hosting Services

Ref/Sentence

C-3

Attch 10, p. 4 Attachment 2

C-3, Attachment 10 Att 2, p. 9: The Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS) cloud solution(s) shall be Government only communities (including United States federal, state, local and tribal) provided the communities have similar and compatible security control objectives, requirements, and compliance considerations, or private clouds, certified under FISMA with a security categorizations of either “LOW”, “MODERATE”, or “HIGH” commensurate with the security categorizations of the DOI hosted applications.

C-3: The Web Hosting Services Technical Service Line includes, but is not limited to cloud Based Web Hosting Services in public, private, community and hybrid cloud environments.

Att 10, p. 4: For Information Systems with “Low” sensitivity and impact, Virtual Machine Hosting Services may be hosted on a Public cloud.

The task order requirement appears to be in conflict with the enterprise requirement. Is the solution restricted to private or government community clouds only, or are public and hybrid clouds permitted for specific task orders?

DOI is not aware of public or hybrid cloud solutions at this time that would meet the security requirements defined in this solicitation, federal policy, and individual task orders for “MODERATE” systems, but may become aware of these through the solicitation process or otherwise in the future. DOI does not wish to preclude potential interagency customers from implementing hosting in public or hybrid cloud solutions based upon their independent risk management processes, or to preclude hosting of moderate systems in public or hybrid clouds if, and when, the specific security requirements defined in the RFP and the individual Task Orders can be met.

Therefore, it is up the offeror to provide sufficient information in their proposed submission in order to demonstrate performance in accordance with the security requirements as it would relate to any offering of services for hosting FISMA Low and Moderate systems.

Section L.14.2, Volume II, Technical Proposal, has been revised to include the language as stated above.

Section J, Attachment 2, has been changed as stated herein.

Yes, change made as stated in the response.

Section L.14.2, Volume II, Technical Proposal, has been revised to include the language as stated above.

Yes, change made as stated in the response.

b. The use case requires four (4) pricing scenarios (Portfolio A & Portfolio B and two software licensing scenarios for each A & B).

c. The use case is further complicated by the resource segmentation requirement, which requires two separate architectures “community cloud” for “moderate” and “Public Cloud” for “Low”.

d. What is the segregation requirement for each pricing scenario? Is the purpose of the use case to test the technical (not price) capabilities of a use case against the cloud product set? If so, will the Government please provide the specific pricing scenario for each task order (except SAP) and use case.

a. The minimum requirements are identified in Section C and in Paragraph J.7 of each representative use case.

b. Correct, the offeror may require additional permutations based upon their service offerings and business model.

c. The government requires a portfolio of services that meet the full spectrum of requirements from FISMA “Low” to “Moderate”. To the extent that the Offeror’s business model recommends separate pricing for each Cloud Deployment model Offered (Public, Community [Federal, State, Local and Tribal Government], Private and Hybrid), pricing models should be completed for each deployment model offered.

d. Specific pricing scenarios are not required and/or necessary in order to provide a proposed solution. The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to identify and propose their solution(s) which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes identifying issues driving cost, the related pricing scenarios, and developing any associated pricing per unit of service.

DOI is not aware of public or hybrid cloud solutions at this time that would meet the security requirements defined in this solicitation, federal policy, and individual task orders for “MODERATE” systems, but may become aware of these through the solicitation process or otherwise in the future. DOI does not wish to preclude potential interagency customers from implementing hosting in public or hybrid cloud solutions based upon their independent risk management processes, or to preclude hosting of moderate systems in public or hybrid clouds if, and when, the specific security requirements defined in the RFP and the individual Task Orders can be met. Therefore, it is up the offeror to provide sufficient information in their proposed submission in order to demonstrate performance in accordance with the security requirements as it would relate to any offering of services for hosting FISMA Low and Moderate systems.

Section L.14.2, Volume II, Technical Proposal, has been revised to include the language as stated above.

Yes, change made as stated in the response.

Demand for “Other” operating systems are not included in the projections provided in Table J.4.

The Table in Section J, Attachment 11, paragraph J.6.1 is amended as follows:

Yes, change made as stated in the response.

b. Please specify the percentage split between low and medium.

a. The requirement, as stated in Section J, Attachment 1, is a portfolio of services that meet the full spectrum of requirements from FISMA “Low” to “Moderate” under these contract(s). The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution within the requirements of this RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to identify and propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes any pricing scenarios and developing associated permutations of pricing per unit of service if the offeror’s business decision is to offer pricing for the various security levels; low and moderate.

b. This information is not available at this time. The percentage split between the various FISMA levels is not required in order to prepare a proposed solution. The pricing response requires only a fixed price per unit of service. In your response please explain any assumptions made and rationale for any decisions which the proposed solution is based upon.

The demand summaries were provided only to inform the full scope and context for the offerors submissions.

No

b. Are you asking for two separate models?

Section J, Attachment 12, Requirement 6.0 title has been changed to read, “Scalable License Model”. Also, the second bullet has been changed and deleted “with scalable and incremental options”.

However, this in no way commits the Government to any licensing as this is a representative use case for proposal preparation and evaluation purposes. Any requirements may be specified within the individual task orders.

Yes, change made as stated in the response.

b. Is the minimum order size 50GB?

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to identify and propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes the user licensing model as identified in the proposed solution.

Yes, change made as stated in the response.

b. On-going security (virus scanning) services?

a. Training would be considered as part of the “Associated Support Services” and would be as identified in the individual task orders. If a proposed solution requires training services, this needs to be clearly identified and specified within the proposal.

b. Yes, security scanning and on-going continuous monitoring are required. See Section C…. and Attachments 1 through 5.

No

b. Back-up, replication?

c. Uptime?

This information is not required and/or necessary in order to prepare a proposed solution.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to identify and propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes performance levels and uptime and identifying any assumptions or constraints regarding the technical solutions within these areas.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to identify and propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes identifying any bandwidth assumptions or constraints regarding the technical solutions within these areas.

No

b. Can we assume that only 25 designated DOI users can call the help desk and that the calls will be Tier 2 in nature? i.e. we will not provide end user support?

a. For proposal preparation and pricing purposes the offerors shall assume that the 25 DOI users would act as Tier 1 support to end users.

b. Yes, for proposal preparation and pricing purposes the offerors shall assume only 25 designated DOI users would call the help desk and that the calls would be Tier 2 in nature. The service provider would not be responsible for direct end user support.

No

Based on these contract(s) having the potential to be utilized by other Federal Agencies, there would be a “government” affiliation and an “outside” user or non-government affiliation. To that extent, it would be up to the offeror to propose based on their business model and proposed solution. Also, the Government anticipates a number of security roles that would include authorizing users to post and withdraw information from the transfer site. The offeror should clearly identify their approach to allowing such rights and assignment authority.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to identify and propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes identifying any assumptions or constraints regarding licensing and storage limits.

Attachment 16, C.6.2.1.5 (row that follows):

“Support Range of Technical Service Lines, and range of instances for each (e.g. 0-100)”. Will the government clarify what the numbering in this statement means?

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to identify and propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes recommending the specific cloud service model and required to satisfy requirements identified in this RFP.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to identify and propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes identifying specific approaches to supporting the software and middleware identified in Section C.

No

Will the government describe the types of support required? For example, in the Database listing, does support include full system DBA support or software installation and patching only?

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to identify and propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes identifying specific approaches to supporting the software and middleware identified in Section C. The level of support could vary significantly depending upon the proposed solutions.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to identify and propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes identifying specific approaches to supporting the middleware identified in Section C.

No

L-20-24

This description may be different for each version of software available and proposed.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations regarding relationships and compatibility between the legacy metering software identified in Section J, Attachment 25, and the scope of operating systems supported by the contractor.

No

If so, is it acceptable to reference the IaaS bundle in the use case that applies to a specific use case scenario?

Yes. The government’s intent was that the offerors would use the IaaS bundles and resources in scaling to price the use cases.

Yes. It is acceptable to reference the IaaS bundle.

No

B.3, L.14.3

Attachments 37-43 Section L provides no guidance for completing the Attachments 37-43.

Will the Government please add the guidance for completing the worksheets and specifically, how the proposed pricing schedule, using offerors commercial pricing models, is used to populate the worksheets?

The government asserts that the templates provided in Attachment 37-43 and instructions contained in Section L should be sufficient to complete a response.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value and pricing of their offering. This would include translating commercial pricing models into the “pricing per unit of service” templates provided.

No

· Storage Services

· Secure File Transfer Services

· Virtual Machine Services

· Database Hosting Services

· Web Hosting Services

· Development and Test Environment Hosting Services

· SAP Application Hosting Services

These technical service lines are intended to establish the initial infrastructure foundation for developing composite services that will be represented in a “Mission-Facing”, DOI-Wide IT Services Catalog.”

Who owns the hardware?

Who owns the licenses?

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any recommendations, assumptions or constraints regarding hardware and license ownership.

No

Atth J 7 C.2.2;

Section J.3

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying portability and transition concerns, constraints and recommendations for what would ultimately be a multi-award environment.

No

Data Center Consolidation Transition Support and New Application Implementation were provided only as general examples of when these services would be required.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific concerns, constraints and recommendations related to service demand and drivers.

No

Figure 2 was provided only to provide general context for the scope of potential solutions. Figure 2 has been deleted from Section C.3.7 and marked RESERVED.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering.

The expectation is that the offeror’s characterize their recommendation and proposed solution set in the Requirements Traceability Matrix.

Yes, change made as stated in the response.

Was this table intended to be filled out?

If not, what is the significance of this blank table?

It was provided only to provide general context for the scope of potential solutions.

The expectation is that the offeror’s characterize their recommendation and proposed solution set in the Requirements Traceability Matrix.

Figure 2 has been deleted from Section C.3.7 and marked RESERVED.

Yes, change made as stated in the response.

The expectation is that the offeror’s characterize their recommendation and proposed solution set in the Traceability Matrix. Therefore, a revised version is not necessary and will not be provided.

Yes, change made as stated in the response.

Is it based on type of application or security level?

C.4.3.2 has details on the VPN, however it remains unclear if the users will be able to access all resources through a single sign on?

Section C.4 provides an overview of the current operating environment. General requirements for transportation layer encryption are provided in the Section C, paragraph 5.3, and Section J, Attachments 1-5.

Specific VPN and sign on requirements will be application dependent and will be identified in the individual task orders.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This includes any assumptions and constraints as they apply to user credentialing.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific concerns, constraints and recommendations related to implementing virtualization technologies.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific concerns, constraints and recommendations related to transition and migration strategies.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific concerns, constraints and recommendations related to proposed solution regarding TIC compliance.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific concerns, constraints and recommendations related to transition and migration strategies.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to software licensing.

No

Is there a definition of the “Other” type of Operating Systems required?

What version of Ubuntu is required?

This information is not required and/or necessary in order to prepare a proposed solution. However, for information purposes, these include, but are not limited to HPUX, and AIX

The current operating environment includes Ubuntu versions from 8.04 to 12.04.1. Specific Ubuntu versions will be identified in the individual Task Orders.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints, dependencies and recommendations related to COTS/GOTS support required to complete migration.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints, dependencies and recommendations related to reuse of existing solutions (hardware and software).

No

Does DOI prefer that respondents use a specific software vendor and/or product set in their proposed solution (e.g. VMware, Citrix or Microsoft based)?

This information is not required and/or necessary in order to prepare a proposed solution, Any specific requirements may be identified within the individual task orders.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to virtualization standards.

No

• Citrix XenDesktop

• Citrix XenApp

• VMWare View

• VMWare ThinApp This information is not required in order to prepare a proposed solution, The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to software licensing and compatibility No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to virtual application road mapping and compatibility.

No

• Citrix XenDesktop

• Citrix XenApp

• VMWare View

• VMWare ThinApp

Assuming due to licensing restrictions, this requirement must be met by a private cloud offering. Could you verify?

This information is not required and/or necessary in order to prepare a proposed solution, Any specific requirements may be identified within the individual task orders.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to software licensing and any restrictions.

No

Are these "workstations" to be treated as servers in the as-is environment that are intended to be migrated to the cloud?

This information is not required and/or necessary in order to prepare a proposed solution, Any specific requirements may be identified within the individual task orders.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to virtualization migration and support.

No

Does DOI have a preference as to delivery methodology (e.g., shared desktop versus dedicated and/or application virtualization)?

This information is not required and/or necessary in order to prepare a proposed solution, Any specific requirements may be identified within the individual task orders.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to virtualization solutions.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to mobile device management, migration and compliance.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to virtualization approaches and strategies.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to virtualization approaches and strategies.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying alternative services models which could include content delivery service.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to virtualization approaches and strategies.

No

Will DOI provide further guidance and definition in regards to approval?

This information is not required in order to prepare a proposed solution, The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to authorization workflows.

Current workflows are varied due to federated and distributed governance model. Additional information on this topic is contained in paragraph C.5.2.1.1.

No

Does DOI envision the multi-tenancy to exist within a larger Federal Government inclusive community cloud or via private cloud environment dedicated to DOI and its designates?

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to cloud deployment models that satisfy the security requirements identified in the RFP and individual task orders, and the need for efficient sharing of information across the government.

DOI is not aware of public or hybrid cloud solutions at this time that would meet the security requirements defined in this solicitation, federal policy, and individual task orders for “MODERATE” systems, but may become aware of these through the solicitation process or otherwise in the future. DOI does not wish to preclude potential interagency customers from implementing hosting in public or hybrid cloud solutions based upon their independent risk management processes, or to preclude hosting of moderate systems in public or hybrid

Yes, change made as stated in the response.

cloud solutions based upon their independent risk management processes, or to preclude hosting of moderate systems in public or hybrid clouds if, and when, the specific security requirements defined in the RFP and the individual Task Orders can be met. Therefore, it is up the offeror to provide sufficient information in their proposed submission in order to demonstrate performance in accordance with the security requirements as it would relate to any offering of services for hosting FISMA Low and Moderate systems.

Section L.14.2, Volume II, Technical Proposal, has been revised to include the language as stated above.

Is it intended, for example, that rapid elasticity (C.5.1.4) would apply to Resource Pools across locations (C.5.1.3)?

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to elasticity and availability of resource pools across locations.

No

Section 2.a of Table 1 states the contract shall support internet bandwidth within minimum service requirement established herein.

Are the bandwidth requirements listed in C.6.1.4.2.1 – C.6.1.4.2.5 the minimum requirements referenced by Table 1 (C.5.1.2 – 2a)?

If not, will the government provide the required minimums?

Yes. Table 1 Minimum Network Connectivity, contained in Section C, paragraph C.6.1.4.2 identifies the minimum network connectivity requirements referenced in C.5.1.2-2a.

No

“The Contractor shall provide the ability to connect a vendor-hosted system to another system that is hosted either at the DOI or at any external provider or customer, unless otherwise stated in specific Task Orders.”

Will the Government please describe the type of system interfaces to support DOI (i.e. flat files or SOA, etc.)?

Identification of specific system interfaces supported by DOI is not required and/or necessary in order to prepare a proposed solution, Any specific requirements may be identified within the individual task orders.

The government retains responsibility for developing and maintaining application layer interfaces. The offeror must cooperate with government to remove obstacles or address performance issues impacting interoperability of applications across boundaries between the contractor location, DOI locations and other hosting locations as designated by the government. These issues would include, but not be limited to physical, security and transport layer issues.

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the requirements and to articulate the value of their offering. This would include identifying any specific assumptions, concerns, constraints and recommendations related to system interfaces.

No

The government desires the most cost effective, best value proposed solution for each service of the technical service lines defined within the RFP.

Therefore, it is up to the offeror to propose their solutions which best meet the…