The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Amendment 0004 - Questions and Answers for 157 through 180
RFP HC1028-11-R-0104
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
| SECTION NO. |
| Section 1.1.2, 1.2.1 |
| SECTION NAME |
| M002 EVALUATION FACTORS d. Factor 3- Cost/ Price (3) |
| SECTION TEXT |
| For a price to be complete, all solicitation requirements must be priced, |
| QUESTION |
| Does a vendor have to bid a price on each chipset to submit an acceptable proposal? This would seem unusual since a total of five awards are contemplated. |
| ANSWER |
| No. An offeror can bid on any one or more chipsets. However, all pricing for that chipset must be priced. |
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
| SECTION NAME |
| PRICE GUARANTEE (JUN 1996)… b. |
| SECTION TEXT |
| The contractor warrants that during the contract life, the prices set forth herein shall not exceed the Contractor's GSA Schedule or Commercial Price List (including applicable commercial discounts) and/or the established tariff. If at any time this should occur, the contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer and offer the lower prices for incorporation into this contract. |
| QUESTION |
| Since the requirements of this contract differ in major ways from the terms and condition of the GSA Schedule and Commercial Price List, does this requirement apply to prices established in response to a competitive performance based solicitation? |
| ANSWER |
| Paragraph b has been removed from the clause. |
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
| SECTION NAME |
| Proof of Concept |
| SECTION TEXT |
| … Offerors in the competitive range will be required to demonstrate their proposed solution to members of the SSET at the Offeror's own demonstration location. The Proof of Concept demonstration is at the offeror’s own expense. The Proof of Concept Demonstration is designed to validate the Offeror's solution in the following areas: Technical Solution, Performance Availability, Ordering Process, and Release Management. A detailed test plan, together with any government provided data required to be used in the demonstration, will be provided to each Offeror 14 calendar days prior to the demonstration. Offerors will be given up to three days to present their solution. |
| QUESTION |
| Given the magnitude and cost to the vendor associated with a Proof of Concept and the cost of moving forward with a proposal, it is requested that the Government provide the detailed test plan in sufficient time for vendor to make a decision prior to submitting its proposal. Fourteen days does not allow sufficient time for non-incumbent vendors to prepare all but the simplest demonstrations. |
| ANSWER |
| POC demonstration will not occur until evaluations are complete and the competitive range has been determined. DISA will release the POC guidelines once the competitive range has been determined. DISA will release the POC guidelines as soon as possible, but not later than 14 days in advance. |
The projected target date for Proof-of-Concept is December 2011;January/February 2012.
| DOCUMENT |
| J-2 Requirements Document |
PAGE
| SECTION NAME |
| Remedial Maintenance |
| SECTION TEXT |
| complete remedial maintenance within the response and repair times per paragraph 3.2.1. |
1.3.2.3 Preventative Maintenance. … The malfunction shall be corrected as a Remedial Maintenance Service (see paragraph 2.2.2) and comply with response times (see paragraph 3.2.1).
| QUESTION |
| Neither referenced paragraph, 3.2.1 or 2.2.2, seems to exist. Please provide. |
| ANSWER |
| See Question 25, Amendment 0002. |
PAGE
| SECTION NO. |
| X-86_Chipset_Pricing_Model_2_Jun_2011.xls. All scenarios |
| SECTION NAME |
| X-86_Chipset_Pricing_Model_2_Jun_2011.xls. |
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| The drop in numbers of installed devices in months 12, 13 and 14 do not seem to be in line with data elsewhere in the model. Please confirm or correct. |
| ANSWER |
| See J-7, X-86 Chipset Pricing Model, Amendment 0003. |
PAGE
| SECTION NO. |
| X-86_Chipset_Pricing_Model_2_Jun_2011.xls |
| SECTION NAME |
| X-86_Chipset_Pricing_Model_2_Jun_2011.xls |
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| The hourly numbers 1820 and 910 seem unusual for monthly quantities. Does the government intend 1 or 0.5 FTE in the month or 12 FTE and 6 FTEs respectively? |
| ANSWER |
| J-6 through J-10, Chipset Pricing Models were revised in Amendment 0003. The labor hours SLINs are priced on increments of man-months. |
| DOCUMENT |
| J-2 Requirements Document |
PAGE
| SECTION NAME |
| x86 Operating Systems |
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| Does the government have an anticipated breakdown on the number/percentage of each operating system to be deployed? |
| ANSWER |
| Listed below is an historical breakdown of operating systems ordered in the past. |
Windows: 82.21%
Redhat: 17.60%
SUSE: 0.19%
Solaris: none ordered to date
These percentages in no way represent anticipated ordering under the new contract. It only represents historical data.
| DOCUMENT |
| J-2 Requirements Document |
PAGE
| SECTION NAME |
| X86 Operating Systems |
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| When VMware Virtual Machines are defined/configured by the government, does the vendor or the government supply the VM Operating System licenses (we understand that the vendor provides the VMware ESX license) |
| ANSWER |
| The vendor is required to provide the operating system software. |
PAGE
SECTION NO.
| SECTION NAME |
| X86 Tier Definitions |
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| Are Hot Swappable HDD required for the blades, in addition to the rack servers? |
DOCUMENT
PAGE
| SECTION NAME |
| Operating Environments |
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| 4 Ethernet switches are required for the blade chassis, but the requirement only talks about required FC ports being on separate HBAs – are separate FC switches required, as for the Ethernet traffic? |
| ANSWER |
| See Questions 88 and 89, Amendment 0004. |
DOCUMENT
PAGE
SECTION NAME
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| For the blade chassis, are Fibre Channel pass-through modules or Fibre Channel switches required? |
| ANSWER |
| The Government requires Fiber Channel switches for connectivity to SAN attached disk. |
DOCUMENT
PAGE
SECTION NAME
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| Are 4Gb or 8Gb FC interfaces desired? |
| ANSWER |
| See Question 57, Amendment 0003. |
DOCUMENT
PAGE
SECTION NAME
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| Is there a requirement for 10Gb Ethernet connectivity? |
| ANSWER |
| See Question 57, Amendment 0003. |
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
| SECTION NAME |
| M002 EVALUATION FACTORS subfactor 1. Technical Solution |
| SECTION TEXT |
| “Offer should discuss any technical or cost efficiencies and advantages , if any for keeping the hardware longer than 3 years” |
| QUESTION |
| If the Government is looking for a capacity on demand can this requirement be eliminated? By nature of the requirement the government is merely purchasing hardware not “On Demand” or capacity services. |
| ANSWER |
| Capacity on demand cannot be eliminated. The Government is purchasing services not hardware. |
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
| SECTION NAME |
| M002 EVALUATION FACTORS d. Factor 3- Cost/ Price |
| SECTION TEXT |
| … For an award purposes, the offers firm-fixed price proposal…. |
| QUESTION |
| Is this a Far Part 12 or FAR part 15 procurement? The Cost/Price and price reasonableness data requirements indicated both. |
| ANSWER |
| This is a FAR Part 12 procurement. Per FAR 12.203, Contracting Officers shall use the policies unique to the acquisition of commercial items prescribed in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; Part 14, Sealed Bidding; or Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition. We are utilizing FAR Part 15 for the source selection procedures. |
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
| SECTION NO. |
| 3.3, 3.4, 3.8 |
| SECTION NAME |
| M002 Statement of Objectives Section 3 Scope |
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| As technology changes and OEM Software pricing models evolve over the term of the contract how will the Government address these in technology refreshes? |
| ANSWER |
| The vendor’s technical proposal should define a process that allows for technology changes and technology refreshes where the Government will determine the timeline for adoption and execution of the changes. |
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
SECTION NO.
| SECTION NAME |
| Statement of Objectives Processor Environment 4.0 Technology Refresh Program. |
| SECTION TEXT |
| . “DISA estimates the Tech. Refresh Program will replace the oldest processor equipment as required, but generally processor hardware will have a 3 year service life. The government can decide to refresh hardware based on functions and technology updates at any point in time during the first five years.” |
| QUESTION |
| If the Government is looking for a capacity on demand can this requirement be eliminated? By nature of the requirement the government is merely purchasing hardware not “On Demand” or capacity services. |
If this is a “Capacity on Demand Requirement” why does the government have free relocations built into the Program Statement of Work? Can the workload be decommissioned off of one DISA facility and reestablished at another? This would eliminate the requirement for “No cost to the Government” CONUS moves.
How will cable and connections be handle under the “No Cost Move” Will they be treated as an ODC? Or Task order?
Can the “15th of the Month Rule for Acceptance” Rule is change to real time. This will eliminate the need for government and contractor reconciliations and gaming.
| ANSWER |
| Capacity on demand cannot be eliminated. |
Relocations may be required by the Government, however we anticipate it to be on an infrequent basis.
Cabling and connections will be handled the same as initial installations. The vendor is responsible for all cabling inside of the rack.
The 15th of the month rule for acceptance will be implemented as outlined in the PWS.
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
SECTION NO.
| SECTION NAME |
| Statement of Objectives Processor Environment 5.0 Release Management. |
| SECTION TEXT |
| The offer will work closely with the Government to field and test OS releases and upgrade packages” |
| QUESTION |
| What are current and future OS requirements beyond what is identified in the PWS for the X-86 Environment (i.e. Red Hat, Lynx, ?) |
How soon after release will OS upgrades and patches need to be deployed? Who is responsible for the approval prior to installing them in production?
| ANSWER |
| All current and future OS requirements (as they are known currently) are identified in the PWS. |
Release of OS upgrades and patches need to be deployed 30 days after vendor general availability.
DISA CSD Server Technical Advisory Group is responsible for enterprise approval to implement. Each individual site in conjunction with application owners are responsible for implementation on individual servers they manage.
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
| SECTION NO. |
| Section L Factor 2 – Past Performance. |
| SECTION NAME |
| Statement of Objectives Processor Environment |
| SECTION TEXT |
| The offeror at a minimum must present evidence of experience for the offer/prim, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner (within the same division or cost center) on a minimum of 2 recent (within the past two years from the date of the solicitation) contracts or orders with substantial capacity services and /or processor capability.” |
| QUESTION |
| This requirement appears to be restrictive and advantage the incumbent contractors. Can Commercial Relevant Past performances be used? |
Can the Incumbent bid the current DISA contract as a reference and can they include the existing installed hardware for the follow on bid? Does this provide the incumbent give them an advantage.
| ANSWER |
| Relevant commercial Past Performance can be used. Yes, the incumbents can use current contracts for past performance. All contractors will be treated equally during the evaluation process. |
The Government is buying services not hardware. The existing installed hardware is owned by the incumbent. IAW J-1, SOO, para 4.0, “The Government can decide to refresh hardware based on functions and technology updates, at any point in time during the first five years. This is not common place but the flexibility must be available. Likewise, technical or cost efficiencies and advantages on keeping hardware for longer than 3 years should be clearly defined.” Any proposal that seeks to use current hardware must identify the cost efficiencies and advantages gained by the Government in keeping the hardware longer than 3 years.
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
| SECTION NO. |
| Section L – 2.0 (f) |
SECTION NAME
| SECTION TEXT |
| Please note: the government anticipates conduction discussions as part of the evaluation process but reserves the right to award w/o discussions. |
| QUESTION |
| Will these discussions be formal in nature? i.e. one-one vendor discussions? There was no mention of vendor presentations, will these be required? If so, how much lead time will be given to prepare? |
| ANSWER |
| All discussions will be done formally in writing. After the initial evaluation, the Government will meet with the offerors to present them with their initial ratings and provide them the Evaluation Notices concerning their proposal. Vendor presentations will NOT be required. |
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
| SECTION NO. |
| Section L 4.2.2 |
| SECTION NAME |
| Proof of Concept |
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| The government states that a test plan will be provided 14 days prior to the on-site demo. Will the government consider providing this earlier. Can an estimate be given around when the demonstrations will occur after the proposals are submitted and vendors are notified of down select? |
| ANSWER |
| POC demonstration will not occur until evaluations are complete and the competitive range has been determined. DISA will release the POC guidelines once the competitive range has been determined. DISA will release the POC guidelines as soon as possible, but not later than 14 days in advance. |
The projected target date for Proof-of-Concept is December 2011;January/February 2012.
| DOCUMENT |
| HC1028-11-R-0104.doc |
PAGE
| SECTION NO. |
| Section 5.2.2 |
SECTION NAME
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| We are limited to 40 pages for Past Performance. This section requires the vendor to include a description of Organization Structure Change History which may push page limit. Is the Organization Structure History to be included in the 40 page limit? |
| ANSWER |
| No. See Question 68, Amendment 0003. |
DOCUMENT
PAGE
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| Evaluation Factors For Award – Correction Potential of Proposals Q: How will the government determine “correction potential”? |
| ANSWER |
| If any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. |
DOCUMENT
PAGE
SECTION NO.
SECTION NAME
SECTION TEXT
| QUESTION |
| We request a 2 week extension due to the short time between questions and answers before submission of proposal. |
| ANSWER |
| The proposal due date was extended to 2 September 2011. |
Defense Information Systems Agency