DJD-12-R-0046_Amendment_0002_-_Preproposal_Questions.pdf

DJD-12-R-0046, Amendment 0001 Page 1

Drug Enforcement Administration RFQ # DJD-12-R-0046 Amendment 0002 January 16, 2013

Pre-proposal questions and responses (in italics) for the T2S2 Collection Communication Equipment and Associated Maintenance Support Services Solicitation:

1) REF: Attachment J-5 (OD-01-005): During the on-site demo many of the item #'s require hardware that would be extremely expensive to procure without any contract.

Will showing site photos of systems installed be sufficient? Obviously if ordered we can purchase racks, and in all cases we do, but to purchase a rack for a demonstration is expensive. Can we just supply model and part numbers of what we normally order?

Onsite testing will be conducted on the offeror’s existing test/demo equipment. The Government does not expect nor require the offeror to purchase new equipment for onsite testing; provided issues of system functionality can be demonstrated. The Offeror can prove that a system meets specific technical hardware specifications through citation of make, model and part numbers. The Offeror must provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the system meets the requirements listed in the Request for Proposal (RFP.)

2) REF: Attachment J-5 (OD-01-008): On the same ideas as above, would it be possible to supply a written plan with part numbers to specific parts to satisfy the points on this item number?

See response to Question #1 above.

3) REF: Attachment J-5 (OD-01-009): Same as above. Can we just supply the part number of the Server with RAID to satisfy this portion of the On-Site Demo. Purchasing a server with RAID 5 just for DEMO seems expensive?

See response to Question #1 above.

4) REF: Attachment J-5 (OD-01-013): Once again, do we have to procure all of the "redundant" equipment or will providing the part numbers we would purchase suffice?

See response to Question #1 above.

5) REF: Attachment J-5 (OD-01-014): Same, purchasing the UPS's for an on-site will be very expensive. Will providing part numbers for what would be delivered suffice?

See response to Question #1 above.

6) REF: Attachment J-5 (OD-01-018): Once again, purchasing the server required for the parameters set would be very expensive. Stating we use SQL, the rest of the parameters are met with a Mathematical equation. Would providing the part number for the server we would provide suffice?

See response to Question #1 above.

DJD-12-R-0046, Amendment 0001 Page 2

7) Partial Points: REF: Attachment J-5 (OD-01-023): and other places that specify particular fields, for example, if one field that is listed is not in the database, is the ability to receive partial points for having say all of the fields except 1?

There is no partial point system. It is pass/fail.

8) REF: Attachment J-5 (OD-01-026): How can this be shown? Obviously purchasing 300 phone lines is out of the question, as well as even buying simulation equipment. We usually install one recorder card per recorder, to handle up to 48 lines.

That would require 7 servers with cards to simulate which will be very expensive.

Assurances from the vendor will suffice provided the offeror has sufficient documentation to demonstrate.

9) REF: Attachment J-5 (OD-01-027): Same as above. 200 connected workstations and 50 remote sites is very expensive to setup of for a demo?

Assurances from the vendor will suffice provided the offeror has sufficient documentation to demonstrate. In addition, the Government will not require 200 workstations and 50 remote sites for the demonstration. However, the offeror is responsible for the simulation of the remote sites. This can easily be accomplished in-house utilizing routers.

10) REF: Attachment J-5 (OD-01-032 - OD-01-038): Will stating the part numbers of what system we will provide suffice?

See response to Question #1 above.

11) How long after the submission of a "successful" bid would the on-site demonstrations be scheduled?

To be determined, with at least two week notice of visit.

12) REF: (OD-01-002, C.A.3.B.): Requirement- The T2S2 Collection System wiring complies with TIA.EIA-568 specifications. Statement: The requirement is that any T2S2 collection system comply with the TIA-EIA-568 standard when installed. How does the government intend to grade this requirement during the demo when the demo equipment is not what is being installed? Please clarify how this will be accomplished.

TIA/EIA 568 specifications are cabling wiring specifications. This requirement is to ensure vendors comply with TIA/EIA 568 specifications. Simple visual check of the cables utilized during the demo should provide an answer.

13) REF: (OD-01-003, C.B.1.B): Statement: The requirement is that all equipment to be installed needs to be new. How does the government intend to grade this requirement during the demonstration?

See response to Question #1 above.

14) REF: (OD-01-018): Requirement 200 transactions per second at 75% processor utilization etc. Statement: In order to demonstrate the above requirement the demo

DJD-12-R-0046, Amendment 0001 Page 3 system must have the required number of transactions and demo the processor utilization and the ability to complete 90% of the transaction within two seconds. Can the government clarify what are the 200 transactions? Can the vendor use a “call generator” to demo a number less than 200 and provide an analysis of the expected performance at 200 transactions? Can this be graded on a partial scale, i.e., a number between 0 and 8?

This is a two part question:

1. Any change (new, correction, deletion, addition) to the database is considered a transaction.

2. There is no partial point system. It is pass/fail.

15) Can a proposal be submitted that “carves out” specific items from the T2S2 SOW? In other words, can we submit a proposal that focuses on Mediation only and the associated support? We do not claim to exhibit strengths in all of the areas covered in the SOW document.

No. The mediation devices are only of use to the Government in support of the T2S2 systems.

16) REF: Solicitation Document – Page 46 – Paragraph L.2.2 (c): Are full pages of screen captures or pictures of system components account as part of the overall 44 pages for volume I?

Yes.

17) REF: Solicitation Document – Page 53 – Paragraph M.3 (b): What is the lead time provided to the Offeror to prepare for the demonstration, i.e. put together the evaluation system?

To be determined, with at least two week notice of visit.

18) PRI circuits are not readily available from Telephone Service Providers. Will the Government accept ring down circuits for CCC delivery? Or alternatively a simulated PRI delivery?

With respect to the Onsite Demonstration Testing, PRI circuits are the preferred delivery method. The government will accept a combination of POTS dial down circuits and simulated PRI delivery provided (1) full functionality of requirements can be demonstrated during Onsite Demonstration Testing, (2) delivery from the government-provided test phones can be received onto the test system, and (3) the contractor provides sufficient documentation of the unavailability of PRI circuits at the contractor’s facility.

19) REF: Exhibit J-1 – Page C-6 – Subsection C.A.4 (E): Reference is made to “Section B” for the Annual Fleet Service, Support and Maintenance CLIN. This “Section B” could not be found.

Please note that B.6 on P.5 of the RFP requires the offeror to include support in orders written under the BOA.

DJD-12-R-0046, Amendment 0001 Page 4

20) REF: Exhibit J-1 – Page C-42 – Subsection C.E.8: Is the SCNISF intended to share data and content between platforms from different vendors? If yes, which protocol or format is to be used?

SCNISF (System Core and Network Interoperability and Standardization Feature) is intended for use only by systems of the same vendor. There is no requirement for inter-vendor compatibility at this time. If at some time in the future the government establishes a requirement for inter-vendor compatibility, the government will establish universal protocols or formats at that time.

21) REF: Exhibit J-1 – Page C-6 – Subsection C.J.1 (A, C): Please confirm that three

(3) year warranty is required on all units and components, including peripheral equipment such as LCD monitors, keyboards, printers, etc.

Confirmed.

22) Are three (3) years warranty required on all supplied Software (Offeror System software, Operating System software and third party software)?

Under warranty, Contractor is responsible for all Software (both proprietary and third-party) as delivered through first year, since first year Annual Support and Maintenance is included in the first year of any purchase. Beyond the first year, Contractor responsibilities would continue for all the referenced elements contingent upon the government’s continued purchase of the Annual Support and Maintenance throughout the life of the BOA.

23) REF: Exhibit J-1 – Page C-84 – Subsection C.K.2 (A, B): If language localization for foreign locations is required, will the US Government pay for the translation?

For any foreign installations, a comprehensive quote will be sought from the contractor which shall be inclusive of such costs as noted here; i.e., the contractor will be required to include these costs in their bids for any particular foreign task order, which will specify the host country of the system, the foreign languages to be accommodated upon the system or in the support and maintenance program, any unique judicial or system requirements for the host country, etc.

24) How will system modifications be handled to comply with local judicial requirements of the host country? Will the US Government pay for this modification?

See response to Question 23 above.

25) REF: Exhibit J-1 – Page C-84 – Subsection C.K.3 (A, C): Will the US Government pay for any extra costs incurred with providing maintenance & support in local native languages?

See response to Question 23 above.

26) How are ECOCM and CPPM calculated for foreign locations when the actual foreign locations are unknown at this time?

See response to Question 23 above.