Q As 1st set Pre-Prop Conf 8-2 thru 8-8-2012.doc

Solicitation D12PS00316

Amendment No. 002

Foundation Cloud Hosting Services

Questions and Answers

Ref/Sentence

Also, the slide presentation from the pre-proposal conference has been posted to the AQD website identified above.

No

Yes, the Day 1 task order evaluations are separate. The evaluation criteria applicable to each of the Day 1 task orders are specified within the task order in Section J. However, Day 1 task order proposals will only be evaluated for those offerors whose offers were not eliminated from further consideration during Phases I and/or II.

The IDIQ proposals for the 7 technical service lines will be evaluated separately from the Day 1 task orders contained in Section J. The IDIQ proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the multi-phased down-select approach and the criteria as stated in Section M.

No, Offerors may not submit proposals for “subset” of the overall requirements of each technical service line. Offerors can propose on any of the technical service lines but must meet all of the enterprise-wide requirements. As stated in Section L, “The Government reserves the right to issue an IDIQ contract for each Service Line(s) individually, for a combination of the Service Line(s), or for all the Service Line(s) based on all or part of an offeror’s proposal.

Yes, Section M will be revised for clarification purposes regarding the evaluation process for the IDIQ and Day 1 task orders.

For proposal preparation purposes, in cases where this demarcation is unclear, and such demarcation is necessary in order to complete your proposal, describe specific demarcation points and/or assumptions within the proposal submission as instructed in Section L.

Yes, Section L will be revised for clarification purposes to specify the instructions regarding assumptions.

Do all task orders require physical separation?

Response will be provided in a forthcoming amendment.

1.1

2.5

4.4

5.3

C.6.1.1 The Performance Work Statement for SAP includes multiple references to retaining a Solaris/Unix infrastructure for FBMS, albeit hosted in a cloud model. Section C also indicates that a Solaris/SPARC infrastructure is in use today.

a) Will a Solaris/SPARC infrastructure continue to be a requirement for FBMS?

b) Are cloud-like features such as adherence to NIST definitions, self service, scale up and down within 72 hours, and metered usage required on a Solaris/SPARC infrastructure?

c) Will DOI consider a more traditional hosting model for the SPARC infrastructure?

a) The assumption is that a Solaris/SPARC infrastructure will continue to be a requirement for FBMS. The Government’s preference is to continue running the SAP Application on a UNIX OS and Oracle RDBMS to mitigate the impact to custom programs and interface scripts. However, the Government is willing to consider different proposed operating system and hardware mixes as long as they (1) are SAP certified solutions according to the SAP Application PAMs, (2) can meet or exceed the SAPs, high availability, redundancy; scalability and performance requirements of the Program, and (3) can demonstrably run the FBMS infrastructure efficiently and cost effectively. The capabilities and risks associated with alternative operating system and hardware mixes should also be identified in the proposal and will be taken into consideration as part of the proposal evaluation.

b) The cloud characteristics specified in NIST SP 800-145 are the advantages sought, and the purpose behind, this solicitation, at least as it applies to the SAP Application Hosting service line. The Government is looking for these characteristics, regardless of architecture.

c) A “traditional hosting model for the SPARC infrastructure” is essentially what we have now. The associated disadvantages of traditional hosting (expense of maintaining a large infrastructure footprint, long procurement times for upgrades, lack of flexibility, paying for installed base regardless of usage, etc) are what we are hoping to move away from.

Yes, Section J, Attachment 6 has been changed.

At the Foundation Hosting Conference on 8/1/2012, we were pleased to hear that the Department of the Interior (DOI) is committed to actively promoting and adhering to the FedRAMP initiative. With more than 20 vendors having already applied and/or begun the FedRAMP certification process, there should be ample vendors that meet DOI’s requirement for FedRAMP-certified awardees.

Will the 120 calendar day FedRAMP requirement, as stated above, apply to all task orders that are released under the Foundation Hosting IDIQ?

The DOI is committed to the FedRAMP concept of “Assess once, reuse many times”, which we believe will reduce the overall cost and complexity of delivering services to the government. Additionally, the DOI believes this should open the market to more competitive service providers.

Because the FedRAMP process will apply across the federal government, the DOI expects the Authority to Operate (ATO) timelines will be reduced significantly as more service providers in the federal government sector complete third party assessments. As a result, the time to implement new services and/or to migrate services across the portfolio of approved service providers in the government sector will be significantly reduced.

All awardees must successfully complete the ATO process within the 120 calendar days of award.

In the event that subsequent task orders establish significant changes or enhancements to security controls, these task orders may establish specific compliance periods based upon market conditions.

No

Section H.18, has been revised to reflect pre/post-award GORAT testing for task orders. Also, Section M.4.4.1.2 has been revised to allow for the pre-award GORAT at the discretion of the Government.

Yes, Section H.18 and M has been revised as stated.

a) Please identify the Government’s choice of storage media that will be provided to bulk ingest 4PB in less than 36 hours.

b) Please identify the same for 500TB in less than 12 hours. Please provide more process description.

No

No

No

No

C.5.3.4.13 - Implement and Maintain Personnel Security Controls

C.5.3.4.14 – Implement and Maintain Risk Assessment Controls

C.5.3.4.15 - Implement and Maintain System and Services Acquisition Controls

C.5.3.4.16 - Implement and Maintain System and Communications Protection Controls

C.5.3.4.17 - Implement and Maintain System and Information Integrity Controls Yes, the Attachment 16, Section C.5.3.4.13 – 17 has been corrected to reflect the correct title and C.5.3.4.18 row has been deleted.

Does DOI wish that the vendor respond to these as separate requirements with unique numbering, or respond to these as one requirement with the same numbering for all requirements?

No, vendors are not to renumber the sections within the Requirements Traceability Matrix. The vendors are to complete the matrix as already “structured” for the multiple requirements as identified as Section C. The intent of the matrix is to provide breakdown and cross walk to ALL of the requirements as specified in Section C.

Some sections, within C, may contain multiple requirements within the same section and or subsection.

The duplicate numbers have been deleted and the header reference remains and the sub-items remain but un-numbered.

Yes, duplicate numbers have been deleted.

Does DOI wish that the vendor respond to these as separate requirements with unique numbering, or respond to these as one requirement with the same numbering for all requirements?

No, vendors are not to renumber the sections within the Requirements Traceability Matrix. The vendors are to complete the matrix as already “structured” for the multiple requirements as identified as Section C. The intent of the matrix is to provide breakdown and cross walk to ALL of the requirements as specified in Section C.

Some sections, within C, may contain multiple requirements within the same section and or subsection.

The duplicate numbers have been deleted and the header reference remains and the sub-items remain but un-numbered.

Yes, duplicate numbers have been deleted.

C.6.1.3.6e requirement is listed but under C.6.1.3.6d. One row needs to be added and ensure (d) and (e) are listed with the correct requirement.

The Requirements Traceability Matrix has been corrected and changed as follows:

d. Ability for government to specify the level of redundancy required

e. A scripting interface Yes, Section J, Attachment 16 has been corrected to reflect the correct as stated in the response.

The requirement for “One-Time, Free of Charge, Bulk Transfer of all data stored in Contract environment upon termination of Task Orders” has been deleted.

Yes, Section J, Attachment 16 has been corrected as stated in the response

Does DOI wish that the vendor respond to these as separate requirements with unique numbering, or respond to the numbered parent requirement as a single requirement?

No, vendors are not to renumber the sections within the Requirements Traceability Matrix. The vendors are to complete the matrix as already “structured” for the multiple requirements as identified as Section C. The intent of the matrix is to provide breakdown and cross walk to ALL of the requirements as specified in Section C.

Some sections, within C, may contain multiple requirements within the same section and or subsection.

The duplicate numbers have been deleted and the header reference remains and the sub-items remain but un-numbered.

Yes, duplicate numbers have been deleted.

Does DOI wish that the vendor respond to these as separate requirements with unique numbering, or respond to the numbered parent requirement as a single requirement?

No, vendors are not to renumber the sections within the Requirements Traceability Matrix. The vendors are to complete the matrix as already “structured” for the multiple requirements as identified as Section C. The intent of the matrix is to provide breakdown and cross walk to ALL of the requirements as specified in Section C.

Some sections, within C, may contain multiple requirements within the same section and or subsection.

The duplicate numbers have been deleted and the header reference remains and the sub-items remain but un-numbered.

Yes, duplicate numbers have been deleted.

Please confirm that since this is an IDIQ proposal for 10 years that the hours for each labor category are unknown and this column should be blank upon proposal submission.

If that is not correct, please advise what the Offeror is to enter here.

This column needs to specify the Unit of Service (UoS) being proposed for each associated support service based on their offerings.

For example a vendor may offer Engineering on an hourly, weekly, or monthly basis. The column titled “Labor Hour (UoS)” needs to be completed to identify the type of offering.

No

Can DOI clarify what is required?

This column needs to specify the Unit of Service (UoS) being proposed for each associated support service based on their offerings.

For example a vendor may offer Engineering on an hourly, weekly, or monthly basis. The column titled “Labor Hour (UoS)” needs to be completed to identify the type of offering.

No

Is there going to be another RFP for Data Center Consolidation?

Section C.9 identifies associated support services which may be required by individual task orders issued under this IDIQ. The list of services areas in Table 19 were intended to be representative of those anticipated, not to be exhaustive or constraining. The pricing table as contained in Section J, Attachment 44, Associated Support Services Pricing Matrix, provides offerors the opportunity to identify the associated pricing and Unit of Service (UoS) for the full scope (service areas, labor categories, skill levels)This includes the associated services available, and/or potentially necessary for supporting the identification, analysis, prioritization, preparation and migration of IT systems from the current operating environment to the target operating environment or required to ensure sustained operations and maintenance of systems in the target operating environment.

This IDIQ is a single component of the DOI strategic services portfolio, which will include multiple options within each of the following service provider markets: DOI, federal partner and commercial.

The Data Center Consolidation Initiative creates demand for a broad range services, which include, but are not limited to Foundation Cloud Services and Associated Support Services articulated in this solicitation.

No

Can you prime on some elements and be a sub on other elements?

No, offerors are not required to submit a proposal for all service lines in order to be considered. Offerors can submit a proposed solution for each service line(s) individually, for a combination of the service line(s), or for all the service line(s).

The Government is not placing any restrictions on prime/subcontractor arrangements for this acquisition.

No

Section C.4.3.4.1 provides information regarding the categorization of the DOI applications. Paragraph f of this section describes the Applications Life-Cycle phases defined by government Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) requirements.

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires government agencies to use a disciplined CPIC process to acquire, use, maintain and dispose of information technology. Two OMB Circulars A-130 (Management of Federal information Resources) and A-11, (Capital Programming Guide) specifically part 7, prescribe the government wide planning and reporting requirements.

Section C.5.2.3 of the solicitation identifies the reporting requirements related to these life-cycle phases. These reporting capabilities will facilitate transparency, consistency and accountability in both evaluating and reporting system costs through-out the system life-cycle. The consistent application of these reporting standards will enable the comparison of system costs as systems migrate between service providers throughout their life-cycle.

No

Therefore, the Data Center Consolidation Initiative creates demand for a broad range services, which include, but are not limited to Foundation Cloud Services and Associated Support Services articulated in this solicitation. Also, Section C.1, Executive Overview, states, “Additionally, the DOI considers Data Center Consolidation or emergency operations requirements, and any hosting and associated support services necessary, to be within scope of this contract.”

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.”

a) Who owns the hardware?

b) Who owns the licenses?

Ultimately, the DOI seeks to shift the balance from “owning assets” to “utilizing utility services”.

Historically, the DOI has made significant investments in Information Technology (IT) infrastructure assets, including both hardware and software. These assets are currently enabling the internal delivery of IT services.

Although ownership of hardware and licenses will be established within the individual task orders, the DOI does not anticipate significant procurement of additional hardware or software licenses under this contract in the long-run.

The pricing tables contained in Section J, accommodate the variety of licensing options available based upon market research.

Offerors should address challenges related to migrating from the current “asset-based” environment to the future “service-based” environment, particularly where they would streamline implementation while preserving the value of incumbent investments through the end of the planned life-cycle.

No

Section C, Page C-2 refers to the same service lines, but has different numbering (i.e. C.2.2.1 through 7).

Does the scope of offer matrix refer to the scope called out on pages C-2 and C-3?

a) Improve availability, performance, and flexibility of datacenter services;

b) Reduce Total Cost of Ownership (“TCO”) of delivering IT services;

Can DOI share current performance metrics for data center operations and the cost of providing the services that will be covered by this BPA?

For clarification, the Government anticipates awarding Indefinite-Delivery-Infinite-Quantity (IDIQ) award(s) as a result of this RFP not BPA(s). Refer to Section B.1, General and Section L.2, FAR 52.216-1, Type of Contract (APR 1984).

The purpose of this IDIQ is to establish an attractive and competitive alternative to the current federated and distributed service model, where costs and performance levels vary significantly.

Organizations, programs, developers and system owners will be completing alternatives analysis and making service source selection decisions on a case-by-case basis, based upon the relative value of service alternatives available.

Offerors should ensure that submissions would support this competitive analysis.

No

Does this apply to vendor-owned assets?

Section C.3 has been changed to read, “…shall retain ownership of any government designated/created/loaded …”

Yes, corrected as stated in the response.

Is it based on type of application or security level?

Response will be provided in a forthcoming amendment.

If so, please specify the timeline.

Ultimately, the DOI seeks to shift the balance from “owning assets” to “utilizing utility services”.

Any method or timeline for migration will be as identified within the individual task orders issued after award.

No

Where there are existing Enterprise License agreements, and their use is beneficial to the government, the DOI may either consider or specify their use.

Where additional information is required to prepare a competitive response, please identify any assumptions and discuss the impact and value of each assumption as they relate to specific requirements identified in the solicitation.

No

Can you describe different categories of those applications and provide some named examples?

The DOI anticipates requirements to host a full spectrum of FISMA levels (low, moderate, and high) during the life of this contract.

FISMA High will be task dependent and will be identified in subsequent individual task order requirements. This will also depend on the application(s).

This will be determined on a case by case basis and will be identified in specific task orders.

Where additional information is required to prepare a competitive response, please identify any assumptions and discuss the impact and value of each assumption as they relate to specific requirements identified in the solicitation.

No

Where additional information is required to prepare a competitive response, please identify any assumptions and discuss the impact and value of each assumption as they relate to specific requirements identified in the solicitation.

No

Will a proposal be rejected if a vendor is unable to check yes at submission?

Proposals will not be rejected solely because a vendor is unable to “check yes” to every line item on the security controls assessment referenced in section C.5,1 and provided in Section J, Attachment 1 at time of submission.

The assessment forms are provided to ensure an early and mutual understanding of the requirements, current capabilities and progress towards meeting common controls established under FedRAMP and DOI enhancements defined elsewhere in the solicitation. They also provide a framework for evaluating the vendor’s plans and commitment to completing the process.

All awardees under this IDIQ will be required to complete the FedRAMP process for the awarded technical service lines within 120 days of award and will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria specified in Section M.

No

How will this be performed (i.e. will DOI expect to instruct the vendor)?

What is DOI definition of high availability?

Availability refers to the ability of all users in the defined customer community to access the system, whether to submit information, update or alter existing information, or retrieve information, or complete work using previously collected information stored in the system.

High availability is a system design approach and associated service implementation that ensures a prearranged level of operational performance will be met during the contractual measurement period. High availability implies no human intervention will be required to restore operation in complex systems, and is realized through both active and passive redundancy.

Uptime and availability service bands are introduced in section C.7.3. For the DOI, High Availability is identified in recommended service band 1, contained in Table 9, which defines minimum uptime of 99.99%, with a maximum of 4 minutes of planned downtime both measured on a monthly basis.

Section C.6.1.2 will be changed and delete the following sentence, “The Offeror’s solution must include an option for high availability” Where additional information is required to prepare a competitive response, please identify any assumptions and discuss the impact and value of each assumption as they relate to specific requirements identified in the solicitation.

No

Will DOI provide min configs before award?

If not, will DOI consider removing this table?

changed as stated in the response.

Will DOI provide minimum configuration requirements prior to submission?

If not, will DOI consider removing Attachment 41, Task Order Custom tab?

changed as stated in the response.

Offeror should describe recommended processes and tools in their proposals.

Where additional information is required to prepare a competitive response, please identify any assumptions and discuss the impact and value of each assumption as they relate to specific requirements identified in the solicitation.

No

Specific tools and support requirements will be defined within individual task orders issued under the IDIQ, when applicable.

Where additional information is required related to software identified in section C.6.2.2.7 in order to prepare a competitive response, please identify any assumptions and discuss the impact and value of each assumption as they relate to specific requirements identified in the solicitation.

No.

Therefore, this is not a CAS covered acquisition.

No

Do you anticipate an extension on the proposal due date due to the overwhelming industry interest?

For clarification, per Section L.12, the deadline for clarifications or questions related to the RFP is 2:00pm Eastern Time, August 10, 2012, and Government responses provided as soon as possible thereafter. The Government will not extend the due date for vendor questions. The solicitation was released on July 18, which affords industry sufficient opportunity to submit questions.

Section L.13 Deadline for Submission of Proposals, is being extended to “on or before 2:00pm Thursday, September 27, 2012.

Yes, Section L.13 has been changed to extend the proposal due date.

Also, this section has been amended to change the required number of hardcopies for each of the delivery locations as follows:

Herndon – One (1) Original, Seven (7) hardcopies & one (1) CD

Denver – Three (3) hardcopies & one (1) CD Yes, Section L.13 has been amended to reflect the clarification for the softcopy and number of hardcopies required at each delivery address.

In order to allow us to offer you the best and most financially prudent solution to your program needs, we respectfully request that you grant an extension of 2 weeks until Thursday, September 20, 2012.

Due to the complexity of some of the questions we are compiling, the extensive catalog offerings outlined in the bidders conference last week, and the extensive research required to provide complete response to L.7, Involvement of Current and Former Government Employees, we are requesting that the Government provide this requested extension. We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to potentially supporting you on this very important program.

DOI could begin their evaluation on the IDIQ proposal and industry would have additional time for their solutions.

Section L.13 Deadline for Submission of Proposals, is being extended to “on or before 2:00pm Thursday, September 27, 2012.

Also, the proposal submissions for the IDIQ, Day 1 task orders and the representative use cases are ALL due the same date and time as specified in Section L.13, Deadline for Submission of Proposals, as amended via Amendment No. 001.

Yes, Section L.13 has been changed to extend the proposal due date.

Yes, Section L.13 has been changed to extend the proposal due date.

Yes, Section L.13 has been changed to extend the proposal due date.

Would DOI consider also excluding L.14.1.a SF33 and signed acknowledgements, L.14.1.d Assumptions, conditions, or exceptions?

Just to clarify, the past performance instructions require 3 past performance references for the prime contractor and up to 3 past performance references for any/all subcontractors/teaming partners. Does this mean that if there is 1 prime, 2 vendors, and 4 subcontractors on the team we could submit a minimum of 3 references (prime) and a maximum of up to 21 past performance references total (3 for the prime and all of its teaming partners)?

Yes, this means three (3) references from the prime plus three from each subcontractor and/or teaming partner proposed.

The Day 1 task orders have been revised to include the requirement for submission of past performance references as well. These past performance submissions are for those task order requirements and shall be submitted with those separate proposal submissions.

Yes, change as stated in the response

Will prime be allowed to use subcontractors and partners to meet past performance qualifications?

Three (3) references should be provided for the prime plus three from each subcontractor and/or teaming partner proposed.

The Day 1 task orders have been revised to include the requirement for submission of past performance references as well. These past performance submissions are for those task order requirements and shall be submitted with those separate proposal submissions.

Yes, change as stated in the response

Can DOI clarify whether this means three references from the prime plus three from each subcontractor and/or teaming partner?

Can DOI clarify “any/all” – are references required from all or just from some subcontractors and teaming partners?

Will the prime be allowed to use subcontractors and teaming partners on this contract for which it has not provided references (e.g. enterprise core suppliers)?

This means three (3) references from the prime plus three from each (any/all) subcontractor and/or teaming partner proposed.

This means three (3) references from the prime plus three from each (any/all) subcontractor and/or teaming partner proposed.

The Day 1 task orders have been revised to include the requirement for submission of past performance references as well.