Data Center RFI 8-19.pdf

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Enterprise Colocation Data Center

Request for Information Introduction

This Request for Information (RFI) is issued for conducting market research and planning purposes only. Accordingly, this RFI constitutes neither a Request for Quote, Request for Proposal, nor a guarantee that one will be issued by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) in the future; furthermore, it does not commit the AOUSC to contract for any services described herein. Additionally, this RFI does not restrict the AOUSC as to the ultimate acquisition approach.

The purpose of this RFI is to identify qualified vendors who can meet AOUSC requirements for the Enterprise Data Center, and to obtain industry input on the best approach for structuring and executing this requirement. Any contract or order that might be awarded based on information received or derived from this market research will be the outcome of the competitive process. Your response to this RFI will be treated only as information for the AOUSC to consider.

The AOUSC is not responsible for any cost incurred by industry in furnishing this information. All costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested vendor’s expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future solicitation if any is issued. Any information submitted by respondents to this RFI is strictly voluntary. All submissions will become AOUSC property and will not be returned.

Interested vendors are responsible for adequately marking proprietary, restricted, or competition sensitive information contained in their response. AOUSC is under no obligation to provide feedback to the company, or to contact the company for clarification of any information submitted in response to this RFI.

Responses should be as complete and informative as possible.

1. Background

AOUSC is seeking industry feedback regarding future enterprise colocation services supporting two geographically diverse data centers. Respondents are encouraged to provide narrative responses, recommendations, and alternative approaches. The AOUSC is particularly interested in strategic recommendations that will improve long-term resiliency, scalability, operational efficiency, and support future technology evolution.

The current task orders for our data centers are under the GSA Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions (EIS) contract. This RFI is being released on the open market to explore all contract options including EIS but not be limited to the remainder of the EIS final period of performance ending in July 2032.

There are two data centers and the relevant information for each are provide in summary below and in depth in the Statement of Work associated with the current contract which is included as part of this RFI to help the respondents understand the current environment.

2. RFI Response Instructions

All responsible sources may submit a response in accordance with the below information:

There is a page limitation for this RFI of ten (10) pages using 12-point or larger Times New Roman font on 8½’ x 11” standard paper, with 1” margins. The following provision is incorporated in full text: Provision 2-1, Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes (JAN 2003).

NO MARKETING MATERIALS ARE ALLOWED AS PART OF THIS RFI.

Generic capability statements will not be accepted or reviewed.

a. Interested Vendors shall at a minimum provide the following information in the initial paragraph of the submission:

Name of Company:

Address:

Point of Contact:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

NAICS Code(s):

* If you believe there is a more appropriate NAICS code, please provide that to the AOUSC with your rationale.

Product and Service Code

(PSC)

*If you believe there is a more appropriate NAICS code, please provide that to the AOUSC with your rationale.

Unique Entity Identifier

(UEI):

Existing Contractual Vehicles

(GWAC, FSS, MAC, SEWP,

or other):

Acronyms:

• FSS - Federal Supply Schedule,

• GWAC - Government-wide Acquisition Contract

• NAICS – North American Industry Classification

• NASA SEWP - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Solutions for

Enterprise Wide Procurement

Responses should be as complete and informative as possible. Respondents that provide adequate details that illustrate a viable solution may be contacted to provide an oral demonstration of the illustrated solution as further market research.

b. Brief Summary (not to exceed 10 pages), describing your company’s technical approach to meeting the requirements, outlined below:

1. Continuity of Existing Colocation Facilities The AOUSC is interested in understanding whether respondents can support continued operations within the existing colocation facilities, either directly or through subcontracting or partnering arrangements with the incumbent facility providers (Digital Realty in El Segundo, CA and Centersquare in Ashburn, VA) Respondents should address the following:

• Whether services can continue at the existing facilities

• Whether support would be provided directly or through subcontracting or teaming arrangements with the current facility operators

• Operational, contractual, or technical limitations

• Advantages and disadvantages of retaining the current facilities versus relocating

• Impacts on pricing, service levels, administration, or flexibility

2. Geographic Location and Geographic Diversity Strategy The AOUSC is evaluating whether the existing geographic locations remain the optimal long-term solution, and what new locations should be considered. Please note that AOUSC prefers one location to be near Washington, DC.

Respondents should address the following:

• Recommended East Coast and West Coast locations

• Recommended geographic diversity strategy

• Factors including power availability, utility reliability, expansion capability, telecommunications ecosystem, carrier diversity, cloud proximity, disaster recovery, operating costs, labor availability, and long-term market outlook

• Reasons recommendations are preferable to the current locations

3. Data Center Migration Strategy and Transition Services The AOUSC seeks recommendations that minimize operational disruption during the migration.

Respondents should address the following:

• Recommended migration strategy and methodology

• Benefits and risks associated with parallel operation of existing and new sites

• Benefits and risks associated with a “lift-and-shift” approach

• Cost estimate for the recommended strategy

• Cost comparison of different strategies

• Storage replication, network transition, rollback planning, testing, and stabilization

• Program management, provider resources dedicated to support the migration, and approached to identify roles and responsibilities between AOUSC, existing and new providers

• Comparable migration experience and lessons learned

4. Colocation Market Trends, Electrical Power, and Long-Term Cost Considerations The AOUSC seeks insight into recent changes in the colocation market.

Respondents should address the following:

• Impact of AI-driven demand

• Power availability and pricing trends

• Regional utility differences

• Expected 10–15 year trends

• Future expansion capacity

• Lead times for additional power

• Capacity reservation options

• Cost estimates based on current power consumption

• Variability of power cost based on selected geographical regions/locations

• Long-term pricing options

• Recommendations to reduce long-term costs and avoid capacity constraints.

5. Future Data Center Architecture The AOUSC requests respondents to recommend the enterprise data center architecture they believe will best support the AOUSC's mission over the next ten to fifteen years.

Respondents should address the following:

• Recommended overall architecture and rationale

• Recommended resiliency model (e.g., active-active, active-standby, or other)

• Recommended size and role of the East Coast and West Coast facilities

• How increasing cloud adoption should influence the long-term colocation footprint

• Recommendations for placement of compute, storage, and networking resources

• Planning for future high-density and AI workloads

• Approaches that improve scalability while avoiding stranded capacity and unnecessary long-term costs

• Additional strategic recommendations for the next-generation enterprise data center environment

6. Enterprise Network Connectivity The AOUSC requests information regarding network services available with the proposed facilities.

Respondents should address the following:

• WAN connectivity

• Inter-data-center point-to-point connectivity

• Bandwidth options and scalability

• Carrier diversity

• Integration with the AOUSC enterprise WAN referred to as DCN Network

• Managed network services

7. Cloud Connectivity and Hybrid Cloud Architecture The AOUSC expects continued migration to Cloud Service Providers mainly Azure and AWS during the contract term.

Respondents should address the following:

• Cloud connectivity architecture

• Cloud on-ramps

• Dedicated versus shared connectivity

• Bandwidth flexibility

• Provisioning time

• Redundancy

• Hybrid cloud support

• Monitoring and latency

• Support for phased cloud migration

8. Experience Supporting Government Contracts The AOUSC seeks information regarding respondents’ Federal experience across any government contracts including GSA EIS Colocation Hosting Services (CHS)

Respondents should address the following:

• Experience providing data center services to federal agencies

• List of federal contracts, and a recommended contract, offering respondent’s services (either as a prime contractor or as subcontractor), and their associated period of performance and other relevant information

• Knowledge of contract CLIN structure and use of CLINs related to data center services on available federal contracts

• Number of active federal customers

• Mission-critical enterprise environments

• Cloud migration experience

• Relevant certifications

9. Acquisition Strategy The AOUSC welcomes recommendations regarding the overall acquisition approach that will provide the greatest long-term value, encourage innovation, and reduce implementation risk under the recommended contract.

Respondents should address the following:

• Whether colocation, network transport, cloud connectivity, Smart Hands, migration, and related services should be acquired under a single integrated task order or through multiple task orders

• Advantages and disadvantages of bundling versus separating these services.

• Risks the AOUSC should consider when defining the acquisition scope

• Requirements that commonly increase cost or complexity without providing commensurate value

• Best practices observed in recent Federal enterprise data center and colocation procurements

• Recommendations that could improve competition, reduce lifecycle cost, or simplify task order administration while remaining consistent and compliant with the recommended contract framework

• What are your questions and concerns in regard to the draft SOW? Please include references to the specific sections of the SOW, as applicable.

The AOUSC is seeking industry feedback to determine vendor capabilities, to identify industry best practices, and identify any alternate contract vehicles well-suited for this requirement.

The AOUSC is interested in how industry manages this challenge - particularly how vendors price work at facilities they have not previously been surveyed.

Submissions should focus on concepts, approaches, and lessons learned rather than marketing material. The AOUSC is seeking candid input to inform its requirement development.

Responses to this RFI shall be submitted electronically no later than 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, September 21, 2026, via email to the Acquisition Management Office (AMO) points of contact:

Contracting Officer: Arnold Casterline, arnold_casterline@ao.uscourts.gov mailto:arnold_casterline@ao.uscourts.gov

Please note Enterprise Colocation Data Center in the subject line of your response. Mark your response as “Proprietary Information” if the information is considered business sensitive. The email file size shall not exceed 5 MB.

All proprietary/company confidential material shall be clearly marked on every page that contains such.

RESPONDENTS ARE ADVISED THAT THIS REQUIREMENT MAY BE DELAYED,

CANCELED, OR REVISED AT ANY TIME.