Gov't Responses Posted 7 Feb 2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8201-20-R-0005
About this file
This federal solicitation requests proposals for sustainment, modernization, and consolidation services at the Hill Enterprise Data Center located at Hill Air Force Base in Utah. Offerors must provide full-spectrum IT services including application hosting, data center operations, help desk support, and cloud migration. Proposals are due by February 24, 2020 with contract award anticipated in July 2020. The performance period is six years with optional extensions. Offerors should propose fully burdened labor rates in the required Total Evaluated Price matrix format. This document also includes responses to previously submitted industry questions and a new question matrix for offerors to submit additional queries.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| HEDC SMaC Question-Comment Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors.pdf | ||
| Gov't Responses to Industry Questions.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - Total Evaluated Price Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Exhibit ABCD - CDRLs.pdf | ||
| Exhibit E - Safety Plan.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - DD Form 254.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf | ||
| Solicitation - FA820120R0005.pdf |
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
Basic PWS
| Solicitation #: FA8201-20-R-0005 Hill Enterprise Data Center (HEDC) Sustainment, Modernization, and Consolidation - Question/Comment Resolution Matrix | For Government Use | |||||
| Question # | Basic PWS Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Sensitivity | Government Response | |
| 1 | 2.6 | Configuration Management/Baseline | Does the Hill Data Center currently have a method/process of making baseline exception requests for any HW/SW outside of the regular baseline? | Yes, we have a defined process for exeption requests to HW/SW by performing security evaluation | ||
| 2 | 3.7 | Oracle Fusion Middleware version 10g and higher | Oracle Fusion Middleware version 10g never existed. The 10g version was actually Oracle Application Server 10g which transferred over to Fusion Middleware for version 11g. It is our assumption that the PWS should state “Oracle Fusion Middleware version 11g and higher"? | Yes, Oracle Fusion Middleware 11g or higher | ||
| 3 | PWS 1.1 | Has the government already made a determination on which commercial cloud they want to use? Should we assume that AF CCE will constrain this choice, or can another cloud offering be considered? | Has the government already made a determination on which commercial cloud they want to use? Should we assume that AF CCE will constrain this choice, or can another cloud offering be considered? | Not determined at this time | ||
| 4 | PWS 3.24 | Need to see current baseline for the PODS to be able to plan for their migration. | Will the ATO package for the PODS be made available in the bidders library | Not needed as it part of standard HEDC ATO | ||
| 5 | 5.7 Ordering Procedures | The Government's response to Question 19 stated, "All rates proposed at the basic contract will not be escalated throughout the period. The rates established will be Not to exceed. (See the TEP Matrix attached to the posting). |
At the task order level, if an order is issued in FY21, then FY21 rates will apply to the entire term of that TO. "
| This response can be open to confusion in its interpretation that the Offeror's proposed 2020 rates cannot be escalated for 2021, 2022 and so on for the next six years with a rationale that these are ceiling rates to be negotiated at the Task Order level. I need nothing in the TEP spreadsheet provided that constricts adding annual escalation to the Direct Labor Rates. However there was no line item request In the Indirect Labor tab denoting escalation. | Please clarify and/or confirm Offerors are allowed to add an annual escalation rate to its proposed Direct Labor rates beginning 2021. | An annual escalation rate may be added to proposed direct labor rates for later years. To clarify, for each labor category, offerors may propose a different labor rate for each year. If an escalation rate is to be added, it must be included in the fully burdened labor rate. The fully burdened labor rates propsed in response to this RFP will be not-to-exceed rates for the corresponsing future years. Rates will then be applied to negotiated hours at the task order level. | |||
| 6 | 3.2 and Section M.3 and support to TEP | Basic contract skill sets/labor categories and Price Evaluation | Can the Government please provide standardized Labor Category descriptions that include education and years of experience that all Offerors are required to use in ensuring both a consistence baseline to evaluate an Offeror's compliance with PWS 3.2 and the Price Evaluation | The labor categories are outlined within the PWS and TEP Matrix. Per FAR 39.104, when acquiring IT Services, the Government will not identify education and experience requirements at this time. | |
| 7 | Attachment 1 PWS 3.7 Oracle | Oracle EPPM | Is Oracle EPPM currently deployed to support demand management? If so, is it integrated with BMC ITSM? | It's standalone deployment and not integrated with ITSM nor there any plans for integration with ITSM | |
| 8 | Attachment 1 - 3.27 CONSOLIDATE APPLICATIONS TO HEDC APPLICATION HOSTING PLATFORMS | SecOps | PWS 3.27 specifies that HEDC has a SecOps practice. Does HEDC currently have a DevOps practice? If so, please provide a list of tools that comprise the DevOps tool chain. | No DevOps currently in place | |
| 9 | |||||
| 10 | |||||
| 11 | |||||
| 12 | |||||
| 13 | |||||
| 14 | |||||
| 15 | |||||
| 16 | |||||
| 17 | |||||
| 18 | |||||
| 19 | |||||
| 20 |
Sheet3
Pricing Matrix
| Solicitation #: FA8201-20-R-0005 Hill Enterprise Data Center (HEDC) Sustainment, Modernization, and Consolidation - Question/Comment Resolution Matrix | For Government Use | ||||||
| Question # | Pricing Matrix Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Sensitivity | Government Response | ||
| 1 | Government Response to Question 96 | The question was asked, "Can the Government please provide the draft list of Labor Categories and experience levels for which Offerors will be required to propose Fixed Price rates on the basic contract? Offerors need to understand the definition, as well as experience and education requirements in order to be able to accurately price the LCATs in the pricing tables. | Could the Government provide labor category descriptions that include minimum years of experience and education requirements? | The labor categories are outlined within the PWS and TEP Matrix. Per FAR 39.104, when acquiring IT Services, the Government will not identify education and experience requirements at this time. | |||
| 2 | Attachment 2 Total Evaluated Price Matrix; Direct Labor Rates Tab | Labor Category Descriptions | Item 3. under Notes and Instructions states: "Labor categories are shown in section J Attachment 3. | ||||
| Please provide Attachment 3 to include descriptions of labor categories that describe responsibilities, required qualifications and experience? If not, will the Government require a functional job description for each LCAT proposed to provide consistency across all offerors? | Total Evaluated Price Matrix has been updated to remove reference to attachment 3. The labor categories are provided within the Total Evaluated Price Matrix. | ||||||
| 3 | 3.2 TEP Matrix , Section J, Attachment 2 and 4.1.4 Attachment 2 TEP Matrix | Both of these Section L instruct offerors to complete Attachment 2 TEP Matrix | Can the Government please clarify that it wants hard copies of the TEP matrix included in Volume II, Cost/Price and Volume III Contract Documentation, Section J? | Hardcopies of the completed TEP Matrix need to only be included in Volume II, Cost/Price. | |||
| 4 | |||||||
| 5 | |||||||
| 6 | |||||||
| 7 | |||||||
| 8 | |||||||
| 9 | |||||||
| 10 | |||||||
| 11 | |||||||
| 12 | |||||||
| 13 | |||||||
| 14 | |||||||
| 15 | |||||||
| 16 | |||||||
| 17 | |||||||
| 18 | |||||||
| 19 | |||||||
| 20 |
Section L
| Solicitation #: FA8201-20-R-0005 Hill Enterprise Data Center (HEDC) Sustainment, Modernization, and Consolidation - Question/Comment Resolution Matrix | For Government Use | ||||||
| Question # | Section L Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Sensitivity | Government Response | ||
| 1 | Section L | ||||||
| Appendix A - Scenario One | "The third-party contractor responsible for the SystemX support has recently updated the legacy Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS)data analytics engine with a modernized on-premise implementation, however, the vendor also has a SaaS offering available." | Is the current system located at a third-party data center or an on-premise data center at HAFB? What is the current status of the SaaS offering? | This is for scenario eval purposes only | ||||
| 2 | Section L | ||||||
| Appendix A - Scenario One | "The customer is also asking for a 4-month completion window." | Does the 4 month completion window apply to System X re-platforming, DR build and hybrid cloud, or just the re-platforming, DR build? | Re-platforming of the DR build | ||||
| 3 | Section L | ||||||
| Appendix A - Scenario One | "The customer wants to relocate the hosting of SystemX into the data center while modernizing and consolidating some of the end-of-life infrastructure components, including the most recent versions of Defense Information Services Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) compliant operating systems and databases (15 Terabytes), and re-platforming the application tier to Oracle WebLogic high-availability (HA) clusters on 64-bit Linux." | Will the Government please clarify if the data center is to be assumed to be at HAFB? | The HEDC is at HAFB. | ||||
| 4 | Section L | ||||||
| 2.6.3 Subfactor Three: Corporate Experience | “ The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the degree to which the offeror’s examples of corporate experience within the last 5 years demonstrates depth and breadth of experience in the areas below…" | If an Offeror is comprised of a team, (not a joint venture) are all team members permitted to provide examples of corporate experience to better demonstrate depth and breadth of overall experience? | See response to question 32 below. | ||||
| 5 | Section L | ||||||
| Proposal Due Date (30 day response time) | For small businesses, the response time of 30 days for this proposal is unduly restrictive for small businesses in NAICS 541511, especially given the complexity and requirements of Scenario 1. The short turnaround provides the incumbent an advantage and potentially restricts competition. | Will the Government consider allowing a 60-day response time? | No. | ||||
| 6 | Section M | ||||||
| 3.4.3 | Approval of Accounting System | Can Government please clarify that an offeror that does not currently possess a Government-approved accounting system is eligible for an award, but may need to pass a pre-award audit of its accounting system. | Section M paragraph 3.4.3 states, "If offerors and/or subcontractors do not currently have Government approval of their accounting system, it may be subject to a Pre-Award Accounting System Audit." | ||||
| 7 | RFP -- Section L, Page 6, Paragraph 1.3.1, Table 1; Section L, Page 9, Paragraph 2.1 | Table 1 limits the Technical Volume to 60 pages. Paragraph 2.1 states that the "Technical Volume should include all requirements of Volume I" and further, "By its proposal submission, the offeror is representing that its firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation." | Can we assume that offerors do not need to address every PWS requirement and can instead utilize the entire 60 pages to address the Section L subfactors? | Yes, the technical volume is used to address the evaluation subfactors within Section L. | |||
| 8 | Section 2.3.3 & PWS 3 | The PWS states, " Specific Subject Matter Expertise, extensive, proficient knowledge and experience is required in leading-edge and emerging technologies supporting all disciplines of Enterprise Applications hosted in a hybrid physical, virtual, and cloud environment." Yet Corporate experience does not seek a response in experience in Cloud operations or Managed Service Provider(MSP) activities. | Could the Government consider amending the Corporate experience to include Subject Matter Expertise in hybrid physical, virtual, and/or cloud environments and infrastructure support? | Not at this time | |||
| 9 | Section L 3.5 and TEP, Section B | The section has a requirement for subcontractors who provide effort under other-than Firm-Fixed Price pricing arrangements to provide evidence of an approved Government accounting system. Also the TEP requires Offerors to provide it indirect rates. These requirements are usually associated with Cost Plus contracts, however the solicitation states in its CLIN structure that FFP task orders will be issued. | Could the Government provide additional detail on its rational for evidence of a Government approved accounting system and disclose of indirect under a IDIQ that will be issuing FFP task orders? | The travel CLIN will be cost reimbursable - no fee. | |||
| 10 | Section L 3.5 and TEP | Subcontractor Requirements | Are Subcontractors required to submit a Cost/Price Volume and Cost Narrative? | No | |||
| 11 | Section L 3.5.1 | This section discusses the Offerors and subcontractors who are providing effort under other then FFP pricing arrangements have to show evidence of a Government approved accounting system. | Please confirm whether the Government is requesting a formal DCAA/DCMA approval {which is normally reserved for those who have received a pre-award audit]? | Section M paragraph 3.4.3 states, "If offerors and/or subcontractors do not currently have Government approval of their accounting system, it may be subject to a Pre-Award Accounting System Audit." | |||
| 12 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | Could the government provide the technologies used for the System X interfaces? For instance, is message queue built on JMS or MQ Queue or ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ and is ESB built on IBM WebSphere ESB or some other technology? | Technologies utilized are provided in the PWS | |||
| 13 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | Could the government provide additional information regarding the interfaces such as interface type(transactional-?), data ingress/egress details and where would the external systems be hosted(is it within HEDC or outside)? | Described in the scenario | |||
| 14 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | Could the government clarify if the current IBM WebSphere tier is already integrated with AF identity management solution and CAC enabled? If yes, is it using SAML or OAuth2 or OpenID | No | |||
| 15 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | Could the government clarify if the target cloud provider has already been determined? Is it Cloud One or Azure or Oracle Cloud | Not determined at this time | |||
| 16 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | Could the government provide the current state diagram for System X? | Will not provided for scenario | |||
| 17 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | Could the government provide the current state tech. stack information with version numbers? | See PWS Technology section | |||
| 18 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | Does SystemX already have an ATO and is it is based on DIACAP or RMF? | No relevant to the scenario | |||
| 19 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | What is the RPO/RTO Requirements for SystemX? | As defined in the scenario | |||
| 20 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | Does HEDC already have common services such as SMTP, Active Directory, NTP, DNS etc as a centralized service | Core services are available | |||
| 21 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | Could the government provide information on existing COOP set-up for HEDC? | Not available at this time | |||
| 22 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Solution input considerations | Is there still residual Fortran code or is it fully converted to Java? | As defined in the scenario | |||
| 23 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Interfaces will need to be migrated as well. Need to understand what technology is being used for them. Should we assume that it is IBM MQ, which can be packaged as part of their WebSphere Application Server. | What technologies are being used for the interfaces in scenario #1? | Government looking for optimal solution using the technlogies defined in the PWS as applicable to the scenario | |||
| 24 | Section L - Scenario 1 | Interface type, its required ports, protocols, and standards is a very important set of information needed to lay out the plan to migrate. Depending on what they are could be factors in putting the plan together to migrate them. The reason for this as they will need to be approved by DISA and AFNET to gain approval to connect once the ATO is approved. This will also be a significant factor in determining the commercial cloud provider to use. | What are the interface types for the interfaces identified in scenario one? | As defined in the scenario | |||
| 25 | Section L - Scenario 1 | The purpose of each interface, including its detailed architecture is required for ATO approval, as well as permission to connect to the .mil networks. | What is the purpose of each interface in Scenario #1? | To interface with the systems defined in the scenario | |||
| 26 | Section L - Scenario 1 | General | Is this just a replatform and upgrade, or do they want to look at breaking up that Oracle DB and going with a microservices type architecture? | Government looking for optimal solution using the technlogies defined in the PWS as applicable to the scenario | |||
| 27 | Section L - Scenario 1 | General | What cloud did they have in-mind for the Hybrid portion, AWS, Azure, GCP? | Not determined at this time and solution government is looking for applies to scenario only | |||
| 28 | Section L - Scenario 1 | General | What are the Classification levels for everything? | Not relevant to the scenario | |||
| 29 | Section L - Scenario 1 and 2 | Need to see current baseline for the applications to be migrated to be able to plan for their migration to HEDC and to commercial cloud. | Will the ATO package for the applications in Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 be made available in the bidders library? | It is only for scenarios purposes and ATO package will not be provided | |||
| 30 | Section L - Scenario 2 | Scenario 2 mentions deployment of vendor patches affecting 140 separate programs. | Could the government clarify if the 140 programs mentioned here refer to 140 applications? Is 140 the total number of programs/applications impacted due to onboarding of 6 new systems? | Scenario considers applications and programs as same | |||
| 31 | Section L, 2.3.4 | Transition Period | Will the Government please confirm its intent that the referenced 30-45 day Transition Period (Section L, 2.3.4) would begin on 31 July 2020 per the Delivery Schedule in Section F, with full performance to begin on or about 15 September 2020? | The contractor will need to be ready to take operational control of the HEDC on or about 15 September 2020. | |||
| 32 | Section L, 2.3.3 | "The offeror shall provide examples of their overall corporate experience within the last 5 years in the areas below." | The solicitation documents do not assign corporate experience to only the prime contractor. The Government's answer to question #2 of RFI Q&A was: “Corporate experience must be experience of the prime contractor. For joint ventures, corporate experience of both companies may be submitted but the experience must specify the company.” |
To afford "purpose built" teams (not Joint Ventures) the opportunity to demonstrate their full depth of combined experience for HEDC SMaC's requirements, ensure adequate competition, and consideration compared with the incumbent, will the Government allow corporate experience of all significant subcontractors? Subcontractor corporate experience shall not be used to address any of the elements under subfactor 3. However, it does not preclude the use of subcontractors to perform the services described in the PWS (Limitations on subcontracting still applies) and Subcontractor knowledge and experience may be leveraged to respond to technical subfactors 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Corporate experience may be used if subcontractors did the work under a contract on which your company was the prime, as that experience is now considered your company’s experience as well.
Subcontractor corporate experience is a risk as Subcontractors can change and there is no guarantee that the subcontractor will remain a subcontractor for the contract PoP.
The Government is not looking for an integrator to collect a group of companies and believes the Prime should have experience to cover the minimum acceptability for Subfactor 3.
33 Section L, 4.1 "The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the solicitation, and Sections A through K." The instruction in RFP L, 4.1 - which says to include Sections A through K - appears to be inconsistent with the subparagraphs that follow, which instruct offerors to include sections A, B, I, J, TEP Matrix, and K. Will the Government please clarify the the desired outline and contents of Volume III? Offerors are required to sign the front page of Section A and submit all applicable sections.
Sections B thru H do not contain areas that require the offeror to input information. Therefore, a volume that contains sections A-K or sections A, B, I, J, K, Matrix is acceptable.
If the Section requires the offeror to input information, the section should be submitted.
| 34 | Section L. 4.1.1 | "The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes." | Would the Government please clarify how they would like to receive the original copy of SF 33? Would it be sufficient for an offeror to include the original SF 33 in a separate folder, tucked into the Volume III 3-ring binder? | The SF33 shall be included in the Contract Documentation Volume. | |
| 35 | Section L, 1.3.9 | ||||
| Section L, 4.1.4 | "The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable and searchable by MS Office Word, Adobe PDF, and MS Office Excel (2016 or later)." |
| "The offeror shall complete and provide the following attachments: 4.1.4.1 Attachment 2 - TEP Matrix" | Does the Government wish for the four worksheets of the TEP Matrix to be inserted into the MS Word document for Volume III? Some of these workbooks are quite large. Would it be acceptable to reference the MS Excel electronic TEP Matrix file within the MS Word document and not include it within the MS Word file for Contract III, but include those worksheet pages in the hardcopy binder for Volume III? | The TEP Matrix shall be saved electronically in Excel format on discs and also included as hardcopies IAW Section L. The hardcopies shall be included in Volume II, Cost/Price. | ||||
| 36 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | databases (15 Terabytes), and re-platforming the application tier to Oracle WebLogic high-availability (HA) clusters on 64-bit Linux. | On what storage platform or platforms solution is this 15 TB running on? And what backup application and storage platform solution are used for data protection, data recovery? | Government looking for optimal solution using the storage technlogies defined in the PWS as applicable to the scenario | ||
| 37 | 1.3.2 Page Limitations | |||||
| 2.3.1 (3) Project Schedule | The Scenario 1 project schedule is required in MS Project format. | Is the project schedule excluded from the page limitations? | No | |||
| 38 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | 30 inbound/outbound interfaces | What are the 10 external systems? | External system type irrelvant to the scenario | ||
| 39 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | 30 inbound/outbound interfaces | What is the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) used to support integration with external systems? | As defined in the technological section of PWS | ||
| 40 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | 30 inbound/outbound interfaces | How do you interface with the 10 external systems (e.g. direct interfaces, data exchange, message switch (push/pull))? Please provide a breakout by system. | Government looking for optimal solution using the technologies defined in the PWS as applicable to the scenario | ||
| 41 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | 30 inbound/outbound interfaces | What are the performance impacts of the interface for the 10 external systems? How is performance measured? | Government looking for optimal solution using the technologies defined in the PWS as applicable to the scenario | ||
| 42 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | The Service Level Agreement (SLA) specifies 99% uptime | For the purposes of the response to Scenario 1, should the Contractor assume that the specified 99% uptime applies to the end-to-end availability of the application and supporting system architecture? | Yes | ||
| 43 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | Routing, switching, and Load balancing changes for SystemX | For the purposes of response to Scenario 1 - Hardware Requirements - What multi-tenant capabilities (i.e compute, network security, network switching, load balancing, storage, and BUR) can be assumed to be available to the Contractor for System X? Is it the Governments expectation that the required Hardware Bill of Materials include only the System X dedicated components required for a specific Contractors solution? Please specify by Zone (Test, Dev, Pre Prod, Prod). | For the purpose of scenario, multitenancy applies to applications not to the infrastructure. Yes for SystemX in the scenario. As applies to the scenario | ||
| 44 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | Test and Development Zones | Does HEDC currently have the Cisco’s ACI infrastructure and Tetration analytics implemented on the data center switching layer to define, segment, and control access to Prod, Zones A (Pre prod ) and B (Dev, Test)? | Government looking for optimal solution using the technologies defined in the PWS as applicable to the scenario | ||
| 45 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | Network Connectivity | For the purpose of responding to Scenario 1 - Can the Government please confirm that there is a trusted ferderated connection between the existing SystemX DC and HEDC? | Question is irrelevant to the scenario | ||
| 46 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | System X | For the purpose of responding to Scenario 1, can we assume the application owner has already performed an impact assessment on System X to include: Business and technical analysis of impact (e.g. moving from WebSphere to WebLogic)? | For the purpose of scenario, SystemX can run on any java based enterprise application server. This doesn't imply that impact analysis shouldn't be performed | ||
| 47 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | System X | For the purpose of responding to Scenario 1, can we assume the application owner has already performed an impact assessment on System X to include: All layers of the Business and Technical architecture have been assessed for impact and that the target environment standard services, capabilities, and solutions meet their expectations for System X? | For the purpose of scenario, SystemX can run on any enterprise interface technology. It doesn't imply that impact analysis shouldn't be performed | ||
| 48 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | System X | For the purpose of responding to Scenario 1, can we assume the application owner has already performed an impact assessment on System X to include: that the To Be architecure supports interfaces/interoperability natively through modernized front end, back end or current APIs and the ESB? | For the purpose of scenario, SystemX can run on any enterprise interface technology. It doesn't imply that impact analysis shouldn't be performed | ||
| 49 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to APPENDIX B: SAMPLE SCENARIO 2 - PROGRAM AND CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT | Impact to 140 programs | How does the government define the word “programs” in paragraph 2 of the Scenario 2 description “… affecting 140 separate programs running in a virtualized shared common infrastructure environment …”? | Scenario considers applications and programs as same | ||
| 50 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | System X - C programs and third party libraries | The description in paragraph 1 for Scenario 1 lists 64-bit RHEL for the hosting of System X. Are the C Programs and third party libraries expected to be modernized from 32 bit Windows to 64-bit RHEL? | As described in the scenario | ||
| 51 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors_APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SCENARIO 1 - ONBOARDING AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES | System X - partial migrations into a Hybrid Cloud model | PWS section 3.7 Oracle, references Oracle Compute Cloud Service, Oracle Database Backup Cloud Service, Oracle Database Cloud Service. PWS Section 3.19 Other Technologies references Microsoft Azure, and Amazon Web Services (AWS). Which, and to what extent are these cloud end point services currrently being utilized by HEDC? | As described in the scenario | ||
| 52 | Attachment 4 - Section L - Instructions to Offerors, 1.3.4 | |||||
| Tables, Charts, Graphs and Figures | For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 10 point and searchable for text in Microsoft (MS) Office Word and/or PDF formats to the maximum practical extent. Ensure all tables, foldouts, graphics, and figures in the electronic version of the proposal are pasted into the proposal in a format that allows a word search by the host program (do not paste as pictures) to the maximum practical extent. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals. | Would the Government allow graphics to be non-searchable and placed in as pictures as long as the key words of the graphic are searchable in the figure title and/or action caption? | This is acceptable; however the font size needs to be readable and IAW with Section L. |
Section M
| Solicitation #: FA8201-20-R-0005 Hill Enterprise Data Center (HEDC) Sustainment, Modernization, and Consolidation - Question/Comment Resolution Matrix | For Government Use | |||||
| Question # | Section M Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Sensitivity | Government Response | |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | ||||||
| 3 | ||||||
| 4 | ||||||
| 5 | ||||||
| 6 | ||||||
| 7 | ||||||
| 8 | ||||||
| 9 | ||||||
| 10 | ||||||
| 11 | ||||||
| 12 |
CDRLs
| Solicitation #: FA8201-20-R-0005 Hill Enterprise Data Center (HEDC) Sustainment, Modernization, and Consolidation - Question/Comment Resolution Matrix | For Government Use | |||||
| Question # | CDRLs Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Sensitivity | Government Response | |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | ||||||
| 3 | ||||||
| 4 | ||||||
| 5 | ||||||
| 6 | ||||||
| 7 | ||||||
| 8 | ||||||
| 9 | ||||||
| 10 | ||||||
| 11 | ||||||
| 12 |
MISC Questions
| Solicitation #: FA8201-20-R-0005 Hill Enterprise Data Center (HEDC) Sustainment, Modernization, and Consolidation - Question/Comment Resolution Matrix | For Government Use | |||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Sensitivity | Government Response | |
| 1 | Proposal Due Date (30 day response time) | For small businesses, the response time of 30 days for this proposal is unduly restrictive for small businesses in NAICS 541511, especially given the complexity and requirements of Scenario 1. The short turnaround provides the incumbent an advantage and potentially restricts competition. | Will the Government consider allowing a 60-day response time? | No. | ||
| 2 | RFP -- Section B, Pages 3-6, CLINs; Section F, Pages 14-24, Delivery Schedule; Section I, Page 36, FAR 52.216-22; Section I, Page 36, FAR 52.217-9; Section I, Page 44, DFARS 252.216-7006 Ordering; | Section F states that CLINs 0001-0006 have a period of performance of 31 Jul 2020 through 30 Jul 2026, CLINs 1001-1006 (Option to Extend Services) have a period of performance from 31 Jul 2020 through 30 Jul 2026; CLINs 2001-2006 have a period of performance from 31 Jul 2025 through 30 Jul 2027; and CLINs 3001-3006 (Option to Extend Services) have a period of performance from 31 Jul 2025 through 30 Jul 2027. FAR 52.216-22 states that "the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after 30 July 2027." And FAR 52.217-9 states that the "total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 7 years from contract award." DFARS 252.216-7006 states that "orders may be issued from 31 July 2020 through 30 July 2026." | Will the Government please clarify the ordering and delivery period of performance? In regard to CLINs 0001-0006, can the Government place orders during this six-year timeframe with delivery extending later or must all orders be placed and delivered during these six years? Similarly, for CLINs 1001-1006, is the intent that individual task orders can be extended by a total of six months, but that the period of performance cannot be extended beyond 30 Jul 2026? And for CLINs 2001-2006, can the Government place orders during the period from 31 Jul 2025 through 30 July 2027 with delivery extending later or must all orders be placed and delivered during these two years? And for CLINs 3001-3006, is the intent that individual task orders can be extended by a total of six months, but that the period of performance cannot be extended beyond 30 Jul 2027? | Dates assuming 31 July 2020 basic contract award date: |
For CLINs 0001-0006, the government may place orders for 5 years (until 30 July 2025) with performance up to 6 years (up to 1 year beyond the 5 year ordering period (30 July 2025)). CLINs 1001-1006 may be exercised at the task order level to extend task order services up to 6 months beyond the end of the task order's period of performance. The period of performance associated with CLINs 1001-1006 cannot extend beyond 31 January 2026. CLINs 1001-1006 could have peroiods of performance until 31 January 2026 assuming task order period of performance ends 30 July 2025 and the option to extend task order period of performance (CLINs 1001-1006) is exercised. CLINs 2001-2006 would extend the ordering period an additional year (31 July 2025 - 30 July 2026) if exercised. All task orders under the anticipated IDIQ must be place no later than 30 July 2026. However, for task orders place prior to 30 July 2026, performance may extend to 30 July 2027. CLINs 3001-3006 may be exercised at the task order level (when CLINs 2001-2006 are used) to extend task order services up to 6 months beyond the end of the task order's period of performance. However, performance under the anticipated IDIQ cannot extend beyond 30 July 2027 (7 years from basic contract award).
3 Government Responses to Industry Questions The government responses to industry questions stated, "Corporate experience must be experience of the prime contractor. For joint ventures, corporate experience of both companies may be submitted but the experience must specify the company." This provides an unfair competitive advantage to JV entities as the Small Business Protege can cite the corporate experience of a Large Business Mentor. We understand this is the basis for JV arrangements. However, when JV’s are allowed to use both organizations experience shouldn’t the government allow all offerors to include corporate experience of teaming partners? Will the government allow other offerors to include teammate experience or restrict JV experience to that of the SB Protégé to facilitate a fair competitive environment? Subcontractor corporate experience shall not be used to address any of the elements under subfactor 3. However, it does not preclude the use of subcontractors to perform the services described in the PWS (Limitations on subcontracting still applies) and Subcontractor knowledge and experience may be leveraged to respond to technical subfactors 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Corporate experience may be used if subcontractors did the work under a contract on which your company was the prime, as that experience is now considered your company’s experience as well.
Subcontractor corporate experience is a risk as Subcontractors can change and there is no guarantee that the subcontractor will remain a subcontractor for the contract PoP.
The Government is not looking for an integrator to collect a group of companies and believes the Prime should have experience to cover the minimum acceptability for Subfactor 3.
| 4 | Government Response to Questions | Unanswered questions | When does the Government anticipate answers the questions previously submitted and responded to as "Unable to provide at this time'? | Not all questions will be able to be answered. |
| 5 | General | Data Analytics solution | What is the current Data Analytics platform that is being used within HEDC? | See PWS technologies section |
| 6 | General | Help Desk processes in effect | Could the government clarify the current Help Desk process? | Not at this time |
| 7 | General | SLAs currently in effect. | Could the government clarify the current SLA expectations? | As determined in the PWS |
| 8 | General | Specific skills required to support operations in a cloud environment | Given the extended period of performance, could the Government consider adding cloud-related labor categories to its list in the TEP and provide descriptions to include education and years of experience: Cloud Architect, Cloud Engineer, DevOps Engineer? | The labor categories required by the Government are outlined within the PWS and TEP Matrix. Per FAR 39.104, when acquiring IT Services, the Government will not identify education and experience requirements at this time. |
| 9 | Solicitation, Section J - List of Attachments | Attachment 3, Labor category descriptions | Attachment 2, Total Evaluated Price Matrix, refers to an Attachment 3 which provides labor categories; however, Section J, Attachment 3 reflects the DD254. Please provide the labor category attachment referenced in Attachment 2. | Total Evaluated Price Matrix has been updated to remove reference to attachment 3. The labor categories are provided within the Total Evaluated Price Matrix. |
| 10 | ||||
| 11 | ||||
| 12 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .